How is austerity doing in Europe

[Rshermr]

This board PROVES differently. It is indeed possible for a lot of folks to believe what they want to believe.

what an very odd thing for a libtard to say given he believes tax and spend bubbles work better than earn and spend sustainable growth without the tiniest bit of logic.

Shouldn't you be trying to rape an underage school girl in a parking lot?

After you move out of your mother's basement, I would recommend community college.

The problem ed has with raping underage girls is that he opens his mouth and says something about "candy" and "little girl". But then he keeps on talking. And they run like hell. Even they know stupid when they hear it.

 

[Kimura]

what an very odd thing for a libtard to say given he believes tax and spend bubbles work better than earn and spend sustainable growth without the tiniest bit of logic.

Shouldn't you be trying to rape an underage school girl in a parking lot?

After you move out of your mother's basement, I would recommend community college.

What is that old saying??? Consider the source. When Ed is the source of an insult, you know you must be doing something right.

Here's a guy with zero credentials. Just insulting people, he gets away with it. Whatever, son. Have you ever been laid ? I'm curious, I'm doing the sociological thing?

 

[itfitzme]

Shouldn't you be trying to rape an underage school girl in a parking lot?

After you move out of your mother's basement, I would recommend community college.

What is that old saying??? Consider the source. When Ed is the source of an insult, you know you must be doing something right.

Here's a guy with zero credentials. Just insulting people, he gets away with it. Whatever, son. Have you ever been laid ? I'm curious, I'm doing the sociological thing?

I use the ignore option liberally. As soon as it is clear they are one of the loonies, ignore. They are clinically insane, surely this is clear. It is measurable and quantifiable. On ignore, it all just goes away. If you put em on ignore, you get this really cool personal effect, when you have to ask yourself, "why am I even looking?"

Still, I gotta clear my head of it.

 

[Rshermr]

So, if you are a fan of the austrian school (and maybe 4 or so others....) do you not have to say austerity is a good thing??? And, if so, what is the argument that it is working??? The argument seems to be that austerity is not happening, but then that is to ignore that that claim has been well and fully debunked.

 

[bripat9643]

So, if you are a fan of the austrian school (and maybe 4 or so others....) do you not have to say austerity is a good thing??? And, if so, what is the argument that it is working??? The argument seems to be that austerity is not happening, but then that is to ignore that that claim has been well and fully debunked.

You haven't debunked jack shit. Spending has gone up in all the countries that you claim are implementing "austerity." Real austerity is when spending decreases.

 

[Rshermr]

So, this strange noise keeps emanating from some tool who believes that austerity does not exist. Funny, he has had proof that it does, but as with most con tools, he is unable to consider the facts. Just re-posts the dogma. Over and over and over and over. Thinks it will become true if he says it enough. Funny, eh? Poor ignorant bastard.

 

[bripat9643]

So, this strange noise keeps emanating from some tool who believes that austerity does not exist. Funny, he has had proof that it does, but as with most con tools, he is unable to consider the facts. Just re-posts the dogma. Over and over and over and over. Thinks it will become true if he says it enough. Funny, eh? Poor ignorant bastard.

There hasn't been any proof of austerity, numb nuts. Tax increases don't fit the liberal definition of austerity.

 

[itfitzme]

So, this strange noise keeps emanating from some tool who believes that austerity does not exist. Funny, he has had proof that it does, but as with most con tools, he is unable to consider the facts. Just re-posts the dogma. Over and over and over and over. Thinks it will become true if he says it enough. Funny, eh? Poor ignorant bastard.

I believe that if you analyse the writings of non-austerity adherants, you will find that their definition will be that it does not exist unless the government has a net positive surplus, no debt, and no social programs. This will not include military spending. In the case of military spending, a debt and deficit will still be considered austerity because providing for the commom defense is necessary. (I may be overstating the net surplus, but I doubt it. They invoke the household analogy a lot. So I suspect that they would go so far as to feel that if they are not saving, they are not being austere).

Getting this from what is overtly stated is difficult because they will simply claim a lack of austerity due to whatever one of the above is convenient, without ever overtly stating their full definition of austerity.

