How is austerity doing in Europe

[Oldstyle]

So, oldstyle, you are about to see why you are to be known as a liar. Just a little mistake on your part. I set out a bit of bait, and you just bit. Thanks, Oldstyle. This will be educational to anyone out there that still wonders if you are a liar. So, lets take the last piece first. You said:

No, Oldstyle. I do not lie. Lets see what I said. I did indeed say I had a private secretary. And that was true. I posted the following, which was the latest relative to you saying that I lied about having a secretary. I said the following :

Which you fully understood was that you questioned my claim that I had a personal secretary. Called me a liar. So, did you expect people to believe that I am offering you $10K to prove that I did not have a personal secretary. Maybe a class in logic would be good for you. But, of course, the truth is you are just trying to twist words to make it seem that I am changing what I have said several times. Tacky, oldstyle. And stupid. I would say nice try, but what you are trying to say is too stupid to bother with.

Now, there is your first statement from the above post:


Here is your problem. You lie so much you loose track of what you said. And, your posts are pretty much always in the archive, me boy. So, here is your post and my response, cut and pasted to this post. For all to see. Here we go, oldstyle:

Thread: Consumers Create Jobs
08-16-2012, 07:34 AM Post #166
Rshermr
Registered User
Member #37424

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle


I responded:


That is about as clear cut as it gets. Back in AUGUST OF LAST YEAR!!! So, I understand "eat my words", as would anyone who reads this post. Obviously you did not eat your words, now did you, Oldstyle.
I also understand "When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar". Now, me boy, perhaps you would like to explain why you have called me a liar, with no semblance of proof, over 30 times since then. You know better. You made a bargain, and you did not keep it.

So there you go, Oldstyle. Lets see what you said in your last post again:

So, you made the deal, saying if I did so it would prove to you that I was not a liar, and that you would eat your words. Really, Oldstyle. You do not see an agreement there? Of course you do, because you made the agreement.



Sorry, Oldstyle. But it was what you agreed to. Which would make you, again, a bald faced liar. It could not be clearer. So, you are a liar who does not keep his agreements. Classy, Oldstyle, really classy.




Sorry oldstyle. There was absolutely no lie in my anything I have ever said. Makes you crazy, eh oldstyle. Caught again. And again. And again. And no matter how hard you try, you can only make unsubstantiated accusations toward me. Which you love to do. And add a few more lies while you are at it.

Then, Oldstyle, to really, really prove that you are a liar and a game player, lets remember that the above exchange was in
August of last year. Eight months ago, Oldstyle. for OVER 8 months, since you started this claim a month or so before the above post, you have been playing your little game. Wasting everyone's time. And continuing to do what you committed that you would not do. I have to admit, Oldstyle, that if you are trying to set a record for dishonesty, you did a great job. And a great job of being a liar. And a game player. And, in general, a complete clown.

Sucks to get caught again, eh, oldstyle. Not sure how the hell you live with yourself. I really can not wait to see you try to lie your way out of this, Oldstyle. You will love the other posts that I have collected. Sad to have to do that, but when you deal with a liar, like you, sometimes it is simpler to collect the evidence as you go.

Show me where I ever agreed to that.

Jesus, you are a liar, oldstyle. You do not believe "you will eat your words" means you will give up on the issue. You do not believe that "When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar"indicates youi would back off the issue. You see, Oldstyle, you know I was not lying. Then you asked for four pieces of info, which I provided. And you said you would eat your words and that it would prove, to you, that I was not lying to you. So, you want to tell me why you do not see that as the end of the issue.

I knew you would come back with this methodology. Because you have no integrity. And no class. Big surprise, oldstyle. Must suck to be you.

So in your world "you will eat your words" translates to "if someone gives any answer at all to these questions, they can never be asked again"? LOL You're so desperate to dig yourself out of the lie that you got caught telling you WANT desperately for the subject not to be brought up again! Who could blame you?

The truth is...I had to hound you for days just to get you to answer those questions, Tommy. You ducked and weaved like you were in a title fight with Mike Tyson in his prime. Why? The obvious answer was you were trying to come up with plausible explanations for the things that made ZERO sense in your stories.

 

[Rshermr]

So Oldstyle, having been proven a liar, now is out to prove that he did not lie. Which is, of course, impossible. Caught red handed, with his own post, he is screwed. No way out. Now a person with integrity would simply admit the lie. A person who had ANY honesty would admit it, also. But Oldstyle has neither honesty not integrity. He simply knows how to lie. Perhaps, based on the fact that he does lie, he is a sociopath. Except that, in general, sociopaths are pretty smart. Which leaves Oldstyle out.

So, having been proven a liar based on his own words, Oldstyle, who usually gets back to you within a couple hours, took over 24 hours to construct this post. So, lets see it, and deconstruct it. Because it is easy to do. He should never, ever base arguments on lies. So, Oldstyle says:

That's the problem with being a pathological liar...you tell a lie. People doubt you and point out why what you've claimed sounds hard to believe...and you have to tell another lie. And then another...and then another. Pretty soon you've told so many lies you can't remember what you've said.

Yes, that would be true. Spoken with a great deal of first hand experience, oldstyle. And then you get CAUGHT. Red handed. And have to construct another set of lies, to get yourself out of the trap you found yourself in.
But then you have a couple other tools. Besides more lies, that is. More accusations, without any proof, of course. And more personal attacks. Always, when you are cornered, you bring out the personal attacks. Without any basis in fact.

In this case you claimed to have taught college economics.

Ah, wow, that sounds like I said I had a job teaching college economics classes. But of course, what I actually said was that I taught part of one class, and specifically a very low level college econ class. But what the hell, Oldstyle. What would we expect from you??

But gee...you didn't even know basic Keynesian theory so I questioned your claim and asked what college it was that you were a professor at.

So, let me get this straight. A history major who took two basic classes in econ is saying that I did not understand keynsian theory??? Right. Nice try, Oldstyle. But I do, and have, for many, many years.

Now, here is your next lie. You NEVER asked at what college it was that I was a professor. Because I made that clear long before y\that my degree was simply a BA. So, if you did ask at what college I was a PHD at, you could easily prove it. But you can not, because I did not. Simply another lie. This time simply trying to make this whole post full of your lies look plausible. Go get that post, oldstyle!!!

Now there's a problem! You can't claim to be a professor because colleges keep lists of faculty and your name isn't going to be on any of those. So what to do!!! Simple...tell ANOTHER lie! That you weren't actually a professor but you were an undergrad who taught an economics class because the "real" professor couldn't be bothered.

Wow, oldstyle. That paragraph shows real, deep desperation. You just said that I did not claim that I had a PHD because I would get caught in an untruth. And you say this, with a straight face, I assume, with no semblance of proof of any kind. Funny. So, maybe I should assume that you having said that you have a career in the food services industry was said simply to explain why you know absolutely nothing about economics.

But anyone who's been to college knows that isn't the way things work. Graduate students quite often help professors as teaching assistants but undergrads teaching college level courses?
What college is going to do that? It's an entirely implausible story.

Right, so as a self appointed expert on education, you are making that statement?? Maybe you did a study, and had it published? Sorry, Oldstyle, but you are no expert. And you are completely wrong. But, perhaps you should go out to Central Washington State and get an affidavit that Clair Lillard did not use econ undergrads to teach part of his basic econ classes. You are, obviously, completely delusional.

So implausible that I start to query you ABOUT the subject that you supposedly know so much about that you were selected to teach your fellow students by a grateful professor...but you don't even know what the "Chicago School" refers to?

So, you are now suggesting that I did not know what the Chicago School was??? Again, you are lying. Jesus, you just can not stop. Again, a simple search would prove that you were correct if I had ever shown that I did not know what the Chicago School of Economic Thought, or Economic theory, was. Said by a dishwasher.

At this point I'm questioning your claim to even BE a college man because your spelling and grammar are so atrocious and you invent yet another hard to believe scenario to explain this.

Right. Maybe we should spend time correcting each others writing to see who has bad grammar. But then, I do not worry about small issues. That would be your department. Hell, I could and have hired people to take care of removing the fly crap from the pepper. And you are probably one of those who would be good at it. Problem is, me boy, that will bring you exactly minimum wage. Relative to the grade level of my grammar, that would be your opinion. The opinion of a food services professional, who has such low levels of responsibility that his boss does not need him engaged. Funny, Oldstyle.

You're a busy executive whose private secretary has always handled your correspondence and SHE spell checks you and cleans up your 8th grade grammar mistakes! Well there you have it!!!

Used to. Having been retired for a number of years, I have no such luxury any more. But then, I have you, Oldstyle. A truly low level person looking for the fly crap amongst the pepper. Funny, eh, Oldstyle?? Probably not so funny for you, come to think of it. Hard to admit you are of such low ability. Most would feel ashamed of having nothing better to do than try to find misspellings and typos. Such a lowly activity. But then, one should never feel bad if one does his best, right, Oldstyle?

But you NEVER lie...right, Tommy? And we know this...because you say so? Too funny...

Now that is funny, oldstyle. You think that anyone is always a liar if they say so??? So, since you never say you do not lie, we should assume actually do not?? Funny.
I never call a person a liar unless I can prove that he is such. And I have done so in the post to which you are referring, above. From you own lying mouth, you said you would eat your words if I provided the info you requested. I did, but you did not. Then, you said you would know that I was not a liar if I provided the information you requested. I did, but you have called me a liar at least 40 times since then. Those two things would prove you to be a liar in a court of law. And they would prove you to be a liar among those with open minds. It is so obvious, that even an 11 year old would understand it. So, go ahead, Oldstyle. Say you did not lie. Because everyone interested knows that you did lie. Big time.
Now, relative to your lies, you claimed that I said that I was a BP Exec, And you have made that claim several times now. Without any proof. And, useing the search capabilities of this board, you could prove me wrong, if I were, in a couple of minutes. And you could finally say that you had caught me in a lie. Which you have tried SO hard to do over the months. But you do not produce any evidence. Because, of course, you can not. Because you lied again. Which means that the coveted post of me saying I had worked for BP is non-existent. Want to say WHY you said that I claimed to be have been a BP exec??? OF COURSE NOT. BECAUSE YOU WERE LYING. FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EXCUSE. Had I lied you could prove it. But again, I do not lie. So, you simply make up lies that were they true, would mean that I had lied. No integrity, Oldstyle. None at all.

 

[Kimura]

I'm curious, Kimura...

What would you think about someone who claimed to have taught economics at the college level as an undergrad?

And if that same person didn't understand basic Keynesian priciples?

And if that same person didn't know that a reference to the "Chicago School" was a reference to an economic school of thought and not an actual college in Chicago?

Would you think that person was full of shit? Because I do...and that's with only two econ classes in my whole life!

It's my understanding that you can teach at the university level without a Phd. For example, in the US, most TAs are graduate students and one can teach at the junior college/community college level with an MS and or MA, depending on your major.

All economics and finance majors have to learn about the Chicago School (Friedman, Posner, Foger, etc.) at some point; however, I do continuously hear terms like Monetarists and Friedmanites used interchangeably with the Chicago School. It also depends where you go to college, who chairs the Econ department, what your major is, etc. If I'm a business major, do I really need anything past an intro course to macro and micro?

I would also say Keynes is probably one the most important economists in the last one hundred years, so yeah, EVERY econ and finance major with be thoroughly familiar with JM Keynes.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm curious, Kimura...

What would you think about someone who claimed to have taught economics at the college level as an undergrad?

And if that same person didn't understand basic Keynesian priciples?

And if that same person didn't know that a reference to the "Chicago School" was a reference to an economic school of thought and not an actual college in Chicago?

Would you think that person was full of shit? Because I do...and that's with only two econ classes in my whole life!

It's my understanding that you can teach at the university level without a Phd. For example, in the US, most TAs are graduate students and one can teach at the junior college/community college level with an MS and or MA, depending on your major.

All economics and finance majors have to learn about the Chicago School (Friedman, Posner, Foger, etc.) at some point; however, I do continuously hear terms like Monetarists and Friedmanites used interchangeably with the Chicago School. It also depends where you go to college, who chairs the Econ department, what your major is, etc. If I'm a business major, do I really need anything past an intro course to macro and micro?

I would also say Keynes is probably one the most important economists in the last one hundred years, so yeah, EVERY econ and finance major with be thoroughly familiar with JM Keynes.

So what do you think the chances are that someone was so learned in the subject that they taught economics as an undergrad...doesn't know basic Keynesian principles or what the Chicago School referred to?

Rshermr is "shocked" that anyone would doubt him...I on the other hand, am shocked that anyone would believe him.

 

[Rshermr]

Now we have Oldstyle trying to get out getting caught in a major lie. He is going to do so by questioning definitions. It will be funny:

So in your world "you will eat your words" translates to "if someone gives any answer at all to these questions, they can never be asked again"?

Funny, Oldstyle. Really funny. You call me a liar and prattle on about why you said I was a liar. I responded to you many times prior to agreeing to providing your responses. Now, Oldstyle, I did not say "I will only provide you with the following information". I simply wanted to discuss actual issues. I did not come here to respond to some clown's assertions that I did not do what I said I did. Nor did I come here to be called a liar. I came here to actually discuss economic issues. However, doing so was difficult, since you would not do so, and filled up the space making accusations for which you had absolutely no evidence. And you did so over, and over, and over again. So, you pushed and threatened and cajoled me to provide me with specific answers. Not answers that I provided you, but answers that YOU ASKED ME TO PROVIDE. Now, had I lied, the answers would have been a bit difficult. But since I had not lied, they were not. So, Oldstyle. I answered the questions YOU asked me. All of them.
Now, you provided the conditions. If I provided the answer, you would eat your words. If I provided the answers, you would know that I was not lying. Though, I fully believe that you always did know that I was not lying.
So, I provided the answers to your questions. Complete answers to YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. Not partial answers. Not incorrect answers. So, apparently, you are saying that you were just kidding. Right, Oldstyle. But of course, you were not. You simply made a deal with me, got exactly what you asked for, with no shortcuts. And you then went on calling me a liar as though you made no deal. In my world, that makes you a liar. Simple to understand why, Oldstyle, to anyone but you. You made the deal, I held up my end. and you did exactly what you said you would not.

Then there is this gem!!

LOL You're so desperate to dig yourself out of the lie that you got caught telling you WANT desperately for the subject not to be brought up again! Who could blame you?

I have never, ever been desperate, dipshit. Never. Another accusation without foundation. I did not lie, and so had NO lie to dig myself out of. Digging yourelf out of a lie is EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING NOW. That was NOT what I was doing. I simply told the truth over and over and over. While you, without any proof of any kind, called me a liar over and over and over. How do you live with yourself, being such a lying ass hole. I have known few like you in my life time. And I am old. But you are a true lying ass hole, without question.

The truth is...I had to hound you for days just to get you to answer those questions, Tommy. You ducked and weaved like you were in a title fight with Mike Tyson in his prime. Why? The obvious answer was you were trying to come up with plausible explanations for the things that made ZERO sense in your stories.

You always have to be on guard when Oldstyle says "truth is". Sorry, but you are lying again. I did no ducking and weaving. I simply said I had no reason to provide you with anything. Which was absolutely true. Because, me boy, though I only suspected at that point that you were a habitual liar, I did suspect it. And I did say that I questioned that you would keep your word. And I'l be damned if my intuition was not correct. You were a liar, and proved it then and many times since. And you did not keep your word.

Really, Oldstyle, this one is so cut and dried that there is no real reason to go on about it. You are caught. Again. And again, you turn yourself into a pretzel trying to get yourself out of your lies. Most would feel some shame. Very few would feel none. And those that would feel none would be in the sociopath category.

As I said, I prefer to deal with people that have class. People who have class:
1. Tell the truth always. You lie very, very frequently.
2. Never call someone else a liar without actual proof. You obviously do call people liars with NO proof.

It must be crap being you.

Again, Oldstyle. You said I said I had been a BP Executive. Which, you said, would have been a lie. Problem is, I never said any such thing. When are you going to bring that post forward, Oldstyle. Easy to do if you are telling the truth. Impossible to do if you are lying. It is becoming obvious that you are lying, though it was obvious to me from the first time you made the accusation.

 

[Rshermr]

I'm curious, Kimura...

What would you think about someone who claimed to have taught economics at the college level as an undergrad?

And if that same person didn't understand basic Keynesian priciples?

And if that same person didn't know that a reference to the "Chicago School" was a reference to an economic school of thought and not an actual college in Chicago?

Would you think that person was full of shit? Because I do...and that's with only two econ classes in my whole life!

It's my understanding that you can teach at the university level without a Phd. For example, in the US, most TAs are graduate students and one can teach at the junior college/community college level with an MS and or MA, depending on your major.

All economics and finance majors have to learn about the Chicago School (Friedman, Posner, Foger, etc.) at some point; however, I do continuously hear terms like Monetarists and Friedmanites used interchangeably with the Chicago School. It also depends where you go to college, who chairs the Econ department, what your major is, etc. If I'm a business major, do I really need anything past an intro course to macro and micro?

I would also say Keynes is probably one the most important economists in the last one hundred years, so yeah, EVERY econ and finance major with be thoroughly familiar with JM Keynes.

So what do you think the chances are that someone was so learned in the subject that they taught economics as an undergrad...doesn't know basic Keynesian principles or what the Chicago School referred to?

