Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I really am aren't I.

daedalus-templarius wrote:I'm sure I'd get a Frazzled response if I showed something like this to my Father.

He refuses to leave his conservative bubble, about anything, especially long term reports made by libruhls and reported by the NY Times, a libruhl rag.

Erm duh. Hey go into a synagogue and try to get them to accept how awesome Hilter was.
GODWIN!

He's also convinced that all Muslims are terrorists; I wonder where he got that idea.

The last 40-ish years.

 AustonT wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:I'm sure I'd get a Frazzled response if I showed something like this to my Father.

He refuses to leave his conservative bubble, about anything, especially long term reports made by libruhls and reported by the NY Times, a libruhl rag.

Erm duh. Hey go into a synagogue and try to get them to accept how awesome Hilter was.
GODWIN!

He's also convinced that all Muslims are terrorists; I wonder where he got that idea.

The last 40-ish years.

I think getting Jews to accept Hitler as being awesome is a little different than getting a conservative to read a study based on decently reliable data.

So, are you saying you think that all muslims are terrorists as well? Because you know, that's absolutely ridiculous.

You're like a more obnoxious Frazzled, but not nearly as cute with your responses.

Thats because when he laughs his belly doen't shake like a jolly bowl of jelly, and little wiener dog shaped bells twinkle in his beard. Ho Ho Ho.

Enough. Please get back on topic. Thanks.

 daedalus-templarius wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

daedalus-templarius wrote:I'm sure I'd get a Frazzled response if I showed something like this to my Father.

He refuses to leave his conservative bubble, about anything, especially long term reports made by libruhls and reported by the NY Times, a libruhl rag.

Erm duh. Hey go into a synagogue and try to get them to accept how awesome Hilter was.
GODWIN!

I think getting Jews to accept Hitler as being awesome is a little different than getting a conservative to read a study based on decently reliable data.

You're like a more obnoxious Frazzled, but not nearly as cute with your responses.

Yeah, you're browbeating your father with what you have already admitted is politically motivated research, published in a political policy vehicle that is opposed to his basic worldview and I'm obnoxious. You should probably reevaluate your situation.

 daedalus-templarius wrote:

He's also convinced that all Muslims are terrorists; I wonder where he got that idea.

The last 40-ish years.

So, are you saying you think that all muslims are terrorists as well? Because you know, that's absolutely ridiculous.

How deliciously obtuse. I don't believe all Muslims are terrorists anymore than I think that all Jews are terrorists. Why Jews you ask? Because according to the FBI Jewish extremists are responsible for 7% of the terrorism in the US between 1980-2005 edging out Islam by 1%. However I do think the Muslim world has earned its reputation; it's up to the Muslim majority to change that image.

 AustonT wrote:

Yeah, you're browbeating your father with what you have already admitted is politically motivated research, published in a political policy vehicle that is opposed to his basic worldview and I'm obnoxious. You should probably reevaluate your situation.

How deliciously obtuse. I don't believe all Muslims are terrorists anymore than I think that all Jews are terrorists. Why Jews you ask? Because according to the FBI Jewish extremists are responsible for 7% of the terrorism in the US between 1980-2005 edging out Islam by 1%. However I do think the Muslim world has earned its reputation; it's up to the Muslim majority to change that image.

Actually I'm not, because I won't send it to him, because he won't read it.

I think the majority of Muslims are most likely peaceful people who probably just want to be left alone, I think saddling them with 'changing the reputation of Islam, soured by a few bad apples' may be taking it a bit far.

What would they even do to 'change the reputation' other than condemn the actions of the extremists, which they are already doing?

Dang... any room for me in Canada or Australia?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/18/canada-rises-to-top-five-in-world-economic-freedom-ranking-as-u-s-plummets-to-18th/

However I do think the Muslim world has earned its reputation; it's up to the Muslim majority to change that image.

When is the end of time predicted?

 daedalus-templarius wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Yeah, you're browbeating your father with what you have already admitted is politically motivated research, published in a political policy vehicle that is opposed to his basic worldview and I'm obnoxious. You should probably reevaluate your situation.

How deliciously obtuse. I don't believe all Muslims are terrorists anymore than I think that all Jews are terrorists. Why Jews you ask? Because according to the FBI Jewish extremists are responsible for 7% of the terrorism in the US between 1980-2005 edging out Islam by 1%. However I do think the Muslim world has earned its reputation; it's up to the Muslim majority to change that image.

Actually I'm not, because I won't send it to him, because he won't read it.

I think the majority of Muslims are most likely peaceful people who probably just want to be left alone, I think saddling them with 'changing the reputation of Islam, soured by a few bad apples' may be taking it a bit far.

What would they even do to 'change the reputation' other than condemn the actions of the extremists, which they are already doing?

Maybe not rioting, burning buildings, setting off bombs, launching rockets, or hijacking airplanes would be a good start.

 AustonT wrote:

 daedalus-templarius wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Yeah, you're browbeating your father with what you have already admitted is politically motivated research, published in a political policy vehicle that is opposed to his basic worldview and I'm obnoxious. You should probably reevaluate your situation.

How deliciously obtuse. I don't believe all Muslims are terrorists anymore than I think that all Jews are terrorists. Why Jews you ask? Because according to the FBI Jewish extremists are responsible for 7% of the terrorism in the US between 1980-2005 edging out Islam by 1%. However I do think the Muslim world has earned its reputation; it's up to the Muslim majority to change that image.

Actually I'm not, because I won't send it to him, because he won't read it.

I think the majority of Muslims are most likely peaceful people who probably just want to be left alone, I think saddling them with 'changing the reputation of Islam, soured by a few bad apples' may be taking it a bit far.

What would they even do to 'change the reputation' other than condemn the actions of the extremists, which they are already doing?

Maybe not rioting, burning buildings, setting off bombs, launching rockets, or hijacking airplanes would be a good start.

Extremists of any race or creed are capable of these things, and typically do when they are extremists.

whembly wrote:Dang... any room for me in Canada or Australia?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/18/canada-rises-to-top-five-in-world-economic-freedom-ranking-as-u-s-plummets-to-18th/

I knew you'd come crawling over to our single-payer universal health care and socialist safety net.

Now beg for it! BEG, I SAY! Tell me about how pretty and wonderful the socialism is!






...huh. that went to kinda a strange place.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Dang... any room for me in Canada or Australia?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/18/canada-rises-to-top-five-in-world-economic-freedom-ranking-as-u-s-plummets-to-18th/

I knew you'd come crawling over to our single-payer universal health care and socialist safety net.

Now beg for it! BEG, I SAY! Tell me about how pretty and wonderful the socialism is!






...huh. that went to kinda a strange place.

Wait! Canada is a socialist country?

Besides... what's not to like... ice hockey, hot chicks... and a fething strategic reserve of maple syrup! That's all kinds of awesome!

 sourclams wrote:
The entire report focuses on tax rates, but makes no mention of the effective rate (i.e. what "millionaires and billionaires" actually paid after deductions, loopholes).

That honestly puzzles me.

Either the Congressional Research Service feels that there's no difference between the two, which would be a rather eye-opening revelation, or they haven't considered the difference noteworthy.

I would suspect it gets too subjective, honestly what's a tax dodge and what's a genuinely deductible expense that's part of doing business?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its not a economics group. its a bunch of glorified librarians. Whatever.

Now if the University of Chicago came out with a definitive report that could be peer reviewed I'd take notice. These guys, again whatever, but can you tell me where the periodicals are.

Ok. So you reject a non-partisan research office, and happily await a report from an openly partisan group of fringe economists.

That sounds about right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
US economy 1980 - 1988.

And now you're looking at a single point in US history with several well established driving factors outside of tax policy (microcomputer boom, recovery from acute oil shortage...) and at the same dismissing a wider scope survey that accounts for the US economy 1980-88 and the decades before then and since.

This is absurd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
A similar level of recession, plus inflation turned into the strongest rebound since WWII.

Similar level of recession? Who taught you economics? What do you read that tells you this stuff?

That's just not fething true. The recession of 79 is nothing like the GFC. That kind of statement can only be made through absolute, complete ignorance.

Don't you work in banking? How does this gak fly in that place?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sourclams wrote:
Yep, ultimately that's the lie getting told everybody by both parties.

On the one hand, you have Paul Ryan charging at the fiscal cliff, preparing to smite it with a weapon that makes even bigger fiscal cliffs, while on the other hand you have entitlements that are burdensomely huge, and projected to grow to ridiculously and impossibly enormous if we stay the course.

Everybody is going to have to give up tax breaks, and many are going to have to give up entitlements--it will either happen voluntarily, or forcibly when we simply run out of money (or TAXMAGEDDON 2013).

Maybe. Or people will make a lot of noise, but no timely action will ever happen, because ultimately most people will choose to delay action another year than compromise today. It's no different to climate change, really.

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:Dang... any room for me in Canada or Australia?
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/18/canada-rises-to-top-five-in-world-economic-freedom-ranking-as-u-s-plummets-to-18th/

I knew you'd come crawling over to our single-payer universal health care and socialist safety net.

Now beg for it! BEG, I SAY! Tell me about how pretty and wonderful the socialism is!






...huh. that went to kinda a strange place.

Wait! Canada is a socialist country?

Besides... what's not to like... ice hockey, hot chicks... and a fething strategic reserve of maple syrup! That's all kinds of awesome!

We have numerous socialist policies: Employment Insurance, universal health care, old age pensions, massive tax breaks for education, etc, all organized by the federal government.

Wo Wo Wo you just called the University of Chicago a fringe group of economists?

Methinks you be illin.

EDIT: Lookie lookie Sebster is as wrong as rain on your wedding day

#8 in the world (I'd say #7 Berkeley is overrated for well everything):
http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011/subject-rankings/social-sciences/economics

#2 on this list:
http://www.economics.utoronto.ca/index.php/index/index/ranking

#1 on this list:
http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/economics-rankings

 AustonT wrote:
Yeah, you're browbeating your father with what you have already admitted is politically motivated research, published in a political policy vehicle that is opposed to his basic worldview and I'm obnoxious.

So now the non-partisan Congressional Research Service is political...


Oh look, the right wing is rejecting anything that threatens their little bubble as politically motivated again.

You can be non-partisan but be political. Like social welfare organizations are supposed to be.

 sebster wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Yeah, you're browbeating your father with what you have already admitted is politically motivated research, published in a political policy vehicle that is opposed to his basic worldview and I'm obnoxious.

So now the non-partisan Congressional Research Service is political...


Oh look, the right wing is rejecting anything that threatens their little bubble as politically motivated again.

You might want to pull the string on that sweater a little further.

 azazel the cat wrote:

We have numerous socialist policies: Employment Insurance, universal health care, old age pensions, massive tax breaks for education, etc, all organized by the federal government.

Socialism is an economic policy. What you have done is, ironically, used the US term meaning "anything done by the federal government".

Governments buying up troubled businesses is socialistic. Best example is the US government buying General Motors to prevent the complete collapse the the US automobile industry.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its not a economics group. its a bunch of glorified librarians. Whatever.

Now if the University of Chicago came out with a definitive report that could be peer reviewed I'd take notice. These guys, again whatever, but can you tell me where the periodicals are.

I can tell you where the periodicals are, and that essentially anyone in an academic field is what you would call a "glorified librarian" in that their jobs center on doing research. And that librarians don't generally do research at all.

ninety one percent%

 Mannahnin wrote:
You can be non-partisan but be political. Like social welfare organizations are supposed to be.

Very true.

Testify wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

We have numerous socialist policies: Employment Insurance, universal health care, old age pensions, massive tax breaks for education, etc, all organized by the federal government.

Socialism is an economic policy. What you have done is, ironically, used the US term meaning "anything done by the federal government".

I'm using the term loosely to refer to any system that operates under the general premise of "from each according to means to each according to needs". In this case, all those employed pay into employment insurance, and those unemployed withdraw from it. Each person pays taxes into health care so that anyone in need may use that service. And everyone pays into a pension plan so that those who cannot work may withdraw from it.

"Socialism" is an economic status.
"Socialist policies" are policies which are inspired by socialism.

Just to be clear.

 Frazzled wrote:
Wo Wo Wo you just called the University of Chicago a fringe group of economists?

I'm calling the Chicago School a fringe group.

I somehow doubt very much you're waiting on a report issued by the particular institution in Chicago that teaches economics, and instead are waiting on something from the Chicago School, that group of economists known for their extreme neo-classical views.

sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Wo Wo Wo you just called the University of Chicago a fringe group of economists?

I'm calling the Chicago School a fringe group.

I somehow doubt very much you're waiting on a report issued by the particular institution in Chicago that teaches economics, and instead are waiting on something from the Chicago School, that group of economists known for their extreme neo-classical views.

Uh... didn't the chicago school stop being relevant in the 1950s?

 azazel the cat wrote:
Uh... didn't the chicago school stop being relevant in the 1950s?

You're aware of the Republican Party, right? But it's not just them. Neoliberalism is a cancer that has spread throughout the entire social body.

Manchu wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
Uh... didn't the chicago school stop being relevant in the 1950s?

You're aware of the Republican Party, right? But it's not just them. Neoliberalism is a cancer that has spread throughout the entire social body.

What? Seriously?

Just to be sure here, when we say "Chicago School", we are both talking about the concentric zone model, right?

Sebster, don't open your mail. Rahm Emmanual said he's sending you a "package." You don't have any favorite horses do you? Why am I asking? No reason...

 Mannahnin wrote:
You can be non-partisan but be political. Like social welfare organizations are supposed to be.

Sure, but you can't just claim it and look the other way whenever you see research that you don't like.

 azazel the cat wrote:
What? Seriously?

Just to be sure here, when we say "Chicago School", we are both talking about the concentric zone model, right?

Nah, we're talking about a group of economists that rose up in the 1970s and gained prominence by rejecting classical keynesian economics and favouring policies built around monetarism and neo-liberalism. They had some noted early successes in developing the concept of rational expectations and pointing out flaws with existing keynesian models of the time, but have since rather badly failed to address the problems in their own models or correlate their models with economic performance. In particular the group has taken on a largely political, non-intellectual bent in dismissing New Keynesian models despite being unable to manage any meaningful criticisms of its concepts.

There's a pretty fair claim that the mishaps in the US economy from the late 80s up to and including the GFC are pretty directly the result of Chicago school concepts turned into policy - easy credit to fuel investment has instead just produced a series of speculative bubbles rather than sustained growth based on productivity improvements. Outside of the US the group is barely even considered (outside a brief but disastrous period in which they held control of IMF policy). Inside of the US the group is increasingly on the fringe of academic debate, but unfortunately many of their ideas still hold currency in political circles, particularly in the Republican party.

Milton Friedman is their most famous champion. Fraz comes in a close second, and will probably become their most treasured member once he figures out the Chicago School is called that because many of its most prominent members come from Chicago, not because it is literally a school in Chigaco.

 Frazzled wrote:
Sebster, don't open your mail. Rahm Emmanual said he's sending you a "package." You don't have any favorite horses do you? Why am I asking? No reason...

Meanwhile, do you think the Freshwater School and the Saltwater School are all crocodiles? That the neo-classicals are all greek statues?