tHE TRUTH ABOUT rEPUBLICAN Keynesians like REAGAN

[Oldstyle]

"Again, you need to argue that with them. And a whole lot of economists, who believe what they say. I was not refering to marxist socialism, or communism. That is a different subject. Socialism, we can nearly agree, is the gov ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Such as insurance. And, welfare is generally considered a socialist attribute. You know, the whole safety net thing. But again, should you be able to concentrate for a moment, I did not say they were socialist. The source I provided did. But if you read it, and apply just a bit of logic, you would see that they have MORE SOCIALIST CHARACTERISTICS than the US. If you do not agree, then great. That would be your opinion. Most would prefer a much more experienced source. You know, one with economic credentials. Which leaves us both out."

Pearls of economic "wisdom" from Rshermr!!! Funny how someone can claim to have so much knowledge about economics that they were chosen to teach the subject but then can consider themselves to be lacking in both experience and credentials.

 

[Oldstyle]

The following is just an example of your "intellectual prowess" (eye roll) in action. It's the continuation of the same string. Note how soon you accuse someone of "lying" when you can't refute their contention. THAT is how you "roll", Tommy.


"Please. Get your head out of your ass. The echo is bothersome.

This is a simple concept. For most.
What I said was that the US is considered a capitalist economy.
That does NOT mean to those with actual brain activity that it is totally capitalist in nature. We do have socialist components in out economy.
So, we have it. You can not name a successful primarily libertarian economy. Seems to be making you irrational, me boy. It is ok. No need to get all pissy.
And I hardly said that what some would call marxist socialism does not exist. But I do not consider them for one primary reason, dipshit. It is because they really do not matter. They are hardly successful economies. Though, as you must admit, the fact that they DO EXIST, even though they are considered successful by almost no one, that is more than you can say for a predominantly libertarian economy. There is no predominantly libertarian economy that even makes it to the level of an unsuccessful existing economy

Socialism is, and was considered by Marx, as a stage in the development of Communism. But socialism is not socialism. Communism, however, does entail socialism.

So, you can define socialism any way you want. It's a free country. But you will be wrong. They are two separate economic, and social, systems.

Good for you, Amazon. An economics expert in your own mind. Next???
Socialism does not require, and generally does not entail, gov ownership other than of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Which is why you are continually wrong. I linked you to proof of that. You seem to have no link proving your contention that socialism entails loss of private ownership. That would be, me girl, because you can not find a reasonable source that would back you up. Because, of course, you are simply lying.
Because you keep conflating socialism and communism. Really. A little honesty would be good.
So, amazon makes another of her long, blathering, mostly incoherent, and fact free posts.
Got it, Amazon. So you can not explain why libertarians are having to build their own islands. Nor why you are unable to find a source that agrees with you that HK is a country. Or that it is libertarian. Poor dear.

Makes you so angry. But then, that is the thing with libertarian tools. They want to be angry.
Perhaps the funniest thing I have seen you post was that HK is obviously libertarian since ONLY 30% of their housing is socialist. Or the one where you proclaim of yourself that everyone believes that your posts are valuable.

So, we have it. You can not name a predominantly libertarian nation. You think a city is a nation. You think your posts are valuable. You believe the owned and paid for economist, Thomas Sowell is a great source.

Any more comedy routines coming along, me libertarian tool??

I wonder if anyone actually reads the meandering drivel that you post. Not me. Unjless I am really, really board. Probably just other libertarian tools like yourself. You know, ci's like kennedy. Jesus.
Between the two of you, perhaps you can say a single thing that is true???"

 

[Rshermr]

The following is just an example of your "intellectual prowess" (eye roll) in action. It's the continuation of the same string. Note how soon you accuse someone of "lying" when you can't refute their contention. THAT is how you "roll", Tommy.


"Please. Get your head out of your ass. The echo is bothersome.

