Will someone PLEASE!!!!!

Sorry had to post this one. All about how those that do not LEARN fron history are doomed to repeat it. Like Mr Kugman... and this is even a rag that i consider a bit... left leaning...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100008311/will-someone-please-shut-krugman-up/

Lets hear it...

Was finding interesting till the end, where he slips in this underlying message of "Lets keep spending billions of dollars on the military, because that wont solve the problem one bit. We should turn our heads towards inside the country, disregard the meaningless wars out there." Seriously thou. Stop wasting money on the military.Its good enough already. And stop the wars. They ARE a waste of money right now.

I would like to agree about the foreign wars. we do need to spend more time looking rather than out. If ou=nly we could get to DOMESTIC sources of oil... then we could let the mid east do what they want...

Ptolemy wrote:I would like to agree about the foreign wars. we do need to spend more time looking rather than out. If ou=nly we could get to DOMESTIC sources of oil... then we could let the mid east do what they want...

Just invade Canada. They have plenty of Oil. We should have done that instead of invade the middle east

CANAAAADIAAAA. I SUMMON THE POLAR BEAR CAVALRY! eh, oil....wont be a problem in 50 years or so.

It's obviously all a gov. conspiracy. This is one conspiracy I will actually believe, and trust me, I don't believe easily. We have easily within our reach power sources that do not pollute or burn fossil fuels. Seriously what is the hold up? Billions in oil revenues, tens of thousands of jobs, and dependence on others. Thats what.

neah its about when they run out WE will have it then WE are the power!!!!

you know, when your power has a date where its scheduled to end( you know...when there is no more oil in the world) trying to impose on people will just come to bite you in the ass..

THIS IS AMERICA!!!

Spoiler:

Who? America? Care about the outside world? Why, what about that benevolent war that you went to IrAQ to free their people from a dictator? SURELY THAT IS PROOF THAT YOU CARE! or.................uhmmmm, Nasa went to help those guys in that crumbled mine.....

meh... Right now we seem to be more worried about the world's problems then the world is...

I am just a bit of an isolationist when it comes to foreign policy. Trade is different. i think if asked aid should be given as long as certain conditions are met. How often do you give money to people that want to kill you?

You do realize that America doesnt really CARE abuot the outside world right? Just trying to find profit in it. And failing.

oh it is all about protecting our interests. i know have been on this planet to long to think other wise. That is why i think there is another reason besides the enviro wackos for not accessing our own resources. i would hope it is not just because some id10t thinks the environment will be destroyed because of it.

They said the Alaska pipe line would destroy the carabu and now the numbers have actually INCREASED along that pipe line. They are just guessing and their aim is not to save the planet but to control your life... More than they already do

All governments want to control your life, in paper our system allows freedom but in reality fear forces politicians to control an every increasing and unpredictable population.

Ptolemy wrote:I would like to agree about the foreign wars. we do need to spend more time looking rather than out. If ou=nly we could get to DOMESTIC sources of oil... then we could let the mid east do what they want...

Actually, I'd have to disagree, the Middle East needs more modernization and economic diversification, I've actually done a report if you want me to post it, and the conclusions that were made seem to point that their over reliance on oil, through market mechanisms and government intervention, has put them in a terribly unstable position, sort of like our current energy crisis. Everyone knows that the oil will end, no one really knows when, no one wants to think about when and we try to ignore the fact that it will happen.

Ptolemy wrote:oh it is all about protecting our interests. i know have been on this planet to long to think other wise. That is why i think there is another reason besides the enviro wackos for not accessing our own resources. i would hope it is not just because some id10t thinks the environment will be destroyed because of it.

They said the Alaska pipe line would destroy the carabu and now the numbers have actually INCREASED along that pipe line. They are just guessing and their aim is not to save the planet but to control your life... More than they already do

Ehh... That statement seems so ignorant. Do you think that if we build earth as one giant metropolis that there will still be wildlife such as wolves? Not if the whole world is covered in concrete, same thing applies here, the way that they have to make that pipe, prolly by cutting down trees and digging, would disturb a lot of the wild. Hence, if their numbers have increased, their predators numbers have decreased, an elastic continuum of life being pulled too far. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the only reason their population would have risen is if they were not being preyed upon as much, so, the predator population must have less need for consumption.

So far, however, Krugman has been right, and the author of this article can't really say anything against him, except about the deficits. And the British Economy declined in the 19th century for a whole lot of reasons, particularly the end of their empire, such as the independence of India and their African Imperial Colonies. The "Jewel in the Crown" was aptly named, and, with its loss, the British suffered. I wouldn't say that it was debt, because, debt only prevents the government from borrowing, or that it borrows at a higher rate. So if debt was in excess of 100% GDP and the government raised taxes to meet expenditures and per annum fees on their borrowed monies and bonds, and nothing more, then the economy would function, more or less, as if it was debt free, public debt anyways.

