LMAO Texas bible thumpers

[Blake]

Here's an interesting take from a blogger at lefty Firedoglake:

I read in HuffPost today and on NPR that they are making fun of Perry because he made C’s and D’s–again while this may be entertaining for intellectual liberals, the fact is that many, if not the majority, of Americans are fed up with Ivy league college graduates. They are likely to say: WE’ve had ivy league graduates in the White House for the past 20 years and look at the mess they have ALL made of things.

terrible take, tbh

[RandomGuy]

You're to ignorant of history to understand that 19th Century Capitalism allowed for the change of thought concerning child labor because of rising living standards, and that that period was a transitionary period from the harsh realities of agricultural societies to a vastly improving industrial society. The birth rate was exponentially better during the industrial age and we as americans and europe as a whole witnessed the biggest population explosion in the world.

Meanwhile, now that the 19th century industrial achievements has allowed us to coast on them and pass stifling regulation, we are experiencing the latter... A DECLINE in the standards of living.


19th century Captilism Improved the Living standards of the Indurstrialized World.

20th century Progressivism is slowly declining them.


You're on the losing side.


And lol, less regulations would force children to labor under the gun.

Birth rates didn't change at the beginning of the industrial era to be "exponentially" better.

The only thing that really changed was that doctors started washing their hands and and capitalism had jack to do with that. That you can't tell the difference between birth rates and survival rates says volumes about your ability to take information and use it meaningfully.

Industrialisation actually drove *down* birth rates at a fairly rapid pace especially after effective birth control was introduced.

The rest of this is little more than post hoc propter hoc.

I find it more than a little bit funny that you mention birth rates, because it is precisely this trend that is causing no small part of the economic stagnation that you mistakenly have attributed to "progressivism".

Economics you might have some idea about, but your lack of knowledge in other areas means that you seem to be unable to put that knowledge into perspective.

The last thing about this, is that the most soicalistic countries, we have come to discover, are the only ones that have managed to keep their native birth rates up, as the free day care allows women to keep jobs, and that encourages them to have more kids.
http://homepage3.nifty.com/sociology/motion.html

Countries like Japan where they actively discourage paid day care, is a good example of what happens when you don't do things like that.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/banya...-labour-market

Suck on that progressive policy.

[RandomGuy]

That's funny how the austrian school of economics can't be blamed for our credit rating downgrade, our deficit spending, dollar devaluation, but your keynesian school can.

Sucks to be a Keynesian corporatist sucker.

LOL Argentina lecturing americans on how to run an economy.

That might be true, if actual Keynsian economic polices were really followed.

What has actually happened is a strange half-ass mismash.

Sorry.

[RandomGuy]

Since we are re-visting it:

[RandomGuy]

The Israelites were a slave race for a majority of their existance prior ad 70. As Nietzsche pointed out, the israelis survived the gauntlet of persecution and slavery because they developed an altruist morality in which traits like "ambition" "pride" "beauty" 'blood lust" were seen as amoral and subs uted those values which the egyptians, babylonians, every warrior nation in the world at those times held dear, with the anti values. The an hesis of those values were "selflesness" "humility" meak n poor" "peace loving" etc.

These values that were a refutation of the master values helped the jew survive. If you had ambition, greed, beauty, nobility, blood lust, and pride you were more likely to revolt against your master and you and your progeny would die.

This morality was different once the jude secured their own land. They fused the Master-slave morality and were a fierce people ruled by priests, or philosopher kings.

Slavery at that time was necessary amongst all peoples in that era because they saw it better to enslave a whole nation instead of commiting genocide at times. It was a tool to ensure that your enemy could not rise against you and obliterate you.

It worked at times and failed in others. But that form of slavery was done out of fear.

What the Arabs and later the Christians did with africa carried more immorality for the africans were no threat, and they sought to have cheap labor.

Not defending either side.

Just that you all are fighting for nothing.

Ah , I see we are also pulling the Nietzsche card.

This keeps getting better.

[DarrinS]

That might be true, if actual Keynsian economic polices were really followed.

