CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Yes. Economists expect employment to be back by the end of 2010. Once people can find jobs, we'll see a lot less of the blind anger we see today.
Though Obama's policies (such as the bank bailouts) are unpopular, they were the right thing to do. In the long run, good policy equals good politics. Also, in the coming months, we will pass a good healthcare bill which will be followed by historic financial reform.
He has the American people's best interest at heart and I think when 2012 rolls around people will recognize that... not the conservative ideologues of course... but you know, rational people.
Yes. Economists expect employment to be back by the end of 2010.
Are these the same economists who failed to forecast the current economic recession? Would they also be numbered in the consensus of economists who have never foreseen a recession? Are they also the same economists who’ve never seen a stimulus bill they didn’t praise? Are they also the same economists who faithfully always promise a future of economic hope, lower un-employment, and greater riches? Are they the same economists who can foresee the beginning of economic good times and yet never do foresee the beginning of economic woes? Are these the same economists who are to be blamed for the mantra “house prices will always appreciate”? Are these the same economists who are paid to forecast good-news? Are these the same economists who refuse to invest their wages despite their prognostications about the economy? Are these the same economists whose powers of divination are measured by consumer confidence?
Shall I continue…?
BTW, Obama will be awarded the Nobel Prize for economics because of his intention to save not only the US economy but also the economy of the World.
Then post an argument that is worthy of being logically challenged.
Paranoid Ad Hominem?
Paranoia? Bullshit, you only hope that it is I and not you who is paranoid!
Are you unaware that only some ad hominem arguments are invalid? Regardless of your understanding of ad hominem arguments and when and why they are valid or invalid, I will inform you that my series of questions is implied ad hominem but is certainly not fallacious.
You're calling me paranoid? I don't think anybody's out to get me. Last I checked that's the opposite of paranoid.
I don't really understand your contempt for economists (or rather, economists). Are you saying members of the profession are universally untrustworthy and majorly biased? Let me guess: The only person who really gets it is you. Could you be more of a stereotypical nutjob?
Anyway, the implications of your questions are mostly bogus. Economists do at times predict recessions. They don't always call for stimulus. They are not always optimistic. I could address the rest of your questions, but frankly I feel like I'm wasting my time talking to you.
With your questions you repeatedly ask why predictions about the future aren't always accurate, as if the answer to that question isn't completely obvious -- no one can predict the future, we can only make educated guesses.
Here, since you know everything, how about offering a few projections: What's unemployment going to be at the end of 2010? What's GDP going to be? I personally am no where near arrogant enough to think I can answer those questions. I'd much prefer to leave them to those who have dedicated their lives to studying them.
Before I post a refutation of your latest rebuttal, are you willing to admit before hand that it is logically possible to refute your argument? If you are not willing to admit the possibility of seeing your argument reduced to utter non-sense then there is no necessity on my behalf to demonstrate your failure to refute.
When you refuse to recognize your straw-man arguments it suggests to me that you will not recognize a valid refutation of your view.
You could refute my argument by showing either that I am wrong in my assessment of the consensus opinion of economists or showing that accepting this consensus is wrong for some reason.
You have thus far attempted (unsuccessfully) to do the latter. But you haven't provided sufficient evidence (or any at all really). Your refusal to accept the opinion of qualified experts reflects a greater anti-intellectual trend we're seeing in American politics (particularly among conservatives). In effect, you are advocating ignorance. And judging by the fact that several people have upvoted you, you're message is appealing. The fact that you are persuading people to do things that would make us all much worse off, pisses me off quite deeply.
Ah, so you want to go to the beginning of our correspondence?
Very well!
Yes. Economists expect employment to be back by the end of 2010.
Firstly you didn’t distribute your subject, economists. And in response I rationally supposed that you meant some economists. For no man in his right mind would make the error of supposing that all economists agree. Furthermore, I even granted you the supposition that you were referring to the consensus opinion of economists concerning employment of 2010.
Secondly, no question I asked you remotely hints at suggesting that all economists are nit-wits. I repeatedly asked questions that implicated only some economists, and never could it be rationally asserted that I implicated all economists.
If you disagree, then consider the following example.
Economists expect employment to be back by the end of 2010.
A contrary rebuttal: Not all economists expect employment to be back the end of 2010.
Finally, demonstrate to me how any question I posed in my original post implicated all economists; for you certainly responded as though I had.
Moving on…
You refer to conservative ideologues, and then imply they are not rational people.
All US economists are conservative ideologues. Why? Because all US economists want to conserve the free-market capitalism of the US which they believe to be perfect or near perfect. Yet, most economists supported the abandonment of free market principles for the sake of capitalism as a means to conserve capitalism. So, who is rational, the economists who protected their ideological view, or the economists who supported the reign of free-market principles.
