What Is Wrong With America ?

[Contumacious]

I have no followed the case at all, so I cannot comment on it. However, I did want to mention that I "thanked" protectionist for his post based on the concept - not this specific case. If a prosecution does not prove that someone was acting in self-defense and yet they are still found guilty, that is most definitely a good example of something that is wrong with America today.

That was a bullshit case.

One does not have a right in a public place to tell others to lower the music and most definitely one does not have a right to kill all the occupants in the car.

Now, if the kids had broken and entered into his house , played the loud music and refused to leave then it would have been a "stand your ground" case.

The hypothetical that Rottweiler mentioned about self-defense, is what is the problem with the Dunn case. It is exactly what has occured here. In no way did the prosecution ever prove that there was no gun in the SUV. That had to happen for a conviction to be made, and it didn't. Even the prosecutor, John Guy, admitted that witness accounts were "inconsistencies."

If I go to a restaurant and people are either smoking , playing loud music or otherwise ruining the dining out experience I will tell the manager to do something about it or I will leave.

I will not confront those who are being obnoxious. The firearm should be used as a last resort.

.

 

[Walt]

What is wrong with America? The people/voters. For decades they have been voting something they liked to call the lesser of 2 evils. Which means although the voting populace knew that the people running should not be elected. They voted for them anyway. These people were mainly referred to as the silent majority. So now when the bowl water is spinning faster and faster. People are beginning to pay a little attention and ask what happened.

 

[Bombur]

You also need someone to demand what that machine is making.

Oh look, a cretin who doesn't grasp Say's Law....

So what do you think it means when that demand depends on ever increasing debt? Including debt between nations? How does growing income inequality impact Say's law? Why do you think China manipulates our currency then?

I think you may want to do a little more than just memorize some talking points.

 

[protectionist]

That was a bullshit case.

One does not have a right in a public place to tell others to lower the music and most definitely one does not have a right to kill all the occupants in the car.

Now, if the kids had broken and entered into his house , played the loud music and refused to leave then it would have been a "stand your ground" case.

The hypothetical that Rottweiler mentioned about self-defense, is what is the problem with the Dunn case. It is exactly what has occured here. In no way did the prosecution ever prove that there was no gun in the SUV. That had to happen for a conviction to be made, and it didn't. Even the prosecutor, John Guy, admitted that witness accounts were "inconsistencies."

If I go to a restaurant and people are either smoking , playing loud music or otherwise ruining the dining out experience I will tell the manager to do something about it or I will leave.

I will not confront those who are being obnoxious. The firearm should be used as a last resort.

1. It would have been better to tell the convenience store clerk about the loud SUV, but >>>
a. he probably wouldn't have done anything about it
b. by the time you get to talk to him, the loud vehicle may be already gone
c. it's a different situation than a restaurant

2. The firearm should be used only if required for self-defense

 

[berilgonzalvis]

There is nothing wrong with our country. It is the government , which make it a living hell.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So what do you think it means when that demand depends on ever increasing debt? Including debt between nations? How does growing income inequality impact Say's law? Why do you think China manipulates our currency then?

I think that you are yet another leftist, who read Krugmans misrepresentation of Keynesian theory, and suddenly fancies themselves an expert in Marcroeconomics. You'll trot out the usual mindless talking points from KOS or ThinkProgess, with no grasp as to the mechanisms of a market, while smugly believing yourself superior because you chant the party line.

I think you may want to do a little more than just memorize some talking points.

Rich irony indeed.

 

[Bombur]

So what do you think it means when that demand depends on ever increasing debt? Including debt between nations? How does growing income inequality impact Say's law? Why do you think China manipulates our currency then?

I think that you are yet another leftist, who read Krugmans misrepresentation of Keynesian theory, and suddenly fancies themselves an expert in Marcroeconomics. You'll trot out the usual mindless talking points from KOS or ThinkProgess, with no grasp as to the mechanisms of a market, while smugly believing yourself superior because you chant the party line.

I think you may want to do a little more than just memorize some talking points.

Rich irony indeed.

So I ask you rather straight forward and relevant questions which you avoid answering while making unsupported and irrelevant accusations.

Say's law relies upon certain assumptions regarding the flow of capital in an economy and amongst nations. It is these capital flows and balances that become important when talking about the impact of increases of production. They have an impact on consumption and prices that will eventually lead to a correction.

Say's law doesn't mean there are not market distortions or corrections that need to happen.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So I ask you rather straight forward and relevant questions which you avoid answering while making unsupported and irrelevant accusations.

You didn't ask a relevant question, you erected a straw man. Nowhere did I advocate for deficit spending, nor has it any relevance to the concepts of this idiotic "demand side" pablum that is fed to lowbrows of the left.

Say's law relies upon certain assumptions regarding the flow of capital in an economy and amongst nations. It is these capital flows and balances that become important when talking about the impact of increases of production. They have an impact on consumption and prices that will eventually lead to a correction.

Nonsense.

In 1995 there was zero demand for an iPhone. According the Krugman, this means that an iPhone can never be built, because demand is a prerequisite for supply. Clearly this is utter nonsense. The supply of iPhones created the demand for them. Consumers saw them, and though they never knew they had a need for such a device, suddenly the value was clear. Say's law in action, supply gives rise to demand.

Krugman is a hack with a political agenda; he subverts legitimate economic theory in favor of promoting leftist politics.

While I have many arguments with the ideas of Lord Keynes, at least his ideas were founded on legitimate economic principles. One cannot say this of Krugman.

Say's law doesn't mean there are not market distortions or corrections that need to happen.

You appear to be tossing out terms without a clue as to the meaning of those terms.

Say's law: Supply gives rise to demand.

Simply put, starving peasants can demand bread all day, yet receive none. Demand is relevant ONLY in response to supply. Demand absent supply must, by reality, go unsatisfied.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Liberals

 

[Bombur]

So I ask you rather straight forward and relevant questions which you avoid answering while making unsupported and irrelevant accusations.

You didn't ask a relevant question, you erected a straw man. Nowhere did I advocate for deficit spending, nor has it any relevance to the concepts of this idiotic "demand side" pablum that is fed to lowbrows of the left.

Say's law relies upon certain assumptions regarding the flow of capital in an economy and amongst nations. It is these capital flows and balances that become important when talking about the impact of increases of production. They have an impact on consumption and prices that will eventually lead to a correction.

Nonsense.

In 1995 there was zero demand for an iPhone. According the Krugman, this means that an iPhone can never be built, because demand is a prerequisite for supply. Clearly this is utter nonsense. The supply of iPhones created the demand for them. Consumers saw them, and though they never knew they had a need for such a device, suddenly the value was clear. Say's law in action, supply gives rise to demand.

Krugman is a hack with a political agenda; he subverts legitimate economic theory in favor of promoting leftist politics.

While I have many arguments with the ideas of Lord Keynes, at least his ideas were founded on legitimate economic principles. One cannot say this of Krugman.

Say's law doesn't mean there are not market distortions or corrections that need to happen.

You appear to be tossing out terms without a clue as to the meaning of those terms.

Say's law: Supply gives rise to demand.

Simply put, starving peasants can demand bread all day, yet receive none. Demand is relevant ONLY in response to supply. Demand absent supply must, by reality, go unsatisfied.

The issue is not about advocating or not advocating deficit spending. The issue is about the fact that consumption has been maintained by debt (especially foreign capital inflows) and what that signifies. It is about establishing the reality of the situation and that reality is not limited to government debt.

When talking about demand you are talking about the demand for a specific item. The issue being discussed is the demand for all items. What makes up that particular basket of goods being demanded will change of course and there is plenty of room for new items to be created all the time. I don't know or care what Krugman said or what you think he said. There is nothing that I am saying that would any way mean that no one would demand an iphone.

What I am saying is that people will only have so many resources to demand iphones and everything else they demand. That this level of demand will rely upon both wages and debt at the national level. That since the trade imbalance exploded in the early 80's US consumption has been artificially increased by a USD that depends on capital inflows and consumption that depends on foreign debt. That this has limited the demand for US production which is now leading to a long over due correction.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The issue is not about advocating or not advocating deficit spending. The issue is about the fact that consumption has been maintained by debt (especially foreign capital inflows) and what that signifies. It is about establishing the reality of the situation and that reality is not limited to government debt.

While a common talking point of the leftist hate sites, is there any truth to this? Is consumer debt financed by China? Certainly no one has turned to China to take out a credit card or mortgage.

So what is that basis of the claim that consumer debt is financed by China?

Well, there really is no basis. Mortgage backed securities were sold to the EU from the mid-90's through the crash of 2008, but not to China. Further, that debt is gone, either wiped out through default or repaid through TARP.

China holds $1.3 trillion in U.S. debt - 100% of which is owed by the Federal Government.

So why do leftists lie about this? Well, it sells the story better, and there is a tiny kernal of truth buried in it. Much consumer debt is guaranteed by the U.S. government. Corruption is so high that banks and lending institutions can make risky investments, and when the fail, turn to the government to pay for the failures. This is what TARP did.

Who Holds Our Debt?

When talking about demand you are talking about the demand for a specific item. The issue being discussed is the demand for all items. What makes up that particular basket of goods being demanded will change of course and there is plenty of room for new items to be created all the time. I don't know or care what Krugman said or what you think he said. There is nothing that I am saying that would any way mean that no one would demand an iphone.

When talking about demand, we are talking about a market force. We are talking about what creates economic activity. Demand alone creates zero activity. Supply creates the opportunity for economic activity, if matched with demand, then activity ensues

What I am saying is that people will only have so many resources to demand iphones and everything else they demand. That this level of demand will rely upon both wages and debt at the national level. That since the trade imbalance exploded in the early 80's US consumption has been artificially increased by a USD that depends on capital inflows and consumption that depends on foreign debt. That this has limited the demand for US production which is now leading to a long over due correction.

What you are not grasping is economies of scale. The fact that you can get an iPhone for $99 is a result of economies of scale. These are not products reserved for the elite, Every ghetto dweller in America has one.

Debt is tossed about as if the average person is piling on trillions in debt - nope, that's Obama.

Household debt by consumers is declining - and is virtually all domestic. Check how holds your debt? If it's Capital One, it's held by GE Capital. Chase, BofA, Wells Fargo are all obvious. Fannie and Freddy, well those are government, so some of the Chinese capital might be involved, but only through third tier reckoning. In other words, it's illegal to use foreign funds by Freddy and Fannie, but TARP and Porkulous both used such funds, so there is an indirect connection.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- The bs Pub Propaganda Machine, the PANDER TO THE RICH, SCREW THE NON RICH AND THE COUNTRY GOP, their idiototic, angry hater dupes, and all the destruction they've caused the last 30 years, including the ruin of the middle class and the country's infrastructure, the production of 100k jihadists with total 9/11 incompetence and the stupidest wars and chickenhawk foreign policy EVER, finally ANOTHER Pub world depression and five years of mindless obstruction. Great job, a-holes.

The Dunn case is a perfect example of the division, stupidity, and stress they've caused. See sig para. 1.

 

[francoHFW]

What leftists said CHINA HELD CONSUMER debt. It's RWers bitching about all the debt- CULTIST morons. China holds 6 per cent of our debt, and debt is only 78 per cent of GDP. Pass a GD jobs/infrasture pill- never been cheaper to borrow, and we need a GD RECOVERY.

 

[Bombur]

The issue is not about advocating or not advocating deficit spending. The issue is about the fact that consumption has been maintained by debt (especially foreign capital inflows) and what that signifies. It is about establishing the reality of the situation and that reality is not limited to government debt.

While a common talking point of the leftist hate sites, is there any truth to this? Is consumer debt financed by China? Certainly no one has turned to China to take out a credit card or mortgage.

So what is that basis of the claim that consumer debt is financed by China?

Well, there really is no basis. Mortgage backed securities were sold to the EU from the mid-90's through the crash of 2008, but not to China. Further, that debt is gone, either wiped out through default or repaid through TARP.

China holds $1.3 trillion in U.S. debt - 100% of which is owed by the Federal Government.

So why do leftists lie about this? Well, it sells the story better, and there is a tiny kernal of truth buried in it. Much consumer debt is guaranteed by the U.S. government. Corruption is so high that banks and lending institutions can make risky investments, and when the fail, turn to the government to pay for the failures. This is what TARP did.

Who Holds Our Debt?

When talking about demand you are talking about the demand for a specific item. The issue being discussed is the demand for all items. What makes up that particular basket of goods being demanded will change of course and there is plenty of room for new items to be created all the time. I don't know or care what Krugman said or what you think he said. There is nothing that I am saying that would any way mean that no one would demand an iphone.

When talking about demand, we are talking about a market force. We are talking about what creates economic activity. Demand alone creates zero activity. Supply creates the opportunity for economic activity, if matched with demand, then activity ensues

What I am saying is that people will only have so many resources to demand iphones and everything else they demand. That this level of demand will rely upon both wages and debt at the national level. That since the trade imbalance exploded in the early 80's US consumption has been artificially increased by a USD that depends on capital inflows and consumption that depends on foreign debt. That this has limited the demand for US production which is now leading to a long over due correction.

What you are not grasping is economies of scale. The fact that you can get an iPhone for $99 is a result of economies of scale. These are not products reserved for the elite, Every ghetto dweller in America has one.

Debt is tossed about as if the average person is piling on trillions in debt - nope, that's Obama.

Household debt by consumers is declining - and is virtually all domestic. Check how holds your debt? If it's Capital One, it's held by GE Capital. Chase, BofA, Wells Fargo are all obvious. Fannie and Freddy, well those are government, so some of the Chinese capital might be involved, but only through third tier reckoning. In other words, it's illegal to use foreign funds by Freddy and Fannie, but TARP and Porkulous both used such funds, so there is an indirect connection.

China bought MBS leading up to the crisis. They also own some GM stock. They buy gold.

I don't know what their entire portfolio is but I am not sure how relevant that is. Any large persistent imbalance will inflate the amount of capital in the market. Also our large amount of public debt is a matter of fact as opposed to something I or you are advocating or arguing against. A large amount of public debt certainly makes it easy on any nation that is looking to manipulate our currency. It is also a type of debt that inflates consumption as opposed to invests in US production.

I am not claiming that demand alone creates economic activity. I am claiming that the two act together and depend on one another. For example, China as a country was looking to increase production as fast as possible and knew they would benefit from having a trading partner (US) that would supply a large number of consumers to sell to. This allowed China to increase production without as much fear of over producing or over investing in capacity.

The US has benefited greatly from this relationship as increases in productivity in China have translated to increased income and purchasing power in the US. Debt has been cheaper because of China as well. The downside is that since the 1980's the US has had a trade imbalance that has slowly helped erode the demand for US production relative to US Consumption. Eventually that has to be reversed.

Your point about economies of scale has no connection to this argument.

Consumer debt was increasing overtime and eventually crashed. It is one of the reasons for the bad economy.

Corporations have shed their debt and are actually in really good shape to make large investments in the future.

The US is actually in relatively good shape to start growing very fast. The missing piece is demand.

 

[RandallFlagg]

That was a bullshit case.

One does not have a right in a public place to tell others to lower the music and most definitely one does not have a right to kill all the occupants in the car.

Now, if the kids had broken and entered into his house , played the loud music and refused to leave then it would have been a "stand your ground" case.

The hypothetical that Rottweiler mentioned about self-defense, is what is the problem with the Dunn case. It is exactly what has occured here. In no way did the prosecution ever prove that there was no gun in the SUV. That had to happen for a conviction to be made, and it didn't. Even the prosecutor, John Guy, admitted that witness accounts were "inconsistencies."

If I go to a restaurant and people are either smoking , playing loud music or otherwise ruining the dining out experience I will tell the manager to do something about it or I will leave.

I will not confront those who are being obnoxious. The firearm should be used as a last resort.

.

Indeed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Country music.

Yeah, we need more of that wholesome Gansta Rap to guide our youth......

 

[protectionist]

Country music.

Who could ever dislike THIS country music ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5Emb0bi0n4&feature=kp]Mississippi John Hurt I'm satisfied - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Katzndogz]

Whats wrong with America is that it's done, over, finis. We are dissolving into the same kind of ethnic, cultural and religious strife as in Egypt, Syria and Bosnia.

 

[Ame®icano]

We hear all the time about how Social Security is going to run out of money. On the other side, we never hear about welfare running out of money. What's wrong with America is that while first group worked for their money there is no guarantees they will get it, but the second didn't work for it and there will always be enough money for it.

 

[protectionist]

We hear all the time about how Social Security is going to run out of money. On the other side, we never hear about welfare running out of money. What's wrong with America is that while first group worked for their money there is no guarantees they will get it, but the second didn't work for it and there will always be enough money for it.

Hell of a good and interesting observation. I think VA benefits could be added to that too. Didn't they just vote for a cut in that, just recently ?