This is a simple concept. For most.
What I said was that the US is considered a capitalist economy.
That does NOT mean to those with actual brain activity that it is totally capitalist in nature. We do have socialist components in out economy.
So, we have it. You can not name a successful primarily libertarian economy. Seems to be making you irrational, me boy. It is ok. No need to get all pissy.
And I hardly said that what some would call marxist socialism does not exist. But I do not consider them for one primary reason, dipshit. It is because they really do not matter. They are hardly successful economies. Though, as you must admit, the fact that they DO EXIST, even though they are considered successful by almost no one, that is more than you can say for a predominantly libertarian economy. There is no predominantly libertarian economy that even makes it to the level of an unsuccessful existing economy

Socialism is, and was considered by Marx, as a stage in the development of Communism. But socialism is not socialism. Communism, however, does entail socialism.

So, you can define socialism any way you want. It's a free country. But you will be wrong. They are two separate economic, and social, systems.

Good for you, Amazon. An economics expert in your own mind. Next???
Socialism does not require, and generally does not entail, gov ownership other than of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Which is why you are continually wrong. I linked you to proof of that. You seem to have no link proving your contention that socialism entails loss of private ownership. That would be, me girl, because you can not find a reasonable source that would back you up. Because, of course, you are simply lying.
Because you keep conflating socialism and communism. Really. A little honesty would be good.
So, amazon makes another of her long, blathering, mostly incoherent, and fact free posts.
Got it, Amazon. So you can not explain why libertarians are having to build their own islands. Nor why you are unable to find a source that agrees with you that HK is a country. Or that it is libertarian. Poor dear.

Makes you so angry. But then, that is the thing with libertarian tools. They want to be angry.
Perhaps the funniest thing I have seen you post was that HK is obviously libertarian since ONLY 30% of their housing is socialist. Or the one where you proclaim of yourself that everyone believes that your posts are valuable.

So, we have it. You can not name a predominantly libertarian nation. You think a city is a nation. You think your posts are valuable. You believe the owned and paid for economist, Thomas Sowell is a great source.

Any more comedy routines coming along, me libertarian tool??

I wonder if anyone actually reads the meandering drivel that you post. Not me. Unjless I am really, really board. Probably just other libertarian tools like yourself. You know, ci's like kennedy. Jesus.
Between the two of you, perhaps you can say a single thing that is true???"

Very nice, oldstyle. You are able to take arguments out of context, post them, and make personal attacks. Where is the name of the person at my college you said you talked to. You know, the one you lied about.

It is a simple question, oldstyle. You said you talked to someone, said what they told you, but can not name a person. Which tells anyone that you are simply lying. You can correct that easily. Or, at least you could, were you not lying. Which, of course, you are.

All you have is personal attacks. No one cares. I do not care. No one trying to follow this case cares. All I want, me boy, is for you to back up your statement. Who did you talk to????

 

[Rshermr]

Still can't find an intelligent post by you about economics? No surprise at all!

Me poor ignorant person, oldstyle. You have no economic background, but think you can criticize someone that does. You are simply wasting my time.

 

[Oldstyle]

Still can't find an intelligent post by you about economics? No surprise at all!

Me poor ignorant person, oldstyle. You have no economic background, but think you can criticize someone that does. You are simply wasting my time.

Well which is it, Tommy? You described YOURSELF as not having economic credentials even after you claimed to be an economics major in college so gifted that you were chosen to teach an economics class as an undergrad.

See...that's the problem when you start making things up about yourself...you can't keep the different parts of the story straight...things don't add up...different statements contradict each other...

And in the end? You're left with attacking the people who point out your "inconsistencies". It's all right out of the pathological liars handbook. It's not YOU that's the liar...it's EVERYONE ELSE that's lying!!!

 

[Oldstyle]

The difference between the two of us, Rshermr is that I never claimed expertise at economics. I took two Econ classes...Micro Economics and Macro Economics. That's it. I was a history major. But somehow even with my limited exposure to the subject I know more about it than you do...a person who not only majored in economics but claims to have been so well versed in it that you taught the subject at the college level. How is that possible? How could you have majored in economics and not understand what I was referring to when I asked what economic school your contentions were based on? How could you not know basic Keynesian principles? The answers to those questions are obvious...you couldn't...not if you really were an Econ major.

Which leaves us with what you REALLY are...an internet troll who embellishes his resume because he's insecure about himself.

 

[Rshermr]

The difference between the two of us, Rshermr is that I never claimed expertise at economics. I took two Econ classes...Micro Economics and Macro Economics. That's it. I was a history major. But somehow even with my limited exposure to the subject I know more about it than you do...a person who not only majored in economics but claims to have been so well versed in it that you taught the subject at the college level. How is that possible? How could you have majored in economics and not understand what I was referring to when I asked what economic school your contentions were based on? How could you not know basic Keynesian principles? The answers to those questions are obvious...you couldn't...not if you really were an Econ major.

Which leaves us with what you REALLY are...an internet troll who embellishes his resume because he's insecure about himself.

thanks for your opinion. I will keep that in mind. You know how much I value your opinion.

Now, about the bald faced lie about talking to someone at my college. Got the name???

Of course not. Because you made no call.

 

[Rshermr]

So oldstyle, incapable of making an economic argument, says:

Well which is it, Tommy? You described YOURSELF as not having economic credentials even after you claimed to be an economics major in college so gifted that you were chosen to teach an economics class as an undergrad.

No, me boy. That is another of your lies. What I said is that I was not an economist. Spent my years in business, mostly marketing stuff. I did not say that I was gifted. But I did have the grades. Want to put some money on that one, me boy.

See...that's the problem when you start making things up about yourself...you can't keep the different parts of the story straight...things don't add up...different statements contradict each other...

Hardly, oldstyle. I NEVER lie on this post. Period. Your suppositions are just that. Suppositions. And incorrect.

And in the end? You're left with attacking the people who point out your "inconsistencies". It's all right out of the pathological liars handbook. It's not YOU that's the liar...it's EVERYONE ELSE that's lying!!!

Again, that is just you playing your silly little games. I do not call someone who honestly points out inconsistencies a liar. However, you do not simply point out inconsistencies in your tiny mind. Instead, you make things up to attack. Because you are incapable of economic argument. That is all that is left to you.

Now, this is simple. You have attacked the statement I made about helping an economics prof by teaching a breakout group of about 20% of his basic econ class. You claimed that you had "proof" that I lied based on a conversation you claimed to have had with officials at my college. Now, oldstyle, when asked whom you talked to, you refuse to respond. And that would be, quite obviously, because you lied.

Like you lied when you claimed that if I gave you the information you requested about my teaching experience, that you would admit that I was not lying. I gave you what you requested. But, of course, as I said I expected, you just went on making that same old claim. Which, of course, shows what sort of integrity you have.

I understand that you are on a pilgrimage to prove that I have lied. You have, and will continue to, fail. Because I NEVER lie on this post. But it does make you look desperate.

So, why should anyone care about listening to you, who is a proven liar.

 

[Oldstyle]

So oldstyle, incapable of making an economic argument, says:

Well which is it, Tommy? You described YOURSELF as not having economic credentials even after you claimed to be an economics major in college so gifted that you were chosen to teach an economics class as an undergrad.

No, me boy. That is another of your lies. What I said is that I was not an economist. Spent my years in business, mostly marketing stuff. I did not say that I was gifted. But I did have the grades. Want to put some money on that one, me boy.

See...that's the problem when you start making things up about yourself...you can't keep the different parts of the story straight...things don't add up...different statements contradict each other...

Hardly, oldstyle. I NEVER lie on this post. Period. Your suppositions are just that. Suppositions. And incorrect.

And in the end? You're left with attacking the people who point out your "inconsistencies". It's all right out of the pathological liars handbook. It's not YOU that's the liar...it's EVERYONE ELSE that's lying!!!

Again, that is just you playing your silly little games. I do not call someone who honestly points out inconsistencies a liar. However, you do not simply point out inconsistencies in your tiny mind. Instead, you make things up to attack. Because you are incapable of economic argument. That is all that is left to you.

Now, this is simple. You have attacked the statement I made about helping an economics prof by teaching a breakout group of about 20% of his basic econ class. You claimed that you had "proof" that I lied based on a conversation you claimed to have had with officials at my college. Now, oldstyle, when asked whom you talked to, you refuse to respond. And that would be, quite obviously, because you lied.

Like you lied when you claimed that if I gave you the information you requested about my teaching experience, that you would admit that I was not lying. I gave you what you requested. But, of course, as I said I expected, you just went on making that same old claim. Which, of course, shows what sort of integrity you have.

I understand that you are on a pilgrimage to prove that I have lied. You have, and will continue to, fail. Because I NEVER lie on this post. But it does make you look desperate.

So, why should anyone care about listening to you, who is a proven liar.

You ALWAYS accuse those who don't agree with your contentions of being liars, Tommy...that's what you DO. Want proof? I can post examples of you doing just that all day long.

 

[oldfart]

The difference between the two of us, Rshermr is that I never claimed expertise at economics. I took two Econ classes...Micro Economics and Macro Economics. That's it. I was a history major. But somehow even with my limited exposure to the subject I know more about it than you do...a person who not only majored in economics but claims to have been so well versed in it that you taught the subject at the college level. How is that possible? How could you have majored in economics and not understand what I was referring to when I asked what economic school your contentions were based on? How could you not know basic Keynesian principles? The answers to those questions are obvious...you couldn't...not if you really were an Econ major.

Which leaves us with what you REALLY are...an internet troll who embellishes his resume because he's insecure about himself.

Everybody really needs to give the credentials thing a rest. Nobody gives a shit where a poster went to school or what courses they took; we should only be interested in what they should have learned there. Rshermr's standing rests on the cogency of his arguments and the accuracy and appropriateness of the data he uses. I would apply the same standard to you and expect to be held to the same standard myself. If its not too much trouble, can we discuss issues and forgo the infantile name-calling?

Of all of the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. What's this thread about anyway?

 

[Oldstyle]

The difference between the two of us, Rshermr is that I never claimed expertise at economics. I took two Econ classes...Micro Economics and Macro Economics. That's it. I was a history major. But somehow even with my limited exposure to the subject I know more about it than you do...a person who not only majored in economics but claims to have been so well versed in it that you taught the subject at the college level. How is that possible? How could you have majored in economics and not understand what I was referring to when I asked what economic school your contentions were based on? How could you not know basic Keynesian principles? The answers to those questions are obvious...you couldn't...not if you really were an Econ major.

Which leaves us with what you REALLY are...an internet troll who embellishes his resume because he's insecure about himself.

Everybody really needs to give the credentials thing a rest. Nobody gives a shit where a poster went to school or what courses they took; we should only be interested in what they should have learned there. Rshermr's standing rests on the cogency of his arguments and the accuracy and appropriateness of the data he uses. I would apply the same standard to you and expect to be held to the same standard myself. If its not too much trouble, can we discuss issues and forgo the infantile name-calling?

Of all of the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. What's this thread about anyway?

Trust me, Oldfart...I could care less where you went to school. I will however take exception to those who think that THEIR opinion should be given greater merit because they have expertise in a subject when the only evidence of that expertise is them SAYING they are an expert. That was Rshermr's mistake. He couldn't make his arguments stand on their own merits so he declared that he was right by dint of his background in economics. That he was right because he taught the subject at the college level.

I've asked Rshermr...now I'll ask you...find me a post where HE gives informed and intelligent commentary on economic issues. You can't because he doesn't have enough knowledge of economics to do so. He's a "cut and paste" guy. He gets HIS knowledge of economics from Google...not from the college education that he CLAIMS to have gotten.

 

[Rshermr]

The difference between the two of us, Rshermr is that I never claimed expertise at economics. I took two Econ classes...Micro Economics and Macro Economics. That's it. I was a history major. But somehow even with my limited exposure to the subject I know more about it than you do...a person who not only majored in economics but claims to have been so well versed in it that you taught the subject at the college level. How is that possible? How could you have majored in economics and not understand what I was referring to when I asked what economic school your contentions were based on? How could you not know basic Keynesian principles? The answers to those questions are obvious...you couldn't...not if you really were an Econ major.

Which leaves us with what you REALLY are...an internet troll who embellishes his resume because he's insecure about himself.

Everybody really needs to give the credentials thing a rest. Nobody gives a shit where a poster went to school or what courses they took; we should only be interested in what they should have learned there. Rshermr's standing rests on the cogency of his arguments and the accuracy and appropriateness of the data he uses. I would apply the same standard to you and expect to be held to the same standard myself. If its not too much trouble, can we discuss issues and forgo the infantile name-calling?

Of all of the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. What's this thread about anyway?

Trust me, Oldfart...I could care less where you went to school. I will however take exception to those who think that THEIR opinion should be given greater merit because they have expertise in a subject when the only evidence of that expertise is them SAYING they are an expert. That was Rshermr's mistake. He couldn't make his arguments stand on their own merits so he declared that he was right by dint of his background in economics. That he was right because he taught the subject at the college level.

I've asked Rshermr...now I'll ask you...find me a post where HE gives informed and intelligent commentary on economic issues. You can't because he doesn't have enough knowledge of economics to do so. He's a "cut and paste" guy. He gets HIS knowledge of economics from Google...not from the college education that he CLAIMS to have gotten.

Oldstyle, the problem with you is that you just keep on keeping on. I said I have a degree in economics. Bachelors degree, which I would be happy to prove if you want to make a real bet on it. What I also said was that I am not an economist. And as I also said, I do not consider myself to be an expert in economics. Where you get the rest is your problem. Because I never said more than that.

The rest is your opinion. And you are welcome to it.
Relative to the references that I use, they are to prove points. Standard sort of thing if you are relatively certain of what you are saying. Because, you see, I respect others opinions a good deal. Like the bls, like the cbo, and like various publications that are generally accepted as impartial and are posting data from good sources.
So, as I have said, since you say I know nothing of economics, I would make an economic argument and show that you know way more than me. Instead of the ongoing and constant personal attacks.

 

[Oldstyle]

Everybody really needs to give the credentials thing a rest. Nobody gives a shit where a poster went to school or what courses they took; we should only be interested in what they should have learned there. Rshermr's standing rests on the cogency of his arguments and the accuracy and appropriateness of the data he uses. I would apply the same standard to you and expect to be held to the same standard myself. If its not too much trouble, can we discuss issues and forgo the infantile name-calling?

Of all of the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most. What's this thread about anyway?

Trust me, Oldfart...I could care less where you went to school. I will however take exception to those who think that THEIR opinion should be given greater merit because they have expertise in a subject when the only evidence of that expertise is them SAYING they are an expert. That was Rshermr's mistake. He couldn't make his arguments stand on their own merits so he declared that he was right by dint of his background in economics. That he was right because he taught the subject at the college level.

I've asked Rshermr...now I'll ask you...find me a post where HE gives informed and intelligent commentary on economic issues. You can't because he doesn't have enough knowledge of economics to do so. He's a "cut and paste" guy. He gets HIS knowledge of economics from Google...not from the college education that he CLAIMS to have gotten.

Oldstyle, the problem with you is that you just keep on keeping on. I said I have a degree in economics. Bachelors degree, which I would be happy to prove if you want to make a real bet on it. What I also said was that I am not an economist. And as I also said, I do not consider myself to be an expert in economics. Where you get the rest is your problem. Because I never said more than that.

The rest is your opinion. And you are welcome to it.
Relative to the references that I use, they are to prove points. Standard sort of thing if you are relatively certain of what you are saying. Because, you see, I respect others opinions a good deal. Like the bls, like the cbo, and like various publications that are generally accepted as impartial and are posting data from good sources.
So, as I have said, since you say I know nothing of economics, I would make an economic argument and show that you know way more than me. Instead of the ongoing and constant personal attacks.

I hate to break this to you, Sparky but if you're "relatively certain of what you are saying" you don't need to constantly cut and paste things that you've Googled. THAT is why I'm quite certain that I DO know way more than you. It's why when you said that WWI was immediately followed by a depression, I knew you were incorrect. I didn't have to Google that. I studied history. I know that the Depression followed the "Roaring Twenties"...not WWI.

I'm still waiting to see a post that you think illustrates your knowledge of economics. Surely with the hundreds of posts that you've made about the subject there must be ONE that you feel shows intelligence on your part? You're an economics major for God's sake! You should have spent hundreds of hours studying the subject! Yet your knowledge of economics could best be described as "superficial". You post things on economics that I would expect from a 6th grader...not a college graduate and you do it with vocabulary and grammar of someone that failed High School Freshman English. You of course blame this on your having a "secretary" for years that proofed all of your writings.

 

[Rshermr]

Trust me, Oldfart...I could care less where you went to school. I will however take exception to those who think that THEIR opinion should be given greater merit because they have expertise in a subject when the only evidence of that expertise is them SAYING they are an expert. That was Rshermr's mistake. He couldn't make his arguments stand on their own merits so he declared that he was right by dint of his background in economics. That he was right because he taught the subject at the college level.

I've asked Rshermr...now I'll ask you...find me a post where HE gives informed and intelligent commentary on economic issues. You can't because he doesn't have enough knowledge of economics to do so. He's a "cut and paste" guy. He gets HIS knowledge of economics from Google...not from the college education that he CLAIMS to have gotten.

Oldstyle, the problem with you is that you just keep on keeping on. I said I have a degree in economics. Bachelors degree, which I would be happy to prove if you want to make a real bet on it. What I also said was that I am not an economist. And as I also said, I do not consider myself to be an expert in economics. Where you get the rest is your problem. Because I never said more than that.

The rest is your opinion. And you are welcome to it.
Relative to the references that I use, they are to prove points. Standard sort of thing if you are relatively certain of what you are saying. Because, you see, I respect others opinions a good deal. Like the bls, like the cbo, and like various publications that are generally accepted as impartial and are posting data from good sources.
So, as I have said, since you say I know nothing of economics, I would make an economic argument and show that you know way more than me. Instead of the ongoing and constant personal attacks.

I hate to break this to you, Sparky but if you're "relatively certain of what you are saying" you don't need to constantly cut and paste things that you've Googled. THAT is why I'm quite certain that I DO know way more than you. It's why when you said that WWI was immediately followed by a depression, I knew you were incorrect. I didn't have to Google that. I studied history. I know that the Depression followed the "Roaring Twenties"...not WWI.

I'm still waiting to see a post that you think illustrates your knowledge of economics. Surely with the hundreds of posts that you've made about the subject there must be ONE that you feel shows intelligence on your part? You're an economics major for God's sake! You should have spent hundreds of hours studying the subject! Yet your knowledge of economics could best be described as "superficial". You post things on economics that I would expect from a 6th grader...not a college graduate and you do it with vocabulary and grammar of someone that failed High School Freshman English. You of course blame this on your having a "secretary" for years that proofed all of your writings.

Look, this is the last post on this that I am going to make. You are intent on personal attacks. So let me say a couple of things that are obvious to anyone that has ever in his life discussed economics.
1. In general, unless I am dealing with someone who has a phd, and I agree with what he says based on my own knowledge of the subject, then I want to see some source backing up what he is saying.
2, If that person can not provide that back up of his statements, then I KNOW his is full of shit. Which is the problem with your statements. You do not provide backup, and think people are going to believe you.
3. I do not expect people with whom I am debating a point to believe me, so I show the proof from respected sources.

Relative to the great depression, there was only one. And your knowledge of it has been expressed by you and is quite different from the knowledge anyone who has studied the subject has. The fact that I said depression instead of recession was simply a matter of not paying attention to what I was saying. And has been explained before. But is a perfect example of what you are all about. Which is game playing.
And you also made a big deal of a passing statement of having had a secretary for years to proof my writing. No big deal. But you have taken that to try to prove that I was lying. Again. Though you did not have the balls to take my bet, and allow me to prove the truth of my statement. Because, me boy, you just like to make drive by attacks. You have no balls, me boy. You are just a waste of space.

Now if all this is new to you, then go on posting your opinion. However, if you believe that having no sources shows you to be knowledgeable, then good luck with that. You will convince no one.