What has actually happened is a strange half-ass mismash.

Sorry.

Is there any country actually practicing Keynesian economic policies?

(will await RG to post the healthiest example of a country that uses anything resembling Kenesian economics)

[RandomGuy]

Is there any country actually practicing Keynesian economic policies?

(will await RG to post the healthiest example of a country that uses anything resembling Kenesian economics)

Not really, although states that set up "rainy day" funds come closest.

Personally, I think the Keynsian/Austrian thing is a bit limiting. To think that any ONE theory is THE theory to describe something as complex and dynamic, when reality could very well be a combination of both, or , neither, is foolish, IMO.

I think that modern understanding of just how irrational people can be really does work against Austrian school.

Freakonomics anyone?

[Ignignokt]

Birth rates didn't change at the beginning of the industrial era to be "exponentially" better.

The only thing that really changed was that doctors started washing their hands and and capitalism had jack to do with that. That you can't tell the difference between birth rates and survival rates says volumes about your ability to take information and use it meaningfully.

Industrialisation actually drove *down* birth rates at a fairly rapid pace especially after effective birth control was introduced.

The rest of this is little more than post hoc propter hoc.

I find it more than a little bit funny that you mention birth rates, because it is precisely this trend that is causing no small part of the economic stagnation that you mistakenly have attributed to "progressivism".

Economics you might have some idea about, but your lack of knowledge in other areas means that you seem to be unable to put that knowledge into perspective.

The last thing about this, is that the most soicalistic countries, we have come to discover, are the only ones that have managed to keep their native birth rates up, as the free day care allows women to keep jobs, and that encourages them to have more kids.
http://homepage3.nifty.com/sociology/motion.html

Countries like Japan where they actively discourage paid day care, is a good example of what happens when you don't do things like that.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/banya...-labour-market

Suck on that progressive policy.

Wow, i meant to say infant mortality rates. And yeah, capitalism had everything to do with that. The fact that you had more children being delivered by doctors was a product of capitalism. I don't see how you could miss that.

Maybe you were thinking that the monopoly man was personally delivering the babies as an example of capitalism affecting the infant mortality rates.

[Ignignokt]

Not really, although states that set up "rainy day" funds come closest.

Personally, I think the Keynsian/Austrian thing is a bit limiting. To think that any ONE theory is THE theory to describe something as complex and dynamic, when reality could very well be a combination of both, or , neither, is foolish, IMO.

I think that modern understanding of just how irrational people can be really does work against Austrian school.

Freakonomics anyone?

This is so ignorant, i don't even know where to begin.

WE just passed a huge stimulus during a recession, if that's not keynesianism, then i don't know what is.

[ElNono]

WE just passed a huge stimulus during a recession, if that's not keynesianism, then i don't know what is.

'huge' is debatable, when looking at spending over GDP on a historical basis (was 100+% of GDP back in WWII).

But it certainly is keynesian. No doubt about it.

What's also keynesian is to tone down the direct government intervention and pay down the debt accrued once the good times roll around. That hardly, if ever, happens.

Instead, when 'good times' come around, we go away from keynesianism and go into monetarism. Where we play with the money supply levers until we are back into a recession, interest rates go near or at zero, and monetarism has no more levers to play with.

[boutons_deux]

"WE just passed a huge stimulus during a recession"

goddammit, you're dumb.

Compared to the depth/size of the BGD, it wasn't enough, and it wasn't even all spent.

The stimulus should have been about $2T. Lots of serious economists knew it was going to be way too small. So Keynesian counter-cyclical spending wasn't disproven.

otoh, we are certainly going to see the pro-cyclical spending cuts worsen both unemployment and the depression, which is exactly what the Repugs want, so they can deepen/prolong their depression up to Nov 2012 and keep blaming all their on Barry.

[RandomGuy]

This is so ignorant, i don't even know where to begin.

WE just passed a huge stimulus during a recession, if that's not keynesianism, then i don't know what is.

goddammit, you're dumb.

