ExiledInIllinois Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 We're leaning toward Texas (Austin area) because it would be easier for my business, but we are also looking at southern Wyoming Have you talked to Blue Fire?... He knows how "geographically blessed" that part of Texas is! I kid, I kid... Try the veal, I will be here all week! Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 The sad part here is that the losers and the people on the bottom are the hardest workers. Please elaborate on the idea of the hardest workers being the people on the bottom. I'm especially curious about your definition of hardest workers and how that correlates to someone being on the bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I could have sworn it was Noneofyour!@#$ingbusinessville. It is, generally, but he asks because he thinks I'm full of crap. I genuinely don't want to move, but I simply can't afford to keep my business here any more. Every time I think of changing my mind, the state does something stupid...like commit billions it doesn't have to build a high-speed rail it doesn't need to get you to places you can already get to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Please elaborate on the idea of the hardest workers being the people on the bottom. I'm especially curious about your definition of hardest workers and how that correlates to someone being on the bottom. Because he works for the government and we all know they're a lazy bunch, especially the lazy !@#$s at the top. He has no clue how the private sector works. Kind of like his big boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 All part of the cycle this idiotic electorate follows. Vote democrat. Vote republican when the democrats don't get it done. Vote democrat when the republicans don't get it done. Rinse and repeat...... It's hard to argue with the track record of presidential elections since Reagan over Carter. The cycle of going back and forth is a healthy one. It's in our nature to be untrusting of either party to be in power for an extended period of time. What was unfortunate was that Obama presented himself a moderate, non-ideological candidate in the mold of Bill Clinton and there were enough idiots (thanks in large part to the MSM) who believed him instead of looking at his far left, radical background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I knew you would rip that. They don't know what is good for the whole of society. Do you think they could ever tell the voters bad news and still get their vote for the sake of the American people. American's are more selfish now. They vote on their pettiness... Just look at some here. I have said before, guys like my grandfather hated FDR for cuttng is wage in half... But he still had a job. Yet, he voted what was best for the country by voting for FDR each and every time. You think Americans could take a hit like that today... They would pull the lever for the opposition faster than LA can say dinner is NOT on me ****! Cut bait! FDR and government policy actually caused, and then extended the Great Depression. The best book on this subject, and quite frankly one of the most important books based on economic history ever written, is called "America's Great Depression" by Murray Rothbard. It's an easy and interesting read, and you need to pick up a copy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Please elaborate on the idea of the hardest workers being the people on the bottom. I'm especially curious about your definition of hardest workers and how that correlates to someone being on the bottom. Please don't ask him to elaborate on anything. He makes the threads unreadable as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) Please don't ask him to elaborate on anything. He makes the threads unreadable as it is. You can block my posts... No need to suffer. FDR and government policy actually caused, and then extended the Great Depression. The best book on this subject, and quite frankly one of the most important books based on economic history ever written, is called "America's Great Depression" by Murray Rothbard. It's an easy and interesting read, and you need to pick up a copy. Wow... They really do want to turn the clock back for a "do over." Sorry... To quote Nixon (Friedman): "We are all Keynesians now." Edited July 9, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Please elaborate on the idea of the hardest workers being the people on the bottom. I'm especially curious about your definition of hardest workers and how that correlates to someone being on the bottom. Because if you've never developed skills or knowledge that is of any value to anyone you have to put in a lot more physical effort to produce output that anyone's going to value enough to pay you for. FDR and government policy actually caused, and then extended the Great Depression. The best book on this subject, and quite frankly one of the most important books based on economic history ever written, is called "America's Great Depression" by Murray Rothbard. It's an easy and interesting read, and you need to pick up a copy. I just put it on my wish list. "FDR's Folly" is pretty good also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 You can block my posts... No need to suffer. Wow... They really do want to turn the clock back for a "do over." Sorry... To quote Nixon (Friedman): "We are all Keynesians now." I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. Are you trying to say that you find no value in critically examining the ramifications of political and economic decisions made in the past such that we might learn of our errors, with the ultimate goal being not to repeat them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. Welcome to the club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. Are you trying to say that you find no value in critically examining the ramifications of political and economic decisions made in the past such that we might learn of our errors, with the ultimate goal being not to repeat them? There's a reason they call him the riddler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. Are you trying to say that you find no value in critically examining the ramifications of political and economic decisions made in the past such that we might learn of our errors, with the ultimate goal being not to repeat them? Heck no. The only one trying to repeat errors is you. You wanna repeat of the Great Depression? A series of panics followed by explosive growth and then paralyzing depression? The ramifications of political and economic decisions have been critically examined and we know that your ideas are epic failures... The country has gone down that road... Why do you want to turn the clock back? And repeat the same mistakes? There's a reason they call him the riddler. See thing is you are playing dumb. I was perfectly clear. Why do you want to turn the clock back to failed policy? No riddle here. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Heck no. The only one trying to repeat errors is you. You wanna repeat of the Great Depression? A series of panics followed by explosive growth and then paralyzing depression? The ramifications of political and economic decisions have been critically examined and we know that your ideas are epic failures... The country has gone down that road... Why do you want to turn the clock back? And repeat the same mistakes? You should read Hayek. He does a good job of explaining the downfalls of expansionist monetary policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 You should read Hayek. He does a good job of explaining the downfalls of expansionist monetary policy. I will. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 FDR and government policy actually caused, and then extended the Great Depression. The best book on this subject, and quite frankly one of the most important books based on economic history ever written, is called "America's Great Depression" by Murray Rothbard. It's an easy and interesting read, and you need to pick up a copy. It's been a long time but I thought Rothbard's hypothesis was that FED easy money inflationary policies in the 1920's led to the market distortions and bubbles that caused the crash in 1929 and depression afterwards, then he criticizes both Hoover and FDR for government intervention- of course he comes from a totally Austrian school of economics perspective- a Keynesian would say FDR deserves blame for raising taxes and cutting Federal spending too soon or maybe Fed money tightening policy in 36-37. Many (weirdly IMO) point to the fact that economic growth didn't really take off until WW2 started as a way to dismiss Keynesian economics but what was the war except unbridled government deficit spending AKA stimulus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) It's been a long time but I thought Rothbard's hypothesis was that FED easy money inflationary policies in the 1920's led to the market distortions and bubbles that caused the crash in 1929 and depression afterwards, then he criticizes both Hoover and FDR for government intervention- of course he comes from a totally Austrian school of economics perspective- a Keynesian would say FDR deserves blame for raising taxes and cutting Federal spending too soon or maybe Fed money tightening policy in 36-37. Many (weirdly IMO) point to the fact that economic growth didn't really take off until WW2 started as a way to dismiss Keynesian economics but what was the war except unbridled government deficit spending AKA stimulus. It's a myth that war causes economic growth. Otherwise Iraq and Afghanistan would spur our economy. The reason the U.S. economy started to improve during the war was mainly because all the economic experimentation and tinkering took a backseat to the war and natural economic cycles resumed. Then once the war ended everyone came home optimistic and we saw an explosion of economic growth. It's worth noting that the growth occurred primarily in the private sector and with relatively little government intervention; it was a return to normality. Edited July 9, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 It's a myth that war causes economic growth. Otherwise Iraq and Afghanistan would spur our economy. The reason the U.S. economy started to improve during the war was mainly because all the economic experimentation and tinkering took a backseat to the war and natural economic cycles resumed. Then once the war ended everyone came home optimistic and we saw an explosion of economic growth. It's worth noting that the growth occurred primarily in the private sector and with relatively little government intervention; it was a return to normality. Whole different scenario with the two wars now. Is private industry shutting down their consumer products to produce war supplies... Are we rationing and saving? No. We are out shopping and spending while others fight the wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Whole different scenario with the two wars now. Is private industry shutting down their consumer products to produce war supplies... Are we rationing and saving? No. We are out shopping and spending while others fight the wars. But if you subscribe to the "stimulus" theory, that would have an even better effect because you're putting money into producing war supplies while also putting money into the private sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) Whole different scenario with the two wars now. Is private industry shutting down their consumer products to produce war supplies... Are we rationing and saving? No. We are out shopping and spending while others fight the wars. Meanwhile in WWII our allies and enemies were bombing each others industrial capacity to rubble And life on the homefront wasn't exactly a consumers paradise either Edited July 9, 2012 by /dev/null Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts