PDA

View Full Version : IOUSA - very mixed review




Bryan
08-21-2008, 11:17 PM
I'm intentionally not posting this under "I.O.U.S.A was pretty good (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=151294)" since I can't agree with that assessment.


First the positives, if this movie came out a year ago Dr. Paul would have definitely done better, he did come out looking very good in it, in my opinion. I also gruntingly agree with others that the movie should get a lot more attention as it does do a good job of explaining the source of our deficits aided with a well used ring of four deficit issues and providing solid historical context of the issues.

My problem with the movie is that the overall collectivist status-quo is perpetuated. The debt crisis was put in the context of what the government is doing wrong with little to note on the perspective of freedom (or lack of it) which is of course the obvious fundamental source of all the problems presented in the movie. A good example of this collectivism is the pushing of the notion that the national debt is personally tied to each of us, where in a free society it would be impossible for any other person or group of people to assign a debt to you against your will. To their credit, the movie did point out that it was immoral to promote "generational debt" on the youth but there was no similar indication for someone of age who had the debt put on them even if they had been fighting against it all their life. Instead, it was already your debt.

The movie only really discusses half the problem in that it showed that what the government is doing is wrong by allowing debt but never explaining the root problem. The root of course is that the government will always be doing wrong regardless of the debt level so long as it keeps the powers that it has immorally taken away from the people that allow it to create the debt in the first place and enslave the population to it through the use of force.

For better or worse, I watched to the entire town hall discussion after the movie, it was really the worst part where most everything was a discussion on what government program should be tweaked to fix the problems (minus a few great comments by Dave Walker), this of course is all just more of the same, central economic planning. It was sickening to hear the panel go on-and-on with what the average viewer would think as enlightened viewpoints but it is really just the same failed anti-freedom policies repackaged, yet again.

There was one comment that almost made me fall out of my chair- it was when William Niskanen, chairman of the CATO Institute, basically said that, of all the problems we have what's most important for us to do is to consider a later retirement age, like 70. This was not the expected comment from the chairman of an organization that headlines the promotion of "Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace", to say the least. From my rough estimates, if we actually had individual liberty and free markets it would be easy to retire at half that age if one wanted to.

So here are my ratings, from 1-5 stars:

* Presentation of the debt problem: 5 stars
* Leading one in the correct direction for solutions: 3 stars (they didn't openly promote collectivism in the movie but the tone did)
* Panel discussion: 1 star - would be zero but Dave Walker saved it.

Just my $0.02-- which won't help pay the debt.

berrybunches
08-21-2008, 11:22 PM
EDIT:

I agree with what you say about the movie. No one was thrilled with the panel.

I don't think they went into the freedom stuff becuase that would have made the movie way to long. They just pretty much spelled out the debt crises and the rest was up to you. I don't think they were trying to sell a philosophy and I don't think it would have been wise for them to try. I liked that it was to the point.

As for the collectivist attitude, well, its our government and we are accountable for its actions as United States citizens. From your logic who would owe the debt? I would love to stick the bill on congress, Bush and so on but its not going to happen unfortunately :(

surf
08-21-2008, 11:27 PM
Buffet's a f#cking idiot. 'nuff said.

i agree w/Bryan on the about everything he wrote. no one save Walker even had the balls (or intelligence) to suggest cutting spending.

And Buffet's a F#cking idiot.

Conza88
08-21-2008, 11:30 PM
I'm intentionally not posting this under "I.O.U.S.A was pretty good (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=151294)" since I can't agree with that assessment.


First the positives, if this movie came out a year ago Dr. Paul would have definitely done better, he did come out looking very good in it, in my opinion. I also gruntingly agree with others that the movie should get a lot more attention as it does do a good job of explaining the source of our deficits aided with a well used ring of four deficit issues and providing solid historical context of the issues.

My problem with the movie is that the overall collectivist status-quo is perpetuated. The debt crisis was put in the context of what the government is doing wrong with little to note on the perspective of freedom (or lack of it) which is of course the obvious fundamental source of all the problems presented in the movie. A good example of this collectivism is the pushing of the notion that the national debt is personally tied to each of us, where in a free society it would be impossible for any other person or group of people to assign a debt to you against your will. To their credit, the movie did point out that it was immoral to promote "generational debt" on the youth but there was no similar indication for someone of age who had the debt put on them even if they had been fighting against it all their life. Instead, it was already your debt.

The movie only really discusses half the problem in that it showed that what the government is doing is wrong by allowing debt but never explaining the root problem. The root of course is that the government will always be doing wrong regardless of the debt level so long as it keeps the powers that it has immorally taken away from the people that allow it to create the debt in the first place and enslave the population to it through the use of force.

For better or worse, I watched to the entire town hall discussion after the movie, it was really the worst part where most everything was a discussion on what government program should be tweaked to fix the problems (minus a few great comments by Dave Walker), this of course is all just more of the same, central economic planning. It was sickening to hear the panel go on-and-on with what the average viewer would think as enlightened viewpoints but it is really just the same failed anti-freedom policies repackaged, yet again.

There was one comment that almost made me fall out of my chair- it was when William Niskanen, chairman of the CATO Institute, basically said that, of all the problems we have what's most important for us to do is to consider a later retirement age, like 70. This was not the expected comment from the chairman of an organization that headlines the promotion of "Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace", to say the least. From my rough estimates, if we actually had individual liberty and free markets it would be easy to retire at half that age if one wanted to.

So here are my ratings, from 1-5 stars:

* Presentation of the debt problem: 5 stars
* Leading one in the correct direction for solutions: 3 stars (they didn't openly promote collectivism in the movie but the tone did)
* Panel discussion: 1 star - would be zero but Dave Walker saved it.

Just my $0.02-- which won't help pay the debt.

Well, that's pretty much exactly what I said would happen. (In the other threads on this)

Thanks for the analysis Bryan.

For those wanting; my remarks / predictions as to what it was going to be are here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=150655).

Ninja Homer
08-21-2008, 11:30 PM
Bryan, thanks for the biased review (and I mean biased in a good, Ron Paul supporter type of way :)).

I'm going to have to see the movie, but it sounds like it's a pretty good introduction to the problem for the masses. I'd guess that if it got into everything that we'd like to see included in the movie, it would never hit mainstream popularity. This will at least get the problem in the public's minds, and we can offer a solution... we won't have to do as much teaching about the problem.

libertarian4321
08-21-2008, 11:38 PM
Buffet's a f#cking idiot. 'nuff said.

i agree w/Bryan on the about everything he wrote. no one save Walker even had the balls (or intelligence) to suggest cutting spending.

And Buffet's a F#cking idiot.

Buffet is not an idiot- he is almost certainly a genius.

I'm not sure what got you so upset about Buffett, but I assure you he isn't an idiot.

If you disagree with his politics, say so...

princessredtights
08-21-2008, 11:41 PM
I agree that pointing out how the debt is out of hand was great. I definately agree that Buffett is an idiot! (wow - :eek: I had NO idea!)

Maybe I'm being too paranoid but did anyone else think it was strange how it was emphasized how great things were with Bill Clinton and vs the Repub's (not that I think the Repub's have been great) - Also, healthcare was such a major push and I wish I had $5.00 for everytime I heard the word "change" during the "forum" at the end ... and also how many times did they emphasize we must SAVE money ... :rolleyes:... I'm excited that Social Security will be "just fine" ... :rolleyes:

I probably just need to shift the position on my tinfoil hat and take some more cold medicine - I'm coming down with a cold ... :confused:

Bryan
08-21-2008, 11:43 PM
From your logic who would owe the debt? I would love to stick the bill on congress, Bush and so on but its not going to happen unfortunately :(
Yes, the debt goes to those who borrowed the money, so it would be Congress-- but you are correct that it's not going to happen with the attitude of most Americans, they'll just shoulder the debt. I would be interested to hear the logic as to how it should be someone elses.



I'm going to have to see the movie, but it sounds like it's a pretty good introduction to the problem for the masses.
It is (hence the 5 star part), it would be asking for a home run for them to tackle the freedom issue that is causing the debt in the first place. So this is just step one, they don't really present much of a wrong step two but don't give you the right one either- so 3 stars for that.

Printo
08-21-2008, 11:49 PM
Buffet's a f#cking idiot. 'nuff said.

i agree w/Bryan on the about everything he wrote. no one save Walker even had the balls (or intelligence) to suggest cutting spending.

And Buffet's a F#cking idiot.


He's fucking rich though so he cant be that stupid....:rolleyes:


I thought the movie was pretty good & explained what needed to be said. We first need to get our own house in order before we can talk about gold standards & getting rid of the FED. How about we first balance the budget? Most people in this country are not ready for the change many of us here are advocating. We must take baby-steps in the right direction to get what we want & this movie outlined just that.

IOUSA should be shown in every American classroom.

Bryan
08-21-2008, 11:51 PM
I agree that pointing out how the debt is out of hand was great. I definately agree that Buffett is an idiot! (wow - :eek: I had NO idea!)

Maybe I'm being too paranoid but did anyone else think it was strange how it was emphasized how great things were with Bill Clinton and vs the Repub's (not that I think the Repub's have been great) - Also, healthcare was such a major push and I wish I had $5.00 for everytime I heard the word "change" during the "forum" at the end ... and also how many times did they emphasize we must SAVE money ... :rolleyes:... I'm excited that Social Security will be "just fine" ... :rolleyes:

I probably just need to shift the position on my tinfoil hat and take some more cold medicine - I'm coming down with a cold ... :confused:

Actually I thought the movie did a good job of taking the wind out of the Clinton sails some by showing that the budget surplus was almost all from a surplus in social security and that without that, only 2000 was in the black. I didn't know this. It certainly isn't hard to look half decent however at what the Bushs have done with the debt.


The healthcare talk with the panel was disturbing, I kept wanting to scream "all we need is free markets"- which would solve the problem. Read:

100 Years of Medical Robbery
www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1547

A few times it sure seemed like Dave was taking jabs at Obama, but maybe that was just me. :)

berrybunches
08-21-2008, 11:52 PM
Well, that's pretty much exactly what I said would happen. (In the other threads on this)

Thanks for the analysis Bryan.

For those wanting; my remarks / predictions as to what it was going to be are here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=150655).

I don't see where you predicted anything about this movie. The panel was crappy imo and did not address anything but the actual movie was very good and pretty much addressed everything important besides jewish reptilian Illuminati banking masters that want to take over the world...I wonder why they did not brig that up :rolleyes:

surf
08-21-2008, 11:55 PM
you can be rich and be an idiot. Buffet sounded like a lot of old school republicans: we have a big pie, there is no problem. he thinks capital is available to all that need it right now. that's just not true.

edit: why is Warren diversifying internationally but saying the US economy is sound? he doesn't see a problem if foreign investors sell US debt securities, but he's not smart enough to see what will happen when they don't purchase new debt. he doesn't see, as Walker pointed out, that debt is becoming a greater slice of the pie.

Ninja Homer
08-21-2008, 11:57 PM
Buffet is not an idiot- he is almost certainly a genius.

I'm not sure what got you so upset about Buffett, but I assure you he isn't an idiot.

If you disagree with his politics, say so...

I agree, Buffet is a genius when it comes to investing and making money.

However, his political views leave a lot to be desired. When really rich people get involved in politics, it's almost never a good thing. They usually end up trying to change things in such a way that they get richer.

Conza88
08-21-2008, 11:59 PM
I don't see where you predicted anything about this movie. The panel was crappy imo and did not address anything but the actual movie was very good and pretty much addressed everything important besides jewish reptilian Illuminati banking masters that want to take over the world...I wonder why they did not brig that up :rolleyes:

I wonder why I didn't say that it would bring that up... :rolleyes:


http://pentaclerecords.net/darien3/oz_scarecrow_1.jpg

libertarian4321
08-22-2008, 12:07 AM
you can be rich and be an idiot. Buffet sounded like a lot of old school republicans: we have a big pie, there is no problem. he thinks capital is available to all that need it right now. that's just not true.

edit: why is Warren diversifying internationally but saying the US economy is sound? he doesn't see a problem if foreign investors sell US debt securities, but he's not smart enough to see what will happen when they don't purchase new debt. he doesn't see, as Walker pointed out, that debt is becoming a greater slice of the pie.

Buffett is diversifying for the same reason any intelligent investor does- diversification is a basic tenet of sound investing.

Whether its for his personal portfolio, or for his company (Berkshire Hathaway), to not invest overseas would be simply foolish- and that is true whether the US economy is strong or not.

surf
08-22-2008, 12:10 AM
Buffet's an idiot. You can't defend someone that touts the US economy while moving assets elsewhere as a smart diverifier (is that a word?) unless you think words speak louder than actions.

If he's not an idiot then he's a downright fraud.

berrybunches
08-22-2008, 12:11 AM
I wonder why I didn't say that it would bring that up... :rolleyes:

/IMG][/CENTER]

You didn't. You said they would not bring any real causes up and you implied that that the new world order was using it as propaganda. I was just teasing as I know you did not say that exactly. You come off as a very serious and aggressive person.

Anyway I addressed where you were wrong about the movie in the screw IOUSA thread.

Printo
08-22-2008, 12:32 AM
I agree that pointing out how the debt is out of hand was great. I definately agree that Buffett is an idiot! (wow - :eek: I had NO idea!)

Maybe I'm being too paranoid but did anyone else think it was strange how it was emphasized how great things were with Bill Clinton and vs the Repub's (not that I think the Repub's have been great) - Also, healthcare was such a major push and I wish I had $5.00 for everytime I heard the word "change" during the "forum" at the end ... and also how many times did they emphasize we must SAVE money ... :rolleyes:... I'm excited that Social Security will be "just fine" ... :rolleyes:

I probably just need to shift the position on my tinfoil hat and take some more cold medicine - I'm coming down with a cold ... :confused:

Well looking at the numbers, health care makes up most of the unfunded liabilities. We cannot get rid of the Dept of Defense completely. We need to start at health care, its really expensive, takes up a lot of GDP & is just plain awful because its not complete free market & its not complete socialism. We need free market medicine clearly if we want to fix our national debt.

