Some are more equal than others...

Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
his extensive experience stocking boxes and yelling about marxism when it is irrelevant make him quite the economic expert.
Click to expand...
my extensive experience making ends meet without going into debt despite limited means demonstrates that yes, i know more about economics than those chumps.


krugman even argues that the legal tender laws arent real. yeah, he's an idiot.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
given the evidence, Yes.

neither of those clowns could balance a household budget using their wacky schemes, and if they tried it they would be in the poorhouse.

like all lefties, they think their madcap theories are just dandy, as long as it's somebody else footing the bill.

kinda like you.
Click to expand...
You're not...

Krugman is a professor of Economics at Princeton, he won the John Bates Clark Medal in 1991, the Princess of Asturias Award in 1998 and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2008, he has a BA from Yale and a PhD from MIT (where he used to be a professor), he's also taught at Stanford and the London School of Economics. He's written over 20 books and authored over 200 papers on economics

Piketty has won the Yrjö Jahnsson Award in 2013 and the Prix du meilleur jeune économiste de France in 2002. He is professor at the École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS) and professor at the Paris School of Economics. He previously taught economics at MIT as well

Believing you're smarter than they are is the epitome of arrogance and automatically invalidates your opinions

To be perfectly clear, this isn't an appeal to authority as their ideas and opinions very clearly speak for themselves, I've used Pikettys work to support my reasoning this entire thread, not his academic achievements which were only brought up to illustrate you're not at all on the same level intellectually speaking regarding economics


"The central thesis of his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that when the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth, and this unequal distribution of wealth causes social and economic instability. Piketty proposes a global system of progressive wealth taxes to help reduce inequality and avoid the vast majority of wealth coming under the control of a tiny minority."

"The book argues that there was a trend towards higher inequality which was reversed between 1930 and 1975 due to some rather unique circumstances: the two World Wars, the Great Depression and a debt-fueled recession destroyed much wealth, particularly that owned by the elite. These events prompted governments to undertake steps towards redistributing income, especially in the post-World War II period. The fast economic growth of that time reduced the importance of inherited wealth.

The book argues that the world today is returning towards "patrimonial capitalism", in which much of the economy is dominated by inherited wealth: Their power is increasing, creating an oligarchy.Piketty cites novels by Honoré de Balzac, Jane Austen and Henry James to describe the rigid class structure based on accumulated capital that existed in England and France in the early 1800s."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
You're not...

Krugman is a professor of Economics at Princeton, he won the John Bates Clark Medal in 1991, the Princess of Asturias Award in 1998 and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2008, he has a BA from Yale and a PhD from MIT (where he used to be a professor), he's also taught at Stanford and the London School of Economics. He's written over 20 books and authored over 200 papers on economics

Piketty has won the Yrjö Jahnsson Award in 2013 and the Prix du meilleur jeune économiste de France in 2002. He is professor at the École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS) and professor at the Paris School of Economics. He previously taught economics at MIT as well

Believing you're smarter than they are is the epitome of arrogance and automatically invalidates your opinions

To be perfectly clear, this isn't an appeal to authority as their ideas and opinions very clearly speak for themselves, I've used Pikettys work to support my reasoning this entire thread, not his academic achievements which were only brought up to illustrate you're not at all on the same level intellectually speaking regarding economics

"The central thesis of his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that when the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth, and this unequal distribution of wealth causes social and economic instability. Piketty proposes a global system of progressive wealth taxes to help reduce inequality and avoid the vast majority of wealth coming under the control of a tiny minority."

"The book argues that there was a trend towards higher inequality which was reversed between 1930 and 1975 due to some rather unique circumstances: the two World Wars, the Great Depression and a debt-fueled recession destroyed much wealth, particularly that owned by the elite. These events prompted governments to undertake steps towards redistributing income, especially in the post-World War II period. The fast economic growth of that time reduced the importance of inherited wealth.

The book argues that the world today is returning towards "patrimonial capitalism", in which much of the economy is dominated by inherited wealth: Their power is increasing, creating an oligarchy.Piketty cites novels by Honoré de Balzac, Jane Austen and Henry James to describe the rigid class structure based on accumulated capital that existed in England and France in the early 1800s."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century
Click to expand...
that is 100% the definition of Appeal To Authority.

both those chuckleheads espouse THEORIES which are entirely unprovable in macroeconomics (as all macroeconomic theories are) but fail miserably in the only economic laboratory that counts for anything.

it busts budgets, drives unsustainable debt and results in collapse, bankruptcy and utter failure every time it is tried in the real world.

macroeconomics is a fantasyland where anything can happen and all theories are equally pointless.

you have not used anyone's reasoning in this thread, since all you have done is blame the economic woes of the Occupytards on "Teh 1%"

if the assertions made in your piketty and krugman videos is the sum of their work, then they are both dolts who couldnt run a taco bell much less an economy.

insisting they must be right because they gots sum sheep skins, then why are the assertions made by the austrian and chicago school economists so readily dismissed by you, despite the Chicago School dropping Nobel Prizes like party favours at their semi-annual fiscal responsibility keggers?

because you picked a side, and are now sporting a terrible case of Right Fight, in conjunction with your Appeal To Authority, God Of The Gaps and Texas Sharpshooter fallacies.

real world economics works.

phony buffleheaded idiocy based on a Magic Banker's Hat that creates fiat money out of thin air, endless debt, usury taxation and bloated government waste doesnt get you anything except the Wiemar Republic, Zimbabwe and the new hotness, Obamanomics.

if you think that shit has ever, or could ever work, then youre as stupid as krugman and frenchy.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
macroeconomics is a fantasyland
Click to expand...
This is exactly the response I would expect from someone who thinks they're smarter than MIT professors..

