noam chomsky vs milton friedman

[Andylusion]

Funny how everyone who doesn't reach the conclusions that Shitty is comfortable with is lying or uninformed or "afraid" of something. Very interesting pattern...

Of course. Without making judgements on everyone else, he would have to confront the facts. That's not a fight he can win. So instead, slander and character assassination is a hallmark of the left.

 

[Shanty]

Is that what you want? No wonder conservatives and commies have so much in common.

thats what liberals want becuase for example, the govt helped develop the computer industry so why not every industry. We can ask the soviets for help!!

You're either seriously deluded or lying. Which is it?

Liberals have never gone that route, while conservatives want to socialize losses for the wealthy, while privatizing profits.

Liberals are generally for the invisible hand guiding the economy. But occasionally, temporary help for the invisible hand is necessary to allow it to see growth return in the wake of recessions.

Until deregulation of banking and Wall Street, recessions were relatively short in the Post-WWII era. They could be fixed with monetary policy and small fiscal stimulus. But the deregulation in banking and Wall Street, that led to asset bubbles in the last three recessions should have told conservatives in both parties how much of a failure their policies were.

No, you are just lying. Conservatives are completely against government socializing the loss.

If you go back to the 2008...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/americas/26iht-repubs.4.16518356.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

As a dose of free-market, enterprise-society ideology, that could be sweet political medicine, at least for more conservative Republicans facing voters unhappy with government in general - especially members whose own seats in Congress are considered safe.

Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, and one of the most vocal critics of the administration's plan, has been urging lawmakers to slow down and consider alternative proposals.

Conservative Republicans tried to propose alternatives to the bailout, multiple times.

You are just wrong on that. I can't think of a single conservative that openly supported using tax payer money to bailout banks. Who exactly would you point to? It certainly wasn't any conservative I know.

It was the Liberals who said, if we don't bail out the banks, we'll end up in a great depression.

It is Conservatives on here who point to Iceland, and say 'see? Letting the banks fail, didn't ruin Iceland'. Or Estonia which allowed their banks to fail.

World Com was huge, and we let them fail. Lehman Brothers was massive, and we let them fail. Enron was massive, and we let them fail.

The economy didn't end. The world didn't stop. But the Liberals are the ones who say "Too Big Too Fail!" We can't let them fail, because they are too big! Funny... they failed, and apparently being big wasn't a problem.

And lastly, Liberals just flat out lie. You people LIE all the time. There was no deregulation. That's just flat out a lie. You lie, because if you don't, you don't have an ideology anymore.

Conservatives in both parties, especially the GOP, made it so that banks could become too big to fail. Bush signed TARP.

And Iceland is an example of how a relatively small banking industry can shed the failures, because the rest of the world will be able to move forward without them. Iceland's place as a huge banking Mecca pales in comparison to the UK or Switzerland. The US makes those nations pale in comparison to our nation's banking reach.

I really wish the US were in that position. I'd have gone about the whole bailout for banking far differently than what happened.

As far as lying, I've never seen a conservative able to pass one. Y without making it part of their repertoire of lies.

 

[Shanty]

Funny how everyone who doesn't reach the conclusions that Shitty is comfortable with is lying or uninformed or "afraid" of something. Very interesting pattern...

Of course. Without making judgements on everyone else, he would have to confront the facts. That's not a fight he can win. So instead, slander and character assassination is a hallmark of the left.

It's a fight I keep winning here on this forum. Maybe you guys need to find better informed conservatives.

 

[Shanty]

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2003/7/powell.pdf

Cato. LOL.

Real economists say differently.

Economists at Berkeley are "real" but ones at UCLA are not? Where are you employed as an economist?

Romer didn't have to make the evidence fit the conclusion like Cole and Ohanian did.

So, "real" economists are only those whose conclusions affirm your ideology? You're afraid to even be honest with yourself.

Real economists allow the data to bring them to the conclusions, without having to distort and change data or data points to make their case. Cole and Ohanian can't say that. They are basically dismissing how big of an economic failure the 1929 stock market crash was, then saying FDR made the economy worse by changing data that wasn't true.

No, they are looking at the data, and that's what the data shows. You are just making up excuses for why they are wrong, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to defend your policy ideals.

If they were looking at the data, they wouldn't have written the piece Unibrow linked to. Again, just look at how my link destroys the Harding assertion.

 

[Andylusion]

Is that what you want? No wonder conservatives and commies have so much in common.

thats what liberals want becuase for example, the govt helped develop the computer industry so why not every industry. We can ask the soviets for help!!

