Economics

[oldfart]

Well, they are just your opinions. Otherwise, I'd have to spend the entire night pointing out intellectual dishonesty.

But you proceed to do it anyway!

For whatever reason you believe someone explaining the negative implications of Government intervention in the marketplace and replying false mechanisms regarding prices and profits makes Hayek 'Political.'

I thought you were familiar with the term "political economy". I was mistaken. I believe I also defined it and differentiated it from economics proper. Do you disagree with the distinction?

Although, he has never really advocated in favor of a particular policy, politician or program. Keynes has also advocated for a particular government action in response to a sharp economic downturn. Does this not make him 'political?' Nope, in your honest opinion, Keynes is the only good prominent economist.

There is no ideological position in "Road to Serfdom"? Really???

Second, I represented Keynes as being both an economist and a political economist. Are you having difficulty reading or is it your common practice to intentionally distort others' statements? I try not to twist other people's statements and if I do misinterpret them, I expect to be called out on it.

Thirdly, what in the world leads you to think that I believe "Keynes is the only good prominent economist."? I spoke positively of Hayek in this post. Are you a mind-reader? While you are at it, my wife would like a list of my favorite vegetables!

Also, you have mentioned Adam Smith earlier. He was one of the principles in an astounding period of human learning called the Scottish Enlightenment during the 18th century. He was a moral philosopher, and for him moral philosophy encompass all of the information which had to do with human behavior. He was deeply concerned about the poor in society and was constantly figuring out how to raise the estates of the least among us. In the Wealth of Nations, he records centuries of data which shows empirically, the way to help the least among us is by allowing commerce. Free Trade, Free Migration, Limited Government.

I am familiar with Adam Smith. Now would you care to lecture me on the Philosophical Radicals?

But nope, John M. Keynes is the first and foremost good economist.

Balderdash and poppycock. I said no such thing. If you persist I shall accuse you of denigrating Irving Fisher.

This is generally why I do not take these sort of things seriously. One side, be it Marxist or Keynesian, waste their time arguing why their figures are so great, while the other side waste their time arguing why he is not. It's essentially pointless. Neither said successfully makes a good case about why their economist is 'brilliant.' It's very stupid and probably worse than listening to snot-nosed teenagers argue over which musical artist is better.

I don't like people fawning over authors or thinkers either. I just don't make being opposed to it an excuse to duck points as you seem to be doing. You do remember that you initiated this exchange with a rather pompous pronouncement do you not?

If by 'they don't like data,' you are saying that we effectively scratch the surface to look at the effects beyond the data, then you are right. If we take all data at face value, then all is truly right with the economy. Unfortunately, life isn't so simple.

No, I am referring to the commonly expressed positions of all members of the Austrian School that quantitative methods are inferior to historical analysis. If you would care to put forward an Austrian School econometrician, I would be glad to retract my statement. It is not my fault that you are ignorant of the history and basic tenets of the Austrian School.

By being purists, they insure that no policy actually implemented can be viewed as a fair trial of their prescriptions. If we won't outlaw unions, abolish the minimum wage, end unemployment compensation and welfare (all necessary to "free up" labor markets so wages may fall sufficiently to achieve full employment), return to the gold standard, abolish central banks, and immediately balance the federal budget, they claim we simply fail because we did not go far enough. Being ideologically pure means never having to say you are sorry (or that you were mistaken!), a position that avoids all responsibility.

Once you've given into a moral hazard, it is very difficult to stop. Austrians realise this, which is why we generally draw the line at the first attempt at a government handout. And if we fail, it's not because we haven't gone far enough. Nothing we have advocated as really been implemented. Although, I have noticed a trend when something does go wrong it is usually the fault of a free market or too lax regulation.

You have just proven my case. Nothing recommended by the Austrians will ever be implemented. Which part of my post above that I have highlighted are you willing to forgo? Which of these measures would a "true Austrian" abandon?

Lastly, you do not cover yourself in glory when you begin by accusing me of "intellectual dishonesty" and proceed to immediately grossly misrepresent my position. You lack ordinary manners and are acting churlish. You also have not made any answer to any point I actually did bring up. This does not reflect well on the quality of your thought.

 

[jasonnfree]

yes indeed a great economist!! He has his shot with FDR and here's the quote:

"But preference should be given to those which can be made to mature quickly on a large scale, as for example the rehabilitation of the physical condition of the railroads. The object is to start the ball rolling. The United States is ready to roll towards prosperity, if a good hard shove can be given in the next six months."

Its sounds a lot like BO's stimulus doesn't it? Let's hope Keynesian economics doesn't end in another world war!


Keynes: The 15 hour work week

"For many ages to come the old Adam will be so strong in us that everybody will need to do some work if he is to be contented. We shall do more things for ourselves than is usual with the rich to-day, only too glad to have small duties and tasks and routines. But beyond this, we shall endeavour to spread the bread thin on the butter-to make what work there is still to be done to be as widely shared as possible. Three-hour shifts or a fifteen-hour week may put off the problem for a great while. For three hours a day is quite enough to satisfy the old Adam in most of us! " jm Keynes

Ed, I've seen productivity increase so much in my lifetime, I think we should be working shorter work weeks. Where is the rewards for america being the most productive country in the world if people are working much longer hours and don't have the long vacations and national health care that some european countries have? Maybe not 15 hour work weeks, maybe 35 hours? Spend more time with family, maybe time to read a book. Not just work work work.

