tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-641772231027884900.post779348551360903489..comments2021-08-21T05:06:13.768-07:00Comments on The Unapologetic Apologist: Obamanomics may destroy game industrySeraph the apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01679163685701581437noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-641772231027884900.post-12307055535300089302011-08-05T05:59:31.245-07:002011-08-05T05:59:31.245-07:00@Micheal82. In the article, he says it is Obama AN...@Micheal82. In the article, he says it is Obama AND Bush's fault. <br /><br />It is obvious that supply side economics w/ out fiscal discipline and perpetual Keynesian stimulus policy would drown any country is massive debt.thepoliticalthesishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04542768403129270419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-641772231027884900.post-20605106867662718562011-08-02T15:20:54.562-07:002011-08-02T15:20:54.562-07:00Mr Bingo-It is regrettable that you open your argu...Mr Bingo-It is regrettable that you open your argument with personal insults. It is also regrettable that you do not have the facts straight. Obama has spent more in three years than all presidents past combined and even announced today his intentions for more stimulus spending. Also if you read the "grand bargain" it raises the debt ceiling with 900 billion dollars in cuts over ten years and the organization of a panel that is to find a little over a trillion dollars more in cuts, while at the same time adding a total of ten trillion over that same time frame to the deficit. If we assume that the promised cuts occur (and they won't) then we have a deficit that in ten years will be 7-8 trillion dollars bigger. When we have a 14 trillion dollar deficit cutting 900 billion now an d "promising" more cuts later is a joke. This isn't a win for fiscal conservatives. Also FDR did not bring the country out of the Great Depression, he took Herbert's recession and CAUSED the great depression. George W. Bush too 8 years to add a trillion to the deficit, Obama has added 4 trillion in 3 years. You also misstated what I said about Reagan, I said he caused the economy to rebound, and we thrived, after a two year recovery from Carter period, we thrived. The better example is Calvin Coolidge who rolled back the mess Woodrow Wilson made and with cuts to the size, scale and scope of government lead us to the roaring 20s. Also, you might not know this, but FDR's policies are an exacerbation (look the word up) of Herbert Hoovers. Hoover grew government and increased spending, FDR grew government and increased spending. Bush grew government and increased spending, Obama grew government and increased spending. By spending more time crafting your personal insults you completely missed the point I was trying to make. In order to fix the problem we need dramatic cuts to the size, scale and scope of government, and that means dramatic cuts to spending, cuts that will be greater than our increases is spending, which the "grand compromise" does NOT do. In the future I am happy to debate you, but I recommend you spend time trying to create a reasoned argument rather than uncleaver personal attacks. How do we come together and form a deeper understanding of each other as a people if we start every conversation with a personal attack? It doesn't change hearts or minds, it just makes people angry... And you wouldn't like me when I'm angry.<br />As far as acting like I have a towering intellect, you can judge all you like but the reality is what I have stated. That is the history as it happened minus the emotional progressive spin and feel good do goodery of government propaganda. One only needs to really look hard at the numbers of the great depression era, Spending went up, unemployment got worse, the economy never recovered while FDR was alive and only in the wake of the Harry S Truman post war era did we enter a state of modest growth followed by stagflation. We didn't have a real recovery until Kennedy cut taxes, and the scale and scope of government. But that recovery was cut short by LBJ's "great society" and "war on poverty" which incidentally didn't end poverty. Libertarians, for the record, advocate for maximum individual liberty. People should be free economically as well as socially. Do you, as a progressive, then support confiscating the fruits of a person's labors? If so how are you not advocating making people work for another's benefit, and more importantly, and think about this don't let your emotions react to this question, I want a thought out answer, how is that not slavery? To make someone work to confiscate the products of their efforts... How is that different from what the Democrats were doing to the Blacks 100 years ago?Seraph the apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01679163685701581437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-641772231027884900.post-50300486532074556222011-08-02T11:30:12.470-07:002011-08-02T11:30:12.470-07:00Sorry about the formatting at the top of my respon...Sorry about the formatting at the top of my response, not sure what happened there.Mr. Bingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07734931522018840728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-641772231027884900.post-15052897797276151012011-08-02T11:28:05.323-07:002011-08-02T11:28:05.323-07:00You, sir, are an idiot. I came to that conclusion ...You, sir, are an idiot. I came to that conclusion when I read you were a libertarian<br />(a.k.a. an emotionally stunted greed head who sleeps with a copy of Atlas Shrugged<br />under their pillow and thinks of the world in terms of parasites and producers).<br />Unfortunately I continued to read your screed which, admittedly, is well written,<br />but factually incorrect. I really can't abide people that use economics as a<br />political bludgeon instead of as a tool to understand the workings of the worlds<br />financial markets and how people interact in them. You try to sound like an educated<br />person and perhaps you are, but you have committed the first sin of true research<br />and commentary. You imposed your set of beliefs on an issue instead of trying to<br />define the issue.<br /><br />First, you stated this:<br /><br />The only out we have is to cut spending, and Obama simply won't do that.<br /><br />That is complete and total nonsense. It is a spectacularly stupid idea and I suppose<br />that is why our government has just embraced austerity as sound economic policy.<br />Unfortunately, it is going to lead to a deeper recession or depression.<br /><br />Why? Well, it is quite simple. The Federal reserve has set historically low interest<br />rates and no one is borrowing so the Fed can not stimulate the economy. Businesses<br />are currently sitting on large piles of cash and they aren't expanding or hiring<br />because their is no demand in the market so they can't stimulate the economy. Why is<br />there no demand? Because unemployment is high and people are tapped out from the housing bubble. In a situation like this, the federal government is the only way possible to stimulate<br />the economy through infrastructure projects, R&D, etc....<br /><br />But, you are wrong on the policy and you were wrong on the facts. Obama has been very supportive of cutting government spending. Over the last few months he has tried to cut Social Security and Medicare as part of a "Grand Bargain". Over the weekend Congress lifted the debt ceiling and promised over a trillion dollars in cuts to discretionary spending. Today the EPI estimated that this is going to cost 1.8 million jobs. In other words, the policy you advocated and that Obama and Congress supports is taking the country in the wrong direction. <br /><br />I could go on and on about other things you wrote - Regan didn't preside over the greatest period of economic growth, that was the Gilded Age (1870 - 1880), George W. Bush ran a larger debt than all the previous presidents of the U.S. combined, and FDR brought the country out of the Great Depression after Republican Herbert Hoover drove the nation into the ground using policies strangely similar to the ones that are popular in Washington right now. <br /><br />If you have a political axe to grind, so be it, but don't act like you are some towering intellect while you do it.Mr. Bingohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07734931522018840728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-641772231027884900.post-45106506733780591282011-07-31T14:11:09.208-07:002011-07-31T14:11:09.208-07:00@ the politicalthesis my friend you hit the nail r...@ the politicalthesis my friend you hit the nail right on the head. That is an excellent observation. So in the end Japan too must adapt a laissez faire economy as well or Nintendo may be doomed no matter what happens here. It's spo sad to see a staple of my childhood on the brink like this...Seraph the apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01679163685701581437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-641772231027884900.post-58030169678620820682011-07-31T14:06:47.424-07:002011-07-31T14:06:47.424-07:00@ Michelle82 continued...
On to the 3DS. The 3DS ...@ Michelle82 continued...<br /><br />On to the 3DS. The 3DS only faces one challenge that is unique from the situation the DS faced at launch, the economy. The DS did not have anywhere close to the quality or quantity of launch titled the 3DS has had. The battery life came under fire, people said the GBA had a better and cheaper line up, that the dual screens were just a gimmick, and that the DS was doomed once the PSP came out, remember? <br /><br />We've been here before with Nintendo. The problem is that Nintendo is indeed suffering economically where before they were able to turn things around. That means we have to look past Nintendo's "mistakes" and analyze what else could be happening here. The simple truth is that the DS launched at a time of economic growth and stability, and like it or not that was under Bush. Bush actually had 6 prosperous years in spite of the wars and the economy only began