Black Holes, Bachmann, and the space between her ears

[Dualta]

Michelle Bachmann vs "the Independent" Bernie Sanders

Bachmann is smart, that's for sure. She nails down a few soundbites and shouts down anyone who dares speak near her, knowing full well that a counter argument would put her in her place. Sanders is too decent. He should have told her to shut the f*ck up. Australia's economy is one of the best performing in the world, but that wouldn't fit into her right-wing fantastical narrative. She's loud and polished, but full of shit, just like yourself Scotty.

http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/newsbusin ... rld-report

[BigBallinStalin]

Do you see any unintended consequences in such a line of action?

If you know the consequences are going to happen, then they're not unintended.

How does that follow?

For example, I can place a bet on the future price of US bonds because I think their expansionary policy is going to drop interest rates by 1.5% and increase inflation by 2%. It doesn't follow that theses are the results intended by the Fed. They can simply expect to drop interest rates by 2% and increase inflation by 1%.


PS, I don't understand your question about public schooling. The rhetoric doesn't make it comprehensible (see "eliminated").

[Metsfanmax]

Do you see any unintended consequences in such a line of action?

If you know the consequences are going to happen, then they're not unintended.

How does that follow?

For example, I can place a bet on the future price of US bonds because I think their expansionary policy is going to drop interest rates by 1.5% and increase inflation by 2%. It doesn't follow that theses are the results intended by the Fed. They can simply expect to drop interest rates by 2% and increase inflation by 1%.

If that's what they expect, and something different happens, then it is unintended. If they expect otherwise, and they're just saying something different in public, then they're just lying and it's intended. But if you know a result will happen as a result of your action, then the consequence is not unintended. Saying that you didn't want the consequence to happen doesn't make it unintended.

PS, I don't understand your question about public schooling. The rhetoric doesn't make it comprehensible (see "eliminated").

You do understand it, you're just being difficult. I obviously don't mean that we should bulldoze all public schools tomorrow. Nothing in the word "eliminated" implies a time-scale. If you think there is any time-scale on and process by which we should eliminate public schooling, then you should answer "yes."

[BigBallinStalin]

RE: 1st part, ah, okay.

RE: 2nd part,
I don't like the rhetoric because it doesn't do my view any justice, and it fails to convey how well you understand my view. We need to use the right words; that's all.

So, sure, governments need not provide schools.

[Metsfanmax]

RE: 2nd part,
I don't like the rhetoric because it doesn't do my view any justice, and it fails to convey how well you understand my view. We need to use the right words; that's all.

So, sure, governments need not provide schools.

I was using the right word. Saying that, in theory, private schools could do better than public schools to educate children is not helpful, because even if that is your view it doesn't help inform policy. That level of achievement needs to be realizable within the constraints of our society. So, my question is not "do governments need to provide schools" but "should they continue to provide them?"

[BigBallinStalin]

RE: 2nd part,
I don't like the rhetoric because it doesn't do my view any justice, and it fails to convey how well you understand my view. We need to use the right words; that's all.

So, sure, governments need not provide schools.

I was using the right word. Saying that, in theory, private schools could do better than public schools to educate children is not helpful, because even if that is your view it doesn't help inform policy. That level of achievement needs to be realizable within the constraints of our society. So, my question is not "do governments need to provide schools" but "should they continue to provide them?"

No, they shouldn't provide them because government is not necessary for providing the optimal amount of schools. Markets are because that is what they tend to. Governments do not.

If you want governments to provide schools, then you need to indicate the optimal amount where marginal costs = marginal benefits. Otherwise, the pro-government stance becomes meaningless because it dodges the most important question: what is the optimal amount of schools? Answering, "should government do X?," misses this point.

Public policy should address optimality concerns and conduct comparative institutional research, but it doesn't. Their approach will largely ignore or fail to properly address the more important contentions because they'll rely on sophistry like imagined positive externalities while ignoring the costs and constraints of government subsidies and so on.

[Metsfanmax]

RE: 2nd part,
I don't like the rhetoric because it doesn't do my view any justice, and it fails to convey how well you understand my view. We need to use the right words; that's all.

So, sure, governments need not provide schools.

I was using the right word. Saying that, in theory, private schools could do better than public schools to educate children is not helpful, because even if that is your view it doesn't help inform policy. That level of achievement needs to be realizable within the constraints of our society. So, my question is not "do governments need to provide schools" but "should they continue to provide them?"

No, they shouldn't provide them because government is not necessary for providing the optimal amount of schools. Markets are because that is what they tend to. Governments do not.

If you want governments to provide schools, then you need to indicate the optimal amount where marginal costs = marginal benefits. Otherwise, the pro-government stance becomes meaningless because it dodges the most important question: what is the optimal amount of schools? Answering, "should government do X?," misses this point.

Public policy should address optimality concerns and conduct comparative institutional research, but it doesn't. Their approach will largely ignore or fail to properly address the more important contentions because they'll rely on sophistry like imagined positive externalities while ignoring the costs and constraints of government subsidies and so on.

The positive externalities are not imagined. The education of our nation as a whole is important for the competitiveness of our nation as a whole, and that's an aspect that 1) we can't ignore because economic boundaries between nations do exist and 2) we wouldn't anyway, because people want American schoolchildren to be well prepared compared to the rest of the world -- rightly or wrongly.

[BigBallinStalin]

In short, I would like government to stop eliminating people's capacities to serve one another.

[BigBallinStalin]

RE: 2nd part,
I don't like the rhetoric because it doesn't do my view any justice, and it fails to convey how well you understand my view. We need to use the right words; that's all.

So, sure, governments need not provide schools.

I was using the right word. Saying that, in theory, private schools could do better than public schools to educate children is not helpful, because even if that is your view it doesn't help inform policy. That level of achievement needs to be realizable within the constraints of our society. So, my question is not "do governments need to provide schools" but "should they continue to provide them?"

No, they shouldn't provide them because government is not necessary for providing the optimal amount of schools. Markets are because that is what they tend to. Governments do not.

If you want governments to provide schools, then you need to indicate the optimal amount where marginal costs = marginal benefits. Otherwise, the pro-government stance becomes meaningless because it dodges the most important question: what is the optimal amount of schools? Answering, "should government do X?," misses this point.

Public policy should address optimality concerns and conduct comparative institutional research, but it doesn't. Their approach will largely ignore or fail to properly address the more important contentions because they'll rely on sophistry like imagined positive externalities while ignoring the costs and constraints of government subsidies and so on.

The positive externalities are not imagined. The education of our nation as a whole is important for the competitiveness of our nation as a whole, and that's an aspect that 1) we can't ignore because economic boundaries between nations do exist and 2) we wouldn't anyway, because people want American schoolchildren to be well prepared compared to the rest of the world -- rightly or wrongly.

You're missing the point about optimality and the difference between the political process and the market process. In regard to education, the political process has no consistent means which tend toward that optimum while the market process does.

[Phatscotty]

Michelle Bachmann vs "the Independent" Bernie Sanders

Bachmann is smart, that's for sure. She nails down a few soundbites and shouts down anyone who dares speak near her, knowing full well that a counter argument would put her in her place. Sanders is too decent. He should have told her to shut the f*ck up.

and Sanders didn't try to shout anyone down? I think you see only what you want to see. As for me and how full of shit I may be, I would still have a hard time criticizing a person for doing something and excusing the other person for doing the exact same thing. I see you have no problem doing so. I'll leave the question of who is more full of shit at that.

[Metsfanmax]

RE: 2nd part,
I don't like the rhetoric because it doesn't do my view any justice, and it fails to convey how well you understand my view. We need to use the right words; that's all.

So, sure, governments need not provide schools.

I was using the right word. Saying that, in theory, private schools could do better than public schools to educate children is not helpful, because even if that is your view it doesn't help inform policy. That level of achievement needs to be realizable within the constraints of our society. So, my question is not "do governments need to provide schools" but "should they continue to provide them?"

No, they shouldn't provide them because government is not necessary for providing the optimal amount of schools. Markets are because that is what they tend to. Governments do not.

If you want governments to provide schools, then you need to indicate the optimal amount where marginal costs = marginal benefits. Otherwise, the pro-government stance becomes meaningless because it dodges the most important question: what is the optimal amount of schools? Answering, "should government do X?," misses this point.

Public policy should address optimality concerns and conduct comparative institutional research, but it doesn't. Their approach will largely ignore or fail to properly address the more important contentions because they'll rely on sophistry like imagined positive externalities while ignoring the costs and constraints of government subsidies and so on.

The positive externalities are not imagined. The education of our nation as a whole is important for the competitiveness of our nation as a whole, and that's an aspect that 1) we can't ignore because economic boundaries between nations do exist and 2) we wouldn't anyway, because people want American schoolchildren to be well prepared compared to the rest of the world -- rightly or wrongly.

You're missing the point about optimality and the difference between the political process and the market process. In regard to education, the political process has no consistent means which tend toward that optimum while the market process does.

Yes, but the market reaches an optimum that is not necessarily desirable for either the community or the nation (hence why the externalities are not imagined). For example, it is easy to envision that privatized schools will tend to train their students to succeed in the local economy. Students in West Virginia will get awesome training on how to be a coal miner. But this condemns them into a life only knowing how to do that well, and that may make them significantly less prosperous than people in other states. And what happens when we stop mining for coal and switch to a clean energy economy? These people will be even worse off.

[Dualta]

Michelle Bachmann vs "the Independent" Bernie Sanders

Bachmann is smart, that's for sure. She nails down a few soundbites and shouts down anyone who dares speak near her, knowing full well that a counter argument would put her in her place. Sanders is too decent. He should have told her to shut the f*ck up.

and Sanders didn't try to shout anyone down? I think you see only what you want to see. As for me and how full of shit I may be, I would still have a hard time criticizing a person for doing something and excusing the other person for doing the exact same thing. I see you have no problem doing so. I'll leave the question of who is more full of shit at that.

Ffs Scotty, you really are completely full of it. Sanders was trying to speak, that's all. She wouldn't let him finish a sentence. He's a gentleman to her verbal brawler. I don't even believe she believes her own crap. As long as suckers like you and the Tea Party knuckle-draggers keep sucking it up, she and her cronies will just keeping raking it in. Wake up son. You're being farmed.

[Phatscotty]

Michelle Bachmann is retiring. I didn't introduce myself to this thread because of anything to do with the Tea Party, I did so because she is my Congresswoman, and I'm sick of seeing people unfairly picked on over some religious stuff that really doesn't have anything to do with anything.

I care about budgets and finances and taxes and opportunity and job creation and deficits and debts and spending and interest payments that are too large for us to make and quantative easing and federal reserve policies and IRS policies and restricted growth of government, and I don't care what religion the person is that stands with me and for me and other like minded individuals who believe the same things are significantly important right now. People's personal religious beliefs are not the issue to me.

[Metsfanmax]

People's personal religious beliefs are not the issue to me.

You mean, when you agree with their politics. You seem to have a deep interest in their religious beliefs when you don't.

Remember when Obama made NASA's priority "Muslim outreach"? Just like any ordinary Christian would....

Who else does he have brown nosing? Is Mosquito Control gonna release a video about the history of Islam??

We should all have noticed by now that Obama teases Christians and mocks the bible and "clingers", but goes out of his way to kiss Islam and be sure to talk about it positively. Is that out of respect? or fear? Look at Hillary too.

I see. Well, I can understand 100% Barack Hussein Obama helping out Al-Qada and the Muslim Brotherhood....but Romney......ehhhhhhhh I have a hard time buying that, because Barack Hussein Obama is the only president that is able to get away with shit like this

It would seem like Obama would want the Muslim Brotherhood to win....no?

Onama's mother wasn't Jewish? What is the quote you refer to that Obama mentioned? And why do you minimize the quote I provided, something Obama also mentioned...that he did not turn to Christ until he was in his late 20's, and that it was Jeremiah Wright who showed him the light.

It seems like you are saying, that while in Indonesia, Obama's Muslim step-father and Jewish mother raised Obama a Christian? Is that about right?

I have a bridge for sale...interested?

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=1016&sid=19568271

Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, asked Republicans in Alabama and Mississippi which presidential candidate they favor, ahead of today's primaries in those states. Pollsters also asked, "Do you think Barack Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, or are you not sure?"

In Alabama, 14 percent said Christian; 45 percent said Muslim and 41 percent said they're not sure. Among Mississippi Republicans, 12 percent said Christian, 52 percent said Muslim, and 36 percent weren't sure.

The phone poll was conducted among 1,256 likely GOP voters in Mississippi and Alabama on March 10-11.

Yes, people are still making polls in 2012 asking what Obama's faith is...

[PLAYER57832]

People's personal religious beliefs are not the issue to me.

No one here is talking about personnal religious beliefs.
Denial of facts is not a personal religious belief, it is denial of facts.

[thegreekdog]

People's personal religious beliefs are not the issue to me.

You mean, when you agree with their politics. You seem to have a deep interest in their religious beliefs when you don't.

Remember when Obama made NASA's priority "Muslim outreach"? Just like any ordinary Christian would....

Who else does he have brown nosing? Is Mosquito Control gonna release a video about the history of Islam??

We should all have noticed by now that Obama teases Christians and mocks the bible and "clingers", but goes out of his way to kiss Islam and be sure to talk about it positively. Is that out of respect? or fear? Look at Hillary too.

I see. Well, I can understand 100% Barack Hussein Obama helping out Al-Qada and the Muslim Brotherhood....but Romney......ehhhhhhhh I have a hard time buying that, because Barack Hussein Obama is the only president that is able to get away with shit like this

It would seem like Obama would want the Muslim Brotherhood to win....no?

Onama's mother wasn't Jewish? What is the quote you refer to that Obama mentioned? And why do you minimize the quote I provided, something Obama also mentioned...that he did not turn to Christ until he was in his late 20's, and that it was Jeremiah Wright who showed him the light.

It seems like you are saying, that while in Indonesia, Obama's Muslim step-father and Jewish mother raised Obama a Christian? Is that about right?

I have a bridge for sale...interested?

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=1016&sid=19568271

Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, asked Republicans in Alabama and Mississippi which presidential candidate they favor, ahead of today's primaries in those states. Pollsters also asked, "Do you think Barack Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, or are you not sure?"

In Alabama, 14 percent said Christian; 45 percent said Muslim and 41 percent said they're not sure. Among Mississippi Republicans, 12 percent said Christian, 52 percent said Muslim, and 36 percent weren't sure.

The phone poll was conducted among 1,256 likely GOP voters in Mississippi and Alabama on March 10-11.

Yes, people are still making polls in 2012 asking what Obama's faith is...

PS also pontificates on gay marriage and gun control which don't fit in with his government finances bent above.

[Phatscotty]

People's personal religious beliefs are not the issue to me.

You mean, when you agree with their politics. You seem to have a deep interest in their religious beliefs when you don't.

Once you realize the difference between covering up your religion/pretending to be religious and speaking (much too comfortably in Bachmann's case) about their religion, you will realize what a waste of time that was.

Glad to see I am still a priority for you.

[Phatscotty]

People's personal religious beliefs are not the issue to me.

No one here is talking about personnal religious beliefs.
Denial of facts is not a personal religious belief, it is denial of facts.

Yes they are

[Phatscotty]

People's personal religious beliefs are not the issue to me.

You mean, when you agree with their politics. You seem to have a deep interest in their religious beliefs when you don't.

PS also pontificates on gay marriage and gun control which don't fit in with his government finances bent above.

LOL get over it already, you are getting as bad as Woodruff and Pimpdave. We disagree on an issue. Move on with your life. gay marriage and gun control aren't fiscal issues, nice try tho.

Gimp on

[thegreekdog]

LOL get over it already. We disagree on an issue. Move on with your life. gay marriage and gun control aren't fiscal issues, nice try tho.

Gimp on

No, they aren't fiscal issues. But you say you only care about fiscal issues. Is this a recent development? Like the last month? Because you seemed to care a lot about gun control and gay marriage a month ago. We don't disagree with "an issue." We have a fundamental disagreement about the role of government.

And for f*ck's sake, stop with the constant bitching and whining about the sig. You're worse than a liberal. I didn't even type the thing, saxi did. And if you read the thread it's posted in, it's actually not an indictment of you. You're like a little girl dude, I swear.

[Phatscotty]

LOL get over it already. We disagree on an issue. Move on with your life. gay marriage and gun control aren't fiscal issues, nice try tho.

Gimp on

No, they aren't fiscal issues. But you say you only care about fiscal issues. Is this a recent development? Like the last month? Because you seemed to care a lot about gun control and gay marriage a month ago.

always have, and I will remain so until action is taken to curb our current unsustainable fiscal situation. I would think you would agree with that, but you seem to have changed a lot yourself lately. Not sure how you don't know this or could even pretend to not know, but I've made dozens of threads if not over 100 threads (not just in the last month....) about debt and deficits and wasteful spending and taxation and economic Liberty and opportunity and Ron Paul threads and inflation. Your'e just being playing dumb, or you think you are doing a good job trying to twist my words and purposefully misinterpret ideas and ignore my history. Pretty gimpy if I do say

What I said was fiscal and economic issues are of significant importance at this point in time (go ahead read it again). Do you really disagree with that??? Also, I do have opinions on other things, like gun control and gay marriage, even more things than that. What you need to learn to do is be tolerant of other people's opinions, and accept that not everybody thinks the same way do you, and has had radically different experiences and perceptions about many different things in different ways for different reasons. It should be okay because I am always willing to talk about them and have a civil discussion...others on the other hand, not so much.

We don't disagree with "an issue." We have a fundamental disagreement about the role of government.

Oh yeah? What is the fundamental disagreement?

And for f*ck's sake, stop with the constant bitching and whining about the sig. You're worse than a liberal. I didn't even type the thing, saxi did. And if you read the thread it's posted in, it's actually not an indictment of you. You're like a little girl dude, I swear.

I'm not constantly bitching about your sig, I'm calling you out when you get gimpy. Want to know who is constantly bitching about what...it's you with gay marriage. You've been like this for years. You even bring gay marriage into counter a purely fiscal post, and think nothing of immediately explaining "yeah, I know it's not a fiscal issue, but I just wanted to bring it up for no reason". Extremely gimpy.

[chang50]

What you need to learn to do is be tolerant of other people's opinions, and accept that not everybody thinks the same way do you, and has had radically different experiences and perceptions about many different things in different ways for different reasons. It should be okay because I am always willing to talk about them and have a civil discussion...others on the other hand, not so much.

Who says Americans don't do irony?Pure gold Scotty
I have a feeling this will come back to haunt you for a very long time..

[thegreekdog]

always have, and I will remain so until action is taken to curb our current unsustainable fiscal situation. I would think you would agree with that, but you seem to have changed a lot yourself lately. Not sure how you don't know this or could even pretend to not know, but I've made dozens of threads if not over 100 threads (not just in the last month....) about debt and deficits and wasteful spending and taxation and economic Liberty and opportunity and Ron Paul threads and inflation.

Yes, you and I agree on those points.

I care about budgets and finances and taxes and opportunity and job creation and deficits and debts and spending and interest payments that are too large for us to make and quantative easing and federal reserve policies and IRS policies and restricted growth of government, and I don't care what religion the person is that stands with me and for me and other like minded individuals who believe the same things are significantly important right now. People's personal religious beliefs are not the issue to me.

