How is austerity doing in Europe

[Rshermr]

I really couldn't care less who taught what where, or who graduated with what degree. *I know enough to know the difference between a well supported idea and bs. *All I'm interested in are well supported ideas, because, unfortunately, my grad work got screwded when the economy tanked. *I at least got far enough to know bullshit when I read it.

And accounting has two different methods, but you pick or the other. *And when it comes to the IRS, they don't care what your "opinion" is. *If they audit you, and you can't prove, they will tell you what your "opinion" is, as they slap you with a fine.

With all due respect, Fitz? *Why would the IRS give a rat's ass about whether a company used the price of the last item purchased to set a value for all items of the same kind in inventory...or the used the price for which each individually bought for? *How does THAT alter the tax that you pay as long as you're consistent in how you apply value? *They aren't going to audit you for doing that...and they certainly aren't going to fine you for it! *I take it that your graduate studies didn't include any accounting?

Gee wiz, I just can't imagine why the IRS would expect a company to report the actual revenue instead of a fabricated number.

You're so right. *I was just reading the IRS tax form and it says, "In your opinion how much revenue do you believe you made last year?"

Doh!!

Ah. That explains it.
Apparently Oldstyle has produced his own IRS guidelines. And as such, he is not subject to those pesky gaap rules.
Perfect. I am sure Oldstyle did that. His boss would be quite interested in him having told us this, I am sure. After all, as a "food services professional" (which Oldstyle states that he is) he would be an expert on such things. And gives him, in his own mind, the authority to make accounting rules that make gaap immaterial.
THATS THE TICKET!!

 

[Oldstyle]

Look at Oldstyle squirm trying to change what he said. Rather entertaining. But getting really boring. All the IRS wants is a consistent and honest accounting of what occurred. What you ACTUALLY paid would be the actual numbers they would want to see. Because, me boy, if you INCREASE the cost of inventory on paper, and report it that way in your financial statements which back up your tax documents, you have, in fact, decreased the profit that you are required to pay taxes on. Which is, of course, FRAUD. When your willingly provide wrongful numbers to the IRS in order to decrease your tax liability, you have, obviously, committed fraud. And, me boy, no amount of distortion of the facts will change that.
But then, even you know that. Which is why you are trying so diligently to restate what you said. And hell, lies or truth, all the same to you.

Which goes to show that you know as little about accounting practices as you do about economics.
What I'm talking about has zero to do with what is reported to the IRS as profit. It's done to simplify figuring costs. Rather than have to keep track of the cost of each single type of item which may have been purchased dozens of separate times, a decision is made to assign the value of the latest purchase to all inventory held. That isn't "FRAUD", you ignorant buffoon...it's a simple common sense accounting practice. It doesn't change what you paid for goods, hence it doesn't change your profits and the IRS could care less. Duh?

And he keeps on twisting and turning. You can not change the value of the product you sell. That has to do with the cost of goods sold. Which has to do with the profits you show in your accounting statements. You know, me boy, income statements, source and application of funds, and balance sheets. Which you are now trying to say were done for only internal reasons. But, problem is, you are not allowed to under report, or over report for that matter, your income. Nice try.
Funny thing is, you actually accuse others of not understanding accounting. But it is funny, at any rate, to see you trying to explain what you said.
Apparently you think that the IRS and SEC just want you to produce statements that say whatever you would like them to say. You are a riot, me boy.
A true ignorant, but rather funny, riot. Those 10Q's are just for the fun of it, in Oldstyle's opinion.

Your ignorance is amusing. Changing the value of inventory in order to make it easier to figure costs does not change the profit that you claim. My cost to buy goods hasn't changed...I've still sold the product or service for the same amount...the profit has not changed in any way. If you two idiots can't understand a concept as simple as this one I shudder to think about you trying to grasp depreciation.

 

[Oldstyle]

And Oldstyle, again on the attack, says:

Your first mistake is taking ANYTHING that "Tommy" says at face value, Fitz. He's told so many lies at this point he can't keep any of them straight. Remember all the undergrads that taught your college classes?

And you lie again, Oldstyle. What I said was not that I taught economics classes, as you well know. I worked for an econ professor. It was his class, not mine. But then, you know that. You just keep on making that statement. Lying does not bother you in the least, me boy. You just keep on lying.
The problem you have, Oldstyle, is that I never, ever lie in my posts. That is your purview.

The liar is you. You did in fact state that you taught economics at the college level. When I pointed out that undergraduates don't teach college classes...you then tried desperately to walk that lie back...claiming that you didn't teach the WHOLE class...you just taught part of it.

Now you're claiming not to have taught at all...now you're claiming to simply have "worked" for an econ professor? Worked doing what, Tommy...sweeping floors after class? Washing his car? Mowing his lawn? Just what did your "work" for the professor consist of now that you claim that it wasn't teaching?

 

[Rshermr]

And Oldstyle, again on the attack, says:

Your first mistake is taking ANYTHING that "Tommy" says at face value, Fitz. He's told so many lies at this point he can't keep any of them straight. Remember all the undergrads that taught your college classes?

And you lie again, Oldstyle. What I said was not that I taught economics classes, as you well know. I worked for an econ professor. It was his class, not mine. But then, you know that. You just keep on making that statement. Lying does not bother you in the least, me boy. You just keep on lying.
The problem you have, Oldstyle, is that I never, ever lie in my posts. That is your purview.

The liar is you. You did in fact state that you taught economics at the college level. When I pointed out that undergraduates don't teach college classes...you then tried desperately to walk that lie back...claiming that you didn't teach the WHOLE class...you just taught part of it.

Now you're claiming not to have taught at all...now you're claiming to simply have "worked" for an econ professor? Worked doing what, Tommy...sweeping floors after class? Washing his car? Mowing his lawn? Just what did your "work" for the professor consist of now that you claim that it wasn't teaching?

So, Oldstyle. Lets see what you actually said in post 771 above:

Your first mistake is taking ANYTHING that "Tommy" says at face value, Fitz. He's told so many lies at this point he can't keep any of them straight. Remember all the undergrads that taught your college classes? Yeah, me neither! But amazingly...Rshermr taught economics while an undergrad at HIS college! That should tell you everything you need to know about the George Costanza of the US Message Board.

Your implication is obvious, me boy. You said TAUGHT ECONOMICS which without further explanhation would indicate that I taught and was responsible for economics classes. You were trying to get someone to believe that I said I taught economics classes, which would mean that I was the instructor for that class. Not the first time that you have tried that.
I did not retract what I said. I did teach a part of the class that the professor for whom I worked was responsible. PART. Others taught the other parts. Under the Professor's tutelage. I was NOT responsible for teaching a college class. That was the prof's responsibility. Clair Lillard, to be exact. As you well know.
Again, you are trying sooo hard to say that I lied. I did not. I have explained this to you over and over. And still you try to prove that I have lied. Over and over I have explained what I did. Totally consistently. And you have the guts to say I lied about it. Jesus, you are a clown.

You know better, me boy. You simply lack any semblance of integrity. And you are completely unable to discuss economics. You simply post dogma, which you can not support. And attack anyone who proves you to be dishonest. Tacky. Really, really tacky.

 

[Oldstyle]

You know what's amusing, Tommy? You accuse me of not being able to discuss economics but when we WERE discussing economics...I asked you what school of economics you were basing your argument on...you thought I was referring to an actual brick and mortar college and not a school of economic thought. The person here who can't discuss economics is you which is amazing because you claim to not only have MAJORED in the subject but to have taught it at the college level!

So now your constantly "evolving" story is that you didn't "teach" a college class because you only taught "PART" of it? LOL The more you try and dig your way out of the initial lie you told the stupider you make yourself appear. The next time you feel you have to embellish your life's history, Tommy...think long and hard about how embarrassing it is to get caught doing so.

 

[boedicca]

My company is expanding operations in Europe. I've been interviewing a lot of candidates and am horrified by the number of over educated people in their 20s and 30s who are desperate for a real job. Europe has created a huge human capital problem of over investment with very poor opportunity for the investment to be productive.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle, desperate to get some traction somewhere, makes the following statements. Caring not in the slightest that he is lying again:

You know what's amusing, Tommy? You accuse me of not being able to discuss economics but when we WERE discussing economics...I asked you what school of economics you were basing your argument on...you thought I was referring to an actual brick and mortar college and not a school of economic thought. The person here who can't discuss economics is you which is amazing because you claim to not only have MAJORED in the subject but to have taught it at the college level!

No, you did not. You asked what economic school advocated raising taxes. Now, an economic school of thought is the same as an economic theory. And an economic school could be either a college/university or an economic school of thought. Since an economic school of thought (which you did not clarify) is not human, it is not possible for it to advocate anything. So, I assumed that you were talking about an economic school, which is logical enough. They have instructors who COULD advocate. Which, of course, you know. But it does not stop you from lying. Because you have no integrity.

So now your constantly "evolving" story is that you didn't "teach" a college class because you only taught "PART" of it? LOL The more you try and dig your way out of the initial lie you told the stupider you make yourself appear.

Here is the problem. Nothing changed, me boy. And I can prove it. I told you many times, the first time about a year ago, exactly what I just said. That is, that I taught part of a class.
Here are the posts where you asked the same question for the 10th time, and I agreed to answer it. And where you promised to leave the subject alone if I did so. Which proves you a liar, AGAIN:

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

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle
"of course, you lie again, as I did not lie and you therefore could not have caught me in a lie."
Are you really so stupid that you can't understand that repeating over and over that you don't lie without providing proof is a worthless exercise?
This is very simple...
You've stated that you taught college courses as an undergraduate. I've stated that I don't believe you because undergrads don't teach classes and that I think you're lying when you make that claim.
So this is the point where you make me eat my words by telling us all the name of the college where you taught...the name of the professor who you were a TA for...and the name of the class that you taught. When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar. When you keep ducking those questions, then you'll continue to prove that I'm correct.
Balls in your court, Sparky...

Ok, me boy. You have grovelled enough. Central Washington State, dr. Clair Lillard, Econ 100, econ for non economics Majors, I was not a TA, simply taught part of the class at a time, usually around 30 students or so, 4 days per week. Clair was a international econ specialist, specifically interested in S. American economics.

There it is, me boy. From almost a year ago. And nothing has changed in my story. And nothing has changed with you. You made a deal, broke the deal, and lied. Same old Oldstyle. Kind of hard to ignore your own post, eh oldstyle. But being a consomate liar, I am sure you will. Again.

The next time you feel you have to embellish your life's history, Tommy...think long and hard about how embarrassing it is to get caught doing so.

Uh, embellishing? That only shows how little you have accomplished in your little life, me boy. Having worked with a prof over 45 years ago to teach part of his class is hardly embellishing my life. Jesus, you are a clown. What it shows is that you have no life, and that you are unable to discuss economics. Simple to see. You are a sad little person. And that you just can not stop lying. Over and over and over. It would be embarrassing to a normal human. Do you drink a lot, oldstyle??

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle, desperate to get some traction somewhere, makes the following statements. Caring not in the slightest that he is lying again:

You know what's amusing, Tommy? You accuse me of not being able to discuss economics but when we WERE discussing economics...I asked you what school of economics you were basing your argument on...you thought I was referring to an actual brick and mortar college and not a school of economic thought. The person here who can't discuss economics is you which is amazing because you claim to not only have MAJORED in the subject but to have taught it at the college level!

No, you did not. You asked what economic school advocated raising taxes. Now, and economic school of thought is the same as an economic theory. And economic school could be either a college/university or an economic school of thought. Since an economic school of thought, which you did not clarify, is not human, it is not possible for it to advocate anything. So, I assumed that you were talking about an economic school, which is logical enough. They have instructors who COULD advocate. Which, of course, you know. But it does not stop you from lying. Because you have no integrity.

So now your constantly "evolving" story is that you didn't "teach" a college class because you only taught "PART" of it? LOL The more you try and dig your way out of the initial lie you told the stupider you make yourself appear.

Here is the problem. Nothing changed, me boy. And I can prove it. I told you many times, the first time about a year ago, exactly what I just said. That is, that I taught part of a class.
Here are the posts where you asked the same question for the 10th time, and I agreed to answer it. And where you promised to leave the subject alone if I did so. Which proves you a liar, AGAIN:

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

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle
"of course, you lie again, as I did not lie and you therefore could not have caught me in a lie."
Are you really so stupid that you can't understand that repeating over and over that you don't lie without providing proof is a worthless exercise?
This is very simple...
You've stated that you taught college courses as an undergraduate. I've stated that I don't believe you because undergrads don't teach classes and that I think you're lying when you make that claim.
So this is the point where you make me eat my words by telling us all the name of the college where you taught...the name of the professor who you were a TA for...and the name of the class that you taught. When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar. When you keep ducking those questions, then you'll continue to prove that I'm correct.
Balls in your court, Sparky...

Ok, me boy. You have grovelled enough. Central Washington State, dr. Clair Lillard, Econ 100, econ for non economics Majors, I was not a TA, simply taught part of the class at a time, usually around 30 students or so, 4 days per week. Clair was a international econ specialist, specifically interested in S. American economics.

There it is, me boy. From almost a year ago. And nothing has changed in my story. And nothing has changed with you. You made a deal, broke the deal, and lied. Same old Oldstyle. Kind of hard to ignore your own post, eh oldstyle. But being a consomate liar, I am sure you will. Again.

The next time you feel you have to embellish your life's history, Tommy...think long and hard about how embarrassing it is to get caught doing so.

Uh, embellishing? That only shows how little you have accomplished in your little life, me boy. Having worked with a prof over 45 years ago to teach part of his class is hardly embellishing my life. Jesus, you are a clown. What it shows is that you have no life, and that you are unable to discuss economics. Simple to see. You are a sad little person. And that you just can not stop lying. Over and over and over.

It was obvious that you didn't have the faintest idea what I was talking about when I asked you what economic school you were basing your contention on, Tommy. That's something that anyone who DID major in economics would understand immediately. I had to explain it to you before you understood the term which is why I became convinced you were lying through your teeth about having taught economics at the college level. When I asked you to provide some "details" about your teaching experience? You weren't even bright enough to tell a plausible lie. Instead you gave me this tall tale about teaching part of the class four day a week as an undergrad. Now you've once again decided to walk back from THAT lie by declaring that you didn't really teach...even as you once again claim that you DID teach. It's obvious that you're having a hard time keeping track of your various lies.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle, desperate to get some traction somewhere, makes the following statements. Caring not in the slightest that he is lying again:

You know what's amusing, Tommy? You accuse me of not being able to discuss economics but when we WERE discussing economics...I asked you what school of economics you were basing your argument on...you thought I was referring to an actual brick and mortar college and not a school of economic thought. The person here who can't discuss economics is you which is amazing because you claim to not only have MAJORED in the subject but to have taught it at the college level!

No, you did not. You asked what economic school advocated raising taxes. Now, and economic school of thought is the same as an economic theory. And economic school could be either a college/university or an economic school of thought. Since an economic school of thought, which you did not clarify, is not human, it is not possible for it to advocate anything. So, I assumed that you were talking about an economic school, which is logical enough. They have instructors who COULD advocate. Which, of course, you know. But it does not stop you from lying. Because you have no integrity.




Here is the problem. Nothing changed, me boy. And I can prove it. I told you many times, the first time about a year ago, exactly what I just said. That is, that I taught part of a class.
Here are the posts where you asked the same question for the 10th time, and I agreed to answer it. And where you promised to leave the subject alone if I did so. Which proves you a liar, AGAIN:

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

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle
"of course, you lie again, as I did not lie and you therefore could not have caught me in a lie."
Are you really so stupid that you can't understand that repeating over and over that you don't lie without providing proof is a worthless exercise?
This is very simple...
You've stated that you taught college courses as an undergraduate. I've stated that I don't believe you because undergrads don't teach classes and that I think you're lying when you make that claim.
So this is the point where you make me eat my words by telling us all the name of the college where you taught...the name of the professor who you were a TA for...and the name of the class that you taught. When you DO that, you'll prove that you're not a liar. When you keep ducking those questions, then you'll continue to prove that I'm correct.
Balls in your court, Sparky...

Ok, me boy. You have grovelled enough. Central Washington State, dr. Clair Lillard, Econ 100, econ for non economics Majors, I was not a TA, simply taught part of the class at a time, usually around 30 students or so, 4 days per week. Clair was a international econ specialist, specifically interested in S. American economics.

There it is, me boy. From almost a year ago. And nothing has changed in my story. And nothing has changed with you. You made a deal, broke the deal, and lied. Same old Oldstyle. Kind of hard to ignore your own post, eh oldstyle. But being a consomate liar, I am sure you will. Again.

The next time you feel you have to embellish your life's history, Tommy...think long and hard about how embarrassing it is to get caught doing so.

Uh, embellishing? That only shows how little you have accomplished in your little life, me boy. Having worked with a prof over 45 years ago to teach part of his class is hardly embellishing my life. Jesus, you are a clown. What it shows is that you have no life, and that you are unable to discuss economics. Simple to see. You are a sad little person. And that you just can not stop lying. Over and over and over.

It was obvious that you didn't have the faintest idea what I was talking about when I asked you what economic school you were basing your contention on, Tommy. That's something that anyone who DID major in economics would understand immediately. I had to explain it to you before you understood the term which is why I became convinced you were lying through your teeth about having taught economics at the college level. When I asked you to provide some "details" about your teaching experience? You weren't even bright enough to tell a plausible lie. Instead you gave me this tall tale about teaching part of the class four day a week as an undergrad. Now you've once again decided to walk back from THAT lie by declaring that you didn't really teach...even as you once again claim that you DID teach. It's obvious that you're having a hard time keeping track of your various lies.

And more of the opinion of a food services of a food services professional. You are lying, again, of course. Even you know what you just said makes no sense. But then, that is all that you have. Poor little person. Bye Bye, little person. Try to get someone else to believe you. Good luck at that. I prefer to deal with people who have class. You have none.

 

[Freemason9]

Did I just stumble into a LIFO/FIFO argument?

LOL

 

[itfitzme]

Did I just stumble into a LIFO/FIFO argument?

LOL

There is some sort of history between Oldstyle and Rshermr, which amounts to little more than an Ad Hominum issue.

That and Oldstyle's stance is that everything is a matter of opinion, perspective, including accounting.

This then makes sense of the "what economic school" vs "what school of economics" issue as Oldstyle considers economics to be simply a matter of opinion, or perspective, and you can simply pick the one you like. Then you can reach whatever conclusion you want.

On the other hand, Rshermr thought he literally meant "what college" as graduate economics no more distinguishes MMT from Keynsian than physics distinguishes Newtonian physics from Einstienian physics, except they are taught in different courses, were developed at different times, are used to illuminate different issues, and fundamentally must be in agreement because they are examining the same larger system, reality.

That is a bit of a loose analogy as economics isn't quite as tightly integrated as physics. Still, any theories and models in economics are not to be taken as contradictory. They are different simplifications of an overall complex system.

That seems to be it in a nutshell. Though, you know how these quarrels go. It's best to not get into the middle of them lest you get accused of taking sides.

 

[Rshermr]

Yup. I should get out of this discussion with oldstyle. It is the definition of wrestling with a pig. Which is why I told him to pound sand in my last post. He is truly not worth the effort.

 

[itfitzme]

Yup. *I should get out of this discussion with oldstyle. *It is the definition of wrestling with a pig. *Which is why I told him to pound sand in my last post. *He is truly not worth the effort.

I try to stay focused on the object, not the person. Some seem to center things around the person. *The difference is revealed quicky as they immediately use the second person pronoun, "you" as in "you are.. " or "you think..". *It didn't take me too long to figure it out, some years ago, when I asked myself what it was, exactly, that ran my blood pressure immediately up. *I started looking back at the thread and realized it was a learned bahavior on their part. *They change the focus from the object to you (or me). You then respond in kind, at which point they accuse you of starting an ad hominum attack. *Of course, by that time, you are in a defensive position. *

It is exactly what professional psychotherapists deal with. Many patients attempt to turn the focus onto the therapist. It is either transferance or projection. If your not a professional, it's best to just recognize it and walk away.

The trick is to watch for that first instance of the second person pronoun. *It tells you everything about them, that you need to know. *Then you have the choice of where to go. *You can stay on point, without being distracted by the covert attempt to divert attention onto you. *You are aware of their game and start taking notes on them. *And, you also have every right to focus keenly and sharply on them, at the time of your choosing, without mercy. *After all, they had no intent on having an objective conversation in the first place.

The sooner you recognize that they are not really interested in an objective discussion, the better. And it always starts with them changing the subject to you, using the second person pronoun. *And you will know, immediately, because your blood pressure spikes. *(At least mine does. and most people are uncomfortable looking at themself in photos or in a movie. Even most professional actors don't like watching their own movies. Few of us like being self conscious)

Of course, on this entire post, I have used the second person pronoun repeatedly. And, rightfully, you can take it as projection. One time I doubled up with "(or me)" because, like everyone, I too project and use tranferance. After all, all we really know is ourselves, and often not very objectively. The difference, though, should be obvious.

 

[Oldstyle]

Did I just stumble into a LIFO/FIFO argument?

LOL

Rshermr claims to have taught college economics while an undergraduate...yet didn't understand basic Keynesian economics and when asked what school of economics he was basing his contentions on, he thought it was referring to an actual bricks and mortar college.

He's your typical internet "poser"...someone who talks a bunch of shit about how much they know about a subject but then can't even answer basic questions about the subject.

 

[Rshermr]

Yup. *I should get out of this discussion with oldstyle. *It is the definition of wrestling with a pig. *Which is why I told him to pound sand in my last post. *He is truly not worth the effort.

I try to stay focused on the object, not the person. Some seem to center things around the person. *The difference is revealed quicky as they immediately use the second person pronoun, "you" as in "you are.. " or "you think..". *It didn't take me too long to figure it out, some years ago, when I asked myself what it was, exactly, that ran my blood pressure immediately up. *I started looking back at the thread and realized it was a learned bahavior on their part. *They change the focus from the object to you (or me). You then respond in kind, at which point they accuse you of starting an ad hominum attack. *Of course, by that time, you are in a defensive position. *

It is exactly what professional psychotherapists deal with. Many patients attempt to turn the focus onto the therapist. It is either transferance or projection. If your not a professional, it's best to just recognize it and walk away.

The trick is to watch for that first instance of the second person pronoun. *It tells you everything about them, that you need to know. *Then you have the choice of where to go. *You can stay on point, without being distracted by the covert attempt to divert attention onto you. *You are aware of their game and start taking notes on them. *And, you also have every right to focus keenly and sharply on them, at the time of your choosing, without mercy. *After all, they had no intent on having an objective conversation in the first place.

The sooner you recognize that they are not really interested in an objective discussion, the better. And it always starts with them changing the subject to you, using the second person pronoun. *And you will know, immediately, because your blood pressure spikes. *(At least mine does. and most people are uncomfortable looking at themself in photos or in a movie. Even most professional actors don't like watching their own movies. Few of us like being self conscious)

Of course, on this entire post, I have used the second person pronoun repeatedly. And, rightfully, you can take it as projection. One time I doubled up with "(or me)" because, like everyone, I too project and use tranferance. After all, all we really know is ourselves, and often not very objectively. The difference, though, should be obvious.

Yup. And I should know better. Guys that change the subject and make personal attacks do so for the obvious reason: They enjoy the battle and are incapable of rational discussion. We see a lot of that on this board.
the concept that you can do anything about it is what is really stupid. I keep trying to have a conversation, but that is impossible with these folks. The concept of discussion is of no interest. So, ignore seems a really good method of handling the clowns. Whoever they may be.........

 

[itfitzme]

Yup. *I should get out of this discussion with oldstyle. *It is the definition of wrestling with a pig. *Which is why I told him to pound sand in my last post. *He is truly not worth the effort.

I try to stay focused on the object, not the person. Some seem to center things around the person. *The difference is revealed quicky as they immediately use the second person pronoun, "you" as in "you are.. " or "you think..". *It didn't take me too long to figure it out, some years ago, when I asked myself what it was, exactly, that ran my blood pressure immediately up. *I started looking back at the thread and realized it was a learned bahavior on their part. *They change the focus from the object to you (or me). You then respond in kind, at which point they accuse you of starting an ad hominum attack. *Of course, by that time, you are in a defensive position. *

It is exactly what professional psychotherapists deal with. Many patients attempt to turn the focus onto the therapist. It is either transferance or projection. If your not a professional, it's best to just recognize it and walk away.

The trick is to watch for that first instance of the second person pronoun. *It tells you everything about them, that you need to know. *Then you have the choice of where to go. *You can stay on point, without being distracted by the covert attempt to divert attention onto you. *You are aware of their game and start taking notes on them. *And, you also have every right to focus keenly and sharply on them, at the time of your choosing, without mercy. *After all, they had no intent on having an objective conversation in the first place.

The sooner you recognize that they are not really interested in an objective discussion, the better. And it always starts with them changing the subject to you, using the second person pronoun. *And you will know, immediately, because your blood pressure spikes. *(At least mine does. and most people are uncomfortable looking at themself in photos or in a movie. Even most professional actors don't like watching their own movies. Few of us like being self conscious)

Of course, on this entire post, I have used the second person pronoun repeatedly. And, rightfully, you can take it as projection. One time I doubled up with "(or me)" because, like everyone, I too project and use tranferance. After all, all we really know is ourselves, and often not very objectively. The difference, though, should be obvious.

Yup. And I should know better. Guys that change the subject and make personal attacks do so for the obvious reason: They enjoy the battle and are incapable of rational discussion. We see a lot of that on this board.
the concept that you can do anything about it is what is really stupid. I keep trying to have a conversation, but that is impossible with these folks. The concept of discussion is of no interest. So, ignore seems a really good method of handling the clowns. Whoever they may be.........

I use to find it of some value, taking it as a null hypothesis, and trying to prove it. *After a while, Ed got to repetative. *I'd pretty much figured out that nothing specific would pan out. *Usually, the comtrarians are just to vague to get any traction out of it. *And having lost my harddrive, I don't have the nifty data analysis tools to test things with. *The kind of "devil's" advocate convo, that we could get, with a more coherent group, seems to be lost in the mindless rabble. *In the most part, it is an exercise in not getting caught up in it. *I know we can do better, but I just can't find it. *So I just look for inspiration of a usefull search term that will reveal something in Google and*to leverage the motivation into learning something off forum.

Problem is, right now, all I've got to work with is cost accounting. *I'm not all that interested.

Profit=(1-TaxRate)*Qty*(Price-VC-AverageFixedCost)
COGS=Qty*VC=Qty*(LaborPerUnit+MaterialPerUnit)
AverageFixedCost=TotalFixedCost/Qty
Profit=(1-TaxRate)*(Revenues-Expences)
Revenues=Price*Qty
Expences=COGS+TotalFixedCost
EBT=Revenues-Expences

That's the financial accounting side of the supply curve in micro.

I should probably throw interest in there somewhere so I have EBIT, not just EBT.

Any more detailed than that and we are into bookkeeping. *It is the bookkeeping part where TotalCOGS better equal actual detailed records. It isn't a matter of buying an expensive item and applying it as an average unit cost for materials. I suppose one might get away with it, depending on how it ia reported to the IRS, but if they should decide to audit, I am sure they will happily go through each line item in detail. *They aren't stupid and have seen every manner of gimick.*

Something in me, I'd rather be bored and real then make shit up, just for the battle. *I get it. *It's better than a pot of coffee. *There have been times when I've made myself turn off this machine, lest it keep me up to late.

Still, I'd rather do the dull, time comsuming, detailed, mind numbing, accurate and precise theory that describes the world the way it is rather than the way I'd like it to be. *

I'd like, once, for someone to describe, in necessary detail, how debt and deficit cause general economic degredation. *I get that, in theory, it could cause "crowding out" if the economy is running at full employment, full output, and the government is demanding labor and product that shifts the economy away from what it might otherwise be. That is a big bunch of ifs. *The economy hasn't been at full employment, not by my accounting of FULL labor labor utilization but twice in the history of the US. *If we look at the employment level as percentage of total population, it hit a max twice, in about '00 and '07. *That, I believe, was every available working age adult. Up till then, it was socio-economic changes as more working age people started working. *From the '60s on through the decades, more individuals within the households joined the workforce. *Obviously more women, though I had some numbers that suggested the "women going to work" meme was not as accurate as it may have been portrayed. *Maybe pre-WWII. *Not after 1960. *By 2000, I had some 48.x% of the total population as working.

You can see it here;

That is when we could get crowding out. *Up till then, unless there is some way to show that the non-employment base contribution was somehow more valuable, then the economy had idle labor sitting there at home. And it seems to me that all that growth, from 1960 on, has been based on whatever forces happen at the margin to increment employment and output up.

What is it that causes a) growth to develop, at the margin, so it just keeps up with population growth and b) so that it outpaces population growth. I haven't seen that described.

 

[Rshermr]

Yup, well, the whole issue with gaap rules is to provide ACCURATE and TRUE representations of financial reporting. Not just for the IRS, of course, more importantly for potential and current shareholders in the companies involved. The whole issue of changing the value of the cost of goods sold is close to the top in things that auditors check, because it is so easy to misrepresent.
And the case we were discussing was way too obvious to leave any doubt that it was fraud, if proved. AND, had nothing at all to do with lifo/fifo. Those methods are old and well spelled out. And misrepresentation of cogs could be equally easily done with either. And would be equally illegal with either.
And you are correct. This is getting into the bookkeeping details, and is enough to drive anyone nuts. Not what you would call mind expanding.

Relative to describing the world as it is rather than how you would like it to be, ABSOLUTELY. Without being able to stay on the side of fact, and of truth, as best you can support it, I am there. What drives me nuts is those that prefer to believe what they want to believe. In my youth, I believed that you could not believe anything without proof. This board PROVES differently. It is indeed possible for a lot of folks to believe what they want to believe. They call it opinion, often, and equate it to what those who do the hard work of research believe based on their work. Crazy in my mind, and harmful in a lot of ways.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This board PROVES differently. It is indeed possible for a lot of folks to believe what they want to believe.

what an very odd thing for a libtard to say given he believes tax and spend bubbles work better than earn and spend sustainable growth without the tiniest bit of logic.

 

[Kimura]

This board PROVES differently. It is indeed possible for a lot of folks to believe what they want to believe.

what an very odd thing for a libtard to say given he believes tax and spend bubbles work better than earn and spend sustainable growth without the tiniest bit of logic.

Shouldn't you be trying to rape an underage school girl in a parking lot?

After you move out of your mother's basement, I would recommend community college.

 

[Rshermr]

This board PROVES differently. It is indeed possible for a lot of folks to believe what they want to believe.

what an very odd thing for a libtard to say given he believes tax and spend bubbles work better than earn and spend sustainable growth without the tiniest bit of logic.

Shouldn't you be trying to rape an underage school girl in a parking lot?

After you move out of your mother's basement, I would recommend community college.

What is that old saying??? Consider the source. When Ed is the source of an insult, you know you must be doing something right.