Where is the US economy headed?

@plainoldme,

Maybe, georgeob will wake up and smell some roses rather than thorns.

@cicerone imposter,

I think george's attempts show that it is pointless to be nice to okie, who has some very rough edges and lacks social graces.

0 Replies

This is from the wiki article on reagan:

Some economists, such as Nobel Prize winners Milton Friedman and Robert A. Mundell, argue that Reagan's tax policies invigorated America's economy and contributed to the economic boom of the 1990s. Other economists, such as Nobel Prize winner Robert Solow, argue that the deficits were a major reason why Reagan's successor, George H. W. Bush, reneged on a campaign promise and raised taxes.

Noble laureates in economics, fighting it out! Oh, little writers here on this forum, what hope do we have that we are right?

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

pom, Economics is not science; there is no way for any economist to predict how our economy will be 12-months from now. Whoever says they can predict any economy is a fraud. Only some can guess right, but I'm pretty certain they won't bank their home on it.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

A2K is not small. We had the deficit and GWB economics problems pegged before the disaster. Yes, right here in A2k if you had followed the economic discussions. In fact, the White House follows our discussions.

2 Replies

@talk72000,

Ooh! So, a2k is part of the morning briefing in the Oval Office?

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

This is the second time george has come to okie's defense and the second time okie has upbraided george.

I don't feel "upbraided". In fact I don't give a damn.

I had become a bit weary of the often 'over-the-top' personal attacks and "piling on" directed at okie, sometimes by posters who themselves were promimently guilty of evasions, errors and illogic of the same degree of which they so loudly accused okie. On at least two occasions I have tried to persuade okie of the illogic of his tortured insistence on associating tyranny with what we now call left wing politics - in effect forcing a more complex reality into a trivial and clearly inadequate intellectual construct. As you noted, I was unsuccessful both times. Okie is a stubborn man who appears to be perversely energized by all the opposition, and that may be the key fact here.

Okie also has the potential to make a valid and interesting point, though he misses the mark every time. It is this -- the self-appointed reformers of mankind; the creators of Rosseau's 'natural man'; or Lenin's 'socialist man'; Hitler's new teutonic national socialist man; or any of the many other imtitators who end up having to eliminate the "irreconcilables", the stubborn folks who don't accept the new cadre's concept of what is really good for them. Most of these "progressive" perfectors of humanity who seek to impose their concepts on a very stupporn and untidy world, perversely, end up as horrible tyrants. It wasn't long from Rosseau to Robespierre, or from Marx to Lenin and Stalin. On an individual basis Woodrow Wilson is an intriguing example of an ostensiblty benign version of the type. His crimes weren't very dramatic, but the sad history of post WWI Europe is clear testimony to the gap between the hopes he unleashed and the unstable structure he helped create. Sigmund Freud even wrote an interesting analysis of the man.

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

LOL

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

I think that, in some ways, Wilson was "typical." By that, I mean he was a man of many parts. He left his mark on the US government and, through his conviction that AMerica ought to spread and protect democracy, the world. Some of his words and deeds were simply petty while an accusation of racism by Wilson is accurate.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

This comment is not meant to continue 'piling on' to okie, but, as okie is now, he can not make your point because he hasn't read the history and the philosophy that you have. As someone who obviously enjoys expressing himself, okie owes himself a broader platform from which to stand.

However, I wonder, as you have, if he simply enjoys being dismissed, if not bested. He is "energized by all the opposition."

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

I don't "pile it on okie" without cause; I'm asking him to provide reliable evidence or proof for what he says when his statement goes beyond common knowledge or political leanings. I address okie's direct statements, and ask for credible evidence - which he returns with more personal opinions.

georgeob may learn something from okie's type of rhetoric, but it makes me wonder how he can really learn anything that is substantive fact about economics or politics.

