Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Round Table Knights Clan. Enjoy your visit!




Username:   Password:
Add Reply
So I was thinking
Topic Started: Jun 11 2011, 01:09 AM (1,601 Views)
Cole Stark of WinterFell
Member Avatar
Retired Knight's Apprentice
We all should eat cake :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dagonet of Rus
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
Well now that's quite another thing altogether, in the UK atleast it's impossible to starve to death or even into malnourishment unless one wants to, has been abducted or being deliberately mistreated by legal guardian or agents thereof.

Not that this can be said of people of every nation, thanks in large part to the 'developed' nations' belief that the ability to manipulate currencies confers a right to a better existence than those elsewhere.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
galahad of jerusalem,Jun 26 2011
01:14 AM
HA! Nice try. Supply side econ is Kenesian now? Then sign me up. :mtwcheers:

Well if you want to put it that way, financing your tax cuts from deficit is actually somewhat similar to a deficit stimulus a la Keynes. However, government spending stays in your country easier than disposable income. But the point here was that Reagan's government actually *spent* a lot from deficit, and that's got a lot more to do with Keynes than with supply side "voodoo economics" ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Dagonet of Rus,Jun 25 2011
10:47 PM
Isn't there already a thread for arguing about economics on such a scale that arguing about them is totally pointless because there are so many factors to consider that a correct solution or assessment of any given situation would consume so many man hours to compile, publish, read, absorb and implement that they'd be completely pointless anyway and be countered by other economic factors since the essence of economics is the struggle to improve one's lot and one's lot cannot be improved infinitely so must be at anothers expense and people would argue anyway because people like to argue whether they know themselves to be right or wrong?

Calm yourself Dagn00bius!
With his comments on President Reagan, Din is merely doing his best to entertain us with his comedic take on political punditry... :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
LOL, here comes the same pathetic mockery as every time Chazz faces facts that aren't in line with the misconceptions he parroted :D

Debate skillz fail. B)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Dinadan of Logris,Jun 26 2011
11:42 PM
LOL, here comes the same pathetic mockery as every time Chazz faces facts that aren't in line with the misconceptions he parroted  :D

Debate skillz fail.  B)

Why the insult Din?
Galahad and myself really do find your comments in this thread on Reagan to be quite funny.

Bravo... ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
...and he goes on and on and on...

Duracell?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Din keep your chin up m8.
You're doing a very fine job of entertaining the conservatives here.
The fantasy story you're spinning about President Reagan has us all chuckling & smiling. :mtwcheers:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
I was wrong.

Energizer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kay of Sauvage
Retired Knight
Ah, the legend of President Reagan. Did you guys learn about that at Fox News University? Because that seems to be about the extent of what you know about it. It's the same old simplistic myth.

You know, we were actually getting beyond simplistic broad-based accounts of history in the Election 2010 thread, where we were discussing the root economic logic that underpins these broader beliefs. But you guys seemed to have bailed on that discussion.

I know the conservative arguments. But I don't know how they could possibly be used to refute what I've said there so far, assuming you are trying to answer the points honestly. I think the only thing you have left is to avoid the arguments. It sure would be nice if you could perhaps either agree with the logic, or disagree specifying why. Or at least agree with the logic but state why it doesn't matter, so at least we can move on with some basic fundamentals agreed upon, and then build on that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pete of Yorkshire
Member Avatar
Knight
* remeber's earlier post about being more diplomatic* * trying to resist responce* oh well...... is see chazz is back to using his old tricks of putting people down to win debates even after he's got his arse handed to him by someone who is more intelligent than him and also not from the country your talking about wait arn't you american chazz?. ( im not saying im more intelligant than chazz btw i just have better things to remeber rather than political bollocks that doesn't even concern me i have more important stuff to remeber like remebering how to fix a 3 phase invertor but you know....wait im rambling) back to the point Din 1 Chazz 0.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pete of Yorkshire
Member Avatar
Knight
Dagonet of Rus,Jun 26 2011
05:47 AM
Isn't there already a thread for arguing about economics on such a scale that arguing about them is totally pointless because there are so many factors to consider that a correct solution or assessment of any given situation would consume so many man hours to compile, publish, read, absorb and implement that they'd be completely pointless anyway and be countered by other economic factors since the essence of economics is the struggle to improve one's lot and one's lot cannot be improved infinitely so must be at anothers expense and people would argue anyway because people like to argue whether they know themselves to be right or wrong?

i love you dag.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Elrich of Gaul
Member Avatar
Former Knight and Honored King of Old
Awkward..... :o
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dagonet of Rus
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
There's no way 2 Chazz' would fit in my errrm. self-pleasuring device.