Finally, the track record of the consensus opinion of economists is so poor I can’t believe any person would use the opinion of the same as a premise of an argument. Albeit, the track records of the maverick economists are more in-tune with reality though.
My evidence: Reality! Why? If the track record of economists was as worthy of policy as you assert then the economy of the US would not be so fucked up as it is now. Economic forecasts are intended to preclude the mess that we are currently struggling with. Shall I drive that point further?
And the reason, I suppose, that my post was up-voted multiple times is because, believe it or not, I spoke of that which they too are witness. And like me, they too have lived long enough to know that an economist predicts so far into the future that most men are not likely to remember the previous forecast of a year ago. Yet, if there are some who do remember, I assure you that the same economists will provide an explanation of why their forecast was wrong.
Shall I continue with the remainder of our correspondence?
(Better to be pissed off than pissed on.)
Oops, I almost forgot!
Don’t ask me (implicitly) to divine the un-employment rate of the US for 2010 as an evidence of why the consensus opinion of economists is wrong!
They were wrong about this year’s rate of un-employment and I have no reason to believe they can foresee next year’s rate.
Well in your initial argument it certainly seems as though you are attacking economists in general. Perhaps you could try being more clear in the future.
All US economists are conservative ideologues...
You misuse the term "conservative" to mean "believer in free markets". This is misleading because liberals also believe in free markets. It's only a question of the degree of government oversight that should exist. You won't find many purists at either end of the spectrum.
Finally, the track record of the consensus opinion of economists is so poor...the track records of the maverick economists are more in-tune with reality though.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thus far you have presented none.
Yes, it's clear that most economists fucked up in the case of the current recession. How many times do we have to go over this? The future is hard to predict. The best we can do is make educated guesses. We can't predict the weather with 100% certainty, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Well in your initial agument it certainly seems as though you are attacking economists in general. Perhaps you could try being more clear in the future.
Or perhaps you could be a little more discerning about word usage, particularly when it is my argument you are considering.
All US economists are conservative ideologues...
You misuse the term "conservative" to mean "believer in free markets". This is misleading because liberals also believe in free markets. It's only a question of the degree of government oversight that should exist. You won't find many purists at either end of the spectrum.
Conservative: in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change.
Ideologues: a particularly zealous or doctrinaire supporter of an ideology.
All US economists are conservative ideologues; regardless of whether or not they are democrats, republicans, or independents etc.
My argument is about economists not politicians. I described attributes of all economists, none of which are political.
(If you mean the conservative political party, then communicate what you mean, for I can only understand what you mean by what you state. And if what you state is not what you mean then choose words that communicate the meaning of what you’re thinking.)
Finally, the track record of the consensus opinion of economists is so poor...the track records of the maverick economists are more in-tune with reality though.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thus far you have presented none.
Finally, we get to the core problem of your viewpoint.
You’ve not researched the opinions of other economists whose opinions are not the consensus. Case in point, Nouriel Roubini, one of many economists who predicted the current economic mess, did so in 2006. Nor was he the only economist who predicted today’s crisis. But, it is self-evident to me that you failed to do your own research, and then as a consequence you find that my assertion, ”the track records of the maverick economists are more in-tune with reality though.”, is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.
What is extraordinary is the fact that you are blinded by your own biased viewpoint, so much so that you presumed there is no evidence to contradict your viewpoint and therefore there is no reason to consider a contrary or contradictory viewpoint of the consensus opinion of economists.
However, if you do find it within yourself to challenge your viewpoint, you will find that there were many Economists who predicted the crisis. And you will find that the consensus of economists was predicting good times. Moreover, the economists who were predicting good-times were mocking and laughing at economists such as Dr. Doom.
.
Yes, it's clear that most economists fucked up in the case of the current recession. How many times do we have to go over this? The future is hard to predict. The best we can do is make educated guesses. Why is that concept so hard for you to grasp? We can't predict the weather with 100% certainty, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
You must stop with the straw-man arguments with me. I am being as polite as I can be, but you are testing my limits of politeness.
We both know that the consensus of economists missed the current ‘great recession’ , but what you fail to recognize is that there are some economists who did predict this recession. Not only did they predict the recession, their opinions were not the consensus. Albeit, your refusal to research the opinions of maverick economists indicates to me that you deny that there are indeed economists who predicted this recession. Furthermore, you take it to the extreme of being extraordinary, both in claim and evidence.
If you find the above to be obscure in terminology, consider the following illustration.
