CAPITALISM

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
The delusion of Ryan is strong in all threads.

Corrected.

Ah, try and deflect the insults back to me, and ignore yllus just absolutely owning you, eh?

Nice try. A for effort (since you do it ALL THE TIME), F for execution (since you literally deflect everything you can't weasel your way out of). You try and act all high and mighty and intellectual, but when someone like yllus reveals you for what you truly are (a self-delusional liberal hack), you wilt and have to go back to petty insults.

FYI there Socrates, *I* wasn't the only one who said you got owned, nor was I the first.

But I'm the delusional one, right?

:laugh:

Why not actually, you know, ADDRESS YLLUS?!

What a concept, I know!

😕

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
The delusion of Ryan is strong in all threads.

Corrected.

Ah, try and deflect the insults back to me, and ignore yllus just absolutely owning you, eh?

Nice try.

No, I made a serious comment that you are delusional - and that explains your post.

I did not read Yllus' post and do not plan to, as he crossed a line with the first few words.

You can either improve your own posts to be more than the idiocy you have consistently posted, or join him. I'd rather you join him, frankly, but have a thing for underdogs.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
The delusion of Ryan is strong in all threads.

Corrected.

Ah, try and deflect the insults back to me, and ignore yllus just absolutely owning you, eh?

Nice try.

No, I made a serious comment that you are delusional - and that explains your post.

I did not read Yllus' post and do not plan to, as he crossed a line with the first few words.

You can either improve your own posts to be more than the idiocy you have consistently posted, or join him. I'd rather you join him, frankly, but have a thing for underdogs.

:laugh:

"Yllus owned me and made me sad, so I'm taking my toys and going home!" or...
"I, Craig234, can in no way refute what Yllus said, so I'm going to cop-out and act like responding to him is 'beneath me'."

Wow. Just...wow.

Oh noes! Please don't put me on your ignore list! Whatever would I do!

:laugh:

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Dari
It's an economic book 4 pages shy of 1100 pages. I've been reading it on and off for the past 6 months because I'm a fan of Ludwig Von Mises, one of the most conservative economists you've never heard of. The author, George Reisman, was also a good friend of Ayn Rand before she became famous.

Anyway, the download is free so check it out.

link

OP, you may want to take a peek into this as well...
http://lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard202.html

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
Economics books from good friends of Ayn Rand come about as highly recommended as investment books from George Madoff. What is it with these cults?

Oh please introduce us to your favorite economics books!?

Oh, great. Cue the thousandth mention of Naomi Klein's amazingly naive ramblings in written form.

Have you read it yet? Didn't think so. The voice of ignorance?

Naomi Klein's excellent book is not an economis book. It's a current events book that contains history - history including psychology, politics, economics and other matters.

It discusses the actual history of the application of Milton Friedman's 'Chicago schools of economics' over decades in various nations, showing how catastrophics its effects are.

It's closely related to Randian economic views.

I don't have 'favorite economics books'. I tend to support Keynesian policies; books that agree with that I'd tend to support, ones like the Friedmans approach I oppose.

If you would like though, I'll name a favorite - Paul Samuelson. Another is John Kenneth Galbraith (his son is good too).

But I find popular books on the issues - the economic policies in the context of our society - more useful. Writers such as Paul Krugman, Joseph Stieglitz, Thom Hartmann, David Cay Johnston, Simon Johnson and many others, some economists some not, I find very useful to read.

But why am I bothering to give this info to lovers of ignorance who can't be bothered to read one book, much less use a longer selection?

:thumbsup: I'm part-way through the Shock Doctrine right now, and I must say that the shock metaphor is very apt. And the way that free-market economics has been stealthily forced upon various countries in various forms is sickening to read about.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: JS80

:laugh: craig pwned
:thumbsup:

This coming from the guy who readily admits the financial markets in wall street are inherently corrupt and broken yet wants to profit off of it? 😀

When the alternative is living in a hut eating bark, yes I would rather take an inherently corrupt financial market.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: JS80

:laugh: craig pwned
:thumbsup:

This coming from the guy who readily admits the financial markets in wall street are inherently corrupt and broken yet wants to profit off of it? 😀

When the alternative is living in a hut eating bark, yes I would rather take an inherently corrupt financial market.

yeah, those canadians... living in a hut and eating bark

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...opinion/28tedesco.html

(you're retarded, but that goes without saying)

JS80.txt

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Dari
It's an economic book 4 pages shy of 1100 pages. I've been reading it on and off for the past 6 months because I'm a fan of Ludwig Von Mises, one of the most conservative economists you've never heard of. The author, George Reisman, was also a good friend of Ayn Rand before she became famous.

Anyway, the download is free so check it out.

link

OP, you may want to take a peek into this as well...
http://lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard202.html

I think the two authors are friends.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Dari
It's an economic book 4 pages shy of 1100 pages. I've been reading it on and off for the past 6 months because I'm a fan of Ludwig Von Mises, one of the most conservative economists you've never heard of. The author, George Reisman, was also a good friend of Ayn Rand before she became famous.

Anyway, the download is free so check it out.

link

OP, you may want to take a peek into this as well...
http://lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard202.html

I think the two authors are friends.

It certainly wouldn't be surprising. 😉

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Dari
It's an economic book 4 pages shy of 1100 pages. I've been reading it on and off for the past 6 months because I'm a fan of Ludwig Von Mises, one of the most conservative economists you've never heard of. The author, George Reisman, was also a good friend of Ayn Rand before she became famous.

Anyway, the download is free so check it out.

link

OP, you may want to take a peek into this as well...
http://lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard202.html

I think the two authors are friends.

It certainly wouldn't be surprising. 😉

I remembered suggesting in this forum last year that we move to a computerized system for determining the interest rate and people laughed. The system today is too politicized for such a powerful institution. I'm not saying that computer or algorithms are the final answer to an independent central bank, but we really need to re-think our current system.

It's all too absurd. For example, people complain that certain banks or rating agencies are too powerful. What's their solution? Make them more powerful, of course.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Dari
It's an economic book 4 pages shy of 1100 pages. I've been reading it on and off for the past 6 months because I'm a fan of Ludwig Von Mises, one of the most conservative economists you've never heard of. The author, George Reisman, was also a good friend of Ayn Rand before she became famous.

Anyway, the download is free so check it out.

link

OP, you may want to take a peek into this as well...
http://lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard202.html

I think the two authors are friends.

It certainly wouldn't be surprising. 😉

I remembered suggesting in this forum last year that we move to a computerized system for determining the interest rate and people laughed. The system today is too politicized for such a powerful institution. I'm not saying that computer or algorithms are the final answer to an independent central bank, but we really need to re-think our current system.

It's all too absurd. For example, people complain that certain banks or rating agencies are too powerful. What's their solution? Make them more powerful, of course.

I think it was Mises who predicted our mixed-capitalism would fail and we would only socialize the system even more so.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Dari
It's an economic book 4 pages shy of 1100 pages. I've been reading it on and off for the past 6 months because I'm a fan of Ludwig Von Mises, one of the most conservative economists you've never heard of. The author, George Reisman, was also a good friend of Ayn Rand before she became famous.

Anyway, the download is free so check it out.

link

OP, you may want to take a peek into this as well...
http://lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard202.html

I think the two authors are friends.

It certainly wouldn't be surprising. 😉

I remembered suggesting in this forum last year that we move to a computerized system for determining the interest rate and people laughed. The system today is too politicized for such a powerful institution. I'm not saying that computer or algorithms are the final answer to an independent central bank, but we really need to re-think our current system.

It's all too absurd. For example, people complain that certain banks or rating agencies are too powerful. What's their solution? Make them more powerful, of course.

I think it was Mises who predicted our mixed-capitalism would fail and we would only socialize the system even more so.

More like socialize the losses. I say that because when the economy rebounds and everybody is making money, these elephants will ask to be rid of these chains so they can dance. And when they fall, the government will be there with the safety net. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I did not read Yllus' post and do not plan to, as he crossed a line with the first few words.

In other words... "La la la la I'm not listening la la la"

Which, interestingly, is the most mature thing Craig has ever said.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Dari
I remembered suggesting in this forum last year that we move to a computerized system for determining the interest rate and people laughed. The system today is too politicized for such a powerful institution. I'm not saying that computer or algorithms are the final answer to an independent central bank, but we really need to re-think our current system.

It's all too absurd. For example, people complain that certain banks or rating agencies are too powerful. What's their solution? Make them more powerful, of course.

I've thought that as well. Coming from a software background, that's only natural. But keep in mind that some of the financial meltdown is based on a mathematical formula.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Dari
More like socialize the losses. I say that because when the economy rebounds and everybody is making money, these elephants will ask to be rid of these chains so they can dance. And when they fall, the government will be there with the safety net. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Sadly true. 🙁

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: yllus

I have read it, and it's trash. It amuses me greatly that you repeatedly mention it as if it actually has value outside of a sort of distressing feeling one gets that a book this idiotic sells well.

You see, some of us read people like Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky and even Michael Moore because we actually look at both sides of an issue. Don't stress your brain trying to wrap it around that idea.

How ironic - you make the false insinuation you are so careful to try to say you are against being made.

The issue here is simply that I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were not so clueless that you would fail to appreciate the book if you read it.

I assigned you the lesser sin of spouting baseless conclusions without having read it, not wanting to suggest you would be this bad as to read it and post what you did.

We'll just agree to disagree, I think. I made an example of one of your 'beefiest' arguments attacking the author - it's clear to me more would be a waste.

I'll leave it up to the others to judge for themselbes.

Man, every day in your life must be a great one. Full of unwarranted egotism and a strident belief that critical analysis of one's own ideas is wholly unnecessary.

I love that you make two examples of a president abusing his position and mark one as good - because he's doing something you've judged the people wanted, and that the "right-wing Supreme Court" didn't - and the other as bad. Surprise surprise, it's because your personal ideology falls in line with one and not the other!

Let us summarize this lesson:

Abusing the system when (you think) the people need it = Good

Abusing the system when Craig234 judges you to be a right-winger = Bad

Of course, the idea that abuse of the system is bad no matter your political affiliation is never to appear in Craig234's head.

What's even funnier is that FDR did exactly what Naomi Klein purports as her grand conspiracy. See if you can figure that one out with the big hint I've given you and redeem a shade of dignity.

Beautiful

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Dari
More like socialize the losses. I say that because when the economy rebounds and everybody is making money, these elephants will ask to be rid of these chains so they can dance. And when they fall, the government will be there with the safety net. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Exactly. But gov't can't bear the financial burden every time. The net's going to fail one of these years, and it'll be interesting to see what happens then.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I did not read Yllus' post and do not plan to, as he crossed a line with the first few words.

Hahaha! 😀 You don't even possess the intelligence to know when to slink away silently. A petulant child to the end.

Originally posted by: Dari
I remembered suggesting in this forum last year that we move to a computerized system for determining the interest rate and people laughed. The system today is too politicized for such a powerful institution. I'm not saying that computer or algorithms are the final answer to an independent central bank, but we really need to re-think our current system.

It's all too absurd. For example, people complain that certain banks or rating agencies are too powerful. What's their solution? Make them more powerful, of course.

I did some of that laughing at you, and for good reason. None of us were laughing because we believed the market didn't need to be less susceptible to abuse. The jeering was caused by your adamant belief that the system can be computerized to begin with. It can't - not with today's technology, or with any technology I can see coming down the pipeline in the foreseeable future. Remember the last time belief in program trading ruled the day?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Craig234
I did not read Yllus' post and do not plan to, as he crossed a line with the first few words.

Hahaha! 😀 You don't even possess the intelligence to know when to slink away silently. A petulant child to the end.

Originally posted by: Dari
I remembered suggesting in this forum last year that we move to a computerized system for determining the interest rate and people laughed. The system today is too politicized for such a powerful institution. I'm not saying that computer or algorithms are the final answer to an independent central bank, but we really need to re-think our current system.

It's all too absurd. For example, people complain that certain banks or rating agencies are too powerful. What's their solution? Make them more powerful, of course.

I did some of that laughing at you, and for good reason. None of us were laughing because we believed the market didn't need to be less susceptible to abuse. The jeering was caused by your adamant belief that the system can be computerized to begin with. It can't - not with today's technology, or with any technology I can see coming down the pipeline in the foreseeable future. Remember the last time belief in program trading ruled the day?

Any better ideas then? Seriously, the Fed is supposed to be independent but given their dual mandate I would say that's impossible. How about they leave the job creation to the Feds and states and focus on inflation? That would be a start.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Craig234
I did not read Yllus' post and do not plan to, as he crossed a line with the first few words.

Hahaha! 😀 You don't even possess the intelligence to know when to slink away silently. A petulant child to the end.

Originally posted by: Dari
I remembered suggesting in this forum last year that we move to a computerized system for determining the interest rate and people laughed. The system today is too politicized for such a powerful institution. I'm not saying that computer or algorithms are the final answer to an independent central bank, but we really need to re-think our current system.

It's all too absurd. For example, people complain that certain banks or rating agencies are too powerful. What's their solution? Make them more powerful, of course.

I did some of that laughing at you, and for good reason. None of us were laughing because we believed the market didn't need to be less susceptible to abuse. The jeering was caused by your adamant belief that the system can be computerized to begin with. It can't - not with today's technology, or with any technology I can see coming down the pipeline in the foreseeable future. Remember the last time belief in program trading ruled the day?

Any better ideas then? Seriously, the Fed is supposed to be independent but given their dual mandate I would say that's impossible. How about they leave the job creation to the Feds and states and focus on inflation? That would be a start.

No, I don't have alternative ideas for this issue. But I do think that you're correct in that the Federal Reserve is best used in their classic role - another government entity can be created to take over these new powers they've been given. (I actually assumed that their current situation is temporary.)

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Craig234
I did not read Yllus' post and do not plan to, as he crossed a line with the first few words.

Hahaha! 😀 You don't even possess the intelligence to know when to slink away silently. A petulant child to the end.

Originally posted by: Dari
I remembered suggesting in this forum last year that we move to a computerized system for determining the interest rate and people laughed. The system today is too politicized for such a powerful institution. I'm not saying that computer or algorithms are the final answer to an independent central bank, but we really need to re-think our current system.

It's all too absurd. For example, people complain that certain banks or rating agencies are too powerful. What's their solution? Make them more powerful, of course.

I did some of that laughing at you, and for good reason. None of us were laughing because we believed the market didn't need to be less susceptible to abuse. The jeering was caused by your adamant belief that the system can be computerized to begin with. It can't - not with today's technology, or with any technology I can see coming down the pipeline in the foreseeable future. Remember the last time belief in program trading ruled the day?

Any better ideas then? Seriously, the Fed is supposed to be independent but given their dual mandate I would say that's impossible. How about they leave the job creation to the Feds and states and focus on inflation? That would be a start.

No, I don't have alternative ideas for this issue. But I do think that you're correct in that the Federal Reserve is best used in their classic role - another government entity can be created to take over these new powers they've been given. (I actually assumed that their current situation is temporary.)

That's the other thing, though. We don't need new laws and new governmental institutions for the Feds. The current setup is fine, just nix the part about full employment' in their mandate. And I think politicians have an incentive to create jobs. The Fed should be there to manage the money supply.

We have a similar situation that led to the financial crisis. There were already lots of good laws and regulatory bodies to prevent this crisis. It's just that they were ignored and their implementation was awful (e.g. given the tussle between the federal government and states over financial regulations, some banks were allowed to chose their own regulator.)

If the government simplifies the system by taking power away from the states and creating less regulatory bodies, then the new laws and institutions would've served their puropse. Otherwise, if they try to please everyone by making the system more complex, it'll be a disservice.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Dari
Any better ideas then?

Yeah, work on getting rid of it. Let the market set interest rates. Let capital come from real savings.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Dari
That's the other thing, though. We don't need new laws and new governmental institutions for the Feds. The current setup is fine, just nix the part about full employment' in their mandate. And I think politicians have an incentive to create jobs. The Fed should be there to manage the money supply.

That's very confused. First, high employment is an appropriate priority for the nation. It's ok to pay a price to increase employment. Saying politicians have an interest in employment being strong is fine, but then turning around and suggesting that the authority over the monetary policy they have set up that affects unemployment have a policy not to care about employment is contradictory.

We have a similar situation that led to the financial crisis. There were already lots of good laws and regulatory bodies to prevent this crisis. It's just that they were ignored and their implementation was awful (e.g. given the tussle between the federal government and states over financial regulations, some banks were allowed to chose their own regulator.)

They weren't just 'ignored', though bad executive branch policy was part of the problem; they were also repealed. More regulation was needed.

The underlying problem was the corruption of the political system where Wall Street - with financial companies earning 41% of all profit - was (and is) too powerful in Washington.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Dari
That's the other thing, though. We don't need new laws and new governmental institutions for the Feds. The current setup is fine, just nix the part about full employment' in their mandate. And I think politicians have an incentive to create jobs. The Fed should be there to manage the money supply.

That's very confused. First, high employment is an appropriate priority for the nation. It's ok to pay a price to increase employment. Saying politicians have an interest in employment being strong is fine, but then turning around and suggesting that the authority over the monetary policy they have set up that affects unemployment have a policy not to care about employment is contradictory.

We have a similar situation that led to the financial crisis. There were already lots of good laws and regulatory bodies to prevent this crisis. It's just that they were ignored and their implementation was awful (e.g. given the tussle between the federal government and states over financial regulations, some banks were allowed to chose their own regulator.)

They weren't just 'ignored', though bad executive branch policy was part of the problem; they were also repealed. More regulation was needed.

The underlying problem was the corruption of the political system where Wall Street - with financial companies earning 41% of all profit - was (and is) too powerful in Washington.

Fed = Federal Reserve. IMHO, they should not care about employment.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Dari

Fed = Federal Reserve. IMHO, they should not care about employment.

You're missing the way our system works, then.

If we had less democracy, the economy could more serve the needs of the wealthy than it already does and people could be more disposable labor.

But since this is a democracy, and the people tend to like higher employment - not an extreme, this isn't '100% employment' - that means the elected officials like it. And monetary policy is related to employment. *Some* policy is going to be in place, either one that does not worry about unemployment or one that does. Politicians created the charter for the Fed *to serve the public interest*.

So, whatever your personal agenda is - whatever you have against the working class not to care about employment - isn't that relevant until you run the country.

Now, Milton Friedman was able to go and get his ideas - that sound a bit like yours - put into practice in some countries (causing disaster). You could try that.