They never come out and simply state their full position. They like carrying a concealed weapon. It is part of their charm. I think it is the result of both innate and learned behavior. Fundamentally, the concept of "and" is simply not a neurological construct. The second is it requires multiple items be held in short term memory, and they don't have the capacity for multiple abstractions in short term memory. Lastly, by not presenting more than one at a time, they can switch to another and still hold their position. If they presented all of them overtly, as a whole, it could be shot down as a whole.

Lastly, they don't grasp context. They are rule base and the rule is absolute. It isn't in a context. The context becomes defined by the rule. And if the rule shouldn't apply, like oil companies liemon their websites about AWG to take government subsidies, the context is shifte so the general rule doesn't apply. The definitional parameter of if austerity is happening does, obviously, depend on the definition which creates the context. The rule is that it isn't, ergo, all you have to do is change the context, the definition, until it is true. They are, though, oblivious to the context that they are invoking. Context is the background upon which your mental images, that define an idea, are highlighted. You are likely aware of the background and aware when you change it. They are not.

There is a recent study that I ran across which illuminates the rule based vs consequence based thinking. I have this impression that, at least in my mind, that consequence=background=context. And I am ever so keenly aware of the background upon which my ideas are highlighted in bold relief. If not for that background, nothing exists.

 

[Rshermr]

So, this strange noise keeps emanating from some tool who believes that austerity does not exist. Funny, he has had proof that it does, but as with most con tools, he is unable to consider the facts. Just re-posts the dogma. Over and over and over and over. Thinks it will become true if he says it enough. Funny, eh? Poor ignorant bastard.

I believe that if you analyse the writings of non-austerity adherants, you will find that their definition will be that it does not exist unless the government has a net positive surplus, no debt, and no social programs. This will not include military spending. In the case of military spending, a debt and deficit will still be considered austerity because providing for the commom defense is necessary. (I may be overstating the net surplus, but I doubt it. They invoke the household analogy a lot. So I suspect that they would go so far as to feel that if they are not saving, they are not being austere).

Getting this from what is overtly stated is difficult because they will simply claim a lack of austerity due to whatever one of the above is convenient, without ever overtly stating their full definition of austerity.

They never come out and simply state their full position. They like carrying a concealed weapon. It is part of their charm. I think it is the result of both innate and learned behavior. Fundamentally, the concept of "and" is simply not a neurological construct. The second is it requires multiple items be held in short term memory, and they don't have the capacity for multiple abstractions in short term memory. Lastly, by not presenting more than one at a time, they can switch to another and still hold their position. If they presented all of them overtly, as a whole, it could be shot down as a whole.

Lastly, they don't grasp context. They are rule base and the rule is absolute. It isn't in a context. The context becomes defined by the rule. And if the rule shouldn't apply, like oil companies liemon their websites about AWG to take government subsidies, the context is shifte so the general rule doesn't apply. The definitional parameter of if austerity is happening does, obviously, depend on the definition which creates the context. The rule is that it isn't, ergo, all you have to do is change the context, the definition, until it is true. They are, though, oblivious to the context that they are invoking. Context is the background upon which your mental images, that define an idea, are highlighted. You are likely aware of the background and aware when you change it. They are not.

There is a recent study that I ran across which illuminates the rule based vs consequence based thinking. I have this impression that, at least in my mind, that consequence=background=context. And I am ever so keenly aware of the background upon which my ideas are highlighted in bold relief. If not for that background, nothing exists.

Good analysis. I had just assumed that they all had a form of congenital idiocy. Your analysis is much more refined. Though in the end, perhaps it is all the same.

What continues to astound me is that they seem to be able to believe what they want to. Actual analysis, proof, all that bothersome stuff is of no concern to them. Friend of mine has a boy with a lot of mental issues. You talk with him knowing that you are not going to understand what he is taking from what you are saying. It is enough that he is happy. I suppose you can look at these folks the same way. For instance, every impartial economist is telling the world that austerity is being practiced in a number of european countries. You explain that to them. You provide the links and help them to understand. But it is like all that effort gets zero traction. They just look at you with that ignorant empty look and keep on saying what they always did. Again, I guess it is enough that they are happy. In their case, it is absolutely true. Ignorance is bliss. So, perhaps we should just let them be ignorant so they can keep on with that really stupid looking grin. It really is just bad luck. Not their fault.

