Yeah, 'cause that was his point.
Really? Wow, the SDMB rules are crystallizing. Tell you what, since it’s obvious you’re either not interested or incapable of debating this honestly, I’ll bear the shame of you considering me a coward, since I didn’t provide a cite for something that’s common knowledge (nor was I asked for one). Besides, those economists are probably devil worshipers anyway. Probably.
I don’t think the prior administration’s deficit spending had too much to do with the current crisis, though I agree it certainly didn’t position us well to deal with it when we found ourselves in the middle of it.
What was his point then? That I should provide a cite that my opinion is my opinion? What issue of pure fact was in dispute? I must have missed it.
What do the SDMB rules have to do with anything? Are they some sort of personal cross for you now?
You claimed “many many economists”, and you can’t back it up.
I’m happy to leave it at that.
No, I was not asked by anyone for a cite, so to point out I didn’t provide one is further dishonesty. I’m not providing one now to you not because they don’t exist. Anyone with 10 seconds on his hands could find a whole bunch; whether or not you agree with them, it’s common knowledge that there are conflicting schools of economic thought on this. I explicitly said I had no firm opinion on it, so I feel no need to build a case for it. My point was that this is not a settled matter across all respected economists, a fact that anyone with half a brain is already aware of.
You getting this? To clarify, what I’m saying is I’m not going to provide a cite for you. And if I somehow lose the respect of a genius like you, I’ll live with it.
Your post is your cite, then? I"m sure we will all be satisfied, given your reputation for perfect clarity and encyclopedic knowledge. If it were anyone else, we might suspect you were attempting to assert sarcasm in place of any actual information.
No, my opinion is my opinion. See the difference?
By the way, aren’t those Republicans dummy-heads? God, I hate them and their unadulterated evilness. (Just trying to play along.)
BTW, can you actually read? Or does your knee jerk so violently, the send button just regurgitates this kind of bullshit? Are you asserting that there is no current debate between economists over the effect of the New Deal, whatever your opinion happens to be? Do you really think that requires a cite?
So your economists are also located in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
That’s quite a valuable opinion you have there.
With just that, and a couple three bucks, you could get yourself a cup of coffee.
I’ve heard that opinion expressed plenty of times. What I haven’t heard is any fucking evidence to back it up.
Not a bit of it. Thing is, economics is not a science, it is an academic study. It does not permit the sort of elegant experiment that can unequivocally prove a given theory. Hence, its orthodoxy is based entirely on consensus, the general opinion of the practicing economists. Phil Gramm is an accredited economist, so is Paul Krugman, and their views are widely divergent.
My reading leads me to the conclusion that a general consensus about FDR and the Great Depression exists, and that this consensus is directly contrary to your position. Therefore, when you insist that “many, many” economists agree with you, the question becomes, well, how many? Are you suggesting that the general consensus amongst economist is that Keynes is a poopy-head, or that FDR’s policies were destructive and/or ineffective?
You could, in the last extreme, support your contention if there were even two economists with such views, since your description only asserts the plural, that there is more than one. And “many” is in the eyes of the beholder.
Do you agree that the accepted consensus is that FDR’s Keynsian policies helped ameliorate the Great Depression? Or are you implying that the state of debate on that issue is roughly evenly divided amongst economists?
You see, around these parts, we get a mite suspicious when someone insists that their argument is so irrefutable, so perfectly obvious, that they do not need any outside references to fact. It is so often the mark of the argument based purely on snark, supported by suggestion and firmly buttressed with innuendo.
We encourage you to make yourself clear, that such unfortunate conclusions are not left unanswered. Of course, you would not offer such an astonishing conclusion without the facts at your very fingertips, now would you?
Agree with me? How many times in this thread have I stated that I hold no strong opinion on the topic? Consequently, I would find it difficult to build a case for someone agreeing with me, since there’s nothing for anyone to agree with. I’ll ask again if you’re actually reading what I posted.
It certainly is, eh? Economics is such a discipline that asserting that there are strong opposing views on ANYTHING is as startling as, say, pointing out there are strongly opposing views on abortion rights, regardless of one’s own opinions. The point is not that the majority view is that the New Deal was ineffective, it was simply that it is not a settled matter among economists, which is what was originally asserted. This is both common sense and common knowledge, despite the shock–shock, I tell you!–expressed disingenuously in the interest of scoring partisan points in this thread.
Here’s a cite from the Cato Institute, if you’re interested. Regarding that entity:
From the first cite:
Here’s the reference from this expert, again, now associated with President Obama, if you’d like that one as well. That first cite also provides a cite to Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz having concurred with this line of thought.
Again, no expert am I, nor do I have a firm opinion. That said, this took me about 30 seconds to demonstrate that this is not a settled issue, as much as you’d prefer otherwise. Sorry, dude, but this is laughable.
Glad to be of assistance! Let me know if you need any help showing that there’s disagreement regarding school vouchers or affirmative action.
You’re embarrassing yourself. No one except a blind, frothing partisan would assert that there has not been strenuously expressed disagreement with the stimulus package, or that an opinion is something other than an opinion. Stop it, I feel bad for you.
You’re right, it doesn’t hold a candle to your indisputable “they probably” argument. That one was impossible to counter.
Well, there you go! You did have some cites, after all, all you needed was some gentle encouragement. Next time, we can try it without the training wheels and the helmet.
:shrug: My point was that this required no cite, and it really didn’t. I felt generous, though–no need to thank me. And you, rather than acknowledging how asinine it was to insist on a cite that there are actually differing opinions on an important economic issue, have to come back in and try to save face with this weak shit. For shame, elucidator, for shame.
Oh, I’m pretty sure I’ll get over it. Be hard, at first, but somehow…
What was the Cato institutes position on bank regulation?
**Stratocaster **is disgraceful–his posts are rushed though, riddled with pork, designed to permanently expand ignorance. It is disgusting.
Please note, however, that this is just an opinion, and any call for me to defend it will be met with incredulity and scorn. At most, I will cite some other posters who also believe this to be true.
Whoa. Well you got me there. When you offer an opinion like that, I’m forced to depend upon people actually reading what was written and coming to their own conclusions. Fat chance, huh?
Anyway, when called upon this awful position by the throngs of conservatives on this board, at least you’ll have plenty of sources in this pitiful thread to back you up. We put this to a vote and majority wins in these threads, right?