The average employee works 34.5 hours a week. Is that good enough for you?

I didn't know that but that's probably averaging in part timers. I was refering to us in this country as working a typical 40 hour workweek. And many work many more than 40 hrs. I remember in the early 70's discussions of a 35 hour work week and what people could do with more leisure time. Thanks.

 

[Rshermr]

yes indeed a great economist!! He has his shot with FDR and here's the quote:

"But preference should be given to those which can be made to mature quickly on a large scale, as for example the rehabilitation of the physical condition of the railroads. The object is to start the ball rolling. The United States is ready to roll towards prosperity, if a good hard shove can be given in the next six months."

Its sounds a lot like BO's stimulus doesn't it? Let's hope Keynesian economics doesn't end in another world war!


Keynes: The 15 hour work week

"For many ages to come the old Adam will be so strong in us that everybody will need to do some work if he is to be contented. We shall do more things for ourselves than is usual with the rich to-day, only too glad to have small duties and tasks and routines. But beyond this, we shall endeavour to spread the bread thin on the butter-to make what work there is still to be done to be as widely shared as possible. Three-hour shifts or a fifteen-hour week may put off the problem for a great while. For three hours a day is quite enough to satisfy the old Adam in most of us! " jm Keynes

Ed, I've seen productivity increase so much in my lifetime, I think we should be working shorter work weeks. Where is the rewards for america being the most productive country in the world if people are working much longer hours and don't have the long vacations and national health care that some european countries have? Maybe not 15 hour work weeks, maybe 35 hours? Spend more time with family, maybe time to read a book. Not just work work work.

The average employee works 34.5 hours a week. Is that good enough for you?

Did you have a point?? What is your source?? It is way to easy to use stats on employment to prove anything that you want.
The real point is more complex, of course. You are simply posting the concept that US workers do not work many hours. But you miss the fact that they work more hours than all but perhaps a half dozen of the industrialized nations. Odd how you missed that.

But perhaps you will find the following more interesting, and more important:
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

Now, I am sure you will see no issue with income gaps. Just as you see no issue with monopoly power. Funny. Easy to see where you will line up on any issue. Always pass the Koch test, eh, Amazon.

But most important is worker productivity. A good con would have no trouble admitting that. So:
American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they produce more per person over the year.

"They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians, according to a U.N. report released Monday, which said the United States "leads the world in labor productivity."

Each U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, ahead of Luxembourg, $55,641; Belgium, $55,235; and France, $54,609."
"The U.S., according to the report, also beats all 27 nations in the European Union, Japan and Switzerland in the amount of wealth created per hour of work - a second key measure of productivity.

Norway, which is not an EU member, generates the most output per working hour, $37.99, a figure inflated by the country's billions of dollars in oil exports and high prices for goods at home. The U.S. is second at $35.63, about a half-dollar ahead of third-placed France."
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500395_162-3228735.html

You may want to get back to the bat shit crazy con web sites to find some more talking points to post. Jesus.

 

[AmazonTania]

I thought you were familiar with the term "political economy". I was mistaken. I believe I also defined it and differentiated it from economics proper. Do you disagree with the distinction?

No, I do not. Although I believe your distinction of the Austrian School is a common mistake made ever so often. Most people distinguish Free Market economics with Austrian Economics. They're really not the same, although, it is quite common for the two ideologies to fuse and become mutually beneficial.

There is no ideological position in "Road to Serfdom"? Really???

Being ideological and being political are really not the same thing.

Second, I represented Keynes as being both an economist and a political economist. Are you having difficulty reading or is it your common practice to intentionally distort others' statements? I try not to twist other people's statements and if I do misinterpret them, I expect to be called out on it.

Thirdly, what in the world leads you to think that I believe "Keynes is the only good prominent economist."? I spoke positively of Hayek in this post. Are you a mind-reader? While you are at it, my wife would like a list of my favorite vegetables!

Sorry. I must have missed that.

I am familiar with Adam Smith. Now would you care to lecture me on the Philosophical Radicals?

If you want, but I thought it was rather old that you considered Keynes the 'first and foremost good economist' while mentioning Adam Smith within the same breath and not including the work he has done...

Balderdash and poppycock. I said no such thing. If you persist I shall accuse you of denigrating Irving Fisher.

Well, what do you know. Upon more reading, you actually didn't. My mistake.

I don't like people fawning over authors or thinkers either. I just don't make being opposed to it an excuse to duck points as you seem to be doing. You do remember that you initiated this exchange with a rather pompous pronouncement do you not?

I work too often. You can't really expect me to remember everything which goes on around here. But you can show me if you felt it was 'pompous.'

