Brexit

[birdog1960]

This is precisely why you're an idiot.

why don't you write a rebuttal? reading and writing are good.

 

but of course you are correct. it's a novel approach that would never have been put forth by a respected, best selling, land mark producing economist author:

 

Piketty proposes that a progressive annual global wealth tax of up to 2%, combined with a progressive income tax reaching as high as 80%, would reduce inequality, ^[17] although he concedes that such a tax "would be politically impossible."^[19]

Piketty believes the growth rate will once again fall below the rate of return, and the twentieth century will be an aberation in terms of inequality[1]

Without tax adjustment, Piketty predicts a world of low economic growth and extreme inequality. His data show that over long periods of time average return on investment outpaces productivity-based income by a wide margin.^[17] He dismisses the idea that bursts of productivity resulting from technological advances can be relied on to return sustained economic growth; we should not expect "a more just and rational order" to arise based on "caprices of technology,"^[17] and return on investment can increase when technology can be substituted for people

Edited July 1, 2016 by birdog1960

[GG]

I've been writing about it consistently for seven years, idiot.

 

And for the last time, stop misapplying Picketty's analysis of 19th century Europe to modern economies.

[birdog1960]

I've been writing about it consistently for seven years, idiot.

 

And for the last time, stop misapplying Picketty's analysis of 19th century Europe to modern economies.

well a$$wipe, this is picketty's prescription for the present, noyt 19th century Europe.

[GG]

well a$$wipe, this is picketty's prescription for the present, noyt 19th century Europe.

 

And he walked back his analysis, as has been pointed out to you a hundred times.

 

Never mind that it's your precious governments that have been responsible for the vast majority of the rise in WEALTH INEQUALITY, you simpleton. Stop conflating terms, because they matter in most industries.

 

Kind of like routine labrum surgeries are not the same as splenectomies in cancer patients.

[birdog1960]

 

And he walked back his analysis, as has been pointed out to you a hundred times.

 

Never mind that it's your precious governments that have been responsible for the vast majority of the rise in WEALTH INEQUALITY, you simpleton. Stop conflating terms, because they matter in most industries.

 

Kind of like routine labrum surgeries are not the same as splenectomies in cancer patients.

perhaps instead of just saying "no" and "idiot" you might ponder how all of this relates to brexit, which of course, was the point, you pencil headed keypunch operator.

 

specifically, it changed the likely course of fed policy for the forseeable future. this in turn changed the direction of the us stock market.

 

this is, of course, in direct conflict with the prevailing and unchallenged "what changed" sentiment here.

 

and by implication, you seem to agree that the markets are manipulated by central banks which flies in the face of the the contention here that they're not.

 

and while we're at it, let's not conflate central banks with gov't:" Central banks in most developed nations are institutionally designed to be independent from political interference"

 

it's common here to make nebulous statements rather than precise ones. that way , you have wiggle room to escape the argument, my slithery opponent.

 

so don't talk to me about conflation.

 

and I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate! picketty has not retracted his central thesis and publicly answered his critics multiple times. I've not seen anywhere that he amended or changed his recommendations for improving wealth inequality.

Edited July 1, 2016 by birdog1960

[GG]

perhaps instead of just saying "no" and "idiot" you might ponder how all of this relates to brexit, which of course, was the point, you pencil headed keypunch operator.

 

specifically, it changed the likely course of fed policy for the forseeable future. this in turn changed the direction of the us stock market.

 

this is, of course, in direct conflict with the prevailing and unchallenged "what changed" sentiment here.

 

and by implication, you seem to agree that the markets are manipulated by central banks which flies in the face of the the contention here that they're not.

 

it's common here to make nebulous statements rather than precise ones. that way , you have wiggle room to escape the argument, my slithery opponent.

 

so don't talk to me about conflation.

 

and I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate! picketty has not retracted his central thesis and publicly answered his critics multiple times. I've not seen anywhere that he amended or changed his recommendations for improving wealth inequality.

 

Who here has ever argued that central banks don't manipulate the markets? Oh that's right you and the gator idiot.

 

If anything that's been a huge issue for many people here who understand what they're talking about. And now you finally recognize that government intervention has negative effects, and you !@#$ing have the nerve to call me out on it.

 

What a !@#$ing idiot.

[DC Tom]

why don't you write a rebuttal? reading and writing are good.

 

He doesn't write a rebuttal because you're not even having the same conversation he's having. If reading and writing are good, you should try it.

[birdog1960]

 

Who here has ever argued that central banks don't manipulate the markets? Oh that's right you and the gator idiot.

