O=W

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Obama, not only surrounded himself with Bankers, and Wall Street Execs, but he also put Union Bosses and Tax Cheats around him.

LOL, I did not think Barney Frank could ever get a bitch, but you might have put Ryan P. McSquirter at the top of the list.[/quote]

Hey give him a break he’s only 19 or 20 years old. I know when I was that age I thought I had it all figured out too. I used to go on and on mimicking what my professors had just spoon fed me. He’s actually a bright kid, just misguided and inexperienced that will probably change after 5 or so years of living in the real world.[/quote]

What a great forum. You don’t have to get a single fact right to be condescending!

142

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Obama, not only surrounded himself with Bankers, and Wall Street Execs, but he also put Union Bosses and Tax Cheats around him.

LOL, I did not think Barney Frank could ever get a bitch, but you might have put Ryan P. McSquirter at the top of the list.[/quote]

Hey give him a break he’s only 19 or 20 years old. I know when I was that age I thought I had it all figured out too. I used to go on and on mimicking what my professors had just spoon fed me. He’s actually a bright kid, just misguided and inexperienced that will probably change after 5 or so years of living in the real world.[/quote]

LOL, you crack me up Zeb!

143

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Hmmm…ignoring the wealth of evidence to the contrary, which is more likely: that the market has never ever failed or been responsible for a recession in history, as you exert so much effort in attempting to convince us, or that an institution whose entire existence was a reaction to constant failures and depressions, is actually responsible for the depressions?

Which way does history go? Anyway you want?
[/quote]

Which way do definitions go?

Anyway you want?

What constitutes “market failure” when the most heavily regulated industries that deal with government monopoly money that was inflated at a unheard of rate go belly up?

144

[quote]orion wrote:Which way do definitions go?

Anyway you want?[/quote]

I agree, dodging that question was the best you could hope for.

When the market experiences a huge bubble and subsequent crash in the absence of political causes, it’s a market failure. You know this. Regulations on banks have been steadily relaxed over the past couple decades. Mortgage rates are determined by the bond market. Simply interjecting “government!” “the Fed!” “legal counterfeit!” and other similar buzzwords may be enough to win accolades on the Mises forums, but they have basically nothing to do with this situation.

145

[quote]aussie486 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Obama, not only surrounded himself with Bankers, and Wall Street Execs, but he also put Union Bosses and Tax Cheats around him.

LOL, I did not think Barney Frank could ever get a bitch, but you might have put Ryan P. McSquirter at the top of the list.[/quote]

Hey give him a break he’s only 19 or 20 years old. I know when I was that age I thought I had it all figured out too. I used to go on and on mimicking what my professors had just spoon fed me. He’s actually a bright kid, just misguided and inexperienced that will probably change after 5 or so years of living in the real world.[/quote]

LOL, you crack me up Zeb!

[/quote]

I used to teach a course at our local college on a part-time basis and get into raging debates with some of the kids. They really were brainwashed by their liberal professors. But I couldn’t really blame them, if they hear the same nutty message over and over again that’s what they think is the truth. I had so many of them come back to me after being out in the real world and tell me that they were wrong I was truly amazed. It really does take that cold hard smack of reality to change the mind of some kid whose been sucking up the wrong message for a few years.

Reality is the best teacher and there is almost none of that on the typical college campus.

146

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]aussie486 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Obama, not only surrounded himself with Bankers, and Wall Street Execs, but he also put Union Bosses and Tax Cheats around him.

LOL, I did not think Barney Frank could ever get a bitch, but you might have put Ryan P. McSquirter at the top of the list.[/quote]

Hey give him a break he’s only 19 or 20 years old. I know when I was that age I thought I had it all figured out too. I used to go on and on mimicking what my professors had just spoon fed me. He’s actually a bright kid, just misguided and inexperienced that will probably change after 5 or so years of living in the real world.[/quote]

LOL, you crack me up Zeb!

[/quote]

I used to teach a course at our local college on a part-time basis and get into raging debates with some of the kids. They really were brainwashed by their liberal professors. But I couldn’t really blame them, if they hear the same nutty message over and over again that’s what they think is the truth. I had so many of them come back to me after being out in the real world and tell me that they were wrong I was truly amazed. It really does take that cold hard smack of reality to change the mind of some kid whose been sucking up the wrong message for a few years.

Reality is the best teacher and there is almost none of that on the typical college campus.
[/quote]

Amen to that.

147

Don’t blame me. I voted Libertarian.

148

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:Which way do definitions go?

