[QUOTE=riceninja;34582631]every liberal needs to listen to Thomas Sowell, and they will vote Republican.[/QUOTE]
Ahaha, that's a good one.
No really, it is.
Oh, you're serious? Well then you've gone mental.
[QUOTE=riceninja;34582631]
because he is continuing the same policies that got us into the crash. social programs sound good and all but when you actually look into it you will realize it does the exact opposite of what it intends.
[/QUOTE]
Last time I checked, you cannot change something overnight, and your economy is on the rise again.
He doesn't 'deserve' anything, being president is an act of election by the people, not some right you're magically given because something didn't go as planned. I'd rather he chose the words "I believe a second term would allow me to progress toward the goals we set originally." The term 'Deserve' implies he has some right to it, when in fact he does not and it sounds childish to claim such.
[editline]6th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sickle;34582645]damn son al these comunists r taking our jobs the fuckin rusiains and cheinese fuck them man they fuckin made uor cuntry go dwonhill ellipsiiiiisssssssssss
That's literally what your post is.[/QUOTE]
Actually, unlike your post there, his doesn't contain a great deal of spelling and grammatical errors, also by a literal definition, they are not the exact same words at all. I'd like to question how you can confuse the term literal and interpreted, because that's how you interpreted his post, not literally what he wrote, that quote however would be a literal example of what he posted.
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;34582845]Last time I checked, you cannot change something overnight, and your economy is on the rise again.[/QUOTE]
the market will correct itself faster without government intervention. all obama is doing is prolonging market corrections from happening.
[QUOTE=riceninja;34583210]the market will correct itself faster without government intervention. all obama is doing is prolonging market corrections from happening.[/QUOTE]
how would that work?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34574346]I wonder who Paul would choose.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure. I'm assuming Romney is going to win in my post, but I think Paul's would be much better.
[QUOTE=riceninja;34583210]the market will correct itself faster without government intervention. all obama is doing is prolonging market corrections from happening.[/QUOTE]
just like the market corrected itself when all those housing markets crashed, right???
[QUOTE=The one that is;34582893]
Actually, unlike your post there, his doesn't contain a great deal of spelling and grammatical errors, also by a literal definition, they are not the exact same words at all. I'd like to question how you can confuse the term literal and interpreted, because that's how you interpreted his post, not literally what he wrote, that quote however would be a literal example of what he posted.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe I was making fun of him in a childish way.
[QUOTE=thisispain;34583293]just like the market corrected itself when all those housing markets crashed, right???[/QUOTE]
The housing market crash was a symptom of government interventionism through inflation and guaranteed bail outs by lobbying. We haven't had A free market for about a decade
[QUOTE=riceninja;34582631]Paul? a puppet? he is the most principled man in the government
To me Obama is the most delusional president we have ever had.
because he is continuing the same policies that got us into the crash. social programs sound good and all but when you actually look into it you will realize it does the exact opposite of what it intends.
Please do.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0MaY33LJZ0&feature=autoplay&list=PLAD11FDD7906619AE&lf=results_video&playnext=24[/media]
every liberal needs to listen to Thomas Sowell, and they will vote Republican.[/QUOTE]
Always the guys with under a hundred posts.
Always.
[QUOTE=riceninja;34583599]The housing market crash was a symptom of government interventionism through inflation and guaranteed bail outs by lobbying. We haven't had A free market for about a decade[/QUOTE]
you got any sources to support what you're saying?
I'm looking at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble]this[/url] and as far as I can see it mentions nothing about government intervention being a factor
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;34583824]Always the guys with under a hundred posts.
Always.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes the classic ad hominem attack.
Rather than trying to play a game of [b]my political e-penis is bigger[/b]; I'll quickly state some [I]opinions[/I] of mine.
I'm not fond of Obama. That's just it. Next to other candidates though, he's just slightly less of the same rehash we've been dealing with. I'd go all out for Paul, but I'm worried on a few of his stances being a bit too radical if implemented overnight - or even at all.
What I really want to see, though, and thankfully what is slowly, painfully happening - younger generations taking an interest in politics. Less [i]my daddy informed me[/i] and/or [i]I like his personality[/i] shite and more young adults arguing actual issues. I don't even care who is on what side - as long as debates are happening; reasoning on the playing field - etcetera. I'm still worried about the generation below me, but that's another issue entirely.
It really wasn't until recently that I've been able to talk [i]politics[/i] and problems to a lot of my friends in deeper, meaningful ways instead of I-vote-for you-vote-for jabber.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;34578598] Think before you spew. First of all, Reagan was not a bad president. Second of all, I never even mentioned my political orientation in my post. I simply said that, as a president, I do not like Obama, which is also not an indicator of my political status.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, because lying to the American public, selling arms in exchange for hostages, supporting guerilla warfare in Central America and denying it, allowing crack cocaine into the ghettoes, clearly being incompetent for office due to Alzheimer's, and allowing the richest of America to get even richer are all hallmarks of a good president.
