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

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: 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?

:laugh:

That's the image I had in my mind about an hour ago. "Oh! Oh! Look, another one! ZING!!! This one even says something about GDP! Oh... note to self... look up GDP on Wikipedia..."

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

That guy is just a hack, though... stupid economists... think they know all this stuff about ... err... economics...

 

[Phokus]

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?

No you don't. You authoritatively declared over-regulation was 'bad' (and i agree, some regulation is bad) , pointed to the UCLA study, and declared it as the 'informed' position and were unaware of the studies showing the OPPOSITE. If you had any clue that there were economists who disagreed with your/the ucla position, then you wouldn't have been so smug and authoritative about it when mentioning it.

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...

You didn't explain it. The only explanation is that you were informed about one side of the argument. And the sky is blue/purple thing is hilarious because THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOUR BLACK AND WHITE ARGUMENT IS. So what you're saying is, the 2 papers i posted that contradict (which apparently you haven't even read yet) is wrong. GG.

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.

You were outclassed. You were exposed as intellectually lazy. You were exposed as a fraud. You're right, you don't need my validation, but you should be ashamed of yourself.

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 .

yes, linking to a ucla paper, ignoring GDP numbers that contradict it, and letting others do the grunt work because you can't seem to understand it is 'hard work'. Please don't procreate.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: 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?

I get the feeling that you're one of the 'retarded right' i was talking about and you haven't added any substance to the thread.

At least i congratulate you on not being stupid enough to enter an argument that you have no idea what you're talking about, unlike jbourne here.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: 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?

:laugh:

That's the image I had in my mind about an hour ago. "Oh! Oh! Look, another one! ZING!!! This one even says something about GDP! Oh... note to self... look up GDP on Wikipedia..."

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

That guy is just a hack, though... stupid economists... think they know all this stuff about ... err... economics...

I get this impression he thinks if he continues to post he wins. Regardless of the ass pounding he is taking. Unfortunately he wont learn anything from this and continue to ride off into the sunset oblivious to the cliff he about to run off with each inflamatory thread creation and subsequent placing of fingers in the ears and screaming la la la la

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: 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?

:laugh:

That's the image I had in my mind about an hour ago. "Oh! Oh! Look, another one! ZING!!! This one even says something about GDP! Oh... note to self... look up GDP on Wikipedia..."

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

That guy is just a hack, though... stupid economists... think they know all this stuff about ... err... economics...

Actually, the paper i 'found' via google directly referenced and contradicted your UCLA paper and i quoted the relevant portion of the paper that showed FDR's policies were expansionary.

You lazily linked to a ucla paper and called it 'informed'.

You live in a bizarro universe.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus
No you don't. You authoritatively declared over-regulation was 'bad' (and i agree, some regulation is bad) , pointed to the UCLA study, and declared it as the 'informed' position and were unaware of the studies showing the OPPOSITE. If you had any clue that there were economists who disagreed with your/the ucla position, then you wouldn't have been so smug and authoritative about it when mentioning it.create.

Wow... I must have REALLY hurt your feelings with that whole "informed" remark. Who would have thought one little word would have resulted in so much vaginal sand?

My opinion is based on information and data I've been studying for 5 years. My opinion may be different from yours, but that does not mean that I have simply stuck to hand-picked sources. To the contrary, your ramblings here are quite indicative of just that.

Originally posted by: Phokus
You didn't explain it. The only explanation is that you were informed about one side of the argument. And the sky is blue/purple thing is hilarious because THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOUR BLACK AND WHITE ARGUMENT IS. So what you're saying is, the 2 papers i posted that contradict (which apparently you haven't even read yet) is wrong. GG.

I didn't HAVE to explain it, dumbass. That paper perfectly sums up my stance. Any explanation beyond posting the link would have been reiteration. Whining about the GDP as you did didn't change a damn thing, and you're just pissed because it wasn't the ace in the hole you were hoping for, and you weren't even able to use it to make a worthwhile point. Hell, as you so aptly demonstrated, you had no idea what constitutes GPD in the first place. Seriously, take my class :laugh: .

Originally posted by: Phokus
You were outclassed. You were exposed as intellectually lazy. You were exposed as a fraud. You're right, you don't need my validation, but you should be ashamed of yourself.

You get a . You are the first AT member to make me shoot milk out through my nose.