 

[itfitzme]

So, this strange noise keeps emanating from some tool who believes that austerity does not exist. Funny, he has had proof that it does, but as with most con tools, he is unable to consider the facts. Just re-posts the dogma. Over and over and over and over. Thinks it will become true if he says it enough. Funny, eh? Poor ignorant bastard.

I believe that if you analyse the writings of non-austerity adherants, you will find that their definition will be that it does not exist unless the government has a net positive surplus, no debt, and no social programs. This will not include military spending. In the case of military spending, a debt and deficit will still be considered austerity because providing for the commom defense is necessary. (I may be overstating the net surplus, but I doubt it. They invoke the household analogy a lot. So I suspect that they would go so far as to feel that if they are not saving, they are not being austere).

Getting this from what is overtly stated is difficult because they will simply claim a lack of austerity due to whatever one of the above is convenient, without ever overtly stating their full definition of austerity.

They never come out and simply state their full position. They like carrying a concealed weapon. It is part of their charm. I think it is the result of both innate and learned behavior. Fundamentally, the concept of "and" is simply not a neurological construct. The second is it requires multiple items be held in short term memory, and they don't have the capacity for multiple abstractions in short term memory. Lastly, by not presenting more than one at a time, they can switch to another and still hold their position. If they presented all of them overtly, as a whole, it could be shot down as a whole.

Lastly, they don't grasp context. They are rule base and the rule is absolute. It isn't in a context. The context becomes defined by the rule. And if the rule shouldn't apply, like oil companies liemon their websites about AWG to take government subsidies, the context is shifte so the general rule doesn't apply. The definitional parameter of if austerity is happening does, obviously, depend on the definition which creates the context. The rule is that it isn't, ergo, all you have to do is change the context, the definition, until it is true. They are, though, oblivious to the context that they are invoking. Context is the background upon which your mental images, that define an idea, are highlighted. You are likely aware of the background and aware when you change it. They are not.

There is a recent study that I ran across which illuminates the rule based vs consequence based thinking. I have this impression that, at least in my mind, that consequence=background=context. And I am ever so keenly aware of the background upon which my ideas are highlighted in bold relief. If not for that background, nothing exists.

Good analysis. I had just assumed that they all had a form of congenital idiocy. Your analysis is much more refined. Though in the end, perhaps it is all the same.

What continues to astound me is that they seem to be able to believe what they want to. Actual analysis, proof, all that bothersome stuff is of no concern to them. Friend of mine has a boy with a lot of mental issues. You talk with him knowing that you are not going to understand what he is taking from what you are saying. It is enough that he is happy. I suppose you can look at these folks the same way. For instance, every impartial economist is telling the world that austerity is being practiced in a number of european countries. You explain that to them. You provide the links and help them to understand. But it is like all that effort gets zero traction. They just look at you with that ignorant empty look and keep on saying what they always did. Again, I guess it is enough that they are happy. In their case, it is absolutely true. Ignorance is bliss. So, perhaps we should just let them be ignorant so they can keep on with that really stupid looking grin. It really is just bad luck. Not their fault.

Local environment is significant. During this last election, the poll reporting presented the data by urban, suburban, and rural demographics. This was the first time I have seen it grouped this way, overtly, and the difference is dramatic. Urban vs rural is, of course, simply population density. But this sets the stage for other direct experiences; public safety response time; product availability; prices; income; flow of funds; volume of employment opportunities; variability of goods and services; number of interactions per day; number of strangers met per day; level of specialization; and what else?

This urban vs rural effect seems particularly important. When it comes to firearm management, it seems that conceled handguns are an issue in urban environments. There are more opportunities to use them nefariously and it is difficult to conceal a rifle. In rural environments, it seems to really not matter. You cannot dissappear into the crowd. I am not sure if it really matters, either way, in a rural environment.

