Greece's Solution - A Warning to the US

[CycloWizard]

You will wait forever. I don't know what your questions are or what you are talking about. There is a last time I look at every thread. And what an absurd notion. Listen to your self. All your money is my money. hahahahahaha You are poor compared to me. I don't need the money I have because there's nothing I want for. On a clear night I own billions of stars, may I give you the moon?

Liar. You say you don't need the money you have, all the while claiming all the money I have, then you try to wax philosophical to cover your tracks. Unfortunately for you, your statement is already there for everyone to see. It's also horribly convenient that you keep making the statement (i.e. how I owe everything to society), then always stop reading the thread when I make a reply.

 

[CycloWizard]

There are two schools of Economic understanding and both seek to arrive at the same conclusion... IF you look at a more 'applied' reality you simply look at what did occur and answer the why. But, probably equally important, you must also answer some theoretical what if's.
DSE stimulus has been the method that has provided the relief the economy needed at the time it needed it... and then a move toward a SSE insures(d) that bandage stays in contact with the wound... Facts are facts, it seems to me... the only question is the 'what if' bit. You can't really argue it, however, because it (SSE) did not occur during really stagnant economic conditions or depression... DSE were employed and employed with success and SSE, it seems, were considered but not employed or if they were like during Regan the result was not compelling, IMO.

It seems to me that DSE is a huge contributor to the repeated bubble/burst phenomenon. Government injects a huge amount of cash which must be spent on specific items (e.g. cash for clunkers, housing moneys, higher education grants/loans), creating an equivalently huge, irrational demand. An increase in demand increases prices in that market. Once that artificial demand dries up, the market is far out of equilibrium and will necessarily crash.

On the other hand, SSE does not mandate the creation of any artificial glut in supply: it freely allows people to reinvest their income into whatever vehicle seems best. This is problematic from a policy perspective because, while the money could be invested in something which creates jobs, it could also sit in a savings account collecting interest. In the long term, much of this should end up being recycled through the economy at large, but, as you said, it doesn't do much in the short term.

If we are dead set on government intervention, then, the best approach seems to be similar to what Bush did: send everyone a check so they can create demand in whatever area they want, but without focusing it enough to cause a bubble effect. At the same time, deregulate some things so that industry can adapt more quickly to the changing landscape and keep up with demand. These proposals then beg the question: if the best way to solve an economic problem is to have money in the hands of people and fewer fetters on industry, why do these things (i.e. high taxes and stiff regulation) keep reappearing when the economy is good? Why would you then be surprised at an economic downturn when you created the conditions necessary for such a downturn to occur?

 

[trenchfoot]

And the Greeks look at the Neocon eight year experiment of the Bush/Cheney era and the financial disaster that occurred because of it and laugh their poor bankrupt asses off.

 

[nick1985]

And the Greeks look at the Neocon eight year experiment of the Bush/Cheney era and the financial disaster that occurred because of it and laugh their poor bankrupt asses off.

6 year*

 

[Darwin333]

And the Greeks look at the Neocon eight year experiment of the Bush/Cheney era and the financial disaster that occurred because of it and laugh their poor bankrupt asses off.

LOL.

You guys continue to crack me up. I got really shocking news for ya buddy, we have been digging this hole for a lot longer than 8 (or 6) years. <GASP>

Of course that doesn't fit your political view so I am sure you will continue to spout off shit that you really don't know about (or intentionally lie, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt). Out of curiosity, why hasn't the left reinstated Glass-Steagall yet? They have had damn near 2 years to do it and I haven't barely heard even a mention of it. That would have single handedly prevented a ton of the bullshit we have/are going through in the financial sector. BTW, Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Of course that is just one very specific item in a very complex discussion but it is, imo, one of the most significant.

Disclaimer: Bush still sucked and there is plenty of shit to blame him for but blaming him for this entire mess is dishonest. Oh, and Obama sucks too. Matter of fact, both parties in general suck balls and they are both owned by the same masters.

