Robert Reich Breaks Down The Romney Ryan Economy

Submitted by: madest 5 years ago in

White board sense maker.
There are 105 comments:
Male 676
All of those that think Obama did a good job, please follow him as he leaves the White House.
0
Reply
Male 176
Economics, gotta love it. Did it at A level, loved the arguements you could have where completely two contrary opinions were both right!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]I`d just carpet bomb them back to the 7th century.[/quote]

In case that isn`t hyperbole:
0
Reply
Male 15,832
"1. Public spending is exactly what got us out of the great depression."

BS. What got us out of the depression was the end of WWII.

"2. Ryan`s plan raises your and my taxes and lowers them on the very rich."

BS. Their plan lowers rates for everyone. And no one is hiring, because they`re afraid of ObamaCare.

"3. Ryan`s plan guts medicare."

BS. Obama ALREADY gutted Medicare for $716 bil. It`s bankrupt in 10 years. Ryan saves it.

"4. We already spend a stupid amount on defense. It all goes to Haliburton."

So, you`d rather see it all go to Solyndra? Haliburton sold KBR, their military contract div., because it wasn`t profitable. Your leftist propaganda is a lie.

But I would cut defense. Instead of using precision weapons and boots on the ground in these 3rd-world barbarian $#!+holes we`re in now, I`d just carpet bomb them back to the 7th century.

0
Reply
Female 582
While I agree with this guy`s opinions, this is a horrible video. This guy (a professor, a political analyst, a dude in his basement?) is spouting off vague, general conclusions without providing any reasonable evidence to support his views. Absolutely useless.
0
Reply
Male 363
Another Obama Zombie who drank the kool aid!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: Furthermore, you continue to share the use of the words Austrian and Keynesian, yet fail to offer what you would consider a reasonable or fair definition.

Since you are so displeased by my attempts to convery a simple, fundamental comparison of the most important difference between the two, would you care to share your own definition? Perhaps one that would not cause Keyes or Hayak to roll over?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: Would you honestly care to have a lecture right now about Austrian economics? I`m about halfway through Mises` Human Action (900+ pages) so we may be at it for awhile. I am sorry to disappoint you, but during an internet argument, it is expected that you bring some previous knowledge on the subject.

[quote]You call me the aggressor, but you are the one claiming that Austrian economics is better than Keynesian economics, therefore burden of proof lies with you.[/quote]
You are counter-arguing; therefore, we share the burden of proof for our respective points.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@madest: ... and another! What do I owe this wondrous occasion. The subtlety, the wit, superbly constructed. Brilliant!

0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: No, the a priori nature of your arguments doesn`t come from a singular reference to the past, rather, it comes from your whole libertarian philosophy. I`m sorry but calling Austrian economics "supply/production" and Keynesian economics "demand/spending" would be criticized by both Hayek and Keynes together. That comparison is the type of Twitter, not the 1000 character limit on I-A-B. You call me the aggressor, but you are the one claiming that Austrian economics is better than Keynesian economics, therefore burden of proof lies with you.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Whatever HugoAction.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]Oh yeah the lover of Hugo Chavez is someone worthy of quoting[/quote]
[quote]He`s a libertarian; he doesn`t like Chavez, he likes Pinochet.[/quote]
Allow me to sever from the typical Nazi suggestions (no Godwin here) and suggest that you both must be fans of Stalin?

Such petty, poorly conceived comparisons. Quite fun actually.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@madest: You`re invaluable insight and contributions to discussions continue to impress it. Despite your inability to grasp even the most fundamental of economic concepts, I must commend you on the fervor and confidence which you unerringly display.

Kudos to you sir! I wish you only the best on your delusion fueled endeavors.

Bravo!
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: [quote]This oversimplistic comparison is as ridiculous as your comparison of scientific method to weathermen.[/quote]
I encourage you to then create a comparison within our 1,000 character limit less "ridiculous." As is typically the case, you attack and attack yet offer no reasonable solutions or comparisons of your own. You test no theories and therefore do not expose yourself to ridicule. It`s lovely for the aggressor, yet suggests a lack of one`s own in-depth considerations on the subject matter.

Furthermore, to consider the entire argument "a priori" due to a singular reference to the past continues to show your unending need to feel intelligent and masterful via suggesting ill-thought logical fallacies.

Pray tell me, for once, what do you recommend then? Allow me the opportunity to attack your suggestions.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@Madest: He`s a libertarian; he doesn`t like Chavez, he likes Pinochet.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Either you believe in supply/production (Austrian) or demand/spending (Keynesian) economics. [/quote]
This oversimplistic comparison is as ridiculous as your comparison of scientific method to weathermen.

[quote]I agree that it would be a radical change; why is that a bad thing?[/quote]
...Because a radical change based on a priori reasoning and an unproven model is stupid and reckless.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Oh yeah the lover of Hugo Chavez is someone worthy of quoting. You`re in good company.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@madest: [quote]The mindset of a republican is to wallow in ignorance or even stupidity.[/quote]
Says the pot to the kettle.

You, my friend, continue to be a shining beacon of liberal intelligence at it`s finest. I continue to look forward to your outbursts as an affirmation of my foregone conclusions regarding the liberal agenda.

To quote Mr. Stone, "I hate conservatives but I really ******* hate liberals."
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: No, I read it - but you still seem adamant in arguing as a proponent of Keynesian economics. Perhaps you`ve suggested a different model and I missed it, but I haven`t seen one. Either you believe in supply/production (Austrian) or demand/spending (Keynesian) economics.

Also, I agree that it would be a radical change; why is that a bad thing? Seems to me that, given our stagnant economy and rising debt, we would want a radical change. I will take a moment to also state that I never said it was the only solution; I`ve merely acted as a proponent based on what I perceive to be the reasonable merits of it.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
The mindset of a republican is to wallow in ignorance or even stupidity. Why let an economics professor lecture us on the economy? We`re all smarter than that. There`s no proof of evolution so it`s just a theory! Climate change? Liberal nonsense. Women can shut down possible pregnancies from rape.

If republicans had any history of budget balancing or knowledge about the economy (or anything else for that matter) we wouldn`t be in the mess we`re in now because they had control of the executive and legislative branch for 6 years and with that power they drove the worlds economy into the ditch. So I`ll believe in my man Robert here over oh any one of you conservative know-nothing commenters and your retarded leaders.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
The difference is that instead of tweaking a model, you suggest radical change as the only solution.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: Actually, you must not have read my post where I agreed with you on the long-term implications of Keynesian policies.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
If you want to actually *reduce* the deficit, tack on another 5%. Easy.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: [quote]I`m using the time frame YOU suggested[/quote]
No, you are using a fraction of the time frame I suggested. I would expect you to know that "thousands of years" does not automatically suggest a strictly linear sequence absent of gaps.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: [quote]Austrian economics use behaviour to analyze info about individual preferences[/quote]
In the macroenvironment - yes. Therefore, trying to apply Austrian or Keynesian economics to a single business is senseless. You continue to suggest that "math" is essential for your macroeconomic model as a predictor.

Fine - let`s address that. Keynesian economics have NEVER been fruitful in the long-term (I dare you to bring up the New Deal). Yet their predictions continue to suggest that it will work, if only we spend a little more.

As a scientist, I would expect you of all people to call bull on this. Repeating the same action time and time again and hoping for different results is foolish. Would you continue to trust a weatherman who says, "OK, I was wrong today, but tomorrow will be better!"
0
Reply
Male 4,431
patchgrabber, how many more details are needed? I think I put it as simply as can possibly be stated. Take the current budget and, if we`re over by 30%, slash it exactly as it by 30%. If we`re over by 40%, slash by 40%. In other words, every single line item, from top to bottom is slashed by exactly the amount we`re over. That way, no one single project, no one single pet items is more or less affected than the others. How many more details are needed?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]You continue to confuse micro and macroeconomics.[/quote]
I think that`s you. Austrian economics use behaviour to analyze info about individual preferences. A key staple of the model is that precise mathematical modeling of economic markets is impossible.

[quote]You do realize that feudalism is a system of government, correct? It is not even close to a free market.[/quote]
Ah, but your Austrian economics cannot be achieved without changing government structure. As usual you have tunnel vision. A fundamental change in government is the only way this system would work. The times you reference of austrian being the standard were, in point of fact, when there was radically different organization. To say that we were using the system for thousands of years, then decry me for pointing out the system of governance in that time is asinine; I`m using the time frame YOU suggested.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@oatchgrabber: [quote]Simplistic assessment ignoring investment and its role in the market.[/quote]
Just as simplistic as your "greed and fear" analysis. I`d think you`d have a better understanding of markets than that.

[quote]No. Austrian economics does not use math[/quote]
You continue to confuse micro and macroeconomics. Your "analogy" is senseless as it is microeconomics. Austrian economics is macroeconomic theory. As you are apt to say - apples and oranges my friend.

[quote]Like in feudal France?[/quote]
You do realize that feudalism is a system of government, correct? It is not even close to a free market.

What amazes me is that, instead of opting for reasonable conversation you continue to cry "apples and oranges" when you yourself are guilty of trying to jam a square peg in a round hole.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@smagboy: An easy fix with no details? Sounds legit.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
What`s funny to me is that there is NO current solution, Republican or Democrat, that will curb our debt and deficit. Each side has their pet issues. And neither will give up on them. My plan is simple. If we`re overspending by 30%, slash the budget, as is, by 30%. If we`re overspending by 50%, slash it by 50%. Period. Done.

Oh, that`s too complicated you say? Well, sure it is. But *why* is it too complicated? Because no one is willing compromise. It`s always either US or THEM, Black or White, Stupid vs. Ignorant. This guy is an idiot, no, that guy is an idiot. This report says this. Not, this report says that.

Whatever. I`ve offered a plan that`ll work and is guaranteed to cut the deficit and spending. And I did it in two sentences.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
*call it equal.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Uhm... supply and demand. [/quote]
Simplistic assessment ignoring investment and its role in the market. I`d think you`d have a better understanding of markets than that.

[quote]Austrian economics encourages businesses to utilize whatever means possible (including math) to create a better total product/service.[/quote]
No. Austrian economics does not use math. It has no scientific rigor, and it purports that we don`t have the means to know what the economy will do. Hume said it best: "Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

[quote]Except for the thousands of years that it was the standard...[/quote]
Like in feudal France? Again, apples and oranges, you can`t compare systems of international government then with what we have now and cal
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: [quote]Businesses analyzing economics by not using math[/quote]
Uh... no; that would be silly of course. Austrian economics encourages businesses to utilize whatever means possible (including math) to create a better total product/service. I`m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

[quote]Austrian econ is NOT proactive, because it doesn`t attempt to predict anything other than what a few people may *think* is the problem[/quote]
Yes it is. It proactively suggests that government not interfere with most business responsibilities. Doing so inevitably leads to a more costly correction later on.

[quote]And markets are based on greed and fear[/quote]
Uhm... supply and demand.

[quote]A "free" market as you describe is a unicorn. It has no place in reality and it never will[/quote]
Except for the thousands of years that it was the standard...
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]The point is that the businesses would do the analysis and correct accordingly.[/quote]
Businesses analyzing economics by not using math. You`re still operating on assumptions, and those are very prone to being wrong. And if anything Austrian econ is NOT proactive, because it doesn`t attempt to predict anything other than what a few people may *think* is the problem.

And markets are based on greed and fear, and are the foundations of investment. Neither of those are self-regulating. They may counterbalance, but it`s more like a wrecking ball than a scale. All it does is move from one polar state to the other. A "free" market as you describe is a unicorn. It has no place in reality and it never will.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: [quote]Also, you`re neglecting to consider how governments can encourage competition to prevent monopolies. Look at railroads in the 19th century or companies like Microsoft and IBM.[/quote]
The government started the railroads! They failed at it and handed over the concept to business. How on Earth do you suppose that government encouraged competition by punishing Microsoft and IBM?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: [quote]But how can you build a better ship if you don`t analyze the problems with the existing ships empirically[/quote]
You`re being willfully ignorant of what Austrian economics suggests. The point is that the businesses would do the analysis and correct accordingly. The government does not need to interfere.

[quote]You`re just being willfully ignorant at this point and this sentence illustrates the ludicrous nature of Austrian economics.[/quote]
You are supporting a reactionary system while I am supporting a proactive system. Call me ignorant, but I`ll take the proactive one.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Also, you`re neglecting to consider how governments can encourage competition to prevent monopolies. Look at railroads in the 19th century or companies like Microsoft and IBM.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: I`m not at all saying that government is the only means to create a monopoly. I am suggesting that governmental intervention has a tendency to give illegitimate advantages to some business and thus allow them to grow without "earning" their growth.

Some businesses will become monopolies legitimately as a consequence of efficient firm management and consumer satisfaction. However, if they begin to abuse their status, and the government does not interfere, then competition will force them to behave.

Consider if all of our oil refinies merged and decided to now charge twice the price - sucks right? Now, if government stays out of it, a foreign competitor will come in and start offering oil for much cheaper. They will begin to "gobble up" the market share as they provide an equivalent product for less.

The monopoly will be busted by the free market.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Austrian economics does not attempt to identify or predict the causes of the problems such as Keynesians. [/quote]
Why in the hell would you not want to identify the causes of problems? You`re just being willfully ignorant at this point and this sentence illustrates the ludicrous nature of Austrian economics. How can you build a better ship if you don`t know what caused the last one to sink?

[quote]Instead, Austrian theory is the plan to build the ship properly to avoid those circumstances.[/quote]
But how can you build a better ship if you don`t analyze the problems with the existing ships empirically. An Austrian economist could just say "well let`s put more bathrooms on the ship." Which still doesn`t fix the main problems. You can`t use assumptions that aren`t testable to fix these kinds of problems with multiple causes.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: This ship parable is akin to your thinking on monopolies too, it seems. You`re basically saying that government is the only thing that allows monopolies, which is false. Integration, whether horizontal or vertical, is a big means to monopoly. Patent and copyright ownership or something like DeBeers` monopoly on diamonds because they own all the assets. The *best* case scenario is oligopoly, which businesses can price fix (e.g. oil industry).
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: There will certainly be corruption everywhere. We should focus on minimizing it and disallowing it to perpetuate. If a business is corrupt (and does NOT receive corporate welfare), then a less corrupt competitor will eventually force them to leave the market or change.

The problem with your analogy is that you misunderstand what Austrian economics is. Austrian economics does not attempt to identify or predict the causes of the problems such as Keynesians. Instead, Austrian theory is the plan to build the ship properly to avoid those circumstances.

Should those problems arise, Austrian economics says that the government shouldn`t come in and fix the boat for you - this only perpetuates bad boats being built. Instead, a company that builds better boats will rise and replace the bad company.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: Ah, yes, the Standard Oil "monopoly." You`ve been duped my friend. Here are some facts about that "monopoly" for you. At the time the government attacked Standard Oil (1907), their market share had been declining for a decade; their market share was roughly 64% and falling. New competition was rising, as there were approximately 147 alternative domestic competitors alone.

The government restricted much foreign competition as well, thus artificially reducing competition.

Consider your local telephone monopoly. How is it able to be a monopoly? Correct - the local government establishes them as the seller and inhibits foreign (interstate) competition.

See, the free market isn`t magic. It`s just plain common sense.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: You may be correct that Keynesian model allows for more corruption, but you can`t deny there will be corruption under Austrian models too. It would likely just take a different form.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: The comparison to Austrian is quite strong actually. In every subject heavy on theory, there can be many explanations of cause. For example, there might be 5 possible causes for a specific problem, whether it`s inflation or disease or whatever. All or none of those causes might be valid. If all of them are valid, some might not be important because they cause very little of the problem or cause the problem very infrequently or cause the problem only under specific circumstances. But more than one of the causes might be quite important, singly or in combination. Economics is a theory heavy subject.

There is no way to identify from philosophy (i.e. Austrian econ) which of these might be the case. You need to be able to observe enough to quantify these factors. But Austrian economics is innumerate, so the captain did what he thought was the right thing to solve the problem without measuring the impact of the other potential causes.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: Ah, yes, the magic of the free market again. I didn`t realize that any mom-and-pop new business could completely disrupt a monopoly. They didn`t get to being a monopoly by failing to compete, and once they own most if not all of the market share, it`s not as easy as "start a business, sell for cheaper, make money!"

The market could correct some problems (if you don`t mind waiting), but the monopolist makes sure no alternatives are available, an example being a railroad baron buying up steamship lines. Although it may be possible to upset a monopoly with an extremely well-bankrolled business, that wouldn`t help an oil producer when Rockefeller consolidated all of the refineries. The new oil producer couldn`t start his own refinery, and he`d go broke before anyone could do so.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: Either I`m daft or the analogy is not applicable to Austrian economics...

Would you be so kind as to elaborate?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: [quote]I fail to see how the Austrian model is a better predictor[/quote]
It isn`t a predictor... It`s theory based on studies of observed human behavior.

[quote]Corruption is indeed inherent, which would also be a big problem for Austrian economics as well[/quote]
Corruption is only allowed to prosper amongst those with absolute power. Austrians want businesses to create supply to spur the economy; businesses do not have absolute power.

Keynesians want government to spur the economy via spending. Government has absolute power. Therefore, it stands to reason that the Keynesian model better allows the perpetuation of corruption.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Here`s a good analogy I found of the main problem with Austrian economics:

"The owner of a ship noticed that his ship was filling with water. Being an educated man (if not nautically trained) he knew there were many possible causes for water in a ship: leaks in the hull, the bilge pump being broken, waves washing over, condensation, and even the crew urinating in the hold. He heard the bilge pump running, he saw water from waves pouring in the open hatches, but worst of all he smelled urine in the hold! Being sensible, he ordered the crew to shut the hatches and then gave them a lengthy, stern harangue on hygienic use of the head. While he was lecturing the crew, his ship sank due to a combination of causes: large, unobserved leaks in the hull, a bilge pump that was running but not pumping correctly, and condensation that had shorted out warning circuitry."
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: [quote]Libertarianism would be horrible. Business will create unsafe goods, put workers in danger, move even more of your jobs abroad, and pollute the environment until it is gone.[/quote]
None of this is true. Not only would states be allowed to regulate, but the best models would succeed. What happened to Nike when their child labor scandal was brought to public attention? Massive losses. What happened to Chick-Fil-A recently? Massive public outlash. Society dictates morality, not government. This line of reasoning is why the "War on Drugs" continues to be a massive waste of money.

[quote]They will also create monopolies, and monopolies always raise prices because why wouldn`t they?[/quote]
Because government would not be there to keep the monopolies afloat. A free market allows free entry to business - so competition would prosper.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: Corruption is indeed inherent, which would also be a big problem for Austrian economics as well, so that cannot really be used for an argument. Keynesian economics attempts to use math to explain and predict human behaviour, whereas Austrian economics uses assumptions. I fail to see how the Austrian model is a better predictor.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: In my opinion, the major failure of Keynesian economics is the purposeful refusal to acknowledge Human Action. Keynesian`s refuse to see the possible corruption associated with governmental intervention as they are too focused on their hypothetical calculations.

This is where Austrian`s differentiate. Austrian`s analyze economics via the most basic element: humans. This is why Austrian economics is the best theory and will continue to be.

[quote]While government stimulus helped during the great depression[/quote]
It helped the individual briefly - certainly - but at great detriment to the long-term economy and prosperity. Again, this is the err with Keynesian reasoning. We can either provide small comforts while prolonging the recession, or we can voluntarily allow the recession to collapse and start anew. (SEE: Current Economy...)
0
Reply
Male 5,811
And this founding fathers nonsense is getting old. The organization of society was quite different before the industrial revolution spread to the US. Your nation was a nation of farmers. The means of production were controlled primarily by the workers who owned the farms and shops. Government of that era would be as out of place today as the scientific knowledge of that era.

Libertarianism would be horrible. Business will create unsafe goods, put workers in danger, move even more of your jobs abroad, and pollute the environment until it is gone. They will also create monopolies, and monopolies always raise prices because why wouldn`t they?
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: I don`t necessarily completely agree with Keynesian economics. While government stimulus helped during the great depression, and since then it has worked partially in Canada, but you`re correct about the long-term problems with the model. I`d argue that the biggest problem with it is spending. Under Keynesian theory, you`re supposed to save surplus, not spend more of it, which is what politicians love to do.

Now while I don`t think any one model has it right, I`d still say that it`s better than Austrian economics, because when you don`t use math (which is the language of economics for goodness` sake) you then have to use your gut feeling to interpret human action every day. While there are specific deficiencies of the Keynesian model, I believe it is a better one than the Austrian model.
0
Reply
Male 3,619
@patchgrabber: to add on to what @HumanAction has to say about slavery; once our fore fathers realized that slavery was wrong, they freed their slaves.

I`ll take a slave owner at random... George Washington.
He freed all of his slaves upon the death of his wife because he realized that slavery was wrong. Albeit he and his wife had slaves their entire life and should`ve freed them once he realized slavery was wrong, but it has to start somewhere.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: [quote]You can`t run an economy on assumptions without observing and analyzing data, something your favourite brand of economics is opposed to. [/quote]
You can`t increase wealth by redistribution - something your favorite brand (Keynesian I`m guessing) of economics fully supports. You can increase the wealth of a single individual - yes - but you cannot increase the total wealth of the country without production from the private market.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: [quote]And Austrian economics is horrible.[/quote]
Yet it works... Keynesian economics has never worked. Am I wrong or are you saying that Keynesian economics is better - even though it has shown failure time and time again?

For example, look at the housing market crash (recent one) to see Keynesian`s in action. Freddie and Fannie buying up subprime mortgages and the government`s urging ultimately caused it.

For example of Austrian economics, see the stock market crash of 1929. Never heard of it? That`s because it was brief and corrected itself with little government involvement.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@patchgrabber: [quote]So slave-owning founding fathers cared about personal liberty?[/quote]
Yes they did actually. Before the Consitution was written, there was great debate about outlawing slavery. Unfortunately, the Southern states would not ratify, so the North "compromised." Either slavery and a country, or no slavery and two countries.

[quote]If a business, under libertarian principles, decided it didn`t want to serve black people, then there is nothing stopping them from doing just that.[/quote]
I agree - it is the right of the business owner to disciminate if he/she sees fit. The free market will eliminate it if society abhors it enough.

What would happen where you are if a business opened up and did not serve black people? Do you anticipate that there would be a public outlash independent of government? (SEE: Chick-Fil-A)

Therefore, government is not needed for this.
0
Reply
Male 98
*percents... Bloody auto fill.
0
Reply
Male 98
Uh..... Lost me at 175% anyone that tries to use unreal prevents is an idiot.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
And Austrian economics is horrible. I don`t think mainstream economics is science, but it`s much closer to science than Austrian economics. When problems have multiple causes, you have to observe enough data to quantify which factors are significantly contributing to the problem. Austrian economics is innumerate, in that it doesn`t use measurement. Since Austrian economics is innumerate, it relies only on its assumptions. You can`t run an economy on assumptions without observing and analyzing data, something your favourite brand of economics is opposed to.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@HA: So slave-owning founding fathers cared about personal liberty? I guess only for white men huh? Libertarianism would invariably lead to overt discrimination. If a business, under libertarian principles, decided it didn`t want to serve black people, then there is nothing stopping them from doing just that. Any government intervention would be considered infringing your personal liberty to be a bigot.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Palfas:

1. That`s not really true. Neither the New Deal nor WWII stopped the depression; you`ve been misled. The New Deal falsely (temporarily) inflated GDP via tactics such as price floors. However, wealth did not increase as a result.

Not until the men returned home, the economy reset, and private business began producing wealth did the Great Depression truely end.

2. 51% of American`s do not pay a federal income tax. Of those, how many do you suspect receive government benefits? This is a conflict of interests. We either need to have more people pay into the system or we need to consume less public services.

3. Medicare is failing; it needs to be gutted.

4. I agree with you. The defense budget needs to be reduced.
0
Reply
Male 411
OldOllie

1. Public spending is exactly what got us out of the great depression. The economy doesn`t care one way or the other if it`s private or government jobs being created or the money being spent.

2. Ryan`s plan raises your and my taxes and lowers them on the very rich. How is that a good idea? We tried giving employers more money, they have more right now then ever in fact, and they are still not hiring. Face it, they are just robbing the rest of us under the guise of providing jobs.

3. Ryan`s plan guts medicare. Vouchers just put more money into investors hands, not doctors or the patients.

4. We already spend a stupid amount on defense. It all goes to Haliburton and other similar companies, hardly any of it actually goes to the troops, and especially not their healthcare.

5. The point is nothing is going to reduce the deficit at this point except extreme austerity or further growth. Don`t let either side fool you say they are going t
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@mesovortex: [quote]Libertarianism is just another name for Anarchy. It won`t work. Look at Liberia and Somalia.[/quote]
Actually, it isn`t even close to anarachy; hence they are different terms. Libertarians believe in limited government while anarchists believe in no government.

If you actually talk to a libertarian, or do some research, I`m sure you would find that libertarians are not anarchists by any sense of the word. However, based on your single line entry, I`ll just assume that you are aware of only the things being told to you, rather than creating any unique thoughts of your own.

By the way, libertarianism worked fine in 1776. You might have heard about it - it was called the United States of America. The vast majority of our forefathers followed common day libertarian ideals.

Educate yourself.
0
Reply
Male 458
HumanAction:

Libertarianism is just another name for Anarchy. It won`t work. Look at Liberia and Somalia.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@inaria: [quote]Why does America have only two parties?[/quote]
Because we`re stupid as a whole - seriously. We allow ourselves to be manipulated and we compromise with things that shouldn`t be compromised. A third party is starting to rise - the libertarian party - but I doubt it will reach the status of Democrat or Republican any time soon (if ever).

@earplay: This becomes the old Austrian vs. Keynesian debate. Keynesians like you consider government spending a boost to the economy. However, there has never been a case of Keynesian economics being fruitful for the long term in macroeconomics; it has never happened.

Austrian economics suggests that government intervention will eventually need to be corrected for in the private market. Austrian economics have been shown to work many times in the past (see 1929).
0
Reply
Female 1,515
Why does America have only two parties? I feel like there should be more "The common sense, educated in economic matters party" Oh right, the smart educated people, who would actually do a good job, don`t actually want to run for office and deal with all the other douchebags who will stop any ideas based only on "the Political Party" the former was in.
0
Reply
Male 55
yet says nothing on the other side......this is the internet put obama`s plans along side these and see if you cant sway things one way
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Won`t reduce the budget deficit.[/quote]

It won`t, it will only slow its growth. Which isn`t much of a plus compared to Obama`s plan.