I have never been to NY or lived in SF, but we are pretty much aware of the huge crowd that one experiences on an hour to hour basis. I don't put much weight in what I experience from movies, but we have seen the sidewalk crowd in the business district of NY, during commute time, and I am sure it is reasonably accurate.

I've never been to the concrete jungles of the inner city, still, I get the sense that it is so vast, beyond what I might have experienced, that it has an impact on perception and behaviors. I should google earth it. I have to wonder how what the availability is for fresh product as opposed to the prepackaged, high shelf life goods that have little risk of spoilage. Milk stock has to be turned over, soda will keep forever. I am not sure how to classify the concrete jungle. It almost seems, in some way, a sort of high population density, rural environment. There are alot of people, but MV per cap is low.

It seems to me that the volume of monies flowing through urban and rural areas is significant. MV=PQ is fundamentally significant at a local level as it is at a national level. And, if we are considering an equivalent change in CPI, the absolute volume increase is different.

I was looking at Local_CPI/wages across regions. That is baskets of goods that can be purchased. Curiously, regional cpi swings greater than wages. At least to the recession, wages may be much higher in NY and SF, compared to Dallas, but CPI swings further.

Since the recession, I relocated to a more rural area. It is on the outskirts of the major urban areas, an agricultural area. Oddly, the major grocery stores run out of product, like milk. I had never been to the store and found basic products in short supply. I am located, basically, halfway between the two metropolitan areas, in a region that seems like neither wishes to claim. And, when it comes to product stock, it is as if the major grocery stores get whatever is left after the larger city has been stocked. It is odd.

Our environment sets the background, the context, for our experience and how we interpret that experience. We don't recognize the effect simply because we have nothing to compare it too.

It seems to me that the difference in the details of experience that arises simply out of population density has a huge impact. And I don't think it is necessarily a simple relationship. Often, the difference is in the balance, the net effect.

If I may get very abstract, it is quite reasonable to conclude that some differences in attitude is based on purely psychological impact, rather than real impact. Does fewer people around result in a greater sense of isolation or a fewer encounters with strangers? In the aggregate, does more people lead to feeling safer or alone in a crowd?

It seems to me that the real and percieved impact of local environment, simply due to population density is far greater than we recognize simply because we don't live long enough, gain enough life experience, in both environments to have a clue as to the difference it makes.

We don't like to believe that we are primarily controlled by our environment. We like to see ourselves as in control, objective and right.

There was a big dissagreement in psychology over whether language skill was learned or somehow inherent, built into our brain. Ther argument was, based on calculations by linguists, behavior and learning, that the shear volume of instances of repeated behavior and feedback is beyond what could be expected. And then one sociologist put voice activated tape recorders everwhere that the child and parent went, at home, in the car, everwhere. When they counting all the instances of interaction, as any exhausted mother already knew, the numbers were astounding. And, it agreed with theory. It was, in fact, therd shere volume of interactions between parent and child that fully accounts for all that language skill. It is all those microscopic experiences that add up to make all the difference. With the exception of the truely neurologically handicapped, environment is everything.

I'm just hypothesizing. Still, it seems to be a perspective that is looking in the right direction, that the differences in environment, created from simple population density, have a significant impact on perception and conclusions.

 

[Rshermr]

I believe that if you analyse the writings of non-austerity adherants, you will find that their definition will be that it does not exist unless the government has a net positive surplus, no debt, and no social programs. This will not include military spending. In the case of military spending, a debt and deficit will still be considered austerity because providing for the commom defense is necessary. (I may be overstating the net surplus, but I doubt it. They invoke the household analogy a lot. So I suspect that they would go so far as to feel that if they are not saving, they are not being austere).

Getting this from what is overtly stated is difficult because they will simply claim a lack of austerity due to whatever one of the above is convenient, without ever overtly stating their full definition of austerity.

They never come out and simply state their full position. They like carrying a concealed weapon. It is part of their charm. I think it is the result of both innate and learned behavior. Fundamentally, the concept of "and" is simply not a neurological construct. The second is it requires multiple items be held in short term memory, and they don't have the capacity for multiple abstractions in short term memory. Lastly, by not presenting more than one at a time, they can switch to another and still hold their position. If they presented all of them overtly, as a whole, it could be shot down as a whole.

