Thoughts on the collapse of capitalism

[Obsoleet]

Exit my thread? I said I'm willing to discuss anything with anyone who can not be act like a pompous piece of sh*t. So you can exit and send someone else in who can not be act like a moron or a child. I'm here to discuss this topic, not go back and forth in a flamewar of a discussion when you don't know anything about me and can't control yourself.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
Exit my thread? I said I'm willing to discuss anything with anyone who can not be act like a pompous piece of sh*t. So you can exit and send someone else in who can not be act like a moron or a child. I'm here to discuss this topic, not go back and forth in a flamewar of a discussion when you don't know anything about me and can't control yourself.

I can, and do, act pompous because people like you run around the internet acting like you know everything. Instead of asking questions, you say answers. Then, when your answers are countered, you run. When challenged, you run like a little whimp.

I know your type well, because you populate every internet forum I visit.


Run, fast, before you look even worse than you do now. Already people can see through the thin veneer.

Your currency was just debased, I suggest you go refloat it with more gold in a different thread or forum.

 

[Obsoleet]

Honestly, if you'd left out the degrading comments and rest of it which was unnecessary then I'd respond. You even mocked a response before I gave you one to your individual points.. so why would anyone bother taking the time? Economics is a dismal science, something you would've learned while getting your MBA. Unfortunately there isn't one answer and there's a lot of variables you left out and flaws in your analysis. If I respond point by point, you'll only respond with more snide remarks that have nothing to do with the topic. I never said I knew everything, and I welcome being challenged because I have no problem with admitting I'm wrong or learning more. I think you do though, and that usually signals you don't know nearly as much as you purport. I'm not going to go round and round with someone who insults people like that, because I never do that unless I'm out of real ammunition. Sit here and read your insults with an ounce of basic economics attached? GTFO.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
Honestly, if you'd left out the degrading comments and rest of it which was unnecessary then I'd respond. You even mocked a response before I gave you one to your individual points.. so why would anyone bother taking the time? Economics is a dismal science, something you would've learned while getting your MBA. Unfortunately there isn't one answer and there's a lot of variables you left out and flaws in your analysis. If I respond point by point, you'll only respond with more snide remarks that have nothing to do with the topic. I never said I knew everything, and I welcome being challenged because I have no problem with admitting I'm wrong or learning more. I think you do though, and that usually signals you don't know nearly as much as you purport. I'm not going to go round and round with someone like that, because I never do that unless I'm out of real ammunition. Sit here and read your insults with an ounce of basic economics attached? GTFO.

Again, cop out. Whiny, baby-ish, copout. Man up sparky.

I know I missed stuff, if I bothered to type everything I'd have no time for my own life, because people like you would be taking it all up. Education isn't my job, although it should be for as poorly as your own teachers did.

 

[Obsoleet]

It's clear you're easy to get riled up. If you're not willing to articulate yourself completely without leaving holes in your argument all over the place, then attempt to instigate the debate with insults, I won't bite on any topic. You're just trolling one of many forums you browse, as you said yourself. I'd love to see you link a single thread where you've debated any economic matter in a civil manner on any forum, I'm willing to bet it doesn't exist.
From my perspective, it's not worth covering all the holes you left in the open when you clearly have a given view on economics which anyone who's studied the subject in graduate level courses, knows that when someone presents a given view as ambiguous as yours, there's no definitive answer and as I educate you on other schools of economics, you'll continue with the insults the whole way through.

Like I said, I'm willing to discuss this with anyone who can emotionally control themselves. But the way you're acting isn't worth granting any credibility, anyone reading your posts can tell that while you have rudimentary knowledge on one school of economic thought, you don't know as much as you think you do because you're stuck there.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet


It's clear you're easy to get riled up. If you're not willing to articulate yourself completely without leaving holes in your argument all over the place, then attempt to instigate the debate with insults, I won't bite on any topic. You're just trolling one of many forums you browse, as you said yourself. I'd love to see you link a single thread where you've debated any economic matter in a civil manner on any forum, I'm willing to bet it doesn't exist.
From my perspective, it's not worth covering all the holes you left in the open when you clearly have a given view on economics which anyone who's studied the subject in graduate level courses, knows that when someone presents a given view as ambiguous as yours, there's no definitive answer and as I educate you on other schools of economics, you'll continue with the insults the whole way through.

