Ron Paul Says Tough Luck Tornado Victims

[msuspartan]

Economics 202: Introduction to Macroeconomics at MSU is full of it. The professor doesn't have to come out at use the word Keynes to introduce Keynesian philosophy. When they teach macro they have to teach based on one type of theory or the class wouldn't exist.

But entry level econ is usually microeconomics, isn't it?

Not too sure, as a business student I had to take intro to Micro and Macro. I'm not positive if a general econ class at MSU exists particularly, it could.

 

[redandguilty]

But entry level econ is usually microeconomics, isn't it?

Not too sure, as a business student I had to take intro to Micro and Macro. I'm not positive if a general econ class at MSU exists particularly, it could.

I only took the 1st class, it was micro, but I don't know if that's how it's done everywhere. After that class, I understood the invisible hand and that's about it. I think lots of engineers only take 1 econ class. If it's micro, that might explain why engineers tend to be conservative relative to other majors.

...although I think I read econ majors tend to be more conservative too.

 

[Michchamp]

Economics 202: Introduction to Macroeconomics at MSU is full of it. The professor doesn't have to come out at use the word Keynes to introduce Keynesian philosophy. When they teach macro they have to teach based on one type of theory or the class wouldn't exist.

But entry level econ is usually microeconomics, isn't it?

that's how it is at Michigan.

101 is intro to micro, 102 is intro to macro.

401 is intermediate micro (the "weeder" class, which involves calculus)

402 is intermediate macro.

all are required for an econ major.

macro covers the keynesian analysis/policy, which was never proven wrong, just POLITICALLY disparaged here and in other places to accomplish the political goals of gutting domestic social spending (but not defense spending...), and replaced with monetary policy and theory, which is also taught in the class.

 

[Michchamp]

Wouldn't it be better if each state in a disaster area had its "own FEMA"? The less federal government the better. Look how great of a job FEMA did for Hurricane Katrina.

yeah, that would make sense if natural disasters didn't have the NERVE to cross state borders and affect entire regions...

if only the world was as libertarians imagined it to be, everything would work itself out... it's too bad they don't know their history. All these arguments were dealt with in the 1780s-1790s. See, for example, the failure of the Articles of Confederation.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Not too sure, as a business student I had to take intro to Micro and Macro. I'm not positive if a general econ class at MSU exists particularly, it could.

I only took the 1st class, it was micro, but I don't know if that's how it's done everywhere. After that class, I understood the invisible hand and that's about it. I think lots of engineers only take 1 econ class. If it's micro, that might explain why engineers tend to be conservative relative to other majors.

...although I think I read econ majors tend to be more conservative too.

Engineers are conservative because they're rich.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Wouldn't it be better if each state in a disaster area had its "own FEMA"? The less federal government the better. Look how great of a job FEMA did for Hurricane Katrina.

yeah, that would make sense if natural disasters didn't have the NERVE to cross state borders and affect entire regions...

if only the world was as libertarians imagined it to be, everything would work itself out... it's too bad they don't know their history. All these arguments were dealt with in the 1780s-1790s. See, for example, the failure of the Articles of Confederation.

Hey I have an idea wouldn't it be funny if all the states had their own little FEMAS and a horrific disaster occurred along the Texas - Oklahoma border and the two little FEMAs were cleaning up along their own border and they ran into each other and started arguing about football then they all took out their guns and started shooting each other?

Man that would be a riot.

 

[Michchamp]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

yeah, that would make sense if natural disasters didn't have the NERVE to cross state borders and affect entire regions...

if only the world was as libertarians imagined it to be, everything would work itself out... it's too bad they don't know their history. All these arguments were dealt with in the 1780s-1790s. See, for example, the failure of the Articles of Confederation.

Hey I have an idea wouldn't it be funny if all the states had their own little FEMAS and a horrific disaster occurred along the Texas - Oklahoma border and the two little FEMAs were cleaning up along their own border and they ran into each other and started arguing about football then they all took out their guns and started shooting each other?

Man that would be a riot.

OR if the Mississippi floods, and Illinois builds a huge dike that diverts the entire flow into Iowa, Missouri, and all points south.

STATES' RIGHTS!!! CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT!

 

[redandguilty]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

yeah, that would make sense if natural disasters didn't have the NERVE to cross state borders and affect entire regions...

if only the world was as libertarians imagined it to be, everything would work itself out... it's too bad they don't know their history. All these arguments were dealt with in the 1780s-1790s. See, for example, the failure of the Articles of Confederation.

