Why multiculturalism is a failure

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Agema:
If we were discussing marketing and business accounting, I might defer to you. However, as we're discussing economics, you're making an invalid appeal to authority. Funny for you to call me economically illiterate without making an economic case; funny for you to have accused me of cherry-picking, then doing so yourself with your own selective, biased examples.

And you know I can find any number of actual economists who would disagree with you on, well, lots. Many of them these days have prominent blogs (Krugman, Wren-Lewis, DeLong, etc.) I also freely accept many other economists would agree with you. You see, I'm not contending the opposite to what you're claiming. I'm telling you that you cannot adequately prove your statement, and that there is plentiful evidence to the contrary.

If you write nothing but bluster and bullshit, I can only see you know bullshit.

I was exhibiting my credentials. There's a difference.

As a business student, I somehow know dick about economics? Hilarious.

Yes, a lot of economists disagree with me. Many also agree with me. There are the Neo-Keynesians, the supply-siders, the Austrian School, the Chicago School, the sociologists (they think they're economists!), the classical economists, the regular Keynesians, and the politicians who think they know economics. Just like fields such as psychiatry, there are more theories than people.

Krugman is demonstrably a fool, a partisan hack who picks politics over economics. He also sucks at hurling insults. See his criticism of Paul Ryan. Former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, such a man to trust!

Actually, I can pick apart the evidence for the other side. I see it as a fun hobby. I get a natural endorphin high from debating.

This is an Internet forum for a gaming website, mind you.

Overhead:
I'll ask for the same then. Check my post history, I've happily sourced peer reviewed studies and copied across of books I own to provide evidence. You haven't asked for sources for me, so I'll start things off by asking for sources from you on his behalf and once you've got them I'll happily provide sources for whatever of my own stuff you want.

Yes, because this is an Internet forum for a gaming news website. You clearly have a lot more free time than I do.

Overhead:
Perhaps you should focus on my answer. I was was talking about social welfare. Rather than answer that point you talk about spending overall. No duh spending overall went down, countries weren't running massive deficits to pay for the war anymore. Which is why I was talking about social welfare.

Also:

a) Do your liberterian policies only work in the USA seeing as we've been biting the add end of free-market reforms for decades?

b) Europe didn't transition into democratic socialism. Some of it became Stalinist in Eastern Europe and some parts became social democratic, but not democratic socialist.

It's a neutral way of saying the wealth of the proletariat that had been exploited and stolen from them by the bourgeois without turning the conversation into Communist Chat.

Clever considering the Wall Street Crash which marked the start of the Great Depression happened a year before the tariff act was passed.

Please, there were a whole host of reasons. From the fundemental flaws associated with using the Gaussian Copula model to the lack of knowledge on the part of consumers to the massive lobbying effort from the ISDA to the profit motive which drove them to take extreme risks to blah blah blah.

The Community Reinvestment Act is a stupid target to aim for. For one a few people made claims about it at the time, but in all the later analysis the unanimous consensus was that at worse CRA regulated loans were no worse than ordinary loans and were possibly better. Secondly, if the banks didn't think that it would be profitable to go ahead with a mortgage, they wouldn't have done so.

Well I didn't want to call you out on this, but basically lol.

Academic qualifications in economics/finance mean pretty much nothing until you reach the upper echelons.

Hell, even a lot of the high up people in the banks themselves knew almost nothing about how derivatives worked, as an example, simply because they were a niche subject which was compartmentalised in a silo that no-one else would get involved with.

So ignoring all the republics like South Africa where this also occurred, for some reason free-market economics fail depending on whether you have a dictatorship or a democracy? It's how the head of state retains his authority; through force of social democratic consent that decides if free market policies work?

There is a consequence for the lawyer in wasted time and lack of earnings. Also doesn't refute how some regulation might help!

Sounds like she needs some regulation.

Well yes, if you're on the dole you are dependent on the government. Anyone who is on the dole is. That is kind of the point.

Also I wouldn't say not willing, more unable. If you don't have capital and just live hand to mouth, you can't invest it or squander it. You're making a huge sweeping statement about a massive problem and dumbing it down to the government.

1) Social welfare. What a disaster all that turned out to be, hrrm? A 20th century invention in America that liberals treat like something that has always existed. Hundreds of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities, a failed War on Poverty, massive pandering and scare tactics used against any potential reformer (although the dangerous third rail of politics may have shut off considering how unscathed Paul Ryan appears,) etc. Keynesians wanted war-time levels of spending to continue. That's what I was talking about. Keynes' friends shouted disaster but the economy thrived and grew faster.

2) Yes, some became Soviet satellite nations. Some tried a smattering of fascism. But the countries in trouble right now, i.e. France, Greece, Italy, and Spain, are democratic socialists. The policies work anywhere where capitalism is allowed to flourish.

3) Ah, so you show your true colors! Your true red colors! I love talking to communists. Their level of economic illiteracy always amazes me.

4) That's a lie. The economy was steadily recovering after the crash, just like it did in 1987 when Reagan refused to intervene. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was passed months after the crash when unemployment had already sunk a few percentage points from its high.