Like I said, I'm willing to discuss this with anyone who can emotionally control themselves. But the way you're acting isn't worth granting any credibility, anyone reading your posts can tell that while you have rudimentary knowledge on one school of economic thought, you don't know as much as you think you do because you're stuck there.

Blah blah blah.

All you've got dead "leet" friend. So'k, I am sure you'll figure it out some day.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
I can see why people don't respond to you and go to other threads from how you convey your knowledge (or lack thereof). You obviously don't understand economics as well you think you do and I'm not going to discuss this with someone who conducts themselves as you are. .........

Wow, you're the guy hyperventilating about the end of capitalism, and you accuse others of not understanding economics? HAhahahahaha

I've seen exactly zero in this thread that shows you have any particular insight into economics other than the standardized socialist babble that any average college sophomore might spew.

 

[Obsoleet]

Mmhmm. You're an interesting guy. Let me know when you can demonstrate knowledge of something outside neoclassical economic theory ok? You don't have the grasp you think you do. But with your personality, you'll never understand that.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
Mmhmm. You're an interesting guy. Let me know when you can demonstrate knowledge of something outside neoclassical economic theory ok? You don't have the grasp you think you do. But with your personality, you'll never understand that.

I know the economics of the real world, not theory. So if you can counter that, then by all means, do so.

Otherwise, you're still losing the battle.

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
Mmhmm. You're an interesting guy. Let me know when you can demonstrate knowledge of something outside neoclassical economic theory ok? You don't have the grasp you think you do. But with your personality, you'll never understand that.

That's one more subject then you have demonstrated knowledge in during the course of this thread. You might want to try poking a few holes in his argument before you run around telling him he doesn't know anything.

 

[Obsoleet]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
Mmhmm. You're an interesting guy. Let me know when you can demonstrate knowledge of something outside neoclassical economic theory ok? You don't have the grasp you think you do. But with your personality, you'll never understand that.

I know the economics of the real world, not theory. So if you can counter that, then by all means, do so.

Otherwise, you're still losing the battle.

Seriously though, how old are you? I'm not here to win or lose. If you'd chill out, I might show you what you don't know about economic theory, and maybe, I'd learn something new as well. I'm not pretending to have the definitive answer as you are.

And you might want to study economic theories a bit more before proposing you have the right answers if you don't even understand the various business cycles of each school of thought. Do you even know what theory our current "real world economics" is based off of, or even what you were spouting off relates to?? Talk about kettle calling pot black. Total ignorance on what you're claiming for yourself, and from what I've seen your knowledge is rudimentary. Or you "left a lot of stuff out" cuz you're just too darn busy, as you claim and troll multiple forums hunting for people like me.

I'm guessing you're an investment class individual who thinks he's got a good grasp on what you think you know. Fire back up that TD Ameritrade account until you're ready to discuss economics like an adult.
Try studying, because it's clear you're knowledge of economic theory is too narrow if all you understand is how things are today.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: GenHoth

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
Mmhmm. You're an interesting guy. Let me know when you can demonstrate knowledge of something outside neoclassical economic theory ok? You don't have the grasp you think you do. But with your personality, you'll never understand that.

That's one more subject then you have demonstrated knowledge in during the course of this thread. You might want to try poking a few holes in his argument before you run around telling him he doesn't know anything.

The OP's responses decoded:

"But LK was mean to me and he wants to talk about facts/reality instead of philosophical rhetoric and my own ill informed interpretations. Whaaa!"

Frankly, I can understand why the few people with in depth knowledge of these topics on this board get short with people trying to explain the situation. The almost willful ignorance and parroted doom saying that is going on in here is incredible.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
Mmhmm. You're an interesting guy. Let me know when you can demonstrate knowledge of something outside neoclassical economic theory ok? You don't have the grasp you think you do. But with your personality, you'll never understand that.

