Show Comments That Contain...
  • On 26 Jan 2015 in Only a sliver of the top 1% are truly wealthy (long), Reality said:

    Okay, let me get this straight:

    The top 0.1% get rich via government contracting, banking and other government subsidized industries, so far so good! Then the proposed solution is to tax more? So the government can take more money from the bottom 99.9% to subsidize the top 0.1% via government contracting and other forms of subsidies to special interest industries that produce the top 0.1%???

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Nothing Is Going to Save the Housing Market, Reality said:

    Stop trying to put words into my mouth. It was my contention that Sweden has relatively high standards of living because of its small size and relatively responsive government / political landscape due to that small size. It was your contention that it's due to its socialism.

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Nothing Is Going to Save the Housing Market, Reality said:

    iwog says

    My point is that you're a ridiculous radical who can't handle a real life example functioning VIOLENTLY opposed to everything you hold sacred.

    The Austrian cult doesn't teach that price controls, tariffs, socialized health care, and government intervention is "fine as long as it's not as bad as Nazi Germany"

    Yet that is EXACTLY the point you are making!!!!!!

    You are apparently too stupid to realize this.

    Stop projecting. You are the one incapable of reading. There is no such thing as "fine as long as." All governments make errors; governments are major sources of errors. Smaller ones can discover and correct those errors faster.

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Nothing Is Going to Save the Housing Market, Reality said:

    What's your point? Hitler's Nazi regime introduced national healthcare to Europe; Nazis also had strong tariffs; Nazis not only had mandatory vacation time, but also government paid vacations for workers; yes, minimum wage, strong unions, government regulations and heavy oversight. Their economy sucked; sucked so bad eventually had to resort to war to cover up domestic economic dislocation. Compared to that (and other numerous political and economic interventions by the Nazi regime), what Sweden practiced / practices is mild. The soviet central planning was even more severe than those of the Nazis, which also had national 5-year plans. Thank goodness, Swedes didn't go that far.

    Compared to West Germany across the Baltic Sea in the 1950's, 60's, 70's and 80's, Sweden was socialistic and therefore experienced much slower economic growth. By the late 80's and early 90's, even the land neighbors Norway and Finland with more market freedom surpassed Sweden.

    It took the massive Soviet Union 70+ years to turn away from their socialistic errors. It took Germany 13 years and a massive world war to turn away from their national socialist experiment. For Sweden, because it's a much smaller country, the errors of the 1980's became manifest very quickly, and the country dialed back on socialism after a few years of experiment towards more socialism.

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Nothing Is Going to Save the Housing Market, Reality said:

    In other words, you prefer to run away like a coward (just like you described), instead of addressing the facts. Swedish Socialism was mild compared to Nazi National Socialism or Soviet Socialism (which also applied to Eastern European countries after WWII). I'm not talking about excuses, but simply pointing out your obsession with meaningless labels.

    Look up the relative ranking of Swedish living standards compared to its neighbors prior to the 1980's. Norway and Finland used to have much lower standards of living than Sweden. German per capita data is a little skewed due to the absorption of much poorer East Germany, which was also ruined by socialism from 1950's to 1980's, compared to West Germany

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Nothing Is Going to Save the Housing Market, Reality said:

    iwog says

    He's still running.............

    Sweden has been a strongly socialist country since the 1930s. WHY has it been so successful?

    Run run run run run....................................

    Sweden is an Austrian's nightmare in nearly every possible way. THAT is what is so funny about this thread.

    Sweden was less socialist than its neighbors in the 30's and 40's; almost all other countries in the neighborhood were caught up in WWII, whereas the Swedes sold munitions and industrial products to both sides. Sweden and Switzerland were pretty much the only market economies left in much of Europe during WWII from the Spanish border to the North Cape. Swedish economic growth lagged far behind that of the more market-driven West Germany across the Baltic Sea in the 50's, 60's and 70's. When Swedes expanded their socialist experiment in the 1980's, what quickly followed was their living standards falling behind their land neighbors: Norway and Finland, which had previously been sources of nannies for middle class Swedish couples but by the 90's the nanny flow became the other way around. Think what calamity had to have taken place for the previous local dominant economy to export nannies like the Philipines; think what has to have happened in the US for you to send your daughter to Canada or Mexico to find a job as a nanny!

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Nothing Is Going to Save the Housing Market, Reality said:

    iwog says

    Reality says

    Over 80 years, almost every country's GDP grow regardless how badly run, simply due to technology and population growth.

    Over 80 years every single country on the planet has experienced negative real GDP growth at some time or another. Did you actually think you were making a point? Seriously??

    You better be careful, the pat.net's 3rd stupidest person slot is still open and you're trying like hell to fill it.

    Perhaps having a ranking on pat.net is important in your small world. LOL. You obviously are too economically ignorant to recognize that 3 consecutive years of negative GDP growth is a huge event in the GDP chart . . . whereas overall GDP growth over 80 years is a non-event (almost every economy has that, even the terribly run ones like the soviets had much higher GDP in 1992 than they had in 1917). You don't know how to read a long term GDP chart.

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Nothing Is Going to Save the Housing Market, Reality said:

    iwog says

    Wooster is simply showing he doesn't know how to read a long term GDP chart. What else is new? LOL.

    Blah blah blah blah...........

    The proof was in the putting.

    iwog says

    Tell us again why a 3 year recession disproves an 80-year history of strong government economic intervention, high tariffs, strong unions, mandatory vacations, socialized health care, and something which you would call price fixing?

    Because an overall rising GDP over 80 years doesn't prove anything. Even the Soviet Union had much higher GDP in 1992 than it had in 1917, simply due to technological advance and population growth. The severe recession / depression that Sweden experienced, as shown by the 3 consecutive years of negative GDP growth, illustrated the ill effect of their trying more than their usual share of socialist economic intervention. For comparison, even our most recent "Greater Recession" only had one year-over-year negative GDP growth, in 2009

    Keep running away little one. You're a coward and you're afraid to talk about why Sweden is so successful. It scares you.

    Stop projecting your own ignorance and cowadice. Sweden used to have much higher standards of living than Norway and Finland (the two land neighbors) before their 1980's socialist experiment. They fell behind ever since.

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Nothing Is Going to Save the Housing Market, Reality said:

    iwog says

    Reality says

    Iwog and his silly charts again. Do you not see the dip in the two thirds the way along the horizontal axis? That was the late 80's to early 90's. That was the consequence of Swedish experiment in going more socialism. Negative year over year growth for 3 years in a row is severely depressionary. It would be even more obvious if you put the GDP of Norway and Finland during the same time period on the same chart.

    1. That is real GDP, not nominal GDP.

    2. Swedish experiment in going MORE socialism? How about Swedish socialism before and after and today? You hate EVERYTHING about the Swedish economy TODAY. You hate 80 fucking years of Swedish economic history and predict dire consequences from it. All you can do is point to 3 years?????

    When you are in a hole, keep digging. LOL. Of course long term GDP charts are in inflation adjusted terms. Recessions are defined as two consecutive quarters (I.e. half a year) of GDP growth lower than a small positive number. 3 years (12 quarters) of consecutive Negative real GDP growth is very severe recession/depression. Over 80 years, almost every country's GDP grow regardless how badly run, simply due to technology and population growth.

    Wogster is simply showing he doesn't know how to read a long term GDP chart. What else is new? LOL.

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Nothing Is Going to Save the Housing Market, Reality said:

    Iwog and his silly charts again. Do you not see the dip in the two thirds the way along the horizontal axis? That was the late 80's to early 90's. That was the consequence of Swedish experiment in going more socialism. Negative year over year growth for 3 years in a row is severely depressionary. It would be even more obvious if you put the GDP of Norway and Finland during the same time period on the same chart.

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Nothing Is Going to Save the Housing Market, Reality said:

    iwog says

    Reality says

    Your utter ignorance of the subject is on display again: decentralization is one of the major themes of Austrian School of Economics. Small countries like the Nordic, Switzerland, Singapore and Hong Kong are / were successful due to transparency afforded by local self-government. The politicians can see the errors in their judgement by just looking outside the window. There are less layers of bureaucrats hiding errors and obfuscating policy changes.

    Oh I get it!!!!!!

    So a nation that adopts one single tenet of Austrianism but rejects all the others and in fact goes in the exact opposite direction that Austrianism teaches will still be wildly successful and offer a high standard of living for everyone?

    Brilliant! Somehow I think you're lying and you don't actually believe this, but whatever.

    Sorry to dissapoint you, no such luck for your thought experiment. Sweden did give it a try in the 80's and early 90's; then they had to dial back on socialism big times simply because their standard of living collapsed vis the neighboring shall countries that intervened less in the market place.

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Nothing Is Going to Save the Housing Market, Reality said:

    tatupu70 says

    Reality says

    The politicians can see the errors in their judgement by just looking outside the window.

    Do centralized government buildings not have windows?

    Looking out of the window of a DC office, on can not see what's happening in California or Kansas. All the bureaucratic reports only serve to destroy information vs. Those transmitted by the market price mechanism.

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Nothing Is Going to Save the Housing Market, Reality said:

    iwog says

    Neither one of you Austrian dipshits have addressed why Nordic socialist states have been so successful, even as you accidentally praise their governments while they are doing EVERYTHING in radical opposition to what your moronic religion says they should be doing.

    Total complete fail. Keep running because it's a conversation you'll NEVER have.

    Your utter ignorance of the subject is on display again: decentralization is one of the major themes of Austrian School of Economics. Small countries like the Nordic, Switzerland, Singapore and Hong Kong are / were successful due to transparency afforded by local self-government. The politicians can see the errors in their judgement by just looking outside the window. There are less layers of bureaucrats hiding errors and obfuscating policy changes.

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Nothing Is Going to Save the Housing Market, Reality said:

    iwog says

    indigenous says

    iwog says

    You mean those extremely successful socialist states which set price limits on healthcare providers and force employers to give a whole month mandatory vacation and makes union busting a crime and guarantees a pension for every citizen?

    Gawd you are stupid...

    That isn't an answer.

    Reality was praising the governments of some of the most socialist nations on earth.

    Do you have a real comment or just a childish one?

    No, they are not the most socialist countries in the world. Switzerland with its Canton tradition is probably one of the most decentralized country at peace in the world. Various Nordic countries run their experiments of their own. Some tried socialism (like Sweden in the 80's and early 90's) and lost their edge to their more marlet-driven neighbors. Small and competing governments next to each other produce a market place for governmental services that the individuals can shop from.

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Nothing Is Going to Save the Housing Market, Reality said:

    iwog says

    Reality says

    If all else being comparable, the smaller jurisdiction with less people usually have better politicians simply due to closer supervision / oversight by the population. E.g. Switzerland and Nordic countries that have national population comparable to one of our big cities. Cities, not states! A few million people.

    You mean those extremely successful socialist states which set price limits on healthcare providers and force employers to give a whole month mandatory vacation and makes union busting a crime and guarantees a pension for every citizen?

    Even those silly policies can have their downside overcome in a small enough jurisdiction, at least in the short run, simply due to transparency afforded by smallness. Similar policies were tried in the much larger soviet eastern bloc, and failed miserably. In the US, even less intrusive programs like social security disability benefits are already grossly exploited.

  • On 25 Jan 2015 in Nothing Is Going to Save the Housing Market, Reality said:

    tatupu70 says

    indigenous says

    Because Calif's economy is the largest in the US, and that is why we have the most fucked up politicians

    lol--so in your mind the good politicians are in Mississippi or Alabama where the economies suck and people can't read?

    And the worst politicians are in CA where the economy is the largest in the US?

    Ever think perhaps your view on which politicians are good might be wrong? It helps to look at whether your view conforms to reality every so often.

    If all else being comparable, the smaller jurisdiction with less people usually have better politicians simply due to closer supervision / oversight by the population. E.g. Switzerland and Nordic countries that have national population comparable to one of our big cities. Cities, not states! A few million people. On the other end of the spectrum, countries like China and India are infamous for their corrupt officials.

  • On 21 Jan 2015 in In the Philippines........, Reality said:

    Dying due to not having medical insurance, even if true, is not the same thing as randomly picking 50k people out of the population and shoot in them. 35-50k people die every year in the US due to automobile accidents. They are certainly not entirely random events. Behavior patterns, driving patterns and vehicle choice have a lot to do with who get in accidents and who die when accidents happen. Likewise, not having medical insurance and not being able to pay, and get over-dosed on drugs are not random events just happen to anyone.

  • On 20 Jan 2015 in In the Philippines........, Reality said:

    Straw Man says

    EBGuy says

    A majority of U.S. public-school children are living in poverty for the first time in half a century..

    Ah, the wonders of uncontrolled immigration from the 3rd world...

    The real reason is actually native single motherhood in poverty promoted by the welfare system

  • On 20 Jan 2015 in Is this true?, Reality said:

    tatupu70 says

    Reality says

    Wealth concentration in the past 40 years was largely the result of progressive policies destroying middle class: both the welfare programs and the money printing benefit the ultra rich at the expense of the middle class

    So why did it start wealth disparity decrease strongly under progressive policies (1940s - early 70s), but suddenly increase as Republican policies took over??(1980s onward)

    You have LBJ's Great Society program at the end of thr 60's and the consequent currency default ("closing of gold window") in the early 70's to thank for that.

  • On 20 Jan 2015 in Is this true?, Reality said:

    bob2356 says

    Reality says

    The prices to consumers are high due to government sanctioned monopoly. Much of what hospitals and doctors receive in payments actually go into debt payment for securing the monopolistic positions that they have. The situation is rather akin to taxi medallions that cost nearly a million dollars, grossly outweigh the cost of the car or the gas.

    Prove it. Show the numbers.

    Medical price and expense far out-pacing inflation.

    Educational debt for medical graduates running to half a million, making it nearly impossible for charity hospitals to hire new graduates.

  • On 20 Jan 2015 in In the Philippines........, Reality said:

    Manufacturing is fundamentally no different from "manufacturing a hamburger" (aka flipping burgers) or manufacturing food (aka farming). Thr mid-20th century phenomenon was simply the result of the rest of the world being destroyed in the previous debt crisis war (World War 2), so that the rest of the world did not have the manufacturing base (equipment), while FedEx and UPS Global Shipping services did not exist to plunk down a factory overseas quickly.

    The name of the game is pricing power: American blue collar workers had plenty of pricing power in the mid-20th century. They have less and less pricing power in the post-1971 fiat dollar world.

  • On 19 Jan 2015 in In the Philippines........, Reality said:

    @Troy,

    Henry George and Karl Marx could be excused in the 19th century for romanticizing "the noble savages" due to their utter ignorance about the brutal slavery and hierarchy that existed in primitive societies. What excuses do today's men and women have after witnessing the savage brutality of Marxian utopian experiments in the 20th century?

    No man or woman can possess all the knowledge of a tribe or a society. Knowledge is diverse and unique to the individual. Knowledge gets propagated through the market place in mutually willing exchanges. If everyone's knowledge is exactly the same, there wouldn't be mutually willing exchanges but only forcible transfers.

  • On 19 Jan 2015 in Is this true?, Reality said:

    bob2356 says

    Reality says

    Obamacare is a classic example of this: the fast rising medical cost due to bank financing (of medical degrees, buildings and equipment) can no longer be afforded by income tax, so they devised this new tax in the name of mandatory insurance to sock the middle class in order to pay the bankers to whom the medical wages and mortgages go via loan payments!

    You don' t have the vaguest clue where the costs of health care are do you?

    The prices to consumers are high due to government sanctioned monopoly. Much of what hospitals and doctors receive in payments actually go into debt payment for securing the monopolistic positions that they have. The situation is rather akin to taxi medallions that cost nearly a million dollars, grossly outweigh the cost of the car or the gas.

  • On 19 Jan 2015 in Is this true?, Reality said:

    tatupu70 says

    Reality says

    Nonsense. The $60k/yr engineer is far from rich.

    CaptainShuddup says

    If you think 60K is some high paying job, then you must collect stamps and live in your moms basement and is a professional student and have never worked a day in your life.

    If you read the OP, it states the engineer makes somewhere between 60K and 125K. I think 125K is pretty well off in most of the US. And I obviously agree that 60K/year isn't rich. But that wasn't my point, anyway.

    The point is that the current Republican system already redistributes wealth. To imply otherwise is silly. Look at the wealth concentration trend over the last 40 years--that should say it all.

    60-125k is not rich, only middle class, perhaps in the lower half as far as dollar weighted income taxpayers are concerned. Only half the population pay income tax.

    Wealth concentration in the past 40 years was largely the result of progressive policies destroying middle class: both the welfare programs and the money printing benefit the ultra rich at the expense of the middle class. Obamacare is a classic example of this: the fast rising medical cost due to bank financing (of medical degrees, buildings and equipment) can no longer be afforded by income tax, so they devised this new tax in the name of mandatory insurance to sock the middle class in order to pay the bankers to whom the medical wages and mortgages go via loan payments!

  • On 19 Jan 2015 in Belief in Austrian econonics is brain cancer, Reality said:

    Bellingham Bill says

    iwog says

    Rothbard

    Rothbard on Georgist LVT:

    "A 100 percent tax on rent would cause the capital value of all land to fall promptly to zero. Since owners could not obtain any net rent, the sites would become valueless on the market. From that point on, sites, in short, would be free. Further, since all rent would be siphoned off to the government, there would be no incentive for owners to charge any rent at all. Rent would be zero as well, and rentals would thus be free."

    He gives his game away by categorizing that as a bad thing, LOL

    Imagine if tenancy in land could be as free as the air we breathe! Gotta stop that!

    The value of land is highly dependent on the entrepreneurial decisions made relating to its use, just like the value of most capital equipment and other means of production. The idea that a bunch of bureaucratic managers can manage land or capital as efficiently as private owners of the same "means of production" is the root folly of both Communism and Georgism. Both believed in abstract and absolute value, when in reality value is subjective and ever changing due to people's choice and decision making.

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 98 milliseconds to create.