Originally posted by: sactoking
While I agree with this:
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Do you even understand how accounting works?
There was a lot wrong with that, but to me it's understandable since accounting is pretty esoteric and counterintuitive at times.
I find this:
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
So in other words, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, are too ignorant to understand anything beyond your narrow tunnel vision, and dismiss everything you don't understand because you don't want to learn.
That's why it's pointless to argue with people like you.
to be way over the top.
I mean, seriously. He said that it looked like the bailout is being used for contrarian purposes and wondered about whether it was necessary if the $700bn isn't going to what it was supposed to. He seemed open to convincing that, even though we were lied to (again) it would serve some good. In light of how things are going, how the hell does that amount to 'narrow tunnel vision' and a 'dismissal of everything [he doesn't] understand'?
Accounting isn't "esoteric", as it is codified and quite easy to understand. Additionally, it's not too fucking hard to understand that capital does not equal profit. one is the balance sheet, the other is the income statement. If you're an educated person who is at least open to reason, logic, and reality, you should understand that. Then, when corrected, he completely ignores it and then makes up some bullshit about it somehow happening anyway.
Are you kidding me?
When shown that he is wrong he simply deflects or just posts in another thread. He isn't being contrarian for the purposes of learning, he is being contrarian for the purposes of spreading his agenda. If he was truly open to suggestions he wouldn't dismiss them so easily, nor would he ignore when he is wrong and merely post somewhere else.
The uses of the rescue plan aren't contrarian as *ANY* activity to stabilize the system *IS* providing liquidity, since the main reason why there isn't liquidity is because the system is unstable. Instability causes the lack of desire to invest, since you don't know who is next.
This has been highlighted to him, and others, multiple times. Yet, amazingly, he keeps coming back.
WHY?
Is it because he has tunnel vision and really doesn't want to learn anything, or is it because that somehow he just doesn't get it? This is a guy who is supposedly a lawyer, yet doesn't even know the difference between a BS and an IS.
I knew the difference before I even took a finance course in grad school, while I was taking psych courses in undergrad, because I wanted to know how companies work.
Now, supposedly, we have a guy who completed 4 years of undergrad, 3 years of law school. While in law school he was supposed to learn about corporations. Then he's supposedly a learned person who has researched (if he hasn't, then he deserves as much scorn that can be heaped on him since he proclaims rather than asks questions and dismisses easily), how corporations and the economy works.
let's take his claims of being a lawyer as being true. That still doesn't dismiss him from doing what he does, which is the lack of being able to actually absorb reality. How then should he be treated?
If an annoying mosquito keeps biting you, do you simply shoo it away, or do you try to swat the damn thing down? Sure, I could ignore it, just like any other RPB on here, yet I don't because he, or people like him, convince others he is right, mainly through mantra repeating of the same silly message.
I really don't give a rats ass about him, I know he won't change. However, his ideas should be countered and proven wrong, if not, then others will learn incorrectly also.
Facebook
Twitter