Barrack Obama (Betas Only)

[discojoe]

He is one of the worst, most out-of-touch presidents we have ever had, and his presidency seem like it has merely galvanized the conservative ideology against liberalism and will possibly result in conservative domination of Washington for the next couple of decades.

[Gilly]

He is one of the worst, most out-of-touch presidents we have ever had, and his presidency seem like it has merely galvanized the conservative ideology against liberalism and will possibly result in conservative domination of Washington for the next couple of decades.

This is probably too extreme...I think he is enough of a populist that he will most likely be forced into doing at least a few redeeming things during his presidency, maybe pull a Jimmy Carter and end the Iraq War in the last 24 hours of his term or some shit.

[jughead]

you beta rationals are always liking crazy ass moves with lots of dramatic Ni and se.
You obviously don't like him and this is a backlash at him for possibly being IEI and if so the easiest type to change him to would be EII and blacklist him.
But, frankly the only president I've lived with (which is only 3 that i can remember in my lifetime) who I've liked has been clinton because he did seem more like a real person despite being a politician who covers his ass.
It could be a generation gap too.
Then again he could be EII and you detest his unvalued Fe and Ni saying he's a souless robot.

[Blaze]

^truth

[discojoe]

Decent person, heart seems to be in the right place, a visionary, amazing charisma, inflated ego, seems emotionally driven from his past. Not an ideal leader, imo.

He is emotionally vacant to the point that it's disturbing to listen to him talk. I don't see how you can make any determination about his heart other than that he has none, but is rather a soulless automaton.

[Gilly]

He is emotionally vacant to the point that it's disturbing to listen to him talk. I don't see how you can make any determination about his heart other than that he has none, but is rather a soulless automaton.

Yes. Thank you.

I wanted to be president of the united states when I was in high school. Then I got to college, and realized that it would not be I who was president, but rather merely my face and voice.

[Beautiful sky]

He is emotionally vacant to the point that it's disturbing to listen to him talk. I don't see how you can make any determination about his heart other than that he has none, but is rather a soulless automaton.

This is why I think he's Fe valuing and Se ego block holder

Ne PoLR would suggest that he is skeptical of new and novel ideas/possibilities and leans towards creating systems, wouldn't you think?

Soulfull automations would be more likely of feeler types...like Redbaron and myself, something of Fi and Fe holders right?

[silverchris9]

Um, DJ, I read your first post, and it seems awfully full of analogies and metaphors itself. I understand that you consider yourself more knowledgeable about economics than crazed, and you probably are, but... I dunno, your criticism of him seems to basically boil down to I'm right and you're wrong. Actually your posts are both very Ni-heavy as well as Ti-heavy: you're trading modes of conceptualizing an occurrence as much as you're trading logical arguments.

Also, some of the things you stated very factually, especially

As to the economic catastrophe that you claim was averted by the bailouts, what you're not considering is the fact that we would already be in full recovery if there had never been any bailouts or artificially low interest rates.

seem to me to be subject to heavy debate, not just in the general population and the politicians, but among economists. I suppose you subscribe to a particular system or school of economics that makes this prediction (now that I think about it, economics is a very Gamma NT type of field. If any of my ILI friends liked math, I would tell them to go become economists), but certainly there are other schools, even if, for one reason or another, you consider them to be erroneous?

Anyway, I think crazed is right in a couple of regards, but especially this: economics is predicated on rational behavior. But in a global economy, or, whatever the label, an economy (and a media) that is more thoroughly interdependent than in the 1920s and 30s, the potential for irrational behavior is significantly multiplied. Regardless of what logical economic theories posit, the potential of a more severe global reaction was there, and we cannot say with any certainty what would or would not have happened had America used different fiscal and monetary policy, if only because people are more unpredictable than economic theory.

Also, something I think (from my admittedly small knowledge of economics) that some economists tend to ignore is the idea that even given the potential or expected risks, there are some economic conditions that we simply cannot accept, even for a short time. Even if something seems to be the more rational option, to some degree we are ethically unable to allow things to get as bad as they could, and perhaps should get, in order to "fix the system." To me, it's like the difference between 400,000 people eating one or two meals a day but surviving, and 4,000 people starving to death (okay, that's a melodramatic example, but you get the drift). Or it's like those morality questions: if you have to push Bob onto the train tracks and let him get run over in order to save Suzy and Jacob, do you do it? You might say yes in theory, but then when you physically have to push Bob into the oncoming train? Isn't it a little bit like that when you're a politician in Washington, and you have to let all the companies fail and people lose jobs, etc., and not attempt to do something to help on the grounds that well, it'll make the whole economy healthier when we get out of this. To continue an earlier metaphor, isn't it possible to die of withdrawal symptoms?

I guess that was really just another list of ways we might try to conceptualize the financial crisis, but hopefully it was a moderately coherent one.

Second, I've so far read approximately a dozen books on economics, several of them by Keynesians.

Really? Do you find any of their conclusions or ideas useable or do you tend to reject the whole Keynesian way of thinking? This is a subject I'm interested in myself, since I'm not really prepared to be a for real Milton Friedman economic libertarian (I don't know if that's the right term for Milton Friedman, but you get the idea), but I suppose I can see problems with usual government economic policy since the New Deal (which has been heavily Keynesian, no?)

(Also, the constructions "would of" and "should of" are grammatically nonsensical. What you mean to say are "would have" and "should have." I've already corrected you on this once before. You should be able to remember something so easy and basic.)

I really like betas. Is it bad to like fighting? I dunno. But seriously, betas are just so much better than every other quadra. Sigh. (disclaimer: yes, of course I know there is no best quadra. It's just fun to say).