5) Yes, there's a whole rigmarole. I understand that. But the Community Reinvestment Act changes started it all. Yes, because the banks knew the government would bail out Fannie and Freddie, so they took greater and greater risks. And they were totally right.

6) They were forced to do so under the terms of the changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. They had to fill a quota of certain things, along racial lines and people of low credit rating.

7) That's how it used to work in the age before the Internet. Anyone with access to the Internet can self-teach themselves high finance. Will they be the best at it? No, but they won't be morons either. Derivatives are not a niche subject. My college taught a class completely devoted to them. I learned more about them in pretty much every Finance class I took. You're a fool.

8) South Africa had apartheid. Free markets do not exist fully under a dictatorship because private property rights are not respected.

9) Frivolous lawsuits usually end in settlement because the settlement is cheaper for the doctor than fighting it in court. It is a vicious cycle where ambulance chasing attorneys can make millions from innocent people. Just ask John Edwards and how he won his first case to go to court. I am not against all regulation, just most regulation.

10) Repeat of last sentence in last bulleted point.

11) Ben Chavis' tribe decided to go into banking and have made a very nice living for themselves. There were also the tribes that went into gambling and made billions upon billions of dollars. The research done on the tribes who depend on the federal government for nearly 100% of their incomes is pretty conclusive.

Katatori-kun:
Then what makes you think you deserve to be part of the discussion?

I've yet to see any evidence.

Then I see no reason to regard your argument as anything more than so much partisan wish-fluff.

It would take a few scant moments to back up your claim if it's true. Certainly longer than it would take me to go through your little reading list there. The only reason you refuse is because you can't.

That's because I didn't make a wild, sweeping claim about a relationship between a country's economic freedom and their long-term economic growth. I didn't make any kind of claim at all, so I have nothing to prove. I'm just waiting on you to back up your claim, because even though this is "just" an Internet forum for a gaming website, I don't think people should be allowed to get away with claiming any old nonsense they spout is fact. Chief.

Wild sweeping claim? Yes, you totally did. All of the claims you make are "wild, sweeping claims" to me.

The Internet is the freest discussion tool human society has ever known. It doesn't matter if I deserve to be a part of it. I just can be.

Oh, so you're against free speech now, too?

generals3:
Maybe you need to read upon the subject than. I read a nice book once obliterating the myth of free markets always being better. It explained how it failed during certain periods and in certain countries.

Such as the US during the American Revolution. The UK industry had such a competitive advantage over the US the domestic market was flooded by british goods which prevented the US industry to grow. So they introduced tariffs and surprise the industry could actually grow. And the same happened to developing countries, they opened their market just to see countries with better technology/experience overwhelm their markets with goods their industry couldn't compete with. Something you can only fix through subsidizing your own industry or introducing tariffs.

I believe the taxes levied on the goods in the United States was not exactly free market-oriented. Like a tax on tea multiple times what the product itself was priced at.

By the way, broseph, that's called trade. U.S. stores are flooded with Chinese goods but the Chinese government doesn't have the authority to charge an extra $100 on that DC Universe action figure or Slinky. America was, to make this as brief as possible, Britain's bitch.

What was the book? Karl Marx perhaps? Krugman?

Tariffs are not something I agree with, but you do realize that was when globalization was in its earliest stages of infancy. Keynes' theories died once globalization was a full-blooded reality.

No, that doesn't fix the problem. And it is not the only way. Have you heard of "coming out with better technologies"? Oh, you silly moonbats always forget innovation.

Vegosiux:
No, it did not. You can say "guns and butter" as many times as you want, but just referring to that mantra kind of doesn't take the scope and factors of cold war into account; let alone the factors of markets in general. It just doesn't, I'm sorry.

So, if you want to keep claiming that, you guessed it, cough up some sources and evidence. "Guns and butter, sir" is not a source, nor is it evidence. It's simply being a pretentious git.

I don't give a rat's ass about credentials. I only give a rat's ass about what a person actually can do.

I don't give a fuck if you have credentials to back it up, unless you, you know...actually back it up.

Once again, Internet forum for a gaming news website. I just don't give a damn. Have a nice day.

Guns and butter is a term originally used by Margaret Thatcher to describe succinctly why the Soviet Union failed. They just did not have enough money for both "guns and butter." It was a different form to her famous quote on socialism: "Eventually, you run out of other people's money."

dang, I came back thinking people were still talking about the OP, but it has derailed into quotes on Margret Thatcher, protectionism and regulating the markets. :/

In the spirit of this thread, here is one of my favorite vids of Mrs. Thatcher.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Wild sweeping claim? Yes, you totally did. All of the claims you make are "wild, sweeping claims" to me.

Um, no. That's not how it works. See, I didn't make a claim. I'm asking you to back up yours. I know what I said. You know what I said. And this pathetic dance you're doing to try and distract isn't going to cut it. Back up your claim. Prove that there is evidence that the freer a society is, the more long-term economic growth it has.

The Internet is the freest discussion tool human society has ever known. It doesn't matter if I deserve to be a part of it. I just can be.