And yet you make numerous threads re: gay marriage and, as Mets pointed out above, you constantly referred to religion in other threads when referencing a politician you didn't like. That's the point. What you've said in the quoted language immediately above is that all you care about is fiscal policy. Except that's obviously not true. You do care about fiscal policy, but that isn't all you care about. So don't pretend it is so you can avoid having to talking about Bachmann's whatever.

Oh yeah? What is the fundamental disagreement?

You believe the limitations on government only apply in the fiscal context, not in a social one (unless it's an area that you believe the government should stay away from - like guns). I believe the limitations on government apply in all contexts, whether fiscally, socially, gun control, etc. That's our fundamental disagreement.

Want to know who is constantly bitching about what...it's you with gay marriage. You've been like this for years. You even bring gay marriage into counter a purely fiscal post, and think nothing of immediately explaining "yeah, I know it's not a fiscal issue, but I just wanted to bring it up for no reason".

Your post wasn't a purely fiscal post. Are you stupid or just pretending to be stupid? You posted something that said "All I care about is fiscal policy, I don't want to get into Bachmann's social policies." I pointed out that you care very much about social policy as evidenced by your posts and threads on gun control and gay marriage. The post you typed is quoted above. Go back and re-read it. That's all. I'm not interested in discussing gay marriage here; it's not the thread for it.

[BigBallinStalin]

RE: 2nd part,
I don't like the rhetoric because it doesn't do my view any justice, and it fails to convey how well you understand my view. We need to use the right words; that's all.

So, sure, governments need not provide schools.

I was using the right word. Saying that, in theory, private schools could do better than public schools to educate children is not helpful, because even if that is your view it doesn't help inform policy. That level of achievement needs to be realizable within the constraints of our society. So, my question is not "do governments need to provide schools" but "should they continue to provide them?"

No, they shouldn't provide them because government is not necessary for providing the optimal amount of schools. Markets are because that is what they tend to. Governments do not.

If you want governments to provide schools, then you need to indicate the optimal amount where marginal costs = marginal benefits. Otherwise, the pro-government stance becomes meaningless because it dodges the most important question: what is the optimal amount of schools? Answering, "should government do X?," misses this point.

Public policy should address optimality concerns and conduct comparative institutional research, but it doesn't. Their approach will largely ignore or fail to properly address the more important contentions because they'll rely on sophistry like imagined positive externalities while ignoring the costs and constraints of government subsidies and so on.

The positive externalities are not imagined. The education of our nation as a whole is important for the competitiveness of our nation as a whole, and that's an aspect that 1) we can't ignore because economic boundaries between nations do exist and 2) we wouldn't anyway, because people want American schoolchildren to be well prepared compared to the rest of the world -- rightly or wrongly.

You're missing the point about optimality and the difference between the political process and the market process. In regard to education, the political process has no consistent means which tend toward that optimum while the market process does.

Yes, but the market reaches an optimum that is not necessarily desirable for either the community or the nation (hence why the externalities are not imagined). For example, it is easy to envision that privatized schools will tend to train their students to succeed in the local economy. Students in West Virginia will get awesome training on how to be a coal miner. But this condemns them into a life only knowing how to do that well, and that may make them significantly less prosperous than people in other states. And what happens when we stop mining for coal and switch to a clean energy economy? These people will be even worse off.

The market adapts to these changes better than government, but you really need to focus in this debate. The time is not right for red herrings.

You still have yet to explain how (1) the political process tends toward optimality more efficiently than the market, and (2) why government is the proper provider of schools--within an environment which is capable of producing schools at a lower price and a wider range of quality for a larger variety of demands.

[AndyDufresne]

always have, and I will remain so until action is taken to curb our current unsustainable fiscal situation. I would think you would agree with that, but you seem to have changed a lot yourself lately.

TGD, you've changed. Here is a pictorial representation of TDG's changes over the years.




--Andy