4 Politically Controversial Issues Where All Economists Agree

[Peregrinator]

You're such a cuckold, fvckwad...

Are you sleeping with my wife? That would surprise me. You don't seem like her type, and your Christianity should be a deterrent. I imagine it must be difficult for you to reconcile your Christian beliefs with her libertine notions. Besides which, I have it on good authority that you're rather hideous. Nonetheless, if you're what she seeks as a diversion, I'm happy that you and she have found common ground.

 

[eyer]

Wow...

...that was pathetically bland.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

What's a "fvckwad?"

Shit, how do you even pronounce it? It sounds Nordic.

 

[Peregrinator]

What's a "fvckwad?"

Shit, how do you even pronounce it? It sounds Nordic.

Don't fuck with my Swedish-German-English heritage, you motherfucker. So what if our language sounds weird to your ears? I'm seriously thinking of starting a ...

Never mind. There's really nothing there. I got no reason for anyone to do anything.

The answer to your question is, of course there's no way to pronounce it. Eyer is an idiot, a total fail at everything. His lame attempt to get away with using edgy language is a joke. He's nothing but my very Christian friend.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

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.

lolz...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

This is just another thread where conservatives exploit the inherent less-than-100% uncertainty of science to dismiss it as wholly meaningless.

Nothing new here.

No one said that.

All that was stated that if the blogger found that 100% of all economists agreeing on four crucial current events that he was on an agenda driven mission or a complete idiot.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

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.

You don't see the irony in those whom blast blogs using a blog to make a point?


I think you are blinded to the true humor of the thing.


I've read the books to support any and all blog postings on economics.


A real funny thing was the DNC blasting Ann Romney for being a stay-at-home mother not qualified to speak on economic issues, had she actually read a book, she might have remembered how Wicksteed used the housewife, potatoes and tea to teach about the economy as a whole, but hell, everyone just "knows" things anymore, kinda the way that Algore and perg "know" everything about man-made climate change.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

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

Not up to the point of the original ad hominem, plus this is turning out to be a great source of amusement, like possum leftovers, it's better on the second and third day...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

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:




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.

The same thing is in one of the small books I recommended you read over that fourth go of the Master and Commander series...

We don't have to contradict all four points, one is sufficient.

There is not a single one of those points on which the economic opinion is universal, that can be proved merely by skimming through the doom and gloom thread.

 

[richard_daily]

...that was pathetically bland.

Your last orgasm?




Why am I not surprised.

 

[eyer]

Your last orgasm?




Why am I not surprised.

Why would you be surprised...

...whatever possibly could top graduating magna cum lately form Pere Junior College's school of Pathetic Blandology?

 

[richard_daily]

Why would you be surprised...

...whatever possibly could top graduating magna cum lately form Pere Junior College's school of Pathetic Blandology?

Was that supposed to be an attempt at humor?



Next time you want to laugh, take a look in your pants.

 

[Peregrinator]

The same thing is in one of the small books I recommended you read over that fourth go of the Master and Commander series...

We don't have to contradict all four points, one is sufficient.

There is not a single one of those points on which the economic opinion is universal, that can be proved merely by skimming through the doom and gloom thread.

Which book?

 

[Peregrinator]

You don't see the irony in those whom blast blogs using a blog to make a point?


I think you are blinded to the true humor of the thing.


I've read the books to support any and all blog postings on economics.


A real funny thing was the DNC blasting Ann Romney for being a stay-at-home mother not qualified to speak on economic issues, had she actually read a book, she might have remembered how Wicksteed used the housewife, potatoes and tea to teach about the economy as a whole, but hell, everyone just "knows" things anymore, kinda the way that Algore and perg "know" everything about man-made climate change.

That first sentence is an abomination. It's really not a big challenge to learn when to use the subjective and when to use the objective. When you use "whom" incorrectly like that, it looks horrible.

Neither Al Gore nor I know everything about "man-made climate change." Your attempt to divert the thread is noted.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Your attempt to divert the thread is noted.

And sordid.

 

[mercury14]

There is not a single one of those points on which the economic opinion is universal, that can be proved merely by skimming through the doom and gloom thread.

It's merely the closest thing to universal that the field of economics can have. That should mean something to you.

Why doesn't it?

 

[KingOrfeo]

It's merely the closest thing to universal that the field of economics can have. That should mean something to you.

Why doesn't it?

Probably because economics is a science.

 

[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

For an economic thread started by a bozo who plays a disingenuous drama queen with his bullsh!t "All" in the title, and full of other bro clowns who deem themselves some sorts of eco mojos...

...why hasn't anyone addressed mercury1/4's incredible gaffe in American economic reality?

So funny how bozos expect anyone to take them seriously when they intentionally permit such fallacy to slide...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Which book?

Rothbard.

A simple evening's read.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Probably because economics is a science.

A Social Science.

Human Action.

Praxeology.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That first sentence is an abomination. It's really not a big challenge to learn when to use the subjective and when to use the objective. When you use "whom" incorrectly like that, it looks horrible.

Neither Al Gore nor I know everything about "man-made climate change." Your attempt to divert the thread is noted.

I'm sorry about the grammar; I'm a math and science major.

It does not make the point invalid.

 

[mercury14]

I'm sorry about the grammar; I'm a math and science major.

It does not make the point invalid.

But you said your mentor is a world-famous psychologist. Now you're a know-nothing person when it comes to social sciences.

Strange.

 

[Peregrinator]

Rothbard.

A simple evening's read.

Title?

I'm sorry about the grammar; I'm a math and science major.

It does not make the point invalid.

No, it doesn't. The point was invalid all by itself, no matter how you express it.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Rothbard.

A simple evening's read.

Pick a book.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

But you said your mentor is a world-famous psychologist. Now you're a know-nothing person when it comes to social sciences.

Strange.

Gawd you're stupid. This is the sort of shit Throb does, trying to spin random facts into a twisted narrative designed to incriminate everyone else as a liar in order to get them down to your level.



He's a Martialist...

It brings together the educated, captains of industry and thugs into one fraternal brotherhood.