You're either seriously deluded or lying. Which is it?

Liberals have never gone that route, while conservatives want to socialize losses for the wealthy, while privatizing profits.

Liberals are generally for the invisible hand guiding the economy. But occasionally, temporary help for the invisible hand is necessary to allow it to see growth return in the wake of recessions.

Until deregulation of banking and Wall Street, recessions were relatively short in the Post-WWII era. They could be fixed with monetary policy and small fiscal stimulus. But the deregulation in banking and Wall Street, that led to asset bubbles in the last three recessions should have told conservatives in both parties how much of a failure their policies were.

No, you are just lying. Conservatives are completely against government socializing the loss.

If you go back to the 2008...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/americas/26iht-repubs.4.16518356.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

As a dose of free-market, enterprise-society ideology, that could be sweet political medicine, at least for more conservative Republicans facing voters unhappy with government in general - especially members whose own seats in Congress are considered safe.

Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, and one of the most vocal critics of the administration's plan, has been urging lawmakers to slow down and consider alternative proposals.

Conservative Republicans tried to propose alternatives to the bailout, multiple times.

You are just wrong on that. I can't think of a single conservative that openly supported using tax payer money to bailout banks. Who exactly would you point to? It certainly wasn't any conservative I know.

It was the Liberals who said, if we don't bail out the banks, we'll end up in a great depression.

It is Conservatives on here who point to Iceland, and say 'see? Letting the banks fail, didn't ruin Iceland'. Or Estonia which allowed their banks to fail.

World Com was huge, and we let them fail. Lehman Brothers was massive, and we let them fail. Enron was massive, and we let them fail.

The economy didn't end. The world didn't stop. But the Liberals are the ones who say "Too Big Too Fail!" We can't let them fail, because they are too big! Funny... they failed, and apparently being big wasn't a problem.

And lastly, Liberals just flat out lie. You people LIE all the time. There was no deregulation. That's just flat out a lie. You lie, because if you don't, you don't have an ideology anymore.

Conservatives in both parties, especially the GOP, made it so that banks could become too big to fail. Bush signed TARP.

And Iceland is an example of how a relatively small banking industry can shed the failures, because the rest of the world will be able to move forward without them. Iceland's place as a huge banking Mecca pales in comparison to the UK or Switzerland. The US makes those nations pale in comparison to our nation's banking reach.

I really wish the US were in that position. I'd have gone about the whole bailout for banking far differently than what happened.

Bush, is a politician. Not a conservative ideologue. You show me the conservative ideologue... the conservative pundit that supported the bailouts. Where was the Thomas Sowell, or the equivalent Friedman economist that supported the bailouts?

GOP did not make it so banks could become too big too fail. In fact, Too Big Too Fail... is a myth. It's myth made up by leftwingers to justify socializing the loss, which you just said you are against.

The biggest bank to fail, was Lehman Brothers. We didn't bail them out, they just simply failed. Nothing happened. The world didn't end.

While it is true, that Iceland's banks were smaller in total size, it was a much larger portion of their economy, than our banks were of ours.

I flat out reject the notion that if our banks had been allowed to fail, that "the rest of the world would not be able to move forward without them". That is leftist dogma crap. It's not true.

Again, the BIGGEST FAILURE... was Lehman Brothers. They had more international assets than any of the other banks... and they failed. Nothing happened. Investor has a to take a shave (meaning they lost some money), and that was it. Yippy skippy.

 

[Andylusion]

Funny how everyone who doesn't reach the conclusions that Shitty is comfortable with is lying or uninformed or "afraid" of something. Very interesting pattern...

Of course. Without making judgements on everyone else, he would have to confront the facts. That's not a fight he can win. So instead, slander and character assassination is a hallmark of the left.

It's a fight I keep winning here on this forum. Maybe you guys need to find better informed conservatives.

Yet another delusional leftard. Spew a bunch of unsupportable crap, after having research and citations shoved down his throat, making him look completely incompetent, and the proclaim "I keep winning here on this forum!"

Yes yes... *pats shanty's head* do tell... what color is the sky in your world? Are there Elves in your world? I keep thinking there must be Elves in your fantasy world.

 

[dblack]

 

[Shanty]

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2003/7/powell.pdf

Cato. LOL.

Real economists say differently.

Economists at Berkeley are "real" but ones at UCLA are not? Where are you employed as an economist?

Romer didn't have to make the evidence fit the conclusion like Cole and Ohanian did.

So, "real" economists are only those whose conclusions affirm your ideology? You're afraid to even be honest with yourself.

Real economists allow the data to bring them to the conclusions, without having to distort and change data or data points to make their case. Cole and Ohanian can't say that. They are basically dismissing how big of an economic failure the 1929 stock market crash was, then saying FDR made the economy worse by changing data that wasn't true.

No, they are looking at the data, and that's what the data shows. You are just making up excuses for why they are wrong, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to defend your policy ideals.

Here's the difference between you and I. I can defend the policies I support, because those policies have a record of growth unmatched in human history. You support policies that, at best, promote boom and bust cycles, with a lot of poverty and larger deficits thrown into the mix.

 

[Shanty]

Funny how everyone who doesn't reach the conclusions that Shitty is comfortable with is lying or uninformed or "afraid" of something. Very interesting pattern...

Of course. Without making judgements on everyone else, he would have to confront the facts. That's not a fight he can win. So instead, slander and character assassination is a hallmark of the left.

It's a fight I keep winning here on this forum. Maybe you guys need to find better informed conservatives.

Yet another delusional leftard. Spew a bunch of unsupportable crap, after having research and citations shoved down his throat, making him look completely incompetent, and the proclaim "I keep winning here on this forum!"

Yes yes... *pats shanty's head* do tell... what color is the sky in your world? Are there Elves in your world? I keep thinking there must be Elves in your fantasy world.

If the citations are crap that you present, then if can only shake my heaped at retards like you. And, if you think there are elves here on earth, then you're really a fucking dumb conservatard.

 

[Shanty]

For the record, as I stated early in the thread, I'm no fan of Chomsky's. Unlike conservatards like Androw, I base my opinions on what I've actually read, and not what he was told to like or dislike when he got his orders at the special education school.

 

[Unkotare]

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2003/7/powell.pdf

Cato. LOL.

Real economists say differently.

Economists at Berkeley are "real" but ones at UCLA are not? Where are you employed as an economist?

Romer didn't have to make the evidence fit the conclusion like Cole and Ohanian did.

So, "real" economists are only those whose conclusions affirm your ideology? You're afraid to even be honest with yourself.

Real economists allow the data to bring them to the conclusions, without having to distort and change data or data points to make their case. Cole and Ohanian can't say that. ..

No economist who doesn't affirm your ideology "can" apparently say that, but ALL economists who affirm your predetermined positions "can." That sure is interesting...

I don't care what their ideology is. ...

Liar. You are just another mindless partisan, no matter what you'd rather think of yourself; completely transparent.

 

[Andylusion]

Funny how everyone who doesn't reach the conclusions that Shitty is comfortable with is lying or uninformed or "afraid" of something. Very interesting pattern...

Of course. Without making judgements on everyone else, he would have to confront the facts. That's not a fight he can win. So instead, slander and character assassination is a hallmark of the left.

It's a fight I keep winning here on this forum. Maybe you guys need to find better informed conservatives.

Yet another delusional leftard. Spew a bunch of unsupportable crap, after having research and citations shoved down his throat, making him look completely incompetent, and the proclaim "I keep winning here on this forum!"

Yes yes... *pats shanty's head* do tell... what color is the sky in your world? Are there Elves in your world? I keep thinking there must be Elves in your fantasy world.

If the citations are crap that you present, then if can only shake my heaped at retards like you. And, if you think there are elves here on earth, then you're really a fucking dumb conservatard.

Ah yes, the childish squealing when pointed out how silly your "I keep winning here on this forum!" statement was. Yes yes little shanty, please continue. So how many invisible friends do you have in your world?

 

[Shanty]

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2003/7/powell.pdf

Cato. LOL.

Real economists say differently.

Economists at Berkeley are "real" but ones at UCLA are not? Where are you employed as an economist?

Romer didn't have to make the evidence fit the conclusion like Cole and Ohanian did.

So, "real" economists are only those whose conclusions affirm your ideology? You're afraid to even be honest with yourself.

Real economists allow the data to bring them to the conclusions, without having to distort and change data or data points to make their case. Cole and Ohanian can't say that. ..

No economist who doesn't affirm your ideology "can" apparently say that, but ALL economists who affirm your predetermined positions "can." That sure is interesting...

I don't care what their ideology is. ...

Liar. You are just another mindless partisan, no matter what you'd rather think of yourself; completely transparent.