Lastly, they don't grasp context. They are rule base and the rule is absolute. It isn't in a context. The context becomes defined by the rule. And if the rule shouldn't apply, like oil companies liemon their websites about AWG to take government subsidies, the context is shifte so the general rule doesn't apply. The definitional parameter of if austerity is happening does, obviously, depend on the definition which creates the context. The rule is that it isn't, ergo, all you have to do is change the context, the definition, until it is true. They are, though, oblivious to the context that they are invoking. Context is the background upon which your mental images, that define an idea, are highlighted. You are likely aware of the background and aware when you change it. They are not.

There is a recent study that I ran across which illuminates the rule based vs consequence based thinking. I have this impression that, at least in my mind, that consequence=background=context. And I am ever so keenly aware of the background upon which my ideas are highlighted in bold relief. If not for that background, nothing exists.

Good analysis. I had just assumed that they all had a form of congenital idiocy. Your analysis is much more refined. Though in the end, perhaps it is all the same.

What continues to astound me is that they seem to be able to believe what they want to. Actual analysis, proof, all that bothersome stuff is of no concern to them. Friend of mine has a boy with a lot of mental issues. You talk with him knowing that you are not going to understand what he is taking from what you are saying. It is enough that he is happy. I suppose you can look at these folks the same way. For instance, every impartial economist is telling the world that austerity is being practiced in a number of european countries. You explain that to them. You provide the links and help them to understand. But it is like all that effort gets zero traction. They just look at you with that ignorant empty look and keep on saying what they always did. Again, I guess it is enough that they are happy. In their case, it is absolutely true. Ignorance is bliss. So, perhaps we should just let them be ignorant so they can keep on with that really stupid looking grin. It really is just bad luck. Not their fault.

Local environment is significant. During this last election, the poll reporting presented the data by urban, suburban, and rural demographics. This was the first time I have seen it grouped this way, overtly, and the difference is dramatic. Urban vs rural is, of course, simply population density. But this sets the stage for other direct experiences; public safety response time; product availability; prices; income; flow of funds; volume of employment opportunities; variability of goods and services; number of interactions per day; number of strangers met per day; level of specialization; and what else?

This urban vs rural effect seems particularly important. When it comes to firearm management, it seems that conceled handguns are an issue in urban environments. There are more opportunities to use them nefariously and it is difficult to conceal a rifle. In rural environments, it seems to really not matter. You cannot dissappear into the crowd. I am not sure if it really matters, either way, in a rural environment.

I have never been to NY or lived in SF, but we are pretty much aware of the huge crowd that one experiences on an hour to hour basis. I don't put much weight in what I experience from movies, but we have seen the sidewalk crowd in the business district of NY, during commute time, and I am sure it is reasonably accurate.

I've never been to the concrete jungles of the inner city, still, I get the sense that it is so vast, beyond what I might have experienced, that it has an impact on perception and behaviors. I should google earth it. I have to wonder how what the availability is for fresh product as opposed to the prepackaged, high shelf life goods that have little risk of spoilage. Milk stock has to be turned over, soda will keep forever. I am not sure how to classify the concrete jungle. It almost seems, in some way, a sort of high population density, rural environment. There are alot of people, but MV per cap is low.

It seems to me that the volume of monies flowing through urban and rural areas is significant. MV=PQ is fundamentally significant at a local level as it is at a national level. And, if we are considering an equivalent change in CPI, the absolute volume increase is different.

I was looking at Local_CPI/wages across regions. That is baskets of goods that can be purchased. Curiously, regional cpi swings greater than wages. At least to the recession, wages may be much higher in NY and SF, compared to Dallas, but CPI swings further.

Since the recession, I relocated to a more rural area. It is on the outskirts of the major urban areas, an agricultural area. Oddly, the major grocery stores run out of product, like milk. I had never been to the store and found basic products in short supply. I am located, basically, halfway between the two metropolitan areas, in a region that seems like neither wishes to claim. And, when it comes to product stock, it is as if the major grocery stores get whatever is left after the larger city has been stocked. It is odd.