Originally posted by: Phokus

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 .

yes, linking to a ucla paper, ignoring GDP numbers that contradict it, and letting others do the grunt work because you can't seem to understand it is 'hard work'. Please don't procreate.

Too late. Son and a daughter. SUCK IT DOWN!!!! (I put that in geek speak for you so you'd understand)

You see, I refuse to do gruntwork for trolls like you because it legitimizes your posts, attacks, and overall ignorance. Hence the folding pocket aces remark. It's far more important to me, personally, to not validate your lunatic rantings than it is to prove to you that I know what I'm talking about. Frankly, posting the UCLA article was a moment of weakness for me. Not because it wasn't credible (it most certainly is; it's always open for debate, but it's very, very credible), but because I offered evidence to back myself up to a proven moron.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: 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?

:laugh:

That's the image I had in my mind about an hour ago. "Oh! Oh! Look, another one! ZING!!! This one even says something about GDP! Oh... note to self... look up GDP on Wikipedia..."

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

That guy is just a hack, though... stupid economists... think they know all this stuff about ... err... economics...

I get this impression he thinks if he continues to post he wins. Regardless of the ass pounding he is taking. Unfortunately he wont learn anything from this and continue to ride off into the sunset oblivious to the cliff he about to run off with each inflamatory thread creation and subsequent placing of fingers in the ears and screaming la la la la

The only one who got his ass pounded is you and jbourn. You, because you assumed jbourne knew what he was talking about because he's a candidate for an econ doctorate, and jbourne being outclassed by someone who isn't even trained in economics who has to actually INFORM him about economics that counter his world view. That, son, is called being 'schooled'.


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.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: 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?

:laugh:

That's the image I had in my mind about an hour ago. "Oh! Oh! Look, another one! ZING!!! This one even says something about GDP! Oh... note to self... look up GDP on Wikipedia..."

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

That guy is just a hack, though... stupid economists... think they know all this stuff about ... err... economics...

Actually, the paper i 'found' via google directly referenced and contradicted your UCLA paper and i quoted the relevant portion of the paper that showed FDR's policies were expansionary.

You lazily linked to a ucla paper and called it 'informed'.

You live in a bizarro universe.

stop...please just stop....

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: 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?

:laugh:

That's the image I had in my mind about an hour ago. "Oh! Oh! Look, another one! ZING!!! This one even says something about GDP! Oh... note to self... look up GDP on Wikipedia..."

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

That guy is just a hack, though... stupid economists... think they know all this stuff about ... err... economics...

Actually, the paper i 'found' via google directly referenced and contradicted your UCLA paper and i quoted the relevant portion of the paper that showed FDR's policies were expansionary.

You lazily linked to a ucla paper and called it 'informed'.

You live in a bizarro universe.

stop...please just stop....

Yeah, i feel kinda bad about the beating you guys are taking too

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: 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?

:laugh:

That's the image I had in my mind about an hour ago. "Oh! Oh! Look, another one! ZING!!! This one even says something about GDP! Oh... note to self... look up GDP on Wikipedia..."

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

That guy is just a hack, though... stupid economists... think they know all this stuff about ... err... economics...

I get this impression he thinks if he continues to post he wins. Regardless of the ass pounding he is taking. Unfortunately he wont learn anything from this and continue to ride off into the sunset oblivious to the cliff he about to run off with each inflamatory thread creation and subsequent placing of fingers in the ears and screaming la la la la

What makes life difficult for Phokus is that he's married himself to an ideology. Instead of forming beliefs under dynamic circumstances as information is distilled, he decides what his beliefs are and commits to them indefinitely (the round hole) and then seeks to make them "work" via half-truths, plugging his ears, and insults (the square peg).

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: 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?

:laugh:

That's the image I had in my mind about an hour ago. "Oh! Oh! Look, another one! ZING!!! This one even says something about GDP! Oh... note to self... look up GDP on Wikipedia..."

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

That guy is just a hack, though... stupid economists... think they know all this stuff about ... err... economics...

Actually, the paper i 'found' via google directly referenced and contradicted your UCLA paper and i quoted the relevant portion of the paper that showed FDR's policies were expansionary.

You lazily linked to a ucla paper and called it 'informed'.

You live in a bizarro universe.

I am starting to wonder if we arent all in bizzaro world right now. Really, you dont say you found it via google? No shit? And here I thought you had that in your library of well read studies on the era.

Really making this easy.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: 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?

