IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Obama is in the office!, yay?
Skinny 
post Feb 14 2009, 02:47 AM
Post #41


 
**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ Feb 4 2009, 07:38 AM) [snapback]1481747[/snapback]
Whenever I make a valid point by hyperbole you call it an appeal to ridicule

No, when you say use ad hominem or use ridicule, it's an appeal to ridicule. The only thing close to valid arguments you came out with was when you said there was deregulation in the banking sector, although you failed to show a previously existent regulation that could have prevented this crisis, that Bush supposedly did away with, and when you said that the market never existed without enforcement, although it has for hundereds of years before the new deal.

QUOTE
every time I make a point which validly invokes a widely held opinion, you call it an appeal to authority and expect the argument to be done with.
You really think that saying "the majority agrees with me, therefore, I am the victor" is a valid argument? Clearly not, as you shot down that line of logic in the drugs thread.

QUOTE
[Edit] By the way, appealing to popularity is closer to what I've been doing -- I've not dropped any names or that sort of thing. Close though, and I'm sure you'll learn about it next semester.

PROTIP: popular opinion is an authority. Although I haven't actually taken a class on this sort of thing, it's things that have been said on other online debates, don't assume.


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Passionate Homo ...
post Feb 18 2009, 04:00 PM
Post #42


Scam Artist
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 222
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Between the Ritz and the Rubble
Member No.: 15



QUOTE(Skinny. @ Feb 14 2009, 02:47 AM) [snapback]1483944[/snapback]
QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ Feb 4 2009, 07:38 AM) [snapback]1481747[/snapback]
Whenever I make a valid point by hyperbole you call it an appeal to ridicule

No, when you say use ad hominem or use ridicule, it's an appeal to ridicule. The only thing close to valid arguments you came out with was when you said there was deregulation in the banking sector, although you failed to show a previously existent regulation that could have prevented this crisis, that Bush supposedly did away with, and when you said that the market never existed without enforcement, although it has for hundereds of years before the new deal.
Remember what triggered the New Deal? Say overregulation plz

QUOTE
QUOTE
every time I make a point which validly invokes a widely held opinion, you call it an appeal to authority and expect the argument to be done with.
You really think that saying "the majority agrees with me, therefore, I am the victor" is a valid argument? Clearly not, as you shot down that line of logic in the drugs thread.
Are you reading every second word? Or just ignoring the point? I don't expect that people should defer to public opinion, just highlighting that a concensus here means even less.

QUOTE
QUOTE
[Edit] By the way, appealing to popularity is closer to what I've been doing -- I've not dropped any names or that sort of thing. Close though, and I'm sure you'll learn about it next semester.

PROTIP: popular opinion is an authority. Although I haven't actually taken a class on this sort of thing, it's things that have been said on other online debates, don't assume.
Still, for all this weak philosophical language, I'd have hoped you'd have heard of the appropriate phrase.


--------------------

QUOTE(LMOZ)
drive carfuly,because every secend a shrak can teleport itself to your car, and try to drive your car (if you have one) with shark in it.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny 
post Feb 19 2009, 08:36 AM
Post #43


 
**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ Feb 19 2009, 03:00 AM) [snapback]1484868[/snapback]
Remember what triggered the New Deal? Say overregulation plz

Partly. Many countries had massive trade tariffs or completely blocked all foreign trade back then, but other than that, the main factors weren't related to government: there were a lot of banks failing due to speculation by economists who thought they would fail, leading to mass with drawls from them. What would the government have done to stop this? Find better financial analysts and censored the rest? Oh, I forgot, the government is magic, and if we pay enough taxes and give up enough of our freedom, the government will be able to completely control what everyone does with, and says about their money, thereby ending all financial crisises, while Parliament house will shoot rainbows from it's flag pole, and children will frolic in the magic cola river that will run through the land.

Now how about actual proving that the great depression and the current crisis were caused by too much freedom, rather than making baseless blanket assertions?

QUOTE
I don't expect that people should defer to public opinion, just highlighting that a concensus here means even less.
And you also claimed that libertarianism had been discredited, although you were wrong. You also called it "lolbertarinanism" as though the idea that society can function as anything other than a collective oligarchy was laughable - and didn't back it up.

QUOTE
Still, for all this weak philosophical language, I'd have hoped you'd have heard of the appropriate phrase.

It was the appropriate phrase. The opinion of the majority is an authority.

And it's not philosophical language, not philosophical at all, it's purely systematic. Saying "you guys are stupid lolz" is ridicule, ridicule is not valid in debate, and therefore, you are using an appeal to ridicule.


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny 
post Feb 19 2009, 08:37 AM
Post #44


 
**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ Feb 19 2009, 03:00 AM) [snapback]1484868[/snapback]
Remember what triggered the New Deal? Say overregulation plz

Partly. Many countries had massive trade tariffs or completely blocked all foreign trade back then, but other than that, the main factors weren't related to government: there were a lot of banks failing due to speculation by economists who thought they would fail, leading to mass with drawls from them. What would the government have done to stop this? Find better financial analysts and censored the rest? Oh, I forgot, the government is magic, and if we pay enough taxes and give up enough of our freedom, the government will be able to completely control what everyone does with, and says about their money, thereby ending all financial crisises, while Parliament house will shoot rainbows from it's flag pole, and children will frolic in the magic cola river that will run through the land.

Now how about actual proving that the great depression and the current crisis were caused by too much freedom, rather than making baseless blanket assertions?

QUOTE
I don't expect that people should defer to public opinion, just highlighting that a concensus here means even less.
And you also claimed that libertarianism had been discredited, although you were wrong. You also called it "lolbertarinanism" as though the idea that society can function as anything other than a collective oligarchy was laughable - and didn't back it up.

QUOTE
Still, for all this weak philosophical language, I'd have hoped you'd have heard of the appropriate phrase.

It was the appropriate phrase. The opinion of the majority is an authority.

And it's not philosophical language, not philosophical at all, it's purely systematic. Saying "you guys are stupid lolz" is ridicule, ridicule is not valid in debate, and therefore, you are using an appeal to ridicule.


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qdeathstar
post Feb 19 2009, 10:53 PM
Post #45


My Penis, Your ass. Lets go.
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Virginia Beach
Member No.: 14



QUOTE(Skinny. @ Feb 14 2009, 02:47 AM) [snapback]1483944[/snapback]
You really think that saying "the majority agrees with me, therefore, I am the victor" is a valid argument?



yes, extremely valid argument. That is generally the case in society. Societal norms are, after all, created by and maintained by society.



QUOTE(Skinny. @ Feb 19 2009, 08:37 AM) [snapback]1485157[/snapback]
QUOTE(Amarillo Suave @ Feb 19 2009, 03:00 AM) [snapback]1484868[/snapback]
Remember what triggered the New Deal? Say overregulation plz

Partly. Many countries had massive trade tariffs or completely blocked all foreign trade back then, but other than that, the main factors weren't related to government: there were a lot of banks failing due to speculation by economists who thought they would fail, leading to mass with drawls from them. What would the government have done to stop this? Find better financial analysts and censored the rest? Oh, I forgot, the government is magic, and if we pay enough taxes and give up enough of our freedom, the government will be able to completely control what everyone does with, and says about their money, thereby ending all financial crisises, while Parliament house will shoot rainbows from it's flag pole, and children will frolic in the magic cola river that will run through the land.



First of all, trade was a much smaller part of a nations GDP in the early 1930s, and its not like tarriffs were new, so its hard to make the argument that pre-existing tarriffs caused the great depression. You could make the argument that the tarrifs made the depression worse and the recovery slower, though.

Anything not related to government is something that is not regulated by government. AMIRITE? Im not sure if you noticed but Mello's "say overregulation plz" was sarcasm in case you missed it.

As you ramble on, you say that banks were failing to do a run on the banks. This is true, the reason this is true is like you said, people thought the banks would fail. The reason that the people thought the banks would fail is because there was no control over how much in costs banks to borrow money from other banks, making if difficult to determine whether or not banks could "borrow" enough money at a low enough cost to cover short term debts such as withdraws. The 'economists' decided the answer was no, so a run on the banks occurred, as people attempted to "get in before the lock". XD.png

As far as what the government could have done about that, you should look up something called a "federal reserve system". I'm guessing you'll find answers to your questions there.


