• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

My left winged extremist econ teacher...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Mookow
I have never met a left-wing econ teacher while in college. Usually "facts" prevent them from becoming one 😉
Click to expand...

Seriously. Seems very few college econ prof's are left leaning. It's almost surprising, considering the teching population in general.
 
dude, you're just a high school student, and a pompous one at that. until you take a real econ course, you don't know what you're talking about.
 
Originally posted by: elanarchist
dude, you're just a high school student, and a pompous one at that. until you take a real econ course, you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
While you are probably right, his teacher sounds like an asshat...
 
Agreed, this econ teacher seems like a confused mix of right and left wing ideologies.

I, too, remember high school, when I knew more than my teachers.
 
Originally posted by: elanarchist
dude, you're just a high school student, and a pompous one at that. until you take a real econ course, you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

dude.. go refute my points then and stop your asshat comments. It doesn't even take a highschool student to know that he's wrong. Go figure.
 
Originally posted by: Shockwave
Capitalism and communism are the same things. There both a way of government.... 😀
Click to expand...

Actually, capitalism is an economic system, not a form of government. Communism is a form of government that has centralized control of the economy...among other things.

Subsidies are helpful for business but, like most government programs, it is subject to an immense amount of abuse. Farm subsidies regularly go to some of the richest individuals in the United States such as Ted Turner instead of the small/poor farm owners who need it most.
 
Originally posted by: virtualgames0
Originally posted by: elanarchist
dude, you're just a high school student, and a pompous one at that. until you take a real econ course, you don't know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

dude.. go refute my points then and stop your asshat comments. It doesn't even take a highschool student to know that he's wrong. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Ok Mr. Smartypants Walnut High School student. I'll waste 15 minutes of my life to pwn you and prove that you are indeed a retard.

First of all, he goes off making bullshit comments like rich people are the lazyiest scums on the earth, and 95% of them did nothing to get the money, and just got it from their parents, or their grandparents. I ask him where he got his outrageous number from, he says he "estimated it from the articles he reads". Yeah from "The Communist Manifesto".
Click to expand...

Ok, lets consider... oh... someone you'd be familiar with. Oh! Mickey Mouse! You must like him, right? And his "boss", CEO Michael Eisner of Disney.

"Michael Eisner was born in Mt. Kisco, New York. His father was a well-to-do lawyer and investor. Eisner was raised in his parents' apartment on Park Avenue in New York City. Despite the luxurious surroundings, discipline in the Eisner household was strict." (http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/eis0bio-1)

Guess he's old money, eh? Now, take almost any CEO / CFO / hell, high upper management position in an long-established company and 99% of the time they'll be part of the old boys network of long-term family wealth. Granted, it sounds like your teacher took the 95% figure out of his ass, but the fact is most of the rich are old money.

Today he talks about how stupid and utterly pointless subsidies are, and the weak companies ought to die, and new companies will easily rise and compete again. How the US government is funding these weak, inefficient companies, making products cost more, and slowing down the market. Remembering how AMD is losing millions from their unprofitable business, I thought about how the CPU market would turn inefficient and making products cost more if AMD had gone bankrupt.
So I give him my viewpoint, and he goes on saying how new companies will easily rise and take over as a competitor. So I go saying how it's not that easy to just get to the top and be competitive, and a monopoly will just cause inefficiency due to lack of incentive for the market to move, and high prices due to low competitition. Then he tells me how it's better off to use this subsidy money to pay governments to regulate businesses, so monopolies can't overcharge their items, and wait for other companies to build up. Yeah how long, 10 years? I again say that inefficiency will be a huge problem, and that letting a monopoly go on for many years will only hurt the economy. He then loses it and goes off yelling, I JUST CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW POINTLESS AND STUPID SUBSIDIES ARE!
Click to expand...

So, you support corporate "welfare" because they prevent monopolies? Look at your textbook - subsidies artificially raise the demand curve above the market equilibrium, thus creating inefficieny. If you don't believe that, then consider what would happen if the Bush administration didn't bail out practically every US airline. Inefficient behemoths like United would be a thing of the past, allowing new upstarts like JetBlue to fill up the vacuum left over. True, it would take time, but its the long run outcome that's important.

So, dude chill. Oh, and its "My left wing extremist econ teacher". Unless he has wings on his left side. But I digress...
 
most public school teachers in high school are left winged extremists ...so just ignore them like they are joking around
 
I'd actually be pretty surprised if it's anywhere near the 95% mark. So much wealth was created in the last decade or so, the landscape of America's rich has really changed.
 
Originally posted by: elanarchist
So, you support corporate "welfare" because they prevent monopolies? Look at your textbook - subsidies artificially raise the demand curve above the market equilibrium, thus creating inefficieny. If you don't believe that, then consider what would happen if the Bush administration didn't bail out practically every US airline. Inefficient behemoths like United would be a thing of the past, allowing new upstarts like JetBlue to fill up the vacuum left over. True, it would take time, but its the long run outcome that's important.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there would have been a disastorous affect to the economey if Bush hadn't bailed out practically ever US airline and a number of them went out of business. I agree that smaller and possibly more efficient airlines would eventually have stepped to fill the void but air travel is currently one of the lifelines of the economy.
 
Originally posted by: Apex
I'd actually be pretty surprised if it's anywhere near the 95% mark. So much wealth was created in the last decade or so, the landscape of America's rich has really changed.
Click to expand...

Agreed, as a person whose parents have created substantial personal wealth within their lifetime and as someone who is working his ass off to ensure that same thing for himself, I take considerable offense to that comment.
 
Originally posted by: elanarchist
Ok Mr. Smartypants Walnut High School student. I'll waste 15 minutes of my life to pwn you and prove that you are indeed a retard.
Click to expand...
Your "owning" was no better than his teacher's comments. Your logic: Eisner was rich all his life. I think all CEOs are like this, ergo all rich people are lazy and inherited their money.

That is the most pathetic useless logic chain in the history of pathetic useless logic chains.

The two wealthiest people I know:

1. son of a train conductor
2. son of an army officer

Their wealth was created by good old fashioned hard work and dedication.

Most wealthy people either work very hard to get their money or very hard to keep their money.
 
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Uh, wtf. Your econ teacher is not all the way out in left field. Speaking out against government subsidies is actually coming out of the right field.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Subsidies and entitlements are the hallmark of the lefties. :beer:😀
Click to expand...

I agree with a few things the econ teacher said, but his other comments just don't match up.
 
Originally posted by: Mwilding
Originally posted by: elanarchist
Ok Mr. Smartypants Walnut High School student. I'll waste 15 minutes of my life to pwn you and prove that you are indeed a retard.
Click to expand...
Your "owning" was no better than his teacher's comments. Your logic: Eisner was rich all his life. I think all CEOs are like this, ergo all rich people are lazy and inherited their money.

That is the most pathetic useless logic chain in the history of pathetic useless logic chains.

The two wealthiest people I know:

1. son of a train conductor
2. son of an army officer

Their wealth was created by good old fashioned hard work and dedication.

Most wealthy people either work very hard to get their money or very hard to keep their money.
Click to expand...

how wealthy are they, like 200k a year wealthy or 1.5mil a year and up wealthy, there is a big differance, i know tons of "wealthy" people, they make like 300k a year, now thats wealthy to me, my dad makes like 150k a year, but in the sceme of things thats nothing, there are 3.5 million households that have assets greater than a million dollars, Text

Dogg
 
Originally posted by: Shockwave
Do not argue with the highly educated teacher. He is always right. Those who question will be punished.
Click to expand...

Nope just given really crappy grades.

I had a left winger who taught my sociology class. For my final paper I wrote on how communism is doomed to failure. She gave me a B on the paper for the simple fact that she couldn't argue with it and found a few grammatical iffy errors. Of course every essay I turned in thereafter I was reamed on
 
Originally posted by: Mwilding
Originally posted by: elanarchist
Ok Mr. Smartypants Walnut High School student. I'll waste 15 minutes of my life to pwn you and prove that you are indeed a retard.
Click to expand...
Your "owning" was no better than his teacher's comments. Your logic: Eisner was rich all his life. I think all CEOs are like this, ergo all rich people are lazy and inherited their money.

That is the most pathetic useless logic chain in the history of pathetic useless logic chains.

The two wealthiest people I know:

1. son of a train conductor
2. son of an army officer

Their wealth was created by good old fashioned hard work and dedication.

Most wealthy people either work very hard to get their money or very hard to keep their money.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you look at the research by sociologists, you would find that the rich have tremendous advantages to keep them rich and that the old Hoartio Alger story of rags to riches is basically a myth. This has been proven in study after study. Of course, since most of us have probably heard of or know a person who has beat the odds, depending on your existing political views, you could use this limited sample from your own experience and erroneously apply it to make a generalization to support your beliefs. Its the same logic as saying that newegg sucks because I know a person who got screwed when 99% of their customers are happy.
 
Originally posted by: PunDogg
how wealthy are they, like 200k a year wealthy or 1.5mil a year and up wealthy, there is a big differance, i know tons of "wealthy" people, they make like 300k a year, now thats wealthy to me, my dad makes like 150k a year, but in the sceme of things thats nothing, there are 3.5 million households that have assets greater than a million dollars, Text

Dogg
Click to expand...
They are both millionaires many times over. One is an investment banker and one is a retired university professor who made his money by inventing an entire diagnostic technology.
Originally posted by: elanarchist
Actually, if you look at the research by sociologists, you would find that the rich have tremendous advantages to keep them rich and that the old Hoartio Alger story of rags to riches is basically a myth. This has been proven in study after study. Of course, since most of us have probably heard of or know a person who has beat the odds, depending on your existing political views, you could use this limited sample from your own experience and erroneously apply it to make a generalization to support your beliefs. Its the same logic as saying that newegg sucks because I know a person who got screwed when 99% of their customers are happy.
Click to expand...
First of all, any research done by a sociologist is suspect. While I agree that the rich have all the advantages, the world has a way of taking money away from stupid and lazy people - rich or poor. And I still want to see your evidence that rich people are lazy...
 
Originally posted by: Mwilding
Originally posted by: PunDogg
how wealthy are they, like 200k a year wealthy or 1.5mil a year and up wealthy, there is a big differance, i know tons of "wealthy" people, they make like 300k a year, now thats wealthy to me, my dad makes like 150k a year, but in the sceme of things thats nothing, there are 3.5 million households that have assets greater than a million dollars, Text

Dogg
Click to expand...
They are both millionaires many times over. One is an investment banker and one is a retired university professor who made his money by inventing an entire diagnostic technology.
Originally posted by: elanarchist
Actually, if you look at the research by sociologists, you would find that the rich have tremendous advantages to keep them rich and that the old Hoartio Alger story of rags to riches is basically a myth. This has been proven in study after study. Of course, since most of us have probably heard of or know a person who has beat the odds, depending on your existing political views, you could use this limited sample from your own experience and erroneously apply it to make a generalization to support your beliefs. Its the same logic as saying that newegg sucks because I know a person who got screwed when 99% of their customers are happy.
Click to expand...
First of all, any research done by a sociologist is suspect. While I agree that the rich have all the advantages, the world has a way of taking money away from stupid and lazy people - rich or poor. And I still want to see your evidence that rich people are lazy...
Click to expand...

Paris Hilton? 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top