Top Socialist Economist Says He’s Been Working With Democrats & Obama For A Long Time

[Jroc]

It appears that you cannot read. I am one of this boards most vocal critics of corporate apologists and an opponent of crony capitalism. I am also one of the most forceful advocates of market mechanisms. I regard all concentrations of power as destructive to liberty and injurious to society.

From your posts, you appear to be so muddled no one can figure out what you believe. I'm not sure how much of that is because you can't write coherently and how much is because you never learned to think. Please try to not sputter so much when you post. It dribbles down your chin and makes it look like you drool.

If You help to promote socialist economic principles you're a brainwashed idiot .How's that? I'm not familiar with all the self proscribed geniuses on the board, so pardon me if I'm not familiar with you.... Genus.

And you are too lazy to look up a person's posts before launching an ad hominem. I laid out my basic position as a courtesy to you. But keep on turning other posters into straw men. It just proves you neither have the intellectuals resources or discipline to participate in public discussion.

Now specifically which of my positions referenced above do you consider "brainwashing"? Are you defending concentrations of power, or perhaps just opposing use of market mechanisms?

I don't disagree with any of that actually. I'm not quite sure how that fits with your support of the socialist economist? I'm gonna apologize to you though sometimes I just skim through this board way too fast.

 

[oldfart]

Socialist and democrats one and the same

Gee, what a surprise, NOT, the Right sinks to name calling, Socialist, Marxist, Communist, Fascist, rather than refute his historical facts.

Actually in French politics, democrats and socialists ARE pretty much the same people. The right used to be divided into monarchists, bonapartists, and fascists. The modern centrists are socialism lite, corporatist lite, and united in disdain for the British.

 

[oldfart]

You might want to give some thought to the implications of that graphic. Districts with the most inequality (i.e. largest gaps between rich and poor) tend to vote Democratic. Poor people tend to vote Democratic. Rich people tend to vote Republican. Each vote counts once. Ergo districts with high inequality and lots of poor people lean Democratic.
What's surprising about that?

Rich people tend to vote for, and donate money to, Democrats. It is a guilt complex thing. Deal with it.

.

Since that is in opposition to every FEC report I've seen, I'll ask for a source. And I don't mean a website, I mean statistics on political contributions, and spending through organizations such as 501(c)(4)'s from the sources.

 

[Rshermr]

Not likely. Percysunshine uses the PIFYOA GROUP. That is, of course, the Pull It From Your Own Ass Group.

 

[Wry Catcher]

THE RED SCARE,
Produced and directed by Reince Priebus,
funded by Sheldon Adelson and,
Americans for Prosperity and
Fellow Travelers like you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Socialist and democrats one and the same

Have you ever wondered why the Obama Administration’s plans for improving the U.S. economy always seem to fall flat? It just might have something to do with the fact that the Obama Administration has been working with someone who doesn’t like capitalism.

According to an article on France24.com, a well known economist who isn’t fond of capitalism, but promotes Socialism, has been working with the Democrats and the Obama Administration “for a long time”:

In his latest book, French economist Thomas Piketty warns that modern-day capitalism leads to unsustainable levels of inequality. While he is often linked to France’s Socialist Party, his writings have made him unusually popular in the US.

Top Socialist Economist Says He?s Been Working With Democrats & Obama ?For A Long Time? | The Gateway Pundit

Gee, what a surprise, NOT, the Right sinks to name calling, Socialist, Marxist, Communist, Fascist, rather than refute his historical facts.

For an education.....check out this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/351791-piketty-cargo-cult-economics.html

 

[oldfart]

If You help to promote socialist economic principles you're a brainwashed idiot .How's that? I'm not familiar with all the self proscribed geniuses on the board, so pardon me if I'm not familiar with you.... Genus.

And you are too lazy to look up a person's posts before launching an ad hominem. I laid out my basic position as a courtesy to you. But keep on turning other posters into straw men. It just proves you neither have the intellectual resources or discipline to participate in public discussion.

