Millions out of work - a crumbling infrastructure - I have an idea!

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle, Here is my list. Just to show you that I can cut and paste, and use google, just like you. Not that it has any value, but here is a list, just as stupid as your list, in terms of addressing the subject of this thread. No mention of schools here. Because, as opposed to Wickipedia, this is an economics site. Unlike dish washers, economists seldom use the term school. Dish washers generally use school, economists generally use theory.

25 Theories To Get You Started

Supply and Demand (Invisible Hand)
Classical Economics
Keynesian Economics
Neoclassical Synthesis (Keynesian for near-term macro; Classical for micro and long-term macro)
Neo-Malthusian (Resource Scarcity)
Marxism
Laissez Faire Capitalism
Market Socialism
Monetarism
Solow Model (growth comes from capital, labor, and technology)
New Growth Theory (Romer & endogenous growth)
.....
The Trilemma (exchange rates, capital flows, and monetary policy)
The 50 Most Important Economic Theories « Donald Marron

Most of the list removed to make this list mercifully short. Unlike oldstyle, I do not like to bore the shit out of any one who would actually read it. And, so, if you should care, for reasons unknown to me, the second list makes the total 50. All theories, me boy. No reference to schools. Dipshit.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle, Here is my list. Just to show you that I can cut and paste, and use google, just like you. Not that it has any value, but here is a list, just as stupid as your list, in terms of addressing the subject of this thread. No mention of schools here. Because, as opposed to Wickipedia, this is an economics site. Unlike dish washers, economists seldom use the term school. Dish washers generally use school, economists generally use theory.

25 Theories To Get You Started

Supply and Demand (Invisible Hand)
Classical Economics
Keynesian Economics
Neoclassical Synthesis (Keynesian for near-term macro; Classical for micro and long-term macro)
Neo-Malthusian (Resource Scarcity)
Marxism
Laissez Faire Capitalism
Market Socialism
Monetarism
Solow Model (growth comes from capital, labor, and technology)
New Growth Theory (Romer & endogenous growth)
.....
The Trilemma (exchange rates, capital flows, and monetary policy)
The 50 Most Important Economic Theories « Donald Marron

Most of the list removed to make this list mercifully short. Unlike oldstyle, I do not like to bore the shit out of any one who would actually read it. And, so, if you should care, for reasons unknown to me, the second list makes the total 50. All theories, me boy. No reference to schools. Dipshit.

Oh...so NOW you're going to pretend that you knew I was talking about different schools of economic thought rather than different colleges? You're a joke, Rshermr. Seriously...do you have any idea how ridiculous you look continuing to claim that you taught economics at the college level when you don't understand even the most basic terminology?

As for you not being able to find any other references to "schools of economic thought"? Dude there are literally hundreds of references to just that because that is how they are generally referred to...something you would KNOW if you actually had studied economics.

Macroeconomics: Schools Of Thought | Investopedia

http://meritasadvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Schools-of-Economic-Thought.pdf

Introduction

Economic Schools of Thought - Economics Online Tutor

Economic schools of thought

What Is Meant by Economic Schools of Thought?

 

[Oldstyle]

LOL...so I ask you to name some schools of economics that advocate raising taxes in a bad economy and lowering them in a good one...and you're so clueless about economics you start babbling about not knowing what is in different university courses? You didn't even know that schools of economic thought refers to the different approaches that economists subscribe to. "I" know that and I only took two economics classes in college! You don't know that and you supposedly TAUGHT the subject at the college level? You're becoming a joke, Rshermr. The following is from Wikipedia. It lists the different schools of economic thought. You might want to read up on them if you're going to pretend to be something that you're OBVIOUSLY not!

Which economic theory taught you something. dipshit???? Or, did you learn something about an economic theory in a school that taught you something. So, you found a source that said economic theories may be refered to as schools of economics. Now, having seen your regurgitation, you know, oldstyle, that theories of economics are generaly called just that. Theories.



See, Oldstyle, it did have some use. It sent you on a rather useless look to try to prove that a school refers to a theory, and you found that there were 30 theories. Did you find out yet which ones teach raising taxes in a bad unemployment economy??? You need to spend about 8 years in an actual school, or university, studying intensively to understand a bit about all of the theories you listed. But, it was good. As a dish washer, that list construction probably doubled your economic knowledge.

By the way, dipshit. If you were to really care, what most of the "schools" listed among the 30 total are not Economic Theories. But they are actual SCHOOLS. I believe you would find all actually teach multiple economic theories. All or nearly all teach, for instance, Keynesian economic theory. And, my poor ignorant con, you will notice that Keynesian economic theory is listed simply as keynsian economics, not the keynsian school of economics. Not that you could not find it so listed, but by far, most of the time it is listed as a theory.

Now, did you have a point?? At this point I seem to be conversing with a dish washer who likes to go out and make lists from wickipedia, but has no point at all. You long since lost your argument, Oldstyle. You just do not know how to argue your point, so you go off and spend your time on tangents. Again, do you have a point? Maybe having something to do with the subject of this thread. Because, my poor delusional conservative tool, this is getting really, really boring.

Still convinced that there are literally physical schools that correspond to the all different schools of economic thought? You really are a George Costanza clone, Rshermr. The following was written for people like you that know NOTHING about economics:

"Question: What Is Meant by Economic Schools of Thought?
Answer: Web Wordnet defines a school of thought as a "doctrine, philosophy, philosophical system, school of thought, ism -- (a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school)". Thus in economics, a school of thought can be thought of as a belief or system of beliefs held by some group of economists. Do not take the word "school" too literally, most often the economists belong to a certain school of thought do not reside in the same geographic area, though some schools of thought have been linked to particular universities, such as the University of Chicago.

They don't teach other schools of economics, you dip stick. They don't teach classes. Why... because they aren't literal schools with buildings and class rooms. I can't believe you're THIS clueless on the subject.

 

[Oldstyle]

And I'm STILL waiting to hear from you which economic school advocates the raising of taxes in a weak economy and the lowering of them in a strong one...

You've got the list of different schools of thought, "Tommy"...why don't you share with us which one of those shares your bizarre take on fiscal policy?

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle, Here is my list. Just to show you that I can cut and paste, and use google, just like you. Not that it has any value, but here is a list, just as stupid as your list, in terms of addressing the subject of this thread. No mention of schools here. Because, as opposed to Wickipedia, this is an economics site. Unlike dish washers, economists seldom use the term school. Dish washers generally use school, economists generally use theory.

25 Theories To Get You Started

Supply and Demand (Invisible Hand)
Classical Economics
Keynesian Economics
Neoclassical Synthesis (Keynesian for near-term macro; Classical for micro and long-term macro)
Neo-Malthusian (Resource Scarcity)
Marxism
Laissez Faire Capitalism
Market Socialism
Monetarism
Solow Model (growth comes from capital, labor, and technology)
New Growth Theory (Romer & endogenous growth)
.....
The Trilemma (exchange rates, capital flows, and monetary policy)
The 50 Most Important Economic Theories « Donald Marron

Most of the list removed to make this list mercifully short. Unlike oldstyle, I do not like to bore the shit out of any one who would actually read it. And, so, if you should care, for reasons unknown to me, the second list makes the total 50. All theories, me boy. No reference to schools. Dipshit.

Oh...so NOW you're going to pretend that you knew I was talking about different schools of economic thought rather than different colleges? You're a joke, Rshermr. Seriously...do you have any idea how ridiculous you look continuing to claim that you taught economics at the college level when you don't understand even the most basic terminology?

As for you not being able to find any other references to "schools of economic thought"? Dude there are literally hundreds of references to just that because that is how they are generally referred to...something you would KNOW if you actually had studied economics.

Macroeconomics: Schools Of Thought | Investopedia

http://meritasadvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Schools-of-Economic-Thought.pdf

Introduction

Economic Schools of Thought - Economics Online Tutor

Economic schools of thought

What Is Meant by Economic Schools of Thought?

So, Oldstyle still working on the economic shool concept, says:

Oh...so NOW you're going to pretend that you knew I was talking about different schools of economic thought rather than different colleges?

No, oldstyle. That would be another lie of yours. I do indeed know there is a concept of economic schools. But oldstyle, you see, I am not a dish washer. I also know that economic schools include the University of Chicago. And that school teaches many economic theories. And that there are hundreds of other universities that have particular leanings when they teach economics. And many of those schools are in your list of economic schools. So, you see, anyone who from out of the blue who is referring to an economic school of thought, would use that terminology. Being a dish washer, you simply said economic school that taught tax increases. Not economic school of thought. And, since you said taught, that would indicate a school. Like a number of schools. Not economic schools of thought, which do not teach. But actual teaching colleges. Or do you simply not know the definition of taught.

Now having said that, I am sure you will want to stay on this for another day or so. So, here is the thing, oldstyle. As a dish washer, I know you have nothing of substance to say. I do not have the time to play your juvenile game of list making. I could, but the point is made. Not your point. But the point of what you are doing. So, why don't you get back to the subject of this thread??? or if not, talk to yourself, me poor con tool dishwasher.

And this continual concept of questioning my economic understanding is stupid, oldstyle. You are a dish washer. You lie continually, and then run from your lies, and you spend as much time as possible on immaterial drivel. You can not make a substantive argument that I can not find in at least ten con tool sites. Ever. If you bring up a subject, I know what you will say, because I just have to google, a couple of the major con sites. AEI or Heritage. There your subject is. laid out by the cons, and just by complete coincidence, there is WHAT YOU SAY. And, in the end, you are simply posting the opinion of a dishwasher. And you must know how much we all value your opinion.

Show some economic knowledge, Oldstyle. Or are you, as I believe, simply incapable of doing so.

 

[Rshermr]

Still convinced that there are literally physical schools that correspond to the all different schools of economic thought? You really are a George Costanza clone, Rshermr. The following was written for people like you that know NOTHING about economics:

"Question: What Is Meant by Economic Schools of Thought?
Answer: Web Wordnet defines a school of thought as a "doctrine, philosophy, philosophical system, school of thought, ism -- (a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school)". Thus in economics, a school of thought can be thought of as a belief or system of beliefs held by some group of economists. Do not take the word "school" too literally, most often the economists belong to a certain school of thought do not reside in the same geographic area, though some schools of thought have been linked to particular universities, such as the University of Chicago.

Good for you, oldstyle. So, you now believe that economic schools, also known as ecnomic theories, TEACH. Good for you. Now, my poor ignorant dish washer, would you like to spend another day on this???

They don't teach other schools of economics, you dip stick. They don't teach classes. Why... because they aren't literal schools with buildings and class rooms. I can't believe you're THIS clueless on the subject.

So you do believe that economic theories, or as you prefer, economic schools, which are economic theories, dipshit, teach. Good for you. I am glad to here you have cleared that up for yourself. Now, you can go on through your poor lowly life believing that theories teach. And that economic schools are ONLY economic theories. And that economic schools do not teach economic theories. Good for you, Oldstyle.

The problem is, NO ONE CARES, oldstyle. Maybe this thought process that you seem to have is why you are a dish washer. Most people would feel insignificant, but not Oldstyle. He believes that he is knowledgeable.

But he can not discuss the subject of this thread. You know, infrastructure and stimulus. Because he can only post con dogma from con sites. And they lie. And Oldstyle says he does not take talking points from con web sites. Which is a really obvious lie. But having taken ownership of the lie he gets caught. So, he goes on diversions. Now it is school or theory. And No One Cares except oldstyle. Because he can not discus the subject of the tread. And he has nothing better to do, between washing dishes, than attack. And attack. And attack. Because, like his life, he has nothing to deal with but the trivial. Poor guy.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle says:

And I'm STILL waiting to hear from you which economic school advocates the raising of taxes in a weak economy and the lowering of them in a strong one...

You've got the list of different schools of thought, "Tommy"...why don't you share with us which one of those shares your bizarre take on fiscal policy?

What is the deal with you, oldstyle. Do you have such an insignificant life that you have no one who ever needs to do anything for you. No one working for you after all these years. Oh, my mistake. I forgot who I was talking to. Yes, I guess you are insignificant. So here is the thing, I could care less if you are waiting. Again, you are insignificant. And you are asking an insignificant question. Because you can not talk about the subject of the thread. Because doing so causes you to lie. Over and over. And you get caught. So now you want to talk about economic theories and what is taught by schools that teach them. Dipshit.

Go back to washing dishes, my poor con tool. I could care less which theory teaches tax increases as a METHOD of financing stimulus. Because, for the 23rd time the subject is not taxes, but it is stimulus. And most theories DO teach stimulus as a tool. We are talking about STIMULUS me poor dishwasher. Not taxes. Unless you want to talk about what the economic teams associated with the Reagan administration and the Clinton administration. Which used taxes to provide Stimulus which is taught by many schools as part of a number of economic theories.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle, Here is my list. Just to show you that I can cut and paste, and use google, just like you. Not that it has any value, but here is a list, just as stupid as your list, in terms of addressing the subject of this thread. No mention of schools here. Because, as opposed to Wickipedia, this is an economics site. Unlike dish washers, economists seldom use the term school. Dish washers generally use school, economists generally use theory.

25 Theories To Get You Started

Supply and Demand (Invisible Hand)
Classical Economics
Keynesian Economics
Neoclassical Synthesis (Keynesian for near-term macro; Classical for micro and long-term macro)
Neo-Malthusian (Resource Scarcity)
Marxism
Laissez Faire Capitalism
Market Socialism
Monetarism
Solow Model (growth comes from capital, labor, and technology)
New Growth Theory (Romer & endogenous growth)
.....
The Trilemma (exchange rates, capital flows, and monetary policy)
The 50 Most Important Economic Theories « Donald Marron

Most of the list removed to make this list mercifully short. Unlike oldstyle, I do not like to bore the shit out of any one who would actually read it. And, so, if you should care, for reasons unknown to me, the second list makes the total 50. All theories, me boy. No reference to schools. Dipshit.

Oh...so NOW you're going to pretend that you knew I was talking about different schools of economic thought rather than different colleges? You're a joke, Rshermr. Seriously...do you have any idea how ridiculous you look continuing to claim that you taught economics at the college level when you don't understand even the most basic terminology?

As for you not being able to find any other references to "schools of economic thought"? Dude there are literally hundreds of references to just that because that is how they are generally referred to...something you would KNOW if you actually had studied economics.

Macroeconomics: Schools Of Thought | Investopedia

http://meritasadvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Schools-of-Economic-Thought.pdf

Introduction

Economic Schools of Thought - Economics Online Tutor

Economic schools of thought

What Is Meant by Economic Schools of Thought?

oh, and as an aside, all of your list of sources have lists of schools of economic thought. Now again, Oldstyle, as a menial worker, you would not notice that schools of economic thought is different than economic schools. Which is what you said, my poor menial worker. Economic schools does not indicate theory, specifically. Economic school of thought does. Which is why these lists are all of Schools of economic thought Which to someone who is involved with economics is synonymous with economic theories.

And by the way, your favorite phantom economic theory, Supply Side Economics is hard to find. Seems most do not even consider it among their economic theories any more. How sad for you.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Oldstyle says:

And I'm STILL waiting to hear from you which economic school advocates the raising of taxes in a weak economy and the lowering of them in a strong one...