Rshermr is "shocked" that anyone would doubt him...I on the other hand, am shocked that anyone would believe him.

But then, me poor food services worker, I do indeed know of the Chicago School of Economic Thought, or the Chicago school of thought. Though it was taught little prior to when I graduated with a BA in Econ. In 1970, you twit. Not much being talked about relative to the Chicago Theory of econ at that point. The heyday of the Chicago School of econ was from the mid 1970's through around 2008, according to those scholars still actually spending much time with the subject. But I could go on. Question is why? You will simply lie again.

And I did not teach a class in economics. I taught a breakout of 20% of an econ class 4 days per week. Which you well know. For an econ prof who was responsible for the entire class. And I did so using the class guidelines provided to me, and the others who were doing the same.
And I do have a pretty solid understanding of Keynesian economic theory. Though I have not studied it for over 45 years. So, want to prove your accusations???

 

[Oldstyle]

It's my understanding that you can teach at the university level without a Phd. For example, in the US, most TAs are graduate students and one can teach at the junior college/community college level with an MS and or MA, depending on your major.

All economics and finance majors have to learn about the Chicago School (Friedman, Posner, Foger, etc.) at some point; however, I do continuously hear terms like Monetarists and Friedmanites used interchangeably with the Chicago School. It also depends where you go to college, who chairs the Econ department, what your major is, etc. If I'm a business major, do I really need anything past an intro course to macro and micro?

I would also say Keynes is probably one the most important economists in the last one hundred years, so yeah, EVERY econ and finance major with be thoroughly familiar with JM Keynes.

So what do you think the chances are that someone was so learned in the subject that they taught economics as an undergrad...doesn't know basic Keynesian principles or what the Chicago School referred to?

Rshermr is "shocked" that anyone would doubt him...I on the other hand, am shocked that anyone would believe him.

But then, me poor food services worker, I do indeed know of the Chicago School of Economic Thought, or the Chicago school of thought. Though it was taught little prior to when I graduated with a BA in Econ. In 1970, you twit. Not much being talked about relative to the Chicago Theory of econ at that point. The heyday of the Chicago School of econ was from the mid 1970's through around 2008, according to those scholars still actually spending much time with the subject. But I could go on. Question is why? You will simply lie again.

And I did not teach a class in economics. I taught a breakout of 20% of an econ class 4 days per week. Which you well know. For an econ prof who was responsible for the entire class. And I did so using the class guidelines provided to me, and the others who were doing the same.
And I do have a pretty solid understanding of Keynesian economic theory. Though I have not studied it for over 45 years. So, want to prove your accusations???

Gee, that's funny, Tommy...you didn't have a CLUE what I was referring to when I brought up the Chicago School back then! You actually thought I was talking about a college in Chicago that taught economics! How IS IT that someone who is an economics major doesn't know something as important to the study of economics as the Chicago School...or for that matter doesn't know that when someone refers to schools of economics that they are talking about schools of economic THOUGHT. How much "proof" does someone need to know that you've been talking shit all along?

 

[Rshermr]

So what do you think the chances are that someone was so learned in the subject that they taught economics as an undergrad...doesn't know basic Keynesian principles or what the Chicago School referred to?

Rshermr is "shocked" that anyone would doubt him...I on the other hand, am shocked that anyone would believe him.

But then, me poor food services worker, I do indeed know of the Chicago School of Economic Thought, or the Chicago school of thought. Though it was taught little prior to when I graduated with a BA in Econ. In 1970, you twit. Not much being talked about relative to the Chicago Theory of econ at that point. The heyday of the Chicago School of econ was from the mid 1970's through around 2008, according to those scholars still actually spending much time with the subject. But I could go on. Question is why? You will simply lie again.

And I did not teach a class in economics. I taught a breakout of 20% of an econ class 4 days per week. Which you well know. For an econ prof who was responsible for the entire class. And I did so using the class guidelines provided to me, and the others who were doing the same.
And I do have a pretty solid understanding of Keynesian economic theory. Though I have not studied it for over 45 years. So, want to prove your accusations???

Gee, that's funny, Tommy...you didn't have a CLUE what I was referring to when I brought up the Chicago School back then! You actually thought I was talking about a college in Chicago that taught economics! How IS IT that someone who is an economics major doesn't know something as important to the study of economics as the Chicago School...or for that matter doesn't know that when someone refers to schools of economics that they are talking about schools of economic THOUGHT. How much "proof" does someone need to know that you've been talking shit all along?

Again, you lie. You asked similar questions multiple times. I stopped paying attention.
But, I do know this. There was never a case where you said Chicago School and I assumed that you were talking about a Chicago College. Just you lying, me boy. Again. But, if I am wrong, go search the archive and you will find it. You will not, however, because you are lying again.

By the way, if you ever, ever said school of economics, I would know exactly what you were saying. The same thing as economic theories, dipshit. You are, again, lying. But, if you said "economic schools that teach ...." then, dependent on the context, I could well believe you were talking about a university. Because, you see, economic theories DO NOT TEACH. And, me boy, that was the one time that you and I were on different subjects. Because, you see, I understand that economic theories, or economic schools of thought, or schools of economic thought, DO NOT TEACH. Dipshit.

So, again, you said that I claimed that I had been a BP executive. And that I lied. So, I have now challenged you on it on several occasions. If I said that I was a BP Exec, you could find the post easily. Since you have not, I take that as an admission that you were lying. Again, Oldstyle.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh, you didn't answer because you "stopped paying attention"? I love ya' Tommy! You've got a reason for everything.

You just posted that I pestered you for the longest time for an answer. You're right...I did. It became glaringly obvious that you didn't want to discuss your "teaching career" at length because you were claiming to have knowledge about a subject that you obviously knew little about.

As for economic theories not teaching? It would appear they have a lot in common with yourself then.

 

[Rshermr]

Oh, you didn't answer because you "stopped paying attention"? I love ya' Tommy! You've got a reason for everything.

You just posted that I pestered you for the longest time for an answer. You're right...I did. It became glaringly obvious that you didn't want to discuss your "teaching career" at length because you were claiming to have knowledge about a subject that you obviously knew little about.

As for economic theories not teaching? It would appear they have a lot in common with yourself then.

So, there you are again. Trying to say that I said something that I did not. You can not post without lying. If only you could read. Or, more correctly, that you actually cared what was said in what you read.
I did not miss what you said. Because even though what you say is generally bs, or lies, i know that you will attack if you can find a single crack in anything. And it need not be substantive. Because, you see, you are an ass hole.
And, it took about 2 weeks before I gave you all the information that you asked for about my teaching part of an economics class. You may remember. The time that you committed to eat your words, and believe that I was not lying to you. Based on your conditions that I answer 4 questions. Which I did, thereby carrying out my side of the little bargain that you wanted. And the time when you lied, because you have not stopped calling me a liar up until and including this post. Which, very obviously, shows you to be a liar, again. Twice so far in this single post.

Then, Oldstyle, you said on several occasions that I claimed to be a BP Executive on . I called you a liar. And told you that you could prove me wrong, and a liar, if you would only post the statement that you claimed I made. Which you have ignored again, for the fourth time. So, that is another case of you lying, Oldstyle. All proven. Yet, you continue to lie. Explain why you think you have any relevance at all, Oldstyle.

What I said is that I never misunderstood the Chicago School. Never. And that you are lying about it.
Then, i said that I did not misunderstand when you said economic schools of thought, or schools of economic thought, or economic theories. That never, ever happened. Simply another lie from you, Oldstyle. What is that, oldstyle? Four lies in one post. About normal for you. Which is why you can never, ever prove that I have ever lied on this post. Not one single time. Which is why you can never, ever prove that I did. Just driving you nuts, eh, oldstyle. I prove you lied over and over, so you have no issue with lying. So, why would I, Oldstyle? Because, Oldstyle, I have integrity.

 

[Oldstyle]

Rshermr
Registered User
Member #37424 Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,067
Thanks: 6
Thanked 150 Times in 135 Posts
Rep Power: 44



So, oldstyle, now desperate, says:


Quote:
Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one, Rshermr.
Well, Oldstyle, you are a dish washer. Making stupid statements. So, you never hear anything you do not want to here. So, the issue, for the 20th time is not raising taxes. The issue, my poor ignorant con, is Stimulus Spending. Here. Read this. See if you can understand it.

"The math is easy: the federal budget over the next decade cannot be made to square without raising a lot more money. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that if we stay on our current path, federal debt held by the public will grow from about two-thirds of gross domestic product today to roughly 100 percent in a decade and twice that much by 2040. It is unlikely that even the most committed Republicans could reverse the trend without higher taxes.

