Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/22/03 09:57 AM, BootlegJones wrote: I don't know which one I should be, I used to be a liberal, but I hate hippies, and they kinda act like that, besides, I'm a strict person when it comes to disapline. I don't know really.

Not all liberals act like hippies. I'm liberal, but i have never felt the need to wear bright coloured shirts and sit in trees smoking weed. One of the three is fine.

At 7/23/03 02:36 AM, bumcheekycity wrote:

At 7/22/03 09:57 AM, BootlegJones wrote: I don't know which one I should be, I used to be a liberal, but I hate hippies, and they kinda act like that, besides, I'm a strict person when it comes to disapline. I don't know really.

Not all liberals act like hippies. I'm liberal, but i have never felt the need to wear bright coloured shirts and sit in trees smoking weed. One of the three is fine.

If you don't agree with the USA PATRIOT act, then you might be a liberal.

Hey, I'm the Jeff Foxworthy of NG!

Your qualifications don't discount my knowledge. And anyhow, qualifications don't mean shit.

Well, they do because I study this and you dont.

You haven't quite got the hang of this have you? Your qualifications don't discount my knowledge.

Your assumptions, and what you think you know, are simply opinions; what im talking about is economic theory that has been proven.

Clearly you haven't been taught well enough. See nothing, not science, not history, not economics is a closed book where they have all the answers.

This is not just my opinion, its my professors

Ah, you just copy what your teacher says, no wonder you're top of your class.

Well, thats how you learn asshole; were you born knowing what you know, or were you taught?

Well neither. I was given (or I took) information which I assimilated to form my own opinion.

Also, youre misreading what I mean by that statement. These idiological views would say that these actions are what we OUGHT to do; not what has been done

There is no such thing as a liberal or left-wing consensus and their is no over-arching ideological view either. I have yet to come across any view similar to that you describe.

Welcome to Politics.

Sigh, surely if I don't understand economics, as you have said, then I wouldn't understand what you have just said. This leads me to two conclusions, firstly, that you're trying to show off or secondly, that you're stupid and just decided to recite a textbook at me.

Im not copying this out of a book, and these arent fancy words. Say you have a graph that looks like a "U". This is a long run aggregate (overall, whole) supply curve; it is composed of all possible short run curves. It curves down at first because size, in the begining, leads to higher effieciency. At one point it begins to increase, and this is where diseconomies of scale take place (vs. economies of scale). The derivative (tangent to a function) is larger than zero once it begins to rise.

The thing is, what you are saying would lead us to the assumption that big corporations, such as Nike, McDonalds and GM Motors should not exist. I mean it seems to have no link to the real world where Corporations are getting bigger and smaller competitors are being squeezed out.

Also, you think of the government as just one big bloc. That is not nessicerily correct. Britain, who has (had...there are only a few now, damn Thatcher)many nationalised industries has found various ways of seperating things like the BBC from the main body of the Government.

Here ya go Slizor,

First of all, dont even try and say that my school doesnt know what theyre talking about. I go to The University of Michigan. Im a Business student; our program ranks with Harvard and other Ivy league schools. It is also a major research University. We have Nobel Prize winners that teach here. Where do you go to school at? Where will you go?

Also, this is the what ill do for you since you cant differentiate this from an opinion. Ill explain it a bit, but not in depth. If I were to explain it in depth, you wouldnt understand unless youve taken microeconomics and calculus.

The reason that its a fact is because its a Law. In order to be a law it must be able to symbolically represent this through mathmatical models. This requires a very good understanding of graphs, as well as the laws that govern supply and demand. These are all laws thus they can be represented mathmatically.

A companies/industries long run agregate supply graph looks like a U; the governement is an industry in the sense that it supplys a service to the people it governs. The reason that the graph looks like this is because it is a summation of all possible short run curves. Each short run curve is based on others. Curves are made from such functions as: marginal cost, average cost, and total cost. Also, a demand curve is integrated into this. Now, there are other things to consider, but these are specific to an industry. The graphs all behave in a specific way; the shape of the graphs resemble oneanother.