 

[Acanthus]

No one ever said anything resembling your claim - that I don't benefit from infrastructure and such (though I'm fairly certain half the things you listed could easily go on a list of things which could easily be done without). That's a terrible strawman. The question, as always, is: why do I owe everything I earn to government for providing products or services? If I pay a private movie theater the price of admission, they can't come back later and levy a tax on all of my future income because the film enriched my life - I paid the agreed-upon price for the product/service rendered and that's that. But for some reason, simply paying my taxes and using the products and services which they nominally pay for doesn't seem to be sufficient for Moonbeam and others. They think any money I make forevermore belongs to society (read: government), though they have never been able to explain why. Indeed, there are several threads in which a post similar to this one is the last post in the thread because said claimants magically disappeared once I asked this question.

Your post isn't even a rational argument.

 

[CycloWizard]

Your post isn't even a rational argument.

Either that, or your reading comprehension is sub-par. You made an argument that had nothing to do with my original statement. Perhaps if you realized that, you'd realize that my rebuttal was also related to my original statement and not your strawman.

 

[trenchfoot]

LOL.

You guys continue to crack me up. I got really shocking news for ya buddy, we have been digging this hole for a lot longer than 8 (or 6) years. <GASP>

Of course that doesn't fit your political view so I am sure you will continue to spout off shit that you really don't know about (or intentionally lie, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt). Out of curiosity, why hasn't the left reinstated Glass-Steagall yet? They have had damn near 2 years to do it and I haven't barely heard even a mention of it. That would have single handedly prevented a ton of the bullshit we have/are going through in the financial sector. BTW, Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Of course that is just one very specific item in a very complex discussion but it is, imo, one of the most significant.

Disclaimer: Bush still sucked and there is plenty of shit to blame him for but blaming him for this entire mess is dishonest. Oh, and Obama sucks too. Matter of fact, both parties in general suck balls and they are both owned by the same masters.

Sorry for not making my point clear, and I can see where a knee jerk reaction on your part is warranted. The point I was trying to make is the pot/kettle thingie. But you do make some valid points. Thanks.

 

[Acanthus]

Either that, or your reading comprehension is sub-par. You made an argument that had nothing to do with my original statement. Perhaps if you realized that, you'd realize that my rebuttal was also related to my original statement and not your strawman.

Post #90.

Read it with the quote and with your reply and tell me what it means to you.

 

[Moonbeam]

No one ever said anything resembling your claim - that I don't benefit from infrastructure and such (though I'm fairly certain half the things you listed could easily go on a list of things which could easily be done without). That's a terrible strawman. The question, as always, is: why do I owe everything I earn to government for providing products or services? If I pay a private movie theater the price of admission, they can't come back later and levy a tax on all of my future income because the film enriched my life - I paid the agreed-upon price for the product/service rendered and that's that. But for some reason, simply paying my taxes and using the products and services which they nominally pay for doesn't seem to be sufficient for Moonbeam and others. They think any money I make forevermore belongs to society (read: government), though they have never been able to explain why. Indeed, there are several threads in which a post similar to this one is the last post in the thread because said claimants magically disappeared once I asked this question.

There you go again with the 'why do I owe everything' bull shit. To such an absurd statement I would reply that in fact you don't owe anything. You can become homeless and live out of trash cans. You can kill yourself. You can move to Antarctica. You can go to jail. You don't pay for any reason but that you want to. You choose to.

The other reason, of course, is the Germans. They have a genetic predisposition to organize. A deutch mark hier and a deutch mark dort and pretty soon they're marching down your street. It's a good idea to keep up with the Jonesheimers.