--------------------

Seether - Country Song
Download Now

QUOTE (Massacre @ Aug 26 2010, 04:28 PM) *
I've found it's impossible to be more human than human. Inhuman, however, is easy.



Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny 
post Feb 20 2009, 05:19 AM
Post #46


 
**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Feb 20 2009, 09:53 AM) [snapback]1485336[/snapback]
yes, extremely valid argument. That is generally the case in society. Societal norms are, after all, created by and maintained by society.

No, it's not a valid argument. Saying that libertarianism is unlikely to be used because people don't agree with it is valid, but saying it is a bad system, simply because the majority disagree with it, is not. You'll find that where ever you go, the majority always agrees with the government or else the government would not be there. You would basically be saying that every system of government that ever lasted more than 50 or so years, is effective and preferable.

QUOTE
You could make the argument that the tariffs made the depression worse and the recovery slower, though.
I didn't specify what damage the tariffs actually did. I merely said that some over regulation was a factor in the severity of the depression - although he was being sarcastic, it's important that this be pointed out.

QUOTE
Anything not related to government is something that is not regulated by government. AMIRITE?

Not necessarily. To say this is to say that every problem in the economy happens because the government fails to stop it. Sometimes the government can't do anything; but the utopian liberals insist on pushing their fallacies in saying the government can fix all problems simply by controlling everything that can cause a problem.

QUOTE
The reason that the people thought the banks would fail is because there was no control over how much in costs banks to borrow money from other banks, making if difficult to determine whether or not banks could "borrow" enough money at a low enough cost to cover short term debts such as withdraws.
Actually, the main cause for confusion and such in the banking sector wasn't too much freedom (or if it was, you will have to prove it). I'd say it was the sudden increase in the money supply before the 1920s, then the removal of more than a third of the currency in circulation:

"Following Friedman and Schwartz (1965), most U.S. economists nowadays seem to agree that the severity of the Great Depression cannot be explained without reference to the unprecedented contraction of the U.S. money si.tpply. From August 1929 to March 1933, the broad money supply (M2) decreased by more than a third."

If a free banking system had been used, there would have been no federal reserve board with the power to increase/decrease the money supply, this wouldn't have been an issue.

QUOTE
As far as what the government could have done about that, you should look up something called a "federal reserve system".

Yeah they should have used one of this in 1929... oh wait, one had been in operation for sixteen years prior to the stock market crash. Imagine that.



--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qdeathstar
post Feb 20 2009, 06:08 AM
Post #47


My Penis, Your ass. Lets go.
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Virginia Beach
Member No.: 14



QUOTE(Skinny. @ Feb 20 2009, 05:19 AM) [snapback]1485491[/snapback]
No, it's not a valid argument. Saying that libertarianism is unlikely to be used because people don't agree with it is valid, but saying it is a bad system, simply because the majority disagree with it, is not. You'll find that where ever you go, the majority always agrees with the government or else the government would not be there. You would basically be saying that every system of government that ever lasted more than 50 or so years, is effective and preferable.


No, i would actually be saying that any government which doesn't currently exist was uneffective and unpreferable.

Secondly, your wrong.


QUOTE

didn't specify what damage the tariffs actually did. I merely said that some over regulation was a factor in the severity of the depression
OOOOHHHH.

You could look at the tarrifs in more than way. The tarrifs helped to isolate economies so one could make the argument that the tarrifs slowed the pace of the expansion of the recession. Im not going to argue that point, but you could if you wanted to. Secondly, like i said before, tarrifs played a small roll in this and really only came into facter AFTER the recession had started. The recession started for reasons i've already mentioned.

QUOTE

QUOTE
Anything not related to government is something that is not regulated by government. AMIRITE?

Not necessarily. To say this is to say that every problem in the economy happens because the government fails to stop it.


Do you say "to say this" when you speak, if you don't you should try to type with fake eloquence. Because its painfully fake.

Finally, your analogy makes no sense. I said nothing about the economy, problems, are what the government does or doesn't do. I say does not you say i say does too.


As far as your last bit, prior to 1929 the federal reserve system had very limited powers and a very limited knowledge of how the economy worked. Economics is a new science, remember.

We are talking about today however, and no matter what happened in 1929 its incorrect to say today that deregulation of the banks was the best thing since sliced bread. Because thats obviously wrong. look where we are at now.


