[KPaulCook]

Re: Are you afraid?

No thanks I prefer Milton Friedman, John Maynard Keynes and John Kenneth Galbraith. But no one guy has the all the answers. "Without government interference the free market laws of supply and demand would serve to regulate business in a way that would be more equitable to all. " I think your view is simplistic and naive. The constitution while a beautiful foundation for our laws was written in a time void of large multinational corporations capable of dominating governments.

 

[37035]

Follow the thread back to where it started. My point was that even the most poorly reasoned and informed arguments from the most mentally challenged can become dangerous in the wrong hands. The concept of racially superiority is scientifically and logically bankrupt yet it has been used to advance atrocities. I know nowhere near enough (but more than I care)about you, VWW or anybody else on this board, so I did not mean to ascribe any of these (violent) motives to you. The arguments many on this board have advanced, however, are the same as those used by various whack jobs. I occasionally feel compelled to check the spewing of these fallacies. To sum: Because something is simple does not mean it should be ignored. That is why I am responding to you.

 

[37035]

OK, to call Hitler a left winger is silly. Re-read (I'm giving you some credit here) history. He was nominally a socialist, yet even a cursory review of his ideology would find the two at odds.

As for the name calling, I only responded in kind. If any of my responses were ad hominen it is because there is little intellect to appeal to on your side of the argument. (pat yourself on the back, I gave you the response you wanted).



Because someone is not a self-styled libertarian whack job does not make them a "commie" I am far from a socialist or even a contemporary liberal. A classic liberal perhaps, yet I find much of Burke as appealing as I find Mill. I haven't read either in nearly 10 years. Perhaps I should dig out one of the two. It may help cleanse my mind of all the dribble that has been thrown at it here.

 

[seruzawa]

Re: Are you afraid?

Keynes? Are you daft? His loony economic theories have nearly destroyed western civilization. Give me a break.

 

[4940]

Re: Are you afraid?

KPaul it is because of the deficit spending idiocy espoused by John Maynard Keynes, and followed by every administration since FDR, that we are in the sorry financial dilemma that we have today. The very fact that you lump Milton Friedman and Keynes together exposes your utter lack of economic theory. If you don't wish to at least glimpse at the Mises site that's ok, but without some study of the subject any comments you may have about it become uninformed prattle. VWW

 

[4940]

"All indications I have (not the least of which is your ringing endorsement) indicate that DiLorenzo's book is is about 25% substance and 75% crap."



All indications that I have show me that

(A) you haven't read the book.

(B) you are running your mouth off about something of which you know NOTHING about. (C) If I am slightly paranoid it is only because of simpering left wing whiners with unfounded fears about people who present a threat to their carefully constructed fantasy worlds, and want goverment stooges to protect them from those who would dare point out those fantasies for what they are. VWW

 

[KPaulCook]

I am not lumping them in to the same cat you did Whacko.

By the way in addition to my degrees in Electrical Engineering and Business Administration, I have a minor in Economics. Friedman an monetarist and Keynes a fiscalist are two sometimes opposing economists which I have studied. Contary to your whacko economic messiah. So get a reality check.

 

[KPaulCook]

Can you read SeruSuzy? Economics for Dummies

I said no one guy has the answers. Keynes was a great economist just as Friedman is. and Galbreth was. By the way his theories and models of fiscal policy are still tought today. Pick up the famous Samualson textbook at any college bookstore and you will get an objective view of his theories.

 

[4940]

Re: I am not lumping them in to the same cat you did Whacko.

KPaul I will have to admit some culpability in joining in this arguement in the first place. It was only my overwhelming hubris that led me to try and break through that log jam that surrounds what some may euphemistically refer to as your center of reasoning, after so many others have failed. The fact that you have a "minor" in economics from which ever state college that you attended, and still are unaware of Ludwig von Mises whose dicsiples include such luminaries as Murray Rothbard, and Lewellen Rockwell who's accumen far outweigh that of everyone involved in this thread and more, show that your minor was a hopelessly inadequate exercise in education. If you insist on believing that your knowlege of economics is complete, and you refuse to even give a cursory examination of the site dedicated to a man that many of the finest minds of the twentieth century consider to be the ultimate authority in the field of market economy, then I give up. You are right and I am an idiot for even entering this disscusion with a man of your obvious brilliance. VWW

 

[39220]

Re: I am not lumping them in to the same cat you did Whacko.

Well the facts of it are the government will not stick to its duties outlined in the Constitution when there is money to be made by not doing so. Free market laws will never be able to fully play out for the same reasons the government won't stick to it's duties. Greed. You can read all the Ludwig you want but when you don't factor in the human element (greed, corruption, quest for power, etc) that ultimately drives government and economics and everything else in the world your most brilliant theories are good for nothing. This utopian society where government "sticks to its duties" and no one tries to take advantage of someone else to make a buck will never exist. Hence, the checks and balances I spoke about before come in to play. Maybe the brilliant economist Ludwig does have it all figured out- on paper. Did he explain how to make every human on earth honest and content with only taking his or her share? Until he figures that one out it's moot. Ludwig’s economic theories put in to place would never reach their full potential and we would end up with regulation, legislation, litigation, and so on just like we have now.

And really:

"kowalke67, your failure to grasp the salient, and obvious, point made in my diatribe ranks as a new paradigm in the annals of obtuse behavior. The fact that KPaul agrees with you should cause you to rethink your approval of governmental dictates. VWW"

Is that the best rebuttal your non-state institution acquired education afforded you? Prove to us you really know something about economics and ask for your money back.

You should spend a little less time reading theory- and your dictionary and your thesaurus (or using Word’s synonyms feature)- and spend a little more time using common sense and watch what is actually happening in the world around you. Maybe then you could do something worthwhile with your brilliant vocabulary. Apparently you feel it is necessary to spout off like a raven regurgitating what you've read in books in an attempt to impress people. It's not impressive. Guys like you are a dime a dozen- full of someone else’s thoughts, your own hot air, and rapidly boring.

 

[seruzawa]

Re: Can you read SeruSuzy? Economics for Dummies

Freud is still taught also. Even though he was a fraud.

Same goes for Kinsey report on human sexuality. Bogus crap. Still taught in college.

How about the courses that teach that black Africans used to have wings? They teach that in colleges too.

Shall I go on?

 

[seruzawa]

Enough already.....

Thank you for putting this whole stupid argument in perspective.

Maybe we should just go back to talking about motorcycles.

I have a 91 GSX1100G, an 84 700 Magna and a 77 Yammerhammer IT175. How about you?

 

[39220]

Re: Excellent Post

If the JPFO provides information in quality and quantity over the NRA and argues for our second amendment rights in a more accurate interpretation of the second amendment it doesn't mean they are more effective at preventing gun control legislation. The JPFO does not have the clout the NRA has and therefore isn't as effective. It also has a credibility issue with people because of its in-your-face style. It doesn't mean I don't agree with some of what the JPFO argues but, if you want to be heard and your want to influence people you can't come off like a reincarnate of the Black Panthers or the Ku Klux Klan (no, I am not comparing the JPFO with either of those organizations, just stating how people react to the JPFO's approach). Without compromise there is only battle. Who was more effective at procuring civil rights for black Americans, Martin or Malcolm? The answer is obvious.

JPFO's executive director Aaron Zelman states:

"go directly to the public via bill-boards, newspaper adds, radio adds, TV adds, etc., and shift money away from lobbying law-makers, who mainly seek free lunches"

To move away from lobbying lawmakers would accelerate the end of our 2nd amendment rights. How well do you think those cigarette commercials are doing at preventing smoking? Not well. Teenage smoking is on the rise. However, a law is being considered now in parts of IL to eliminate all smoking from all public buildings, bars and restaurants included. I'm not making a point about smoking I'm making a point about how things get done- through the law makers, not t.v. commercials. You tell me what network will accept any amount of money the NRA could afford to show a pro-gun commercial. None. The networks have an agenda, which is to promote gun control because it's good for (their) business.

On another note, if you want to protect your second amendment rights I wouldn't start with alienating those who have a similar agenda. If what KPaul said is enough to make you *rotflmao* you need to get out more.

