Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

loewenstern    

Rank #20713 on Subscribers
loewenstern Avatar Level 230 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Offline
Send mail to loewenstern Block loewenstern Invite loewenstern to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Consoles Owned: Nintendo 64
Date Signed Up:4/23/2011
Last Login:2/16/2013
Location:Norway
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 5192 total,  6408 ,  1216
Comment Thumbs: 3081 total,  3945 ,  864
Content Level Progress: 91% (91/100)
Level 151 Content: Faptastic → Level 152 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 79% (79/100)
Level 230 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 231 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:3
Content Views:73501
Times Content Favorited:393 times
Total Comments Made:719
FJ Points:8337
Add me as a friend, you cocksucker.

Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny pictures

  • Views: 32395
    Thumbs Up 1722 Thumbs Down 159 Total: +1563
    Comments: 190
    Favorites: 133
    Uploaded: 05/28/11
    international car discussion international car discussion
  • Views: 34456
    Thumbs Up 1394 Thumbs Down 309 Total: +1085
    Comments: 166
    Favorites: 232
    Uploaded: 05/18/11
    How to build a toy helicopter How to build a toy helicopter
  • Views: 4301
    Thumbs Up 127 Thumbs Down 8 Total: +119
    Comments: 6
    Favorites: 7
    Uploaded: 06/23/11
    Penis name duscussion Penis name duscussion
  • Views: 1394
    Thumbs Up 24 Thumbs Down 4 Total: +20
    Comments: 4
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 05/30/11
    Employee troll Employee troll
  • Views: 1967
    Thumbs Up 19 Thumbs Down 4 Total: +15
    Comments: 15
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 05/31/11
    Quads! Quads!
  • Views: 1190
    Thumbs Up 20 Thumbs Down 6 Total: +14
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 05/22/11
    4chan win 4chan win
1 2 3 > [ 14 Funny Pictures Total ]
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

funny gifs

  • Views: 2500
    Thumbs Up 41 Thumbs Down 4 Total: +37
    Comments: 11
    Favorites: 7
    Uploaded: 06/27/11
    Wrestling Wrestling
  • Views: 1469
    Thumbs Up 34 Thumbs Down 4 Total: +30
    Comments: 4
    Favorites: 5
    Uploaded: 08/17/11
    Facebook (1) Facebook (1)
  • Views: 721
    Thumbs Up 11 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +10
    Comments: 1
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 06/13/11
    Haters gonna hate. Haters gonna hate.
  • Views: 758
    Thumbs Up 8 Thumbs Down 2 Total: +6
    Comments: 7
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 06/14/11
    what is this i dont even what is this i dont even

latest user's comments

#163 - Oy vey! Is someone on the internet trivializing the impact of … 10/29/2012 on Hitler did good 0
#100 - I have some too 09/08/2012 on Very Motivational +1
#11875 - Comment deleted 07/16/2012 on Let's flag porn and help... 0
#11873 - Comment deleted 07/16/2012 on Let's flag porn and help... 0
#11871 - Comment deleted  [+] (1 new reply) 07/16/2012 on Let's flag porn and help... 0
#11873 - loewenstern Comment deleted by loewenstern
#11869 - Comment deleted  [+] (2 new replies) 07/16/2012 on Let's flag porn and help... 0
#11871 - loewenstern Comment deleted by loewenstern
#11873 - loewenstern Comment deleted by loewenstern
#387 - Comment deleted 07/08/2012 on Fuck this world... +2
#3007 - What I mean is that islam has effectively prevented and oppres…  [+] (1 new reply) 07/03/2012 on Politics - politics news,... 0
User avatar #3009 - szymonf (07/03/2012) [-]
#287 - None of these cakes were funny. It was in fact the most cancer… 06/30/2012 on Meme Cakes +6
#2738 - Comment here and tell us which American president you support …  [+] (30 new replies) 06/30/2012 on Politics - politics news,... +1
User avatar #2745 - ginginhunter (06/30/2012) [-]
kill all of them no need for money suckin idiots
User avatar #2739 - indiaan (06/30/2012) [-]
So Obama is gonna remain president after 2016?
#2768 - bechante has deleted their comment.
User avatar #2776 - 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.
#2777 - bechante has deleted their comment.
User avatar #2779 - 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 - szymonf (07/01/2012) [-]
may i ask what a keynesian is....
User avatar #2841 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - airguitar (07/01/2012) [-]
Lol I meant 350 million of US and Canada, Mexico makes that number a bunch larger XD.
User avatar #2864 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - szymonf (07/01/2012) [-]
ok i understand.
User avatar #2830 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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

user's channels

Join Subscribe stoner-humor

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - hundredninjas (05/05/2011) [-]
Should I inform them that it was a cotton tax that the southern cotton producing states saw as unfair? or should i let them learn that for them selfs?
Should I inform them that it was a cotton tax that the southern cotton producing states saw as unfair? or should i let them learn that for them selfs?
User avatar #2 to #3 - loewenstern (05/05/2011) [-]
Well, I know just about nothing about American history. Learn them whatever you want to.
#3 to #4 - hundredninjas (05/05/2011) [-]
nah <(^_^<)

But thanks for the reply it made me happy :D
#4 to #5 - loewenstern (05/05/2011) [-]
Reply to someone



Make them happy :)
 Friends (0)