Fake an Alien Invasion, Save the U.S. Economy
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What he's really saying is "we need a priority higher than making money - like the survival of the species or even just nation - so people will stop doing short-term financial operations that are not viable in the long term (like the subprimes)"
You don't need an alien invasion for that. Just double-back on the laws that made banks not responsible for their own actions. But I feel that a non-fake alien invasion is more likely than this happening.
You don't need an alien invasion for that. Just double-back on the laws that made banks not responsible for their own actions. But I feel that a non-fake alien invasion is more likely than this happening.
He is basing his error ridden idea on false history and it blows my mind. He has nice credentials and all, but that doesn't make him an authority of anything economic at this point. He won the Nobel Prize in Economics based on an economic idea that has basically bankrupted America. He won a Nobel prize for saying the complete opposite of what FA Hayek had to say, and he won it in 1974 for saying the complete opposite of what Paul Krugman said. It no longer qualifies as an achievement because it is so politically oriented.
Back OT: The idea that wars are good for the economy is patently false. If WWII brought us out of the great depression, why did the depression not actually end till 1955? In a war like that, all the goods are produced only for war. A war economy is only good if you are going to fight wars forever, and since that is unsustainable (doesn't mean people didn't try), it could not fix anything. In a war the state literally diverts resources from successful entrepreneurs to the states means, and it's the state that seeks the war, not the people. The only upside of an alien invasion would be that everyone would have a common enemy, but that doesn't mean that people won't have different ideas about how to handle the situation.
I hate when guys like this open their mouth. Weaponry is only good for killing, turning swords to plowshares(figuratively) is the answer, and that stems from the idea that prosperity isn't won by killing ever increasing numbers of enemies, but through peaceful co-existence and mutually beneficial trade. If war was the answer, most of Africa would be prosperous and us western peace mongers would be dying of common diseases, have a record bad education system and show barely any growth on a good year and negative growth on a bad year. And just in case you didn't understand my sarcasm, I just described America as having the problems that Africa really does have.
Back OT: The idea that wars are good for the economy is patently false. If WWII brought us out of the great depression, why did the depression not actually end till 1955? In a war like that, all the goods are produced only for war. A war economy is only good if you are going to fight wars forever, and since that is unsustainable (doesn't mean people didn't try), it could not fix anything. In a war the state literally diverts resources from successful entrepreneurs to the states means, and it's the state that seeks the war, not the people. The only upside of an alien invasion would be that everyone would have a common enemy, but that doesn't mean that people won't have different ideas about how to handle the situation.
I hate when guys like this open their mouth. Weaponry is only good for killing, turning swords to plowshares(figuratively) is the answer, and that stems from the idea that prosperity isn't won by killing ever increasing numbers of enemies, but through peaceful co-existence and mutually beneficial trade. If war was the answer, most of Africa would be prosperous and us western peace mongers would be dying of common diseases, have a record bad education system and show barely any growth on a good year and negative growth on a bad year. And just in case you didn't understand my sarcasm, I just described America as having the problems that Africa really does have.
We actually have proof that we have been in war mode since the beginning of WWII. We went WWII, Korea, Vietnam (backdrops of the Cold war), Cold war main, Iraq, Iraq again, Afghanistan, Libya and in the middle of all you that you have nearly countless examples of military adventurism that has cost America dearly in the form of political allies and money.... I can't help but feel I am missing a thing or two in all of that.viranimus said:
Peace isn't hurting the US job market, it's government regulations and restrictions on trade on top of high corporate taxes. Taxing the hell out of any industry that has offices in other countries means you will only drive them out completely. The answer is lower corporate income tax, getting rid of minimum wage laws and allowing the currency to deflate so people can afford to take a pay cut to match what is necessary. And as far as big companies leaving the smaller ones alone, that is fine except then the price of everything goes up without that competition. And you must remember, it is a rule that all inhabitants of all countries are consumers. The political system is killing this country. We get closer and closer to a social democracy which is the very thing that nearly killed Sweden till 1993 when they drastically changed direction and laxed all a lot of their corporate taxation and cut a vast majority of their spending, in the process laying off a great many government employees. And this is all with the understanding that they did not keep a standing army anywhere near what America has. And they aren't traveling all over the world starting wars every chance they get. Their public sector is now the most efficient public sector in the world and even though there is high personal income tax, 85% of what is taken from each individual is returned to that individual.viranimus said:
Oh gee, I never would have guessed he's a Keynesian. Yeah, war spending surely makes the economy look nice, but it's all artificial.
