I thought you were too tired to argue.
What I think he means is that change is required for progress. If a nation stagnates it has no where to go and will not progress, revolutions, revolts and sometimes violence lead to changes in power and progress while stability will maintain the same powers, good or bad.Macbeth wrote:
What kind of dumb ass response is this? I'm talking about the link between economic growth and stability and you want to discuss some Darwinian concept of progress.Jay wrote:
Stability leads to stagnation but whatever, I'm too tired to argue with people tonight.
Oh yeah, stability is so bad for a country's economy, the African states are going to be the biggest economies in a few years and the politically stable for the last 70 years European countries are going to go stagnant. Stability sucks so bad.
Last edited by specops10-4 (2012-04-15 20:12:05)
I am, I'm going to bed now.Macbeth wrote:
I thought you were too tired to argue.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Like I said it's really dumb outlook. Instability, social or economic isn't good for economic growth or productivity. It sounds wonderful and totally makes sense since you know survival of the fittest and evolution and all, but there isn't an economist in the world who would argue that instability of any sort is good for economic progress and growth. This isn't up for debate. It's a agreed upon fact in multiple fields of economic, social, and political studies.specops10-4 wrote:
What I think he means is that change is required for progress. If a nation stagnates it has no where to go and will not progress, revolutions, revolts and violence lead to changes in power and sometimes progress while stability will maintain the same powers, good or bad.Macbeth wrote:
What kind of dumb ass response is this? I'm talking about the link between economic growth and stability and you want to discuss some Darwinian concept of progress.Jay wrote:
Stability leads to stagnation but whatever, I'm too tired to argue with people tonight.
Oh yeah, stability is so bad for a country's economy, the African states are going to be the biggest economies in a few years and the politically stable for the last 70 years European countries are going to go stagnant. Stability sucks so bad.
Ok you're right, you're opinion is gods knowledge, I will just bow my head and agree with you.Macbeth wrote:
Like I said it's really dumb outlook. Instability, social or economic isn't good for economic growth or productivity. It sounds wonderful and totally makes sense since you know survival of the fittest and evolution and all, but there isn't an economist in the world who would argue that instability of any sort is good for economic progress and growth. This isn't up for debate. It's a agreed upon fact in multiple fields of economic, social, and political studies.specops10-4 wrote:
What I think he means is that change is required for progress. If a nation stagnates it has no where to go and will not progress, revolutions, revolts and violence lead to changes in power and sometimes progress while stability will maintain the same powers, good or bad.Macbeth wrote:
What kind of dumb ass response is this? I'm talking about the link between economic growth and stability and you want to discuss some Darwinian concept of progress.
Oh yeah, stability is so bad for a country's economy, the African states are going to be the biggest economies in a few years and the politically stable for the last 70 years European countries are going to go stagnant. Stability sucks so bad.
Economists want stability because hey, its better for them, they make more money hooray! Whats good for economists is not necessarily good for society. Look at our recent economic collapse, the housing market loved the fact they could practically get away with fraud, they made shit loads of money, and look how that turned out.
Look beyond the 'professionals' of the world and make some decisions for yourself using your own mind ya tool.
Of course most of them prefer stability. They can't model chaos. It would be their wet dream if there were only two types of car sold and a known z-factor. They stare at numbers all day, free will is simply inconvenient and surprises are unwelcome guests.
Unless, of course, you buy into the Austrian School of economics as I do. Then you recognize that chaos always wins in the end no matter how many rules and laws you write.
Unless, of course, you buy into the Austrian School of economics as I do. Then you recognize that chaos always wins in the end no matter how many rules and laws you write.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You said you were going to bed.Jay wrote:
Of course most of them prefer stability. They can't model chaos. It would be their wet dream if there were only two types of car sold and a known z-factor. They stare at numbers all day, free will is simply inconvenient and surprises are unwelcome guests.
Unless, of course, you buy into the Austrian School of economics as I do. Then you recognize that chaos always wins in the end no matter how many rules and laws you write.
Respond to his fucking comment.Macbeth wrote:
You said you were going to bed.Jay wrote:
Of course most of them prefer stability. They can't model chaos. It would be their wet dream if there were only two types of car sold and a known z-factor. They stare at numbers all day, free will is simply inconvenient and surprises are unwelcome guests.
Unless, of course, you buy into the Austrian School of economics as I do. Then you recognize that chaos always wins in the end no matter how many rules and laws you write.
If you were here more often you would know he doesn't know jack shit about anything he ever post about and is mostly a waste of time even bothering to talk to. Hell, this one time he made a thread about a 19th century German philosopher's influences on modern politics after a book he was reading briefly mentioned the philosopher. He looks smart if you didn't know he is just name dropping and spewing terms. Trust me, don't bother with that guy.specops10-4 wrote:
Respond to his fucking comment.Macbeth wrote:
You said you were going to bed.Jay wrote:
Of course most of them prefer stability. They can't model chaos. It would be their wet dream if there were only two types of car sold and a known z-factor. They stare at numbers all day, free will is simply inconvenient and surprises are unwelcome guests.
