Some are more equal than others...

N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
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.
Click to expand...
You actually do know krugman finances.

Nah I'm being sarcastic.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
You actually do know krugman finances.

Nah I'm being sarcastic.
Click to expand...
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.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
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.
Click to expand...
He users other people's money?
You mean like the way every corporation in America does?
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
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
Click to expand...
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
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
He users other people's money?
You mean like the way every corporation in America does?
Click to expand...


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

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:


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...

Click to expand...
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

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
he isnt using his own "Spend Every Dime, Then Spend More On Credit" programme in his personal life
Click to expand...
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

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
here's the keynesian theory in the broad strokes:

1: spend every dime
2: spend more on credit
3: ???
4: Endless Prosperity
Click to expand...
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.

:lol:

loser.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
do YOU spend more then you take in, spending your way to prosperity?
Click to expand...
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

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
You really have a race problem dont you. adieu
Click to expand...
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

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
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
Click to expand...
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

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
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
Click to expand...
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

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
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.
Click to expand...
why do you call rushton a "respected academic" but claim krugman is crazy and misattribute ideas to him?
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
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?
Click to expand...
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

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
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
Click to expand...
Lol

Thought not
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top