Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He posted that info on another thread, but it was deleted by the moderator.
Ask him yourself.
And does your buddy practice the discipline We have a lot of business management majors who work menial jobs. Are they more qualified than anyone else to run a business? Perhaps you should go to the economics forum and tell all the folks who majored in other studies that they are not qualified to hold an opinion on the subject either.
Apparently you didn't quite understand something though... Economics is a theory, not a hard science. There are subsets within the theory, many of which contradict one another. There is no right or wrong because no idea can be proven right or wrong. Anyone who treats it as a hard science is making one of the most basic and fundamental mistakes in the discipline itself.
And does your buddy practice the discipline We have a lot of business management majors who work menial jobs. Are they more qualified than anyone else to run a business? Perhaps you should go to the economics forum and tell all the folks who majored in other studies that they are not qualified to hold an opinion on the subject either.
Apparently you didn't quite understand something though... Economics is a theory, not a hard science. There are subsets within the theory, many of which contradict one another. There is no right or wrong because no idea can be proven right or wrong. Anyone who treats it as a hard science is making one of the most basic and fundamental mistakes in the discipline itself.
Opinion is fine.
The problem is when some folks try to pass off opinion (or water cooler propaganda) as fact.
EDIT: That said, I'll take an economics lesson from someone with an MBA in Economics before someone who programs machines and only has a HS Diploma (and I do mostly agree with Quantum).
Actually I think both of them have good points, but both of them suffer from bias, your Democrat did this or your Republican did this c'mon do you really think they are different. They serve their corporate masters. A third party is the only hope this country has. I hate Ron Paul's views on social programs, but his foreign policy is spot on. I guess the perfect President would be Dennis Kucinich, pro social program, combined with Ron Paul, no policing of the world. BTW the way I learned economics is the hard way studying the financial markets, helping run a hedge fund for 6 years, and using my common sense and above average ability to be objective. Econ theory is just that theory which has been turned upside down in the last few years. Stop listening to the news and what people say, including me, look around for yourself and see if things are getting better or not. Hint China's economy has been going down for the last 11 months so what does that say about us, who buys their crap?
They serve their corporate masters. A third party is the only hope this country has. I hate Ron Paul's views on social programs, but his foreign policy is spot on. I guess the perfect President would be Dennis Kucinich, pro social program, and Ron Paul, no policing of the world.
Yes, I completely agree.
While I'm in love with his foreign policy stance, Ron Paul turns me off with his views on social programs/laws and his laissez-faire economic views domestically.
The things is however, the corporate masters (I call them the wealthy elite) are inherently right-wing for the simple fact that they want to make as much profit as possible with as little government interference and without having to pay much in taxes. They bribe the government with their big money into relaxing the regulations and tax liability they must endure.
The biggest contributor to Obama's campaign is Goldman Sach's. Obama just wants to be reelected and I don't think the folks at Goldman Sach's want more regulations and higher taxes imposed on them. Do you think they're going to continue contributing to Obama's campaign if he doesn't implement/continue the policies that benefit them?
While I'm in love with his foreign policy stance, Ron Paul turns me off with his views on social programs/laws and his laissez-faire economic views domestically.
The things is however, the corporate masters (I call them the wealthy elite) are inherently right-wing for the simple fact that they want to make as much profit as possible with as little government interference and without having to pay much in taxes. They bribe the government with their big money into relaxing the regulations and tax liability they must endure.
The biggest contributor to Obama's campaign is Goldman Sach's. Obama just wants to be reelected and I don't think the folks at Goldman Sach's want more regulations and higher taxes imposed on them. Do you think they're going to continue contributing to Obama's campaign if he doesn't implement/continue the policies that benefit them?
Almost all politicians are professional liars just like lawyers so Obama will probably be re-elected IMO and he will say what he needs to and then continue to sign more trade deals that will export jobs just like Romney would. Then he will have lunch with Golden Slacks,oh wait, he doesn't have to how many of them work in his cabinet already 4 I believe.
The problem is when some folks try to pass off opinion (or water cooler propaganda) as fact.
Perhaps you should reread the exchange
Quote:
Originally Posted by 313Weather
EDIT: That said, I'll take an economics lesson from someone with an MBA in Economics before someone who programs machines and only has a HS Diploma (and I do mostly agree with Quantum).
