TakeYouToTasker Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 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? This post is patently absurd on so many levels I almost didn't know where to start, but then I realized exactly what you did there, so I'll start with that: You don't know me from a hole in the ground. I don't have any substantial posting history here that you could source any economics to, so you don't have any idea what I'm proposing was done in error, or what my ideas are. You've simply group thinked me into a straw-man you are now attempting to burn without even having the conversation long enough to know what my positions are. You simply went of half-cocked, flailing away at a target of your own construction, plagiarizing President Obama's recent (empty) critiques of neo-mercantilism. I don't respect that. If you would like to act like a reasonable adult, and have a conversation about applied economic theory, and the failure of modern economic statism, I'm your huckleberry. If you'd instead like to continue to churn out logical fallacies in a way that offends decent conversation, I'm not going to waste my time. I do this for a living, and I'm not going to do thousands of dollars worth of free consulting for someone acting like a five year old who has already shut off his mind. Choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 And then there's the fact that the US was a very special case, and not one to base any conclusions on. Unlike most war economies, the US economy in WWII put a TON of cash into the hands of consumers (not just the workers at home...the troops overseas made a good chunk of money with little to spend it on). For a variety of reasons, you see that in very few other wars. AND, don't forget that there was actually a significant post-war recession. It's not like prosperity started in '41, and lasted eighteen years. I agree with you - as I said I wouldn't advocate a war to get out of economic crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I agree with you - as I said I wouldn't advocate a war to get out of economic crisis. Additionally the global demand for US goods spiked in an unprecedented way. The supply of goods and infrastructure in Europe was decimated by a war fought in it's own streets. Demand was still global, but the American economy, insulated by an ocean held the lion share of the supply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Additionally the global demand for US goods spiked in an unprecedented way. The supply of goods and infrastructure in Europe was decimated by a war fought in it's own streets. Demand was still global, but the American economy, insulated by an ocean held the lion share of the supply. It's nice to have a new poster that isn't a troll. Welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 It's nice to have a new poster that isn't a troll. Welcome Thanks. I appriciate the kind words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 This post is patently absurd on so many levels I almost didn't know where to start, but then I realized exactly what you did there, so I'll start with that: You don't know me from a hole in the ground. I don't have any substantial posting history here that you could source any economics to, so you don't have any idea what I'm proposing was done in error, or what my ideas are. You've simply group thinked me into a straw-man you are now attempting to burn without even having the conversation long enough to know what my positions are. You simply went of half-cocked, flailing away at a target of your own construction, plagiarizing President Obama's recent (empty) critiques of neo-mercantilism. I don't respect that. If you would like to act like a reasonable adult, and have a conversation about applied economic theory, and the failure of modern economic statism, I'm your huckleberry. If you'd instead like to continue to churn out logical fallacies in a way that offends decent conversation, I'm not going to waste my time. I do this for a living, and I'm not going to do thousands of dollars worth of free consulting for someone acting like a five year old who has already shut off his mind. Choose. You got EiI figured out already. Not that it takes a lot of figuring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Jim in Anchorage: I understand some of frustrations those of you with long posting histories and ties to this community must have, familiarity breeding contempt and everything else in that package wrapped with a neat little bow. I'm new here, however, and I have no interest in jumping onto a pre-existing dogpile. It's only fair for me to take each post by each poster on it's own merits, else it damages the conversation, and what could possibly be the merits of joining a conversation like that. ExiledInIllinios deserves a fair shake from me if he can join me in conversation rather than lash out or preach from a pulpit. If he can't, then the loss is his. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Jim in Anchorage: I understand some of frustrations those of you with long posting histories and ties to this community must have, familiarity breeding contempt and everything else in that package wrapped with a neat little bow. I'm new here, however, and I have no interest in jumping onto a pre-existing dogpile. It's only fair for me to take each post by each poster on it's own merits, else it damages the conversation, and what could possibly be the merits of joining a conversation like that. ExiledInIllinios deserves a fair shake from me if he can join me in conversation rather than lash out or preach from a pulpit. If he can't, then the loss is his. Yes but you're a quick study. You pretty much got him pegged already, and believe me he is not having a bad day. Rarely do any of his posts make any sense, or even stick to the subject at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Yes but you're a quick study. You pretty much got him pegged already, and believe me he is not having a bad day. Rarely do any of his posts make any sense, or even stick to the subject at hand. Somebody needs to lighten up. I am the one who has posting here for 10 years and now I am all of a sudden polluting the board? Sorry to crash your party. We have a long time lurker here that all of sudden wants to have a rational discussion and voice their opinions.... Hmmmm.... The real topic here is Mitt being a tax cheat... I didn't derail this thread into an Obama hatefest. Why don't you bring the thread back on course? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) Somebody needs to lighten up. I am the one who has posting here for 10 years and now I am all of a sudden polluting the board? Sorry to crash your party. We have a long time lurker here that all of sudden wants to have a rational discussion and voice their opinions.... Hmmmm.... And yet that long time lurker/new poster is already more respected than a 10 year poster The real topic here is Mitt being a tax cheat... I didn't derail this thread into an Obama hatefest. Why don't you bring the thread back on course? So the OP tries to misdirect the discussion from the Economy and Obama's record as President by starting a thread about Romney's tax records, but later posters try to misdirect the original misdirection back towards what the election should be about and it becomes a "hatefest"? Okay, I tried "misdirecting" earlier in this thread and I'll do it again How about Romney release his tax records after the Most Transparent Administration Since the Dawn of Time releases their records on Fast & Furious? Edited July 10, 2012 by /dev/null Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Is Romney a dirty tax cheat? my guesses 1. Romney has excellent hygiene 2. Romney has followed the letter of the law. 3. While he has done nothing illegal politically it again shows he's not one of us, it shows the rich have advantages and many of these advantages are not the natural kind (born taller, smarter, or better looking) but engineered through owning law-makers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 3. While he has done nothing illegal politically it again shows he's not one of us The above quote has been brought to you by a Progressive. Progressives, the people who claim to treasure diversity and tolerance above all else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Who wants a president that is one of us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Is Romney a dirty tax cheat? my guesses 1. Romney has excellent hygiene 2. Romney has followed the letter of the law. 3. While he has done nothing illegal politically it again shows he's not one of us, it shows the rich have advantages and many of these advantages are not the natural kind (born taller, smarter, or better looking) but engineered through owning law-makers. So you think a blue collar middle class schlub would make a better President? What is with this wanting a President to be "one of us"? Do you choose your doctor in the same fashion? "So doc, how's the double-wide coming along?". My doctor just told me that his neighborhood is full of billionaires. In my mind that's good news. And don't give me that "he's rich, he can't relate to me" bill crap. Because that's just what it is....bill crap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 3. While he has done nothing illegal politically it again shows he's not one of us, it shows the rich have advantages and many of these advantages are not the natural kind (born taller, smarter, or better looking) but engineered through owning law-makers. I'll never understand how progressives spend every waking minute yelling about how stupid the American people are, and then equally complain that conservatives want to elect a POTUS who is "not one of us." We just elected someone as "stupid as the American people," and in case you haven't noticed, it's been an abject failure at every level. The only reason Obama doesn't look more stupid than he really is is because every once in a while he stands next to Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Additionally the global demand for US goods spiked in an unprecedented way. The supply of goods and infrastructure in Europe was decimated by a war fought in it's own streets. Demand was still global, but the American economy, insulated by an ocean held the lion share of the supply. Unfortunately, the Occupy crowd and Obama fan boys reflected on that period of unrivaled prosperity and only took away that the top tax rate was near 70% from which they drew a causal relationship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Who wants a president that is one of us? Wasn't Bush II being a guy most people would like to have a beer with because he was supposedly a regular guy one of his selling points? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Wasn't Bush II being a guy most people would like to have a beer with because he was supposedly a regular guy one of his selling points? Yes, sir, this here liberal can go from 0 to Bush in record time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Wasn't Bush II being a guy most people would like to have a beer with because he was supposedly a regular guy one of his selling points? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Wasn't Bush II being a guy most people would like to have a beer with because he was supposedly a regular guy one of his selling points? Yes, and since I think we can all agree that we can strive to do better than the last regular guy, why such a premium on being "one of us"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts