Click to go to Forum Home Click to go to maXbimmer Home

Go Back   maXbimmer Forums > Misc > Off-topic
User Name
Password


Welcome to Maxbimmer.com!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 11-24-2011, 10:18 PM   #76
South
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto?waterloo
Posts: 468


I would just like to take the time and point out to those people part of society who believe "universities are and create leftists". Remember guys, economy is the base and the university the part of the super structure, thus when it comes to economy there's only one view taught in math economics, corporate libertarianism with sections dedicated to solving the misconceptions of expanding the economic pie based on pure theory, ignoring precedent and critiques!


Am I the only person who reads something and spends way too much time figuring out the validity of it?
South is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 10:18 PM   #77
sirex
King Sirex
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 9,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by noid View Post
I bet you think your comments make you sound cute. It's a natural defend mechanism when you cant defend your idea's.

Corporate manifesto? Since when was this only about corporations? Did I not say I do not support bailouts?

Its an ideology, classical liberalism, look into it.
What ideas should I defend? You just spouted a bunch of giberish from some prof of yours and think you're coming off smart, pretty sure you're a big Ayn Rand fan as well, everything you've said pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Nothing wrong with that, but if you an economics major cant see the issues and the bigger picture (which you seem to think you understand so well) then we are in alot more trouble.

Heres the real the issue. You, like every other university kid out there is under the impression that once you have that degree the job will be handed to you. Maybe it will. Maybe it won't. Regardless in a few years when you do graduate and maybe pursue a masters or whatever since simple degrees no longer count for shit any more then maybe you'll go get a job working for one of those so called corporations which you idolize.

Then maybe you can see what squeezing profits and being at the bottom of the rung means when you're making <35,000 a year and have a rent bill of $1000 and food costs sky rocketing and public transit in the gutters. Meanwhile the corporation you work for is making record profits, yet still they are stinging on your meager 3K bonus..

Just saying is all. and ya Econ / Poli sci degree, good luck when you go up against the big shots.

But hey what do I know... Actually I dont know.. Infact I dont really care I make alot of money and have a wealthy family so please do me a favour and keep voting in those conservatives and profiteering ideologies because at the end of the day I AM BENEFITING the most.
__________________
sirex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 10:19 PM   #78
noid
5th Gear Member
 
noid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Port Credit (Mississauga) Ontario
Posts: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by South View Post
"Why is it so important to shrink the gap?"

let us reflect for a moment on this question
amen





Oh yeah right, the video outlined the reasons why.................watch it for.............for the thousandth time. WOW like i havnt talked macro at all in other of my posts ever! DONT TROLOLOL ME BRO!

hey dickface I am also a 3rd year economic student with a double major in psci but I don't take face value information, so in my textbook the "common misconceptions" section is based on crap, promotes the corporate libertarian system that we have had the past 70 years. BTW no one cares who anyone is on these posts, you can be president of the united states and I wouldn't care, only your arguments.


as for the conservative government thing.....exactly my point about why not call him a "communist" instead of leftist for more taxes, because higher taxes has nothing to do with leftist or rightest. Hence the DONT TROLOLOL ME BRO. might be a perception held by you and maybe society in general but definition wise, MR. university theory, is no.

What want me to type of the sections and explain the fallacies and precedents that go contrary to it?


and a bigger pie doesn't mean everyone standard level of living goes up, it means it can be, and the losers compensated. RIGHT international economics 101, so you should know the O-H model, Ricardian model and factor proportions model. All state that the losers from expanding the economic pie can compensate the losers and still have a bit left over for rasing the standard. CAN, let me reiterate more carefully "CAN"
I love a passionate debate, but dont get all "TROLOLOLOL", it just decrements your arguments.

Your idea's of what are misconceptions, would imply a closed economy.

Past 70 years? I again say look into memo PPS23. As an economics student you will understand what the implications are for a country that has 50% of the worlds wealth while only having 6.3% of the world population post ww2.
noid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 10:25 PM   #79
noid
5th Gear Member
 
noid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Port Credit (Mississauga) Ontario
Posts: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirex View Post
What ideas should I defend? You just spouted a bunch of giberish from some prof of yours and think you're coming off smart, pretty sure you're a big Ayn Rand fan as well, everything you've said pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Nothing wrong with that, but if you an economics major cant see the issues and the bigger picture (which you seem to think you understand so well) then we are in alot more trouble.

Heres the real the issue. You, like every other university kid out there is under the impression that once you have that degree the job will be handed to you. Maybe it will. Maybe it won't. Regardless in a few years when you do graduate and maybe pursue a masters or whatever since simple degrees no longer count for shit any more then maybe you'll go get a job working for one of those so called corporations which you idolize.

Then maybe you can see what squeezing profits and being at the bottom of the rung means when you're making <35,000 a year and have a rent bill of $1000 and food costs sky rocketing and public transit in the gutters. Meanwhile the corporation you work for is making record profits, yet still they are stinging on your meager 3K bonus..

Just saying is all. and ya Econ / Poli sci degree, good luck when you go up against the big shots.

But hey what do I know... Actually I dont know.. Infact I dont really care I make alot of money and have a wealthy family so please do me a favour and keep voting in those conservatives and profiteering ideologies because at the end of the day I AM BENEFITING the most.
My prof's said this stuff? You must be kidding me. Since when is economics a 'soft' degree? Last I checked, we are taught to think for ourselves, logically.

I WILL agree that if you take social science classes you can get feed bias crap. Been there heard that.
noid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 10:25 PM   #80
South
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto?waterloo
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by noid View Post
You can believe in whatever you want. Don't give me any of that red scare crap, as if it is acceptable to talk about fascism (farthest right). Communism is very different from socialism.

You really think you can control hedge funds with assets in excess of 500+ billion dollars each?

Do you even know why the United States was so successful post WW2? Read Memo PPS23.
ok you are definitely tazering me with a trolololol gun!

obviously you did not get the sarcasm behind the character assassination of being called a communist. Why is the US so successful post WW2? I havnt read that document but I know the Grand Area Doctrine, the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral commision and their Bretton words creations.....is that bang on? did you ignore the major moral problems associated with that? "on a macro level" you so presume we don't.

Do we even know why the US was successful post ww2, man you funny!

seems I am forgetting something, hmm, right the MIC and the 8 civilizations and the above mentioned groups and institutions and how precedent shown by Noam Chomsky and others have been determined to interact.....mr. university.
South is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 10:26 PM   #81
South
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto?waterloo
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by noid View Post
My prof's said this stuff? You must be kidding me. Since when is economics a 'soft' degree? Last I checked, we are taught to think for ourselves, logically.

I WILL agree that if you take a social sciences you can get feed bias crap. Been there heard that.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOL

am I am accused of a know it all arrogant university brat, check this guy out person who says I am ! lol.

edit: thining logically inside a box is still inside a box. Me included, but getting history wrong is just wrong nothing about logic there buddy. Mathematical derivatives say its good, history says this, you ignore history to preserve the math. Is that assesment logical? I try to understand the theory, the applications, why its not working and adjust my view accordingly....that Tim Minchin video point that entertainingly well. watch this one PLZ

Last edited by South; 11-24-2011 at 10:33 PM.
South is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 10:28 PM   #82
South
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto?waterloo
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by noid View Post
I love a passionate debate, but dont get all "TROLOLOLOL", it just decrements your arguments.

Your idea's of what are misconceptions, would imply a closed economy.

Past 70 years? I again say look into memo PPS23. As an economics student you will understand what the implications are for a country that has 50% of the worlds wealth while only having 6.3% of the world population post ww2.
right well to be earnest for a moment, ill check it out later, too long for me to read now. What university is this btw

is history not a subject there? I wonder if your history course would teach implications that have occured due to the US.....................

Last edited by South; 11-24-2011 at 10:30 PM.
South is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 10:39 PM   #83
noid
5th Gear Member
 
noid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Port Credit (Mississauga) Ontario
Posts: 982
The university is irrelevant (an attempt to keep this subject on track). I love how you guys assumed I was idolizing myself for pointing out I was a 3rd year economics student. Its a matter of fact, my argument is no less strong nor weak because of it. It only goes to show where im coming from. It hard to say that someone from a social science background would have the same approach as someone like me and you.

In either case, I have taken history classes, and do like to look up historical events on my spare time. What is your question?

I can only wonder, at how much distaste you guys must have for ron paul.

Last edited by noid; 11-24-2011 at 10:43 PM.
noid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 10:46 PM   #84
South
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto?waterloo
Posts: 468
Quote:
Originally Posted by noid View Post
The university is irrelevant (an attempt to keep this subject on track). I love how you guys assumed I was idolizing myself for pointing out I was a 3rd year economics student. Its a matter of fact, my argument is no less strong nor weak because of it. It only goes to show where im coming from. It hard to say that someone from a social science background would have the same approach as someone like me and you.

In either case, I have taken history classes, and do like to look up historical events on my spare time. What is your question?
Do not need us to tell us your coming from a corporate libertarian point of view

question is what university, Guelph? I want to know what professor of what economics is this.

"social science background would have the same approach as someone like me and you"

approach? to what? social science people do not need math to prove models, they only need to know what the models are. Me and you can go into mathematical arguments but theirs nothing I can mathematically argue against because, for one as a third year, I am restricted in my box of knowledge, and secondly the math balances out so yeah theory works, history says it doesn't work hence i wonder why you think we need less regulations and more perfect competition is beyond me

perhaps I will start another thread, type out one section explaining the myths of expanding the economic pie, and present the precedents and statistics contrary. As for now I have to go and get back to you on your memo link

Last edited by South; 11-24-2011 at 10:48 PM.
South is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2011, 10:59 PM   #85
noid
5th Gear Member
 
noid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Port Credit (Mississauga) Ontario
Posts: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by South View Post
Do not need us to tell us your coming from a corporate libertarian point of view

question is what university, Guelph? I want to know what professor of what economics is this.

