Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - Goaticus

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
General Discussion / Why Police Unions in California are Untouchable
« on: August 31, 2012, 09:28:59 PM »
So much for Conservatives and their idol worshiping of the Police.

I've noticed this in the past few days. I've also noticed a lot of people who were never Ron Paul supporters and were telling me they were casting a lesser of two evils vote for Romney are now looking at Johnson. Not surprising since it's hard to claim Romney is the lesser of two evils when he and the RNC didn't follow their own rules in a complete showing of arbitrary power screwing over people that they needed in a nomination fight they didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of losing anyway.

I even talked one lifetime Republican out of making a lesser of two evils vote for Obama.

Here's the article.

I got a Romney Campaign pop-up so this is sponsored by the Romney campaign. I love it when politicos with no idea how the internet works throw money at it.

General Discussion / Better than the Postmodernism Generator
« on: August 01, 2012, 02:49:33 PM »
This website allows you to generate random sayings that sound like they were made by Deepak Chopra.  I'm tempted to use quotes from this in debates with Creationists and Keynesians.

General Discussion / An Officer Who Knows How To Treat Dogs
« on: July 18, 2012, 04:44:58 AM »
In a reversal of roles a lot of people are morons and call the police about a "vicious" dog and the Officer saves the Pit Bull and then adopts the dog.

I still don't get why so many people don't grasp the concept of how fast dogs are. You can tell if a dog is really trying to chase you and attack you based on the fact that if you aren't about 3 feet from a barrier the dog would have probably caught you if it was seriously trying to attack. That and the chase instinct are the reason you don't run from them.

General Discussion / Stay Classy TSA
« on: July 10, 2012, 12:55:38 PM »

A group of students leaving the annual conference of the National Association of the Deaf in Louisville had a rather awful experience courtesy of the Transportation Security Administration in that city's airport. One of the travelers wrote about it on his blog:

    It was a very public week-long event downtown, make no bones about it. As such, the shirt very clearly identified me as deaf.

    While I was going through the TSA, some of them started laughing in my direction. I thought it might’ve been someone behind me, but I found out otherwise.

    They went through my bag (for no reason), and found a couple bags of candy I brought. I was told I wasn’t allowed to fly with that (wtf? I’ve flown with food before — these were even sealed still because I brought them right in the airport). I was then asked if I would like to donate the candy “To the USO”. Since I know the airport there has an Air National Guard base, and I figured it would go to the soldiers, I (annoyed) said sure, why not?

    The guards, as I was getting scanned, started eating the candy they just told me was for the soldiers. In front of me, still laughing at me (very clearly now). One of them asked why they were laughing, and one of them came up to me, pointed at my shirt, laughed at me and said, “Fucking deafie”. The Louisville TSA called me a “fucking deafie” and laughed at me because I was deaf, and they expected wouldn’t say anything back (or wouldn’t hear them). Make no bones about it — she was facing me and I read her lips. There was no mistake. I would later find out that they had called at least 4 other individuals

General Discussion / Irony in Another Police Shooting
« on: July 09, 2012, 11:00:21 PM »

This happened about a mile from where my brother lives. When the person called the police the dispatcher actually said "Officers are trained in this kind of thing. They're not going to go around shooting people."

Shortly before 8 a.m. on June 28, police in Broomfield, Colorado, shot and killed Kyle Miller after he brandished a gun at them. Miller was mentally ill. The gun was fake. Miller's younger brother told the police dispatcher both of these facts. For some unknown reason, reports the Denver Post, Broomfield police shot Miller anyway:

    A 911 call recorded just before Kyle Miller was shot to death by Broomfield police officers last week shows that his family warned dispatchers the 21-year-old was armed with an Airsoft pellet gun -- not a real handgun.

    In response, a dispatcher assured the victim's brother, "Officers are trained in this kind of thing. They're not going to go around shooting people."

    Broomfield police received a 911 call around 7:20 a.m. June 28 about a "mentally distraught" man in the Aspen Creek subdivision. While officers were en route, they encountered Miller near the intersection of Aspen Street and Durango Avenue. Miller pointed the pellet gun at police and was shot by officers.

    The 911 tape shows that Miller's younger brother, Alex Miller, told police about the Airsoft gun in an attempt to avoid a dangerous confrontation.

    "My brother is having a breakdown," Alex Miller told the dispatcher, adding that he woke up to his mother's screams because Kyle Miller was trying to cut himself with a pocket knife. Screams can be heard in the background throughout the 911 call.

    On the recording, Alex Miller repeatedly said his brother was carrying an Airsoft gun.

    "Can you tell them he has a gun in his hands? Is there any way you can let them know he's got the gun in his hands?" Alex Miller said. "It's not real."

    "I know," the dispatcher replied. "The officers are trained in this kind of thing. They're not going to go around shooting people."

According to Miller's mother, her son had schizophrenia, and was upset because he had recently been let go from his job. The shooting is under investigation by an "independent" review board affiliated with the Broomfield Police Department. In the meantime, the officers involved (BPD won't say how many, or how many shots they fired) are on paid administrative leave.


It's not the title of an Onion article. It's not humor at all. Right here, in the United States of America, a prominent Christian leader is calling for taxes on people who do not go to church. Bryan Fisher, of the American Family Association, had this to say during his radio show:

    “Because after all, Obamacare is all about improving the health of the American people,” the radio host explained. “We know that going to church is good for you, it’s good for your health. So we are going to mandate that you go to church for your own health and we are going to tax the atheists who don’t go to church.”

Bryan Fisher has slid down his own slippery slope into pathetic fatuity. How does one begin to consider this rationally? It really does sound like comedy. Of course, America was founded on the Enlightenment concept that religion is a private matter, and the government must never make a law respecting an establishment of religion. The idea of taxing atheists for not being religious is absurd, unconstitutional, and histrionic.

Beyond the obvious absurdity, we must also look at the claim that going to church is good for you. It's a highly suspect assertion, on a number of levels. To begin with, the United States is uniquely religious in the First World, and also uniquely dysfunctional when it comes to things like STI transmission, teen motherhood, sex crimes, and other "moral crimes." We are a nation in which 4 out of 10 people believe the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, and evangelicals occupy positions of governmental power in most states, and churches receive not only tax exemption but government subsidies. Why hasn't all our church-going behavior produced a top-notch first world nation?

There are studies here and there which point to health and social benefits from going to church. What they fail to account for is the social stigma of not going to church. In countries where atheism is the norm, atheists are the most healthy and socially accepted. Why wouldn't we expect Christians in America to be healthier and happier, when atheists are generally perceived as the worst kind of people, and are often ostracized by friends, family, and work mates?

Christians who cite these studies conveniently leave out the fact that the benefits are not from going to church, specifically. Instead, they are most likely to come from the simple act of forming social clubs. Humans are social animals, and we are healthier and happier when we belong to social groups. Across the world, it is the same. People who are accepted socially are healthy and happy. It doesn't matter what kind of social club it is. It could be church, and it could be the weekly beer club "down at pub."

Most importantly, even if it were demonstrated that there was an objective benefit to going to church (and this is a very big "if"), the government is still prohibited by the constitution from mandating attendance. Daily exercise is beneficial beyond any shadow of a doubt, and we would likely consider armed rebellion if we were roused each morning for state mandated calisthenics. This is not about church, or calisthenics. It's about sour grapes from the Christian Theocrats whose idea of a godly utopia is ignoring at all costs Jesus' mandate to sell all they own and give to the poor.

Political grandstanding is one thing. It's always been done, and to some degree, we just have to live with it. Even so, religion has no place in this discussion. The government has the right to tax. The government has the right to address matters of public health and welfare. The government doesnot, in any sense of the word, have any right to dictate that anyone attend a church service for any reason at all. The fact that it's been suggested, even in half-jest, should be a shocking wake-up call for anyone who still believes religion isn't intruding into government.

General Discussion / New Public School Fail
« on: July 03, 2012, 06:03:07 AM »

Don't ask me why all of the stories focus more on one of the kids in the latest attack, and not on the fact that a teacher seems to have organized it and did things like this for years.

Fernando Salgado, 18, was one of four high-school students in Fontana, Calif., who were arrested along with a teacher in the attempted sodomy of another student with steel rebar while the other three - all minors - allegedly held the boy down and removed his pants.

A California teenager appearing in court for allegedly sodomizing two students in separate incidents yelled “get me out of here” as he was led away from his family by bailiffs.

Fernando Salgado was one of four students at A.B. Miller High School, in Fontana, Calif., arrested in the attempted sodomy of another student with steel rebar while the other three - all minors - allegedly held the boy down and removed his pants, reported KTLA.

Another incident took place June 14 involving three students who allegedly held down another boy while Salgado attempted to sodomize him with a wooden broom handle, according to KTLA.

"The allegations are something that have been just gut-wrenching for us," Fontana Unified School District Superintendent Cali Olsen-Binks told the station.

Salgado, 18, pleaded not guilty to two felony counts of sexual penetration and false imprisonment while sobbing in front of his family. Eventually he became so upset he jostled bailiffs before being physically restrained and led out of the courtroom.

The judge and lawyers left the room as bailiffs dimmed the lights and also escorted Salgado's family out of the courtroom, with his sister shouting, "What if that was your son?" the San Bernadino Sun reported.

The alleged incidents both took place in the same summer school masonry class taught by Emmanuel Delarosa.

Delarosa, 27, was originally arrested and charged with child cruelty after he was accused of knowing about the hazings and allegedly ordered one of the attacks "to limit behavioral problems in the classroom," police told the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

Adrianna Mares, 19, a former student of Delarosa's, told KTLA that hazings were common in his classes, saying students would "take the broom and put it between their butt and the top of their jeans."

After further investigation, authorities charged Delarosa with two counts of felony attempted sexual penetration by a foreign object on a minor over 14 and two counts of felony false imprisonment by violence, according to the station.

If convicted, Salgado and Delarosa face lengthy prison sentences and would be required to register as sex offenders, reported the station.

Delarosa posted $100,000 bail and was released until his arraignment July 7.

Salgado's bail, set at $300,000, was posted as well, reports the San Bernadino Sun. He is due to return to court July 9, with a preliminary hearing set for two days later.


General Discussion / Hacking Drones
« on: June 29, 2012, 03:15:52 PM »

The best part of the article is when they suggest someone can hijack a drone to use like the 9-11 terrorists used planes. Drones on U.S. soil increase, not decrease the risk of terrorism.

Researchers at Austin's Radionavigation Lab. demonstrated the risk in the plan to open up US airspace to drone flights by using a "spoofer" to hack a drone and causing it to make a crash landing dive, showing how a drone could be turned into a weapon.
According to MSN Now, the US Department of Homeland Security "dared" the researchers at the Austin Radionavigation Laboratory of the University of Texas to take control of one of their drones. The researchers repeatedly hacked the navigation system of a US government drone with a device worth a paltry $1,000, much to the discomfiture of Homeland Security officials who might have thought that their drones were "hack proof."
Professor Todd Humphreys and his team at the University of Texas Radionavigation Laboratory, successfully diverted a small US surveillance drone flying over Austin stadium, dutifully following a series of GPS waypoints programmed into its flight computer. The drone suddenly careened from its programmed path and made a kamikaze dive, but just a few feet from the ground, the team aborted the self-destruct course using a radio control device.
Humphreys explained to Fox News that anyone armed with the right equipment could take control of a GPS-guided drone using a new method for hacking GPS-guided crafts called "spoofing."
Fox News reports that "spoofing" has emerged as the new concern among experts in GPS navigation and replaced jammers as the major security challenge to GPS-guided drones. Digital Journal reports it is believed that the Iranians brought down a US spy drone last December, using the spoofing method that involves first jamming the drone's GPS computers, then hacking into its GPS system and re-configuring the system's coordinates to make it land at a chosen location.
RT reports Humphrey said: “Spoofing a GPS receiver on a UAV ("Unmanned Aerial Vehicle") is just another way of hijacking a plane.”
Fox News explains that a jammer works by confusing GPS signals, but spoofers represent a major advancement because they can actually take over a drone's navigation computers and allow the hijacker to redirect the drone as he desires. Humphrey described his $1,000 device as the most advance spoofer available. He used it to send more powerful signals to the drone than those coming from controlling orbiting satellites. With the signals, he infiltrated the drone's GPS system. The signals from Humphreys' spoofer simulate the signals from the orbiting satellite and the drone "thinks" it is still receiving signals from a legitimate source.
According to Humphreys, “In 5 or 10 years you have 30,000 drones in the airspace. Each one of these could be a potential missile used against us.”
Humphreys's demonstration follows a move by Congress to open up US airspace to government and commercial drone flights by 2015. Humphreys told Fox News: "The real danger here, however, is that the government is currently considering plans that will allow local law enforcement agencies and other organizations from coast-to-coast to control drones of their own in America’s airspace."
The plan that would allow police spy drones to fly over American cities monitoring the ground has raised concerns about an emerging "surveillance society." The plan could also allow companies such as FedEX and DHS to deliver packages across the country using drones.
According to RT,

    "domestic drones are already being used by the DHS and other governmental agencies, and several small-time law enforcement groups have accumulated UAVs of their own as they await clearance from the Federal Aviation Administration. Indeed, by 2020 there expects to be tens of thousands of drones diving and dipping through US airspace."

Humphreys's recent demonstration, however, raises even more compelling questions about the plan than previously raised. He asks: “What if you could take down one of these drones delivering FedEx packages and use that as your missile? That’s the same mentality the 9-11 attackers had."
According to Fox News, last Tuesday, in the desert of the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, FAA and Department of Homeland Security officials witnessed Humphreys demonstrate how easy it could be for someone with the right equipment to hijack a drone. The message from his demonstrations was clear to the officials: a terrorist group could easily use a spoofer to launch a 9/11-style attack in U.S. airspace. Humphreys told Fox News: "I’m worried about them crashing into other planes. I’m worried about them crashing into buildings. We could get collisions in the air and there could be loss of life, so we want to prevent this and get out in front of the problem.”
Fox News reports that DHS is addressing the risk through its "Patriot Watch" and "Patriot Shield" programs, but the programs are not well funded and were mostly developed for defense against jammers and not against the more advanced spoofer technology. Besides, civilian GPS are not encrypted and are therefore vulnerable to infiltration. Military UAVs on the other hand use encrypted GPS system.
Humphreys said: “It just shows that the kind of mentality that we got after 9-11, where we reinforced the cockpit door to prevent people hijacking planes -- well, we need to adopt that mentality as far as the navigation systems for these UAVs.”

Read more:

General Discussion / U.S. Citizenship Test
« on: June 25, 2012, 07:53:15 AM »

That was tough. I almost didn't get the one about which ocean was on the East Coast of the U.S. Luckily it was multiple choice. Anyone born in the U.S. who can't pass this is a moron.

General Discussion / Gun Control Fail
« on: June 14, 2012, 10:48:19 PM »
But we need to enforce the laws we already have.

Following some lengthy, in-depth investigative work, USA Today has discovered more than 60 North Carolina men serving federal sentences for violating gun laws it turns out they didn’t actually violate:

    The legal issues underlying their situation are complicated, and are unique to North Carolina. But the bottom line is that each of them went to prison for breaking a law that makes it a federal crime for convicted felons to possess a gun. The problem is that none of them had criminal records serious enough to make them felons under federal law.

    Still, the Justice Department has not attempted to identify the men, has made no effort to notify them, and, in a few cases in which the men have come forward on their own, has argued in court that they should not be released.

    Justice Department officials said it is not their job to notify prisoners that they might be incarcerated for something that they now concede is not a crime. And although they have agreed in court filings that the men are innocent, they said they must still comply with federal laws that put strict limits on when and how people can challenge their convictions in court.

    "We can't be outcome driven," said Anne Tompkins, the U.S. attorney in Charlotte. "We've got to make sure we follow the law, and people should want us to do that." She said her office is "looking diligently for ways, within the confines of the law, to recommend relief for defendants who are legally innocent."

Hat tip to Radley Balko, who tweeted that horrifying, eye-catching quote from Tompkins. Of course, prosecutors are never “outcome driven” when they’re trying to throw defendants into prison, are they?

