<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>>…</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <b>On Behalf Of </b>John Clark<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [ExI] Warren Buffett is worried too and thinks Republicans are "asinine"<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span> I have never observed more irresponsible behavior by a American politician than what I observed from the Tea Party Republicans on Wednesday night<span style='color:#1F497D'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Indeed? The persistent deficit spending for the past 14 years doesn’t qualify?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal> <br> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span>Easy, if you're in congress you vote to spend less money<span style='color:#1F497D'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>They are trying. That’s what sequestration is all about.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>></span>><span style='color:#1F497D'>…</span> creationism. The Tea Party holds no position on that subject.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'> <br><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span>I don't know how you determine the position of the Tea Party about anything except by looking at the position of Tea Party members, and nearly all of the most prominent ones are creationists<span style='color:#1F497D'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>I could find not one quote on the subject by the most prominent Tea Party member Ted Cruz. But Barack Obama was a proto-Tea Party member, before it had a name. That doesn’t make him a creationist.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>The whole argument devolves into a logic loop. Senator Fester N. Boyle disagrees with me on economics, therefore he is an idiot, therefore he must be a creationist, which is proof that he is an idiot which is proof that he is a creationist.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>The way I would go with that is to note that it is possible to grow up in the USA knowing exactly nothing about evolution (I am a poster child proof of that.) We are not required to take biology classes here, ever. You can opt to do chemistry classes if you find that more interesting for what little science is required. Even if you take biology in the US, the little bit they say about evolution is often wrong. This too I know from firsthand experience. Our biology classes really should be called taxonomy and anatomy, both of which can be taught without even mentioning evolution. The students will not understand anything without that cornerstone insight, but it can be done, and it is.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Regarding politicians’ stance on that topic, it doesn’t surprise me that they don’t know anything. If you gathered all of them and gave them a test as a group, all 535 would likely score very poorly. It isn’t their thing. None of the student government types do I recall seeing in any science class. They needed to take easy stuff so they would have time to do student government stuff.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>I don’t really worry about that too much, because federal level congress people don’t make the call on education standards, the states do. Of course that same problem is seen there too, possibly even worse. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span> And there is a connection, if you don't think logic is important in one subject, like biology, then you probably don't think logic is important in another subject, like economics<span style='color:#1F497D'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>This assumes logic applies to areas where the politician has exactly zero knowledge or interest. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Regarding economics, this theory fails to explain why there are two major schools of thought competing currently, Hayek and Keynes. American schools have been teaching Keynes for the lifetime of the oldest politicians, and nearly all of them are Keynesian.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Keynesian theory would predict that we just keep borrowing and spending, that if we do it sincerely enough that we can eventually spend our way out of debt. But I have seen counter evidence of that notion everywhere. The so-called economic stimulus packages failed. The really hard-core Keynesians argued that they failed because they weren’t big enough. The Hayek crowd argued the reason they failed is that they suck too much money out of the economy.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>If you filter the current conniptions as a test case on Hayek vs Keynes, then you understand why any threat to the borrowing stream is terrifying, for a failure to borrow not only destroys the nation, it destroys the world. And all along we were worried about nukes.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span> It is time to face reality, the president is never EVER going to abandon Obama care. There are 2 reasons:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span>1) It was passed by the House and the Senate<span style='color:#1F497D'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>…Without a single vote from the minority party, which now holds the house.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span> and the Supreme Court said it was constitutional<span style='color:#1F497D'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>As a tax, which puts it under the control of the house, which is controlled by the party which voted against in perfect unison.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span> Obamacare is the single thing the president is most proud of having accomplished<span style='color:#1F497D'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'> <span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span>2) If Obama gives in to terrorist demands<span style='color:#1F497D'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Terrorist demands. The will of the house of representatives on a tax, which is their legal responsibility, is a terrorist demand now? The problem with that argument is it invites us to recognize a startling contrast. A military officer jumps onto a desk and starts shooting his fellow soldiers while shouting JOSEPH SMITH AKHBAR (or something to that effect) and it gets labeled a workplace shooting, since the poor dear had post traumatic stress syndrome, having never been to actual battle but rather having caught it from those who had. But representatives in the house voting against absurd over-borrowing and overspending are terrorists, with bombs on their chests, guns to our heads, hoping to destroy the world, having a temper tantrum, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>So lawmakers making law are terrorists, but a murder shouting religious slogans as he shoots innocent unarmed people is workplace violence.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span> and they are seen to be successful then he knows that the exact same tactics will be used against him and future presidents again and again and again<span style='color:#1F497D'>…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Ah yes I did overlook that. The current president is worried about future presidents losing power. OK. This really is about power, that much I will agree. I disagree that presidents should have much power, but I agree this really is about power.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>But assume Keynes is right, and borrowing to stimulate the economy is right, and the reason the previous attempts failed is that they didn’t borrow and spend enough. All we need to do is borrow way more than we are now. We do it and spend our way right out of this hole, hurray! The other countries see evidence that Keynesian economics really works, and realize that instead of lending money to America to stimulate their economy, they lend it to their own governments to stimulate their own economies! <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>What happens then? America’s borrowing dries up because no one will lend it money. Then it all crashes. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>But wait, there’s more. The other countries don’t just walk away, for they have invested their capital the USA, betting that Keynes was right, that spending is the way. That capital is lost because America is hopelessly addicted to borrowing and spending. So their economies crash too, and we can’t have that. So Keynesian theory predicts that optimizing the world economy consists of the world choosing its favorite nation, whichever one is willing to keep borrowing the funds they want to invest, and keep on investing there indefinitely, but with the understanding that investing there can never stop; otherwise you lose your capital.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>Hmmmm. Something sounds vaguely wrong with that notion, I just can’t quite put my finger on it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='color:#1F497D'>spike<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>