My momma once said, "I only beat you cause I love you." That's the relationship I see blossoming between Din & Chazz, no awkwardness, just emotionally stunted lovin' :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Dagonet of Rus,Jun 28 2011
03:02 PM
My momma once said, "I only beat you cause I love you." That's the relationship I see blossoming between Din & Chazz, no awkwardness, just emotionally stunted lovin' :)

:lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Dinadan of Logris,Jun 24 2011
06:16 PM
galahad of jerusalem,Jun 25 2011
12:35 AM
Dinadan of Logris,Jun 24 2011
10:20 PM
Does that mean large govt spending creates jobs after all?  :D

Or does it only happen if you have high taxes too, like under Reagan?  :P

Funny. But you see, the lowering of taxes created jobs ;)

That's nice, except Reagan actually raised corporate taxes in recession because he spent so much he couldn't find another way to control the deficit. Luckily, the FED completed its crusade against inflation long before elections, and monetary easing along with the deficit spending brought your economy back ;)

US public debt before Reagan: 32% of GDP -> 53% after.
FED funds rate 19% -> 9%

Unemployment dropped by ~3%... all in all, that's a rather Keynesian response. :mtwcheers:

You'd just as well make the argument that Jesus was an extremely violent man because he threw the merchants out of the synagogue as this one about Reagan. Not a serious argument at all here...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
What's not serious? FED policy facts? Reagan spending facts? Get real Chazzy, it's historical data. That recession ended with a period of monetary easing (FED) and increased spending, from deficit (Reagan). And what's the religion card doing here? :joker:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Dinadan of Logris,Jun 28 2011
04:42 PM
What's not serious? FED policy facts? Reagan spending facts? Get real Chazzy, it's historical data. That recession ended with a period of monetary easing (FED) and increased spending, from deficit (Reagan). And what's the religion card doing here?  :joker:

At best the argument you're making is quite weak and illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of post Carter America and the challenges that it faced. Like I said you might as well try and make the case Jesus was inherently violent because he threw the merchants out of the synagogue...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pete of Yorkshire
Member Avatar
Knight
awwww isn't chazz entertaing us with his wild fantasy's.......
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
tehReal~ChaZZZy,Jun 29 2011
01:26 AM
At best the argument you're making is quite weak and illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of post Carter America and the challenges that it faced. Like I said you might as well try and make the case Jesus was inherently violent because he threw the merchants out of the synagogue...

Why don't you disprove something then. Or are even weak arguments too strong for you? :P

BTW, put away your Bible while you're at it - it offers little of use for modern economics. :mtwcheers:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Elrich of Gaul
Member Avatar
Former Knight and Honored King of Old
Dinadan of Logris,Jun 29 2011
10:27 AM
BTW, put away your Bible while you're at it - it offers little of use for modern economics. :mtwcheers:

Actually.... it does stress to only take what you need... had everyone listened to that philosophy.... there wouldn't be record amounts of household debt..

just sayin'..... :rolleyes:

ok, I'm done... :study:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dagonet of Rus
Member Avatar
Retired Knight of the Round Table
Though I can't think of any civilisation that dragged itself out of the stone age using such a philosophy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
Elrich of Gaul,Jun 29 2011
12:41 PM
Dinadan of Logris,Jun 29 2011
10:27 AM
BTW, put away your Bible while you're at it - it offers little of use for modern economics.  :mtwcheers:

Actually.... it does stress to only take what you need...

