Would It Be Bad for the Economy If Oil Fell to $3 a Barrel? (1 Viewer)

[Jayrod]

I'll also say this - Gary North is obviously a smart guy, because the background in his family is insane. Like, Holocaust denial, believing slave owners were benevolent, opposing interracial marriage insane. And he's significantly further left than his father-in-law. There's a legitimate possibility that some of those quotes attributed to him are actual from his father-in-law, and a legitimate chance that someone read him a transcript of one of his father-in-law's statements and asked if he agreed with the guy and he said "uh, sure." But Rushdoony absolutely says that God requires that we institute a civil legal system that stones people to death for homosexuality.

That's what I'm finding.

He is a lot more radically right than I am, but he's not the insane person the wikipedia page is portraying.

The only time he looks really bad is in cut up clips and articles posting opinions. When I read what North writes, it seems well thought out and reasonable. But then again, I've only spent about an hour reading his stuff. I could be way off base and he could be a total nutjob, but I haven't seen evidence of that yet after looking into it for an hour.

 

[Fennis]

I'll also say this - Gary North is obviously a smart guy, because the background in his family is insane. Like, Holocaust denial, believing slave owners were benevolent, opposing interracial marriage insane. And he's significantly further left than his father-in-law. There's a legitimate possibility that some of those quotes attributed to him are actual from his father-in-law, and a legitimate chance that someone read him a transcript of one of his father-in-law's statements and asked if he agreed with the guy and he said "uh, sure." But Rushdoony absolutely says that God requires that we institute a civil legal system that stones people to death for homosexuality.

That's what I'm finding.

He is a lot more radically right than I am, but he's not the insane person the wikipedia page is portraying.

The only time he looks really bad is in cut up clips and articles posting opinions. When I read what North writes, it seems well thought out and reasonable. But then again, I've only spent about an hour reading his stuff. I could be way off base and he could be a total nutjob, but I haven't seen evidence of that yet after looking into it for an hour.

Conclusion. The person who thinks of the citizens of a community stoning of a person convicted of a capital crime as barbaric has accepted the first principle of modern political theory: the superior sovereignty of the state over its citizens. To begin re-thinking this premise, I suggest that people re-think their views on stoning.

 

[Henry Ford]

"God's mandated method of execution - public stoning by the witnesses

whose words condemned the criminal - is regarded as perverse even by those few
Christians who still defend the legitimacy of the death penalty. They do not believe
that God requires the trial's hostile witnesses to cast the first stones. But He does:
"The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward
the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you"
(Deut. 17:7). Like twentieth-century humanists, Christians today regard God's
mandated sanctions as barbaric; in this case, public execution by citizens. Why is this
regarded as barbaric? The critics do not say. They do not think that have to say.
"Everyone can see that such a thing is barbaric!" And such a God."

From Leviticus: An Economic Commentary by Gary North (also a .pdf), page 336, fn 12.

On page 370, fn.3, he states the following:

In their attempt to establish a dispensational case against capital punishment
for any crime except murder, H. Wayne House and Thomas D. Ice refer to my five point
defense of public stoning as God's specified means of execution

All he is saying is that it is God's specified means of execution. Seems pretty factual for anyone who reads the Bible.

Have you read his five point defense of public stoning?

I haven't yet and I've spent 5 minutes trying to find it with no luck. Anyone have a link?

Probably not. Most of the referenced writings (and the quotes in other people's articles about North) are from pre-internet books and such that he wrote, or interviews he gave. He's been prolific for a long time. The five-point defense he's referencing came from writings in the mid-late 80s.

Your best bet for finding something with North actually saying that stoning should be the way we execute people now is likely from Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus. That was published around that time. [warning: huge .pdf file]. Page 44 starts his defense of stoning as a method for executions today.

Notably, on page 386, in a footnote:

We must not miss the point: the inevitable issue here is theocracy When a
Christian calls for the execution of the convicted abortionist, he is necessarily calling
for the enforcement of God’s revealed law by the civil magistrate.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'll also say this - Gary North is obviously a smart guy, because the background in his family is insane. Like, Holocaust denial, believing slave owners were benevolent, opposing interracial marriage insane. And he's significantly further left than his father-in-law. There's a legitimate possibility that some of those quotes attributed to him are actual from his father-in-law, and a legitimate chance that someone read him a transcript of one of his father-in-law's statements and asked if he agreed with the guy and he said "uh, sure." But Rushdoony absolutely says that God requires that we institute a civil legal system that stones people to death for homosexuality.

That's what I'm finding.

He is a lot more radically right than I am, but he's not the insane person the wikipedia page is portraying.

The only time he looks really bad is in cut up clips and articles posting opinions. When I read what North writes, it seems well thought out and reasonable. But then again, I've only spent about an hour reading his stuff. I could be way off base and he could be a total nutjob, but I haven't seen evidence of that yet after looking into it for an hour.

He's gotten farther from "Insane God monger" and closer to "eccentric fundamentalist Jesus-loving pseudo-economist" in the last 20 years. But he certainly appeared, when I was a teenager/20-something and getting interested in these topics, right along side his fundamentalist father in law and wrote primarily in "sermon" fashion about politics and theocracy.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'll also say this - Gary North is obviously a smart guy, because the background in his family is insane. Like, Holocaust denial, believing slave owners were benevolent, opposing interracial marriage insane. And he's significantly further left than his father-in-law. There's a legitimate possibility that some of those quotes attributed to him are actual from his father-in-law, and a legitimate chance that someone read him a transcript of one of his father-in-law's statements and asked if he agreed with the guy and he said "uh, sure." But Rushdoony absolutely says that God requires that we institute a civil legal system that stones people to death for homosexuality.

That's what I'm finding.

He is a lot more radically right than I am, but he's not the insane person the wikipedia page is portraying.

The only time he looks really bad is in cut up clips and articles posting opinions. When I read what North writes, it seems well thought out and reasonable. But then again, I've only spent about an hour reading his stuff. I could be way off base and he could be a total nutjob, but I haven't seen evidence of that yet after looking into it for an hour.

Oh, read the old stuff. Certifiable. I actually think Y2K legitimately changed him.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

If he would have used something more realistic instead of "$3 a barrel" maybe that holds more clout. No operator would be profitable at $3/barrel so either supply would stop.

The point of a headline is to grab attention and arouse curiosity so you'll continue reading.

The points he makes have nothing to do with a literal price of $3.

My point is that he would have been more effective being realistic. Most folks who have an understanding of the industry would just automatically dismiss it b/c of the headline. I know I did at first. I only read it later b/c I got bored

Fair enough. But how many people are intimately familiar with the oil industry?

Any comments on the contents of the piece?

Most of us are only intimately familiar with their petroleum jelly products. The rest of their stuff we just have a working relationship with.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

North favors capital punishment for a range of offenders; including women who lie about their virginity, blasphemers, nonbelievers, children who curse their parents,[22][23] male homosexuals, and other people who commit acts deemed capital offenses in the Old Testament.[24] North also favors capital punishment for women who have abortions.[25][26] North stated that the biblical admonition to kill homosexuals in Leviticus is God's "law and its morally appropriate sanction", arguing that "God is indeed a homophobe" who "hates [homosexuality] and those who practice it" and "hates the sin and hates the sinner."[27]

North has said that capital punishment should be carried out by stoning, because it is the biblical approved method of execution and it is cheap due to the plentiful and convenient supply of stones.[28][29

Stones are recyclable. This would be a very 'green' process, not that hanging or lethal injection seem to leave much of a carbon footprint.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I do not believe that I would do well under an Old Testament Theocracy.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Please bring on $3 a barrel oil. ExxonMobil is the most difficult company I have ever worked with. They have 9 layers for every process.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

This is the only stoning I want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX8nAZftZL4

 

[Oink Oink the Pig]

You be the economy, I'll give you 3 while I bend you over a barrel and then try to tell me it isn't good.

 

[Jack White]

"We are heading for a disaster greater than anything the world has experienced since the bubonic plague of the mid-14th century." - Gary North on Y2K

Oh, OK, I see what you're doing here. You're trying to discredit Gary North by picking out one-sentence quotes out of the the millions of words that he's published.

He was wrong about Y2K, but so were a lot of other people.

Anyway, can I get a link to all your published work so I can cherry-pick some similar quotes?

No, I'm trying to explain to you that Gary North is a borderline insane religious zealot who wants to "train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

As someone who (I assumed up to this point probably) has a serious problem with theocratic regimes, you should know about the person you think is a genius. You're talking about a man who uses his religious philosophy - and it's bigoted, myopic, and arguably dangerous - as the basis for his economic theories. If you want to canonize him... well, I think he'd be ecstatic about that. However, you should know who you're talking about.

Whoa, wait a minute there, Hank.

I am not canonizing Gary North. I described him as a hero of mine because of his work ethic, prolific work production, success as a marketer, and his defense of and lucid explanations of free market economics.

As I stated earlier, I am not a religious person, so I don't tend to follow any of his religious writings. I do know he spent decades on a magnum opus of economic lessons of the bible, which he gives away for FREE. I won't read it, but I'm sure there are people who will value it and appreciate his generosity.

Originally I discovered North on LewRockwell.com, where he's had well over a thousand articles published. I haven't read them all, but I've read hundreds, and I don't remember seeing topics such as theocratic regimes. It's certainly possible I just skipped them because I wasn't interested in that particular topic.

Regardless, I don't need to agree with everything someone stands for to admire him. We're all complicated, multi-faceted, flawed human beings.

I posted the $3 oil article because I thought it was interesting (the puns and porn jokes were a bonus), not as a referendum on Gary North's religious beliefs.

Perhaps his religious views are indeed dangerous, but I tend to think not. He's not in a position to force them on anyone. He might try to peacefully persuade people to his point of view, which is his right. Again, I might be ignorant of them because I'm not a member of that target market.

 

[Jack White]

If he would have used something more realistic instead of "$3 a barrel" maybe that holds more clout. No operator would be profitable at $3/barrel so either supply would stop.

The point of a headline is to grab attention and arouse curiosity so you'll continue reading.

The points he makes have nothing to do with a literal price of $3.

My point is that he would have been more effective being realistic. Most folks who have an understanding of the industry would just automatically dismiss it b/c of the headline. I know I did at first. I only read it later b/c I got bored

Fair enough. But how many people are intimately familiar with the oil industry?

Any comments on the contents of the piece?

No issue at all. I agree with the conclusion...although it's really just another economics lesson and has zero to do with oil price

Direct marketing and copywriting legend Robert Collier advised businesses and marketers to "always enter the conversation already going on in the customer's mind."

That's what North is doing here: he's explaining a larger point of economics using oil prices as the example, because he knows gas prices are already in the minds of potential readers.

That's smart.

 

[Ignoramus]

If he would have used something more realistic instead of "$3 a barrel" maybe that holds more clout. No operator would be profitable at $3/barrel so either supply would stop.

The point of a headline is to grab attention and arouse curiosity so you'll continue reading.

The points he makes have nothing to do with a literal price of $3.

My point is that he would have been more effective being realistic. Most folks who have an understanding of the industry would just automatically dismiss it b/c of the headline. I know I did at first. I only read it later b/c I got bored

Fair enough. But how many people are intimately familiar with the oil industry?Any comments on the contents of the piece?

No issue at all. I agree with the conclusion...although it's really just another economics lesson and has zero to do with oil price

Exactly. Its "perfect market" piece more than an oil piece. Could just as easily been about corn dogs.

 

[Tiger Fan]

If he would have used something more realistic instead of "$3 a barrel" maybe that holds more clout. No operator would be profitable at $3/barrel so either supply would stop.

The point of a headline is to grab attention and arouse curiosity so you'll continue reading.

