The Monster Within

By -
I just poked EconomistMom in the eye again. I bet the people at that site think I am a troll. I'm not trying to be, of course; I actually think my comments (which have been ignored thus far) are cogent. But maybe that's what every troll thinks!

UPDATE: EconomistMom answered me, so maybe I'm not a troll after all. Then Gene jumps in to hit a lady (and a mom!). I think all three of us actually agree on the case of government increasing spending today by increasing the deficit. But where Gene and I differ with her is that EconomistMom (I presume) thinks it might not make our children poorer if we raise spending today and then raise taxes today to pay for it. I think what she has in mind is that if you raise taxes to pay for it, then you get government goodies today largely at the expense of private goodies today. Whereas if you finance with deficits, you get government goodies today and private goodies today, with less private investment.

Comments

  1. Anonymous8:14 PM

    The page is so wonderful that I want to write something about myself.
    I get a lot of rappelz rupeesand the rappelz gold is very important for me. Some of the rappelz money is given by my friends who buy rupees to let me happy. Thanks for my friends and the cheap rappelz rupees.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more