"Slander", by Ann Coulter
- Thread starter Reel Deal
- Start date
Originally posted by Stecchino
I don't want to insult anyone but I didn't respond not because I agree with the statement.
Originally posted by Ozzy
And since we all know that a successful military campaign has in the past proven to be the best thing for the economy, I would think it’s in all of our best interests to support one.
Did i just read that our country should attack another country so that our economy can maybe improve? And that we should support this? This is really an incredible statement, no? And Skagen was the only person to respond to this?
I'm curious, was the lack of responses- cuz people agree with this and had nothing to add ... or ... cuz people know Ozzy's an imbecile.
And since we all know that a successful military campaign has in the past proven to be the best thing for the economy, I would think it’s in all of our best interests to support one.
Did i just read that our country should attack another country so that our economy can maybe improve? And that we should support this? This is really an incredible statement, no? And Skagen was the only person to respond to this?
I'm curious, was the lack of responses- cuz people agree with this and had nothing to add ... or ... cuz people know Ozzy's an imbecile.
Originally posted by Stecchino
I'm curious, was the lack of responses- cuz people agree with this and had nothing to add ... or ... cuz people know Ozzy's an imbecile.
I'm curious, was the lack of responses- cuz people agree with this and had nothing to add ... or ... cuz people know Ozzy's an imbecile.
Last edited:
Originally posted by Stecchino
Such idiocy leaves thinking analytical types speechless...
Originally posted by Ozzy
And since we all know that a successful military campaign has in the past proven to be the best thing for the economy, I would think it’s in all of our best interests to support one.
Did i just read that our country should attack another country so that our economy can maybe improve? And that we should support this? This is really an incredible statement, no? And Skagen was the only person to respond to this?
I'm curious, was the lack of responses- cuz people agree with this and had nothing to add ... or ... cuz people know Ozzy's an imbecile.
And since we all know that a successful military campaign has in the past proven to be the best thing for the economy, I would think it’s in all of our best interests to support one.
Did i just read that our country should attack another country so that our economy can maybe improve? And that we should support this? This is really an incredible statement, no? And Skagen was the only person to respond to this?
I'm curious, was the lack of responses- cuz people agree with this and had nothing to add ... or ... cuz people know Ozzy's an imbecile.
really really . . .
i've always had a question about the "revving up the war machine to improve the economy" theory of governing . . .
i don't understand how that can ultimately be so, b/c doesn't fabricating those bomb parts etc. actually suck resources out of the economy? (i mean eventually.) there is always cost in wo/man and children power and the stuff just gets blown up. how can using resources in such a wasteful way ultimately be good for the economy? this reasoning has confused me since i was a young girl during the viet nam war era -- when they taught it heavily in school i.e. ww2 brought us out of the depression.
i've never taken an economics course, so could you do a little hegel on it?
puzzled and perplexed,
hvb
i've always had a question about the "revving up the war machine to improve the economy" theory of governing . . .
i don't understand how that can ultimately be so, b/c doesn't fabricating those bomb parts etc. actually suck resources out of the economy? (i mean eventually.) there is always cost in wo/man and children power and the stuff just gets blown up. how can using resources in such a wasteful way ultimately be good for the economy? this reasoning has confused me since i was a young girl during the viet nam war era -- when they taught it heavily in school i.e. ww2 brought us out of the depression.
i've never taken an economics course, so could you do a little hegel on it?
puzzled and perplexed,
hvb
A simplified explanation
Whenever someone spends money (e.g., to buy a replacement bomb), the money spent becomes income to someone else, who in turn spends it (for payroll, bomb parts, etc.) and so on and so on. Its called a multiplyer effect. Depending on the type of spending, a dollar might turn into $4 in economic activity as it winds its way through the system.
Whenever someone spends money (e.g., to buy a replacement bomb), the money spent becomes income to someone else, who in turn spends it (for payroll, bomb parts, etc.) and so on and so on. Its called a multiplyer effect. Depending on the type of spending, a dollar might turn into $4 in economic activity as it winds its way through the system.
Re: A simplified explanation
That's nothing. Look what Hillary did with $1000...
Originally posted by pjorourke
Whenever someone spends money (e.g., to buy a replacement bomb), the money spent becomes income to someone else, who in turn spends it (for payroll, bomb parts, etc.) and so on and so on. Its called a multiplyer effect. Depending on the type of spending, a dollar might turn into $4 in economic activity as it winds its way through the system.
Whenever someone spends money (e.g., to buy a replacement bomb), the money spent becomes income to someone else, who in turn spends it (for payroll, bomb parts, etc.) and so on and so on. Its called a multiplyer effect. Depending on the type of spending, a dollar might turn into $4 in economic activity as it winds its way through the system.
Originally posted by Ozzy
Actually the economy boost comes after the successful military campaign. ie.. the early-mid 50's boom and the 90's boom after dessert storm.
Actually the economy boost comes after the successful military campaign. ie.. the early-mid 50's boom and the 90's boom after dessert storm.
that recession had been going on since the Regan years and before dessert storm. it also is NOT what knocked Bush out of the white house. Arrogance, an anti abortion stance and one single lie ("read my lips.... no new taxes") did.
So bush went into Iraq in what…1990? So if what your saying happened.... than that was one short recession because what happened to the economy and the stock market in the early-mid 90's?
So bush went into Iraq in what…1990? So if what your saying happened.... than that was one short recession because what happened to the economy and the stock market in the early-mid 90's?
but pj & real . . .
isn't that just economic churning? i.e. no real wealth (ie product) is created right? it seems like when you use the principal (sp?) instead of the interest . . . eventually won't all the principal be used up? like we will kill every viable economic actor or use up all the raw materials so that no armaments can be made (and no one can eat either). this is my problem, ever since i was a kid it seemed like and band-aid and not a cure.
like wouldn't say building houses and playgrounds churn equally well and we would have an end product that we could use over and over?
more maynard g. krebbs,
than john maynard keynes (sp?),
hvb
isn't that just economic churning? i.e. no real wealth (ie product) is created right? it seems like when you use the principal (sp?) instead of the interest . . . eventually won't all the principal be used up? like we will kill every viable economic actor or use up all the raw materials so that no armaments can be made (and no one can eat either). this is my problem, ever since i was a kid it seemed like and band-aid and not a cure.
like wouldn't say building houses and playgrounds churn equally well and we would have an end product that we could use over and over?
more maynard g. krebbs,
than john maynard keynes (sp?),
hvb
Last edited:
hvb...
Although I make no claim to being an authority, I do have a modest economic background, both academic and real-world...
We used the "guns and butter" analogy a lot all through the study of economics. The Cliff notes version: vurtually all economic activity creates "wealth" because of the multiplier effect outlined by PJ.
This is true whether the activity is private or by government. However, when the govt. uses increased taxes to finance the activity, the multiplier effect is reduced by the inefficiency of the bureaucracy. The use of debt instruments by government does not reduce the effect as much, as it is not taking money out of circulation. Instead, it "competes" with the market.
The fundamental political argument boils down to whether the economy benefits greater by private industry, or government.
Governmental advocates claim that central control is better "for the common good" (see the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and every dictatorship; look at Canada, much of Europe, etc.).
Private advocates claim "the market" makes superior choices. That Supply and Demand reigns supreme.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. As a Libertarian (but not an Anarcho-Libertarian like PJ), I tend to side much more with Adam Smith than Karl Marx (like 99.5%).
IMO, "war", in the big picture, neither stimulates nor depresses the creation of wealth. But to protect our economic system-which drives the WHOLE world economy-it may be necessary from time to time. It's like buying life insurance-paying those premiums every quarter seems like a waste of money until the time your family needs it because they lost their own "economic engine". Without defeating through military means those whose sole purpose is the destruction of our economic system, we may very well lose OUR economic engine. It is a very small investment, indeed.
People bitching about war being waged for economic reasons are just disappointed that their personal political priorities are not being addressed. They are much more concerned with losing political power than protection of our economic system.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that war is necessary to be able to build more houses, parks, and schools. It will be so as long as there are those who are bent on the destruction of our eco-political system. And as long as those exist, I am an advocate of more planes, bigger ships, more powerful bombs, and superior military training than them. It's really nickles and dimes compared to the world economy they protect.
As I said once before, my fondest desire is to be liked as a country. But absent that, I want to be feared.
Although I make no claim to being an authority, I do have a modest economic background, both academic and real-world...
We used the "guns and butter" analogy a lot all through the study of economics. The Cliff notes version: vurtually all economic activity creates "wealth" because of the multiplier effect outlined by PJ.
This is true whether the activity is private or by government. However, when the govt. uses increased taxes to finance the activity, the multiplier effect is reduced by the inefficiency of the bureaucracy. The use of debt instruments by government does not reduce the effect as much, as it is not taking money out of circulation. Instead, it "competes" with the market.
The fundamental political argument boils down to whether the economy benefits greater by private industry, or government.
Governmental advocates claim that central control is better "for the common good" (see the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and every dictatorship; look at Canada, much of Europe, etc.).
Private advocates claim "the market" makes superior choices. That Supply and Demand reigns supreme.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. As a Libertarian (but not an Anarcho-Libertarian like PJ), I tend to side much more with Adam Smith than Karl Marx (like 99.5%).
IMO, "war", in the big picture, neither stimulates nor depresses the creation of wealth. But to protect our economic system-which drives the WHOLE world economy-it may be necessary from time to time. It's like buying life insurance-paying those premiums every quarter seems like a waste of money until the time your family needs it because they lost their own "economic engine". Without defeating through military means those whose sole purpose is the destruction of our economic system, we may very well lose OUR economic engine. It is a very small investment, indeed.
People bitching about war being waged for economic reasons are just disappointed that their personal political priorities are not being addressed. They are much more concerned with losing political power than protection of our economic system.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that war is necessary to be able to build more houses, parks, and schools. It will be so as long as there are those who are bent on the destruction of our eco-political system. And as long as those exist, I am an advocate of more planes, bigger ships, more powerful bombs, and superior military training than them. It's really nickles and dimes compared to the world economy they protect.
As I said once before, my fondest desire is to be liked as a country. But absent that, I want to be feared.
Last edited:
You are right. No wealth is created if you just make stuff to be blown up. But, you are confusing a balance sheet with an income statement. True, if we just blow stuff up we don't add to our stock of national assets. However, the activity required to make the bombs does get the economic blood flowing in the form of increased national incomes which is what stops a recession.
There is also physcology involved. If all the people around you are working and spending money, you are more likely to spend as well which puts more people to work.
There is also physcology involved. If all the people around you are working and spending money, you are more likely to spend as well which puts more people to work.
there is a 3rd position . . .
and i am not smart enough to articulate it. but, i do know that a centralized government (communism) or private industry (capitalism) are not the only 2 methods of economic organization. it is something like personalism/community right? is there someone out there who could elaborate?
sacco and vanzetti's little sister,
hvb
re: balance sheet and income statement: eventually the piper has to be paid -- or the world we live in now, comes after the income statement of 90s.
i really need an econ course, bad!
hvb
and i am not smart enough to articulate it. but, i do know that a centralized government (communism) or private industry (capitalism) are not the only 2 methods of economic organization. it is something like personalism/community right? is there someone out there who could elaborate?
sacco and vanzetti's little sister,
hvb
re: balance sheet and income statement: eventually the piper has to be paid -- or the world we live in now, comes after the income statement of 90s.
i really need an econ course, bad!
hvb
Last edited:
Re: there is a 3rd position . . .
In business, you are OK as long as your increase in gross profit is greater than your increase in expenses, including debt service.
In the economy, the same is true as long as the rise in GDP exceeds the rise in the net governmental expenses.
It would be like paying someone to put you to sleep. Boooooooring.....
Originally posted by h. von bingen
re: balance sheet and income statement: eventually the piper has to be paid -- or the world we live in now, comes after the income statement of 90s.
re: balance sheet and income statement: eventually the piper has to be paid -- or the world we live in now, comes after the income statement of 90s.
In the economy, the same is true as long as the rise in GDP exceeds the rise in the net governmental expenses.
i really need an econ course, bad!
hvb
hvb
Okay Media balance students. How do you like the coverage of the sniper capture?
Think we'll have an all out expose on radical Islam in the US like they did with McVeigh and the militia groups? Nahhhhhh..
More likely, they will emphasize his military background and ignore his Islamic connections (Unless some strong evidence of a connection emerges. With McVeigh, the militia groups all rejected him, but they STILL pushed the inference that right wing radical groups caused the whole thing ).
Think we'll have an all out expose on radical Islam in the US like they did with McVeigh and the militia groups? Nahhhhhh..
More likely, they will emphasize his military background and ignore his Islamic connections (Unless some strong evidence of a connection emerges. With McVeigh, the militia groups all rejected him, but they STILL pushed the inference that right wing radical groups caused the whole thing ).
Last edited: