The American Politics thread

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I wonder if I can find a video of an Idi Amin speech on You Tube. If I can You Tube link it, it must be right.

[Ikki]

Friedman, one of the most brilliant and influential economic thinkers of his time and all time... and ...Idi Amin... good one.

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Friedman, one of the most brilliant and influential economic thinkers of his time and all time... and ...Idi Amin... good one.

Both equally dangerous extremists.

The first time I take the word of an economist as gospel will be the day that I trapse off this mortal coil.

I'm not going to engage in a political debate with you because you will resort to polemics like you have throughout this thread. We couldn't be further away from each other and it would be a waste of time to try and convince each other of anything else; but suffice it to say that I value economics about as highly as the views of mystic meg on whether I'm likely to meet a tall dark stranger and be flashmobbed by him.

[cpr]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Friedman, one of the most brilliant and influential economic thinkers of his time and all time...

Never heard of him.


But then its not like I've studied American politics or cultu..... oh.

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I prefer that other similarly monikered thinker, Milton Keynes. A great town planner more so than an economist.

[cpr]

Ah the Keynsian cycle - Go round in circles until you get out of that **** hole

[Burgey]

Noticing James Murdoch saying he agrees with some regulation, even in the media.

He's not the pure free marketeer Ikki is, but then he's run something more substantial than a bath.

[PhoenixFire]

[Hurricane]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Noticing James Murdoch saying he agrees with some regulation, even in the media.

He's not the pure free marketeer Ikki is, but then he's run something more substantial than a bath.

On a tangent. He came to my MBA class to do a speech. Highlights were that one student mocked him because he had just lost 200M in a deal. Secondly he told us a story about a negotiation in India where someone took out a gun and put it on the table during the negotiation.
Thirdly, he told us he won't hire any MBAs all the big decisions were made by people with industry experience who had worked their way up and him.

[Burgey]

No Rethug would do this...


Barack Obama Slow Jams The News With Jimmy Fallon - YouTube

[Spark]

there can't too be many other politicians in the world full stop who would.

[Spikey]

[Pup Clarke]

Barack's calf's mean business.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by Burgey

He's not the pure free marketeer Ikki is, but then he's run something more substantial than a bath.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Noticing James Murdoch saying he agrees with some regulation, even in the media.

He's not the pure free marketeer Ikki is, but then he's run something more substantial than a bath.

Well, the irony is those who are rich would want more regulation as they tend to be the ones writing or influencing the writers of them. Do you think I want less regulation to help the rich? That's the whole point: to provide competition for them.

It's like the argument of lowering taxes. There are great economic arguments to show it'd benefit the lower class more, but then those on the left take it to mean you're in cahoots with the rich. Again similar to the fear of a lack of regulation. It's that people tend to be pretty myopic. They think when you tax a business, that business is actually paying for it. They don't realise that the business in question is just going to pass the cost of that tax onto the consumer in one way or another.

Next, though, you'll tell me because Buffet calls for more taxes on the rich that you've won the argument.

No worries, Friedman to the rescue again. Milton Friedman - The Free Lunch Myth - YouTube

Originally Posted by HeathDavisSpeed

Both equally dangerous extremists.

The first time I take the word of an economist as gospel will be the day that I trapse off this mortal coil.

I'm not going to engage in a political debate with you because you will resort to polemics like you have throughout this thread. We couldn't be further away from each other and it would be a waste of time to try and convince each other of anything else; but suffice it to say that I value economics about as highly as the views of mystic meg on whether I'm likely to meet a tall dark stranger and be flashmobbed by him.

So you use a crystal ball to look into the future? Economics is not a natural science and isn't as reliable as the laws discovered in those studies, but the effects of monetary policy isn't really that hard to predict in a lot of instances. It's not very difficult to understand or very arguable in a lot of other cases. More importantly, economic freedoms are very closely tied to legal and political freedoms; it's somewhat inescapable. If you don't have a good grasp on it, then arguing about laws and politics is somewhat futile or very limiting.

Friedman is an extremist? He wants you to have liberty. You can choose whether you want something or not as long as you arent being negligent or defrauding anybody.

I think the extremists are the ones with the Keynesian thinking, that they can actually plan for the wants and needs of every man. Or worse, the communists. These people not only lack the brains - with all due respect to them - but the humility to get out of the way. In some cases, they're actually in there to affect change for special interests.

The problem is, as I stated before, that people think a balance of free market principles and interventionist planning is the best of both worlds. You think the arguments are polemic. And those are the biggest hindrances to people advancing. What I tout seems counter-intuitive: less/no regulations; less/no taxes; smaller government; etc? What seems more palatable for intellectual discourse - a compromise - is the worst thing for both.

It's why a lot of the arguments won't be politically feasible because the status quo is something else and people grow up indoctrinated with false ideals about law and economics and a great lack of perspective due to a gaping understanding in how these things have evolved. How can you talk about how poorly government misallocates resources and want to shrink government when your constituents grow up believing that the government is their nanny? Student backed loans are one of the main reasons education is so expensive in America; but imagine the riots of lessening the aid?

People want their cake and want to eat it too. They do not live in the real world, ironically. They want government to mandate sub-prime loans so more people can get a home, but they don't want the effects of a bailout when the **** hits the fan because under normal conditions those people could not afford that home. They argue for the use and utility of programs, yet when you tell them to do it voluntarily, so as not to impede on the rights of those who disagree, they get in arms about it. They have no answers, and you'll see continuous attacks on my viewpoint because of it. In their hearts they know they're wrong but the fear of the unknown, or what they think that is, impedes them from changing their position.