:laugh:

That's the image I had in my mind about an hour ago. "Oh! Oh! Look, another one! ZING!!! This one even says something about GDP! Oh... note to self... look up GDP on Wikipedia..."

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

That guy is just a hack, though... stupid economists... think they know all this stuff about ... err... economics...

I get this impression he thinks if he continues to post he wins. Regardless of the ass pounding he is taking. Unfortunately he wont learn anything from this and continue to ride off into the sunset oblivious to the cliff he about to run off with each inflamatory thread creation and subsequent placing of fingers in the ears and screaming la la la la

What makes life difficult for Phokus is that he's married himself to an ideology. Instead of forming beliefs under dynamic circumstances as information is distilled, he decides what his beliefs are and commits to them indefinitely (the round hole) and then seeks to make them "work" via half-truths, plugging his ears, and insults (the square peg).

Keep telling yourself that:

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

It's almost like you believe your ignorance is knowledge or something.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus

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

It's almost like you believe your ignorance is knowledge or something.

Those darn Nobel Laureates, UCLA profs/former Fed advisors/consultants/statisticians, they just have their heads up their asses :laugh: .

You are the most dedicated masochist I've ever met :thumbsup:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jbourne77


What makes life difficult for Phokus is that he's married himself to an ideology. Instead of forming beliefs under dynamic circumstances as information is distilled, he decides what his beliefs are and commits to them indefinitely (the round hole) and then seeks to make them "work" via half-truths, plugging his ears, and insults (the square peg).

Yeah the funny thing is I bet he in his frantic google searching hasnt even read his own paper. I have it saved, will read it over the weekend. Probably get it read before he even thinks about it. Though i doubt he will bother because tomorrow brings another day and another troll thread he needs to create in his insane crusade. And I bet he never read your links. Most likely searched "Debunking UCLA FDR study" or something similar and away he went. He even admits he found his study via a google search.

If it wasnt so delightfully satisfying watching this troll flail about I would have left this thread hours ago. But really with each new posting it is a new opportunity for him to provide more examples of his closed minded approach to the world.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: 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?

:laugh:

That's the image I had in my mind about an hour ago. "Oh! Oh! Look, another one! ZING!!! This one even says something about GDP! Oh... note to self... look up GDP on Wikipedia..."

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

That guy is just a hack, though... stupid economists... think they know all this stuff about ... err... economics...

Actually, the paper i 'found' via google directly referenced and contradicted your UCLA paper and i quoted the relevant portion of the paper that showed FDR's policies were expansionary.

You lazily linked to a ucla paper and called it 'informed'.

You live in a bizarro universe.

I am starting to wonder if we arent all in bizzaro world right now. Really, you dont say you found it via google? No shit? And here I thought you had that in your library of well read studies on the era.

Really making this easy.

Actually, this was referenced in one of the many blogs i read a while ago and i had the link saved at home. The 'found' was in quotes was because i had to use google to search for it again because i didn't have it in my favorites at work. Your use of 'found/google' suggests this is the first time i've seen the paper, which is why i put it in quotes.

You're right, this is 'easy', because you self own yourself so many times, i'm having pity for you right now.

But you want to know the REALLY sad thing? You're actually attacking the search engine you THINK i use to 'find' these materials, rather than the fact that their mere existence makes you look incredibly ingorant, especially for a doctoral candidate in economics.

 

[Stuxnet]

Ok, I have to ask... in all seriousness, does Phokus == dmcowen? I visit P&N in waves and sometimes go several weeks without a visit. Did the mods grant him a name change? I don't recall anyone in here being so... uhh... like this, other than Dave, but I don't see Dave posting.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus

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

It's almost like you believe your ignorance is knowledge or something.

Those darn Nobel Laureates, UCLA profs/former Fed advisors/consultants/statisticians, they just have their heads up their asses :laugh: .

You are the most dedicated masochist I've ever met :thumbsup:

You do realize your appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, right? Just like how you're a doctoral candidate for economics, yet you've been exposed as ignorant about economics?

Henry Kissenger is a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Boy, i sure want his insights on how to achieve world piece.

Oh and

http://www.newyorkfed.org/rese...ts/eggertsson/gexp.pdf
http://www.econ.wisc.edu/works...Eggertsson%20paper.pdf

GG

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: 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?

:laugh:

That's the image I had in my mind about an hour ago. "Oh! Oh! Look, another one! ZING!!! This one even says something about GDP! Oh... note to self... look up GDP on Wikipedia..."

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

That guy is just a hack, though... stupid economists... think they know all this stuff about ... err... economics...

Actually, the paper i 'found' via google directly referenced and contradicted your UCLA paper and i quoted the relevant portion of the paper that showed FDR's policies were expansionary.

You lazily linked to a ucla paper and called it 'informed'.

You live in a bizarro universe.

I am starting to wonder if we arent all in bizzaro world right now. Really, you dont say you found it via google? No shit? And here I thought you had that in your library of well read studies on the era.

Really making this easy.

Actually, this was referenced in one of the many blogs i read a while ago and i had the link saved at home. The 'found' was in quotes was because i had to use google to search for it again because i didn't have it in my favorites at work. Your use of 'found/google' suggests this is the first time i've seen the paper, which is why i put it in quotes.

You're right, this is 'easy', because you self own yourself so many times, i'm having pity for you right now.

But you want to know the REALLY sad thing? You're actually attacking the search engine you THINK i use to 'find' these materials, rather than the fact that their mere existence makes you look incredibly ingorant, especially for a doctoral candidate in economics.

All aboard the backtrack train! Phokus ahead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didnt attack google, you sound paranoid. I pointed out how sarcastically shocked I was you used google to find your study. And dont try to backtrack out of it now.

And son you have to be losing your damned mind now confusing me with jbourne77 and his doctorate in economics.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
Ok, I have to ask... in all seriousness, does Phokus == dmcowen? I visit P&N in waves and sometimes go several weeks without a visit. Did the mods grant him a name change? I don't recall anyone in here being so... uhh... like this, other than Dave, but I don't see Dave posting.

This is the difference between you and i. I destroy you with facts and logic with the occassional ad hominem as the icing on the cake. All you have is ad hominem.

 

[ProfJohn]

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.

NOBODY is calling for unregulated markets.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: 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?

:laugh:

That's the image I had in my mind about an hour ago. "Oh! Oh! Look, another one! ZING!!! This one even says something about GDP! Oh... note to self... look up GDP on Wikipedia..."

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

That guy is just a hack, though... stupid economists... think they know all this stuff about ... err... economics...

Actually, the paper i 'found' via google directly referenced and contradicted your UCLA paper and i quoted the relevant portion of the paper that showed FDR's policies were expansionary.

You lazily linked to a ucla paper and called it 'informed'.

You live in a bizarro universe.

I am starting to wonder if we arent all in bizzaro world right now. Really, you dont say you found it via google? No shit? And here I thought you had that in your library of well read studies on the era.

Really making this easy.

Actually, this was referenced in one of the many blogs i read a while ago and i had the link saved at home. The 'found' was in quotes was because i had to use google to search for it again because i didn't have it in my favorites at work. Your use of 'found/google' suggests this is the first time i've seen the paper, which is why i put it in quotes.

You're right, this is 'easy', because you self own yourself so many times, i'm having pity for you right now.

But you want to know the REALLY sad thing? You're actually attacking the search engine you THINK i use to 'find' these materials, rather than the fact that their mere existence makes you look incredibly ingorant, especially for a doctoral candidate in economics.

All aboard the backtrack train! Phokus ahead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didnt attack google, you sound paranoid. I pointed out how sarcastically shocked I was you used google to find your study. And dont try to backtrack out of it now.

And son you have to be losing your damned mind now confusing me with jbourne77 and his doctorate in economics.

Backtrack? I said i used google to find a study i read about before, do you understand english? Rhetorical question.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: 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?

:laugh:

That's the image I had in my mind about an hour ago. "Oh! Oh! Look, another one! ZING!!! This one even says something about GDP! Oh... note to self... look up GDP on Wikipedia..."

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

That guy is just a hack, though... stupid economists... think they know all this stuff about ... err... economics...

Actually, the paper i 'found' via google directly referenced and contradicted your UCLA paper and i quoted the relevant portion of the paper that showed FDR's policies were expansionary.

You lazily linked to a ucla paper and called it 'informed'.

You live in a bizarro universe.

I am starting to wonder if we arent all in bizzaro world right now. Really, you dont say you found it via google? No shit? And here I thought you had that in your library of well read studies on the era.

Really making this easy.

Actually, this was referenced in one of the many blogs i read a while ago and i had the link saved at home. The 'found' was in quotes was because i had to use google to search for it again because i didn't have it in my favorites at work. Your use of 'found/google' suggests this is the first time i've seen the paper, which is why i put it in quotes.

