[Falx]

I'm not too bothered by it, but since everyone active here is against it shall we all vote against?

[Doomhammer]

Let's go for it.

[ingliz]

Falx:

Enterprise Stabilisation Fund Act:

Have you even read bill? It costs the government nothing, being "preferred investors" we are guaranteed payment even if these companies go belly up which is highly unlikely as we have seen the books.

[Falx]

And the Laffer curve promised to do the same for Regonomics, if the last 70 years have taught us anything is that trying to help businesses directly is the surest way to flush money down the toilet.

[ingliz]

We are offering 'soft' loans not giving money away and the way interest rates are falling, due in large measure to our prudent governance, within twelve months they will just be loans at the standard rate.

[Falx]

I guess a simulation where the ruling party decides what happens is the only place where this sort of loan would work. Proceed into la-la with all due haste.

What I find most interesting about this simulation is the speed with which you're turning into regular conservatives once you gained power, it didn't happen in the USSR for several decades after the revolution.

[ingliz]

Proceed into la-la with all due haste.

It worked in Ireland, the celtic tiger economy, a few decades ago.

What I find most interesting...

We cannot play this simulation as communists yet. We will wait until the other parties pack up and leave, bored with the "game", before declaring PoFo a socialist republic.

[Dr House]

And the Laffer curve promised to do the same for Regonomics, if the last 70 years have taught us anything is that trying to help businesses directly is the surest way to flush money down the toilet.

What the fuck? You can't seriously equate magical income tax cuts (which don't do shit because half of all rich people evade their income taxes and the other half pay AMT anyway) with loans and subsidies to businesses. Reaganomics was retarded, but that doesn't mean supply-side economics in general are. South Korea subsidized exports to make their chaebols internationally competitive, and it netted them the fastest long-term GDP growth in the world (Singapore had the fastest per capita) until China overtook them in the 80s.

[Falx]

What all of you economic gurus are missing is the huge import tariffs all those countries had at the time. So by all means procceed to implement a 1/4 of the policies that made those countries successful, it'd be just as successful as having 1/4 of an abortion

But as I've said, the only place that your ideas will work in is the la-la-land which we now inhabit where the government controls reality and nothing they don't want to happen ever does.

[Dr House]

What all of you economic gurus are missing is the huge import tariffs all those countries had at the time. So by all means procceed to implement a 1/4 of the policies that made those countries successful, it'd be just as successful as having 1/4 of an abortion

I support the adoption of a comprehensive industrial policy, but I'm not in the government. And you still haven't explained why supply-side economics are inherently bad.

[Falx]

Because of the real world house.

If you bothered looking at it some time instead of jumping from one ideological train to another you would see it too. Hint: find out on your own, just like a big boy would, the tariffs each country placed on manufactured goods they were specialising in when their industries were in their infancy. If you get stuck consider never talking about this subject as though you know anything about it again (just like Singapore's policies).

[Dr House]

Quit talking to me like I'm a little kid and actually make a fucking case will you? Otherwise I'm gonna be forced to assume you're the one that doesn't know shit about the subject at hand since you made the accusation that supply side economics don't work. It's up to you to substantiate it, I'm not gonna do your homework for you.

[Falx]

'm gonna be forced to assume you're the one that doesn't know shit about the subject at hand since you made the accusation that supply side economics don't work.

The logical errors here abound, since you seem incapable of seeing them let me explain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
You claim X.
I claim (not X).
You claim since I can't prove (not X) X must be true and you fall into one of the most widely seen logical fallacies around.
Welcome to high school logic.

[Dr House]

No, you got that backwards. You claimed X.

And the Laffer curve promised to do the same for Regonomics, if the last 70 years have taught us anything is that trying to help businesses directly is the surest way to flush money down the toilet.

What the fuck? You can't seriously equate magical income tax cuts (which don't do shit because half of all rich people evade their income taxes and the other half pay AMT anyway) with loans and subsidies to businesses. Reaganomics was retarded, but that doesn't mean supply-side economics in general are. South Korea subsidized exports to make their chaebols internationally competitive, and it netted them the fastest long-term GDP growth in the world (Singapore had the fastest per capita) until China overtook them in the 80s.

What all of you economic gurus are missing is the huge import tariffs all those countries had at the time. So by all means procceed to implement a 1/4 of the policies that made those countries successful, it'd be just as successful as having 1/4 of an abortion

But as I've said, the only place that your ideas will work in is the la-la-land which we now inhabit where the government controls reality and nothing they don't want to happen ever does.

The only one whose claims lack substance in this exchange is you. You claimed that supply-side economics just don't work and then failed to back that up. I cited South Korea as a claim to the contrary. Then you claimed that South Korea's success hinged on them slapping tariffs on imports and again implementing just part of their program wouldn't work either. You failed to back that up. Then I called you out on it and you cited "the real world" (wtf?) and told me to look up South Korea's industrial policy myself. Burden of proof is on you here, not me.

[Falx]

House is the word "doesn't" in your world related to "no" in any way?
Try this: X works.
X doesn't.

Which is the statement and which is its negation?

And if you bother to look at what actually happened neither of us put any sort of proof into what we said, you're just saying you did because you said a name of a country. I'm telling you that I don't really care if you believe me or not since there is no one here right now that I can have a good debate over this with.

[Doomhammer]

Link

I received a PM from Falx this morning confirming his resignation as effective from Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:13 pm. The time he posted his intentions in this thread.

That is why his ballot was not counted in the Defence vote, he had voted at 6:33 pm after he had resigned.

Until you name a replacement in the "Naming of MP's thread the THP will be one MP short of its quota.

ingliz, Clerk of the House

I went ahead and asked MB. if he would like to take up Falx's MP seat. Is that alright with the rest of the party? Do we need a motion or something for this?

Also, we are in need of someone to take up Falx's mantle as the party's leader. I'm guessing the next most senior member would be the logical choice. I am assuming that said person is either Vanasalus, Thunderhawk or Andres?

[Thunderhawk]

I PM'd Falx.

I too suggested MB get Falx's* seat, and that Van become party leader.



PS.
Should it be Falx's or Falx' ?

[ingliz]

I thought I'd better post this here too. It explains why Falx's vote was thrown out in the Defence ballot.

I received a PM from Falx this morning confirming his resignation effective "immediately". As 6:13 pm was the time he posted his intentions in this thread, 6:13 pm is the time he officially resigned.

Falx's vote was one of the spoilt ballots in the Defence vote.

His vote was registered at 6:33 pm, 20 minutes after, it had to be thrown out and was not counted.

I know the vote made no difference to the outcome, this time, but I don't want to set a bad precedent. It may happen that someone resigns, then votes and that 'invalid' vote turns out to be decisive; there is good reason for my pickiness

Until you name a replacement in the "Naming of MP's thread the THP will be one MP short of its quota.

ingliz, Clerk of the House

[Andres]

I agree, MB should get the seat and Vanasalus the chair.

[MB.]

I've accepted, thank you gentlemen.