Civics Quiz

[The Rabbi]

"The sad state of economics knowledge among the general run of citizens in this country is responsible for a lot of mischief"

You mean like those idiots who still beliee in the magic of Trickle down and how tax cuts for the wealthy makes jobs?

Actually I was thinking of the imbeciles who don't think those things happen and all wealth is created by Big Daddy Government.

 

[Paulie]

I got 29 right.

3 of 4 misses were expected, one surprised me.

And yeah, there's no way our nation's collective youth even knows a fraction of those questions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Indeed, when The Rabbi writes that, "The sad state of economics knowledge among the general run of citizens in this country is responsible for a lot of mischief", he is referring to the general run of the reactionaries wierdos on the far right, not the normal GOP.

Actually I had you specifically in mind.

As being part of the normal GOP? And you the whacko reactionary? Good. I am glad you know your place, son: far outside of the norm.

 

[The Rabbi]

Indeed, when The Rabbi writes that, "The sad state of economics knowledge among the general run of citizens in this country is responsible for a lot of mischief", he is referring to the general run of the reactionaries wierdos on the far right, not the normal GOP.

Actually I had you specifically in mind.

As being part of the normal GOP? And you the whacko reactionary? Good. I am glad you know your place, son: far outside of the norm.

I can add reading comprehension to your list of deficiencies.
No I had you specifically in mind when I wrote about the lack of economics knowledge among the general run of citizens. I would never consider you for one moment to be a Republican. I am surprised you are still insisting on that ridiculous facade.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am squarely in the center of traditional Republicanism, that of Eisenhower and Ford and Nixon and Rockefeller and Goldwater. You are squarely outside far to the right, a neocon and corporatist acting as a poseur. No, son, you are not GOP.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I wrote earlier, "The Rabbi deliberately mischaracterizes Dogbert's comments. The questions are slanted to a conservative view of economics. Anyone who has studied the field recognizes that without any problem. The Rabbi undoubtedly knows it as well, which means that he is trying to deliberately deceive again because he cannot carry a disagreement on its merits. Either that, or he is either mentally feeble or ignorant."

The Rabbi disagrees. Here is your chance, man, to show that you know what you claim. Be specific and let's see some incontrovertible evidence for your position. If you blow it off, then we know you are simply trolling.

 

[emilynghiem]

Won't load for me.

I had to refresh the page and reload.

Perhaps Palin would agree to reload! Again and again!

Got 31 out of 33, and I am pretty ignorant of history. The last class I took that taught me anything was 8th grade. Had to learn the rest by trying to catch up on my own. And I still get the war dates messed up, and can't keep track when countries splinter into new ones.

 

[MaggieMae]

"The sad state of economics knowledge among the general run of citizens in this country is responsible for a lot of mischief"

You mean like those idiots who still believe in the magic of Trickle down and how tax cuts for the wealthy makes jobs?

Yup. Just keep taxes low for the top 2% and their windfall will mean more money to invest in capitalizing their businesses, hiring more people, etc. So how come that didn't work over the last decade? Seems there are an awful lot of businesses hanging on for dear life these days, afraid to take a risk on what the future holds for the economy. I guess they didn't even bother putting enough away for such rainy days that they couldn't weather this storm. So what DID they do with their windfall?

 

[MaggieMae]

"The sad state of economics knowledge among the general run of citizens in this country is responsible for a lot of mischief"

You mean like those idiots who still beliee in the magic of Trickle down and how tax cuts for the wealthy makes jobs?

Actually I was thinking of the imbeciles who don't think those things happen and all wealth is created by Big Daddy Government.

All wealth isn't created by government, but government has a definite role in trying to pick up the slack when businesses go bust on the level we've seen over the past couple of years. If it didn't, we'd be seeing a lot more people on the government dole simply because with massive layoffs and no new hiring, people do need to eat and have a right to expect a roof over their heads through no fault of their own. So what's the difference? Government trys to temporarily fill a void in order to AVOID bread lines. Both use taxpayer money.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

"The sad state of economics knowledge among the general run of citizens in this country is responsible for a lot of mischief"

You mean like those idiots who still believe in the magic of Trickle down and how tax cuts for the wealthy makes jobs?