No, I am referring to the commonly expressed positions of all members of the Austrian School that quantitative methods are inferior to historical analysis. If you would care to put forward an Austrian School econometrician, I would be glad to retract my statement. It is not my fault that you are ignorant of the history and basic tenets of the Austrian School.

Members of the Austrian School has used Econometrics to demonstrate it's weakness. Some say it's inferior, while many would say that it's a flawed concept. Some equations and formulas don't really do much except for explain the painfully obvious, while others do not paint the entire picture.

History is not the be-all-end-all arbiter of right and wrong, but it can certainly be a good teacher.

You have just proven my case. Nothing recommended by the Austrians will ever be implemented. Which part of my post above that I have highlighted are you willing to forgo? Which of these measures would a "true Austrian" abandon?

Free Market economics is not the same as Austrian economics, but since the two are not mutually exclusive, I can only say for myself that I wouldn't want to eliminate majority of those things.

Eliminating unemployment benefits doesn't mean, no employment benefits. Severance pay existed before the concept and it exist in other nations without funds being extracted and the law being mandated.

We wouldn't outlaw unions. If people decide to freely, they should do so, so long as they do not force anyone else to join.

I would definitely abolish the Fed. There really isn't a need for one and I would return to the Gold Standard. Although, returning to the Gold Standard would mean that the value of the US Dollar would have to be debased tenfold. So this is kind of a choice between going back to the Gold Standard or having an economy without the Fed.

And I would abolish the minimum wage. After all, no minimum wage doesn't necessarily correlate to zero wages. It just means that there is no minimum.

Lastly, you do not cover yourself in glory when you begin by accusing me of "intellectual dishonesty" and proceed to immediately grossly misrepresent my position. You lack ordinary manners and are acting churlish. You also have not made any answer to any point I actually did bring up. This does not reflect well on the quality of your thought.

I already apologised.

 

[AmazonTania]

Ed, I've seen productivity increase so much in my lifetime, I think we should be working shorter work weeks. Where is the rewards for america being the most productive country in the world if people are working much longer hours and don't have the long vacations and national health care that some european countries have? Maybe not 15 hour work weeks, maybe 35 hours? Spend more time with family, maybe time to read a book. Not just work work work.

The average employee works 34.5 hours a week. Is that good enough for you?

I didn't know that but that's probably averaging in part timers. I was refering to us in this country as working a typical 40 hour workweek. And many work many more than 40 hrs. I remember in the early 70's discussions of a 35 hour work week and what people could do with more leisure time. Thanks.

People today are taking less hours due to the economy. I'm sure if they had a choice they would work more hours. There are actually some businesses which implements the equivalent to full-time hours for their workers, but gives them part-time status. It's how they get around specific time regulations.

 

[AmazonTania]

Ed, I've seen productivity increase so much in my lifetime, I think we should be working shorter work weeks. Where is the rewards for america being the most productive country in the world if people are working much longer hours and don't have the long vacations and national health care that some european countries have? Maybe not 15 hour work weeks, maybe 35 hours? Spend more time with family, maybe time to read a book. Not just work work work.

The average employee works 34.5 hours a week. Is that good enough for you?

Did you have a point?? What is your source?? It is way to easy to use stats on employment to prove anything that you want.

And for the record, no, I do not have a point. I was merely responding to a post which really had nothing to do with you. Ever heard of, 'minding your own business?'

The real point is more complex, of course. You are simply posting the concept that US workers do not work many hours. But you miss the fact that they work more hours than all but perhaps a half dozen of the industrialized nations. Odd how you missed that.

But perhaps you will find the following more interesting, and more important:
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

That's nice. I fail to see what this has to do with me or this point that I apparently do not have...

Now, I am sure you will see no issue with income gaps. Just as you see no issue with monopoly power. Funny. Easy to see where you will line up on any issue. Always pass the Koch test, eh, Amazon.

You know me so well...

But most important is worker productivity. A good con would have no trouble admitting that. So:
American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they produce more per person over the year.

"They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians, according to a U.N. report released Monday, which said the United States "leads the world in labor productivity."

Each U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, ahead of Luxembourg, $55,641; Belgium, $55,235; and France, $54,609."
"The U.S., according to the report, also beats all 27 nations in the European Union, Japan and Switzerland in the amount of wealth created per hour of work - a second key measure of productivity.

Norway, which is not an EU member, generates the most output per working hour, $37.99, a figure inflated by the country's billions of dollars in oil exports and high prices for goods at home. The U.S. is second at $35.63, about a half-dollar ahead of third-placed France."
U.S. Workers World's Most Productive - CBS News

That's nice. Once again, I fail to see what this has to do with me. Other from the fact that you just want someone to argue with. Seriously, you have to let your feelings for me go...

And Norway has more output per worker than the United States. So what? Norway is a tiny country. It cannot measure up to the United States in terms of total output or total population. In fact, the United States has plenty of Norway's inside of it right now.

The highest productive state (California) has $132.5 output per worker.

The lowest productive state (Vermont) has $86.52 output per worker.

And if I took it a step further, I can probably look up an entire district and it will most likely still have a higher output to worker ratio than that of Norway. Comparing Norway to the United States in terms of output is utterly clueless, and embarrassing.

Run along, now.

You may want to get back to the bat shit crazy con web sites to find some more talking points to post. Jesus.

Again, you pass of your terrible research as insightful and you are lecturing others on how do conduct theirs? Laughable.

 

[Rshermr]

The average employee works 34.5 hours a week. Is that good enough for you?

Did you have a point?? What is your source?? It is way to easy to use stats on employment to prove anything that you want.

And for the record, no, I do not have a point. I was merely responding to a post which really had nothing to do with you. Ever heard of, 'minding your own business?'



That's nice. I fail to see what this has to do with me or this point that I apparently do not have...



You know me so well...

But most important is worker productivity. A good con would have no trouble admitting that. So:
American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they produce more per person over the year.

"They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians, according to a U.N. report released Monday, which said the United States "leads the world in labor productivity."

Each U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, ahead of Luxembourg, $55,641; Belgium, $55,235; and France, $54,609."
"The U.S., according to the report, also beats all 27 nations in the European Union, Japan and Switzerland in the amount of wealth created per hour of work - a second key measure of productivity.

Norway, which is not an EU member, generates the most output per working hour, $37.99, a figure inflated by the country's billions of dollars in oil exports and high prices for goods at home. The U.S. is second at $35.63, about a half-dollar ahead of third-placed France."
U.S. Workers World's Most Productive - CBS News

That's nice. Once again, I fail to see what this has to do with me. Other from the fact that you just want someone to argue with. Seriously, you have to let your feelings for me go...

And Norway has more output per worker than the United States. So what? Norway is a tiny country. It cannot measure up to the United States in terms of total output or total population. In fact, the United States has plenty of Norway's inside of it right now.

The highest productive state (California) has $132.5 output per worker.

The lowest productive state (Vermont) has $86.52 output per worker.

And if I took it a step further, I can probably look up an entire district and it will most likely still have a higher output to worker ratio than that of Norway. Comparing Norway to the United States in terms of output is utterly clueless, and embarrassing.

Run along, now.

You may want to get back to the bat shit crazy con web sites to find some more talking points to post. Jesus.

Again, you pass of your terrible research as insightful and you are lecturing others on how do conduct theirs? Laughable.

So, you had no point. Good. Because I could see none.
Relative to your statement that I should run along, apparently you believe you have some authority that no one else believes you do. But whatever.
As for Norway, I agree. So, what are you trying to say other than what is really obvious.
Nice to know that you believe yourself to be an austrian economist. Problem is, you first need to be an economist. So far, I have seen nothing but an effort to state that which most economists believe to be nonsense. But, it does allow you to line up with those on the far, far right. Coincidentally exactly in synch with the Koch mind set. But you have no credentials. Just parroting of those dubious Austrian economic principles.
By the way, how does someone who believes that has authoritatively presented that gasoline is not manufactured because it is simply refined in an oil tanker EVER believe that they have any believeability???

Funny, me dear. Really funny.

 

[AmazonTania]

Did you have a point?? What is your source?? It is way to easy to use stats on employment to prove anything that you want.

And for the record, no, I do not have a point. I was merely responding to a post which really had nothing to do with you. Ever heard of, 'minding your own business?'



That's nice. I fail to see what this has to do with me or this point that I apparently do not have...



You know me so well...



That's nice. Once again, I fail to see what this has to do with me. Other from the fact that you just want someone to argue with. Seriously, you have to let your feelings for me go...

And Norway has more output per worker than the United States. So what? Norway is a tiny country. It cannot measure up to the United States in terms of total output or total population. In fact, the United States has plenty of Norway's inside of it right now.

The highest productive state (California) has $132.5 output per worker.

The lowest productive state (Vermont) has $86.52 output per worker.

And if I took it a step further, I can probably look up an entire district and it will most likely still have a higher output to worker ratio than that of Norway. Comparing Norway to the United States in terms of output is utterly clueless, and embarrassing.

Run along, now.

You may want to get back to the bat shit crazy con web sites to find some more talking points to post. Jesus.

Again, you pass of your terrible research as insightful and you are lecturing others on how do conduct theirs? Laughable.

So, you had no point. Good. Because I could see none.

Great...

Relative to your statement that I should run along, apparently you believe you have some authority that no one else believes you do. But whatever.

I have no control over you whatsoever. But most likely, you will end up doing as I suggest. Other from the fact that you really just want to pick a debate with someone, you don't know what you are doing here, and neither do I.

As for Norway, I agree. So, what are you trying to say other than what is really obvious.

That your pointless point was really nonsensical and embarrassing. I'm glad that you agree as well.

Nice to know that you believe yourself to be an austrian economist. Problem is, you first need to be an economist. So far, I have seen nothing but an effort to state that which most economists believe to be nonsense. But, it does allow you to line up with those on the far, far right.

When did I suggest that I was an Austrian and an economist simultaneously? Good to know that your comprehension is still f messed up. And I 'line up with those on the far, far right?' How does that work?

Coincidentally exactly in synch with the Koch mind set. But you have no credentials. Just parroting of those dubious Austrian economic principles.

Yes, we do have the same mindset. We both know how to make alot of money for example. Woot!

As for my credentials. You don't have to worry about that. I'm already a pretty well established person.

By the way, how does someone who believes that has authoritatively presented that gasoline is not manufactured because it is simply refined in an oil tanker EVER believe that they have any believeability???

Funny, me dear. Really funny.

Manufacturing is defined differently, but none of those definitions includes the words 'distilled.'

Now take your off topic nonsense elsewhere.

 

[Rshermr]

And for the record, no, I do not have a point. I was merely responding to a post which really had nothing to do with you. Ever heard of, 'minding your own business?'



That's nice. I fail to see what this has to do with me or this point that I apparently do not have...



You know me so well...



That's nice. Once again, I fail to see what this has to do with me. Other from the fact that you just want someone to argue with. Seriously, you have to let your feelings for me go...

And Norway has more output per worker than the United States. So what? Norway is a tiny country. It cannot measure up to the United States in terms of total output or total population. In fact, the United States has plenty of Norway's inside of it right now.

The highest productive state (California) has $132.5 output per worker.

The lowest productive state (Vermont) has $86.52 output per worker.

And if I took it a step further, I can probably look up an entire district and it will most likely still have a higher output to worker ratio than that of Norway. Comparing Norway to the United States in terms of output is utterly clueless, and embarrassing.

Run along, now.



Again, you pass of your terrible research as insightful and you are lecturing others on how do conduct theirs? Laughable.

So, you had no point. Good. Because I could see none.

Great...



I have no control over you whatsoever. But most likely, you will end up doing as I suggest. Other from the fact that you really just want to pick a debate with someone, you don't know what you are doing here, and neither do I.



That your pointless point was really nonsensical and embarrassing. I'm glad that you agree as well.



When did I suggest that I was an Austrian and an economist simultaneously? Good to know that your comprehension is still f messed up. And I 'line up with those on the far, far right?' How does that work?

Coincidentally exactly in synch with the Koch mind set. But you have no credentials. Just parroting of those dubious Austrian economic principles.

Yes, we do have the same mindset. We both know how to make alot of money for example. Woot!

As for my credentials. You don't have to worry about that. I'm already a pretty well established person.

By the way, how does someone who believes that has authoritatively presented that gasoline is not manufactured because it is simply refined in an oil tanker EVER believe that they have any believeability???

Funny, me dear. Really funny.

Manufacturing is defined differently, but none of those definitions includes the words 'distilled.'

Now take your off topic nonsense elsewhere.

A lot of opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
Yup. I forgot. You have the certificate that required, what, 200 hours of study. That WOULD make you well established, in your own mind.
And, me poor ignorant proponent of the austrian economic theory, you are hardly one to discuss being off topic.
And yes, me dear, I do understand why you do not want to argue whether refining gas from crude is manufacturing or not. You lost that argument already. And, me dear, it was YOUR argument, not mine.
By the way, nice try at trying to say how gasoline comes to be. Another dishonest statement. It is not DISTILLED. It is REFINED. Here. This is simple enough for even you to understand. And, my poor lying clown, it is cut and dried. You are wrong. And you do not have the class to admit it. Gasoline is manufactured, according to those who manufacture it (Exxon, etc). Try as you will you can not get away from the fact that it is, and that you are simply lying. Tacky, my dear. Totally lacks integrity.
http://www.ehow.com/info_12183334_gasoline-manufacturing-process.html

 

[AmazonTania]

So, you had no point. Good. Because I could see none.

Great...



I have no control over you whatsoever. But most likely, you will end up doing as I suggest. Other from the fact that you really just want to pick a debate with someone, you don't know what you are doing here, and neither do I.



That your pointless point was really nonsensical and embarrassing. I'm glad that you agree as well.



When did I suggest that I was an Austrian and an economist simultaneously? Good to know that your comprehension is still f messed up. And I 'line up with those on the far, far right?' How does that work?



Yes, we do have the same mindset. We both know how to make alot of money for example. Woot!

As for my credentials. You don't have to worry about that. I'm already a pretty well established person.

By the way, how does someone who believes that has authoritatively presented that gasoline is not manufactured because it is simply refined in an oil tanker EVER believe that they have any believeability???

Funny, me dear. Really funny.

Manufacturing is defined differently, but none of those definitions includes the words 'distilled.'

Now take your off topic nonsense elsewhere.

A lot of opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
Yup. I forgot. You have the certificate that required, what, 200 hours of study. That WOULD make you well established, in your own mind.

A series 3 is not the only license I have, just so you know. An I am well established because I've been doing this for numerous years, with a pretty large number of leads, cliente and money under management.

I'm involved in a pretty large network in the financial community and hundreds follow my online post just to read what I say.

How is that for established?

And, me poor ignorant proponent of the austrian economic theory, you are hardly one to discuss being off topic.

Aren't I? You were the one who decided to talk about Norway, then when you've realised how dumb your point was, you decided to talk about something else.

Figure out how your talking points are suppose to work before responding.

And yes, me dear, I do understand why you do not want to argue whether refining gas from crude is manufacturing or not. You lost that argument already. And, me dear, it was YOUR argument, not mine.

If I remember correctly, it was you who lost the argument, and as a result of a poorly constructed and unconvincing argument, you decided to quit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...g-up-thanks-fucking-obama-15.html#post7383106

And no, I do not want to argue because you already quit. If you quit the debate, it means you aren't effectively conveying your argument. Which means your argument is terrible and going any further is pointless. If you wanted to continue the debate, you should have never quit. If you wanted to postpone your debate, that would have been a different story, but this is not what you did.

So please, stop bring up your failed arguments to me. You quit. You lost. Get over it.

By the way, nice try at trying to say how gasoline <snip>

Irrelevant discussion and irrelevant technicalities. I don't care if it's refined or distilled or refined using a distillation unit. It irreverent based on the premise of the current topic and irrelevant based on the premise of the old debate.

All around irrelevant.

 

[Rshermr]

Great...



I have no control over you whatsoever. But most likely, you will end up doing as I suggest. Other from the fact that you really just want to pick a debate with someone, you don't know what you are doing here, and neither do I.



That your pointless point was really nonsensical and embarrassing. I'm glad that you agree as well.



When did I suggest that I was an Austrian and an economist simultaneously? Good to know that your comprehension is still f messed up. And I 'line up with those on the far, far right?' How does that work?



Yes, we do have the same mindset. We both know how to make alot of money for example. Woot!

As for my credentials. You don't have to worry about that. I'm already a pretty well established person.



Manufacturing is defined differently, but none of those definitions includes the words 'distilled.'

Now take your off topic nonsense elsewhere.

A lot of opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
Yup. I forgot. You have the certificate that required, what, 200 hours of study. That WOULD make you well established, in your own mind.

A series 3 is not the only license I have, just so you know. An I am well established because I've been doing this for numerous years, with a pretty large number of leads, cliente and money under management.

I'm involved in a pretty large network in the financial community and hundreds follow my online post just to read what I say.

How is that for established?



Aren't I? You were the one who decided to talk about Norway, then when you've realised how dumb your point was, you decided to talk about something else.

Figure out how your talking points are suppose to work before responding.

And yes, me dear, I do understand why you do not want to argue whether refining gas from crude is manufacturing or not. You lost that argument already. And, me dear, it was YOUR argument, not mine.

If I remember correctly, it was you who lost the argument, and as a result of a poorly constructed and unconvincing argument, you decided to quit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...g-up-thanks-fucking-obama-15.html#post7383106

And no, I do not want to argue because you already quit. If you quit the debate, it means you aren't effectively conveying your argument. Which means your argument is terrible and going any further is pointless. If you wanted to continue the debate, you should have never quit. If you wanted to postpone your debate, that would have been a different story, but this is not what you did.

So please, stop bring up your failed arguments to me. You quit. You lost. Get over it.

By the way, nice try at trying to say how gasoline <snip>

Irrelevant discussion and irrelevant technicalities. I don't care if it's refined or distilled or refined using a distillation unit. It irreverent based on the premise of the current topic and irrelevant based on the premise of the old debate.

All around irrelevant.

I did not quit, dipshit. I showed you several articles and quotes by oil companies that stated that gasoline refining is manufacturing. You will not admit you are wrong. You are incapable. Because, me dear, you have no integrity. The last post provided you another opportunity. And again you failed. Because you are clueless. You believe that as long as you keep lying, you are correct. Must be nice to be able to believe anything that you want to.
And, me dear, I did not bring up Norway. It was one of many countries mentioned in an article that I linked. You picked that single country out because you are trying to make some sort of a point. Jesus, you are dishonest.
You can not admit you were wrong. Must be tough, because you are wrong a lot. All of us are, but only those with no integrity are unable to admit when they are. Wrong, that is. Refining oil is manufacturing, in every authoritative source you can find. Only in your mind is it not. Must be sad.

 

[AmazonTania]

A lot of opinion. And you know how much I respect your opinion.
Yup. I forgot. You have the certificate that required, what, 200 hours of study. That WOULD make you well established, in your own mind.

A series 3 is not the only license I have, just so you know. An I am well established because I've been doing this for numerous years, with a pretty large number of leads, cliente and money under management.

I'm involved in a pretty large network in the financial community and hundreds follow my online post just to read what I say.

How is that for established?



Aren't I? You were the one who decided to talk about Norway, then when you've realised how dumb your point was, you decided to talk about something else.

Figure out how your talking points are suppose to work before responding.



If I remember correctly, it was you who lost the argument, and as a result of a poorly constructed and unconvincing argument, you decided to quit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...g-up-thanks-fucking-obama-15.html#post7383106

And no, I do not want to argue because you already quit. If you quit the debate, it means you aren't effectively conveying your argument. Which means your argument is terrible and going any further is pointless. If you wanted to continue the debate, you should have never quit. If you wanted to postpone your debate, that would have been a different story, but this is not what you did.

So please, stop bring up your failed arguments to me. You quit. You lost. Get over it.

By the way, nice try at trying to say how gasoline <snip>

Irrelevant discussion and irrelevant technicalities. I don't care if it's refined or distilled or refined using a distillation unit. It irreverent based on the premise of the current topic and irrelevant based on the premise of the old debate.

All around irrelevant.

I did not quit, dipshit. I showed you several articles and quotes by oil companies that stated that gasoline refining is manufacturing. You will not admit you are wrong. You are incapable. Because, me dear, you have no integrity. The last post provided you another opportunity. And again you failed. Because you are clueless. You believe that as long as you keep lying, you are correct. Must be nice to be able to believe anything that you want to.

That's nice. Manufacturing has it's own definition and the creation of gasoline doesn't describe manufacturing at all. It really doesn't matter what oil companies tell you. Oil companies can tell you that it rains from a nimbus cloud for all I care. You can believe whatever you want to believe in regards to who won, but your argument was pure rubbish. There wasn't a single conclusive point you addressed and each point you address I merely refuted. If your argument was good, there would be no conceivable way I would dispute it... At alll.

Even when I had no conclusive and concrete position of my own, I was still able to dispute and debunk your own points.

That's how bad your argument was. Now stop bringing up your former terrible arguments to me.

And, me dear, I did not bring up Norway. It was one of many countries mentioned in an article that I linked. You picked that single country out because you are trying to make some sort of a point. Jesus, you are dishonest.

The mere fact that you quoted the article which stated the country in question means that your brought up said country. Do you understand how evidence works?

You can not admit you were wrong. Must be tough, because you are wrong a lot. All of us are, but only those with no integrity are unable to admit when they are. Wrong, that is. Refining oil is manufacturing, in every authoritative source you can find. Only in your mind is it not. Must be sad.

I don't really care which sources you are able to compile which supports your position. The debate is over and it's already been established that your research is very bad.

If you don't have a point, then perhaps you should move along and re-frame from presenting your failed arguments to me...

 

[Rshermr]

That is the thing, Tanya. You are unable to establish anything, except, perhaps, in your own mind. Very convenient, eh, old girl. You are able to believe anything that you WANT to believe. You are one of the 20 or so percent of people who are able to believe what they want to believe. To hell with evidence, to hell with studies, and to hell with sources who actually have knowledge that is hard won.
But then, as you said in proving your bgonea fides, you have a SERIES 3. Why, you had to study at least 20 hours or so. and answer 120 questions. A WHOLE 120 QUESTIONS. A COMBINATION OF TRUE AND FALSE AND MULTIPLE CHOICE. AND GET 70% CORRECT.How very impressive. Why, compared to a simple PHD, that whole Series 3 thing is SOOOOOO demanding. Why, why, it is almost as much study as a phd candidate would have to put forth in ONE class in ONE month. Not quite that much, but almost.
But then, you can believe anything that you want. Convenient, and cheap. Totally without integrity. But then, that is what you need in order to believe something as stupid as the Austrian theory. And, apparently, ignorance IS bliss.

You are a waste. You are completely incapable of conversation. But, in your own mind, you are ALWAYS correct. How nice for you. And, you are completely controllable. Because you WANT to believe. Exactly what those who like to control people look for. And you love to dislike those who do not believe as you do. Makes you angry. Again, just what those who want to control you love to see. You are SOOOO easy. Just feed you what you WANT to hear, and watch you perform. Sad. But then, no big deal. No one is listening to you, me dear. You just believe that they are. Just the group think that you believe in.

Hell, you can even argue authoritatively that gasoline is DISTILLED in OIL TANKERS. Made it up from whole cloth, me dear, and explained it to me AUTHORITATIVELY. Must be an interesting world you live in. Aparently you normally explain things to people with very weak minds. Who question nothing. Must be fun being you. Hell, you do not have to know ANYTHING. Just believe what you WANT to believe. No need for years of study. Hell, you can be more knowledgeable than a PHD in ANY SUBJECT without doing all that inconvenient study. Just draw a few charts, and you are an expert. Only in your own mind, of course. But that is good enough for you. And soooooo much easier.

 

[AmazonTania]

That is the thing, Tanya. <snip>

Gosh, you're still around? I thought when I closed my eye last night that you'd get bored and you would find a different person to stalk. I've already told you that I am uninterested in your past failures. Apparently saying it over and over isn't getting through to you.

I find your devotion towards Ph. D holders so funny, as if that is the ultimate arbiter of success. I've met a couple of unemployed with Ph. D's. I've met a couple of Ph. D's who aren't making any money, and then there are those who aren't making the same money I do. So no, I really do not care what type of education you find more valuable. You can try to belittle my certifications and education to get a cheap reaction all you'd like. If that doesn't impress you, that's great. It certainly impress those are who pay commissions, margins and deposits for what I offer. I'm not looking to manage your money, so I am not looking to impress you. I have better things to do with my free time. We can't all spent every moment on this forum trying to one-up some other loser on their lack of knowledge like you can.

Now, if you don't have anything other points here, perhaps you can mossy along elsewhere. Unless you have any other embarrassing points to bring up like your Norway example.

 

[oldfart]

That is the thing, Tanya. <snip>

I thought...... that you'd get bored and you would find a different person to stalk.

I know that it rankles each of you that the other might make the last post, so I suggest that in the interest of closing a fruitless discussion apparently abrasive to both sides, THIS BE THE LAST POST IN THE THREAD.

 

[Rshermr]

No need. I already spent too much time with this discussion with this person. I was already completely done.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Refining oil is manufacturing, in every authoritative source you can find. Only in your mind is it not. Must be sad.

I see you're on another very very important topic!! Trivia and personal attack is all you do here so why be here?

Why not study up and then tell us the theory behind how a tax spend liberal stimulus bubble is supposed to work. Do you think that is more important than whether refining is manufacturing??

Do you think it isn't obvious that you need trivia and personal attack because you are afraid of important subjects?

 

[Rshermr]

I hear a lot of bad opinions about Keynesianism, which I think has served us pretty well for decades.

Which is akin to living on credit cards. You'd live pretty well for a while...until you can no longer make the minimum payments. Then the shit hits the fan.

The Keynesian idea of stimulating the economy is like me robbing the local grocery store of its till, keeping some of the money for my efforts, then giving the rest to a bum....then, when that bum goes into that grocery store to buy beer, we call it stimulus.

Worth reading:

Where Keynes Went Wrong: And Why World Governments Keep Creating Inflation, Bubbles, and Busts by Hunter Lewis | 9781604190441 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble

Said by a Libertarian. Who can not name a single successful libertarian economy.
Not a great source for a reference to an impartial source about Keynesian economics.
But he does believe in the gold standard. Same monetary system used by all sorts of countries successfully. That would be, uh, oh, maybe 0 (that would be ZERO) countries. None. Lots had it, all got rid of it, but Libertarians love it.
And Hunter Lewis??? You have to be kidding. Publishes in great right wing bat shit crazy con sites like Town Hall. Perfect impartial source. Jesus.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I hear a lot of bad opinions about Keynesianism, which I think has served us pretty well for decades.

Which is akin to living on credit cards. You'd live pretty well for a while...until you can no longer make the minimum payments. Then the shit hits the fan.

The Keynesian idea of stimulating the economy is like me robbing the local grocery store of its till, keeping some of the money for my efforts, then giving the rest to a bum....then, when that bum goes into that grocery store to buy beer, we call it stimulus.

Worth reading:

Where Keynes Went Wrong: And Why World Governments Keep Creating Inflation, Bubbles, and Busts by Hunter Lewis | 9781604190441 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble

Said by a Libertarian. Who can not name a single successful libertarian economy.
Not a great source for a reference to an impartial source about Keynesian economics.
But he does believe in the gold standard. Same monetary system used by all sorts of countries successfully. That would be, uh, oh, maybe 0 (that would be ZERO) countries. None. Lots had it, all got rid of it, but Libertarians love it.
And Hunter Lewis??? You have to be kidding. Publishes in great right wing bat shit crazy con sites like Town Hall. Perfect impartial source. Jesus.

Who can not name a single successful libertarian economy???

All economies are mixed so trying to find a pure libertarian economy is absurd in concept. However, the USA has been the closest thing and it produced the richest and most moral country in human history!

 

[georgephillip]

Which is akin to living on credit cards. You'd live pretty well for a while...until you can no longer make the minimum payments. Then the shit hits the fan.

The Keynesian idea of stimulating the economy is like me robbing the local grocery store of its till, keeping some of the money for my efforts, then giving the rest to a bum....then, when that bum goes into that grocery store to buy beer, we call it stimulus.

Worth reading:

Where Keynes Went Wrong: And Why World Governments Keep Creating Inflation, Bubbles, and Busts by Hunter Lewis | 9781604190441 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble

Said by a Libertarian. Who can not name a single successful libertarian economy.
Not a great source for a reference to an impartial source about Keynesian economics.
But he does believe in the gold standard. Same monetary system used by all sorts of countries successfully. That would be, uh, oh, maybe 0 (that would be ZERO) countries. None. Lots had it, all got rid of it, but Libertarians love it.
And Hunter Lewis??? You have to be kidding. Publishes in great right wing bat shit crazy con sites like Town Hall. Perfect impartial source. Jesus.

Who can not name a single successful libertarian economy???

All economies are mixed so trying to find a pure libertarian economy is absurd in concept. However, the USA has been the closest thing and it produced the richest and most moral country in human history!

How many millions of innocent human beings been maimed. murdered, or displaced over the past century by "the most moral country in human history:?