Re: POLITICS: Is The Stimulus Good? was Diagnostic Face Reading

[Guest guest]

, do you think we're going into another depression?

Yours Truly,

Dan Holt

On Mar 30, 2009, at 6:36 PM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> What is your philosophy to economics? Do you think the stimulous

> package a bad thing? Are the Republicans right in saying tax cuts are

> better? These are real questions since my knowledge about economics is

> challenged.

I think the best thing you can do is read a couple of very accessible

and short books that will help you not be economically challenged. In

fact after reading them you will know more about economics than

probably 99% of all Americans. I would start with Hazlitt and then

read Callahan.

Economics in One Lesson - Henry Hazlitt

You can buy the book here:

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232

You can read it online for free here: http://jim.com/econ/contents.html

Economics for Real People - Gene Callahan

You can buy it here:

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Real-People-Introduction-Austrian/dp/0945466358

You can read it online for free here:

http://mises.org/books/econforrealpeople.pdf

Once you grasp and understand the lessons in each of these books, you

will never see life, and politics, in quite the same fashion again.

You will also understand why politicians do what they do and why they

continue to get away with what they do, because people (including the

politicians) are woefully ignorant of the whole issue.

If you want to understand the so called " stimulus " and other stupid,

idiotic, brain dead interventions into the American economy you can do

no better than Woods current New York Times bestseller

_Meltdown_: http://snipurl.com/ewaag

There are lots of good things in the book but one excellent section is

his analysis of the depression of 1920-21. What? You have never heard

of that? It was worse than the " Great Depression " but whereas the

" Great Depression " lasted 16 years, this was over in relative matter

of months. I won't spoil it for you but it is compelling and not a

difficult read.

As for the Republicans, well tax cuts are always great, but what we

really need are spending cuts. And where were the Republicans when

Barack O'Bush was running up massive deficits, hijacking our civil

liberties, and reigning terror throughout the world with his military

adventurism? The Republicans are a joke (although much better as the

minority party). Like their fellow Democrats they are political

opportunists who once they get in power abandon whatever it is they

promised you in order to get into power. Witness all the stunning lack

of criticism of Obama as he increases our presence in Afghanistan and

continues on with the policy of Iraq. Imagine if he had told his

supporters in the primaries that he was planning on keeping Bush's war

secretary in his cabinet. Of course some of us were saying this was

going to happen, but that's another story

Anyhow, no need to go on about our current administration. Read the

books and you can draw your own conclusions. But whatever you do, make

sure its the opposite of whatever you hear on NPR, LOL!

--

" Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

Kramer

[Guest guest]

Of course, I'm suspecting the NN libertarian bias here....

on the other hand, it was well known that he wanted to keep Gates.

Anyone who had done a bit of digging would have seen that. And anyone

who believed that Obama was a peace

candidate is naive as hell. He was never an antiwar candidate at all.

He was against the Iraq war for strategic reasons only, and even then,

with careful nuancing.

There are lots of books that can lead you to understand various points

of view. I would suggest reading Chomsky, rather than the heartless,

libertarian nonsense that gets so much play around here.

>

>

> > What is your philosophy to economics? Do you think the stimulous

> > package a bad thing? Are the Republicans right in saying tax cuts

> are

> > better? These are real questions since my knowledge about

> economics is

> > challenged.

>

> I think the best thing you can do is read a couple of very accessible

> and short books that will help you not be economically challenged. In

> fact after reading them you will know more about economics than

> probably 99% of all Americans. I would start with Hazlitt and then

> read Callahan.

>

> Economics in One Lesson - Henry Hazlitt

>

> You can buy the book here:

> http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232

> You can read it online for free here: http://jim.com/econ/

> contents.html

>

> Economics for Real People - Gene Callahan

>

> You can buy it here:

>

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Real-People-Introduction-Austrian/dp/0945466358

> You can read it online for free here:

> http://mises.org/books/econforrealpeople.pdf

>

> Once you grasp and understand the lessons in each of these books, you

> will never see life, and politics, in quite the same fashion again.

> You will also understand why politicians do what they do and why they

> continue to get away with what they do, because people (including the

> politicians) are woefully ignorant of the whole issue.

>

> If you want to understand the so called " stimulus " and other stupid,

> idiotic, brain dead interventions into the American economy you can do

> no better than Woods current New York Times bestseller

> _Meltdown_: http://snipurl.com/ewaag

>

> There are lots of good things in the book but one excellent section is

> his analysis of the depression of 1920-21. What? You have never heard

> of that? It was worse than the " Great Depression " but whereas the

> " Great Depression " lasted 16 years, this was over in relative matter

> of months. I won't spoil it for you but it is compelling and not a

> difficult read.

>

> As for the Republicans, well tax cuts are always great, but what we

> really need are spending cuts. And where were the Republicans when

> Barack O'Bush was running up massive deficits, hijacking our civil

> liberties, and reigning terror throughout the world with his military

> adventurism? The Republicans are a joke (although much better as the

> minority party). Like their fellow Democrats they are political

> opportunists who once they get in power abandon whatever it is they

> promised you in order to get into power. Witness all the stunning lack

> of criticism of Obama as he increases our presence in Afghanistan and

> continues on with the policy of Iraq. Imagine if he had told his

> supporters in the primaries that he was planning on keeping Bush's war

> secretary in his cabinet. Of course some of us were saying this was

> going to happen, but that's another story

>

> Anyhow, no need to go on about our current administration. Read the

> books and you can draw your own conclusions. But whatever you do, make

> sure its the opposite of whatever you hear on NPR, LOL!

>

>

> --

> " Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

> reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

> to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

> Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

> radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

> automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

>

> Kramer

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

> , do you think we're going into another depression?

Yes, because the political alternative is simply unthinkable. In other

words no politician is going to sacrifice his career to do the things

that need to be done to prevent one It is not going to happen, so the

market response will ultimately be a very long depression, since I

think they will do everything in their power to prevent a

hyper-inflation, although Obama and his " advisers " are doing there

best to Zimbabwe-ize America. God forbid if that ever happens.

Here is a short you tube showing the only man in the American

" mainstream " media who saw and predicted what was coming, and was

literally laughed at and mocked on air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AlD6U7O1pE & feature=player_embedded

--

" Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

Kramer

[Guest guest]

Yeah, I agree with everything he says.

Yours Truly,

Dan Holt

On Mar 30, 2009, at 9:14 PM, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

,

> , do you think we're going into another depression?

Yes, because the political alternative is simply unthinkable. In other

words no politician is going to sacrifice his career to do the things

that need to be done to prevent one It is not going to happen, so the

market response will ultimately be a very long depression, since I

think they will do everything in their power to prevent a

hyper-inflation, although Obama and his " advisers " are doing there

best to Zimbabwe-ize America. God forbid if that ever happens.

Here is a short you tube showing the only man in the American

" mainstream " media who saw and predicted what was coming, and was

literally laughed at and mocked on air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AlD6U7O1pE & feature=player_embedded

--

" Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

Kramer

[Guest guest]

> Here is a short you tube showing the only man in the American " mainstream "

media who saw and predicted what was coming, and was literally laughed at

and mocked on air. <

Nonsense... Nouriel Roubini predicted it loud and clear -- what, do you not

count that since he's a liberal?

http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini

Christie

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> Of course, I'm suspecting the NN libertarian bias here....

And I suspect the NN so-called " progressive " and " good government "

bias in your response :-) I must admit I hadn't heard that term used

the way you did in response to awhile back in a long time

> on the other hand, it was well known that he wanted to keep Gates.

It could be searched out, but it wasn't well known.

> Anyone who had done a bit of digging would have seen that. And anyone

> who believed that Obama was a peace

> candidate is naive as hell. He was never an antiwar candidate at all.

> He was against the Iraq war for strategic reasons only, and even then,

> with careful nuancing.

Well yes, you and I have agreed on this point a few of times on this

list, but many of the rank and file democrats and the left-wing

anti-war movement as a whole certainly believed, or were certainly

hoping, he was a peace candidate. It was a part of his strategy and

Hillary with her hawkish flubs provided great cover. That is why I

said, on this list, that most folks are projecting their own views on

Obama, and what they want to believe about him, rather than what he

truly stood and stands for in his beliefs.

> There are lots of books that can lead you to understand various points

> of view. I would suggest reading Chomsky, rather than the heartless,

> libertarian nonsense that gets so much play around here.

Well , there you go. You have your choice between the

" heartless libertarian nonsense that gets so much play around here " or

the " progressive " and " good government " nonsense that gets play

around here, that, IMO, is about as heartless as you can get. Let me

know what conclusions you come too. :-)

--

" Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

Kramer

[Guest guest]

On Mar 30, 2009, at 9:53 PM, wrote:

> Gene,

>

> > Of course, I'm suspecting the NN libertarian bias here....

>

> And I suspect the NN so-called " progressive " and " good government "

> bias in your response :-) I must admit I hadn't heard that term used

> the way you did in response to awhile back in a long time

>

> > on the other hand, it was well known that he wanted to keep Gates.

>

> It could be searched out, but it wasn't well known.

>

Well, it was well known amongst people who read the better progressive

web sites....