--------------------

Seether - Country Song
Download Now

QUOTE (Massacre @ Aug 26 2010, 04:28 PM) *
I've found it's impossible to be more human than human. Inhuman, however, is easy.



Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny 
post Feb 20 2009, 10:29 AM
Post #48


 
**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Feb 20 2009, 05:08 PM) [snapback]1485507[/snapback]
No, i would actually be saying that any government which doesn't currently exist was uneffective and unpreferable.

Duh, but many that do exist are ineffective and not preferable. Communism, for one.

QUOTE
You could look at the tarrifs in more than way. The tarrifs helped to isolate economies so one could make the argument that the tarrifs slowed the pace of the expansion of the recession.
That's exactly what they did. What's your point? Large tariffs and isolationism, like most policies, have many negatives and positives. The negatives outweigh the positives, when it comes to isolationism.

QUOTE
Secondly, like i said before, tarrifs played a small roll in this and really only came into facter AFTER the recession had started.

I even said that they were not a major factor. But they are a form of over regulation and did contribute to the severity of the depression, amirite?

QUOTE
Do you say "to say this" when you speak, if you don't you should try to type with fake eloquence. Because its painfully fake.
I think you've just made the least relevant point I have ever seen, congratulations. If you really wanted to know how I speak in comparison to how I type, you should have asked me on MSN, since it has nothing to do with our debate about political economy. V_V

QUOTE
Finally, your analogy makes no sense.

It wasn't an analogy. I'm simply saying the government can't fix everything, as the collectivists would have us believe.

QUOTE
prior to 1929 the federal reserve system had very limited powers
And yet it managed to play around with the money supply and contribute greatly to bank failures (see the source in my last post).

QUOTE
its incorrect to say today that deregulation of the banks was the best thing since sliced bread.

What deregulation was this? You still haven't pointed to a regulation in the banking sector that was used prior to the Bush years, that he removed.


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qdeathstar
post Feb 21 2009, 12:30 AM
Post #49


My Penis, Your ass. Lets go.
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Virginia Beach
Member No.: 14



QUOTE(Skinny. @ Feb 20 2009, 10:29 AM) [snapback]1485526[/snapback]
QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Feb 20 2009, 05:08 PM) [snapback]1485507[/snapback]
No, i would actually be saying that any government which doesn't currently exist was uneffective and unpreferable.

Duh, but many that do exist are ineffective and not preferable.


ineffective and not preferable, from whose perspective? Yours. I'm sure that Kim Jong Ill (or whatever) finds his form of government very effective and very preferable, and he's subjects are just fine with it aswell.

As far as your jip on communism, China appears to be doing just fine under communist rule.

QUOTE

QUOTE
You could look at the tarrifs in more than way. The tarrifs helped to isolate economies so one could make the argument that the tarrifs slowed the pace of the expansion of the recession.
That's exactly what they did. What's your point? Large tariffs and isolationism, like most policies, have many negatives and positives. The negatives outweigh the positives, when it comes to isolationism.


Thats why i said i wouldn't make that argument, only that you could. The argument im making is that the tarriffs didn't matter as far as the start of the depression. And, maybe not at all. America is the most pro-free-trade government in the world but it didn't help out this time around..

QUOTE

QUOTE
Secondly, like i said before, tarrifs played a small roll in this and really only came into facter AFTER the recession had started.

I even said that they were not a major factor. But they are a form of over regulation and did contribute to the severity of the depression, amirite?


There's no evidence in this specific case that free trade would have helped, because in this case there were other much more significant barriers to trading. And there were also much more significant factors that contributed to the severity of the depression. If you want a cookie for your point, have one, but tarriffs didn't pay a significant role, and if they didn't they don't matter as far as im concerned.


QUOTE

QUOTE
Do you say "to say this" when you speak, if you don't you should try to type with fake eloquence. Because its painfully fake.
I think you've just made the least relevant point I have ever seen, congratulations. If you really wanted to know how I speak in comparison to how I type, you should have asked me on MSN, since it has nothing to do with our debate about political economy. V_V


Cookie. Im not the one arguing argumentative stylings, but since you brought it up id figured id give you a few pointers...

QUOTE

QUOTE
Finally, your analogy makes no sense.

It wasn't an analogy. I'm simply saying the government can't fix everything, as the collectivists would have us believe.



Key words, IS LIKE SAYING. It was an analogy. A stupid one, but then again you don't even know what an analogy is... shame.

QUOTE

QUOTE
prior to 1929 the federal reserve system had very limited powers
And yet it managed to play around with the money supply and contribute greatly to bank failures (see the source in my last post).


They still had very limited powers compared to what they have today. Selective quoting makes you look like an idiot.

QUOTE

QUOTE
its incorrect to say today that deregulation of the banks was the best thing since sliced bread.

What deregulation was this? You still haven't pointed to a regulation in the banking sector that was used prior to the Bush years, that he removed.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act


--------------------

Seether - Country Song
Download Now

QUOTE (Massacre @ Aug 26 2010, 04:28 PM) *
I've found it's impossible to be more human than human. Inhuman, however, is easy.



Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny 
post Feb 21 2009, 03:00 AM
Post #50


 
**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Feb 21 2009, 11:30 AM) [snapback]1485722[/snapback]
I'm sure that Kim Jong Ill (or whatever) finds his form of government very effective and very preferable, and he's subjects are just fine with it aswell.

And that's the exact point I'm trying to make. Even though communist countries suck to live under, the majority still agrees with it. You could argue that communism works in some places, but we both know it doesn't.

QUOTE
As far as your jip on communism, China appears to be doing just fine under communist rule.
Nice try. China is no longer Communist, that's why there are private businesses everywhere. And Hong Kong is one of the least regulated economies on earth.

QUOTE
The argument im making is that the tarriffs didn't matter as far as the start of the depression.

Yes, I know they were a minor factor, I was only mentioning them and their effects to be a smart arse to Mello, who seemed to reject the idea that it was a lack of freedom that contributed to the depression.

QUOTE
There's no evidence in this specific case that free trade would have helped
I've already provided a link that showed the damage done by the federal reserve, and isolationism, although a minor contributer, was a contributer non the less. New departments of government and anti-trust regulations set the stage for the collapse, as well.

QUOTE
It was an analogy.

It wasn't. Blaming every problem in the economy on too much freedom, literally is pretending that the government can fix all problems in the economy.

QUOTE
They still had very limited powers compared to what they have today.
Yes, and this isn't a good thing. You didn't debunk the link about an increase then a decrease in the money supply and how that contributed to confusion and other problems.

QUOTE

That was done in 1999 so that lies on Billy Bob Clinton, if it did any damage. You still need to show that allowing people to invest and save at the same bank crumbled the world economy, as you would suggest.


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qdeathstar
post Feb 24 2009, 04:35 PM
Post #51


My Penis, Your ass. Lets go.
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Virginia Beach
Member No.: 14



QUOTE
QUOTE
I\'m sure that Kim Jong Ill (or whatever) finds his form of government very effective and very preferable, and he\'s subjects are just fine with it aswell.

And that\'s the exact point I\'m trying to make. Even though communist countries suck to live under, the majority still agrees with it. You could argue that communism works in some places, but we both know it doesn\'t.


From whose perspective? Are you god? Is your perspective the only perspective thats important? NOOOOOOPPPPEE!!!

QUOTE

QUOTE
As far as your jip on communism, China appears to be doing just fine under communist rule.
Nice try. China is no longer Communist, that\'s why there are private businesses everywhere. And Hong Kong is one of the least regulated economies on earth.


the chinese economy is a mix of communist and capitalist ideology, but the economy is still heavily regulated. In addition, the political environment is still stoutly communist.

Hong Kong is a special case, since certain special and specific terms were required by Britain before it would relinquish control over Hong Kong to China.

QUOTE

QUOTE
The argument im making is that the tarriffs didn\'t matter as far as the start of the depression.

Yes, I know they were a minor factor, I was only mentioning them and their effects to be a smart arse to Mello, who seemed to reject the idea that it was a lack of freedom that contributed to the depression.


Well, you ended up looking like an dumb ass.

QUOTE

and isolationism, although a minor contributer,
it didn\'t cause the recession. Your wrong. Move on.


QUOTE

QUOTE
It was an analogy.

It wasn\'t.


too dumb to know what an anology is. But thats ok. Sigh...

QUOTE

QUOTE

That was done in 1999 so that lies on Billy Bob Clinton, if it did any damage. You still need to show that allowing people to invest and save at the same bank crumbled the world economy, as you would suggest.



This has got to be one of the most stupid comments i have ever heard. Thats just the most recent and blatant example of measures that were put in after the great depression to regulate the banks being removed by deregulation movements. If you can\'t see that your just an idiot. And thats all there is too it.

who cares on who \"did\" it. Your also an idiot for suggesting that whoever is president is soley responsible. The bill has to pass the SENATE AND THE HOUSE before it even gets to the president. And one more thing before you shut the fuck up, guess who was in charge during 1999 in the SENATE AND THE HOUSE... eeooOOWWWOEEEEEE, the repulicans

This post has been edited by Qdeathstar: Feb 24 2009, 04:41 PM


--------------------

Seether - Country Song
Download Now

QUOTE (Massacre @ Aug 26 2010, 04:28 PM) *
I've found it's impossible to be more human than human. Inhuman, however, is easy.



Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Passionate Homo ...
post Feb 24 2009, 07:52 PM
Post #52


Scam Artist
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 222
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Between the Ritz and the Rubble
Member No.: 15



I was planning on stopping posting other than to point out appeals to ridicule and authority, but then I realised that would take longer than writing War and Peace from the point of view of Dick Cheney.

I'll probably reply in full later, but the one off-hand reference to me in the supercapitalist jizzfest that's been going on gives me little faith in how that will proceed.


--------------------

QUOTE(LMOZ)
drive carfuly,because every secend a shrak can teleport itself to your car, and try to drive your car (if you have one) with shark in it.
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny 
post Feb 25 2009, 02:49 AM
Post #53


 
**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Feb 25 2009, 03:35 AM) [snapback]1486567[/snapback]
From whose perspective?

It's not a matter of perspective. Compare the standards of living in places like Australia, America or even Chille to the Soviet Union or Cuba.

QUOTE
the chinese economy is a mix of communist and capitalist ideology, but the economy is still heavily regulated. In addition, the political environment is still stoutly communist.
But it's not a communist country - and it only really started improving there when they moved closer towards capitalism.

QUOTE
it didn\'t cause the recession. Your wrong. Move on.

Did I say it started the recession? No, I said it was a contributing factor. I even provided a source.

QUOTE
If you can\'t see that your just an idiot. And thats all there is too it.

And yet all I'm hearing is "I can't actually explain how this would lead to a housing bubble being created; this is just stuff I heard from my fellow liberals on CNN".


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TwoFacedTanner
post Feb 25 2009, 03:03 AM
Post #54


Clepto
*

Group: Members
Posts: 154
Joined: 21-August 04
From: Muscle Shoals, Alabama
Member No.: 908
XBL Gamertag: IanCredible988



Didnt he sign a stimulus package that is gonna give the workin man Money?
I could go for that.
I'd give it right back to the country.

(and yes, I half ass follow all political stuff. So anything you tell me is only gonna enlighten me)

This post has been edited by TwoFacedTanner: Feb 25 2009, 03:03 AM
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qdeathstar
post Feb 25 2009, 05:04 AM
Post #55


My Penis, Your ass. Lets go.
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Virginia Beach
Member No.: 14



QUOTE(Skinny. @ Feb 25 2009, 02:49 AM) [snapback]1486744[/snapback]
QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Feb 25 2009, 03:35 AM) [snapback]1486567[/snapback]
From whose perspective?

It's not a matter of perspective. Compare the standards of living in places like Australia, America or even Chille to the Soviet Union or Cuba.


It is a matter of perspective. Its always a matter of perspective. You could say that Islamic Law is immoral and cruel to women, but thats from YOUR perspective. To the Taliban, its just respecting Gods wishes...


QUOTE

QUOTE
the chinese economy is a mix of communist and capitalist ideology, but the economy is still heavily regulated. In addition, the political environment is still stoutly communist.

But it's not a communist country - and it only really started improving there when they moved closer towards capitalism.


Yes, it is a communist country. The government, which controls most businesses has began opening up to foreign investment, they still are not a huge fan of privately owned businesses.