You can’t call my evidence extraordinary when you fail to even go look for contrary evidence before assuming a valid viewpoint.
I could continue with this rebuttal, but I think you realize the error in your argument.
Yes, the mainstream was wrong and some on the fringe were right, in the case of the current recession. But you are using this mistake to imply that the mainstream therefore should be trusted less than the fringe or that they should not be trusted at all. This is the extraordinary claim that I am referring to. To support this claim, you would need to show a comprehensive review of predictions by mainstream economists -- to show that they consistently get things wrong, while the same fringe figure consistently gets things right. Like the old saying goes, even a broken clock it right twice a day.
And ffs, it was obvious that when I said "conservative ideologues", I was using the term to mean politically opposed to liberals. Any reasonable person would have seen that. Stop being intentionally dense.
And ffs, it was obvious that when I said "conservative ideologues", I was using the term to mean politically opposed to liberals. Any reasonable person would have seen that. Stop being intentionally dense.
Explain to me why it is obvious. Because nothing contained within your post would allow me to validly infer that you were referencing a republican or something similar.
(Do you not realize the ambiguity inherent in the term conservative ideologues?)
Shall I explain?
This is the extraordinary claim that I am referring to. To support this claim, you would need to show a comprehensive review of predictions by mainstream economists…
Very well!
Who do you consider to be mainstream, and how many failed predictions of the same do I need to present? I could submit thirty failed predictions of thirty economists of the past ten years. However, you would then argue that
A. they are not mainstream
B. that thirty is not enough
C. ten years is too long or not long enough
D. or whatsoever else may suit your denial.
I think you ought to study the history of The Glass Steagall Act and the consensus opinion of economists concerning the Act. You will find a lot of evidence that may just try your trust of mainstream economists.
(Many economists assert that today’s economic crisis can be directly traced to the repeal of Glass Steagall which occurred in 1999.)
I find it extremely laughable that there is not one iota of reason contained within any of your arguments which would justify your blind-trust of the consensus opinion of economists.
Now, allow me the license to appeal to your sense of reality. In the last thirty years, and more quickly the last ten years, there has been an uninterrupted progression of the transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the upper class. The record profits of Wall Street are occurring at the same time that record wealth is being lost from the common man. Now, explain to me why most mainstream economists are not advising anything other than more of the same? Hell, we can go back thirty+ years on this truth of reality.
Conclusion:
Go ahead and trust the consensus opinion of mainstream economists and likewise observe the continued transfer of your wealth. And perhaps you may learn that maybe, just maybe, the economists are effecting policy for that very purpose. Consistency establishes intent! A man (economist) who consistently advocates policy that transfers your wealth to another is guilty of seeking to transfer your wealth.
I thought liberals were for the little guy? Well, I am no liberal, but I certainly am for the little guy.
It was obvious because 1) That's the way the term is most often used in US political discussions 2) Conservatives have made it clear that they will object to anything and everything Obama does or attempts to do. It therefore follows that they will call his policies disastrous regardless of reality. 3) Conservatives are obviously not always entirely irrational. The italics hinted that I was half-joking, that I was taking a dig at the opposition.
I could submit thirty failed predictions of thirty economists of the past ten years.
This statements reflects a lack of understanding of the fallability of anecdotal evidence. You can't just go outside and pick out thirty white stones and thereby assert that all stones are white. However, a random sampling of essays in a major economics journal might do the trick.
However, you would then argue that...
Again you assume nefarious motives on my part. This reflects your bias toward paranoid thinking. When are you gonna learn that I'm just a humble seeker of truth?
there is not one iota of reason contained within any of your auments which would justify your blind-trust of the consensus opinion of economists.
How about having a basic faith in humanity? It is not unreasonable to assume that people are generally honest enough to be trusted.
there has been an uninterrupted progression of the transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the upper class...
You really should offer citations when making claims of fact like this. Also, I think you are being a bit hasty in this assertion. But I will agree with you that this seems to be the trend.
Now, explain to me why most mainstream economists are not advising anything other than more of the same?
They are not. There are a number of policy suggestions out there. (example) Now admittedly, it's rare to hear a mainstream economist call for some radical shift in the way our economy is run. But radical changes are dangerous, incremental change is generally preferable whenever possible. How would you remake our economy? I myself see no easy answers here.
"transfer of your wealth...economists are effecting policy for that very purpose.
One glaring problem with this assessment:
"Median annual wage and salary earnings of economists were $77,010 in May 2006."
