Republican primaries.

I think Romney will win, probably always would have, but I agree that Ron Paul makes things interesting. Would be even more interesting if the stupid right-wing media didn't always marginalise him.

As for the democratic candidates, I hope Dennis Kucinich and Alan Grayson run, it would be hilarious. :D
 
The same Ron Paul that wishes to apply the faith based Austrian School of Economics?
how is it faith based?

I would say the only reason why Ron Paul might understand the economy is because he debate with normal economists so often. I think he does see a lot of the issues with the economy, but if his solution is to apply the Austrian School of Economics... oh dear. Good bye America.
why would it be goodbye America. The Austrian school is very similar to the Chicago school that Milton Friedman used, the only different is that they use formal logic and deductive reasoning instead of heavily relying on empirical data (as shown the pro empirical prediction crowed caused the financial crisis, while the Austrians predicted it...)

The damage before they realize how bad an idea that would be will probally cost them more than both wars. You need regulation, you need government... it just needs to be done right. You need competent people running it.
You are aware that every regulation has a cost and an unintended consequence (this is economics 101), quite frankly you always seem to ignore this..

The more transparent and accountable a government is, the more healthy those people will be.
That didn't really stop the Euro-crisis from happening or the great depression or the financial crisis..
 
how is it faith based?


"Mainstream economists are generally critical of methodologies used by modern Austrian economists.[9] In particular, the Austrian method of deriving theories has been criticized by mainstream economists as being a priori or non-empirical.[9][10][11][12] Some scholars have argued that Austrian economists are often averse to the use of mathematics and statistics.[11]"

Critics argue that Austrian economics generally lacks scientific rigor, rejects the scientific method, and rejects the use of empirical data.[9][11][88] Thomas Mayer has argued that Austrian economists have advocated a rejection of scientific methods which involve directly using empirical data in the development of (falsifiable) theories; application of empirical data is fundamental to the scientific method.[10][88] Austrians argue that empirical data in and of itself cannot explain anything, which in turn implies that empirical data cannot falsify a theory and that economics is not a study where the scientific method applies.[89][90]
Austrian economists reject empirical statistical methods, natural experiments and constructed experiments as tools applicable to economics, saying that while it is appropriate in the natural sciences where factors can be isolated in laboratory conditions, the actions of humans are too complex for such a treatment because humans are not passive and non-adaptive subjects. As Austrian economist Jeffrey Herbener has noted "there are no statistical characteristics to human behavior. It is purposeful rather than random, and changeable rather than constant".[35] Austrian economists claim one should instead isolate the logical processes of human action. Mises called this discipline "praxeology."[36] The Austrian praxeological method is based on the heavy use of logical deduction from what they assert to be undeniable, self-evident axioms or irrefutable facts about human existence.[37]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

'"One of the questions every great biologist invariably faces is "Do we debate the creationists?" Similarly, all great economists must ask themselves the question "Do we debate the Austrians?"'

Austrian economics (or the Austrian school of economics) is a school of economic thought that eschews mathematical modeling and empirical testing in favor of a narrative approach termed 'praxeology'.[2][3]
As the claims of Austrian economists are difficult to verify without empirical testing, it is widely considered a pseudoscience.[4][5] Austrian arguments as to why statistical methods cannot adequately describe human behavior can seem intuitively compelling, but they fail to provide the mathematical proof demonstrating why normally unbiased estimates suddenly become biased simply because they are dealing with people who make decisions. Perhaps one reason they are so uncomfortable with empiricism is that Austrian economists are more interested in defending the political ideology of libertarianism than they are in advancing economic understanding,[6] and rigorous testing can sometimes undermine deeply held political beliefs.

The Austrians seem to follow the maxim "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****." If you couldn't wade through all their econo-speak and arbitrary redefinitions of commonly used terms, however, they do the work for you and come straight out and say they just made everything up. Ludwig von Mises wrote of his theory, "its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts." F.A. Hayek wrote that any theories in the social sciences can "never be verified or falsified by reference to facts."[14][15]
In other words, it's economic theology. An entire (albeit minor) school of economics has published book after book and paper upon paper just to say all problems can be boiled down to "gubmint did it" and all solutions can be described as "free market always wins." Despite this, their influence (on the internets, at least) seems to be growing, at least since 2008 and the proliferation of "Peter Schiff was right!!11!!" videos. Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom also got the Glenn Beck bump when it was mentioned on his show.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Austrian_school

why would it be goodbye America.

Jeffrey Sachs observes that among developed countries, those with high rates of taxation and high social welfare spending perform better on most measures of economic performance compared to countries with low rates of taxation and low social outlays. He concludes that Friedrich Hayek was wrong to argue that high levels of government spending harms an economy, and "a generous social-welfare state is not a road to serfdom but rather to fairness, economic equality and international competitiveness."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School
 
Last edited:
Who do you think is going to win and who is your favorite?

I think Mormon Romney will win, but the crazy Ron Paul is my favorite. Even though his libertarian polices are crazy, I like the man. He is better than the two-faced big business cookie cut Republicans currently competing against him.

I see Ron came 3rd in the Iowa primary and 2nd in the New Hampshire primary. He definitely is the underdog and I wish Ron the best. None of the Republicans stand a chance against Obama, but the primary race is still entertaining.

Romney will win and Obama will smash him in the Presidential Elections.

Ron is the only Republican who actually stands a chance against Obama, this is because the independents favour him over Obama but are unlikely to vote for Romney. So he can get the swing vote no other Republican can. It won't matter as he won't win.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

'"One of the questions every great biologist invariably faces is "Do we debate the creationists?" Similarly, all great economists must ask themselves the question "Do we debate the Austrians?"'





http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Austrian_school




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

If scientific methods worked for economics then I would be able to predict the stock markets.. Austrians don't ignore the empirical data, they just don't take it for granted and try and reason as to why they got into that way.
 
South Carolina primary is coming up on Saturday,

The conservative state just Booed a Jesus quote..

[video=youtube;CYdeO4UhbTM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYdeO4UhbTM&context=C340e5e1ADOEgsToPDskIW0G27dwvkRlLVzM4FGtzf [/video]
 
The more of these republicans i see the more i am reminded of the ANC, these guys would not be out of place at your average ANC gathering in terms of how stupid and ignorant they are. I like Pauls foreign policy, pity he is too sensible to win.
 
The more of these republicans i see the more i am reminded of the ANC, these guys would not be out of place at your average ANC gathering in terms of how stupid and ignorant they are. I like Pauls foreign policy, pity he is too sensible to win.

+1

I also get the sense they are the ones who are more inclined to look after their buddies and benfactors in big buddies before citizens, much like the ANC...
 
Eish the great progressive ANC now compared to the GOP :o

Mandela would be appalled
 
The more of these republicans i see the more i am reminded of the ANC, these guys would not be out of place at your average ANC gathering in terms of how stupid and ignorant they are. I like Pauls foreign policy, pity he is too sensible to win.

Also, both the Republican Party and the ANC party get most of their support from the uneducated rural vote (which they easily manipulate with fear). Both Republicans and the ANC politicians will chase money for themselves at the expense of the man on the street. Both are incredibly dishonest. More so than their political counterparts.
 
Last edited:
Also, both the Republican Party and the ANC party get most of their support from the uneducated rural vote (which they easily manipulate with fear). Both Republicans and the ANC politicians will chase money for themselves at the expense of the man on the street. Both are incredibly dishonest. More so than their political counterparts.

I couldn't agree more!! :D
 
I had to add this:

(AP) WASHINGTON - Mitt Romney perpetuated one unsubstantiated claim, about his record at Bain Capital, and more or less corrected himself on another, about President Obama's health care law, in the latest Republican presidential debate.
His rivals flubbed history, Newt Gingrich blaming a Democratic president for a jobless rate he never had, and Ron Paul painting an idyllic picture of life before Medicare that did not reflect deprivations of that time.

S. Carolina debate: Winners and Losers
Gingrich slams CNN for asking about ex-wife
Romney vows to release tax returns in April

A look at some of the claims in the debate Thursday night and how they compare with the facts:

—-

ROMNEY: "We started a number of businesses; four in particular created 120,000 jobs, as of today. We started them years ago. They've grown — grown well beyond the time I was there to 120,000 people that have been employed by those enterprises. ... Those that have been documented to have lost jobs, lost about 10,000 jobs. So (120,000 less 10,000) means that we created something over 100,000 jobs."

THE FACTS: Romney now has acknowledged the negative side of the ledger from his years with Bain Capital, but hardly laid out the full story. His claim to have created more than 100,000 jobs in the private sector as a venture capitalist remains unsupported.

Romney mentioned four successful investments in companies that now employ some 120,000 people, having grown since he was involved in them a decade or ago or longer. From that, he subtracted the number of jobs that he said are known to have been lost at certain other companies.

What's missing is anything close to a complete list of winners and losers — and the bottom line on jobs. Bain under Romney invested in scores of private companies that don't have the obligation of big publicly traded corporations to disclose finances. Romney acknowledged that he was using current employment figures for the four companies, not the number of jobs they had when he left Bain Capital, yet took credit for them in his analysis.

—-

GINGRICH: "Under Jimmy Carter, we had the wrong laws, the wrong regulations, the wrong leadership, and we killed jobs. We had inflation. We went to 10.8 percent unemployment. Under Ronald Reagan, we had the right job — the right laws, the right regulators, the right leadership. We created 16 million new jobs."

FACT CHECK: Sure, inflation was bad and gas lines long, but under Carter's presidency unemployment never topped 7.8 percent. The unemployment rate did reach 10.8 percent, but not until November 1982, nearly two years into Reagan's first term.

Most economists attribute the jobless increase to a sharp rise in interest rates engineered by then-Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker in an ultimately successful effort to choke off inflation. Unemployment began to fall in 1983 and dropped to 7.2 percent in November 1984, when Reagan easily won re-election.

The economy did add 16 million jobs during Reagan's 1981-1989 presidency. Gingrich's assertion that "we created" them may have left the impression that he was a key figure in that growth. Although Gingrich was first elected to the House in 1978, his first Republican leadership position, as minority whip, began when Reagan left office, in 1989.

—-

PAUL: "I had the privilege of practicing medicine in the early '60s, before we had any government (health care). It worked rather well, and there was nobody on the street suffering with no medical care. But Medicare and Medicaid came in and it just expanded."

THE FACTS: Before Medicare was created in the mid-1960s, only about half of the elderly had private insurance for hospital care, and they were facing rising costs for those policies on their fixed incomes. Medicare was hugely contentious at the time, seen by many doctors as a socialist takeover, but few argued that the status quo could be maintained.

A Health, Education and Welfare Department report to Congress in 1959, during the Republican administration of Dwight Eisenhower, took no position on what the federal government should do but stated "a larger proportion of the aged than of other persons must turn to public assistance for payment of their medical bills or rely on 'free' care from hospitals and physicians."

Paul advocates a return to an era when doctors would treat the needy for free. But even in the old days, charity came with a cost. Research from the pre-Medicare era shows that the cost of free care was transferred to paying customers and the insurance industry.

—-

ROMNEY: "I could have stayed in Detroit, like him, and gotten pulled up in the car company. I went off on my own. I didn't inherit money from my parents. What I have, I earned. I worked hard, the American way."

THE FACTS: It's true there's no evidence Romney's wealthy family gave him a trust fund, or helped him secure a job at Bain Capital, where he would ultimately make his fortune. But it's not entirely the case that his success is wholly the result of his own hard work.

Romney's father, George, was an automobile industry CEO and a Michigan governor. He paid for Mitt to attend the Cranbrook School, a private boarding school in the Detroit area. The education didn't hurt Romney's ability to get into Harvard, where he earned law and business degrees in 1975.

While Romney appears to have gotten a job at Bain out of college on his own, the Boston Globe book "The Real Romney" reports that Romney's parents helped him and his wife buy their first home when he was in his early 20s.

On Thursday night, the Romney campaign did not dispute the finding that Romney's parents helped pay for that house, in the Boston suburb of Belmont.

—-

ROMNEY: "The executive order is a beginning process. It's one thing, but it doesn't completely eliminate Obamacare. ... We have to go after a complete repeal. And that's going to have to have to happen with a House and a Senate, hopefully, that are Republican."

THE FACTS: With that statement, Romney essentially corrected his repeated suggestions in early debates and speeches that he would eliminate President Obama's health care law with a stroke of the pen on his first day in office — a power no president has.

In one variation of the claim, he had vowed in a Sept. 7 debate that on Day One, he would sign an executive order "granting a waiver from Obamacare to all 50 states." This, despite the fact that the law lays out an onerous process for letting individual states off the hook from its requirements, and that process cannot begin until 2017.

Now he acknowledges the political reality that a Republican president would need Republican control of Congress to have a strong shot at repealing the law.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57362526/fact-check-gop-debates-history-flubs/
 
FACT CHECK: Sure, inflation was bad and gas lines long, but under Carter's presidency unemployment never topped 7.8 percent. The unemployment rate did reach 10.8 percent, but not until November 1982, nearly two years into Reagan's first term.
quite an uninformed report. The first 2 years of the Reagan administration had more to do with him undoing what Carter did. The democrats keep saying the same thing about Obama having to reverse what Bush did or about Clinton reversing Bush snr, but they don't want to acknowledge that Reagan had to reverse a bit of what carter did?
 
quite an uninformed report. The first 2 years of the Reagan administration had more to do with him undoing what Carter did. The democrats keep saying the same thing about Obama having to reverse what Bush did or about Clinton reversing Bush snr, but they don't want to acknowledge that Reagan had to reverse a bit of what carter did?

Guess all that government spending paid off ;)

463px-US_Debt_Trend.svg.png
 
Guess all that government spending paid off ;)

463px-US_Debt_Trend.svg.png

You know, I really don't see a difference between raising deficits or raising taxes. You're either going to pay directly or through inflation as long as the spending continues.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X