But an equally compelling reason relies on a new understanding of the economics of taxation. For 30 years, any proposal to raise taxes had to overcome an unshakable belief that higher taxes inevitably led to less growth. The belief survived the Clinton administration, when taxes rose and the economy surged. It survived George W. Bush’s administration, when taxes were cut yet growth sagged.

But now, a growing body of research suggests not only that the government could raise much more revenue by sharply raising the top tax rates paid by the richest Americans, but it could do so without slowing economic growth. Top tax rates could go as high as 80 percent or more."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/bu...anted=all&_r=0

So, Oldstyle says:

Quote:
Find me ANY school of economics that advocates raising taxes in a weak economy and lowering them in a strong one, Rshermr.
So, let me see if I understand this. You want me to investigate the curiculum of colleges to see which ones suggest raising taxes in a poor economy. And, oldstyle, why would I do that. As you know, the issue is not taxes, it is STIMULUS. And even you know that pretty much ANY college economics class dealing with macro economics discusses stimulus. How that stimulus is paid for is not generally the issue that college classes discus. But perhaps, Oldstyle, since you think this is a bad idea, you should find some of Reagans economists. Or Clingons economists.

Now, lets see if we can make anything of the statement that indicates that Oldstyle does not believe that lowering taxes in a good economy makes any sense. Apparently, again, Reagan's economists believed it made sense. Certainly his tax decrease in a good economy in 1986 would make you think so.

So, Oldstyle. Again. As a dish washer, you think you have the prescription for tax increases and decreases, and that the economists of Reagan and Clinton were wrong. My, my, my. You certainly have a high opinion of your economic knowledge. Especially since you have no background. I mean in economics, not dish washing.

You see, oldstyle, you raise taxes to pay for stimulus, if you want to pay for it as you go. Or, you borrow, and increase the national debt. And let your children pay for the stimulus. Reagan actually did both. Dems do not like to borrow to pay for stimulus.
And when an economy is good, you may indeed want to lower taxes to sustain the good economy, or make it better. Is this too hard a concept for you, Oldstyle.

 

[Oldstyle]

That's you responding to my question. You quite obviously don't have the faintest idea what I'm talking about when I asked you about what school of economics advocated your theory. You...in your complete ignorance thought I was talking about actual colleges!

 

[Oldstyle]

That's from the "Millions out of work - A crumbling infrastructure - I have an idea!" string.

 

[Oldstyle]

Houston...we have a problem!!!

 

[Rshermr]

That's from the "Millions out of work - A crumbling infrastructure - I have an idea!" string.

And the date and post number?

 

[Rshermr]

Houston...we have a problem!!!

Who has a problem, Oldstyle?? Hopefully, you were not referring to me.
I really do not know what to say. Apparently, you believe that a theory can advocate something. And you have told me many, many times that you were a real expert in the English language area. You have really let me down, in this case.

Oldstyle, read the following:

Definition of ADVOCATE

1: one that pleads the cause of another; specifically : one that pleads the cause of another before a tribunal or judicial court
2: one that defends or maintains a cause or proposal
3: one that supports or promotes the interests of another

He has paid respectful attention to the home schooling movement by meeting with its advocates and endorsing their cause. —Elizabeth Drew, New York Review of Books, 10 June 2004
[+]more
Origin of ADVOCATE

Middle English advocat, from Anglo-French, from Latin advocatus, from past participle of advocare to summon, from ad- + vocare to call, from voc-, vox voice — more at voice
First Known Use: 14th century
Related to ADVOCATE

Synonyms
exponent, advocator, apostle, backer, booster, champion, expounder, espouser, friend, gospeler (or gospeller), herald, hierophant, high priest, paladin, promoter, proponent, protagonist, supporter, true believer, tub-thumper, white knight
Advocate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So, is a theory ONE that does ANYTHING. It is not. A theory is a thing that does nothing.

Is a university ONE that does anything??? Not really, but close. You may get away with that since a university is made up of people.


So, I was just trying to be kind to you. I gave you the school of economics as being close enough to beiong a person, since it is made up of people. But a theory??? You have to be kidding. No theory advocates anything. And economic theories, in particular, may discuss alternatives and how things are likely to work. But they certainly do not advocate. Anything. Is this the single concept that you have been basing your concept of me not understanding economics on??? Sorry, my boy, but you were the one who misunderstood. You needed to look up words that you did not understand.