It was obvious because 1) That's the way the term is most often used in US political discussions 2) Conservatives have made it clear that they will object to anything and everything Obama does or attempts to do. It therefore follows that they will call his policies disastrous regardless of reality. 3) Conservatives are obviously not always entirely irrational. The italics hinted that I was half-joking, that I was taking a dig at the opposition.
If you would have used the term ‘conservative’ I would have supposed you were referencing republicans exclusively. Yet, the term you used is ‘conservative ideologues’. And while you may argue that republicans are conservative ideologues I would also argue that republicans are not the only conservative ideologues. For I personally know many democrats who are conservative ideologues.
I could submit thirty failed predictions of thirty economists of the past ten years.
This statements reflects a lack of understanding of the fallability of anecdotal evidence. You can't just go outside and pick out thirty white stones and thereby assert that all stones are white. However, a random sampling of essays in a major economics journal might do the trick.
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!
The following is an illustration of the very reason why I asked you to qualify what you call extraordinary evidence:
You affirm that there are no stones that are white. I affirm that there are stones that are white. You assert that my assertion is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. I in turn request the number of stones that you require as evidence that there are stones that are white. And you reply that my evidence is anecdotal if I present the evidence of white stones.
Remember, I am seeking to satisfy your request to provide the necessary evidence that brings into question the prudence of relying upon the consensus opinion of mainstream economists. I am not attempting to prove that the consensus opinion of mainstream economists is true or false in the future. You must realize that I am attempting to demonstrate the fact that when a group of individuals has consistently misled our expectations we must realize that we have been misguided. And unless we want to be misguided in the future I recommend that we consider the track record of those who guide our expectations. Not that they may be right or wrong in the future, its just a matter of whether or not we are willing to follow the same course.
I’ll address your other statements after we settle this latest disconnect.
(You have assumed that I am attempting to draw an invalid inference.)
You affirm that there are no stones that are white.
No. When I say economists in general can be trusted I'm obviously not referring to every economist in existence. I'm saying in general -- on average -- for the most part. You already stated that you understood this.
You have affirmed that there are at least a few unscrupulous economists on planet Earth. This is a reasonable claim. You then suggest that we should not rely on the consensus opinion of mainstream economists. This is not a reasonable claim. Without a logically sound measurement of the ratio of unscrupulous to scrupulous economists we can draw no conclusions about the trustworthiness of the consensus opinon of the profession as a whole.
To continue beating this analogy to death... there are white stones and there are non-white stones. We can make no sound assertions about the ratio of white to non-white stones without some logically sound measurement. Grabbing a bunch of white stones and saying "Just look at 'em!" is called cherry-picking, and it is not a logically sound measurement.
Further, since we're talking about human beings and not stones, it is reasonable to assume that they are, for the most part, acting in good faith. To suggest that unscrupulous economists outnumber scrupulous economists, or to suggest that the body of unscrupulous economists is sufficiently powerful so as to render untrustworthy the consensus opinion of the profession as a whole... This is an extraordinary claim and as such requires extraordinary evidence... Such as a random sampling of predictions made in a major journal or newspaper.
...a group of individuals has consistently misled our expectations...
The keyword there is "consistently". You have not demonstrated they consistently get things wrong and cannot do so with cherry picked anecdotes.
I think what we have here is a failure of communication, both of us. While I am extremely careful with my choice of words I too am very careful with inferences I draw from your words.
And without going into the long drawn-out dispute of attempting to determine which of us lacks skill in both comprehension and discourse I think we ought to call this discourse un-settled.
Both of us feel as though we are beating our heads against the wall? It’s difficult to advance a position when the dialogue necessary to advance that position is falsely understood. Perhaps more care will be taken in the future to avoid this conclusion.
I don't really understand your contempt for economists (or rather, economists). Are you saying members of the profession are universally untrustworthy and majorly biased?
No not the ones Obama was getting his information from I would like to know the names of those economist that told him his Stimulus was passed that unemployment would stop at 8.5%. There where many that where seeing a recession in late Oct 07 and myself included. Being in real estate I had a good feeling that there was going to be a bust and i even made my sellers take some offers then that they thought where low but now that look back and see how far down they would have been they are thankful, they would have lost even more. Peter Schiff was one out of many that saw this coming. I Even was selling stock short before the crash on Oct 08 and made out pretty well. I'm not an economist but I have a degree in it and numbers to me make sense I understand what is happening and I can predict with good accuracy of what will lie ahead. If in the next year unemployment the national average gets below 9.5% or lower that would be huge for Obama. I hope for everyones sake that it does.
Peter missed (by his own admission) the rebound of the dollar. Yet, I do agree that Peter, Dr, Doom, Robert Chapman, Joe Stiglitz and a few other economists accurately predicted the current economic recession. They seem to be the only economists who have the balls to tell the public that all is not rosy in the future while their counterparts offer-up optimistic appraisals of the coming party.
Their counterparts, who seem to receive a lot of media attention, universally and unanimously always see the US economy through rose-colored glasses. Coincidently, they are the same economists whose opinions make headline news and whose opinions are sought by politicians.
However, the economists I named are extremely wary of the gigantic stimuli of the world’s governments and Central banks ( the stimuli: The race to debase the worlds currencies). But their politically, friendly counterparts have nothing but praise for the same. And it is this latter group of economists from which dull-minded Americans seem to derive hopium.
Doesn't saying "Economists expect" suggest that they are all in agreement? That is not the case. Not all economists agree with that. There are very successful and reputable economists that say that we have not seen the worst of it yet!
Its not a matter of people finding jobs so much as it is companies hiring those people.
It is my opinion that the current administrations policies are not favorable for that happening.
I disagree with your assertion that the bail outs were the correct thing to do but that is another debate.
You are correct with that they do expect us to see more pain ahead how much more I don't know. But when you are talking about a huge budget, increase with more taxes during a time when people and employer's are struggling to make it, it leaves no incentive to hire. i attend a monthly business group here in Charlotte NC with different companies and they all say the same thing there is a big issue with uncertainty and confidence is low. The biggest concerns lie with new legislation that will require more capital from companies in time when capital is needed.
"But when you are talking about a huge budget, increase with more taxes"
...on the rich that is.
"The biggest concerns lie with new legislation that will require more capital from companies in time when capital is needed."
You can't be concerned about the budget deficit & debt at the same time that you rail against tax increases. The Bush Tax Cuts are directly tied to our nation's recent budget deficits. We have BOTH a revenue AND a spending problem in the USA, and anyone that refuses to acknowledge that has their head firmly in the sand IMHO.
Just like they only expected unemployment or at least the ones on Obama's payroll to hit 8.5% today we hit 10.2% and still going higher. If you ask them where are the new jobs they don't know. He has at least 2.5 years to do something and to have hopes of re-election but juding by the recent races in New Jersey and Virgina his base has made a shift that Obama should have concern about. We shall see! I hope for all of us that things get better.
"Just like they only expected unemployment or at least the ones on Obama's payroll to hit 8.5% today we hit 10.2% and still going higher."
Everyone knows that employment numbers are ALWAYS a lagging economic indicator. The recession is about to be officially declared to be over...wake up...
"but juding by the recent races in New Jersey and Virgina his base has made a shift"
...in your wild dreams that is. You are constantly talking about NJ & VA as if they are national trends, when there is ZERO evidence that there are, period.
Banished? You didnt even spell it right you redneck retard. What are you doing on a computer anyway?
As for the question. Because most Americans are as stupid as "itsnotright" I would have to say that the economy has to just start making a come back around the time of the re-election. If it gets better and stays better earlier then all the gun toting gay hating people will come out and vote for the republican. If it doesnt happen at all or only minimally then people will blame him for not doing a good job and will vote the other way.
I voted yes on this question because I do think he will bring the economy around but I think it will take about three years which is right around election time.
I'd say it's a little early to tell. We've not even gotten to the one-year mark since his inauguration.
And there's no telling what the next two years will hold for our country. It will surely depend on what additional issues we face and how they are dealt with.
Although on the basis of his current work, so long as the economy does rebound within the next year, and nothing else happens, he'd win a second term.
Yes he will because he has helped alot and he hasn't been in office a full year yet. It's time for change and I think Obama is going to be the one who makes the change. People need to start supporting him more and understand that the world was messed up before he got in office. He has made a lot of things better so yes he will win in 2012.
No matter what happens with Obama's policies, the Republicans have moved too far to the right to produce a candidate with moderate appeal. While the Republican nominee used to be decided with a lot of input from party elites, the far right talk shows have taken over the party since Obama's election. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh will not allow moderates like Giuliani or Huckabee, or even traditional Republicans like Gingrich to become the Republican nominee. Instead, far right "heroes" such as Palin will dominate the nomination process. These candidates will inevitably run poor campaigns that focus on false and trite attacks that the electorate is no longer as vulnerable to due to the widespread internet and decline of a single, easily influenced mass media. However, the Republicans will give a strong convention that will make people wonder if Obama is vulnerable, until a disastrous performance in the debates eliminates whatever hope they had. Thereafter, the Republican campaign will devolve into infighting and will run out of money due to the poor management skills of its leadership, which will cause all but approximately 40% of electorate, representing essentially tea-baggers, loyal republicans, and mistake voters, to turn against them. Obama will then win by a clear margin.
Obama is a very smart black man who is also the most popular man in the planet!He's the first ever black American president and the people love him!He will be greater than Washington and Linkoln!Yes,he will win in 2012
Of course Obama is going to win that guys a boss he will boss his way till all his trems are complete, theres no taling him down! Barack Obama is unbeatable!!
Wait? Because Obama is African-American you appeal to the public as somehow deciding for Obama on that reason? Hillary Clinton would have probably been President if not for Obama.
Don't make this a racial issue because if Obama fails miserably than what does that do for history and the first African-American President?
Yes, Obama will win in 2012 because by the then, the economy will bounce back to a decent level of satisfaction. Besides, there is no real Republican who can challenge him right now with a so called celebrity status. Maybe this is why Palin is on the show face campaign before presidency campaign.
obama wont win but what difference does it make who wins? whoever gets elected will carry out the orders of the corporations just like all the others. civil liberties will continue to disapear, the u.s. will continue expanding their military. it will start new wars with people. rich people will get further tax cuts. you can call me nostradamus.
The Curie family claim the most Nobel Prizes, with five:
Maria Skłodowska-Curie
Her husband Pierre Curie
Their daughter Irène Joliot-Curie
Their son-in-law Frederic Joliot-Curie
In addition, Henry Labouisse, the husband of the Curies' second daughter Ève, was the director of UNICEF when it won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1965.
Gunnar Myrdal (Economics, 1974) and wife Alva Myrdal (Peace, 1982)
J. J. Thomson, awarded the Nobel prize for Physics in 1906, was the father of George Paget Thomson who was awarded the Nobel prize for Physics in 1937.
William Henry Bragg shared the Nobel prize in Physics in 1915 with his son, William Lawrence Bragg.
Niels Bohr won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1922, and his son Aage Bohr won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1975.
Manne Siegbahn, who won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1924, was the father of Kai Siegbahn who shared the Nobel prize in Physics in 1981.
Hans von Euler-Chelpin shared the Nobel prize in Chemistry in 1929 with Arthur Harden. His son, Ulf von Euler, was awarded the Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1970.
C.V. Raman who won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1930, was the uncle of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar who won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1983.
Arthur Kornberg shared with Severo Ochoa the 1959 Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discovery of the mechanisms in the biological synthesis of ribonucleic acid and deoxyribonucleic acid.[37] Kornberg's son Roger won the 2006 Nobel prize in Chemistry for his studies of the molecular basis of eukaryotic transcription.[38]
Jan Tinbergen, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1969, was the brother of Nikolaas Tinbergen who shared the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Konrad Lorenz and Karl von Frisch.
does this guy even know why he won the prize? well if you wanna know its for doing his damn job thats right all he did was take some nukes which is his job, to be a peace keeper, maybe not in other countries but we always do anyway
I'm not saying this is definite or anything and I don't want to jinx it, but if New Jersey can elect a Republican governor, then there is still hope. New Jersey is one of the most liberal/democratic states due to its population density and urban background, but on Tuesday, we elected Chris Christie as the next governor of the state, a Republican. :D
Also, I feel like Obama had so much hype that a lot of Americans are sort of disillusioned. Of course, many still think he's the Messiah, but more and more people who voted for him and supported him are realizing that he's not doing nearly as much as he said he would.
The vast majority of people who voted for Obama did so because they recognized him as a capable leader. The only people who ever call him a messiah are Republicans making strawman attacks.
He would be able to accomplish a lot more if the Republicans in Congress would cooperate. Right now they are purposely doing everything they can to hold him back, just so they can watch his approval rating go down. Fortunately he seems to be slowly moving forward despite their obstructionism.
"but if New Jersey can elect a Republican governor, then there is still hope."
Well, the outgoing Governor of NJ did an absolutely horrible job, and if this new GOPer doesn't turn things around, he'll be out on his ear soon enuff. NJ will NEVER go for a GOPer in a Presidential election.
"Of course, many still think he's the Messiah"
No, that's another strawman argument from the Right-wing, period.
I believe that Obama is defiantly not doing a horrible job, i dont think he has done anything wrong, but at the same time nothing right either. I think that the ONLY way republicans win this debate is through Ron Paul he is the best candidate and the most liked!
I don't think so. He won becuase a large independant base and even Republican base voted for him I am one of those. His ideals and policies are too radical and he may have a tough time getting re-elected. His best hope is that the GOP does a bonehead move and put another McCain Palin like ticket. IF someone like Bob McDonell runs I think Obama will lose.
I agree. Most of his support was based off of Bush's failures. The American public failed to realize that Bush does not equal McCain. Instead, they assumed McCain would do the same things as Bush. Also, they saw Obama as sort of a messiah, a savior for America.
So, In your opinion, taking our country out of a recession is messing up our country. What about Bush? Would you consider sending us into a trillion dollar war that would send our country into huge debt that we don'. really need to be fighting messing up our country?
I dont think he should get voted in again...we have people over here starving to death,people who cant afford to go to the doctor,no jobs anywhere....but yet lets send 7.3 billion dollars to another country to help them out...it dont make sence. you have to take care of your own first
um..no. i hope to god he don't. he is trying to make schools go year round....screw him. i mean i'm a junior and he doesn't need to go running everyone lives. he needs to get a hobby and stand down as president. in the end someone will take a stand and tell that man how they truly feel about him. 85% of Tennesseans voted for him out of pity. McCain should have won....i would have voted for him if i was old enough.
No because obama sucks. He said hes not going to send any more troops to Iraq but i heard he did so he is a liar i don't like him. So no i don't think he going to win in 2012.
"OK lets stop rite now and lets look at Obamas accomplishments."
Well, this is what he's done so far (or what will be done very shortly):
-the Gitmo torture prison will have been closed & the truly guilty from there will have been held to a real standard of justice
-the vast majority of our troops will be out of Iraq (as the American people have wanted for over 3 years now)
-over 4 million more children will be insured through SCHIP
-new research will have been done using new lines of embryonic stem cells
-the economy will be roaring back after one of the worst recessions in almost 100 years
-the American auto industry will be on the mend after being re-focused on making products that Americans truly need in the long-term
-credit card companies & financial institutions will be under new regulations to prevent Americans from being ripped off in the future
-better relations will have been established with Iran & Russia
-a massive reform of our health care system in the USA will have been passed that will not allow health insurance companies to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, to cut off coverage for people that get sick, and to monopolize health insurance costs by denying Americans access to real competition for their health care dollars
-more Americans will have health insurance coverage
-more Americans will be paying less in payroll taxes
-more investment will have occurred in truly renewable, clean, and infinite sources of energy
HEY guess what!?!?!?!? Thats my point even you can't say what he has done RIGHT NOW. There's a lot of "will's" instead of "is" in your argument. And I guarantee you over half of those goals you listed won't get accomplished while he's in office. And the American people could see that unlike you.
I think that obama wont win year 2012 because there are a lot of people that were really angry with the outcome and with more teens become the age to vote then I feel that if he does apply again for president he won't win. . . Unless the candidates are even stupider then him..
obama has done such a horrible job as president so far and more and more people are staring to realize it every day so i dont even think he should be nominated for the democratic party for the 2012 election.
I don't think so because he said he will change the United States. But the United States is still going deeper in debt. We need someone who can stand up to Economic Crisis... Not someone who is just going to let our COUNTRY go deeper in debt.
Unless Obama shifts more to the center I see no way other than national emergency that he will remain in office. My support could have easily been yes and the same argument applies. The radical Saul Alinsky type blinders the President has are becoming manifest. But Barack Obama is still a rock star who no doubt has more tricks up his sleeve.
where i live only the black people like obama and thats because hes black and they dont have any idea why is a good president. if you ask they look stupid for a second then call you racist because apparently they think that we made a judgment about him being black and that has absolutly no bearing on the fact that he has never done anything to help me as an individual and all the other things that are other debates so i cant bring them up at this time
...that Al-Qaeda & their allies the Taliban started in 2001 when they attacked us. All Obama is trying to do is clean up the mess that GWB left us all.
His "change" remarks, never came true. He's done nothing to help this country. I believe he told everyone, when he's president, he'll take ALL of the troops out of the Middle East, (which I enjoy them there..) But you know what he did? He sent 40,000 MORE.
...except turn America's economy around from the brink of a depression.
"I believe he told everyone, when he's president, he'll take ALL of the troops out of the Middle East"
Obama never said this at all. Under his leadership, we are going to be withdrawing the vast majority of our troops from Iraq next year & increasing our troop presence in Afghanistan, just like he said he would do during the 2008 campaign.
Obama didn't do all the tasks that he promised to the people of USA. Therefore, Obama stinks, and yet again, Obama won't be the next president of the USA. (I think)
America is starting to realize that President Obama is a socialist. He wants to spread the wealth.
Try studying what socialism is. To put it simply, Obama is not socialist because socialism requires state ownership and control of businesses, wage control, and control of wealth distribution.
Try studying what socialism is. To put it simply, Obama is not socialist because socialism requires state ownership and control of businesses, wage control, and control of wealth distribution.
Maybe you should. Obama admits that he wants to redistribute wealth.
State ownership and control of businesses:
Government sponsored corporations include Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Farmer Mac
Federal Government chartered and owned corporations include Florida Virtual School (Florida), National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), Tennessee Valley Authority, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Millennium Challenge Corporation, St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Corporation for National and Community Service (Americorps), Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Legal Services Corporation, USPS, AMTRAK, many alcohol retail stores of which 19 states have monopolies, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Federal Government acquired corporations include GM, CITIGROUP, AIG and many others.
Wage Control
Not Permanent but Under Nixon and Carter.
Control of wealth distribution
Apparently, you should try reading. How about welfare and social security?
Maybe you should. Obama admits that he wants to redistribute wealth.
Which is not socialism.
Have you ever heard of the saying (paraphrased) "Two rectangles, one is equilateral, the other is not. Both are rectangles but only one is a square."
Redistributing wealth is a characteristic of socialism, like being a rectangle is a characteristic of a square, but it is not the defining characteristic.
Government sponsored corporations include Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Farmer Mac
Federal Government chartered and owned corporations include Florida Virtual School (Florida), National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), Tennessee Valley Authority, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Millennium Challenge Corporation, St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Corporation for National and Community Service (Americorps), Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Legal Services Corporation, USPS, AMTRAK, many alcohol retail stores of which 19 states have monopolies, Medicare, and Medicaid.
Federal Government acquired corporations include GM, CITIGROUP, AIG and many others.
Does our state own all businesses and corporations? Or, does it own all critical utilities?
Not Permanent but Under Nixon and Carter.
Not presently.
Apparently, you should try reading. How about welfare and social security?
So, all the wealth of the top ten percent is divided amongst the bottom 90% evenly?
Redistribution of wealth entails a whole layer of government that controls incomes and aims to prevent people from becoming excessively wealthy to the detriment of others. It isn't as simple as having social programs.
Redistribute wealth is socialism, it is not just a characteristic of socialism, it is a major mechanism of socialism.
Does our state own all businesses and corporations? Or, does it own all critical utilities?
How does that matter? Despite what you consider as critical utilities, it is still state ownership? Before you implied that there was no state ownership, never been wage control nor wealth redistribution on the based of Obama not being socialist.
Not presently.
Really, this is because I wrote not permanent.
Redistribution of wealth entails a whole layer of government that controls incomes and aims to prevent people from becoming excessively wealthy to the detriment of others
What is wrong with being excessively wealthy? That is what America is. Pursuing self interest. Anything else is socialism.
It isn't as simple as having social programs.
Wait... Socialism is similar to social programs...SO
You said, Have you ever heard of the saying (paraphrased) "Two rectangles, one is equilateral, the other is not. Both are rectangles but only one is a square."
Well, social programs are characteristic of socialism.
Therefore, social programs is a characteristic of socialism, like a rectangle is a characteristics of a square, however, it is a major mechanisms of socialism.
Actually that is what government does do. It takes away from those with wealth or produce and gives to those who don't produce anything.
Redistribute wealth is socialism, it is not just a characteristic of socialism, it is a major mechanism of socialism.
Redistribution of wealth is a mechanism of all economic systems. Socialism uses government to dictate wages and taxes to prevent excessive wealth, so that everyone may have a higher standard of living instead of just the wealthy.
How does that matter? Despite what you consider as critical utilities, it is still state ownership? Before you implied that there was no state ownership, never been wage control nor wealth redistribution on the based of Obama not being socialist.
It is one of the fundamental pillars of socialism, that government owns the means of production (business).
What is wrong with being excessively wealthy? That is what America is. Pursuing self interest. Anything else is socialism.
Wealth translates to power. The point of democracy is is to give everyone an equal say in political decisions (one person, one vote) but wealth undermines this so that a person may have more than his fair share of influence over politics.
Well, social programs are characteristic of socialism.
But not a singularly defining feature.
Actually that is what government does do. It takes away from those with wealth or produce and gives to those who don't produce anything.
We lived in a society which treated the poor and underprivileged as though it was their own faults. It resulted in short life spans, 16-hour workdays, complete poverty, pollution, and child labour.
The simple answer is that charity and compassion produce a more equal society, and raise the standard of living for all, so that we need not have tens of millions of starving men and women living in filth.
So what?! Is his wife pregnant? For all you know maybe she had an abortion at one point in your life. Saying something is ok for people to do doesn't necessarily mean you are going to do it yourself. You make it seem like all pro-choice activists hate kids, which certainly is NOT true!