Anyway you want?[/quote]

I agree, dodging that question was the best you could hope for.

When the market experiences a huge bubble and subsequent crash in the absence of political causes, it’s a market failure. You know this. Regulations on banks have been steadily relaxed over the past couple decades. Mortgage rates are determined by the bond market. Simply interjecting “government!” “the Fed!” “legal counterfeit!” and other similar buzzwords may be enough to win accolades on the Mises forums, but they have basically nothing to do with this situation.

[/quote]

Tsk, tsk, tsk…

And what determines the interest rates in the bond market and practically every other interest rate?

Could it be the monetary policies of the Fed?

Did the Fed run an easy money policy for 20-30 years?

Is the Fed a government backed monopoly?

Has the Austrian Business Cycle theory predicted what would happen long before the Fed started to TRIPLE the money supply over the last 3 decades?

Thank you for playing.

149

[quote]orion wrote:Tsk, tsk, tsk…

And what determines the interest rates in the bond market and practically every other interest rate?

Could it be the monetary policies of the Fed?

Did the Fed run an easy money policy for 20-30 years?[/quote]

More or less. But it doesn’t matter. Other factors affect interest rates, such as the risk of default and the savings glut that poured in from other countries like China. Furthermore, the rate of growth of the monetary base actually diminished starting in 2001, and was below 5% (annual) by 2006. Try again.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Yet in this case, they were right for the wrong reason. Strange thing you spend so much time contorting reality to fit their obviously flawed theories.

Unlike you, I’m not playing.

Poor orion, the system he’s so committed to defending crashes with government regulation, and crashes without government regulation. It crashes with a central bank, and it crashes without a central bank.

Looks like you’ve got some reading to do.

150

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:Tsk, tsk, tsk…

And what determines the interest rates in the bond market and practically every other interest rate?

Could it be the monetary policies of the Fed?

Did the Fed run an easy money policy for 20-30 years?[/quote]

More or less. But it doesn’t matter. Other factors affect interest rates, such as the risk of default and the savings glut that poured in from other countries like China. Furthermore, the rate of growth of the monetary base actually diminished starting in 2001, and was below 5% (annual) by 2006. Try again.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Yet in this case, they were right for the wrong reason. Strange thing you spend so much time contorting reality to fit their obviously flawed theories.

Unlike you, I’m not playing.

Poor orion, the system he’s so committed to defending crashes with government regulation, and crashes without government regulation. It crashes with a central bank, and it crashes without a central bank.

Looks like you’ve got some reading to do.[/quote]

“The system” never crashes without a central bank.

There are problems, yes, resulting from fractional reserve banking, but even that could be remedied.

Also, those “crashes” never were as systemic as this crash will be.

I finds it highly amusing though that you have little to no knowledge of finance or economics and yet you lecture me on things that I have studied for years and I can tell that you did not even complete your economics 101.

I am sorry so, but having an opinion is not enough and dismissing theories you do not even understand makes you seem much less smart that you might potentially be.

But I guess Zeb already told you that.

151

Is this part of your catechism? You repeat it frequently, yet there’s no evidence in the real world to support it. So either you’re dumb or you’re lying. Capitalist economies were getting into trouble long before central banks were conceived of (see Panic of 1907, which was the last straw, so they created the Fed). This is the whole reason we have central banks. It doesn’t even make sense the other way around, and you have no explanation for this.

Crashes 100 years ago were not as systemic because the economy has grown increasingly intertwined all over the world.

Oh really, you can tell I didn’t complete economics 101? Maybe not Austrian economics 101, but I can’t think of a single instance in which you’ve shown anything that I’ve said to be incorrect. You frequently complain that my statement grate against your prejudices, but I never see any substantive corrections. I don’t claim to be an expert, true, but almost every assertion you make on here is wrong. I’m sorry it upsets you, but you’re wrong, and it’s usually a fairly basic error (which is obviously a product of your slavish devotion to a dead ideology, in which even those whose interests it serves have ceased to believe). Even mainstream capitalist economists, whose job is to defend the capitalist system, admit this was a market failure. The Rupert-Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal admits it was a market failure. You’re the last holdout. But I guess that makes you trU.

Boy this is eerily accurate when applied to yourself. You seem like a pretty intelligent guy otherwise, but you’re such a coward you won’t even look out the window because you know that if you do, those theories you love so much will immediately be rendered inadequate. There’s a reason the economics profession threw the Austrian school into the trash.

Zeb told me that Keynesian spending doesn’t work, and then recommended that we initiate some Keynesian spending to get out of the depression and gave me an example of its success, except that he was too stupid to know that’s what he was doing.

