Rob's House Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 One thing you have to love about Dave is when he says some truly idiotic **** like Did you know that welfare and unemployment insurance increase demand for consumer goods? he thinks that he's said something brilliant and the rest of us are just too stupid to see the plain and simple truth. It never occurs to him that we understand this but also understand that this doesn't happen in a vacuum. In fact, he doesn't even know what that means. Some liberals are willfully stupid because they want so hard to believe in the ideology that makes them feel good. Not Dave. He really lacks the cognitive ability to look beyond stage one. Best of all is that he truly believes everything he says and thinks his stupidity makes him superior. It's kind of like watching Cartman laugh at the other guys for not getting their period yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 Some liberals are willfully stupid because they want so hard to believe in the ideology that makes them feel good. Not Dave. He really lacks the cognitive ability to look beyond stage one. Best of all is that he truly believes everything he says and thinks his stupidity makes him superior. It's kind of like watching Cartman laugh at the other guys for not getting their period yet. I think you could say that about most people, regardless of their political leanings. The way you phrase it may be true, but don't ignore the idiocy of people who happen to share your political beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 It's kind of like watching Cartman laugh at the other guys for not getting their period yet. Now that's some old school South Park Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I think you could say that about most people, regardless of their political leanings. I know you can say that about me. Of course, my ideology is nothing more than "I'm right, and you're all idiots". And it's not so much an "ideology" as an empirically derived theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I know you can say that about me. Of course, my ideology is nothing more than "I'm right, and you're all idiots". And it's not so much an "ideology" as an empirically derived theory. Empirically derived? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 One thing you have to love about Dave is when he says some truly idiotic **** like he thinks that he's said something brilliant and the rest of us are just too stupid to see the plain and simple truth. It never occurs to him that we understand this but also understand that this doesn't happen in a vacuum. In fact, he doesn't even know what that means. Some liberals are willfully stupid because they want so hard to believe in the ideology that makes them feel good. Not Dave. He really lacks the cognitive ability to look beyond stage one. Best of all is that he truly believes everything he says and thinks his stupidity makes him superior. It's kind of like watching Cartman laugh at the other guys for not getting their period yet. For all your ignorant blather you offer nothing to attack my general point. I don't think you can. Listen Rob, I know I am a lot smarter than you so save your rants unless you want to "show me" where I am wrong. You are a little whinner, nothing more. Ocinn gets a big "fail" with his stupid inflation argument, but you can give it a try, can't you? Or are you too dumb? As to my "ideology" getting in the way, no, its just a fact, government spending increases consumer demand. Perhaps someone can pray that that's not true, but nothing fails like prayer, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 For all your ignorant blather you offer nothing to attack my general point. I don't think you can. Listen Rob, I know I am a lot smarter than you so save your rants unless you want to "show me" where I am wrong. You are a little whinner, nothing more. Ocinn gets a big "fail" with his stupid inflation argument, but you can give it a try, can't you? Or are you too dumb? As to my "ideology" getting in the way, no, its just a fact, government spending increases consumer demand. Perhaps someone can pray that that's not true, but nothing fails like prayer, right? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!! Aren't you embarrassed to a make a statement so foolish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 For all your ignorant blather you offer nothing to attack my general point. I don't think you can. Listen Rob, I know I am a lot smarter than you so save your rants unless you want to "show me" where I am wrong. You are a little whinner, nothing more. Ocinn gets a big "fail" with his stupid inflation argument, but you can give it a try, can't you? Or are you too dumb? As to my "ideology" getting in the way, no, its just a fact, government spending increases consumer demand. Perhaps someone can pray that that's not true, but nothing fails like prayer, right? Epic fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) Epic fail. Dave doesn't understand. Dave has no economics education. Or, if he does, he was hitting a bong before class. I will educate Dave, whether you like it or not, whether it makes for a long post, because it's the right thing to do. Saying "government spending increases consumer demand" is doing it wrong. I will say it right for Dave, because it's the funny thing to do. There is a reason that Liberals don't let anybody other than liberal economists talk economics. Dave's performance here is why. The trick for liberals is to talk about multipliers. I gave Dave "the answer" 2 posts ago. Dave has said nothing about multipliers. That is why Dave is doing it wrong. Smart liberals know that $1 of government spending does NOT create $1 of demand. Smart liberals know that in fact $1 of spending is diluted by both the agency that does the spending, and the "spendee". Smart liberals know that if they went out and claimed otherwise, we would laugh at them, like we laugh at Dave. Smart liberals know that the initial spending of $1 creates about $.10 of demand, if we are lucky. Therefore, smart liberals claim that the $1 has a quantifiable life beyond the initial "spendee". That, if specific "spendee"s are targeted, they will in turn spend money on specific things that will in turn create a little more demand. The second tier of "spendee"s will spend on demand-creating things, and so on. This process continues until the $1 of targeted government spending, by adding up the initial $.10 with all the other layers, hopefully creates $1.50 in demand. This is not enough to cover the government spending budget-wise, but, the hope is that it will be enough to kick-start the economy, and the Federal budget shortfall will be made up by the anticipated economic boom revenue later. This is the "Keynesian multiplier". Now Dave is aware of it. I doubt he will be ever be able to argue it properly. It's hysterical that I can argue Dave's points better than he can. Given this, in order for Keynes to be right, there must be extreme discipline when it comes to what specifically gets stimulus spending. Look at what happened with the Tax Rebate of 2000. It failed miserably. Why? Because people took that money and paid off debt. They didn't spend it on new stuff = no new demand. That is ultimately the fallacy of the multiplier theory: it assumes that you can actually pull the levers and switches exactly right, throughout the entire economy, at each stage of spending to produce the intended result. You can't. TARP proved that better than anything. This is the specific reason the stimulus failed. Lack of discipline. Waaaay too much ideology, and 0 practicality. That is why the "should have been bigger" argument fails on its face. The money was misapplied, idiots. More money only would have meant more misapplication. So, instead of having the states fight the government employee unions when they did, it would have been 6 months later. Big deal. The money was wasted on keeping state government employees in their jobs, which is patently NOT stimulative. It merely delays the inevitable. The proper way for liberals to argue this point is that they can in fact be disciplined and spend on only the things that are sure to create multipliers. If they are convincing, and we approve, then they need to show their work. But, the problem is: how many of people think "discipline" when the they think "liberal". Obama proved his administration is anything but disciplined. They spent maybe 25% of the entire stimulus on recognized multipliers, and the rest on paying off political interests. That ratio would not have changed had we spent $2 trillion more as Paul Krugman wanted. So, no matter what, 75% of the "government spending would do nothing to increase consumer demand". Instead, all we ended up with is a need to print money, twice, which did, and will, cause inflation. Edited September 1, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Did OC really just write 8 paragraphs to refute Dave in Norfolk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Did OC really just write 8 paragraphs to refute Dave in Norfolk? No, it was to "educate" Dave. Now I'm not sure if that is funnier than trying to refute him or if it shows that OC has an ego approaching DC's to think that he could actually get anything through Dave's thick skull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 No, it was to "educate" Dave. Now I'm not sure if that is funnier than trying to refute him or if it shows that OC has an ego approaching DC's to think that he could actually get anything through Dave's thick skull. If you go with the underlined, we can finally agree on something. Logic trap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) As to my "ideology" getting in the way, no, its just a fact, government spending increases consumer demand. Perhaps someone can pray that that's not true, but nothing fails like prayer, right? I didnt even read this one till right now. On a short-term basis it does, because well, your spending money. On a longer term basis, well, thats a different matter. Every dollar spent is a dollar you have to pay back WITH interest. That's how it works. So it largely depends on the efficiency of how the money is spent. Not all government spending is the same, some is efficient, much of it is not. So if you have lets say a Trillion dollar program, and for arguments sake lets say $300M of it was inefficient, well, that means that you would have to pay back the Trillion plus interest, to pay for $700M worth of real stimulus. So it largely depends on the efficiency is my point. Considering history, even recent history, this stimulus bill was not efficiently implemented, the vast majority of economists would agree with this. Edited September 1, 2011 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 No, it was to "educate" Dave. Now I'm not sure if that is funnier than trying to refute him or if it shows that OC has an ego approaching DC's to think that he could actually get anything through Dave's thick skull. Wait, back up. While I'm perfectly willing to admit that no TWO people have an ego as big as mine, I have NEVER been stupid enought to think Dave was capable of learning anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Wait, back up. While I'm perfectly willing to admit that no TWO people have an ego as big as mine, I have NEVER been stupid enought to think Dave was capable of learning anything... And I would never accuse you of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 And I would never accuse you of that. that OC has an ego approaching DC's to think that he could actually get anything through Dave's thick skull. You just did, you !@#$ing moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 If you go with the underlined, we can finally agree on something. Logic trap. OK. Peace, brother. I feel so warm all inside now. You just did, you !@#$ing moron. I indicated that you had a big ego. I did not say that you thought you could educate Dave. OC on the other hand........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I didnt even read this one till right now. On a short-term basis it does, because well, your spending money. On a longer term basis, well, thats a different matter. Every dollar spent is a dollar you have to pay back WITH interest. That's how it works. So it largely depends on the efficiency of how the money is spent. Not all government spending is the same, some is efficient, much of it is not. So if you have lets say a Trillion dollar program, and for arguments sake lets say $300M of it was inefficient, well, that means that you would have to pay back the Trillion plus interest, to pay for $700M worth of real stimulus. So it largely depends on the efficiency is my point. Considering history, even recent history, this stimulus bill was not efficiently implemented, the vast majority of economists would agree with this. You just made his brain hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 You just made his brain hurt. In order for something to hurt it has to be alive You give Dave's brain more credit than I would Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) Pftt. Like I wasn't educating others besides Dave as well. Or, do any of you actually think Peace or 3rdndlg know this stuff? Highly doubtful. Both are just happy I decided to pick on Dave, and not on them. Now, if they want to get into it, I have a whole list of google-proof questions....and we will see who is educated, and who is phony...Peace?...not a good plan for you. Trying to lawyer/BS your way through will be exposed, in as funny a manner as possible. EDIT: I am still waiting for Dave's context-free opinions on: 1. Purple 2. Mint Green 3. Oral Sex Right after I get those, I will give my context-free opinion on deflation. Edited September 2, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts