| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:41 am Post subject: Re: Free-Market Austrian-School Economist Luwig Von Mises On |
 |
|
On Dec 1, 4:34 pm, Dr. Brian Green Jr. <brian.gree...@comcast.net>
wrote:
[quote]GW Chimpzilla>s Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:> Yep. Mises is a piece of crap. Glad you pointed that out to us all, Crap
Detector. Thanks!
VonMises died penniless and discredited because he didn>t know what he was
talking about. The damage done from the Reagan and Bush years are all the
proof anyone needs that his voodoo was nothing but hot air bellowed by a
useless academic ideologue with a small, cult following. Anyone spouting
his crap may as well be spouting the thoughts of Chairman Mao, madman Ted
"Unabomber" Kaczynski, David Koresh or Charles Manson.
[/quote]
Which begs the question: would you answer a Maoist, or a member of
Branch Davidian if they posted their nonesense to this newsgroup?
Would you answer if Charles Manson got access to a prison computer and
started preaching helter Skelter... or Kaczynski did the same with his
madman message?
I>m guessing you would not -- because they are so crazy that their
whackey worldview lies outside the bounds of political possibilities.
The same is true for the equally mad Ross John Lambourn. He actually
reminds me of an aging campus Maoist, still standing on the
streetcorner trying to peddle Mao>s Little Red Book.
Lambourn is a delusional attention whore. He>s Kaczynski wothout the
murders. However -- every time someone answers him he becomes
convinced that his ramblingfs are actually in the game, when the
reality is that the world ios no more likely to go back to Hayek than
back to Mao.
If EVERYONE ignores Lambourn, only then will he understand how
universally he is held in ridicule by themembers of this newwsgroup.
If peiople keep answering him, the old fool thinks his "ideas" are
still in play, which they most ertainly are NOT. Nobody is ever going
to get elected again running for election in North America on Hayek-o-
nomics. Like Mao>s five year plans -- Hayek>s ideas have been tried
and they have failed.
The best way to tell Lambourn that his ideas no longer have the power
to shape public policy is to show him that they do not even have the
power to provoke a response from the 540 members of this newsgroup...
in other words: ignoer to stupid old bastard. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Michael Coburn
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 1:58 am Post subject: Re: SSI ? |
|
|
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:31:01 -0600, Phil wrote:
[quote]"Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ggsd368nm4@news7.newsguy.com...
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 10:31:10 +0100, Dusty wrote:
Coffee>s For Closers wrote:
In article <gZzXk.8139$c45.1208@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>,
DeeBee@netscape.net says...
"Phil" <faas@mindspring.com> wrote in
Taxing those who chose to remain childless to pay for things like
daycare for those who chose to breed is unfair. Only those who
chose
to bring children into the world should be paying the costs of
children.
I wonder when this stupidity will end? While I agree that people who
cannot care for their children should be disabused of procreation, I am
not so brain dead as to ignore that children are the only hope I will
ever
[/quote]
I somehow mistyped what I intended to type and the word "ignore" in the
above sentence was mistyped as "claim", reversing the meaning of the
sentence. I am editing that history but admitting to it. It was a slip
of the keyboard.
[quote]have of retirement. And if they remain uncared for and uneducated then
my retirement isn>t going to be very prosperous. It makes no
difference
whether they are _my_ children or the children of someone else.
The other thing that really gets up my nose is that the same people who
whine about the cost of children are the same Reich wingers who would
force women to carry a fetus till birth. These are the same Reich Wing
nimrods who insist that the inheritance that is bestowed upon them
through the luck of proper parents is somehow an earning on their part.
Let me give you a glimpse of justice/pragmatism as opposed to "winged"
idiotology:
The cost of pregnancy and child birth should be born by the parents in
total. The cost of child care in all its forms including health care
should be born by the parents until the child is totally viable. At
that
point the child is a person and a ward of the state as regards health
care and education until the "person" dies.
If the rules described heretofore result in abortion or in debtors
prisons and child sanctuaries for those who chose that route then so be
it. Having children is a choice. It is not up to me to pay for your
choices. But the child is blameless and the child is an investment in
my
own future. No child CHOSE to be born.
Pragmatism. (is that an idiotology?)
First problem is that women are not forced to carry a fetus and even if
abortion on demand were outlawed, they still would not be. These women
*volunteered* by engaging in an act that is known to cause pregnancy.
[/quote]
That is total crap. Sex does not necessarily result in childbirth nor
should it automatically result in childbirth. You are some sort of
Neanderthal throwback with a religious mental block.
[quote]Unless one is ready, willing and able to allow men to have the same
ability to forego parenthood as women currently have,
abortion-as-birth-control is sexist and therefore inherently
unconstitutional on the basis of equality before the law, without going
into how morally reprehensible killing one>s offspring for convenience
is to start with.
Phil #3
[/quote]
But you are a moron throwback. In the pragmatic solution described above
the child must be separated from the parents (that includes the mother)
in order to be cared for by the state. I would go further and insist
that in order to stay out of debtors prison that the parents would have
to submit to reversible verifiable contraception. Until the child you
have already produced can be supported by you alone then you have no
right to produce more children. There will be a lot of drones.
But let us be clear: The child is what matters to the future. Not the
parents. The child is blameless and not culpable until the age of
majority. These are the rules of a pragmatic and rational society.
Children matter. But only rational adults can make sure that the future
is a better place.
Religion of course, pines for hardship and suffering. Religion prays for
the Apocalypse. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Chris
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:25 am Post subject: Re: SSI ? |
|
|
"DB" <DeeBee@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:gZzXk.8139$c45.1208@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
[quote]
"Phil" <faas@mindspring.com> wrote in
There needs to be some form of assistance for parents of severely
handicapped children but NOT from social security. This actually should
be handled by a local agency instead of the bureaucratic nightmare of the
federal government. The larger the government gets, the worse of a job it
does.
I agree, nothing worse than letting the bean counters run the show!
Taxing those who chose to remain childless to pay for things like daycare
for those who chose to breed is unfair. Only those who chose to bring
children into the world should be paying the costs of children.
Breeding future tax payers is what the country needs, else you have to
bring in bodies to replenish the population from 3rd world countries and
we know that>s not a good idea. Who is going to pay taxes, clean your
clothes and clean your shit when you>re too old to take care of yourself?
[/quote]
I would say that>s a personal problem.
[quote]
Thirdly, the government is the best place to screw up anything.
Yes, we can all see that thru the present Child Support system, Veterans
Administration anda host of other government services that nobody wants to
bother about.
[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:12 am Post subject: Re: Free-Market Austrian-School Economist Luwig Von Mises On |
|
|
On Dec 1, 6:18Â pm, NeoLibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Dr. Brian Green Jr. wrote:> GW Chimpzilla>s Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia <g...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yep. Mises is a piece of crap. Glad you pointed that out to us all, Crap
Detector. Thanks!
VonMises died penniless and discredited because he didn>t know what he was
talking about. Â The damage done from the Reagan and Bush years are all the
proof anyone needs that his voodoo was nothing but hot air bellowed by a
useless academic ideologue with a small, cult following. Â Anyone spouting
his crap may as well be spouting the thoughts of Chairman Mao, madman Ted
"Unabomber" Kaczynski, David Koresh or Charles Manson.
So you can>t argue Von Mises' theories? Not surprising, since they>re
rather sound.
Beyond Von Mises, there is logic to maintaining freedom, especially in
the market place--more logic than in any of the myriad alternatives.
Governments are not capable of bringing you your utopia. The sooner you
quit looking there, the better.
There ain>t no secha thing as a free lunch.
--
Neolibertarian
"Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them."
     ---Ronald Reagan
[/quote]
perhaps you need a little education. the austrian school is a crank
school. mao and free market economics have a lot in common. in both
systems a few end up with all of the money and power:)
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausmain.htm
Myth: The Austrian School of Economics is "apart and above" mainstream
economics.

Fact: The Austrian School is a classic example of crank
science. 



Summary

The Austrian School of Economics is a tiny group
of libertarians at war with mainstream economics. They reject even the
scientific method that mainstream economists use, preferring to use
instead a pre-scientific approach that shuns real-world data and is
based purely on logical assumptions. But this is the very method that
thousands of religions use when they argue their opposing beliefs, and
the fact that the world has thousands of religions proves the
fallibility of this approach. Academia has generally ignored the
Austrian School, and the only reason it continues to exist is because
it is financed by wealthy business donors on the far right. The
movement does not exist on its own scholarly merits. 



Argument

To
describe and critique an entire school of economic thought in one
short essay is impossible. Therefore, we>ll do it in several short
essays.

Introduction
The Scientific Method
Statistics
Methodological
Subjectivism
Methodological Individualism
Starting Assumptions
The
Market Process
Monopolies
The Gold Standard and Business Cycle
The
History of the Austrian School
The Politics of the Austrian School
.
"The game of Darwinian economics and the enshrinement of market-
miracle
theology is really the systematic looting of the pockets and purses of
the middle class"
Jerry M. Landay of Bristol
Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred
principles
of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not
be
restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
- Bertrand
Russell
``Capitalism sowed the seeds of its own demise because the benefits of
a decade-long boom accrued to capital, with nothing flowing to labor.
Telling workers who hadn>t had a decent pay raise for years to tighten
their belts once the good times ended proved disastrous.
"The biggest political story of 2008 is getting little
coverage. It involves the collapse of assumptions that have dominated
our economic debate for three decades.
Since the Reagan years, free market cliches have passed for
sophisticated economic analysis. But in the current crisis, these
ideas are falling, one by one, as even conservatives recognize that
capitalism is ailing.
You know the talking points: Regulation is the problem and
deregulation is the solution. The distribution of income and wealth
doesn>t matter. Providing incentives for the investors of capital to
"grow the pie" is the only policy that counts. Free trade produces
well-distributed economic growth, and any dissent from this orthodoxy
is "protectionism."
e.j. dionne |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
DB
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:17 am Post subject: Re: Husband - Reconcile With Your Wife to Save Your Marriage |
|
|
"Kenneth S." <nimrod9@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:blg7j4dfe8c0gp712q3nnqms91729qhqf0@4ax.com...
[quote]On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:42:08 -0800, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote:
whbejwpksvdn@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:db12ff2a-f4f7-4854-aa2a-a7895981baba@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
What should you do if your wife wants out of your marriage? When a
woman first seriously considers divorce she doesn>t arrive at this
state of desperation by a process of calm deduction. She is simply
reacting to the feeling that she "can>t take it anymore." Sometimes
your wife>s decision to leave you may be her way of trying to make you
change, but more often it is a desperate effort to survive. She cannot
endure anymore heartache, so she has reached out for the separation
(or divorce) like a drowning man reaching out for a life jacket. How
did this come about? Often it is due to the husband>s negligence in
hurting their wives.
How Husbands Injure Their Wives
How may you as a husband inadvertently hurt your wife? Obviously it is
when you do not love her as you should. This is shown in the following
ways:
1. Not appreciating or acknowledging her.
2. Comparing her with other women
3. Taking her for granted ("Oh, never mind...she will understand" or
"...I>m sure she won>t mind")
4. Having to be right all the time...
Save Marriage : http://groups.google.com/group/savemarriagerh
Never mind "for better or for WORSE", of course. If the husband could pay
her MORE money to stay than the government people pay her to leave,
that>d
work too. But you already knew that.........
The thing that puzzled me about the original message was that
it seemed to be directed at husbands. Why was it not directed at
wives, since apparently it acknowledged that it was they who were
dissatisfied? Why weren>t wives being told to be more understanding
of their husbands?
At least, one thing seemed right about the message: the
implicit recognition that predominantly divorces are initiated by
wives, not husbands. As Chris points out, that SHOULD raise the
question of why the law offers wives such substantial incentives to
divorce their husbands.
[/quote]
Marriage is a declining option for men with the preset draconian Child
Support laws in place.
Society loses as a whole as men opt out of producing any children or family! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
(Ż`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´Ż)
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:34 am Post subject: Shop HERE to Support the MOST INTERESTING Television Shows! |
|
|
Shop HERE to Support the MOST INTERESTING Television Shows! --
1. General Motors Corporation
2. Nissan North America, Inc.
3. L’Oreal USA, Inc.
4. Pepsi-Cola North America
5. GlaxoSmithKline Holdings (Americas) Inc.
[Brands include: Beano, Lowerthepain.com, Os-Cal,
Nicoderm, Sensodyne, Valtrex, Advair, Aquafresh,
and Myalli.com]
6. Reckitt Benckiser, Inc.
[Brand: Delsym]
7. Target Corporation
8. Kohl’s Corporation
9. Verizon Communications, Inc.
10. Toyota Motor North America.
These are companies that hateful and repressive RRR Cultists
WHINE about. The RRR Cult is interested ONLY in TV>s presenting
BORING crap/pap in the USA. The above sponsors help to keep
TV interesting in the USA. (Until, at least, the day when we FINALLY
catch up to Europe!!)
-- Craig Chilton
xanadu222@mchsi.com -- To E-Mail me.
http://www.roadrat.com -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL.
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Great TACTICS to Fight Bigotry.
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Christianity *vs.* Bigotry.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
To REMOVE "In God We Trust" from Currency
If we believe in what this country was founded on: Life, Liberty, and
the Pursuit of Happiness. Free from Religious Persecution (worked well for
the Witches, NOT) and that Government & Religion should not mix - then
favoring one religion over another in government should not be tolerated.
In God We Trust should be taken off any newly minted money and "Under
God" should be taken out of the Pledge. I don>t see the need to promote
my religion over others. No one knows whose religion is right or wrong.
We have no right to force our believes on others. So to promote religious
freedom the government should remain neutral. Then we can promote our
beliefs in our homes and the way we live our lives. Because some day your
religion (May be popular now) may cause you to be persecuted in the fut-
ure. Just look at history -- the Pagans & Christians, Africans & Muslims.
Since history does repeat it self, maybe we can learn something from the
past and preserve religious freedom by not forcing it on others. As many
countries still do today.
-- Daved J.W., 8-4-08
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 4:55 am Post subject: Re: Rightwingers lying about UAW wages |
|
|
On Dec 1, 9:19 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote] OBTW, here is a very important statement in the above article, and it
backs me to the hilt. if you do not understand it, get back to me, and
i will try to explain it to you again:)
``If income and wealth don>t rise, consumption won>t either,"
Sounds pretty obvious to me. It>s generally hard to buy things without
money,
[/quote]
hey, we are making headway here. creativity, innovation, and
manufacturing chase disposable income and leisure time.
and we>re definitely going into a cycle where income and wealth
[quote]will collapse to a sustainable level, and production will have to adapt
to a "new normal."
[/quote]
in a free market, no one knows where the bottom will be.
> JG |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:00 am Post subject: Re: Rightwingers lying about UAW wages |
|
|
On Dec 1, 9:31 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]
JG
snicker, there is that word "DEMAND" again.
Why is that funny?
[/quote]
i have been using that word for years. and every conservative and
libertarian i duel with, refuse to acknowledge, or understand, what
the word demand(labor) means in a modern economy.
[quote]JG
d: December 1, 2008 19:32 EST[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:48 am Post subject: Re: 2004, or Why is WhineAsshole still laughed at |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:35:15 -0500, King Pineapple
<saddlehill@earthlink.net> wrote:
[quote]Bush opponents:
"Show us all of the Air National Guard military documents!"
[/quote]
We saw them and laughed
1) Used daddy>s influence to not have to actually go
into military---but got to go into a club to learn
flying
2) Was granted entrance into a prestigious private
school despite almost illiterate-----graduated same
3) Scared shitless take drug test because of cocaine
abuse (Self Admitted), and coupled with a reputation of
un military like conduct had his CO writing bad
evaluations.
4) showed his ineptness and stupidity by signing on to
a scheme to intill "democracy" and "freedom" at the
point of a gun and bombs to those in the Mid east who
could care less
5) and (and was proven so) in every reason he used to
get the "vote to authorize"
6) fufilled no campaign promise except to make
millionaires into billionaires because he could call
them "americans"
Figure out "principles" yet, PINEASSHOLE |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:49 am Post subject: Re: We Don>t Want the Clintons kicking POOPY Pants around an |
|
|
[quote]================================================================================
[/quote]
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:37:00 -0700, rightwinghank Skank Defended PAJAMALOON:
[quote]On Jul 14, 11:27 am, pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yeah I know....
That Idiot gets on my case for a few of my harmless jokes about
negros...[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:49 am Post subject: Moron Says Connerly, Thomas, Sowell, Rice Are "Uppity, Uncl |
|
|
[quote]=============================================================================================
[/quote]
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:49:05 -0700 (PDT), Rightwinghank <rightwinghank@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:08:15 -0700 (PDT), pyjamarama
Its still a free country...and if someone doesnt want to hire a nigger
like yourself forinstance...because they dont want a smelly lazy stealing stupid semi
human working for them....more power to em.
Now..if you have a federal contract...then you MUST have 10 percent
minorites working for you...
THAT is why there are so many niggas employed in Washington DC in the
Goverment.
Otherwise...we could use trained monkeys to do the same and save some
bucks.
love ya
hank[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 5:51 am Post subject: America wants the Cited, Fined, Suspended, Impeached, Lying |
|
|
Snicker
[quote]==============================================================
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the President>s
and Ferguson>s motions for summary judgment should
both be and hereby are granted.
There being no remaining issues, the Court will enter judgment dismissing this case.
[/quote]
> IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of April 1998. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
NeoLibertarian
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:18 am Post subject: Re: Free-Market Austrian-School Economist Luwig Von Mises On |
|
|
Dr. Brian Green Jr. wrote:
[quote]GW Chimpzilla>s Eye-Rack Neocon Utopia <gw@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yep. Mises is a piece of crap. Glad you pointed that out to us all, Crap
Detector. Thanks!
VonMises died penniless and discredited because he didn>t know what he was
talking about. The damage done from the Reagan and Bush years are all the
proof anyone needs that his voodoo was nothing but hot air bellowed by a
useless academic ideologue with a small, cult following. Anyone spouting
his crap may as well be spouting the thoughts of Chairman Mao, madman Ted
"Unabomber" Kaczynski, David Koresh or Charles Manson.
So you can>t argue Von Mises' theories? Not surprising, since they>re[/quote]
rather sound.
Beyond Von Mises, there is logic to maintaining freedom, especially in
the market place--more logic than in any of the myriad alternatives.
Governments are not capable of bringing you your utopia. The sooner you
quit looking there, the better.
There ain>t no secha thing as a free lunch.
--
Neolibertarian
"Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them."
---Ronald Reagan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
NeoLibertarian
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:20 am Post subject: Re: Bush>s Year Long (And Still Counting) Recession |
|
|
Raymond wrote:
[quote]On Dec 1, 5:49 pm, mordacpreven...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Dec 1, 11:16 am, "W.B. Yeats" <slipuva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sorry, but it>s the Great Bush Depression, and it won>t end for at
least 5 years.
Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman said it won>t be as bad as
the great depression, but it will seem like it.
RE: Sorry, but it>s the Great Bush Depression, and it won>t end for at
least 5 years.
Is the Bush administration responsible for the current economic melt
down? You betcha.
WASHINGTON – The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on
no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy
collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have
now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the
financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of
regulatory documents.
Looks that way, doesn>t it.
[/quote]
Only to the clueless idiots wearing their pitiful agendas on their sleeves.
--
Neolibertarian
"Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them."
---Ronald Reagan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Steve
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:23 am Post subject: Re: Bush>s Year Long (And Still Counting) Recession |
|
|
On 1-Dec-2008, Raymond <Bluerhymer@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]Sorry, but it>s the Great Bush Depression, and it won>t end for at
least 5 years.
Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman said it won>t be as bad as
the great depression, but it will seem like it.
RE: Sorry, but it>s the Great Bush Depression, and it won>t end for at
least 5 years.
Is the Bush administration responsible for the current economic melt
down? You betcha.
[/quote]
It>s reassuring to know it has NOTHING to do with you losers send your money
to Asia for automobiles and red Chinese junk:
US manufacturing hits 26-year low: ISM
Dec 1 03:11 PM US/Eastern
US manufacturing slumped to a 26-year low in November, highlighting the
abrupt downturn in the world>s biggest economy, a survey showed Monday.
The Institute of Supply Management said its manufacturing index slumped 2.7
points to 36.2 percent, far below the 50 percent level that separates
expansion and contraction. The level was the lowest since May 1982.
New orders fell even further to a level of 27.9 percent, suggesting the
worst may not be over yet for the sector.
"When comparing November to October, the (index) indicates a continuing
rapid rate of contraction in manufacturing," said ISM survey chief Norbert
Ore.
"New orders have contracted for 12 consecutive months, and are at the lowest
level since June 1980 when the index registered 24.2 percent."
"The manufacturing recession deepened further in November," said economist
Peter Kretzmer at Bank of America.
"Orders plummeted at an increasing pace, and input prices continued their
accelerating pace of decline. Both import and export orders also continued
to fall."
Analysts pointed out the overall economy will have trouble escaping deep
recession with manufacturing so weak.
"The worsening credit crisis and deepening global slump have pushed the ISM
index below the 41 figure that is consistent with past recessions," said Sal
Guatieri, economist at BMO Capital Markets.
"The fact that the index continues to decline points to more than your
garden-variety downturn." |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
