Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy

[BigNBushy]

I doubt anyone is lying about a GPA as low as 3.5.

 

[chewberto]

they're big gulps, by the way.

Funny I wanted that meme for my post! I knew you knew!

 

[echelon1k1]

why don't you take it over to the climate change thread instead of carrying out your yeast infection ennui over here?

you can go on refusing to list the credentials of the deniers (who you claim are numerous due to no consensus) while trying to make the credentials of the overwhelming number of scientists taboo by spamming your link over and over and over.

because if there's one thing we all know, it's that arguments are won when you spam the same link over and over and over again.

That link is to a blog you've cited numerous times... Its a PRO-ACC, leftwing blog and was posted as an example of the talking points used by morons like you...

Again there you go with the bullshit, I've never claimed "numerous due to no consensus" as you state, nor have I tried to sully the credentials of an "overwhelming number of scientists".

I don't see how I could when you HAVE NOT posted ONE set of credentials in the first place.

Just admit that's your talking point because of obamas tweet...

 

[cannabineer]

still waiting on that illustrative list of austrian success stories.

Vhe haff determint zat se Ökonomie iss zyclic. cn

 

[cannabineer]

OMGZ communists are faking climate change! they're messing with my thermometers!

i thought it was 78 in my grow room, but it's really just 73 and the commies have gotten to me! what's next, fluoride in the water supply to make our babies gay commies?

Nonetheless the article makes an interesting point distinct from climate science: climate as a blind for some startling politics. cn

 

[twostrokenut]

I wouldn't call it success but Austrians have been alarmingly accurate "predicting" events.

The Great Depression
End of Bretton Woods
Savings and Loan crisis
.com and Housing bubbles

It is not conspiracy theory to recognize Keynesian PRINCIPLES lol as having been tried and failed many times in the past, then pointing it out as failing now....and being very accurate about it.

So why aren't the nutty conspiracy ppl the ones that think money is free and the more in debt you are the richer you are? People who think we will be in great shape soon as we print more capital?

 

[twostrokenut]

i've been following along, haven't seen anything.

i have noticed how keynesian principles have worked successfully over and over again, but austrian seems to just be theory preached by some rather odd people with rather odd ideas.

I have noticed those odd people and their odd ideas usually have great portfolios from practicing what they preach....and being right.

 

[Harrekin]

I have noticed those odd people and their odd ideas usually have great portfolios from practicing what they preach....and being right.

Portfolio...hidden safe full of shiny metals...whatever you want to call it

 

[kelly4]

[youtube]Ty9yE6YVJXo[/youtube]

"Uhh..uh....uhhh uh...uhh Friday...umm uuuhh...." LOL!

 

[Harrekin]

"Uhh..uh....uhhh uh...uhh Friday...umm uuuhh...." LOL!

One more word than he usually gets out in a minute...

 

[kelly4]

One more word than he usually gets out in a minute...

At least all of the Government Dumbfucks behind him think that his inability to speak is funny. "Our president is a dummy...hahaha."

 

[tokeprep]

See now we are getting somewhere. This is a matter of opinion not law and completely repugnant to people who just finished sending England and her mighty Central Bank home with their asses bleeding. That was not an Economic War fought to establish Austrian Economic principals? Right, by your logic the colonists were not in debt to England. I would expect no less from a Keynesian.

You don't think that point of view is becoming less common as people learn the true nature of money? I mean everyone else of course lol. That's like trying to trick the genie that gave you 3 wishes by making your third wish for 1 trillion wishes, it doesn't work as evidenced by our debt. Hereyee people we've given the Federal Government a list of enumerated powers, one of which gives it the power to do what ever it wants.....reminds me of children thinking of the largest number and one finally saying "infinity times infinity". What a truly silly thing to say.

Again, if their intention was to bar the federal government from issuing paper currency, they very easily could have expressed that. Instead we have ambiguity. I don't think you should infer intention either way, because language to both effects was proposed and ultimately not incorporated.

The Constitution covers what happens in a Constitutional Government......so literally yes....""The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."....certainly a lot more has been assumed than was intended, or assumed to have been volunteered away by contract....it is within a persons right to contract away rights, felons do it all the time they have to sign it..... again our fault for being so complacent and ignorant as a voting populous. I remember no MLB clause in the Constitution certainly this must have been an enumerated power achieved by the printing press as well......

Obviously the argument is that the power need not have been expressly delegated, or that it should be inferred from other powers of the federal government. The fact that there is no prohibition and no express assignment is what makes the question ambiguous.

And around and around you go again ....putting "truth" in quotes as a lawyer would in his dictionary...saying court cases are like commandments written in stone, they are not sir......if you are going to bring those cases back up I will remind you that willing participation, by the public, in a private debt note currency system that literally is endorsed every time you sign the back of your check, is perfectly legal and lawful.....and this is what courts have upheld....now we are getting down to simplest form. I would remind you those decisions almost did not happen and were shot down as Unconstitutional many times before they were ruled that way.....does not mean that That's that by any means.

Back to this endorsement nonsense? Endorsement has nothing to do with most of the court decisions that were discussed in this thread. Absolutely nothing. A Federal Reserve Note is legal tender, "lawful money," and exchangeable only for an equal value of Federal Reserve Notes. The government decree means that the public has no choice but to participate--there is no practical opting out.

That decisions "almost did not happen" is totally irrelevant. When the court votes 5-4, the decision is wholly legitimate and stands as law unless later invalidated by the court. Since the courts have definitively answered all of these questions about the government's printing power--a very long time ago--we don't need to sit here guessing about what the constitution means. The question was already answered and the decision has been in effect for more than 100 years now.

Well goddam let's use your awesome logic here why didn't they just officially call them bills of "Never Have to be Paid Back and Get to Do What the Fuck Ever We Want" instead of "Credit"? Should I go fetch the definition of credit for you?

Your definition would be irrelevant since printed money isn't necessarily borrowed. You have it exactly right, you might as well call them "Never ever paying it back, doing whatever the fuck we want" bills. That's exactly why this power of the government is so incredibly dangerous. When they print dollars, they never pay them back--the dollars just circulate, potentially forever.

The government could print $16 trillion right now and pay off the entire national debt with it. That $16 trillion wouldn't ever have to be paid back, since the treasury would just be monetizing debt (trading freshly printed dollars to extinguish a previous debt denominated in dollars; the originally borrowed dollars are still in circulation, and then the freshly printed dollars also come into circulation as well); it would just be out there in the world making dollars far less scarce and spurring inflation.

It gets paid back when defaults happen and economic growth and standards of living become stagnant and begin to sink.

Credit and bubble profit-financed standards of living were never real to begin with. Investors and lenders are the ones taking big haircuts or total write downs on the debts when the economy sours.

 

[tokeprep]

I wouldn't call it success but Austrians have been alarmingly accurate "predicting" events.

The Great Depression
End of Bretton Woods
Savings and Loan crisis
.com and Housing bubbles

It is not conspiracy theory to recognize Keynesian PRINCIPLES lol as having been tried and failed many times in the past, then pointing it out as failing now....and being very accurate about it.

So why aren't the nutty conspiracy ppl the ones that think money is free and the more in debt you are the richer you are? People who think we will be in great shape soon as we print more capital?

Austrians aren't the only economists who predicted or expected all of these events. We know that the business cycle exists and we know that the path isn't straight up, but that doesn't invalidate the system. The question is which system produces a better result. There the record is exceedingly clear. When we were strictly attached to the gold and silver standards and without a central bank, the economy was in recession or depression almost more often than not. Economic shocks wiped all kinds of people out all the time. The standard of living was substantially lower; a huge portion of the population did nothing but labor away growing food.

The economy is the product of expectations. If you let the market determine expectations, perhaps it results in $5 trillion less in economic activity over 10 years versus intervening and seeking to alter expectations. If borrowing $1 trillion now will create $5 trillion in additional economic activity over 10 years, it's a good deal in the long run. Perhaps the debt is $20 trillion in 10 years and the economy is $30 trillion; you'd be better off with a debt of $21 trillion in 10 years and economy of $35 trillion. Central banks try very hard to focus on that long run outcome.

 

[UncleBuck]

I have noticed those odd people and their odd ideas usually have great portfolios from practicing what they preach....and being right.

i especially like how rawn pawl's portfolio did magnitudes better than similar portfolios every year he was in congress, and then he retired right after they banned congressional insider trading.

i suppose that's one way to boost your portfolio. he's just missing the "practice what they preach" part.

 

[nontheist]

i especially like how rawn pawl's portfolio did magnitudes better than similar portfolios every year he was in congress, and then he retired right after they banned congressional insider trading.

i suppose that's one way to boost your portfolio. he's just missing the "practice what they preach" part.

Why don't you just post "insert retarded strawman argument by UB" on everything.

 

[UncleBuck]

Why don't you just post "insert retarded strawman argument by UB" on everything.

why doesn't yous grow a brain, boy?

 

[heckler73]

I wouldn't call it success but Austrians have been alarmingly accurate "predicting" events.

The Great Depression
End of Bretton Woods
Savings and Loan crisis
.com and Housing bubbles

And HOW did they predict those things?
Through the scientifically rigorous method of a priori logic? (snicker)

[video=youtube;m1QAa4DYT28]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1QAa4DYT28[/video]

Ya know... Human Action by von Mises is a great door-stop... or a bludgeoning weapon...
You could probably smash baby seals with it!
But the Inuit prefer using 2X4's...

 

[twostrokenut]

I don't think you should infer intention either way, because language to both effects was proposed and ultimately not incorporated.

The constitution grants the federal government the power to print money--it's the source of the power to make rules, not a list of rules.

hypocrite: A person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

 

[twostrokenut]

And HOW did they predict those things?
Through the scientifically rigorous method of a priori logic? (snicker)

[video=youtube;m1QAa4DYT28]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1QAa4DYT28[/video]

Ya know... Human Action by von Mises is a great door-stop... or a bludgeoning weapon...
You could probably smash baby seals with it!
But the Inuit prefer using 2X4's...

And Federal Reserve Notes will make fine wall paper.

 

[twostrokenut]

Austrians aren't the only economists who predicted or expected all of these events. We know that the business cycle exists and we know that the path isn't straight up, but that doesn't invalidate the system. The question is which system produces a better result. There the record is exceedingly clear. When we were strictly attached to the gold and silver standards and without a central bank, the economy was in recession or depression almost more often than not. Economic shocks wiped all kinds of people out all the time. The standard of living was substantially lower; a huge portion of the population did nothing but labor away growing food.

The economy is the product of expectations. If you let the market determine expectations, perhaps it results in $5 trillion less in economic activity over 10 years versus intervening and seeking to alter expectations. If borrowing $1 trillion now will create $5 trillion in additional economic activity over 10 years, it's a good deal in the long run. Perhaps the debt is $20 trillion in 10 years and the economy is $30 trillion; you'd be better off with a debt of $21 trillion in 10 years and economy of $35 trillion. Central banks try very hard to focus on that long run outcome.

Nice sources how many times have you slammed me in this thread for speaking without sources that I actually provided and even provided on more than one instance because you forgot?