Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

The important question: Why did I subject myself to MSNBC?
1 posted on 10/05/2012 7:06:13 AM PDT by Egon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Egon

The less education one has, either academic or empirical, in economics the simpler economics seems. Ask any fine arts major if he would pay more for a high interest bond or for a low interest bond and why. Their answer will tell you all you need to know.


2 posted on 10/05/2012 7:12:55 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Hopey changey low emission unicorns and a crap sandwich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Egon

I try never to listen to President Obama speak—I find his delivery unpalatable, not to mention his content.

I thought I was the only one who can’t listen to “0”. His delivery is like nails on a blackboard to me and his lies are even more unpalatable. And, now, that he did a belly flop in the swimming pool the other night, the left is bring their “liar” game which, by the way, comes naturally to them. Half the country will believe those “new and improved” economic numbers and the other half who didn’t vote for “0” won’t. By the grace of God, we need to have our White House back from the thugs.


3 posted on 10/05/2012 7:16:55 AM PDT by Bitsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Egon

This is what I do with the economic illiterates (80%+ of the USA population):

I ask them 2 questions.

1. How much tax would be collected if rates were 0%?

2. How much tax would be collected if rates were 100%?

If they’re too illiterate to figure it out, I explain how both questions have the same answer. If they get that, then they must agree that lowering the tax rates can increase tax dollars collected.

We, the literate, must ALWAYS correct someone when they talk about lowering and raising TAXES. That is incorrect verbiage. Only RATES can be raised or lowered. Once they get that, got to the 2 questions and repeat.


5 posted on 10/05/2012 7:25:49 AM PDT by bankwalker (In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Egon
The debate retorts about math and economics remind me of the old question: How do you tell when a politician is lying?.Answer: When you see their lips moving!
6 posted on 10/05/2012 7:34:32 AM PDT by buckalfa (Nabob of Negativity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Egon
Let’s suppose I sell my lemonade for $1/cup. I sell to 100 people in one day. I make $100 that day. The next day, I cut the cost of my lemonade to $.50/cup. Simple math tells us that I’m only going to make $50 that next day. Ms. Maddow would happily go on the air and exclaim that “It’s simple math!”, and her viewers would take her (presumably educated) word for it.

They would also say that if you raised your price to $100/cup, you'd generate $10,000 in revenue.

7 posted on 10/05/2012 7:44:06 AM PDT by Sloth (If a tax break counts as "spending" then every time I don't rob a bank should be a "deposit.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Egon
Economics 101 .

Individualistic Capitalists MAKE money,

Communistic Socialists TAKE money.

President Clinton's greatest decision was to keep Alan Greenspan on as Fed Chairman.

8 posted on 10/05/2012 7:45:45 AM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Egon
Great posting, you hit the nail on the head with a prime fundamental of Marxist economic theory, which requires that you break things down to their simplest elements, eventually taking things to a static system. This is actually in conflict with the concept of "dialectical materialism," which Marx brought into his philosophy, which claims that systems are interdependent. So right then and there, Marxist economic theory is self-contradictory.

In addition to that, there's this huge disconnect in the minds of leftists. They seem to know instinctively that if you don't like a product or activity, tax it, effectively increasing the price, and people will buy or do less of what you don't like. But at the same time, they don't seem to understand that this is the case for ALL products and activities, even those that are beneficial. So they don't seem to understand that when they increase taxes on productive activities that produce revenues, the result is actually less revenue to the government, because they're discouraging those activities, and at some point, people will simply do less of it.

BTW, did anyone else notice that during the debates, Obama continually use the term "revenues" incorrectly when he actually meant "taxes." Someone should send him a dictionary so he could learn the difference. "Revenue" is the money coming into the government. Taxes are a means to generate revenue for the government. But even Obama realized and is on record admitting that increasing taxes actually DECREASES revenues to the government, but that it's OK, since it's "more fair."

This certainly shows the priorities of leftists.

Mark

9 posted on 10/05/2012 7:49:07 AM PDT by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Egon

OK, if you sell 100 cups of lemonade for $1 apiece you make $100, and if you sell 200 cups at 50 cents apiece you make $100...but doesn’t it cost the seller more to make enough lemonade to fill 200 cups than to fill 100 cups?


12 posted on 10/05/2012 8:54:11 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson