People who advocate economic policies who don't know anything about economics

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Gooch_Goblin69, May 15, 2010.

  1. Just fucking stop. You look like idiots.
  2. Just fucking stop because you're unwittingly destroying the world.
  3. Its so common place because the economic policies in place were designed to be damn near impossible to really get a grip on without being the one who made them or atleast 'in the know'. I.E. credit defalt swaps, mortgage backed security, stimulas package. Its like a different language that people get swept up in by the media machine and end up spouting the very policy that will be there downfall or vise versa.

    Not to mention that people are actually starting to blame capitalism for our economic downturn.

    I bet weve all been in a position where our stance in relation to our actual understanding of an issue made us look like an idiot which is probably one of the driving forces that led us to understand these issues more thoroughly. lol
  4. This is the same problem that I have w/ music acts taking on political issues, like the beastie boys, or green day or kanye west.

    None of those people know shit about politics. And that's not why they were given a public voice.

    I think it's shady to get famous singing songs about masturbation, then all of a sudden you're a fucking political commentator.

  5. On a similar note, people who don't know anything about evolution need to shut the fuck up and stop preaching about science - especially to children, who don't know any better.

    It'd also be nice if people who knew nothing about computers didn't open their mouths and make themselves look like idiots in discussions about computers.

    Verily, those who know nothing about the construction and decoration of houses should not even attempt to lay down a design for their future homes, lest they look like simpletons for creating absurd blueprints for houses that will be ugly and inadequetely decorative.

    Furthermore, those individuals who dare to talk about Doctor Who in a condescending manner and yet have not watched at least 8 episodes starring each individual Doctor in his prime should hush their foolish mouths and not dribble crap about it.

    And those assorted artisty types and girls who hate on football without even knowing the rules to an adequete degree as dictated by the Handbook... no price is too great to pay for their ignorance. Perhaps even death is too good for such bastards.

  6. Fuck Yeah! I'm smart. Your stupid. RTFM on economics you idiots! And when your done reading it, you'll still be an idiot cause I'll disagree with your every opinion. Why? Because it's more fun to disagree with people. It make me feel soooooo intelligent, and special.:wave:
  7. Question to you all-knowing economists:

    Is the human economy a fabrication? As in, do we create the economy or does the economy create us?

  8. Capitalism = not an invented system.

    When adam smith wrote the wealth of nations he was just writing down what people were doing.

    Economics = a social science

    so yes the wealth in the econonmy is human created. You understand how "wealth" is created yes?(hint: not the Federal Reserve printing money)
  9. its the economy, stupid

  10. #10 Gooch_Goblin69, May 16, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2010

    I see the comparison your trying to make but if you were talking to a doctor would you diagree when they say "Inhaling gasoliene is bad for you"? Nuh huh gasoliene is good for me it makes me feel good so it must be good!

    It's fine to be skeptical and question in a attempt to understand(and ultimately evaluate and judge) as in the doctor case but to pretend you know or when you have no idea is foolish. and to come into a said disscussion thinking your ideas are always right and there nothing that can change that is stupid too. You should always listen to peoples ideas, evaluate the idea, then judge it for yourself. The trick though is not to let people TELL you what to think.
  11. I do believe he was talking about a tv show not making a comparison with an actual doctor. :laughing:
  12. No he was trying to agruing that it was fine for people who have no understanding of econmics to talk about it. Yeah talk about it not agure a position like you know what your talking about.
  13. I understand that but the comparison you made in retrospect to his was off, I'm sorry totally derailing your thread for no reason apparently.:smoking:

  14. I don't think that's what I'm talking about.

    I mean the shit that gets reported to us. NYSE, NASDAQ, etc. Is it possible that shit is manipulated or just all-out planned to redirect a person's spending habits or have an effect on the job market?
  15. Political opinions in general are a load of dumbassery and evil.

    "We should do this, and we should do that, and we should build this thing and use taxes for this and that and make X illegal and and and and..."

    How about, for once, put down your gun and quit telling other people what to do!
  16. Well, initially there was no 'point' I was trying to make, I was fucking around and constructing a bit of a joke. BUT, I now can see that I unwittingly raised a rather obvious point, or a few of them.