Our environment sets the background, the context, for our experience and how we interpret that experience. We don't recognize the effect simply because we have nothing to compare it too.

It seems to me that the difference in the details of experience that arises simply out of population density has a huge impact. And I don't think it is necessarily a simple relationship. Often, the difference is in the balance, the net effect.

If I may get very abstract, it is quite reasonable to conclude that some differences in attitude is based on purely psychological impact, rather than real impact. Does fewer people around result in a greater sense of isolation or a fewer encounters with strangers? In the aggregate, does more people lead to feeling safer or alone in a crowd?

It seems to me that the real and percieved impact of local environment, simply due to population density is far greater than we recognize simply because we don't live long enough, gain enough life experience, in both environments to have a clue as to the difference it makes.

We don't like to believe that we are primarily controlled by our environment. We like to see ourselves as in control, objective and right.

There was a big dissagreement in psychology over whether language skill was learned or somehow inherent, built into our brain. Ther argument was, based on calculations by linguists, behavior and learning, that the shear volume of instances of repeated behavior and feedback is beyond what could be expected. And then one sociologist put voice activated tape recorders everwhere that the child and parent went, at home, in the car, everwhere. When they counting all the instances of interaction, as any exhausted mother already knew, the numbers were astounding. And, it agreed with theory. It was, in fact, therd shere volume of interactions between parent and child that fully accounts for all that language skill. It is all those microscopic experiences that add up to make all the difference. With the exception of the truely neurologically handicapped, environment is everything.

I'm just hypothesizing. Still, it seems to be a perspective that is looking in the right direction, that the differences in environment, created from simple population density, have a significant impact on perception and conclusions.

Well, so, that may well be true. Environment undoubtedly makes a huge difference. Still, there seems to be major inherent differences between people in like environments. And my reading has been extensive in what it is that makes people believe. What constitutes the truth for people.
And the net is that study after study finds that there is a significant slice of the population who want to be told what to believe and what to do. It was the basis for the control of populations by the nazi's, for instance. And it was the basis for conrol by the "communist" countries - Russia in particular. And the big take away is that the needs that this slice of the population have are really the same. They want thing explained to them. They want to be part of a "team". They like being angry, and need others to hate. Actually makes them happy.
So this psychology is well understood by those studying it. And it is generally pegged as being something between 12 and 20% of any population. Once understood, it is very helpful to those wanting to control them. And you see it in the actions of those doing so (controlling a group, that is) as they pander to those specific needs.
The conservative machine, as I like to call it, is made up of a few very rich people who have done a great job over the years cultivating these folks. They have the money, and the knowledge, to get the job done, and have been successful at doing so. You can see the result on this board. Blind belief with no ability to use facts to back up those beliefs. Sad sort of thing. You see the anger quickly in these folks, and the inability to have an actual discussion. It is, in fact, just the way it is. They want to believe what they believe. And hate you if you prove them wrong.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The conservative machine, as I like to call it, is made up of a few very rich people who have done a great job over the years cultivating these folks.

a few rich people? You mean our Founders ?? And you call 250 years a few years??

By cultivating us to believe in freedom from liberal government they transformed all of human history and saved civilization on earth. I see you're keeping up your record, 1267 perfectly stupid posts in a row!

 

[itfitzme]

The conservative machine, as I like to call it, is made up of a few very rich people who have done a great job over the years cultivating these folks.

a few rich people? You mean our Founders ?? And you call 250 years a few years??

By cultivating us to believe in freedom from liberal government they transformed all of human history and saved civilization on earth. I see you're keeping up your record, 1267 perfectly stupid posts in a row!

Perfect timing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I believe that if you analyse the writings of non-austerity adherants, you will find that their definition will be that it does not exist unless the government has a net positive surplus, no debt, and no social programs.

There really are no non-austerity adherants. There are those who believe in capitalism and those who don't. Capitalists look at East/West Germany or Cuba/Florida or Hong Kong/China as Friedman did to test a real theory with real evidence. The idea that a debatable slowing of spending in some countries is austerity, let alone capitalism is beyond absurd.

