Economics 101

[Sun Devil 92]

He has made his argument very clear.

Then it should be a simple matter for you to post it.
Instead of posting sentence after sentence, proving you don't know it. Durr.

I and Londoner have explained it many times and robots such as yourself have no interest in dealing with the facts on the ground.
I can only imagine that your ADD kicks in when a post is more than 25 words.

"The stock market Crash of 1987 was caused by Supply-Side Economics"

It's funny, it's not really an argument and you certainly haven't posted any sort of proof.

I explained it...Off-shoring assets to produce cheap goods bombed.
Your entire body of postings on any given Thread is "Prove it."
The person proves it and you simply reiterate, "Prove it".

None of that explanation has the slightest thing to do with supply side or the crash of 1987.

Bullshit...and you've way overdone the boredom factor.

Have you always been this much of an underachiever.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory.

That must be why Indeependent hasn't spelled out what he's whining about.
He's a poor confused liberal, like you.

Actually, me boy, he has made his argument quite clear. That you do not understand it, or say that you don't is not his problem. Or mine. Perhaps you could suggest where supply side economics has worked, me boy. But then, it would take more than one unsupportable statement and a personal attack. Probably beyond you, eh, me boy?[/QUOTE]

he has made his argument quite clear

Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?[/QUOTE]

He has made his argument very clear. That you can not understand it shows something, but not that he has not made his argument clear.
Me boy, you are a known con tool. You want to understand what you want to understand. That is how your belief system is formed. Rather normal, actually.
So, let me educate you.
1. The Con belief system is based on believing what they want to believe.
2. You are a con.
3. I did not make the statement that you want me to explain to you.
4. It is not my job to educate you.
5. I have no reason to believe that you are capable of being educated, because: See 1. above.
6. That you say you do not understand Supply Side economics, AKA Reaganomics, AKA Trickle Down Economic Theory, indicates you are either a congenital idiot, or you are lying. I do not believe you are a congenital idiot. Therefor you are a liar.
7. If you would like help I would suggest you take it into your own hands and educate yourself. That is the extent of the help I will offer you. More would simply cause you to slack off again and continue to ask others to help you, as opposed to helping yourself
Your welcome.[/QUOTE]

He has made his argument very clear.

Then it should be a simple matter for you to post it.
Instead of posting sentence after sentence, proving you don't know it. Durr.[/QUOTE]

Really, me boy. I answered you. You are simply proving, as I suspected, that you are a lying tool.
If I do not understand a persons argument, I ask them to clarify it so that I may understand. You obviously do not want to understand. And, me boy, I obviously do not want to help you.
You are, however, demonstrating why cons understand so very little.
Here, me boy. Let me help you further, to understand your cognitive issues:
Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study

• Children with low intelligence grow up to be prejudiced
• Right-wing views make the less intelligent feel 'safe'
• Analysis of more than 15,000 people

By ROB WAUGH
UPDATED: 19:55 EST, 31 January 2016

Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.

Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.

The paper analysed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people.

The authors claim that people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe.

Read more: Conservatives are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and right wing politics lead people to be racist
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

One of many, many, many studies saying the same basic thing.
Your welcome. Again.[/QUOTE]

This is supposed to prove what ?

The disorganized and (I will add) pretty stupid right wing kicked the crapp out of the left/far left in the last two off presidential elections........

What does that say about the right wing.....??

That they are smart ??? I don't think that is the case.

But, I am not sure the left wing can make any claims to being so bright.

The left can whine about how the right is so much easier led.....but there are more left wingers....

Something does not add up.....literally.

 

[P@triot]

I lived it asswipe....

My portfolio dove...and recovered in about three months.

Eat crap and die quickly.

You recovered, millions didn't.

The crash of 1987 was unbelievable!!!
The market ended the year higher than it started.
Within 2 years it recovered its peak.

I lived it asswipe....

My portfolio dove...and recovered in about three months.

Eat crap and die quickly.

You recovered, millions didn't.

The crash of 1987 was unbelievable!!!
The market ended the year higher than it started.
Within 2 years it recovered its peak.

