/liberty/ - Liberty

>>62915

I thought the liberty board would be more into politics…

That being said, what's Black Dynamite?

>>62916

>That being said, what's Black Dynamite?

The best black show/comedy to come out after The Boondocks.

>>62918

He was really rude to the audience and acted like everyone was idiots. Which is weird, because his fans would be in the crowd too…

I wonder how many unsubscribed.

>>62920

So… it's The Boondocks + Shaft.

>>62927

Wow…

I've heard of 'the hollow cause', but, wow…

>>62918

Isn't it basic Keynesianism that there is a money multiplier in the short run? Rich people save money, so have a lower multiplier.

Did you even study economics bra?

>>62934

My economics teacher used the term 're-circulation of money'; I wouldn't be surprised if Keynes did too.

>Keynesianism isn't exactly the poster child of economics in case you've yet to notice

Yes it is. He's probably the most famous economist, and the only one I remember studying

>>62935

I think Friedman was mentioned too, but at a distant second

>>62937

Maybe they just 'circulates'

>>62939

Anyway his idea was fine, his terminology not the terminology that is used, although he wasn't talking nonsense.

I'm not sure whether my teacher said it or didn't say it.

>>62935

>My economics teacher used the term 're-circulation of money'; I wouldn't be surprised if Keynes did too.

Keynes, as far as I know, never did use such a term. I do stand to be proven wrong though.

>Yes it is. He's probably the most famous economist, and the only one I remember studying

Not really, many of his concepts have really been proven to be false over the years, and this dissolution with the great majority of his views on economics ended up giving birth to various schools of thought such as post-keynsianism which attempted to find out what was wrong with his line of thought and how to build from there. By poster child, I mean to say that he's not actually correct on many of his statements or subjects. In fact he's wrong on virtually all subjects because the man himself knew little to no economics whatsoever. The fact that the state parades him around in public schools isn't exactly a good measurement of his economic insights, especially when his policies encourage growth of the state to begin with.

Also, it's a genuinely sad state of affairs if his works are the only ones you studied.

>>62935

I know most of the economics professors at the local university, and none of them use Keynes in their lectures.

>>62923

Yeah, it was originally a movie that was a parody of Dolemite and blaxploitation in general. It got a cartoon series later on.

Why do people keep blanketing this shit all over 8chan? Does anyone fucking care what either of these idiots has to say?

>>62914

Cenk really is an idiot.

>>62935

>Yes it is. He's probably the most famous economist, and the only one I remember studying

And you don't think there's anything wrong with that? I'm not even formally studying economics and I bother to study more than one school of economics.

no one

Ben obviously won.

But it wasn't the slaughter that everyone expected. Cenk was surprisingly calm and tried to use logic. He only fucked up by insulting the audience, and his little chant at the end was just cringe.

Debates are not (((winnable))) you illiterate retard

>>62961

Yes they are.

>talk about topic A

>guy makes valid point/argument

>other guy can't refute it

>score is 1-0

>move to topic B

What you mean is that debates won't change the minds of either debater. You'll never hear someone say "Gee, I guess you're right. I never thought of it that way." at best someone will admit he has no knowledge on the subject and will have to do further research before coming back to it.

Debates are intellectual boxing matches where it's about winning the viewer/audience's mind.

You think you're right and the other guy is wrong, prove it in a debate.

>>62963

No, a debate is a formal conversation where two opposing parties are trying to reach a common understanding (and hopefully truth). When done right, both sides win by getting closer to truth.

Your concept is really absurd, you can easily do debates without spectators.

>>62965

What if there's no common understanding?

The idea that debates are about compromise sounds frankly dumb and does not work most of the time.

See: Creation vs Evolution debates or Theism vs Atheism debates.

There is no "common understanding", there is simply someone being wrong and someone being right.

>>62966

It's not about compromise, it's about getting closer to truth. If one side is completely wrong then both sides win if that side admits it and attempts to fix their errors. If both sides think the same things they thought before the debate then the debate was a failure and a waste of time.

>>62974

1+1 has many answers, but only one is correct.

As for a debate being a failure because the debaters don't change their mind, that's what the audience is for. Debates are about convincing the listener/viewer that the other guy is wrong and you're right.

>>62914

The only bit Shapiro was off on was having to equate freedom with Government. Cenk didn't fully want to admit it himself, but you can't have mass Democracy and a free market. Either the Government goes or the market.

>>62933

And it's basically wrong. You can't have real growth without saving. The economy is not something you just pump money in left and right without care and calculation. The risk and malinvestment piles up real fast. If you're going to live only for the short run and off yourself when the long term malinvestment kicks back, then you're fine.

>>62979

This.

>>62975

No, debates are discussions. What you are talking about is preaching.

>>62984

Preaching:

"To deliver a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church."

How is that even remotely related to a debate?

Preaching is what you do to fellow believers and like minded folks.

Debates is what you do with people who hold opposing viewpoints or ideas.

>>62984

I don't know through what kind of touchy feely education you went through but formal public debate has always had a clear goal of presenting arguments and convincing the crowd in favor of a side on a single specific issue, never a broad topic. A discussion is a discussion. It's also why I've repeatedly pointed out no real "debating" can ever occur here.