He and I are different posters.
Management doesn't care about or at least enforce the user account rules anymore. Not on this board, anyway.
America Was Founded On Conservative Principles... and operated that way for about 125 years
- Thread starter Scataphagos
- Start date
Management doesn't care about or at least enforce the user account rules anymore. Not on this board, anyway.
It was a joke about him being you.
About the multiple accounts, though, if that is true, it's a shame.
Millions of Conservatives voted GW, Bush Senior, Nixon etc. Horrible Presidents. Until Conservatives take accountability for their own shit, I don't see America turning around. Because the Liberals certainly won't do it.
Dodge question, focus on snark.
I change my guess. You're dbphoenix. I'll bet you got worried about how your political views were being perceived with your "trading following" and wanted to make a new nick to just satisfy your P+R urges. That explains why your Frederick persona is only really posting to P+R, but your DB one is posting in all the trading forums, with almost no activity in P+R now (which is unheard of for DB).
How'd I do?
One thing i know is that freddy foreskin probably isnt a jew, if he was, he probably would have gotten his head lopped off a long time ago.
Last edited:
'1776: The Revolt Against Austerity'
Steve Pincus at the New York Review of Books:
1776: The Revolt Against Austerity: Was the Declaration of Independence a powerful indictment of British austerity policies? Does America’s founding document need to be seen as part of an economic debate about the British Empire? ... Just as political debates in Britain and the United States today turn in large part on the response to the great recession of 2008, so the events that made the United States were shaped by the British imperial government’s reaction to the debt crisis of the 1760s. What made the Declaration so offensive to British politicians then ... is that America’s founders offered a blueprint for a different kind of state response to fiscal crisis. ... [explains how debt crisis led to austerity policies for the colonies] ...
What alternative strategy did the authors of the Declaration propose? Today, we tend to regard the practice of using government spending to stimulate economic growth as an invention of John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s. But already in the eighteenth century, self-styled Patriots, followers of Pitt on both sides of the Atlantic, argued that what the British Empire needed if it was to recover from the fiscal crisis was not austerity but an economic stimulus. ...
Twenty-first century American politicians routinely draw our attention to our founding moment and founding document... But they fail to understand the economic arguments that in large measure shaped what Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues wrote. When Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin proudly proclaims that “we celebrate the fourth of July and not April 15, because in America we celebrate our independence from the government, not our dependence on them [sic],” he fails to see that our founders blamed George III and his government not for taxing too much but for doing too little to stimulate consumer demand. ...
America’s founding document called for an American state that would promote economic growth just as the British state had done before the shift toward balancing the books. ... Had George III and his ministers not adopted austerity measures in the 1760s and 1770s, had they chosen to follow Pitt’s policies of economic stimulus, America’s founders might not have needed to declare their independence at all.
[That's only a small part of the essay -- there's a lot more in the full post, e.g. an argument the Adam Smith supported expansionary policy for the colonies.]
Posted by Mark Thoma on Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 12:15 AM in Economics, Fiscal Policy |
Steve Pincus at the New York Review of Books:
1776: The Revolt Against Austerity: Was the Declaration of Independence a powerful indictment of British austerity policies? Does America’s founding document need to be seen as part of an economic debate about the British Empire? ... Just as political debates in Britain and the United States today turn in large part on the response to the great recession of 2008, so the events that made the United States were shaped by the British imperial government’s reaction to the debt crisis of the 1760s. What made the Declaration so offensive to British politicians then ... is that America’s founders offered a blueprint for a different kind of state response to fiscal crisis. ... [explains how debt crisis led to austerity policies for the colonies] ...
What alternative strategy did the authors of the Declaration propose? Today, we tend to regard the practice of using government spending to stimulate economic growth as an invention of John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s. But already in the eighteenth century, self-styled Patriots, followers of Pitt on both sides of the Atlantic, argued that what the British Empire needed if it was to recover from the fiscal crisis was not austerity but an economic stimulus. ...
Twenty-first century American politicians routinely draw our attention to our founding moment and founding document... But they fail to understand the economic arguments that in large measure shaped what Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues wrote. When Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin proudly proclaims that “we celebrate the fourth of July and not April 15, because in America we celebrate our independence from the government, not our dependence on them [sic],” he fails to see that our founders blamed George III and his government not for taxing too much but for doing too little to stimulate consumer demand. ...
America’s founding document called for an American state that would promote economic growth just as the British state had done before the shift toward balancing the books. ... Had George III and his ministers not adopted austerity measures in the 1760s and 1770s, had they chosen to follow Pitt’s policies of economic stimulus, America’s founders might not have needed to declare their independence at all.
[That's only a small part of the essay -- there's a lot more in the full post, e.g. an argument the Adam Smith supported expansionary policy for the colonies.]
Posted by Mark Thoma on Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 12:15 AM in Economics, Fiscal Policy |
Nice find, Ricter. Seems as though a lot of people, and notably ETers, "love" a history they don't even understand. Which explains their "love" of several other conclusions. Science or economics, anyone?
Last edited:
We've all been fed, socialized, with a bunch of privileged-approved history. Often we're amazed when we learn that what we think is current is actually old, but we should be more amazed that what we think is old is still current.
And speaking of "approved," your link also mentions an effort by conservatives to prevent the teaching of Keynesian economics in universities. It's rather startling. Meanwhile, most conservatives want "intelligent design" creationism to be taught alongside evolution in science classes and given equal weight...
Speaking of Keynes, I recently ordered this book, which you might find of some interest:
http://www.amazon.com/John-Maynard-...ie=UTF8&qid=1432306732&sr=8-9&keywords=Keynes
Last edited:
How do you convince blacks (or any other group), the best for their future is to "get off the government handout train" and make something of themselves?
It's so much easier to just kick back, collect the monthly check, and then bitch about how "life isn't fair to me".