0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]which is to take $716 billion out of Medicare to pay for ObamaCare and then let Medicare go bankrupt in 10 years with no plan whatsoever to stop it[/quote]

I`d actually be fine with that, that is if Roberts et al didn`t approve of the individual mandate. Unfortunately now I still have to pay MediCare taxes on top of the individual mandate "tax" <ahem>penalty</ahem>.

[quote] Why is it good to hire another pencil pusher at the Department of Energy or Education, but not to hire a soldier of sailor? Idiot.[/quote]

Why hire any of those in the first place? I have no contention with DoEd/DoEn claim, we do outspend the world on "defensive" purposes only for our defense to be undone by a foreign policy that breeds more enemies than it does pacify.
0
Reply
Male 121
1. "That money would otherwise be used to create REAL jobs that generate economic growth and contribute to GDP, but when the government pisses it away, it`s gone." A chestnut of the TEA Party. Howsomeever, the economy cannot tell the difference between a government funded job and a private sector funded job. So, this argument is a non-starter, i.e. meaningless.

2. Also see economy cannot tell the difference between private and public funding sources for jobs. History holds some lessons here. Now that the electorate can read, they get much more restive when they read that the upper crust is covering more and more of the pie. There is a social contract to be considered. We are in this together, as a nation. Just sayin.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
jamie76

Go change your sanitary pad, little boy, and man the f*** up.
0
Reply
Male 2,345
OldOllie

go change your diaper old man and clam the F down.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
[quote]dont care about this. but then again i wasnt planning to vote romney anyways[/quote]
There`s your typical Obama voter. Doesn`t care.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Reich is either a f***ing idiot or a lying piece of $#!+, or more likely, both.

Here`s his plan, ripped to shreds:
0
Reply
Male 15,832
1. "Slashing" public spending boosts unemployment.

Where does this fool think the money comes from to hire these public employees? It`s taken out of the private sector in the form of taxes or borrowing. That money would otherwise be used to create REAL jobs that generate economic growth and contribute to GDP, but when the government pisses it away, it`s gone.

2. Take from the rich and gives to the poor.

Only a seriously warped and perverted mind equates not taking with giving and not giving with taking. And his numbers on raising taxes on the middle class and slashing medicaid, food stamps, and child health came straight out of his ass. And the people he calls "millionaires," the rest of us know as "employers." Only a retard thinks you can lower unemployment by taking money away from employers, and only an evil bastard knows it`s a lie but says it anyway to fool gullible idiots into voting Democtat.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
3. Turn Medicare into vouchers.

Well, that`s better than Obama`s plan, which is to take $716 billion out of Medicare to pay for ObamaCare and then let Medicare go bankrupt in 10 years with no plan whatsoever to stop it. I`d rather have a voucher than f*** NOTHING! I`d rather be at the mercy of an insurance company who has a reputation to maintain if they want to stay in business than to be at the mercy of the 16 unelected bureaucrats on Obama`s Death Panel who will answer to no one (and yes, it`s really in there. It`s called the "Independent Payment Advisory Board")
0
Reply
Male 15,832
4. Add money go defence while cutting education, infrastructure, and R&D.
Well considering that defense is a constitutional REQUIREMENT, and none of that other crap is, I fail to see the problem here. Only a socialist would think otherwise. Also, he whines that we`re not spending enough on "public investments" and "government employment." What the hell do you think military spending IS, you stupid little f***tard? Why is it good to hire another pencil pusher at the Department of Energy or Education, but not to hire a soldier of sailor? Idiot.

5. Won`t reduce the budget deficit.

Right. This from a DEMOCRAT? Obama has had 4 straight years of deficits that are each nearly 10 TIMES bigger than the last budget passed by a Republican congress (2007: $161 billion). What a giant load of bull$#!+.
0
Reply
Male 604
This is a whole lot of not saying anything.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
dont care about this. but then again i wasnt planning to vote romney anyways
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I`m finally at the breaking point with these little fuqheads. They say Europe`s problems lie in the fact that they didn`t spend enough. That they didn`t accumulate enough debt. That is what they think. You can`t reason with that until the economic system collapses, but even then they will maintain, "Well, if we had spent just a little more and stimulated the economy a little more". No. Seriously. Go back to the Dark Ages with Atkin and rethink your life.

You all are condemning the next generation to poverty. That 15% of Americans in poverty you hear about - we will all be there. Anyone who honestly believes Food Stamps are stimulus is, without a doubt, an intellectual lightweight and shares co-culpability for our current situation. Either that, or they are dishonest and have other motives. It defies logic, as there is no ambiguity here as there is in other issues. Food Stamps don`t stimulate. Government can`t create demand. It can`t run an economy. Learn history.
0
Reply
Male 4,844
"If this were true, Obamacare would have NEVER gotten the 60 votes it needed."

I`m just going to point you to my last comment.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Reich is a lying douchebag, video ignored.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
"Because of the Blue Dog Democrats Obama did not have the complete Senate."

If this were true, Obamacare would have NEVER gotten the 60 votes it needed.
0
Reply
Male 4,844
@OutWest, the crap the Republicans have been brainwashed to believe smells just as bad as the crap the Democrats have been brainwashed to believe. Anyone who is into partisan politics is just a parrot for the higher interests. If it stinks follow the money trail.
0
Reply
Male 546
This is the same Dem talking points. Doesn`t matter which Dem steps up, it`s always the same.

Raise Taxes.... spend money on Government programs...and Unions that support Dems.

Repubs want to take money from the poor and seniors.

This guy has nothing new to say or propose.

If you are a Dem, you already believe this crap, and if you are a Repub, you`ll never believe this crap. So who is left? Those that don`t care or don`t know how any of it works?
0
Reply
Male 4,844
I got all partisan. Congress is not going to be able to solve any problems effectively until both sides learn to work together again. They`re behaving like a bunch of children.
0
Reply
Male 4,844
"There has been no budget passed since Obama took office, even when he had both the Senate and the House at his back."

Because of the Blue Dog Democrats Obama did not have the complete Senate. The Republicans have done everything they can from before he was even inaugurated to make sure Obama fails. They don`t care what it will do to the country. They just want back in power. The proof is in this stupid statement from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell a month after Obama took office, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Not to bring the economy back but to make sure he fails.
0
Reply
Male 330
"Are you talking about the 2009 budget? That was set up under Bush? Or are you talking about a budget that was actually created under Obama`s time?"

I`m talking about the budget that Obama presented to Congress and couldn`t even get his fellow democrats to vote for. There has been no budget passed since Obama took office, even when he had both the Senate and the House at his back.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
Is this the same CBO that everyone is debating? The one giving Ryan`s plan very good reviews? and Obama`s plan gets mixed/negative reviews?

This is the same CBO right?
0
Reply
Male 9,496
Rick_S

"Politics and religion. Two things you will never convince the other side you`re right about."

Not so. My GF voted Republican her whole life. SHe voted for Obama last election after we talked about it. She`s planning on voting for him again. She also used to go to church periodically but I got her to embrace and accept the fact that she didn`t really believe it. So now she doesn`t waste her time. Ignorance can always be changed. Have faith.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
How on earth is point 1 a lie? That`s the exact situation we are currently dealing with. The private sector has gained many jobs, but the public sector job cuts are helping to keep unemployment numbers high.

Example
0
Reply
Male 4,844
"Last I checked dude, the CBO tanked Obama`s budget from the get-go. So, nice try."

Are you talking about the 2009 budget? That was set up under Bush? Or are you talking about a budget that was actually created under Obama`s time?
0
Reply
Male 559
"Point one is a lie, so I stopped watching."

Believing Point one to be a lie is what turned the 1930`s into the worst economic disaster in American history. (via Ben Bernanke, one of the preeminent economic historians of the Great Depression. He`s also a Republican.)
0
Reply
Male 330
Last I checked dude, the CBO tanked Obama`s budget from the get-go. So, nice try.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
The same CBO that said the same thing about Bush and obama FoSchizle?
0
Reply
Male 330
This is utter bull crap. Utter bull crap. Did the dude even read the Ryan plan? Did he bother to read the CBO`s scoring of the plan that found massive debt reduction in the future with Ryan, and economic failure under Obama`s? This video is absolute filth.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
I was always told to never trust a Keynesian - now I see why.

This guy is insane yet has the confidence of a playboy. Perhaps that is the liberal secret: it doesn`t matter what you say as long as you say it with confidence.

"Stand up Chuck!"
0
Reply
Male 3,326
Politics and religion. Two things you will never convince the other side you`re right about.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Point one is a lie, so I stopped watching.
0
Reply
Male 1,293
For a start: excessive government spending (and there is no doubt that government spending in all western nations is excessive) increases unemployment, it doesn`t reduce it. Reducing government spending therefore reduces unemployment, contrary to the assertion in this video.
0
Reply
Male 159
liberal bullpoo...

we cannot continue to pay for everyone who doesn`t want to care for themselves...

0
Reply
Male 1,293
This is just idiotic socialism. It is ridiculous, and makes no sense at all.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Link: Robert Reich Breaks Down The Romney Ryan Economy [Rate Link] - White board sense maker.
0
Reply