[discojoe]

Um, DJ, I read your first post, and it seems awfully full of analogies and metaphors itself. I understand that you consider yourself more knowledgeable about economics than crazed, and you probably are, but... I dunno, your criticism of him seems to basically boil down to I'm right and you're wrong. Actually your posts are both very Ni-heavy as well as Ti-heavy: you're trading modes of conceptualizing an occurrence as much as you're trading logical arguments.

I'm really sort of at a loss as to how to explain things to crazedrat. If I explain things in terms of A > B > C, his response is basically along the lines of "You don't know that. The universe could explode at any second, so there is no objective truth, except for the things that I arbitrarily have decided are correct." He basically randomly takes a side, then justifies it by saying that objective reality is an illusion. If he's going to outright refuse to be realistic, there's not a whole lot I can say or do, except be mean to him as punishment for being ignorant.

Also, some of the things you stated very factually, especially


seem to me to be subject to heavy debate, not just in the general population and the politicians, but among economists. I suppose you subscribe to a particular system or school of economics that makes this prediction (now that I think about it, economics is a very Gamma NT type of field. If any of my ILI friends liked math, I would tell them to go become economists), but certainly there are other schools, even if, for one reason or another, you consider them to be erroneous?

Sorry, no gray line here for you to hide behind. I subscribe to Austrian economics, also known as economics. The other so-called "schools" are utter nonsense, and I can fully and irrefutably elaborate on precisely why this is the case.

Anyway, I think crazed is right in a couple of regards, but especially this: economics is predicated on rational behavior. But in a global economy, or, whatever the label, an economy (and a media) that is more thoroughly interdependent than in the 1920s and 30s, the potential for irrational behavior is significantly multiplied. Regardless of what logical economic theories posit, the potential of a more severe global reaction was there, and we cannot say with any certainty what would or would not have happened had America used different fiscal and monetary policy, if only because people are more unpredictable than economic theory.

Please list an example of precisely what you mean by "irrational behavior" and how the potential for it has increased because of global economics. I think you are inventing terms and ascribing to them whatever meaning you choose so as to control the discussion, a common INFp tactic, I have observed.

Also, something I think (from my admittedly small knowledge of economics) that some economists tend to ignore is the idea that even given the potential or expected risks, there are some economic conditions that we simply cannot accept, even for a short time.

Like what? Be extremely specific. Remember that you are talking about economic conditions.

Even if something seems to be the more rational option, to some degree we are ethically unable to allow things to get as bad as they could, and perhaps should get, in order to "fix the system." To me, it's like the difference between 400,000 people eating one or two meals a day but surviving, and 4,000 people starving to death (okay, that's a melodramatic example, but you get the drift).

Well, I wouldn't outright abolish medicare since doing so would kill people, but you could easily phase it out in an ethical manner that minimizes the negative impact. Similarly, there are all kinds of practical, ethical ways to fix broken aspects of the economy. It's not always a matter of biting the bullet, though it is that way in the matter of this country's fiscal situation.

Or it's like those morality questions: if you have to push Bob onto the train tracks and let him get run over in order to save Suzy and Jacob, do you do it? You might say yes in theory, but then when you physically have to push Bob into the oncoming train? Isn't it a little bit like that when you're a politician in Washington, and you have to let all the companies fail and people lose jobs, etc., and not attempt to do something to help on the grounds that well, it'll make the whole economy healthier when we get out of this. To continue an earlier metaphor, isn't it possible to die of withdrawal symptoms?

Either/or fallacy. Fuck off.

I guess that was really just another list of ways we might try to conceptualize the financial crisis, but hopefully it was a moderately coherent one.

No, it wasn't. It was really annoying to read.

Really? Do you find any of their conclusions or ideas useable or do you tend to reject the whole Keynesian way of thinking? This is a subject I'm interested in myself, since I'm not really prepared to be a for real Milton Friedman economic libertarian (I don't know if that's the right term for Milton Friedman, but you get the idea), but I suppose I can see problems with usual government economic policy since the New Deal (which has been heavily Keynesian, no?)

Keynesianism is 100% coherent, but it doesn't apply to the actual way that the economy operates. I read about it so that I can more eloquently refute it.

[Beautiful sky]

I'm really sort of at a loss as to how to explain things to crazedrat.

Hummm...interesting...

If I explain things in terms of A > B > C, his response is basically along the lines of "You don't know that. The universe could explode at any second, so there is no objective truth, except for the things that I arbitrarily have decided are correct."

algorythms....

He basically randomly takes a side, then justifies it by saying that objective reality is an illusion. If he's going to outright refuse to be realistic, there's not a whole lot I can say or do, except be mean to him as punishment for being ignorant.

I don't think he says thet objective reality is an illusion as much as he says that his reality is the only objective reality to consider.

[discojoe]

I don't think he says thet objective reality is an illusion as much as he says that his reality is the only objective reality to consider.

But his counter-arguments always amount to "Yeah, but what if everyone gets AIDS? Then what?" Unless what I say neatly plans for every possible contingency, it is worthless in his mind. He has no common sense, no concept of when to stop nitpicking at nothing and finally admit that something is correct.

Basically, he denies what is real because his filter for determining what does and does not make sense is extremely narrow, to the point that reality almost becomes meaningless.

[UDP]

Decent person, heart seems to be in the right place, a visionary, amazing charisma, inflated ego, seems emotionally driven from his past. Not an ideal leader, imo.

I wonder if one must be in touch with his past and use it somehow in order to really pursue goals with any fervor.

FWIW the pursuit of goals obviously has more impact on their realization than the "legitimacy" or "goodness" of them.