Well, now, if the Austrian School is enjoying a rebirth of interest, why is that? If they are presenting us with timeless principles of economic truth, why should they ever have been out of favor in the first place? Has some exciting new experiment in economics verified their previously unacceptable premises?
And while I accept that it is possible that the 'bagger with the picture of Obama as a witch doctor with a bone in his nose is thoroughly conversant with the distinctions between Austrian and Keynesian Economics, I kinda have my doubts.
Well any discipline that opts out of utilizing empirical data for axiomatic theorizing doesn’t get very far with me. A discipline’s alignment with common sense has nothing to do with the actual validity of the discipline.
As an aside, is there ever a moment where US wing nuts find a happy medium between rending clothing over the collapse of the Republic and piggish jingoism?
I was hoping that those who support Obama and are committed liberals would address the critique I have made of their ideology in how in affects the poor and its relationship to fiscal reality. There are actually a few possible points of discussion. Cutting spending vs big government progressivism. High regulation vs Free Markets.
Yes. The point of this exercise is to educate and enlighten and provoke conversation. I feel liberals traditionally are incredibly ignorant of economics. So I focussed on issues many of you may not have considered. No one is forcing you to read my post or respond. It is up to you.
Can you please explain why your approved sources of news are the “correct” ones?
From your list:
Gerald Celente - Fas appeared on Oprah, The Today Show, Good Morning America, CBS Morning News, NBC Nightly News, Fox
Peter Schiff - appears on CNBC, Fox, and Bloomberg
Marc Faber - multiple appearances on CNBC
Jim Rogers - was a moderator on a WCBS program and was a regular guest on Fox
If your approved list of pundits appears on the disapproved media outlets, then why is one approved but the other not?
You need to establish the credentials of your approved reading list.
Did you even look at the title of the thread? 'Cause I see Obama’s name right up there.
Or is this only supposed to be critical of those of us who are foolish enough to continue to defend him against the constant bleating from the other guys? 'Cause I’ve said it before, and I’ll (no doubt) say it again- “We never said Obama was perfect. We just said he was better than the other options.” And so far, that still holds true.
In fact, the concept of “loyalists” is rather alien, in general, to the sorts of people who supported Obama. It’s Republicans who promote the idea of “My country (or President, or whatever), right or wrong”. The attitude that got Obama elected, though, is more “My country, as long as and to the extent that it’s right”. When Obama (or any other president) gets something right, he should be applauded for it, and when he or any other president gets something wrong, he should be criticized for it. If he gets enough more things wrong than right, he should be voted out of office.
What is that supposed to mean? Russia Today is doing some very good interviews and touching some subjects that American media is afraid to cover. Issues related to US foreign policy, the economic crisis, bank bailouts, G20 meetings, and so much more. Issues of substance, as opposed to Lindsay Lohan and “Snooki”.
Have you watched any clips on youtube?
This network is one of the better tv news networks in the world. And its not just me who is saying that. Many experts are singing the praises of Russia Today and the work they are doing.
Why don’t you do some homework before you open your mouth?
Okay, you are going to have to explain that thoroughly. Have you read his books? Have you done any in depth study of Austrian theories? I have. Now we can debate the various merits of Austrian vs Keynesian economics, but only if you will give more detail on your specific criticisms.
Why did all the Austrians correctly predict the economic crisis that we are in the middle of years before it happened? Why did the Keynesians fail to see what was so obvious to us?
There is a problem here when I spend a few hours thoroughly explaining my positions and defending them with facts and I am met with five word responses with no thought or care put in whatsoever.
You don’t have to. No one is forcing you to participate. You could choose only a small part of what I wrote to debate if you want. Is there a problem with reading comprehension around here? An educated person could read and understand what I wrote in ten to fifteen minutes. Whether you visit the websites is up to you.
I voted for Mr. Obama because he was the smartest and most progressive person on the ballot.
It wasn’t as if I had a lot of choice in the matter.
I could choose to vote for Mr. McCain who had already had his political spirit broken back in 2000 when the former POTUS was hoisted to power, or Mr. Bob Barr who spent the majority of his public life fighting a ‘war’ against drugs and failing mightily in the process, or Ms. Cynthia McKinney who is, in my opinion, one of the least sane people that has ever made it to a presidential ballot. To say that Barack Obama was the best choice from this motley crew is damning him with faint praise.
But nevertheless, I appreciate the trouble you went to in crafting your manifesto. I wish you well in your continuing struggle against reality and hope that you will find whatever it is that you are searching for.
Any sufficiently erudite correspondent would have known at once that I am referring to the critiques of S. Nagel Puss (who is, regretably, no longer with us, having exited, stage right…)
No I just find it delicious that a defender of the Republic looks to Russia for “fair and balanced news”. Especially given the robust nature of reporting in Russia.
Its not random. You are all doing everything possible not to actually try to understand what I wrote. My argument is incredibly strong, if you would actually take the time to read what I wrote.
As John said, you seem to be trying to lecture everyone, not really debate anything. Your OP seems like standard Libertarian whacknuttery to me, and I’m actually somewhat sympathetic to a libertarian viewpoint.
It’s funny that you originally pointed this at DT, since he actually isn’t much of an Obama fan.
