UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited February 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-Apos+Feb 21 2005, 10:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos @ Feb 21 2005, 10:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now I see where the problem is: I never said that the US had a Socialist Government, at least not yet. I said that Social Security was a socialist program.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, socialism is about the government ownership of productive capacity. A program of taxation that is progressive is NOT SOCIALISM.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You see, the government takes the money (or keeps it initially) and then determines who gets what and how much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, which... isn't socialism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And yes, Economics has existed much longer than 80 years. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But it's only really been a meaningful field as far as things like detailed macroeconomics for a few decades.
<!--QuoteBegin-Uzi+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Uzi)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Corrected in regards to the date, I say 20's because we adopted it from the same ideas Europe was implimenting,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except our system is very different from the European ones, so, wrong again.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But even then it still doesn't disprove the fact they were right.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've still yet to produce a single cite for your claims that this was even what "they" said (and who, specifically, were "they," these economists?). Of course since they would have had to have been psychic to know what sort of system the US would adopt, I think the need for a cite might be a little premature. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The idea came from Germany, when some wackjobs in germany set up a school and started rejecting economics and promoting socialism. In which Bismarck used their ideas and set up a welfare state in Germany, many others copied, including Britain, and likewise the US felt left behind. He created the first social insurance program in which they got the idea.
Quite frankly it wasn't psychic ability that predicted this, it was pure math, 1+1=3. When Pres. Roosevelt applied Keynes economics in the 30's he didn't care less about the aftermath of his economic polcies were. FDR didn't even talk to opposition economists in this regard. Which comes to the question, why are we here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Quite frankly it wasn't psychic ability that predicted this, it was pure math, 1+1=3.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, I'll give you half credit, because the you got so CLOSE to the right answer. (It was 2, by the way).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Roosevelt applied Keynes economics in the 30's he didn't care less about the aftermath of his economic polcies were.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the heck are you even talking about? Keynesian economics is a means to deal with recessions, not Social Security.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"We all have to die eventually."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is like arguing with a random number generator. What the heck are you even talking about?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Captain Tunnel Vision wins with the narrowist perspective on everything ever. GG.
I give up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I were to let you win arguments simply by creatively redefining words, then you could claim that pigs could fly by claiming that "fly" means "wallowing in the mud."
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited February 2005
<!--QuoteBegin-Apos+Feb 22 2005, 12:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos @ Feb 22 2005, 12:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Quite frankly it wasn't psychic ability that predicted this, it was pure math, 1+1=3.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, I'll give you half credit, because the you got so CLOSE to the right answer. (It was 2, by the way).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Roosevelt applied Keynes economics in the 30's he didn't care less about the aftermath of his economic polcies were.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the heck are you even talking about? Keynesian economics is a means to deal with recessions, not Social Security.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"We all have to die eventually."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is like arguing with a random number generator. What the heck are you even talking about? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1+1=3 is a economists joke, I figured you would know. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> hmmm. and Keynesian economics had alot more to do how FDR dealt with American recession and the production of Social Security. I suggest you study more on FDR's motives and how he operated, at max he exploited the weak and desperate during those time. He didn't care about it's aftereffects just as long as it made people happy.
And the final line of text was just me quoting Keynes himself. Because he could of cared less of the outcome of his economic ideas. Just as long as they pleased the present. Im glad you asked about it. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
For a good read on the motives, it's up to you. Read Peter J. Ferrara's <a href='http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&pid=144020&method=search&t=Social+Security&a=&k=&aeid=&adv=&pg=' target='_blank'>Social Security: The Inherent Contradiction</a>
I see that some people still have the misconception that they actually thought the system would go bad when they made it in the 1930s and that the system was fated to go bad from the start.
Let me enlighten you: -Social Security was fine when they invented it. -It is still fine, conceptually. -The only reason it isn't fine, is because of World War II.
Here's why: The way it works now is that you pay as you go. That means that your taxes are currently paying for the people reaping the benefits from social security. Since population tends to increase exponentially, and people tend to die off, there will be lots more people putting money into it, than people taking money out of it, so that, say, 10 people can only put $1000 into it a year, for every 1 person taking $10000 out of it every year.
Here's why it went wrong: When World War II happened, a very large portion of young males went overseas for several years, during which time they couldn't produce very many children (at least very many American children, I'm sure there were a few Anglo-American and Franco-American kids produced). When they came back, there was, understandably, a breeding frenzy. This is called the Baby Boom. The Baby Boomers are now starting to retire, so that there are a lot more people taking money out of social security, than putting into it.
Now, some may say that there would be a problem even without this, because of the basic principile of Social Security, or its specific execution. That may be true, but it wouldn't be a crisis, if it wasn't for this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1+1=3 is a economists joke, I figured you would know. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See, when english is your first language, you cease to find such "jokes" amusing, and instead find them to be just plain sad.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Keynesian economics had alot more to do how FDR dealt with American recession and the production of Social Security. I suggest you study more on FDR's motives and how he operated, at max he exploited the weak and desperate during those time. He didn't care about it's aftereffects just as long as it made people happy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're going to have to be more specific. I can't read your mind, and this is apparently some sort of alternate history, so you're going to have to explain what happened in this alternate reality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And the final line of text was just me quoting Keynes himself. Because he could of cared less of the outcome of his economic ideas. Just as long as they pleased the present.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that's not a direct quote of Keynes, or at least it's a pretty bizarre mistranslation. Keynes said: in the long run, we're all dead. By that he meant that while economic problems might work themselves out eventually, in the meantime lots of pointless waste is happening.
Comments
Again, socialism is about the government ownership of productive capacity. A program of taxation that is progressive is NOT SOCIALISM.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You see, the government takes the money (or keeps it initially) and then determines who gets what and how much.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, which... isn't socialism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And yes, Economics has existed much longer than 80 years. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But it's only really been a meaningful field as far as things like detailed macroeconomics for a few decades.
<!--QuoteBegin-Uzi+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Uzi)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Corrected in regards to the date, I say 20's because we adopted it from the same ideas Europe was implimenting,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Except our system is very different from the European ones, so, wrong again.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But even then it still doesn't disprove the fact they were right.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've still yet to produce a single cite for your claims that this was even what "they" said (and who, specifically, were "they," these economists?). Of course since they would have had to have been psychic to know what sort of system the US would adopt, I think the need for a cite might be a little premature. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The idea came from Germany, when some wackjobs in germany set up a school and started rejecting economics and promoting socialism. In which Bismarck used their ideas and set up a welfare state in Germany, many others copied, including Britain, and likewise the US felt left behind. He created the first social insurance program in which they got the idea.
Quite frankly it wasn't psychic ability that predicted this, it was pure math, 1+1=3. When Pres. Roosevelt applied Keynes economics in the 30's he didn't care less about the aftermath of his economic polcies were. FDR didn't even talk to opposition economists in this regard. Which comes to the question, why are we here.
"We all have to die eventually."
Hey, I'll give you half credit, because the you got so CLOSE to the right answer. (It was 2, by the way).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Roosevelt applied Keynes economics in the 30's he didn't care less about the aftermath of his economic polcies were.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the heck are you even talking about? Keynesian economics is a means to deal with recessions, not Social Security.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"We all have to die eventually."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is like arguing with a random number generator. What the heck are you even talking about?
I give up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I were to let you win arguments simply by creatively redefining words, then you could claim that pigs could fly by claiming that "fly" means "wallowing in the mud."
Hey, I'll give you half credit, because the you got so CLOSE to the right answer. (It was 2, by the way).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Roosevelt applied Keynes economics in the 30's he didn't care less about the aftermath of his economic polcies were.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the heck are you even talking about? Keynesian economics is a means to deal with recessions, not Social Security.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"We all have to die eventually."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is like arguing with a random number generator. What the heck are you even talking about? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1+1=3 is a economists joke, I figured you would know. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> hmmm. and Keynesian economics had alot more to do how FDR dealt with American recession and the production of Social Security. I suggest you study more on FDR's motives and how he operated, at max he exploited the weak and desperate during those time. He didn't care about it's aftereffects just as long as it made people happy.
And the final line of text was just me quoting Keynes himself. Because he could of cared less of the outcome of his economic ideas. Just as long as they pleased the present. Im glad you asked about it. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
For a good read on the motives, it's up to you. Read Peter J. Ferrara's <a href='http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&pid=144020&method=search&t=Social+Security&a=&k=&aeid=&adv=&pg=' target='_blank'>Social Security: The Inherent Contradiction</a>
Let me enlighten you:
-Social Security was fine when they invented it.
-It is still fine, conceptually.
-The only reason it isn't fine, is because of World War II.
Here's why:
The way it works now is that you pay as you go. That means that your taxes are currently paying for the people reaping the benefits from social security. Since population tends to increase exponentially, and people tend to die off, there will be lots more people putting money into it, than people taking money out of it, so that, say, 10 people can only put $1000 into it a year, for every 1 person taking $10000 out of it every year.
Here's why it went wrong:
When World War II happened, a very large portion of young males went overseas for several years, during which time they couldn't produce very many children (at least very many American children, I'm sure there were a few Anglo-American and Franco-American kids produced). When they came back, there was, understandably, a breeding frenzy. This is called the Baby Boom. The Baby Boomers are now starting to retire, so that there are a lot more people taking money out of social security, than putting into it.
Now, some may say that there would be a problem even without this, because of the basic principile of Social Security, or its specific execution. That may be true, but it wouldn't be a crisis, if it wasn't for this.
See, when english is your first language, you cease to find such "jokes" amusing, and instead find them to be just plain sad.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Keynesian economics had alot more to do how FDR dealt with American recession and the production of Social Security. I suggest you study more on FDR's motives and how he operated, at max he exploited the weak and desperate during those time. He didn't care about it's aftereffects just as long as it made people happy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're going to have to be more specific. I can't read your mind, and this is apparently some sort of alternate history, so you're going to have to explain what happened in this alternate reality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And the final line of text was just me quoting Keynes himself. Because he could of cared less of the outcome of his economic ideas. Just as long as they pleased the present.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that's not a direct quote of Keynes, or at least it's a pretty bizarre mistranslation. Keynes said: in the long run, we're all dead. By that he meant that while economic problems might work themselves out eventually, in the meantime lots of pointless waste is happening.