Can someone come up with an intelligent repsone to this insane comment towards me. I'm not nearly as smart as some of you guys out here and i would love to put this guy in his place. comment: "eah ron paul only wanted to cut Military 15%
Ron Paul cuts would have been the most vicious brutal cuts the world has ever seen. And they were to the epa, food stamps, medicaid, department of education a whole bunch of shit that is completely crazy to cut. 1 trillion of cuts in 1 year is record breaking austerity for any country that ever was on earth Ron Paul was gonna put Wallstreets depression on the backs of the poor and Middle class. I'm not making that up either."
Any response to this?
Another comment: Bro taking more money out of the Demand side in a slow growing Demand less economy is brain dead.
The boom, not the bust is the right time for Austerity you're calling for. If you cut goverment jobs, social security and Medicare drastically like you want You're taking a shit ton of money from Consumers that spend their Money at stores making the economy worse... If you own a small business you need those customers with that money. Most importantly you're putting all this Depression on the Backs of working class and poor people who need the money most and allowing for the Mega Banks and Wallstreet to get off free. You can't be serious.
Doesn't take a genius to refute his arguments, but it does take some readily available knowledge that some reading here will give you.
JJ has his beginner's thread somewhere, I expect he'll drop in here soon.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
I would recommend you do a little bit of reading on your own. The arguments can't all be made for you.
You can always start with a reading of the good ol' "Economics In One Lesson":
http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/
It seems like this friend will continue to be making many of the same arguments tackled by Hazlitt.
Confessed :Can someone come up with an intelligent repsone to this insane comment towards me. I'm not nearly as smart as some of you guys out here and i would love to put this guy in his place.
Basically all the comments in the OP are just bare assertions. Possible responses might include:
"Okay."
"Nuh uh."
Or any of Thomas Sowell's three questions. See here.
The second series of comments you post in the follow up are a typical display of economic illiteracy. What he basically regurgitates there is literally debunked a thousand times over in this forum alone. It's quite possibly the most popular economic fallacy spouted.
That being said, Tex2002ans has a point. You're much better off learning these things for yourself. To be honest, it really doesn't take much. You can seriously read two books and be so far ahead of ignoramuses like this person you quote it isn't funny. (Well, actually it would be, if it wasn't so sad.)
Have a listen to Tom Woods:
Check out The Ultimate Beginner meta-thread to help get you started. If you'd like some specific recommendations, feel free to ask.
ask him if it moral for one generation to spend money of the next generation a generation who cant vote or even have a say on it is it even democratic to do so.if the downturn is structural which in my opinion a large part of it was '' will the day even come when it can be paid off will the boom come to be able pay it off what happens if it dosnt .cutting spending jobs will bring a sharper downturn in the short run give him that' if your job is lost you will have to look for another boom or past .. my own country new zealand had major austerity in the late 1980s and early 1990s thousands of jobs were lost from the state sector which at that time included banks telecom railroads ect.but low and behold the private sector took on even more workers than were lost by the mid 1990s 'exporters love national corrections not stimulus regimes'.ps i dont know how he means letting the banks of Scott free. didn't the bailouts do that seems to me if he says that your never gona win hell just condemn you as evil or stupid. maybe if you drop him a e and give him more hugs you can talk bout this stuff more.
Dr. Paul was going to cut more than 15% of the military... It was 30% in the first year IIRC.
Just ask him for sources.
s burgess:ask him if it moral for one generation to spend money of the next generation .....
That would be a neat trick. To spend the money of people who do not exist.
So, I guess the response to your original question "I need help from an Economic Genius", was "Become an Economic Genius."
My dad used to tell me, in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king. If people spout this stuff off even a rudimentary sound understanding of economics would allow you to pick apart significant fallacies in his assumptions and assertions.
I think it would be helpful to understand how wealth is created, if you get that first, then the rest of this falls into place. Wealth is created by converting natural resources through the application of labor into goods and services that men then consume to satisfy their needs and wants. These needs and wants are referred to as ends economically.
Much of what he said is true. They would be the biggest cuts the world has ever seen, barring those from a total collapse of government. They would have eventually included not just the EPA, Food stampls, welfare, medicaid, social security, Departments of Educaion, Energy, Agriculture, etc., but many others. Eventually. $1trillion in cuts would be more than we've ever seen a country do. It would in fact be austerity.