Oh, so you're against free speech now, too?

No, I'm against kids who don't know what they're talking about spouting off nonsense and passing it as fact. If you can't back up your claims with evidence, you add nothing of value to the conversation.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Once again, Internet forum for a gaming news website. I just don't give a damn. Have a nice day.

Guns and butter is a term originally used by Margaret Thatcher to describe succinctly why the Soviet Union failed. They just did not have enough money for both "guns and butter." It was a different form to her famous quote on socialism: "Eventually, you run out of other people's money."

Funny, because wikipedia attributes "guns versus butter" to a series of events that took place in the USA during World War I. There are also examples on that page of the term being used in 1936 by Göbbels and by several other people before the fall of the USSR.

Thatcher's statement is also one of selecting commodities over defense spending: "The Soviets put guns over butter, but we put almost everything over guns". There's nothing in her quote to suggest that she's criticizing the economic model of the USSR, but rather they way in which they prioritized spending. That's quite an important difference.

One has to wonder, if you can't even get simple things like "guns versus butter" and the meaning behind a straight forward quote right, what else is it that you are getting wrong or misinterpreting?

Big_Willie_Styles:

Once again, Internet forum for a gaming news website. I just don't give a damn. Have a nice day.

Duly noted. Forgive me if I do not refrain from avoiding to not look up some stuff tho.

Guns and butter is a term originally used by Margaret Thatcher to describe succinctly why the Soviet Union failed.

No it isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_versus_butter_model

Legitimate Godwin alert!

Perhaps the best known actual usage (in translation) was in Nazi Germany. In a speech on January 17, 1936, Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels stated: "We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not without arms. One cannot shoot with butter, but with guns." Sometime in the summer of the same year, Hermann Göring announced in a speech, "Guns will make us powerful; butter will only make us fat."

So either you have a time machine, in which case you're a bleedin' genius; or you simply...well. Excuse me to put it so bluntly...FAIL.

Gethsemani:

One has to wonder, if you can't even get simple things like "guns versus butter" and the meaning behind a straight forward quote right, what else is it that you are getting wrong or misinterpreting?

My guess is; and I hate making such guesses, mind you; that he simply picked up a phrase he thought "gamers" wouldn't give the time of day, cause we "gamers" are a brain-dead bunch who can't put two and two together and will be impressed by anything.

No really, I hate making guesses like this, but...seriously, I didn't think it was that bad.

Big_Willie_Styles:
I'm a rational cynic.

I'm a recovering cynic.

But let's get back to my initial question. What is the causal relationship between a free market and the ability to better integrate an immigrant population? My ancestors had a hard time integrating and it was during a time period in America where corporate regulation more or less amounted to how many Pinkertons you could hire per week.

Big_Willie_Styles:
As a business student, I somehow know dick about economics? Hilarious.

Well, you seem to know dick about logic. I didn't say you knew nothing about economics: I'm just saying your credentials of a middling-level qualification of which half was on a topic tangential to economics does not qualify expertise in economics.

Actually, I can pick apart the evidence for the other side. I see it as a fun hobby. I get a natural endorphin high from debating.

This is an Internet forum for a gaming website, mind you.

You've explicitly or implicitly made clear 1) you don't need to show you are right, 2) you don't need standards of scholarship to defend your points, 3) you think your interlocutors are intellectual inferiors and 4) you don't even need to persuade them to accept your points, 5) you don't actually care.

In other words, you are not actually taking part in an intellectual process of debating.

I suspect you're actually getting an endorphin high from self-aggrandisement instead. It seems to me you're here for an audience to denigrate and tell how clever and special you think you are. You are quite free to pleasure yourself so, but you can do so without me.

Big_Willie_Styles:

generals3:
Maybe you need to read upon the subject than. I read a nice book once obliterating the myth of free markets always being better. It explained how it failed during certain periods and in certain countries.

Such as the US during the American Revolution. The UK industry had such a competitive advantage over the US the domestic market was flooded by british goods which prevented the US industry to grow. So they introduced tariffs and surprise the industry could actually grow. And the same happened to developing countries, they opened their market just to see countries with better technology/experience overwhelm their markets with goods their industry couldn't compete with. Something you can only fix through subsidizing your own industry or introducing tariffs.

I believe the taxes levied on the goods in the United States was not exactly free market-oriented. Like a tax on tea multiple times what the product itself was priced at.

By the way, broseph, that's called trade. U.S. stores are flooded with Chinese goods but the Chinese government doesn't have the authority to charge an extra $100 on that DC Universe action figure or Slinky. America was, to make this as brief as possible, Britain's bitch.

What was the book? Karl Marx perhaps? Krugman?

Tariffs are not something I agree with, but you do realize that was when globalization was in its earliest stages of infancy. Keynes' theories died once globalization was a full-blooded reality.

No, that doesn't fix the problem. And it is not the only way. Have you heard of "coming out with better technologies"? Oh, you silly moonbats always forget innovation.

