Some are more equal than others...

[NoDrama]

how do i know how krugman runs his personal finances?
easy.

1: IF he in fact does have 2.5 mil in the bank, then he is not broke.

Net worth doesn't mean you have that amount of money in your bank account. Net worth is total assets minus total liabilities. Assets can be real estate, vehicles, investments, intellectual property, money in a bank, gold and silver, jewelry etc etc minus things like mortgages, loans, other debts.

net worth doesn't always = intelligent though, usually all you need are determination and drive. There are plenty of really smart people that have neither of those.

 

[ChesusRice]

how do i know how krugman runs his personal finances?
easy.

1: IF he in fact does have 2.5 mil in the bank, then he is not broke.
2: not bein broke demonstrates clearly that he isnt using his own "Spend Every Dime, Then Spend More On Credit" programme in his personal life
3: THEREFORE he does not use his own theories himself, but instead proposes those schemes for use only with Other People's Money
4: thus he is a typical lefty. just like you.

i said, and i quote:



so it's not that they CANT balance a checkbook, but rather, their crazy inane theories make such a task impossible for them, unless, like typical lefties, their schemes are only for use with Other People's Money, not their own.

it's not that subtle a distinction, everyone who doesnt have a metal bar through their head could see it, 'cept you.

You actually do know krugman finances.

Nah I'm being sarcastic.

 

[Padawanbater2]

how do i know how krugman runs his personal finances?
easy.

1: IF he in fact does have 2.5 mil in the bank, then he is not broke.
2: not bein broke demonstrates clearly that he isnt using his own "Spend Every Dime, Then Spend More On Credit" programme in his personal life
3: THEREFORE he does not use his own theories himself, but instead proposes those schemes for use only with Other People's Money
4: thus he is a typical lefty. just like you.

i said, and i quote:

so it's not that they CANT balance a checkbook, but rather, their crazy inane theories make such a task impossible for them, unless, like typical lefties, their schemes are only for use with Other People's Money, not their own.

it's not that subtle a distinction, everyone who doesnt have a metal bar through their head could see it, 'cept you.

This makes so much more sense now..

You simply don't understand Krugman and Pikettys solutions..

You're not an idiot, you're just ignorant

 

[Dr Kynes]

You actually do know krugman finances.

Nah I'm being sarcastic.

im not gonna bother to break down his ridiculous theories step by convoluted step, rtefuting each retarded assumption, and explaining why he is dead ass wrong, that would take forever.

here's the keynesian theory in the broad strokes:

1: spend every dime
2: spend more on credit
3: ???
4: Endless Prosperity

if spending more than you take in generates prosperity then his schemes are simply grand.

they are not.

he doesnt spend his way to prosperity in his personal fiances (cuz thats retarded) so therefore he only uses his theories with Other People's Money.

unless he is a counterfeiter printing up hundies in his basement, he simply could not keep his shit out of the poorhouse with his theories.

your sarcasm falls flat.

 

[ChesusRice]

im not gonna bother to break down his ridiculous theories step by convoluted step, rtefuting each retarded assumption, and explaining why he is dead ass wrong, that would take forever.

here's the keynesian theory in the broad strokes:

1: spend every dime
2: spend more on credit
3: ???
4: Endless Prosperity

if spending more than you take in generates prosperity then his schemes are simply grand.

they are not.

he doesnt spend his way to prosperity in his personal fiances (cuz thats retarded) so therefore he only uses his theories with Other People's Money.

unless he is a counterfeiter printing up hundies in his basement, he simply could not keep his shit out of the poorhouse with his theories.

your sarcasm falls flat.

He users other people's money?
You mean like the way every corporation in America does?

 

[Dr Kynes]

This makes so much more sense now..

You simply don't understand Krugman and Pikettys solutions..

You're not an idiot, you're just ignorant

do YOU spend more then you take in, spending your way to prosperity?

if not, then you are advocating the same hypocrisy as kruggo and frenchy

 

[Padawanbater2]

do YOU spend more then you take in, spending your way to prosperity?

if not, then you are advocating the same hypocrisy as kruggo and frenchy

Can you find one quote by Krugman to back up your assertion?

1: spend every dime
2: spend more on credit
3: ???
4: Endless Prosperity

 

[Dr Kynes]

He users other people's money?
You mean like the way every corporation in America does?

investors give their money WILLINGLY in exchange for a piece of the action, with the expectation that those running the racket will try to turn a profit.

taxpayers have their money taken from them under threat of force, with no hope of ever seeing a return, and no illusions about the idiots who will be flushing their money down the shitter
but you dont understand the difference apparently

if i wanna drop a couple racks on a scheme thet may or may not turn a profit, thats my choice, krugman and frenchy are arguing that we should dig a big hole in the whitehouse rose garden, pile in our money by the dumptruck load, set it on fire and piss on the ashes, then watch as a magical rainbow showers us with mystical leprechaun gold... somehow.

krugman and frenchy are political con men, convincing The One that if he just sends them a couple thousand dollars more, they will be able pay off the bribes to the nigerian secret police and smuggle out our great uncle's fortune...

 

[Padawanbater2]

if i wanna drop a couple racks on a scheme thet may or may not turn a profit, thats my choice, krugman and frenchy are arguing that we should dig a big hole in the whitehouse rose garden, pile in our money by the dumptruck load, set it on fire and piss on the ashes, then watch as a magical rainbow showers us with mystical leprechaun gold... somehow.

Can you find a quote by Krugman to substantiate this claim?

Are you aware you are arguing against something that he and Piketty don't propose, so you're essentially arguing with yourself about what you think they propose?

Do you see how silly that is and how silly it makes you look?

Have you ever read anything by Krugman or just watched Fox News and Krauthammer criticise his economic policy?

 

[ChesusRice]

investors give their money WILLINGLY in exchange for a piece of the action, with the expectation that those running the racket will try to turn a profit.

taxpayers have their money taken from them under threat of force, with no hope of ever seeing a return, and no illusions about the idiots who will be flushing their money down the shitter
but you dont understand the difference apparently

if i wanna drop a couple racks on a scheme thet may or may not turn a profit, thats my choice, krugman and frenchy are arguing that we should dig a big hole in the whitehouse rose garden, pile in our money by the dumptruck load, set it on fire and piss on the ashes, then watch as a magical rainbow showers us with mystical leprechaun gold... somehow.

krugman and frenchy are political con men, convincing The One that if he just sends them a couple thousand dollars more, they will be able pay off the bribes to the nigerian secret police and smuggle out our great uncle's fortune...

You really have a race problem dont you.
Let me make a simple observation. Companys invest in infrastructure and other business's using credit using their liquid cash assets to fund other things. After careful contemplation you are now the second person to go on the list. You used to actually argue and debates with salient points even if I disagreed with them. In the last year either due to venereal disease, alcholism or some other unnamed mental degradation. You have lost any ability to reason.
adieu

 

[UncleBuck]

he isnt using his own "Spend Every Dime, Then Spend More On Credit" programme in his personal life

that's not what he advocates at all, actually.

but i don't expect someone who can't do exponents and doesn't know what eggs cost in his area to be the sharpest of tacks.

tell us more about how phillipe rushton is a "respected academic" but krugman is not.

 

[UncleBuck]

here's the keynesian theory in the broad strokes:

1: spend every dime
2: spend more on credit
3: ???
4: Endless Prosperity

step 3 is to pay back any debt during prosperous times, like clinton did and like obama is working towards.

republicans like you always miss that step and keep spending every dime when times are good again.

why did keynesian theory work in my own personal life, kynes?

after all, personal and national finances are the exact same according to you.



loser.

 

[UncleBuck]

do YOU spend more then you take in, spending your way to prosperity?

i did!

in fact, once i outgrew the setup i initially financed on debt (a move EVERY single capitalistic american company employs at one time or another), i gave it to my neighbor. now he is enjoying his retirement a little bit more.

doubt it?

@Ninjabowler just dropped off a star trek plant to my neighbor just the other day.

ask him.

 

[UncleBuck]

You really have a race problem dont you. adieu

he really does.

but at least his "predictions" came true, because he made them true.

he has so far invoked racism and marxism in this thread. just waiting for him to invoke republicanism now.

and then, of course, blame it all on us.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Can you find a quote by Krugman to substantiate this claim?

Are you aware you are arguing against something that he and Piketty don't propose, so you're essentially arguing with yourself about what you think they propose?

Do you see how silly that is and how silly it makes you look?

Have you ever read anything by Krugman or just watched Fox News and Krauthammer criticise his economic policy?

you posted the retarded videos yourself where frenchy lays out the accurate and valid historical data, then goes off the rails arguing for a Maximum Allowed Income (90% tax rate for every dollar over X), argues that super high taxes are a net benefit for economies, and that forcible redistribution of wealth is a good idea.

then Kruggo argues that, among other things, Legal Tender Laws dont actually do anything (fucking retarded) and may in fact be imaginary (lulz), and that everybody should spend more money they dont have, on shit they cant afford to increase "consumption" levels for the good of the economy, etc.

