Can someone please show me an example of when un-regulated financial markets actually worked?

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus
You presented a policy paper from a HISTORIAN with an ideological bent as another source.

Are you daft? The first paper was not "ideologically bent", as you certainly are. The second paper I posted tic to elicit a response from you. Don't let yourself be manipulated so easily.

Originally posted by: Phokus
so how come this owned you so hard you couldn't even respond to it?

No, my response was - and I'll put it more concisely this time - quit being so disingenuous and STATE YOUR OBJECTIONS TO THE PAPER'S CLAIMS, FACTS, AND FIGURES. The implications of the GDP figures you posted are anecdotal at best. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A POINT, MAKE IT.

Did you understand that? I'll be more direct with you from now on. I didn't realize you were such a "special" case.

Of course, we haven't even begun to scratch the surface on how FDR's policies made it BLOODY IMPOSSIBLE for minorities - blacks, especially - to secure employment during this period. There's so much content ripe for discussion that I could rip you eighteen ways from Sunday, but you would be too stupid and stubborn to pick up on it that it would make the exercise a bit pointless, despite the entertainment it would provide the rest of us.

Let me ask you this: If I could supply you with 5 other sources backing up my claims, would you accept it? How about 10? 25? Will you consider ANYTHING credible and unbiased when it doesn't agree with you? Is it really even possible to have this discussion with you, or will you label anything that you disagree with as "ideologically bent"?

 

[JohnnyGage]

To Atreus... Thanks

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.econ.wisc.edu/works...Eggertsson%20paper.pdf

Can government policies that increase the monopoly power of firms and the militancy of unions increase output? . . . these policies are expansionary when certain "emergency" conditions apply. These emergency conditions - zero interest rates and deflation - were satisfied during the Great Depression in the United States. Therefore, the New Deal, which facilitated monopolies and union militancy, was expansionary . . .

This conclusion is contrary to the one reached by a large previous literature, . . . that argues that the New Deal was contractionary. The main reason for this divergence is that the current model incorporates nominal frictions so that inflation expectations play a central role in the analysis. The New Deal has a strong effect on inflation expectations in the model, changing excessive deflation to modest inflation, thereby lowering real interest rates and stimulating spending.

Owned.

LMFAO

You do know he's an economist, right? I thought you didn't trust them? So how do we determine whose sources are most credible? You failed to explain why your sources is more credible than my own. Are we to assume it's simply because you agree with this one?

Like I said, I can dig crap up all day. Tell me what the point would be, and we'll talk.

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
Considering how jbourne can't even handle numbers, they must be handing economics doctorates like candy.

B.S., Computer Science
B.A., Mathematics
B.A., Economics

Yeah, I can't handle numbers .

Originally posted by: Phokus
Funny thing is, I was taking a course when working at IBM and the visiting finance professor from BYU (who HAS his PhD in economics and is also a chartered CFA) told us he believed FDR's public works program helped get us out of the recession.

But then again, jbourne's ucla article is the end all be all authority on the great depression and no other economists disagree :roll:

So the countless articles out there suggesting FDR prolonged the GD all take a backseat to ONE guy you met? And YOU accuse ME of using one source as an end-all be-all? Are you joking? Did you even read up on Cole at all, or did you just assume - because you didn't like what you were hearing - that he was some partisan hack? The references to Mises and CATO came long after that when, tongue-in-cheek, I was making fun of your partisan hackery.

You, child, are a riot

Here, have another:

http://www.econ.wisc.edu/works...Eggertsson%20paper.pdf

Can government policies that increase the monopoly power of firms and the militancy of unions increase output? . . . these policies are expansionary when certain "emergency" conditions apply. These emergency conditions - zero interest rates and deflation - were satisfied during the Great Depression in the United States. Therefore, the New Deal, which facilitated monopolies and union militancy, was expansionary . . .

This conclusion is contrary to the one reached by a large previous literature, . . . that argues that the New Deal was contractionary. The main reason for this divergence is that the current model incorporates nominal frictions so that inflation expectations play a central role in the analysis. The New Deal has a strong effect on inflation expectations in the model, changing excessive deflation to modest inflation, thereby lowering real interest rates and stimulating spending.

And despite your 'qualifications', you're befuddled by this?