Unless, of course, you buy into the Austrian School of economics as I do. Then you recognize that chaos always wins in the end no matter how many rules and laws you write.
That might be so, however he made some good points. Economists hate chaos so they make stability seem preferable, the theory makes perfect sense.Macbeth wrote:
If you were here more often you would know he doesn't know jack shit about anything he ever post about and is mostly a waste of time even bothering to talk to. Hell, this one time he made a thread about a 19th century German philosopher's influences on modern politics after a book he was reading briefly mentioned the philosopher. He looks smart if you didn't know he is just name dropping and spewing terms. Trust me, don't bother with that guy.specops10-4 wrote:
Respond to his fucking comment.Macbeth wrote:
You said you were going to bed.
And Macbeth is a misanthropic wannabe fascist that becomes confused and angry when presented with opinions and ideas that differ from what his professors teach him in class.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
If you think that instability is a good thing for a country take a look at the middle east, Africa, and South America. Compare their GDP, PPP, and HDI against the politically stable "Western" countries like France, U.K., U.S., Germany. Economist didn't get upset that they couldn't "model chaos" (no idea what this even means but that is Jay for you). They came up with this conclusion after looking at the history and economic realities of states across the world. I'll say it again, compare the stable West to the unstable middle east and africa.specops10-4 wrote:
That might be so, however he made some good points. Economists hate chaos so they make stability seem preferable, the theory makes perfect sense.Macbeth wrote:
If you were here more often you would know he doesn't know jack shit about anything he ever post about and is mostly a waste of time even bothering to talk to. Hell, this one time he made a thread about a 19th century German philosopher's influences on modern politics after a book he was reading briefly mentioned the philosopher. He looks smart if you didn't know he is just name dropping and spewing terms. Trust me, don't bother with that guy.specops10-4 wrote:
Respond to his fucking comment.
lolJay wrote:
War isn't the only form of chaos. Chaos occurs every day in billions of transactions between individuals. The only form of non-chaos is that which is imposed by others on the system in the form of rules and regulations. It's akin to the difference between an unlined sketch pad and a coloring book. With the sketch pad the only real limits are the size of the paper and your imagination. With a paint by numbers coloring book, you're given much stricter parameters.Macbeth wrote:
The only progress chaos produces is in the field of killing people.Jay wrote:
Stability leads to stagnation but whatever, I'm too tired to argue with people tonight.
Hey, you know you don't have to argue with me right now. You can leave a post here and it will still be here tomorrow. The wonders of technology.
New industries are like the sketch book. Crony capitalism hasn't reared its ugly head yet, regulations are lax or non-existent, and the players involved are free to take pretty much any path they can. Once the industry becomes established, they buy politicians, create a bunch of rules and put up high barriers to entry for any new players. They create artificial stability and a steady revenue stream, but the consumer suffers for it. Economic stability only benefits the established players in a given society.
I prefer innovation and an open environment to stagnation and stifling rules.
asleep for the last 60 years, regurgitating some book
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
hey jay if you love chaos so much that why don't you open an engineering firm in somalia or something? take advantage of all that chaos and instability. really surf the markets. make your fortune. be the empowered individual. resist the boring systems. instead all you can seem to talk about is how you are hobnobbing with the rich and wealthy "since age 8" and how you're slowly making plans to climb the corporate-bureaucratic ladder to your own little slice of domestic american middle-class suburbia. doesn't sound very chaotic and initiative-led to me. sounds like some dude quoting cynical-hipsterite pseudo-libertarian / anarchist-syndicalist crap that he read in a book sometime.
Last edited by Uzique (2012-04-15 20:55:12)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Instability is not necissarily a good thing, especially when the instability is not for a just cause like many of the countries you listed. But think of the situations where it HAS been beneficial, Revolutionary war, maybe the French revolution, the Civil war, possibly even the Vietnam War etc. Without these conflicts, no matter how brutal they may have been, they brought our nation out of our shell, much like puberty or some shit. Nations need to evolve to keep themselves from being outdated, and conflict is one aspect that induces rapid evolution.Macbeth wrote:
If you think that instability is a good thing for a country take a look at the middle east, Africa, and South America. Compare their GDP, PPP, and HDI against the politically stable "Western" countries like France, U.K., U.S., Germany. Economist didn't get upset that they couldn't "model chaos" (no idea what this even means but that is Jay for you). They came up with this conclusion after looking at the history and economic realities of states across the world. I'll say it again, compare the stable West to the unstable middle east and africa.specops10-4 wrote:
That might be so, however he made some good points. Economists hate chaos so they make stability seem preferable, the theory makes perfect sense.Macbeth wrote:
If you were here more often you would know he doesn't know jack shit about anything he ever post about and is mostly a waste of time even bothering to talk to. Hell, this one time he made a thread about a 19th century German philosopher's influences on modern politics after a book he was reading briefly mentioned the philosopher. He looks smart if you didn't know he is just name dropping and spewing terms. Trust me, don't bother with that guy.
