Yes Voters to Lisbon, Do you want this to happen to your currency?

Diogenes · 15-07-2008 2:24pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so this whole recession thing then, Just something made up by the CT'ers?

We've had two global recessions in my lifetime, and about four or five this century. Does this mean we should abandon our entire global economic system?

so what would you do, oh yeah you'd sell us all into debt to the IMF.

Again, absolutely no idea what you are on about.

only in the last few generations have people decided they 'need' vets or mechanics,

Yeah and it's only in the last few generations have we had the same quality of life and a life expectancy above 50 for most people. Infant mortality has taken a steep dive in the same period, you see that thing you're reading this on? Didn't have that a generation ago.

So apparently we didn't need any of the above either.

where I come from ( A FARM) we dealt with our own Lambs and Calves, and fixed our own machinery,

And how exactly are you planning on teaching everyone your communities McGuvyer like ability?

as for chemists, well I think we'd be somewhat better off without their 'assistance' but thats a topic for another thread

Next time you need antibotics be sure to remember not to take them.

So huge government bodies to regulate every part of life then, thats your suggestion, who pays for it all? with what?

Missing the point again. Mahatma you've claimed that we'd all be better off growing our own food. I've asked you how would you receive medical attention in such a world? You've, once again, prevaricated and danced around the, frankly massive problem, in your ideal world.

So Mahatma quit avoiding the question and answer the point.

free-man · 17-07-2008 12:27am

Antithetic wrote: »

Free-man, you're welcome for my attempts to explain in simple terms. I'm glad you're acceptant that economics isn't your thing and that you're willing to listen to both sides of the argument.

On the other hand:
is indicative of what I'm concluding Mahatma coat is about. He's driven not in the pursuit of truth, but in the pursuit of a conspiracy.

Ok, a couple of points..

First lets clear up Mahatma. This guy embodies the term 'conspiracy theorist' in its classic sense. His arguments are void of logic and as you rightly suggest he does not want to listen.

I would propose this board moves to restrict the postings of these theorists as they are not helping anyone get any clarity on crucial world issues and are lowering credibility for anyone who has legitimate questions. The opposite of a conspiracy theorist should be a 'conspiracy debator' who asks logical sensible questions and listens to reason if the answers are reasonable.

Now..Antithetic

You've not addressed any of the points raised in my last post but seemed to have brushed over them as if I now 100% agree with you.

From doing a little more research (please no Youtube jokes) I've just been watching this video where respected Investor Jim Rogers comments on the federal reserve and how it should be abolished. The man seems to be speaking the truth and has clearly riled the interviewers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTXEWh2yT_g

Now, back to one of my points above, we say the EU is well run and this would never happen 'our' currency as we have the European Central Bank in place to curb inflation etc. Jim Rogers agrees.

I would assume I am not alone in my growing distrust for the EU (there I said it!) Therefore I am wary of a situation whereby If Lisbon or similar future treaty is passed with even more centralised control what is to stop poor policy makers getting into positions of power in the ECB where a similar situation could occur? What (if anything) could member states control?

Time Magazine · 17-07-2008 9:10pm

free-man wrote: »

You've not addressed any of the points raised in my last post but seemed to have brushed over them as if I now 100% agree with you.

Sorry, I had put a lot of time into answer MC's posts and was just gunning for him at that stage.

From doing a little more research (please no Youtube jokes) I've just been watching this video where respected Investor Jim Rogers comments on the federal reserve and how it should be abolished. The man seems to be speaking the truth and has clearly riled the interviewers.

Now, back to one of my points above, we say the EU is well run and this would never happen 'our' currency as we have the European Central Bank in place to curb inflation etc. Jim Rogers agrees.

I would assume I am not alone in my growing distrust for the EU (there I said it!) Therefore I am wary of a situation whereby If Lisbon or similar future treaty is passed with even more centralised control what is to stop poor policy makers getting into positions of power in the ECB where a similar situation could occur? What (if anything) could member states control

It's interesting that people simultaneously complain about the centralisation but also the dispersion of power. You "are wary" of centralisation of ECB but also complain that the Fed is independent. What's it gonna be?

You are right to have concern about poor policymakers gaining power over the ECB. I think the ECB should be an entirely independent authority of economists, devoid of political influence. Why? Because that lowers inflation.

The Fed could do with reform, for sure. In fact it's reviewing its own practices. Of course I'm aware how stupid it would be to simply have a committee elect themselves in control of the money supply. I'd much rather a judicial-style system where they're government-appointed and then given independence. But that's what the Fed is. It's presidentially-appointed and governed by statute. It's an awful lot like the Irish Medical Council, or Dental Council, or Veterinary Council, or any other institution similar in purpose: government-appointees and interested party-appointees.

Oh and your YouTube man's not an economist. He's wrong about the ability of interest rates to combat recession. The Fed are not "just printing money". He's just, well, wrong. You may have noticed that a lot of Irish people are going to New York because of the exchange rates. This "collapsing currency" he's scare-mongering about is attracting foreign money. He's wrong that you can't prevent a recession with monetary policy. I'm far more concerned about unemployment than short-term inflation. And I doubt you're arguing you want the market to regulate itself do you? He makes that point after nine minutes and is the opposite of what you seem to be advocating.

Flamed Diving · 18-07-2008 9:29pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So Ipods are better than food then?

The concerns of a family in 1908 was whether they could put bread on the table. The concerns of a family in 2008 is whether the shop will have that organic, Viennosserie wholegrain bread they are so fond of lest the family must settle for - yuck! - store brand sliced bread.

Mahatma coat · 19-07-2008 6:54am

Flamed Diving wrote: »

The concerns of a family in 1908 was whether they could put bread on the table. The concerns of a family in 2008 is whether the shop will have that organic, Viennosserie wholegrain bread they are so fond of lest the family must settle for - yuck! - store brand sliced bread.

I think that sums up what the problem is going to be this time round as regards recessions..

Free man, as I said previously don't expect them to answer your questions,

These guys argue from the POV Of I'm right, I spent years studying this, its too complicated for you, you wouldn't understand anyway, no I cant simplify this for you.

which if you were to argue from that position on something else here in the Forum you would be decried as another delusional Truther unable to back up his claims.

oh and don't forget the little jibes and personal attacks they will lob in just in case anyone else reading the thread gets the idea of joining in.

but yeah, don't expect an answer to your questions

oscarBravo · 19-07-2008 12:28pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

These guys argue from the POV Of I'm right, I spent years studying this, its too complicated for you, you wouldn't understand anyway, no I cant simplify this for you.

As opposed to arguing from the POV of "I don't understand any of this, so it must be a NWO conspiracy"?

Flamed Diving · 20-07-2008 1:07pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I think that sums up what the problem is going to be this time round as regards recessions.

Expand.

bonkey · 21-07-2008 9:51pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

These guys argue from the POV Of I'm right, I spent years studying this, its too complicated for you, you wouldn't understand anyway, no I cant simplify this for you.

Funny...what I see is something different.

I see: I've researched this for years, and understand why your position is wrong. I've tried to explain it to you, but you're missing the fundamental basics in which to frame that explanation, which is why you don't accept my explanation. You need to learn more to understand why you're wrong.

To be honest, I don't think that's unreasonable.

Rather, I think its unreasonable to fundamentally mistrust something that you don't understand, simply on the grounds that you don't understand it. I think Its unreasonable to mistrust those who are educated in a field that you don't understand, simply because they are educated in it.

If they try and explain to you why you're wrong, and tell you that its because you don't have the necessary basis on which to understand even that explanation, then you should seriously consider just how much you understand.

And here's the real kicker....if you really believe you're right....why not go and learn the stuff they tell you that you don't understand? Wouldn't it be worth it to be able to argue your world-changing perspective on a more level footing...to be able to say "excuse ****ing me, but yes I do understand your argument, and here's why I disagree with it".

Is there some fear that learning what they say you need to learn will somehow brain-wash you?

oh and don't forget the little jibes and personal attacks they will lob in just in case anyone else reading the thread gets the idea of joining in.

THat would be a jibe.

but yeah, don't expect an answer to your questions

That would be another one.

Why are you trying to argue that jibes at others are unreasonable, when thats what you're doing by making that argument?

Flamed Diving · 21-07-2008 9:56pm

Its just a typical conpiracy theorist strategy. When people begin to rebut their claims with their superior knowledge of the topic at hand, CT's throw a strop and claim to be some misunderstood victim. I have seen it dozens of times before. Anything but actually picking up a textbook and working hard for years, like the rest of us have to in order to become experts in a subject. Its total laziness.

Mahatma coat · 24-07-2008 1:27pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

As opposed to arguing from the POV of "I don't understand any of this, so it must be a NWO conspiracy"?

well, this is the Conspiracy forum

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Expand.

services/tertiary industry economies , bigger they are the harder the fall

bonkey wrote: »

Funny...what I see is something different.

I see: I've researched this for years, and understand why your position is wrong. I've tried to explain it to you, but you're missing the fundamental basics in which to frame that explanation, which is why you don't accept my explanation. You need to learn more to understand why you're wrong.

To be honest, I don't think that's unreasonable.

if they're that fundamental and basic we wouldnt be discussing them at the moment would we?