Now specifically which of my positions referenced above do you consider "brainwashing"? Are you defending concentrations of power, or perhaps just opposing use of market mechanisms?

I don't disagree with any of that actually. I'm not quite sure how that fits with your support of the socialist economist? I'm gonna apologize to you though sometimes I just skim through this board way too fast.

Hey, I'm the guy who told a pregnant women at a new faculty mixer that she was laboring under a misconception.

I don't care if an economist is socialist or monarchist (yes, I mean Schumpeter!). When they do good work, I treat it seriously. A lot of prominent economists, not to mention bloggers and boardfolk, would do well to stop dismissing good work because they don't like the labels attached to the author. Confirmation bias is a sure way to rot your brain.

Piketty is not a "socialist economist". He is one of the top three macroeconomists working today and the leader in his field, which is a damned important one. My comment was a warning to not dismiss his work.

I guess it's possible to study American economic history without the Genovese's or imperfect competition without Joan Robinson. But people who do so risk getting laughed out of the room.

Best always!

 

[oldfart]

For an education.....check out this thread:

LINK DELETED FROM THIS MESSAGE

Stooping to troll other people's threads to shill your own?

 

[editec]

Does ACA look like a socialist solution?

Forcing people to buy HC insurance from private companies?

Socialism?

Ye gads, citizens, learn the meaning of words.

 

[Rshermr]

Socialist and democrats one and the same


Top Socialist Economist Says He?s Been Working With Democrats & Obama ?For A Long Time? | The Gateway Pundit

Gee, what a surprise, NOT, the Right sinks to name calling, Socialist, Marxist, Communist, Fascist, rather than refute his historical facts.

For an education.....check out this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/351791-piketty-cargo-cult-economics.html

So, you define education as dogma.

 

[Rshermr]

And you are too lazy to look up a person's posts before launching an ad hominem. I laid out my basic position as a courtesy to you. But keep on turning other posters into straw men. It just proves you neither have the intellectual resources or discipline to participate in public discussion.

Now specifically which of my positions referenced above do you consider "brainwashing"? Are you defending concentrations of power, or perhaps just opposing use of market mechanisms?

I don't disagree with any of that actually. I'm not quite sure how that fits with your support of the socialist economist? I'm gonna apologize to you though sometimes I just skim through this board way too fast.

Hey, I'm the guy who told a pregnant women at a new faculty mixer that she was laboring under a misconception.

I don't care if an economist is socialist or monarchist (yes, I mean Schumpeter!). When they do good work, I treat it seriously. A lot of prominent economists, not to mention bloggers and boardfolk, would do well to stop dismissing good work because they don't like the labels attached to the author. Confirmation bias is a sure way to rot your brain.

Piketty is not a "socialist economist". He is one of the top three macroeconomists working today and the leader in his field, which is a damned important one. My comment was a warning to not dismiss his work.

I guess it's possible to study American economic history without the Genovese's or imperfect competition without Joan Robinson. But people who do so risk getting laughed out of the room.

Best always!

Seems that many Conservatives are simply afraid of any argument that may endanger their own agenda's. And, for them, ignorance is bliss.

 

[Jroc]

And you are too lazy to look up a person's posts before launching an ad hominem. I laid out my basic position as a courtesy to you. But keep on turning other posters into straw men. It just proves you neither have the intellectual resources or discipline to participate in public discussion.

Now specifically which of my positions referenced above do you consider "brainwashing"? Are you defending concentrations of power, or perhaps just opposing use of market mechanisms?

I don't disagree with any of that actually. I'm not quite sure how that fits with your support of the socialist economist? I'm gonna apologize to you though sometimes I just skim through this board way too fast.

Hey, I'm the guy who told a pregnant women at a new faculty mixer that she was laboring under a misconception.

I don't care if an economist is socialist or monarchist (yes, I mean Schumpeter!). When they do good work, I treat it seriously. A lot of prominent economists, not to mention bloggers and boardfolk, would do well to stop dismissing good work because they don't like the labels attached to the author. Confirmation bias is a sure way to rot your brain.

Piketty is not a "socialist economist". He is one of the top three macroeconomists working today and the leader in his field, which is a damned important one. My comment was a warning to not dismiss his work.

I guess it's possible to study American economic history without the Genovese's or imperfect competition without Joan Robinson. But people who do so risk getting laughed out of the room.

Best always!

what do you like about his brand of economics? is there are working model anywhere?

 

[oldfart]

A lot of prominent economists, not to mention bloggers and boardfolk, would do well to stop dismissing good work because they don't like the labels attached to the author. Confirmation bias is a sure way to rot your brain.

Piketty is not a "socialist economist". He is one of the top three macroeconomists working today and the leader in his field, which is a damned important one. My comment was a warning to not dismiss his work.

I guess it's possible to study American economic history without the Genovese's or imperfect competition without Joan Robinson. But people who do so risk getting laughed out of the room.

Best always!

what do you like about his brand of economics? is there are working model anywhere?

What I like is:
1. He is doing original research in a very important field, and breaking ground not only in his model and conclusions, but also in finding ways to get meaningful data from 150--200 year old tax records. His is making a methodological contribution that will allow others to develop methods that produce data otherwise unobtainable. It's a bit like the Rosetta Stone.
2. He writes well and has a good grasp of historical method. That's one of the three pillars of economic analysis.
3. He is making some links among previously unconnected theory and phenomena, principally the relationship between inequality in income and wealth, intergenerational transfer of wealth, and economic growth. This is where the big dividends should eventually be.
4. All of this has major applications for the formation of economic policy.

In short, it's good professional economic research and theory.

As to the model, some of it is in the book "Capital". Mine is on back order like everybody else's. From the book reviews I have a pretty good hunch the book covers maybe two-thirds of what he wants to cover, but the other third will take a couple of years to develop. I've speculated elsewhere on the board about what that missing part will turn out to be and I think he got caught at the end of last year wanting to integrate the Summers-Hansen debate into the work, but realized that would delay publication too long and bifurcated the work. It screams "Volume II coming".

The "big idea" hinges on an internal rate of return on capital (what Keynes called the "marginal efficiency of capital" and it relationship to the real growth rate (what Piketty labels "r-g"). This feeds into a marginal productivity theory of factor shares. I really need to see the math to say much more.

Or then I could have just had a bad bit of potato for dinner and am hallucinating. We'll see.

 

[Jroc]

A lot of prominent economists, not to mention bloggers and boardfolk, would do well to stop dismissing good work because they don't like the labels attached to the author. Confirmation bias is a sure way to rot your brain.

Piketty is not a "socialist economist". He is one of the top three macroeconomists working today and the leader in his field, which is a damned important one. My comment was a warning to not dismiss his work.

I guess it's possible to study American economic history without the Genovese's or imperfect competition without Joan Robinson. But people who do so risk getting laughed out of the room.

Best always!

what do you like about his brand of economics? is there are working model anywhere?

What I like is:
1. He is doing original research in a very important field, and breaking ground not only in his model and conclusions, but also in finding ways to get meaningful data from 150--200 year old tax records. His is making a methodological contribution that will allow others to develop methods that produce data otherwise unobtainable. It's a bit like the Rosetta Stone.
2. He writes well and has a good grasp of historical method. That's one of the three pillars of economic analysis.
3. He is making some links among previously unconnected theory and phenomena, principally the relationship between inequality in income and wealth, intergenerational transfer of wealth, and economic growth. This is where the big dividends should eventually be.
4. All of this has major applications for the formation of economic policy.

In short, it's good professional economic research and theory.