Of course you won't have high unemployment rates when you conscript everyone into the army. Of course you can raise the GDP by producing guns, missiles, tanks and whatnot. But that's just faking. You might as well buy 100000 dolls and burn them for all good it does.
Who profits in the end? A certain niche industry - mostly their higher-ups - and no one else. All you do is shift some money, raise a few statistics and everything else remains the same for everyone else.
If you have to opt for government stimulus, yeah, build infrastructure, invest in educations, do long-term projects with positive effects. Don't produce 1000 tanks no one will ever need. Besides, suggesting that the US should take up even more debt? Ridiculous.
"But how can this great economist who even won a Nobel Prize be wrong?" Because he's a Keynesian and Keynesians are always right.
Which reminds me:
Whoops, this kinda became a rant against Keynesians in general, rather than his point. Whatever.
Of course you won't have high unemployment rates when you conscript everyone into the army. Of course you can raise the GDP by producing guns, missiles, tanks and whatnot. But that's just faking. You might as well buy 100000 dolls and burn them for all good it does.
Who profits in the end? A certain niche industry - mostly their higher-ups - and no one else. All you do is shift some money, raise a few statistics and everything else remains the same for everyone else.
If you have to opt for government stimulus, yeah, build infrastructure, invest in educations, do long-term projects with positive effects. Don't produce 1000 tanks no one will ever need. Besides, suggesting that the US should take up even more debt? Ridiculous.
"But how can this great economist who even won a Nobel Prize be wrong?" Because he's a Keynesian and Keynesians are always right.
Which reminds me:
Whoops, this kinda became a rant against Keynesians in general, rather than his point. Whatever.
It seems like it would save the human race as a whole? I mean, if there happens to be an alien invasion, the only way we're going to have a chance to fight them off is if we all fight them together. So instead of different countries, we can just be considered as Earth, the frack you planet 
So all you really have to do is stage and invasion by fake reporting on the internet, t.v, and radio. It's the War of the Worlds radio broadcast all over again, the idea is very stupid but a slight chance of working.
Hmm, how will we get rid of some of our debt? I know, by spending more money! Derp.
Sometimes I wish we did have an alien invasion... One that abducts all of the smug braindead suits.
Probably too much to ask, but one can always dream.
Sometimes I wish we did have an alien invasion... One that abducts all of the smug braindead suits.
Probably too much to ask, but one can always dream.
At one point, I was helping my sister with her homework for her economics class. The primary textbook was one of Paul Krugman's works. In that book, Paul Krugman described the Great Depression as, and I'm quoting, "a time of great economic growth." Frankly, I think the guy's a fucking moron.
He has a point. If the nitpicking about stimulii, the bipartisan trench warfare and political shit throwing were to take a backseat to constructive arguing and cooperation in the face of a common threat - things would certainly be over much quicker.
Alas, solving problems is not what politics is about right now. It's about who gets to ride the front seat after the next election.
Otherwise, the GOP would have clenched their butcheeks together and agreed to the democrats on the terms that the taxes would be reformed by a comission with equal members of both parties.
Also, we don't have to invent an alien invasion - we have an global crisis ahead of us and we know it will cost us dearly if we don't act. Global warming, depleting fuel sources and an energycrisis are real threats that will mandate a global effort to overcome - but right now, nobody makes a lasting contribution to really "save the world" on a larger scale then a park or a meadow.
I wanna see a space elevator beeing built for atmospheric photovoltaic energy production in the next decade etc.
Alas, solving problems is not what politics is about right now. It's about who gets to ride the front seat after the next election.
Otherwise, the GOP would have clenched their butcheeks together and agreed to the democrats on the terms that the taxes would be reformed by a comission with equal members of both parties.
Also, we don't have to invent an alien invasion - we have an global crisis ahead of us and we know it will cost us dearly if we don't act. Global warming, depleting fuel sources and an energycrisis are real threats that will mandate a global effort to overcome - but right now, nobody makes a lasting contribution to really "save the world" on a larger scale then a park or a meadow.
I wanna see a space elevator beeing built for atmospheric photovoltaic energy production in the next decade etc.
Time to pull out my mask with the shifting patterns...
There are problems with this. To say the least.
A. It's aliens. Invading. Which is the plot straight out of 50s B-movies and then recycled after the seventies. People will fall into three categories: Those who think it's a hoax, those who don't believe in aliens, and those who fall for it and really aren't going to be especially economy-useful.
B. You create an economy based around arsenaling up for war. So tremendous effort and resources going into military hardware. Whereas today, it's all complex enough that it's all about development anyway, and a whole bunch of extra rivet-knockers is really not going to do much good at all, because so much of the procedure is specialized. Unless we decide to mass-produce WWII technology, for some reason, which wouldn't surprise me the way this is going.
C. Everybody is up-arsenaling for WAR. A fictitious war with a bubble that's going to burst and leave everybody with a surplus of military hardware and preparations...and nothing to do with it. You know what happens next? WAR! Starts with the little guys trying to duke it out for territory, followed by bigger powers stepping in, and suddenly you find that you've ordered World War III to-go.
D. It's an incredibly focused economy, with all resources going into immediate, short-term areas and forsaking everything else almost entirely. Of course, considering who's saying this...
E. It involves a massive conspiracy involving the world's governments engaging in broad deception in order to fuel a war-based economy so that... Actually, you know what? I don't know what the problem with this is. It makes perfect sense! Start with a state of emergency, invoke martial law, get everybody working for you, and BAM! Absolute control and dissolution of individual freedoms. What could be better?
F. When we find out it's all a big joke, there WILL be riots. Likely on a broad scale. Likely involving the people utilizing all those lovely machines they've been building. Today's forecast is mostly rioting, with a high chance of revolution.
G. He's a Keynesian. Which means he's a drooling moron, as otherwise evidenced. Why are we listening to this idiocy, again? OH WAIT!
There are problems with this. To say the least.
A. It's aliens. Invading. Which is the plot straight out of 50s B-movies and then recycled after the seventies. People will fall into three categories: Those who think it's a hoax, those who don't believe in aliens, and those who fall for it and really aren't going to be especially economy-useful.
B. You create an economy based around arsenaling up for war. So tremendous effort and resources going into military hardware. Whereas today, it's all complex enough that it's all about development anyway, and a whole bunch of extra rivet-knockers is really not going to do much good at all, because so much of the procedure is specialized. Unless we decide to mass-produce WWII technology, for some reason, which wouldn't surprise me the way this is going.
C. Everybody is up-arsenaling for WAR. A fictitious war with a bubble that's going to burst and leave everybody with a surplus of military hardware and preparations...and nothing to do with it. You know what happens next? WAR! Starts with the little guys trying to duke it out for territory, followed by bigger powers stepping in, and suddenly you find that you've ordered World War III to-go.
D. It's an incredibly focused economy, with all resources going into immediate, short-term areas and forsaking everything else almost entirely. Of course, considering who's saying this...
E. It involves a massive conspiracy involving the world's governments engaging in broad deception in order to fuel a war-based economy so that... Actually, you know what? I don't know what the problem with this is. It makes perfect sense! Start with a state of emergency, invoke martial law, get everybody working for you, and BAM! Absolute control and dissolution of individual freedoms. What could be better?
F. When we find out it's all a big joke, there WILL be riots. Likely on a broad scale. Likely involving the people utilizing all those lovely machines they've been building. Today's forecast is mostly rioting, with a high chance of revolution.
G. He's a Keynesian. Which means he's a drooling moron, as otherwise evidenced. Why are we listening to this idiocy, again? OH WAIT!
