[ExI] Warren Buffett is worried too and thinks Republicans are "asinine"

[spike]

>. On Behalf Of John Clark
Subject: Re: [ExI] Warren Buffett is worried too and thinks Republicans are
"asinine"

 

>. I have never observed more irresponsible behavior by a American
politician than what I observed from the Tea Party Republicans on Wednesday
night.

 

Indeed?  The persistent deficit spending for the past 14 years doesn't
qualify?

    
 

>.Easy, if you're in congress you vote to spend less money.

 

They are trying.  That's what sequestration is all about.

 

>>. creationism.  The Tea Party holds no position on that subject.

 
>.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.  

>. 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.

This assumes logic applies to areas where the politician has exactly zero
knowledge or interest.  

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.

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.

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.

>. It is time to face reality, the president is never EVER going to abandon
Obama care. There are 2 reasons:

>.1) It was passed by the House and the Senate.

.Without a single vote from the minority party, which now holds the house.

>. and the Supreme Court said it was constitutional.

As a tax, which puts it under the control of the house, which is controlled
by the party which voted against in perfect unison.

>. Obamacare is the single thing the president is most proud of having
accomplished.

  >.2) If Obama gives in to terrorist demands.

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.

So lawmakers making law are terrorists, but a murder shouting religious
slogans as he shoots innocent unarmed people is workplace violence.

>. 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.

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.

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!  

What happens then?  America's borrowing dries up because no one will lend it
money.  Then it all crashes.  

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.

Hmmmm.  Something sounds vaguely wrong with that notion, I just can't quite
put my finger on it.

spike

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20131021/0feaa6ca/attachment.html>