Yup. Just keep taxes low for the top 2% and their windfall will mean more money to invest in capitalizing their businesses, hiring more people, etc. So how come that didn't work over the last decade? Seems there are an awful lot of businesses hanging on for dear life these days, afraid to take a risk on what the future holds for the economy. I guess they didn't even bother putting enough away for such rainy days that they couldn't weather this storm. So what DID they do with their windfall?

They spent all their money on Congressmen.

 

[The Rabbi]

You mean like those idiots who still beliee in the magic of Trickle down and how tax cuts for the wealthy makes jobs?

Actually I was thinking of the imbeciles who don't think those things happen and all wealth is created by Big Daddy Government.

All wealth isn't created by government, but government has a definite role in trying to pick up the slack when businesses go bust on the level we've seen over the past couple of years. If it didn't, we'd be seeing a lot more people on the government dole simply because with massive layoffs and no new hiring, people do need to eat and have a right to expect a roof over their heads through no fault of their own. So what's the difference? Government trys to temporarily fill a void in order to AVOID bread lines. Both use taxpayer money.

No. Government cannot "pick up the slack." This is a fallacy. Government can only spend other people's money, so they are simply substituting one form of spending (almost always inefficient and wealth destroying) for another (usually more efficient and wealth creating).
In fact we would be seeing many fewer people on the dole had gov't not tried to bail out inefficient industries and bribe people to remain off the job market by extending unemployment to two years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Over 100 years proves your fallacies as false, Rabbi.

Once again, give evidence. Be specific. Give links. Or give up.

 

[MaggieMae]

Actually I was thinking of the imbeciles who don't think those things happen and all wealth is created by Big Daddy Government.

All wealth isn't created by government, but government has a definite role in trying to pick up the slack when businesses go bust on the level we've seen over the past couple of years. If it didn't, we'd be seeing a lot more people on the government dole simply because with massive layoffs and no new hiring, people do need to eat and have a right to expect a roof over their heads through no fault of their own. So what's the difference? Government trys to temporarily fill a void in order to AVOID bread lines. Both use taxpayer money.

No. Government cannot "pick up the slack." This is a fallacy. Government can only spend other people's money, so they are simply substituting one form of spending (almost always inefficient and wealth destroying) for another (usually more efficient and wealth creating).
In fact we would be seeing many fewer people on the dole had gov't not tried to bail out inefficient industries and bribe people to remain off the job market by extending unemployment to two years.

Of course every economic Ph.D. alive disagrees with you, and even those on the Randian Right can't say for sure what would have happened if the government had NOT bailed out the economy. But then that's why you're a poster on message boards and not advising on economic policy where it counts.

 

[The Rabbi]

All wealth isn't created by government, but government has a definite role in trying to pick up the slack when businesses go bust on the level we've seen over the past couple of years. If it didn't, we'd be seeing a lot more people on the government dole simply because with massive layoffs and no new hiring, people do need to eat and have a right to expect a roof over their heads through no fault of their own. So what's the difference? Government trys to temporarily fill a void in order to AVOID bread lines. Both use taxpayer money.

No. Government cannot "pick up the slack." This is a fallacy. Government can only spend other people's money, so they are simply substituting one form of spending (almost always inefficient and wealth destroying) for another (usually more efficient and wealth creating).
In fact we would be seeing many fewer people on the dole had gov't not tried to bail out inefficient industries and bribe people to remain off the job market by extending unemployment to two years.

Of course every economic Ph.D. alive disagrees with you, and even those on the Randian Right can't say for sure what would have happened if the government had NOT bailed out the economy. But then that's why you're a poster on message boards and not advising on economic policy where it counts.

Wow, you've asked every PhD alive and gotten an answer. I had no idea you were so industrious.
Why don't you take your industrious self and go read an actual book on economics rather than relying on Democratic party talking point? Why not pick up Hazlett's Economic Fallacies for starters?
Or you could read this ad:
200 Economists Oppose the Stimulus Plan|OpenMarket.org
As is typical of these discussion, I assume you will not post your rebuttal and just go on spreading misinformation on other threads, blissfully unenlightened by what I've put here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No. Government cannot "pick up the slack." This is a fallacy. Government can only spend other people's money, so they are simply substituting one form of spending (almost always inefficient and wealth destroying) for another (usually more efficient and wealth creating).
In fact we would be seeing many fewer people on the dole had gov't not tried to bail out inefficient industries and bribe people to remain off the job market by extending unemployment to two years.

Of course every economic Ph.D. alive disagrees with you, and even those on the Randian Right can't say for sure what would have happened if the government had NOT bailed out the economy. But then that's why you're a poster on message boards and not advising on economic policy where it counts.

Wow, you've asked every PhD alive and gotten an answer. I had no idea you were so industrious.
Why don't you take your industrious self and go read an actual book on economics rather than relying on Democratic party talking point? Why not pick up Hazlett's Economic Fallacies for starters?
Or you could read this ad:
200 Economists Oppose the Stimulus Plan|OpenMarket.org
As is typical of these discussion, I assume you will not post your rebuttal and just go on spreading misinformation on other threads, blissfully unenlightened by what I've put here.

From "open market", Rab: puh-leeze. Son, you have had your ass handed to you here. Now once again, respond to the following, you coward.

"Over 100 years proves your fallacies as false, Rabbi. // Once again, give evidence. Be specific. Give links. Or give up."

You made the allegation; now offer proof. Don't be stupid and believe all opinions, particularly yours, are equal in light of what you have posted. Yours is clearly less than equal until you offer evidence.

 

[Diuretic]

Actually I was thinking of the imbeciles who don't think those things happen and all wealth is created by Big Daddy Government.

All wealth isn't created by government, but government has a definite role in trying to pick up the slack when businesses go bust on the level we've seen over the past couple of years. If it didn't, we'd be seeing a lot more people on the government dole simply because with massive layoffs and no new hiring, people do need to eat and have a right to expect a roof over their heads through no fault of their own. So what's the difference? Government trys to temporarily fill a void in order to AVOID bread lines. Both use taxpayer money.

No. Government cannot "pick up the slack." This is a fallacy. Government can only spend other people's money, so they are simply substituting one form of spending (almost always inefficient and wealth destroying) for another (usually more efficient and wealth creating).
In fact we would be seeing many fewer people on the dole had gov't not tried to bail out inefficient industries and bribe people to remain off the job market by extending unemployment to two years.

Of course government picks up the slack, it's necessary for government to step in where the private sector fears to tread. Government spends our money for the benefit of the nation. Sometimes that means propping up failed companies to allow people to keep their jobs and thus avoid social damage and economic damage. It's fine using an academic, textbook approach to suggest that failed companies should be allowed to fail but there are real human costs in there and there are severe repercussions for a nation if that happens.

 

[The Rabbi]

All wealth isn't created by government, but government has a definite role in trying to pick up the slack when businesses go bust on the level we've seen over the past couple of years. If it didn't, we'd be seeing a lot more people on the government dole simply because with massive layoffs and no new hiring, people do need to eat and have a right to expect a roof over their heads through no fault of their own. So what's the difference? Government trys to temporarily fill a void in order to AVOID bread lines. Both use taxpayer money.

No. Government cannot "pick up the slack." This is a fallacy. Government can only spend other people's money, so they are simply substituting one form of spending (almost always inefficient and wealth destroying) for another (usually more efficient and wealth creating).
In fact we would be seeing many fewer people on the dole had gov't not tried to bail out inefficient industries and bribe people to remain off the job market by extending unemployment to two years.

Of course government picks up the slack, it's necessary for government to step in where the private sector fears to tread. Government spends our money for the benefit of the nation. Sometimes that means propping up failed companies to allow people to keep their jobs and thus avoid social damage and economic damage. It's fine using an academic, textbook approach to suggest that failed companies should be allowed to fail but there are real human costs in there and there are severe repercussions for a nation if that happens.

If that were the case East Germany would be an economic powerhouse.
There are even more human costs for intervening. Imagine if the U.S. had decided to restrict farm equipment, maybe slap a big tax on it, to insure there would be enough farm jobs for all the farm laborers who were being put out of work by mechanization. We would have the least efficient most expensive food supply in the world.

 

[MaggieMae]

No. Government cannot "pick up the slack." This is a fallacy. Government can only spend other people's money, so they are simply substituting one form of spending (almost always inefficient and wealth destroying) for another (usually more efficient and wealth creating).
In fact we would be seeing many fewer people on the dole had gov't not tried to bail out inefficient industries and bribe people to remain off the job market by extending unemployment to two years.