The only part that is misunderstood is the last one, that Ron Paul would create a depression which would fall on the backs of the poor and middle class.
The depression is already happening. Economics tells us that regardless of how the depression occurs it's going to cause the highest level of fear, starvation, austerity, etc. on the poor in our society and on the middle class. No amount of welfare can fix that. The fix is increases in production and efficiency such that goods and services become cheaper and work opportunities grow.
Currently fear and uncertainty are causing those who have wealth to stock up and hold on. They won't invest in production for a variety of reasons, including uncertainty, ridiculously low interest rates, sovereign debt crises, political instability, whimsical interference in the market by government regulation, etc. The solution is to get government out of the regulation business and put it back in the hands of civil courts.
Production will increase the wealth, and increases in wealth mean cheaper goods and services and higher labor wages (relative to the cost of living). Increased production requires capital investment, these are necessarily longterm investments (factories, roads, equipment, construction, etc.) and the more unstable and uncertain the political and economic environment the more conservative those who have amassed wealth will be. Not only is the US currently scary, but around the globe it's becoming difficult to find a stable safe place to invest and produce wealth.
So, yes it's going to fall on the backs of the poor and the middle class, in that they will suffer the most. That's the price of not having a lot of saved wealth. Forcibly transferring that wealth simply destroys more wealth. Investing it and producing more goods and services will expand the opportunities for the poorer members of society.
So the proper response is, do you want 20-30 years of depression, or a sharp severe recession and rapid recovery? Removing the roadblocks to investment, production and profit is the rapid recovery route. It's the equivalent of having a tooth pulled instead in one sitting instead of taking advil for months until the tooth completely dies and falls out. It's simple and obvious, if you become your own economic genius.
"any of Thomas Sowell's three questions. See here."
thats funny, how he got away from being a Marxist is exactly how i stopped being a statist. When i saw just how inefficient the Marine Corps was i couldnt take it anymore. A Marine Corps motto (not THE motto just a motto) is 'we do more with less'. What amazes me is the people that say that line the most are the ones that do the least, from daily naps at their desk, making 30 minute long head calls, going to sickbay on a weekly basis, going on light duty so they dont have to run, getting knocked up so they dont have to deploy, order somebody else to do it, constant griping about their workload, complaining about how they should be promoted, ect ect ect. i still believe the Corps is the most efficient branch of the military, but compared to what? Compared to the most inefficient branches of government? UGH! so glad im out now, and i will never have to listen to another brain dead Staff NCO throw out jargon that they heard some other retard say one time. Or witness a SNCO throw another 18 year old kid under the bus because they are too worthless to lead a flock of sheep.
So, yes it's going to fall on the backs of the poor and the middle class, in that they will suffer the most.
How? I don't think there's any need to make that assertion.
Doesn't most of the welfare state support the rich? Wouldn't it free the economy to encourage more efficient development of charity groups and networks promoting finance and sound investment for the poor? Wouldn't it relieve the massive tax burden and the regulatory ceiling in the job market that keeps the poor from prospering?
The more I read stuff here the more I see a sound case to be made: that the poor and working class would be the best off, yet few writers here really take advantage of whats in their arguments to fully realize it.
How?
I'm pretty sure he only meant that in the immediate term.
malachi - lol. exact conversation everyone has everytime they goto the armory. Were you in? except i always got zero four fuckin thirty to take accountability. So be there 15 min prior.
Aye, Aye Gunny.
Gunny- Sgt they are yours.
Sgt. - so gunny wants us there at zero four fifteen. be there at 15 min prior. Cpls they are yours.
Cpl - shut the hell up. if sgt wants us there at zero four we will be there. Check? PFC Smuckatelly, what time we got to be there? Hell no devil dog. 15 min prior right? i will be holding accountability at fuckin 0345. if your ass is late im gonna run your ass till that armory opens. Tracking? LCpls they are yours.
LCpl - uhh hey guys. I dont want to be an ass, but we need to not let down our Cpls. So as your senior LCpl im going ask that you be there 15 min prior. We dont want the Cpls messing with us. So everyone see you at 0330?
PFC NJP - Fuck you bitch. You are all retarded. OUT
________
The Corps is the most efficient though.
All the other branches. conversation:
E1-E7 - uhh what do we do? Lets just hang out here until SajMaj passes us word. Why run around doing stuff that we dont have to. They dont pay us overtime. Fire up the X-box - CALL OF DUTY TOURNEY!!!