Azalin Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Because recommending brain surgery demonstrates at least a basic understanding of what the brain does. not necessarily...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Recommending homeopathy would be a more accurate analogy. Careful or you'll get banned; just the other day Alec Baldwin called someone a homeopathy and he is in all sorts of trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 21, 2013 Author Share Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) Now you !@#$ing get it! You're trying to have an economic/financial discussion and you're bringing the equivalent of tummy aches to the table, yet you refuse to defer to those of us who have actually studied the field and work in the industry. If this were a medical forum rather than a political forum, what might you say to me if I read through a chart and considered the symptoms and proposed a radical treatment like lap band to treat "tummy aches" and then linked to an article which had nothing to do with either "tummy aches" or gastric bypass? What if I did this regularly for years? Would you eventually see it my way because I genuinely care about the patient and mean well even though I'm completely ignorant on the subject of medicine? Trickle down isn't an economic theory. I can't find any evidence that Friedman has ever uttered the phrase. The bull **** article you linked to, written by your favorite Denning, doesn't even mention trickle down. Educate yourself http://www.tsowell.c...oover Proof.pdf i did. http://en.wikipedia....i/Thomas_Sowell. sowell is a rose and milton friedman fellow at stanford. hmmmm, wonder if he has a dog in the hunt? and financial types? nah, no bias there on economic policies. btw, my dogs are at home in front of the fire. i don't have one hunting on this issue. Edited November 21, 2013 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 i did. http://en.wikipedia....i/Thomas_Sowell. sowell is a rose and milton friedman fellow at stanford. hmmmm, wonder if he has a dog in the hunt? and financial types? nah, no bias there in economic policies. btw, my dogs are at home in front of the fire. i don't have one hunting on this issue. What hunt? Differentiating capitalism from "trickle down economics" from supply side economics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 21, 2013 Author Share Posted November 21, 2013 What hunt? Differentiating capitalism from "trickle down economics" from supply side economics? the hunt to save friedman's rapidly tarnishing legacy: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/16/post650 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 the hunt to save friedman's rapidly tarnishing legacy: http://www.theguardi.../nov/16/post650 Well you've certainly taken this discussion down the rabbit hole. How did you go from "a rising tide lifts all ships", a phrase commonly associated with economic growth, to "trickle down economics", which isn't an economic theory and its nothing Friedman ever espoused, to Sowell's defense of Friedman's legacy, which isn't at all contained in the essay I posted, to Friedman's legacy is tarnished, which is poorly supported by the next hacky article you posted and again has nothing to do with "trickle down economics", economic growth or anything else we've discussed? What is the matter with you? The only links I can find on the internet between so called trickle down theory and Friedman are in that asinine article you already posted and similar ones linking to it where somehow maximizing profits and shareholder value leads to...uhhhhh......trickle down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 22, 2013 Author Share Posted November 22, 2013 (edited) Well you've certainly taken this discussion down the rabbit hole. How did you go from "a rising tide lifts all ships", a phrase commonly associated with economic growth, to "trickle down economics", which isn't an economic theory and its nothing Friedman ever espoused, to Sowell's defense of Friedman's legacy, which isn't at all contained in the essay I posted, to Friedman's legacy is tarnished, which is poorly supported by the next hacky article you posted and again has nothing to do with "trickle down economics", economic growth or anything else we've discussed? What is the matter with you? The only links I can find on the internet between so called trickle down theory and Friedman are in that asinine article you already posted and similar ones linking to it where somehow maximizing profits and shareholder value leads to...uhhhhh......trickle down! the article you linked mentions references to the attribution of friedman to "trickle down". while you may disagree, other respected economists, including another nobel winner (also mentioned in your citation) attribute the idea to friedman. the fact that an endowed eponymous faculty member defends his mentor on the issue argues against you. so who is the hack here? you're arguing semantics which is nearly the definition of a rabbit hole. Edited November 22, 2013 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 (edited) the article you linked mentions references to the attribution of friedman to "trickle down". while you may disagree, other respected economists, including another nobel winner (also mentioned in your citation) attribute the idea to friedman. the fact that an endowed eponymous faculty member defends his mentor on the issue argues against you. so who is the hack here? you're arguing semantics which is nearly the definition of a rabbit hole. Trickle down, which is term used to denigrate Coolidge's policies and later Reagan's, has nothing to do with the phrase "a rising tide lifts all ships". That phrase and trickle down were coined long before anyone gave a !@#$ about Friedman. Neither of the two articles you linked to which are critical of Friedman even mention trickle down economics. Sowell never mentioned Friedman in the essay I posted. You see, there is no connection between where you started and where we are now. None. I'm not arguing semantics. I'm demonstrating the many leaps you've taken to steer the discussion to this point, which in no way resembles a discussion on what is driving wealth inequality. Edited November 22, 2013 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Typical liberal tactic. Repeat the lie often enough, it becomes truth. Never gets tiring, birdshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 22, 2013 Author Share Posted November 22, 2013 (edited) Trickle down, which is term used to denigrate Coolidge's policies and later Reagan's, has nothing to do with the phrase "a rising tide lifts all ships". That phrase and trickle down were coined long before anyone gave a !@#$ about Friedman. Neither of the two articles you linked to which are critical of Friedman even mention trickle down economics. Sowell never mentioned Friedman in the essay I posted. You see, there is no connection between where you started and where we are now. None. I'm not arguing semantics. I'm demonstrating the many leaps you've taken to steer the discussion to this point, which in no way resembles a discussion on what is driving wealth inequality. how bout the link between the name of the author's endowed faculty position and the existence of a concept that he attempts to discredit? why would he link friedman and the concept in a piece whose purpose is to negate the connection? i'm thinking that's not none and is therefore some. Typical liberal tactic. Repeat the lie often enough, it becomes truth. Never gets tiring, birdshit. i've yet to meet a typical liberal. most i know find atypia desirable. conservatives, not so much. on further review, it seems sowell is quixotic on this issue refuting it repeatedly against many critics http://en.wikipedia....-down_economics. inter singly, the wiki entry notes for further reading see "rising tide lifts all ships". sure seems to meet the definition of "semantics" to me http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics Edited November 22, 2013 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 i've yet to meet a typical liberal. Then you obviously haven't met the people who write the stuff you worship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 i've yet to meet a typical liberal. most i know find atypia desirable. conservatives, not so much. Yeah, sure. Everyone who has the opposite opinion is a caveman and everyone who shares your ridiculous bent is "the most interesting man in the world." Enjoy the smell of your own farts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 22, 2013 Author Share Posted November 22, 2013 Yeah, sure. Everyone who has the opposite opinion is a caveman and everyone who shares your ridiculous bent is "the most interesting man in the world." Enjoy the smell of your own farts. typical conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 typical conservative. Which would work, except I'm not conservative. Take your label and shove it up your ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 22, 2013 Author Share Posted November 22, 2013 Which would work, except I'm not conservative. Take your label and shove it up your ass. you seem fixated on the distal gastointestinal tract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Hey birdog? Here you go: Free economcis and finance courses Perhaps some time spent here will allow you to actually have a rational discussion with the Jedi Council? I don't know what effect this will have with Darin however, so I make no promises. I assure you: those of us with business degrees have taken most of what's on that list, and many of us have taken a lot of things that aren't. But don't worry, we can move on to advanced Finance and some Accounting when you are ready. For example: I'd stay away from the ones that talk about "history". I smell BS. No. Stick to the ones say "Principles of". It couldn't be easier: 3/4 down the page: ECON 110(Macroeconomcis) and 120(Microeconomcis) are freely available. That's a good place for you to get started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 you seem fixated on the distal gastointestinal tract. I figured you head needed some company up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 The only rising time that the current inept administration of economically illiterate fools is a rising tide of poverty. And in case you haven't seen it, Goddrib isn't really looking to the answers that will allow EVERY small investor to rake in the high profits that the true venture capitalist can and sometimes does make. He wants the keys to THAT Ferrari with HIS base rental from Enterprise rent-a-car. He wants to make a killing, but he can't get into the private poker game because he's not a high roller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 22, 2013 Author Share Posted November 22, 2013 (edited) Hey birdog? Here you go: Free economcis and finance courses Perhaps some time spent here will allow you to actually have a rational discussion with the Jedi Council? I don't know what effect this will have with Darin however, so I make no promises. I assure you: those of us with business degrees have taken most of what's on that list, and many of us have taken a lot of things that aren't. But don't worry, we can move on to advanced Finance and some Accounting when you are ready. For example: I'd stay away from the ones that talk about "history". I smell BS. No. Stick to the ones say "Principles of". It couldn't be easier: 3/4 down the page: ECON 110(Macroeconomcis) and 120(Microeconomcis) are freely available. That's a good place for you to get started. ya know, someone reading exclusively yall's posts would logically arrive at the conclusion that supply side economics was the only accepted economic theory and the keynsians disappeared with the dinosaurs. i'm beginning to think there are some business schools with curriculum akin to creationist "science" institutes. The only rising time that the current inept administration of economically illiterate fools is a rising tide of poverty. And in case you haven't seen it, Goddrib isn't really looking to the answers that will allow EVERY small investor to rake in the high profits that the true venture capitalist can and sometimes does make. He wants the keys to THAT Ferrari with HIS base rental from Enterprise rent-a-car. He wants to make a killing, but he can't get into the private poker game because he's not a high roller. when all else fails, pull out the envy card. have i been affected by the rampant consumerism bombardment from birth? i'd have had to been deaf and blind not to be. but is that where my beliefs originate? not at all. that would be totally illogical. Edited November 22, 2013 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 ya know, someone reading exclusively yall's posts would logically arrive at the conclusion that supply side economics was the only accepted economic theory and the keynsians disappeared with the dinosaurs. i'm beginning to think there are some business schools with curriculum akin to creationist "science" institutes. when all else fails, pull out the envy card. have i been affected by the rampant consumerism bombardment from birth? i'd have had to been deaf and blind not to be. but is that where my beliefs originate? not at all. that would be totally illogical. I don't envy you. If anything I pity you. You're the one that's been steeped for a lifetime in a leftist philosophical marinade and find yourself, unsatisfied, unhappy, self-centered, self-righteous, and driven by avarice and jealousy of people whose condition is loftier than yours. Yet you condemn them and wish for the opulence they enjoy as though its a birthright of everyone. Well, maybe not everyone, but certainly yourself because, well because you're special. You're YOU. You're never going to be happy. You'll die a bitter old man because you're delusional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts