Economic Challenge Between Bohemian and Thewayitis
Comments posted by all welcome. This is an economic debate between Bohemian & Thewayits.
A difference of an opinion inspired this.
"One educated idiot seems to be drawn to another. This country has failed to hire the best managers, CEO's, vice presidents, etc. and so the end result is that they look for people as incompetent as they are. These people fear being replaced and have searched high and low for those that don't have a chance in hell of replacing them. Why do think companies keep closing their doors and relocating? One thing this does is it gets rid of management. What they fail to do, is go far enough up the chain and get rid of those that instrument this line of thinking in the first place. Its like being victorious in a revolution and keeping the government." Thewayitis
"No, you're absolutely right. Businesses going bankrupt is because there are too many people with degrees and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we are going through a recession caused by the housing market crash. If only less business leaders had degrees this wouldn't be happening. Your understanding of economics is clearly superior to mine. I will now hang my head in shame and dismay." Bohemian
Side Score: 33
Side Score: 36
I can admire a entrepreneur much more than just a college graduate. Running a business is just harder considering most degrees are worthless.
That may be so, but it doesn't make thewayitis' statements any less ridiculous.
And because Bohemian is just a douche. Now he has pants that match is avatar.
Oh c'mon PrayerFails, you know you love me and my tiger pants. ;)
Starting from my childhood, I've see the pure idiocy and destruction that corporatism causes. People with true power exploiting it for the purpose of literally making other people miserable, not for the efficiency benefit of the workers. What is that but not foolishness?
Perhaps it takes a good mathematical mind to run a corporation, or even manage a single establishment of a large corporation, but it takes a true fool to abuse his workers to the point that they decide to form a Union.
Continued from the above dispute.
How many businesses do you own? That's what I thought. I own two. I speak from experience. Where do you speak from? My guess is Goggle, this is where you get everything else.
You have shown several times that you have no clue how the world works. There is a vast difference in knowing how the world works and being part of military intelligence (an oxymoron of course).
How big business works is actually quite similar to how the military works (or doesn't). One gets orders from someplace like Washington D.C. and every one else follows. They are not on present location and deem what is policy from a distant land. When all hell breaks loose, they wonder why. No big secret as why failure; Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan occurs. Only a mystery when victory is obtained.
One does not need to own a business to understand economics and many people who own businesses still don't. You being one of them.
To even imply that our current recession is caused by too many business leaders possessing degrees, suggests that you haven't the slightest clue how economics work.
When large corporations fail, perhaps the biggest cause is unsavory (i.e. unethical) business practices. Sub-Prime mortgages being a recent example of that.
Yes you do need to own a business to fully understand economics, one cannot learn what is all involved from a text book.
I agree their are a few that don't understand economics, but they are short lived as business people.
As far as what caused this recession; it is not the housing market, that is the end result. This recession started when the World Trade Centers fell, the terrorist succeeded in their objective. Immediately after they fell my liability insurance went from $825.00 a quarter to $2600.00 a quarter. A letter put out by the insurance company said that the reason the premiums jumped was to cover the claims from the 9/11 disaster. Even though it was made public that American insurance companies didn't really shell out huge amounts of money, companies such as Lloyd's of London paid out way more. The next thing that happened is Pharmaceutical companies joined in on the reaming, they raised their prices. The did this strictly because they could and so many started getting their medicine from Canada. The next thing that happened is they got Congress to make it illegal to by medicine from Canada. Along this time you had Enron cheating people and cooking the books, people lost their savings, investments, etc. Bush ran for re-election and some one had to buy this election the same as the last one. Guess who flipped the bill? Bush is an oil man. The oil companies bought two elections and now needed repayment, prices of fuel sky rocketed after the election, big surprise. Madoff comes along and with the rich doing no wrong by Republican standards, isn't watched. The rich can do no wrong. And you say the houses market started this. You haven't a clue how the world works.
"It was caused by the Y2K scare, which created a boom and subsequent bust in Internet businesses. It was aggravated by the 9/11 attack. The economy contracted in two quarters: Q1 -1.3% (-.5%) and Q3 -1.1% (-1.4%). Unemployment reached 5.7% during the recession, but rose even further to 6% in June 2003. This often happens in recessions, as unemployment is a lagging indicator. Most employers wait until they are sure the economy is back on its feet again before hiring permanent employees."
Cause for Recession 9/11 (useconomy.about.com)
Did you see that heading, above where you copied and pasted this from? The heading that said "2001 Recession"? Yeah, that's the wrong recession, keep looking a little further up on the page where it says "2008-2009 Recession" Now look just below that where it says:
"The recession was caused by the Subprime Mortgage Crisis, which then led to a global banking credit crisis."
Now go back to Every previous post I have made in this debate where I state in no uncertain terms that this recession was caused by Subprime Mortgages. I even posted a video that explains it in laymen terms, which I then asked you to watch. It's funny how even your own sources agree with me. That's what happens when you actually research something.
This leads me to my next point, you either don't know how to operate a web page, or you intentionally misrepresented it and hoped that I wouldn't check your source (NOTE: I always do).
Of course you always check the web pages, you have no knowledge of your own.
I do enjoy wasting your time and making you jump through hoops. Google loves you.
What is extremely funny is with all your self proclaimed wisdom, never have you argued that we are not in a recession. All the google searches will tell you, that the recession is over and that we are merely dealing with the consequences of the recession.
The evidence is that I lived it and not googled it.
"That's the problem. Anecdotal evidence is easily the weakest form of evidence and the most unreliable. Bigfoot sightings, and alien abductions are supported solely by anecdotal evidence. A memory is just as biased as the person holding the memory. Your refusal to do any actual research is characteristic of anti-intellectualism. If you are really interested in understanding our current recession, watch this video:" Bohemian
A genius at work one must admire some one that thinks he an economist and still thinks we are in a recession, dispite what all other economist say. SEE LINK
We aren't in a Recession (en.wikipedia.org)
The issue comes from government being influential enough to keep the largest businesses in power and the people dependent on those large businesses. It's easy to solve an economic catastrophe when the solution is to just give billions of dollars to a few banks and automobile corporations. The same couldn't be said for if the banks were unregulated and not even a part of government.
Irresponsible incentives put fourth by the government to encourage mismanagement of the people's moneys is a major cause of the recession. Government should not be giving business any kind of edge, nor should it impede any edge they may have.
As well, you entire debate description is incoherent. What the fuck are you two talking about?
This isn't so much a debate over Keynesian or Austrian economics. To put it in context this debate arose in another debate in which Thewayitis claimed that employers choosing applicants with degrees over those without, was a form of discrimination. He then proceeded to blame a system that chooses degree-holders over non-degree-holders, as being responsible for the number of businesses that are currently failing.
... so basically hiring based on qualification is discrimination. Or being qualified for a job inherently leads to a poorer performance whereas presumably being uqualified would lead more often to a better performance in any given position.
Ah, that sounds like a position he would take.
I wonder which drugs/ brain diseases would lead one's thoughts in that directions.
In the Great Depression there was a run on banks; history has shown us that whether we like it or not, they must remain in tack. This means bailing them out. Businesses are supposed to do what's good for the business, not what's good for its' board of directors. The intentions of the government were honorable, to bad the banks didn't reciprocate this.
As far as the car companies go, they have been bailed out before. Chrysler Corporation got a huge loan to keep its' doors open in 1979. See link.
What started this recession was the fall of the World Trade Centers. I posted these events on the other side of this debate.
1979 Chrysler Bailout (detroit.about.com)
NO. NO. NO.
We hired the smartest businessmen in the world! THAT IS THE PROBLEM! Those clever bastards made billions off the economic crisis. The initially amassed fortunes by screwing the long-term picture for short term gains, then they manipulated the derivatives market and got away with not only huge gains, but, INCREDIBLY, giant compensations as well!
Greed. Greed. And more greed. Our mistake was bring people smart enough to fuel their greed.
This is clearly a strawman. I never said the educated can do no harm, the educated are just as fallible as everybody else, what I dispute is:
1) That employers choosing those with degrees over those without is a form of discrimination.
2) That should you replace every business leader with someone who never expanded their formal education beyond Secondary School that this would somehow decrease the number of businesses going bankrupt.
In fact I would argue very strongly that greed and taking short term-benefit over long-term stability can lead to financial disaster. I would also argue that Certain CEOs buying off their friends in Government leads to corruption and a volatile market climate.
"This country has failed to hire the best managers, CEO's, vice presidents, etc. and so the end result is that they look for people as incompetent as they are."
This is the exact opposite of what I just stated.
And Bohemian said this:
"I would argue very strongly that greed and taking short term-benefit over long-term stability can lead to financial disaster."
This is almost identical to what I previously stated. I'm with Bohemian on this one.