Naturally, two leftist/socialists/perpetual victims would agree, while disagreeing with the conservative. Nothing earth shattering to be found here. Thankfully, I do not teach. There are those that do, and those that teach. On the bright side, Quantum may be willing to include a two for one deal... Econ 101 and reading comprehension.
Just as investors will "do as they do" and workers will "do as they do". Would you recommend we place a cap on profits? Perhaps the state can confiscate the the wealth they create and redistribute it among the masses. Seems some in Europe like that idea, and the businesses decided it was best to go elsewhere.
Yeah fine kid, whatever you say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado xxxxx
A third party is the only hope this country has. I hate Ron Paul's views on social programs, but his foreign policy is spot on. I guess the perfect President would be Dennis Kucinich, pro social program, combined with Ron Paul, no policing of the world.
I think Kucinich is great, but I've worked for Nader in the past two elections. We all knew it was hopeless, but it was the RIGHT thing to do. He's not running this time, but he's still kicking. Puts out a good weekly email.
Paul's plans are untested, experimental, and dangerous. The Strong will always use their strength to crush the Weak, not compete with them. The reasonable regulation we had in the 50's-70's is what built the middle class and made this nation great, and Paul would have nothing of it.
Italy sold all their freeways in the '50's and '60's to private investors, and in the '70's I had to pay toll every ten klicks or so there. All the guardrails were rusted and the roads were in poor repair. Privatization of functions traditionally done by the US military, such as fuel and supplies delivery, chow, physical plant, security details, is now all outsourced in EyeRack and the 'Stan at a cost ten times what it was when troops did these jobs, thanks to Rumsfeld. Rummy started out good, meaning to close many bases and cut back military spending, but Cheney put an end to all that.
Ron Paul is a true believer, but he represents a philosophy that only benefits the 1% at the cost of everyone else. No matter how good a third of his policies seem, the core is dangerous in practice.
I think Kucinich is great, but I've worked for Nader in the past two elections. We all knew it was hopeless, but it was the RIGHT thing to do. He's not running this time, but he's still kicking. Puts out a good weekly email.
Paul's plans are untested, experimental, and dangerous. The Strong will always use their strength to crush the Weak, not compete with them. The reasonable regulation we had in the 50's-70's is what built the middle class and made this nation great, and Paul would have nothing of it.
Italy sold all their freeways in the '50's and '60's to private investors, and in the '70's I had to pay toll every ten klicks or so there. All the guardrails were rusted and the roads were in poor repair. Privatization of functions traditionally done by the US military, such as fuel and supplies delivery, chow, physical plant, security details, is now all outsourced in EyeRack and the 'Stan at a cost ten times what it was when troops did these jobs, thanks to Rumsfeld. Rummy started out good, meaning to close many bases and cut back military spending, but Cheney put an end to all that.
Ron Paul is a true believer, but he represents a philosophy that only benefits the 1% at the cost of everyone else. No matter how good a third of his policies seem, the core is dangerous in practice.
That's ironic I actually like Nader, but you are right he never stood a chance. I don't know that you can make blanket statements like privatization is a bad thing. Your example shows it can be, but here in Denver Metro we have toll roads and they are very well maintained. I am just as much against people whom say that all unions are bad. What's bad is cronyism, no matter if it comes from Wall Street or the AFL CIO. Frankly, what can be bad is loyalty, because it can lead to cronyism over objectivity, but hey we all need friends right.
That's ironic I actually like Nader, but you are right he never stood a chance. I don't know that you can make blanket statements like privatization is a bad thing. Your example shows it can be, but here in Denver Metro we have toll roads and they are very well maintained. I am just as much against people whom say that all unions are bad. What's bad is cronyism, no matter if it comes from Wall Street or the AFL CIO. Frankly, what can be bad is loyalty, because it can lead to cronyism over objectivity, but hey we all need friends right.
Toll Roads can be publicly owned.
Also, there is a difference between privatization and contracting out work.
The Federal Government for example contracts out the repair of Interstate Highways all of the time (rather the state governments who receive 90% of the funding from the Federal Government to repair the interstate highways in their state contract out the work all of the time). That doesn't mean the highways are privatized.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have a lot of business management majors who work menial jobs. Are they more qualified than anyone else to run a business? Perhaps you should go to the economics forum and tell all the folks who majored in other studies that they are not qualified to hold an opinion on the subject either.