You've got the list of different schools of thought, "Tommy"...why don't you share with us which one of those shares your bizarre take on fiscal policy?

What is the deal with you, oldstyle. Do you have such an insignificant life that you have no one who ever needs to do anything for you. No one working for you after all these years. Oh, my mistake. I forgot who I was talking to. Yes, I guess you are insignificant. So here is the thing, I could care less if you are waiting. Again, you are insignificant. And you are asking an insignificant question. Because you can not talk about the subject of the thread. Because doing so causes you to lie. Over and over. And you get caught. So now you want to talk about economic theories and what is taught by schools that teach them. Dipshit.

Go back to washing dishes, my poor con tool. I could care less which theory teaches tax increases as a METHOD of financing stimulus. Because, for the 23rd time the subject is not taxes, but it is stimulus. And most theories DO teach stimulus as a tool. We are talking about STIMULUS me poor dishwasher. Not taxes. Unless you want to talk about what the economic teams associated with the Reagan administration and the Clinton administration. Which used taxes to provide Stimulus which is taught by many schools as part of a number of economic theories.

I love watching you try to bluster your way out of the hole you've dug for yourself. I didn't ask you which economic school of thought teaches tax increases as a method of financing stimulus. I asked you which economic school advocates the raising of taxes in a weak economy and the lowering of them in a strong one. You don't have an answer for that though...do you, "Tommy"? Why? Because there isn't one that does! Why? Because it's stupid economic policy...stupid economic policy espoused by someone that doesn't REALLY understand anything about economics! Someone who thinks the Chicago School teaches different types of economic theory! Someone that didn't know that the "Chicago School" refers to a type of economic school not an actual school where classes are taught! Someone that's obviously LIED and been caught at it.


http://now.msn.com/mike-falzones-tips-for-dealing-with-liars-make-for-funny-video

 

[Rshermr]

So you do believe that economic theories, or as you prefer, economic schools, which are economic theories, teach, dipshit. Good for you. I am glad to here you have cleared that up for yourself. Now, you can go on through your poor lowly life believing that theories teach. And that economic schools are ONLY economic theories. And that economic schools do not teach economic theories. Good for you, Oldstyle.

The problem is, NO ONE CARES, oldstyle. Maybe this thought process that you seem to have is why you are a dish washer. Most people would feel insignificant, but not Oldstyle. He believes that he is knowledgeable.

But he can not discuss the subject of this thread. You know, infrastructure and stimulus. Because he can only post con dogma from con sites. And they lie. And Oldstyle says he does not take talking points from con web sites. Which is a really obvious lie. But having taken ownership of the lie he gets caught. So, he goes on diversions. Now it is school or theory. And No One Cares except oldstyle. Because he can not discus the subject of the tread. And he has nothing better to do, between washing dishes, than attack. And attack. And attack. Because, like his life, he has nothing to deal with but the trivial. Poor guy.

I was, me boy, talking about the University of Chicago. Where the Nobel Laureat Milton Freedman graduated, in 1976. You know, Freedman, the father of the Chicago School of Economic Theory. And where he taught.

oh, and as an aside, all of your list of sources have lists of schools of economic thought. Now again, Oldstyle, as a menial worker, you would not notice that schools of economic thought is different than economic schools. Which is what you said, my poor menial worker. Economic schools does not indicate theory, specifically. Economic school of thought does. Which is why these lists are all of Schools of economic thought Which to someone who is involved with economics is synonymous with economic theories.

So, Oldstyle. Now pay attention. It is not economic school. But schools of economic thought. Or theory. As all of your lists tell you. Should you read your own stuff.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So you do believe that economic theories, or as you prefer, economic schools, which are economic theories, dipshit. Good for you. I am glad to here you have cleared that up for yourself. Now, you can go on through your poor lowly life believing that theories teach. And that economic schools are ONLY economic theories. And that economic schools do not teach economic theories. Good for you, Oldstyle.

The problem is, NO ONE CARES, oldstyle. Maybe this thought process that you seem to have is why you are a dish washer. Most people would feel insignificant, but not Oldstyle. He believes that he is knowledgeable.

But he can not discuss the subject of this thread. You know, infrastructure and stimulus. Because he can only post con dogma from con sites. And they lie. And Oldstyle says he does not take talking points from con web sites. Which is a really obvious lie. But having taken ownership of the lie he gets caught. So, he goes on diversions. Now it is school or theory. And No One Cares except oldstyle. Because he can not discus the subject of the tread. And he has nothing better to do, between washing dishes, than attack. And attack. And attack. Because, like his life, he has nothing to deal with but the trivial. Poor guy.

I was, me boy, talking about the University of Chicago. Where the Nobel Laureat Milton Freedman graduated, in 1976. You know, Freedman, the father of the Chicago School of Economic Theory. And where he taught.

oh, and as an aside, all of your list of sources have lists of schools of economic thought. Now again, Oldstyle, as a menial worker, you would not notice that schools of economic thought is different than economic schools. Which is what you said, my poor menial worker. Economic schools does not indicate theory, specifically. Economic school of thought does. Which is why these lists are all of Schools of economic thought Which to someone who is involved with economics is synonymous with economic theories.