Anything you don't agree with you simply dismiss as fantasy, be it climate change, economics or evolution, the story is always the same, which consequently, doesn't invalidate any of it

What your argument amounts to is "I don't agree with it so it's wrong!", which is an emotional response based on criticisms of your personal worldview you've spent almost what, 5 decades developing? Piketty and Krugman on the other hand both base their observations on knowledge, research and facts, data collected through years of painstaking work at some of the top academic institutions on the planet, and they've been recognized for excellence contributing to the field of economics.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
You're not...

Krugman is a professor of Economics at Princeton, he won the John Bates Clark Medal in 1991, the Princess of Asturias Award in 1998 and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 2008, he has a BA from Yale and a PhD from MIT (where he used to be a professor), he's also taught at Stanford and the London School of Economics. He's written over 20 books and authored over 200 papers on economics

Piketty has won the Yrjö Jahnsson Award in 2013 and the Prix du meilleur jeune économiste de France in 2002. He is professor at the École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS) and professor at the Paris School of Economics. He previously taught economics at MIT as well

Believing you're smarter than they are is the epitome of arrogance and automatically invalidates your opinions

To be perfectly clear, this isn't an appeal to authority as their ideas and opinions very clearly speak for themselves, I've used Pikettys work to support my reasoning this entire thread, not his academic achievements which were only brought up to illustrate you're not at all on the same level intellectually speaking regarding economics

"The central thesis of his book Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that when the rate of return on capital (r) is greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over the long term, the result is concentration of wealth, and this unequal distribution of wealth causes social and economic instability. Piketty proposes a global system of progressive wealth taxes to help reduce inequality and avoid the vast majority of wealth coming under the control of a tiny minority."

"The book argues that there was a trend towards higher inequality which was reversed between 1930 and 1975 due to some rather unique circumstances: the two World Wars, the Great Depression and a debt-fueled recession destroyed much wealth, particularly that owned by the elite. These events prompted governments to undertake steps towards redistributing income, especially in the post-World War II period. The fast economic growth of that time reduced the importance of inherited wealth.

The book argues that the world today is returning towards "patrimonial capitalism", in which much of the economy is dominated by inherited wealth: Their power is increasing, creating an oligarchy.Piketty cites novels by Honoré de Balzac, Jane Austen and Henry James to describe the rigid class structure based on accumulated capital that existed in England and France in the early 1800s."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century
Click to expand...
Krugman is an idiot. His answer for every economic trouble that exists is PRINT MORE MONEY!!!
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
my extensive experience making ends meet without going into debt despite limited means demonstrates that yes, i know more about economics than those chumps.


krugman even argues that the legal tender laws arent real. yeah, he's an idiot.
Click to expand...
See that is the problem with the uniformed, mislead and stupid people.
Running a country and it's budget is nothing like a household budget
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
my extensive experience making ends meet without going into debt despite limited means demonstrates that yes, i know more about economics than those chumps.
Click to expand...
funny, i do that better than you do, box boy.

does that mean that i know more about economics than you?

:lol:
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
See that is the problem with the uniformed, mislead and stupid people.
Running a country and it's budget is nothing like a household budget
Click to expand...
wrong.
they are in fact THE SAME

the same basic rules apply.

if your outgoings exceed your income, you get Debt, when Debt exceeds your assets, Bankruptcy.

large economy or small, its the same rules.

economic theorists are the only ones who say stupid shit like that, but they only use their theories with other people's money.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
wrong.
they are in fact THE SAME

the same basic rules apply.

if your outgoings exceed your income, you get Debt, when Debt exceeds your assets, Bankruptcy.

large economy or small, its the same rules.

economic theorists are the only ones who say stupid shit like that, but they only use their theories with other people's money.
Click to expand...
yeah, the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth is THE SAME as the kynes household, minus the coffee can ashtrays smoldering on the front porch, tires on the lawn, and incomplete paint job on the trim that's been sitting for four months.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
funny, i do that better than you do, box boy.

does that mean that i know more about economics than you?

:lol:
Click to expand...
but you forgot one of the basic premises of your own "philosophy":

You Didn't Build That

therefore your "success" is subsumed into my paradigm.



except i dont want what you got, so you can keep it.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
yeah, the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth is THE SAME as the kynes household, minus the coffee can ashtrays smoldering on the front porch, tires on the lawn, and incomplete paint job on the trim that's been sitting for four months.
Click to expand...
yep.

Exactly The Same.

except i dont have any debts, and i dont have to rob my pets or my dope plants to cover my bills.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
but you forgot one of the basic premises of your own "philosophy":

You Didn't Build That

therefore your "success" is subsumed into my paradigm.



except i dont want what you got, so you can keep it.
Click to expand...
bet you'd changed your mind if you saw the fully insulated, climate controlled 4400 watt grow room in my garage.

or, coming soon to a backyard near you, a 10x16 shed/greenhouse. just finished the foundation yesterday, gonna start erecting sides today, which makes me erect.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
yep.

Exactly The Same.

except i dont have any debts, and i dont have to rob my pets or my dope plants to cover my bills.
Click to expand...
nope, not even remotely similar.

rob my pets to cover my bills? what in the fuck are you blathering about?
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
bet you'd changed your mind if you saw the fully insulated, climate controlled 4400 watt grow room in my garage.

or, coming soon to a backyard near you, a 10x16 shed/greenhouse. just finished the foundation yesterday, gonna start erecting sides today, which makes me erect.
Click to expand...
and You Still Didint Build That.

you boast and brag, claim to be the king of the dope slingers, and when it's all said and done you still spend your whole life babbling about your "achievements" on a dope forum, inserting yourself into every thread with endless shitposts with zero substance.

youre like Paris Hilton claiming to be a financial genius cuz her trust fund hasnt run out yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top