Thread: They chose to fail.

Originally Posted by sammy

Outstanding! This is exactly what I have been thinking. People think the Limbaughs, Becks, and Michael Moores of the world are mostly harmless simpletons. But they influence people, and that influence makes them: dumber, less tolerant, and even more susceptible to influence from other ignorant demogogues; especially the kind that have a Sen. or Rep. in front of their names. It becomes a vicious circle of dumb.

Yup, the vicious circle of dumb. Those who think that drowning slower = not drowning.

Originally Posted by sammy

I would like to learn about economics. Since you are already doing a lot of work trying to educate the invincibly naive, perhaps you might also enjoy instructing someone (me) who actually wants to learn something. I'm betting you could sum up the basic argument here in simple terms to bet me started if you're interested.

If you want to learn about economics, you really don't want to be speaking with Goober or Danny. They know less about the subject than anyone on these boards.

Originally Posted by 9aces

Except of course your Canadian Treasuries are now an asset counted on the books, which offsets your debt still leaving you with a "surplus".


It is an expense. The purchase of an asset requires the use of funds to do so. If you borrow to purchase the asset, you still have incurred a liability to obtain an asset.


Actually it's more than tangentially related, when you have not completed your financial transactions to reconcile your budget.


You would think you would have caught on your books don't balance, and your math doesn't add up by now.

That is not saying good things about your IQ.

You gotta find that third guy

Originally Posted by smurf

Ask him to teach you about short sales.

I meant to type "short squeezes". It was getting late.

Originally Posted by goober

OK, so in your example, Receipts exceed Outlays, which a person who speaks english would call a SURPLUS.

The original one trick pony.

Originally Posted by goober

Your arguments do have my head spinning, I'm thinking you are busting my balls, because I can't imagine that anyone could be so .... unable to grasp such a simple concept.

That is your problem, goober - you can grasp a simple concept, but not much else. The fact that the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds invest their excess funds in Treasury bonds has you confused into believing that there was a surplus. When I showed you a scenario where those excess funds were invested into some other investment besides Treasury bonds, your belief system would not let you admit to the reality of what I showed you.

Originally Posted by goober

Now, based on your opinions in other economic matters, it's pretty clear that you aren't in contention for the Nobel Prize, or even a passing grade in Econ 101.

A personal attack with no basis in fact. When you're getting your ass handed to you by facts, resort to this admission of defeat.

Originally Posted by goober

But this is so simple, and the fact that there are two of you, who can't see it, it blows my mind, that you are right wingers, well, that goes with the inability to grasp even simple economic concepts.

Blah, blah, blah.

Do you mean a "simple economic concept" like a short squeeze?

Originally Posted by 9aces

Yup, the vicious circle of dumb. Those who think that drowning slower = not drowning.

So you agree about the danger the uninformed demogogues like Limbaugh, Beck, and Moore present. They tend to make other people as dumb as they are, they encourage them away from critical thinking skills.

Anyway, that is interesting enough, but let's get into the economics lessons. What do you mean by your comment that "Those who think that drowing slower=not drowing"? Are you referring to an economic theory, and who is promoting it? What are the logical alternatives?

Originally Posted by 9aces

If you want to learn about economics, you really don't want to be speaking with Goober or Danny. They know less about the subject than anyone on these boards.

If you feel more qualified, of course I would appreciate your sharing of expertise. What I know so far is more about what isn't right than a positive knowledge of what is.

Smurf wasn't too helpfu vis-a-vis currency. A single google search yielded enough information in five minutes to set me straight on that. He actually believes it is not only preferable to return to a gold standard currency, he acutally thinks it is possible. But you are not him...so be that as it may, I don't know anything about you yet, and I believe in giving people the benefit of a doubt unless they give a good reason otherwise.

So maybe we could start with a discussion about the role govenment can play in alleviating the economic difficulties we now face. Would it be better to raise taxes or lower them...and I mean that in terms of the actual amount of money that Washington will collect. I have recently read that an economy that lacks demand can be helped if government can step in a fill that role? Is that true? Why or why not?

As a reminder to several of you who are verging on breaking this rule, discuss the topic and not each other.

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/welc...must-read.html

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

Originally Posted by sammy

He actually believes it is not only preferable to return to a gold standard currency, he acutally thinks it is possible.

It is possible and many including Ron Paul have always wanted to do it. All you do is pass a law that the governement has to exchange paper money for gold at a fixed price. That way the governemnt could not print money at will. If it did it would no longer be able to exchange all the paper money for gold.

Originally Posted by sammy

I have recently read that an economy that lacks demand can be helped if government can step in a fill that role? Is that true? Why or why not?

Liberal retard marxists hold this position. Lawrence Summers ( Obama advisor) said that the government could "create customers" who would in turn create demand.

the problem is tax and spent demand creates artificial bubble customers that distort, impede, and then explode the real economy. THis is how the liberals prolonged the Depression for 10 years and caused WW2

real sustainable Republican intellectual demand comes from real people earning their own money and buying things they really want.


If you can understand that you have the IQ to be a Conservative. Please let me know.

Originally Posted by Brutus

Liberal retard marxists hold this position. Lawrence Summers ( Obama advisor) said that the government could "create customers" who would in turn create demand.

the problem is tax and spent demand creates artificial bubble customers that distort, impede, and then explode the real economy. THis is how the liberals prolonged the Depression for 10 years and caused WW2

real sustainable Republican intellectual demand comes from real people earning their own money and buying things they really want.


If you can understand that you have the IQ to be a Conservative. Please let me know.

You sound very conservative. I've yet to see you post without insulting liberal IQ.
Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives
Satoshi Kanazawa

Originally Posted by michael h

You sound very conservative. I've yet to see you post without insulting conservative IQ.

please don't change the subject. If you can't comment on substance why not ask questions? Do you want to be a liberal all your life?

Originally Posted by Brutus

please don't change the subject. If you can't comment on substance why not ask questions? Do you want to be a liberal all your life?

You said liberal retard Marxist as your opening and how did you finish? The subject would appear to be conservative intelligence. I provided you with a chart highlighting a scientific study of intelligence. No answer?

Based upon data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and the General Social Surveys, two VERY large studies of American youth, Satoshi Kanazawa found the following:

1a. Average IQ of very liberal youth – 106
1b. Average IQ of very conservative youth – 95

2a. Average IQ of those young adults “not at all religious” – 103
2b. Average IQ of “very religious” young adults – 97.

It would then follow that the average liberal atheist is quite a bit smarter than the average religious conservative.

eclecticchristian.com/2010/04/24/are-liberals-and-atheists-smarter/?iact=hc&vpx=220&vpy=301&dur=395&hovh=208&hovw=243 &tx=150&ty=99&ei=RUBMTpTdOIHcgQeo1phz&page=2&tbnh= 165&tbnw=193&start=36&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:36