Hmm, that one got me thinking, interesting sidetrack. I didn't remember any part where this is directly "stressed" in the Bible except something vaguely similar in the way the Jews divided manna. It could perhaps be derived from the meny calls for charity and hospitality in the Gospels. Where do you think the Bible stresses this? :study:

((Ofc, there's what Dag said, plus modern economics are all about getting richer anyway, so certainly this would either conflict with the basic principle, or you would be redefining "need" all the time, and hence lose the conclusion about not making "unneeded" purchases from debt.))
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Elrich of Gaul,Jun 29 2011
04:41 AM
Dinadan of Logris,Jun 29 2011
10:27 AM
BTW, put away your Bible while you're at it - it offers little of use for modern economics.  :mtwcheers:

Actually.... it does stress to only take what you need... had everyone listened to that philosophy.... there wouldn't be record amounts of household debt..

just sayin'..... :rolleyes:

ok, I'm done... :study:

That's an excellent point E. :study:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Dinadan of Logris,Jun 29 2011
03:27 AM
Why don't you disprove something then. Or are even weak arguments too strong for you? :P


Sorry Din but I don't care to have a discussion proving the sky is blue.
Much more fun to discuss novels and FPS's like BF3. :)

Interesting to note that during the Reagan administration he also faced a similar though smaller in scope financial crisis brought on by the deregulation of the S&L's during the Carter administration. Here are some of Carter's thoughts on the passage of the Depository Institutions Deregulation And Monetary Control Act:

Quote:
 
THE PRESIDENT. This morning we are assembled in the White House to take action which will have far-reaching, beneficial effects on our Nation. Not only will it help to control inflation, but it will also strengthen our financial institutions, our thrift institutions and commercial banks, and in addition to that it will help small savers and address more effectively the relationship of the Federal Reserve System with the banks throughout our Nation.

Let me begin with some commendations. I think Bill Miller deserves a great deal of credit for having pursued this effort, even when the prospects for success were very bleak, first of all as Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, and later of course as Secretary of the Treasury. We have had good support in the Congress from Bill Proxmire, from Henry Reuss, from Fred St Germain, who's here this morning with us. And also, to make it nonpartisan, or bipartisan, I'm particularly grateful that Bill Stanton, Jake Garn, and many others have come this morning to commemorate this historic event. As you can well imagine, in legislation of this breadth and importance, many others played a crucial role, and I'm very grateful to all those who had a part. This is a moment of great gratification to me and, in addition, to the feeling of gratitude to persons that I've just described.

Last spring we began to become more and more concerned about the issues that affected our Nation as inflation was beginning to build up and as the rate of savings in our country was constantly dropping. I recommended to the Congress a landmark financial reform bill, which I will be signing in a few minutes into law. This is not only a significant step in reducing inflation, but it's a major victory for savers, and particularly for small savers. It's a progressive step for stronger financial institutions of all kinds. And it's another step in a long but extremely important move toward deregulation by the Federal Government of the private enterprise system of our country.

We've already had remarkable success in deregulation in the airline industry, this in financial institutions; we hope that the Congress will soon pass the regulatory reform act and that we can have success in the deregulation of the rail industry, trucking industry, and the communication industry.

As you know, under existing law, which this bill will change, our banks and savings institutions are hampered by a wide range of outdated, unfair, and unworkable regulations. Especially unfair are interest rate ceilings that prohibit small savers from receiving a fair market return on their deposits. It's a serious inequity that favors rich investors over the average savers. Today's legislation will gradually eliminate these ceilings and allow, through competition, higher rates for savers. It provides an orderly transition for institutions to develop new investment powers.

Most significant of all, perhaps, it can help improve our Nation's very low savings rate. Now not much more than 3 percent of earnings go into savings, perhaps the lowest rate in the last 30 years. And of course, this small savings rate has been a major factor in increased inflation. This encouragement of savings is important not only to consumers but also to financial institutions in the breadth of our financial system.

The new law will permit institutions to prevent or to overcome the previous wide cyclical changes and swings and to develop a more stable deposit base. This can help ensure steadier flow of credit for productive uses, especially housing. It can keep down financing costs and, again, help defuse the pressing burden of inflation.

This law assures the ability of a strong and independent Federal Reserve to manage the Nation's monetary affairs by encouraging bank membership in the Federal Reserve System. And finally, this law makes possible a broad range of new services for consumers and makes major progress toward giving savings institutions the investment powers to pay fair and competitive rates and to meet housing credit needs. These services include interest-bearing checking accounts, automatic transfer services at commercial banks, share drafts at credit unions, and remote service units at thrift institutions.

Our financial system today, as you know, is the envy of the entire world. The continued strength and competitiveness of all sectors of this system, and indeed the entire free enterprise system of our Nation, is a high priority for my administration and for the Congress. In accordance with this new law, we will begin immediately the study of actions that can ensure the continued vitality of our thrift institutions and, in accordance with the law, will make that report available to the Congress later on this year.