"social science background would have the same approach as someone like me and you"

approach? to what? social science people do not need math to prove models, they only need to know what the models are. Me and you can go into mathematical arguments but theirs nothing I can mathematically argue against because, for one as a third year, I am restricted in my box of knowledge, and secondly the math balances out so yeah theory works, history says it doesn't work hence i wonder why you think we need less regulations and more perfect competition is beyond me

perhaps I will start another thread, type out one section explaining the myths of expanding the economic pie, and present the precedents and statistics contrary. As for now I have to go and get back to you on your memo link
If you are going to supply statistical inference please supply your data sets (or atleast SAS or R outputs). Show that the proportion of variance indicates that the model you are using is good. I hope you know not doing so means virtually nothing because statistics can very easily be manipulated to infer whatever you want.


I fundamentally disagree with you. Going back to our most fundamental and beloved GDP (c+i+g+x-m). Per capita supported by a GINI index distribution, will immediately allow you to see that competition is working.

Edit: Just watched the video, and holy correlation and statistical transformation (especially transformation of the response variable, which in turn changes the distrobution of the variation of the error). I would venture to even say the data in his sets would show fairly low coefficients of determination. Perfect execution of how data can be manipulated to fool people.

If anyone cares enough to get that mans data sets I will personally do the calculations and show raw untransformed data.

Last edited by noid; 11-24-2011 at 11:20 PM.
noid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 02:26 AM   #86
South
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto?waterloo
Posts: 468
So once again my arguments at a glance.

The reality is that they do not represent the 99% nor anywhere nearly close to it.

Your argument that they claim to be the 99% based on your GINI coefficient for Canada (32.1) is wrong because the reference to the 99% is a claim to being part of the workers. Marx has clearly outlined that there is a base made up of the relations of production. These relationships determine societies other institutions called the superstructure, on top of the base. Meaning government, university, religion etc all serve to promote the economic relationship of the capitalist and worker (bourgeoisie and proletariat). This is an analysis not some conspiracy theory. It’s how our capitalist worlds work. Not up for debate but you can ask and I can reference. Anyway, this is what the 99% are, workers, it’s not that they are the 99% poor and that there is a 1 percent rich although that statistic, as cited above, 20% own 82 percent of the world’s wealth, which is undoubtedly has a larger gap since 2008.

Typical left wing thinking. Supporting public sector services increases taxes, with increased taxes disposable income decreases; this decreases money spent on businesses. If these businesses are selling less, then they cannot employ as many people. These people start depending on these social services even more, requiring even more tax dollars, which then creates a vicious cycle of fewer jobs and higher taxes.


So here I made the sarcastic joke that you should just call him a communist (or fascist or whatever) based on your attempt at character assassination. Yes this is character assassination because saying he’s leftist then continuing on to explain the, apparently, huge logic idiocy of leftists and higher taxes, both totally unrelated btw (Sweden example), is vindictive and generalizes leftists with a negative connotation; usually associated in today’s media in the form of being called a left extremist or communist: example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQzq_WbH4E0

As for your logic of taxes there is nothing saying it doesn’t work when the government “controls” the industries. Communist system would be that all profits are reinvested back into society. As for our liberal system corporations are vindictive in making a larger bottom line. They do this in many different forms, I mention the propaganda model by Noam Chomsky, the reasons why it should be studied…any who taking insurance companies as example. In Canada they have lobbied the provincial government to require that we require at least 1 million liability, which results in giant insurance premiums. Looking at BC, where it is nationalized, the insurance rates for their 300,000 labiality (not sure on this) is paltry compared to ours. Theoretically perfect competition would have it that we have lower rates, but as outlined the application by corporations serves their interests and harms us.

Do you really think large companies would just take it from governments, even if they were so ignorant to try? Best case scenario is they move their operations (and jobs) and recess into a save haven, while maintaining 'satellite' operations in that country. Worse case scenario is they restrict foreign investment, have allot of major companies (with assets in the trillions) move out to places like Bermuda, and have a recession as a punishment.

Would corporations just go to a more willing country to cave into their demands, sure, that’s the whole reason behind the World Trade Organization. This is what happens a lot with IT businesses, which are our middle class jobs btw, as for manufacturing, that also can go but obviously takes more time for it to occur. Again if the WTO (read what it facilitates) did not exist corporations wouldn’t be granted the international rights as a human being, if not more. Which is one issue OWS might be protesting, the legal right that a corporation has. Should it be a “person” or should it go back to how it was before 1872, where they were mandated and felt privileged to be incorporated (read how the slavery act was hijacked by corporate lawyers, it started out vindictive).

Maybe I should note here that I am a 3rd year University Economics student, minoring in politics. Also you guys have to stop thinking in micro terms (yourself) and trying to compare that to macro terms (the country). Stay focused! With anything a public system dictates the prices and eliminates competition. What this does it provide poor quality. Completely private systems is what is needed, competition goes up, and because of increased competition prices go down. Thus quality goes up and prices go down. Sweden has had and still has an elected conservative government for 6 years now

1. Means nothing as you said so why mention it when you did
2. How am I speaking in micro terms?
3. Yes theoretically creates deadweight, supply demand 101, but Sweden is doing well, Volvo isn’t crap quality either I would think, or Saab, or, H&M or the numerous other manufacturing company’s
4. As mentioned with the insurance company example perfect competition when applied does not work like it does on paper. Quality already mentioned.
5. Conservative, nationalistic government (if not mistaken) adds to my above mention of taxes have nothing to do with any type of government.

continued....
South is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 02:30 AM   #87
South
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto?waterloo
Posts: 468
You can believe in whatever you want. Don't give me any of that red scare crap, as if it is acceptable to talk about fascism (farthest right). Communism is very different from socialism.
You really think you can control hedge funds with assets in excess of 500+ billion dollars each?


Socialism is when the government oversee's the major corporations and makes sure they are operating within accepted standards and they can make money and have free enterprise. In Sweden this is done with workers directly negotiating through government with corporations, sort of a union with government power. In this sense they own more or less some factors of production.

Communism is abolishment of private property and ownership and the means of production and living belong to the community. (Private property and ownership as the means of production, not private possession). “each give according to their abilities, and receive according to their needs”, how evil! Yes quote the failed applications in the name of communism, so the word is butchered, but the ideology has never been truly realized or attempted. Cuba comes closest to attempting to create an engendered culture hopefully capable of the realization.

Who says nationalize means government controls everything? I believe in the socialistic economy and not so much the Marxist. Oh did I not mention I am against the corporations who play the money game. The system in which wealth is extracted from productive industries and is concentrated. That these institutions become so large, because of deregulation(look at the citigroup merger), that when they fail the public is holding the bag? Thus the unregulated derivative market the hedge fund is based on can implode if i had it my way, society does not need it….in fact, if aware of it, would hate it.

Do you even know why the United States was so successful post WW2? Read Memo PPS23.

I was expecting something a lot more contrary to my arguments. Yet this is only the Grand Area Doctrine essentially. They are powerful because of the ITO (future WTO), exploitation of Africa and I quote

“The African Continent is relatively little exposed to communist pressures: and most of it is not today a subject of great power rivalries. It lies easily accessible to the maritime nations of Western Europe, and politically they control or influence most of it. Its resources are still relatively undeveloped. It could absorb great numbers of people and a great deal of Europe's surplus technical and administrative energy. Finally, it would lend to the idea of Western European union that tangible objective for which everyone has been rather unsuccessfully groping in recent months.”

Advocates the reinforcement of the 50% owned by the 6% through
"In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction”.

Pretty standard US imperialism….oh I noticed this too in the context from maintaining a strategic ally to exert power over the middle east.
"If we do not effect a fairly radical reversal of the trend of our policy to date, we will end up either in the position of being ourselves militarily responsible for the protection of the Jewish population in Palestine against the declared hostility of the Arab world"

This is my favourite quote from that document
“initial build-up of the UN in U.S. public opinion was so tremendous that it is possibly true, as is frequently alleged, that we have no choice but to make it the cornerstone of our policy in this post-hostilities period. Occasionally, it has served a useful purpose. But by and large it has created more problems than it has solved, and has led to a considerable dispersal of our diplomatic effort. And in our efforts to use the UN majority for major political purposes we are playing with a dangerous weapon which may some day turn against us. This is a situation which warrants most careful study and foresight on our part."

In other words, the UN has its uses because of its public popularity but hinders our imperialistic plans for the Grand Area Doctrine when the UN is contrary to it. And if people realize UN ideals then advocating of submission to supra-national organizations of the UN such as the Kyoto Accord will be bad for us. That sort of theme.

Your idea's of what are misconceptions, would imply a closed economy.

They are not, I agree whole heatedly on paper everything perfect
competition brings. On paper. But that’s where it’ll stay until our human nature becomes whole heatedly altruistic. Where everyone can apply ethics such as corporate compromise.

Currently there is a divide between equality and freedom. The in ability to have both. Our freedom (liberal sense) comes from the privatization of differences. Thus we have the public realm and private realm where our ethics come from. The corporation is the public realm made up of private individuals, thus the basis that they should be given the rights of a “person” .
We can restrict our tradition sense of freedom, remove the right of a corporation to be considered a human being, and be subject to control/regulations/inspections/etc etc. This violates liberal freedoms though. Is it possible if corporations like Enron were even more selfish without the Narcissism that they realized that they need their employees, their customers, their stakeholders….no man is an island. So capitalism can be the path to equality, relative, not pure equality as Marx would have. Yes it is possible, I just do not trust corporations to develop selfishness without the narcism so so so commonly associated. Again the overwhelming atrocities done by corporations has created the precedent where that trust has been lost and where my main philosophy is socialism. This however would be extremely hard to come about in America, where governmental control has also created the precedent of being bad/corrupt/useless etc…

Show that the proportion of variance indicates that the model you are using is good. I hope you know not doing so means virtually nothing because statistics can very easily be manipulated to infer whatever you want.
If there is anything of the above mentioned that you need sourced, no problem. Oh and as you can see someone with a social science background can easily argue the economy your “logical” way.
Going back to our most fundamental and beloved GDP (c+i+g+x-m). Per capita supported by a GINI index distribution, will immediately allow you to see that competition is working.


Sure does work……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..wha t examples does your textbook use to prove it works? I am really interested in knowing that, because in the world that champagne glass chart I cited to you would SCREAM otherwise. Has standards of living increased globally over the latter part of the century. Yes. Has is done to the extent the models we studied suggest they should of, a resounding NO. Analogy: was there scientific progress during the dark ages, yes, would there have been more if not for the dark ages, RESOUNDING yes.

Just watched the video, and holy correlation and statistical transformation (especially transformation of the response variable, which in turn changes the distrobution of the variation of the error). I would venture to even say the data in his sets would show fairly low coefficients of determination. Perfect execution of how data can be manipulated to fool people.
If anyone cares enough to get that mans data sets I will personally do the calculations and show raw untransformed data.


First off, watch it again, note the sources. Secondly, note where he is presenting. It is TED, this is like where Darwin would go if he made his initial presentation of his theory of evolution. This is academia center, something where manipulation is pathetic to suggest. His papers published on this correlation have been examined and no fallacies found. Thirdly, transformation of the response variable (or the (x)) and its correlation to the distribution of variance is correct. But you forget that the number of factors are so numerous as mentioned in the video that constant trend in multiple independent variables suggests quintessentially that there is no manipulation. His data sets, again as he said, came directly from sources such as the World Bank and other UN organizations, which probably would be the most fair out there? Disagree?

Now to bring this back to the OP. Protestors deserve respect in what they are protesting for. The above, well essay lolz, is focused some of the main issues OWS protestors have on their agenda. Thus I am trying to legitimize a protest reported by media corporations, which operate in the context of the base, propaganda model, reasons of study, power politics paradigm. To back up these models I cite precedents in other words, history. The overwhelming crap that corporate libertarianism, through just US foreign policy has caused would be equal to the number of deaths occurred during WW2. Africa, South America, South East Asia and now the Middle East are all based on corporate libertarian policies. This is the quintessential position I feel anyone who has learned world history, history of business ethics, western ethics and religion would come to the same conclusion.

Now I have said too much already, probably no one reading this but comments such as “The overwhelming crap that corporate libertarianism, through just US foreign policy has caused would be equal to the number of deaths occurred during WW2” is something that would produce a even larger essay than this and still scratch the precedents that support this. So ask this is you must and other questions but dam I feel I got trolled.
South is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 02:30 AM   #88
South
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto?waterloo
Posts: 468
You can believe in whatever you want. Don't give me any of that red scare crap, as if it is acceptable to talk about fascism (farthest right). Communism is very different from socialism.
You really think you can control hedge funds with assets in excess of 500+ billion dollars each?


Socialism is when the government oversee's the major corporations and makes sure they are operating within accepted standards and they can make money and have free enterprise. In Sweden this is done with workers directly negotiating through government with corporations, sort of a union with government power. In this sense they own more or less some factors of production.

Communism is abolishment of private property and ownership and the means of production and living belong to the community. (Private property and ownership as the means of production, not private possession). “each give according to their abilities, and receive according to their needs”, how evil! Yes quote the failed applications in the name of communism, so the word is butchered, but the ideology has never been truly realized or attempted. Cuba comes closest to attempting to create an engendered culture hopefully capable of the realization.

Who says nationalize means government controls everything? I believe in the socialistic economy and not so much the Marxist. Oh did I not mention I am against the corporations who play the money game. The system in which wealth is extracted from productive industries and is concentrated. That these institutions become so large, because of deregulation(look at the citigroup merger), that when they fail the public is holding the bag? Thus the unregulated derivative market the hedge fund is based on can implode if i had it my way, society does not need it….in fact, if aware of it, would hate it.

Do you even know why the United States was so successful post WW2? Read Memo PPS23.

I was expecting something a lot more contrary to my arguments. Yet this is only the Grand Area Doctrine essentially. They are powerful because of the ITO (future WTO), exploitation of Africa and I quote

“The African Continent is relatively little exposed to communist pressures: and most of it is not today a subject of great power rivalries. It lies easily accessible to the maritime nations of Western Europe, and politically they control or influence most of it. Its resources are still relatively undeveloped. It could absorb great numbers of people and a great deal of Europe's surplus technical and administrative energy. Finally, it would lend to the idea of Western European union that tangible objective for which everyone has been rather unsuccessfully groping in recent months.”

Advocates the reinforcement of the 50% owned by the 6% through
"In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction”.

Pretty standard US imperialism….oh I noticed this too in the context from maintaining a strategic ally to exert power over the middle east.
"If we do not effect a fairly radical reversal of the trend of our policy to date, we will end up either in the position of being ourselves militarily responsible for the protection of the Jewish population in Palestine against the declared hostility of the Arab world"

This is my favourite quote from that document
“initial build-up of the UN in U.S. public opinion was so tremendous that it is possibly true, as is frequently alleged, that we have no choice but to make it the cornerstone of our policy in this post-hostilities period. Occasionally, it has served a useful purpose. But by and large it has created more problems than it has solved, and has led to a considerable dispersal of our diplomatic effort. And in our efforts to use the UN majority for major political purposes we are playing with a dangerous weapon which may some day turn against us. This is a situation which warrants most careful study and foresight on our part."

In other words, the UN has its uses because of its public popularity but hinders our imperialistic plans for the Grand Area Doctrine when the UN is contrary to it. And if people realize UN ideals then advocating of submission to supra-national organizations of the UN such as the Kyoto Accord will be bad for us. That sort of theme.

Your idea's of what are misconceptions, would imply a closed economy.

They are not, I agree whole heatedly on paper everything perfect
competition brings. On paper. But that’s where it’ll stay until our human nature becomes whole heatedly altruistic. Where everyone can apply ethics such as corporate compromise.

Currently there is a divide between equality and freedom. The in ability to have both. Our freedom (liberal sense) comes from the privatization of differences. Thus we have the public realm and private realm where our ethics come from. The corporation is the public realm made up of private individuals, thus the basis that they should be given the rights of a “person” .
We can restrict our tradition sense of freedom, remove the right of a corporation to be considered a human being, and be subject to control/regulations/inspections/etc etc. This violates liberal freedoms though. Is it possible if corporations like Enron were even more selfish without the Narcissism that they realized that they need their employees, their customers, their stakeholders….no man is an island. So capitalism can be the path to equality, relative, not pure equality as Marx would have. Yes it is possible, I just do not trust corporations to develop selfishness without the narcism so so so commonly associated. Again the overwhelming atrocities done by corporations has created the precedent where that trust has been lost and where my main philosophy is socialism. This however would be extremely hard to come about in America, where governmental control has also created the precedent of being bad/corrupt/useless etc…

Show that the proportion of variance indicates that the model you are using is good. I hope you know not doing so means virtually nothing because statistics can very easily be manipulated to infer whatever you want.
If there is anything of the above mentioned that you need sourced, no problem. Oh and as you can see someone with a social science background can easily argue the economy your “logical” way.
Going back to our most fundamental and beloved GDP (c+i+g+x-m). Per capita supported by a GINI index distribution, will immediately allow you to see that competition is working.


Sure does work……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..wha t examples does your textbook use to prove it works? I am really interested in knowing that, because in the world that champagne glass chart I cited to you would SCREAM otherwise. Has standards of living increased globally over the latter part of the century. Yes. Has is done to the extent the models we studied suggest they should of, a resounding NO. Analogy: was there scientific progress during the dark ages, yes, would there have been more if not for the dark ages, RESOUNDING yes.

Just watched the video, and holy correlation and statistical transformation (especially transformation of the response variable, which in turn changes the distrobution of the variation of the error). I would venture to even say the data in his sets would show fairly low coefficients of determination. Perfect execution of how data can be manipulated to fool people.
If anyone cares enough to get that mans data sets I will personally do the calculations and show raw untransformed data.


First off, watch it again, note the sources. Secondly, note where he is presenting. It is TED, this is like where Darwin would go if he made his initial presentation of his theory of evolution. This is academia center, something where manipulation is pathetic to suggest. His papers published on this correlation have been examined and no fallacies found. Thirdly, transformation of the response variable (or the (x)) and its correlation to the distribution of variance is correct. But you forget that the number of factors are so numerous as mentioned in the video that constant trend in multiple independent variables suggests quintessentially that there is no manipulation. His data sets, again as he said, came directly from sources such as the World Bank and other UN organizations, which probably would be the most fair out there? Disagree?

Now to bring this back to the OP. Protestors deserve respect in what they are protesting for. The above, well essay lolz, is focused some of the main issues OWS protestors have on their agenda. Thus I am trying to legitimize a protest reported by media corporations, which operate in the context of the base, propaganda model, reasons of study, power politics paradigm. To back up these models I cite precedents in other words, history. The overwhelming crap that corporate libertarianism, through just US foreign policy has caused would be equal to the number of deaths occurred during WW2. Africa, South America, South East Asia and now the Middle East are all based on corporate libertarian policies. This is the quintessential position I feel anyone who has learned world history, history of business ethics, western ethics and religion would come to the same conclusion.