to destabilize in 2007 a full year after the Democrats took the house and Senate as a repudiation of the wars as well as the Katrina matter. There's a lot that went into the collapse of the economy. But as you can see here: http://www.google.com/imgres?q=Bush%27s+spending+vs+Obama+spending&hl=en&sa=X&tbm=isch&prmd=ivns&tbnid=R7BZAbCqb67AtM:&imgrefurl=http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2010/07/detroit-free-press-gop-efforts-to.html&docid=wdqrSN6bFjqjMM&w=419&h=347&ei=GcI1TtzBLObUiAKxqr26CA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=928&vpy=88&dur=1831&hovh=204&hovw=247&tx=116&ty=102&page=1&tbnh=137&tbnw=165&start=0&ndsp=58&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0&biw=1920&bih=989 <br />the spending Obama has done has been far more significant than Bush, so to lay the blame at Bush's feet, especially 3 years into an Obama presidency, and especially when the economy collapsed after the Democrats took 3/4ths of the power in Washington away from the Republicans seems a bit odd to me, because it's the new Obama economy Nintendo is now facing, and Bush has been out of the picture for a very long time now, and it's the Obama economy which may be the nail in Nintendo's coffin, where as lackluster launch line ups, poor battery life and gimicky new features have not stopped Nintendo from thriving in the past under better economic circumstances. Great post though! I hope you keep them coming, it is a great debate that needs to be had especially among younger people.Seraph the apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01679163685701581437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-641772231027884900.post-77211434143602512582011-07-31T13:52:43.417-07:002011-07-31T13:52:43.417-07:00Obama's policies are directly responsible for ...Obama's policies are directly responsible for the state of the economy. Like it or not Obama has made things significantly worse. The only out we have is to cut spending, and Obama simply won't do that. I have written quite a bit on the economic legacies of previous Progressive presidents, if you'd like to check those out. Also I recommend reading "New Deal or Raw Deal" by Burton W. Jr. Folsom. It's not Reaganomics that's the problem, its Roosevelanomics. There's a reason FDR presided over the great depression, and his predecessor was only a small portion of the problem. There's a reason Reagan presided over the greatest period of economic growth since the Roaring 20s. There's a reason our economy has been in decline since Bush I and every other president since moved away from Reagan style policies. Bush I raised taxes, remember? And the Reagan formula involves more than the minor tax cuts everyone got under Bush II. Bush II didn't make anywhere near as deep of cuts. There's a reason the economy was failing under Carter, and it's failing now. The argument isn't a Republican Vs Democrats argument, there are progressive Republicans too, the problem is John Maynard Keynes (Progressives) vs FA Hayek (Sane people). History has shown us those who follow Hayek's model lead us into prosperity.Seraph the apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01679163685701581437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-641772231027884900.post-59854740638283619092011-07-30T20:38:06.162-07:002011-07-30T20:38:06.162-07:00I love how you try to pin a global economic crises...I love how you try to pin a global economic crises on Obama. The American economy crashed under Bush and his Reaganomics on steroids policies. No President in American history cut taxes while fighting a war, hell under Roosevelt the top tax rate was 94% and Eisenhower it was 91%. Bush isn't the only reason our economy is in the crapper, Clinton and his free trade agreements did a number on the American job market. Ross Perot was right when he talked about the giant sucking sound. <br /><br />Now on to the 3ds. The 3DS is failing because most gamers don't have a reason to buy one. The DSi has a huge library of games, a better battery life and it is cheaper. On top of that there is no must have game for the 3DS. I already own two copies of Zelda OoT, why should I buy another? I have a superior copy of SFIV on my Xbox, why should I spend money on getting it on the 3ds. There is no value in owning a 3DS at this moment.micheal82https://www.blogger.com/profile/07706029554319068962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-641772231027884900.post-44204267047683881302011-07-30T12:19:02.134-07:002011-07-30T12:19:02.134-07:00The principle target audience for the video game i...The principle target audience for the video game industry is young single males. This is one of the demographics hit hardest by the great recession. Youth from 16 to 24 have an unemployment rate of 18.4% while the national average is 9.2%. <br /><br />Nintendo is a Japanese company another country racked by economic recession due to out of control gov't spending and protectionism.thepoliticalthesishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04542768403129270419noreply@blogger.com