We have accomplished some major changes with strong congressional support. In the final analysis, it's the entire American public who will benefit.

And now I'd like to sign into law this remarkable and very far-reaching and basic new bill that will accomplish these benefits for the American people. And my thanks again to all those who've had a part in this effort.


http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.ph...6#axzz1QiJ92tD8

Nearly universal deregualtion under Jimmy Carter? What an amazing conservative he must have been!
So many misturns and incredibly bad policy under Carter. Obama seems to have picked up his mantle. :)

In your search for truth, here is a great article to help clear up some of your misconceptions about the Reagan tax cuts. It combines real time analysis of the general debate on the bill at the time.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1...tic+Alternative

God speed on your quest for truth my Hungarian amigo!!! :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Here's a part of one of his addresses from a President Reagan State of the Union speech.

Quote:
 
Our citizens feel they’ve lost control of even the most basic decisions made about the essential services of government, such as schools, welfare, roads, and even garbage collection. And they’re right. A maze of interlocking jurisdictions and levels of government confronts average citizens in trying to solve even the simplest of problems. They don’t know where to turn for answers, who to hold accountable, who to praise, who to blame, who to vote for or against. The main reason for this is the overpowering growth of Federal grants-in-aid programs during the past few decades.


You can go online and hear many of the same general thoughts on similar subject matter once he turned from the dark side of liberalism. Smaller government and empowering the individual are some of general core ideas that fueled Reagan policy.

Quote:
 
Reagan not only talked about reviving federalism … he did it. Under President Jimmy Carter the percentage of state expenditures coming from federal funds rose to 35.4%. Reagan lowered that number to 24.9%. Unfortunately, under President George H.W. Bush, President Bill Clinton, and President George Bush that number shot up again; reaching 42.5% in 2005. But now with President Barack Obama in power, wielding his $787 billion stimulus package, state dependency on the federal government has reached a historic new height. USA Today reports: “In a historic first, Uncle Sam has supplanted sales, property and income taxes as the biggest source of revenue for state and local governments.”


http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/05/mornin...-of-federalism/

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mercurius of Cappadocia
Member Avatar
King of the Round Table Knights
Heritage Foundation is not a credible source.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
tehReal~ChaZZZy,Jun 30 2011
01:30 AM
Sorry Din but I don't care to have a discussion proving the sky is blue.

Clearly... you prefer to post that the sky's orange, and we should take your word for it. :D

What did you mean to say with that Carter part? That deregulation is bad? That deregulation is good? That you hate Carter? That you hate Obama? :joker:

What am I supposed to do with a 1981 analysis of what Reagan *may* do? :joker:
We have historical data about what he *did* do... and the same about the Fed.

What is your ideal of federalism? That the states make budget surpluses and transfer ~$50 billion in 1984 dollars to the federal government that's running three-four times the deficit without it? :smash:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Elrich of Gaul
Member Avatar
Former Knight and Honored King of Old
Dagonet of Rus,Jun 29 2011
07:38 PM
Though I can't think of any civilisation that dragged itself out of the stone age using such a philosophy.

Well.. stone age is a little drastic but.... consider where we came from and where we are now..

Are we really any better off today than we were back in the simple life.??

I mean... minus the Ipods and stuff....

Before we drag ourselves out of something.. we best be well aware of what it is we're heading towards..

Back in the day... you would actually remove your hat and address a lady... today.. ppfftt.. really.? Makes you wonder if we're really moving forward or backwards...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Elrich of Gaul
Member Avatar
Former Knight and Honored King of Old
Dinadan of Logris,Jun 29 2011
08:30 PM
. Where do you think the Bible stresses this? :study:


Proverbs 25:16

Hast thou found honey? eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it.

25:27 It is not good to eat much honey: so for men to search their own glory is not glory.


Philippians

4:5 Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand.

These are just a few places where the topic of "moderation" is discussed.

But the point I think is not how many times it discusses to take only what is needed or moderation.. but how if these basic principles had been adhered to, there wouldn't be an enormous individual household debt per average household.

Greed is a terrible thang.....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
Elrich of Gaul,Jun 30 2011
11:55 AM
Are we really any better off today than we were back in the simple life.??

Yes, we really are. Unless the religion you follow prescribes suffering in this life. :ninja:

Quote:
 
Back in the day... you would actually remove your hat and address a lady

Yes, but not in the "simple life" days :)
You'd rather buy a lady for three sheep.