Now I have said too much already, probably no one reading this but comments such as “The overwhelming crap that corporate libertarianism, through just US foreign policy has caused would be equal to the number of deaths occurred during WW2” is something that would produce a even larger essay than this and still scratch the precedents that support this. So ask this is you must and other questions but dam I feel I got trolled. Good night
South is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 03:52 AM   #89
noid
5th Gear Member
 
noid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Port Credit (Mississauga) Ontario
Posts: 982
I'll try to do this in chronological order:

Funny you would quote Marx, almost as if I could have predicted. You seemingly forgot to mention the Weber status groups: working class (manual labour), middle class (educated/occupational), and agricultural (peasantry/feudalism). What you will realize is that we have an acceleration of low wage job loses, and an inflow of middle class jobs. Lets not forget no one is limited in either becoming the owner of factors of production, nor are they limited to having stake in a company that does.

The reason the Swedish people pay high taxes is because of the left wing parties pre 2006, ever wonder why they have switched to right wing and why they have been recently reelected?

Character assassination? I wasn't aware people needed reassurance. If saying someone is speaking the way a left leaning person would, is the same thing as calling him a communist, I dont even.

Furthermore you make it sound like you are defending yourself, as if you are scared to be called a communist? If you (or anyone) is a communist, I feel like they should be able to defend themselves just as much as a liberal, conservative or a fascist.

Capitalism is the enemy of the state of any pure communist system, there is no profit, what are you talking about? Do you rather mean a heavily taxed socialist economy?

When you write differentiate between classical liberals (conservatives) and modern liberals (liberal party) to minimize confusion.

If you are worried about lobbying you should look into the Canadian council of chief executives.

- What exactly do you think the government can do? Look at the list of companies they represent and straight faced (e-style) tell me you really think they couldn't leverage their assets in a way that would undoubtedly hurt Canadians.

Since when is lobbying perfect competition? Classic liberals believe in MINIMAL GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. Meaning in a ideal state the government would not intervene in such matters. Making your argument moot.

The world trade organization, hardly has any power, it is a by product of government intervention, you realize the government in which your company resides must represent you at the WTO (companies dont represent themselves). Putting tariffs on the united states will mean much worse for your country then for the united states anyways, lets not forget by the time a WTO case is settled protected infant industries 'grow up' before any anti measures can be taken. Overall again this argument is moot. If you dont believe in companies being persons then check out ron paul, the rightest leaning republican of all (He is what the united states needs) he even talked about it during one of the presidential candidate debates, I couldn't agree more. Neither could small government.

What the hell are you talking about? Is Volvo, Saab, H&M or other manufacturing companies government owned? Does the government give handouts to Swedish people to buy these cars? Er???

You are getting perfect competition, and government corporate protection heavily confused.

Are you inferring a center leaning conservative government is fascist? A conservative government is a classical liberal government who idealistically strives for individual libertarianism.

Continued....

Socialism, takes the wealth of the many and distributes it through broad social programs. They exploit you in the name of others, while exploiting others in the name of you, therefore essentially you are exploiting yourselves. Sweden has their own model which is conveniently called the Swedish model, wherein minimum income is not nationally enforced, it is created in every industry, VIA collective trade agreements. Arguably, if it weren't for these collective agreements individual employee's would have more leeway in negotiating for higher pay. Again there is a reason they now have a conservative government.

Communism fails from the get-go although it has never been purely implemented, it can not effectively suppress the desire of people to better their standards, and will always be faced with corruption.

The public is holding the bag? You mean the government is forced to bail them out? Support classic liberal ideology and you wont have that problem, they will fail and be replaced with something efficient.

The part you were supposed to grasp from memo pps23 is that the american government controlled the majority of the military production during ww2, and at the end was left with half the worlds wealth with a tiny population. THAT is where the problem lies. The problems you are seeing are not a by product of classical liberalism.

The more you close up a society the more it becomes dependent on the companies within, that is when big government will grant human rights to companies.

Example my textbook uses? Seriously? What the hell are you talking about. I just told you, Take the increase in GDP per capita and the GINI index wealth distribution chart, and you will see that consumption, investment, government expenditures, and net imports has increased the standard of living for Canadians tremendously and consistently.

I think you misunderstood me, and you are having a hard time grasping econometrics, the response variable is y, a transformation in x (the explanatory variable) only changes the shape of the curve. Changing the response variable changes variance, distribution, and shape. I think you are also having a hard time understanding what manipulation by transformation means, it is not the manipulation of the data set (which I am sure is sound), it is the manipulation of the response or explanatory variable, to make the output of your model suggest what you want, while still retaining the same data set. In turn this visually will trick people into correlating what he is saying. To confirm his correlations I need the coefficient of determination to be able to tell you if it is a good model or not. My guess by the amount of transformations he has done, is that the variation explained by the model is likely a minority.

The beautiful thing about statistics and inference is that you can manipulate the data however you want to say virtually whatever you want, after all, he could argue his R2 is large, another person can claim the same number is small to them small, who is right? Neither its statistics. Correlation =/= causation

Last edited by noid; 11-25-2011 at 03:59 AM.
noid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2011, 05:14 PM   #90
South
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto?waterloo
Posts: 468
you just dug yourself a elitist hole, comfortable there?

just reading comments like WTO has no power and Swedens companys arnt nationalized when I was talking about high taxes and how your logic of high taxes = crap high priced goods is wrong by precedent - why you couldn't figure that out is beyond me (oh wait no its not ahha)....I can go again and bit by bit analyze your crap but you don't have the background nor the will. I definitely got hit by a troll gun. WTO has no powers, *hears the sound of a ten year old talking about the complexities of life* your facts are just wrong. COMPANYS do represent themselves, thats why company can go to Mexico or another WTO signed country and sue the government if they pass a law that limits their bottom line and such. Also tariffs can help or not help the US depending on the circumstance, THIS IS econ 101- factor proportions model ftw ey? Btw removing corporations right as a person mean big government, not small. Ron Paul if he really is advocating this is trying to get votes and then won't do that, or if he truly believes in such then he won't win the election. Simple as that. Nixon, Reagen, Carter, Clinton, Bush....the trend of corporate libertarianism is real, there is no republican view and democrat view on the economy.

anyway you do not know what communism is, even say its never been implemented but you somehow know human nature and say it will face no matter what. This type of dismissive arrogance is throughout your response

"The part you were supposed to grasp from memo pps23 is that the american government controlled the majority of the military production during ww2, and at the end was left with half the worlds wealth with a tiny population. THAT is where the problem lies. The problems you are seeing are not a by product of classical liberalism."


so in other words the MIC model I mentioned before time and time again yet you have not checked that out......"war is good for business" what are you defending American imperialism? like wtf? by product of classical liberalism? buddy its not classical its called corporate libertarianism, your a corporate libertarian, go join the tea party k.....people do not need to learn economics, just look at history. Apparently you think its working for the better of the middle class or the world in general. You are retarded to think so, and ill stake that whatever history you learned was very limited. Limited government would mean even more deregulation, hence the derivative deregulation that has occurred through the US the past decade, which has caused the 2008 crisis, would have occurred faster if anything....disagree? Or is this bit of history unbeknown to you.


"The public is holding the bag? You mean the government is forced to bail them out? Support classic liberal ideology and you wont have that problem, they will fail and be replaced with something efficient.

Holy shit, who is the champion of corporate libertarianism, champion of liberty? the U.S what happened there buddy? they weren't allowed to fail, and since 2008 they are now larger and still unregulated. Canada wasn't affected by its own banks because they did not become hedge funds. So yay for Canada but the largest economy and most power nation still has the same problem and is even worse now.

your theory is all nice on paper

I asked for the textbook section that is labeled like "misconceptions of this model of that"...and again you mention just Canada, but yet not the globe at large. Where before you said "stop thinking micro"....who is looking for what huh? Obviously the standard of living has increased but again you ignored this on purpose i assume, if on paper it worked as well when applied then the standard of living we should have is 5x what it is now.

I foolishly gave you the respect and time to quote everything you have said, write my response below respectfully and yet you do not do the same. This is why I stick to just stating, because NO ONE ever wants to think about anything...................god just reading your thoughts on the TED video is pathetic. Man shit did you even mention the respect and noreity that organization has given? the PHDs that guy has? the data sets he said he used? but no all that is not enough, you want the actual information. Admirable, but if you can't trust UN independent sources then all your sources from Canada and the US, in the background of corporate liberalism, would mean that the statistics are far more manipulated and self serving. disagree with logic?

No you just ignored all that and said "it all can be manipulated to make correlations appear visually".....well buddy then I am going to just say give me the data sets for the standard of living for the past 50 years in Canada....and when you show that correlation I'll say its been manipulated.. See the elitist hole you dug yourself. You also have no logic buddy, watch the video again, how many different correlations with different data sets did he use? it wasn't 1 or 2 lolz.

So so far you have set precedent, apparently, that correlations can be manipulated to visually show whatever, thus all charts when they do not fit your view are manipulations.

That memo you wrote backs up MY argument, it is the same crap as the Grand Area Doctrone, promotes war and strategic assets for the US and quintessentially is the imperialism they are criticized for. What in their justifies the PROMOTION of the MIC? justifies corporate liberationists?

I have repeatedly asked for the information that we are gaining middle class jobs. still waiting bro, don't taze me mr.university.


anyway MR.third year economic major with minor in psci watch this video if you have not yet. "science adjusts its view based on whats observed, faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved" I agree on paper as much as you do on the theory behind economics. I know my history, and through observations I have to adjust my view that the theory does not work at all to the extent that it should. BY FAR. -Your view is the denial of observation so your belief can be preserved. I trust that PHD guy over your education level of a third year ranting about how correlations can be manipulated. I trust that organization more I do than your Ron Paul, I trust academia more than your logic. If you show the manipulation of any World Bank or other notable UN organization, show me that the our learned theories are helping us as much as it should then I will "change my mind, I will spin on a f*ucking dime". Until then have fun with your self fulfilling ideology where you ignore observation for the preservation of your theory.

South is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Maxbimmer Copyright 2001 - 2015