Of course every economic Ph.D. alive disagrees with you, and even those on the Randian Right can't say for sure what would have happened if the government had NOT bailed out the economy. But then that's why you're a poster on message boards and not advising on economic policy where it counts.

Wow, you've asked every PhD alive and gotten an answer. I had no idea you were so industrious.
Why don't you take your industrious self and go read an actual book on economics rather than relying on Democratic party talking point? Why not pick up Hazlett's Economic Fallacies for starters?
Or you could read this ad:
200 Economists Oppose the Stimulus Plan|OpenMarket.org
As is typical of these discussion, I assume you will not post your rebuttal and just go on spreading misinformation on other threads, blissfully unenlightened by what I've put here.

Okay, "every PhD alive" was over the top. Yes, of course there was "opposition," but do any of them know for a fact how things would have turned out if not for government rescue? Not unless they use crystal balls. This was a potential GLOBAL Crisis (with a capital C) for all the reasons mentioned in this extensive analysis, which you can read piece by piece as your time allows:

Global Financial Crisis ? Global Issues

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course every economic Ph.D. alive disagrees with you, and even those on the Randian Right can't say for sure what would have happened if the government had NOT bailed out the economy. But then that's why you're a poster on message boards and not advising on economic policy where it counts.

Wow, you've asked every PhD alive and gotten an answer. I had no idea you were so industrious.
Why don't you take your industrious self and go read an actual book on economics rather than relying on Democratic party talking point? Why not pick up Hazlett's Economic Fallacies for starters?
Or you could read this ad:
200 Economists Oppose the Stimulus Plan|OpenMarket.org
As is typical of these discussion, I assume you will not post your rebuttal and just go on spreading misinformation on other threads, blissfully unenlightened by what I've put here.

Okay, "every PhD alive" was over the top. Yes, of course there was "opposition," but do any of them know for a fact how things would have turned out if not for government rescue? Not unless they use crystal balls. This was a potential GLOBAL Crisis (with a capital C) for all the reasons mentioned in this extensive analysis, which you can read piece by piece as your time allows:

Global Financial Crisis ? Global Issues

Opposition included at least 2 Nobel Prize winners.
Did any of them know for a fact how things would turn out? Are you asking whether a PhD in Economics confers prophetic powers? The answer is no.
But there are some things that are predictable based on laws of economics and past history. This was one of them. And the prediction was that a massive stimulus would not help the economy and simply waste tax payer dollars. And lo and behold, they were right. That is exactly what happened.

 

[rightwinger]

Wow, you've asked every PhD alive and gotten an answer. I had no idea you were so industrious.
Why don't you take your industrious self and go read an actual book on economics rather than relying on Democratic party talking point? Why not pick up Hazlett's Economic Fallacies for starters?
Or you could read this ad:
200 Economists Oppose the Stimulus Plan|OpenMarket.org
As is typical of these discussion, I assume you will not post your rebuttal and just go on spreading misinformation on other threads, blissfully unenlightened by what I've put here.

Okay, "every PhD alive" was over the top. Yes, of course there was "opposition," but do any of them know for a fact how things would have turned out if not for government rescue? Not unless they use crystal balls. This was a potential GLOBAL Crisis (with a capital C) for all the reasons mentioned in this extensive analysis, which you can read piece by piece as your time allows:

Global Financial Crisis ? Global Issues

Opposition included at least 2 Nobel Prize winners.
Did any of them know for a fact how things would turn out? Are you asking whether a PhD in Economics confers prophetic powers? The answer is no.
But there are some things that are predictable based on laws of economics and past history. This was one of them. And the prediction was that a massive stimulus would not help the economy and simply waste tax payer dollars. And lo and behold, they were right. That is exactly what happened.

Yea right....

Except for the fact that it did help the economy. Cynics like the Rabbi will Monday Morning Quarterback and say the economy recovered by itself....the economy would have rebounded faster......everything woulda ...coulda ......shoulda

Fact is...the economy DID make a remarkable rebound and started to recover right after TARP and the Stimulus passed.

Once again....History proves the Rabbi..........WRONG