  
|
 |
painterofbeauty said: But its true! We can make a difference! Only the results come very slowly...the wheels grind fine in slow motion :-) November 25, '08 |
|
|
|
VintageWine48 said:  October 13, '08 |
|
|
|
binduhu said: i see some very interesting debate here... nice!! October 10, '08 |
|
|
relativityLEO said: http://www.ft.com/cm October 09, '08 |
|
|
|
relativityLEO said: an apology for disagreeing with you? or for using language that is not genteel? October 06, '08 |
|
|
|
wits-end said: We can go around in circles endlessly; to me this debate has long exhausted itself. A word to RelativityLeo: Your generic lumping of all those who refuse to blame the public for the‘shit’ as ‘brainless vegetables’ insults me since by def I too don’t consider the joe public responsible. Blocking dissenting commentators, insulting them or dismissing their recommended books as ‘a dime a dozen’ is easy but too restrictive a role for me. However, if u feel urself unable to maintain the civility that forms an essential part of such engagements, pls refrain from participating in my space in future. I leave the rest to u. An apology will be appreciated. October 06, '08 |
|
|
|
relativityLEO said: lusting, re your comment "it is merely empirical and incomplete as it doesn’t take into account the consequence of a falling currency." actually a falling currency is DESIRED when there is a trade deficit. October 06, '08 |
|
|
|
relativityLEO said: if i am naive in quoting friedman, so be it. friedman was quoted as an example. this debate is not about friedman specifically. there are enough arguments made for and against the relevance about the trade deficit and whether it affects the economy, by far more superior and sophisticated minds than mine. for sure, there is enough evidence that trade deficits have been associated with both booms and slumps in the us economy. for example the last decade showed a growing us economy as well as a rising trade deficit. conversely japan has a trade surplus and a sluggish economy. i am also loath to call a nobel prize winner a lesser mind as compared to those who havent won a nobel prize. lastly, i havent advocated friedman's 'no government intervention'. if you read my posts, all along i have been saying that the government was right to intervene and in the kind of capitalist/democrati October 06, '08 |
|
|
|
lustingforlife said: Wits, Relativity Leo – Without impugning in your debate I am forced to point out a few facts about Friedman and the context in which he has been quoted here. To mention Milton Friedman is not only naïve but also ill informed for he’s been much critiqued for his casual dismissing of trade deficit as just another activity where ‘pieces of cheaply made paper’ were exchanged for goods/services of the exporting nation. Most economists agree unanimously that while Friedman’s theory may be correct, it is merely empirical and incomplete as it doesn’t take into account the consequence of a falling currency. In particular it ignores the intergenerational consequences of deficits and future declines in consumption standards. Even Bernanke, a true Friedman disciple has his critics in those who argue that printing money to pay foreign debt is a fool’s game, one in which our children will pay a heavy price. October 06, '08 |
|
|
|
lustingforlife said: You would do well to read Capitalism and Freedom, which was much reviled at the time I may add, where he substantiates his ideas by giving the misleading example of 17th century England to support his ideas about trade deficit. However, what is less than truthful about his comparison is that England was converting their entire system from an agricultural/mercant October 06, '08 |
Recent posts
We are upgrading our features to make your Fropper Videos experience more exciting. As a result, this section has been temporarily disabled.