 

If anything that's been a huge issue for many people here who understand what they're talking about. And now you finally recognize that government intervention has negative effects, and you !@#$ing have the nerve to call me out on it.

 

What a !@#$ing idiot.

yes, because post 315-317 never happened. and itf they did, you and the rest of the learned posse would have challenged them...

 

gov't does not equal central banks. I've told you a billion times now.

Edited July 1, 2016 by birdog1960

[GG]

yes, because post 315-317 never happened. and itf they did, you and the rest of the learned posse would have challenged them...

 

gov't does not equal central banks. I've told you a billion times now.

 

Central banks do not equal governments. But central banks also don't print money. Please enlighten me where does this article say that BoE is going to start printing money as you stated?

 

2) The Bank of England is rumored to be considering even looser money in the form of cutting rates and restarting printing money.

 

 

 

Stick with other things you don't know about.

[birdog1960]

 

Central banks do not equal governments. But central banks also don't print money. Please enlighten me where does this article say that BoE is going to start printing money as you stated?

 

 

 

Stick with other things you don't know about.

you quoted a Harvard economist. those are his words and links from the pbs article that he wrote. but what does he know? he's an academic that worked for goldman. I don't think he meant "print money" literally. i'm sure had answer an inquiry from an esteemed colleague.

Edited July 1, 2016 by birdog1960

[GG]

you quoted a Harvard economist. those are his words and links from the pbs article that he wrote. but what does he know? he's an academic that worked for goldman. I don't think he meant "print money" literally. i'm sure had answer an inquiry from an esteemed colleague.

 

Elizabeth Warren also went to Harvard and she's a moron when it comes to finance.

 

Central banks don't print money, idiot. That's why using proper terms is important. You know, like conflating shoulders & spleens.

Edited July 1, 2016 by GG

[birdog1960]

 

Elizabeth Warren also went to Harvard and she's a moron when it comes to finance.

 

Central banks don't print money, idiot. That's why using proper terms is important. You know, like conflating shoulders & spleens.

take it up with terry. you might want to send him your cv.

 

ya see, this guy was a professor at Harvard and employed at goldman as well as authoring several books. one could reasonably conclude that his knowledge base was impressive in order to obtain those positions.

 

Terry Burnham

Terry Burnham is a former Goldman Sachs employee, money manager, biotech entrepreneur and economics professor at the Harvard Business School. He’s the author of “Mean Genes” and “Mean Markets and Lizard Brains” and now teaches finance at Chapman University. You can follow him at www.terryburnham.com.

so why should we value your opinion and totally ignore his? cuz you say so. right, the usual reason to support an argument here.

Edited July 1, 2016 by birdog1960

[B-Man]

That Time the European Union Tried to Ban Cinnamon Buns

 

 

 

 

As more information is revealed about the extent of European Union regulatory inanity in the wake of the #Brexit victory, the more the Leave voters have been vindicated.

 

Kemberlee blogged that EU regulations were set to ban traditional tea kettles and toasters that are essential appliances in the British kitchen. In 2013, the bureaucrats put restrictions on cinnamon content of traditional Danish pastries:

 

So, here are the rules that Brussels set-up that impact Danish Christmas kanelsnegle or cinnamon rolls:

 

Under Danish interpretation of the EU legislation the amount of cinnamon in “everyday fine baked goods” will be limited to 15mg per kilo meaning a ban on Kanelsnegler pastries, a winter favourite in all Nordic countries, which take their name from their coiled snail shape.

The move has provoked a furious reaction from Danish bakers because neighbouring Sweden has decided to save their spicy pastries, known as Kanelbullar in Swedish, by classing them as a traditional and seasonal dish with a permitted cinnamon level over three times higher, at 50mg per kilo.

“It’s the end of the cinnamon roll as we know it,” said Hardy Christensen, the head of the Danish Baker’s Association.

 

 

 

Let’s process this data for for a few minutes. We will assume that some eats the pastry that is 50 mg of cinnamon per kilogram of pastry and each pastry is about 3 ounces in weight.

 

A person would have to eat 12 of the higher content cinnamon rolls to hit the 50 mg levels. A person would have to eat over 3000 to achieve the 15,000 mg that is the theoretical legal dose.

 

Holy Kanelsnegler, Batman!

 

Paul Nuttall, the deputy leader of Ukip, told Telegraph.com. “We don’t need the nanny state or the EU to tell us what do and certainly not how many Danish pastries we should eat for Christmas.”

 

Intriguingly, there are reports that regular consumption of cinnamon may actually reduce blood pressure.

 

So does leaving behemoth bureaucracies.

.

 

.

[DC Tom]

 

Kemberlee blogged that EU regulations were set to ban traditional tea kettles and toasters that are essential appliances in the British kitchen. In 2013, the bureaucrats put restrictions on cinnamon content of traditional Danish pastries:

 

 

Because Chinese cinnamon contains a chemical that's a blood thinner.

 

 

Intriguingly, there are reports that regular consumption of cinnamon may actually reduce blood pressure.

 

Because...Chinese cinnamon contains a chemical that's a blood thinner.

[IDBillzFan]

he's absolutely correct. and you seemingly ignored the part about people being nostalgic for the "good old days". you know, when there were unskilled and uneducated middle class jobs that often lasted a working lifetime. they don't exist anymore. they are not coming back. and neither brexit nor trump can change that. we live in a global economy. isolationism aint gonna work.

 

You keep telling yourself that, Scooter. Your ideology is blowing up in your face across the globe. No surprise you can't see it.

Holy Kanelsnegler, Batman!

 

No, no, no! It has nothing to do with this and everything to do with the funny-looking people.

[4merper4mer]

 

Because Chinese cinnamon contains a chemical that's a blood thinner.

 

 

 

Because...Chinese cinnamon contains a chemical that's a blood thinner.

 

 

Does it have a chemical in it that makes you crave it fortnightly smartass?

[GG]

 

take it up with terry. you might want to send him your cv.

 

ya see, this guy was a professor at Harvard and employed at goldman as well as authoring several books. one could reasonably conclude that his knowledge base was impressive in order to obtain those positions.

 

Terry Burnham

Terry Burnham is a former Goldman Sachs employee, money manager, biotech entrepreneur and economics professor at the Harvard Business School. He’s the author of “Mean Genes” and “Mean Markets and Lizard Brains” and now teaches finance at Chapman University. You can follow him at www.terryburnham.com.

so why should we value your opinion and totally ignore his? cuz you say so. right, the usual reason to support an argument here.

 

Why would I need to argue with him?

 

We've been warning about the dangers of excessive QE for 7 years. It's been all over WSJ & The Economist for years. But that's right you don't read those publications.

 

It only took some simpleton at PBS to recognize the problem 7 years later and publish a piece, and only then you take it seriously?

 

Are !@#$ing kidding me?

 

I truly feel sorry for your patients.

[DC Tom]

Why would I need to argue with him?

 

We've been warning about the dangers of excessive QE for 7 years. It's been all over WSJ & The Economist for years. But that's right you don't read those publications.

 

It only took some simpleton at PBS to recognize the problem 7 years later and publish a piece, and only then you take it seriously?

 

Are !@#$ing kidding me?

 

I truly feel sorry for your patients.

 

Literally, the only explanation for his posts is that he never, ever reads anything anyone else posts here.

[birdog1960]

Why would I need to argue with him?

 

We've been warning about the dangers of excessive QE for 7 years. It's been all over WSJ & The Economist for years. But that's right you don't read those publications.

 

It only took some simpleton at PBS to recognize the problem 7 years later and publish a piece, and only then you take it seriously?

 

Are !@#$ing kidding me?

 

I truly feel sorry for your patients.

you are arguing with him. over the figurative reading of his use of "printing money".

 

who says he or i or anyone else wasn't concerned with qe before brexit? he's just describing it in the context of brexit, which by the way, happened only 1 week ago.

 

i'm also describing it in the context of brexit since this is a thread funnily enough on brexit. to assume that either he or i took any position on qe before brexit is unwarranted although based on his writing it would seem pretty likely he felt this way before brexit as did i.

 

i feel sorry for your customers

 

and on what basis are you calling him a simpleton? the fact that he taught in one of the most prestigious economic departments in the world and that you dislike academics?

Edited July 1, 2016 by birdog1960

[birdog1960]

 

You keep telling yourself that, Scooter. Your ideology is blowing up in your face across the globe. No surprise you can't see it.

 

No, no, no! It has nothing to do with this and everything to do with the funny-looking people.

yes, because a large group of people that have been screwed by the concentration of wealth have mistakenly decided that a group of nitwits without any answers actually have them. it's happened before. it will happen again (if we survive this one) there are many stupid, impressionable people that tend towards magical, wishful thinking.. that doesn't make my ideology wrong. i'm all for redistribution of wealth.

Edited July 1, 2016 by birdog1960