Another day, another scandal. Criminy.

[Coito ergo sum]

Hey, the country needed a bailout after the Bush mess. Cutting spending would have put us in depression. Smaller Gubment for sure. Nothing left to tax.

Smaller spending nipped the depression of 1920 in the bud. It would have done so here as well, had it been used.

Rubbish. Fuck I have to laugh at the way historical data can be interpreted one way over the other. Didn't 914 and I put all this nonsense to bed on RDF and the early days at Ratskep? I can't believe people still seriously argue this line.

You did not put it to bed, because you are wrong.

You're listening to the guys who never advocate smaller spending. They say in bad times "government must spend more, because it can boost the economy and then cut back and even it out in the good times." Then in the good times they say, "government must spend more because times are good and we have plenty of money, and if we cut back now we'll bring back the bad times." The common denominator is always "government ought to spend more" -- because they are arguing from a political philosophy, not an economic one. If you read the articles by guys like Krugman and such, you'll find, if you read carefully, this sort of thing at the heart of his arguments - he thinks government should spend more because his goal is to have government spend and transfer wealth in a way that he thinks embodies social justice. He masks this political goal by casting it as economics.

[mistermack]

Just CBS making a story out of nothing. Typical journalist trick when news is thin. Rehash old stuff with a title.

State department security SUB contractors go with prozzies?

Get fuckin real. CBS is obviously as shite as the rest of the US media.

[Coito ergo sum]

Just CBS making a story out of nothing. Typical journalist trick when news is thin. Rehash old stuff with a title.

State department security SUB contractors go with prozzies?

Get fuckin real. CBS is obviously as shite as the rest of the US media.

CBS news is shite, but for the opposite reason. They are Obama ass-lickers, who carry his water for him when they're not licking his ass. The amazing thing is that they actually published a critical investigation of something in the Obama administration. This should be viewed more as a welcome indication that some sort of investigative journalism might actually start taking place involving this Administration.

yes, the US media has become shite, but it still beats what you have over there -- mainly because we have more variety, more sources, and more players, and less government oversight, overall, than you have. Still shite, yes, but there is still hope for us.

[pErvinalia]

Hey, the country needed a bailout after the Bush mess. Cutting spending would have put us in depression. Smaller Gubment for sure. Nothing left to tax.

Smaller spending nipped the depression of 1920 in the bud. It would have done so here as well, had it been used.

Rubbish. Fuck I have to laugh at the way historical data can be interpreted one way over the other. Didn't 914 and I put all this nonsense to bed on RDF and the early days at Ratskep? I can't believe people still seriously argue this line.

You did not put it to bed, because you are wrong.

You're listening to the guys who never advocate smaller spending. They say in bad times "government must spend more, because it can boost the economy and then cut back and even it out in the good times." Then in the good times they say, "government must spend more because times are good and we have plenty of money, and if we cut back now we'll bring back the bad times." The common denominator is always "government ought to spend more" -- because they are arguing from a political philosophy, not an economic one. If you read the articles by guys like Krugman and such, you'll find, if you read carefully, this sort of thing at the heart of his arguments - he thinks government should spend more because his goal is to have government spend and transfer wealth in a way that he thinks embodies social justice. He masks this political goal by casting it as economics.

Nice strawman.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Just CBS making a story out of nothing. Typical journalist trick when news is thin. Rehash old stuff with a title.

State department security SUB contractors go with prozzies?

Get fuckin real. CBS is obviously as shite as the rest of the US media.

CBS news is shite, but for the opposite reason. They are Obama ass-lickers, who carry his water for him when they're not licking his ass. The amazing thing is that they actually published a critical investigation of something in the Obama administration. This should be viewed more as a welcome indication that some sort of investigative journalism might actually start taking place involving this Administration.

yes, the US media has become shite, but it still beats what you have over there -- mainly because we have more variety, more sources, and more players, and less government oversight, overall, than you have. Still shite, yes, but there is still hope for us.

C.E.S. must be Latin for "self-trolling".

[Coito ergo sum]

Nice strawman.

Isn't, actually.