I know the economics of the real world, not theory. So if you can counter that, then by all means, do so.

Otherwise, you're still losing the battle.

Seriously though, how old are you? I'm not here to win or lose. If you'd chill out, I might show you what you don't know about economic theory, and maybe, I'd learn something new as well. I'm not pretending to have the definitive answer as you are.

And you might want to study economic theories a bit more before proposing you have the right answers if you don't even understand the various business cycles of each school of thought. Do you even know what theory our current "real world economics" is based off of, or even what you were spouting off relates to?? Talk about kettle calling pot black. Total ignorance on what you're claiming for yourself, and from what I've seen your knowledge is rudimentary. Or you "left a lot of stuff out" cuz you're just too darn busy, as you claim and troll multiple forums hunting for people like me.

I'm guessing you're an investment class individual who thinks he's got a good grasp on what you think you know. Fire back up that TD Ameritrade account until you're ready to discuss economics like an adult.
Try studying, because it's clear you're knowledge of economic theory is too narrow if all you understand is how things are today.

lol, you just keep digging yourself a huge hole.

It's amusing though, keep it up, you're providing court-jester entertainment.

 

[Obsoleet]

More empty responses, feel free to PM me if you come to your senses and want to discuss economic theory with me. I'm guessing... that's a no. First I'll send you a list of books that I've read to show you how the different schools of economic theory are compared and contrasted so you can have a complete understanding of what you're not willing to talk about. You got called out because you had to attach unnecessary commentary, and now you admit you don't know anything besides how the economic system is structured today. That right there lets me know you haven't studied the subject in the depth, because I myself was at one point didn't take the time to fully understand neoclassical, austrian, post keynesian and all the forms of economics that preceded us today. You're just a hothead who thinks he knows, from how you act it's clear you're not an academic.
There's no point in discussing a subject, when you're limited to how things are today because you can't have a complete comprehension. I await your next admission that you haven't studied related to economics to even come close to claiming you're "right". I know your type, you're not interested in learning from others. Like I've said guy, you're right.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
More empty responses, feel free to PM me if you come to your senses and want to discuss economic theory with me. I'm guessing... that's a no. First I'll send you a list of books that I've read to show you how the different schools of economic theory are compared and contrasted so you can have a complete understanding of what you're not willing to talk about. You got called out because you had to attach unnecessary commentary, and now you admit you don't know anything besides how the economic system is structured today. That right there lets me know you haven't studied the subject in the depth, because I myself was at one point didn't take the time to fully understand neoclassical, austrian, post keynesian and all the forms of economics that preceded us today. You're just a hothead who thinks he knows, from how you act it's clear you're not an academic.
There's no point in discussing a subject, when you're limited to how things are today because you can't have a complete comprehension. I await your next admission that you haven't studied related to economics to even come close to claiming you're "right". I know your type, you're not interested in learning from others. Like I've said guy, you're right.

Ohh god, what do I do now. I'm not an "academic". The world has ended and I have been "schooled" (ROFL, because I'm not an "academic"). This, from a guy, who says that I should have learned that economics isn't all that great during my MBA.

So'k sparky, you go on and list your different "schools" and be all fancy with that, but when it comes down to it, you've still listed nothing.

 

[Obsoleet]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Ohh god, what do I do now. I'm not an "academic". The world has ended and I have been "schooled" (ROFL, because I'm not an "academic"). This, from a guy, who says that I should have learned that economics isn't all that great during my MBA.

So'k sparky, you go on and list your different "schools" and be all fancy with that, but when it comes down to it, you've still listed nothing.

Thanks for the confirmation that you have no idea what even you're claiming to know about.
You may exit the thread now.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
More empty responses, feel free to PM me if you come to your senses and want to discuss economic theory with me. I'm guessing... that's a no. First I'll send you a list of books that I've read to show you how the different schools of economic theory are compared and contrasted so you can have a complete understanding of what you're not willing to talk about. You got called out because you had to attach unnecessary commentary, and now you admit you don't know anything besides how the economic system is structured today. That right there lets me know you haven't studied the subject in the depth, because I myself was at one point didn't take the time to fully understand neoclassical, austrian, post keynesian and all the forms of economics that preceded us today. You're just a hothead who thinks he knows, from how you act it's clear you're not an academic.
There's no point in discussing a subject, when you're limited to how things are today because you can't have a complete comprehension. I await your next admission that you haven't studied related to economics to even come close to claiming you're "right". I know your type, you're not interested in learning from others. Like I've said guy, you're right.

