patrick.net

Dan8267 says

4. If you actually read anything I've written on economics on this site, you wouldn't call me a Keynesian.

I'd call you an Econ 101 dropout.

Dan8267 says

Christianity, not Islam, is the by far greater threat in the U.S. Therefore, it makes sense that I would devote more time to the problem that is more relevant to my society. If Islam were the greater threat, then I'd devote more time to it.

What are you talking about? Islam is a greater threat. Just look how much those wackos are costing us. When you complain about wages not increasing, part of the reason is our society is paying trillions to subdue Islamic terrorists. That money could have been used for our needs.

Strategist says

When you complain about wages not increasing, part of the reason is our society is paying trillions to subdue Islamic terrorists. That money could have been used for our needs.

Isn't that a perfect keynesian stimulus? Same kind that broke the depression?

Heraclitusstudent says

Strategist says

When you complain about wages not increasing, part of the reason is our society is paying trillions to subdue Islamic terrorists. That money could have been used for our needs.

Isn't that a perfect keynesian stimulus? Same kind that broke the depression?

It does count as a fiscal stimulus. Wish we could have spent the stimulus on infrastructure or scientific research.

Strategist says

I'd call you an Econ 101 dropout.

I'm sorry, you must have be confused with someone who gives a damn what you think.

deepcgi says

Keynesians who think this debt will never actually come due are a greater threat than the Christians.

As misguided as Keynesians are, it is highly unlikely they would start a nuclear war. The Christian right, on the other hand, would gladly do so in order to be "raptured" into heaven.

deepcgi says

Keynesianism is a religion and you bow lower to it with every passing day

deepcgi says

Keynesians who think this debt will never actually come due are a greater threat than the Christians

Like many (most?) you clearly don't understand Keynesians. Keynes advocated balanced budgets on average. Deficits, when needed and surpluses when not needed.

Dan:

1. I didn't insinuate you thought the Middle East isn't violent because of its pervasive religion.

2. While many Christians believe the Bible to be more or less a historical record, more and more Christians and Jews, who still hold the Bible aloft as a treatise of wisdom for society, believe the tales to be more apocryphal. And they subscribe more to a cultural adherence than a strictly orthodox one.

To quote you, " Islam is not a religion. Neither is Christianity or Judaism. It's a family of religions -- note the plural -- and a mythology.". and..."Just because religions are embedded in culture does not mean they have to be."

Judeo-Christian values are rich part of our American culture. I don't have to believe that dinosaurs missed a ride on the ark to find moral value in the Bible. It is certainly filled with structure worthwhile to our civilization.

There is a difference between the separation of church and state and the separation of morality and law. Without a cultural agreement on the meaning of morality there would be no teeth in judicial action.

3. I remember late May 2011 well. President Obama reauthorized the Patriot Act with no substantive change. In fact, I recall the ACLU (Richardson?) climbing down his back for being so blatantly hypocritical on not just a campaign-promise, but a central campaign-pillar. Did you do much bitching on the blogs that week? I suspect not.

And exactly which third of the American public advocates committing genocide? Did your professors at the University allow hyperbole like that to pass through on your term papers? Shame.

4. There is no money for foreign war or domestic entitlements. There is no financial leverage on either side to even argue over how the government spends money. Both parties are Keynesians. You still divide the voters the way you are told to divide them...by red and blue.

5. No particular reason except that you used the phrase "bull shit" too soon in the argument.

Strategist says

I'd call you an Econ 101 dropout.

"Econ 101" Is that the class where you learn the quantity of currency doesn't change anything in the economy at equilibrium except prices?

deepcgi says

There is a difference between the separation of church and state and the separation of morality and law. Without a cultural agreement on the meaning of morality there would be no teeth in judicial action.

Too many confusions in 2 sentences.
- The teaching of morality doesn't require religion in any way.
- To say morality is 'cultural', is sometime called 'cultural relativism'. There is a wider morality on which everyone can agree. Don't kill your neighbor for no reason. That kind of stuff.
- The US law is hardly based on morality. In fact corporate or financial immorality (or amorality) is often seen as good behavior. For the most part, it's just: play by the rules - whatever the rules are.
- Finally, to loop back, a spiritual pursuit by itself has nothing to do with morality. Eastern religions don't try to teach morality and they are right. Mixing morality and religion was a stupid idea from Zoroastrianism that unfortunately got borrowed by Babylonian slaves.

Heraclitusstudent says

Strategist says

I'd call you an Econ 101 dropout.

"Econ 101" Is that the class where you learn the quantity of currency doesn't change anything in the economy at equilibrium except prices?

I think it's more Micro Econ - basics of demand and supply.

There isn't a "wider morality upon which everyone can agree". That is the very point I am making. The Bible WAS this society's treatise on morality. It seems easy to believe that we could all agree that as long as some behaviour doesn't harm others, that it should be allowed. That is a typical amoral liberal pipe dream. People can't even agree on whether or not people should be allowed to eat meat - if not for the burden of public health care costs, then the climate damage from cattle methane! What seems quite simple is clearly not.

We shouldn't kill each other - and yet we do it all the time. Obama did it today, I'm sure. It's not a matter of semantics, it's a question of morality.

"Thou shalt not kill...unless I the Lord God tell you to...or unless the other person is a terrorist, or the other person is insane, or the other person generates too much carbon dioxide, or unless the other person has ebola and won't cover his mouth when he sneezes..."

We have lost our morality in the name of progress.