The Guardian: Nato is a threat to Europe and must be disbanded

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Ned
Davout, I suspect from your post that you "claim to understand" the economy?

Let me ask you then, did you support Kerry's call for balancing the budget by raising taxes when the US recession was still upon us?

I have been modestly trying to understand the economy for many years (fourty, but I agree that it proves only that I am not really bright ).

As for Kerry program, I did not pay any attention, because I am convince that the complexity of a budget cannot be seriously summarized in an electoral speech.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I remain a finical conservative who thinks our country shouldn't dump huge debts upon our children.

Most of the kids i know are self centered, hedonistic, and irresponsible and fully derserve this.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Most of the kids i know are self centered, hedonistic, and irresponsible and fully derserve this.

Are not they imitating their parents?

[Ned]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


I have been modestly trying to understand the economy for many years (fourty, but I agree that it proves only that I am not really bright ).

As for Kerry program, I did not pay any attention, because I am convince that the complexity of a budget cannot be seriously summarized in an electoral speech.

Davout, you and I seem to have about the same level of experience then in "trying to understand the economy." I must admit that until recently I could not answer why the US economy generally did better under Democrats than Republicans. I too thought that balanced budgets were "good" and a "surplus" was better. But it seems the truth lies elsewhere. Republicans, like Ike, Nixon and Ford always tried to restrain spending and balance the budget. What they got for their efforts was recession and/or a sluggish economy. Big spending Democrats always seem to push the economy forward.

Reagan got it right by accident. He wanted to cut both taxes and spending; but the Dems wouldn't let him do the latter. As a result, we had tax cuts and high spending during the Reagan years and the economy really took off. We continued to have high deficits under Clinton until the last years, when we switched to a surplus. That surplus helped bring about the stock market crash of 2000-2.

Bush still talks the traditional Republican talk of balanced budgets in public. But he has been the biggest spender in history in addition to being a president who cut taxes. This all was necessary to pull us out of our deflationary recession. All I can say to Bush is bravo!

[Saras]

Originally posted by Ned
That surplus helped bring about the stock market crash of 2000-2.

OMG

[Kontiki]

Sometimes I wonder if Ned actually believes the stuff he posts, or if it's all just one big troll.

Most times I simply don't care. Easier just to laugh than waste any time countering it.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Sometimes I wonder if Ned actually believes the stuff he posts, or if it's all just one big troll.

Ned trolls about 50% of the time. It's however very hard to notice, as he doesn't change his tone between his serious and trollish posts.

IMHO, his trollish posts are those who demonize his opponents. Other don't seem like trolls to me.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


Are not they imitating their parents?

No, they typically revolt and do the opposite, so it's Lefty's parents that was self centered, hedonistic, and irresponsible.

[Barinthus]

Not neccessarily. They do revolt or whatever in their teen years only to find to their horror that they have became like their parents in their late 20s to 30s.

[Last Conformist]

Teenage revolts are for conformists.

Leave it to us, you pretenders!

[DAVOUT]

Davout, you and I seem to have about the same level of experience then in "trying to understand the economy."

I am not able to confirm that we have anything identical, and I would much prefer that we do not. If our level of experience appear to be the same, it can only be the result of a coincidence, and this observation is intrinsically useless.

I must admit that until recently I could not answer why the US economy generally did better under Democrats than Republicans. I too thought that balanced budgets were "good" and a "surplus" was better. But it seems the truth lies elsewhere. Republicans, like Ike, Nixon and Ford always tried to restrain spending and balance the budget. What they got for their efforts was recession and/or a sluggish economy. Big spending Democrats always seem to push the economy forward.

Reagan got it right by accident. He wanted to cut both taxes and spending; but the Dems wouldn't let him do the latter. As a result, we had tax cuts and high spending during the Reagan years and the economy really took off. We continued to have high deficits under Clinton until the last years, when we switched to a surplus. That surplus helped bring about the stock market crash of 2000-2.

Bush still talks the traditional Republican talk of balanced budgets in public. But he has been the biggest spender in history in addition to being a president who cut taxes. This all was necessary to pull us out of our deflationary recession. All I can say to Bush is bravo!

It would be so pleasant that the economy be understood and mastered with one or two simplistic ideas, and that ideological bias would just make things a bit clearer. Unfortunately complexity is inherent to the economy, and you could benefit greatly from the reading of Greenspan testimonies before the senate : whatever one can think of Greenspan, those reports describe in the shortest possible way the intricacies of the US economy. Nevertheless, this effort is not needed if you just want to say Bravo to your President.

[Ned]

Actually, Davout, I have read Greenspan's testimonies. You will recall that he too was surprised by the deflationary effects of the fall in equity prices, which clearly indicated that easily convertible stocks were a form of money. Also recall that Greenspan supported the Bush tax cuts even in face of record deficits to combat deflation.

[Zulu Elephant]

Big spending Democrats always seem to push the economy forward.

That sounds like pinko-red-liberal-lefty-anti-life-anti-gun-russian-chinese-vietnamese-european-socialist talk to me

*pulls out a gun*

[Ned]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant


That sounds like pinko-red-liberal-lefty-anti-life-anti-gun-russian-chinese-vietnamese-european-socialist talk to me

*pulls out a gun*

No, actually. It recognizes that big spending is good. This does not mean I am in favor of progressive taxes, which is critical to the socialist agenda of social equality.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ned
Actually, Davout, I have read Greenspan's testimonies. You will recall that he too was surprised by the deflationary effects of the fall in equity prices, which clearly indicated that easily convertible stocks were a form of money. Also recall that Greenspan supported the Bush tax cuts even in face of record deficits to combat deflation.

Spain in the 16th century was hit by both runaway inflation and defllation at the same time it total weaknen they empire. It rarely happen that both will hit at the same time. All the Gold and silver from the new world going to Spain cause inflation which cause the price of very to go up. There is than limit of how hight prices can go up so prices start to go down which lead
to deflation while still more gold and silver from the new world enter spain cause inflation of the value of the curreny.