Conza88
08-22-2008, 01:03 AM
You didn't. You said they would not bring any real causes up and you implied that that the new world order was using it as propaganda. I was just teasing as I know you did not say that exactly. You come off as a very serious and aggressive person.

Anyway I addressed where you were wrong about the movie in the screw IOUSA thread.

Yea exactly, I didn't. :cool: Implied... where? :D

And I will address it with my analysis, rebuttal after reviewing the film. ;)

libertarian4321
08-22-2008, 01:04 AM
Buffet's an idiot. You can't defend someone that touts the US economy while moving assets elsewhere as a smart diverifier (is that a word?) unless you think words speak louder than actions.

If he's not an idiot then he's a downright fraud.

You obviously have no clue when it comes to investing.

Any decent financial adviser will tell clients who have any money at all to have at least some of it invested overseas- whether that person merely $100,000 or has $10,000,000,000.

I've invested overseas for decades. Its got nothing to do with how the US economy is doing or what direction I think the US economy is heading. I do it when the US economy is booming AND when its weak. So does Buffett. So does anyone else with even a modicum of investing sense.

LibertyEagle
08-22-2008, 01:38 AM
So Bryan, when are you running for office? :)

You'd be good, you know.

tron paul
08-22-2008, 02:05 AM
Just the fact this movie exists and is going viral is a(nother) smashing Ron Paul Victory!!!!!!

It's OK, good even, if IOUSA doesn't advocate radical change. That's us using the Left's strategy of incrementalism against them. Baby steps are the only way to get anywhere with most people.

Of course the guy from the STATO Institute wants us to work until death. They're on the same side as tReason magazine, the LINO (Libertarian In Name Only) side.

devil21
08-22-2008, 02:38 AM
Is that the same Pete Peterson that McCain said he would rely on for economic advice in response to RP's Presidents Working Group debate question? Didn't see the movie, just read an article about it and wondered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUZwL9GPcNw

revolutionary8
08-22-2008, 03:11 AM
He's fucking rich though so he cant be that stupid....:rolleyes:
Nahhh, Buffet can't possibly be an idiot...
In that case,
He must know exactly what he is doing?
Just some thoughts to ponder...

Mark
08-22-2008, 05:57 AM
Why would Buffet say anything that would educate the masses about the truth concerning the complete disaster
- (for the average person - not the "elite") - the global financial system is facing?

That would cause panic in the markets, and panic in the streets, and elitists like Buffet have been lying for years in order prevent that
until they're optimally positioned to capitalize (in more ways than one) from it.

Buffet may be a genius, but that doesn't mean that he's going to speak truth against the corrupt "upper level" financial system
that he's a part of. IMO it would be naive to think otherwise.

muzzled dogg
08-22-2008, 06:26 AM
agree with bryan's ratings

Conza88
08-22-2008, 08:08 AM
Just the fact this movie exists and is going viral is a(nother) smashing Ron Paul Victory!!!!!!

It's OK, good even, if IOUSA doesn't advocate radical change. That's us using the Left's strategy of incrementalism against them. Baby steps are the only way to get anywhere with most people.

Of course the guy from the STATO Institute wants us to work until death. They're on the same side as tReason magazine, the LINO (Libertarian In Name Only) side.

Inconvenient Truth went viral.

This is the apparent economic version of an inconvenient truth. (Per Msm talking points)

Was that a Ron Paul victory? :rolleyes: - More so; don't just subject the "left" for incrementalism. The "right" uses the exact same approach ;)

Vaio
08-22-2008, 08:44 AM
Buffet's a f#cking idiot. 'nuff said.

i agree w/Bryan on the about everything he wrote. no one save Walker even had the balls (or intelligence) to suggest cutting spending.

And Buffet's a F#cking idiot.

LMAO!!! Uhm...the guy has a Masters in Economics from Columbia University, one of the most prestigous Universities in the world and is the wealthiest man in the world. Oh, and he didn't just fall into that position by inheriting it. I suppose you have the equivalent to a high school diploma and graduated in about the middle of the pack. You probably went to community college, or some place like the University of Montana with a major in Sociology.

It never ceases to amaze me the level of arrogance people in this movement have concerning their know-it-all philosophy, especially in Economics, where they've watched a few clips on www.mises.org and are all of a sudden experts. You're the idiot.

user
08-22-2008, 08:53 AM
LMAO!!! Uhm...the guy has a Masters in Economics from Columbia University, one of the most prestigous Universities in the world and is the wealthiest man in the world. Oh, and he didn't just fall into that position by inheriting it. I suppose you have the equivalent to a high school diploma and graduated in about the middle of the pack. You probably went to community college, or some place like the University of Montana with a major in Sociology.

It never ceases to amaze me the level of arrogance people in this movement have concerning their know-it-all philosophy, especially in Economics, where they've watched a few clips on www.mises.org and are all of a sudden experts. You're the idiot.
Somewhere else I might expect an argument as bad as this, but not here. Yale University is one of the "most prestigious universities in the world" and guess who went there? That's right, arguably the most powerful man in the world. Are you going to tell me he's not an idiot?

Why do you have so much faith in the government-sponsored education system, putting down those who may not have taken the most "prestigious" path? Now that's arrogant.

Conza88
08-22-2008, 09:02 AM
LMAO!!! Uhm...the guy has a Masters in Economics from Columbia University, one of the most prestigous Universities in the world and is the wealthiest man in the world. Oh, and he didn't just fall into that position by inheriting it. I suppose you have the equivalent to a high school diploma and graduated in about the middle of the pack. You probably went to community college, or some place like the University of Montana with a major in Sociology.

It never ceases to amaze me the level of arrogance people in this movement have concerning their know-it-all philosophy, especially in Economics, where they've watched a few clips on www.mises.org and are all of a sudden experts. You're the idiot.

Masters in economics... yeah; he do Austrian Economics with that? :rolleyes:

My lecturer has a PHD in economics, masters whatever. I've listened to half the Media section at Mises.org... I know more about causality, the problems and the actual proper solutions that should be implemented than;... practically every single economic lecturer and commentators in the news, in my country.

That's not arrogance, that's simply reality. If anything it's just self-confidence in ones position, which has probed to be correct and which is backed up by logic & reason - as opposed to the oppositions, based on flawed logic, false premises and horrible reasoning. ;)

sickmint79
08-22-2008, 09:05 AM
So here are my ratings, from 1-5 stars:

* Presentation of the debt problem: 5 stars
* Leading one in the correct direction for solutions: 3 stars (they didn't openly promote collectivism in the movie but the tone did)
* Panel discussion: 1 star - would be zero but Dave Walker saved it.

Just my $0.02-- which won't help pay the debt.

this, i would note, is the entire and only intent of the movie.

Vaio
08-22-2008, 09:06 AM
Somewhere else I might expect an argument as bad as this, but not here. Yale University is one of the "most prestigious universities in the world" and guess who went there? That's right, arguably the most powerful man in the world. Are you going to tell me he's not an idiot?

Why do you have so much faith in the government-sponsored education system, putting down those who may not have taken the most "prestigious" path? Now that's arrogant.

LOL okay I'll break it down for you. Bush was born into a family of wealth; Buffett was NOT. Bush was able to attend Yale University based on his father's wealth because he could afford to pay the $40,000 a year in tuition---oh yeah and Bush averaged a C- throughout his college career at Yale. Buffett, on the other hand, had to pay out of his own pocket for his education as there was no such thing as government student loans when he went to school. Also, you don't just get accepted into Columbia Business School unless you have proven you possess exceptional attributes, or have someone of influence pull some strings for you like Bush was able to. Buffett, again, was born into a middle class family.

But again, when you see "Columbia University" on someone's resume, usually that kicks up the application procedure a bit. Go ask any human resources person--but I'm sure you all know more about their job than they do, right?? The guy owns Coca-Cola, Dairy Queen, Mars, Geico, See's Candies, along with dozens of other subsidiaries.

Yeah, only idiots come out of a Middle Class family, go to the top university in the world for business on their own, become the wealthiest man in the world with a wealth estimated at $62 billion, and you morons have the gall to call this man an idiot, or try to draw a comparison between him and George Bush. Bush, again, was born into a family with a lot of wealth and influence. Buffett was a top student in his class while Bush averaged, again, a C- at Yale. The only reason why Bush got into Yale was because of his father's influence and ties to the University, as well as the money to pay for him to attend there.

0wned.

Vaio
08-22-2008, 09:08 AM
Masters in economics... yeah; he do Austrian Economics with that? :rolleyes:

My lecturer has a PHD in economics, masters whatever. I've listened to half the Media section at Mises.org... I know more about causality, the problems and the actual proper solutions that should be implemented than;... practically every single economic lecturer and commentators in the news, in my country.

That's not arrogance, that's simply reality. If anything it's just self-confidence in ones position, which has probed to be correct and which is backed up by logic & reason - as opposed to the oppositions, based on flawed logic, false premises and horrible reasoning. ;)


Austrian Economics, and especially Mises.org, doesn't have you understand the technicalities behind Economics. You can have the right ideas, but if you can't understand a chart or the fundamental formulas for equillibrium, then you'll always be someone who thinks he knows everything about Economics, yet has to go online to watch a lecture in order to refute a point. I betcha if I threw a chart in front of you, yah wouldn't know where to start :)

Oh and if you knew so much about economics, why don't you write a book? Why aren't you working for some Government agency or a corporation?? There's PLENTY of demand for people with degrees in business--why are you posting on a ****ing message board for a living? It's unbelievable how you people criticize others' aptitude, yet you yourselves are all either college dropouts, are currently in college, or have a bachelor's in a pud degree like "sociology" which are a dime a dozen. Yet again, you all just bitch and moan about how stupid people are and talk yourselves up because you've watched online lectures, yet you're still here...HMMM....

What's sad is that supposedly you have to be an Austrian Economist to be a genius. Go look at the biography of Mark Twain, please, and tell me how successful he was at Finance/Economics. Yet somehow even today we seem to think he's THE greatest American writer in history, and quote the hell out of his ass to justify our political stance yet he wasn't involved in politics. He was, however, an investor who got his ass handed to him, but I'm sure none of you would say Mark Twain is a dipsh!t because he doesn't know one thing about Economics, right??

You know what's sad??? The supposedly idiotic professor, or at least the one you understand economics more than he does, is making exceptionally more money than you are. So I suppose everyone on these forums are just working pro bono? LOL--get a real job, guys, and then we'll talk about who's smarter. Become a billionaire then I MIGHT hear your opinion about other wealthy individuals. Until then, I don't get how ANYONE can criticize the richest man in the world for doing something that no one else has been able to replicate in the financial world. If he's an idiot and you all know more about economics than he does, why the hell aren't you invested in the Market if you understand where it's all going and what sectors will make you the most money??? Finance and Economics are heavily related, so if you understand one the other will be following suit. Since you are experts on Economics then please, go buy some stock on margin and get back to me in 6 months to see if you've made any money. Buffett has made $3 billion on his portfolio in just this last YEAR--I bet all of you would lose at LEAST 25% of what you invest if you started today!!!

sickmint79
08-22-2008, 09:10 AM
Yea exactly, I didn't. :cool: Implied... where? :D

And I will address it with my analysis, rebuttal after reviewing the film. ;)

it's funny to see you accuse others of using straw men, when every argument you've made about the film comes from never seeing a minute. what's your rebuttal going to say? we don't have a spending problem? the US has a surplus? deficits are good? :rolleyes:

princessredtights
08-22-2008, 09:11 AM
Well looking at the numbers, health care makes up most of the unfunded liabilities. We cannot get rid of the Dept of Defense completely. We need to start at health care, its really expensive, takes up a lot of GDP & is just plain awful because its not complete free market & its not complete socialism. We need free market medicine clearly if we want to fix our national debt.

I guess I got "worried" because they kept saying "healthcare" and I wonder if people in the audience automatically think "universal healthcare" ... (I bill insurance for a medical practice - the LAST thing we need is more gov't involvment in our healthcare system).

princessredtights
08-22-2008, 09:14 AM
I guess when I said I thought Buffett was an idiot, I was referring to the way he started his comment during the forum - how he thought differently than everyone else on the stage - I can't remember exactly what he said but the gist I got was that "oh, I don't believe it's all as bad as they are saying" ...

user
08-22-2008, 09:26 AM
LOL okay I'll break it down for you. Bush was born into a family of wealth; Buffett was NOT. Bush was able to attend Yale University based on his father's wealth because he could afford to pay the $40,000 a year in tuition---oh yeah and Bush averaged a C- throughout his college career at Yale. Buffett, on the other hand, had to pay out of his own pocket for his education as there was no such thing as government student loans when he went to school. Also, you don't just get accepted into Columbia Business School unless you have proven you possess exceptional attributes, or have someone of influence pull some strings for you like Bush was able to. Buffett, again, was born into a middle class family.

But again, when you see "Columbia University" on someone's resume, usually that kicks up the application procedure a bit. Go ask any human resources person--but I'm sure you all know more about their job than they do, right?? The guy owns Coca-Cola, Dairy Queen, Mars, Geico, See's Candies, along with dozens of other subsidiaries.

Yeah, only idiots come out of a Middle Class family, go to the top university in the world for business on their own, become the wealthiest man in the world with a wealth estimated at $62 billion, and you morons have the gall to call this man an idiot, or try to draw a comparison between him and George Bush. Bush, again, was born into a family with a lot of wealth and influence. Buffett was a top student in his class while Bush averaged, again, a C- at Yale. The only reason why Bush got into Yale was because of his father's influence and ties to the University, as well as the money to pay for him to attend there.

0wned.

You don't seem to have understood. I didn't compare him to Bush; I was pointing out how stupid your argument was. So you went off on quite a tangent there.

Bonus question: Quick, what percentage of Buffett's wealth was accrued as a result of government interference, including monetary inflation?

fr33domfightr
08-22-2008, 09:47 AM
I think this documentary was good, not mixed. Much of the criticism seems to be directed at things this documentary was never supposed to cover at all. The discussion was short, but offered things for people to consider. The suggestion about raising the retirement age before receiving benefits is totally understandable. We are all living longer, and Social Security wasn't envisioned to support people for 30 years. With the baby boomers all sucking up the money, it makes sense for people to hold off on receiving it. I don't like this anymore than you do, but it does make financial sense to save the system. That's why it was suggested.

