Is tthere any reason anyone with any knowledge of economics should post here?

[Toro]

That would be your opinion. Which proves, again, that you are a congenital idiot. Jesus, that was a stupid post.

There are those with demonstrable knowledge; Toro, Takeastepback, Kimura (who I've argued bitterly with, but does know the subject.)

Oldfart is an unknown. I have seen no posts of his that indicate knowledge, but I haven't gone searching either.

On the other hand, I haven't seen him post anything revealing ignorance, which I have seen repeatedly from you.

Whether one agrees with him or not, Oldfart knows his stuff.

 

[Rshermr]

What you got were a group that know economics well, and exposed that your compatriots are ignorant of the subject.

I've seen nothing from you that indicates you have the slightest knowledge of the subject.

That would be your opinion. Which proves, again, that you are a congenital idiot. Jesus, that was a stupid post.

Sorry, fella. But you've shown over and over again in this very thread that you lack basic comprehension on the subject at hand. That's not opinion, it's fact. it's all there for anyone to view who actually does understand the subject.

Uh, coming from a Libertarian, not many take your posts seriously anyway. Just the other libertarians there on the island with you. Find those Sasquatch yet???

 

[Rshermr]

That would be your opinion. Which proves, again, that you are a congenital idiot. Jesus, that was a stupid post.

There are those with demonstrable knowledge; Toro, Takeastepback, Kimura (who I've argued bitterly with, but does know the subject.)

Oldfart is an unknown. I have seen no posts of his that indicate knowledge, but I haven't gone searching either.

On the other hand, I haven't seen him post anything revealing ignorance, which I have seen repeatedly from you.

So, go back to your post (#111 above) and reconcile it. Since you now admit you do not know him. Man is a PHD economist with a lot of years of study and personal experience. Does not post unwarranted attacks on anyone. Has tried over and over to have a rational conversation. But, in the above post you attacked him without knowing him. Why is that, me boy?

 

[jasonnfree]

They took over the education thread also. Put em on ignore, there's only about 20 or 30 professional thread destroyers. They have no other life so pity them. PC's a robot so it doesn't react to pity. Hope you and the four or five others in the economic business keep posting sometimes.

Say, aren't you the drooling simpleton who was ignorant of Says law, had no idea what the Broken Window theory was, and could never identify a major school of Macro Economic thought?

Sure you were...

. My comment stands. I'm interested in the subject and posts by knowledgeable people. Never claimed to know much about economics, and rather than wade through acres of insults, and crackpot statements, it's easier to put some individuals on ignore. Say's law, broken window theory? What post # was it, I don't remember.

 

[Barb]

My answer is there is not. Further, most posters with any knowledge of the subject are abstaining from posting.

Congratulations to the right wing trolls. You have what you want, an invective filled, disgustingly vulgar forum to launch personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with you. There are no meaningful economic discussions going on, which I believe was your objective. You have a fact-free and logic-free zone to play in. Enjoy yourselves.

true story, dude.

 

[Bombur]

They took over the education thread also. Put em on ignore, there's only about 20 or 30 professional thread destroyers. They have no other life so pity them. PC's a robot so it doesn't react to pity. Hope you and the four or five others in the economic business keep posting sometimes.

Say, aren't you the drooling simpleton who was ignorant of Says law, had no idea what the Broken Window theory was, and could never identify a major school of Macro Economic thought?

Sure you were...

I wonder how I missed putting you on ignore. My comment stands. I'm interested in the subject and posts by knowledgeable people. and rather than wade through acres of insults, and crackpot statements, it's easier to put some individuals on ignore. I'm interested in this post you talk about. Says law etc. What post # was it? I don't remember it.

Referencing "Say's Law" is a pretty good sign you are talking to someone who googled their understanding of economics.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, go back to your post (#111 above) and reconcile it. Since you now admit you do not know him. Man is a PHD economist with a lot of years of study and personal experience. Does not post unwarranted attacks on anyone. Has tried over and over to have a rational conversation. But, in the above post you attacked him without knowing him. Why is that, me boy?

Toro vouched for him, which is good enough for me.

BUT, anyone can claim to be anything on the internet. One claiming to be a PhD. has no real meaning unless there are posts that back it up.

 

[william the wie]

That would be your opinion. Which proves, again, that you are a congenital idiot. Jesus, that was a stupid post.

There are those with demonstrable knowledge; Toro, Takeastepback, Kimura (who I've argued bitterly with, but does know the subject.)

Oldfart is an unknown. I have seen no posts of his that indicate knowledge, but I haven't gone searching either.

On the other hand, I haven't seen him post anything revealing ignorance, which I have seen repeatedly from you.

Whether one agrees with him or not, Oldfart knows his stuff.

Commingling of objectives and analysis in assumptions is the problem to produce absurd results such as Old Fart's contentions that:

That the Gauss curve must apply to capital markets because it is the only distribution that can be thoroughly analyzed with current math to obtain a deterministic result.

That the increasing marginal returns seen in electronics as an industry for over a century must be ignored because it does not fit the model. For example, the people who witnessed the Great Depression formed a consensus that radio as the killer app for electrification and the sale of household appliances caused it. This has been rejected by almost all schools of economics because radio and electronics plus electrification demonstrated increasing returns not just in industrial forms but also in the form of network economies.

Data rules but that is rejected not just by Old Fart but by pretty much all economists. Economics is a behavioral science that assumes either group or individual selection when biologists define the gene as the unit of selection and have done so for over 40 year. "The Selfish Gene" was a popularization of a preexisting paradigm shift among biologists that does not yet inform economic theory.

Those problems have to be addressed before any economist can be said to know their stuff.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Referencing "Say's Law" is a pretty good sign you are talking to someone who googled their understanding of economics.

Wow...

 

[Bombur]

Referencing "Say's Law" is a pretty good sign you are talking to someone who googled their understanding of economics.

Wow...

Case in point.

I would be perfectly happy to see a conversation about industrial output and capacity, the importance of inventory levels, the impact income inequality has on consumption growth, the importance of consumption growth on economic growth etc. The problem is that when you try and have this discussion some idiot references "Say's Law" and they think they won the argument.

It is one of the reasons this place is a joke.

The libertarians who equate UHC to "theft" and "rape" being the other major reason.

 

[Rshermr]

So, go back to your post (#111 above) and reconcile it. Since you now admit you do not know him. Man is a PHD economist with a lot of years of study and personal experience. Does not post unwarranted attacks on anyone. Has tried over and over to have a rational conversation. But, in the above post you attacked him without knowing him. Why is that, me boy?

Toro vouched for him, which is good enough for me.

BUT, anyone can claim to be anything on the internet. One claiming to be a PhD. has no real meaning unless there are posts that back it up.

There are. Many.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Referencing "Say's Law" is a pretty good sign you are talking to someone who googled their understanding of economics.

Wow...

Case in point.

I would be perfectly happy to see a conversation about industrial output and capacity, the importance of inventory levels, the impact income inequality has on consumption growth, the importance of consumption growth on economic growth etc. The problem is that when you try and have this discussion some idiot references "Say's Law" and they think they won the argument.

It is one of the reasons this place is a joke.

The libertarians who equate UHC to "theft" and "rape" being the other major reason.

Let me ask then, was Keynes able to correctly refute Say's Law in General Theory?

 

[Bombur]

Wow...

Case in point.

I would be perfectly happy to see a conversation about industrial output and capacity, the importance of inventory levels, the impact income inequality has on consumption growth, the importance of consumption growth on economic growth etc. The problem is that when you try and have this discussion some idiot references "Say's Law" and they think they won the argument.

It is one of the reasons this place is a joke.

The libertarians who equate UHC to "theft" and "rape" being the other major reason.

Let me ask then, was Keynes able to correctly refute Say's Law in General Theory?