The points he makes have nothing to do with a literal price of $3.

My point is that he would have been more effective being realistic. Most folks who have an understanding of the industry would just automatically dismiss it b/c of the headline. I know I did at first. I only read it later b/c I got bored

Fair enough. But how many people are intimately familiar with the oil industry?Any comments on the contents of the piece?

No issue at all. I agree with the conclusion...although it's really just another economics lesson and has zero to do with oil price

Exactly. Its "perfect market" piece more than an oil piece. Could just as easily been about corn dogs.

 

[Henry Ford]

"We are heading for a disaster greater than anything the world has experienced since the bubonic plague of the mid-14th century." - Gary North on Y2K

Oh, OK, I see what you're doing here. You're trying to discredit Gary North by picking out one-sentence quotes out of the the millions of words that he's published.

He was wrong about Y2K, but so were a lot of other people.

Anyway, can I get a link to all your published work so I can cherry-pick some similar quotes?

No, I'm trying to explain to you that Gary North is a borderline insane religious zealot who wants to "train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God." As someone who (I assumed up to this point probably) has a serious problem with theocratic regimes, you should know about the person you think is a genius. You're talking about a man who uses his religious philosophy - and it's bigoted, myopic, and arguably dangerous - as the basis for his economic theories. If you want to canonize him... well, I think he'd be ecstatic about that. However, you should know who you're talking about.

Whoa, wait a minute there, Hank.

I am not canonizing Gary North. I described him as a hero of mine because of his work ethic, prolific work production, success as a marketer, and his defense of and lucid explanations of free market economics.

As I stated earlier, I am not a religious person, so I don't tend to follow any of his religious writings. I do know he spent decades on a magnum opus of economic lessons of the bible, which he gives away for FREE. I won't read it, but I'm sure there are people who will value it and appreciate his generosity.

Originally I discovered North on LewRockwell.com, where he's had well over a thousand articles published. I haven't read them all, but I've read hundreds, and I don't remember seeing topics such as theocratic regimes. It's certainly possible I just skipped them because I wasn't interested in that particular topic.

Regardless, I don't need to agree with everything someone stands for to admire him. We're all complicated, multi-faceted, flawed human beings.

I posted the $3 oil article because I thought it was interesting (the puns and porn jokes were a bonus), not as a referendum on Gary North's religious beliefs.

Perhaps his religious views are indeed dangerous, but I tend to think not. He's not in a position to force them on anyone. He might try to peacefully persuade people to his point of view, which is his right. Again, I might be ignorant of them because I'm not a member of that target market.

You don't have to tell anyone you discovered him on LewRockwell. That's like me saying I discovered Tim on Footballguys.

 

[Jack White]

"We are heading for a disaster greater than anything the world has experienced since the bubonic plague of the mid-14th century." - Gary North on Y2K

Oh, OK, I see what you're doing here. You're trying to discredit Gary North by picking out one-sentence quotes out of the the millions of words that he's published.

He was wrong about Y2K, but so were a lot of other people.

Anyway, can I get a link to all your published work so I can cherry-pick some similar quotes?

No, I'm trying to explain to you that Gary North is a borderline insane religious zealot who wants to "train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God." As someone who (I assumed up to this point probably) has a serious problem with theocratic regimes, you should know about the person you think is a genius. You're talking about a man who uses his religious philosophy - and it's bigoted, myopic, and arguably dangerous - as the basis for his economic theories. If you want to canonize him... well, I think he'd be ecstatic about that. However, you should know who you're talking about.

Whoa, wait a minute there, Hank.

I am not canonizing Gary North. I described him as a hero of mine because of his work ethic, prolific work production, success as a marketer, and his defense of and lucid explanations of free market economics.

As I stated earlier, I am not a religious person, so I don't tend to follow any of his religious writings. I do know he spent decades on a magnum opus of economic lessons of the bible, which he gives away for FREE. I won't read it, but I'm sure there are people who will value it and appreciate his generosity.

Originally I discovered North on LewRockwell.com, where he's had well over a thousand articles published. I haven't read them all, but I've read hundreds, and I don't remember seeing topics such as theocratic regimes. It's certainly possible I just skipped them because I wasn't interested in that particular topic.

Regardless, I don't need to agree with everything someone stands for to admire him. We're all complicated, multi-faceted, flawed human beings.

I posted the $3 oil article because I thought it was interesting (the puns and porn jokes were a bonus), not as a referendum on Gary North's religious beliefs.

Perhaps his religious views are indeed dangerous, but I tend to think not. He's not in a position to force them on anyone. He might try to peacefully persuade people to his point of view, which is his right. Again, I might be ignorant of them because I'm not a member of that target market.

You don't have to tell anyone you discovered him on LewRockwell. That's like me saying I discovered Tim on Footballguys.

Who is Tim?

 

[Righetti]

"God's mandated method of execution - public stoning by the witnesses

whose words condemned the criminal - is regarded as perverse even by those few

Christians who still defend the legitimacy of the death penalty. They do not believe

that God requires the trial's hostile witnesses to cast the first stones. But He does:

"The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward

the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you"

(Deut. 17:7). Like twentieth-century humanists, Christians today regard God's

mandated sanctions as barbaric; in this case, public execution by citizens. Why is this

regarded as barbaric? The critics do not say. They do not think that have to say.

"Everyone can see that such a thing is barbaric!" And such a God."

From Leviticus: An Economic Commentary by Gary North (also a .pdf), page 336, fn 12.

On page 370, fn.3, he states the following:

In their attempt to establish a dispensational case against capital punishment

for any crime except murder, H. Wayne House and Thomas D. Ice refer to my five point

defense of public stoning as God's specified means of execution

The Ice House

 

[cstu]

Expensive energy is the #1 problem facing humanity.

 

[cstu]

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

 

[Henry Ford]

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

North hates Keynes. He spends a lot of time talking about Keynes being an unrepentant homosexual.

 

[pantagrapher]

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

"Austrians" pull this nonsense all the time.

It's also weird that nowhere in his "KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM [sic]" section does he mention the word "demand."

 

[pantagrapher]

I am not canonizing Gary North. I described him as a hero of mine because of his work ethic, prolific work production, success as a marketer, and his defense of and lucid explanations of free market economics.

Direct marketing and copywriting legend Robert Collier advised businesses and marketers to "always enter the conversation already going on in the customer's mind.

Are you one of those people who's deep into some Tony Robbins/Landmark/The Secret ####? Asking cuz I've met a few, and they all have this similar reverence for people in marketing.

 

[James Daulton]

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

North hates Keynes. He spends a lot of time talking about Keynes being an unrepentant homosexual.

Has anyone asked, HTF do you know so much about this dude?

 

[Henry Ford]

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

North hates Keynes. He spends a lot of time talking about Keynes being an unrepentant homosexual.

Has anyone asked, HTF do you know so much about this dude?

When I was in high school and college, I was interested in and studied economics, political science, philosophy, theology, and linguistics. And I read a lot.

 

[CBusAlex]

Would it be bad for the economy if corn dogs were $3 a barrel?

 

[Jack White]

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

North hates Keynes. He spends a lot of time talking about Keynes being an unrepentant homosexual.

If he indeed hates Keynes, it's because of his destructive economics, not where he hid his sausage.

 

[Jack White]

I am not canonizing Gary North. I described him as a hero of mine because of his work ethic, prolific work production, success as a marketer, and his defense of and lucid explanations of free market economics.

Direct marketing and copywriting legend Robert Collier advised businesses and marketers to "always enter the conversation already going on in the customer's mind.

Are you one of those people who's deep into some Tony Robbins/Landmark/The Secret ####? Asking cuz I've met a few, and they all have this similar reverence for people in marketing.

No, I am not at all into any of those things. I have a reverence for people in marketing because entrepreneurs are the real heroes who produce everything. Just imagine your typical day: from the time you make your coffee, get dressed, drive to work, turn on your computer, eat your lunch, text your friends, and set your alarm clock . . . all of that happened because of entrepreneurs. And marketing is integral to entrepreneurship.

 

[Jack White]

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

Deficit spending is temporary? Are you Paul Krugman?

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/infographics/2012/10/SR-fed-spending-numbers-2012-p4-chart-4_HIGHRES.jpg

Gary North has forgotten more about economics than you'll ever know.

 

[Jack White]

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

"Austrians" pull this nonsense all the time.

It's also weird that nowhere in his "KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM [sic]" section does he mention the word "demand."

Excellent use of the derisive quotation marks. Not.

And is [sic] really necessary for a minor typo? Do you believe he doesn't know how to spell the word?

 

[pantagrapher]

Krugman on oil and Russia and debt seems timely.

Additional notes here.

 

[pantagrapher]

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

"Austrians" pull this nonsense all the time.

It's also weird that nowhere in his "KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM [sic]" section does he mention the word "demand."

Excellent use of the derisive quotation marks. Not.

And is [sic] really necessary for a minor typo? Do you believe he doesn't know how to spell the word?

The sic is derisive; the quote marks are not.

 

[pantagrapher]

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

Deficit spending is temporary? Are you Paul Krugman?

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/infographics/2012/10/SR-fed-spending-numbers-2012-p4-chart-4_HIGHRES.jpg

Gary North has forgotten more about economics than you'll ever know.

That's not what he said. "Crutch" is the operative word there.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Would it be bad for the economy if corn dogs were $3 a barrel?

This a tie in to the wapost obesity thread?

 

[Henry Ford]

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

North hates Keynes. He spends a lot of time talking about Keynes being an unrepentant homosexual.

If he indeed hates Keynes, it's because of his destructive economics, not where he hid his sausage.

He's written very large, very bigoted paragraphs about Keynes's homosexuality. You really should read up on this guy before you try to speak for him.

 

[Jack White]

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

"Austrians" pull this nonsense all the time.

It's also weird that nowhere in his "KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM [sic]" section does he mention the word "demand."

Excellent use of the derisive quotation marks. Not.

And is [sic] really necessary for a minor typo? Do you believe he doesn't know how to spell the word?

The sic is derisive; the quote marks are not.

What is the purpose of them?

 

[pantagrapher]

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

"Austrians" pull this nonsense all the time.

It's also weird that nowhere in his "KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM [sic]" section does he mention the word "demand."

Excellent use of the derisive quotation marks. Not.

And is [sic] really necessary for a minor typo? Do you believe he doesn't know how to spell the word?

The sic is derisive; the quote marks are not.

What is the purpose of them?

To quote text from the essay.

 

[Jack White]

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

Deficit spending is temporary? Are you Paul Krugman?

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/infographics/2012/10/SR-fed-spending-numbers-2012-p4-chart-4_HIGHRES.jpg

Gary North has forgotten more about economics than you'll ever know.

That's not what he said. "Crutch" is the operative word there.

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

"Austrians" pull this nonsense all the time.

It's also weird that nowhere in his "KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM [sic]" section does he mention the word "demand."

Excellent use of the derisive quotation marks. Not.

And is [sic] really necessary for a minor typo? Do you believe he doesn't know how to spell the word?

The sic is derisive; the quote marks are not.

So you're deriding a minor typo? I wonder if you have any tyops or misspelled words among your 21k+ posts here.

 

[Jack White]

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

"Austrians" pull this nonsense all the time.

It's also weird that nowhere in his "KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM [sic]" section does he mention the word "demand."

Excellent use of the derisive quotation marks. Not.

And is [sic] really necessary for a minor typo? Do you believe he doesn't know how to spell the word?

The sic is derisive; the quote marks are not.

What is the purpose of them?

To quote text from the essay.

The quotes around Austrians. Whatever.

 

[pantagrapher]

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

Deficit spending is temporary? Are you Paul Krugman?

http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/infographics/2012/10/SR-fed-spending-numbers-2012-p4-chart-4_HIGHRES.jpg

Gary North has forgotten more about economics than you'll ever know.

That's not what he said. "Crutch" is the operative word there.

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

"Austrians" pull this nonsense all the time.

It's also weird that nowhere in his "KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM [sic]" section does he mention the word "demand."

Excellent use of the derisive quotation marks. Not.

And is [sic] really necessary for a minor typo? Do you believe he doesn't know how to spell the word?

The sic is derisive; the quote marks are not.

So you're deriding a minor typo? I wonder if you have any tyops [sic] or misspelled words among your 21k+ posts here.

None.

 

[pantagrapher]

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

"Austrians" pull this nonsense all the time.

It's also weird that nowhere in his "KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM [sic]" section does he mention the word "demand."

Excellent use of the derisive quotation marks. Not.

And is [sic] really necessary for a minor typo? Do you believe he doesn't know how to spell the word?

The sic is derisive; the quote marks are not.

What is the purpose of them?

To quote text from the essay.

The quotes around Austrians. Whatever.

Those quotes were to clarify that I was talking about the economists, not the people in general. Same way I would have put "freshwater" in quotes.

 

[pantagrapher]

Some very poor marketing and entrepreneurship going on in here.

 

[Jayrod]

Some very poor marketing and entrepreneurship going on in here.

You seem grumpy.

 

[Jack White]

Making a typo out of the word typo was intentional.

But your perfection is impressive!

 

[Jack White]

KEYNESIAN MERCANTIISM

Unfortunately, Keynesianism is a form of mercantilism. Keynesianism teaches that what creates wealth is investing, especially investing by governments that are running deficits. Keynesianism believes that it is important that investing continue, whether or not the output of the investments are profitable. Keynesianism believes that government deficits and low interest rates pushed lower by central banks, when combined, will produce employment.

Complete misrepresentation of Keynesian economics. Deficit spending is a temporary crutch for the economy that it meant to be paid back when the economy produces a surplus.

North hates Keynes. He spends a lot of time talking about Keynes being an unrepentant homosexual.

If he indeed hates Keynes, it's because of his destructive economics, not where he hid his sausage.

He's written very large, very bigoted paragraphs about Keynes's homosexuality. You really should read up on this guy before you try to speak for him.

I'm not interested in that issue. What consenting adults do in the bedroom is no concern of mine.

And I don't speak for him, only about him.

 

[pantagrapher]

Some very poor marketing and entrepreneurship going on in here.

You seem grumpy.

I'm having fun and I'm in a good mood. It's Friday.

 

[Jack White]

Krugman on oil and Russia and debt seems timely.

Additional notes here.

Next year, Tom Woods and Bob Murphy are starting a weekly podcast. They will discuss the endless fallacies and inanities in Krugman's weekly column. Going to be fun!

 

[Brony]

Would it be bad for the economy if corn dogs were $3 a barrel?

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

[pantagrapher]

Krugman on oil and Russia and debt seems timely.

Additional notes here.

Next year, Tom Woods and Bob Murphy are starting a weekly podcast. They will discuss the endless fallacies and inanities in Krugman's weekly column. Going to be fun!

I hope you listened to them and invested heavily in gold in 2009.

I thought Murphy's name sounded familiar. This was indeed fun!

 

[cstu]

Are you one of those people who's deep into some Tony Robbins/Landmark/The Secret ####? Asking cuz I've met a few, and they all have this similar reverence for people in marketing.

No, I am not at all into any of those things. I have a reverence for people in marketing because entrepreneurs are the real heroes who produce everything. Just imagine your typical day: from the time you make your coffee, get dressed, drive to work, turn on your computer, eat your lunch, text your friends, and set your alarm clock . . . all of that happened because of entrepreneurs.

And marketing is integral to entrepreneurship.

#### no it's not. A great product at low price sells itself.

Marketing is necessary to maximize profits.