So, Oldstyle. Now pay attention. It is not economic school. But schools of economic thought. Or theory. As all of your lists tell you. Should you read your own stuff.

When you lose you fool yourself by trying to bury the subject in empty liberal personal attack rhetoric.

Cut the BS and tell us who advocated raising taxes in a slow economy and the theory behind doing so or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so!!

 

[Rshermr]

So you do believe that economic theories, or as you prefer, economic schools, which are economic theories, dipshit. Good for you. I am glad to here you have cleared that up for yourself. Now, you can go on through your poor lowly life believing that theories teach. And that economic schools are ONLY economic theories. And that economic schools do not teach economic theories. Good for you, Oldstyle.

The problem is, NO ONE CARES, oldstyle. Maybe this thought process that you seem to have is why you are a dish washer. Most people would feel insignificant, but not Oldstyle. He believes that he is knowledgeable.

But he can not discuss the subject of this thread. You know, infrastructure and stimulus. Because he can only post con dogma from con sites. And they lie. And Oldstyle says he does not take talking points from con web sites. Which is a really obvious lie. But having taken ownership of the lie he gets caught. So, he goes on diversions. Now it is school or theory. And No One Cares except oldstyle. Because he can not discus the subject of the tread. And he has nothing better to do, between washing dishes, than attack. And attack. And attack. Because, like his life, he has nothing to deal with but the trivial. Poor guy.

I was, me boy, talking about the University of Chicago. Where the Nobel Laureat Milton Freedman graduated, in 1976. You know, Freedman, the father of the Chicago School of Economic Theory. And where he taught.

oh, and as an aside, all of your list of sources have lists of schools of economic thought. Now again, Oldstyle, as a menial worker, you would not notice that schools of economic thought is different than economic schools. Which is what you said, my poor menial worker. Economic schools does not indicate theory, specifically. Economic school of thought does. Which is why these lists are all of Schools of economic thought Which to someone who is involved with economics is synonymous with economic theories.

So, Oldstyle. Now pay attention. It is not economic school. But schools of economic thought. Or theory. As all of your lists tell you. Should you read your own stuff.

When you lose you fool yourself by trying to bury the subject in empty liberal personal attack rhetoric.

Cut the BS and tell us who advocated raising taxes in a slow economy and the theory behind doing so or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so!!

Well, Reagans economists, for one group. Dipshit

 

[Oldstyle]

So you do believe that economic theories, or as you prefer, economic schools, which are economic theories, teach, dipshit. Good for you. I am glad to here you have cleared that up for yourself. Now, you can go on through your poor lowly life believing that theories teach. And that economic schools are ONLY economic theories. And that economic schools do not teach economic theories. Good for you, Oldstyle.

The problem is, NO ONE CARES, oldstyle. Maybe this thought process that you seem to have is why you are a dish washer. Most people would feel insignificant, but not Oldstyle. He believes that he is knowledgeable.

But he can not discuss the subject of this thread. You know, infrastructure and stimulus. Because he can only post con dogma from con sites. And they lie. And Oldstyle says he does not take talking points from con web sites. Which is a really obvious lie. But having taken ownership of the lie he gets caught. So, he goes on diversions. Now it is school or theory. And No One Cares except oldstyle. Because he can not discus the subject of the tread. And he has nothing better to do, between washing dishes, than attack. And attack. And attack. Because, like his life, he has nothing to deal with but the trivial. Poor guy.

I was, me boy, talking about the University of Chicago. Where the Nobel Laureat Milton Freedman graduated, in 1976. You know, Freedman, the father of the Chicago School of Economic Theory. And where he taught.

oh, and as an aside, all of your list of sources have lists of schools of economic thought. Now again, Oldstyle, as a menial worker, you would not notice that schools of economic thought is different than economic schools. Which is what you said, my poor menial worker. Economic schools does not indicate theory, specifically. Economic school of thought does. Which is why these lists are all of Schools of economic thought Which to someone who is involved with economics is synonymous with economic theories.

So, Oldstyle. Now pay attention. It is not economic school. But schools of economic thought. Or theory. As all of your lists tell you. Should you read your own stuff.

LOL...Are you REALLY trying to explain to me about economic schools of thought? Gee, little buddy...now that you've been embarrassed by not knowing something that EVERYONE who majored in economics would know (which makes you a Grade A liar!)...you have the stones to try coming back on here and pretend to know what you quite obviously DIDN'T know earlier?

I think that kind of chutzpah deserves something, "Tommy"...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtTGfWDamVE]Three Dog Night - Liar - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Oldstyle]

And I'm STILL waiting to hear what school of economics advocates tax increases in a weak economy along with tax cuts in a strong one...

 

[Rshermr]

And I'm STILL waiting to hear what school of economics advocates tax increases in a weak economy along with tax cuts in a strong one...

You are a complete ass hole. Asking this same question that you have asked multiple times, Dipshit. So here are a few of the times that I have answered the question:

Post 315
You asked:

I'd be curious to know what model this President (You need to capitalize President by the way, Rshermr...lower case is SO disrespectful!) and liberals in general ARE working from?