Now, the government is quite large and has many employees as well as branches. By the way, im talking about the USA. Anyways, due to its size it suffers from diseconomies of scale. This is different from a monopoly or an oligopoly such as the ones youve mentioned. There is a lot of graphs involved, and I dont think you want to hear about all that stuff.

Liberals tend to want the government to control more of the private sectors and so thats why I said what I did. Also, this applies to micro aspects not macro. I might have forgot some stuff, but I think this says most of it.

At 7/23/03 07:08 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: If you don't agree with the USA PATRIOT act, then you might be a liberal.

I guess I'm liberal, then.

At 7/24/03 04:28 AM, bumcheekycity wrote:

At 7/23/03 07:08 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: If you don't agree with the USA PATRIOT act, then you might be a liberal.

I guess I'm liberal, then.

If you believe that a woman should choose whether her fetus lives or not, then you might *pause* be a liberal.

At 7/24/03 04:36 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: If you believe that a woman should choose whether her fetus lives or not, then you might *pause* be a liberal.

What's with the pause?

First of all, dont even try and say that my school doesnt know what theyre talking about.

The opinion of the most informed person in the world is still only an opinion. See say 20 years ago everyone thought Keynesianism was correct. 1000s of scholars would have agreed. It would be governed by laws and would be taught to University Minors.

Nothing is ever certain.

Also, this is the what ill do for you since you cant differentiate this from an opinion.

It is an opinion. This is what you don't uderstand.

The reason that its a fact is because its a Law.

Irrelevant. A law is just something with more supporting evidence. Not something that has been proven beyond a doubt, just like a theory.

Now, the government is quite large and has many employees as well as branches. By the way, im talking about the USA. Anyways, due to its size it suffers from diseconomies of scale.

Not if it seperates the branches. I think this is quite interesting http://www.bized.ac.uk/stafsup/options/notes/econ204.htm . If you look at what it says on internal diseconomies of scale it just lists possibilities and calls them facts.

This is different from a monopoly or an oligopoly such as the ones youve mentioned.

What monopolies?

Liberals tend to want the government to control more of the private sectors

Again, not Liberals, leftists. And again, no overarching consensus.

See now I realised something. You're trying to get away with "My teachers are professionals, what do you know that they don't?". So I decided to get the 1998 Nobel Prize Winner for Economics to back up my ideas. Presenting Amartya Sen http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,465796,00.html

::watches on from the wings::

Ooh, well played indeed.

At 7/24/03 08:43 AM, Slizor wrote:

First of all, dont even try and say that my school doesnt know what theyre talking about.

The opinion of the most informed person in the world is still only an opinion. See say 20 years ago everyone thought Keynesianism was correct. 1000s of scholars would have agreed. It would be governed by laws and would be taught to University Minors.

:Thats true, but like I said, my school is very big on research. If they realized or found something new, they would teach it to us.

Nothing is ever certain.

Also, this is the what ill do for you since you cant differentiate this from an opinion.

I dont think you understand exactly what it is that im arguing; your first source back me up, as ironic as that is. Im taliking about to topics; the first is very analytical and will never be proven wrong, thats for sure. The other, I guess only time will tell.
It is an opinion. This is what you don't uderstand.

The reason that its a fact is because its a Law.

Irrelevant. A law is just something with more supporting evidence. Not something that has been proven beyond a doubt, just like a theory.

Irrelevant my ass!:) Theory turns into law once it is writen mathmatically; by doing this, the outcome is always the same for a given set of variables.

Now, the government is quite large and has many employees as well as branches. By the way, im talking about the USA. Anyways, due to its size it suffers from diseconomies of scale.

Not if it seperates the branches. I think this is quite interesting http://www.bized.ac.uk/stafsup/options/notes/econ204.htm . If you look at what it says on internal diseconomies of scale it just lists possibilities and calls them facts.

This is a terrible source; it really doesnt help your arguement either. Also, configuration is relative to each industry. The government, here, must DO AWAY WITH these branchs; this is a very complicated issue, and I cant explain it in depth very well.

This is different from a monopoly or an oligopoly such as the ones youve mentioned.

What monopolies?

Nike and whoever else you said in a previous post.

Liberals tend to want the government to control more of the private sectors

Again, not Liberals, leftists. And again, no overarching consensus.

Liberals are leftists to an extent. Given that this thread says liberal vs. conservative I assumed to classify them as left. Im not going to get technical on this. Ill agree with you a bit.

See now I realised something. You're trying to get away with "My teachers are professionals, what do you know that they don't?". So I decided to get the 1998 Nobel Prize Winner for Economics to back up my ideas. Presenting Amartya Sen http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,465796,00.html

This is a frickin bio synopsis! What the hell was this source intended to prove? Im not trying to put you down or call you stupid, but you dont know tooo much about this, and your not understanding what im going at. That source has nothing in comman with what I said; the closest thing is his macro views. This is a micro topic, not macro.

I wont be able to respond again for a few because Im busy as hell at work, and I have a huge test early next week. Im getting tired of this topic as well.

At 7/25/03 02:26 PM, BWS wrote: Im not trying to put you down or call you stupid,

I think your snobbish attitude proves that statement wrong.

And if that comment was snobbish, then I guess there's a cancel out, therefore, no harm no foul. :-)

Heres something ive been thinking about when it comes to liberals and conservatives, although it might come out a little wierd since its 1:15 in the morning.

Most liberals strive to have shared power between elected political parties, where no one power has control but there is debate between parties to figure out what the people want and what is best for everyone. They try to be fair and make sure to limit the potential for evil of anyone in power.

But the thing is part of what Concervativism is is having total control with a majority of the votes after an election, even though they have the majority of the vote, i think it is undemocratic that the others are fomally represented. Who is there to stop the conservitives from passing unfair bills like the Patriot act, which is just complete bullshit. so in its nature, concervativism is undemocratic.

To quote someone on General from a bit ago:

"Conservtivs *sic* are sux0rz."

The opinion of the most informed person in the world is still only an opinion. See say 20 years ago everyone thought Keynesianism was correct. 1000s of scholars would have agreed. It would be governed by laws and would be taught to University Minors.

Thats true, but like I said, my school is very big on research. If they realized or found something new, they would teach it to us.

But what they are currently teaching you is conventional "wisdom". Give it a few more years, the prevalent ideology will go out of fashion and they will teach you something else.

Nothing is ever certain.

Also, this is the what ill do for you since you cant differentiate this from an opinion.

I dont think you understand exactly what it is that im arguing; your first source back me up, as ironic as that is.

My first source actually explained what you were talking about, which you are failing to do. You do't really seem to get it. You are saying these things happen (ie a U shaped graph.) That is something that can't be disproven unless you say WHY that happens. And do you know why it can't be disproven? Because it hasn't been proven!

Irrelevant. A law is just something with more supporting evidence. Not something that has been proven beyond a doubt, just like a theory.

Irrelevant my ass!:) Theory turns into law once it is writen mathmatically; by doing this, the outcome is always the same for a given set of variables.

A theory represented mathmatically is still a theory. And the very essence of a theory is that it is not certain. A theory has supporting evidence and is yet to be disproven, but on the same reasoning it is yet to be totally proven. Thus it is not a fact.

The government, here, must DO AWAY WITH these branchs; this is a very complicated issue, and I cant explain it in depth very well.

You haven't explained anything, you have just stated it.

This is different from a monopoly or an oligopoly such as the ones youve mentioned.

What monopolies?

Nike and whoever else you said in a previous post.

Nike is a monopoly? *looks at his shoes*

See now I realised something. You're trying to get away with "My teachers are professionals, what do you know that they don't?". So I decided to get the 1998 Nobel Prize Winner for Economics to back up my ideas. Presenting Amartya Sen http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,465796,00.html

That source has nothing in comman with what I said; the closest thing is his macro views.

Exactly. His macro views support nationalisation. This would translate to a disagreement with your micro views.

hmm... well after reading all the arguements made on this thread i think its safe to say that both liberals and conservatives are good and bad... depending on the issue

i want all people to be equal and want to allow all people to choose for themselves...

that makes me a liberal sometimes and a conservative other times...

so in conclusion arguing achieves nothing...

lets put that theory to the test... after reading this thread has anyone changed their views on which group is better???

At 7/28/03 06:45 PM, karasz wrote: hmm... well after reading all the arguements made on this thread i think its safe to say that both liberals and conservatives are good and bad... depending on the issue

Thats true, a mix of approaches would probably be the best solution, the only problem is, that the only ones willing to try something like that, are the liberals, the concervitives arnt big on conceding, so my thought is that if the liberals are striving for fairness, and the concervatives for victory, of course the concervatives will win, that the problem with the system.

Ted Kennedy is big on crossing party lines to get things done for the welfare of the people. Bill Clinton also, given the Congress he had, crossed party lines in an attempt to get things finished and do with America what he could. However, partisanship is a roadblock, and has been for a long time.

At 7/24/03 04:36 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: If you don't agree with the USA PATRIOT act, then you might be a liberal.

I don't agree with the act, does that make me a liberal?

If you believe that a woman should choose whether her fetus lives or not, then you might *pause* be a liberal.

I believe in pro-choice, does that make me a liberal?

At 7/28/03 06:45 PM, karasz wrote: hmm... is better???

Well said; I agree. The result is nothing most often.

At 7/26/03 09:47 AM, Slizor wrote:

But what they are currently teaching you is conventional "wisdom". Give it a few more years, the prevalent ideology will go out of fashion and they will teach you something else.

This isnt ideologically based. This is an economic theory that is based through graphs. This is mathmatical, not ideological.

My first source actually explained what you were talking about, which you are failing to do. You do't really seem to get it. You are saying these things happen (ie a U shaped graph.) That is something that can't be disproven unless you say WHY that happens. And do you know why it can't be disproven? Because it hasn't been proven!

I didnt fail to do it because I didnt attempt to. This is more complicated than you'd like to beleive. In order to understand what im talking about you would have to hacve taken econ and calculus classes; also, it would take too much time and space. Its a cost curve that is a summation of others. Just trust me on this one, ok?

A theory represented mathmatically is still a theory. And the very essence of a theory is that it is not certain. A theory has supporting evidence and is yet to be disproven, but on the same reasoning it is yet to be totally proven. Thus it is not a fact.

Wrong, sorry, but thats just wrong. In order to become a law it must be represented mathmatically. This theory is, and therefore is a law. You think it isnt because you dont see the integration of the two topics. Diseconomics of scale happen...fact. The government is large enough to be under this catagory...fact; the ONLY applys to certain issues, not ALL of them.

Nike is a monopoly? *looks at his shoes*

I KNOW that they arent; youre the one that asked about previously named companies. You said Nike. I repeated what you said. I know they arent and so do you so dont try and twist it. I forgot what the argument was about so I cant comment on it any more.

Exactly. His macro views support nationalisation. This would translate to a disagreement with your micro views.

How do you figure?

At 7/23/03 03:09 AM, 70TA wrote: Conservatives are better. I am one. Liberals suck, damn hippies.

Conservatives suck! Damn preppy sellouts!

At 7/29/03 04:07 AM, TheShrike wrote:

At 7/23/03 03:09 AM, 70TA wrote: Conservatives are better. I am one. Liberals suck, damn hippies.

Conservatives suck! Damn preppy sellouts!

Both of you suck for making the political parties seem like they all happen to be Newgrounds users. Ted Kennedy gets on the BBS every once in awhile and flames people.

At 7/29/03 04:43 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Both of you suck for making the political parties seem like they all happen to be Newgrounds users.

I never mentioned Democrats and Republicans, but I can start bashing them, too if you want me to.

I forgot what the argument was about so I cant comment on it any more.

I now declare this thread dead. Unless you wish to continue.

At 7/29/03 09:07 AM, Slizor wrote:

I forgot what the argument was about so I cant comment on it any more.

I now declare this thread dead. Unless you wish to continue.

I said that in response to what you said about monopolies/oligopolies. But ya, fine, Im getting tired of this too. It was fun.

At 7/29/03 05:08 AM, TheShrike wrote:

At 7/29/03 04:43 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Both of you suck for making the political parties seem like they all happen to be Newgrounds users.

I never mentioned Democrats and Republicans, but I can start bashing them, too if you want me to.

You're turning in to Nemesisz in your old age, Shrikey. I think we've established, though, that each political party has its ups and downs, and it's just a matter of finding one that suits your taste.