You calling anyone mindless, after linking to laughable shit that you think rise to the level of "facts" just shows the projection you use to call others out for what you are. I couldn't care less if it's Democrats or Republicans fixing the economy. If it was Republicans who offered a better economic policy, I'd vote for them. But instead, they have consistently shown that economic failure is what they bring to the table. The Democrats kind of suck at it too, because they lack the backbone to move on policies that are better than what they have gotten through. Look at the stimulus being too small in the light of the huge output gap we faced in 2009. They spent $800 billion in 3 1/2 years when we were down $2 trillion in the economy from the conservatives'deregulation that lead to the housing bust. Had it been larger, we'd have seen the economy and job growth far higher now and over the past 4 years, at least. Dodd-Frank got so watered down, that it could have been great legislation instead of merely somewhat good.

 

[Shanty]

Funny how everyone who doesn't reach the conclusions that Shitty is comfortable with is lying or uninformed or "afraid" of something. Very interesting pattern...

Of course. Without making judgements on everyone else, he would have to confront the facts. That's not a fight he can win. So instead, slander and character assassination is a hallmark of the left.

It's a fight I keep winning here on this forum. Maybe you guys need to find better informed conservatives.

Yet another delusional leftard. Spew a bunch of unsupportable crap, after having research and citations shoved down his throat, making him look completely incompetent, and the proclaim "I keep winning here on this forum!"

Yes yes... *pats shanty's head* do tell... what color is the sky in your world? Are there Elves in your world? I keep thinking there must be Elves in your fantasy world.

If the citations are crap that you present, then if can only shake my heaped at retards like you. And, if you think there are elves here on earth, then you're really a fucking dumb conservatard.

Ah yes, the childish squealing when pointed out how silly your "I keep winning here on this forum!" statement was. Yes yes little shanty, please continue. So how many invisible friends do you have in your world?

Bring facts, and I'll agree with you. But instead, you keep bringing t-ball skills to the big leagues.

 

[Shanty]

Look at how the wing nuts and lunatics have to make this about me, because they don't have the ability to defend their bullshit. LOL

 

[Andylusion]

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2003/7/powell.pdf

Cato. LOL.

Real economists say differently.

Economists at Berkeley are "real" but ones at UCLA are not? Where are you employed as an economist?

Romer didn't have to make the evidence fit the conclusion like Cole and Ohanian did.

So, "real" economists are only those whose conclusions affirm your ideology? You're afraid to even be honest with yourself.

Real economists allow the data to bring them to the conclusions, without having to distort and change data or data points to make their case. Cole and Ohanian can't say that. They are basically dismissing how big of an economic failure the 1929 stock market crash was, then saying FDR made the economy worse by changing data that wasn't true.

No, they are looking at the data, and that's what the data shows. You are just making up excuses for why they are wrong, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to defend your policy ideals.

Here's the difference between you and I. I can defend the policies I support, because those policies have a record of growth unmatched in human history. You support policies that, at best, promote boom and bust cycles, with a lot of poverty and larger deficits thrown into the mix.

Yeah, and as long as you just claim that everyone with contradictory evidence, is lying, or making up stuff... then you can remain in your mythical fantasy world where "I keep winning here on this forum!" and believing in your unicorns and whatever else is in your private mythical world.

Look Shanty.... when you dismiss everything that everyone else says out of hand... you forfeit the argument.

Because why should we even consider anything you say, when you don't consider anything we say? Why should we consider your evidence that you bring, when you don't consider any of the evidence we bring?

See, we're trying to have an 'adult discussion'. Adults consider both sides.

YOU are having an childish discussion. Children say things like "Real people don't believe that, and I keep winning every argument on this forum!"

Well if that's how you want to play it... ok. I can dish that right back at you.

Your information is not what real economists think, and you keep losing every argument.

(psst... see how that works? You just lost the argument, by me using your argument.)

Now you are getting all bent about it. So you can dish it out, but you can't take it?

Shanty.... grow up. Stop being a child. Grow up to being an adult. Otherwise, you are just going to keep getting back, what you dish out, and it's your own fault.

 

[Andylusion]

Look at how the wing nuts and lunatics have to make this about me, because they don't have the ability to defend their bullshit. LOL

You made this about you. When you act like a child, you get treated like a child. If you want to be treated like an adult, you have to act like one on this forum. Even this post proves my point. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. "wah wah, they are doing to me what I did to them! Wah!".