North Carolina’s unusual sentencing system is partly the cause of the problem. In order to try to standardize a federal law forbidding gun ownership by felons, the U.S. government needed to craft legislation that accounted for different states’ definitions of felonies. They settled on a law that made it illegal for a person to own a gun if they commit a crime that could have landed them a year or more of prison time:

    Figuring out who fits that definition in North Carolina is not as simple as it sounds. In 1993, state lawmakers adopted a unique system called "structured sentencing" that changes the maximum prison term for a crime, based on the record of the person who committed it. People with relatively short criminal records who commit crimes such as distributing cocaine and writing bad checks face no more than a few months in jail; people with more extensive records face much longer sentences.

    For years, federal courts in North Carolina said that did not matter. The courts said, in effect: If someone with a long record could have gone to prison for more than a year for the crime, then everyone who committed that crime is a felon, and all of them are legally barred from possessing a gun.

    Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit said federal courts (including itself) had been getting the law wrong. Only people who could have actually faced more than a year in prison for their crimes qualify as felons under federal law.

Read through the story for the case of Terrell McCullum, a minor criminal who ended up in federal prison for possessing a firearm. Even his own lawyers thought he had broken the law due to a previous conviction for gun theft. (He’s not exactly the most sympathetic case. After a supervised release, he ended up back in jail for robbery and can probably no longer be considered a minor criminal.)

    Whether McCullum — or the dozens of others like him — can go home depends on federal laws that put strict limits on when and how people who have already been convicted of a crime can come back to court to plead their innocence.

    Those laws let prisoners challenge their convictions if they uncover new evidence, or if the U.S. Supreme Court limits the sweep of a criminal law. But none of the exceptions is a clear fit, meaning that, innocent or not, they may not be able to get into court at all. Federal courts have so far split on whether they can even hear the prisoners' cases.

So apparently misapplying the law in the first place doesn’t count as “new evidence.”

General Discussion / Aurora Police Detain Everyone at an Intersection
« on: June 11, 2012, 06:58:24 PM »
I live five miles from this intersection and go through it all the time.


Police in Aurora, Colo., searching for suspected bank robbers stopped every car at an intersection, handcuffed all the adults and searched the cars, one of which they believed was carrying the suspect.

Police said they had received what they called a “reliable” tip that the culprit in an armed robbery at a Wells Fargo bank committed earlier was stopped at the red light.

“We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything, so a split-second decision was made to stop all the cars at that intersection, and search for the armed robber,” Aurora police Officer Frank Fania told ABC News.

Officers barricaded the area, halting 19 cars.

“Cops came in from every direction and just threw their car in front of my car,” Sonya Romero, one of the drivers who was handcuffed, told ABC News affiliate KMGH-TV in Denver.

From there, the police went from car to car, removing the passengers and handcuffing the adults.

“Most of the adults were handcuffed, then were told what was going on and were asked for permission to search the car,” Fania said. “They all granted permission, and once nothing was found in their cars, they were un-handcuffed.”

The search lasted between an hour and a half and two hours, and it wasn’t until the final car was searched that police apprehended the suspect.

“Once officers got to his car, they found evidence that he was who they were looking for,” Fania said. “When they searched the car, they found two loaded firearms.”

The actions of the police have been met with some criticism, but Fania said this was a unique situation that required an unusual response.

“It’s hard to say what normal is in a situation like this when you haven’t dealt with a situation like this,” Fania said. “The result of the whole ordeal is that it paid off. We have arrested and charged a suspect.”

The other people who had been held at the intersection were allowed to leave once the suspect was apprehended.

Here are some pictures.

Roughly 40 people were detained, many handcuffed. They claimed everyone consented to having their car searched.

General Discussion / Filing Your Taxes in Oregon
« on: June 11, 2012, 02:54:34 PM »
I thought this was pretty bad. I knew Government workers were stupid, but this is pretty bad. Unfortunately the person who filed the tax return was a moron too or they would be on a beach in Costa Rica right now.

Incredibly, they approved the payout and Reyes was sent a visa card by the tax preparation computer programme containing a balance of $2.1million.

Prosecutors said she went on a spending spree and spent more than $150,000.