    In the Doctor Who scenario or the football scenario, how would YOU respond? I personally would say "I don't give a shit about football, I hate the sport, that's why I don't know nothing about it", to which they would presumably say "WELL DON'T HATE ON FOOTBALL THEN!"... to which I would say "I don't have to know all about it to know I don't like it. I don't like their stupid little shorts, I don't like the ridiculous cheering of the dumb crowds, I don't like the brutality of the tackles, I don't like all the pompous bullshit following the game." In other words, I just don't like it. Same applies to Doctor Who. Someone might not have an elaborate understanding of the 'historical context' of Doctor Who, and to a degree it makes sense not to critisise it unless you can appreciate and evaluate the full scope of the show. But, once again, many people don't need to watch a million billion episodes of it to know they don't like it - they just DON'T, for whatever reason.

    Many people feel the same about capitalism, or at least the gross manifestations of capitalism that we are used to seeing. They might not understand the ins and outs of how the gold standard works or the process by which banks lend money/collect interest, but they've seen a whole lotta pictures of starving Indians working in sweatshops while they see rich pigs rolling down the streets in their BMWs. They don't LIKE it, they hate this system and the men who are exploiting the system so cruelly. They might not understand an awful lot about economics, but their opinions aren't shaped by the books and documentaries - they're shaped by the experiences of the person and the significance they choose to attach to those experiences. Yes, it'd be better if they flicked open a book, but they haven't just formed their opinion for the hell of it - there's always a reason, you dig?

    Furthermore, at what point does one become 'qualified' to talk about economics? I'm big on evolutionary biology, I can safely say that I absolutely understand Darwins theory etc. But WHY, at what point did I not know enough to lecture people? As a 'scholar' of such things, I would lay down the following standard of qualification - you must absolutely understand how natural selection works, understand that evolution by natural selection is a NON-RANDOM PROCESS, understand how speciation works, understand at least some of the genetic theory of inheritance, and understand how fossils are formed. Until you understand all of that, you're not 'qualified' to talk authoratively about evolution. Does that mean you shouldn't talk about evolution? No! But be humble and make it clear that you don't entirely understand it yet.

    You can see what I'm getting at. At what point does someone 'get' economics? What do they have to understand? Supply and demand, the job market, how state monopolies are formed, how the banks operate? But wait! This leaves out Marxist economics! Surely we should have to have an equal understanding of Marxist economics, otherwise you're just as economically ignorant as the people you beride! So, from all of this, what do you need to know and what 'standard' or 'qualification' do you need to be able to meet to be able to 'advocate' an economic policy without looking like an idiot?
  17. Exactly: know what your talking about.

    If I'm gonna talk about evolution, I learn about evolution first, so I know what da fuck I'm talkin 'bout.

    You also left out scarcity. Scarcity affects EVERYTHING.
  18. Jesus, I DID leave out scarcity... and you're damn right, scarcity is probably the biggest factor of all! If we had no scarcity, I dare say you wouldn't care if we were all socialists because no matter how much wealth is given away, there's no scarcity of resources and wealth and you've got as much as you need/want so you're not effected at all.

    And I'm rambling again... :p
  19. Scarccity is inescapable. People have limited needs and unlimited wants. You can provide what a person needs biolgocially to survive, but unless they are buddha or jesus or something they will want more and more.

    How is wealth created though? People have to produce something. Why would people work if they they will be taken care of if they don't work?

    Everything is scarce. Scarce is not the same as a shortage of a specific good.

  20. It's one thing to not understand economics and just talk about it and give your opinions and such, but 'the people' are supporting well-intended violent economic policies that in reality steal from the many only to benefit the wealthiest fuckers.

    Someone gets economics when they don't continue to repeat the mistakes of the past, such as giving control over the money supply to a handful of powerful bankers, or voting in the assholes that work for them.

    Depends on where its reported from. If its from any of the major media networks owned by super global conglomerates that have billions of dollars in the stock market and are publicly traded companies that rely on the health of the stock market, then of course they're going to paint a picture different from reality.

    And the government enabled them to get this powerful by insuring all the biggest gamblers in the casino.

Share This Page