You're right, this is 'easy', because you self own yourself so many times, i'm having pity for you right now.

But you want to know the REALLY sad thing? You're actually attacking the search engine you THINK i use to 'find' these materials, rather than the fact that their mere existence makes you look incredibly ingorant, especially for a doctoral candidate in economics.

I think that any PhD-holding economist should be stripped of his creds if he/she fails to submit to your worldview. Those jackasses have the audacity to shape their own opinions and make interpretations that go against your, obviously far more credible, sources.

You are so high, mighty, and righteous that you can't even begin to see the hypocricy and arrogance you've put on display. "A" posts link to study demonstrating why he believes what he believes. "B" posts own links that disagree with "A"'s links, declares victory, says ggpwnz0|2ed, and states that everyone who doesn't agree is a "retard".

Every participation in a thread requires an end. Here's mine: You are a tool, and a stupid one at that. What makes you a stupid tool, you ask? Your complete disregard for common sense and your complete inability to acknowledge the possibility that multiple opinions can be reached from the same data and information. You operate in your own little world of absolutes, and you won't hesitate to launch an idiotic crusade of epic proportions in pursuit of proving - TO YOURSELF - that you're not a stupid tool.

It also doesn't help that you act like a 9 year old, prepubescent twat who just lost a Quake match.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Phokus
You do realize your appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, right?

I wasn't offering it as proof of anything, you daft twit. But since you're so interested in logic, I suggest you get over the
correlation/causation fallacy before tackling anything else.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

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.

NOBODY is calling for unregulated markets.

Stop. If you take away their absolutes, there will be no debate .

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: 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?

:laugh:

That's the image I had in my mind about an hour ago. "Oh! Oh! Look, another one! ZING!!! This one even says something about GDP! Oh... note to self... look up GDP on Wikipedia..."

"This is exciting and valuable research," said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. "The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can't understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won't happen again?"

That guy is just a hack, though... stupid economists... think they know all this stuff about ... err... economics...

Actually, the paper i 'found' via google directly referenced and contradicted your UCLA paper and i quoted the relevant portion of the paper that showed FDR's policies were expansionary.

You lazily linked to a ucla paper and called it 'informed'.

You live in a bizarro universe.

I am starting to wonder if we arent all in bizzaro world right now. Really, you dont say you found it via google? No shit? And here I thought you had that in your library of well read studies on the era.

Really making this easy.

Actually, this was referenced in one of the many blogs i read a while ago and i had the link saved at home. The 'found' was in quotes was because i had to use google to search for it again because i didn't have it in my favorites at work. Your use of 'found/google' suggests this is the first time i've seen the paper, which is why i put it in quotes.

You're right, this is 'easy', because you self own yourself so many times, i'm having pity for you right now.

But you want to know the REALLY sad thing? You're actually attacking the search engine you THINK i use to 'find' these materials, rather than the fact that their mere existence makes you look incredibly ingorant, especially for a doctoral candidate in economics.

I think that any PhD-holding economist should be stripped of his creds if he/she fails to submit to your worldview. Those jackasses have the audacity to shape their own opinions and make interpretations that go against your, obviously far more credible, sources.

You are so high, mighty, and righteous that you can't even begin to see the hypocricy and arrogance you've put on display. "A" posts link to study demonstrating why he believes what he believes. "B" posts own links that disagree with "A"'s links, declares victory, says ggpwnz0|2ed, and declares everyone outside his beliefs to be "retards".

Every participation in a thread requires an end. Here's mine: You are a tool, and a stupid one at that. What makes you a stupid tool, you ask? Your complete disregard for common sense and your complete inability to acknowledge the possibility that multiple opinions can be reached from the same data and information. You operate in your own little world of absolutes, and you won't hesitate to launch an idiotic crusade of epic proportions in pursuit of proving - TO YOURSELF - that you're not a stupid tool.

It also doesn't help that you act like 9 year old, prepubescent twat who just lost a Quake match.

You mad? yeah you sound mad. I'd be mad too if i were a doctoral candidate like you exposed for a fraud. Your whole post is, again, fraught with irony when i can basically just make a couple quotes to show that YOU'RE the one who operates in 'black and white', 'absolutes', etc. etc.:

Originally posted by: jbourne77
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

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.

"informed", "learned", "black and white", "absolutes"

Jbourne, you are the very definition of irony and stupidity.