Quote from: Solar on December 30, 2016, 03:59:35 AM
I give him Mises, he responds with a Washpo article, I quote Milton Friedman, he spews socialist dogma.
I'm willing to bet he thinks Ayn Rand had horns and cloven feet, assuming he even knows who she is...

I'm still waiting to hear his sage wisdom over his claim:

"There is an argument to be made for income inequality".

Maybe he can school us on the OWS movement, or the Social inequalities under Supply Side economics.
My guess would be, based on what he's written, he has a wealth envy issue, kind of like those born with a mental illness and go into psychiatry, instead, he takes an interest in the field of economics 'only' while completely neglecting our Constitution in regards to capitalism and free mkt ideals.

This is the kind of demonization of "the other side" that is contributing to the breakdown of Amercian politics.

You have no idea my experiences, my social status or my income.  Even if I were to prove that one or all of your accusations is false, would it make any difference?  Of course not.  All just hot air spoken to end a conversation, not take part in it.  So I won't be baited into trying to prove anything to you about who I am.  It's irrelevant and the facts speak for themselves.

Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 01:17:53 PM
This is the kind of demonization of "the other side" that is contributing to the breakdown of Amercian politics.

Who's demonizing who? The name Saul Alinsky ring anything in your belfry? I notice when you guys used his tactics and were winning you laughed your tail ends off. Now that your butts in a sling, suddenly it's not so funny

Quote
You have no idea my experiences, my social status or my income.

No we don't, and thereby hangs the rub.  We don't need to know anything about you to guage whether or not you know what your talking about
However, when he starts critiquing others credentials, he better have some pretty impressive credentials himself.

Considering the fact you turned down the opportunity to present thosse impressive credentials three times, I have to presume they don't exist and all the following rhetoric is bs attempting to be a smoke screen.

Quote.
  Even if I were to prove that one or all of your accusations is false, would it make any difference?  Of course not.  All just hot air spoken to end a conversation, not take part in it.

Translation: I expect you to take every word  I give you as golden

Quote
  So I won't be baited into trying to prove anything to you about who I am.  It's irrelevant and the facts speak for themselves.

Translation: I'm nobody important anyway and what I claim to be facts are bits and pieces I pulled from progressive propaganda, spin, and talking points.

Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 01:17:53 PM
This is the kind of demonization of "the other side" that is contributing to the breakdown of Amercian politics.

You have no idea my experiences, my social status or my income.  Even if I were to prove that one or all of your accusations is false, would it make any difference?  Of course not.  All just hot air spoken to end a conversation, not take part in it.  So I won't be baited into trying to prove anything to you about who I am.  It's irrelevant and the facts speak for themselves.

Demonization?
I respond to your "farewell" thread, and you dig back to a post you ignored earlier and claim I was baiting you? All to avoid my latest post, cowturd, umm, meant coward, but either will suffice!
Troll, your shit is getting old real fast, and it's far from obvious you're out of your league and way in over your head here, so instead of a long farewell, with 'the little snowflake is tearfully melting post', just leave and quit wasting our time.

Can anyone here actually put something up...Some facts with respect to economics and debate them?  I tried and everyone ignored it.

Do taxes pay for spending at the Federal Level?

Does the market determine interest rates?

Is the "loanable funds theory" correct?

If the government could go broke, what exactly would that look like?

You guys don't want to talk economics.  You want to tell me I have an agenda, or I'm a serial plagiarist. 

Does anyone actually want to put their ideas on the line?  Come on, please share some insights gained with all that business acumen.

Let's ask each other questions that actually require evidence.  Oh, wait, you don't accept evidence, because if it goes against what you believe it's obviously been altered by the government.

That leaves us at somewhat of a stalemate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3dpwxl4E18

Quote from: Solar on January 01, 2017, 08:27:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3dpwxl4E18

Again, you pretend to have knowledge due to business skills you may or may not have (I don't know), but when the rubber meets the road, you have no idea how to respond.

You and Taxed keep telling me how little I understand, but neither of you will actually debate me with respect to real economics.

Please, tell me, in your own words what it is I don't understand.  Don't post an entire article or site, it only proves you don't actually understand what it is you're claiming.

Talk to me about trade deficits or why I'm wrong when I say that the government doesn't actually "print" money to pay for anything (actual money printing is simply to meet the demand for cash at the ATM machine).  Government credits accounts when it spends and debits them when it taxes.

When the government prints money and gives it to banks, it debt's those banks reserve accounts dollar for dollar.  The net result is no new money enters the system when "cash" is created.  Did you know that?  If you did I suspect we'd be arguing actual economics rather than throwing accusations of marxism or threating to ban me for not answering a question about income inequality.

Now please astound all of your fellow forum mates by actually discussing economics with me, in your own words, with sources if necessary.  Try to keep the Ad Hominem attacks to a minimum.

Or you could just ban me and get this over with because we all know that's where this is going.  You're just looking for the excuse.

Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 09:28:46 PM
Again, you pretend to have knowledge due to business skills you may or may not have (I don't know), but when the rubber meets the road, you have no idea how to respond.

You and Taxed keep telling me how little I understand, but neither of you will actually debate me with respect to real economics.

Please, tell me, in your own words what it is I don't understand.  Don't post an entire article or site, it only proves you don't actually understand what it is you're claiming.

Talk to me about trade deficits or why I'm wrong when I say that the government doesn't actually "print" money to pay for anything (actual money printing is simply to meet the demand for cash at the ATM machine).  Government credits accounts when it spends and debits them when it taxes.

When the government prints money and gives it to banks, it debt's those banks reserve accounts dollar for dollar.  The net result is no new money enters the system when "cash" is created.  Did you know that?  If you did I suspect we'd be arguing actual economics rather than throwing accusations of marxism or threating to ban me for not answering a question about income inequality.

Now please astound all of your fellow forum mates by actually discussing economics with me, in your own words, with sources if necessary.  Try to keep the Ad Hominem attacks to a minimum.

Or you could just ban me and get this over with because we all know that's where this is going.  You're just looking for the excuse.

More drivel from the troll that refuses to answer questions, and you have the audacity to call people out for something you're now known for in your every post?
If I wanted to boot you, I don't need an excuse, the only reason you haven't been booted is because it's not often we get real Marxists through here.
But you do not control the forum, you are still a noob.

Problem is, you refuse to debate, you ask questions, then when someone responds, you say "fascinating", then ask another series of hyper focused, innocuously questions without an inkling of how the big picture works, no, you'd rather take a myopic look at the intricacies of interest in hopes of boring us to death.
You seem to forget, you are a guest, a noob at that, and etiquette demands you join existing conversations, not jump in and start threads to push your own leftist agenda.
We gave you your own thread as requested:

Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 01, 2017, 11:38:24 AM
Oh,  and for the record,  I never refused to discuss,  I told Solar he should start a new thread and we could discuss.   That would allow for an answer to the question and keep from derailing the thread.   Of course, this has never really been about me answering questions.

And like every other time, you dodge and weave, ask more silly questions and claim no one ever answers your questions.

So my suggestion would be for you to join in the conversation until you're actually welcomed into the forum as a contributing member, presently of which, you are not.
So return to the thread that was started for you, the very one you requested and expand on your claim "There is an argument to be made for income inequality".

Though it's worded as a polite suggestion, I think you know what's at stake here.

I knew it was too much to ask that you might actually debate economics with me.

Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 02, 2017, 07:27:15 AM
I knew it was too much to ask that you might actually debate economics with me.

Somebody has a one-track mind.

We're still waiting for you to defend your there is a case to be made for inccome inequality claim.

You've wasted how much bandwidth stalling, then you needed a thread staarted, now what' s your excuse?

Quote from: Ghoulardi on January 02, 2017, 07:29:12 AM
Somebody has a one-track mind.

We're still waiting for you to defend your there is a case to be made for inccome inequality claim.

You've wasted how much bandwidth stalling, then you needed a thread staarted, now what' s your excuse?

Yeah, Derailed.

I laid out my case, I was told that I was wrong.  No facts, no arguments, what's left to say.

Now, please debate actual economics with me.  All this posturing is childish.

Do taxes pay for spending at the Federal Level?

Does the market determine interest rates?

Is the "loanable funds theory" correct?

If the government could go broke, what exactly would that look like?

See you claim you understand the economy, but if you can't answer these questions, you don't really understand the economy.

Quote from: Econ4Every1 on January 02, 2017, 08:46:23 AM
I laid out my case, I was told that I was wrong.  No facts, no arguments, what's left to say.

Now, please debate actual economics with me.  All this posturing is childish.

Do taxes pay for spending at the Federal Level?

Does the market determine interest rates?

Is the "loanable funds theory" correct?

If the government could go broke, what exactly would that look like?

See you claim you understand the economy, but if you can't answer these questions, you don't really understand the economy.

I notice "posturing" , as you call it, isn't childish when you do it.

Likee how much posturing have you done before you got to answering you claim about income inequality?  Were you being childish?

Quote from: Ghoulardi on January 02, 2017, 08:54:28 AM
I notice "posturing" , as you call it, isn't childish when you do it.

Likee how much posturing have you done before you got to answering you claim about income inequality?  Were you being childish?

Ya know, every communist I've met share these same traits. They never want to debate.
No, they want you to let them make a case for Marxism, they want to convince you that everyone is repressed by capitalism, that only the rich have the true power, that only govt can right this wrong via control of the free mkt. and micro-management by big brother picking the winners it wants to further its grip on the free mkt system.

Yet he can't see where all of this leads, or he can, which explains why he refuses to debate the actual principle behind a free mkt.

Quote from: Solar on January 02, 2017, 09:08:16 AM
Ya know, every communist I've met share these same traits. They never want to debate.
No, they want you to let them make a case for Marxism, they want to convince you that everyone is repressed by capitalism, that only the rich have the true power, that only govt can right this wrong via control of the free mkt. and micro-management by big brother picking the winners it wants to further its grip on the free mkt system.

Yet he can't see where all of this leads, or he can, which explains why he refuses to debate the actual principle behind a free mkt.

I've discussed communism with a grad student once that was trying to sell me on Cuba.

He pulled a fiver out of his pocket and said. "This is my life. I'm exploited in this country."

"You think your not exploited in the Russia?" I asked.

"How am I exploited?" he asked.

"Does Putin wait in line for his food? Does Putin get the same medical attention as the average citizen?"

He shrugged his shoulders. "Well, every system has its problems"

"Then why are you complaining about the problems in this one?"

Quote from: Ghoulardi on January 02, 2017, 09:21:01 AM
I've discussed communism with a grad student once that was trying to sell me on Cuba.

He pulled a fiver out of his pocket and said. "This is my life. I'm exploited in this country."

"You think your not exploited in the Russia?" I asked.

"How am I exploited?" he asked.

"Does Putin wait in line for his food? Does Putin get the same medical attention as the average citizen?"

He shrugged his shoulders. "Well, every system has its problems"

"Then why are you complaining about the problems in this one?"

What I find so ironic is that every time they point out the failings in our system, it's all because of govt intervention trying to level the playing field.
Point this out and they say "govt had the right idea".