Oct 13, 2008 5:10 PM GMT
All you Obama supporters I hope you don't have any investments.
daystroom saidOh MY GOD!!!! The socialists are coming!!!! and they're bringing the terrorists and the antichrist and pedophiles and and and and....
Do you wingnuts ever get tired of living in complete terror? Grow a pair!
The world is not going to end, no matter who gets elected.
Aquanerd saidAll you Obama supporters I hope you don't have any investments.
jaydub saidAquanerd saidAll you Obama supporters I hope you don't have any investments.
Satyricon331 saidIBD may have had an argument on Friday, when they wrote the editorial, but Aquanerd, why did you post this piece today? The stocks rallied on the news that the feds will nationalize the banks, which totally destroys the argument.
The economic theory behind temporary nationalization is well-regarded, and I have to laugh at the IBD's editorial, which offers absolutely no economic analysis whatsoever (and despite the hysteria regarding the upcoming "socialist" president, actually talks about tax hikes rather than bank nationalizations). Instead, they cite that letter that John McCain floated, ostensibly having 100 economists' signatures, which isn't that many considering it's a field with thousands of professionals. What makes it even more hilarious is that in actuality, McCain couldn't even find 100 economists!
(edited to fix "tax cuts" to "tax hikes")
EricLA saidI was hoping everyone was just going to ignore this one, but guess no luck. Well, I've already posted the answer to this elsewhere, but here it goes:
Aquanerd, I assume you've heard of a little publication called "The Economist"? I thought is was the fiscal conservative's bible. Anyway, I think it has better name recognition than ibdeditorials.com. The most recent issue has a survey of over 140 economists, and a majority responded that Obama has the better plan for the economy. Here's the article here, if you'd like to give it a read:
Satyricon331 saidAquanerd: “And temporary nationalization is well-regarded? In Nazi Germany and Fasict Italy in the 1930's maybe...”
I often wonder how people with absolutely no economics training whatsoever manage to form strong opinions about economics matters. Physicists have vigorous debates about whether the universe is discrete or continuous, infinite or finite-yet-boundless, Euclidean or causal, etc., and while I find the ideas and disagreements fascinating, I could never say I have a strong opinion on the matter. I simply do not know enough to venture an original opinion.
Yet by contrast, ignorant people like you come out of the word work, spewing ignorant bile on subjects they know nothing about, using completely illogically structured arguments. You think you have an actual argument by merely attaching conclusory labeling to different positions. Simply labeling something “socialist” or “capitalist” does not constitute a logical argument, and comparing the UK or the US’ temporary nationalization of financial institutions to Nazi Germany is so spectacularly stupid, offensive, and inflammatory, I hardly know why I’m honoring you with a response.
If you had wanted a serious discussion about how to approach the twin problems of liquidity and solvency in the private sector, I would have loved to have had it – I really enjoy economics. Since obviously you have no interest in such a discussion, however, I will correct at least your ignorant labeling: The ownership stakes that the US and other Western governments will soon take in financial institutions is not truly socialist (and certainly not “completely socialist”), since unlike in socialism, they will not take voting shares, and consequently will have no control over the company’s internal operations. The ownership stakes simply amount to a capital injection.