Sounds like a man in whom you could place your confidence.

152

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Is this part of your catechism? You repeat it frequently, yet there’s no evidence in the real world to support it. So either you’re dumb or you’re lying. Capitalist economies were getting into trouble long before central banks were conceived of (see Panic of 1907, which was the last straw, so they created the Fed). This is the whole reason we have central banks. It doesn’t even make sense the other way around, and you have no explanation for this.

Crashes 100 years ago were not as systemic because the economy has grown increasingly intertwined all over the world.

Oh really, you can tell I didn’t complete economics 101? Maybe not Austrian economics 101, but I can’t think of a single instance in which you’ve shown anything that I’ve said to be incorrect. You frequently complain that my statement grate against your prejudices, but I never see any substantive corrections. I don’t claim to be an expert, true, but almost every assertion you make on here is wrong. I’m sorry it upsets you, but you’re wrong, and it’s usually a fairly basic error (which is obviously a product of your slavish devotion to a dead ideology, in which even those whose interests it serves have ceased to believe). Even mainstream capitalist economists, whose job is to defend the capitalist system, admit this was a market failure. The Rupert-Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal admits it was a market failure. You’re the last holdout. But I guess that makes you trU.

Boy this is eerily accurate when applied to yourself. You seem like a pretty intelligent guy otherwise, but you’re such a coward you won’t even look out the window because you know that if you do, those theories you love so much will immediately be rendered inadequate. There’s a reason the economics profession threw the Austrian school into the trash.

Zeb told me that Keynesian spending doesn’t work, and then recommended that we initiate some Keynesian spending to get out of the depression and gave me an example of its success, except that he was too stupid to know that’s what he was doing.

Sounds like a man in whom you could place your confidence.[/quote]

Ya, its allroght, O ll ne happy to respond to anything of substance that you should happen to post but that constant insisting that you are right without any reasoning on your part is a tad repetitive.

153

[quote]orion wrote:Ya, its allroght, O ll ne happy to respond to anything of substance that you should happen to post but that constant insisting that you are right without any reasoning on your part is a tad repetitive.

[/quote]

Once you acquire object permanence, perhaps we can have an intelligent debate. But so long as you continue to ignore all the factual rebuttal I give and then to claim that it isn’t there because you didn’t see it, it will be difficult. Oh yes, I’ve noticed that you ignore the many inconvenient facts with which I’ve supplied you, and then quickly change the subject. I haven’t called you on it much before, but I will from now on.

154

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:

Is this part of your catechism? You repeat it frequently, yet there’s no evidence in the real world to support it. So either you’re dumb or you’re lying. Capitalist economies were getting into trouble long before central banks were conceived of (see Panic of 1907, which was the last straw, so they created the Fed). This is the whole reason we have central banks. It doesn’t even make sense the other way around, and you have no explanation for this.

Crashes 100 years ago were not as systemic because the economy has grown increasingly intertwined all over the world.

Oh really, you can tell I didn’t complete economics 101? Maybe not Austrian economics 101, but I can’t think of a single instance in which you’ve shown anything that I’ve said to be incorrect. You frequently complain that my statement grate against your prejudices, but I never see any substantive corrections. I don’t claim to be an expert, true, but almost every assertion you make on here is wrong. I’m sorry it upsets you, but you’re wrong, and it’s usually a fairly basic error (which is obviously a product of your slavish devotion to a dead ideology, in which even those whose interests it serves have ceased to believe). Even mainstream capitalist economists, whose job is to defend the capitalist system, admit this was a market failure. The Rupert-Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal admits it was a market failure. You’re the last holdout. But I guess that makes you trU.

Boy this is eerily accurate when applied to yourself. You seem like a pretty intelligent guy otherwise, but you’re such a coward you won’t even look out the window because you know that if you do, those theories you love so much will immediately be rendered inadequate. There’s a reason the economics profession threw the Austrian school into the trash.

Zeb told me that Keynesian spending doesn’t work, and then recommended that we initiate some Keynesian spending to get out of the depression and gave me an example of its success, except that he was too stupid to know that’s what he was doing.

Sounds like a man in whom you could place your confidence.[/quote]

Ya, its allroght, O ll ne happy to respond to anything of substance that you should happen to post but that constant insisting that you are right without any reasoning on your part is a tad repetitive.

[/quote]

Orion, that’s what college kids do, they endlessly repeat what their professors have spoon fed them. They don’t really know why anything actually works, they only know what they’re told and that’s pretty much that.