Just because the price of a good has risen does not mean suppliers have not been able to meet demand. There is this thing called inflation which is a general rise of the price of all goods and services in an economy over time.
I thought this was a debate on economics not morality. Debating morality is useless because everyone has their own.
Regardless I am kind of shocked you think a progressive tax system is as bad as slavery, but to each his own I guess.
Oh wow, that was an egregious error in reading comprehension. I kind of feel bad for you. I am amazed at how you managed to misinterpret what I said so extremely.
I didn't say he said tax cuts are bad. I said that the economist said that tax cuts are more effective when given to people of the middle class rather than upper class.
And Adam Smith may be the father of modern economics, but that does not make him correct, just as most of Frued's theories (the father of modern psychology) have been proven to not be entirely right.
I'm not sure how the fact that Paul Krugman is liberal invalidates any of his theories. He thinks liberalism is the best mentality. You think being a libertarian is the best mentality. You can't discredit someone solely based upon their philosophy, you should look at the substance of what they are saying. And are you really trying to compare a Nobel Prize winning economist to a hate-mongering wing-bag with no recognition outside of his extreme group of followers.
"I don't mind what you have to say (slam Reaganomics) but the way you did it was kind of... eh."
Oh really good argument. I was too "eh" with my statements.
That my friends is how you know you have lost a debate. You cease debating the actual points because you are unable to do so, so you instead red herring the argument until your opponent gives up. You stay classy jafl.
Oh and just to illustrate how ridiculous your 'argument,' to use the term loosely, is. That is like debating on whether Macs or PCs are better and your opponent says, "Well PCs work better" and you say "Oh yeah the holocaust worked really well too, so take that obviously you are incorrect."
His definition of work in context was to function to create a sound economic system that promotes stability, growth, and fairness. So if you want to explain how slavery, smallpox, or AIDS concentration camps would result in a stable economy then by all means do so, I'm quite interested.
I just want to emphasize that I am really shocked at how moronic what you just said is.
Just out of curiosity since when do working class families not pay taxes? I think you might have misread working class as poor for some reason.
Also could you please explain how the agricultural and manufacturing sectors don't have the capacity to meet demand.
We have tried supply-side economics before, it just doesn't work. I really wish I could find a citation for this, but I couldn't because it was on NPR about a month ago, but they had an economist talking about the stimulus package and things like that and he said that tax cuts are four times more effective at stimulating the economy when given to the lower and middle class than when given to the upper class. It makes sense when you think about it. Working families will spend their money right away to pay for bills, food, gas and things like that. However upper class families might save the money or invest it in such a way that doesn't directly stimulate the economy.
To quote Noble Prize winning economist Paul Krugman "When Ronald Reagan was elected, the supply-siders got a chance to try out their ideas. Unfortunately, they failed." Under Reagan public debt tripled, job growth was just average for a twentieth century president, unemployment was higher, private investment decreased, and real wages decreased. Reagan started the huge national debt that has not been payed off even today. And his system of deregulation led to a recession. Just like it did during the Great Depression. And just like it did in 2008. When will you conservatives understand that Reagan was a bad president. I do not understand why you all love him so much. And please stop espousing his moron economic theories. History has shown that they don't work.
Ah I see what you're saying. Yes that would be a more efficient distribution of time and money if one were inclined to achieve the most efficient system possible.
Well are we talking about professional schooling? Because for things like doctors, lawyers, and engineers you can't do that online. Those professions require hands-on learning and experience.
You may not, but having people make scientific advancements is really important.
Just curious how many Nobel Prize winners or people who have made groundbreaking discoveries did not attend college?
I will agree with you that is possible to be successful without attending college. You can still make a decent amount of money if you want to and you can easily still be happy. However for many fields, succeeding without college just isn't feasible. Yes you can try to self teach by reading textbooks, but there is something to be gained from having the information taught to you by professor who wrote the book him or herself. And like you said research is also a huge reason to go to college. There are other institutions that conduct research, but having one with a steady stream of young eager minds with a passion for knowledge will probably fare better.
It may be possible to self-teach and many people have, but it is significantly more difficult. Sometimes you just need a real live human being to explain things to you and answer your questions. This may change some day if we can develop AI sufficiently so that computer programs can teach, explain, and answer which may really make college obsolete, but as of right I think college is worth the time and money. There is a really strong statistical link between level of education and salary. So just from an economic perspective definitely.
Some of the article makes sense, but a lot of it doesn't.
The "Why your parents wanted you to go to college" is totally wrong. Maybe some parents somewhere just wanted to get their kids out of the house, but the vast majority of parents actually want to help their children succeed. How do you explain first generation college students from low-income families where their parents would be much better off if kids didn't go to college, but stayed home and worked for the family? Instead they sacrifice and work hard to allow their kids to attend college and have opportunities they didn't have.
The "Colleges- Which ones are better" is also fairly incorrect. For a B.A. degree the best place is probably an Ivy League school. Just because most people are dumb and think that Ivy League schools are better. For a B.S. degree, however, this is absolutely not true. Cornell is the only Ivy League school with a decent science and engineering program, but there are many schools that are significantly more respected in the science and engineering job community than all of the Ivy League schools. Maybe this was one of the sections the author said doesn't apply to B.S. degrees, but I don't know.
The "A college degree translator" while a bit exaggerated is based on truth. Getting a B.A. really doesn't help with job prospects because most B.A. degrees are for majors like philosophy or English. And by getting a B.A. degree you don't learn any skills or knowledge that someone will pay you for. It's really sad when I see college graduates working as cashiers because they spent so much time and money, but it ended up not really helping them.
The "Professors" section is quite wrong also. I can't speak for every professor, but most of them are not at college because "they failed the real test." In fact many professors are so busy with their research so they can get grants and awards that they don't actually care about teaching. Many professors are world-renowned experts who have won Nobel Prizes and other distinguished awards. They conduct ground-breaking research that is contributing to new insight and technological advancement.
Overall the article had some kernels of truth, but was largely exaggerated and incorrect.
"Anyways where was this majority talk the past "8 years"!?!? "
It probably occurred mostly around the 2000 election when the candidate who won the majority of votes wasn't made president.
"What if the majority of the majority is uneducated and indocrinated? "
Right because if a Republican wins then the majority is informed and free thinking, but if a Democrat wins then obvious that election everyone became indoctrinated and forgot everything they knew.
"Are you saying that the majority of the media is biased?"
Yes.
"The government can not handle it. All the people who know what they are doing are in the big buisnesses and not in the government."
This statement is both unfounded and irrelevant.
"And sacrifice free speech?"
It's not sacrificing free speech. You can say whatever you want. But if you want to get a broadcasting license from the FCC you need to follow certain regulations.
Great argument I completely agree. I think the root of this problem is the consolidation of corporations and businesses. All the news channels are owned by three companies. Movie studios own most of the theater chains. Then you have huge conglomerates like GE that own companies in a multitude of sectors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
To simplify the problem I think democracy is starting to break down. Journalism is the backbone of a democracy. Without an informed public it ceases to exist. And when the media is owned by a few corporations watching out for their best interests and the interests of their subsidiaries, the result is that the public is not informed. Businesses also have an enormous amount of control in congress. Like you said health care reform has been blocked many times by insurance company lobbies because they don't want any of their profits to be taken away. More money continues to be concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, and this can lead to tyranny of the minority. We need to demand that congress take steps to fix the media like bringing back the Fairness Doctrine and breaking up the monopoly on news. We also need to demand more transparency and regulation of where politicians get funding. To all the conservatives who are afraid of a strong central government this is what I will say. At least with a strong central government, the people have control over it democratically. Right now our government is in a stranglehold by big business over which we have no control.
What other logical factors are there in this situation?
50chars
I can add emotional and moral arguments if you want, but I consider emotional arguments weaker than logical arguments and consequently they are much easier to refute as they are based on opinion not fact. "I think it's fair to allow them to become citizens." "Well they didn't come here legally so it's not." No one is right because it's just your opinion. Whereas if I talk it about from an economic standpoint we can actually analyze the truth value.
The problems people usually have with illegal immigrants is that they collect social benefits, but don't pay taxes. Isn't the most logical argument then to give them all amnesty and citizenship?
I am removing all emotional and moral arguments from this and examining it from a purely economic standpoint. So who deserves what, and what is fair, is irrelevant.
Right now there are millions of illegal immigrants who are not paying taxes on their income and who are benefiting from taxes of citizens. Let's think of the possible remedies to this situation.
1) We deport all of them
2) We grant them all amnesty and citizenship
Clearly the first solution is impossible. We spend a lot of money on trying to prevent illegal immigrants from entering and trying to get rid of them and clearly the idea is fundamentally flawed. So if the enforcement plan doesn't work, the only other possible solution is amnesty.
I was saying that to illustrate that it is dumb to say you can't criticize something you don't experience regularly. I have seen Fox before, and I didn't like it. It was pretty bad, but not that bad relative to other news networks.
1. Yes I understand that. I acknowledge that capitalism better encourages innovation.
2. My only point with that example is that helping someone in need of help is not rewarding them for failure.
3. Oh I thought you were being sarcastic. I'm not really sure how good they are as a whole, but that study was flawed.
"It's the No Spin Zone."
Yeah if he calls it the no spin zone, then obviously there can't be spin. So if I call my house a mansion will it magically turn into one?
Bill does not want straight answers are you kidding me? He is completely a partisan and he is a pundit masquerading as a journalism. He has a political purpose and his goals when he has liberal guests on is to cast them in a bad light.
By your logic you can't criticize rapists.
I have seen Fox before. That is why I do not watch it.
No it doesn't because anecdotal evidence is useless in a debate.
Care to cite an actual study instead of making information up? And saying other networks are bad too isn't going to make me recant my criticism of Fox as I don't watch them anyway.