A Conservative talking point.
What's good for Wall Street is NOT good for Main Street.

Actually - nothing could be further from the truth.

The absolute, undeniable, reality is that what is good for Wall Street is also good for Main Street, healthcare, security, employment, technology, innovation, etc., etc., etc. - freedom. Government intervention, control, and regulation creates collapse and failure every time. Freedom, free markets, etc. create wealth, prosperity, and innovation every time. It's simply an undeniable, universal reality which has been proven to be true 100% of the time throughout history.

With freedom - only the people making bad decisions suffer (like being dumb enough to gamble your money away in the stock market). With government (like the $19 trillion in debt), all of society suffers. Even those who have never made a bad decision in their life. If you handed your money over to some broker on Wall Street that you've never met because you're greedy to make money without working for it, and they cheat you out of it, that's not their fault and that's not the fault of a lack of regulations. That's your fault. I've never placed a single damn penny into Wall Street - and guess what? I've never lost a single damn penny. No matter how irresponsible they were or reckless they were, their actions didn't affect me one damn bit. It's the beauty of freedom. The problem with liberals is that they always want someone else to take responsibility for their own bad decisions. Only when government got involved and mandated stuff did I become affected (like their banking regulations which caused banks which previously provided free checking to start charging checking account fees did I become affected).

The ONLY reason that 98.7% of people living in the US are not hanging elitists by telephone poles is because the shrinking Middle Class, of which I am a part, are being taxed to death to provide them with the, relatively speaking, good life.
Of course, Neo-Conservatives will pound their chests with pride, on ONE thread, that our poor are better off than the poor living anywhere else, whilst bitching on ANOTHER Thread that the lazy assed 98.7% should be allowed to starve.

Dude....are you serious? The middle class - of which I too am a part - is being taxed to death by idiot Barack Obama and the idiot Dumbocrats. So why are you bitching about conservatives? It is your side of the aisle killing the economy and killing the middle class.

 

[eagle1462010]

Why should I listen to these asses who helped crash our asses in 2008.............Yeah allowing the too big to fail to self regulate was such a great idea.......

As great as this.........I like to hit my head with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop.

Um....."too big to fail" is the result of left-wing government intervention, genius. True free-market would result in those banks, companies, etc. failing.

Yeah, it's all leftist...

Dude....Bush was a vintage Kennedy-era liberal. Just because someone runs with an "R" behind their name doesn't make them a conservative. And....even if it did....it doesn't mean that they implement 100% conservative policy across the board.

Lets break this down honestly for a moment - shall we?

George W. Bush significantly grew the federal government with the Department of Homeland Security. He also grew is significantly with the NSA, etc. and a multitude of other polices and items. Now, is growing the federal government liberal or conservative in nature? It is inherently liberal and you know it.

George W. Bush significantly spent beyond the federal budget (to the tune of roughly $4 trillion dollars). Now, is adding to the federal debt liberal or conservative in nature? It is inherently liberal and you know it.

George W. Bush shredded the U.S. Constitution by requesting and then signing into law, the Patriot Act. Now, is disrespecting and ignoring the U.S. Constitution liberal or conservative in nature? It is inherently liberal and you know it.

So yes, too big to fail is 100% left-wing concept. It is government intervention. Not true free-market conservatism. Just because some liberal with an "R" behind his name engages in it, doesn't make it any less left-wing. I think we've just proven that here today. Wouldn't you agree? (Of course you won't because our friends on the left are too disingenuous to engage in an honest discussion - it's all about the ends justifying the means).

The Fall Of The Market In The Fall Of 2008 | Investopedia

While many saw great prosperity as the subprime market began to explode, others began to see red flags and potential danger for the economy. Bob Prechter, founder of Elliot Wave International, consistently argued that the out-of-control mortgage market was a threat to the U.S. economy as the whole industry was dependent on ever-increasing property values.

As of 2002, government-sponsored mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had extended more than $3 trillion worth of mortgage credit. In his 2002 book "Conquer the Crash", Prechter stated, "confidence is the only thing holding up this giant house of cards." The role of Fannie and Freddie is to repurchase mortgages from the lenders who originated them, and make money when mortgage notes are paid. Thus, ever-increasing mortgage default rates led to a crippling decrease in revenue for these two companies. (Learn more in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac And The Credit Crisis Of 2008.)

In the up-trending market that existed from 1999 through 2005, these mortgages were virtually risk-free. A borrower, having positive equity despite the low mortgage payments since his home had increased in value since the purchase date, could just sell the home for a profit in the event he could not afford the future higher payments. However, many argued that these creative mortgages were a disaster waiting to happen in the event of a housing market downturn, which would put owners in a negative equity situation and make it impossible to sell.

To compound the potential mortgage risk, total consumer debt in general continued to grow at an astonishing rate and in 2004, it hit $2 trillion for the first time. Howard S. Dvorkin, president and founder of Consolidated Credit Counseling Services Inc., a nonprofit debt-management organization, told the Washington Post at the time, "It's a huge problem. You cannot be the wealthiest country in the world and have all your countrymen be up to their neck in debt."

The Subsequent Rise of Creative Mortgage-Related Investment Products
During the run-up in housing prices, the mortgage-backed securities (MBS) market became popular with commercial investors. An MBS is a pool of mortgages grouped into a single security. Investors benefit from the premiums and interest payments on the individual mortgages it contains. This market is highly profitable as long home prices continue to rise and home owners continue to make their mortgage payments. The risks however, became all too real as housing prices began to plummet and homeowners began to default on their mortgages in droves. (Learn how four major players slice and dice your mortgage in the secondary market in Behind The Scenes Of Your Mortgage.)

Another popular investment vehicle during this time was the credit derivative, known as acredit default swap (CDSs). CDSs were designed to be a method of hedging against a company's creditworthiness, similar to insurance. But unlike the insurance market, the CDS market was unregulated, meaning there was no requirement that the issuers of CDS contracts maintain enough money in reserve to pay out under a worst-case scenario (such as an economic downturn). This was exactly what happened with American International Group (AIG) in early 2008 as it announced huge losses in its portfolio of underwritten CDS contracts that it could not afford to pay up on. (Learn more about this investment vehicle in Credit Default Swaps: An Introduction and Falling Giant: A Case Study Of AIG.)

Conclusion
The events of the fall of 2008 are a lesson in what eventually happens when rational thinking gives way to irrationality. While good intentions were likely the catalyst leading to the decision to expand the subprime mortgage market back in 1999, somewhere along the way the United States lost its senses. The higher home prices went, the more creative lenders got in an effort to keeping them going even higher, with a seemingly complete disregard for the potential consequences. When one considers the irrational growth of the subprime mortgage market along with the investment vehicles creatively derived from it, combined with the explosion of consumer debt, maybe the financial turmoil of 2008 was not as unforeseeable as many would like to believe.

 

[Rshermr]

You recovered, millions didn't.

The crash of 1987 was unbelievable!!!
The market ended the year higher than it started.
Within 2 years it recovered its peak.

You recovered, millions didn't.

The crash of 1987 was unbelievable!!!
The market ended the year higher than it started.
Within 2 years it recovered its peak.

A Conservative talking point.
What's good for Wall Street is NOT good for Main Street.

Actually - nothing could be further from the truth.

The absolute, undeniable, reality is that what is good for Wall Street is also good for Main Street, healthcare, security, employment, technology, innovation, etc., etc., etc. - freedom. Government intervention, control, and regulation creates collapse and failure every time. Freedom, free markets, etc. create wealth, prosperity, and innovation every time. It's simply an undeniable, universal reality which has been proven to be true 100% of the time throughout history.

With freedom - only the people making bad decisions suffer (like being dumb enough to gamble your money away in the stock market). With government (like the $19 trillion in debt), all of society suffers. Even those who have never made a bad decision in their life. If you handed your money over to some broker on Wall Street that you've never met because you're greedy to make money without working for it, and they cheat you out of it, that's not their fault and that's not the fault of a lack of regulations. That's your fault. I've never placed a single damn penny into Wall Street - and guess what? I've never lost a single damn penny. No matter how irresponsible they were or reckless they were, their actions didn't affect me one damn bit. It's the beauty of freedom. The problem with liberals is that they always want someone else to take responsibility for their own bad decisions. Only when government got involved and mandated stuff did I become affected (like their banking regulations which caused banks which previously provided free checking to start charging checking account fees did I become affected).

The ONLY reason that 98.7% of people living in the US are not hanging elitists by telephone poles is because the shrinking Middle Class, of which I am a part, are being taxed to death to provide them with the, relatively speaking, good life.
Of course, Neo-Conservatives will pound their chests with pride, on ONE thread, that our poor are better off than the poor living anywhere else, whilst bitching on ANOTHER Thread that the lazy assed 98.7% should be allowed to starve.

Dude....are you serious? The middle class - of which I too am a part - is being taxed to death by idiot Barack Obama and the idiot Dumbocrats. So why are you bitching about conservatives? It is your side of the aisle killing the economy and killing the middle class.

Well, dudeling, you do have a habit of avoiding fact. At end of the last Republican President's term, our unemployment rate was soaring toward 10%. we were loosing over 500,000 jobs per month. Today the unemployment rate is about 5% and we have been gaining jobs every month for years. Taxes have not gone up, me boy, except in the minds of conservatives
Perhaps you just yearn for the good old days. We should go back to high unemployment and few jobs, eh, dipshit???

 

[eagle1462010]

I've been called a liberal before on this issue and simply don't care............The Stock Market is a gambling casino that creates bubbles..............and in this case a massive housing bubbles.................

Like sharks in a get rich quick chum line the MARKETS FED on the BUBBLE..............and drove housing prices through the roof BRAGGING on how much your house is worth now..............Aren't you happy that your property is worth more now.............was a favorite saying back then in the creation of the bubble........................

They created a giant mortgage bubble..........backed by the Government in securing BS loans...........so they were supposedly insured from loses when the bubble pops.............Driving prices to INSANE levels was STUPIDITY..............ALLOWING THEM TO DO SO WAS IGNORANT...............

And they NEARLY TOOK OUR COUNTRY DOWN WITH THEM.......................They knew what they were doing.........It's the Casino........

They knew what they were doing in the Subprime Crisis.
They knew what they were doing in the dot com bubble..
They knew what they were doing in the Y2K....

They start a feeding frenzy............People jump on board to make quick money.........and then they drive the market to insanity.......trying to make sure they weren't the one holding it when it crashes.............

So call me a liberal...............I don't fucking care.........they knew what they were doing the whole damned time. So don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.............

Those Too Big to Fail................you are correct.........there should not be any such thing.........when they failed they should have had all their assets seized and PUT UNDER for NOT BEING ABLE TO BACK UP THEIR BETS.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Act creates a new category of regulated trading facility, known as a Derivatives Transaction Execution Facility or "DTEF", which is subject to less regulation (through a less comprehensive body of core principles) than a designated contract market. Operation as a DTEF will require registration under new Section 5a(c) of the CEA. The Act permits a narrower range of contracts to be traded on DTEFs than on contract markets, depending in part on the types of participants granted access. Transactions involving any commodity (other than an agricultural commodity) are permitted if the DTEF limits access to "eligible commercial entities"6 trading for their own accounts. If trading access is not so limited, the DTEF may permit transactions involving any underlying commodity that has (i) a nearly inexhaustible deliverable supply, (ii) a deliverable supply that is sufficiently large that the contract is "highly unlikely to be susceptible to the threat of manipulation" or (iii) no cash market. Trading access must be limited to eligible contract participants or persons trading through a futures commission merchant that has net capital of at least $20,000,000 and meets certain other requirements. The Act also permits trading on a DTEF of transactions that would otherwise be excluded or exempt from the CEA under the provisions described in other parts of this Memorandum. The Act further authorizes a third category of trading facility, an "exempt board of trade". Becoming an exempt board of trade does not require registration with the CFTC; it merely requires receipt by the CFTC from the exempt board of trade of a notice in a manner to be prescribed by the CFTC. To qualify, an exempt board of trade may permit only contracts for sale of a commodity for future delivery (or options on such contracts or on a commodity) between eligible contract participants for which the underlying commodity has (i) a nearly inexhaustible deliverable

http://www.isda.org/speeches/pdf/analysis_of_commodity-exchange-act-legislation.pdf

The 2000 bill that allowed manipulation of commodities and less regulation..........SKY'S THE LIMIT GUYS......GAMBLE AWAY.......

 

[eagle1462010]

Commodity Exchange Act Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Commodity Exchange Act

GOALS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE ACT
The Commodity Exchange Act prohibited the manipulation of commodity futures prices and carried forward the requirement contained in the 1922 Grain Futures Act that commodity futures trading on "regulated" commodities be traded only on licensed contract markets. Fraud was prohibited and brokerage firms handling customer orders (referred to in the industry as "futures commission merchants") were required to register with the federal government. The Commodity Exchange Act was to be administered by a Commodity Exchange Commission composed of the attorney general and the secretaries of agriculture and commerce, a structure carried over from the Grain Futures Act.

Day-to-day regulatory responsibility was delegated to the Grain Futures Administration, later renamed the Commodity Exchange Authority, a bureau within the Department of Agriculture. Unlike the legislation adopted in the securities industry, no authority was given to the government to control the level of margins in the futures industry. Rather, the government was given the authority to limit the size of speculative positions by individual traders or those acting in concert with each other. The Commodity Exchange Act also sought to stop commodity options trading on regulated commodities because such instruments were viewed to be highly speculative.


Well lets get rid of that regulation.........which in a nut shell is IF YOU AREN'T IN THE BUSINESS you don't get to trade it..........

After it's not there...........HELL ANYONE CAN TRADE IT..........So they sold it back and forth on the commodities market, stock piled it, and drove our FUCKING GAS PRICES UP...............So Morgan Stanley can reap massive profits from buying and selling oil over and over and over and over again.......and Goldman Sachs BTW...........so the AVERAGE AMERICAN can get FUCKED AT THE PUMP.

Isn't that SHIT JUST DANDY...............

All of these asshats are tied to the Government......and lobbying..............and are playing CRONY CAPITALISM...........Good job...........

 

[eagle1462010]

Finally.......I have better things to do today...............

Call me the liberal and tell me how they had nothing to do with this shit and every other bubble the Markets have created........and

 

[Indeependent]

You recovered, millions didn't.

The crash of 1987 was unbelievable!!!
The market ended the year higher than it started.
Within 2 years it recovered its peak.

You recovered, millions didn't.

The crash of 1987 was unbelievable!!!
The market ended the year higher than it started.
Within 2 years it recovered its peak.

A Conservative talking point.
What's good for Wall Street is NOT good for Main Street.

Actually - nothing could be further from the truth.

The absolute, undeniable, reality is that what is good for Wall Street is also good for Main Street, healthcare, security, employment, technology, innovation, etc., etc., etc. - freedom. Government intervention, control, and regulation creates collapse and failure every time. Freedom, free markets, etc. create wealth, prosperity, and innovation every time. It's simply an undeniable, universal reality which has been proven to be true 100% of the time throughout history.

With freedom - only the people making bad decisions suffer (like being dumb enough to gamble your money away in the stock market). With government (like the $19 trillion in debt), all of society suffers. Even those who have never made a bad decision in their life. If you handed your money over to some broker on Wall Street that you've never met because you're greedy to make money without working for it, and they cheat you out of it, that's not their fault and that's not the fault of a lack of regulations. That's your fault. I've never placed a single damn penny into Wall Street - and guess what? I've never lost a single damn penny. No matter how irresponsible they were or reckless they were, their actions didn't affect me one damn bit. It's the beauty of freedom. The problem with liberals is that they always want someone else to take responsibility for their own bad decisions. Only when government got involved and mandated stuff did I become affected (like their banking regulations which caused banks which previously provided free checking to start charging checking account fees did I become affected).