But here is the deal, Oldstyle. I would never have made a big deal about this issue. Because it is too basically stupid. You could take what you said to mean an economic theory. I would not, but you may. On the other hand, what you said to me looked like you were asking what university econ department advocated tax increases. Not correct use of the term, but what the hell. No economic theory that I am aware of recommends raising taxes in any economy. There are a number of factors that have to be taken into account prior to any tax increase, or tax decrease.

But here is the deal. I am pretty litteral. And I go by the definition of the words being used. So, ;while maybe I should have clarified your question, you should have used words that actually meant what you wanted them to mean. For instance, what practitioners of any school of economics advocate for raising taxes in a bad economy??

What is really, really unfortunate is that you have been hitting on this issue for a long long time. Many, many posts. Trying to prove that I did not understand economics. All that you proved was that you did not understand the meaning of advocate. So, I would say that was a hell of a lot of posts that wasted a lot of time, all to prove something as trivial as that.

 

[Oldstyle]

You have zero explanation for not knowing what I was talking about other than you lied about having a degree in Economics. Anyone who DID have their degree in that subject would know EXACTLY what I was referring to when I asked what economic school supported their contention.

And your doing your very best Bill Clinton "that depends on what the meaning of is...is" isn't going to change that fact.

 

[Oldstyle]

The "trivial" thing that you now would like to forget and move on from...is you lying your ass off and being caught red handed at it.

 

[Rshermr]

You have zero explanation for not knowing what I was talking about other than you lied about having a degree in Economics. Anyone who DID have their degree in that subject would know EXACTLY what I was referring to when I asked what economic school supported their contention.

And your doing your very best Bill Clinton "that depends on what the meaning of is...is" isn't going to change that fact.

So, let me understand you. I am supposed to read your mind so that I understand that when you ask not only a stupid question that I had already answered when you asked it using the correct wording, but it is my fault that I did not read your mind when you asked a question that did not ask what you thought it did. And you accept no fault for asking a question that made no sense when you understand what you actually meant. Damn, so you have no responsibility for being clear about your question. Got it.

Right. Exactly, Oldstyle. You asked the very same question, in your mind, at least 40 to 50 times. But you never tried the "what school of economics advocates" version. So, I knew what you were trying to say all of the other times, but the one time you used the wording with the incorrect terms, and I answered accordingly, you trot out your favorite "you do not know anything about economics" refrain. So, you see having asked the same question, the same way 49 times and having the same answer from me all of those times, as NO PROBLEM AT ALL. Pretending, and in fact saying, that I did not answer your question.
Besides being an accomplished liar, you play games. Pretending you did not get an answer to your really stupid, but simple, question. And you have the guts to be upset with me because YOU do not know the definition of " ADVOCATE".
Sad, Oldstyle. There, among some of your most egregious efforts to mislead, and to LIE, you use the wrong term, and blame ME for you mistake.

Must be crap being you.

I would feel like a shit. And I would apologize. Anyone with integrity would. But you, of course, again take no responsibility for your own lies and game playing. None at all. Sad. And you feel no responsibility for not understanding that a theory can not advocate. And you rely on me to educate you. Again. And, rather than thanking me you attack me. Funny.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle, bieng Oldstyle, attacks for his very own mistake. He says the following:

The "trivial" thing that you now would like to forget and move on from...is you lying your ass off and being caught red handed at it.

I do not lie, Oldstyle. Every thread that you get into you spend almost all of your many, many, many posts ignoring the subject of the thread, and instead trying to catch me in a lie. And I fully understand that you can not catch me in a lie. Because as in this case, I did not lie at all. It is just you trying to even the score. Here, me boy, is a news flash: If you do not want to have to feel like you need to even the score, then you yourself need to STOP LYING.
So, we now know you are able to use the search engine on this board. So, you could find the wording to prove that I said that I had been a BP Exec. Remember? You accused me of that a few times in the last month. If you would like, I can go back and give you the post #'s. Though you know exactly what I am talking about. And you know exactly what you said. And you know that I never said that I was a BP Exec, or even said I ever in my life worked for them. NOW, THAT IS A LIE. Because your contention was that I said something that I did not say in order to prove that I knew something. To provide some credibility of my knowledge. But, since I never said anything of the kind, that makes it a LIE, oldstyle. And the fact that I have asked you to prove that I lied shows what you are all about. And the fact that you do not respond, not a word, to my questions about why you lied, proves that you did indeed lie. Because, Oldstyle, it was not only a lie, but a blatant lie. If I had said what you said I did, then you could PROVE it very easily. But you can not. Because I did not. Just another example of you lying.