But, where you may wish to put a bit of contemplation here is in your notion that this has been "put to bed." There are various schools of thought in economics, and there are heavy hitters behind each of those schools of thought. The idea that you seem to have accept has not been "put to bed" as there are good arguments and good economic theories advanced that oppose the stimulus/pumping/Keynesian ideas.

it's a good rule of thumb to heighten one's question of those controversial areas where one thinks that the matter has been put to bed and the opposition must be stupid or crazy. Usually -- not always - but, usually, there is something not quite as "put to bed" as one might think.

[Warren Dew]

Hey, the country needed a bailout after the Bush mess. Cutting spending would have put us in depression. Smaller Gubment for sure. Nothing left to tax.

Smaller spending nipped the depression of 1920 in the bud. It would have done so here as well, had it been used.

Rubbish. Fuck I have to laugh at the way historical data can be interpreted one way over the other. Didn't 914 and I put all this nonsense to bed on RDF and the early days at Ratskep? I can't believe people still seriously argue this line.

Although I don't remember his ever addressing Harding's handling of the depression of 1920, 914 posted a lot of cherry picked distortions, and little else. I hadn't realized you had been so taken in.

[pErvinalia]

Nice strawman.

Isn't, actually.

But, where you may wish to put a bit of contemplation here is in your notion that this has been "put to bed." There are various schools of thought in economics, and there are heavy hitters behind each of those schools of thought. The idea that you seem to have accept has not been "put to bed" as there are good arguments and good economic theories advanced that oppose the stimulus/pumping/Keynesian ideas.

it's a good rule of thumb to heighten one's question of those controversial areas where one thinks that the matter has been put to bed and the opposition must be stupid or crazy. Usually -- not always - but, usually, there is something not quite as "put to bed" as one might think.

And saying "you are wrong", as you did, is not the same type of absolutist statement?

And you said "You're listening to the guys who never advocate smaller spending.". That's a strawman. Perhaps you need to google the definition?

[pErvinalia]

Hey, the country needed a bailout after the Bush mess. Cutting spending would have put us in depression. Smaller Gubment for sure. Nothing left to tax.

Smaller spending nipped the depression of 1920 in the bud. It would have done so here as well, had it been used.

Rubbish. Fuck I have to laugh at the way historical data can be interpreted one way over the other. Didn't 914 and I put all this nonsense to bed on RDF and the early days at Ratskep? I can't believe people still seriously argue this line.

Although I don't remember his ever addressing Harding's handling of the depression of 1920, 914 posted a lot of cherry picked distortions, and little else. I hadn't realized you had been so taken in.

Lol, says the guy who quoted the "Austrian economists" as an authoritative source. Warren, you're like CES. You have a thoroughly one sided and blinkered view of the world.

[Coito ergo sum]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Nice strawman.

Isn't, actually.

But, where you may wish to put a bit of contemplation here is in your notion that this has been "put to bed." There are various schools of thought in economics, and there are heavy hitters behind each of those schools of thought. The idea that you seem to have accept has not been "put to bed" as there are good arguments and good economic theories advanced that oppose the stimulus/pumping/Keynesian ideas.

it's a good rule of thumb to heighten one's question of those controversial areas where one thinks that the matter has been put to bed and the opposition must be stupid or crazy. Usually -- not always - but, usually, there is something not quite as "put to bed" as one might think.

And saying "you are wrong", as you did, is not the same type of absolutist statement?

Of course it isn't. My view of it is that you're wrong. Your view of it is that I'm wrong. I'm not, however, saying the matter has been "put to bed" because I acknowledge that there are schools of thought in economics and that neither of the main schools of thought we are alluding to has been "put to bed" as correct or accurate and the others' "wrong."

[quote="rEvolutionist"

And you said "You're listening to the guys who never advocate smaller spending.". That's a strawman. Perhaps you need to google the definition?[/quote]

It's not a strawman. Show me where Krugman advocates reduced spending, for example.

[Audley Strange]

Heh, gotta say rEv, that I find that rich.

[pErvinalia]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Nice strawman.

Isn't, actually.