That last sentence is the reason why the US industry managed to become competitive. However in order to have innovation you need to have a working industry. If your industry gets obliterated who is going to invest in innovation? That's the whole point. You need to protect your industry while it can catch up and in certain area's even develop competitive advantages.

And no that book wasn't a political one. It actually analysed policies and numbers throughout history. Unfortunately i lost it (read it 4 years ago), but i doubt they'd give us a book to read for Economic History which is commie propaganda, mainly to business students. ) If i can find the title again i'll get back to ya with it.

EDIT: Well now i've got it, it's: "Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes"

Katatori-kun:
Um, no. That's not how it works. See, I didn't make a claim. I'm asking you to back up yours. I know what I said. You know what I said. And this pathetic dance you're doing to try and distract isn't going to cut it. Back up your claim. Prove that there is evidence that the freer a society is, the more long-term economic growth it has.

No, I'm against kids who don't know what they're talking about spouting off nonsense and passing it as fact. If you can't back up your claims with evidence, you add nothing of value to the conversation.

You called my claim a wild claim. That's a wild claim to me.

This is an Internet forum for a gaming news website. Excuse me if I don't treat it as a debate between professors.

Gethsemani:
Funny, because wikipedia attributes "guns versus butter" to a series of events that took place in the USA during World War I. There are also examples on that page of the term being used in 1936 by Göbbels and by several other people before the fall of the USSR.

Thatcher's statement is also one of selecting commodities over defense spending: "The Soviets put guns over butter, but we put almost everything over guns". There's nothing in her quote to suggest that she's criticizing the economic model of the USSR, but rather they way in which they prioritized spending. That's quite an important difference.

One has to wonder, if you can't even get simple things like "guns versus butter" and the meaning behind a straight forward quote right, what else is it that you are getting wrong or misinterpreting?

She used the term.

You do realize that that is part of their economic model, right? The government determined the price of everything and how much of everything that would be produced. That's the disgusting reality of Communism. By prioritizing the production of guns over food, there was a severe shortage of food and prices skyrocketed. How do you not realize that is related to the economic model?

Also, it is hilarious that you just confirmed Godwin's Law.

Big_Willie_Styles:

She used the term.

Yes, she did. But your claim was that she was the one who coined it to begin with, which is what I disproved. Do not attempt to move the goalposts here.

Big_Willie_Styles:
You do realize that that is part of their economic model, right? The government determined the price of everything and how much of everything that would be produced. That's the disgusting reality of Communism. By prioritizing the production of guns over food, there was a severe shortage of food and prices skyrocketed. How do you not realize that is related to the economic model?

Are you talking about the famines of the 1930's that ravaged the USSR, which killed millions of people, and was a result of the forced transition from private farming (the kulak system) into a communal farming system? Because you do realize that there wasn't another big famine in the USSR after World War II right? And that the USSR tried to reform away from its' rigid quota system in the 1970s, because it led to widespread corruption and was horribly inefficient?

The USSR's economy faltered partially because it overspent on the military (due to the arms race between the USA and the USSR in the 1980s) but there's also a lot to suggest that the USSR's political and economical structure was too rigid to acquiese Gorbachev's perestroika ideals. In essence, what killed the USSR was not its' plan based economy, it was the attempt to move away from strictly plan based economy and opening up for a market based economy.

What Thatcher is refering to is the arms race however and any further discussion about the USSR's economy is kind of pointless. My bottom line is this: You don't know what you are talking about.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Also, it is hilarious that you just confirmed Godwin's Law.

Nice try, but Godwin's law is the comparsion to Hitler or Nazism. I only pointed out that Göbbels had used the term as early a 1936. That's a statement of historical fact.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Katatori-kun:
Um, no. That's not how it works. See, I didn't make a claim. I'm asking you to back up yours. I know what I said. You know what I said. And this pathetic dance you're doing to try and distract isn't going to cut it. Back up your claim. Prove that there is evidence that the freer a society is, the more long-term economic growth it has.

No, I'm against kids who don't know what they're talking about spouting off nonsense and passing it as fact. If you can't back up your claims with evidence, you add nothing of value to the conversation.

You called my claim a wild claim. That's a wild claim to me.

LOL! You really want to play that card? If you're going to go that route why don't you just call me a "poopie-head" while you're at it?

This is an Internet forum for a gaming news website. Excuse me if I don't treat it as a debate between professors.

Asking you to back up your nonsense with facts is not a debate between professors. Trust me, I know professors and I know how they debate. No one here is under illusions that you're up to the task. What we want is some basic communicative competence. You know, the level of rigour that's expected of high school graduates. Don't just make up stuff and claim it to be true, provide evidence. It's not hard, and plenty of people on this forum manage it all the time.

Big_Willie_Styles:

This is an Internet forum for a gaming news website. Excuse me if I don't treat it as a debate between professors.

That's still no excuse for not getting your facts right. Wikipedia is a click away, dood.

(And Captcha says to "stump up".)

Big_Willie_Styles:

Overhead:
I'll ask for the same then. Check my post history, I've happily sourced peer reviewed studies and copied across of books I own to provide evidence. You haven't asked for sources for me, so I'll start things off by asking for sources from you on his behalf and once you've got them I'll happily provide sources for whatever of my own stuff you want.

