Are they freer than we are?
These countries with a “well regulated free market”? Do they also have feminist humor and military intelligence?
Will you quit being so coy? You’ve spent 50 or so posts dancing around whatever it is you’re talking about and it’s really irritating. Just tell us!
It’s not really a secret; in the 1870s the United States went through a depression that lasted for 65 months, about 50% longer than the Great Depression. Unsurprisingly, it was called the “Long Depression”.
That’s “free” for varying definitions of freedom. Get with the program, dude. This is a thread where zero can equal 17%.
Personally, I wouldn’t argue economics with someone who has called himself EVIL ECONOMIST since 2009. Nor would I discuss cow pies with EVIL COW PIE.
Is there a way to get a PM when some n00b arrives posting gibberish? I hate being late to these threads. I miss chicken strips on the barbie historical atrocity reenactment guy, and crappy UFO models in the bushes guy.
Damn straight Cornopean!
WTF is with these child labor laws? The market should be able to exploit this resource. And to compound the indignity, we’re forced to subsidize the education of these little blighters with taxes on our hard earned profits.
And I don’t understand why the practice of company stores and share cropping fell by the wayside. It’s obvious the government is anti-business/anti -liberty.
You’re also right on the money about charity too! My taxes shouldn’t have to contribute to the welfare of everyone here indiscriminately. I should get to pick and choose. Why do I have to help godless heathens who don’t attend my church?
Of the top ten economically free countries, which ones have socialised medicine?
Congratulations, cornopean, this thread is no longer about Debaser. Instead, it’s about some stupid dickbrained freemarketeer with one foot in in bullshit, one foot in fallacies, and zero feet in the deep end that is actual fucking brain cells.
And this works so well for all those involved. Historically, after all, before free market intervention in things like Social Security, these problems were easily solved by individuals, and the number of people who had real issues with this in old age was really low.
Everything I just said was completely wrong. You do realize that social security isn’t lauded as one of the most important and successful programs in the history of the USA for nothing, right? The free market on its own does not fucking work for everyone. People fall through the cracks. Your entire philosophy is based on pathetic oversimplifications and assumptions that just don’t hold up.
Hey, here’s a great idea: why don’t you try living completely relying on the government. Go ahead, see how that works out for you. In the USA, your life will suck.
You’ve never been on welfare, huh? Man, I’ll tell you what, have fun feeding and housing that family of four on under a thousand bucks a month. Doesn’t really work.
Yes. Because it’s bullshit. There is no reason to believe this.
Because the free market is astoundingly bad at taking care of the problem of “too big to fail” banks. Because really, what we need is more of the money we pay in for our futures being given to the people who proceed to gamble with it. You thick fuck. Are you even fucking serious? Do you have selective amnesia of the past 5-10 years or some shit like that?
You’re an idiot.
Hmm, you mean like how unemployment between 1922 and 1929 was very close to unemployment between 1945 and 1975?
No, because even your own fucking graph doesn’t make that claim. What’s more, this is your stupid, facile, brainless philosophy coming into play here, as you take an incredibly multifaceted problem (an economic recession) and boil it down to one component and one component alone! A component which may or may not even have had anything to do with the problem to begin with. You want to know the big difference between the recession of 1921 and the great depression? They were based on completely different problems!
The recession of 1921 was your typical v-shaped “fed squeeze” recession: the fed put a squeeze on the economy to try to bring down inflation, and when inflation went back down, the fed stopped applying pressure and the economy recovered. This is a pretty common (same thing happened in 1981) and very easy to fix. 1921 also had the benefit of extremely low private debt (it having been eroded by inflation).
So… How similar is this to the great depression? What differences can we find which might be more important in determining why one recession went badly and the other didn’t than “there was government intervention”? Well, the cause of the recession (money supply squeeze vs. bank runs, collapse of financial system and liquidity trap) might be just a little bit more important, dontcha think? Or maybe what that cause has for effects on the economy, eh? You’re fucking clueless, and I’d advise you to go get something in your head that isn’t shit on a bun before trying to talk about it!
Don’t even fucking worry about Debaser. When he says “I’m a Tea Party supporter”, that pretty much invalidates any opinion he has on any subject. As for the whack-a-doodle cornopean, there are tons of Depression revisionists out there, none of which can tell their ass from a hole in the ground.
The great thing about people like Debaser is that he will also be angry. There will never be a time in his life in which he will be truly happy. Sure, things can go his way now and then, and he can take joy from poor people suffering, but because the world simply doesn’t work the way he thinks it does, he will, deep down, always have that nagging resentment and hostility towards it. He will never be happy, he will never be content. He’ll grow old and die angry and alone because nobody wants to be around an angry old man
There’s the rest of your life Debaser. Look forward to it. However happy you are now, you will never be this happy again. It will always continue to go down from here. That’s your next 20, 30, 40 years.
How long have you been working for the Suicide Encouragement Hot Line?
Back in the day I was a bitter, angry man who hated the entire world. But I decided that I didn’t want to be like that and made a long slow effort to change. The Beck/Limbaugh/Fox crowd mystifies me. It’s like my sig line says. I honestly don’t get how people can be ‘happy’ listening to hate, lies and outrage all the time. ‘Entertainers’ who make money by making them angry, by keeping them outraged. It’s not good for you, physically, mentally, emotionally.
I think that’s why many of these people compartmentalize the suffering of others and slap ‘easy fix’ labels on them. “Just get another job. Borrow money. Work harder. Save for your own retirement. Take care of yourself.” Because they can no longer face the reality of the world and their own hearts without being destroyed in the process. The message lets them turn away from it and focus on that ‘take care of yourself’ part.
Because the message is “Everything that happens to you is your own damned fault, and if you aren’t healthy and wealthy and strong, it’s because you’re weak and unworthy. You’re one of them.”
Of course, then I forget to click the sig line box… :smack:
So, I was wondering where adaher had gone. I guess he wanted a new name.
First, I congratulate your admirable restraint. People are throwing personal attacks at you, but you refuse to answer in kind, preferring to stick to the facts.
Second, your facts are wrong. Very, very wrong. Maybe you’re the one here who’s been “brainwashed”?
Except that even the extremely well educated cannot always get jobs, or at least not full-time permanent jobs. That makes it hard to save up.
Telling people to save 15% of their income is a bit like telling fat people to eat 15% fewer calories. In theory it’s simple but as a practical matter it’s very hard.
Common sense says that part of the problem is that very few people save, the majority of the population is bidding up prices of housing and other stuff and putting psychological pressure on everyone else to spend.
As an anecdote my teenage child has been lobbying to get a smart phone. Apparently, pretty much everyone other high school student in our school district has one. Probably I will cave but $40 a month will really add up. And that’s just one example out of probably a hundred things which are technically luxuries but are kind of necessary.
I imagine it’s the same thing happening with poor people. Perhaps your typical poor person could save 15% of his income by not having a mobile phone; living in a roach-infested apartment 2 hours away from his job instead of 1 hour; eating rice and beans for dinner every night; making the children wear nothing but hand-me-downs; and so on. But psychologically that’s pretty hard.
While I agree with the sentiment and most of what you post after this, I feel the analogy is somewhat poorly chosen. Fat people always can choose to eat less (although in few cases, it won’t help), psychological problems or not. Poor people often cannot choose to earn more or spend less.
And before anyone gets on my back about the choosing thing, I know it’s hard. I’m a fat person failing to make that choice. 
The fact that you think that these two things are equivalent tells us a lot about your powers of reasoning. Once again, i take pride in being on your ignore list.