Will North America recover economically, politically, culturally?

[markvee]

Ask "the people" of any nation and they will gladly tell you that they do not want just anybody coming into their country.

If your views on immigration were ever implemented it would be utterly disastrous for the country.

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

 

[someone]

I like to be corrected. In fact my original posts asks for somebody to correct me - to tell me why my thinking is incorrect. The original post is filled with questions I wanted answers to. I'm all about asking questions to learn new things.

Did you miss all of that?

Did you miss the fact that I already said I did not think your first post was worth responding too? The first post indicated that you had things you wanted to believe in. Arguing about beliefs would clearly have led nowhere. I have long since learned that there is no point in arguing about people’s beliefs. Instead, I limited myself to correcting specific factual errors that I thought I could correct with short responses (clearly, I never thought correcting the specific points I corrected would lead to such a long exchange but I will know next time I see you post anything incorrect) Anyway, I see that you seem to accept the fact that I have explained why all the points you made in our exchange were wrong.

I'm curious to know what issues you think are important (there I go wanting to learn again).

You are welcome to search all my previous posts. They should give you an indication.

Let's face it - you don't have a clue.

Coming from you, this is funny.

 

[markvee]

Is he talking about the CIA? Or is he arguing in favour of drug legalization, which would cut out the criminal networks, just like it did for alcohol?

Are you suggesting that we raise the money with bingo and bake sales? Come on. This is a silly position you are taking. Your position is a de facto position against those government services because it is not possible to have those services without a "coercive" tax system.

Well, I guess it would be okay for the cable company to withold your pay cheque or throw you in jail for non-payment if we elected it to do so. On the other hand, I think you did sign a contract with the government when you accepted to live in our society. The contract is called the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

Harper was fear mongering about marijuana legalization; I added the part about alchohol as sarcasm to show that his position is ridiculous.

The government would ask you to raise money by means other than coercion; I'm just asking that we all operate by the same set of rules.

"Rights and responsibilities of citizenship" sounds noble and all, but these things are not a voluntary contract.

 

[GotGusto]

Did you miss the fact that I already said I did not think your first post was worth responding too?

No, but I don't believe this to be true, because you only stated this after arguing with me, and after you took the time to read my questions and the responses. I suspect that you found the first post thought provoking but you want to diminish it now because you can't win an unrelated argument against me.

The first post indicated that you had things you wanted to believe in.

Alright.

Arguing about beliefs would clearly have led nowhere.

Do you really believe this? I've learned plenty in this thread.

I have long since learned that there is no point in arguing about people’s beliefs.

That's a shame because you're wrong, very wrong.

Instead, I limited myself to correcting specific factual errors that I thought I could correct with short responses (clearly, I never thought correcting the specific points I corrected would lead to such a long exchange but I will know next time I see you post anything incorrect)

I'm sure most reading this thread are grateful for your economics lesson.

Anyway, I see that you seem to accept the fact that I have explained why all the points you made in our exchange were wrong.

Other than saying (paraphrasing) "I know nothing", I'm not sure that anybody knows what your explanation(s) is because you haven't provided one. In any case, your posts about economic terminology are largely irrelevant to the entire thread.

You are welcome to search all my previous posts. They should give you an indication.

Will do.

Coming from you, this is funny.

Alright.

 

[someone]

No, but I don't believe this to be true, because you only stated this after arguing with me, and after you took the time to read my questions and the responses. I suspect that you found the first post thought provoking but you want to diminish it now because you can't win an unrelated argument against me.

If I only participated in threads that had worth well opening posts my post count would be ¼ of what it is.

That's a shame because you're wrong, very wrong.

Yeah, sure.

I'm sure most reading this thread are grateful for your economics lesson.

Some will and many will not. The nature of this board is that a reader has to glance at many posts they have not interest in to find ones that are interested in. The longer this now useless exchange continues, the less willing anyone will be to read through the posts in this thread to find ones they are interested in.

Other than saying (paraphrasing) "I know nothing", I'm not sure that anybody knows what your explanation(s) is because you haven't provided one.

You are likely the only one that thinks that.

In any case, your posts about economic terminology are largely irrelevant to the entire thread.

Then why did you make such a big fuss about my pointing out that you were wrong?

 

[GotGusto]

If I only participated in threads that had worth well opening posts my post count would be ¼ of what it is.

Generally if I think that the first post in a thread is absurd or worthless, I close it. Why would I read PAGES of responses to something that I deem valueless?

Contradictions....