Grow up Shanty. Seriously, if you want to be treated like an adult, you have to act like one. Better you learn this here on a forum, before you go get a job, and then complain you never get a raise, and your boss treats you like the baby you are.

 

[Shanty]

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2003/7/powell.pdf

Cato. LOL.

Real economists say differently.

Economists at Berkeley are "real" but ones at UCLA are not? Where are you employed as an economist?

Romer didn't have to make the evidence fit the conclusion like Cole and Ohanian did.

So, "real" economists are only those whose conclusions affirm your ideology? You're afraid to even be honest with yourself.

Real economists allow the data to bring them to the conclusions, without having to distort and change data or data points to make their case. Cole and Ohanian can't say that. They are basically dismissing how big of an economic failure the 1929 stock market crash was, then saying FDR made the economy worse by changing data that wasn't true.

No, they are looking at the data, and that's what the data shows. You are just making up excuses for why they are wrong, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to defend your policy ideals.

Here's the difference between you and I. I can defend the policies I support, because those policies have a record of growth unmatched in human history. You support policies that, at best, promote boom and bust cycles, with a lot of poverty and larger deficits thrown into the mix.

Yeah, and as long as you just claim that everyone with contradictory evidence, is lying, or making up stuff... then you can remain in your mythical fantasy world where "I keep winning here on this forum!" and believing in your unicorns and whatever else is in your private mythical world.

Look, I'm going with data and you're going with magic. If you wants believe in unicorns, I'm not going to have the orderlies drug you up.

Look Shanty.... when you dismiss everything that everyone else says out of hand... you forfeit the argument.

I didn't dismiss it out of hand. I posted arguments about a) the way Cole and Ohanian were caught red handed changing data for their narrative to make a poor argument against the New Deal. No one here in reality believes that the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression, because the same pattern kept showing up in nation after nation that their depression economics ended as government spending boosted demand in the economy.

Because why should we even consider anything you say, when you don't consider anything we say? Why should we consider your evidence that you bring, when you don't consider any of the evidence we bring?

Because you won't even look at the faults in the evidence you bring.

See, we're trying to have an 'adult discussion'. Adults consider both sides.

Adults should never give credence to right wing fairy tales, when it's shown the evidence is tainted by intentional manipulation to make the case.

YOU are having an childish discussion. Children say things like "Real people don't believe that, and I keep winning every argument on this forum!"

I'm talking to children. I don't like to tell kids they're all winners when they aren't. When kids fuck up, I like to gently remind the to do better next time. So please, do better next time and bring forth facts.

Well if that's how you want to play it... ok. I can dish that right back at you.

Your information is not what real economists think, and you keep losing every argument.

(psst... see how that works? You just lost the argument, by me using your argument.)

You're not even getting the rules right. First, the overwhelming majority of economists hold the same views I'm presenting here. Second, you need to back up your claims with facts instead of bullshit.

Now you are getting all bent about it. So you can dish it out, but you can't take it?

I can see why you're whining so loudly. If that's all you can dish out, with nothing to support you, I'd be ashamed if I were you.

Shanty.... grow up. Stop being a child. Grow up to being an adult. Otherwise, you are just going to keep getting back, what you dish out, and it's your own fault.

I'll eat your lunch, then make you bring me another sammich. If you think you got game, bring it. I'm talking facts. Not Cole and Ohanian, who were caught changing facts into "facts".

 

[Shanty]

Look at how the wing nuts and lunatics have to make this about me, because they don't have the ability to defend their bullshit. LOL

You made this about you. When you act like a child, you get treated like a child. If you want to be treated like an adult, you have to act like one on this forum. Even this post proves my point. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. "wah wah, they are doing to me what I did to them! Wah!".

Grow up Shanty. Seriously, if you want to be treated like an adult, you have to act like one. Better you learn this here on a forum, before you go get a job, and then complain you never get a raise, and your boss treats you like the baby you are.

Bring me another one of your sammiches. I'm eating yours now.

Look dude. Apparently facts are frightening to you. I get it. Your fairy tales are being threatened by reality. But, when I'm faced with facts I don't like, I accept them and rethink where I'm at so that I can incorporate facts into my life, to move forward, and not regress like some conservative looking for the time that never was in the past.

I've never had a problem knocking down right wing fairy tales, then knocking them down some more when someone is trying to bullshit the forum. I'm chuckling that when I've countered the false C & O paper, you guys are talking about me instead of tackling what's sunk your battleship.

 

[Unkotare]