If georgeob is charging me with the same brush, I would like him to provide me with any of my posts that are outright lies, imaginary, and/or not supported by facts or some form of consensus as to its truthfulness. I've asked okie/ican to provide me with a list of statements of mine that are loose on facts or outright lies, but they never have. They're good at changing the subject, but fail to answer my challenge.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I never thought of economics as a science. Let's face it, anything an economist says or does is colored by his politics. I might add that his thoughts might be colored by the wealth of his family of origin.

I really have no faith in predictions, either. As a Medievalist, I know how many of those "predictions" were written ex post facto. One might foresee a "trend," but, there are always spanners, hanging like ripe fruit over a path through an orchard, just waiting to fall into the works.

That said, I have little faith in plans. When I think of all the plans I made for my life that were interrupted by so many things . . . ah, well.

0 Replies

@talk72000,

I never said A2k is small, but, you and I sitting at our keyboards will be little noted nor long remembered to cadge a phrase.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Actually, I don't think that okie's treatment is unfair in anyway or any less than deserved. I think, additionally, that george provides an example of noblesse oblige.

These several threads -- this one plus Obama '08 and the one on where the economy is going -- illustrate how okie hacks away, single-mindedly, decrying people with expertise because he thinks they are left of center, regardless of whether they are or not and regardless of how they would describe their own stances.

I have certainly been blunt with okie. Heck, I've been downright nasty to him, when you weigh in that I called him a pussy. Anyone exhibiting the level of egotism that okie displays here should expect a little friction. okie's biggest flaw is that he doesn't shut up. He believes himself to be correct because it is his opinion. But he expresses that same opinion, over and over and over.
My mother would have said that okie is a broken record and he is.

Perhaps, were okie to tame his enormous ego, he might be able to craft a message that others might listen to more graciously.

However, in the thread he started a couple of years back . . . and I am sorry, I can not remember what it was called . . . he attempted to have a conversation on the left v the right. Several of the founding members and stalwarts here, Beth, Setanta and others, came and treated him kindly much as george has done here. However, okie did the playground thing: this is my toy and you must follow my rules to play!

That's what the sticking point is. When people here, like Beth or george, treat okie with graciousness, okie slaps their faces. okie's bad behavior earns him the treatment he receives.

1 Reply

@okie,

I am going to repost three of my recent posts, because I think they directly refute what my detractors here claim I am guilty of, that I provide no evidence or backup for my beliefs.
So folks, if you disagree with what I am posting, provide a cogent argument.

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

georgeob, All I've asked okie/ican to do is to provide credible evidence for their claims when called for. We're not worried about the few views they reported that has some truth to them; that's what most of us expect.

I believe I provide as much or more evidence with my posts as anyone here, including you, ci. And I believe ican does as well, in fact his repeated posts of his evidence is obviously highly irritating to many on the left side of the aisle here.

One of the subjects I am so castigated for my stance is my assertion that Hitler was a leftist. I have provided far more evidence than any of my detractors, as I have posted the Nazi 25 points with analysis of what each one is in terms of left vs right, and I have quoted passages from Mein Kampf. I have also posted what I think is an excellent overview of Hitler that has been compiled by a guy in Australia. Most of the time, my detractors do not debate the points regarding what defines left vs right and what Hitler did or said in their regard, but they instead attack me and my sources as being uninformed and ignorant. They make broad sweeping statements about what learned historians have said and they ridicule my debate points without offering any counter reasoning whatsoever.

On many other subjects, I also post plenty of evidence. A good example is the information I just posted about the portion of all home loans made or guaranteed by F * F in this country. It can be seen here:
http://able2know.org/topic/47327-563#post-4319743
This subject has been debated at length, and I think I am the first one or one of the very few to have posted the actual information, which I think is highly pertinent to the debate. It is certainly more information than you have ever offered on it, ci.