My problem is not "Say's Law" but the google masters who think they know how to apply it meaningfully in a conversation. Economic thought didn't end with Keynes and no real economist cares that much about who said what but focuses on reality instead.

You can also generally tell who is hopeless when they can only name drop and make everything about who said what.

 

[Rshermr]

Referencing "Say's Law" is a pretty good sign you are talking to someone who googled their understanding of economics.

Wow...

Look, my econ degree was over 40 years ago. Says law has not been high on my priority list. Keynesian economics pretty much deleted the concept as a working "law" a long time ago, leaving the true believers to be Supply Siders and Libertarians. And their ilk. The majority of the world understood that supply does not determine demand. And today, few economists pay any attention to it.
So, my thing is you are talking about a supposed economic law that has been debunked in a number of ways over the years, and expecting people to remember the name of the debunked concept. No one much today spends much time on the concept. Pretty much just an economic history subject.

 

[Rshermr]

Wow...

Case in point.

I would be perfectly happy to see a conversation about industrial output and capacity, the importance of inventory levels, the impact income inequality has on consumption growth, the importance of consumption growth on economic growth etc. The problem is that when you try and have this discussion some idiot references "Say's Law" and they think they won the argument.

It is one of the reasons this place is a joke.

The libertarians who equate UHC to "theft" and "rape" being the other major reason.

Let me ask then, was Keynes able to correctly refute Say's Law in General Theory?

Yes. For thinking economists. But not for Libertarians.
But it was not just Keyenes. It was historical economic experience. It was when we found out there was such a thing as a liquidity trap. It was our experience during the great depression. And the great recession, where producers horded rather than spent. And others. You have to really really want to believe in Says law. Because it is far from intuitive in our current experience. You are, after all, looking at a law based in Classical Economics, from around the start of the 19th century.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

OK, so your problem here is that you want people to converse about things that peak your interest, or they are just stupid name droppers who googled Say's Law and flung it haphazardly into the discussion.

Got it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Keynes did not refute Say's Law. He rejected it out of emotional appeal to policies most governments were already using when he wrote General Theory. And Say's Law was not an integral part of classical economics. It was a precursor that refuted garbled nonsense that stood in the way of reasonable analysis of conditions.

Adam Smith also worked to kill the crap that was part of popular belief at the time. Such as that when business was bad, there were two explanations: Not enough money or general overproduction.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, go back to your post (#111 above) and reconcile it. Since you now admit you do not know him. Man is a PHD economist with a lot of years of study and personal experience. Does not post unwarranted attacks on anyone. Has tried over and over to have a rational conversation. But, in the above post you attacked him without knowing him. Why is that, me boy?

Toro vouched for him, which is good enough for me.

BUT, anyone can claim to be anything on the internet. One claiming to be a PhD. has no real meaning unless there are posts that back it up.

There are. Many.

Yeah...like the guy that claimed to have taught college level economics as an undergrad...but then didn't know what the term "school of economics" meant? The next intelligent post you make having to do with economics will be your FIRST intelligent post on that subject!

Or my favorite...that your spelling and grammar were so bad because your "private secretary" always took care of those things FOR you!

 

[Bombur]

OK, so your problem here is that you want people to converse about things that peak your interest, or they are just stupid name droppers who googled Say's Law and flung it haphazardly into the discussion.

Got it.

It is not just that they drop it into the discussion but that it distorts their thinking to the point that they don't. They can't even use their own words to argue their point and think simply saying "Say's Law" wins an argument.

I would not rule out the possibility that at some point Say's Law could be applied correctly to an argument. I have seen it used multiple times here and each time the person using it didn't actually argue why or how it is meaningful in the argument and failed to address the reality of the situation as opposed to the theoretical reality they assumed Say's Law would result in.

 

[Rshermr]

OK, so your problem here is that you want people to converse about things that peak your interest, or they are just stupid name droppers who googled Say's Law and flung it haphazardly into the discussion.

Got it.

No, not actually. You want to talk about says law, knock yourself out. I would rather go have a root canal. But do what you like. Not my concern. I know how to ignore.