>

>

> > Anyone who had done a bit of digging would have seen that. And

> anyone

> > who believed that Obama was a peace

> > candidate is naive as hell. He was never an antiwar candidate at

> all.

> > He was against the Iraq war for strategic reasons only, and even

> then,

> > with careful nuancing.

>

> Well yes, you and I have agreed on this point a few of times on this

> list, but many of the rank and file democrats and the left-wing

> anti-war movement as a whole certainly believed, or were certainly

> hoping, he was a peace candidate.

>

I'm not sure what 'as a whole' means here......certainly there were/

are lots of democrat 'liberals' who believed in Obama, but for the

most part, real progressives were

not fooled. I mean, all you had to do was read his famous 'anti war'

speech to see that he wasn't an antiwar candidate, and to look at his

voting record, and his rhetoric.

But yes - the so called Democrat left were/are fooled because they are

totally taken in by the propaganda in general. The thing is that they

are not leftists.

> It was a part of his strategy and

> Hillary with her hawkish flubs provided great cover. That is why I

> said, on this list, that most folks are projecting their own views on

> Obama, and what they want to believe about him, rather than what he

> truly stood and stands for in his beliefs.

>

Actually, I believe that Obama himself said this first, depending on

when you said this of course.

>

>

> > There are lots of books that can lead you to understand various

> points

> > of view. I would suggest reading Chomsky, rather than the heartless,

> > libertarian nonsense that gets so much play around here.

>

> Well , there you go. You have your choice between the

> " heartless libertarian nonsense that gets so much play around here " or

> the " progressive " and " good government " nonsense that gets play

> around here, that, IMO, is about as heartless as you can get. Let me

> know what conclusions you come too. :-)

>

Nice smiley. I don't use 'em myself.

>

>

>

> --

> " Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

> reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

> to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

> Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

> radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

> automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

>

> Kramer

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

>> What is your philosophy to economics? Do you think the stimulous

>> package a bad thing? Are the Republicans right in saying tax cuts are

>> better? These are real questions since my knowledge about economics is

>> challenged.

This kind of thing would never be said directly on the house floor in

America to a sitting President. American academia has trained us not

to debate like this, to the extent anything really gets debated in

politics. My favorite part is to see the British PM smiling in the

face of a withering attack. Reminds me of my old debate days. Here in

the US such stuff (except for " shout talk " cable) is usually taken

very personally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs & feature=player_embedded

Obama would probably want to do what Lincoln did when Lincoln arrested

congressman Clement Vallandingham and had him deported for accusing

him of essentially centralizing the government, if anything like the

above youtube was ever said directly to him publicly before the entire

House of Congress.

" He [Lincoln] even arrested and convicted without due process before a

military tribunal his chief critic in Congress and had him deported.

His treason? Saying in a speech on the house floor that Lincoln had

violated the Constitution, usurped his powers and was trying to

overthrow federalism by creating a strong centralized state. "

That was me back in 2005 on this list.

--

" What will you do, Burt, if your friend Ron actually gets elected

President? 'Well, I will need to start impeachment proceedings. They

all go bad once they get to Washington.' "

Burton S. Blumert - (1929-2009) R.I.P

[Guest guest]

Christie,

>> Here is a short you tube showing the only man in the American " mainstream "

> media who saw and predicted what was coming, and was literally laughed at

> and mocked on air. <

>

> Nonsense... Nouriel Roubini predicted it loud and clear -- what, do you not

> count that since he's a liberal?

>

> http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini

Oh yeah, " Dr. Doom Roubini " has been calling it since 2006, but I

guess I don't really think of him as a part of the " mainstream " media

since he was rarely showcased by them precisely because he was a bear.

I think they found Schiff quite enough. There are other economists who

called it as well, though they are few and far between and certainly

saw little if any " mainstream " press. On the other hand Dr. Doom

supports the draconian protocols and corporate cronyism known as the

Geithner plan, so he is still a part of the problem, not the solution.

But no matter, if you want to include him and a rare few others,

that's fine by me, doesn't change the thrust of my post, and thanks

for bringing him up.

I'm not sure what being liberal would have to do with me leaving his

name out. I'm not a political conservative by any stretch of the

imagination and none of the authors I mentioned are political

conservatives or would be welcomed in those circles.

More importantly, if you think I see this issue in the blinkered terms

of liberal versus conservative ideology, then you need to go back and

read my original post in this thread very carefully.

p.s.welcome back to the list :-)

--

" What will you do, Burt, if your friend Ron actually gets elected

President? 'Well, I will need to start impeachment proceedings. They

all go bad once they get to Washington.' "

Burton S. Blumert - (1929-2009) R.I.P