Every German whispers under his breath and in his sleep:

Wirtschaftlichkeit durch Serienherstellung oder Grossproduktion
Niedrigere Kosten je Produktionseinheit werden durch grossangelegte Produktion erreicht aufgrund besserer Maschinen, grösserer Preisnachlässe für notwendiges Material, der Herstellung von Nebenprodukten und/oder besserer Kapazitätsauslastung von Arbeitskräften und Maschinen. Ein grosses Viehzuchtunternehmen kann z.B. aus niedrigeren Futter- und Veterinärskosten je Einheit und erhöhter Mechanisierung Nutzen ziehen.

The cave man figured out a long time ago that if you're not good for anything to the group, you're always good for food. Most of the folk with the selfish genes you have were eaten.

 

[CycloWizard]

Post #90.

Read it with the quote and with your reply and tell me what it means to you.

Post #90 was a response to Moonbeam's statement:

Originally Posted by Moonbeam
Yup, lots of CWs there who think their money belongs to them, like social structure don't create the environment in which they can earn without the law of the jungle ripping away their bananas.

Post #90:

Ah, the old myth that usually gets tossed out in this situation prior to all of the your-money-is-my-money liberals beating a hasty retreat when I ask the obvious questions about the validity of such a claim. Since there are already at least three threads in which you've made this claim then disappeared when I asked questions, I'll simply await your reply in one of them.

In the context of the multitude of previous claims that what I earn is not my own, nor did I rightly earn it, post #90 is a request for him to justify his statement that my money is not my own. You then listed a bunch of government programs in an effort to show that I do, indeed, owe some debt to society/government, but that was never in question. The question, as it has been brought up in other threads before, is: at what point is this debt paid? Moonbeam's (and zinfamous', and others) assertion is that this debt is never paid because I could do nothing without society; that everything I earn in my lifetime goes directly towards paying that debt; and that I have no claim to any of my achievements because they are based on the foundation of what society has given me. In any case, here are a couple of posts from the most recent thread in question, neither of which was ever answered:

Response to Moonbeam/MJinZ (post #82)

Response to Zinfamous (post #126)

 

[CycloWizard]

There you go again with the 'why do I owe everything' bull shit. To such an absurd statement I would reply that in fact you don't owe anything. You can become homeless and live out of trash cans. You can kill yourself. You can move to Antarctica. You can go to jail. You don't pay for any reason but that you want to. You choose to.

The other reason, of course, is the Germans. They have a genetic predisposition to organize. A deutch mark hier and a deutch mark dort and pretty soon they're marching down your street. It's a good idea to keep up with the Jonesheimers.

Every German whispers under his breath and in his sleep:

Wirtschaftlichkeit durch Serienherstellung oder Grossproduktion
Niedrigere Kosten je Produktionseinheit werden durch grossangelegte Produktion erreicht aufgrund besserer Maschinen, grösserer Preisnachlässe für notwendiges Material, der Herstellung von Nebenprodukten und/oder besserer Kapazitätsauslastung von Arbeitskräften und Maschinen. Ein grosses Viehzuchtunternehmen kann z.B. aus niedrigeren Futter- und Veterinärskosten je Einheit und erhöhter Mechanisierung Nutzen ziehen.

The cave man figured out a long time ago that if you're not good for anything to the group, you're always good for food. Most of the folk with the selfish genes you have were eaten.

I'd wager I pay more in taxes than you do, but it's never enough. Even if I paid 99% in taxes and only had enough money left over to feed my cat, it still wouldn't be enough to satisfy you. I give plenty of money to charity. I build houses and make casseroles to feed the homeless (you know - through private charities because your government, to which I owe everything - does nothing for them?). But I'm selfish because I think everyone else should have the choice as to whether or not they will do these things. You simply want to coerce them to do what you want so you can feel better about not doing as much.

 

[Moonbeam]

Liar. You say you don't need the money you have, all the while claiming all the money I have, then you try to wax philosophical to cover your tracks. Unfortunately for you, your statement is already there for everyone to see. It's also horribly convenient that you keep making the statement (i.e. how I owe everything to society), then always stop reading the thread when I make a reply.