As to the model, some of it is in the book "Capital". Mine is on back order like everybody else's. From the book reviews I have a pretty good hunch the book covers maybe two-thirds of what he wants to cover, but the other third will take a couple of years to develop. I've speculated elsewhere on the board about what that missing part will turn out to be and I think he got caught at the end of last year wanting to integrate the Summers-Hansen debate into the work, but realized that would delay publication too long and bifurcated the work. It screams "Volume II coming".

The "big idea" hinges on an internal rate of return on capital (what Keynes called the "marginal efficiency of capital" and it relationship to the real growth rate (what Piketty labels "r-g"). This feeds into a marginal productivity theory of factor shares. I really need to see the math to say much more.

Or then I could have just had a bad bit of potato for dinner and am hallucinating. We'll see.

I can live without reading the economic theory of a socialist. There is no such thing as equality of outcome


[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKc6esIi0_U"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKc6esIi0_U[/ame]

 

[oldfart]

what do you like about his brand of economics? is there are working model anywhere?

What I like is:
1. He is doing original research in a very important field, and breaking ground not only in his model and conclusions, but also in finding ways to get meaningful data from 150--200 year old tax records. His is making a methodological contribution that will allow others to develop methods that produce data otherwise unobtainable. It's a bit like the Rosetta Stone.
2. He writes well and has a good grasp of historical method. That's one of the three pillars of economic analysis.
3. He is making some links among previously unconnected theory and phenomena, principally the relationship between inequality in income and wealth, intergenerational transfer of wealth, and economic growth. This is where the big dividends should eventually be.
4. All of this has major applications for the formation of economic policy.

In short, it's good professional economic research and theory.

As to the model, some of it is in the book "Capital". Mine is on back order like everybody else's. From the book reviews I have a pretty good hunch the book covers maybe two-thirds of what he wants to cover, but the other third will take a couple of years to develop. I've speculated elsewhere on the board about what that missing part will turn out to be and I think he got caught at the end of last year wanting to integrate the Summers-Hansen debate into the work, but realized that would delay publication too long and bifurcated the work. It screams "Volume II coming".

The "big idea" hinges on an internal rate of return on capital (what Keynes called the "marginal efficiency of capital" and it relationship to the real growth rate (what Piketty labels "r-g"). This feeds into a marginal productivity theory of factor shares. I really need to see the math to say much more.

Or then I could have just had a bad bit of potato for dinner and am hallucinating. We'll see.

I can live without reading the economic theory of a socialist. There is no such thing as equality of outcome


[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKc6esIi0_U"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKc6esIi0_U[/ame]

So you choose to be willfully ignorant, sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "Na-na-na-na". You can't effectively argue against that which you refuse to read, so I guess we will hear no more from you on the subject.

I don't study Mises, Hayek, Bohm-Bawerk, Schumpeter, and Friedman because I agree with everything they say. But if I want to be taken seriously in opposing them when they are wrong, I have to at least understand their argument.

Obviously you choose another course.

 

[Rshermr]

What I like is:
1. He is doing original research in a very important field, and breaking ground not only in his model and conclusions, but also in finding ways to get meaningful data from 150--200 year old tax records. His is making a methodological contribution that will allow others to develop methods that produce data otherwise unobtainable. It's a bit like the Rosetta Stone.
2. He writes well and has a good grasp of historical method. That's one of the three pillars of economic analysis.
3. He is making some links among previously unconnected theory and phenomena, principally the relationship between inequality in income and wealth, intergenerational transfer of wealth, and economic growth. This is where the big dividends should eventually be.
4. All of this has major applications for the formation of economic policy.

In short, it's good professional economic research and theory.

As to the model, some of it is in the book "Capital". Mine is on back order like everybody else's. From the book reviews I have a pretty good hunch the book covers maybe two-thirds of what he wants to cover, but the other third will take a couple of years to develop. I've speculated elsewhere on the board about what that missing part will turn out to be and I think he got caught at the end of last year wanting to integrate the Summers-Hansen debate into the work, but realized that would delay publication too long and bifurcated the work. It screams "Volume II coming".

