50 years of failed eco predictions

....such as?

Trickle down.



No it didn't. Wealth did not trickle down, and you have no proof that it did.


t does. You can't buy it unless it's available.

No it doesn't. Increasing supply without demand to match it results in DEFLATION.

You have never taken an economics class in your life, have you?

You can't manufacture demand by increasing supply...that's a real fast way to deflate your economy.


It does. There is more money in the hands of private individuals.

Who hoard it; they don't invest it and we've just lived through three years of them declining their investment post-Tax cut, despite your promises:

A Decline in Capital Investment Reveals the False Promise of Drumpf’s Tax Bill
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-...-reveals-the-false-promise-of-trumps-tax-bill


They don't need to. Government needs to stop spending so much.

So if tax cuts don't pay for themselves, don't lead to increased investment, then what is their purpose? Simple, fiscal terrorism.

Fiscal Terrorism is when Conservatives fly planes of tax cuts into the budget, creating massive deficits, then fake outrage at the deficits their tax cuts created and use that fake outrage to extract punitive cuts to social spending programs to which they are ideologically opposed, but lack the courage, will, and support to repeal through conventional legislation.
 
Failed? WTF. The signs are everywhere. The climatologists are being proven correct over and over. You can quibble degree if it makes you happy, but the warnings were correct.

If they were, airplanes would be grounded, gasoline and other fossil fuels gone. It is just misdirection as crude oil is is the base for personal care products, materials we use/need, fuel, hell the NE still uses fuel oil, I mean that is like damn, back to the John Rockefeller years, holy shit.
 
Trickle down.

No it didn't. Wealth did not trickle down, and you have no proof that it did.
Other than improved economic activity after Reagan? Good enough proof for me. More wealth was created during that time than before.
No it doesn't. Increasing supply without demand to match it results in DEFLATION.
Nope. If more cars are available, they are cheaper to make. The cars can sell for less. This kind of deflation is GOOD.
Computers are another example.

It is the creation of wealth. THAT's the important factor here.
You have never taken an economics class in your life, have you?
Yes. I reject Keneysian economic models. They don't work. I support the Austrian economic model. It has been shown to work time and time again, consistently.
You can't manufacture demand by increasing supply...that's a real fast way to deflate your economy.
I already showed you can. Whole industries get created that way.
Who hoard it; they don't invest it and we've just lived through three years of them declining their investment post-Tax cut, despite your promises:
They don't hoard it. They put it into their businesses to improve their businesses. This allows them, among other things, to hire more people. That's wages, dude.
...deleted Holy Link...
So if tax cuts don't pay for themselves, don't lead to increased investment, then what is their purpose? Simple, fiscal terrorism.
Taxes are theft of wealth. Reducing theft of wealth means better economic activity.
Fiscal Terrorism is when Conservatives fly planes of tax cuts into the budget, creating massive deficits,
Buzzword fallacy. Deficits are caused by the government borrowing too much. Nothing to do with taxes. The government spends too much. That's why it has to borrow and tax so much (and print money to try to pay for itself).

The government spends too much. That is the cause of ALL of it's problems, fiscally.
then fake outrage at the deficits their tax cuts created
Tax cuts do not create deficits. Government spending too much and borrowing to do it creates deficits.
and use that fake outrage to extract punitive cuts to social spending programs
Communism is unconstitutional.
to which they are ideologically opposed, but lack the courage, will, and support to repeal through conventional legislation.
Tax cuts ARE conventional legislation.

You can't borrow your way to profit.
You can't print your way out of economic problems.

Only capitalism can save you. Only capitalism creates wealth. Socialism is theft of wealth. Both fascism and communism are forms of socialism.

Capitalism requires NO government to function. It is just everyday people providing goods and services voluntarily that others want to voluntarily pay for. It's not 'The Rich'. It's the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker. It is EVERYONE that runs a business. Anyone can play. You don't have to be poor. Start a small business. All it takes is work and initiative. Clean gutters. Mow lawns. Start a hotdog cart. Pressure wash driveways. Fix cars. Anything. That's capitalism. You can pull yourself out of poverty. No government needed.

That IS economic activity.
 
Last edited:
Other than improved economic activity after Reagan?

WTF are you talking about? Reagan started a recession in 1981 that didn't end until spending and taxes were increased in 1982.

Then, at the end of his Presidency, Reagan had the largest taxpayer bailout at the time for the collapse of the S&L's, which in turn also was the worst market collapse since 1929.

His successor, Bush the Elder, saw a recession start in 1990 that lasted until March 1991

Carter also created more jobs per month than Reagan did.
 
Nope. If more cars are available, they are cheaper to make.

No they aren't cheaper to make...they might be cheaper to buy, but only if consumers have no demand for it. Otherwise, if there is demand for it, the price will never decline...it will only go up.

And demand comes from wages, not from supply.

This is your free Macroeconomics lesson for the day...any other lessons will require a fee.
 
If they were, airplanes would be grounded, gasoline and other fossil fuels gone. It is just misdirection as crude oil is is the base for personal care products, materials we use/need, fuel, hell the NE still uses fuel oil, I mean that is like damn, back to the John Rockefeller years, holy shit.

Oil and oil products do not come from fossils. Fossils don't burn.

Yeah, I know. The idiot school you went to taught that oil comes from dinosaurs. It's wrong. Oil is actually a renewable energy source. The Germans and the Russians showed why.

During WW2, the world was putting to the screws to Germany to try to shut down it's war machine, including blocking the import of oil, needed to make fuel for their tanks and other military equipment. So the Germans took their chemical industry (the best in the world at the time) and had a go at making their own oil synthetically. They succeeded. It's called the Fischer-Tropsche process. All you do is take hydrogen, carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide, put it under heat and pressure in the presence of an iron catalyst. Out comes light sweet crude, and methane...hydrocarbons.

These are exactly the conditions found underground. The Earth is a giant Fischer-Tropsche reactor. If you drill deep enough, you WILL find oil. Oil comes closest to the surface at tectonic plate edges, particular where spreading or shearing action is taking place: The Mideast; the north slopes of Alaska; the North Sea; the Caribbean and all the way up into Texas and Pennsylvania; off the shores of California and down into Baja. All of these are on plate edges where shearing or spreading action is taking place.

The Russians once drilled a hole right through the Antarctic ice sheet. They developed the technology to drill a hole deeper than anyone had ever done before. They used that technology to drill in the middle of Siberia, away from any plate edge. Sure enough, they found oil.

Methane is also typically found along with the oil. Methane can also come from bacteria or the action of sunlight on an atmosphere containing hydrogen and carbon dioxide. It's pretty easy to make. Just shove energy into making this chemical bond, and you can release it as fuel.

This explains why, for example, that you can pump a Texas oil well dry, cap it, and it's full again after a bit of time has past. It is NOT seeping in from other wells, they were also pumped dry.

The Earth is continuously making oil. There is enough and to spare. The ONLY thing making oil products expensive is government regulations and taxes.
 
So you begin your response with a lie, and expect others to believe you. Typical.

https://www.news10.com/news/science/49-scientific-studies-explain-why-face-masks-work/

A news channel is not science.
N95 masks conform to a specification. That specification shows that such a mask is completely ineffective against viruses. Cloth masks and paper masks bought in various stores are even worse. They do not meet the N95 specification.

The N95 specification is not a lie. It exists.

Viruses are MUCH smaller than the pores in the mask. You might as well try to stop mosquitoes with a chain link fence.
 
It's truly insane how the IPCC allows government apparatchiks and politicians to change the reports. Do you need any further proof that the IPCC is first and foremost a political animal then here it is.

Once every five years, the IPCC publishes its latest Assessment Report into the state of the climate. And every five years, governments get together to write their own scary version:

UN researchers are set to publish their strongest statement yet on the science of climate change.

The report will likely detail significant changes to the world’s oceans, ice caps and land in the coming decades.

Due out on Monday, the report has been compiled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

It will be their first global assessment on the science of global heating since 2013.

It is expected the forthcoming Summary for Policymakers will be a key document for global leaders when they meet in November.

After two weeks of virtual negotiations between scientists and representatives of 195 governments, the IPCC will launch the first part of a three-pronged assessment of the causes, impacts and solutions to climate change.

It is the presence of these government officials that makes the IPCC different from other science bodies. After the report has been approved in agreement with governments, they effectively take ownership of it.

On Monday, a short, 40-page Summary for Policymakers will be released dealing with the physical science.

It may be brief, but the new report is expected to pack a punch.

"We’ve seen over a couple of months, and years actually, how climate change is unfolding; it’s really staring us in the face," said Dr Heleen de Coninck, from Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands, who is a coordinating lead author for the IPCC Working Group III.

"It’s really showing what the impacts will be, and this is just the start. So I think what this report will add is a big update of the state of the science, what temperature increase are we looking at – and what are the physical impacts of that?"

One key question in the new summary will be about the 1.5C temperature target. The climate summit held in the French capital, Paris, in 2015, committed nations to try to limit the rise in global temperature from pre-industrial times to no more than 1.5 degrees.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58102953

McGrath, not for the first time, shows how poorly he understands the Paris Agreement, misleading readers by saying “The climate summit held in the French capital, Paris, in 2015, committed nations to try to limit the rise in global temperature from pre-industrial times to no more than 1.5 degrees.”

It did no such thing. While it aimed to keep temperature rise below 2C, and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C, the national pledges actually made in Paris meant that emissions would remorselessly increase, as of course they have done. The Agreement committed nobody to limit the rise.

We must wait for the report, but I have little doubt it will contain the usual threats about melting ice caps, sea levels, storms, floods, hurricanes, droughts, famines and wildfires. All of these will get much worse in years to come, it will say, despite the fact that there is no actual evidence to support this. When the full scientific report is eventually published, this will all be apparent.

Meanwhile global temperatures, following on from the record El Nino in 2015/16, are no higher now than they were two decades ago. Isn’t it strange that things like Germany’s floods this year have been based on global warming, when there has not been any for twenty years

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/july2021/202107_Bar.png

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...port-will-highlight-stark-reality-of-warming/
 
Last edited:
WTF are you talking about? Reagan started a recession in 1981 that didn't end until spending and taxes were increased in 1982.
WRONG. He ENDED the recession caused by Carter's wage and price controls.
Then, at the end of his Presidency, Reagan had the largest taxpayer bailout at the time for the collapse of the S&L's, which in turn also was the worst market collapse since 1929.
The S&Ls collapsed because of Carter.
His successor, Bush the Elder, saw a recession start in 1990 that lasted until March 1991
Not a recession.
Carter also created more jobs per month than Reagan did.
Government does not create wealth. The only jobs Carter created were government jobs, paid for by stealing wealth.
 
Yes , one of the two biggest disappointments I had with the Trump administration.
The other was not prosecuting Hillary.

Agreed....to a point.

Congress would have to act to disband the EPA...that or the Court. It is unconstitutional, after all.
Not prosecuting Hillary was a mistake.

Fortunately, the Wicked Witch of the East is not much of a factor anymore. It's the Wicked Witch of the West that is the current problem. Queen Pelosi should be prosecuted as well. Her crimes include spying on US citizens without authorization, attempting to overthrow the federal government (she is currently successful in this, along with other Democrats), various mob ties, and destroying evidence and government records.
 
Back
Top