Yes, because this is an Internet forum for a gaming news website. You clearly have a lot more free time than I do.

It doesn't really take much time. A while back there was a debate about minimum pricing for alcohol. I knew of some studies in particular about this, like the Lancet study that formed the basis of the Scottish government's decision to go pro-minimum pricing and I knew that the scientific consensus was massively in favour of minimum pricing so it only took me five-ten minutes to get an overwhelming amount of research sourced.

Big_Willie_Styles:
1) Social welfare. What a disaster all that turned out to be, hrrm? A 20th century invention in America that liberals treat like something that has always existed. Hundreds of trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities, a failed War on Poverty, massive pandering and scare tactics used against any potential reformer (although the dangerous third rail of politics may have shut off considering how unscathed Paul Ryan appears,) etc. Keynesians wanted war-time levels of spending to continue. That's what I was talking about. Keynes' friends shouted disaster but the economy thrived and grew faster.

Well as social welfare was used your economy boomed and when it was taken apart your economy slowed, I'd say it did quite well. 'Undunded liabilities' aren't really a thing, so that is an easy one.

2) Yes, some became Soviet satellite nations. Some tried a smattering of fascism. But the countries in trouble right now, i.e. France, Greece, Italy, and Spain, are democratic socialists. The policies work anywhere where capitalism is allowed to flourish.

Socialism requires the ownership of the means of production by the proletariat. These countries not only have the means of production owned by a mixture of capitalists and the state, but they have freakin' stock markets. That should really have been a big clue

3) Ah, so you show your true colors! Your true red colors! I love talking to communists. Their level of economic illiteracy always amazes me.

See, this is the kind of Communist chat I was trying to avoid because you've completely forgotten about the original point:

"Since the 1980's when upwards based income redistribution took over, according to World Bank data growth has fallen to less than half of what it was."

4) That's a lie. The economy was steadily recovering after the crash, just like it did in 1987 when Reagan refused to intervene. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 was passed months after the crash when unemployment had already sunk a few percentage points from its high.

After an initial crash and a recovery for a few months, it was a more prolonged slide through the middle of April for several months that wiped out all of its progress since Black Thursday and Monday 1930. This was just before the Smoot-Hawley act was passed.

Of course the Smoot-Hawley act was a massive factor, but you can't pretend that it was the cause when the economy was in recession for almost a year before the act was even passed. I'm also curious that you're a libertarian but you're not basing your analysis on the money supply at all.

5) Yes, there's a whole rigmarole. I understand that. But the Community Reinvestment Act changes started it all. Yes, because the banks knew the government would bail out Fannie and Freddie, so they took greater and greater risks. And they were totally right.

This is one of those things where you have your theory of how things are supposed to work and this is what is supposed to happen, but all the evidence shows otherwise.

Firstly because the Community Reinvestment Act only served to highlight opportunities for investment, it didn't force companies into bad loans. In fact the CRA held banks to high standards.

Secondly because there is no correlation, let alone theory of causation to attach to a correlation, between CRA loans and the crisis. They performed on par with non-CRA loans across the country as a whole, doing better than regular loans in some places (California) and worse than others Ohio) but averaging out the same or doing better depending on which studies you look at.

Thirdly, the criticism of them has come only from people uninvolved in banking. Not a single bank chairman or CEO, to my knowledge, has come out and blamed the government for forcing them to make bad loans.

To quote the IMF report: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1728260

"The evidence in this paper suggests that the lightly regulated independent lenders con-
tributed disproportionately to the recent boom-bust housing cycle. We show that, to a large
extent, the mortgage boom was fueled by a fast expansion of credit from independent lenders.
We then show that the market share of these independents as of 2005 is a strong predictor of
the increase in foreclosure between 2005 and 2007. We carefully control for county character-
istics using both parametric and semi-nonparametric methods and show that these patterns
are unlikely to be driven by factors unrelated to the lending standards of independents. We
show robustness tests that suggest that this strong association between independents and
the rise in foreclosures is most likely be due to the weak regulatory structure."

6) They were forced to do so under the terms of the changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. They had to fill a quota of certain things, along racial lines and people of low credit rating.

They were forced to consider people under the CRA, not to actually offer them loans. It meant that they couldn't exclude someone from being offered loans based on race or falling within a certain geographic area.

In fact the wording of the CRA specifically cautions against what you're suggesting. The loans had to be "consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institution (The bank/lender)"

7) That's how it used to work in the age before the Internet. Anyone with access to the Internet can self-teach themselves high finance. Will they be the best at it? No, but they won't be morons either. Derivatives are not a niche subject. My college taught a class completely devoted to them. I learned more about them in pretty much every Finance class I took. You're a fool.

Perhaps I could have been clearer. I was talking about derivatives in the context of the financial crisis rather than the traditional sense; eg the use of SIVs to offset Basel and increase leverage, buyback being offered to SIVs, synthetic CDO of ABS, Cdo squared, the inability to shed themselves of super-senior risk, the reduction of capital reserves, the inability to accurately gauge risk, etc.

8) South Africa had apartheid. Free markets do not exist fully under a dictatorship because private property rights are not respected.

I was talking about the free-market doctrines foisted on it after apartheid.

9) Frivolous lawsuits usually end in settlement because the settlement is cheaper for the doctor than fighting it in court. It is a vicious cycle where ambulance chasing attorneys can make millions from innocent people. Just ask John Edwards and how he won his first case to go to court. I am not against all regulation, just most regulation.

As all of this is built off you originally making a point about how regulation has harmed business, bringing up a point where you admit more regulation is needed seems to be the exact opposite of what you are trying to see with the rest of your points.

11) Ben Chavis' tribe decided to go into banking and have made a very nice living for themselves. There were also the tribes that went into gambling and made billions upon billions of dollars. The research done on the tribes who depend on the federal government for nearly 100% of their incomes is pretty conclusive.

Most of the time I can guess or infer what you're hinting at. Here I'm not even sure what the thing that is meant to be conclusive is, let alone what you are trying to prove with all of this.

generals3:

Big_Willie_Styles:

generals3:
Maybe you need to read upon the subject than. I read a nice book once obliterating the myth of free markets always being better. It explained how it failed during certain periods and in certain countries.

Such as the US during the American Revolution. The UK industry had such a competitive advantage over the US the domestic market was flooded by british goods which prevented the US industry to grow. So they introduced tariffs and surprise the industry could actually grow. And the same happened to developing countries, they opened their market just to see countries with better technology/experience overwhelm their markets with goods their industry couldn't compete with. Something you can only fix through subsidizing your own industry or introducing tariffs.

I believe the taxes levied on the goods in the United States was not exactly free market-oriented. Like a tax on tea multiple times what the product itself was priced at.

By the way, broseph, that's called trade. U.S. stores are flooded with Chinese goods but the Chinese government doesn't have the authority to charge an extra $100 on that DC Universe action figure or Slinky. America was, to make this as brief as possible, Britain's bitch.

What was the book? Karl Marx perhaps? Krugman?

Tariffs are not something I agree with, but you do realize that was when globalization was in its earliest stages of infancy. Keynes' theories died once globalization was a full-blooded reality.

No, that doesn't fix the problem. And it is not the only way. Have you heard of "coming out with better technologies"? Oh, you silly moonbats always forget innovation.

That last sentence is the reason why the US industry managed to become competitive. However in order to have innovation you need to have a working industry. If your industry gets obliterated who is going to invest in innovation? That's the whole point. You need to protect your industry while it can catch up and in certain area's even develop competitive advantages.

And no that book wasn't a political one. It actually analysed policies and numbers throughout history. Unfortunately i lost it (read it 4 years ago), but i doubt they'd give us a book to read for Economic History which is commie propaganda, mainly to business students. ) If i can find the title again i'll get back to ya with it.

EDIT: Well now i've got it, it's: "Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes"

Rich people will always want to invest in what they think is a good idea. Remember: Only 1 in 10 venture capitalism investments ever turn a profit. Lots and lots of creative destruction.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Rich people will always want to invest in what they think is a good idea. Remember: Only 1 in 10 venture capitalism investments ever turn a profit. Lots and lots of creative destruction.

Well that's the whole point, it at least has to look like a good idea. Investing in an industry and its R&D while it is facing crushing competition doesn't look like a good idea. I mean, would you invest in an industry with little market prospects if you had the money?

generals3:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Rich people will always want to invest in what they think is a good idea. Remember: Only 1 in 10 venture capitalism investments ever turn a profit. Lots and lots of creative destruction.

Well that's the whole point, it at least has to look like a good idea. Investing in an industry and its R&D while it is facing crushing competition doesn't look like a good idea. I mean, would you invest in an industry with little market prospects if you had the money?

Doesn't that tell you something about the market, then? If it doesn't have prospects, why do we want advancements in it? Nobody is investing in stone TVs. Hair loss advancement would be worth millions, possibly billions. Exploding chicken advancement would be worth almost nothing.

Big_Willie_Styles:

generals3:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Rich people will always want to invest in what they think is a good idea. Remember: Only 1 in 10 venture capitalism investments ever turn a profit. Lots and lots of creative destruction.

Well that's the whole point, it at least has to look like a good idea. Investing in an industry and its R&D while it is facing crushing competition doesn't look like a good idea. I mean, would you invest in an industry with little market prospects if you had the money?

Doesn't that tell you something about the market, then? If it doesn't have prospects, why do we want advancements in it? Nobody is investing in stone TVs. Hair loss advancement would be worth millions, possibly billions. Exploding chicken advancement would be worth almost nothing.

Well, isn't the US industry extremely advanced and doing well now? It's not because at a certain time it looks like it's going nowhere that it won't ever get anywhere. Sometimes the industry just needs a little push. Sure it can be risky business too since it might go nowhere for all we know (hence why we must also always keep a critical mind when it comes to artificially making an industry more competitive).

generals3:

Big_Willie_Styles:

generals3:

Well that's the whole point, it at least has to look like a good idea. Investing in an industry and its R&D while it is facing crushing competition doesn't look like a good idea. I mean, would you invest in an industry with little market prospects if you had the money?

Doesn't that tell you something about the market, then? If it doesn't have prospects, why do we want advancements in it? Nobody is investing in stone TVs. Hair loss advancement would be worth millions, possibly billions. Exploding chicken advancement would be worth almost nothing.

Well, isn't the US industry extremely advanced and doing well now? It's not because at a certain time it looks like it's going nowhere that it won't ever get anywhere. Sometimes the industry just needs a little push. Sure it can be risky business too since it might go nowhere for all we know (hence why we must also always keep a critical mind when it comes to artificially making an industry more competitive).

Yes, but an industry going nowhere will get nothing. And those risk-takers in such a "just needs a push" industry will always exist. Solar panels are not among them, but hydrogen fuel cells are (their only byproduct is water of all things.)

I live in England. I think multi-culturalism in any meaningful sense, as in...lots of immigrants, is...50...60 years old?(please do correct me if that's shit)

If it's definitely failed, I'd like to know what the predicted timeline on mission: multicultaralism was.

So, instead of Multiculturalism what do we have to choose in its stead? I mean, what is non-multiculturalism? Is that a thing?

Which seems silly if you grab a history book, any history book, that will tell you that there's been a boatload of migrations since time immemorial and that cultures are prone to change all the time; different cultures may coalesce or a single culture may splinter in many different ones. There's just no way to stop multiculturalism unless by multiculturalism you mean "dem immigrants that behave in ways that I don't like, and so I'm gonna demonize everything about them and look really ignorant in the process."

I mean, everyone with half a brain knows that you don't have to respect everything about another culture just b/c it is different for yours, which makes no sense and no sensible person ever makes that argument. Ever. To pretend there is a debate there just so that you can go one step further and start bashing all other cultures not your own is rather pointless, if you ask me.

Big_Willie_Styles:

generals3:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Doesn't that tell you something about the market, then? If it doesn't have prospects, why do we want advancements in it? Nobody is investing in stone TVs. Hair loss advancement would be worth millions, possibly billions. Exploding chicken advancement would be worth almost nothing.

Well, isn't the US industry extremely advanced and doing well now? It's not because at a certain time it looks like it's going nowhere that it won't ever get anywhere. Sometimes the industry just needs a little push. Sure it can be risky business too since it might go nowhere for all we know (hence why we must also always keep a critical mind when it comes to artificially making an industry more competitive).

Yes, but an industry going nowhere will get nothing. And those risk-takers in such a "just needs a push" industry will always exist. Solar panels are not among them, but hydrogen fuel cells are (their only byproduct is water of all things.)

Not really sure why it suddenly is about solar panels and hydrogen fuel cells. But regardless of that History itself has proven the theory that Free Market is always better is wrong. Protectionism saved the American manufacturing industry (in them olden days) and the free market killed industries in 3rd world countries. While generally speaking the free market is good for developed countries it would be naive, to say the least, to generalize that to the extend that free market always leads to the best results on the long term.

Zach of Fables:
It's too early to say whether or not multiculturalism is a success or failure. People such as Angela Merkel have said that it has failed in Germany.

That being said you have to find a balance between multiculturalism and being a doormat. For example what happens when I say that in my culture it's okay for me to oppress women, but in the country where I live that is not acceptable? Do you enforce the law (and thus infringe upon my culture) or do you let me do it (and undermine your own society's values)?

The West has now passed the point at which society's are insular and most European countries are swinging toward America's more lax immigration policies. But they are already starting to see the tension between being multicultural and preserving their European culture (whatever that may be).

Just to touch on Angela Merkel real quick. I am German and I have a bit of experience with immigrants, so I dare say my thoughts on the subject are more valid than those of some of these keyboard warriors in this thread who read a story in the Daily Mail and think they know it all.

Multiculturalism in Germany is not a failure. Why? Because it does not exist. Multiculturalism implies we have people of different religions and color living together and interacting.

This is sometimes true, but for the most part native Germans live in one part of a city or town while all the immigrants live in another. These parts of town have shops run by Turkish people, they do not have Christian churches, they have there own schools in which most classes do not contain a single native German. It is, essentially, a Turkish town running on German infrastructure. That's the most German thing about it.

Multiculturalism in Germany didn't fail, it straight out never existed. It has been like this from day one, from the first load of Turks we brought here to help rebuild the country.

To now turn around and declare failure while blaming entire cultures for the problems we face while arguing against the philosophy of multiculturalism is an ignorant and frankly idiotic thing to do. Anyone who seriously holds this viewpoint should reconsider his or her position on the subject, and think not only about how things are, but why they are that way.

That being said, people slipping into right wing politics more out of frustration than anything else is understandable if not right. But that's another topic for another thread.

To make a metaphor, it's like buying a new car, opening up the hood, cutting all the wires you can find, smashing the exterior with a hammer for a few hours, and THEN suing the company that sold it to you because the brakes don't work.

Also...

Hardcore_gamer:
EDIT: Also in before the "this guy is racist": This guy is Jewish it seems. So its not like his culture doesn't have a history of being descriminated against.

Him being Jewish does not exempt him from being a bigoted, racist, foolish and stupid waste of air.

Is he a waste of air? I don't know, I've only seen that one video from him so I can't judge. But it's not like you can say anything you like just because you're Jewish.

Maybe he should start gassing immigrants babies? It's ok, since he's Jewish, right?

Helmholtz Watson:
dang, I came back thinking people were still talking about the OP, but it has derailed into quotes on Margret Thatcher, protectionism and regulating the markets. :/

In the spirit of this thread, here is one of my favorite vids of Mrs. Thatcher.

Damn, this reminded me of how much I absolutely detest Margaret Thatcher. Really, absolutely despise her and everything she stands for. That voice and that attitude sickens me to the marrow.

I've been too right wing on these forums of late. I've let myself slip into the right. Now I will rebalance myself.

Regards

Nightspore

Nightspore:
Damn, this reminded me of how much I absolutely detest Margaret Thatcher. Really, absolutely despise her and everything she stands for. That voice and that attitude sickens me to the marrow.

Well, pretty much shrugging about almost getting blown up is something you have to respect. Besides, she did do a lot of necessary things. The mining strikes and such, people in such industries had grown to consider themselves entitled to work however they wanted it, whenever they wanted it. And the sad truth is, it doesn't work like that, and it needed to change if the UK was going to remain economically vital. You can't produce without demand and expect everything to work out fine, so it had to be shut down. That was always going to turn out ugly, but that's no reason not to do it.

You had the same here in the Netherlands with Wiegel. Also a pretty far right guy. I'm a right winger and I've called him a fossil for instance, and another member of the same party remarked sarcastically about how he as a catholic couldn't understand people still listening to Wiegel these days; relics should be enshrined and only looked at from then.

Still, I can't deny Wiegel's government changed some things that needed changing after the oil crisis changed the economic structure and the sustainability of the wellfare state as we had it before that one. Back in those days for instance, student allowances meant to finance your study and living during your study had no time limit on them. There were no stimulation to do anything. People studied 7-10 years or longer and continued to receive benefits, which were also pretty fat in those days because rents were still low and the university tuition was relatively lower too.
No matter what one's political opinion is, that had to go because it was getting unaffordable and to be honest, unfair.

I think a line needs to be drawn between overall opinions of people's views and their overall achievements.

I will literally dance when Thatcher dies.

While a case could be made for closing unprofitable mines and moving people to a different form of industry, mass closures across the entire sector with no jobs for people to change into was part of the massive deprivation which effects a lot of the country even today. Not to mention her policies slowed growth and lead us towards the massive financial collapse we suffered from just a few years go. Plus just generally being a vile heartless woman.

Oh shit, OP stated a right leaning viewpoint on the escapist, I hardly knew him...

Multiculturalism only fails when the host country fails to enforce it's laws on the immigrants. If immigrants can't assimilate to at least the point of obeying the law of the land (as opposed to their view of a just law) then essentially the nation divides and you don't have multiculturalism, you have one intolerant culture destroying the other cultures.

This is why multiculturalism fails in the UK in my view, because they're too afraid to punish Islamic extremists for their outdated practices and rhetoric. If some things about one culture fundamentally clashes with another to the point that it infringes on the rights of others, then it can't be tolerated. Allowing a culture to obey their own law is like, allowing anarchy for a select few.

I may be overstating this in the UK though, but I do believe they're a little too concious of political correctness, to the point of being more afraid of being called a racist then enforcing equal rights.

generals3:

Big_Willie_Styles:

generals3:

Well, isn't the US industry extremely advanced and doing well now? It's not because at a certain time it looks like it's going nowhere that it won't ever get anywhere. Sometimes the industry just needs a little push. Sure it can be risky business too since it might go nowhere for all we know (hence why we must also always keep a critical mind when it comes to artificially making an industry more competitive).

Yes, but an industry going nowhere will get nothing. And those risk-takers in such a "just needs a push" industry will always exist. Solar panels are not among them, but hydrogen fuel cells are (their only byproduct is water of all things.)

Not really sure why it suddenly is about solar panels and hydrogen fuel cells. But regardless of that History itself has proven the theory that Free Market is always better is wrong. Protectionism saved the American manufacturing industry (in them olden days) and the free market killed industries in 3rd world countries. While generally speaking the free market is good for developed countries it would be naive, to say the least, to generalize that to the extend that free market always leads to the best results on the long term.

Because, and this is where reality hits you hard, bro: Protectionism cannot function under globalization. See, in the age before the Internet, "around the world in a day" (cue Ricky Martin) travel, and basic international mail, tariffs were somewhat of a bastard, as they always have been but to a greater degree, because sometimes countries would not know of them until they arrived in the country imposing it. That made a Catch-22. It used to take forever to ship things.

You can say it saved America but you cannot prove it. It's just like when Obama says his stimulus "saved or created" millions of jobs. He can't even begin to prove it.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked