New Campaign Slogan has ties to Socialism/Marxism

[Narcotized]

i wonder if there are economists with as much insight into our field as we seem to have into theirs, who sit around and argue about medical issues through anonymous postings on an online forum!

If they've studied medicine and know what they are talking about I don't have a problem with it. But since most economists seem to have not even learned basic economics I think they should put off picking up medicine as a hobby.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[yappy]

I cannot help but think if a real economist, by trade and education, stopped by this thread their mind would explode. The same way you would if some CNA-wanna-be-CRNA's were arm-chair quarterbacking anesthesia and peri-operative cases lol.

No one knows it all but we can all have an opinion.

If they've studied medicine and know what they are talking about I don't have a problem with it. But since most economists seem to have not even learned basic economics I think they should put off picking up medicine as a hobby.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I cannot help but think if a real economist, by trade and education, stopped by this thread their mind would explode. The same way you would if some CNA-wanna-be-CRNA's were arm-chair quarterbacking anesthesia and peri-operative cases lol.

No one knows it all but we can all have an opinion.

Yes. Stop spending my kid's money! The U.S. Debt is something that involves all of us.

 

[countingdays]

I cannot help but think if a real economist, by trade and education, stopped by this thread their mind would explode. The same way you would if some CNA-wanna-be-CRNA's were arm-chair quarterbacking anesthesia and peri-operative cases lol.

No one knows it all but we can all have an opinion.

Well if they are of the Austrian school they'd probably think, 'those guys don't know it all, but at least they have more common sense than the politicians.'
If they are Keynesians, then they probably think we are not only way off but stupid, despite the complete failure of their school of thought, and they'll just carry on trying to **** my children with their debt koolaid.

 

[leviathan]

I think the problem is people think that socialism = communism. If you don't want a socialist country you should probably stop driving on public roads and never use public services or put your kids into school etc.

Reaching far left to communism and far right to the ultra capitalist system that some want are both bad ideas. There's always a happy middle ground that works the best for economic productivity. That's called socialism. If you want to look to the countries with the happiest and healthiest citizens and the countries with the most educated populations and lowest crime rates, then look at socialist countries like Sweden, Norway etc.

But when you're a rich anesthesiologist, of course I understand you just want to pay the lowest taxes. You don't have to see the kinds of ghettos that America is full when you live in your rich surburban neighborhood. Besides, you got to where you were all on your own without any help from the government, right?

 

[BLADEMDA]

I think the problem is people think that socialism = communism. If you don't want a socialist country you should probably stop driving on public roads and never use public services or put your kids into school etc.

Reaching far left to communism and far right to the ultra capitalist system that some want are both bad ideas. There's always a happy middle ground that works the best for economic productivity. That's called socialism. If you want to look to the countries with the happiest and healthiest citizens and the countries with the most educated populations and lowest crime rates, then look at socialist countries like Sweden, Norway etc.

But when you're a rich anesthesiologist, of course I understand you just want to pay the lowest taxes. You don't have to see the kinds of ghettos that America is full when you live in your rich surburban neighborhood. Besides, you got to where you were all on your own without any help from the government, right?

You are missing the point; Socialism has extremes like anytthing else. The question is do you want a nation built on what made the USA great (independence, respect of individual rights, small govt) or do you want France? If you want France then by all means vote Obama. If you prefer smaller govt, lower taxes, less federal interference, less regulation, etc,.then vote Romney.

As for Ultra capitalism that died a long time ago. Now, we can choose between mild Social Democracy and Extreme Social Democracy. The U.S. can never be Sweden or Norway because our defense spending is too great and our current entitlements too large for us to create more entitlements.


As for educated populations we simply need to redirect how we spend our money on education and not how much we spend:

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://javascript<b></b>:void(0)






http://javascript<b></b>:void(0);

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

Bigger government with more spending isn't the solution because it is the problem.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

But G.D.P. per capita (an insufficient indicator, but one most economists use) in the U.S. is nearly 50 percent higher than it is in Europe. Even Europe's best-performing large country, Germany, is about 20 percent poorer than the U.S. on a per-person basis (and both countries have roughly 15 percent of their populations living below the poverty line). While Norway and Sweden are richer than the U.S., on average, they are more comparable to wealthy American microeconomies like Washington, D.C., or parts of Connecticut &#8212; both of which are actually considerably wealthier. A reporter in Greece once complained after I compared her country to Mississippi, America's poorest state. She's right: the comparison isn't fair. The average Mississippian is richer than the average Greek.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/m...son-europe-is-going-broke.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Narcotized]

I cannot help but think if a real economist, by trade and education, stopped by this thread their mind would explode.

Where did your "real" economists get their unbiased education to make them your appointed experts? Certainly not here because American academia is overwhelmingly liberal. For example, "The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative." Having had as much education as the typical "real" economist, whatever the hell that is, I know this first hand. You aren't taught economics as much as are taught some fairy tale agenda version of it. You're either smart enough to seperate true economics from the agenda version, or more commonly, you become a parrotting sheep following the herd.

 

[BLADEMDA]

High earners say au revoir to France


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/globalbusiness/9261905/High-earners-say-au-revoir-to-France.html

 

[pgg]

i wonder if there are economists with as much insight into our field as we seem to have into theirs, who sit around and argue about medical issues through anonymous postings on an online forum!

Could be.

However. That comparison breaks down a little bit. We live in world where medical science in general, and anesthesia in particular, have made stupendous progress. Measurable, provable improvements to the quality of care. Meanwhile, the economists as a group have failed to predict, manage, or resolve any of the disastrous problems that have afflicted our economy and the global economy in the last couple decades. It's been one bubble and catastrophic screwup after another.

Maybe in a bizarre parallel universe, where governments weren't borrowing money to get out of debt, while patients were dying under anesthesia at a rate of 1 in 4, the above criticism of our idle armchair quarterbacking would be easier to take seriously.


Taking a step back and looking at the big picture, between economists and anesthesiologists, one group is measurably competent at their chosen profession, and the other a provably incompetent gaggle of colossal screwups.

 

[yappy]

I think it's a whole lot less subjective and political than you're making it out to be. Linear algebra, computer modeling, statistics, etc. are not bent on political views.

Where did your "real" economists get their unbiased education to make them your appointed experts? Certainly not here because American academia is overwhelmingly liberal. For example, "The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative." Having had as much education as the typical "real" economist, whatever the hell that is, I know this first hand. You aren't taught economics as much as are taught some fairy tale agenda version of it. You're either smart enough to seperate true economics from the agenda version, or more commonly, you become a parrotting sheep following the herd.

 

[deleted103644]

I think it's a whole lot less subjective and political than you're making it out to be. Linear algebra, computer modeling, statistics, etc. are not bent on political views.

Sadly, economics is rather political. There are many ways to set the models, so math alone is not the answer (although it can be used to discover interesting consequences of a theory).

It's easy for failed ideas to stay popular just because there is so much money involved, plenty to finance think tanks and institutions dedicated to ideas that may not have any merit (but are politically useful).

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[deleted103644]

These words will rarely come out of my mouth, but... I am in totally agreement with JohnnyD.

Haha, you're not going to like this, but it's also a reason I like Krugman. He had some sketchy ties in the past (had paid gigs from people like Enron), but is now almost completely independent (just angry).

He doesn't really have a financial stake in the game and is too blunt to get any political positions in a Democratic let alone Republican administration (so doesn't have to play nice).

 

[Perrotfish]

Could be.

However. That comparison breaks down a little bit. We live in world where medical science in general, and anesthesia in particular, have made stupendous progress. Measurable, provable improvements to the quality of care. Meanwhile, the economists as a group have failed to predict, manage, or resolve any of the disastrous problems that have afflicted our economy and the global economy in the last couple decades. It's been one bubble and catastrophic screwup after another.

I disagree with this. Through the 1950s a year to year swing of up to 15% of real GDP was common. Since then, even in our most severe recessions, we have generally confined our economy to swings of less than 5% in annual GDP. Until the 1970s our currency system was a draconian system of international treaties backed by precious metals, which often resulted in fantastic currency bubbles and collapses in the first world, not to mention huge trade gaps as countries deliberately undervalued their currencies. Since 1971 we have had a stable currency system floated against other currencies which adjust in value organically, and which are backed by nothing but the integrity of the nations which issue them. That system has created one of the most stable currency market in years. Economics is advancing just like medicine is, and we are seeing stability in sectors of the economy that we never believed possible. As for bubbles, a true, natural economic bubble, that wasn't made by a government policy, hasn't happened in two generations. We are very effective at deflating them before they become dangerous. Economics is advancing, and economists are getting very good at regulating the economy through monetary policy.

The only thing that economists have failed to control are the things that are out of their control, because they're dictated by federal policy rather than by market forces. There is absolutely nothing the fed can do right now about healthcare, education, or home loans because those fields have all been taken out of the free market and are instead priced based on the insane, budgetless world of the elected federal government. There are no economists recommending our trillion dollar deficits, our multiple systems of uncapped healthcare coverage, or the complete lack of underwriting in the student loan industry. The bubbles come from there because the federal government creates them by ham handedly trying to stimulate those sectors of the economy, and the deficits happen because they refuse to pay for the things they buy.

The problem isn't that economics doesn't have the answers, its that our government (and most of our people) don't want to listen to them.

 

[Perrotfish]

You are missing the point; Socialism has extremes like anytthing else. The question is do you want a nation built on what made the USA great (independence, respect of individual rights, small govt) or do you want France? If you want France then by all means vote Obama. If you prefer smaller govt, lower taxes, less federal interference, less regulation, etc,.then vote Romney.

The only thing Romney has ever shown any commitment to deregulating is the stock market.

 

[deleted103644]

I disagree with this. Through the 1950s a year to year swing of up to 15% of real GDP was common. Since then, even in our most severe recessions, we have generally confined our economy to swings of less than 5% in annual GDP. Until the 1970s our currency system was a draconian system of international treaties backed by precious metals, which often resulted in fantastic currency bubbles and collapses in the first world, not to mention huge trade gaps as countries deliberately undervalued their currencies. Since 1971 we have had a stable currency system floated against other currencies which adjust in value organically, and which are backed by nothing but the integrity of the nations which issue them. That system has created one of the most stable currency market in years. Economics is advancing just like medicine is, and we are seeing stability in sectors of the economy that we never believed possible. As for bubbles, a true, natural economic bubble, that wasn't made by a government policy, hasn't happened in two generations. We are very effective at deflating them before they become dangerous. Economics is advancing, and economists are getting very good at regulating the economy through monetary policy.

The only thing that economists have failed to control are the things that are out of their control, because they're dictated by federal policy rather than by market forces. There is absolutely nothing the fed can do right now about healthcare, education, or home loans because those fields have all been taken out of the free market and are instead priced based on the insane, budgetless world of the elected federal government. There are no economists recommending our trillion dollar deficits, our multiple systems of uncapped healthcare coverage, or the complete lack of underwriting in the student loan industry. The bubbles come from there because the federal government creates them by ham handedly trying to stimulate those sectors of the economy. The economists universally predicted that those bubbles would form, we just didn't respond and let the whole thing collapse anyway.

The problem isn't that economics doesn't have the answers, its that our government (and most of our people) don't want to listen to them.

While the federal government facilitated some of those bubbles, you're fooling yourself if you think it was the sole cause.

Bubbles were actually more common before the Fed, etc. The policies enacted under FDR gave us relative stability for several decades. (Not a US example, but one of the most famous bubbles of the 19th century was Dutch tulip mania - no government interference needed, just madness of crowds.)

The problem started when we forgot the lessons of the Great Depression and began to ease the restrictions on banks from Glass Steagall. Normal banks became tied up in junk, and a huge shadow banking ecosystem developed.

The only way a true free market scenario could work would be the abolishment of FDIC insurance along with the regulations, but that would make the world a much riskier place.

Banks became too interesting in the 80's and 90's, we need them to become boring again.

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Perrotfish]

Bubbles were actually more common before the Fed, etc. The policies enacted under FDR gave us relative stability for several decades. (Not a US example, but one of the most famous bubbles of the 19th century was Dutch tulip mania - no government interference needed, just madness of crowds.

That's kind of my point. The Fed has done an excellent job of deflating the 'natural' bubbles of our economy but is helpless to deflate the artificial bubbles formed by federal policy.

I agree that our banking and investment system needs a return to old fashioned regulation

 

[Narcotized]

.

 

[Perrotfish]

And has done wonders to help inflate bubbles with lots of cheap easy money.

I don't agree, at least not entirely. I don't think making money more expensive would have deflated the housing, student loan, or healthcare bubbles. Nothing in monetary policy could have done that. The bubbles are backed by federal spending. Cheap money is the correct solution for growing the economies. The fact that artificially created bubbles grow at a rate commiserate with that economic growth does not justify deliberately stagnating the economy just to slow the process of spiraling prices.

The only correct solution is to get rid of the problem, which is the federal spending backing the bubble.

 

[deleted103644]

Johnny brings up FDIC which is a great example of how government protection of everything bad often has horrendous consequences. No one gives a crap what a bank does with their money because they know the government will bail them out. Between FDIC and the bank bailouts themselves, no punishment can be inflicted to help motivate a different course of events next time.

Getting rid of FDIC would bring us back to the days of bank runs etc. The truth is that the majority of people are stupid, and beyond that, crowds of even intelligent people can behave in a stupid fashion.

While I agree with the anti-government types that government is not capable of engaging in nimble, intricate regulation of markets, it is possible to steady them with a few straightforward regulations.

Markets will eventually come up with the solution, but there's no guarantee they will do it quickly or gently. This was Keynes' point when he said, "In the long run, we are all dead."

In other words, if the only thing economics is good for is to tell us things will eventually get better, then the entire field is worthless.

Do you guys really want to live in a world where some idiot on TV could instigate a bank run that left you without any savings?

FDIC + simple, strict regulations worked. Let's just go back to that.

 

[yappy]

Class action lawsuit against Glenn Beck

Do you guys really want to live in a world where some idiot on TV could instigate a bank run that left you without any savings?

FDIC + simple, strict regulations worked. Let's just go back to that.

 

[asmith1121]

I, for one, fully expect someone by the end of this thread to be persuaded that the ideas they entered it with were incorrect, and that they should embrace the opposite viewpoint. Happens all the time in political arguments on the internet.

So funny

 

[deleted103644]

So funny

I think we have firmly established that no one should ever again use the word "f*rward" or else be declared a traitor to the realm and banished/beheaded.

With that resolved, let's close the thread...

 

[yappy]

Johnny,

I just wanted to point out some lit for you:

Effects of perinatal exposure to bisphenol A on play behavior of female and male juvenile rats.

Francesco Dessì-Fulgheri, Stefania Porrini, and Francesca Farabollini

In particular we observed a masculinization of female behavior in two behavioral categories (play with females and sociosexual exploration), an effect probably mediated by the estrogenic activity of BPA in the CNS. These long-lasting effects of BPA could have important consequences at individual and population levels.

Hmm....

Haha, I understand the religious argument, but yours is just silly.

Blaming homosexuality on BPA? That's a unique mix of liberal and conservative hogwash. You also clearly lack a serious understanding of genetics.

 

[deleted103644]

Meh, repost that in the appropriate thread. This one has been derailed enough and should be left to die.

 

[doctor712]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...l-on-sodomy-is-not-a-civil-right-comment?lite

Here's a great example of right wing nut jobs not wanting to APPOINT a judge to the bench...why...because he is Gay of course.

D712

n.b. on a lighter note than sodomy, I am now a "published online before print" co-author of my first article in A&A - YESSSSSSS!!!!

 

[doctor712]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...-to-same-sex-couples-is-unconstitutional?lite

D712

 

[Gern Blansten]

I am now a "published online before print" co-author of my first article in A&A - YESSSSSSS!!!!

Congrats!

 

[doctor712]

Thanks, Gern!

D712

 

[pgg]

n.b. on a lighter note than sodomy, I am now a "published online before print" co-author of my first article in A&A - YESSSSSSS!!!!

Good job, that's impressive.

 

[hoyden]

Originally Posted by johnnydrama View Post
Haha, I understand the religious argument, but yours is just silly.

Blaming homosexuality on BPA? That's a unique mix of liberal and conservative hogwash. You also clearly lack a serious understanding of genetics.

please, enlighten us what particular gene or their group determines a person's sexuality?

 

[deleted103644]

please, enlighten us what particular gene or their group determines a person's sexuality?

That was not the point I was making. Reread the posts.

 

[yappy]

I still dont get why you questioned my understanding of genetics. I think it's pretty solid. This is like water under the bridge now; however, I feel like the comment was a little uncalled for.

That was not the point I was making. Reread the posts.

 

[deleted103644]

I still dont get why you questioned my understanding of genetics. I think it's pretty solid. This is like water under the bridge now; however, I feel like the comment was a little uncalled for.

You were treating it as either simple genetic inheritance or purely a choice and suggested that it would be bred out within a few generations.

And even if it were due to a single gene, there are many scenarios where it could still provide an evolutionary advantage.

As you said though, old news and no point in continuing the argument.

Still think your BPA homosexuality idea for research is silly, even if you do get it published.

 

[doctor712]

Good job, that's impressive.

Thanks, I just checked today to see if I was in the new issue, but I guess I'll have to wait another month...or four. It's getting framed though.

 

[doctor712]

When will it end? Pastor says all homosexuals should be put to death...

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/us/2012/05/31/start-ks-pastor-homosexuality-comments.cnn

D712

 

[BLADEMDA]

When will it end? Pastor says all homosexuals should be put to death...

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/us/2012/05/31/start-ks-pastor-homosexuality-comments.cnn

D712

The pastor is a fool. Love the sinner but hate the sin. The point being we are all sinners in this world. There is not one of us who is righteous before God. Please look at these quotes (dozens more avail):

1 John 4:20

If anyone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.

John 13:34-35

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

Romans 12:10

Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.

Luke 6:31

And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.


1 John 4:7-10

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

1 Peter 4:8

Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.


Galatians 5:13

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.


John 15:13

Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.


John 14:15

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments.


1 John 4:11

Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.


1 John 3:18

Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth.

 

[vector2]

The pastor is a fool. Love the sinner but hate the sin.

Sorry dude, but stigmatizing, otherizing, or "hating" someone else's consensual, private behavior just because your book of choice says to do so is no less bigoted. You can say you love your brother all you want, but I suspect you'd still be voting 'no' on any proposition creating equal civil rights for gays.

 

[deleted103644]

Why don't we focus on the real sinners - people working on Sunday?

 

[BLADEMDA]

Sorry dude, but stigmatizing, otherizing, or "hating" someone else's consensual, private behavior just because your book of choice says to do so is no less bigoted. You can say you love your brother all you want, but I suspect you'd still be voting 'no' on any proposition creating equal civil rights for gays.

They already have equal rights. We simply disagree on marriage as a right

 

[deleted103644]

They already have equal rights. We simply disagree on marriage as a right

What about tax status, visitation rights, and adoption?

Personally I think the government should just give everyone civil unions and leave marriage to the various religions/secular groups, but right now many gay couples do not have equal rights under the law at all.

 

[BLADEMDA]

What about tax status, visitation rights, and adoption?

Personally I think the government should just give everyone civil unions and leave marriage to the various religions/secular groups, but right now many gay couples do not have equal rights under the law at all.

I see. Yes, gay couples lack the same treatment as married coupes. But, as individuals they have the same rights as any other single man or woman.

 

[vector2]

They already have equal rights. We simply disagree on marriage as a right

Yes, we disagree exactly because of religious bigotry. It's funny how those with libertarian slants seem to only invoke libertarianism only in the name of economic issues, but yet stand rife with hypocrisy when it comes to issues of freedom they find subjectively immoral or yucky.