Why not give the 3 best reverse example of East/West Germany, etc, where more liberal government absolutely clobbered more capitalist government?

 

[Rshermr]

The conservative machine, as I like to call it, is made up of a few very rich people who have done a great job over the years cultivating these folks.

a few rich people? You mean our Founders ?? And you call 250 years a few years??

By cultivating us to believe in freedom from liberal government they transformed all of human history and saved civilization on earth. I see you're keeping up your record, 1267 perfectly stupid posts in a row!

Perfect timing.

I think ed is making an appearance as a model for what I was discussing. Perfect. And how magnanimous of him.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

a few rich people? You mean our Founders ?? And you call 250 years a few years??

By cultivating us to believe in freedom from liberal government they transformed all of human history and saved civilization on earth. I see you're keeping up your record, 1267 perfectly stupid posts in a row!

Perfect timing.

I think ed is making an appearance as a model for what I was discussing. Perfect. And how magnanimous of him.

By cultivating us to believe in freedom from liberal government our Founders, starting with Aristotle, transformed all of human history and saved civilization on earth. I see you're keeping up your record, 1268 perfectly stupid posts in a row!

Tell us, was Aristotle one of the few rich people you were talking about?

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow.

 

[itfitzme]

a few rich people? You mean our Founders ?? And you call 250 years a few years??

By cultivating us to believe in freedom from liberal government they transformed all of human history and saved civilization on earth. I see you're keeping up your record, 1267 perfectly stupid posts in a row!

Perfect timing.

I think ed is making an appearance as a model for what I was discussing. Perfect. And how magnanimous of him.

He has appointed himself a delusional role as defender of the daddy state.

 

[Rshermr]

Perfect timing.

I think ed is making an appearance as a model for what I was discussing. Perfect. And how magnanimous of him.

He has appointed himself a delusional role as defender of the daddy state.

Well, you have to admit, there are few things that you can be absolutely confident are completely true. So ed's posting is ONE of those very few things. When you see him posting on this board, you can be sure it is nonsense. Kind of a comforting thing.

 

[SayMyName]

Is austerity working in Europe? Exactly what does that mean?

I just returned from a 2 month hike of the 800 kilometer Camino de Santiago across northern Spain. You see lots of empty buildings where construction left them only halfway completed, and in industrial areas factories that are not producing.

So, they looked at their neighbors in the north and across the Atlantic and borrowed to bring their level of living up to what they measured as successful or good, instead of realizing that perhaps what they had was good to begin with. The Spanish do not want to give up their siesta, but those nations that are producing and lending the money want Spain to do exactly that and start contributing during daylight hours.

So, while I was there, you had demonstrations in Madrid and signs here and there against cuts in this or that program. Yet, they want that new Iphone as well, or this or that car...and someone else to pay for it. This is just one example. The same situation is unfolding in Greece and Italy, and even to a lesser degree in Sweden where I currently reside.

So, how is austerity working in Europe? People are having to face no longer being able to live on the backs of others and not having to pay for it. There is complaining. Yet, are they mad enough to do something about it? I haven't seen that.

People are falling into an acceptance of this new direction. Is it because they know that, unlike decades before, a Turkish, Morroccan, or Pakistani is at the door banging to get in to not only work...but actually produce? I think that is one part of it. I think the other part of it is that so many of these migrants are quickly becoming the new wealth in these countries, and they tend to be so much more conscious of how to build and maintain wealth, and thus not favor government programs that diminish that, or, what we would normally and mistakenly call conservative economic principles. They are helping to further push the change of Europe in a new direction.

While Europe is beginning to shift in a direction that favors cuts in government programs and austerity, the US is going that opposite direction. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the years to come.

 

[itfitzme]

I think ed is making an appearance as a model for what I was discussing. Perfect. And how magnanimous of him.

He has appointed himself a delusional role as defender of the daddy state.

Well, you have to admit, there are few things that you can be absolutely confident are completely true. So ed's posting is ONE of those very few things. When you see him posting on this board, you can be sure it is nonsense. Kind of a comforting thing.

Like death and taxes?