Buffet isn't stupid, but the perception was there in the way he answered some questions. It probably was due to his optimism in the American spirit to solve this problem, just like they've done in the past (in his opinion).

This documentary was a good starting point. I was also very happy to see it was sold out with standing room only (with people actually standing up) in my theatre.


FF

Conza88
08-22-2008, 09:56 AM
Austrian Economics, and especially Mises.org, doesn't have you understand the technicalities behind Economics. You can have the right ideas, but if you can't understand a chart or the fundamental formulas for equillibrium, then you'll always be someone who thinks he knows everything about Economics, yet has to go online to watch a lecture in order to refute a point. I betcha if I threw a chart in front of you, yah wouldn't know where to start :)

Go for gold buddy, let's go debate in chat if you want... I don't need to sit down and view anything before refuting points.

Yea got taught Keynesian retarded models etc in school, and university... people PROGRESS towards the Austrian school - barely do they actually start there. The state naturally gets to them first, nice and young... just like Marx wanted it.

Learnt the crap all throughout high school, and getting taught lies right now.

See: Guess who wrote my Economics & Policy Analysis course textbook? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=148321)

Through all the models & charts you want at me. :rolleyes:


Oh and if you knew so much about economics, why don't you write a book? Why aren't you working for some Government agency or a corporation?? There's PLENTY of demand for people with degrees in business--why are you posting on a ****ing message board for a living? It's unbelievable how you people criticize others' aptitude, yet you yourselves are all either college dropouts, are currently in college, or have a bachelor's in a pud degree like "sociology" which are a dime a dozen. Yet again, you all just bitch and moan about how stupid people are and talk yourselves up because you've watched online lectures, yet you're still here...HMMM....

I will be writing articles / opinion pieces and liberty lessons for a website that I am co-producing/developing with a fellow Ron Paul supporter, who frequents these boards every now and then. I wouldn't work for a government agency.. out of principle. If I was to work in government, it would be to tear down the state - that has been erected. Corporation - possibly. I plan to work for a local company that does Value Investing, the Director of the company has given talks at Mises.org - I only discovered that out recently. I plan to work for him in this field / industry.

I am not posting on this message board for a living. I'm a 20 year old fulltime student, who has nearly finished his degree in International Business / Business. I have never actually watched an online lecture. I originally came here to gain knowledge from fellow supporters, ask people questions about things. I woke up 7 months ago. Since then I've come alonnnng way, test my arguments against others in pursuit of the truth, and I have mostly stuck around for the entertainment.


What's sad is that supposedly you have to be an Austrian Economist to be a genius. Go look at the biography of Mark Twain, please, and tell me how successful he was at Finance/Economics. Yet somehow even today we seem to think he's THE greatest American writer in history, and quote the hell out of his ass to justify our political stance yet he wasn't involved in politics. He was, however, an investor who got his ass handed to him, but I'm sure none of you would say Mark Twain is a dipsh!t because he doesn't know one thing about Economics, right??


http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/images/strawman.jpg


You know what's sad??? The supposedly idiotic professor, or at least the one you understand economics more than he does, is making exceptionally more money than you are. So I suppose everyone on these forums are just working pro bono? LOL--get a real job, guys, and then we'll talk about who's smarter.

:rolleyes: I forgot you have to be smart to earn money. By that logic; McCain is smarter than you.... :rolleyes: HE HAS MORE MONEY THAN YOU: HE MUST BE AN ECONOMIC GENUISZZ??Z!!!!! :rolleyes:


Become a billionaire then I MIGHT hear your opinion about other wealthy individuals. Until then, I don't get how ANYONE can criticize the richest man in the world for doing something that no one else has been able to replicate in the financial world. If he's an idiot and you all know more about economics than he does, why the hell aren't you invested in the Market if you understand where it's all going and what sectors will make you the most money??? Finance and Economics are heavily related, so if you understand one the other will be following suit. Since you are experts on Economics then please, go buy some stock on margin and get back to me in 6 months to see if you've made any money. Buffett has made $3 billion on his portfolio in just this last YEAR--I bet all of you would lose at LEAST 25% of what you invest if you started today!!!

All a misguided rant @ others, in a post replying to a comment of mine. ;)


it's funny to see you accuse others of using straw men, when every argument you've made about the film comes from never seeing a minute. what's your rebuttal going to say? we don't have a spending problem? the US has a surplus? deficits are good? :rolleyes:

Accusations proved correct. (As per their own admission; so not really an accusation - more like fact. ;))It's funny to see that, every argument I've made about the film (so far) didn't actually need me to see it. It was all naturally pre-cursory. Obviously once I do, the real critique can begin. I love how you fail (intentionally?) to see the difference. ;)

Vaio
08-22-2008, 10:02 AM
You don't seem to have understood. I didn't compare him to Bush; I was pointing out how stupid your argument was. So you went off on quite a tangent there.

Bonus question: Quick, what percentage of Buffett's wealth was accrued as a result of government interference, including monetary inflation?

LMAO!! Government interference?? Uhm...okay this is pretty funny. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make outside of the fact that you're implying some sort of made up conspiracy, buuuut it's pretty obvious you haven't put a dime of your own money into the stock market, let alone understand it enough thus your making dumbass comments like THAT. The United States has NEVER had a free market, and in fact I believe the only time you can have a free market is when you have anarchy and...well...go ask the Somalians how well anarchy works out in their country :). So there's always been inflation going on (this proving how ridiculous your reasoning is) regardless if there's gold/silver standard or a fiat monetary system. There's never been a time where we've had a free market which can only exist in anarchy, so Government has ALWAYS played a role in the economy. By that standard, then, combined with your moronic ill-conceived point would mean that ALL wealth created under a society where Government has existed cannot be legitimate. So I guess if at any time in your life you receive a paycheck for your services or production then you yourself are taking part in a system where inflation exists, as well as Government Intervention has always been present. It's clear you're nothing more than just another "Austrian Economics Genius" who has all of the answers, yet you can't even understand what you're typing. It's actually quite comical how you criticize my logic when you yourself probably made the most sophisticatedly retarded statement when you asked what percentage of his wealth came from inflation/Government intervention. Do yourself a favor and never invest in a 401(k) or take a paycheck from your boss, because that money had to have come from somewhere, and it came from a market where the Government intervenes and inflation is always present---thus you're a hypocrite, but all of these points probably went over your head.

user
08-22-2008, 10:09 AM
LMAO!! Government interference?? Uhm...okay this is pretty funny. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make outside of the fact that you're implying some sort of made up conspiracy, buuuut it's pretty obvious you haven't put a dime of your own money into the stock market, let alone understand it enough thus your making dumbass comments like THAT. The United States has NEVER had a free market, and in fact I believe the only time you can have a free market is when you have anarchy and...well...go ask the Somalians how well anarchy works out in their country :). So there's always been inflation going on (this proving how ridiculous your reasoning is) regardless if there's gold/silver standard or a fiat monetary system. There's never been a time where we've had a free market which can only exist in anarchy, so Government has ALWAYS played a role in the economy. By that standard, then, combined with your moronic ill-conceived point would mean that ALL wealth created under a society where Government has existed cannot be legitimate. So I guess if at any time in your life you receive a paycheck for your services or production then you yourself are taking part in a system where inflation exists, as well as Government Intervention has always been present. It's clear you're nothing more than just another "Austrian Economics Genius" who has all of the answers, yet you can't even understand what you're typing. It's actually quite comical how you criticize my logic when you yourself probably made the most sophisticatedly retarded statement when you asked what percentage of his wealth came from inflation/Government intervention. Do yourself a favor and never invest in a 401(k) or take a paycheck from your boss, because that money had to have come from somewhere, and it came from a market where the Government intervenes and inflation is always present---thus you're a hypocrite, but all of these points probably went over your head.