She later reported the card missing, prompting an investigation which uncovered the massive fraud which is believed to be the biggest in the history of the state of Oregon.
Due to the size of the refund her electronic claims was examined by several people within the Oregon Revenue Department (pictured)

Fishy: Due to the size of the refund, her claim was examined the Oregon Revenue Department (pictured)

Reyes, according to an arrest affidavit, paid $2,000 in cash for a 1999 Dodge Caravan and used the card to buy $800 worth of tires and wheels.

She was also caught on CCTV cameras using the card at various outlets.

According to the probable cause statement, Reyes spent $13,000 in Marion County over two days in February, $26,000 in March and more than $35,000 in April.

The statement says the fraud was discovered May 7 by the issuer of the debit card after Reyes reported a 'second card' as lost or stolen.

Oregon Department of Justice agents arrested Reyes on Wednesday at a Northeast Salem address.

The apparent ease with which Reyes was allegedly able to defraud the state revenue department has stunned officials.

'They've got some explaining to do to restore the confidence of Oregonians,' Rep. Vicki Berger, R-Salem, who serves as co-chair of the House Revenue Committee told the

'Is this is an anomaly? If so, let's make sure it never happens again. Or do we have a systematic problem in the way the Department of Revenue treats this and other transactions?'
Shop 'til you're stopped: Among the items Reyes bought was a 1999 Dodge Caravan, similar to the one shown above

Shop 'til you're stopped: Among the items Reyes bought was a 1999 Dodge Caravan, similar to this one

The revenue department processes about $7billion in tax returns each year on computer systems designed in the 1980s.

In January, the state's chief operating officer, Michael Jordan, pulled the plug on a $100million computer upgrade that the department said would pay for itself by finding tax cheats.

In 2010, the state reported $559 million in delinquent taxes, mostly from unpaid personal and corporate income taxes.

Revenue officials estimate that, in 2006, Oregon's personal income tax compliance rate was 81.5 percent - far lower than other states - and translating to $1.2billion in unreported or uncollected taxes that year.

Reyes has been charged with aggravated theft and computer crime.

She was released from Marion County jail and is due in court on July 5th.

General Discussion / Enthalpay Needs to Read This
« on: June 10, 2012, 02:02:14 AM »

Andrew C. May 25th, 2012- Not every college professor is a Keynesian, but there’s a good chance that yours is, or at least subscribes to part of the Keynesian mindset. If so, here are some fun facts you can bring up that desecrate the Keynesian worldview.

1.) The Not-So-Great Depression of 1920-21

The Great Depression (1929-1940+) was a horrible era, and it takes center stage in a lot of the current debate on economic policy. But few people mention the Depression of 1920-21. Unlike the Great Depression, which lasted one-and-a-half decades, the Depression of 1920 only lasted a year or so. During the Great Depression, massive government stimulus was used. Everyone knows that FDR was a big supporter of stimulus i.e. increasing the debt, spending money, and lowering interest rates, but it has been left out of the popular dialogue that Herbert Hoover also engaged in massive amounts of stimulus.(1) Now contrast that with the Depression of 1920, which was dealt with, as Jim Grant put it in the Washington Post:

    By raising interest rates, reducing the public debt and balancing the federal budget. Eighteen months after the depression started, it ended.(2)

The Keynesian prescription of lowering interest rates and increasing government spending was not only ignored, but the exact opposite was done. Let 21st-century economists rub their eyes in disbelief.

2.) The Nonexistent Depression of 1946

Millions of Americans were employed in the armed services in 1945, and according to Keynesian logic, if they were all laid off at once and government spending was drastically cut, an enormous depression would result.

Prominent Keynesian Paul Samuelson said:

    When this war comes to an end, more than one out of every two workers will depend directly or indirectly upon military orders. We shall have some 10 million service men to throw on the labor market…were the war to end suddenly within the next 6 months, were we again planning to wind up our war effort in the greatest haste, to demobilize our armed forces, to liquidate price controls, to shift from astronomical deficits to even the large deficits of the thirties–then there would be ushered in the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced.

And indeed, the troops were all laid off, price controls ended, and federal government spending was cut by an incredible 61%. Did the worst economic catastrophe in history occur? No, the economy entered the enormous prosperity of the late 1940s and 1950s once resources were taken from the nonproductive state sector and given to the productive private sector.(3)

3.) The Harvard Business School Study that Shows Government Stimulus Hurts the Economy

The Keynesian theory doesn’t differentiate between good spending and bad spending: All spending in a recession/depression is good for the economy. In fact, Keynes notoriously claimed that,

    If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez faireto dig the notes up again…there need be no more unemployment.(4)

So any study the shows government spending harms the economy deals a death blow to the Keynesian theory, but this is precisely what a Harvard Business School study found:

    Recent research at Harvard Business School began with the premise that as a state’s congressional delegation grew in stature and power in Washington, D.C., local businesses would benefit from the increased federal spending sure to come their way. It turned out quite the opposite. In fact, professors Lauren Cohen, Joshua Coval, and Christopher Malloy discovered to their surprise that companies experienced lower sales and retrenched by cutting payroll, R&D, and other expenses…’ The average state experiences a 40 to 50 percent increase in earmark spending if its senator becomes chair of one of the top-three committees.’(5)

As the government spends more, it occupies a larger share of the economy: The government snatches resources up and crowds out private, productive investment.

4.) The 1870s

During the 1870s, pricesin America were falling. The Keynesian theory says that wages are “sticky downwards.” This means that, if prices as a whole are falling, there will be high unemployment. But this simply was not the case in the 1870s:

    Historians long attributed the turmoil to a ‘great depression of the 1870′s.’ But recent detailed reconstructions of 19th-century data by economic historians show that there was no 1870′s depression: aside from a short recession in 1873, in fact, the decade saw possibly the fastest sustained growth in American history. Employment grew strongly, faster than the rate of immigration; consumption of food and other goods rose across the board. On a per capita basis, almost all output measures were up spectacularly. By the end of the decade, people were better housed, better clothed and lived on bigger farms.(6)

The economy increased production faster than the amount of dollars grew. Today, in a few very fast growing industries like cell phones and laptops, prices fall, but almost every other industry grows at a slower pace than the money supply, and this means prices rise. But this doesn’t have to be the case.

5.) Stagflation

According to the Keynesian theory, either prices are rising and unemployment is falling, or prices are falling and unemployment is rising: A situation where prices are rising and unemployment is also rising is impossible. But this is untrue because,

    In the 1970s, however, many Western countries experienced ‘stagflation,’ or simultaneous high unemployment and inflation, a phenomenon that contradicted Keynes’s view.(7)

To this day, macroeconomics students are taught that there is a direct trade-off between inflation and unemployment. But the 1970s show this is clearly false.

So, What’s Going On Here?

Despite the enormous failings of the Keynesian theory, how is it that this theory has remained the most-taught theory in the economics profession? It’s a question that’s up for debate, but I will point out this fact: The Federal Reserve is an institution that is explicitly Keynesian in its policies. The Fed lowers rates during recessions with the intent of stimulating the economy. This is also known as printing money. And what are some of the things it does with this money?

    The Federal Reserve, through its extensive network of consultants, visiting scholars, alumni and staff economists, so thoroughly dominates the field of economics that real criticism of the central bank has become a career liability for members of the profession.(8)

Now, I wouldn’t confront your professor and accuse him of corruption, he is the one grading you at the end of the day, but the Fed’s involvement in academia is an interesting fact to note.

General Discussion / Why Rand Paul Can Bite Me
« on: June 09, 2012, 02:22:00 AM »

Sorry but Mitt hasn't even earned lesser of two evils status.

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky endorsed Mitt Romney for president Thursday night, but he made clear he'd prefer someone else.

"My first choice had always been my father. I campaigned for him when I was 11-years-old. He's still my first pick," the tea party favorite told Fox News' Sean Hannity. "But now that the nominating process is over, tonight I'm happy to announce that I'm going to be supporting Gov. Mitt Romney."

Paul's father, Texas congressman Ron Paul, suspended his active campaign operation last month, but is still pursuing delegates so he can have an influence at the GOP nominating convention in August.

Paul noted in the Fox interview that Romney's father, George, also fell short in a presidential bid in 1968.

Romney said in a statement on his campaign website that he was "honored" by the endorsement and called Rand Paul "a leading voice in the effort to scale back the size and reach of government and promote liberty."

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5