Brexit

[meazza]

 

Argue what points?

 

That overextending QE is a dangerous tool that loses its effect when the real economy doesn't grow, and you're left with an equity asset bubble and a huge inflationary risk?

 

Gee, where have I heard this said over the last seven years?

 

Oh yes, everywhere, but in the sources that are favorable to the current administration. But wait, now QE is only bad as it relates to BOE's actions in UK, but are totally fine when the Fed has been stoking the equity market since 2009. Did I get that right? Oh that's right you can't answer this because you're not an adjunct professor at Harvard who spent a few minutes at Goldman Sachs.

 

You should really look into getting a degree. Then maybe some of us will listen to you.

[IDBillzFan]

That's your entire basis for belief in something.

 

If someone with a fancy degree or title says it, it has to be correct.

 

You're a !@#$ing moron that accepts anything someone says if they have the right credentials to accompany it.

 

He's going to be pretty surprised when he realizes there is no value to his honorary degree of Doctor of Thinkology from the Universitartus Committiartum E Pluribus Unum.

[GG]

 

You should really look into getting a degree. Then maybe some of us will listen to you.

 

Maybe you're right. I need the affirmation of my credentials from a hack on a forum.

[meazza]

 

Maybe you're right. I need the affirmation of my credentials from a hack on a forum.

You're finally starting to get it.

[FireChan]

Only birddog could claim he's "credentialed" because of his MD only a few short weeks after comparing two different surgeries on two wholly different patients. Nothing could give a better window into how his brain works.

 

Support over substance. A true dullard mentality.

[birdog1960]

 

Argue what points?

 

That overextending QE is a dangerous tool that loses its effect when the real economy doesn't grow, and you're left with an equity asset bubble and a huge inflationary risk?

 

Gee, where have I heard this said over the last seven years?

 

Oh yes, everywhere, but in the sources that are favorable to the current administration. But wait, now QE is only bad as it relates to BOE's actions in UK, but are totally fine when the Fed has been stoking the equity market since 2009. Did I get that right? Oh that's right you can't answer this because you're not an adjunct professor at Harvard who spent a few minutes at Goldman Sachs.

since you insist on being disingenuous, let's review some of your documented points from the last few pages.:

 

1. you labelled branham a simpleton. based on what and with what authority? it would take someone with great authority in the field of economics to make that claim of a colleague with impressive credentials. where's the evidence. what is your authority? of course, this is what prompted an exploration of the boards definition of an expert. from what i can gather, it's anyone with an opinion. Is that your opinion?

2.pikkety. you insisted that i'm an idiot for proposing the same solution to address income inequality as picket: taxation. you then stated that he's rescinded this recommendation. i can't find him making any public comment to that effect. link one. otherwise, you are calling picket an idiot. and by extension believe you have the authority and evidence to state that. what is your authority and evidence?

3.you insisted that gov't was responsible for qe and then insisted that central banks were equivalent to govt. you later said they weren't. which is it and if the latter ,why did you deliberately misstate this and argue it?

4.Insisted that branham did not use the term "print money" in his article, blaming it on his editor. what evidence do you have for this contention?

5. belittled branham's accomplishments by stating he was an adjunct professor. linkedin list his jobs at harvard and michigan as visiting assistant professor. do you contend that these are equivalent positions?

 

so there you have it. argue these points. any and all. because these leaps of logic aren't the stuff of an accomplished expert in a field. you'd be chewed up a spit out at a panel discussion with these two authors while making these statements and having to defend them publicly with other peers of these distinguished men. i'd pay to see it.

Edited July 2, 2016 by birdog1960

[boyst]

What, are you 12? Are you about to justify your authoritative voice based on the car you drive?

I can rotate the tires on all my truck, change their oil, order a pizza, lecture people about the difference between a bull and a heifer, build a really cool pillow fort, and spin a top really really fast. Oh and hold my breath and dive really deep.

 

I am respected. Are you?

[birdog1960]

I can rotate the tires on all my truck, change their oil, order a pizza, lecture people about the difference between a bull and a heifer, build a really cool pillow fort, and spin a top really really fast. Oh and hold my breath and dive really deep.

 

I am respected. Are you?

are you respected enough to call a fellow farmer a simpleton? one with better stock, better equipment and better and more land? would you then still be respected?

Edited July 2, 2016 by birdog1960

[/dev/null]

I am respected.

[Azalin]

 

Maybe you're right. I need the affirmation of my credentials from a hack on a forum.

 

Reading the classics helps, or so I hear.

[birdog1960]

 

Reading the classics helps, or so I hear.

what helps is justifying outrageous statements with reason. lacking that the classics won't help but are always worth reading.

[Azalin]

what helps is justifying outrageous statements with reason. lacking that the classics won't help but are always worth reading.

 

You say that, but....

 

are you respected enough to call a fellow farmer a simpleton? one with better stock, better equipment and better and more land? would you then still be respected?

 

...then you say this. Is your implication that better equipped equals deserving of greater respect? If so, that's an extraordinarily elitist statement.

[birdog1960]

 

You say that, but....

 

 

...then you say this. Is your implication that better equipped equals deserving of greater respect? If so, that's an extraordinarily elitist statement.

not elitist at all. publicly calling a respected colleague a simpleton is stupid no matter your position at that particular moment in life. it's especially stupid if you can't articulate your reason for doing so.

Edited July 3, 2016 by birdog1960

[Azalin]

not elitist at all. publicly calling a respected colleague a simpleton is stupid no matter your position at that particular moment in life. it's especially stupid if you can't articulate your reason for doing so.

 

I was referring to the presumption that more land and better equipment should imply greater respect. In my view, it doesn't. That would be like saying that a person driving a Mercedes deserves more respect than someone who drives a Ford.

[GG]

since you insist on being disingenuous, let's review some of your documented points from the last few pages.:

 

1. you labelled branham a simpleton. based on what and with what authority? it would take someone with great authority in the field of economics to make that claim of a colleague with impressive credentials. where's the evidence. what is your authority? of course, this is what prompted an exploration of the boards definition of an expert. from what i can gather, it's anyone with an opinion. Is that your opinion?

2.pikkety. you insisted that i'm an idiot for proposing the same solution to address income inequality as picket: taxation. you then stated that he's rescinded this recommendation. i can't find him making any public comment to that effect. link one. otherwise, you are calling picket an idiot. and by extension believe you have the authority and evidence to state that. what is your authority and evidence?

3.you insisted that gov't was responsible for qe and then insisted that central banks were equivalent to govt. you later said they weren't. which is it and if the latter ,why did you deliberately misstate this and argue it?

4.Insisted that branham did not use the term "print money" in his article, blaming it on his editor. what evidence do you have for this contention?

5. belittled branham's accomplishments by stating he was an adjunct professor. linkedin list his jobs at harvard and michigan as visiting assistant professor. do you contend that these are equivalent positions?

 

so there you have it. argue these points. any and all. because these leaps of logic aren't the stuff of an accomplished expert in a field. you'd be chewed up a spit out at a panel discussion with these two authors while making these statements and having to defend them publicly with other peers of these distinguished men. i'd pay to see it.

 

I can just picture a scene in rural Virginia:

 

A doctor finishes a splenectomy on a patient who's complaining of shoulder pain. Throws the latex gloves in a biohazard bin, walks by the receptionist who's barely earning $10/hr in his practice (after all, she's lucky to get that much, he's got bigger priorities), sits down on the couch, rubs the chin thinking of an Internet win.

 

But maybe not so fast

 

1. you labelled branham a simpleton.

 

- Uhm, Who's branham? Do you mean, Burnham? No, I didn't label him a simpleton. I labeled you and the PBS producer simpletons for finally recognizing the financial trap that your administration has set up for the next occupant and the country.

 

2.pikkety. you insisted that i'm an idiot for proposing the same solution to address income inequality as picket: taxation.

 

The search function is your friend. I pointed out numerous occasions where Picketty walked back the misapplication of his theories. Try the search one day. It's on the upper right of this page.

 

You know what happens when people do their own homework?

 

They learn something

 

3.you insisted that gov't was responsible for qe and then insisted that central banks were equivalent to govt.

 

No, I said that the central banks don't print money. You must have me confused with your twin, gatorman.

 

4.Insisted that branham did not use the term "print money" in his article, blaming it on his editor.

 

Prove it.

 

5. belittled branham's accomplishments by stating he was an adjunct professor.

 

If the guy insists on having a public blog, he should list his accomplishment. All he has is a LinkedIn invitation. Congratulations, he has many degrees. Some of the most clueless people I know own multiple degrees from top schools. And I wouldn't recruit any of them for a job that requires any kid of decision making. But boy, what an impressive resume.

[birdog1960]

 

I can just picture a scene in rural Virginia:

 

A doctor finishes a splenectomy on a patient who's complaining of shoulder pain. Throws the latex gloves in a biohazard bin, walks by the receptionist who's barely earning $10/hr in his practice (after all, she's lucky to get that much, he's got bigger priorities), sits down on the couch, rubs the chin thinking of an Internet win.

 

But maybe not so fast

 

1. you labelled branham a simpleton.

 

- Uhm, Who's branham? Do you mean, Burnham? No, I didn't label him a simpleton. I labeled you and the PBS producer simpletons for finally recognizing the financial trap that your administration has set up for the next occupant and the country.

 

2.pikkety. you insisted that i'm an idiot for proposing the same solution to address income inequality as picket: taxation.

 

The search function is your friend. I pointed out numerous occasions where Picketty walked back the misapplication of his theories. Try the search one day. It's on the upper right of this page.

 

You know what happens when people do their own homework?

 

They learn something

 

3.you insisted that gov't was responsible for qe and then insisted that central banks were equivalent to govt.

 

No, I said that the central banks don't print money. You must have me confused with your twin, gatorman.

 

4.Insisted that branham did not use the term "print money" in his article, blaming it on his editor.

 

Prove it.

 

5. belittled branham's accomplishments by stating he was an adjunct professor.

 

If the guy insists on having a public blog, he should list his accomplishment. All he has is a LinkedIn invitation. Congratulations, he has many degrees. Some of the most clueless people I know own multiple degrees from top schools. And I wouldn't recruit any of them for a job that requires any kid of decision making. But boy, what an impressive resume.

"It only took some simpleton at PBS to recognize the problem 7 years later and publish a piece," oh, now i see. you believe branham wrote the article seven years ago and the editor sat on it til brexit! sure. not bloody likely. he wrote this in the last week. brexit dates it. you're shameless but it's hardly surprising given the track record of so many of your non academic colleagues.

 

"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."

perhaps you should work on your writing communication skills cuz anyone but the sycophants here would likely conclude from this quote that you were conflating govt and central banks.

"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". ibid. see above.

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

so in your weasel style you haven't actually stated that pikkety withdrew his recommendations on wealth inequality. and then you demand that i prove a negative. weasel.

 

prove that an editor wrote those words? once again, it's impossible to prove a negative. you made the far fetched assertion, you prove it. insufferable...

 

and finally, does an adjunct professor equal an associate professor? google it ,you might learn something, he has more than impressive degrees. he has the esteem of colleagues at some of the most prestigious centers of learning in the world since they hired him as a peer.

Edited July 3, 2016 by birdog1960

[GG]

Does Burnham work for PBS?

 

The Fed or other central banks are not government agencies, but they surely get their matching orders from whoever is in charge. But I understand why you can't comprehend that.

 

I've linked the misapplication of Picketty theory several times. Use the search function.

 

Elizabeth Warren is a moron.

 

Why are you hung up Burnhams credentials? I'm not arguing with the guy who can't hold a job. He's correct even if he only got some high school diploma.

 

Btw, did you know that George Bush went to Yale, and Donald trump went to Penn?

[birdog1960]

your family must be so proud. especially if they value disingenuity.

[/dev/null]

Elizabeth Warren is a moron.

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

 

I am respected.