1 Reply

@okie,

Here is a second post of mine that I am repeating here:

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

No, okie, you are wrong. You tried to prove Hitler was a leftist based on his 25-points without understanding how that was used and subsequently ignored by Hitler, nor how he actually ran the country and became a menace to most of Europe. Military power is a rightest goal. You just do not have the intelligence to comprehend history or how it relates to politics or politicians.

If any post serves to illustrate how wrong you typically are, this is one. For example, you accuse others of making statements with no evidence, but here is one of your statements with not only no evidence but it is frankly silly and obviously wrong. Military power cannot be classified as either left or right, it is a common goal and aim of every government or nation to obtain, just as a means of self survival at a minimum, and as a means to conquering others at the maximum. Obvious examples are the Soviet Union, a communist empire that amassed a tremendous military complex rivaling that of the United States. Other leftist regimes aiming for military power have been China and North Korea, just to start a list.

So your assertion that military power is exclusively a rightest goal is therefore obviously total nonsense. I am frankly surprised you would say such a thing.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, FYI, that is not a) reliable evidence to support your position, and b) all you've done is post a link to a2k which is not evidence.

1 Reply

@okie,

And a third one to refute what George was claiming:
I am on solid ground with this reply to George as well.

okie wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

Most of Okie's criticisms of Hitler would be fine if he would substitute the phrase "authoritarian tyrant" for "Leftist" or "socialist". Hitler's actions in power clearly demonstrate that he was a tyrant, interested only in his personal power and goals for a powerful and expanded Germany, and not a doctrinaire socialist, or anything else for that matter.

George, you should be smart enough to know that many authoritarian tyrants are leftists and socialists, in fact I think most of them are. There are obvious other examples out there besides Hitler. Sure he was interested in his personal power and goals, but so are all dictators, and that includes many leftists, and I could list a few like Stalin, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, Castro, the list goes on.

He was a doctrinaire socialist, read the Nazi Party platform and read Mein Kampf, George. He was a national socialist as compared to an international socialist. In fact the basis of Nazism can be summed up in one of the points, that being "COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD." I have posted that until I am blue in the face, and maybe someday you guys will see the light, that that principle underlies all of Nazism and what Hitler believed, and that is why individuals and individual rights were expendable under Hitler, to the point of mass exterminations. And it is totally consistent with leftist idealogy, completely and soundly, the truth of it is self evident, George.

4 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

And a third one to refute what George was claiming:
I am on solid ground with this reply to George as well.

See, here's the thing: you really aren't. That's just one long assertion strung together.

You constantly claim that Obama says one thing, but secretly thinks and does other things. This is the basis of your entire criticism of the guy. But, when we try and point out that Hitler did exactly what you claim Obama is doing - claiming to be for one thing while actually working towards his own goals - you act as if we are spouting nonsense. Do you not see the inconsistency in your position?

Every time you criticize Obama, I'm just going to prove you wrong by pointing to the Democratic party platform; and I'm sure you'll accept that as proof that you are wrong. Right?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, FYI, that is not a) reliable evidence to support your position, and b) all you've done is post a link to a2k which is not evidence.

I pointed out to you, in contradiction to what you have claimed, that I have in fact provided evidence, links, whatever, to support my claims about Hitler. That includes the Nazi 25 points, quotes from Mein Kampf, and a lengthy summary compiled by an Australian in a website of his which is also soundly backed up by historical references, etc.
So you are wrong, just plain wrong, ci, and there is no getting around that by you. What you have claimed is wrong. Now, not all of the debate about Hitler has gone on here, in fact the debate has spilled over onto threads like this from the Ruthless Dictator thread where it basically started, so if you really want to debate that point at length, I would suggest the Dictator thread would be a better location for it, as this is supposed to be about the economy. The only relationship to the economy that Hitler touches on is how his policies in regard to the economy were Fascist like, to the left, and how some of the things we are doing here might resemble those, and perhaps why we should avoid the same mistakes.

Here is the Ruthless Dictator thread:
http://able2know.org/topic/66117-1

0 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know