Having fun attacking your straw man over there?

The_Orlonater
08-22-2008, 10:12 AM
So I guess it's a waste of time for me to see?

Conza88
08-22-2008, 10:12 AM
Having fun attacking your straw man over there?

Bahahah... I think we should call him the "farmer"? :D

Or "random tangent" would probably fit nicely.. ;)

Vaio
08-22-2008, 10:16 AM
Conza, you can criticize Keynesian or Neoclassical economics all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that their mathematical formulas are indeed mathematical. The Austrians are the ones who USE this information to derive their own points! So if the Keynesians/Neoclassics/whatever are idiots, yet they are the ones who produce the information (such as the money supply, GDP productivity, etc.) and the Austrians (even Ron Paul) use these data, then your whole point goes to shit!!! So now your Austrian Theory debates mathematics?? LOL!

I'm not agreeing with the socialism advocated in modern economics, and am in fact more inclined towards the Austrian Model, but you fail to realize the mathematic complexities surrounding the data produced. Austrians typically use rhetoric while Keynesians use hard numbers and statistics. Basically the Austrians let the Keynesians write up the data, and then they themselves point out things the Keynesians glaze over. So basically both sides get their data from the same mathematical concepts--they just differ on their rhetoric. My point was that you focus specifically on the rhetoric that you yourself will always be clueless on determining where the future is going. The only way you know what the future holds is by listening to Austrian Lectures in which case you DON'T understand the theory at all!! It goes sort of to Ron Paul's point where you know the effects and you treat the effects, but you don't know the source. You don't understand the MATHEMATICS behind economics, you just understand that Government intervention is bad. How do you know that? Because you listened to a specific school of thought that told you so, yet you yourself could not understand a chart if I threw it in front of your face, or provide any mathematical basis for determining a price floor or equillibrium point. In you don't understand the math, then you can't understand the situation. You just think you do because you heard someone say "the Federal Reserve inflates the money supply"---tell me by how much annually, the true inflation rate, where this money is going, the effects on commodities, etc. but you can't. All you have is rhetoric, and couldn't produce a formula yourself to explain any of those points. Thus, you criticize a school of thought such as the Keynesians who actually DO produce those numbers from which your logic is derived. You just interpret the data differently.

So basically to sum it off if it went over your head: All schools of thought get their data from the same mathematics and hard data. The difference between them is just how they go about explaining it in English and their reasoning. You just know the English part, yet couldn't understand the mathematical part at all. I've watched Mises.org and all they do is throw rhetoric at you, or present a chart and yet fail to explain the science behind it. You don't bother to look at the science which is better explained and tought by the Keynesians. Austrians don't focus on real data in explaining their points (rarely do they mention current GDP rates, etc.), rather they imbed the idea into their rhetoric. That's all Austrian Economics is is just rhetoric. They read the data same data anyone else does, but they focus on telling you why Government Intervention is bad rather than explaining the math behind it. They just assume you know it which, unfortunately, you don't :) Because if you did, why the hell are you here and not working for someone?

Vaio
08-22-2008, 10:18 AM
Having fun attacking your straw man over there?

So I win then cuz you know I'm right? :) haha

I take your silence as conceding I owned you. You just choose to insult me to undermine my logic, kinda like how Giuliani and McCain just smiled and laughed at Ron Paul when they knew he was right. It works, I'll give yah that. It makes the onlookers think you know something I don't, but when you ignore my points after you insult me then...well...people catch on :)

user
08-22-2008, 10:20 AM
Conza, you can criticize Keynesian or Neoclassical economics all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that their mathematical formulas are indeed mathematical. The Austrians are the ones who USE this information to derive their own points! So if the Keynesians/Neoclassics/whatever are idiots, yet they are the ones who produce the information (such as the money supply, GDP productivity, etc.) and the Austrians (even Ron Paul) use these data, then your whole point goes to shit!!! So now your Austrian Theory debates mathematics?? LOL!

I'm not agreeing with the socialism advocated in modern economics, and am in fact more inclined towards the Austrian Model, but you fail to realize the mathematic complexities surrounding the data produced. Austrians typically use rhetoric while Keynesians use hard numbers and statistics. Basically the Austrians let the Keynesians write up the data, and then they themselves point out things the Keynesians glaze over. So basically both sides get their data from the same mathematical concepts--they just differ on their rhetoric. My point was that you focus specifically on the rhetoric that you yourself will always be clueless on determining where the future is going. The only way you know what the future holds is by listening to Austrian Lectures in which case you DON'T understand the theory at all!! It goes sort of to Ron Paul's point where you know the effects and you treat the effects, but you don't know the source. You don't understand the MATHEMATICS behind economics, you just understand that Government intervention is bad. How do you know that? Because you listened to a specific school of thought that told you so, yet you yourself could not understand a chart if I threw it in front of your face, or provide any mathematical basis for determining a price floor or equillibrium point. In you don't understand the math, then you can't understand the situation. You just think you do because you heard someone say "the Federal Reserve inflates the money supply"---tell me by how much annually, the true inflation rate, where this money is going, the effects on commodities, etc. but you can't. All you have is rhetoric, and couldn't produce a formula yourself to explain any of those points. Thus, you criticize a school of thought such as the Keynesians who actually DO produce those numbers from which your logic is derived. You just interpret the data differently.
This is complete nonsense. It's even more obvious now that Vaio has no idea what Austrian economics is. It would be hard for him to be any more wrong.

user
08-22-2008, 10:23 AM
So I win then cuz you know I'm right? :) haha

I take your silence as conceding I owned you. You just choose to insult me to undermine my logic, kinda like how Giuliani and McCain just smiled and laughed at Ron Paul when they knew he was right. It works, I'll give yah that. It makes the onlookers think you know something I don't, but when you ignore my points after you insult me then...well...people catch on :)

It wasn't silence. I pointed out that you set up a nice straw man for yourself and then tore it down, which doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.

Vaio
08-22-2008, 10:31 AM
It wasn't silence. I pointed out that you set up a nice straw man for yourself and then tore it down, which doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.

LOL yeah...it has everything to do with what you said. You implied Buffett made his wealth through inflation/government intervention. Well...WE ALL DO! Inflation occurs in EVERY f*cking economy regardless what backs the currency, if anything. So all wealth EVER created isn't legitimate by the point you're making. If I'm wrong, then what exactly were you expecting to accomplish by asking how much of Buffett's wealth came from intervention/inflation??? The answer: All of it. How much of your money came from the exact same phenomena?? ALL OF IT. Government will ALWAYS exist in an economy so long as we have government so unless you're making money in a society of anarchy, or somehow prevented inflation from occurring (which is impossible unless you are Fuhrer and in control of monetary production which would be a form of Government Intervention regardless)!

Even if you had a society with anarchy which would produce a free market, then you would STILL have inflation! Mining for gold would increase the money supply, so you would have to shut down the mines, and the second you stopped the production of gold for your precious gold standard, you wouldn't be in an anarchist society. Thus, you can't produce wealth in a society where inflation doesn't exist and where Government Intervention is ZERO. THUS, I am right, and am not making a straw man. You just can't understand that, but I'm sure you can now.

And if I'm wrong, then what were you trying to point out when you asked how much of Buffett's money came from inflation/intervention?? You either A) wasted your time as you now understand you can't answer that question logically or B) understand I am right instead of debating my points, you choose to say I'm making a straw man. In either case, you have been proven wrong, and your silence solidifies it. If I'm wrong, then explain what you meant by asking how much of Buffett's money came from inflation/intervention?? Please do, because I'm sure what I've posted will just blow it to shit.

user
08-22-2008, 10:41 AM
LOL yeah...it has everything to do with what you said. You implied Buffett made his wealth through inflation/government intervention. Well...WE ALL DO! Inflation occurs in EVERY f*cking economy regardless what backs the currency, if anything. So all wealth EVER created isn't legitimate by the point you're making. If I'm wrong, then what exactly were you expecting to accomplish by asking how much of Buffett's wealth came from intervention/inflation??? The answer: All of it. How much of your money came from the exact same phenomena?? ALL OF IT. Government will ALWAYS exist in an economy so long as we have government so unless you're making money in a society of anarchy, or somehow prevented inflation from occurring (which is impossible unless you are Fuhrer and in control of monetary production which would be a form of Government Intervention regardless)!

Even if you had a society with anarchy which would produce a free market, then you would STILL have inflation! Mining for gold would increase the money supply, so you would have to shut down the mines, and the second you stopped the production of gold for your precious gold standard, you wouldn't be in an anarchist society. Thus, you can't produce wealth in a society where inflation doesn't exist and where Government Intervention is ZERO. THUS, I am right, and am not making a straw man. You just can't understand that, but I'm sure you can now.

Literally every sentence in your post is wrong in some way, especially the parts in bold. For example, you've strongly implied I favor a gold standard, even though I haven't said that. That's called a straw man.

Conza88
08-22-2008, 10:47 AM
Conza, you can criticize Keynesian or Neoclassical economics all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that their mathematical formulas are indeed mathematical.

Hahah... I love how this sentence was formulated. How insightful!


The Austrians are the ones who USE this information to derive their own points!

What you mean... like the M3? ;) Pretty sure no-one else uses that... for obvious reasons. :P But to question your flawed premise; WHAT POINTS MADE BY THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL - NEED ECONOMIC DATA TO SUPPLEMENT THEM? ;) If anything, all they do is use the available data to illustrate the irrationality of the other schools opinions / positions... by your logic; if the economic data did not exist; the Austrian school would not - because it can't DERIVE IT'S POINTS, if there is no information. :rolleyes: Fail.


So if the Keynesians/Neoclassics/whatever are idiots, yet they are the ones who produce the information (such as the money supply, GDP productivity, etc.) and the Austrians (even Ron Paul) use these data, then your whole point goes to shit!!! So now your Austrian Theory debates mathematics?? LOL!

Hey user... how you like this one? "So now your Austrian theory debates mathematics?" ahahaha :D

The reason all of that needs to be calculated.. (entire money supply is not calculated anymore, so we will leave it out).. is because of the business cycle. The governments need economic indicators to try adjust fiscally.. and the fed uses them to do so monetarily.

The government shouldn't even be looking for these figures. ;) Hence the schools fail again.


I'm not agreeing with the socialism advocated in modern economics
Of course, you're just going to nice lengths to defend it.


and am in fact more inclined towards the Austrian Model, but you fail to realize the mathematic complexities surrounding the data produced. Austrians typically use rhetoric while Keynesians use hard numbers and statistics. Basically the Austrians let the Keynesians write up the data, and then they themselves point out things the Keynesians glaze over. So basically both sides get their data from the same mathematical concepts--they just differ on their rhetoric. My point was that you focus specifically on the rhetoric that you yourself will always be clueless on determining where the future is going.

I seriously doubt the first sentence, because so far you've shown a remarkable ignorance towards the Austrian schools actual positions. What you fail to realize is that the Austrian's reject the need for hard numbers and statistics <----- WHICH ARE ANYTHING BUT, you tool - there is between a 6 - 12 month + lag in the economic data, lmfao... :rolleyes:


The only way you know what the future holds is by listening to Austrian Lectures in which case you DON'T understand the theory at all!! It goes sort of to Ron Paul's point where you know the effects and you treat the effects, but you don't know the source. You don't understand the MATHEMATICS behind economics, you just understand that Government intervention is bad. How do you know that? Because you listened to a specific school of thought that told you so, yet you yourself could not understand a chart if I threw it in front of your face, or provide any mathematical basis for determining a price floor or equillibrium point. In you don't understand the math, then you can't understand the situation. You just think you do because you heard someone say "the Federal Reserve inflates the money supply"---tell me by how much annually, the true inflation rate, where this money is going, the effects on commodities, etc. but you can't. All you have is rhetoric, and couldn't produce a formula yourself to explain any of those points. Thus, you criticize a school of thought such as the Keynesians who actually DO produce those numbers from which your logic is derived. You just interpret the data differently.

I understand the mathematics behind economics. Tis called Human action.

I reject the Federal Reserve - as far as the true inflation rate.. The Fed doesn't report M3 anymore. Says it's too expensive to compile the stats. :rolleyes: Anyway, under an Austrian model - calculating the true money supply is simply counting the amount of gold in each warehouse...

Austrian logic is NOT derived from data. You fail, and so does your retarded analysis.

Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=111) ;)

Hmm k, got your edit.


So basically to sum it off if it went over your head: All schools of thought get their data from the same mathematics and hard data. The difference between them is just how they go about explaining it in English and their reasoning. You just know the English part, yet couldn't understand the mathematical part at all. I've watched Mises.org and all they do is throw rhetoric at you, or present a chart and yet fail to explain the science behind it. You don't bother to look at the science which is better explained and tought by the Keynesians. Austrians don't focus on real data in explaining their points (rarely do they mention current GDP rates, etc.), rather they imbed the idea into their rhetoric. That's all Austrian Economics is is just rhetoric. They read the data same data anyone else does, but they focus on telling you why Government Intervention is bad rather than explaining the math behind it. They just assume you know it which, unfortunately, you don't Because if you did, why the hell are you here and not working for someone?

Haha... :eek: -> this is becoming hilarious. :D

The_Orlonater
08-22-2008, 10:50 AM
So I guess it's a waste of time for me to see?

So I take it, it's a yes?

speciallyblend
08-22-2008, 10:50 AM
I disagree, The panel discussion had a very rationale explanation of things.

????? dude please stop using alcohol it is a drug;)

user
08-22-2008, 10:53 AM
Hey user... how you like this one? "So now your Austrian theory debates mathematics?" ahahaha :D

Yeah it sounds like a villain from a bad B-movie...just add some cackling noises.

Probably the most important difference between the Austrians and the Keynesians is in the methodology they each use. Vaio has tried to say they use the same methodology, so there's no doubt he doesn't understand Austrian economics.

surf
08-22-2008, 11:32 AM
You obviously have no clue when it comes to investing.


not to get personal here, but as a former fixed-income portfolio manager of $billion + investment portfolio - i'd suggest you should know what you speak of prior to slinging arrows. if you saw the commentary that accompanied the movie, you'd understand what i'm talking about. he seemed to have no problem whatsoever w/national debt and was more than willing to pass it on to others. he seemed to have no clue about the effects of non-foreign involvement on our markets. he beleives that new Microsofts will spring up for eternity while not acknowledging the regulatory prohibitions and capital devaluations that continue to grow and that will undoubtedly hinder this.

and, ethically, if you are going to pimp the US economy while sending assets elsewhere, you are not acting morally.

it's like Goldman Sachs touting MBS (mortgage backed securities) to their clients while not taking positions in these because they may have known what they were doing. the person that called me clueless may not see a problem with this, he/she may see this as brilliant.

i see it as morally bankrupt, and Buffet, ignoring his ignorance of debt burdens and dollar devaluation, is taking this approach.

if you don't see this, well, just agree to disagree w/me.

dirknb@hotmail.com
08-22-2008, 11:40 AM
I haven't seen it yet, but Bryan your review of it is just how I've been expecting it to be. If you go to the companion guide on the official website it doesn't even mention the Fed.

Conza88
08-22-2008, 11:55 AM
I.O.U.S.A., I Want a Refund (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022449.html)
Posted by Lew Rockwell at August 22, 2008 10:44 AM

Writes Stephen Fairfax: "The film was billed as inspired by Empire of Debt, but it is an extraordinarily poor and biased rendering of a very good book. While Bonner and Wiggins provided a thoughtful and entertaining exposition of the entire problem of excessive debt and credit, the movie focussed entirely on government debt. Watching it, one would not know the private sector exists at all. The only significant examples were an American scrapyard contrasted with a new Chinese compact fluorescent lamp factory.

"Before the movie started, a debt clock marked the ever-increasing $55 trillion debt figure calculated by Mr. Walker. But the first 3/4 of the movie focused almost exclusively on the on-budget federal debt and the ratio of national debt to GDP. Why a ratio of two politically rigged and entirely suspect numbers is a useful indication of anything was never discussed. There was some heavy-handed posturing about Clinton and the 'surplus.'

"I checked the index of the book; gold was cited 23 times, government debt 19, David Walker only once. The movie offered a hagiography of Mr. Walker, complete fixation on government debt, and no meaningful mention of gold. The highlight was a brief snippet of Jon Stewart using a few deft questions and his keen insight to force Alan Greenspan to admit that his policy of low interest rates favored Wall Street and hurt savers. Even that was largely muted by the decision to show Mr. Greenspan denying that Fed decisions can influence markets, placed several minutes later where the lie was considerably less obvious.

"The book offered several options for dealing with the debt; the movie had only one: more government. The post-movie 'town hall' was as silly and even worse than I feared. It took only a few minutes before new taxes were proposed under the guise of "forced savings." More than once, the worthies on the stage opined that if several of them were to huddle, they could solve this problem. Of course, their solutions invariably included taking more money from one or another out of favor group. Once again, even so much as the possibility of market solutions was never acknowledged, let alone discussed.

"The notion that government is the source of this problem and unlikely to be the solution was never raised. The book made this point clear, the movie carefully ignored it. The movie focussed exclusively on the problems of paying this government debt; the book explored other, more realistic options, such as repudiation and inflation. The book explored the enormous malinvestments, misallocation of resources, folly, and harm caused by the same policies that allow such a monstrous pyramid of debt and credit to be created in the first place. The movie studiously ignored any mention of the harm these policies have caused to civil society."

Bryan
08-22-2008, 01:20 PM
One point on Warren Buffet - in his question about "China dumping USA dollars" - he actually completely missed the main pointed of his own "Squanderville vs. Thriftville" cartoon that was featured in the movie. In his response, Warren just noted that foreign debt would remain constant regardless if China sold debt to the French-- but the key point of what is happening and what happened to "Squanderville " is that all of Squanderville soon became owned by Thriftville. We're seeing this now-- foreigners are less interested in our debt, they want ownership of our hard assets such as our public road ways, which we are happily giving them with long term leases so they can set up very profitable toll roads.

I really almost became ill when he talked about "people would get in a bidding war to pay more taxes to be in the U.S. vs. paying no taxes to live in Bangladesh". This of course resonates with most Americans since they don't understand the Western cooperate domination that guts the heart out of such lands via corrupt IMF deals and the like which then allow the windfalls to be sent back to the West.



this, i would note, is the entire and only intent of the movie.
Perhaps, but the tone still did reinforce the collectivist status quo. The piece above on LewRockwell of course did a better job of articulating this then me.



So I guess it's a waste of time for me to see?
No, go see it.

Conza88
08-22-2008, 09:06 PM
Perhaps, but the tone still did reinforce the collectivist status quo. The piece above on LewRockwell of course did a better job of articulating this then me.

He has had 10 months of waiting & self proclaimed, "research" on it... whatever that means. Cognitive dissonance runs high when you have so much time invested in it.

Movie: Save the State (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022453.html)

Writes Keith Mercer: "I just read the posts about IOUSA. I am quite familiar with Bonner and Wiggins work and went to see the film because they were involved. I was quite disappointed, not so much surprised, but disappointed.

"It started out OK with an amusing clip with Steve Martin.

"There was also an unintentionally amusing part later. They portrayed Bill Clinton as an heroic, paragon of fiscal responsibility, which caused a significant portion of the theater to literally laugh out loud.

"The theme for the movie can be summed up in one section. We are told that Eisenhower forced the British to leave the Suez Canal by threatening to trash their currency. The British had to comply because they were dependent on us to finance their debt. Then we were told in an ominous tone, that many historians consider that moment to be the end of the British empire.

"The message of the movie is clear. The state is in trouble and it is time for all good Americans to come to its aid by paying more taxes and saving more money, by force if need be.

"We were shown clips from the 40's of various celebrities encouraging Americans to buy bonds. We were told that our parents and grandparents faced similar crisis and pulled together to pay higher taxes and buy govt. bonds.

"In case anyone missed it, the point was driven home several times during the panel discussion, which was worse than the movie. We were told repeatedly by Buffett that we don't pay enough taxes. And the idea of forced savings was received warmly.

"When the event was over, my impression was that they are all statists and they are all in a panic because the state is in trouble and they want us to save it."