Click to expand
Rank #5189 on CommentsLevel 213 Comments: Comedic Genius
OnlineSend mail to drsalty Block drsalty Invite drsalty to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||1/20/2012|
|Funnyjunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#10877|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#5173|
|Comment Thumbs:||1630 total, 1709 , 79|
|Content Level Progress:|| 6.77% (4/59) |
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
|Comment Level Progress:|| 53% (53/100) |
Level 213 Comments: Comedic Genius → Level 214 Comments: Comedic Genius
|Total Comments Made:||391|
latest user's comments
|#56 - furry road?||3 hours ago on X-Men||+7|
|#1 - Since we're on the topic of 40k: what's your favorite Space Ma… [+] (6 new replies)||05/17/2015 on WH 40k 1||+6|
#5 - postalmate (05/17/2015) [-]
blood ravens . But there are only like what, 10 or 20 of them left after the last Aurelian crusade? So that's a shame. And all the cool guys except Sergeant Tarkus, Gabriel and Martellus are either dead or dead traitors. Also Force Commander Hair gel and Thedeus are most probably on a penitent crusade to the eye of terror for the next 100 years so that sucks relic could totally make a game about it, maybe Third Person Shooter like space marine .
I like them for the sheer fact that they were the first chapter I learned about back in 2004 when the first Dawn of War game was released. Got me into Warhammer 40k since then.
2nd Place are the Iron Hands, Salamanders hold the 3rd spot in my heart.
#3 - frybo (05/17/2015) [-]
i also do like the salamanders, since they are also very concerned about civilians and other people in general.
the Alpha legion is also Semi-cool due to the mysteries surrounding them there is the theory, that they are actually double traitors
Every chapter is better than the marines Malevolent though
|#10 - Picture [+] (1 new reply)||05/14/2015 on batsy vs supes be like||+7|
|#23 - "Nah, I won't do it. I'll never see what Fallout 4 is lik… [+] (13 new replies)||05/14/2015 on Keep dreaming||+24|
|#26 - Picture||05/13/2015 on Daredevil||+1|
|#19 - Picture||05/12/2015 on The internet in an...||+9|
|#5 - Now he can be with Shrek forever.||05/05/2015 on This is my swamp||+3|
|#3 - King George III was a known sith lord.||05/05/2015 on May The 4th be With You||0|
|#6 - That's a cannon. [+] (1 new reply)||05/05/2015 on Huh||+12|
|#4 - No, that's broken window fallacy. [+] (7 new replies)||05/03/2015 on As a grocer, this...||+3|
#25 - noblexfenrir (05/03/2015) [-]
Except it does.
Keynesian models simply purport that aggregate demand is the prime focus and that spending doesn't need to inherently be productive. Hence why one of the biggest criticisms of these models is they support cronyism and propping up failing markets at the expense of successful ones.
So pouring cereal on the ground means funds now must be redirected to clean it up, replace the item, restock it, and possibly look for the person who did it for legal action. Where as these funds could have been spent on something more pertinent to the expansion of the business, they must now be used to stay stagnant. But Keynesian models don't care about that aspect, purely that money is being spent in some fashion.
#26 - Zaxplab (05/03/2015) [-]
government spending. Your precious business will still hold a monopoly in the area.
Government spends cash, people have more cash, people spend more cash, businesses have more cash, businesses spend more cash, government can take in more in tax revenue, government spends cash, repeat.
This isn't to say that classical doesn't work. It's just stupid to say that one or the other is literally the only way it will work %1000 of the time.
#27 - noblexfenrir (05/03/2015) [-]
It's idiotic to say an outside entity such as the government can effectively prop up the market in such a way that it will emulate the course of the actual free market.
The main issue is the "Government spends cash" part, because the government does not make it's own money, it's simply taken from the populace. Which means the government is taking money from you and using it to prop up businesses how they see fit. Generally meaning failing markets will not correct themselves.
The scenario was simply being used analogous to a keynesian model, not an exact replication of it in action. And your explanation of the flow of money from government to business comes off as a very childish view of trickle down economics.
#15 - anonymous (05/03/2015) [-]
You obviously know nothing about economics