both he and kruggo subscribe to the Keynesian Model (no relation) which declares that govt taxation and spending on ANY project, no matter how pointless somehow makes money and increases a nation's prosperity
both declare emphatically (as you do) that "big economies is speshul" and thus the regular rules dont apply
neither one could possibly believe that debt spending results in prosperity in their own finances, but insist we do that very thing nationally cuz... ummm.... Chewbacca and the Ewoks...
both therefore are either idiots or con men.

now you want me to create a doctoral thesis on economics explaining why your own arguments are wrong, so you can scream TLDR and then insist youre right anyway.

pound sand

 

[UncleBuck]

you posted the retarded videos yourself where frenchy lays out the accurate and valid historical data, then goes off the rails arguing for a Maximum Allowed Income (90% tax rate for every dollar over X), argues that super high taxes are a net benefit for economies, and that forcible redistribution of wealth is a good idea.

then Kruggo argues that, among other things, Legal Tender Laws dont actually do anything (fucking retarded) and may in fact be imaginary (lulz), and that everybody should spend more money they dont have, on shit they cant afford to increase "consumption" levels for the good of the economy, etc.

both he and kruggo subscribe to the Keynesian Model (no relation) which declares that govt taxation and spending on ANY project, no matter how pointless somehow makes money and increases a nation's prosperity
both declare emphatically (as you do) that "big economies is speshul" and thus the regular rules dont apply
neither one could possibly believe that debt spending results in prosperity in their own finances, but insist we do that very thing nationally cuz... ummm.... Chewbacca and the Ewoks...
both therefore are either idiots or con men.

now you want me to create a doctoral thesis on economics explaining why your own arguments are wrong, so you can scream TLDR and then insist youre right anyway.

pound sand

ok, so you can't find a single quote from krugman to substantiate your retarded misunderstanding and mischaracterization of his stated beliefs.

in other words, you are arguing with yourself.

how much do eggs cost in vallejo?

 

[Dr Kynes]

You really have a race problem dont you.
Let me make a simple observation. Companys invest in infrastructure and other business's using credit using their liquid cash assets to fund other things. After careful contemplation you are now the second person to go on the list. You used to actually argue and debates with salient points even if I disagreed with them. In the last year either due to venereal disease, alcholism or some other unnamed mental degradation. You have lost any ability to reason.
adieu

derp derp derp. if this same argument had happened 6 years ago then Boosh or Pelosi would be in that image.

screaming That's Racist!! over a picture of Bwana Obama in an argument about Shit Obama Actually Believes, that influences his policies and appointments, and actually matters is just a cop out.

enjoy your bitter tears.

 

[UncleBuck]

derp derp derp. if this same argument had happened 6 years ago then Boosh or Pelosi would be in that image.

screaming That's Racist!! over a picture of Bwana Obama in an argument about Shit Obama Actually Believes, that influences his policies and appointments, and actually matters is just a cop out.

enjoy your bitter tears.

why do you call rushton a "respected academic" but claim krugman is crazy and misattribute ideas to him?

 

[Dr Kynes]

ok, so you can't find a single quote from krugman to substantiate your retarded misunderstanding and mischaracterization of his stated beliefs.

in other words, you are arguing with yourself.

how much do eggs cost in vallejo?

A: watch Rapesey's own videos

they make the case quite clearly and prove Kruggo and Frenchy are either dolts, or con men.

B: i posted the price of eggs directly from the Vallejo local Safeway website, you insisted i was lying, youre once again creating an imaginary history.
anybody can look it up themselves

eat a sack of dicks

you can shove your red herrings back up your ass, nobody cares about your pathetic attempts to derail the argument and start another pointless pissing match.

 

[Padawanbater2]

you posted the retarded videos yourself where frenchy lays out the accurate and valid historical data, then goes off the rails arguing for a Maximum Allowed Income (90% tax rate for every dollar over X), argues that super high taxes are a net benefit for economies, and that forcible redistribution of wealth is a good idea.

then Kruggo argues that, among other things, Legal Tender Laws dont actually do anything (fucking retarded) and may in fact be imaginary (lulz), and that everybody should spend more money they dont have, on shit they cant afford to increase "consumption" levels for the good of the economy, etc.

both he and kruggo subscribe to the Keynesian Model (no relation) which declares that govt taxation and spending on ANY project, no matter how pointless somehow makes money and increases a nation's prosperity
both declare emphatically (as you do) that "big economies is speshul" and thus the regular rules dont apply
neither one could possibly believe that debt spending results in prosperity in their own finances, but insist we do that very thing nationally cuz... ummm.... Chewbacca and the Ewoks...
both therefore are either idiots or con men.

now you want me to create a doctoral thesis on economics explaining why your own arguments are wrong, so you can scream TLDR and then insist youre right anyway.

pound sand

Lol

Thought not