Compared to the depth/size of the BGD, it wasn't enough, and it wasn't even all spent.

The stimulus should have been about $2T. Lots of serious economists knew it was going to be way too small. So Keynesian counter-cyclical spending wasn't disproven.

You beat me to it. The overall Keynsian consensus is that the stimulus was far too small even for the data they had at the time. Given what we know now, it was positively a fleck of spittle against a raging inferno.

Dayum. Ignogokt got taken to the woodshed by boutons?

*That* is saying something.

TROLL-FIGHT!!!!

[RandomGuy]

'huge' is debatable, when looking at spending over GDP on a historical basis (was 100+% of GDP back in WWII).

But it certainly is keynesian. No doubt about it.

What's also keynesian is to tone down the direct government intervention and pay down the debt accrued once the good times roll around. That hardly, if ever, happens.

Instead, when 'good times' come around, we go away from keynesianism and go into monetarism. Where we play with the money supply levers until we are back into a recession, interest rates go near or at zero, and monetarism has no more levers to play with.

Also beat me to explaining to Darrin why no country has actually put a working Keynsian model into place.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think any reasonable person disputes the idea that the laws of the time were for those time. The 10 commandments however are for all times.

So the Bible is the absolute word of God, except when it isn't.

How do I tell the difference between what is still good and what isn't?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

How many rape victims are we going to force to marry their attackers?

I'm confused.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sure the original language is quite different. Instead of "raping" it's probably "bonding."

[Blake]

I'm sure the original language is quite different. Instead of "raping" it's probably "bonding."

[boutons_deux]

Could Unspent Stimulus Money Be Used to Fend Off a New Recession?

So, it seems all the more surprising that the federal government still has $100 billion to $150 billion in stimulus money left to spend. That's about as much as the Making Work Pay tax credit that gave $800 apiece to middle-class families in 2009 and 2010. And it's twice as much as Congress gave to states to stabilize budgets and save education jobs.

http://www.propublica.org/article/co...-new-recession

=========

The answer to the silly question in headline's le is clearly NO.

[Agloco]

Could Unspent Stimulus Money Be Used to Fend Off a New Recession?

So, it seems all the more surprising that the federal government still has $100 billion to $150 billion in stimulus money left to spend.

I dont see what that does, except delay the inevitable.

The sooner this bubble is allowed to deflate, the sooner we all can work on re-inflating it.

[boutons_deux]

"this bubble is allowed to deflate"

bubble? hey, stick with physics!

the housing/credit bubble is totally deflated, everywhere. Millions of home "renters" (the lien holders control the real estate) are underwater, like 33% of all of them.

[Agloco]

bubble? hey, stick with physics!

lol....good advice B.

I was refering to debt burden, national and individual. Dunno what the terminology is for that.

[boutons_deux]

the credit suppliers mailed out in the 2000s Bs of cc's to sucker people, and people got suckered.

As a result, a couple years ago household debt was at a record high,partially due to households try to keep up with the conumserism while their real income has stagnated since St Ronnie took office.

The drop off in consumer spending (except at the wealthy end) has been due to financial insecurity, causing people pay down their debts rather than spend more.

[xrayzebra]

"this bubble is allowed to deflate"

bubble? hey, stick with physics!

the housing/credit bubble is totally deflated, everywhere. Millions of home "renters" (the lien holders control the real estate) are underwater, like 33% of all of them.

Stick with physics.....

When you stick with reality.

[boutons_deux]

All Righty Then! XZ has a firm grasp on his REALITY!

[xrayzebra]

All Righty Then! XZ has a firm grasp on his REALITY!

Yep, I recognize an idiot Socialist when I read them.......and you be one.

When are you moving back to Europe, the place you love?

[Agloco]

The drop off in consumer spending (except at the wealthy end) has been due to financial insecurity, causing people pay down their debts rather than spend more.

Since 70% (or so) of the economy is consumer spending.............

Isn't that what we need to let the air out of before the disco balls can be restarted? It's all just a bunch of funny money and hot air at this point no?