The whole point of term limits and democracy is based upon this idea, the nation chooses a new power based upon the needs of the public instead of keeping a constant power that dominates the land without question.
the point that we are at is in recognizing the limitations of rational systems to achieve our goals/utopias. we no longer believe in (self-regulating) rational free-markets and the optimism of early 20th century economical thought. instead we take account of the irrational and plan for chaos and contingency. but jay is extending that sort of market behavior to society as a whole. making it sound as if he wants to live in some post-randian paradise.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
The French Revolution and American Revolution didn't produce economic growth. That's what I am arguing against. I'm guessing you are conceding the point about economics and want to shift the conversation into the social realm? I won't argue that sometimes good things come from instability like the French revolution but my point is : unstable markets don't grow. If you want social change than sure instability is great. If you want to have a good job, no it isn't.specops10-4 wrote:
Instability is not necissarily a good thing, especially when the instability is not for a just cause like many of the countries you listed. But think of the situations where it HAS been beneficial, Revolutionary war, maybe the French revolution, the Civil war, possibly even the Vietnam War etc. Without these conflicts, no matter how brutal they may have been, they brought our nation out of our shell, much like puberty or some shit. Nations need to evolve to keep themselves from being outdated, and conflict is one aspect that induces rapid evolution.Macbeth wrote:
If you think that instability is a good thing for a country take a look at the middle east, Africa, and South America. Compare their GDP, PPP, and HDI against the politically stable "Western" countries like France, U.K., U.S., Germany. Economist didn't get upset that they couldn't "model chaos" (no idea what this even means but that is Jay for you). They came up with this conclusion after looking at the history and economic realities of states across the world. I'll say it again, compare the stable West to the unstable middle east and africa.specops10-4 wrote:
That might be so, however he made some good points. Economists hate chaos so they make stability seem preferable, the theory makes perfect sense.
The whole point of term limits and democracy is based upon this idea, the nation chooses a new power based upon the needs of the public instead of keeping a constant power that dominates the land without question.
Social change can lead to economic change, in fact it often does. A happy society leads to a prosperous society, an unhappy society may be able to create short bursts of productivity with eventual collapse while a society happy will prolong its productivity and generate growth as long as they remain happy.Macbeth wrote:
The French Revolution and American Revolution didn't produce economic growth. That's what I am arguing against. I'm guessing you are conceding the point about economics and want to shift the conversation into the social realm? I won't argue that sometimes good things come from instability like the French revolution but my point is : unstable markets don't grow. If you want social change than sure instability is great. If you want to have a good job, no it isn't.specops10-4 wrote:
Instability is not necissarily a good thing, especially when the instability is not for a just cause like many of the countries you listed. But think of the situations where it HAS been beneficial, Revolutionary war, maybe the French revolution, the Civil war, possibly even the Vietnam War etc. Without these conflicts, no matter how brutal they may have been, they brought our nation out of our shell, much like puberty or some shit. Nations need to evolve to keep themselves from being outdated, and conflict is one aspect that induces rapid evolution.Macbeth wrote:
If you think that instability is a good thing for a country take a look at the middle east, Africa, and South America. Compare their GDP, PPP, and HDI against the politically stable "Western" countries like France, U.K., U.S., Germany. Economist didn't get upset that they couldn't "model chaos" (no idea what this even means but that is Jay for you). They came up with this conclusion after looking at the history and economic realities of states across the world. I'll say it again, compare the stable West to the unstable middle east and africa.
The whole point of term limits and democracy is based upon this idea, the nation chooses a new power based upon the needs of the public instead of keeping a constant power that dominates the land without question.
Last edited by specops10-4 (2012-04-15 21:07:25)
Once again Jay's 'unpossible' argument is rendered null.rdx-fx wrote:
HVDC transmission. 7-10% loss per 1500 miles, IIRC.Jay wrote:
Groovy, except that Yellowstone is in the middle of nowhere. Who are you going to sell power to? Montana sheep herders? Yes, it's essentially free energy, but the transmission losses would be so high that you'd probably have to overbuild by a factor of five.
plenty of sheep farmers within 1500 miles
There are many other strategies which could be employed to make use of a resource like that.
lol OK, you want to have this discussion again?Unless, of course, you buy into the Austrian School of economics as I do. Then you recognize that chaos always wins in the end no matter how many rules and laws you write.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-04-16 01:13:21)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!