"The authors set 1943 as the year we recovered from the GD. They claim 1936 was the 'real' year of recovery if it wasn't for FDR. If 1936 was the real recovery year, the required levels of GDP growth to get to the 1943 levels would have been 16.9% for 4 years straight. That would have been a total increase of 86% The best 4 consecutive years of growth in the US history was 75%, that's 11% less than what these idiots were projecting. To call that projection 'beyond unprecedented' would be an understatement."

Owned.


edit: and the 'one guy i met' wasn't to counter your stupid cato article, it was to counter this 'jbourne is getting his doctorate, zomg appeal to authority!!!!!oneoneone' bs that's getting spouted about by referencing a guy who actually HAS his doctorate and many years of experience in his field.

Yeah you're right... he's just an economist...what does he know?:roll:

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus
it was to counter this 'jbourne is getting his doctorate, zomg appeal to authority!!!!!oneoneone' bs that's getting spouted about by referencing a guy who actually HAS his doctorate and many years of experience in his field.

You're right, I don't have my doctorate. And? Does this mean I'm not qualified to interpret other economists' findings, interpretations, and ideas? At the very least, all else equal, I'm as qualified as YOU .

Maybe you didn't notice that Cole, the economist *I* referenced, has his doctorate, has worked for the Fed in several capacities, etc.

But what does he know .

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
You presented a policy paper from a HISTORIAN with an ideological bent as another source.

Are you daft? The first paper was not "ideologically bent", as you certainly are. The second paper I posted tic to elicit a response from you. Don't let yourself be manipulated so easily.

Originally posted by: Phokus
so how come this owned you so hard you couldn't even respond to it?

No, my response was - and I'll put it more concisely this time - quit being so disingenuous and STATE YOUR OBJECTIONS TO THE PAPER'S CLAIMS, FACTS, AND FIGURES. The implications of the GDP figures you posted are anecdotal at best. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A POINT, MAKE IT.

Did you understand that? I'll be more direct with you from now on. I didn't realize you were such a "special" case.

Of course, we haven't even begun to scratch the surface on how FDR's policies made it BLOODY IMPOSSIBLE for minorities - blacks, especially - to secure employment during this period. There's so much content ripe for discussion that I could rip you eighteen ways from Sunday, but you would be too stupid and stubborn to pick up on it that it would make the exercise a bit pointless, despite the entertainment it would provide the rest of us.

Let me ask you this: If I could supply you with 5 other sources backing up my claims, would you accept it? How about 10? 25? Will you consider ANYTHING credible and unbiased when it doesn't agree with you? Is it really even possible to have this discussion with you, or will you label anything that you disagree with as "ideologically bent"?

AHAHAHAHAAHA, did you just call the the GDP's figures 'anecdotal' (i had to read that twice to make sure you didn't actually post something that stupid)? Holy sh*t, i don't even have to own you, you self own yourself. talk about ripping me 'eighteen ways from Sunday'.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Do your university a favor and link this thread, i cannot imagine anyone awarding you a doctorate.

As for the minorities thing, that's a valid concern, but what does that have to do with the overall recovery from the GD? Dear god, how low must the bar be to earn a doctorate in economics?

 

[JS80]

Hong Kong

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
http://www.econ.wisc.edu/works...Eggertsson%20paper.pdf

Can government policies that increase the monopoly power of firms and the militancy of unions increase output? . . . these policies are expansionary when certain "emergency" conditions apply. These emergency conditions - zero interest rates and deflation - were satisfied during the Great Depression in the United States. Therefore, the New Deal, which facilitated monopolies and union militancy, was expansionary . . .

This conclusion is contrary to the one reached by a large previous literature, . . . that argues that the New Deal was contractionary. The main reason for this divergence is that the current model incorporates nominal frictions so that inflation expectations play a central role in the analysis. The New Deal has a strong effect on inflation expectations in the model, changing excessive deflation to modest inflation, thereby lowering real interest rates and stimulating spending.

Owned.

LMFAO

You do know he's an economist, right? I thought you didn't trust them? So how do we determine whose sources are most credible? You failed to explain why your sources is more credible than my own. Are we to assume it's simply because you agree with this one?

Like I said, I can dig crap up all day. Tell me what the point would be, and we'll talk.

Yes, i do know he's an economist. I also know you presented that UCLA paper as the end all be all of the GD debate:

The informed are wary of regulation for a reason, because we've learned from it:

UCLA Economists Determine FDR Prolonged GD by 7 Years
Cliffs notes for the above, interpreted by businessandmedia.org

Yes, the 'informed' indeed.

Now your ignorant ass is more 'informed'. GG.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
You presented a policy paper from a HISTORIAN with an ideological bent as another source.

Are you daft? The first paper was not "ideologically bent", as you certainly are. The second paper I posted tic to elicit a response from you. Don't let yourself be manipulated so easily.

Originally posted by: Phokus
so how come this owned you so hard you couldn't even respond to it?

No, my response was - and I'll put it more concisely this time - quit being so disingenuous and STATE YOUR OBJECTIONS TO THE PAPER'S CLAIMS, FACTS, AND FIGURES. The implications of the GDP figures you posted are anecdotal at best. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A POINT, MAKE IT.

Did you understand that? I'll be more direct with you from now on. I didn't realize you were such a "special" case.

Of course, we haven't even begun to scratch the surface on how FDR's policies made it BLOODY IMPOSSIBLE for minorities - blacks, especially - to secure employment during this period. There's so much content ripe for discussion that I could rip you eighteen ways from Sunday, but you would be too stupid and stubborn to pick up on it that it would make the exercise a bit pointless, despite the entertainment it would provide the rest of us.

Let me ask you this: If I could supply you with 5 other sources backing up my claims, would you accept it? How about 10? 25? Will you consider ANYTHING credible and unbiased when it doesn't agree with you? Is it really even possible to have this discussion with you, or will you label anything that you disagree with as "ideologically bent"?

AHAHAHAHAAHA, did you just call the the GDP's figures 'anecdotal' (i had to read that twice to make sure you didn't actually post something that stupid)? Holy sh*t, i don't even have to own you, you self own yourself. talk about ripping me 'eighteen ways from Sunday'.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Do your university a favor and link this thread, i cannot imagine anyone awarding you a doctorate.

As for the minorities thing, that's a valid concern, but what does that have to do with the overall recovery from the GD? Dear god, how low must the bar be to earn a doctorate in economics?

It's anecdotal because all you did was post the figures with no interpretation of your own. You posted sterile figures to county an argument, yet you did not use then to counter said argument. So I'll say it again (please read this part carefully): MAKE A POINT.

Twats like you try to remain as vague as possible for as long as possible so no one can pin you down and have a real conversation with you. You're much more comfortable being a moving target with no real substance. That way, no one can really debate you.

You're not really as crafty as you think .

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage

Yeah you're right... he's just an economist...what does he know?:roll:

What does jbourne know indeed

http://www.econ.wisc.edu/works...Eggertsson%20paper.pdf

Can government policies that increase the monopoly power of firms and the militancy of unions increase output? . . . these policies are expansionary when certain "emergency" conditions apply. These emergency conditions - zero interest rates and deflation - were satisfied during the Great Depression in the United States. Therefore, the New Deal, which facilitated monopolies and union militancy, was expansionary . . .

hint: not much

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Now your ignorant ass is more 'informed'. GG.

I love this "gg" stuff. It really makes me wonder why I'm arguing with a teenage mental midget. :laugh:

Originally posted by: Phokus
Yes, i do know he's an economist.

But you don't trust economists, so how can you use one to counter my claims? I don't know about you, but I try to rely on sources that I trust .

 

[techs]

Yep. As I expected no one can show me an example of when un-regulated financial markets actually worked.
Ok, mod. You can lock this thread. My point was proven.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
Now your ignorant ass is more 'informed'. GG.

I love this "gg" stuff. It really makes me wonder why I'm arguing with a teenage mental midget. :laugh:

Originally posted by: Phokus
Yes, i do know he's an economist.

But you don't trust economists, so how can you use one to counter my claims? I don't know about you, but I try to rely on sources that I trust .

I say 'gg', because it's reminiscent of how i sarcastically said 'gg' to players i owned in Quake when i went on a rampage. This is an absolute spanking, and you're getting spanked.

I don't trust most economists that's true, but you do, so the converse also works on you, i presented a paper which contradicts yours.

Also, here's another paper for you to read.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/rese...ts/eggertsson/gexp.pdf

I don't expect you to read it because it goes against what you believe, since you believe the ucla paper is the 'informed' position laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh

The ironic thing is, YOU'RE the one who saw things black and white. Now you have competition in your world view. GG.

 

[LegendKiller]

You cannot say whether or not the policies of FDR extended the GD since you cannot possibly fathom the alternatives enacted if the policies weren't in place. You'd ether have to have a "way back machine" or an "alternative universe machine" to discover the scenarios.

This is the problem with analysis such as the ones performed re: GD.

All you can really measure is the reactions specific actions caused during the short-term periods after the actions were enacted. Even then, the long-term emergence from the GD cannot be analyzed using today's data.

Did FDR's policies lengthen the GD? Who cares. Did they prevent the GD from getting worse and causing more problems? Absolutely.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
You presented a policy paper from a HISTORIAN with an ideological bent as another source.

Are you daft? The first paper was not "ideologically bent", as you certainly are. The second paper I posted tic to elicit a response from you. Don't let yourself be manipulated so easily.

Originally posted by: Phokus
so how come this owned you so hard you couldn't even respond to it?

No, my response was - and I'll put it more concisely this time - quit being so disingenuous and STATE YOUR OBJECTIONS TO THE PAPER'S CLAIMS, FACTS, AND FIGURES. The implications of the GDP figures you posted are anecdotal at best. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A POINT, MAKE IT.

Did you understand that? I'll be more direct with you from now on. I didn't realize you were such a "special" case.

Of course, we haven't even begun to scratch the surface on how FDR's policies made it BLOODY IMPOSSIBLE for minorities - blacks, especially - to secure employment during this period. There's so much content ripe for discussion that I could rip you eighteen ways from Sunday, but you would be too stupid and stubborn to pick up on it that it would make the exercise a bit pointless, despite the entertainment it would provide the rest of us.

Let me ask you this: If I could supply you with 5 other sources backing up my claims, would you accept it? How about 10? 25? Will you consider ANYTHING credible and unbiased when it doesn't agree with you? Is it really even possible to have this discussion with you, or will you label anything that you disagree with as "ideologically bent"?

AHAHAHAHAAHA, did you just call the the GDP's figures 'anecdotal' (i had to read that twice to make sure you didn't actually post something that stupid)? Holy sh*t, i don't even have to own you, you self own yourself. talk about ripping me 'eighteen ways from Sunday'.

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Do your university a favor and link this thread, i cannot imagine anyone awarding you a doctorate.

As for the minorities thing, that's a valid concern, but what does that have to do with the overall recovery from the GD? Dear god, how low must the bar be to earn a doctorate in economics?

It's anecdotal because all you did was post the figures with no interpretation of your own. You posted sterile figures to county an argument, yet you did not use then to counter said argument. So I'll say it again (please read this part carefully): MAKE A POINT.

Twats like you try to remain as vague as possible for as long as possible so no one can pin you down and have a real conversation with you. You're much more comfortable being a moving target with no real substance. That way, no one can really debate you.

You're not really as crafty as you think .

Want to know what 'vague' is? You posting a link to a ucla policy paper and declaring it the 'informed' position. Me analyzing the GDP numbers of that era and ridiculing how much GDP growth would have to happen in order for their hypothesis to be correct is the OPPOSITE of vague. And it's also an interpretation: the 4 year GDP growth would have had to be beyond unprecedented for their theory to work.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus
I say 'gg', because it's reminiscent of how i sarcastically said 'gg' to players i owned in Quake when i went on a rampage.

Yes, I understand the reference. The point, child, is that you need to grow up .

This is an absolute spanking, and you're getting spanked.

Make sure you send that memo to EVERYONE... right now I think you're the only one who knows.

Here's one parting piece of advice: get your head out of your ass and grow up. The reason you are viewed as such an ass is because you can't cope with gray area. Because you can't cope with gray area, you shoehorn anyone right of black into white. Those of us in this thread with whom you were "debating" - if you can even call it that - are not free market purists. We're just not as knee-jerk as you. I know you don't know what to do with that, because all of your pre-packaged, pre-cooked insults, accusations, and one-liners don't work nearly as well under these circumstances. I'm sure that must be frustrating and infuriating.

