The lie that when wages go up,jobs go down

[kaz]

I'm not the one who doesn't know what an ad hominem argument is, you are. You just presented two ad hominem sentences and then asked where you went ad hominem. I'm not doing your work for you. Obviously you have no interest in a genuine discussion.

I offered you the choice. Discuss or insult. That you keep whining you want both isn't of interest to me. It never happens, anyway, the insults always dominate. It also shows you're disingenuous about wanting a discussion in the first place.

How many times do I need to explain the same thing to you? How stupid are you?

If you want to discuss the elasticity of labor, put aside the ad hominem and do it. Or don't. It's your choice. If you pick serious discussion, I won't insult you directly or indirectly and I will continue to not insult you until we finish or you start insulting me.

What about this do you fail to understand?

Define "ad hominem"

DEMONSTRATE same in the following sentences...

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?



Man up, you whinging pussy!

You're the one passing on having a conversation without insults. The pussy being you is pretty damned clear

You're so fragile your vapors are aggravated by IMAGINED ad hom...

here:

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?


Just UNDERLINE the words which hurt you so.....

Ah, I see you came back in from banging your dick on trees to demonstrate your virility. Personally I think it makes you look like a moron banking your dick on a tree. But whatever

So the ad hom is manifest, but you cannot speak its name?

Sounds like your hobby, Princess.

Too obvious

 

[kaz]

I'm not the one who doesn't know what an ad hominem argument is, you are. You just presented two ad hominem sentences and then asked where you went ad hominem. I'm not doing your work for you. Obviously you have no interest in a genuine discussion.

I offered you the choice. Discuss or insult. That you keep whining you want both isn't of interest to me. It never happens, anyway, the insults always dominate. It also shows you're disingenuous about wanting a discussion in the first place.

How many times do I need to explain the same thing to you? How stupid are you?

If you want to discuss the elasticity of labor, put aside the ad hominem and do it. Or don't. It's your choice. If you pick serious discussion, I won't insult you directly or indirectly and I will continue to not insult you until we finish or you start insulting me.

What about this do you fail to understand?

Define "ad hominem"

DEMONSTRATE same in the following sentences...

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?



Man up, you whinging pussy!

You're the one passing on having a conversation without insults. The pussy being you is pretty damned clear

You're so fragile your vapors are aggravated by IMAGINED ad hom...

here:

Have you asked Odorum if it shares your passion for the gold standard?

Any chance you might take a minute from your filibuster to address that Elasticity of Labor Supply question?


Just UNDERLINE the words which hurt you so.....

Ah, I see you came back in from banging your dick on trees to demonstrate your virility. Personally I think it makes you look like a moron banking your dick on a tree. But whatever

Some of us have got enough to swing........

You find it easier to squat, right?

The testosterone just flows through you like lilies through a block of ice

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, you are trivializing as well as generalizing.

My two line answer to the meltdown of commoditized mortgage backed securities "generalized?"

Damn, I thought it an exhaustive analysis.

But trivialized? Hardly.

First off, Slim is flinging poo. His claim is dishonest and he knows it. Because he is a partisan hack, he has attempted to portray the Bush administration as one of economic hardship, which is blatantly false.

The crash made some permanent changes by wiping out life savings, giving people a different view on how they save, how they spend, etc.

Nonsense, this under estimates the greed of people.

Collateralized debt obligations triggered the 2007-08 crash. And the big daddy of CDO's was Deutsche Bank, but after the destruction caused in the great recession they learned their lesson and will never again wrap dogshit in colored paper and sell it as a high value item, right?


Well, not so much:

{This year, Deutsche Bank launched an $8.7 billion CDO in two tranches with payments ranging from 8% to 14.6%, garnering strong interest from investors, according to a January 24 story in Bloomberg News. In the U.S., firms such as Redwood Trust have started selling CDOs backed by commercial real estate for the first time since the credit crunch, Bloomberg reported in a January 14 article.}

CDOs Are Back: Will They Lead to Another Financial Crisis? - Knowledge@Wharton

Oops...

So why are they doing this, AGAIN? Greed, of course, the prospect of getting something for nothing.

Nothing has changed, not even the people doing it.

Also, corporations were squeezed in a way that caused them to figure out how to be productive without hiring employees.

Now who is generalizing and trivializing?

So, for example, manufacturing output recovered quite rapidly - a steep upward curve showing near total recovery by 2013 or so. On the other hand, manufacturing employment didn't even bottom out until 2010 or 2011, and it has shown weak growth in that same period of industry success.

The point is that the crash, possibly along with other changes within the same years, made changes in our habits of spending and saving and has left us with significantly less employment in some sectors.

I'm not sure what you're referencing in regard to manufacturing recovery. Automotive and aircraft sectors remain soft even now. What manufacturing are you speaking of?

 

[IcebergSlim]

No, you are trivializing as well as generalizing.

My two line answer to the meltdown of commoditized mortgage backed securities "generalized?"

Damn, I thought it an exhaustive analysis.

But trivialized? Hardly.

First off, Slim is flinging poo. His claim is dishonest and he knows it. Because he is a partisan hack, he has attempted to portray the Bush administration as one of economic hardship, which is blatantly false.

The crash made some permanent changes by wiping out life savings, giving people a different view on how they save, how they spend, etc.

Nonsense, this under estimates the greed of people.

Collateralized debt obligations triggered the 2007-08 crash. And the big daddy of CDO's was Deutsche Bank, but after the destruction caused in the great recession they learned their lesson and will never again wrap dogshit in colored paper and sell it as a high value item, right?


Well, not so much:

{This year, Deutsche Bank launched an $8.7 billion CDO in two tranches with payments ranging from 8% to 14.6%, garnering strong interest from investors, according to a January 24 story in Bloomberg News. In the U.S., firms such as Redwood Trust have started selling CDOs backed by commercial real estate for the first time since the credit crunch, Bloomberg reported in a January 14 article.}

CDOs Are Back: Will They Lead to Another Financial Crisis? - Knowledge@Wharton

Oops...

So why are they doing this, AGAIN? Greed, of course, the prospect of getting something for nothing.

Nothing has changed, not even the people doing it.

Also, corporations were squeezed in a way that caused them to figure out how to be productive without hiring employees.

Now who is generalizing and trivializing?

So, for example, manufacturing output recovered quite rapidly - a steep upward curve showing near total recovery by 2013 or so. On the other hand, manufacturing employment didn't even bottom out until 2010 or 2011, and it has shown weak growth in that same period of industry success.

The point is that the crash, possibly along with other changes within the same years, made changes in our habits of spending and saving and has left us with significantly less employment in some sectors.

I'm not sure what you're referencing in regard to manufacturing recovery. Automotive and aircraft sectors remain soft even now. What manufacturing are you speaking of?

First off, Slim is flinging poo. His claim is dishonest and he knows it. Because he is a partisan hack, he has attempted to portray the Bush administration as one of economic hardship, which is blatantly false.

I don't know what it is with your sort and your love of the Bold Assertion...

You stick to what I post.......and what you can demonstrate...

 

[IcebergSlim]

No, you are trivializing as well as generalizing.

My two line answer to the meltdown of commoditized mortgage backed securities "generalized?"

Damn, I thought it an exhaustive analysis.

But trivialized? Hardly.

First off, Slim is flinging poo. His claim is dishonest and he knows it. Because he is a partisan hack, he has attempted to portray the Bush administration as one of economic hardship, which is blatantly false.

The crash made some permanent changes by wiping out life savings, giving people a different view on how they save, how they spend, etc.

Nonsense, this under estimates the greed of people.

Collateralized debt obligations triggered the 2007-08 crash. And the big daddy of CDO's was Deutsche Bank, but after the destruction caused in the great recession they learned their lesson and will never again wrap dogshit in colored paper and sell it as a high value item, right?


Well, not so much:

{This year, Deutsche Bank launched an $8.7 billion CDO in two tranches with payments ranging from 8% to 14.6%, garnering strong interest from investors, according to a January 24 story in Bloomberg News. In the U.S., firms such as Redwood Trust have started selling CDOs backed by commercial real estate for the first time since the credit crunch, Bloomberg reported in a January 14 article.}

CDOs Are Back: Will They Lead to Another Financial Crisis? - Knowledge@Wharton

Oops...

So why are they doing this, AGAIN? Greed, of course, the prospect of getting something for nothing.

Nothing has changed, not even the people doing it.

Also, corporations were squeezed in a way that caused them to figure out how to be productive without hiring employees.

Now who is generalizing and trivializing?

So, for example, manufacturing output recovered quite rapidly - a steep upward curve showing near total recovery by 2013 or so. On the other hand, manufacturing employment didn't even bottom out until 2010 or 2011, and it has shown weak growth in that same period of industry success.

The point is that the crash, possibly along with other changes within the same years, made changes in our habits of spending and saving and has left us with significantly less employment in some sectors.

I'm not sure what you're referencing in regard to manufacturing recovery. Automotive and aircraft sectors remain soft even now. What manufacturing are you speaking of?

Sorry....that wharton article is mostly crap.....

CDO is so broadly defined as to loose any meaning as a category....banks are getting out of some lines of business......there are other sources of credit. Institutional investors who understand the product do quite well......retail? Hey, in the main it beats treasuries at a pittance...even adjusted for risk

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

I don't know what it is with your sort and your love of the Bold Assertion...

You stick to what I post.......and what you can demonstrate...

I did, you are flinging poo with your posts.

You have a political ax to grind and you manipulate data to promote your political agenda. Every post you have put in this thread demonstrates this.

 

[IcebergSlim]

[

I don't know what it is with your sort and your love of the Bold Assertion...

You stick to what I post.......and what you can demonstrate...

I did, you are flinging poo with your posts.

You have a political ax to grind and you manipulate data to promote your political agenda. Every post you have put in this thread demonstrates this.

Then you should have no difficulty finding one and posting it....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sorry....that wharton article is mostly crap.....

IOW, it refutes the political agenda you promote.

CDO is so broadly defined as to loose any meaning as a category....banks are getting out of some lines of business......there are other sources of credit. Institutional investors who understand the product do quite well......retail? Hey, in the main it beats treasuries at a pittance...even adjusted for risk

Collatoralized debt obligation, yep - that is a broad category indeed.

Still, this references the packaging of debt as a security, be it credit card debt, corporate bonds, or mortgage backed securities. It was the fast and lose trading of CDO's which brought about the 2008 crisis. Oh I know, you want to fling poo and shriek "but BOOOOOOOOOSSSSHHHH." But that is simple idiocy. We had a meltdown because debt was sold as a security. As long as property values increased, this worked, but the overheated real estate market was in a bubble, ensure that values would decline, and fast. When that happened, a whole lot of CDO's based on MBS were instantly worthless, making major institutions insolvent. Sorry, Bush had not a fucking thing to do with it, Graham-Leach-Bliley removed many of the constraints such as cross pollnation (packaging bonds, credit card, and MBS in a single security), signed into law by Bill Clinton.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Sorry....that wharton article is mostly crap.....

IOW, it refutes the political agenda you promote.

CDO is so broadly defined as to loose any meaning as a category....banks are getting out of some lines of business......there are other sources of credit. Institutional investors who understand the product do quite well......retail? Hey, in the main it beats treasuries at a pittance...even adjusted for risk

Collatoralized debt obligation, yep - that is a broad category indeed.

Still, this references the packaging of debt as a security, be it credit card debt, corporate bonds, or mortgage backed securities. It was the fast and lose trading of CDO's which brought about the 2008 crisis. Oh I know, you want to fling poo and shriek "but BOOOOOOOOOSSSSHHHH." But that is simple idiocy. We had a meltdown because debt was sold as a security. As long as property values increased, this worked, but the overheated real estate market was in a bubble, ensure that values would decline, and fast. When that happened, a whole lot of CDO's based on MBS were instantly worthless, making major institutions insolvent. Sorry, Bush had not a fucking thing to do with it, Graham-Leach-Bliley removed many of the constraints such as cross pollnation (packaging bonds, credit card, and MBS in a single security), signed into law by Bill Clinton.

No....it reduces a complex event to a synopsis which can be written, read, and understood by people who must have slept through the crisis.and have little understanding about structured products....

We had a meltdown because debt was sold as a security

And you believe that this was unprecedented? You know, a bond is debt sold as a security...so are notes....

When that happened, a whole lot of CDO's based on MBS were instantly worthless, making major institutions insolvent. Sorry, Bush had not a fucking thing to do with it,

Access the report of the FCIC.....note the first item listed in "causes"....one reason those instruments were so susceptible to a liquidity crisis is that ScrubCo allowed high leverage, and required little for reserves...ScrubCo was also hostile to state regulators and prosecutors who sought to crack down on mortgage fraud and lax underwriting...

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
No....it reduces a complex event to a synopsis which can be written, read, and understood by people who must have slept through the crisis.and have little understanding about structured products....

We had a meltdown because debt was sold as a security

And you believe that this was unprecedented? You know, a bond is debt sold as a security...so are notes....

Oh? And low risk corporate bonds have been traditionally mixed in with high risk credit card and MBS debt?

Who do you think you're fooling?

When that happened, a whole lot of CDO's based on MBS were instantly worthless, making major institutions insolvent. Sorry, Bush had not a fucking thing to do with it,

Access the report of the FCIC.....note the first item listed in "causes"....one reason those instruments were so susceptible to a liquidity crisis is that ScrubCo allowed high leverage, and required little for reserves...ScrubCo was also hostile to state regulators and prosecutors who sought to crack down on mortgage fraud and lax underwriting...

As I said, you're here to fling poo, not to discuss (or even tolerate) the facts.

 

[IcebergSlim]

[
No....it reduces a complex event to a synopsis which can be written, read, and understood by people who must have slept through the crisis.and have little understanding about structured products....

We had a meltdown because debt was sold as a security

And you believe that this was unprecedented? You know, a bond is debt sold as a security...so are notes....

Oh? And low risk corporate bonds have been traditionally mixed in with high risk credit card and MBS debt?

Who do you think you're fooling?

When that happened, a whole lot of CDO's based on MBS were instantly worthless, making major institutions insolvent. Sorry, Bush had not a fucking thing to do with it,

Access the report of the FCIC.....note the first item listed in "causes"....one reason those instruments were so susceptible to a liquidity crisis is that ScrubCo allowed high leverage, and required little for reserves...ScrubCo was also hostile to state regulators and prosecutors who sought to crack down on mortgage fraud and lax underwriting...

As I said, you're here to fling poo, not to discuss (or even tolerate) the facts.

With which of the facts I presented do you take issue?