ECONOMICS 101 REVISITED

[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.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: ECONOMICS 101 REVISITED

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 bullshit. 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]

Re: RE: ECONOMICS 101 REVISITED

Encouraging prosperity <> Encouraging Spending

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

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]

I know. Graeme should have too.

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

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. :lol:

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

 

[Toro]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

RE: ECONOMICS 101 REVISIT

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.

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]

Re: RE: ECONOMICS 101 REVISIT

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

Who me?

From you?

Are you kidding?

 

[BitWhys]

Re: RE: ECONOMICS 101 REVISIT

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

Who me?

From you?

Are you kidding?

'course not. sorry. didn't notice you posted after Graeme.

 

[BitWhys]

i.e. "mergers cause inflation"

liar.

And it ain't a dozen pages either.

about economics? yes it is. the other chapters that even come close are about the craftsmen, not the craft.

But I'm getting bored of this.

then don't bring it up again if you aren't prepared to defend it.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: ECONOMICS 101 REVISIT

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

Who me?

From you?

Are you kidding?

'course not. sorry. didn't notice you posted after Graeme.

Oh. Okay.

 

[Kreskin]

Did this thread come with a point? International politics? Are Iraqis not getting enough tax cuts?

 

[Toro]

i.e. "mergers cause inflation"

liar.

Oh Bitwhys, don't make me track it down. I'm too tired. I already showed you once. Do I have to do it again?

Its amusing that I've spent too much time on another forum (just like I've spent too much time here, as opposed to doing something productive) with someone who used a whole lot of ink trying to convince me that Saul was spot on in his assessment that mergers caused inflation.

 

[BitWhys]

RE: ECONOMICS 101 REVISIT

That would make him wrong and you not particularly reliable.

 

[typingrandomstuff]

Very american and conservative. I agree to you to some point. It is true that you need a lot of encouragement to work, but not always we can be that independent. So, it is better to encourage people to be independent and help them if you can (as a guide, but not as a person who spoils another).

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: ECONOMICS 101 REVISIT

That would make him wrong and you not particularly reliable.

You've got that half right bitwhys.

And, rather than using words like "liar", perhaps you should use phrases like "I don't think you're correct" or "I am unaware of this. Are you sure?" or "I doubt it."

It should be obvious why.

I'll get around to finding it at my leisure.

 

[BitWhys]

Re: RE: ECONOMICS 101 REVISIT

That would make him wrong and you not particularly reliable.

You've got that half right bitwhys.

And, rather than using words like "liar", perhaps you should use phrases like "I don't think you're correct" or "I am unaware of this. Are you sure?" or "I doubt it."

It should be obvious why.

I'll get around to finding it at my leisure.

He discusses mergers in the chapter called "the hijacking of capitalism" and doesn't even come close (expansionary, maybe, but only by reader's inference) to what you claim let alone having it show up as a quote. So no apology out of me for what I said about that.

 

[Graeme]

Funny, I don't remember reading about John Ralston Saul in any economics texts or hearing about him in class. I think he is the wrong guy to be quoting and arguing over.

Now I don't know a lot about the man and I haven't read his books (at least not that I can remember) He sounds like one of those alarmist type guys. I don't think he has ever heard the phrase "don't throw the baby out with the bath water"