ECONOMICS 101 REVISITED


jimmoyer
#1
LET US ALL REVISIT
ECON 101 FRESHMAN COURSE.....

Some starting rules:



1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

3. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.

4. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

5. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.

6. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.

7. You cannot further the brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.

8. You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.

9. You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man’s initiative.

10. You cannot really help men by having the government tax them to do for them what they can and should do for themselves.



And then the last one of the 10 commandments, eh ?




X. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife . . . nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.
 
BitWhys
#2
Unrealistic Conservative Demagogary 101 is more like it.

#1 the counter-cyclical response to recession is to encourage spending.
 
jimmoyer
#3
"Unrealistic Conservative Demagogary 101 is more like it. "
--------------------------BitWhys-----------------------------

Unrealistic ?
Point out one statement that is unrealistic ?

Conservative ?
It's neither. It's common sense.

Demagoguery ?
Point out which statement is demagogic other than
your own reaction ?

Your final statement does belie the truth
that the greater saving
tendencies of Japan and Europe doing not enough
to lift world wide trade.
 
BitWhys
#4
#2 Anti-Trust Laws
 
BitWhys
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

Your final statement does belie the truth
that the greater saving
tendencies of Japan and Europe doing not enough
to lift world wide trade.

that's some sort of counterpoint?
 
BitWhys
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

Conservative ?
It's neither. It's common sense.

economics is supposed to be a science, not a philosophy.
 
feronia
#7
Quote:

And then the last one of the 10 commandments, eh ?




X. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife . . . nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.

Wouldn't that make it the 11 commandments?
 
Graeme
#8
feronia, it is kind of a joke. (the 11th is the bibles 10th)
 
feronia
#9
Thank you. I was also being sarcastic. I'm sorry it wasn't clear.
 
Graeme
#10
bitwhys I don't think you read number one properly

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

In other words, If you are not doing well finiancially it is best to spend no more than what is necessary. (this is a slightly racist joke, but that's why there are practically no poor jewish people in canada, and hence the stereo-type)


Which by the way is the real response to an economical recession.

Bitwhys I have a feeling you have never taken an economics course.
 
BitWhys
#11
that's ok

I have a feeling you've never taken a basic english course.

It says what it says. Encouraging spending discourages thrift.
 
Graeme
#12
for instance our most recent www recession
was due to a lot of superfulous spending with the magical hope that it will all work out in the end, while in the mean time no viable product was produced.
 
BitWhys
#13
of course it would be like a conservative to believe he can have his cake and eat it too.
 
BitWhys
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Graeme

for instance our most recent www recession
was due to a lot of superfulous spending with the magical hope that it will all work out in the end, while in the mean time no viable product was produced.

oh bull****. it was because the IMF forcefed its austerity program down everybody's throat again.
 
Graeme
#15
So you really haven't taken an economics course and you are of a rather impractical mindset.

Quote:

It says what it says. Encouraging spending discourages thrift.

What English to English translator are you using man?
 
BitWhys
#16
Quote:

Personal attacks are expressly forbidden. Tackle the opinion, not the person

at least pretend to be trying to address the point, ok?
 
Said1
Free Thinker
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys


It says what it says. Encouraging spending discourages thrift.

That is does.
 
BitWhys
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Said1

Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys


It says what it says. Encouraging spending discourages thrift.

That is does.

heh

try to rub two thoughts together and see where it get you, eh?
 
BitWhys
#19
#2 will be more fun if they get the courage up. they'll have to start by pretending to not understand what I'm getting at.
 
Said1
Free Thinker
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

Quote: Originally Posted by Said1

Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys


It says what it says. Encouraging spending discourages thrift.

That is does.

heh

try to rub two thoughts together and see where it get you, eh?

Personal attack via innuendo. I like that.
 
Graeme
#21
Bitwhys I am not even sure what you are trying to argue now, but

Encouraging prosperity <> Encouraging Spending

prosperity = the condition of being successful or thriving; especially : economic well-being (m-w.com)

Spending = to use up or pay out OR to expend or waste wealth or strength. (m-w.com)

Thrift = careful management especially of money


Although I never argued against your statement that "encouraging spending discourages thrift", (which is not true as the two things are exclusive of eachother: you can be thrifty and still spend a lot)

Could you please explain how you got

Encourage spending discourages thrift

out of

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

--------------

Then could you please explain how your statement "the counter-cyclical response to recession is to encourage spending. " is a counter point to "You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. "

In fact although your statement is wrong due to ambiguity, if I add one word to your statement then it is saying exactly what jimmoyer said

the counter-cyclical response to recession is to encourage thrifty spending.
 
Toro
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

Quote: Originally Posted by Graeme

for instance our most recent www recession
was due to a lot of superfulous spending with the magical hope that it will all work out in the end, while in the mean time no viable product was produced.

oh bull****. it was because the IMF forcefed its austerity program down everybody's throat again.

What are you talking about?

The last global recession was in 2001-2002. It was caused by rising interest rates to cool off an economy that was overheating due to an asset.

The previous global recession was in 1990-91. It was caused by rising interest rates to cool off an economy that was overheating due, in part, to an asset bubble. It was also effected by spiking oil prices after Saddam invaded Kuwait and the end of the Japanese real estate bubble, which was due to over-investment in part by the Japanese government.

Notice how the word "IMF" doesn't appear when applying to the phrase "global recession."

And the IMF didn't cause the recessions that occurred in the emerging nations in the 1990s, though the institution certainly exacerbated the recession, perhaps to the point where you could use the phrase of that misinformed John Ralston Saul, depression.
 
BitWhys
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Graeme

Encouraging prosperity <> Encouraging Spending

not always, no. I pointed out when it is a very viable option. So much for the trusim.

Quote: Originally Posted by Graeme

Bitwhys I am not even sure what you are trying to argue now, but

Encouraging prosperity <> Encouraging Spending

prosperity = the condition of being successful or thriving; especially : economic well-being (m-w.com)

Spending = to use up or pay out OR to expend or waste wealth or strength. (m-w.com)

Thrift = careful management especially of money


Although I never argued against your statement that "encouraging spending discourages thrift", (which is not true as the two things are exclusive of eachother: you can be thrifty and still spend a lot)

Could you please explain how you got

Encourage spending discourages thrift

out of

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

--------------

Then could you please explain how your statement "the counter-cyclical response to recession is to encourage spending. " is a counter point to "You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. "

In fact although your statement is wrong due to ambiguity, if I add one word to your statement then it is saying exactly what jimmoyer said

the counter-cyclical response to recession is to encourage thrifty spending.

blah blah blah

you're confusing thrift with prudence for some reason. quit wasting you breath.
 
BitWhys
#24
I know. Graeme should have too.

due to an asset? I thought it was another interest induced speculative bubble.

Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

And the IMF didn't cause the recessions that occurred in the emerging nations in the 1990s, though the institution certainly exacerbated the recession, perhaps to the point where you could use the phrase of that misinformed John Ralston Saul, depression.

Stiglitz. Maybe 6 of 1 half a dozen of the other, but I agree with him there were better ways to handle things than what the IMF recycled. I was just making sure I could still rattle up Jim's babysitter. Funny you knew which one I was referring to but no one else did.

back off of Saul. He's a much better economist than you are a sociologist.
 
Toro
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

back off of Saul. He's a much better economist than you are a sociologist.

Not.

The difference is that I don't pretend to know much about sociology then write books about it.
 
BitWhys
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Toro

Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

back off of Saul. He's a much better economist than you are a sociologist.

Not.

The difference is that I don't pretend to know much about sociology then write books about it.

please. It wasn't a book about economics. Less than a dozen pages out 600 and you can't get past the one sentence that fails to stand on its own even though he explains his meaning quite adequately later in the same chapter.

that's called cherry-picking.

and try to get it into your head that his book about Globalism is NOT about economics either.
 
Graeme
#27
bitwhys:

I think you need a dictionary.

"blah blah blah" - Yeah, that about sums up your ignorance. Why don't you try answering? OOH right, because you are wrong and don't have a clue what you're talking about.


Quote:

I pointed out when it is a very viable option.

Where exactly did you point this out?


Now let's look at some definitions for "Thrift"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thrift
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/thrift
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thrift

Although I often do not like the OED, I really like this definition, it helps demonstrate your ignorance
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/thrift?view=uk

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/t/t0187300.html


how about some thesaurus references

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/thes/t/t1531700.html
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/thrift

Okay that is enough.

So how about you try to explain the things you said which I asked you to explain.

Or just admit you were wrong and that will be the end of it.
 
Toro
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

please. It wasn't a book about economics. Less than a dozen pages out 600 and you can't get past the one sentence that fails to stand on its own even though he explains his meaning quite adequately later in the same chapter.

that's called cherry-picking.

and try to get it into your head that his book about Globalism is NOT about economics either.

Oh, there are several others,

i.e. "mergers cause inflation"

And it ain't a dozen pages either.

But I'm getting bored of this.
 
BitWhys
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Graeme

bitwhys:

I think you need a dictionary.

"blah blah blah" - Yeah, that about sums up your ignorance. Why don't you try answering? OOH right, because you are wrong and don't have a clue what you're talking about.


Quote:

I pointed out when it is a very viable option.

Where exactly did you point this out?


Now let's look at some definitions for "Thrift"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thrift
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/thrift
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thrift

Although I often do not like the OED, I really like this definition, it helps demonstrate your ignorance
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/thrift?view=uk

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/t/t0187300.html


how about some thesaurus references

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/thes/t/t1531700.html
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/thrift

Okay that is enough.

So how about you try to explain the things you said which I asked you to explain.

Or just admit you were wrong and that will be the end of it.

If you're looking to get your pride back you're in the wrong thread.

and while I'm editing anyways, you DO understand that an exeption proves the rule wrong, don't you?
 
Toro
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by BitWhys

If you're looking to get your pride back you're in the wrong thread.

Who me?

From you?

Are you kidding?
 

Similar Threads

9
911 revisited
by 55Mercury | Sep 11th, 2007
23
Vietnam Revisited by Clinton
by Curiosity | Jan 22nd, 2006
13
Canada vs US Healthcare (revisited, most likely)
by pastafarian | Nov 10th, 2005
4
New Orleans Revisited
by Vanni Fucci | Oct 4th, 2005
no new posts