The ONLY reason that 98.7% of people living in the US are not hanging elitists by telephone poles is because the shrinking Middle Class, of which I am a part, are being taxed to death to provide them with the, relatively speaking, good life.
Of course, Neo-Conservatives will pound their chests with pride, on ONE thread, that our poor are better off than the poor living anywhere else, whilst bitching on ANOTHER Thread that the lazy assed 98.7% should be allowed to starve.

Dude....are you serious? The middle class - of which I too am a part - is being taxed to death by idiot Barack Obama and the idiot Dumbocrats. So why are you bitching about conservatives? It is your side of the aisle killing the economy and killing the middle class.

I suggest you stop watching Fox and realize that both Parties are leading us into the quicksand.

 

[Tehon]

Finally.......I have better things to do today...............

Call me the liberal and tell me how they had nothing to do with this shit and every other bubble the Markets have created........and

Hey lib, how does it feel to be right for a change.

 

[eagle1462010]

Finally.......I have better things to do today...............

Call me the liberal and tell me how they had nothing to do with this shit and every other bubble the Markets have created........and

Hey lib, how does it feel to be right for a change.

You feel better now.................good............Now go to another thread and praise Bernie on how increasing taxes by 18 Trillion over 10 years is good for us.

 

[Tehon]

Finally.......I have better things to do today...............

Call me the liberal and tell me how they had nothing to do with this shit and every other bubble the Markets have created........and

Hey lib, how does it feel to be right for a change.

You feel better now.................good............Now go to another thread and praise Bernie on how increasing taxes by 18 Trillion over 10 years is good for us.

Let your inner Lib out! Bernie hears you and wants to help.
Reforming Wall Street - Bernie Sanders

 

[anotherlife]

Economics 101 = there is no such thing as free market. Free lunch maybe, but not free market.

 

[Rshermr]

It is not possible to have lived 20 years and not understand supply side economics, or Trickle Down theory.

That must be why Indeependent hasn't spelled out what he's whining about.
He's a poor confused liberal, like you.

Actually, me boy, he has made his argument quite clear. That you do not understand it, or say that you don't is not his problem. Or mine. Perhaps you could suggest where supply side economics has worked, me boy. But then, it would take more than one unsupportable statement and a personal attack. Probably beyond you, eh, me boy?

he has made his argument quite clear

Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?[/QUOTE]

He has made his argument very clear. That you can not understand it shows something, but not that he has not made his argument clear.
Me boy, you are a known con tool. You want to understand what you want to understand. That is how your belief system is formed. Rather normal, actually.
So, let me educate you.
1. The Con belief system is based on believing what they want to believe.
2. You are a con.
3. I did not make the statement that you want me to explain to you.
4. It is not my job to educate you.
5. I have no reason to believe that you are capable of being educated, because: See 1. above.
6. That you say you do not understand Supply Side economics, AKA Reaganomics, AKA Trickle Down Economic Theory, indicates you are either a congenital idiot, or you are lying. I do not believe you are a congenital idiot. Therefor you are a liar.
7. If you would like help I would suggest you take it into your own hands and educate yourself. That is the extent of the help I will offer you. More would simply cause you to slack off again and continue to ask others to help you, as opposed to helping yourself
Your welcome.[/QUOTE]

He has made his argument very clear.

Then it should be a simple matter for you to post it.
Instead of posting sentence after sentence, proving you don't know it. Durr.[/QUOTE]

Really, me boy. I answered you. You are simply proving, as I suspected, that you are a lying tool.
If I do not understand a persons argument, I ask them to clarify it so that I may understand. You obviously do not want to understand. And, me boy, I obviously do not want to help you.
You are, however, demonstrating why cons understand so very little.
Here, me boy. Let me help you further, to understand your cognitive issues:
Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study

• Children with low intelligence grow up to be prejudiced
• Right-wing views make the less intelligent feel 'safe'
• Analysis of more than 15,000 people

By ROB WAUGH
UPDATED: 19:55 EST, 31 January 2016

Right-wingers tend to be less intelligent than left-wingers, and people with low childhood intelligence tend to grow up to have racist and anti-gay views, says a controversial new study.

Conservative politics work almost as a 'gateway' into prejudice against others, say the Canadian academics.

The paper analysed large UK studies which compared childhood intelligence with political views in adulthood across more than 15,000 people.

The authors claim that people with low intelligence gravitate towards right-wing views because they make them feel safe.

Read more: Conservatives are less intelligent than left wingers, says controversial study - and right wing politics lead people to be racist
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

One of many, many, many studies saying the same basic thing.
Your welcome. Again.[/QUOTE]

This is supposed to prove what ?

The disorganized and (I will add) pretty stupid right wing kicked the crapp out of the left/far left in the last two off presidential elections........

What does that say about the right wing.....??

That they are smart ??? I don't think that is the case.

But, I am not sure the left wing can make any claims to being so bright.

The left can whine about how the right is so much easier led.....but there are more left wingers....

Something does not add up.....literally.[/QUOTE]
It is not about whether the right wing or the left is correct. It is a study, using valid methodology. And it is one of many, many such studies. It has nothing at all to do with elections or numbers of the left or right. Sorry it is so hard for you to follow.

 

[P@triot]

he has made his argument quite clear

Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?

he has made his argument quite clear

Clear as mud. Why don't you post his argument here?

He has made his argument very clear. That you can not understand it shows something, but not that he has not made his argument clear.
Me boy, you are a known con tool. You want to understand what you want to understand. That is how your belief system is formed. Rather normal, actually.
So, let me educate you.
1. The Con belief system is based on believing what they want to believe.
2. You are a con.
3. I did not make the statement that you want me to explain to you.
4. It is not my job to educate you.
5. I have no reason to believe that you are capable of being educated, because: See 1. above.
6. That you say you do not understand Supply Side economics, AKA Reaganomics, AKA Trickle Down Economic Theory, indicates you are either a congenital idiot, or you are lying. I do not believe you are a congenital idiot. Therefor you are a liar.
7. If you would like help I would suggest you take it into your own hands and educate yourself. That is the extent of the help I will offer you. More would simply cause you to slack off again and continue to ask others to help you, as opposed to helping yourself
Your welcome.

He has made his argument very clear.

Then it should be a simple matter for you to post it.
Instead of posting sentence after sentence, proving you don't know it. Durr.

I and Londoner have explained it many times and robots such as yourself have no interest in dealing with the facts on the ground.
I can only imagine that your ADD kicks in when a post is more than 25 words.

"The stock market Crash of 1987 was caused by Supply-Side Economics"

It's funny, it's not really an argument and you certainly haven't posted any sort of proof.

I explained it...Off-shoring assets to produce cheap goods bombed.
Your entire body of postings on any given Thread is "Prove it."
The person proves it and you simply reiterate, "Prove it".

Thank you for proving the failures of liberal policy. Nobody (certainly not conservatives) dictated a policy forcing production overseas. But what happened was ignorant liberals (policy setters) mixed with greedy liberals (minions who mooch off of society) combined to create a taxes and insane regulations which made it an exponentially better deal for businesses to move their operations overseas.

It's proof once again about the failure of liberal policy. The U.S. should be such a deal for businesses (lowest corporate taxes in the world, most minimal regulations) that not only would no American company even contemplate taking their operations overseas, but that foreign companies would actually bring their operations here.

But...we can't expect liberals to understand this given their long history of proven that even basic economics is beyond their grasp.

 

[P@triot]

Economics 101 = there is no such thing as free market. Free lunch maybe, but not free market.

Oh there is. The U.S. was built on it starting in 1777. Then around the turn of the 20th century, Karl Marx introduced his failed to ideology to the world and the lazy, greedy liberal latched on and refuses to accept that it is failed.

We could return to true free-market capitalism. We just have to figure out how to cure the cancer known as liberalism.

 

[Tehon]

Economics 101 = there is no such thing as free market. Free lunch maybe, but not free market.

Oh there is. The U.S. was built on it starting in 1777. Then around the turn of the 20th century, Karl Marx introduced his failed to ideology to the world and the lazy, greedy liberal latched on and refuses to accept that it is failed.

We could return to true free-market capitalism. We just have to figure out how to cure the cancer known as liberalism.

The US constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress was vested with the authority to regulate interstate commerce at that time. That is not to mention the powers that States had prior to that time. A free market never existed in America.

 

[P@triot]

Economics 101 = there is no such thing as free market. Free lunch maybe, but not free market.

Oh there is. The U.S. was built on it starting in 1777. Then around the turn of the 20th century, Karl Marx introduced his failed to ideology to the world and the lazy, greedy liberal latched on and refuses to accept that it is failed.

We could return to true free-market capitalism. We just have to figure out how to cure the cancer known as liberalism.

The US constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress was vested with the authority to regulate interstate commerce at that time. That is not to mention the powers that States had prior to that time. A free market never existed in America.

The lack of regulation is not what dictates free market my friend. It's the government picking and choosing winners and losers that ended the free-market. For instance, if Congress dictates that every company has to pay a 10% tax rate - that doesn't eliminate the free-market. But when the federal government gives failed green energy companies like Solyndra $500 million, that ended the free-market. When the federal government bails out GM and Chrysler, that ended the free-market. When the federal government bailed out Wall Street banks, that ended the free-market.

The free-market is not the complete and total absence of regulations (that would just flat out be anarchy). It's all companies being permitted to stand on their own or fail on their own based on the products and services they provide and how they run their company.

 

[Indeependent]

He has made his argument very clear. That you can not understand it shows something, but not that he has not made his argument clear.
Me boy, you are a known con tool. You want to understand what you want to understand. That is how your belief system is formed. Rather normal, actually.
So, let me educate you.
1. The Con belief system is based on believing what they want to believe.
2. You are a con.
3. I did not make the statement that you want me to explain to you.
4. It is not my job to educate you.
5. I have no reason to believe that you are capable of being educated, because: See 1. above.
6. That you say you do not understand Supply Side economics, AKA Reaganomics, AKA Trickle Down Economic Theory, indicates you are either a congenital idiot, or you are lying. I do not believe you are a congenital idiot. Therefor you are a liar.
7. If you would like help I would suggest you take it into your own hands and educate yourself. That is the extent of the help I will offer you. More would simply cause you to slack off again and continue to ask others to help you, as opposed to helping yourself
Your welcome.

He has made his argument very clear.

Then it should be a simple matter for you to post it.
Instead of posting sentence after sentence, proving you don't know it. Durr.

I and Londoner have explained it many times and robots such as yourself have no interest in dealing with the facts on the ground.
I can only imagine that your ADD kicks in when a post is more than 25 words.

"The stock market Crash of 1987 was caused by Supply-Side Economics"

It's funny, it's not really an argument and you certainly haven't posted any sort of proof.

I explained it...Off-shoring assets to produce cheap goods bombed.
Your entire body of postings on any given Thread is "Prove it."
The person proves it and you simply reiterate, "Prove it".

Thank you for proving the failures of liberal policy. Nobody (certainly not conservatives) dictated a policy forcing production overseas. But what happened was ignorant liberals (policy setters) mixed with greedy liberals (minions who mooch off of society) combined to create a taxes and insane regulations which made it an exponentially better deal for businesses to move their operations overseas.

It's proof once again about the failure of liberal policy. The U.S. should be such a deal for businesses (lowest corporate taxes in the world, most minimal regulations) that not only would no American company even contemplate taking their operations overseas, but that foreign companies would actually bring their operations here.

But...we can't expect liberals to understand this given their long history of proven that even basic economics is beyond their grasp.

Excuse me, dumbass, but Reagan started importing Chinese and Japanese computer programmers back in 1982 or so.
You really are one ignorant ass.