That’s not right. It’s not even wrong.
— Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958), as quoted by R. Peierls
Peierls (1960) writes of Pauli, “… a friend showed him the paper of a young physicist which he suspected was not of great value but on which he wanted Pauli’s views. Pauli remarked sadly ‘That’s not right. It’s not even wrong'”. (Peierls R (1960). “Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, 1900-1958”. Biographical memoirs of fellows of the Royal Society 5: 174-92. Royal Society (Great Britain))
Pauli won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1945: “At this stage of the development of atomic theory, Wolfgang Pauli made a decisive contribution through his discovery in 1925 of a new law of Nature, the exclusion principle or Pauli principle. The 1945 Nobel Prize in Physics has been awarded to Pauli for this discovery.”
You are absolutely correct, that fascism is a natural outcome of Socialist policies – it is the application of overt violence upon the people for the purpose of the State instead of the soft violence of coercion that is the standard for the modern socialists.
But they are borne from the same cloth.
I note that no Demonazi has attempted to dissociate themselves from Ed and james even though they have repeatedl;y proven themsleves wholly corrupt lying thieving paraistes. That proves how corrupt the entire party is.
Ed, having claimed never to have seen the point I made earlier, despite having already acknowleged it, has, yrt agaion refused to answer it. This shows he knows perfectly well it is correct and that we could indeed be oput of recession in days were it not dor the corrupt, thieving, organlegging Nazi parasites of the Demonazi party, such as him.
The obnvious difference between Palin’s idea of allowing the free market to invest and Obama’s of thioeving the money and giving it to his cronies is obvious. Even Black Flag might be able to explain.
James you have no business insulting me you obscene, lying, thieving, child raping, genocidal, organlegging Nazi animal when I have never said anything rude about you.
I have previously answered your claim that fascism is “right wing” by pointing out that Mussolini was a self acknowleged socialist. I could also point out that you mentor Hitler was a “national socialist” Big state socialists, like yourself then.
Moody has no means to make such a calculation – they are literally pulling this crap out of their ass.
They are implying they have Knowledge of Future Consequences, what Hayek called A Pretense of Knowledge
That is, they are pretending (ie: lying) that they know more than what they really know
We merely need to look backwards into the past economic action -where such a claim was made and the consequences and outcomes was opposite.
What makes anyone think they have it right this time? What changed?
(Answer: not one damn thing)
Please tell me how they steal, James?
Do they come to your door with thugs?
Do they come to your door with an opportunity?
Does it matter the size of their wallet in either of these cases?
Does the difference lie with the means of presentation :)
I bloody do not care.
I look at my action and my wallet to count if I am winning or losing
Whether Bill Gates adds or subtracts a billion from his holds no merit to mine.
Have fun arguing with Moody’s:
Moody’s recently estimated that Obama’s jobs plan, if passed, would add two percentage points to economic growth next year, add 1.9 million jobs, and cut unemployment by a full percentage point. By contrast, the Senate GOP plan wouldn’t help the economy in the short term, Faucher said.
“Should we look at regulations and make sure they make sense from a cost benefit standpoint? Certainly. Should we reduce the budget deficit over the long run? Certainly,” Faucher said. “But in the short term, demand is weak, businesses aren’t hiring, and consumers aren’t spending. That’s the cause of the current weakness — and Republican Senate proposals aren’t going to address that in the short term.”
“In fact, they could be harmful in the short run, if the focus is on cutting spending,” Faucher continued. “They don’t say explicitly when they would cut spending, but the Republican focus is on cutting spending sooner and later.”
Do not pander me with such subjective mush.
…are all subjective to your eyes.
What is fair to me probably is would not be seen as fair to you.
So don’t waste your time with such crap.
Give me objective measure.
How is it possible for me to “block” you ….
…unless I am using coercion.
I can’t block you by my voice, or writing, or grimacing. You would ignore me.
I block you by “putting hands on you” – that is, by physical force
If you see some getting rich by blocking you – look at the violence being used against you – that is government law, writ or regulation – for that is the only “legitimized” violence that exists today.
Damn right you are.
Using violence on non-violent people is my definition of evil
I do not think this for a time period of measurement of any potential.
Socialism – no matter the benefactor – is a human evil.
Let’s evaluate what they say with reason, not because a bunch of yahoo’s give them a medal.
However, if one wishes to discover the cause, simply identifying a potential outcome is not sufficient.
There exists no such thing as “equality” in human action, thus, seeing inequality does not mean something is amiss.
However, the 80/20 rule – which is apparent almost everywhere in the Universe, including human action, is distorted – in this, we agree.
Therefore, a force needs to be applied to create such a distortion
That is the question – what and where is this force?
Such a claim demonstrates a complete ignorance of a modern economy.
Where do the rich put their money?
(Note: not under their mattress)
It is invested
Put into a bank
Where does a bank put its money?
Either with the FED as reserves
Out as a loan
Who borrows money?
People who want to spend money NOW.
The money is not dormant.
So you contradict yourself here.
You claim they would put their money into uneconomical means because they wish to improve their economic outcomes…..
Try again, Ed.
You do not understand the market at all given this statement.
Money does not “sit around” – it goes some place (unless you think they are putting dollars into bags and burying them)
No, that reasoning is perverted.
You reason that if money is cheap, we should dig holes in the ocean
You believe you can measure economic outcomes by using non-economic means, that is, by using political measurements.
Thus, you fail economics.
By mitigating the consequences of risk, people will tend to engage in more risk.
Capitalism enforces loss. You risk – you gain extraordinarily, but the risk of loss stays your hand.
However, by government force that loss is mitigated for the loser and placed elsewhere, more risk will be entertained, for you get all the profit, but the losses are borne elsewhere
Its a heads I win, tails you lose game.
By your economic crackpottery, you become confused.
You end up believing that allocating risk upon those that engage in it is wrong, and believe putting risk on those that are innocent is a good.
It is your premise, Ed, that is horrific.
You believe that men, in free voluntary trade are wrong, and only men with guns to other people’s head can do superior economic calculation.
Oh, indeed, theft by government is an evil, no doubt.
And theft by the rich isn’t? Tell me…if the four lower tax quintiles were seeing their incomes rise at a faster rate then the top quintile until 1979 but that’s reversed now to where the top quintile is the fastest growing with the very top of that quintile growing at a near 400% in the last 30 years where do you think that money they’re getting is coming from if not from your wallet?
Income for the middle class has stagnated for 30 years now and the poor have actually seen their income shrink. And you want to pretend that money is just *snaps fingers* disappearing into thin air and not going into the wallets of the already rich? You’re an even bigger moron then Morgan is.
This isn’t about jealousy despite your delusion to the contrary. This is about fixing an economic morass that has been created by an income imbalance that is way too extreme. Because the last time we had an income imbalance like this, black, the great depression was the result.
If the rich are getting richer and the vast majority are barely treading water then the economy of the United States will crash repeatedly. The United States will become a second rate nation. It is as simple as that. This isn’t about jealousy, this is about protecting the United States and doing what is best for it. If that means that the rich don’t make quite so much money…if that means they have to pay a higher tax rate, after we’ve spent 40 years lowering their taxes time and time again, then so be it. Because for damn sure we haven’t gotten any benefit out of lowering their taxes despite your party’s claim to the contrary.
You can spout about “theft by government is an evil” but sorry, there’s no theft going on there. Sorry, despite your right wing delusion to the contrary, higher taxes on the rich isn’t theft. It’s them paying for the fact that they used this country and its people to get rich. It isn’t theft, child, when it’s a debt they owe. Considering they paid taxes upwards of 90% before they can easily absorb a tax rate that isn’t even half that. After all..they’re making so much more money.
And you can stupidly sell out your own economic interests because you’re so jealous of the rich that you want to constantly kiss their asses but that only proves you’re a fool. Sorry, the rich aren’t victims and they don’t need your protection.
Let me buy you a little clue. When Henry Ford first invented the automobile they weren’t selling all that well. Do you want to know what changed that? When he decided to, not put the money in his pocket, but to pay his employees more so they can afford to buy his cars.
And there you, morgan, and Futureboy continue to ignore that little lesson in capitalism.
You can reduce yourselves to serfs all you want but quit being stupid enough and arrogant enough to think the rest of us should be serfs too.
Ah, this is where you fall into the “ass-ume” category, where you make an ass of yourself.
Unions -as a voluntary, non-violent cooperation of individuals – is neither good nor bad.
Unions – as a government licensed force of coercion – is a real bad.
But James, that is not the fault of your wallet – that is the folly, sir, to believe my success means your failure or vis versa.
No, they are not.
Oh, indeed, theft by government is an evil, no doubt.
But I do not blame YOUR wallet for that theft.
You need not to worry.
Paerato’s Law (80/20 rule) -which amazingly appears everywhere in nature and thus a universal law with no physical source – will correct the imbalance.
Such economies where the wealth is held by such a fraction occurs only in coerced economies – such as “Kingdoms” or “Socialist/Communists”
King Henry VIII personally held 98% of the wealth of England.
But, thanks to the free market, you hold more wealth than he.
No one cares, if the competition is fair, just and good. But if the “getting rich faster than me” is blocking your getting a job at all, it’s immoral, it’s anticapitalist (anticompetitive). What you’re defending is socialist in outcome — a quota that denies job opportunities to the most people.
What makes you think socialism for the rich is any better for the economy than socialism for the poor — which, by the way, is not at all what Obama is advocating or what I favor.
The Nobel winning economists note that the disparity in wealth, grossly overbalanced, probably is not the cause of the calamity, but it’s a sign that the calamity is coming on — because, in part, Adam Smith’s notion of the rational investor works, and those who hoard grotesquely, unholy portions of money at the top notice that there is little demand to justify loaning the money or otherwise investing it in any enterprise, so they don’t, and job growth doesn’t come. The money goes dormant, which can be fatal to an economy. It’s also a sign because, in part, the more modern constructions that people often do not act rationally, but irrationally, also discourages investment. It would make sense that rich people would invest in enterprises, simply to put their money to work. Adam Smith makes the case. But the economy is slow — you know? — and so the rich don’t build the new room, don’t invest money except in “safe” CDs or money market accounts, and their money goes dormant. Morgan makes the case that they should invest in that new factory, especially because construction costs are so low — it’s a bargain! But of course, that reasoning also urges the public works expansions, new roads, old road repairs, bridge reconstructions, work on schools — and Republicans in Congress act irrationally, claiming we should wait until it costs more because it will be “more affordable then.”
It is a serious conversation on my part, but I’m sure Morgan stopped weeks ago, and Futureboy doesn’t like to play serious conversation.
Unchecked capitalism leads to unchecked speculative investing. That was the consensus post mortem on the Panic of 1893, the Panic of 1908, Black Tuesday, and the crash of 2008 et seq.. American economic theory — solid with more than a century of successful practice — holds that capitalism checked only in modest ways will produce benefits for all, but that bubbles must be watched for, and prevented.
But, Morgan, that’s all in the past. It’s water under the bridge. Whatever the cause, we got the burst bubble and the crash. The question now is not what to do to stop the next bubble and crash, but rather, how do we get the economy moving again? There is no good economic theory that says cut taxes, let money flow in great torrents to the rich, and let the poor fend for themselves.
Unbridled capitalism doesn’t work at all without demand. There must be money flow. That’s where we need assistance.
Tax cuts do not stimulate economies such as ours precisely because they do not put money in the hands of people who certainly will spend it.
I’m still curious as to what your moral justification is. Not only is it bad economics usually a precursor to economic collapse to allow the wealth to be unbalanced so as it is now in our economy, it’s also immoral under all the major systems of philosophy in the world.
I don’t think you’ve got any moral justification for your won’t-work, falsified economic hypothesis, either.
Oh and that claim of yours, Black, is especially rich considering that you, Morgan, and Futureboy belong to a political party that constantly preaches economic jealousy against public unions (you know…people who still get a pension and benefits and such) and umbrage at the supposed half the population that “pays no federal taxes.”
That you all are hypocrites is bad enough.
That you’re moronic hypocrites is worse.
Further, who cares if you are “getting richer faster than me”?
It is folly to measure one’s prosperity by the size of another man’s wallet.
Watch your own wallet and its growth (or decline) and do not fall into the envy of your neighbors wallet.
Let me buy you a clue, Blackflag. If you were working before 1979 your wages would have been increasing at more then 100%.
Since 1979 your wages have increased at best 15% and probably shrunk.
Those people you say you don’t care if they’re getting richer faster then you? They’re getting richer faster then you using your money. But you don’t care that your money is being taken from you and given to people who already have more money then they could possibly spend in 20 lifetimes?
What is folly is to presume that you can have a functioning stable economy where 1% of the population holds nearly all the wealth.
granted that is nobody but then that is what one would expect from whiolly corrupt, lying, thjieving, fascist parasites like the Demonazis .
Again, you dimwit, fascism and nazi’s are a right wing thing, not left wing.
[Oops. Forgot to send this earlier.]
Let’s quote the whole post in all of its shining and stinking glory (“mackerel by moonlight”):
That was it?
Um, uh, futureboy, are you serious?
Can you tell me how that differs from Obama’s proposals to put people to work repairing roads and bridges, building pipelines, drilling wells, fixing schools, and generally getting a lot of construction done that governments badly need to do, while it is cheap?
You claim Democrats won’t reveal your idea, when the fact is it’s sitting before Congress right now in five or six different versions that Republicans have worked hard to kill over the past two years. Other than the “build more nuclear plants,” which Obama doesn’t oppose but even nuclear advocates in the U.S. are leery about, especially after Fukushima’s disaster, you’re claiming the secret plan is exactly what Obama’s proposed to do.
Do you know the difference between the two parties? Do you get television in your part of the world? Newspapers?