But, where you may wish to put a bit of contemplation here is in your notion that this has been "put to bed." There are various schools of thought in economics, and there are heavy hitters behind each of those schools of thought. The idea that you seem to have accept has not been "put to bed" as there are good arguments and good economic theories advanced that oppose the stimulus/pumping/Keynesian ideas.

it's a good rule of thumb to heighten one's question of those controversial areas where one thinks that the matter has been put to bed and the opposition must be stupid or crazy. Usually -- not always - but, usually, there is something not quite as "put to bed" as one might think.

And saying "you are wrong", as you did, is not the same type of absolutist statement?

Of course it isn't. My view of it is that you're wrong. Your view of it is that I'm wrong. I'm not, however, saying the matter has been "put to bed" because I acknowledge that there are schools of thought in economics and that neither of the main schools of thought we are alluding to has been "put to bed" as correct or accurate and the others' "wrong."

And you said "You're listening to the guys who never advocate smaller spending.". That's a strawman. Perhaps you need to google the definition?

It's not a strawman. Show me where Krugman advocates reduced spending, for example.

You really are an idiot. Please quote where I said anything about Krugman.

[pErvinalia]

Heh, gotta say rEv, that I find that rich.

What do you find rich?

[Coito ergo sum]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Nice strawman.

Isn't, actually.

But, where you may wish to put a bit of contemplation here is in your notion that this has been "put to bed." There are various schools of thought in economics, and there are heavy hitters behind each of those schools of thought. The idea that you seem to have accept has not been "put to bed" as there are good arguments and good economic theories advanced that oppose the stimulus/pumping/Keynesian ideas.

it's a good rule of thumb to heighten one's question of those controversial areas where one thinks that the matter has been put to bed and the opposition must be stupid or crazy. Usually -- not always - but, usually, there is something not quite as "put to bed" as one might think.

And saying "you are wrong", as you did, is not the same type of absolutist statement?

Of course it isn't. My view of it is that you're wrong. Your view of it is that I'm wrong. I'm not, however, saying the matter has been "put to bed" because I acknowledge that there are schools of thought in economics and that neither of the main schools of thought we are alluding to has been "put to bed" as correct or accurate and the others' "wrong."

And you said "You're listening to the guys who never advocate smaller spending.". That's a strawman. Perhaps you need to google the definition?

It's not a strawman. Show me where Krugman advocates reduced spending, for example.

You really are an idiot. Please quote where I said anything about Krugman.

You're listening to the guys who never advocate smaller spending. Krugman is one example. If you'll be kind enough to cite your source, I'll be happy to examine that particular one (or more). However, since you did not mention who you were relying on, I gave you an example of one of the more prominent ones that advocate the position you've alleged has been so proved that opposing views have been "put to bed."

[pErvinalia]

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

Isn't, actually.

But, where you may wish to put a bit of contemplation here is in your notion that this has been "put to bed." There are various schools of thought in economics, and there are heavy hitters behind each of those schools of thought. The idea that you seem to have accept has not been "put to bed" as there are good arguments and good economic theories advanced that oppose the stimulus/pumping/Keynesian ideas.

it's a good rule of thumb to heighten one's question of those controversial areas where one thinks that the matter has been put to bed and the opposition must be stupid or crazy. Usually -- not always - but, usually, there is something not quite as "put to bed" as one might think.

And saying "you are wrong", as you did, is not the same type of absolutist statement?

Of course it isn't. My view of it is that you're wrong. Your view of it is that I'm wrong. I'm not, however, saying the matter has been "put to bed" because I acknowledge that there are schools of thought in economics and that neither of the main schools of thought we are alluding to has been "put to bed" as correct or accurate and the others' "wrong."

And you said "You're listening to the guys who never advocate smaller spending.". That's a strawman. Perhaps you need to google the definition?

It's not a strawman. Show me where Krugman advocates reduced spending, for example.

You really are an idiot. Please quote where I said anything about Krugman.

You're listening to the guys who never advocate smaller spending.

Fucking STRAWMAN! Are you retarded?

Krugman is one example. If you'll be kind enough to cite your source, I'll be happy to examine that particular one (or more). However, since you did not mention who you were relying on, I gave you an example of one of the more prominent ones that advocate the position you've alleged has been so proved that opposing views have been "put to bed."

So this makes it ok to erect strawmen?