Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
hide menu
Latest users (2): cabbagemayhem, mixednuts, anonymous(33).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2738 - loewenstern (06/30/2012) [-]
Comment here and tell us which American president you support the most and why. I'll start.

Ron Paul because I believe in a government that doesn't get involved in wars on the other side of the world and I believe in economic freedom as well as freedom to do what you want to your own body. (drugs, and especially marijuana)
User avatar #2745 to #2738 - ginginhunter (06/30/2012) [-]
kill all of them no need for money suckin idiots
User avatar #2739 to #2738 - indiaan (06/30/2012) [-]
So Obama is gonna remain president after 2016?
0
#2768 to #2739 - bechante **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #2776 to #2768 - airguitar (07/01/2012) [-]
I am offended you would refer to Obama as an "Economist". Obama does not know anything about how the economy works. He has a Keynsian view of the economy because he believes he can craft the economy however he likes, but I would never consider him an economist in any form.
+1
#2777 to #2776 - bechante **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #2779 to #2777 - airguitar (07/01/2012) [-]
Mhmm, I approve of your statement other than the "economist" part, you're giving Obama far too much credit by saying that XD.
User avatar #2794 to #2779 - szymonf (07/01/2012) [-]
may i ask what a keynesian is....
User avatar #2841 to #2794 - airguitar (07/01/2012) [-]
I will respond here, the thread got too long to reply.

Who is the man you speak of? And I know very well about the faults of the Soviet experiment, they didn't intend to create a communist structure, and MORE importantly- the people didn't want to be in a communist society.

This is what I mentioned about human nature. Human nature has many characteristics, one is greed. This is something you can not "get out" of the way humans act. Capitalism is an economic model that uses this greed for everyone's benefit. On the other hand, communism could only flourish in a world without greed. Regardless of Lenin and Stalin's improper execution, the people still rejected the equality that was supposed to exist in a communist society. For example, farmers would hold on to their crops until times when they would sell from the most, instead of selling them as soon as possible to the state. There were also many illegal market and other way for some people to rise above others. A communist society CANNOT exist when people are self-interest, this is certain.
User avatar #2844 to #2841 - szymonf (07/01/2012) [-]
i knew you knew about the faults. i like to believe that trotsky was the person that could have created a true marxist state. But then again, his "democratic" model contradicts with my view on democracy and i kind of fell in "love" with him after reading his autobiography
Concerning your point on capitalism, human greed is far to great to help benefit society. the past 200 years are a clear indication of that.
User avatar #2847 to #2844 - airguitar (07/01/2012) [-]
Are they? Look at what has happened with technology the past 200 years. These technological advancements are a result of competition, a result of greed. Because to become wealthy yourself, you must produce something for others that they are willing to give you money for. There might be a huge difference in the richest and poorest people today, but the goal of capitalism isn't to create equality (because people are by no means equal), no- the goal is to provide as many opportunities so that one day even the poorest person is living a life that couldn't even have been dreamed of in the past.

And has that not occurred? Even today's poor in the US, or Canada for, are living off incredibly better than the average person in a 3rd world country. This is because free trade, and capitalism in general, brings an overall rise in standards of living. The problems with economies will always exist, because of the faults in human nature- capitalism is just the system where the only faults exist because of the faulrs in human nature.
User avatar #2850 to #2847 - szymonf (07/01/2012) [-]
wow that was really well worded. I need to sleep on that so i don't throw a bunch of gibberish at you
User avatar #2851 to #2850 - airguitar (07/01/2012) [-]
Alright, I like to always look at the big picture. It may seem the 99% of today are suffering because of those greedy 1% rich people... But if you look at the whole world, our entire 350 million people of North America are the 1% of the world. Goodnight sir.
User avatar #2852 to #2851 - airguitar (07/01/2012) [-]
Lol I meant 350 million of US and Canada, Mexico makes that number a bunch larger XD.
User avatar #2864 to #2852 - szymonf (07/01/2012) [-]
the technological advancements have created the dumbest and most ill-informed generation in history.
And capitalism only brings wealth to one nation, while the others suffer. Adam Smith hoped his system would help everyone; he did not want people to exploit
User avatar #2878 to #2864 - airguitar (07/01/2012) [-]
It does not only benefit one country at all. Trade benefits BOTH countries that engage in it. When you buy something from a store, you receive something you are willing to pay money for (A computer perhaps) and the company receives something they want more than a computer (Money). This is true with labor, trade between companies, and when trading services/ investments as well. Trade makes both sides wealthier.

The reason some countries are so much farther ahead than others- is because those countries behind don't trade. Look at some examples of countries with small populations and very little to no resources: Switzerland, Singapore, and South Korea are a few very good examples. On the other hand, many 3rd world countries have very LOW economic freedom, resulting in high levels of poverty. For example Haiti, Myanmar, and Zimbabwe are all at the very bottom of the "Economic Freedom" index and they all are some of the poorest countries of the world.

Last example is looking at mainland China and Hong Kong. Hong Kong is very possibly the place that endorses free trade more than any other in the entire world. There are very low taxes, not many tariffs if any, and other countries are allowed to use the city as a port. As a result, Hong Kong is the most "vertical city" in the world, has a very high income-per-capita and all the other indexes like "quality of life" are much higher for Hong Kong than for mainland China, which has many limitations to trade.
User avatar #2806 to #2794 - airguitar (07/01/2012) [-]
The classical view of economics was created by economists by the name of Alex Smith, David Ricardo, and Irving Fisher. This view is supports that some countries are wealthier than others because of free trade. There are many studies that support this, but classical economics was proven wrong during the great depression. This is because classical economics supports than an economy will not experience downturns if people are allowed to trade freely, Alex Smith described the powers of the market as an "Invisible Hand".

The great depression was an event where this did not work. There was not much fiscal intervention (like stimulus packages or excessive taxes, etc. - however there was monetary policy I won't talk about by the Fed). John Maynard Keynes was an economist who created the ideas that people's confidences in the market can change and be optimistic (bull) or pessimistic (bear). He also advocated that the government should fix these problems with consumers confidences by the government consuming in the form of large spending (stimulus packages).

Now, you can easily see why Obama is a "Keynsian" economist. Austrain economist and monetarists are ones who strongly disagree with Keynes, I personally am a monetarist/ libertarian. What I don't like about Keynes' ideas is they seem very elitist to me. He sees people's confidences in the market as "animal spirits" as he caused them, as if people are getting possessed by animals. He sees the political figures and economists as all-knowing and believes these "superior" intellects should decide how to spend the people's tax dollars. I've wrote too much XD, tell me if you still have questions.

TL;DR: Keynsian is when the government tries to boost the economy by spending (like Obama's stimulus package). Which bechante and I believe does not work at all.
User avatar #2808 to #2806 - szymonf (07/01/2012) [-]
ok first off, don't you mean adam smith not alex...
and secondly didn't the great depression end because of Roosevelt following this economic policy?

User avatar #2810 to #2808 - airguitar (07/01/2012) [-]
Yea sorry, I don't even know how I fucked up that bad with Adam Smith...

And that is a matter of opinion. It is VERY greatly debated whether Roosevelt actually helped or hurt in the aftermath of the recession. If you look back at the depression, president Hoover started economic stimulus very similar to Roosevelt's, for example he raised the tax on the top tax bracket from about 30% to 69%. Roosevelt later raised it from 69% to 79% (nobody argues that this is insanely too high, you loose money when you tax that high). Yet, president Hoover is greatly criticized while Roosevelt is revered. Now, one very important thing Roosevelt did was he helped insure deposits in banks - which were failing left and right. However, many believe the depression should not have lasted that long and that government spending only elongated the recovery process. Afterall, there was a similar depression directly after WW1 and president Harding did not enact government spending, and it recovered very quickly. Both the republican and democratic parties use Keynesian economics currently, and the economy doesn't appear to be getting much better does it?

Regardless of the views, I don't think any single representative, economist, or banker should view himself as above the everyday man.
User avatar #2813 to #2810 - szymonf (07/01/2012) [-]
i agree with the last statement.
and wouldnt you say that the reason why the recession lasted so short was because the markets had to readjust.
User avatar #2816 to #2813 - airguitar (07/01/2012) [-]
Which "recession"? The one in 1919? That was a "depression", meaning there was negative growth for longer than our current one in 2000's. Yes, It is argued that small recessions occur naturally because of a large number of people making mistakes, then the market readjusts. The one in 1919 or so was a bigger one though because the war had left the country with bigger problems.

Austrian and Monetarist economists will argue that depressions (like the great depression) and our past recession only occur BECAUSE of the government. In particular, the Fed did very very bad policy before 1929. The past recession was caused by the government encouraging mortgage companies to increase the home ownership rate, there was of course big problems caused by the owners of banks, but a big reason these people made such bad decisions is because they knew they would be bailed out.
User avatar #2826 to #2816 - szymonf (07/01/2012) [-]
ok fair enough...although based on what you have explained i wouldn't state that encouraging home ownership rate is Keynesianism
User avatar #2828 to #2826 - airguitar (07/01/2012) [-]
It is kind of. Like I would not say necessarily that John Keynes himself would have encouraged it, but modern day Keynsians do. And when I say encourage home ownership, I mean the two biggest mortgage companies in the US are Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Those two companies are GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises). They were the ones giving out sub-prime loans and that caused a huge portion of the mess. Keynesians may not necessarily say home-ownership ahould be higher, but they do encourage the government to control the economy.
User avatar #2829 to #2828 - szymonf (07/01/2012) [-]
ok i understand.
User avatar #2830 to #2829 - airguitar (07/01/2012) [-]
Ok then, I don't aim to change your views, just to show you our side. There are things from both views that have merit. i just think as a whole it is only a shaky fantasy that men can control an economy, what is actually a body controlled by the supply and demand of many.

As F.A. Hayek (an Austrian economist wrote):

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."
User avatar #2833 to #2830 - szymonf (07/01/2012) [-]
thanks i am going into university next year and i am taking microeconomics and macroeconomics, so i will definitely learn about most of this.
I like to consider myself an anarcho-communist, however i have no hope in humanity so i drop the "anarcho" when discussing my views.
User avatar #2835 to #2833 - airguitar (07/01/2012) [-]
Also, I strongly suggest you try to get GOOD econ professors. Econ professors when they are passionate are awesome in lectures.
User avatar #2834 to #2833 - airguitar (07/01/2012) [-]
I am an economics major entering my junior year of university. I used to be strongly liberal but have been converted by the data. I am strongly libertarian now, completely support all forms of freedom. And for that reason, I hate communism. We can get into that conversation if you want- it's semi-related to what we have been speaking about.
User avatar #2836 to #2834 - szymonf (07/01/2012) [-]
thanks for the suggestion. i am not sure how passionate the professors are; it is quite a liberal school so maybe i will get lucky.
Personally, I don't believe in democracy because I find it illegitimate (I live in Canada and quite frankly I view the harper government as fraudulent). I also don't believe that government should have any role in people's lives because it is the most oppressive, unnatural thing created by mankind. HOWEVER, as I stated in my last post, I have lost hope in humanity and therefore believe that we need a strong,far left government to interfere and help guide us economically and morally.

What i am saying might seem contradictory, juvenile, idealistic and stupid. My mind in the past two years has changed greatly and my views on right about everything have as a result changed and continue to change drastically.
User avatar #2837 to #2836 - airguitar (07/01/2012) [-]
Well, I can sympathize for you not wanting government intervention with our lives- I feel the same way. However, anarchy can't work, we need unity, defense, and from what I believe - a central bank. I used to support government control of the economy until I realized how completely incapable and inefficient the government is at allocating money. Also, if you think about it, the government forcing us to pay taxes is not much different from theft.

However, I have never supported communism. Not in any form. I wrote a paper on it in my money & banking class the last semester where I had a professor from the USSR, I even used her book for research. Not only is communism incredibly unrealistic and limiting, but it also has bad economics. If you would like I'll lat out bullet points for why I say this. I have been having a conversation with a Marxist on here, the main difference is a difference of opinion about human nature.
User avatar #2839 to #2837 - szymonf (07/01/2012) [-]
well the USSR was a catastrophic failure that should have never occurred and when it did it should have taken a different path. A marxist revolution is supposed to take place in a nation that has experienced an industrial revolution. Russia at the time was still feudal and ignorant. The marxists wanted to create an industrial revolution after the marxist revolution. Lenin was simply power hungry, so was stalin and they promoted no real or proper solution to this above mentioned problem; stalin only made it worse. The man that in my eyes truly understood what had to be done wasn't power hungry enough in my opinion until he realized that he had lost all of his power and political leverage
 Friends (0)