--

I did a search in English-language Bibles before I asked you, and I really don't think the honey proverb (which I had found) is a call for sticking to your needs. You don't need honey in the first place, and it was a bit of luxury for most in the time... not to mention its slightly obscure use as a metaphor. "Moderation" is of course a less strict approach and does occur in the New Testament often enough. Then again, how to apply this in modern life? Do you or don't you "need" a house, a car, a computer? :study:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Elrich of Gaul
Member Avatar
Former Knight and Honored King of Old
I guess I should be more specific when I say "are we better in this era than before"...

Yes, I agree with you when it comes to suffering.. if we're talking about health care and such... but I was speaking as a people and how we regard eath other and treat each other...

lol. .for the lady bit.. .you know what I mean... the overall respect people had for each other... it's gone the way of the horse and buggy...

When I speak of "moderation".. I'm referring to today's "X and Y" generation and the predicament they've put themselves into with the example of the recent housing/bank/ecomony crash in the US.

People are being offered huge amounts of credit and told that "yes", you are pre-approved".... they go out and not only buy a house.. .they buy a house that is way above not only what they need.... but what they can barely afford... and they become what is commonly known as "house poor".

They then struggle as a couple to pay everything off (barely) until one either looses a job, interest rates go up or something happens.. then they loose it all.. why..??? do they need a home.? sure, of course they need shelter, but does it have to be 2500 square feet, with inground pool and triple car garage.?

Back in our grandparents day, when they started off, they started off at the first rung of the ladder. Gradually, through life, as they could afford it, they would climb up the rungs one by one until they got as high as they aspired to. Should something have gone wrong during this "climb"... they'd fall back one rung.

Today, the X and Y genners want to start at the "top" rung, or as near to it as possible. They want it all and they want it now.!! The banks were just giving it to them in the form of mortgages and credit limits... until....

My point is "moderation"... need a house, yes, buy one that you can not only afford but one that meets your needs.. need transportation.. yes, buy one that you can not only afford but meets your needs.. Yes, that X5 looks pretty good and the bank says you can have it.. but do you really.? Yes, your neighbor has the 55" LED hot off the market TV.. but do you need to go out and buy the 60"..??

This is what I'm saying... if we'd all stuck to the basics and used/bought/loaned in moderation and only to meet our needs, a lot of bail out money, heartbreaks and pains would have easily been avoided.

p.s. the honey isnt to be taken literally.. just to show that "too much of a good thing isn't necessarily a good thing"...

But I am glad however that we are exchanging ideals and views on not only different planes, but in different parts of the world as well.

Too many people are solidly etched in their own ideals or their country's position that they go and stick their noses in other peeps business creating strife everywhere...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
That's a dark picture. Politeness and prudence is not completely lost :lol:

Perceived affordability was what tricked people into taking out loans. What someone deems luxury may be just a bit of extra comfort for others and trivial for yet another group. Where's the line? I bathe in heated drinking water. It's available, cheap and pleasant. For me. :study:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Elrich of Gaul
Member Avatar
Former Knight and Honored King of Old
Dinadan of Logris,Jun 30 2011
01:52 PM
Perceived affordability was what tricked people into taking out loans.

I'll agree with your statement for sure.... but on the other side.... are people that gullable to believe what others are telling them they have in their own bank accounts.???

Rather than study their own financial stability, what they can or cannot afford, people are letting other "snake charmers" tell them what they can or cannot do.

The worst part of all that.... most of these people led into this trap.. are actually educated... but were blinded so easily.... and by what do you think.? greed.?

Wow.. I bathe in the same type of water.. who'd have thunk?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
Elrich of Gaul,Jun 30 2011
03:04 PM
The worst part of all that.... most of these people led into this trap.. are actually educated... but were blinded so easily.... and by what do you think.? greed.?


"Business as usual" assumptions will kill even honest calculations when things stop going as usual. It could be called "greed", but then that's giving a negative connotation to the strive for more, for better. There's an undefined line again.

Of course, when it's just about swindling money out of a foolish lender, then I'll gladly call it "greed", on both sides :D

Quote:
 
Wow.. I bathe in the same type of water.. who'd have thunk?

Exactly. Yet, do we really "need" to bathe in heated drinking water? No. Would that be luxury to many? Yes. :smash:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Portcullis · Next Topic »
Add Reply

The Round Table Knights