This doesn't necessarily mean debt is good, debt is bad, but the reason that we have debt is so that we can pursue counter cyclical fiscal and monetary policies, such as the Netherlands was able to do because of its basic following of accepted Macroeconomics.

Another reason this spending cut is like a cut to the throat is because of the instant loss in spending. Imagine if the social services the government provided totaled 1/5 of GDP, now imagine those services vanishing, the effect would be devastating in a depressed economy. As consumers in the "paradox of thrift" revert to saving and the government does not spend, they further lodge themselves in the liquidity trap, creating a wrecked economy from poor consumer confidence and, as such, lack of demand, this would thus engage a vicious cycle of job destruction as people don't spend and companies fire workers to keep revenues constant, and with no source of income, because of cut welfare and a slack economy, no jobs would be created and the economy would function far below expected output. Now imagine a spending boom in government share of GDP, adjusted to CPI and core inflation, it would create jobs, restore consumer confidence and provide those with no permanent source of income, a job, and thus, the ability to spend for their needs and such.

Since we are not at the point of no return, like the author pointed out, GDP to debt ratios skyrocketed over 100%, even upwards of 500% I believe, and you know what the Marshall Plan did? It didn't use most of its money to repay debts, it used a Keynesian policy of spending to create jobs. One may argue that this worked because of the work needed to be done, and I agree, but, in a slack economy, when there is no work to be done, that is because the economy is not function as efficiently or at full capacity. There is work to be done if the economy was function at full capacity, but since it isn't, fiscal stimulus or quantitative easing is required, thus employing the unemployed and creating stability.

I would go on, but I get the feeling that what I have to say would mostly be different examples of what I just spouted above, just the same stuff, and I know a big block of text is intimidating on forums, tl;dr I do it too XD

Americans dont have a....sense of defeat Dist. They would never accept defeat. Wich would just cause more ruckus.

in light of what is going on ALL over the world with socialist economies in danger of failing and you still hang on to that hack as though he were your father...

You and Krugman are a bit alike it seems. You both talk about things you have read about but have no practical experience in doing. The Government cannot spend it's way out of a recession. Government spending will not grow the economy. there needs to be jobs created that make goods and services that people PAY for. Not that pay people for using. it is the sale and resale of goods and services that will grow the economy. not hiring more bureaucrats whose goal is to get more people enrolled in their program.

The reason for the increase in the pop of the carabu well there are a couple the main reason for the expansion along the pipe line is the efforts to make the path of the pipe line easier to get around, many extensive conservation efforts by the state and the company that maintains the pipeline and the fact that more calvs survive in the marginal warmer area close to the pipe line.

Found this http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/biggame/caribou.php

In the 1970s people were concerned about the effect of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, expanding oil development, and increased disturbance from use of aircraft and snowmobiles on caribou. Although there was some displacement of caribou calving in the Prudhoe Bay oilfield, in general, caribou have not been adversely affected by human activities in Alaska. Pipelines and most other developments are built to allow for caribou movements, and caribou have shown us that they can adapt to the presence of people and machines. As human activities expand in Alaska, the great challenge for caribou management is for man to consider the needs of our caribou herds and ensure that they remain a visible, healthy part of our landscape.

This http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_alaskan_pipeline_have_an_effect_on_the_caribou_population

the Alaska Pipeline effected the migrating caribou. The caribou now make it a point to hang around the pipeline while giving birth and also in the winter due to the pipeline providing a warmth that they didn't have before. The Trans Alaska Pipeline had a very positive effect on the caribou.

This http://www.alyeska-pipeline.com/Pipelinefacts/Wildlife.html

Pipeline animal crossings, constructed
579 approx. (See also Pipeline Engineering crossings)
Bird species, number identified along route
More than 170
Fish species, number identified in waters crossed by pipeline
34
Caribou Population histories
Central Arctic herd —

1970 — 3,0001
1980 — 9,0002
1983 — 12,50010
1984 — 13,0006
1986 — 16,0008
1988 — 15,000 (est.)11
1990 — 25,000 (est.)11
1992 — 23,400 (est.)11
1995 — 18,100 12
1998 — 38,552 15

Nelchina herd —

1967-68 — 48,0003
1972-73 — 10,000 4
1981 — 20,730, (increasing) 5
1984 — 25,000 7
1986 — 29,0009
1987 — 30,200 10
1990 — 37,500 (est)11
1993 — 40,360 (est)11
1996 — 50,000 (est)13
1999 — 31,000 (est.)14
1995 — 19,500 (est.)15

Also take a look at this PDF http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/caribou-facts.pdf shows the population of a herd not in the area of the pipeline actualy declining.

Populations around the pipe line are increasing by the information that i have found so far and this is 5 minutes of research.

Seems to me you are using this pipeline, wich is not a environment problem, to support sth it cant support, since without the adaptations ofthe pipeline and environment efforts to minimize its effects were what caused it to go by immaculate. The pipeline alone, without recognition of the environment problems it would cause, would have caused problems. It was the extra effort that made so. Even so, i fail to see what this has to do with the debate in question.

Dray The Fingerless wrote:Seems to me you are using this pipeline, wich is not a environment problem, to support sth it cant support, since without the adaptations ofthe pipeline and environment efforts to minimize its effects were what caused it to go by immaculate. The pipeline alone, without recognition of the environment problems it would cause, would have caused problems. It was the extra effort that made so. Even so, i fail to see what this has to do with the debate in question.

Sorry i do not feel the need to debate the merits of socialism when there are none. history proves time and again that socialism and big government does not grow the economy nor solve economic problems. This is evidenced by what is going on in Turkey and the steps the governments of Europe (France) are taking to try to keep their economies from collapsing. The budget crunch that England is experiencing right now. economic issues in Germany and really across the EU.

For an economy to grow you have to have jobs that make something that someone will pay for. it really is that simple. Government does not create anything worth paying for, just the opposite. The government creates things it wants to give away. food stamps will not grow the economy, welfare will not grow the economy. The private sector creates things to sell. That is where the stimulus comes from. not from the government.

There are examples in history showing that the system you support has failed as well. So this point is null and void when it comes to the backtrack of the opposing economic systems. The only point that remains is wich system will work better for the present crisis and time.

PROTIP: You are not France, or Turkey. Different countries with different sources of outcome and income, as well as different ideal sets of morale and economy.

Disturbed wrote:The middle east needs to kick the Americans off their land...so that both US and they are spared the presence of those morons.

I don't get how wasting loads of American lives just to further a political agenda while also wasting loads of foreign lives is in any way logical or something the American ppl support.

They attempt to exploit the whole rest of the world, but are failing at it. And will continue to fail until they realize that if they keep playing this game, the whole world will come to kick their asses. Their lucky there hasn't been a unified stance against them by multiple countries yet...but if there is one, then things will take a turn for the worse rather fast.

I've been saying this since the 90's. America needs to get the hell out of the middle east. It's like playing with matches over there while covered in gas. All throughout the 90's people were bla bla bla about China and how our next big enemy might be them, but I kept saying that the next major enemy of the USA will be the Middle East (I want to say Islam but that would be unfair to a massive number of muslims who live elsewhere), because of all the toes we callously step on over there.

Dray The Fingerless wrote:Americans dont have a....sense of defeat Dist. They would never accept defeat. Wich would just cause more ruckus.

Americans are modern Romans. Same mentality and brutality.

Romans kinda were defeated later on thou....And it wasnt complete annihilation. In terms of war, i agree with you, but i meant that their sense of freedom is the most powerful one in the world. They could not simply live without it. Or maybe they can...the way things are changing there, with the passiveness and disregard growing.

Ptolemy wrote:in light of what is going on ALL over the world with socialist economies in danger of failing and you still hang on to that hack as though he were your father...

You and Krugman are a bit alike it seems. You both talk about things you have read about but have no practical experience in doing. The Government cannot spend it's way out of a recession. Government spending will not grow the economy. there needs to be jobs created that make goods and services that people PAY for. Not that pay people for using. it is the sale and resale of goods and services that will grow the economy. not hiring more bureaucrats whose goal is to get more people enrolled in their program.

The reason for the increase in the pop of the carabu well there are a couple the main reason for the expansion along the pipe line is the efforts to make the path of the pipe line easier to get around, many extensive conservation efforts by the state and the company that maintains the pipeline and the fact that more calvs survive in the marginal warmer area close to the pipe line.

Found this http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/biggame/caribou.php

In the 1970s people were concerned about the effect of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline, expanding oil development, and increased disturbance from use of aircraft and snowmobiles on caribou. Although there was some displacement of caribou calving in the Prudhoe Bay oilfield, in general, caribou have not been adversely affected by human activities in Alaska. Pipelines and most other developments are built to allow for caribou movements, and caribou have shown us that they can adapt to the presence of people and machines. As human activities expand in Alaska, the great challenge for caribou management is for man to consider the needs of our caribou herds and ensure that they remain a visible, healthy part of our landscape.

This http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_alaskan_pipeline_have_an_effect_on_the_caribou_population

the Alaska Pipeline effected the migrating caribou. The caribou now make it a point to hang around the pipeline while giving birth and also in the winter due to the pipeline providing a warmth that they didn't have before. The Trans Alaska Pipeline had a very positive effect on the caribou.

This http://www.alyeska-pipeline.com/Pipelinefacts/Wildlife.html

Pipeline animal crossings, constructed
579 approx. (See also Pipeline Engineering crossings)
Bird species, number identified along route
More than 170
Fish species, number identified in waters crossed by pipeline
34
Caribou Population histories
Central Arctic herd —

1970 — 3,0001
1980 — 9,0002
1983 — 12,50010
1984 — 13,0006
1986 — 16,0008
1988 — 15,000 (est.)11
1990 — 25,000 (est.)11
1992 — 23,400 (est.)11
1995 — 18,100 12
1998 — 38,552 15

Nelchina herd —

1967-68 — 48,0003
1972-73 — 10,000 4
1981 — 20,730, (increasing) 5
1984 — 25,000 7
1986 — 29,0009
1987 — 30,200 10
1990 — 37,500 (est)11
1993 — 40,360 (est)11
1996 — 50,000 (est)13
1999 — 31,000 (est.)14
1995 — 19,500 (est.)15

Also take a look at this PDF http://www.anwr.org/features/pdfs/caribou-facts.pdf shows the population of a herd not in the area of the pipeline actualy declining.

Populations around the pipe line are increasing by the information that i have found so far and this is 5 minutes of research.

What about the predator population? I need to know if it declined or rose, there is a certain equilibrium that nature tends to establish, like conditions of perfect competition in the market, if one rose dramatically without affecting the other, then the other would make that population decline as its population rose due to increased consumption.

Back to economics:

If all you can do is fling around fingers shouting socialist and communist, then yes, we can't really have a debate. But if you believe America was founded on Capitalism, think again, Alexander Hamilton's plan included tariffs and fostering manufacturing businesses, in fact, Lincoln had tariffs. I wouldn't call that capitalism, nor would I call it communism.

Sadly, you also just admitted one of the basic philosophies of Keynesian Economics, the Keynesian Multiplier, which simply states that buying goods by allowing more people to have money in their pockets creates wealth. You just said that wealth is created through the buying and selling of goods.

Also, see this chart, you can see debt vs. GDP growth, NOTE how after the war ends and the economy moves back from totalitarian capitalism, or total war style, economy to a market based one that the GDP growth is slightly negative, but after that, returns to a steady growth pace. Because, as you can see too, the war years were good for GDP because of the Depression.



I was kind of hoping that, you know, you would have read a macroeconomic textbook...

Obviously you haven't, because every rational economist knows that welfare in times of recessions are the most important fiscal tool because 100% of that money is recycled through the economy creating demand, and thus, jobs.
I mean really, think about it for a second, this isn't about ideology, this is about what works. Your "belief" in a economic system is tantamount to Stalin's "belief" in communism. You don't have the facts, you just want to believe it works. And While capitalism is obviously the greatest economic choice out of the two, unregulated and not understood, it can be as dangerous as communism, hence Industrial Great Britain and the Great Depression.

I mean seriously why did I just WASTE my time posting all that macroeconomic information for you to not even post a reply answering the facts? It wasn't even that detailed, it was layman style information, but to just brush it off and point your finger and call it "SOCIALISM!" is epitome of closed mindedness and ideological favouring.


On the side note, I believe that in a couple hundred years the world is either going to have advanced enough to slow birthrates through higher standards of living that it can maintain a capitalist system or that we will evolve into a highly socialist system in order to maintain our higher standards of living. If that doesn't happen there will be war... Not any kind of war we have ever seen before, it will be that of two starved men fighting over the corpse of their comrade for sustenance. The way we live depletes resources far too fast and we cannot sustain them, earth only has x amount of atoms, and if too many of those are invested in the human body, then there will be less of everything else, so much less, as the cycle of rebirth in the ecosystem is incredibly slow, that we will fight for food, water, medicine and every other thing we take for granted today. Raising the standard of living for everyone is the only way to keep the present population from exploding into an even more unsustainable rate. But hey, that is just my opinion of the future, by no measure of certainty will it happen, just my guess work.

Rise in population has ALWAYS caused the rise in disease, war, accidents, famine. Even as rational as we are, we cannot escape this ultimate tool of mother nature for balancing things in this world. People die. There will simply be a bigger rate of deaths for a while. But they will always die...