You are likely the only one that thinks that.

It's been a long day for me so I may not be thinking straight, however I would have not an ounce of shame conceeding that you're right. Should we put it to a poll?

Then why did you make such a big fuse about my pointing out that you were wrong?

I didn't make a fuss. I went line by line through your post to better understand what you were saying - giving you an even easier opportunity to correct me. You chose not to presumably taking my post as an insult to your the self-proclaimed status as an economist. (I've since gone through some of your previous posts at your suggestion - you come across as well read but often bookish on topics related to economics. Other topics that interest you include religion and hobbying; so these are the topics that you would deem some of the most important of our time? Feel free to take up my challenge). I also expressed wonderment at the relevance your seemingly minor correction had to the thread. This led to more tirades by you.

Word of advice since you claim to be involved in this thread out of some altruistic motive of teaching others: If my interpretation of what you were saying was wrong, there is a good chance others reading got it wrong - at least those who are not economists. If teaching is your goal, patience is a virtue.

 

[GotGusto]

Word of advice since you claim to be involved in this thread out of some altruistic motive of teaching others: If my interpretation of what you were saying was wrong, there is a good chance others reading got it wrong - at least those who are not economists. If teaching is your goal, patience is a virtue.

Of course the other possibility is that you were not impatient at all but lashed out because I exposed you for preaching hot air.

 

[someone]

Generally if I think that the first post in a thread is absurd or worthless, I close it. Why would I read responses to something that I deem valueless?

Contradictions....

Many of the most interesting exchanges I have had were in threads that people started with foolish opening posts but thread drift made interesting. One recent one was a silly thread about Obama that ended up with an interesting discussion of differences in university education across the world. Admittedly, things did not turn out that way with this thread, but you never know.

It's been a long day for me so I may not be thinking straight, however I would have not an ounce of shame conceeding that you're right. Should we put it to a poll?

If you think enough terbites care about this exchange, that is your choice.

I didn't make a fuss.

If that were true the exchange would be over by now.

I went line by line through your post to better understand what you were saying - giving you an even easier opportunity to correct me. You chose not to

Yeah, right. Tell yourself that.

presumably taking my post as an insult to your the self-proclaimed status as an economist. (I've since gone through some of your previous posts at your suggestion - you come across as well read but often bookish on topics related to economics. Other topics that interest you include religion and hobbying).

I post less on hobbying than I used to but I don’t think anyone would come to this board in the first place if it did not interest then. Yes I find religion fascinating (not the particular beliefs but that fact they belief in them with absolutely no evidence) but I am careful what I post on that topic as google makes it easy for people to see what you publish in real life. Nonetheless, no intelligent person can deny its importance thoughout history. I also find education issues to be interesting. And for many reasons I don’t want to get into right now they are going to be increasing important. Let's just say the world is changing. I find serious discussions of "traditional" economic issues interesting but I don’t come to terb for that.
As far as my posts on economics being “bookish”: I actually try to avoid posting in such threads as I know I am going to come across as lecturing given my knowledge of the area. Thus, I purposely don’t comment about the vast majority of posts on economics unless it is to correct very basic misunderstandings.
I do not find unsubstantiated worries about the world as we know it ending to be interesting (perhaps why people have those beliefs is interesting but not the beliefs themselves).

I also expressed wondermunt at what relevance your seemingly minor correction had to the thread. This led to more tirades by you.

Actually, you were the one that started the tirades after I said I thought the first post in the thread was silly. Admittedly, I may not have said it was silly to you if I had realized at the time you were the same poster that started the thread. However, it was not really a strong personal insult given I was just responding to your comment relating our discussion to it. It was your response to that post that started the downhill slide. Admittedly, if I had realized why you found the “silly” comment so offensive, (because it was your post), I would have recognized why things started to go downhill and might not have continued the downhill slide.

 

[GotGusto]

Many of the most interesting exchanges I have had were in threads that people started with foolish opening posts but thread drift made interesting. One recent one was a silly thread about Obama that ended up with an interesting discussion of differences in university education across the world. Admittedly, things did not turn out that way with this thread, but you never know.

I wouldn't know. I suppose I may have seen the Obama thread and closed it (link?) I don't go around reading ridiculous threads with the hope that on page 3 they will evolve into an interesting discussion.

I post less on hobbying than I used to but I don’t think anyone would come to this board in the first place if it did not interest then. Yes I find religion fascinating but I am careful what I post on that topic as google makes it easy for people to see what you publish in real life. As far as my posts on economics being “bookish”: I actually try to avoid posting in such threads as I know I am going to come across as lecturing given my knowledge of the area. Thus, I purposely don’t comment about the vast majority of posts on economics unless it is to correct very basic misunderstandings.

Knowing a lot about a topic doesn't make you come across as lecturing. Arguably the best teachers, and those who know the most about something, are able to communicate it simply and easily without coming across as lecturing.

I think you felt perturbed at the mere fact that I took issue with you on a topic related to economics. You couldn't care less if the actual correction was trivial to the topic at hand or not.

Actually, you were the one that started the tirades after I said I thought the first post in the thread was silly.

Post #74 was my response to your post stating that the thread was silly. I broke down each of your arguments with my interpretation. It was civil and at the end I concluded that none of it was relevant to the discussion. I made a simple request that you might find it appropriate to leave the thread since you found the basis for the thread silly.

I did not call you names. All the venom began with you in post #76. You attacked me, not my words.

Admittedly, I may not have said it was silly to you if I had realized at the time you were the same poster that started the thread. However, it was not really a strong personal insult given I was just responding to your comment relating our discussion to it. It was your response to that post that started the downhill slide. Admittedly, if I had realized why you found the “silly” comment so offensive, (because it was your post), I would have recognized why things started to go downhill and might not have continued the downhill slide.

I'm baffled by your comment but not offended at all. I don't walk around with that much sense of self importance or superiority. If I did, I wouldn't ask questions - because I would proclaim to know everything already. Your opinion is that the topic is silly. My opinion is that these issues are important and I would have little trouble finding a mountain of evidence to support my opinion.

It's like this: I say that the sky is blue, but somebody comes along and says it's purple. I'm not going to be offended by that remark. We see things very differently.

I would welcome anybody to append other important issues or issues that they deem even more significant. The notion that these topics are worthless is remarkable to me and I'm all ears.

 

[someone]

Post #74 was my response to your post stating that the thread was silly. I broke down each of your arguments with my interpretation. It was civil and at the end I concluded that none of it was relevant to the discussion. I made a simple request that you might find it appropriate to leave the thread since you found the basis for the thread silly.

I did not call you names. All the venom began with you in post #76. You attacked me, not my words.

You started your post with a stupid comment about me living in a vacuum. That and a couple of other sarcastic comments sent the tone and I responded in kind. Admittedly, I continued the downward spiral that you started which as a waste of my time.
BTW, I never called you names. I did point out that you did not know what you were talking about but that was an observation based on what you had posted.

I would have little trouble finding a mountain of evidence to support my opinion.

Go ahead and try.

The notion that these topics are worthless is remarkable to me and I'm all ears.

You may have started your response before I added the following to my last post:

.
I do not find unsubstantiated worries about the world as we know it ending to be interesting (perhaps why people have those beliefs is interesting but not the beliefs themselves).

 

[GotGusto]

You started your post with a stupid comment about me living in a vacuum.

You took that as an insult? Based on your posts in other threads related to economics, you have a short fuse when others disagree with you. A gust of wind is enough to push your buttons.

That and a couple of other sarcastic comments sent the tone and I responded in kind. Admittedly, I continued the downward spiral that you started which as a waste of my time.

BTW, I never called you names. I did point out that you did not know what you were talking about but that was an observation based on what you had posted.

That's right, and that's about all you have said since - "you don't know what you're talking about". You didn't reply to my interpretation of your remarks at all. Too much of a chore, yet here you are attempting to convince me that I started a fight with you.

Go ahead and try.

You not only are still engaged in this thread with me but you'd like to take it further? All of this regarding topics and questions that you find completely stupid and worthless? Seriously, anybody reading this knows just as well as you and I do that you don't believe what you wrote. That your post was a knee jerk reaction couldn't be more transparent. Give up already.

 

[someone]

That's right, and that's about all you have said since - "you don't know what you're talking about". You didn't reply to my interpretation of your remarks at all. Too much of a chore, yet here you are attempting to convince me that I started a fight with you.

Clearly you did not read my response. Since you did not read my response the first time I will repost it.

Clearly you don’t understand what we are discussing. If you don't understand the positive effects of a policy, any opinion you have about its normative merits is worthless.

I stand completely behind this statement. It was meant to apply more generally than to you specifically. However, it would also apply to you.
Your last post that contained any substance was 74 and I pointed out with this reply that it was wrong in 76. Since then your posts have nothing of substance to respond to.
Yes, one of my short comings is that I don’t suffer fools gladly. Many posters far more intelligent than you have noted that and clearly the fact that I am still responding to you shows that they are right.

 

[GotGusto]

If you don't understand the positive effects of a policy, any opinion you have about its normative merits is worthless.

Maybe you're speaking in tongues. I'll give you another opportunity since you're so interested in imparting economics to the audience. Re-explain what you mean by the "positive effects of a policy" and "normative merits". Give it your best shot, in plain English.

Then let us know the merits of both to the topic of this thread.

Given that your posts indicate that you know nothing about the positive affects of economic policy, your normative opinions are of no value.

OK there is your statement again verbatim. Try to elaborate on it, if you're capable.

Since then your posts have only contained nonsense so their has been nothing of substance to respond to.

Just like the thread itself is nonsense in your view. But you have been responding non-stop for the past 3 hours.

Yes, one of my short comings is that I don’t’ suffer fools gladly. Many posters far more intelligent than you have noted that and clearly the fact that I am still responding to you shows that they are right.

It could mean that they're right . It may also mean that you're not as intelligent as you think you are nor are the posters that you refer to.

 

[GotGusto]

I just googled "positive affects of economic policy" to see what results if any would come up.

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=...=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=393458bd0158947d

Not a single hit out of the gazillion potential hits out there.

As somebody who is not familiar with economic jargon, I will ask, are you referring to "Positive Economics" and "Normative Economics"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_economics
http://www.answers.com/topic/normative-economics

If yes, I'll do some reading (and if you answer yes - may I suggest you use proper terminology in the future, thx).

 

[Miss Maya Blue]

what an interesting read this thread is. until 'someone' had to ruin it, that is
id like to see it back on track. in particular, a comment made by ceiling cat, about preparing for the future
(sorry the quote button would be handy now, but alas)

this topic interests me greatly. a question to all:
given your opinions, what are you doing to prepare for the changes ahead?

 

[someone]

maybe you're speaking in tongues. I'll give you another opportunity since you're so interested in imparting economics to the audience. Re-explain what you mean by the "positive effects of a policy" and "normative merits". Give it your best shot, in plain english.

Then let us know the merits of both to the topic of this thread.




Ok there is your statement again verbatim. Try to elaborate on it, if you're capable.

The statement means that if you or anyone is too stupid to know what the effects of a policy are, their opinion of that policy is worthless. I don’t know how to be any clearer.

what are you doing to prepare for the changes ahead?

Not worrying about idiotic claims blaming foreigners for the downfall of western civilization.

 

[wet_suit_one]

To the original poster...you may not be aware that there are other places in the world where things are much better than in the USA...people are better off, governements have less debt or no debt, healthcare is not a problem, and people don't have the scourge of the fundamentalist christian taliban to worry about.

And Canada is one of them! Yay us!

 

[GotGusto]

The statement means that if you or anyone is too stupid to know what the effects of a policy are, their opinion of that policy is worthless. I don’t know how to be any clearer.

So I was right all along. My understanding of what you wrote was spot on and I dismantled it - and your contribution to this worthless thread was itself worthless.

someone is not an economist and has zero credibility. He hasn't the slightest idea what he is talking about and his ego and pride has run amuck showcasing sheer stupidity throughout this thread. He could not accept that I, using plain English, put his little uppity speech to rest.

Here we have a fellow who claims to be disinterested in a conversation yet spends more than 4 hours participating in it. And all that he has added is a recitation of two statements in varied form:
"You don't know what you're talking about" and "The thread is stupid". Almost as creative as your nickname.

What does that say about him or the people who have participated in the thread thus far?

Not worrying about idiotic claims blaming foreigners for the downfall of western civilization.

Is that what you got from my initial statements? You have a reading comprehension problem.

You're a recluse with a chip on his shoulder. Go bury yourself in more economics textbooks.

 

[blackrock13]

This thread should be re-titled to the "GotGusto vs Someone" thread on economic theory

Not really, it's a tag team bout and it's really fun watching a middle weight in a heavy weight fight for a while.

 

[GotGusto]

The statement means that if you or anyone is too stupid to know what the effects of a policy are, their opinion of that policy is worthless. I don’t know how to be any clearer.

For the record nobody knows all the effects of an economic policy, and this is why economist's predictions are often wrong. No, I'm not talking about just numbers, but the social impact of those numbers. At the end of the day, that is what people are concerned about. Human behavior, the environment, and global affairs are the wildcards.