It begins
Replies
-
The "conservatives will overturn Roe v Wade" argument is such a Chicken Little, sky is falling, meant to incite false fear in the hearts of women type of argument.
It will never happen. Ever.
There is something called stare decisis, which most Supreme Court Justices take very seriously. Also, a conservative stacked Supreme Court has had the opportunity to overturn Roe v Wade and has not done so. Also, there would be mad chaos and anger from the populace if that case were overturned. It just won't happen.
On my list of women's issues, worry that Roe v Wade might get overturned is probably last in line.
My main women's issue is the economy.0 -
Poncho, I think the women's issue was largely about our reproductive rights because they're being threatened. There was a legitimate chance that Roe v. Wade could have been overturned and abortion rights could have been overturned. Coupled with the fact that some people like Todd Akin think there is "legitimate rape," we need a strong women's rights leader in the White House. Obama's plan gives free yearly reproductive exams too which is a huge, awesome thing! Cancer of reproductive organs will now be caught earlier because women can get these exams.
Just my two cents.
Yeah this is important compared to the devaluing of our currency and the rampant wars going on.....
right?
EDIT: might be my last post before my head explodes
What is nothing to you is a big issue to me as a woman. Please let's be respectful here so the thread is allowed to remain open. Read Carl's post if you need clarification. I like good discussion like this but let's not drag personal insults in here.
Oh Lord woman, do you not understand that a failing currency will hurt you much more than arbitrary morality laws?
Importance is not subjective here, I am sorry.
I'm sorry you are having trouble being respectful. Again, I urge you to read Carl's post in this thread regarding this thread.
Please... trying to look like you're taking the moral high ground does nothing to legitimize your point. Don't bother responding to this as I'm done with this thread.0 -
Poncho, I think the women's issue was largely about our reproductive rights because they're being threatened. There was a legitimate chance that Roe v. Wade could have been overturned and abortion rights could have been overturned. Coupled with the fact that some people like Todd Akin think there is "legitimate rape," we need a strong women's rights leader in the White House. Obama's plan gives free yearly reproductive exams too which is a huge, awesome thing! Cancer of reproductive organs will now be caught earlier because women can get these exams.
Just my two cents.
A President can't overturn Roe vs. Wade.
But remember all those supreme court positions that will come avalible in this term. He could stack the court to get what he wants ..
Again, because if the dollar collapses, the first thing of importance will be whether or not abortion is legal or illegal.
Can anyone else prioritize?
Does anyone understand the consequences of a failing dollar?
Why is it that no one takes this seriously and are too busy worried about some pet project idealism!
Pet project idealism that directly affects over half the population, in this particular case... I fully appreciate the impact of a falling dollar, but value America's contribution to the world for more than just its' economic/financial status.0 -
Poncho, I think the women's issue was largely about our reproductive rights because they're being threatened. There was a legitimate chance that Roe v. Wade could have been overturned and abortion rights could have been overturned. Coupled with the fact that some people like Todd Akin think there is "legitimate rape," we need a strong women's rights leader in the White House. Obama's plan gives free yearly reproductive exams too which is a huge, awesome thing! Cancer of reproductive organs will now be caught earlier because women can get these exams.
Just my two cents.
A President can't overturn Roe vs. Wade.
But remember all those supreme court positions that will come avalible in this term. He could stack the court to get what he wants ..
Again, because if the dollar collapses, the first thing of importance will be whether or not abortion is legal or illegal.
Can anyone else prioritize?
Does anyone understand the consequences of a failing dollar?
Why is it that no one takes this seriously and are too busy worried about some pet project idealism!
Pet project idealism that directly affects over half the population, in this particular case... I fully appreciate the impact of a falling dollar, but value America's contribution to the world for more than just its' economic/financial status.
Which affects American citizens more, abortion laws or a failing currency,
go ahead, I would like to see you come up with a valid argument containing abortion laws.
EDIT: At this point you are being intellectually dishonest, if you seriously believe abortion laws have a bigger impact on american citizens then our currency.0 -
Are you talking about the moral impact or financial impact, sorry which one?Which affects American citizens more, abortion laws or a failing currency,
go ahead, I would like to see you come up with a valid argument containing abortion laws.
EDIT: At this point you are being intellectually dishonest, if you seriously believe abortion laws have a bigger impact on american citizens then our currency.0 -
Are you talking about the moral impact or financial impact, sorry which one?Which affects American citizens more, abortion laws or a failing currency,
go ahead, I would like to see you come up with a valid argument containing abortion laws.
EDIT: At this point you are being intellectually dishonest, if you seriously believe abortion laws have a bigger impact on american citizens then our currency.
The fact that you believe you can differentiate between the two, pretty much tells me you should sit this one out.0 -
In fact the only thing I heard the two agree on was the handling of the war and killing Bin laden.
No, I disagree. They were in agreement on most things. How do they disagree on foreign policy, for example?
They were both heavily financed by big banks and investment banks. So their policies there are similar.
I accept that there are some minor differences, but it's completely overblown by a press desperate to make a big deal out of these minor differences. It also hides the fact that the US press is docile, and won't really ask difficult questions to any candidate. Both sides prefer it this way.
Drones, Guantanamo Bay, Israel, endless war, etc., etc. No real policy difference. It's all a show. Although having said all of that, I accept that Obama was a better choice of the two. At least we probably won't be starting another war - this time in Iran - anytime soon.
--P0 -
Poncho, I think the women's issue was largely about our reproductive rights because they're being threatened. There was a legitimate chance that Roe v. Wade could have been overturned and abortion rights could have been overturned. Coupled with the fact that some people like Todd Akin think there is "legitimate rape," we need a strong women's rights leader in the White House. Obama's plan gives free yearly reproductive exams too which is a huge, awesome thing! Cancer of reproductive organs will now be caught earlier because women can get these exams.
Just my two cents.
Yeah this is important compared to the devaluing of our currency and the rampant wars going on.....
right?
EDIT: might be my last post before my head explodes
What is nothing to you is a big issue to me as a woman. Please let's be respectful here so the thread is allowed to remain open. Read Carl's post if you need clarification. I like good discussion like this but let's not drag personal insults in here.
Oh Lord woman, do you not understand that a failing currency will hurt you much more than arbitrary morality laws?
Importance is not subjective here, I am sorry.
I'm sorry you are having trouble being respectful. Again, I urge you to read Carl's post in this thread regarding this thread.
Please... trying to look like you're taking the moral high ground does nothing to legitimize your point. Don't bother responding to this as I'm done with this thread.
I am trying to keep it civil. I enjoy discussion. But not when there are insults thrown around. Don't get mad at me because of what I think.
I enjoy the thread and don't want to see it locked.0 -
The fact that you believe you cannot differentiate between the two, pretty much tells me you should sit this one out.
The fact that you believe you can differentiate between the two, pretty much tells me you should sit this one out.
Are you talking about the moral impact or financial impact, sorry which one?Which affects American citizens more, abortion laws or a failing currency,
go ahead, I would like to see you come up with a valid argument containing abortion laws.
EDIT: At this point you are being intellectually dishonest, if you seriously believe abortion laws have a bigger impact on american citizens then our currency.
(*boring*)0 -
Okay folks,deep breaths and take a few steps back if this discussion is to continue.0
-
The fact that you believe you cannot differentiate between the two, pretty much tells me you should sit this one out.
The fact that you believe you can differentiate between the two, pretty much tells me you should sit this one out.
Are you talking about the moral impact or financial impact, sorry which one?Which affects American citizens more, abortion laws or a failing currency,
go ahead, I would like to see you come up with a valid argument containing abortion laws.
EDIT: At this point you are being intellectually dishonest, if you seriously believe abortion laws have a bigger impact on american citizens then our currency.
(*boring*)
I apologize for being snarky, you do not deserve it.
However, it is a much broader picture than simply black and white.0 -
I personally believe that it was brought up because they knew it would rile half the population up so that they didn't have to focus on the real issues that are threatening our country. the chances of Roe v Wade being overturned are slim to none.0
-
I personally believe that it was brought up because they knew it would rile half the population up so that they didn't have to focus on the real issues that are threatening our country. the chances of Roe v Wade being overturned are slim to none.
If you don't have a crisis... create one.0 -
Again, because if the dollar collapses, the first thing of importance will be whether or not abortion is legal or illegal.
Can anyone else prioritize?
Does anyone understand the consequences of a failing dollar?
Why is it that no one takes this seriously and are too busy worried about some pet project idealism!
We have a resident economist in the group. Perhaps he can fully explain the consequences of a falling dollar.
I have a pretty good understanding about the importance of the value of currency, given as though I have an MBA from a reasonably well respected school.
In a faltering economy, birth rates typically plunge, because people are scared of bringing a child into the world in perilous economic times. The 1930s (the years of the Great Depression) had low birth rates and no artificial birth control. That generation was known as the Silent Generation (generally speaking birth years late 1920s-early 1940s, because it was comparatively smaller in size. When a lot of the Silent Generation members were in prime child bearing years, the US had prolonged economic malaise (started in late 1960s, was worst in mid to late 1970s). Birth rates fell during this time as well. This was Generation X, a smaller sandwiched generation in between the Baby Boomers and Generation Y (approximately birth years 1980-1994).
The collapse of a unit of currency can produce terrible outcomes. Zimbabwe is the best current example. Post World War I Germany is the classic example. Excessive debt obligations/default on debts have economic consequences. Read about Greece now or Argentina circa 2001.0 -
Ok first I am an independent and have voted both republican and democrat on various different occasions. The republicans had a chance to take the presidential office however they basically shot themselves in the foot. In the primaries they had several canidates that I liked and would have voted for over Obama but they lost to Romeny. Him I couldn't stand. First off he gives me the willies, he looks like a well oiled car sales man and immediatly inspired distrust in me before he opened his mouth. Second of all regarding Roe vs Wade Romeny said in multiple interviews that he wanted to overturn it and cut planned parenthood. So wether he had that power or not he had the desire to do it and that was enough. So we have a very old fashion thinking canidate, you would think all those advisors of his would recommend him nominating a VP canidate that might be a little more moderate. Instead he choose to pick a canidate that basically appeased the republicans and no one else. Anytime I heard interviews from either of them I never heard a solid finacial plan just that Obamas way was wrong. Personally I think the republicans need to start doing a better job of capturing the demographic in America before 2016.0
-
Again, because if the dollar collapses, the first thing of importance will be whether or not abortion is legal or illegal.
Can anyone else prioritize?
Does anyone understand the consequences of a failing dollar?
Why is it that no one takes this seriously and are too busy worried about some pet project idealism!
We have a resident economist in the group. Perhaps he can fully explain the consequences of a falling dollar.
I have a pretty good understanding about the importance of the value of currency, given as though I have an MBA from a reasonably well respected school.
In a faltering economy, birth rates typically plunge, because people are scared of bringing a child into the world in perilous economic times. The 1930s (the years of the Great Depression) had low birth rates and no artificial birth control. That generation was known as the Silent Generation (generally speaking birth years late 1920s-early 1940s, because it was comparatively smaller in size. When a lot of the Silent Generation members were in prime child bearing years, the US had prolonged economic malaise (started in late 1960s, was worst in mid to late 1970s). Birth rates fell during this time as well. This was Generation X, a smaller sandwiched generation in between the Baby Boomers and Generation Y (approximately birth years 1980-1994).
The collapse of a unit of currency can produce terrible outcomes. Zimbabwe is the best current example. Post World War I Germany is the classic example. Excessive debt obligations/default on debts have economic consequences. Read about Greece now or Argentina circa 2001.
It is nice someone understands why a failing dollar should probably be a priority.
If it makes you feel better while I do not claim expert status in economics, I have read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises, as well as Rothbard's great depression book. While both of those books are from the Austrian school (which some economists will say is "outdated") I am pretty sure it does not take an expert to realize the devastation that excessive inflation / hyper inflation can cause.
I actually love economics, while my major is in computer science. I find economics very interesting because you can apply it to almost every aspect of life.
So regardless on your thoughts of the Austrian School, I am pretty sure that we can agree that our currency issue, takes a front seat compared to arbitrary morality issues discussed here, such as abortion.0 -
I am not an economist,just a dumb farm boy but here is my take on quantitative easing or in other terms cranking up the presses to infuse dollars into the economy.
The affect is what happens whenever something becomes less scarce,it becomes less valuable.
Picture giving every person in the US a million dollars...YAY right?
Wrong,at that point for any product or service to have a value it has to be worth something in excess of a million.
In the world economy just about every important commodity is traded in US dollars,that is the benchmark.
If those dollars lose value then it will take more of them to compete for purchase of said commodity.
This forces the price of the commodity higher which may be good for traders but generally sucks for consumers as it shows itself via inflation in the price of goods.
Higher prices of raw materials also causes tighter profit margins and if not able to be recovered in the finished product due to competition from overseas then it has a detrimental affect on wages and employment...the exact opposite of what is needed to combat the inflation brought on.
It is a deadly circle.
Please anyone correct any errors here as I am in no way an authority.0 -
I am not an economist,just a dumb farm boy but here is my take on quantitative easing or in other terms cranking up the presses to infuse dollars into the economy.
The affect is what happens whenever something becomes more less scarce,it becomes less valuable.
Picture giving every person in the US a million dollars...YAY right?
Wrong,at that point for any product or service to have a value it has to be worth something in excess of a million.
In the world economy just about every important commodity is traded in US dollars,that is the benchmark.
If those dollars lose value then it will take more of them to compete for purchase of said commodity.
This forces the price of the commodity higher which may be good for traders but generally sucks for consumers as it shows itself via inflation in the price of goods.
Higher prices of raw materials also causes tighter profit margins and if not able to be recovered in the finished product due to competition from overseas then it has a detrimental affect on wages and employment...the exact opposite of what is needed to combat the inflation brought on.
It is a deadly circle.
Please anyone correct any errors here as I am in no way an authority.
I have a rather long explanation below. The short explanation is "I have no idea."
I wanted to do my damndest to stay out of a monetary policy debate. I don't like the subject and would rather avoid it. I think the best answer is that no one fully understands how monetary policy works. There seems to be a policy du jour that lasts for about 5-25 years, seems to work well and then all of a sudden something happens and theory in place cannot explain the new events. More examination into what went wrong leads to a new theory/policy du jour that lasts until it has an obvious failure.
The general consensus is that any potential benefits of increasing the money supply are temporary. You might get an increase in productivity that results from consumers getting more money. As a result of having more money, consumers buy more things. The purchase of more goods leads producers to hire more workers and to buy more raw materials. This in turn causes prices of the goods to go up. The increase in prices leads to a reduction in purchases by consumers. this leads to a reduction in factor employment by producers. The end result is that prices are higher, personal income is higher, and total productivity is at its starting levels. As a result, a little more money is injected and the cycle repeats itself.
Where it becomes tricky is when you get out of the closed economy described above and allow for an open economy with international trade. Generally a weaker dollar is good for U.S. based companies because it allows them to export goods overseas at a price that is now relatively cheaper than that of competitors who are based overseas. It also makes imports more expensive which would give domestic producers an advantage over international counterparts. Since one of the components of GDP is exports - imports, one would think an increase in exports and decrease in imports would be good for national productivity. Unfortunately (IMHO) what is often ignored is that oil is one of the key materials imported into the US and that domestic production is not feasible without a fairly high price. Many of the domestic wells are not profitable to develop and maintain unless the price of oil is more than $85 per barrel. There have been several studies that have looked at the affect of oil price spikes on the economy and none of them have shown that anything good or even neutral tends to happen as a result. Some of the findings are that unemployment goes up, the value of the production index goes down, and the growth rate of the economy decreases.
As far as hyper inflation. It is terrible. Imagine what would happen to incentives to work if any work performed today was not paid until Friday but in the interim prices rose 50%. That is,if you don't get paid until Friday, what is worth $20 today will require $30 to buy on Friday. The result is that there is no incentive to save, and workers pretty much require to be paid daily to make it worthwhile to work. This increases payroll costs and causes workforce disruptions as workers go buy things on their breaks because the prices are increasing so rapidly. This process can also cycle such that work would require payment on an hourly basis so that workers can buy things in even more real time. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, it isn't known what causes hyper inflation. It is known that increasing the money supply can do it but the mechanics aren't fully known. All countries who have experienced hyper inflation have had the money supply increased rapidly but not all countries that have rapid increases in their money supply have experienced hyper inflation. To the best of my knowledge (which isn't really that extensive in this area), there isn't a consensus explanation for this.0 -
I have likened it to pouring water into a hole and thinking a well will result.
The basis of Keynesian economics is this theory...in times of down turn you pump money artificially into the economy with the thinking that the short term gain will offset the long term consequences.
In the past that has worked to an extent but agree with you that right now we are still in uncharted economic waters as decades of world wide economic policies are finally showing a collection of those long term consequences.0 -
Alot of "hatin'" happening on Facebook today. Just like everything else media-related in this election, it is excessive.
Regardless of your opinions, how you voted or your party affiliation, we are still Americans (a few of us here anyway) and in this together. Just don't see any reason in being so negative and hateful.
I'm sticking with MFP today....its way better anyway.
This is the EXACT reason I will not log onto my FB page today. I still get told, that I am racist because I didnt vote Obama in the first time. I am liberal on somethings, and conservative on others. I just get really tired of the race card being pulled.
And to be honest, I didnt like either, so I did not vote. It is like voting for dumb and dumber. And sure would NOT vote for Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan. Cindy Sheehan has spent too much time degrading her sons death who foughtin a war that he was deployed to, but oh yes, he ENLISTED.
Anyway.... enough blue and red BS... lets just survive the next 4 years, that is ALL I can ask for.0 -
now i know i love you!!!
Oh Lord woman, do you not understand that a failing currency will hurt you much more than arbitrary morality laws?
Importance is not subjective here, I am sorry.
EDIT: Actually at first I was terribly angry at the complete ignorance of the issues that truly face our country, but now I am merely sad. This is exactly why our country is going to ****, people argue red versus blue all day, and refuse to acknowledge pressing issues.
Regardless, so be it, me arguing over the internet will not change your mind. I guess America will have to go down the ****ter.0 -
I have a rather long explanation below. The short explanation is "I have no idea."
I wanted to do my damndest to stay out of a monetary policy debate. I don't like the subject and would rather avoid it. I think the best answer is that no one fully understands how monetary policy works. There seems to be a policy du jour that lasts for about 5-25 years, seems to work well and then all of a sudden something happens and theory in place cannot explain the new events. More examination into what went wrong leads to a new theory/policy du jour that lasts until it has an obvious failure.
The general consensus is that any potential benefits of increasing the money supply are temporary. You might get an increase in productivity that results from consumers getting more money. As a result of having more money, consumers buy more things. The purchase of more goods leads producers to hire more workers and to buy more raw materials. This in turn causes prices of the goods to go up. The increase in prices leads to a reduction in purchases by consumers. this leads to a reduction in factor employment by producers. The end result is that prices are higher, personal income is higher, and total productivity is at its starting levels. As a result, a little more money is injected and the cycle repeats itself.
Where it becomes tricky is when you get out of the closed economy described above and allow for an open economy with international trade. Generally a weaker dollar is good for U.S. based companies because it allows them to export goods overseas at a price that is now relatively cheaper than that of competitors who are based overseas. It also makes imports more expensive which would give domestic producers an advantage over international counterparts. Since one of the components of GDP is exports - imports, one would think an increase in exports and decrease in imports would be good for national productivity. Unfortunately (IMHO) what is often ignored is that oil is one of the key materials imported into the US and that domestic production is not feasible without a fairly high price. Many of the domestic wells are not profitable to develop and maintain unless the price of oil is more than $85 per barrel. There have been several studies that have looked at the affect of oil price spikes on the economy and none of them have shown that anything good or even neutral tends to happen as a result. Some of the findings are that unemployment goes up, the value of the production index goes down, and the growth rate of the economy decreases.
As far as hyper inflation. It is terrible. Imagine what would happen to incentives to work if any work performed today was not paid until Friday but in the interim prices rose 50%. That is,if you don't get paid until Friday, what is worth $20 today will require $30 to buy on Friday. The result is that there is no incentive to save, and workers pretty much require to be paid daily to make it worthwhile to work. This increases payroll costs and causes workforce disruptions as workers go buy things on their breaks because the prices are increasing so rapidly. This process can also cycle such that work would require payment on an hourly basis so that workers can buy things in even more real time. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, it isn't known what causes hyper inflation. It is known that increasing the money supply can do it but the mechanics aren't fully known. All countries who have experienced hyper inflation have had the money supply increased rapidly but not all countries that have rapid increases in their money supply have experienced hyper inflation. To the best of my knowledge (which isn't really that extensive in this area), there isn't a consensus explanation for this.
First off, thank you for taking the time to write this. We are blessed to have an actual economist in this group.
The inner workings of a global economy are complex. Perhaps economic theory was simpler in times that were less globalized than the present era.
Oh yes, I loved the paragraph on hyperinflation. Weimar Republic Germany and 2000s Zimbabwe have been common examples. In undergrad, in my Modern Latin America class, my term paper discussed Chilean economics 1970-2000 (written in 2002). It was written in an all nighter, finished at 4:30 AM. For a freshman year class, that class had a more insane workload than many of my Senior Year classes. Might have even been on par with certain MBA level classes in terms of workload. But anyway, I digress.
Chile in 1973 was experiencing hyperinflation to the tune of 700 percent a year. The Chilean economy was obviously messed up. The printing presses had run wild. The failings of the Chilean economy were key in the famous coup. Post 1973 Chile was all about Friedman style economics, and generally speaking, it worked. Chile has established itself as one of the most thriving economies in Latin America since Los Chicago Boys came in. Hyperinflation was combated through the avoidance of price controls, nationalizations and other elements that were most identifiable with a centrally planned economy.0 -
Alot of "hatin'" happening on Facebook today. Just like everything else media-related in this election, it is excessive.
Regardless of your opinions, how you voted or your party affiliation, we are still Americans (a few of us here anyway) and in this together. Just don't see any reason in being so negative and hateful.
I'm sticking with MFP today....its way better anyway.
This is the EXACT reason I will not log onto my FB page today. I still get told, that I am racist because I didnt vote Obama in the first time. I am liberal on somethings, and conservative on others. I just get really tired of the race card being pulled.
And to be honest, I didnt like either, so I did not vote. It is like voting for dumb and dumber. And sure would NOT vote for Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan. Cindy Sheehan has spent too much time degrading her sons death who foughtin a war that he was deployed to, but oh yes, he ENLISTED.
Anyway.... enough blue and red BS... lets just survive the next 4 years, that is ALL I can ask for.
I voted for Obama and am happy he won, but if you have friends calling you racist for not voting for him, you shouldn't be friends with them.
Cindy Sheehan hasn't been relevant for a few years now.0 -
First off, thank you for taking the time to write this. We are blessed to have an actual economist in this group.
I love how you choose to belittle me, when in reality the only claim I made was that tampering with the currency is much more destructive than, you know, arbitrary morality laws.
Furthermore, all of the economic experts of today have been constantly wrong in the last few years regarding our situation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCWM2_Yagu0
There are plenty of experts in that video alone that laughed in the face of Peter Schiff as he called the 2008 housing bubble crash.
Please come down off your elitist horse good sir, individuals seeking knowledge should never be frowned upon.
I have never said I was an economic expert, you have put that in my mouth, my original statement was that our currency situation is much more relevant than arbitrary morality issues.
EDIT: and I might add, you have simply confirmed my original statement so I am unsure exactly why you are choosing to argue with me, since you agree. 0 -
First off, thank you for taking the time to write this. We are blessed to have an actual economist in this group.
I love how you choose to belittle me, when in reality the only claim I made was that tampering with the currency is much more destructive than, you know, arbitrary morality laws.
Furthermore, all of the economic experts of today have been constantly wrong in the last few years regarding our situation.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCWM2_Yagu0
There are plenty of experts in that video alone that laughed in the face of Peter Schiff as he called the 2008 housing bubble crash.
Please come down off your elitist horse good sir, individuals seeking knowledge should never be frowned upon.
I have never said I was an economic expert, you have put that in my mouth, my original statement was that our currency situation is much more relevant than arbitrary morality issues.
EDIT: and I might add, you have simply confirmed my original statement so I am unsure exactly why you are choosing to argue with me, since you agree.
This whole quote confuses me. The line that you quoted of me was just me complimenting someone's credentials (dbrightwell) as an economist. I never called myself an expert either. I'm not arguing with you or anyone and I don't think anything I have said in this thread about economics has been an attack on anyone's opinions posted prior to me.
Economics and currency issues are of the utmost concern to me at this time.
I'm thinking we are pretty well aligned and everything I've said here is rather dry.0 -
First off, thank you for taking the time to write this. We are blessed to have an actual economist in this group.
I love how you choose to belittle me, when in reality the only claim I made was that tampering with the currency is much more destructive than, you know, arbitrary morality laws.
Furthermore, all of the economic experts of today have been constantly wrong in the last few years regarding our situation.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCWM2_Yagu0
There are plenty of experts in that video alone that laughed in the face of Peter Schiff as he called the 2008 housing bubble crash.
Please come down off your elitist horse good sir, individuals seeking knowledge should never be frowned upon.
I have never said I was an economic expert, you have put that in my mouth, my original statement was that our currency situation is much more relevant than arbitrary morality issues.
EDIT: and I might add, you have simply confirmed my original statement so I am unsure exactly why you are choosing to argue with me, since you agree.
I see no evidence of DM either arguing or belittling you,I am scratching my head on this one.
I do not claim any economic expertise either am nothing more then a high school graduate from 30 years ago but never sensed any offense.
Relax a bit,it is a good discussion even though a bit of a different one for the group.0 -
First off, thank you for taking the time to write this. We are blessed to have an actual economist in this group.
I love how you choose to belittle me, when in reality the only claim I made was that tampering with the currency is much more destructive than, you know, arbitrary morality laws.
Furthermore, all of the economic experts of today have been constantly wrong in the last few years regarding our situation.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCWM2_Yagu0
There are plenty of experts in that video alone that laughed in the face of Peter Schiff as he called the 2008 housing bubble crash.
Please come down off your elitist horse good sir, individuals seeking knowledge should never be frowned upon.
I have never said I was an economic expert, you have put that in my mouth, my original statement was that our currency situation is much more relevant than arbitrary morality issues.
EDIT: and I might add, you have simply confirmed my original statement so I am unsure exactly why you are choosing to argue with me, since you agree.
This whole quote confuses me. The line that you quoted of me was just me complimenting someone's credentials (dbrightwell) as an economist. I never called myself an expert either. I'm not arguing with you or anyone and I don't think anything I have said in this thread about economics has been an attack on anyone's opinions posted prior to me.
Economics and currency issues are of the utmost concern to me at this time.
I'm thinking we are pretty well aligned and everything I've said here is rather dry.
Sorry I read that incorrectly then, I apologize.
When you said the term "actual economist" i interpreted you dismissing anything I said because I am
not an actual economist.
I apologize wholeheartedly.0 -
Sorry I read that incorrectly then, I apologize.
When you said the term "actual economist" i interpreted you dismissing anything I said because I am
not an actual economist.
I apologize wholeheartedly.
No worries.
There's the 55-38-7 rule of communication to determine meaning.
55 percent of communication is non verbal, primarily body language.
38 percent of communication is vocal cues.
7 percent is words said.
In email, text messaging or Single Peeps forum posts, we are all relying on 7 percent of the communication process to convey 100 percent of meaning. There's a reason why misunderstandings can occur.0 -
Sorry I read that incorrectly then, I apologize.
When you said the term "actual economist" i interpreted you dismissing anything I said because I am
not an actual economist.
I apologize wholeheartedly.
No worries.
There's the 55-38-7 rule of communication to determine meaning.
55 percent of communication is non verbal, primarily body language.
38 percent of communication is vocal cues.
7 percent is words said.
In email, text messaging or Single Peeps forum posts, we are all relying on 7 percent of the communication process to convey 100 percent of meaning. There's a reason why misunderstandings can occur.
Yeah I think I have said this before and I am very argumentative.
Well I am glad that there are people who do actually care about our economic state then.
Generally speaking though, if I become irrational I am usually good at fessing up to it.0 -
Yeah I think I have said this before and I am very argumentative.
Generally speaking though, if I become irrational I am usually good at fessing up to it.
How has that played out with women?
I'm not that argumentative. I'm more analytical and collaborative. Rarely will I raise my voice. My style isn't really to get in verbal fights. I will defend myself when appropriate but I try to do it in a even keeled sort of way.
There are plenty of people in here who I have not seen eye to eye with on numerous occasions.0
