You gotta see this, its like, historical..
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Scott_Ruecker Feb 05, 2009 8:03 PM EDT |
A video from 1981 about..well..us (LXer). Ok not really us, but still.. ;-) Just check it out, and enjoy the memories. http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/29/you-need-to-see-this-vi... |
| techiem2 Feb 05, 2009 8:11 PM EDT |
LOL. Good stuff. |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 05, 2009 8:17 PM EDT |
"We're not going to lose a lot of money on it". That just shows shortsighted they were. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 05, 2009 8:54 PM EDT |
"We're not going to lose a lot of money on it". The mantra of Keynsians everywhere. |
| Scott_Ruecker Feb 05, 2009 9:18 PM EDT |
This video and some correspondence I have been in about newspapers in general got me thinking..I have just typed up an editorial that for lack of a better way to describe it, fell out of me. I am going to look it over to be sure I said what it the way I want it to be said and I will post it tomorrow. Haven't 'channeled' like that in a while, I literally had to remind myself to breath while typing it.. |
| montezuma Feb 05, 2009 9:22 PM EDT |
>The mantra of Keynsians everywhere. as well as the entire US large cap finance industry in the last 10 years |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 06, 2009 10:30 AM EDT |
>>The mantra of Keynsians everywhere.
> as well as the entire US large cap finance industry in the last 10 years But you repeat yourself. |
| TxtEdMacs Feb 06, 2009 1:07 PM EDT |
If you equate Keynesian economics with the financial meltdown, you had better be joking. Remember the latter were the Free Marketers, that ran to a socialist bailout while the other stiffs live in the Spencerian world of individualistic capitalism. [no humor intended] |
| jdixon Feb 06, 2009 3:20 PM EDT |
> If you equate Keynesian economics with the financial meltdown, you had better be joking. And, based upon their actions, exactly what economic school do you think the Bush administration favored? |
| TxtEdMacs Feb 06, 2009 4:27 PM EDT |
Cutting taxes and running an expensive war off the books is NOT Keynesian economics. Waste on a grand scale dispensed by corrupt and incompetent is also not part of the model. Do I have to say serious? Just when I was enjoying myself I am out done, but by those that I suspect think they are spouting fact vs. non-sense. At least I am fully aware of the havoc of my words, but unlike the Joker I do not kill bystanders or passers by willfully and at random. I only torture those that read my words with its crippled humor. Now I ask you, does that rise to the level of a War Crime? |
| jdixon Feb 06, 2009 4:35 PM EDT |
> Cutting taxes and running an expensive war off the books is NOT Keynesian economics. I thought cutting taxes and increasing government spending to stimulate the economy was standard Keynesian theory. That seems to be what everyone else who claims to support his views (see our current President for an example) claims. Remember that Bush Sr. was the one who called Reagan's Chicago school inspired supply side theories "vodoo economics". |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 06, 2009 5:07 PM EDT |
> Cutting taxes and running an expensive war off the books is NOT Keynesian economics. Actually, yes, it is. Deficit spending is exactly what Keynes advocated in order to "spur aggregate demand". So, here's your deficit spending. Enjoy. If you want a contrasting point of view, do a YouTube search for "Peter Schiff" or go read Mises.org > the latter were the Free Marketers False. Well connected bankers using government to cover their losses, "Government Sponsored Enterprises" like Freddy/Fannie, the Federal Reserve, these are not "Free Marketers". They are merchantilist enterprises, designed to profit by utilizing governmental power and limited liability to crush competition. Please read "Hamilton's Curse" by Thomas DiLorenzo. This is a beautifully written piece on the issue: Friction vs. Failure: Wasteful Competition and the Lessons of History http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewArticle.asp?id=37992 These two paragraphs could have been written this morning: FTA: "The "aristocracy of pull" is founded on whom one knows, which favors may be called in - leveraged through bribery or blackmail - and whose backside it is advantageous to kiss on a quid pro quo basis. The "aristocracy of pull" rejects competition as "wasteful," then proceeds to squander the wealth of nations in eternal power struggles while the interests of the people languish, indeed, disappear altogether in the fog of perpetual wars between dueling oligarchies. "The result of years of national life under the aristocracy of pull is near-universal repression, barbarity, institutional cruelty on an unimaginable scale and, eventually, economic collapse followed closely by political collapse." |
You cannot post until you login.