Think quicker on your feet, apply logic when possible (remember, correlation != causation, as I taught you in a previous thread today), and be open to new ideas. Remember that not everyone - unlike you - has committed themselves 100% to a one-way lane of thought. Many of us can accommodate extenuating circumstances and conditions in our beliefs. You should adapt your thinking so you, too, can be a little more flexible.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: techs
Yep. As I expected no one can show me an example of when un-regulated financial markets actually worked.
Ok, mod. You can lock this thread. My point was proven.

Before you break your arm so smugly patting yourself on your back, maybe you ought to show that an un-regulated financial market has ever actually existed.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Want to know what 'vague' is? You posting a link to a ucla policy paper and declaring it the 'informed' position.

And you ridicule me for calling your sterile posting of GDP figures as anecdotal? That's just too rich :laugh: .

The 'informed' comment seems to have struck a nerve with you. You need thicker skin. It's not intended to be taken so literally. It's like saying "we think this because" while getting a little jab in during the process. I'm guessing you're 18 or 19; I thought you would have picked up on such nuances by now.

As for the document itself, it was very fruitful. Data is always open to interpretation and there's little way around that. Data I present, data you present, it doesn't matter when every effort has gone into making assertions as accurate as possible. That you don't realize this is a bit sad. Again, it's that black and white thinking of yours kicking you in the ass, just as Genx87 promised it would.

Again, it's why I rarely engage in nonsense like this here, especially with the dmcowens of the bunch. At the end of the day, all of the evidence is ignored by all because no one can agree on which article is acurate, credible, both, or neither. Debates turn from arguments over ideas or arguments over arguing. It's juvenile and so utterly pointless. You would make a fine politician. That's pretty much what their job outline entails: bitching about how their enemies bitch.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
This is hysterical-- Mcow... er Phokus getting pwnd over and over again.

No, it's hysterical that jbourne can't respond to this:

"The authors set 1943 as the year we recovered from the GD. They claim 1936 was the 'real' year of recovery if it wasn't for FDR. If 1936 was the real recovery year, the required levels of GDP growth to get to the 1943 levels would have been 16.9% for 4 years straight. That would have been a total increase of 86% The best 4 consecutive years of growth in the US history was 75%, that's 11% less than what these idiots were projecting. To call that projection 'beyond unprecedented' would be an understatement."

GG owned.

First, selection of any end date is basically arbitrary, if you're just going to go by GDP as a signal of recovery. GDP began spiking up by the early '30's, but no economist would suggest the Depression was actually over then. But regardless, for the authors' premise to be correct, they'd only have to establish growth in '36 (or any relevant year) would've been higher w/o the cited FDR policies than with, not that GDP had to be higher in '36 than '43. You're just being an idiot.

Second, the authors weren't JUST talking about GDP - they specifically discussed the effect the cited policies had on the unemployment rate, which remained into double digits all the way until WW2. You're just focusing on one economic indicator to the exclusion of all others. If you'd actually read more and talk out your rear less, you would've seen that.

And quit it with the 'owned' crap. What are you, 10? People are doing you a huge favor even taking your idiot mumblings seriously. What a child! You should think about this quote from Socrates:

I know nothing but the fact of my ignorance.

But since you're no doubt smarter than Socrates (in your own mind, at least), that's probably not relevant to you, huh?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus
I say 'gg', because it's reminiscent of how i sarcastically said 'gg' to players i owned in Quake when i went on a rampage.

Yes, I understand the reference. The point, child, is that you need to grow up .

This is an absolute spanking, and you're getting spanked.

Make sure you send that memo to EVERYONE... right now I think you're the only one who knows.

Here's one parting piece of advice: get your head out of your ass and grow up. The reason you are viewed as such an ass is because you can't cope with gray area. Because you can't cope with gray area, you shoehorn anyone right of black into white. Those of us in this thread with whom you were "debating" - if you can even call it that - are not free market purists. We're just not as knee-jerk as you. I know you don't know what to do with that, because all of your pre-packaged, pre-cooked insults, accusations, and one-liners don't work nearly as well under these circumstances. I'm sure that must be frustrating and infuriating.

