• 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.

Obama to appear on TV science show "Mythbusters"

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
DangerAardvark said:
Nah, they're gonna take a CEO, give him ten million dollars in tax breaks and see how many yachts it takes before he creates one job.
Click to expand...

Its funny, because each of the yachts will take materials to construct. The materials, wood, metals, etc, all require workers to acquire. Workers need to get paid. Each of the yachts will need to be built. Again, by workers needing to get paid. Of course, I doubt the CEO wants to sit on the yacht by themselves, so each yacht will need a crew, each requiring a salary. Odds are, a single yacht purchased by the CEO will create more jobs than the hundreds of billions spent on stimulus. Go figure.
 
That's the theory....

Until you find out the CEO buys his yahts from Indonesia.

Well, the Republican ones do. I think the Dems buy theirs from the back of a van off Canal street.....
 
It's cool that Obama will be on Mythbusters. Obama is cool for choosing to be on Mythbusters. I'll be sure to watch it, as I watch all Mythbusters anyways.

STFU and take your political rage to P&N
 
Ninjahedge said:
That's the theory....

Until you find out the CEO buys his yahts from Indonesia.
Click to expand...

Never said it would create jobs in the US. 😛

And thats the problem, the migration of jobs over seas. A corporation is given a tax break from the government, and they use it to open a new factory. In Brazil. Why? To avoid more US taxes, Unions, red tape, and gain access to cheap labor.

I'll ignore the Rep/Dem comment, because they all buy their yachts from the same companies.
 
Bateluer said:
Odds are, a single yacht purchased by the CEO will create more jobs than the hundreds of billions spent on stimulus. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Even if you believe trickle-down economics is effective, that statement is ludicrous.

That said, back on track. I know it's shocking to see a sitting president encourage science, but why would people pooh-pooh it (other than their personal and unrelated agendas)? Mythbusters isn't neccesarily the golden standard of applied science, but it generally is science nonetheless.
 
Bateluer said:
Its funny, because each of the yachts will take materials to construct. The materials, wood, metals, etc, all require workers to acquire. Workers need to get paid. Each of the yachts will need to be built. Again, by workers needing to get paid. Of course, I doubt the CEO wants to sit on the yacht by themselves, so each yacht will need a crew, each requiring a salary. Odds are, a single yacht purchased by the CEO will create more jobs than the hundreds of billions spent on stimulus. Go figure.
Click to expand...

this is such an awesome theory. It's a shame that we have nearly 4 decades of data and economic history showing that it's complete bunk, unfortunately for the voodoo/supply-side zealots.


oh, but we do have shit tons of data that shows when you pour unlimited amounts of money to financiers and CEOs via unprecedented tax breaks, relax the laws to give them unprecedented access to new sources of wealth (the poor, the uneducated, unethical conflict of interest type business dealings), their unrestrained greed will eventually funnel all of the money into their coffers, erode the middle class, and cause a rather drastic international economic crises.

I hate to be a man of the present, really do. reality must suck for those holding on to generations-old economic theory that has shown nothing but disaster in practice.
 
zinfamous said:
this is such an awesome theory. It's a shame that we have nearly 4 decades of data and economic history showing that it's complete bunk, unfortunately for the voodoo/supply-side zealots.
Click to expand...
No you don't
oh, but we do have shit tons of data that shows when you pour unlimited amounts of money to financiers and CEOs via unprecedented tax breaks, relax the laws to give them unprecedented access to new sources of wealth (the poor, the uneducated, unethical conflict of interest type business dealings), their unrestrained greed will eventually funnel all of the money into their coffers, erode the middle class, and cause a rather drastic international economic crises.
Click to expand...
You dont have that either.
I hate to be a man of the present, really do. reality must suck for those holding on to generations-old economic theory that has shown nothing but disaster in practice.
Click to expand...

Funny how guys like you take the shitty parts of civilized societies, the ones caused by social programs, then blame them on the "rich", and in turn get more/larger social programs, which in turn make society shittier, rinse, repeat.

The data will show you whatever you want it to. Those in power (the ones who control the programs) have used you to perpetuate the cycle.
 
Train said:
No you don't
You dont have that either.


Funny how guys like you take the shitty parts of civilized societies, the ones caused by social programs, then blame them on the "rich", and in turn get more/larger social programs, which in turn make society shittier, rinse, repeat.

The data will show you whatever you want it to. Those in power (the ones who control the programs) have used you to perpetuate the cycle.
Click to expand...

oh?

lol. if data will show you "whatever you want it to show you," then when will your little supply-side empire ever show the fruits of it's labor? when will you be satisfied that it has either shown to be a colossal failure, or a remarkable success?

The problem is, after 30 years of it, we can clearly see that it simply. does. not. work. ...and I'm not even talking about social programs. You're putting words in my mouth based on assumptions garnered from a rather common critique of the current economic juggernaut.

seriously, what is the point of even trying out these little experiments, if you claim to never trust the only evidence that will ever prove you right or wrong? why have opinions, if you can never be satisfied one way or the other? are you only satisfied when you assume you are right?

do you see the word "data," think "science," and run, cower scream in fear that the big boogeyman--the "liberal scientists" want to take your soul and your money--give it to the undeserving, as the fat pork-mouthed people on AM radio warned you?

(yes, I'm making many bold assumptions here 😀)
 
zinfamous said:
oh?

lol. if data will show you "whatever you want it to show you," then when will your little supply-side empire ever show the fruits of it's labor? when will you be satisfied that it has either shown to be a colossal failure, or a remarkable success?

The problem is, after 30 years of it, we can clearly see that it simply. does. not. work. ...and I'm not even talking about social programs. You're putting words in my mouth based on assumptions garnered from a rather common critique of the current economic juggernaut.

seriously, what is the point of even trying out these little experiments, if you claim to never trust the only evidence that will ever prove you right or wrong? why have opinions, if you can never be satisfied one way or the other? are you only satisfied when you assume you are right?

do you see the word "data," think "science," and run, cower scream in fear that the big boogeyman--the "liberal scientists" want to take your soul and your money--give it to the undeserving, as the fat pork-mouthed people on AM radio warned you?

(yes, I'm making many bold assumptions here 😀)
Click to expand...

What 30 year expiriment? You mean the ever growing burden of social programs? Oh yeah you probbly want to ignore those. Social burdens squeeze out small businesses, which creates the "funneling" effect to the larger ones you speak of. Smart players of the game use this to their advantage. ANd the best part is they get to keep selling this system as something that favors the little guy. Brilliant.

Capitalism survived for thousands of years without the funneling effect, before big governments got their hands on it. I bet you would rather ignore that too.
 
Last edited:
Train, you are dodging the question.

Supply side does not work. It does not trickle down. In order for it to work the rich have to spend money and make jobs and they simply don't.

They have specific needs, mostly service based, and in unbalancing the load we are not getting a healthy economic result. Since when is it smart to spend $8m on an I-phone and how many people would that really help? (I am not making that up BTW, google it).

All zin is saying is SSE does not work. He is not calling for more welfare. The two are not intimately linked, as much as you seem to think (or assert by bringing it up every time he mentions SSE not working).

Capitalism did not work for thousands of years. Different permutations have come and gone throughout the times, but almost all societies have had an unstable stratification occur once the distribution of wealth became too restricted (various permutations or royalty/upper class). These were usually rectified by either economic collapse or by revolution (or both).

But whatever. Keep preaching false absolutes and all you will end up with is a gig as a pundit.
 
Train said:
No you don't (have data showing that giving money to rich people will NOT stimulate the US economy)
Click to expand...
Maybe not direct data, but we have wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance
China = +296.2B (surplus) trade
USA = −380.1 (deficit) trade
If you give $10 to a rich person and he spends all of it inside the country (lol), most of that money goes to China. The materials are from China and the assembly was in China. Maybe the first $8 goes to China, then the remaining $2 is taken off the top by Americans who sell those products.


What 30 year expiriment? You mean the ever growing burden of social programs? Oh yeah you probbly want to ignore those. Social burdens squeeze out small businesses, which creates the "funneling" effect to the larger ones you speak of. Smart players of the game use this to their advantage.
Click to expand...
Social programs are the reason manufacturing has been moved to China? Can you please show your work. Even a link to a blog post would be acceptable.

Also, the idea behind what you just wrote makes absolutely no sense at all. A LACK of social programs is what causes a major funneling effect. I'll give an example. Small companies tend to have really shitty health benefits. It's not because the company is run by assholes, but the simple numbers saying that your company can't get reasonable group insurance rates when there are only 20 employees. The result is that people who are older and more experienced will flock to big companies that provide excellent health benefits. True? This then means that small companies are always stuck with the biggest newbs with the least experience while large companies are able to attract professionals with 20 years of experience. That is a really strong funneling effect that can be attributed just to health care. In countries with "free" health care, this funneling effect is not as strong. When I was a chemist, I worked for lots of small companies, and a lack of benefits was never really a problem. So what if they don't give health coverage; new glasses are like $200 and my basic medical care is free anyway, so that's not a big deal. In the US, that's not at all how it works. If you are a skilled professional working for a small business that doesn't have any health benefits, it's a mad rush to get some experience and get with a company that does have benefits. This is that funneling problem you're talking about, and it's directly caused by a lack of social programs.


That lack of health coverage also causes a lot of hatred directed at certain companies. Lots of Americans seem to hate companies like Walmart and McDonalds with a passion because they don't provide any real health benefits; getting sick means you're totally fucked if you work there. Canadians don't care as much since health care is free anyway. We hate Walmart because the lines are huge, not because the staff is thought of as "mistreated" in some way.
 
Do you even know what "Supply Side Economics" are?

You know SSE is just another boogey man phrase invented to get votes right?

Implying that there are "sides" to economics implies that the a controlling entity (i.e. a govt) gets to chose who gets "control" which is an idea that has already failed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top