QUOTE(Definition of China)
It is a socialist republic ruled by the Communist Party of China under a single-party system and has jurisdiction over twenty-two provinces, five autonomous regions, four municipalities, and two capitalist Special Administrative Regions. The capital of the PRC is Beijing.


QUOTE

QUOTE
it didn\'t cause the recession. Your wrong. Move on.

Did I say it started the recession? No, I said it was a contributing factor. I even provided a source.


Then stop acting like an idiot and bringing up time and time again. You have been trying to prove a minute point, but your wrong...

QUOTE

QUOTE
If you can\'t see that your just an idiot. And thats all there is too it.

And yet all I'm hearing is "I can't actually explain how this would lead to a housing bubble being created; this is just stuff I heard from my fellow liberals on CNN".



It led to a housing bubble because it let banks lend money without checking to make sure the people who they were lending to could actually afford to make mortgage payments. Because the banks lent money loosely more people bought houses, increasing prices and everything was going fine. The problem is that once people began to see that the housing market was heating up, everyone wanted in on it, contractors started building more houses than would sell in the market and their was an oversupply of houses which meant that houses meant to be a "quick flip" were staying on the market longer and longer.

This caused investors "flippers" to sell their houses at a lower price in order to move them faster, which lowered home values.

In the mean time, banks had allowed people who owned houses to refinance their houses to extract equity time and time again each time adjusting the mortage higher and higher, because the values for houses were going up. People used this money to pay their bills (and the mortgage which they would be otherwise unable to afford).

Once the housing market cooled off, and home values leveled off, people who had gotten used to being able refinance their home and extract "made up" equity out of their house found that the banks would no longer allow them to refinance which meant that they could no longer extract money from their houses to pay for their bills. When this happened foreclosures started to increase which further deteriorated the housing market.

The banks began selling the houses at below market value to get the assets of their books so that they would maintain adequate capitalization for their ongoing activities, this meant that house values dropped even further which served to increase the foreclosure rate even higher.

In the mean time, banks were being allowed to make a mortgage, then sell that asset to another bank at a slightly reduced cost so that they could make more loans and put more revenue on the books. That was working fine for a while, but onces the housing market cooled off, that paper began to be worth less and less money, and eventually banks could not find a buyer for that paper and at that moment, banks failed to maintain adequate capitalization and went bankrupt.

If there had of been regulation by the government to require banks to actually check stated income, or limits placed on refinancing or the trading of paper then this might have been avoided.

Also, CNN is probably the least biased media outlet. MSNBC or FOX news are certiantly more biased than CNN.

And im hardly a liberal. I was a supporter of McCain and i voted for President Bush twice. I used to believe that tax cuts were the best way to stimulate the economy, but there is no emperical evidence to support that. If you give tax cuts to the wealthy in times of economic crisis, they will save it... If the government spends it it will GET SPENT on the economy in the short run..

IF you need any evidence of the republican economic engine being a massive failure, just look at where we are at now.

It has nothing to do with "liberalism"... just look at reality and at who was in power.

You have to face the facts that the Bush style of government was ultimately a failure, we've tried deregulation and it hasn't worked... obviously.

QUOTE

QUOTE(TwoFacedTanner @ Feb 25 2009, 03:03 AM) [snapback]1486746[/snapback]
Didnt he sign a stimulus package that is gonna give the workin man Money?
I could go for that.
I'd give it right back to the country.

(and yes, I half ass follow all political stuff. So anything you tell me is only gonna enlighten me)



Yup.


--------------------

Seether - Country Song
Download Now

QUOTE (Massacre @ Aug 26 2010, 04:28 PM) *
I've found it's impossible to be more human than human. Inhuman, however, is easy.



Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny 
post Feb 28 2009, 12:43 PM
Post #56


 
**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Feb 25 2009, 04:04 PM) [snapback]1486781[/snapback]
You could say that Islamic Law is immoral and cruel to women, but thats from YOUR perspective. To the Taliban, its just respecting Gods wishes...

That's if we're discussing whether or not it's cruel to women. Then it's a matter of perspective, but when we're discussing whether or not it's a good system, it's not. If I were to say it wastes too much money to enforce it, and not allowing women to work, drive, ride a bicycle or leave the house without a man, wastes human capital, holding back the productivity of the nation, and they respond with "well at least we won't go to hell, like I read in some old book, written and rewritten by people who heard the teachings of an illiterate old man, who supposedly heard voices in a cave and rode out on a unicorn, that was married to a nine year old girl - although we will certainly live in hell here" it's a much different story.

QUOTE
Yes, it is a communist country.
It's not. It went through capitalist reform, at least, that's what the leader of the "communist party" says". Although if you think the President of China is wrong about the kind of system his country has, be sure to send him a letter to school him on how it works. V_V

QUOTE
Then stop acting like an idiot and bringing up time and time again.

I wasn't bringing it up time and time again, you were just being anal and wouldn't stop bugging me about what I was saying, despite your constant misconceptions.

QUOTE
If there had of been regulation by the government to require banks to actually check stated income
Try again. That wasn't the problem. I'm not going to go back and find where I posted this before, so I'll post it again:

[youtube]e11-_cE63Us[/youtube]


It would seem a little strange for the government to tell these companies to lend as much as possible to people with bad or no credit, then put in regulations saying they can't. They wouldn't need to if they never encouraged and sponsored the irresponsible behavior in the first place. They got rid of the regulation so they could do this, but removing the regulation itself wouldn't have caused the problem. It's like saying if banks could allow people to get a personal loan with no collateral, they would be jumping out of their pants to do it, when they obviously wouldn't.

QUOTE
Also, CNN is probably the least biased media outlet

Well, I don't get MSNBC, but I do get CNN and it seems pretty liberal to me.

QUOTE
And im hardly a liberal.
Well it seems to me that you're fiscally liberal.

QUOTE
i voted for President Bush twice

Who else but a liberal would vote for someone who spent more than Lyndan B. Johnson?

QUOTE
I used to believe that tax cuts were the best way to stimulate the economy, but there is no emperical evidence to support that.
How about Reagan? He cut taxes across the board, and things only improved, and I can bet you that it will take Obama a lot longer to "fix the economy" than it did for Reagan, because tax cuts don't involve eleven hundred pages of nonsense, that will insure loads of it getting spent on something that isn't needed, or was made overseas, or the money gets lost in the red tape. It's as simple as people having more money and going out and buying things. When people are a few percent richer each month and all decide to get new TVs, there's very little complication in the stimulus that goes on there. The failure of Reagan is that he didn't cut spending to accommodate the tax cuts.

QUOTE
If you give tax cuts to the wealthy in times of economic crisis, they will save it... If the government spends it it will GET SPENT on the economy in the short run..

The wealthy will save it, but the middle class will actually go out and buy things with it. Obama even admitted, when opposing tax cuts to the rich, that when you give money to the working and middle class, they will buy computer for their kids, bigger cars etc. The government spending is usually all pork, because I guarantee you that none of them read the eleven hundred pages in that thing.

QUOTE
IF you need any evidence of the republican economic engine being a massive failure, just look at where we are at now.

Precisely. The republicans sponsoring and encouraging bad mortgages has lead the global economy to where it is now.


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Qdeathstar
post Feb 28 2009, 08:07 PM
Post #57


My Penis, Your ass. Lets go.
Group Icon

Group: Gold Member
Posts: 420
Joined: 2-August 04
From: Virginia Beach
Member No.: 14



well, ive decided that your delusional. But hey, we can't all be sane can we?


--------------------

Seether - Country Song
Download Now

QUOTE (Massacre @ Aug 26 2010, 04:28 PM) *
I've found it's impossible to be more human than human. Inhuman, however, is easy.



Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Skinny 
post Mar 1 2009, 12:42 AM
Post #58


 
**

Group: Members
Posts: 258
Joined: 31-December 07
From: A basement full of scientists, puffing on chronic
Member No.: 38,184



QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Mar 1 2009, 07:07 AM) [snapback]1487780[/snapback]
well, ive decided that your delusional. But hey, we can't all be sane can we?

Because only delusional people provide sources, and only sane people go running over the hill with little to support what they say? Clearly.... rolleyes.gif


--------------------
=D
Achievements
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th July 2014 - 07:36 PM

GTA 5 | GTA San Andreas | Red Dead Redemption | GTA 4