So, best of luck with that. Because you are, in my humble but correct opinion, a total waste of time. And I will waste no more.

Funny thing is, oldstyle, that I avoid your posts and choose not to become involved with debate with you. Because you are dishonest. And you play games. And you waste my time. but you always show up in some post I am involved with and immediately attack me. Too bad you do not actually know enough to stay on track. Must be pitiful to be unable to discuss issues, instead of discussing the subject.

 

[Oldstyle]

Oldstyle, the problem with you is that you just keep on keeping on. I said I have a degree in economics. Bachelors degree, which I would be happy to prove if you want to make a real bet on it. What I also said was that I am not an economist. And as I also said, I do not consider myself to be an expert in economics. Where you get the rest is your problem. Because I never said more than that.

The rest is your opinion. And you are welcome to it.
Relative to the references that I use, they are to prove points. Standard sort of thing if you are relatively certain of what you are saying. Because, you see, I respect others opinions a good deal. Like the bls, like the cbo, and like various publications that are generally accepted as impartial and are posting data from good sources.
So, as I have said, since you say I know nothing of economics, I would make an economic argument and show that you know way more than me. Instead of the ongoing and constant personal attacks.

I hate to break this to you, Sparky but if you're "relatively certain of what you are saying" you don't need to constantly cut and paste things that you've Googled. THAT is why I'm quite certain that I DO know way more than you. It's why when you said that WWI was immediately followed by a depression, I knew you were incorrect. I didn't have to Google that. I studied history. I know that the Depression followed the "Roaring Twenties"...not WWI.

I'm still waiting to see a post that you think illustrates your knowledge of economics. Surely with the hundreds of posts that you've made about the subject there must be ONE that you feel shows intelligence on your part? You're an economics major for God's sake! You should have spent hundreds of hours studying the subject! Yet your knowledge of economics could best be described as "superficial". You post things on economics that I would expect from a 6th grader...not a college graduate and you do it with vocabulary and grammar of someone that failed High School Freshman English. You of course blame this on your having a "secretary" for years that proofed all of your writings.

Look, this is the last post on this that I am going to make. You are intent on personal attacks. So let me say a couple of things that are obvious to anyone that has ever in his life discussed economics.
1. In general, unless I am dealing with someone who has a phd, and I agree with what he says based on my own knowledge of the subject, then I want to see some source backing up what he is saying.
2, If that person can not provide that back up of his statements, then I KNOW his is full of shit. Which is the problem with your statements. You do not provide backup, and think people are going to believe you.
3. I do not expect people with whom I am debating a point to believe me, so I show the proof from respected sources.

Relative to the great depression, there was only one. And your knowledge of it has been expressed by you and is quite different from the knowledge anyone who has studied the subject has. The fact that I said depression instead of recession was simply a matter of not paying attention to what I was saying. And has been explained before. But is a perfect example of what you are all about. Which is game playing.
And you also made a big deal of a passing statement of having had a secretary for years to proof my writing. No big deal. But you have taken that to try to prove that I was lying. Again. Though you did not have the balls to take my bet, and allow me to prove the truth of my statement. Because, me boy, you just like to make drive by attacks. You have no balls, me boy. You are just a waste of space.

Now if all this is new to you, then go on posting your opinion. However, if you believe that having no sources shows you to be knowledgeable, then good luck with that. You will convince no one.

So, best of luck with that. Because you are, in my humble but correct opinion, a total waste of time. And I will waste no more.

Funny thing is, oldstyle, that I avoid your posts and choose not to become involved with debate with you. Because you are dishonest. And you play games. And you waste my time. but you always show up in some post I am involved with and immediately attack me. Too bad you do not actually know enough to stay on track. Must be pitiful to be unable to discuss issues, instead of discussing the subject.

Can't find a single post that proves your knowledge of economics, can you? Out of the HUNDREDS that you've posted? Yet you talk about a waste of time? Now THAT is amusing! Think about that, Rshermr...out of all those posts you can't find ONE that is an example of your "intellect" coming to the fore. How pathetic is THAT? Yet you actually have the stones to call others ignorant?