[ / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 4am / atheism / firechan / hydrus / loomis / lovelive / senran / stol ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


A recognized Safe Space for liberty - if you're triggered and you know it, clap your hands!

File: b549fb4a40c1447⋯.jpg (15.37 KB, 404x404, 1:1, doggo is tired of your shi….jpg)

 No.63221

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QycK1I_vTxw

How the fuck can we reach people, if they believe stuff like that.

>LACK OF REGULATION

When every single year goverment grows. Doesn't matter Republican, Democrats, all over the West. Every single year they grow.

>Objectivists in the Fed

Is he fucking insane? How delusional do you have to be?

How can you have such a complete ideological tainted view of the world that you don't see that under this corporatist system Big Business WANTS the regulation, because it keeps out competition. How the fuck could you ever think there was an Objectivist? Did he really just call Greenspan and Objectivist?

 No.63222

>>63221

(sniff) Everyone is an ideologue but me (sniff)

You can't. You can't reach everyone, especially adults.


 No.63223

>>63221

To clarify, Greenspan was an Objectivist for a very short run. As soon as he got a touch of power he abandoned everything he professed to stand for and dumped Rand. Zizek is either being dishonest or economically clueless as ever.


 No.63224

>>63223

I don't remember which Austrian was it that brought that up as a betrayal and a complete 180 from Greenspan.


 No.63225

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

 No.63237

>>63223

But that is even worse. If an Objectivist even turns statist like that, what fucking philosophical position do you have to have to not shift extremely to the left economiclally?

Is an imaginary super anarcho-captialism position going to make the next fed chairman just barely support the gold standard?


 No.63241

>>63237

There's always going to be defectors. Mussolini was an orthodox marxist, you know?


 No.63245

>people are not retarded enough to believe your bullshit

How is this a bad thing lmao


 No.63262


 No.63263

>the most regulated sector of economy

>HURR MOAR REKULATIONZ DURR :DDDD


 No.63269

>>63241

So was Thomas Sowell


 No.63276

>>63221

I would love if your "real capitalism" was put in practice. 2008 financial crisis happens again…there's no state to bail out the banks. The whole "real capitalism" crumbles.

Face it you retards…if there's no state and no tax payer's money capitalism crumbles immediately. You know why? Because it ONLY SPAWNS CORRUPTION

>ONLY SPAWNS CORRUPTION

ONLY SPAWNS CORRUPTION

>ONLY SPAWNS CORRUPTION

ONLY SPAWNS CORRUPTION

>ONLY SPAWNS CORRUPTION

ONLY SPAWNS CORRUPTION

>ONLY SPAWNS CORRUPTION

ONLY SPAWNS CORRUPTION

you got that?


 No.63280

File: 936085c8c1d2ba1⋯.jpg (32.92 KB, 625x626, 625:626, Not even.jpg)


 No.63281

>>63276

The government caused the crisis in the first place though.

>if there's no state and no tax payer's money capitalism crumbles immediately

Impossible to verify, but you certainly don't need a very interventionist state


 No.63282

>>63276

>there's no state to bail out the banks.

he cites that as a bad thing

Let's laugh at this faggot.

AHAHAHAHHAHAHHHHHAHHAHAHaaaAAAAA


 No.63301

>>63282

Without the policy responses of late 2008 and early 2009, we estimate that:

The peak-to-trough decline in real gross domestic product (GDP), which was barely over 4%, would have been close to a stunning 14%;

The economy would have contracted for more than three years, more than twice as long as it did;

More than 17 million jobs would have been lost, about twice the actual number.

Unemployment would have peaked at just under 16%, rather than the actual 10%;

The budget deficit would have grown to more than 20 percent of GDP, about double its actual peak of 10 percent, topping off at $2.8 trillion in fiscal 2011.

Today’s economy might be far weaker than it is — with real GDP in the second quarter of 2015 about $800 billion lower than its actual level, 3.6 million fewer jobs, and unemployment at a still-dizzying 7.6%.Without the policy responses of late 2008 and early 2009, we estimate that:

The peak-to-trough decline in real gross domestic product (GDP), which was barely over 4%, would have been close to a stunning 14%;

The economy would have contracted for more than three years, more than twice as long as it did;

More than 17 million jobs would have been lost, about twice the actual number.

Unemployment would have peaked at just under 16%, rather than the actual 10%;

The budget deficit would have grown to more than 20 percent of GDP, about double its actual peak of 10 percent, topping off at $2.8 trillion in fiscal 2011.

Today’s economy might be far weaker than it is — with real GDP in the second quarter of 2015 about $800 billion lower than its actual level, 3.6 million fewer jobs, and unemployment at a still-dizzying 7.6%.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/the-financial-crisis-lessons-for-the-next-one


 No.63302

>>63301

sorry for doublepost


 No.63313

>>63301

Sounds like two guy jerking off over how great the Fed is, and - surprise! - one of them worked there. I didn't read it in detail, but there was little actual argumentation in this article, either. There was this:

>We provide details of the methods we used to generate the findings summarized above. But generally speaking, we use the Moody’s Analytics model of the macroeconomy to simulate how growth, jobs, unemployment, and other variables might have evolved in the absence of the policy. We then compare this simulated path to what actually happened, identifying the differences as the impacts of the policy. That’s a standard approach, one that, for example, the Congressional Budget Office used to evaluate the Recovery Act (whose findings, as we show, are similar to our own).

But that econometric modelling is shit is common knowledge in many circles, and not just among Austrians. Arnold Kling worked in the Fed, too, and he describes in Specialization and Trade how its models are simply detached from reality.


 No.63359

>>63301

>muh GDP

If we were actually free, economically free, we would have an insane amount of economic growth.

It still doesn't justify stealing/borrwing from the population.

FAGGOT

>>63313

also this


 No.63544

>>63359

He didn't just talk about GDP. He mentioned unemployment as well.


 No.63547

>>63276

You realize the state started the crisis by encouraging banks to lend loans to people who should've never gotten them?


 No.63550

>>63544

suk my diku dubs guy




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / 4am / atheism / firechan / hydrus / loomis / lovelive / senran / stol ]