Think quicker on your feet, apply logic when possible (remember, correlation != causation, as I taught you in a previous thread today), and be open to new ideas. Remember that not everyone - unlike you - has committed themselves 100% to a one-way lane of thought. Many of us can accommodate extenuating circumstances and conditions in our beliefs. You should adapt your thinking so you, too, can be a little more flexible.

I don't care if i'm 'viewed as an ass' by the retarded right. Here's what usually happens: I post a challenge with facts/logic, and the usual idiots will post one liner "troll!" responses because they have NOTHING to counter facts and logic.

You using the 'black and white' argument on me is hilarious considering that a) you're an admitted fan of free market fundamentalist think tanks like cato and b) you post the ucla study, declare the 'informed' position, and you're COMPLETELY UNAWARE of papers that CONTRADICT that study. And i know why: when that paper came out, it spread like wildfire, especially among the rightwing blogs as the 'proof' that liberalism/FDR was bad for the country. I knew about the paper and i, unlike you, was also aware of papers contradicting it. Did you get the link from one of those blogs? That just screams intellectual laziness on your part, and i have absolutely no respect for you if you're actually trying to get your doctorate in economics.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: techs
Yep. As I expected no one can show me an example of when un-regulated financial markets actually worked.
Ok, mod. You can lock this thread. My point was proven.

Nope, the only thing that was "proven" was that 1) you have no grasp of how the markets and the economy in general actually work, and 2) phokus can get owned over and over again and not even realize or acknowledge it. It's almost sad to see it, kind of like someone making fun of a mentally challenged person.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: PhokusI don't care if i'm 'viewed as an ass' by the retarded right.

Phokus once again demonstrates his maturity level....what a surprise.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus
You using the 'black and white' argument on me is hilarious considering that a) you're an admitted fan of free market fundamentalist think tanks like cato

This right here is what separates the thinkers from the posers (you). I read EVERYTHING I can get my hands on, and that includes material from sources like CATO, sources from the left, etc. I want as much information at my fingertips as possible when I form my opinions. You, on the other hand, seek data only from sources with which you agree, which is why you're so stunted and caught off guard so easily. I also read publications from the left... does that make me a commie pinko?

Black and white, black and white... when will you learn?

Originally posted by: Phokus
b) you post the ucla study, declare the 'informed' position, and you're COMPLETELY UNAWARE of papers that CONTRADICT that study.

Are you really this committed to acting like a hurt little child? I already explained the "informed" remark; my god... let it go, boy! As for contradictory papers, trust me, I am aware of them. I study them, discuss them with colleagues, etc., on a daily basis. But like I said before, I form my opinions from an array of data. Just because I arrived at the opinion I did does not mean I have not considered other viewpoints. I'm aware of the other viewpoints, and all things considered, my beliefs are based on all of that information in aggregate.

Is that really so hard to understand? I think the sky is blue. If there's a contradictory paper out there saying the sky is purple, am I an idiot for still thinking the sky is blue? Wow you are dense...

Originally posted by: Phokus
i have absolutely no respect for you if you're actually trying to get your doctorate in economics.

Son, if I had to come here - to folks like you - for respect, I would kill myself. I certainly hope you're not here looking for some sort of validation. I really hope you're not projecting here because, in all seriousness, that would be rather pathetic.

Originally posted by: Mursilis
First, selection of any end date is basically arbitrary, if you're just going to go by GDP as a signal of recovery. GDP began spiking up by the early '30's, but no economist would suggest the Depression was actually over then. But regardless, for the authors' premise to be correct, they'd only have to establish growth in '36 (or any relevant year) would've been higher w/o the cited FDR policies than with, not that GDP had to be higher in '36 than '43. You're just being an idiot.

You know, I exercised much restraint in not taking this twerp's bait, and then you come in and undo all of my hard work .

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
phokus can get owned over and over again and not even realize or acknowledge it. It's almost sad to see it, kind of like someone making fun of a mentally challenged person.

Have you ever been dealt pocket aces and then folded them, just to experience the discipline? This thread is an economist's pocket aces.

 

[Genx87]

Anybody else get the feeling Phokus is frantically googling anything he can and posting it without much thought just to post look what I found?