Where is the US economy headed?

Good point and how many years in a row has the left controlled Congress?

At least we get to throw those bums out in a couple of weeks.

Tell me, what could be of public interest from your point of view?

Who says? And who decides what's productive for the public interest, you do?

Wouldn't good reasoning do? I can't make the decision of what is of public interest, but I think I have a fair understanding of what it can be.

So why should anybody pay for air time to promote YOUR idea of the public good?

When you say science, I would also include basic math and basic economic principles as influenced by human behavior. I would also say that we should also consider these factors in the light of history, such as the fact that communism or Marxism simply do not work, due to certain principles of economics and human behavior.

We cannot even universally agree upon the existence of a principle that has been referred to as the Laffer Curve. We use the principle all the time, in our income tax code for specific things, and even Obama believes it because he knows tax policy can either encourage or discourage economic behavior. The Laffer Curve is simply an observation of the mathematical principle that 0% of anything is zero at one end of the curve, and that 100% times a hugely decreased value at the other end is not much above zero, and that therefore a curve must exist between the two points, which must have a peak point that is defined by a percentage of a value greater than 0 but less than 100. If all politicians could admit to this simple principle, then we could have a meaningful debate to determine where that optimum point might be, by bringing in all the statistical data from history that could be obtained. We should also be able to all admit to another principle, that what people can do for themselves, they can do much more efficiently than government can do it for them. But we cannot even agree on that anymore, as liberals have seemingly lost their marbles and they deny even the simplest and most obvious lessons of science, math, and history.

okie, The explanations you provide for the "laffer curve" is meaningless without explaining how tax rates differ by country and their living standard - and how happy or unhappy the citizens of the country is.

You have claimed often that Obama is a Marxist without providing any proof.

How can you even mention "basic math and basic economic principles as influenced by human behavior," when you don't even understand US economics?

There you go again. I don't know if I have called Obama a "Marxist." I believe he has Marxist sympathies and is not fully on board with free market economics, and I have freely and openly written that opinion many times here, for which I offer no apologies. I believe that because it is not only supportable but likely, given his associations, his writings, his words, his policies, and his political appointments. I don't have ironclad proof, but I have offered plenty of evidence, and besides, only Obama knows, we can all have our opinions about what he believes, thats all.

I think Obama is more of a Fascist to be honest, I think he favors a mixture of capitalism and Marxism or extreme socialism, which is more like a "Third Way," or Fascism.

Given that fact, I find it absolutely amazing that an American population could have fallen for such a politician and that he is currently our president.

P.S. Please quote where I said Obama was a Marxist. If you can't, I will ask you as I do parados, please retract your inaccurate portrayal of what I have said. I am tired of you guys constantly twisting others opinions or quotes.

You would have to ask this to someone with the actual interest of sponsoring such a deal. Thinking that there is a great amount of misleading information out there, the least I can do is try to suggest something in the hope of improvement. ta ta.

Show us proof that Obama has "Marxist tendencies?" Don't forget to compare all other US presidents as you do so.

Also, show us how Obama is transforming our society into a Marxist one for the past two years of his term?

You don't know okie?
I though you only said what you actually believe. Are you saying you don't know what you believe? Or are you saying that it is easier to deny your own statements than defend them?






You really want to play this game okie.

This is a fun game..
Okie denies he says something and demands evidence of it or else the other person is a liar.
Then Parados provides quotes...
Then Okie still denies he said them and demands links or Parados is a liar.
Parados provides links and okie acknowledges the words are his but refuses to apologize. (After okie spends a week or two showing how dishonest he really is.)
Okie then claims he is a decent person even though he failed to apologize and still denies his own words when someone else brings them up.


Let's prove okie is a liar again.








(referring to Obama's poll numbers.)









Let's play the "Okie is a liar game" again.. eh okie? You always manage to play it so well.
Don't try to argue you aren't saying Obama is a Marxist okie because I have a lot more quotes. These are just the first few.




I particularly like this quote from you okie. I don't think you meant for it to apply to yourself, but it does fit when you claim you you don't ridicule others.


okie, (The man) "is self delusional, not well connected to reality. And an incompetent. "

Okie I am at the bottom of the economic scientist! I know to little of economics to speak in absolutes about it! In my opinion economics and politics are ideologies, "very similar to religions.

The graph that you shared does not seem to be scientific because science is universal and it does not seem to change around the world but ideologies and religions do.
What we need to do is start a list of what we can all agree on and build a economic science out of it.
keep in mind that I do not know the answers to the problems that we have but I do have many questions.

parados, You are a gem when it comes to showing okie as a liar by showing his very own statements on a2k. I appreciate the fact that you spend the time to prove his lies. okie is a lost cause; he doesn't only lie, but has the audacity to say he has common sense and logic on his side.

He also claims his success in school and business. Wonder of wonders; miracles never cease.

What does "happy/unhappy mean to a Darwinian apart from nothing. It admits of emotions and them being alterable by experiences and thus it admits that a religious ceremonial might have a positive value not available with any other experiences irrespective of whether it consists of mumbo-jumbo, falsehoods and a class of professional mummers picking the pockets of those who are made happy by witnessing it and have freely chosen to do so possibly because they sense that Orwell's "stick rattling in a bucket" route is the only alternative and that it doesn't work.

What utter rubbish your contributions to the religion/science argument actually are you have comprehensively demonstrated.

And I told you over and over again that the value of emotional experience was something you needed to address before you start demolishing religion. Especially a long established religion which has over a very long period of time, using the scientific method, discovered how to maximise the value. And that the Church by its very magnificence, which millions have trekked to gawp at, is scientific evidence that it provides that value. Your alternaive is that they are all stupid and you have better ways of making them happy.

And for the religious experience to be efficient in producing the value it is necessary that it has been grown up with. Finding other ways from a standing start as an adult can lead into some dangerous territory.

Any argument for religious ceremonials from a scientific point of view taking account of happy/unhappy can be used for food flavourings or soft furnishings or beauty products just as effectively. And against as well.

You are in this hole because you didn't read my many insistent posts on the matter presumably because your ignorant bigotry rendered you too eager to blurt out they were nonsense and that I was drunk and needed to get out more. As if any of those is an argument at all.

Happy/unhappy doesn't enter into economic argument unless there's an economic factor to them. With objective validity.

No evidence of that nature was offered at Dover.

spendi, That's because your pub life has left you unawares of how some people in this world are interested in how happy/unhappy people are based on their standard of living, taxes, environment, and things that are measurable. These polls have been taken, and the results can be found on the internet.

SURPRISE! You funk'n ignoramus.

That's the "stick rattling in a bucket" argument as if those things are all it takes to make people happy. Something selfish. Perfected in Brave New World.

Who's on third base?

Are you saying that there is a factor to do with Happy/unhappy people when we are trying to get economics correct? Your quote: {Happy/unhappy doesn't enter into economic argument unless there's an economic factor to them. With objective validity}

No whos on first base!