And I did look it up. And you we're wrong. So I'm asking you to provide a source to show that debt was worse in 1950 than it is now, or clarify that you meant to say "debt vs. GDP". You have still done neither. That's how debates work. If you are challenged, and cannot provide a source to back up your allegations with any facts, you are the loser of the debate. My source is wikipedia for the chart, but I pretty much knew this anyway. The first chart is debt, which is what you claimed was worse. The second is Debt to GDP, which is what I believed you meant to say (but for some reason continue to refuse to admit). There's no anger here, Ricter. You're just not all that valuable, sorry bud. If you wish to portray yourself as incapable of debating economic points, either because of lack of knowledge or drive, that is certainly your prerogative. I'll just sit back and giggle every time someone tries to engage you.
Regardless of what economic theory you choose to employ, risk must be managed. When free markets, at a macro level, are unable or unwilling to manage that risk, a government will step in and try to do that for them. The problem occurs when the corrupt and incompetent government attempts to regulate a corrupt and incompetent not so free market. Whatever problems occur as a result at the macro level don't just trickle down to the micro level, they hit like a tsunami. Relentless and unforgiving of even the smallest mistake.
Giggling sounds consistent with what we see of you, here. The OP was capable enough to move on and address the relevance of the debt which resulted from WWII. Why can't you?
Because debating requires reaching an agreement on one point before you continue to the next point. If you cannot come to an agreement on a point that is the foundation of the argument, you cannot continue to have arguments building on that "fact". Shall I post a source to debating 101 for you? The more interesting question here is "why can't you admit you were incorrect?" Also something else important to debating. If you are unable to admit error, there is no point in ever having a debate with you as you are incapable in debating, only arguing. Incidentally, in this thread, I am the OP.
Epic fail again, Ricter. Redirect attempt because of inability to address the original question, or admit you are incorrect.
Here is a debate flowchart for you Ricter. Everyone is human and everyone makes mistakes. Try to follow this as much as possible in the future, and debate is possible. And by all means, if I break these rules when we're having a valid debate then call me out on it as well. This is a message forum and some of the rules can be bent a bit as responses tend to be far more emotional than normal. But the general path should be followed in any intelligent debate (not flame wars).
It has finally occurred to me that being a rich man in a poor country is a bad thing. Why I did not see this before, I do not know. I found an article today that confirms Obama is a globalist. I found it on HuffPost of all places. In short, he does not care about our sovereignty. I know that all of this nation stuff will go by the wayside as we evolve as a species, but it should not fall due to our president selling out his citizens. I would say vote for Mittens, but he is going to do it also. It seems there is no way out. What can citizens do who have worked hard and built up wealth for themselves and their progeny? We have misapplied Keynes. Hayek and Mises will never work in a representative republic. That means at some point, our republic will end.
Very wise statements. The only solution (which will never come about, unfortunately) is to make those who represent us in government true public servants. Sort of like the Santelli idea of making serving in Congress like jury duty. You get called up for a year of your life to serve, get paid very little (but expenses are covered) and you have to legislate for the good of the republic, then return to the population afterwards. Apart from that, the only thing that will occur is bigger and bigger booms and bigger and bigger busts, until the mother of all resets occur, and we then repeat the process. We are there, now, at the end of that road. Both choices we have left are extremely painful, just different kinds of pain. But who suffers more? The poor. They always will. Though I am glad to see you join me on the economic dark side and that your eyes see the truth of the matter, I am sorry for the despair it brings.
Odumbo wants to give away every policital, social, and economic advantage America has. That way, Americans can be just a poor and miserable as the rest of the world. Is that "social justice"? Is that what we want as a nation?