Hey I have an idea wouldn't it be funny if all the states had their own little FEMAS and a horrific disaster occurred along the Texas - Oklahoma border and the two little FEMAs were cleaning up along their own border and they ran into each other and started arguing about football then they all took out their guns and started shooting each other?

Man that would be a riot.

I don't think it would be too bad for each state to have their own FEMAs...if state governments could be relied on to not expect the federal government to step in when they screw it all up. So long as there's a federal safety net, the states would do a terrible job. And people will always pass the buck to the feds...so there you go. Good in theory, wouldn't work in practice. I would prefer it if we could make it work, but I don't see how we could.

 

[msuspartan]

[quote="TinselWolverine":mygl69uh]

Hey I have an idea wouldn't it be funny if all the states had their own little FEMAS and a horrific disaster occurred along the Texas - Oklahoma border and the two little FEMAs were cleaning up along their own border and they ran into each other and started arguing about football then they all took out their guns and started shooting each other?

Man that would be a riot.

I don't think it would be too bad for each state to have their own FEMAs...if state governments could be relied on to not expect the federal government to step in when they screw it all up. So long as there's a federal safety net, the states would do a terrible job. And people will always pass the buck to the feds...so there you go. Good in theory, wouldn't work in practice. I would prefer it if we could make it work, but I don't see how we could.[/quote:mygl69uh]

It is clear the federal solution doesn't work. We might as well try states' rights.

 

[tinselwolverine]

[quote="TinselWolverine":04tkecyc]

Hey I have an idea wouldn't it be funny if all the states had their own little FEMAS and a horrific disaster occurred along the Texas - Oklahoma border and the two little FEMAs were cleaning up along their own border and they ran into each other and started arguing about football then they all took out their guns and started shooting each other?

Man that would be a riot.

I don't think it would be too bad for each state to have their own FEMAs...if state governments could be relied on to not expect the federal government to step in when they screw it all up. So long as there's a federal safety net, the states would do a terrible job. And people will always pass the buck to the feds...so there you go. Good in theory, wouldn't work in practice. I would prefer it if we could make it work, but I don't see how we could.[/quote:04tkecyc]

Maybe in a multi state disaster the effected states would combine. For example if it was Texas and Arkasas they could call that agency TexarKEMA.

 

[msuspartan]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

Hey I have an idea wouldn't it be funny if all the states had their own little FEMAS and a horrific disaster occurred along the Texas - Oklahoma border and the two little FEMAs were cleaning up along their own border and they ran into each other and started arguing about football then they all took out their guns and started shooting each other?

Man that would be a riot.

OR if the Mississippi floods, and Illinois builds a huge dike that diverts the entire flow into Iowa, Missouri, and all points south.

STATES' RIGHTS!!! CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT!

Property rights would solve that problem and the issue would be resolved in Federal court.

 

[Michchamp]

TinselWolverine[/color]]
[quote="Red and Guilty":xqdvnuug]

I only took the 1st class, it was micro, but I don't know if that's how it's done everywhere. After that class, I understood the invisible hand and that's about it. I think lots of engineers only take 1 econ class. If it's micro, that might explain why engineers tend to be conservative relative to other majors.

...although I think I read econ majors tend to be more conservative too.

Engineers are conservative because they're rich.

[/quote:xqdvnuug]

some of the most irritating people I know (politically) are engineers or have a background in the natural sciences.

my theory: they major in some of the more challenging fields of academics, and therefore assume they know everything there is to know about every other field, even though they don't.

they also tend to disparage anything that is outside their realm of knowledge if it can't be easily quantified or justified mathematically. But it's not that it can't; it's just that their models are always too simple or don't account for every variable that might emerge (again, because their worldview is limited)

compounding this is the fact that they might take a few survey courses outside of their field - which are of course, not terribly difficult, like psych 101 - and they assume everything in that field, no matter how much empirical research goes into it, is the equivalent of underwater basketweaving.

typical quote: "BAH, I ACED Econ 101. Don't tell me what I don't know about everything."

 

[Michchamp]

OR if the Mississippi floods, and Illinois builds a huge dike that diverts the entire flow into Iowa, Missouri, and all points south.

STATES' RIGHTS!!! CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT!

Property rights would solve that problems.[sic]

sure. that would be an easy one to sort out in a court of law.

try being a missouri flood victim suing illinois property owners in an illinois court. or vice versa. sure you'll get justice there.

You can't have federal courts because those have "activist judges" and the federal government is bad anyways. We would have to pay federal judges, attorneys, bailiffs, etc. and that's all Bad. BAD.

 

[msuspartan]

Property rights would solve that problems.[sic]

sure. that would be an easy one to sort out in a court of law.

try being a missouri flood victim suing illinois property owners in an illinois court. or vice versa. sure you'll get justice there.

You can't have federal courts because those have "activist judges" and the federal government is bad anyways. We would have to pay federal judges, attorneys, bailiffs, etc. and that's all Bad. BAD.

Libertarians support limited federal government, not "no" federal government.

 

[Michchamp]

sure. that would be an easy one to sort out in a court of law.

try being a missouri flood victim suing illinois property owners in an illinois court. or vice versa. sure you'll get justice there.

You can't have federal courts because those have "activist judges" and the federal government is bad anyways. We would have to pay federal judges, attorneys, bailiffs, etc. and that's all Bad. BAD.

Libertarians support limited federal government, not "no" federal government.

everyone supports limited federal government to some extent. It's limited by the constitution.

Libertarians tend to want to limit it in ways that either: 1.) make no sense; or 2.) benefit whatever special interest they're advocating behind the scenes. E.g. "We should do away with the EPA because these regulations on my coal mining business are BIG GOVERNMENT RUN AMOK!!!! Now let me dump my industrial pollution on other people without having to pay the costs associated with clean up."

Also, a lot of libertarians are just republicans trying to weasel out of the "Conservative" label for the sake of appearing unbiased and winning an argument.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Bill Maher used to call himself a libertarian until he learned that it actually meant more than just wanting legalized pot and prostitution.

 

[msuspartan]

Libertarians support limited federal government, not "no" federal government.

everyone supports limited federal government to some extent. It's limited by the constitution.

Libertarians tend to want to limit it in ways that either: 1.) make no sense; or 2.) benefit whatever special interest they're advocating behind the scenes. E.g. "We should do away with the EPA because these regulations on my coal mining business are BIG GOVERNMENT RUN AMOK!!!! Now let me dump my industrial pollution on other people without having to pay the costs associated with clean up."

Also, a lot of libertarians are just republicans trying to weasel out of the "Conservative" label for the sake of appearing unbiased and winning an argument.

The Constitution is "supposed" to limit the federal government, but it has not. Otherwise we wouldn't have the Patriot Act, NDAA, nationalized healthcare, undeclared wars in Iraq, Libya, Somalia (Iran and Syria next?), nation building in Afghanistan and etc.

In regards to the EPA, that agency does more harm than good. That agency has ruined peoples lives (such as a person building a house on their own property that the government considers a natural wetland but isn't and penalizing the homeowners hundreds of thousands of dollars).

I dislike conservatives (today a majority are neo-conservatives) just as much liberals, as does a majority of libertarians.

 

[Michchamp]

I don't think it would be too bad for each state to have their own FEMAs...if state governments could be relied on to not expect the federal government to step in when they screw it all up. So long as there's a federal safety net, the states would do a terrible job. And people will always pass the buck to the feds...so there you go. Good in theory, wouldn't work in practice. I would prefer it if we could make it work, but I don't see how we could.

It is clear the federal solution doesn't work. We might as well try states' rights.

that's absolutely untrue. The system has served the United States remarkably well for 200+ years.

There are certain situations where government has failed on occasion. Indeed, it's made up of humans, and humans err. But that's hardly any reason to make an idiotic blanket statement like that.

The private sector fails all the time. Most notably the real estate crash and bank bailout that required a HUGE public subsidy to keep the private banking sector from crashing and destroying the economy. Or look at the tech bubble near the end of Clinton's term. again, the markets screw up all the time at a huge cost to everyone.

This goes both ways yet no one is suggesting we revert to communism...

the blanket statements you hear from both Conservatives and Libertarians (those confused children in the middle) that "government is bad" like in the famous Reagan quote, have become so pervasive as to completely hamper the basic function of government. It's all predicated on bad economics, bad logic, and partisan politics.

 

[tinselwolverine]

This goes both ways; no one is suggesting we revert to communism...

That isn't entirely true....

 

[Michchamp]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

This goes both ways; no one is suggesting we revert to communism...

That isn't entirely true....

okay, well, let me categorically say that I do not agree with those guys.