I responded:
So, this will be difficult for you to understand. But, in general, the problem with any economic model is that it is static. And, things change. For instance, income distribution changes. And politics change. And cash on hand changes. So, you would be a complete fool to follow any one economic model, assuming that your purpose is to grow the economy, while keeping unemployment low and inflation low.

Then a few posts later you ask:

Which school of economic thought is it that DOES advocate the raising of taxes in a slow economy to boost said economy and create jobs?

And I answer:
Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending.

Then, in Post 398 on 12/26 you ask:

You've NEVER given me the economic school that advocates tax increases in a weak economy as a means to create jobs,

And I respond:
It is not, and has never been, about raising taxes, oldstyle. As you well know. Raising taxes is simply a method of providing revenue to allow STIMULATIVE SPENDING. Which almost every economic theory understands.

I went back several pages, and found 8 times you have asked that question and i have answered it. You are, oldstyle, as you well know, a liar. You are pretending that I have not answered the question. Which makes you a liar again. Every time you have answered that question, you have lied. Just playing games and lying. And I have let it go because it was such a simple question to answer.

So, my poor dish washer, you are not worth the time to discuss issues with. Because you simply like to play games. Post videos. Make up new names to try to insult with. And post conservative dogma and refuse to admit when you are caught.

But, Oldstyle, I could spend a half hour and bring forward all of the posts. But this is enough. To prove, beyond any question, that you are playing games.

BUT THIS PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT YOU ARE A LIAR.

 

[Rshermr]

So you do believe that economic theories, or as you prefer, economic schools, which are economic theories, teach, dipshit. Good for you. I am glad to here you have cleared that up for yourself. Now, you can go on through your poor lowly life believing that theories teach. And that economic schools are ONLY economic theories. And that economic schools do not teach economic theories. Good for you, Oldstyle.

The problem is, NO ONE CARES, oldstyle. Maybe this thought process that you seem to have is why you are a dish washer. Most people would feel insignificant, but not Oldstyle. He believes that he is knowledgeable.

But he can not discuss the subject of this thread. You know, infrastructure and stimulus. Because he can only post con dogma from con sites. And they lie. And Oldstyle says he does not take talking points from con web sites. Which is a really obvious lie. But having taken ownership of the lie he gets caught. So, he goes on diversions. Now it is school or theory. And No One Cares except oldstyle. Because he can not discus the subject of the tread. And he has nothing better to do, between washing dishes, than attack. And attack. And attack. Because, like his life, he has nothing to deal with but the trivial. Poor guy.

I was, me boy, talking about the University of Chicago. Where the Nobel Laureat Milton Freedman graduated, in 1976. You know, Freedman, the father of the Chicago School of Economic Theory. And where he taught.

oh, and as an aside, all of your list of sources have lists of schools of economic thought. Now again, Oldstyle, as a menial worker, you would not notice that schools of economic thought is different than economic schools. Which is what you said, my poor menial worker. Economic schools does not indicate theory, specifically. Economic school of thought does. Which is why these lists are all of Schools of economic thought Which to someone who is involved with economics is synonymous with economic theories.

So, Oldstyle. Now pay attention. It is not economic school. But schools of economic thought. Or theory. As all of your lists tell you. Should you read your own stuff.

LOL...Are you REALLY trying to explain to me about economic schools of thought? Gee, little buddy...now that you've been embarrassed by not knowing something that EVERYONE who majored in economics would know (which makes you a Grade A liar!)...you have the stones to try coming back on here and pretend to know what you quite obviously DIDN'T know earlier?

I think that kind of chutzpah deserves something, "Tommy"...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtTGfWDamVE]Three Dog Night - Liar - YouTube[/ame]

No. Simply saying what was obvious. You said economic schools that taught. Not Economic Schools Of Thought. Or theories. Neither economic schools of thought nor theories teach. Economic schools teach, if you are talking about actual schools, and not theories.

But you know that Oldstyle. You are simply playing games. Because you have nothing in your life, and need something to do.

the names, and the videos. Really, Oldstyle. Time to grow up a little. I am sorry you are so immature at your age. Sad.

 

[Oldstyle]

So you do believe that economic theories, or as you prefer, economic schools, which are economic theories, teach, dipshit. Good for you. I am glad to here you have cleared that up for yourself. Now, you can go on through your poor lowly life believing that theories teach. And that economic schools are ONLY economic theories. And that economic schools do not teach economic theories. Good for you, Oldstyle.

The problem is, NO ONE CARES, oldstyle. Maybe this thought process that you seem to have is why you are a dish washer. Most people would feel insignificant, but not Oldstyle. He believes that he is knowledgeable.

But he can not discuss the subject of this thread. You know, infrastructure and stimulus. Because he can only post con dogma from con sites. And they lie. And Oldstyle says he does not take talking points from con web sites. Which is a really obvious lie. But having taken ownership of the lie he gets caught. So, he goes on diversions. Now it is school or theory. And No One Cares except oldstyle. Because he can not discus the subject of the tread. And he has nothing better to do, between washing dishes, than attack. And attack. And attack. Because, like his life, he has nothing to deal with but the trivial. Poor guy.

