The Broken Window Fallacy
- Thread starter UncleBob
- Start date
gargus
Banned
So paying for a window according them creates jobs and money, but they shouldnt break the window because the money spent on things other than a broken window also create jobs and money? Im confused, isnt that basically the exact same thing?
And that was all done because they quoted someone that said something that turned out to not be true because he was incorrect? Hate to say but people constantly go on record to say things everyday that never work out the way they think of it.
THats the most asinine and smug video Ive seen in awhile. I understand the point kind of but its basically just screams of anti war and anti governments treatment of the little guy. It doesnt make a whole lot of sense really, but Im sure the people who made it thought it was just the greatest video of all time and they really opened peoples eyes. They really need to learn how to make a point, instead of having a vauge idea and running with it because it sounds good.
And that was all done because they quoted someone that said something that turned out to not be true because he was incorrect? Hate to say but people constantly go on record to say things everyday that never work out the way they think of it.
THats the most asinine and smug video Ive seen in awhile. I understand the point kind of but its basically just screams of anti war and anti governments treatment of the little guy. It doesnt make a whole lot of sense really, but Im sure the people who made it thought it was just the greatest video of all time and they really opened peoples eyes. They really need to learn how to make a point, instead of having a vauge idea and running with it because it sounds good.
[quote name='gargus']So paying for a window according them creates jobs and money, but they shouldnt break the window because the money spent on things other than a broken window also create jobs and money? Im confused, isnt that basically the exact same thing?[/QUOTE]
Baker has a window worth $50 and has $50 cash - $100 total.
In one situation, the baker has to use his cash to replace the window, so now only has $50.
In the other situation, the baker still has his old $50 window, but spent his cash to buy a $50 suit - or still has his $100.
In either situation, the same amount of money was spent and the same amount product was purchased. But, in one situation, the baker ends up $50 poorer than the other situation.
Baker has a window worth $50 and has $50 cash - $100 total.
In one situation, the baker has to use his cash to replace the window, so now only has $50.
In the other situation, the baker still has his old $50 window, but spent his cash to buy a $50 suit - or still has his $100.
In either situation, the same amount of money was spent and the same amount product was purchased. But, in one situation, the baker ends up $50 poorer than the other situation.
I
Indigo_Streetlight
Guest
I see the point; take Hurricane Katrina for example. The destruction of New Orleans can stimulate certain areas of the economy (whoever gets the contract to clean-up and rebuild in the area), but in doing so actual wealth can be lost.
There is one way however that the hoodlum breaking the window can be a positive thing. Say the window actually needed to be replaced--was cracked, falling apart, leaking deadly radon gas into the bakery. The baker's priorities may be so screwed up that he's looking to get a suit instead of doing what's best for his business. In that case the hoodlum served as a wake-up call and helped him to modernize.
There is one way however that the hoodlum breaking the window can be a positive thing. Say the window actually needed to be replaced--was cracked, falling apart, leaking deadly radon gas into the bakery. The baker's priorities may be so screwed up that he's looking to get a suit instead of doing what's best for his business. In that case the hoodlum served as a wake-up call and helped him to modernize.
I
Indigo_Streetlight
Guest
[quote name='UncleBob']Baker has a window worth $50 and has $50 cash - $100 total.
In one situation, the baker has to use his cash to replace the window, so now only has $50.
In the other situation, the baker still has his old $50 window, but spent his cash to buy a $50 suit - or still has his $100.
In either situation, the same amount of money was spent and the same amount product was purchased. But, in one situation, the baker ends up $50 poorer than the other situation.[/QUOTE]
Only if the window was brand new. A shitty window has hidden costs and is subject to depreciation.
By getting the window replaced he also has the potential to add to his property value, so the $50 may not be completely lost.
In one situation, the baker has to use his cash to replace the window, so now only has $50.
In the other situation, the baker still has his old $50 window, but spent his cash to buy a $50 suit - or still has his $100.
In either situation, the same amount of money was spent and the same amount product was purchased. But, in one situation, the baker ends up $50 poorer than the other situation.[/QUOTE]
Only if the window was brand new. A shitty window has hidden costs and is subject to depreciation.
By getting the window replaced he also has the potential to add to his property value, so the $50 may not be completely lost.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
It was a cute video until they tried to relate the theory to the US government and social programs.
The US government is spending all our money on two wars. Tax cuts are in place for the rich, and the rich ain't spending it for "broken windows" or "new suits". While on the brink we had a one-time stimulus that's unlikely to be repeated and any money we spend on helping the poor today is an absolute pittance when put in relation to other expenditures.
The US government is spending all our money on two wars. Tax cuts are in place for the rich, and the rich ain't spending it for "broken windows" or "new suits". While on the brink we had a one-time stimulus that's unlikely to be repeated and any money we spend on helping the poor today is an absolute pittance when put in relation to other expenditures.
The biggest problem with that video is that the people buying the surfboards/refrigerators are usually not buying locally produced surfboards/refrigerators, so no real jobs are being created by people who spend their money on that. Their money goes to the business owner...who's not making record profits so he fires as many people as he can and makes the remaining people pick up the slack under the guise that they should feel lucky they still have their minimum wage job "in this type of economy". He, in turn, pays the surfboard company...who recently decided that it cost too much money to manufacture surfboards in America, so he outsources it all to some foreign company that will do the same job for peanuts....which stimulates whatever country is producing the goods.
Business owner/surfboard company make out like bandits, random guy gets his surfboard and everybody else is
ed.
I wouldn't call war a public works project. Real public works projects employ local people and actually add something of value to the community.
Business owner/surfboard company make out like bandits, random guy gets his surfboard and everybody else is
ed.I wouldn't call war a public works project. Real public works projects employ local people and actually add something of value to the community.
[quote name='camoor']It was a cute video until they tried to relate the theory to the US government and social programs.
The US government is spending all our money on two wars. Tax cuts are in place for the rich, and the rich ain't spending it for "broken windows" or "new suits". While on the brink we had a one-time stimulus that's unlikely to be repeated and any money we spend on helping the poor today is an absolute pittance when put in relation to other expenditures.[/QUOTE]
one time stimulus huh? do some research. Maybe all time highest stimulus, but not a one time thing, and the stimulus idea has been repeated, many many times.
The US government is spending all our money on two wars. Tax cuts are in place for the rich, and the rich ain't spending it for "broken windows" or "new suits". While on the brink we had a one-time stimulus that's unlikely to be repeated and any money we spend on helping the poor today is an absolute pittance when put in relation to other expenditures.[/QUOTE]
one time stimulus huh? do some research. Maybe all time highest stimulus, but not a one time thing, and the stimulus idea has been repeated, many many times.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']one time stimulus huh? do some research. Maybe all time highest stimulus, but not a one time thing, and the stimulus idea has been repeated, many many times.[/QUOTE]
Let me ask you something. When the weatherman says we're having the "heat wave of the decade" do you think "hurrr at least this is the only heat wave for the next 10 years"
Let me ask you something. When the weatherman says we're having the "heat wave of the decade" do you think "hurrr at least this is the only heat wave for the next 10 years"
Vhehs2
Banned
The final part is not necessarily true. The video says that instead of spending money on public works programs via taxes, people will instead spend money on consumer products. While this will happen in some cases, there are many other people who would instead keep their money in the bank which does not create jobs (or if so, very few jobs).
cochesecochese
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']But, in one situation, the baker ends up $50 poorer than the other situation.[/QUOTE]
And there we are.
And there we are.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Vhehs2']The final part is not necessarily true. The video says that instead of spending money on public works programs via taxes, people will instead spend money on consumer products. While this will happen in some cases, there are many other people who would instead keep their money in the bank which does not create jobs (or if so, very few jobs).[/QUOTE]
Exactly. This is especially true for the rich and super-rich, the same people we are currently offering tax breaks and other incentives. A good reason why the disappearance of the middle class is bad for everyone who isn't already super-rich.
Exactly. This is especially true for the rich and super-rich, the same people we are currently offering tax breaks and other incentives. A good reason why the disappearance of the middle class is bad for everyone who isn't already super-rich.
[quote name='camoor']Let me ask you something. When the weatherman says we're having the "heat wave of the decade" do you think "hurrr at least this is the only heat wave for the next 10 years"[/QUOTE]
Ok let me ask you something. When the weatherman says we're having the "the first heatwave we have ever seen, and it is going to be the only one we will probably ever see" does he really mean "except for those 20 other ones we saw before hand, and the one that other weatherman is predicting to be coming?"
Just admit you were wrong, so we can move on.
[quote name='Camoor']
While on the brink we had a one-time stimulus that's unlikely to be repeated
[/QUOTE]
Ok let me ask you something. When the weatherman says we're having the "the first heatwave we have ever seen, and it is going to be the only one we will probably ever see" does he really mean "except for those 20 other ones we saw before hand, and the one that other weatherman is predicting to be coming?"
Just admit you were wrong, so we can move on.
[quote name='Camoor']
While on the brink we had a one-time stimulus that's unlikely to be repeated
[/QUOTE]
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Ok let me ask you something. When the weatherman says we're having the "the first heatwave we have ever seen, and it is going to be the only one we will probably ever see" does he really mean "except for those 20 other ones we saw before hand, and the one that other weatherman is predicting to be coming?"
Just admit you were wrong, so we can move on.[/QUOTE]
Knoell you see the world through a simplistic black-and-white filter. There are nuances (both in common parlance and in politics) that you will never be able to discern. I would continue this conversation but it's as futile as trying to explain green to someone who is color blind or global warming to a creationist.
Just admit you were wrong, so we can move on.[/QUOTE]
Knoell you see the world through a simplistic black-and-white filter. There are nuances (both in common parlance and in politics) that you will never be able to discern. I would continue this conversation but it's as futile as trying to explain green to someone who is color blind or global warming to a creationist.
I
Indigo_Streetlight
Guest
[quote name='Sporadic']The biggest problem with that video is that the people buying the surfboards/refrigerators are usually not buying locally produced surfboards/refrigerators, so no real jobs are being created by people who spend their money on that. Their money goes to the business owner...who's not making record profits so he fires as many people as he can and makes the remaining people pick up the slack under the guise that they should feel lucky they still have their minimum wage job "in this type of economy". He, in turn, pays the surfboard company...who recently decided that it cost too much money to manufacture surfboards in America, so he outsources it all to some foreign company that will do the same job for peanuts....which stimulates whatever country is producing the goods.
Business owner/surfboard company make out like bandits, random guy gets his surfboard and everybody else ised.
I wouldn't call war a public works project. Real public works projects employ local people and actually add something of value to the community.[/QUOTE]
There's some good points here because new world order economics aren't the same as middle school economic stimulation models, nor do I think what the U.S. government calls public works nowadays is going to be on the level of what they did building hydroelectric dams in Tennessee back in the 1930s.
And here's some food for thought: is it even possible for America to have public works projects like it did 80 years ago with the current environmental restrictions in place? Maybe I'm wrong, but could it be that a lot of the "good jobs" (necessary for a vibrant middle class) only existed because we had evil polluting factories on our own soil?
Business owner/surfboard company make out like bandits, random guy gets his surfboard and everybody else is
ed.I wouldn't call war a public works project. Real public works projects employ local people and actually add something of value to the community.[/QUOTE]
There's some good points here because new world order economics aren't the same as middle school economic stimulation models, nor do I think what the U.S. government calls public works nowadays is going to be on the level of what they did building hydroelectric dams in Tennessee back in the 1930s.
And here's some food for thought: is it even possible for America to have public works projects like it did 80 years ago with the current environmental restrictions in place? Maybe I'm wrong, but could it be that a lot of the "good jobs" (necessary for a vibrant middle class) only existed because we had evil polluting factories on our own soil?
I
Indigo_Streetlight
Guest
[quote name='camoor']Knoell you see the world through a simplistic black-and-white filter. There are nuances (both in common parlance and in politics) that you will never be able to discern. I would continue this conversation but it's as futile as trying to explain green to someone who is color blind or global warming to a creationist.[/QUOTE]
I dunno, proponents of global warming and creationists might get along. Two types of fanatics aren't necessarily opposites.
I dunno, proponents of global warming and creationists might get along. Two types of fanatics aren't necessarily opposites.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']I dunno, proponents of global warming and creationists might get along. Two types of fanatics aren't necessarily opposites.[/QUOTE]
Do you really believe that or is this a cute way of saying that scientists are fanatics.
PROTIP: Don't bother answering, it was rhetorical
Do you really believe that or is this a cute way of saying that scientists are fanatics.
PROTIP: Don't bother answering, it was rhetorical
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
Scientists are fanatics. They won't accept "God did it" as an answer.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']There's some good points here because new world order economics aren't the same as middle school economic stimulation models, nor do I think what the U.S. government calls public works nowadays is going to be on the level of what they did building hydroelectric dams in Tennessee back in the 1930s.
And here's some food for thought: is it even possible for America to have public works projects like it did 80 years ago with the current environmental restrictions in place? Maybe I'm wrong, but could it be that a lot of the "good jobs" (necessary for a vibrant middle class) only existed because we had evil polluting factories on our own soil?[/QUOTE]
We could convert our economy to solar and wind powered and our transportation to train. Both would be considered public works and cost outrageous amounts of money, but wouldn't cause much pollution.
And here's some food for thought: is it even possible for America to have public works projects like it did 80 years ago with the current environmental restrictions in place? Maybe I'm wrong, but could it be that a lot of the "good jobs" (necessary for a vibrant middle class) only existed because we had evil polluting factories on our own soil?[/QUOTE]
We could convert our economy to solar and wind powered and our transportation to train. Both would be considered public works and cost outrageous amounts of money, but wouldn't cause much pollution.
[quote name='Indigo_Streetlight']And here's some food for thought: is it even possible for America to have public works projects like it did 80 years ago with the current environmental restrictions in place? Maybe I'm wrong, but could it be that a lot of the "good jobs" (necessary for a vibrant middle class) only existed because we had evil polluting factories on our own soil?[/QUOTE]
Evil/polluting and factories don't have to walk hand in hand.
Evil/polluting and factories don't have to walk hand in hand.
[quote name='camoor']Knoell you see the world through a simplistic black-and-white filter. There are nuances (both in common parlance and in politics) that you will never be able to discern. I would continue this conversation but it's as futile as trying to explain green to someone who is color blind or global warming to a creationist.[/QUOTE]
This is a black and white situation in which you were wrong but won't admit it lol. Oh well you pulled out the "I am too good to continue the conversation on the basis that I don't want to be wrong" card so I'll stop harassing you about it.
This is a black and white situation in which you were wrong but won't admit it lol. Oh well you pulled out the "I am too good to continue the conversation on the basis that I don't want to be wrong" card so I'll stop harassing you about it.
cochesecochese
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']the "I am too good to continue the conversation on the basis that I don't want to be wrong" card[/QUOTE]
bananas
bananas
Kirin Lemon
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Oh well you pulled out the "I am too good to continue the conversation on the basis that I don't want to be wrong" card so I'll stop harassing you about it.[/QUOTE]
The irony, it burns!!
The irony, it burns!!
[quote name='camoor']Knoell you see the world through a simplistic black-and-white filter. There are nuances (both in common parlance and in politics) that you will never be able to discern. I would continue this conversation but it's as futile as trying to explain green to someone who is color blind or global warming to a creationist.[/QUOTE]
Bob and Knoell really are interchangeable. :lol:
[quote name='Clak']Yeah he sure got us there. "Ha! You don't like religion, but you're standing up for these people, hypocrite!"
People like Bob are the reason I can't take many conservatives seriously, the thought process is so screwed up. It's a simpler way of thinking, where everything is black and white and there is no nuance. There are some conservatives who don't resort to that, but they seem to be few and far between.[/QUOTE]
Bob and Knoell really are interchangeable. :lol:
[quote name='Clak']Yeah he sure got us there. "Ha! You don't like religion, but you're standing up for these people, hypocrite!"
People like Bob are the reason I can't take many conservatives seriously, the thought process is so screwed up. It's a simpler way of thinking, where everything is black and white and there is no nuance. There are some conservatives who don't resort to that, but they seem to be few and far between.[/QUOTE]
guinaevere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 114 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']But, in one situation, the baker ends up $50 poorer than the other situation.[/QUOTE]
And the tailor who would have sold a $50 suit didn't make the sale, because the baker had to spend money on the window. So it screwed the innocent tailor as well.
And the tailor who would have sold a $50 suit didn't make the sale, because the baker had to spend money on the window. So it screwed the innocent tailor as well.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Window maker does rather well, though.
Man, it seems like some people think rich guys just stuff their mattresses with cash and never do anything with it, like invest it or put it in banks that invest it... But heck, who needs investment...
[quote name='Clak']Bob and Knoell really are interchangeable. :lol:[/QUOTE]
Don't you have me on ignore? Are you really that obsessed with me that you have to pull my name into every post you make? Seriously?
[quote name='guinaevere']And the tailor who would have sold a $50 suit didn't make the sale, because the baker had to spend money on the window. So it screwed the innocent tailor as well.[/QUOTE]
But, in this case, it gave the glazier (window maker) $50. So, in that respect, the community still has the $50 transaction either way.
[quote name='Clak']Bob and Knoell really are interchangeable. :lol:[/QUOTE]
Don't you have me on ignore? Are you really that obsessed with me that you have to pull my name into every post you make? Seriously?
[quote name='guinaevere']And the tailor who would have sold a $50 suit didn't make the sale, because the baker had to spend money on the window. So it screwed the innocent tailor as well.[/QUOTE]
But, in this case, it gave the glazier (window maker) $50. So, in that respect, the community still has the $50 transaction either way.
guinaevere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 114 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']But, in this case, it gave the glazier (window maker) $50. So, in that respect, the community still has the $50 transaction either way.[/QUOTE]
But the baker was forced to spend his money in a manner against his choosing. How he spends his money is being dictated to him.
The community benefiting, and a private businessman being forced to spend his money outside his desire? Are you trying to get someone to say socialism?
But the baker was forced to spend his money in a manner against his choosing. How he spends his money is being dictated to him.
The community benefiting, and a private businessman being forced to spend his money outside his desire? Are you trying to get someone to say socialism?
[quote name='guinaevere']But the baker was forced to spend his money in a manner against his choosing. How he spends his money is being dictated to him.
The community benefiting, and a private businessman being forced to spend his money outside his desire? Are you trying to get someone to say socialism?[/QUOTE]
Not at all (honest).
In this situation, the community (as a whole) actually benefits more when the private businessman gets to spend his money as he wants (the total wealth of the community is +$50).
I was just being fair in pointing out that although the tailor is down $50, the glazier is up $50 which is neither a loss or a gain for the community as a whole.
The community benefiting, and a private businessman being forced to spend his money outside his desire? Are you trying to get someone to say socialism?[/QUOTE]
Not at all (honest).
In this situation, the community (as a whole) actually benefits more when the private businessman gets to spend his money as he wants (the total wealth of the community is +$50).
I was just being fair in pointing out that although the tailor is down $50, the glazier is up $50 which is neither a loss or a gain for the community as a whole.
guinaevere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 114 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Not at all (honest).
In this situation, the community (as a whole) actually benefits more when the private businessman gets to spend his money as he wants (the total wealth of the community is +$50).
I was just being fair in pointing out that although the tailor is down $50, the glazier is up $50 which is neither a loss or a gain for the community as a whole.[/QUOTE]Okay.
I disagree with you stating it's neither a loss nor benefit though. Though at the moment, my chaotic thoughts are no where near coherent enough to communicate intelligently. Hopefully, I'll be able to put them into words soon.
In this situation, the community (as a whole) actually benefits more when the private businessman gets to spend his money as he wants (the total wealth of the community is +$50).
I was just being fair in pointing out that although the tailor is down $50, the glazier is up $50 which is neither a loss or a gain for the community as a whole.[/QUOTE]Okay.
I disagree with you stating it's neither a loss nor benefit though. Though at the moment, my chaotic thoughts are no where near coherent enough to communicate intelligently. Hopefully, I'll be able to put them into words soon.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='guinaevere']Okay.
I disagree with you stating it's neither a loss nor benefit though. Though at the moment, my chaotic thoughts are no where near coherent enough to communicate intelligently. Hopefully, I'll be able to put them into words soon.[/QUOTE]
Really?
Putting effort into making Uncle Bob or Knoell understand something is like running harder towards the edge of a cliff or a brick wall.
Let's say you put forward the best, most logical post ever posted anywhere. The response will range from "Uh..." to "Is that a squirrel?". Then, you have to spend another twenty posts explaining terms that are detailed at wikipedia or an online dictionary and how squirrels aren't relevant to the discussion.
I disagree with you stating it's neither a loss nor benefit though. Though at the moment, my chaotic thoughts are no where near coherent enough to communicate intelligently. Hopefully, I'll be able to put them into words soon.[/QUOTE]
Really?
Putting effort into making Uncle Bob or Knoell understand something is like running harder towards the edge of a cliff or a brick wall.
Let's say you put forward the best, most logical post ever posted anywhere. The response will range from "Uh..." to "Is that a squirrel?". Then, you have to spend another twenty posts explaining terms that are detailed at wikipedia or an online dictionary and how squirrels aren't relevant to the discussion.
Lol this is a perfect example of how you all groupthink the policies that are currently going on. I don't want to take over this thread for this, but all of you are banding together against the "other side" so whatever.
Camoor said something that was clearly wrong, and instead of acknowledging he was wrong, and either moving on or telling him he needed to do more research you all jump to his defense by attacking me instead of the subject at hand.
Please without attacking me, I beg any of you to show me how this statement is at all factual.
[quote name='camoor']
While on the brink we had a one-time stimulus that's unlikely to be repeated
[/QUOTE]
Camoor said something that was clearly wrong, and instead of acknowledging he was wrong, and either moving on or telling him he needed to do more research you all jump to his defense by attacking me instead of the subject at hand.
Please without attacking me, I beg any of you to show me how this statement is at all factual.
[quote name='camoor']
While on the brink we had a one-time stimulus that's unlikely to be repeated
[/QUOTE]
[quote name='guinaevere']Okay.
I disagree with you stating it's neither a loss nor benefit though. Though at the moment, my chaotic thoughts are no where near coherent enough to communicate intelligently. Hopefully, I'll be able to put them into words soon.[/QUOTE]
I agree that it is a loss for the community on some grounds, but as a question of pure monetary worth, spending money at the glazier vs. spending money at the tailor is +/- $0 for the collective wealth of the community.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I make teh insultz real good like![/QUOTE]
Really? Come on.
I disagree with you stating it's neither a loss nor benefit though. Though at the moment, my chaotic thoughts are no where near coherent enough to communicate intelligently. Hopefully, I'll be able to put them into words soon.[/QUOTE]
I agree that it is a loss for the community on some grounds, but as a question of pure monetary worth, spending money at the glazier vs. spending money at the tailor is +/- $0 for the collective wealth of the community.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I make teh insultz real good like![/QUOTE]
Really? Come on.
Vhehs2
Banned
[quote name='Knoell']Lol this is a perfect example of how you all groupthink the policies that are currently going on. I don't want to take over this thread for this, but all of you are banding together against the "other side" so whatever.
Camoor said something that was clearly wrong, and instead of acknowledging he was wrong, and either moving on or telling him he needed to do more research you all jump to his defense by attacking me instead of the subject at hand.
Please without attacking me, I beg any of you to show me how this statement is at all factual.
"While on the brink we had a one-time stimulus that's unlikely to be repeated" [/QUOTE]
The key word is unlikely.
Camoor is not presenting it as a fact. It is only a prediction, and unless you have supernatural abilities that allow you to foresee the future, you don't have anymore right then he does to make predictions.
Camoor said something that was clearly wrong, and instead of acknowledging he was wrong, and either moving on or telling him he needed to do more research you all jump to his defense by attacking me instead of the subject at hand.
Please without attacking me, I beg any of you to show me how this statement is at all factual.
"While on the brink we had a one-time stimulus that's unlikely to be repeated" [/QUOTE]
The key word is unlikely.
Camoor is not presenting it as a fact. It is only a prediction, and unless you have supernatural abilities that allow you to foresee the future, you don't have anymore right then he does to make predictions.
[quote name='Vhehs2']The key word is unlikely.
Camoor is not presenting it as a fact. It is only a prediction, and unless you have supernatural abilities that allow you to foresee the future, you don't have anymore right then he does to make predictions.[/QUOTE]
I guess I should have included it in the context of the quote. He was complaining that tax cuts for the rich and the cost of war has always been around and noone complains but the one time we give money to the "little" people in a stimulus that is unlikely to be repeated, everyone complains.
History tells us it will be repeated, they are even talking about the need for a THIRD stimulus, but beyond that stimulus programs have been around for a long time. It wasn't a one-time thing unless you count the other 10 or so ones before it.
It would be like me saying that "come on, Iraq and Afghanistan was a one time thing that is unlikely to be repeated"
[quote name='camoor']The US government is spending all our money on two wars. Tax cuts are in place for the rich, and the rich ain't spending it for "broken windows" or "new suits". While on the brink we had a one-time stimulus that's unlikely to be repeated and any money we spend on helping the poor today is an absolute pittance when put in relation to other expenditures. [/QUOTE]
Camoor is not presenting it as a fact. It is only a prediction, and unless you have supernatural abilities that allow you to foresee the future, you don't have anymore right then he does to make predictions.[/QUOTE]
I guess I should have included it in the context of the quote. He was complaining that tax cuts for the rich and the cost of war has always been around and noone complains but the one time we give money to the "little" people in a stimulus that is unlikely to be repeated, everyone complains.
History tells us it will be repeated, they are even talking about the need for a THIRD stimulus, but beyond that stimulus programs have been around for a long time. It wasn't a one-time thing unless you count the other 10 or so ones before it.
It would be like me saying that "come on, Iraq and Afghanistan was a one time thing that is unlikely to be repeated"
[quote name='camoor']The US government is spending all our money on two wars. Tax cuts are in place for the rich, and the rich ain't spending it for "broken windows" or "new suits". While on the brink we had a one-time stimulus that's unlikely to be repeated and any money we spend on helping the poor today is an absolute pittance when put in relation to other expenditures. [/QUOTE]
tivo
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Vhehs2']The final part is not necessarily true. The video says that instead of spending money on public works programs via taxes, people will instead spend money on consumer products. While this will happen in some cases, there are many other people who would instead keep their money in the bank which does not create jobs (or if so, very few jobs).[/QUOTE]
The banks then lend out the money to people or companies who then buy stuff. This is all basic stuff.
I thought this thread was criticizing the broken windows theory. Everyone should know the broken window fallacy and its not really a source of controversy but somehow yall make it one.
The banks then lend out the money to people or companies who then buy stuff. This is all basic stuff.
I thought this thread was criticizing the broken windows theory. Everyone should know the broken window fallacy and its not really a source of controversy but somehow yall make it one.
[quote name='tivo']The banks then lend out the money to people or companies who then buy stuff. This is all basic stuff.
I thought this thread was criticizing the broken windows theory. Everyone should know the broken window fallacy and its not really a source of controversy but somehow yall make it one.[/QUOTE]
They will fight to the death anything that the "other side" posts.
I thought this thread was criticizing the broken windows theory. Everyone should know the broken window fallacy and its not really a source of controversy but somehow yall make it one.[/QUOTE]
They will fight to the death anything that the "other side" posts.
I don't think anybody has really been saying that the fallacy as presented isn't a fallacy. The issue is whether or not it applies to much more complicated situations like the video wants it to - when it isn't a straight comparison of 2 possible equal expenses with essentially equal effects.
[quote name='UncleBob']Baker has a window worth $50 and has $50 cash - $100 total.
In one situation, the baker has to use his cash to replace the window, so now only has $50.
In the other situation, the baker still has his old $50 window, but spent his cash to buy a $50 suit - or still has his $100.
In either situation, the same amount of money was spent and the same amount product was purchased. But, in one situation, the baker ends up $50 poorer than the other situation.[/QUOTE]
There are so, so many ways to defeat this theoretical and expose its flabby posterior that my mind is dancing at a year round rainbow candy buffet.
In one situation, the baker has to use his cash to replace the window, so now only has $50.
In the other situation, the baker still has his old $50 window, but spent his cash to buy a $50 suit - or still has his $100.
In either situation, the same amount of money was spent and the same amount product was purchased. But, in one situation, the baker ends up $50 poorer than the other situation.[/QUOTE]
There are so, so many ways to defeat this theoretical and expose its flabby posterior that my mind is dancing at a year round rainbow candy buffet.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='SpazX']I don't think anybody has really been saying that the fallacy as presented isn't a fallacy. The issue is whether or not it applies to much more complicated situations like the video wants it to - when it isn't a straight comparison of 2 possible equal expenses with essentially equal effects.[/QUOTE]
Come on, everything in politics is really simple.
Unemployed people are lazy. Social programs for the poor reward failure. Tax cuts for the rich create wealth and jobs for all. Jesus is the only way.
Why can't 'the other side' see how simple it all is??!?
Come on, everything in politics is really simple.
Unemployed people are lazy. Social programs for the poor reward failure. Tax cuts for the rich create wealth and jobs for all. Jesus is the only way.
Why can't 'the other side' see how simple it all is??!?
[quote name='Strell']There are so, so many ways to defeat this theoretical and expose its flabby posterior that my mind is dancing at a year round rainbow candy buffet.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I'm sure your reply would be just as classy and well thought out as your previous post.
Yes, I'm sure your reply would be just as classy and well thought out as your previous post.
bread's done