[QUOTE=Jaehead;34583861]you got any sources to support what you're saying?
I'm looking at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble]this[/url] and as far as I can see it mentions nothing about government intervention being a factor[/QUOTE]
This article sums it up pretty good
[url]http://www.wtffinance.com/2011/04/why-did-the-housing-market-crash/[/url]
[QUOTE=Strongbad;34578598]
Think before you spew. First of all, Reagan was not a bad president. Second of all, I never even mentioned my political orientation in my post. I simply said that, as a president, I do not like Obama, which is also not an indicator of my political status.[/QUOTE]
Reagan was a terrible person.
[editline]6th February 2012[/editline]
And a shitty actor too.
[QUOTE=riceninja;34584093]This article sums it up pretty good
[url]http://www.wtffinance.com/2011/04/why-did-the-housing-market-crash/[/url][/QUOTE]
A lot of that article involves the wonderully idealistic "This wouldn't happen in a free market" attitude. I always find the parallels of idealism in Laissez-faire and Planned Economy economics amusing, it'll work if we get it right, but no-one has yet.
Still, there's a lot of solutions to a problem, especially in a system as complex as this. I would rather seek a solution that doesn't open the door to a million more problems. Similar to how I wouldn't become a nomad and abandon all materialism if my house burned down, just so it didn't burn down again.
[QUOTE=riceninja;34584093]This article sums it up pretty good
[url]http://www.wtffinance.com/2011/04/why-did-the-housing-market-crash/[/url][/QUOTE]
devodiere's reply gave a pretty good idea of what I wanted to say
but to add to that, the problem with neoclassicalist theory is that it's such a highly idealized concept it'll never work in reality; it assumes that people make rational financial decisions, and it assumes that market prices are set at the optimal level - it just doesn't happen and that's why government intervention is required
that article's right, the banks did not at all loan conservatively, but I find it hard to draw the connections between this and the government. The banks would make these subprime loans, and then they would sell them so that they would be rid of liability - and even though these loans had little chance of payoff, they were receiving double, triple A ratings by rating agencies for some reason, which gave them massive profits, and resulted in a sharp increase in housing prices, fueling the bubble. I know this is the complete opposite of what the article says but if you ask me I say it was deregulation of the financial markets that caused this mess
[QUOTE=zombini;34582668]My dad is going to vote for anyone but Obama. He said that if it calls for it, he'll cast his vote for Rick Santorum.[/QUOTE]
That's pretty much how I'm going to vote in this election. Ideally, I'd vote for Ron Paul, but realistically, I'd still feel comfortable voting for Romney.
If, god forbid, Gingrich or Santorum won the nomination, I'd be forced to vote for them out of principle. It would kill me on the inside, but frankly, I think I'd still do it.
I know I'm probably going to anger a lot of people here, but that's my honest opinion.
Seriously? That's a bit of a problem.
People voting along party lines is a big part of the reason why I government is such a sideshow circus. Instead of voting based on the issue, people vote for their party out of some diluted notion of pride and loyalty.
[QUOTE=Hayburner;34580838]obama's promise was to remove troops from iraq IMMEDIATELY. how about you get a clue and inform yourself before attacking things you do not know.
[/QUOTE]
hey yeah that would make him a liar
if it were true
but it's not
so
And please, don't even try to pass it off as anything other than that. It'd be an insult to your intelligence, my intelligence, and that of everyone else. I might throw you a bone on Ron Paul if you said it was because of the issues, but the other three? That's not voting on the issues, that is just voting because of what party someone is.
Part of them problem is that our first past the post voting system forces people to vote strategically, enforcing our two party system and eventually making them the circus they are today.
[QUOTE=riceninja;34583599]The housing market crash was a symptom of government interventionism through inflation and guaranteed bail outs by lobbying. We haven't had A free market for about a decade[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://speedcap.net/img/b411f99db48e9342c5aa6f981c1c4b99/b1c1a7c9.png[/IMG]
notice a pattern?
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34584506]Seriously? That's a bit of a problem.
People voting along party lines is a big part of the reason why I government is such a sideshow circus. Instead of voting based on the issue, people vote for their party out of some diluted notion of pride and loyalty.[/QUOTE]
I'm not loyal to the Republican party because frankly, I'm not a Republican. I'm a Libertarian.
While I don't like Gingrich or Santorum, I happen to agree more with their economic polices than those of the current administration. And while I'm socially liberal, the economy is a more pressing matter to me.
[QUOTE=riceninja;34584093]This article sums it up pretty good
[url]http://www.wtffinance.com/2011/04/why-did-the-housing-market-crash/[/url][/QUOTE]
Wait, what?
[QUOTE]It wasn’t the free market that encouraged malinvestment and speculation. It was the Government guaranteeing home loans through various agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that eliminated risk as the lender would have the ability to make loans while the Government guaranteed its potential losses. As such there was no incentive to lend money conservatively as doing so would restrict the number of transactions while not minimizing potential losses since these losses were absent due to the Government guarantees.[/QUOTE]
Right off the bat, this is dismissible for being crap. Malinvestment is a bullshit concept, an inherently poorly defined "bad investment" that is automatically assumed to be the fault of credit and money supply factors, with no metric for determining what investments are simply bad investments and which are bad investments because of those factors. The concept's also logically inconsistent, assuming entrepreneurs are both competent and incompetent at the same time.
[QUOTE=Bryan Caplan]Supposedly, since the central bank's inflation cannot continue indefinitely, it is eventually necessary to let interest rates rise back to the natural rate, which then reveals the underlying unprofitability of the artificially stimulated investments. The objection is simple: Given that interest rates are artificially and unsustainably low, why would any businessman make his profitability calculations based on the assumption that the low interest rates will prevail indefinitely? No, what would happen is that entrepreneurs would realize that interest rates are only temporarily low, and [I]take this into account.[/I]
In short, the Austrians are assuming that entrepreneurs have strange irrational expectations. Rothbard states this fairly explicitly: "[E]ntrepreneurs are trained to estimate changes and avoid error. They can handle irregular fluctuations, and certainly they should be able to cope with the results of an inflow of gold, results which are roughly predictable. They could not forecast the results of a credit expansion, because the credit expansion tampered with all their moorings, distorted interest rates and calculations of capital."[48] Elsewhere, he informs us that: "[S]uccessful entrepreneurs on the market will be precisely those, over the years, who are best equipped to make correct forecasts and use good judgment in analyzing market conditions. Under these conditions, it is absurd to suppose that the entire mass of entrepreneurs will make such errors, unless objective facts of the market are distorted over a considerable period of time. Such distortion will hobble the objective 'signals' of the market and mislead the great bulk of entrepreneurs."[49]
Why does Rothbard think businessmen are so incompetent at forecasting government policy? He credits them with entrepreneurial foresight about all market-generated conditions, but curiously finds them unable to forecast government policy, or even to avoid falling prey to simple accounting illusions generated by inflation and deflation. Even if simple businessmen just use current market interest rates in a completely robotic way, why doesn't arbitrage by the credit-market insiders make long-term interest rates a reasonable prediction of actual policies? The problem is supposed to be that businessmen just look at current interest rates, figure out the PDV of possible investments, and due to artificially low interest rates (which can't persist forever) they wind up making malinvestments. But why couldn't they just use the credit market's long-term interest rates for forecasting profitability instead of stupidly looking at current short-term rates? Particularly in interventionist economies, it would seem that natural selection would weed out businesspeople with such a gigantic blind spot. Moreover, even if most businesspeople don't understand that low interest rates are only temporary, the long-term interest rate will still be a good forecast so long as the professional interest rate speculators don't make the same mistake.[/QUOTE]
You're reading economic psuedoscience, kid, you need to switch to something with an empirical basis.
[editline]7th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;34584629]I'm not loyal to the Republican party because frankly, I'm not a Republican. I'm a Libertarian.
While I don't like Gingrich or Santorum, I happen to agree more with their economic polices than those of the current administration. And while I'm socially liberal, the economy is a more pressing matter to me.[/QUOTE]
Be realistic, though. You know nothing's gonna get better under any of those assholes, they're all big government republicans pretending to be something else during the ramp up to the election. Your hopes of any economic fix as you see it should have died when it became apparent Paul and Huntsman were fucked. It's a lose/lose for you on that front. May as well go with the loss that at least makes things slightly better.
I personally don't believe he deserves a second term. But when I look at his Republican opponents, I cringe.
We should have a Facepunch Presidential Poll between Romney, Paul, and Obama (I cannot imagine many Facepunchers would go for Santorum or Gingrich).
For fun, we could split the Obama vote into two subgroups:
-I want Obama to be the President for 4 more years.
or
-I think everyone but Obama is batshit insane.
i guess he deserves a second term more than any of the republican psychos deserve a first one. (except maybe ron paul, i think he's a crazy alzheimers old prick but he's always been adamant on his beliefs and all that so from a 'whos worked hardest' point of view i think he deserves it) i just hope whoever DOES get in fucks off and stops trying to push bullshit here in NZ.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