Please stop flattering yourself with some fantasy of the power of your claims. I hardly notice you much less run from anything you said. No that's not exactly true. I like you a lot. You are refreshingly arrogant and unabashedly shameless in your opinions. You'll go out on any limb no matter how stupid it is. I am also deeply fascinated by science and chemical engineering and respect your knowledge there too, but sadly, when you talk of intersecting variables or what ever that shit was, I puck. I don't much like pretentious showoffs who flaunt their erudition, but like I said, I read your stuff anyway.

You think you are successful because of discipline and hard work and all it's done is make you arrogant and at war with others.

I, on the other hand, am a winner. I defeated the nothing with my bare hands and have nothing to offer you but the spoils of that war. I surrendered and became what I hated. Imagine you doing that. Hehe

But I'm tough in my own way too, you should know. If you won't give me all your money, I won't give you the moon.

Did you hear the story of the Zen Master who said, "If you have a moon I'll give you one and if you don't I'll take it away"?

 

[CycloWizard]

Please stop flattering yourself with some fantasy of the power of your claims. I hardly notice you much less run from anything you said. No that's not exactly true. I like you a lot. You are refreshingly arrogant and unabashedly shameless in your opinions. You'll go out on any limb no matter how stupid it is. I am also deeply fascinated by science and chemical engineering and respect your knowledge there too, but sadly, when you talk of intersecting variables or what ever that shit was, I puck. I don't much like pretentious showoffs who flaunt their erudition, but like I said, I read your stuff anyway.

You think you are successful because of discipline and hard work and all it's done is make you arrogant and at war with others.

I'm successful because I know what I know and I know what I don't know. I have worked hard to learn what I know. I stick to what I'm good at. I don't pretend to know what I don't know, but what I do know I know very well. For example, I know it's laughable that you think I'm pretentious while thinking yourself wise. You think you're the only one in this conversation who is up to speed eastern philosophy. You think I'm pretentious because I use technical language when you bring up science. You think I'm pretentious because I will argue with you when I have an informed opinion. But most of all, you think I'm pretentious because I read what you say with full understanding and still dismiss it as insincere. The solution, then, is simply to be sincere. After all, if you were happy with nothing, you wouldn't covet what I have. You'll swear up and down that you don't, but your claims to what I have are evidence to the contrary.

I, on the other hand, am a winner. I defeated the nothing with my bare hands and have nothing to offer you but the spoils of that war. I surrendered and became what I hated. Imagine you doing that. Hehe

But I'm tough in my own way too, you should know. If you won't give me all your money, I won't give you the moon.

Did you hear the story of the Zen Master who said, "If you have a moon I'll give you one and if you don't I'll take it away"?

The irony of your pretended enlightenment is that you only rely on it when your real self has been exposed: you are just as greedy as anyone else. You think it's ok to contribute nothing and demand everything.

 

[Acanthus]

Sorry cyclo, like spidey i can't really debate with you guys because you don't seem to have the ability to critically think and rationally argue.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'd wager I pay more in taxes than you do, but it's never enough. Even if I paid 99% in taxes and only had enough money left over to feed my cat, it still wouldn't be enough to satisfy you. I give plenty of money to charity. I build houses and make casseroles to feed the homeless (you know - through private charities because your government, to which I owe everything - does nothing for them?). But I'm selfish because I think everyone else should have the choice as to whether or not they will do these things. You simply want to coerce them to do what you want so you can feel better about not doing as much.

You are a wonderful person CW. You are very smart. You used your intelligence to you and my advantage. You will maybe do something really great in medicine. Doubtless you are a much better person than me. I am sure you pay more taxes and give more to charity and you are far less selfish than I probably ever will be.

My big question is, when are you going to start to really feel it? Can't you see that your drive to make me see these things is a result of your own lack of faith? Imagine if you were so confident in your own value you could be a nobody? Take a look at the way LunarRay expresses himself, softly, circumspectly, and with humor among other things, with that big, 'in my humble opinion'. He has a whole bunch of degrees including whatever those letters are that equate to the practical application side of economics PhD.

And is there anything I can do to assure you I don't want all of your money.

 

[dank69]

Sorry cyclo, like spidey i can't really debate with you guys because you don't seem to have the ability to critically think and rationally argue.

It's okay, he'd just ignore you after awhile.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm successful because I know what I know and I know what I don't know. I have worked hard to learn what I know. I stick to what I'm good at. I don't pretend to know what I don't know, but what I do know I know very well. For example, I know it's laughable that you think I'm pretentious while thinking yourself wise. You think you're the only one in this conversation who is up to speed eastern philosophy. You think I'm pretentious because I use technical language when you bring up science. You think I'm pretentious because I will argue with you when I have an informed opinion. But most of all, you think I'm pretentious because I read what you say with full understanding and still dismiss it as insincere. The solution, then, is simply to be sincere. After all, if you were happy with nothing, you wouldn't covet what I have. You'll swear up and down that you don't, but your claims to what I have are evidence to the contrary.

The irony of your pretended enlightenment is that you only rely on it when your real self has been exposed: you are just as greedy as anyone else. You think it's ok to contribute nothing and demand everything.

In one way I might be less greedy. I only cry for a few hours after I pay my taxes. I stick to what I'm good at, letting go of things.

Take a good look at that 'contribute nothing demand everythingi'. Isn't that you when it comes to taxes? You don't owe a dime, right but you still live here?

 

[Moonbeam]

Sorry cyclo, like spidey i can't really debate with you guys because you don't seem to have the ability to critically think and rationally argue.

He is arguing from feelings he doesn't see. We are all like that. You, for example have an unexamined need to argue with folk who are rational and can critically think. Good luck with that. The only other person I know like that is me and it seems we already agree.

 

[woolfe9999]

Consensus is what lay people look for when making decisions regarding competing and different theories. They don't have the luxury of knowing the final truth. In America the majority of economists went with the notion the economy needed stimulus and that is what was done, had to be done, and could have only rationally been done. Responsible folk who are not expert themselves, are going to go with the bright knowledgeable majority. It doesn't make that the right decision, but it makes it the only logical one for folk who have the responsibility act.

Let's not get off the deep end here. Economics isn't like the theory of gravity.

Ding. Rather than argue with CW over this point, I will simply underscore Moonie on this. For the layperson, relying on majority expert opinion is the only logical course. The confusion arises in distinguishing the perspective of the layperson from that of someone with expertise. The person of expertise must ignore the "consensus" and form his or her opinion independently. That is what we rely on experts to do. If it were otherwise, a "consensus" at any given moment in time would be self-perpetuating as every expert would simply follow that consensus. But for the layperson, there is nothing to do but follow the consesus and assume it is *likely* correct. It's only a fallacy if the expert consensus is posed as infallible truth rather than probabalistic assumption. The consensus is simply the layperson's "best bet."

Wiki explains nicely when it is a fallacy and when it is not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

"Infallibility" only arises as a matter of formal logic, i.e. in a logical syllogism where things are asserted as absolutes. To the layperson, there is no shame in recognizing one's own relative ignorance, and arguing that the consensus of experts is our best bet, but remaining open minded should that consensus change.

In a perfect world, everyone would be an "expert" on everything, but this obviously isn't a perfect world. Perhaps some of us could do well in not pretending to be experts in things they are not? Just a humble suggestion...

That is what guides my view on global warming, economics, and a whole host of other issues.

- wolf

 

[Moonbeam]

Acanthus, add woofe to that list.

 

[CycloWizard]

Sorry cyclo, like spidey i can't really debate with you guys because you don't seem to have the ability to critically think and rationally argue.

What was irrational about what I said? Or are you just going to keep saying this over and over again? Please show one thing I said which was irrational.

 

[CycloWizard]

Ding. Rather than argue with CW over this point, I will simply underscore Moonie on this. For the layperson, relying on majority expert opinion is the only logical course. The confusion arises in distinguishing the perspective of the layperson from that of someone with expertise. The person of expertise must ignore the "consensus" and form his or her opinion independently. That is what we rely on experts to do. If it were otherwise, a "consensus" at any given moment in time would be self-perpetuating as every expert would simply follow that consensus. But for the layperson, there is nothing to do but follow the consesus and assume it is *likely* correct. It's only a fallacy if the expert consensus is posed as infallible truth rather than probabalistic assumption. The consensus is simply the layperson's "best bet."

Wiki explains nicely when it is a fallacy and when it is not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority



"Infallibility" only arises as a matter of formal logic, i.e. in a logical syllogism where things are asserted as absolutes. To the layperson, there is no shame in recognizing one's own relative ignorance, and arguing that the consensus of experts is our best bet, but remaining open minded should that consensus change.

In a perfect world, everyone would be an "expert" on everything, but this obviously isn't a perfect world. Perhaps some of us could do well in not pretending to be experts in things they are not? Just a humble suggestion...

That is what guides my view on global warming, economics, and a whole host of other issues.

- wolf

Maybe you could simply allow yourself to admit that you're not an expert and avoid pretending like you are. I'm not an economics expert, nor do I pretend to be. I simply throw out my naive views here in hopes that someone who knows better will tell me why I'm wrong (or that I'm actually right). It doesn't do me or anyone else good to post a link with a thousand signatures of people who may or may not be an expert in a field, then claim that as the foundation of my position. I can just as easily find a letter with twice as many signatures from "experts" supporting the opposite position. In neither case does the number of signees impact the validity of the argument or the truth of the statement. If I kick enough ideas around, I'll eventually find one that describes what I see.

 

[CycloWizard]

In one way I might be less greedy. I only cry for a few hours after I pay my taxes. I stick to what I'm good at, letting go of things.

Take a good look at that 'contribute nothing demand everythingi'. Isn't that you when it comes to taxes? You don't owe a dime, right but you still live here?

The more I contribute, the more I'm expected to pay. If it were proportional, then that would be ok. Instead, I'm penalized by paying an ever-higher proportion of what I contribute. Meanwhile, those who contribute nothing pay nothing but still have just as much use of infrastructure and such as I do. I'm not even arguing to tax these people - only that you stop using the ridiculous argument that you are using which states that everything I make is the fair share that I must pay.

 

[CycloWizard]

You are a wonderful person CW. You are very smart. You used your intelligence to you and my advantage. You will maybe do something really great in medicine. Doubtless you are a much better person than me. I am sure you pay more taxes and give more to charity and you are far less selfish than I probably ever will be.

My big question is, when are you going to start to really feel it? Can't you see that your drive to make me see these things is a result of your own lack of faith? Imagine if you were so confident in your own value you could be a nobody? Take a look at the way LunarRay expresses himself, softly, circumspectly, and with humor among other things, with that big, 'in my humble opinion'. He has a whole bunch of degrees including whatever those letters are that equate to the practical application side of economics PhD.

And is there anything I can do to assure you I don't want all of your money.

Perhaps if you'd recall your own claims, you'd see that I'm not arguing to be a better person than anyone, nor that I contribute more. My only argument is that there has to be a point where I am free to contribute as much as I want without you using policy to take even more. You don't see that you think you know the best way in which everyone should act, but so does everyone else. You want freedom of choice, but only for yourself. You think you want what is best for everyone and would use the government to enforce that. The best thing about people is that they are all different. The worst thing about government is that it tries to pretend like it knows what is best for everyone. You know nothing about my next door neighbor, yet you think you can use the government as a vehicle to improve her life. How? Do you know what's good for her more than she does for herself?