Except no one actually researches Austrian economics anywhere in the U.S., and certainly virtually no one teaches it. There's nothing much to really "understand" about Austrian economics because it's a dead end research-wise; it has zero quantitative verification or real world application. It is a dead end in econometrics and it's intuitive explanations haven't actually been observed in any significant facets of modern economies. It's why the vast, vast majority of modern economies and economic advisers are either Keynesians, neoclassicals, or some hybridized versions based on those general principles.

Also, you show your complete lack of understanding of modern economics with quips like this:

Originally posted by: Obsoleet
It doesn't matter if the money is borrowed or printed, it has the same effect on the value of the dollar. Despite all your quips, and the manner of which you hold yourself in high esteem you failed to note that more dollars out there = a drop in the valuation. It doesn't matter how you get more dollars in circulation.

This is absurdly false and has been observed as such. With regards to money supply increases, the Treasury could perpetually increase the money supply and see deflation if the velocity of money (i.e. the amount and frequency with which cash is spent/transacted) were to increase at a proportionally higher rate. We let in 2 million legal immigrants every year, and hundreds of thousands of illegals, and that has the effect of balancing a lot of the Treasury's printing press increases. Not to mention foreign arbitrage of our dollars and the standardization of our dollar globally has the effect of keeping inflation extremely low. Notice that inflation has been remarkably consistent since the early 1980's, in fact it has been totally under control for a quarter century (consistently under 5% since 1983). That shows remarkable stability and engenders trust in the worthwhileness of our dollars. That is something that was never the case under Bretton Woods, which I assume you foolishly parrot as the reform for our monetary system. Bretton Woods, which was being abused by the time the early 70's rolled around and greatly constrained GDP/output generally, especially in the context of global markets.

So while economics certainly isn't an exact science or necessarily concrete in many of its assertions, the general trends and observations in modern macroeconomic fluctuations are seen far more in Keynesian/neoclassical thought than the mostly intuitive and unprovable nonsense seen in the Austrian school of thought.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
The government has a monopoly on the printing of money and setting the rate of interest. We haven't had anything remotely close to capitalism since 1913.

:roll:

 

[Slew Foot]

Look like the bailout is on it's way and the taxpayers get assed out yet again. The govt cant find two cents to build roads, schools, cops, etc.. but wall st buddies need 700 billion, and they get it in a week.

 

[LegendKiller]

Isn't it interesting that the Dollar has gained so much against the Euro and Pound today?

How'd that happen, I thought this "bailout" was going to sink our currency?

 

[StageLeft]

What are you talking about, unbridled capitalism nobody has believed in for decades if not centuries or millenia. Ever heard of, for example, anti-monopoly laws? There have been plenty of regulations against pure capitalism in the US for a long time.

 

[trance247]

Capitalism mixed with Communism does well for China, they stock the planet...

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic
Capitalism isn't collapsing.

It's just getting bailed out by Socialism

I'm going to defer to the old adage that we haven't had a capitalist economy since the late 1800's. Used, but not abused. It's true.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Obsoleet

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Vic
Capitalism isn't collapsing.

Exactly.

EXACTLY! It already collapsed as George Bush as commander in chief and leader of the Republican party made the decision to socialize the financial sector.

This whole thread is just a little bit overly dramatic dont you think?

I think you mean 'flat-out stupid', but yes, you're right.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: trance247
Capitalism mixed with Communism does well for China, they stock the planet...

... and live in poverty.

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Isn't it interesting that the Dollar has gained so much against the Euro and Pound today?

How'd that happen, I thought this "bailout" was going to sink our currency?

Wasting your breath, but I admire the effort. Some people just aren't happy unless their county collapses with the opposing party at the helm.