 

[4940]

Re: I am not lumping them in to the same cat you did Whacko.

kowalke67, the plain fact is that I have never paid for nor attended any state or private instiution of "higher learning." My words like my thoughts are my own, and being a former Democrat (when I was too stoned to know any better), a Republican (when I foolishly thought that party was actually a separate entity from the Democratic party), and a former member of both the AMA, and NRA (prior to dicovering that both groups were more interested in mantaining their positions as lobbying organizations than standing up for their members rights) I have learned most of what I know the hard way. I do not read the dictionary unless I run across a word that I don"t understand, nor do I use a thesaurus. I will however admit to using a spell checker, as I have suffered from dyslexia since childhood.

If only educated people such as yourself would start to address the fundamental issues that plauge our country, such as the total faliure of our elected officials to follow the law, and disabuse yourselves of the notion that by supporting organizations such as the NRA you are actually doing your part to preserve our freedom, then and only then will we stand a chance of turning things around before it really is to late.

Those are my deductions and no one else's. I did not encounter the theory of Austrian economics nor web sites espousing Libertarian ideals until after my tribulations with the "conventional" parties and organizations, and my personal epiphany when I realized that by participating in mainstream politics that I was part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

You appear to have the nascent perspicacity to grasp what I am saying, so please forget about wasting that $25 this month on the NRA, and start reading some of the editorials on lewrockwell.com . I do apologize for boring you, but hey the truth isn't always exciting. VWW

 

[4940]

Re: Excellent Post

The plain truth is that dispite NRA lobbying and campaigning for "pro gun" candidates we have continued to lose ground when "the evil gun baners have control of congress and the executive branch, and never gain any ground back when we follow the NRA's voting lists and put the "right" people in office. Hey their hand picked man G.W.Bush was ready to extend the "assault weapons ban" Sadly the NRA's efforts can only be descrbed as a continuing failure.

You are correct when you state that those commercials aren't preventing smoking. Conversely commercials sure sold a lot of cigarettes when they were still allowed. Perhaps the no smoking commercials are a failure because the ad campaign is managed by the government. They really aren't to efficient at much, are they? VWW

 

[37826]

Re: Enough already.....

This topic was just begging for some big-vocab small-mind flame wars but as soon as you boys are done putting away your Wow-that-really-is-a-big-stick!s maybe we can get back to motorcycles for a while?

 

[37035]

I read more than one book a year and carefully choose which I spend my time on. I read reviews, ask for feedback from people whose opinions I respect and choose from there. If I read every silly diatribe some whiny toad suggested just to refute it, I would never have the time to read anything decent. This conversation could have perhaps been edifying if you had had the ability and/or willingness to actually argue some of DiLorenzo's points instead of just shouting that I should read his book.



One reason I participate in these sorts of discussions is to learn from other viewpoints. I find by challenging someone's views at the extreme you can often get their best argument. That hasn't happened here and in fact it rarely happens when you deal with zealots who are far left, far right or far out in space. This is one lesson, I admit, I am slow in learning. I also admit that, unfortunately, I too easily sink to my fellow conversant's level, hence the (as your faithful follower seruzwa (sp?) pointed out) occasional ad hominem remark. However, I must admit that those sort of remarks (and the responses they evoke)do amuse me greatly, even if they occasionally distract from the discussion. I am sure at some point this discussion will be rejoined, but for now........

 

[4940]

How nice to hear that you read more than one book a year. When you are done mouthing the words to Hillary Clinton's It Takes a Village perhaps you will find the time to peruse something a little more weighty. BTW I have never met seruzawa. He and I have disagreed on various issues in the past. You really are quite paranoid. Just because more than one person finds you to be an idiot, it is not a necessarily a conspiracy. VWW

 

[37035]

By the law of inverse proportionality if you think I am an idiot I am a certifiable genius. As for Senator Clinton's writings, the only credit I give them is that they are marketed as the personal ramblings/crap that they are, while DiLorenzo puts a weak facade of academia on his work. If you really think I thought you and seruzawa had any real connection, you totally missed the point. A conspiracy? Those of your ilk have not the ability or numbers. Random, semi-organized acts of stupidity perhaps, but a true conspiracy is not a possibility.

 

[4940]

How could you possibly know if DiLorenzo put "a weak facade of academia on his work" without reading it in the first place? I was wrong you truely are a genius. VWW