I was, me boy, talking about the University of Chicago. Where the Nobel Laureat Milton Freedman graduated, in 1976. You know, Freedman, the father of the Chicago School of Economic Theory. And where he taught.

oh, and as an aside, all of your list of sources have lists of schools of economic thought. Now again, Oldstyle, as a menial worker, you would not notice that schools of economic thought is different than economic schools. Which is what you said, my poor menial worker. Economic schools does not indicate theory, specifically. Economic school of thought does. Which is why these lists are all of Schools of economic thought Which to someone who is involved with economics is synonymous with economic theories.

So, Oldstyle. Now pay attention. It is not economic school. But schools of economic thought. Or theory. As all of your lists tell you. Should you read your own stuff.

LOL...Are you REALLY trying to explain to me about economic schools of thought? Gee, little buddy...now that you've been embarrassed by not knowing something that EVERYONE who majored in economics would know (which makes you a Grade A liar!)...you have the stones to try coming back on here and pretend to know what you quite obviously DIDN'T know earlier?

I think that kind of chutzpah deserves something, "Tommy"...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtTGfWDamVE]Three Dog Night - Liar - YouTube[/ame]

No. Simply saying what was obvious. You said economic schools that taught. Not Economic Schools Of Thought. Or theories. Neither economic schools of thought nor theories teach. Economic schools teach, if you are talking about actual schools, and not theories.

But you know that Oldstyle. You are simply playing games. Because you have nothing in your life, and need something to do.

the names, and the videos. Really, Oldstyle. Time to grow up a little. I am sorry you are so immature at your age. Sad.

I said economic schools that taught? LOL...nice try, little buddy but that's more pathetic bluster and bullshit from you to try and obscure the fact that you didn't have a CLUE what I was referring to when I was speaking about economic schools. The fact is...you knew so little about economics that you thought I was talking about physical colleges and universities instead of schools of thought...something that ANYONE who had taken even introductory courses in economics would know...let alone someone who supposedly taught the subject at the college level. You've exposed yourself as an internet poser. You know as much about economics as George Costanza knows about architecture.

 

[Rshermr]

So you say, Oldstyle. But you are a proven liar. Do you want to address why you have asked the question below many, many times? And why you have continued to do so. Even though I have answered that question each time you asked it???
Or are you running from the lies, Oldstyle. Like you usually do.

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle
And I'm STILL waiting to hear what school of economics advocates tax increases in a weak economy along with tax cuts in a strong one...
You are a complete ass hole. Asking this same question that you have asked multiple times, Dipshit. So here are a few of the times that I have answered the question:

Post 315
You asked:
Quote:
I'd be curious to know what model this President (You need to capitalize President by the way, Rshermr...lower case is SO disrespectful!) and liberals in general ARE working from?
I responded:
So, this will be difficult for you to understand. But, in general, the problem with any economic model is that it is static. And, things change. For instance, income distribution changes. And politics change. And cash on hand changes. So, you would be a complete fool to follow any one economic model, assuming that your purpose is to grow the economy, while keeping unemployment low and inflation low.

Then a few posts later you ask:
Quote:
Which school of economic thought is it that DOES advocate the raising of taxes in a slow economy to boost said economy and create jobs?
And I answer:
Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending.

Then, in Post 398 on 12/26 you ask:

Quote:
You've NEVER given me the economic school that advocates tax increases in a weak economy as a means to create jobs,
And I respond:
It is not, and has never been, about raising taxes, oldstyle. As you well know. Raising taxes is simply a method of providing revenue to allow STIMULATIVE SPENDING. Which almost every economic theory understands.

I went back several pages, and found 8 times you have asked that question and i have answered it. You are, oldstyle, as you well know, a liar. You are pretending that I have not answered the question. Which makes you a liar again. Every time you have asked that question, you have lied. Just playing games and lying. And I have let it go because it was such a simple question to answer.

So, my poor dish washer, you are not worth the time to discuss issues with. Because you simply like to play games. Post videos. Make up new names to try to insult with. And post conservative dogma and refuse to admit when you are caught.

But, Oldstyle, I could spend a half hour and bring forward all of the posts. But this is enough. To prove, beyond any question, that you are playing games.

BUT THIS PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT YOU ARE A LIAR.

So, want to continue to avoid answering why you lied? Or are you simply going to avoid the question, as you are doing so far?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So you say, Oldstyle. But you are a proven liar. Do you want to address why you have asked the question below many, many times? And why you have continued to do so. Even though I have answered that question each time you asked it???
Or are you running from the lies, Oldstyle. Like you usually do.

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle
And I'm STILL waiting to hear what school of economics advocates tax increases in a weak economy along with tax cuts in a strong one...
You are a complete ass hole. Asking this same question that you have asked multiple times, Dipshit. So here are a few of the times that I have answered the question:

Post 315
You asked:
Quote:
I'd be curious to know what model this President (You need to capitalize President by the way, Rshermr...lower case is SO disrespectful!) and liberals in general ARE working from?
I responded:
So, this will be difficult for you to understand. But, in general, the problem with any economic model is that it is static. And, things change. For instance, income distribution changes. And politics change. And cash on hand changes. So, you would be a complete fool to follow any one economic model, assuming that your purpose is to grow the economy, while keeping unemployment low and inflation low.

Then a few posts later you ask:
Quote:
Which school of economic thought is it that DOES advocate the raising of taxes in a slow economy to boost said economy and create jobs?
And I answer:
Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending.

Then, in Post 398 on 12/26 you ask:

Quote:
You've NEVER given me the economic school that advocates tax increases in a weak economy as a means to create jobs,
And I respond:
It is not, and has never been, about raising taxes, oldstyle. As you well know. Raising taxes is simply a method of providing revenue to allow STIMULATIVE SPENDING. Which almost every economic theory understands.

I went back several pages, and found 8 times you have asked that question and i have answered it. You are, oldstyle, as you well know, a liar. You are pretending that I have not answered the question. Which makes you a liar again. Every time you have asked that question, you have lied. Just playing games and lying. And I have let it go because it was such a simple question to answer.

So, my poor dish washer, you are not worth the time to discuss issues with. Because you simply like to play games. Post videos. Make up new names to try to insult with. And post conservative dogma and refuse to admit when you are caught.

But, Oldstyle, I could spend a half hour and bring forward all of the posts. But this is enough. To prove, beyond any question, that you are playing games.

BUT THIS PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT YOU ARE A LIAR.

So, want to continue to avoid answering why you lied? Or are you simply going to avoid the question, as you are doing so far?

You've NEVER given me the economic school that advocates tax increases in a weak economy as a means to create jobs, nor have you ever said why it would create jobs.

Why be so afraid to tell us????

 

[Oldstyle]

So you say, Oldstyle. But you are a proven liar. Do you want to address why you have asked the question below many, many times? And why you have continued to do so. Even though I have answered that question each time you asked it???
Or are you running from the lies, Oldstyle. Like you usually do.

Quote: Originally Posted by Oldstyle
And I'm STILL waiting to hear what school of economics advocates tax increases in a weak economy along with tax cuts in a strong one...
You are a complete ass hole. Asking this same question that you have asked multiple times, Dipshit. So here are a few of the times that I have answered the question:

Post 315
You asked:
Quote:
I'd be curious to know what model this President (You need to capitalize President by the way, Rshermr...lower case is SO disrespectful!) and liberals in general ARE working from?
I responded:
So, this will be difficult for you to understand. But, in general, the problem with any economic model is that it is static. And, things change. For instance, income distribution changes. And politics change. And cash on hand changes. So, you would be a complete fool to follow any one economic model, assuming that your purpose is to grow the economy, while keeping unemployment low and inflation low.

Then a few posts later you ask:
Quote:
Which school of economic thought is it that DOES advocate the raising of taxes in a slow economy to boost said economy and create jobs?
And I answer:
Well, you are showing your ignorance. No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending.

Then, in Post 398 on 12/26 you ask:

Quote:
You've NEVER given me the economic school that advocates tax increases in a weak economy as a means to create jobs,
And I respond:
It is not, and has never been, about raising taxes, oldstyle. As you well know. Raising taxes is simply a method of providing revenue to allow STIMULATIVE SPENDING. Which almost every economic theory understands.

I went back several pages, and found 8 times you have asked that question and i have answered it. You are, oldstyle, as you well know, a liar. You are pretending that I have not answered the question. Which makes you a liar again. Every time you have asked that question, you have lied. Just playing games and lying. And I have let it go because it was such a simple question to answer.

So, my poor dish washer, you are not worth the time to discuss issues with. Because you simply like to play games. Post videos. Make up new names to try to insult with. And post conservative dogma and refuse to admit when you are caught.

But, Oldstyle, I could spend a half hour and bring forward all of the posts. But this is enough. To prove, beyond any question, that you are playing games.

BUT THIS PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT YOU ARE A LIAR.

So, want to continue to avoid answering why you lied? Or are you simply going to avoid the question, as you are doing so far?

LOL Where in any of THAT is the part where you answered my question?

You've made pathetic attempt after pathetic attempt to try and wriggle OUT of answering the question, Rshermr... but you've never once provided an economic school of thought that advocates tax raises in a weak economy.

All your going back shows...and it's very obvious...is that you CAN'T answer the question.

The first response is you blathering on about economics not being "static" which is why you can't provide an answer. Total dodge.

Then in your second post you make the amazing statement that "No economic theory has anything to do with taxes except as a tool to support deficit spending." Posts like THAT one...where you're not cutting and pasting from some liberal site are where you show your true ignorance about economics. Taxes figure into scores of economic theories...and not just to support deficit spending. How could you have taught economics and not know that? Once again a total dodge...only this time you compound that with a statement about economics that is laughably false.

Post 3 you go right back to dodging the question...blathering on about stimulative spending when the question is about tax increases in a weak economy. Still no economic school of thought cited.

The truth is...you haven't even come CLOSE to answering the question because there is no school of economics that advocates the raising of taxes in a weak economy. But you're going to come on here and try and bluster your way through getting exposed as the internet "poser" that you are. You know so little about economics that it's embarrassing to watch you try to pretend that you do. The "liar" here is you, "Tommy" and you're not very good at it!!!