Rather, I think its unreasonable to fundamentally mistrust something that you don't understand, simply on the grounds that you don't understand it. I think Its unreasonable to mistrust those who are educated in a field that you don't understand, simply because they are educated in it.

see thats not what I'm sayin at all, what I have been tryin to say here is, the more I look at these youtubes, and the more stuff I read, the more you actualy try to sit back and objectivley examine the beast the more subversive the entire thing seems,

If they try and explain to you why you're wrong, and tell you that its because you don't have the necessary basis on which to understand even that explanation, then you should seriously consider just how much you understand.

who has done that here tho, it just keeps goin

And here's the real kicker....if you really believe you're right....why not go and learn the stuff they tell you that you don't understand? Wouldn't it be worth it to be able to argue your world-changing perspective on a more level footing...to be able to say "excuse ****ing me, but yes I do understand your argument, and here's why I disagree with it".

Is there some fear that learning what they say you need to learn will somehow brain-wash you?

I dunno, maybe because I only asked a few simple questions that pop up here and there in the Youtube stuff, and anyway anything I brought out to support my position would just be shot down by someone saying, but he's not an economist/expert, don't listen to him, I'm the expert just trust what I say.......

THat would be a jibe.

That would be another one.

Why are you trying to argue that jibes at others are unreasonable, when thats what you're doing by making that argument?

no, a jibe would be if it had been directed maliciously at another poster.

thats more of an observation

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Its just a typical conpiracy theorist strategy. When people begin to rebut their claims with their superior knowledge of the topic at hand, CT's throw a strop and claim to be some misunderstood victim. I have seen it dozens of times before. Anything but actually picking up a textbook and working hard for years, like the rest of us have to in order to become experts in a subject. Its total laziness.

bonkey · 24-07-2008 9:59pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

if they're that fundamental and basic we wouldnt be discussing them at the moment would we?

I guess that depends on how you understand the terms.

For example, I recall when Son Goku got involved in the Creationist thread. He tried to dumb down the fundamental, basic concepts behind stuff like Quantum Field Theory, and you know what....while they may be fundamental and basic from the frame of reference of a Quantum physicist, they're about one step short of voodoo for the average, relatively well-educated layperson with an interest in science.

Economics may not be quite as voodooish as QFT, but that doesn't mean that "basic" or "fundamental" in that frame of reference equate to "easy to learn and understand".

see thats not what I'm sayin at all, what I have been tryin to say here is, the more I look at these youtubes, and the more stuff I read, the more you actualy try to sit back and objectivley examine the beast the more subversive the entire thing seems,

With respect, I'd suggest that this is probably due to your choice of material that you're watching/reading...especially given that despite having watched and read as much as you claim, you still don't seem to be able to do what I suggested, and take hte stance of "excuse ****ing me, but yes I do understand those fundamentals, and here's my problem within that frame of reference".

Again, referring back to "hard" physics, it strikes me a bit like people who've read a bit and watched some youtubery about the handful of commentaries about how the LHC in CERN might create a black hole which will destroy the world....and somehow think that this is a substitute for years of scientific learning and the ability to understand the scientific arguments as to why such claims are bordering on lunacy. Sure...they read and watch loads, and they get convinced that there's something really dodgy going on...but you know what...when push comes to shove, they still don't understand what's going on at all, despite being convinced that its dodgy. When confronted with the reality that they don't understand the science...well...I'm sure you can see where this is going.

I dunno, maybe because I only asked a few simple questions that pop up here and there in the Youtube stuff,

Simple questions do not necessarily equate to simple answers. When they don't, then any simplified answer will be incomplete.

For example...

"What causes cancer" is a simple question. There is no simple answer, unless you simplify down to the point of not actually answering the question.

no, a jibe would be if it had been directed maliciously at another poster.

So if I say that "conspiracy theorists are lunatics", thats not a jibe, because its not specifically directed at another poster, but rather a generalisation like you offered with your use of the word "they" rather than naming individual posters?

thats more of an observation

You complained about (unnamed) people making jibes to discourage others from joining in.

You then followed it up with a comment telling people not to expect their questions to be answered (which is obviously discouraging against asking said questions, suggesting its pointless).

I think you're offering a textbook example of the very thing you complained about, literally in the same breath. It doesn't matter that you've turned your criticism into a generality...you're still doing exactly what you're complaining about.

If you want to see your actions as a observation rather than a jibe, because you generalised, then I'd suggest that you're engaging in sophistry.

Or do you somehow see your warning that questions won't be answered as an encouragement to ask them?

And lets not forget this recent gem of yours, taken from a newly-started thread, before anyone said anything....

No doubt he was a Crazy Loonie with anti semetic tendencies, or so someone will come along and claim shortly

Where do you get the gall to complain about people making jibes, and discouraging others to post, while making comments like that on a newly-started thread?

Yes Voters to Lisbon, Do you want this to happen to your currency?

Comments