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.
2013/01/14 07:15:48
Subject: Re:States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
For feth's sake, it's a text based medium. So, yes, you did claim that. You wrote these exact words;
"We today are very dumbed down compared to back then."
And when you made that claim you were simply wrong.
People back in the 1800s were not less intelligent than people around today. They were quite intelligent.
If you compared average IQ scores just 100 years ago to today, you'd find scores were as much as 25 points lower than today. That makes them, by modern standards, developmentally slowed.
Now, obviously our great great grandparents weren't developmentally slowed, it's just that an IQ test measures your ability, among other things in abstract thought and some other skills that simply weren't as developed through the education system as much as they are today.
But all that's just an aside to your frankly ludicrous claim that because we have modern devices we're not as smart as in days of yore.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/01/14 07:39:40
Subject: Re:States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
Grey Templar wrote: its the ability to rationally think through a problem that makes you smarter. These people's situations would have by a matter of forcing them to think more made them smart. Its all the hard work of previous generations that creates what we have now. If anything that only logically makes people today use their brains less, because they can simply use what has been learned before. Sure they can now go farther, but more people won't do that. There are smart people around today, but the Geneticists and Doctors of today are not more intelligent than the Farmers and Doctors of the 19th century. The people that lay the foundation of a science are probably the smartest people that ever go into that field of study, they started with nothing after all.
But that's not really how education, learning and becoming smarter works. The more a person learns, the more capable he is to form intelligent, rational thoughts. And the more capable he is to learn even more. Learning is, itself, a skill. I mean, take a highschool kid, even a smart one, and put him next to a guy doing a phd, and ask them to research and prepare a summary of some obscure subject. The skills acquired by the phd student will allow him to produce a better report much faster.
Today, where we learn so much more, and we learn it all through teaching and learning methods that are frankly much better than previously, means what you're saying above just doesn't work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: We need to teach our kids some more useful things. Like how to handle money, responsibility, or home economics. These need to have more of a focus.
While I agree that more practical home skills (especially household budgeting and home economics would be great) it's a bit of a laugh to think they used to have that stuff down pat in days of yore. You think historical household budgeting was in any way better than it is today? You honestly trying to claim there weren't just as many idiots drinking away their weekly wage and running out of cash?
One thing I can say for certain. We don't value an education nearly as much as we once did.
That's just not even slightly true. There is an ugly strain of anti-intellectualism... but there always has been. You honestly gonna claim people 100 or 200 years ago were walking about saying 'well I have some thoughts on the matter but I'm just a yokel who has properly read anything, I think we should wait for someone of learning to inform us on this issue before before we act hastily'. We've always been ignorant jackholes.
I think you're confusing the decline in respect for authority (which is a mixed blessing) with respect for education. People didn't shut up and sit straight because they valued learning. They shut up and sit straight because the teacher was an authority.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/14 07:51:20
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/01/14 13:49:58
Subject: States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
If the Feds somehow allowed State's to pass laws that trumped the National Governments ability to enforce National laws, would we still have a "United States" or are we back to something closer to the Articles of Confederation?
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2013/01/14 16:38:49
Subject: Re:States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
For feth's sake, it's a text based medium. So, yes, you did claim that. You wrote these exact words;
"We today are very dumbed down compared to back then."
And when you made that claim you were simply wrong.
Dumbed down =/= dumber.
Dumbed down refers to the level of reading which has been "Dumbed Down".
Todays 1st graders read simple sentances and construct simple sentances. Like "See Jane Run" etc.
1st graders back in the 1800s read passages from the Psalms. A massive difference in complexity.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Back on to firearms and the laws inherent apparently in the President's last press conference in this term (today) he swore that if congress wouldn't pass an AWB or lift the debt ceiling he'd do it by executive order.
I personally feel that would end poorly for everyone and everything involved.
Edit: any one actually see the press conference or have confirmation on that?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/14 17:45:13
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
1st graders back in the 1800s read passages from the Psalms. A massive difference in complexity.
Reading complex sentences isn't difficult. I mean, I read Aristotle's Metaphysics when I was 10; I didn't understand it but I read it. I imagine the situation regarding the 1st grade children of yore was similar.
And, lets be honest, the Psalms aren't exactly complicated.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Back on to firearms and the laws inherent apparently in the President's last press conference in this term (today) he swore that if congress wouldn't pass an AWB or lift the debt ceiling he'd do it by executive order.
I personally feel that would end poorly for everyone and everything involved.
Edit: any one actually see the press conference or have confirmation on that?
President Barack Obama on Monday acknowledged that full implementation of his expected gun control proposals may be stonewalled in Congress but pledged to "vigorously pursue" recommendations from an administration task force, including a "meaningful" assault weapons ban.
"What you can count on is that the things that I've said in the past - the belief that we have to have stronger background checks, that we can do a much better job in terms of keeping these magazine clips with high capacity out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, an assault weapons ban that's meaningful - those are things I continue to believe make sense," Obama said during the final press conference of his first term.
"Will all of them get through this Congress? I don't know," he added. "But what's uppermost in my mind is making sure that I'm honest with the American people and with members of Congress about what I think will work."
Obama said that some measures, like the lifting of restrictions on how the federal government can collect data about guns, can be accomplished by executive order, while others will require legislation.
"Members of Congress are going to, I think, have a debate and examine their own conscience because if in fact - and I believe this is true - everybody across party lines was as moved and saddened as I was by what happened in Newtown, then we're going to have to vote based on what we think is best."
The president is expected to review recommendations from the task force led by Vice President Joe Biden today in a private meeting. Obama charged Biden with leading the reform effort after a mass school shooting in Newtown, Conn., left 20 children dead.
"My starting point is not to worry about the politics," Obama said of the expected resistance from gun groups and many in Congress who are skeptical of an assault weapons ban. "My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works. What should we be doing to make sure that our children are safe and that we're reducing the incidence of gun violence? And I think we can do that in a sensible way that comports with the Second Amendment."
Addressing a question about recent spikes in gun sales, Obama blamed pro-gun groups for "ginning up fear" among firearm owners.
"Those of us who look at this problem have repeatedly said that responsible gun owners -- people who have a gun for protection, for hunting, for sportsmanship - they don't have anything to worry about," he said. "The issue here is not whether or not we believe in the Second Amendment. The issue is are there some sensible steps that we can take to make sure that somebody like the individual in Newtown can't walk into a school and gun down a bunch of children in a shockingly rapid fashion."
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2013/01/14 18:07:36
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2013/01/14 18:18:56
Subject: States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
The entire press conference was full of distortions and side-slips away from actual facts.
I loved how Obama was called out on his own voting against raising the debt ceiling as a Senator, and is now holding the Republicans guilty of obstructionism now that they are demanding a dollar for dollar debt increase to spending cut deal.
Bonecrusher 6, out.
2013/01/14 20:05:29
Subject: States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
Having opposed the raising of the debt ceiling to finance a foolish, wasteful foreign war adventure, it obviously is wrong to support the raising of the debt ceiling to support the regeneration of the US economy.
Keynesianism has been proven a dead end time and again. Unfortunately, since I am not an economist, I can not quote numbers for an argument. What I do know is that we spend more than we take in as a nation. We are on the road to ruin because of it. The model that we are currently using suposedly bears a very close similarity to Keynesianism.
We are deeper in debt every single second of every single day. It is patently obvious that the method does not work.
As a nation, we must address our own spending. It must be cut drastically. However, in order to do that, the country must again become business friendly, so that more people can be taken off the dole and become tax-payers. That is the only way that a nation can dig itself out of the cessepool of debt.
Bonecrusher 6, out.
2013/01/14 20:35:17
Subject: States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
At best, the economists are divided on the subject.
Keynesianism by itself doesn't work...
Macro-economic is about all the moving parts that paints a bigger picture.
However, saying Keynesianism has been proven wrong isn't right either...
Best example is during the Reagan years, they also massively cut taxes AND raise Government spending at the same time.
So... now, we're seeing huge government spending... where can you cut taxes? If that can be done (ala, Reagan years), I'd suspect the private industries would come roaring back.
Seb? A little help?
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/01/14 20:51:59
Subject: States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
d-usa wrote: So the government needs to spend more on private industries?
Tax breaks and hand outs are really the same thing.
Let's not get into a Keynesianism debate in this thread... cool? It'll be argued ad nauseum till kingdom come...
Not taking $100 from somebody or giving them $100, either way it costs the government $100. It's not rocket science.
Why does the government need that $100? Not as simple as that.
Edit: Further point if you want to spring board this:
-Keynesian economics is mainly a theory about how to stop an economy from imploding by virtue of government intervention (ie, increased spending)
-Now... Reaganomics (as I alluded to earlier) rejects the "government-knows-best" philosophy (Keynesian-only), by trusting entrepreneurs, competition, and the order-from-chaos principle. In essence, Reaganomics trusts the bottom-up evolutionary process of selection and adaptation, fostered by competition among suppliers for winning the consumers' loyalties. Under Reaganomics, government provides the basics: defense, justice, education, infrastructure, and a stable currency. Private sector workers, entrepreneurs, managers, and businesses provide the growing prosperity.
To wrap all this up... what does this divergence of this has to do with the OP anyways?
Did I miss something?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/14 21:37:57
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/01/14 21:34:42
Subject: States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
My argument is that tax-cutting your way out of an economic crisis is the same as spending your way out of an economic crisis. You can't argue that one will work and one will not when they are essentially the same.
2013/01/14 21:48:17
Subject: States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
d-usa wrote: My argument is that tax-cutting your way out of an economic crisis is the same as spending your way out of an economic crisis. You can't argue that one will work and one will not when they are essentially the same.
In a vacuum, yes.. either or is problematic. That wasn't my point.... you sorta need both.
Government intervention + taxcuts (or some activity to encourage private investments). It's gotta be a mixture...
The issue here is that while Government intervention is sorta easy... but, it needs to coincide policies that encourages investments in private market.... that's the challenge.
But, don't look at your politicians for guidance... to them, it's political.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/14 21:49:20
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/01/15 03:33:05
Subject: Re:States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
Dumbed down refers to the level of reading which has been "Dumbed Down".
Todays 1st graders read simple sentances and construct simple sentances. Like "See Jane Run" etc.
1st graders back in the 1800s read passages from the Psalms. A massive difference in complexity.
They performed group reading, and in doing so learnt by rote. This is much the same as learning to chant the times table, and not being given the tools to understand why the times table works as it does.
They rarely gained a real appreciation of the complexity of the text, and certainly no training in how to put their own thoughts into similarly complex terms.
Simply put, if you had transported the internet to 1800, there would have been very few people capable of joining forums like this one and beginning a text based debate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bonecrusher 6 wrote: How is putting us deeper in debt going to help repair the economy? You can not spend more than you have and get out of debt. It can not be done.
You do not get to simply make up economic claims. What we know about economics, what we know about aggregate demand actually fething matters.
And so yes, when you have depressed demand you run deficits. You maintain economic systems with greater government spending, and thereby prevent a downward spiral in economic activity. That's just how it is, and that's something we've known for generations.
Debt is a problem, it is a long term problem. To be fixed with long term structural reforms. Not with grandstanding nonsense that plays on economic ignorance.
No, it hasn't. That's a simply ludicrous, laughable claim.
What I do know is that we spend more than we take in as a nation. We are on the road to ruin because of it. The model that we are currently using suposedly bears a very close similarity to Keynesianism.
Yes, you are spending more than you bring in. That has sweet feth all to do with Keynesianism, and if you had any economics background you would know that. Keynes doesn't argue for deficits year after year. He says you should run deficits when the economy is down, and run surpluses when the economy is good.
Now, given you don't seem to have much of a grasp on the whole idea of Keynes, and have fallen for some economic snake oil salesman or another, I'll give you a brief run down on the whole Keynes thing. At the centre of Keynesian economics was a debate between two schools, one led by Keynes and the other by a fellow called Hayek. Hayek was a strong believer in the old school of classical economics, that everything moved to equilibrium and the important thing for government was just to not screw that up. One of those equilibrium points Hayek believed in most strongly was the idea that every dollar that is earned is spent, otherwise what is the point of that dollar? You earn it, and you spend it, or put it in a bank whereupon the bank lends it someone else to spend. Good simple sense which meant that the economy was always at a constant full capacity.
But Keynes said that a dollar is not just a thing to be spent, but also a store of value. That means a person facing bad times will be encouraged to keep more of his dollars, and therefore an entire economy facing bad times will do the same en masse. Keynes pointed out that in such circumstances there won't be anyone to borrow those funds from the bank - who invests in new businesses when the existing capacity isn't be used because no-one is buying? As such, economic activity can go up and down.
It was a fair argument between two very smart men and their very smart followers. But there was an answer, and the answer lies in this;
Econometrics developed. This meant we now had the ability to put real world numbers to economic theories. It meant we could actually figure out what the GDP (the total economic output in a given year) was and see that it went up and that it went down in business cycles exactly as Keynes had predicted. Keynes was right and Hayek was wrong. They named a town after Keynes, while Hayek died with almost his entire school having left him for Keynesianism (though he was later to be revived by the Austrian school when they used him to prop up their own bs).
There is a twist in the tail, as econometrics improved even more, and eventually came to return to classical economics, as we could now use real world figures to study and refine our classical models. This was called neo-classicalism, and it came to be used as a possible alternative to Keynesian policy. Not that one is wrong and the other is right, more that each can be used to solve different problems of different severity, in the same way that eating well and exercise is the correct answer for some health issues, while for others you need surgery.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: At best, the economists are divided on the subject.
They're divided on the complex specifics of it, but on the basics, among properly credentialled economists there is no real debate on the basics of . A recent paper by some guys called Gordon and Dahl polled the six top economists at the seven best schools, and found almost universal consensus on the big issues of economics (including the question of whether deficits give stimulus to an economy).
The issue comes when economic theory hits politics.
Macro-economic is about all the moving parts that paints a bigger picture.
However, saying Keynesianism has been proven wrong isn't right either...
Best example is during the Reagan years, they also massively cut taxes AND raise Government spending at the same time.
So... now, we're seeing huge government spending... where can you cut taxes? If that can be done (ala, Reagan years), I'd suspect the private industries would come roaring back.
Keynesianism isn't just about spending. Cutting taxes can be just as important - what matter is pumping money into the economy. Hey, you can just cut everyone a check and mail it to them (that actually happened, more or less, in a bunch of places after the GFC).
Now, that said, a series of studies have looked at which types of stimulus give you the best bang for your buck, and tax cuts do the worst. Because in poor economic times people are more likely to save that bonus money as spent it, and on top of that tax cuts tend to be weighted towards the wealthy, who are even less inclined to spend the money that just came in. On the other hand, infrastructure spending means new jobs, and new money into supplier businesses, so all that money is almost all spend again in the economy, and spent fairly quickly. Military spending works fairly well for the same reasons (provided it isn't spent on bases overseas).
All up, you get about $1.50 in stimulus for each $1.00 of tax cuts, but you get about $3.50 in stimulus for every dollar on infrastructure spending.
But the complicating factor in that is that you can't go into recession on Monday and start building a new bridge on Tuesday. That shovel ready gaff the Obama admin made is a real problem, these days infrastructure plans are months, and sometimes years in the planning. That's a problem when you need stimulus now, not in a year's time. As a result the best approach is a mixed approach, and that's even more so when you add in politics (the debt of a stimulus bill is much easier to sell when people see some money, even a very small amount, in their own hands).
With regards to Reagan, what you had there was, as you said a double barrel approach, tax cuts and increased spending. That led, as it must, to increased aggregate demand and an increasing speed to the recovery. But there were two other factors in the Reagan economy - the reasons for the decline were acute but quickly disappeared (the oil shock etc). By the time Reagan took office the recovery was already underway. Whereas now the problems of the GFC are still largely with us - financial institutions are still heavily in debt, housing is still depressed, and the instability of several sovereign states continues to undermine confidence.
The other reason for the strength of the Reagan recovery was that there was a major new industry there in the making - the microcomputer. You had every business looking to invest and grow their productivity, and you had tremendous new wealth being created out of Silicon Valley. Jobs created through that industry meant more people spending their pay cheques, dragging every other industry along with it. Today there is no such new industry, the internet is effectively replacing old forms of business, and green energy and other possible new fields are still fairly stagnant.
Seb? A little help?
Was that much help?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Why does the government need that $100? Not as simple as that.
Edit: Further point if you want to spring board this:
-Keynesian economics is mainly a theory about how to stop an economy from imploding by virtue of government intervention (ie, increased spending)
It's more than it. It basically says that there is a thing called the business cycle, and economy will move through period of sustained growth and then periods of flat growth or even into decline (as I said above, this is the Keynes Hayek debate that saw Keynes win so hard they named a town after him, while everyone forgot about Hayek). Keynes goes on to say that heightened growth and decline is bad for the overall rate of long term growth as it is wasteful (a business might set up selling overpriced fur coats in the midst of the boom, only to shut down and see all the investment in inventory and fixtures and fittings wasted, while another business that has a solid basis might feel the pinch during a recession and go bankrupt, leading to all the waste of a liquidation, only for another company to have to invest in new plant and equipment to fill the gap in better economic conditions).
Keynesian economics makes the fairly common sense conclusion that therefore it is best to attempt to stabilise the economy - draw money out of the economy when it's growth is overheated, and pump money into the economy when it is depressed.
-Now... Reaganomics (as I alluded to earlier) rejects the "government-knows-best" philosophy (Keynesian-only), by trusting entrepreneurs, competition, and the order-from-chaos principle. In essence, Reaganomics trusts the bottom-up evolutionary process of selection and adaptation, fostered by competition among suppliers for winning the consumers' loyalties. Under Reaganomics, government provides the basics: defense, justice, education, infrastructure, and a stable currency. Private sector workers, entrepreneurs, managers, and businesses provide the growing prosperity.
Sort of, that stuff is the political sell on the top of Reagonomics. Underneath there's two economic theories, the Laffer Curve and the Trickle Down effect. The Laffer Curves states that tax can hurt growth and incomes by so much that you can actually raise more money by lowering taxes. This has been shown to be quite wrong (while it works in theory, no country taxes at anything like that rate of tax, or hasn't since the old 90% days). The Trickle Down effect has been more complex to prove/disprove, and perhaps the final conclusion is that it works a little, over the very long term (the Economist posted a finding that said you get I think it was about 0.1% extra growth from policies that put more money in the hands of the rich - whether that's worth the income inequality is a subjective decision for the reader to make).
The net result of all of that is that the early boom of the 1980s was basically a wasted opportunity for the US. Gifted with a new industry, it could have set up the government coffers for a generation. Instead it put in place a tax and spending structure that meant deficits in good times and bad - and was the first big step in leading to the deficit issues the US has today.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2013/01/15 04:55:30
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/01/15 13:13:56
Subject: Re:States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
Easy E wrote: At best, the economists are divided on the subject.
They're divided on the complex specifics of it, but on the basics, among properly credentialled economists there is no real debate on the basics of .
Yeah, hence why I said "at best" economists are divided on the topic.
I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and listen to what other have to say. In my limited experience you can't tell anyone anything or force them to believe a what you are saying. However, you can lead them to ask questions and gain understanding for themselves.
That includes me!
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
2013/01/15 13:53:22
Subject: Re:States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