The "big idea" hinges on an internal rate of return on capital (what Keynes called the "marginal efficiency of capital" and it relationship to the real growth rate (what Piketty labels "r-g"). This feeds into a marginal productivity theory of factor shares. I really need to see the math to say much more.

Or then I could have just had a bad bit of potato for dinner and am hallucinating. We'll see.

I can live without reading the economic theory of a socialist. There is no such thing as equality of outcome


[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKc6esIi0_U"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKc6esIi0_U[/ame]

So you choose to be willfully ignorant, sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "Na-na-na-na". You can't effectively argue against that which you refuse to read, so I guess we will hear no more from you on the subject.

I don't study Mises, Hayek, Bohm-Bawerk, Schumpeter, and Friedman because I agree with everything they say. But if I want to be taken seriously in opposing them when they are wrong, I have to at least understand their argument.

Obviously you choose another course.

I really do not think that those that name an economist a socialist and refuse to read his writings either understand or care about truth, or about anything like knowledge. They simply have interest in their narrow agenda. As fed to them by a few very wealthy stakeholders. But you are correct. Guys like jroc are incapable of meaningful conversation.

 

[Jroc]

I can live without reading the economic theory of a socialist. There is no such thing as equality of outcome


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKc6esIi0_U

So you choose to be willfully ignorant, sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "Na-na-na-na". You can't effectively argue against that which you refuse to read, so I guess we will hear no more from you on the subject.

I don't study Mises, Hayek, Bohm-Bawerk, Schumpeter, and Friedman because I agree with everything they say. But if I want to be taken seriously in opposing them when they are wrong, I have to at least understand their argument.

Obviously you choose another course.

I really do not think that those that name an economist a socialist and refuse to read his writings either understand or care about truth, or about anything like knowledge. They simply have interest in their narrow agenda. As fed to them by a few very wealthy stakeholders. But you are correct. Guys like jroc are incapable of meaningful conversation.

Come again? Talking points boy

: Originally Posted by Rshermr
Wow. Thomas Sowell, the libertarian professor of economics who is close friends with the Koch Brothers talking on FOX. Jesus, could you find more right wing drivel anywhere??? You could try. But you would probably fail.

 

[Rshermr]

And you did. Fail, that is. Back to your bat shit crazy conservative web sites to reload, me boy.

For instance, here is one of your tag lines:
"Man is not free unless government is limited.Ronald Reagan "

But being a con tool, you do not actually follow the history of our economy. If you did, you would know that:
Reagan tripled the national debt
Reagan raised taxes 11 times
Reagan expanded the size of government

Funny.

 

[f252863]

And you did. Fail, that is. Back to your bat shit crazy conservative web sites to reload, me boy.

For instance, here is one of your tag lines:
"Man is not free unless government is limited.Ronald Reagan "

But being a con tool, you do not actually follow the history of our economy. If you did, you would know that:
Reagan tripled the national debt
Reagan raised taxes 11 times
Reagan expanded the size of government

Funny.

Funny, I just read one page of Piketty, two references to Marx implying he was right about capitalism. So, he isn't a Marxist??

 

[Darkwind]

Another stupid post by another stupid con tool. Using a far right wing bat shit crazy source, the Gateway Pundit, for information. Information produced by (really, no kidding) a CLOWN. Jesus. An article in a con web site written by a clown. Finally, you have hit rock bottom.

ah no, this post of yours was rock bottom...you need a chill pill
I guess if it's not hufferpufferpost, thinkprogress, Salon, Washingtoncompost, cnn all dnc mouthpeices

Those sources practice JOURNALISM. This site practices attack articles written by paid tools. See the difference yet. But whatever, I will take the Wn. Post, you take the Gateway Pundit. Proof of the lack of integrity of cons.

You forgot something..