4 Politically Controversial Issues Where All Economists Agree

[off2bed]

It's clear from this thread that anyone who disagrees with liberal economists (who obviously all agree with each other, like a left wing circle jerk) is, by definition, "stew pid."

 

[zipman]

PS - This is my third and last post in this thread. It shows basically that you and zip are practitioners of knee-jerk ad hominem,

Actually it shows that he and I can appreciate the tremendous depth of humor in your continued and ever-expanding hypocrisy.

That you would have the balls to tell someone else to "read books not blogs" considering how often you have quoted blogs on here is the height of hypocrisy.

And for the love of god would you finally take a minute and figure out what ad hominem actually means. Because you consistently get it wrong.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It's clear from this thread that anyone who disagrees with liberal economists (who obviously all agree with each other, like a left wing circle jerk) is, by definition, "stew pid."

The word "liberal" in that sentence is superfluous.

 

[KingOrfeo]

We need a socially conservative, economically center left party.

Bourgois liberalism of left and right is a societal disease and the patient is just about dead.

What are the characteristics of this "Bourg[e]ois liberalism of left and right"?

 

[eyer]

The president doesn't have to provide a budget that includes mandatory spending programs, only for executive branch and independent govt programs. You can't deny that.

The president is also free to include anything he wishes in the budget but there's no law compelling such action. The Pres can recommend to congress that it change its Medicare reimbursement rates for instance. But it's only a recommendation that congress doesn't have to even look at.

And yes there have been plenty of years where the President made no recommendation about changing medicare's programming. Or made no recommendation in the budget but worked on it elsewhere.

Simply further evidence of just more of your usual bullsh!t...

It's real easy proving what's truly what here:

Cite (as I did in the other thread) Obama's first 3 FY federal budgets he submitted as required by law...

...and then cite the numbers of what federal expenditures actually were for FY2010, 2011, and 2012.

I'll wait

 

[KingOrfeo]

Simply further evidence of just more of your usual bullsh!t...

It's real easy proving what's truly what here:

Cite (as I did in the other thread) Obama's first 3 FY federal budgets he submitted as required by law...

...and then cite the numbers of what federal expenditures actually were for FY2010, 2011, and 2012.

I'll wait

You'll find discrepancy between budget and spending in any Administration. Obama's is not remarkable in that regard.

 

[mercury14]

Simply further evidence of just more of your usual bullsh!t...

It's real easy proving what's truly what here:

Cite (as I did in the other thread) Obama's first 3 FY federal budgets he submitted as required by law...

...and then cite the numbers of what federal expenditures actually were for FY2010, 2011, and 2012.

I'll wait

What does it matter? He made recommendations regarding Congressional mandatory spending programs but my point is that there's nothing in the law saying he had to.

 

[richard_daily]

PS - This is my third and last post in this thread. It shows basically that you and zip are practitioners of knee-jerk ad hominem,

You made a lot more than three posts in this thread. Are you having trouble with basic math again?

 

[Peregrinator]

Read books, not blogs.

Wow. I am humbled by your deep thinking.



Contra Bernanke on the Gold Standard
Mises Daily: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 by Frank Shostak


Frank Shostak is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute and a frequent contributor to Mises.org. His consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics, provides in-depth assessments and reports of financial markets and global economies.
http://mises.org/daily/6003/Contra-Bernanke-on-the-Gold-Standard

Since I can locate one easily, then ALL was a fucking stupid statement and goes to the extreme bias of the blog.

I'm glad to see that your grasp of economics is equal to your grasp of all thing "Science."



PS - This is my third and last post in this thread. It shows basically that you and zip are practitioners of knee-jerk ad hominem,

You can't make this stuff up. That's not a blog you linked, is it? Is it a book? You seem to have been rather agitated this morning, friend. It's too bad, because when you're agitated like this, you say things like "I am humbled by your deep thinking" and then a few lines later whine about ad hominem. And while you've once again misused the term, the way you're using it is precisely instantiated by your first and last sentences. And if there's any knees jerking in this thread, they're on the legs of the people who have been posting "nuh uh!" without anything to back it up. See below:

It's clear from this thread that anyone who disagrees with liberal economists (who obviously all agree with each other, like a left wing circle jerk) is, by definition, "stew pid."

The piece claims that the panel is "ideologically diverse." It seems as though you and AJ have a problem with the thread title. For the record, that was the title on the blog, and I just c&ped it. If you could get past that and post something that contradicts the four points, I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[Disgustipated]

You made a lot more than three posts in this thread. Are you having trouble with basic math again?

I'll go all ad-hom because this shit is funny:

. Search: [B]Posts Made By: 4est_4est_Gump[/B]

Showing results 1 to [B]5 of 5[/B] 
Search took 0.00 seconds.

OffHisRocker seems to think "Liberals" are all agreeing with everything written in the OP. That's not really the case, there's just a bunch of people laughing at the dumb is this thread.

 

[Peregrinator]

I'm sorry, I thought you said you had four points on which all economists agree.

Read books, not blogs.

Sophisms of the Protectionists, Bastiat

I'm sorry, but how the hell did I do that?

There are four points that every single economist is said to disagree upon, but in the last several months on at least two of the points I have posted dissents from real, actual practicing economists.

Now, if perg wants to reframe the discussion to a majority, a consensus, a leading body of, then we can have a discussion, instead the goal merely seems to be an exercise in flinging poo with a not-so-clever opening gambit.

Wow. I am humbled by your deep thinking.



Contra Bernanke on the Gold Standard
Mises Daily: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 by Frank Shostak


Frank Shostak is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute and a frequent contributor to Mises.org. His consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics, provides in-depth assessments and reports of financial markets and global economies.
http://mises.org/daily/6003/Contra-Bernanke-on-the-Gold-Standard

Since I can locate one easily, then ALL was a fucking stupid statement and goes to the extreme bias of the blog.

I'm glad to see that your grasp of economics is equal to your grasp of all thing "Science."



PS - This is my third and last post in this thread. It shows basically that you and zip are practitioners of knee-jerk ad hominem,

You made a lot more than three posts in this thread. Are you having trouble with basic math again?

...five.

 

[Peregrinator]

Economics is a "dismal" attempt to predict human behavior. Nothing more. It's sociology combined with money. And we all know how successful humans are at predicting each others behavior.

I happen to agree with this, for the most part. I think there are aspects of economics that are factual, though. You can't say that it's liberal or conservative "spin" or voodoo or whatever when someone says that the national debt is X number of dollars, for example. That's what I meant in response to your Patton quote, by the way. I would expect all economists and everyone else to agree on certain simple, demonstrable facts.

 

[zipman]

A_J's definition of Ad Hominem:

Any post that highlights his ignorance or demonstrates his hipocrisy.

 

[Peregrinator]

A_J's definition of Ad Hominem:

Any post that highlights his ignorance or demonstrates his hipocrisy.

My favorite is his assertion that "it's not ad hominem if it's true."

 

[zipman]

My favorite is his assertion that "it's not ad hominem if it's true."

Which only applies to things he says, not things said by others.

Personally I prefer the completely fabricated and illogical "ad hominem by class."

Different strokes and all that.

 

[Disgustipated]

Which only applies to things he says, not things said by others.

Personally I prefer the completely fabricated and illogical "ad hominem by class."

Different strokes and all that.

That's a good one and as Pereg pointed out some time ago it only shows up at Lit when you google that phrase.

A_J will need to grab another screen name after this debacle.

 

[Peregrinator]

Which only applies to things he says, not things said by others.

Personally I prefer the completely fabricated and illogical "ad hominem by class."

Different strokes and all that.

It's morphed to "ad hominem by class (circumstance)."

I liken it to "division by purple." It's a fabricated operation in a field that's rather well established. You'd think that logic would be something we didn't need to argue about, at least at the very simple level.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Which only applies to things he says, not things said by others.

Not unlike AJ's "Nigger rule", where it's perfectly acceptable for him and Ishmael to use the word, but not others.

 

[Peregrinator]

That's a good one and as Pereg pointed out some time ago it only shows up at Lit when you google that phrase.

A_J will need to grab another screen name after this debacle.

Curious, isn't it, that no authority on logic anywhere on the web has an entry for it?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/Peregrinator/AdHombyCirc.jpg


Curiouser and curiouser, though:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v649/Peregrinator/divpurp.jpg

I thought I made it up, but apparently other people have, too.

 

[renard_ruse]

What are the characteristics of this "Bourg[e]ois liberalism of left and right"?

"Classical liberalism." The ideology that was originally associated with small shopkeepers and traders in the medieval towns. Read Marx for more insight. He happened to be right on that. Even a blind squirel stumbles on an acorn now and then.

 

[renard_ruse]

I happen to agree with this, for the most part. I think there are aspects of economics that are factual, though. You can't say that it's liberal or conservative "spin" or voodoo or whatever when someone says that the national debt is X number of dollars, for example. That's what I meant in response to your Patton quote, by the way. I would expect all economists and everyone else to agree on certain simple, demonstrable facts.

And the alleged positive benefits of SHAFTA and "free" trade are "simple, demonstrable" facts?

 

[zipman]

It's morphed to "ad hominem by class (circumstance)."

I liken it to "division by purple." It's a fabricated operation in a field that's rather well established. You'd think that logic would be something we didn't need to argue about, at least at the very simple level.

He is one of those people who thinks that if he says something enough it becomes true.

 

[eyer]

...the president doesn't have to submit a budget and historically it's not done.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=40494637&postcount=16

Simple 13 word composition with two equally simple points asserted...

...neither of which contains an iota of truth.

What does it matter?

Indeed...

 

[Peregrinator]

And the alleged positive benefits of SHAFTA and "free" trade are "simple, demonstrable" facts?

No, not at all. At least, I don't think so. The environmental community, among others, opposed NAFTA aggressively, because environmental protections are lax in Mexico and Canada compared to here. Or something like that. I didn't mean to imply that the points in the OP are "simple demonstrable facts" at all. I think they are not, but a diverse panel of experts agree on them.

He is one of those people who thinks that if he says something enough it becomes true.

I dunno if that's always true of him, but it seems to be sometimes.

Simple 13 word composition with two equally simple points asserted...

...neither of which contains an iota of truth.



Indeed...

Hey, my very, very close and Christian friend, is there some reason you felt the need to carry this argument here from the thread in which it actually occurred? Not that I mind terribly; you're such a bosom buddy and such a true Christian that I'm happy to have you posting in my threads, but it seems like you could have fought that battle where it was joined, no?

 

[eyer]

Not that I mind terribly...

You're such a cuckold, fvckwad...