Why do conservatives come off as such idiots?

[tlongII]

http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p...ry-primer.html

That does.




Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/...R2Dhoz8FB1M.99

Have fun, and get cracking. There is a lot to read at those links.

Unless you don't care about whether or not that idea might be wrong...?

Modern Monetary Theory is bat , on many levels. And here are some ways you can tell, even if you don't know anything about economics:

First, the name of the theory itself is misleading. There's nothing "modern" about "Modern" Monetary Theory. It was first proposed by G. F. Knapp in the late 19th century. In fact, it's so old that John Maynard Keynes already knew it was bat in 1930, when he published Treatise on Money. This nonsense was old when my great-grandfather was my age.

Here's a tip: when someone can't even be honest about the name of their "theory," they're more than willing to lie to you about what's in it.

And second, this nimrod:
Nobel prize winner sounding a trifle modern moneyish | Bill Mitc ...

MMTers, including Mitc , have been taking shots at Krugman for years for "loving the limelight" and "stepping away from academia" (Jesus, how many times does the guy need to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences to get a little respect from these clowns?)

But the minute he uses a graph of a basic Keynesian concept (which the MMTers have now hijacked and called their own) to demonstrate that a premise MMT says is correct in all situations is in fact only right occasionally, they immediately want to claim Krugman as one of their own. Next they'll be trying to perform Baptism for the dead on Keynes and Friedman, like the Mormons.

By the way: can you tell me the names of some actual MMTers who have won Nobel Prizes? No, I guess not. There's probably a reason for that.

Look, it's really just this simple: the defining premise of Modern Monetary Theory is idea that "deficits never matter." So, fine: let's just outlay trillions of dollars in foreign aid tomorrow and we can end poverty worldwide by the end of next week.

It doesn't matter what perspective you look at this from. It doesn't matter if you're a New Keynesian, a Classical Liberal (Austrian scholar), a strict Monetarist, a Supply Sider, or even a duckbill platypus. Just think back to that time when you were about three or four years old and your mom or your dad first bestowed upon you that timeless and profound truism, "when something sounds too good to be true ..."

[clambake]

ladies and gentlemen.........introducing chris richardson!!!!!!!!!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

at blaming the Lebanon bombing on Reagan.

at blaming the Libya assault on Clinton/Obama.

But thanks for demonstrating a point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Modern Monetary Theory is bat , on many levels. And here are some ways you can tell, even if you don't know anything about economics:

First, the name of the theory itself is misleading. There's nothing "modern" about "Modern" Monetary Theory. It was first proposed by G. F. Knapp in the late 19th century. In fact, it's so old that John Maynard Keynes already knew it was bat in 1930, when he published Treatise on Money. This nonsense was old when my great-grandfather was my age.

Here's a tip: when someone can't even be honest about the name of their "theory," they're more than willing to lie to you about what's in it.

And second, this nimrod:
Nobel prize winner sounding a trifle modern moneyish | Bill Mitc ...

MMTers, including Mitc , have been taking shots at Krugman for years for "loving the limelight" and "stepping away from academia" (Jesus, how many times does the guy need to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences to get a little respect from these clowns?)

But the minute he uses a graph of a basic Keynesian concept (which the MMTers have now hijacked and called their own) to demonstrate that a premise MMT says is correct in all situations is in fact only right occasionally, they immediately want to claim Krugman as one of their own. Next they'll be trying to perform Baptism for the dead on Keynes and Friedman, like the Mormons.

By the way: can you tell me the names of some actual MMTers who have won Nobel Prizes? No, I guess not. There's probably a reason for that.

Look, it's really just this simple: the defining premise of Modern Monetary Theory is idea that "deficits never matter." So, fine: let's just outlay trillions of dollars in foreign aid tomorrow and we can end poverty worldwide by the end of next week.

It doesn't matter what perspective you look at this from. It doesn't matter if you're a New Keynesian, a Classical Liberal (Austrian scholar), a strict Monetarist, a Supply Sider, or even a duckbill platypus. Just think back to that time when you were about three or four years old and your mom or your dad first bestowed upon you that timeless and profound truism, "when something sounds too good to be true ..."

I took from this that this economic theory fell out of favor as opposed to Keynes in the early 19th century and that the Northern European elites who give out the nobel prize favor Keynesian thought. It also reeks of canards and pigeonholing inserted for analysis. I really liked the foreign aid throw in.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I post anything gun related, guaranteed the same four people jump in the thread with their panties in a wad. Every. Single. Time.

What other topics do you post about other than guns in here?

Oh that's right.... LINK

. Tool. Bag.

[spursncowboys]

THIS is why conservatives come off as idiots. They try to claim they never liked Bush as if people are stupid enough to think Republicans never liked the last Republican in the white house (who was president for two terms). Additionally the Republican who won the primary in 2012 had identical economic policy to Bush. Cut taxes for the rich, hike up military spending, and that'll somehow shrink the deficit!

The congress hiked up the military spending. The Dems attacked Bush for going to war without all the new sophisticated equipment.

[spursncowboys]

War for oil.
Repubs want to kill old people and kids
Tax cuts for the rich
Rebulicans don't care about kids going to sleep hungry
Pretty idiotic to me.

[TSA]

What other topics do you post about other than guns in here?

Oh that's right.... LINK

. Tool. Bag.

4/4
Every. Single. Time.

By the way your link doesn't work

[Clipper Nation]

Both sides are completely re ed and gullible, just blindly lapping up the party-line bull and ignoring that both major parties are the same.....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

4/4
Every. Single. Time.

By the way your link doesn't work

I don't bother discussing the gun control debate. Your intellect is clearly too lacking to engage an intelligent discussion. I was just pointing out is that all you do is talk about guns. You get a gold star for 'baiting' people on a political forum that actually find the issue important. Bravo, .

[johnsmith]

I don't bother discussing the gun control debate. Your intellect is clearly too lacking to engage an intelligent discussion. I was just pointing out is that all you do is talk about guns. You get a gold star for 'baiting' people on a political forum that actually find the issue important. Bravo, .

Fuzzy...surely you aren't categorizing a sub forum on a website dedicated to pro sports as somewhere that people have serious discourse and only discuss "important issues" right? Cause if you are, Nbadan wants to speak with you.

[efrem1]

I wouldn't really call it interesting, I'd just call it the typical intellectual dishonesty we see when people try to revise history and say Reagan/Bush were fiscally responsible presidents

Actually, there has not been a fiscally responsible president since Calvin Coolidge. I am so done with this left v. right nonsense. Obama is dishonest about drones, but the GOP are clueless as well. I wish Ron Paul were President.

[TSA]

Fuzzy...surely you aren't categorizing a sub forum on a website dedicated to pro sports as somewhere that people have serious discourse and only discuss "important issues" right? Cause if you are, Nbadan wants to speak with you.

Nice to see an old timer drop some wisdom.

[velik_m]

It was quite forseeable, in hindsight.

This sentence is just too funny.

Carry on with pointless partisan bull ...

[Wild Cobra]

This sentence is just too funny.

Carry on with pointless partisan bull ...

That's one of the ways Random operates. He squirrels away peoples posts, then in the future, he will find purpose for them he didn't think of at the time.

[RandomGuy]

Reason I went with pussies. I think you could have done better than idiots.

What a moronic, mouth breathing thing to say.










j/k

[RandomGuy]

Modern Monetary Theory is bat , on many levels. And here are some ways you can tell, even if you don't know anything about economics:

First, the name of the theory itself is misleading. There's nothing "modern" about "Modern" Monetary Theory. It was first proposed by G. F. Knapp in the late 19th century. In fact, it's so old that John Maynard Keynes already knew it was bat in 1930, when he published Treatise on Money. This nonsense was old when my great-grandfather was my age.

Here's a tip: when someone can't even be honest about the name of their "theory," they're more than willing to lie to you about what's in it.

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her cir stances, or her actions is made (or the character, cir stances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


1) Person A makes claim X.
2) Person B makes an attack on person A.
3) Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, cir stances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Person A = Modern monetary theorist
Claim X = Modeern monetary theory best describes the behavior of money and economic systems
Person B = Tlong
Attack= 'in my opinion, the theory isn't really what I consider modern, so therefore they are lying and wrong about other things'


Your claim is very clearly a logical fallacy, and therefore rejected.

Quite frankly, you can't even prove that the intent was to mislead. You have now chalked up one unbased assertion and one logical fallacy in one fell swoop.

[RandomGuy]

And second, this nimrod:
Nobel prize winner sounding a trifle modern moneyish | Bill Mitc ...

MMTers, including Mitc , have been taking shots at Krugman for years for "loving the limelight" and "stepping away from academia" (Jesus, how many times does the guy need to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences to get a little respect from these clowns?)

But the minute he uses a graph of a basic Keynesian concept (which the MMTers have now hijacked and called their own) to demonstrate that a premise MMT says is correct in all situations is in fact only right occasionally, they immediately want to claim Krugman as one of their own. Next they'll be trying to perform Baptism for the dead on Keynes and Friedman, like the Mormons.

Description of Cir stantial Ad Hominem
A Cir stantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves subs uting an attack on a person's cir stances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's cir stances.
Therefore X is false.

A Cir stantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and cir stances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's cir stances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false."

Person A= Modern monetary theorists
Claim X= Modern monetary theory best describes the behavior of money and economic systems
Attack = They bash Krugman when he doesn't agree with him, and embrace him when he does agree with them.
"Since they bash Krugman when he doens't agree with him, and embrace him when he does, they are wrong."

Another fairly obvious logical fallacy, and therefore rejected.

That is two, with one unbased assertion.

Moving on... (but wait, there's more)

[RandomGuy]

By the way: can you tell me the names of some actual MMTers who have won Nobel Prizes? No, I guess not. There's probably a reason for that.

"They are wrong because no economist espousing MMT has ever won a Nobel Prize to my knowledge."

Yet another ad hominem.

That is three logical fallacies, and one unbased assertion.

moving on.... (oh yes, there are more all in one post)

[RandomGuy]

Look, it's really just this simple: the defining premise of Modern Monetary Theory is idea that "deficits never matter." So, fine: let's just outlay trillions of dollars in foreign aid tomorrow and we can end poverty worldwide by the end of next week.

Wow. This pretty much proves that you don't understand the theory. The first sentence sort of got close to one of the tenets, but the second directly contradicts it.

In essence, a strawman argument, probably made out of ignorance.

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and subs utes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:


Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not cons ute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Person A= Modern monetary theorist
Position X = Deficits don't matter as long as they generate full employment domestically (a bit of a simplification still)
Person B = Tlong
Claim Y = "MMTers are wrong because they say that deficits don't matter and we can give trillions of dollars in foreign aid globally to achieve prosperity"

Four logical fallacies, one unbased assertion, and not one single genuine attempt to actually address modern monetary theory.

My guess is that you really don't understand it, and have never really bothered to read enough to do so.

But at least you have demonstrated how flawed your thinking process is on the matter. That helps a little, in that anybody with any sense should be a bit more skeptical of your claims on the subject. We know to do a bit more fact checking and analysis.

[RandomGuy]

Actually, there has not been a fiscally responsible president since Calvin Coolidge. I am so done with this left v. right nonsense. Obama is dishonest about drones, but the GOP are clueless as well. I wish Ron Paul were President.

Eyuch.

Ron Paul is an idiot, and arguably immoral. Such people tend to make bad leaders.

[RandomGuy]

This sentence is just too funny.

Carry on with pointless partisan bull ...

Touche it was a stupid sentence. I stand corrected.

It should have been foreseeable by anyone with any knowledge of the Lebanese conflict and the operation of Syrian and Iranian intelligence services in the area. That this easily foreseeable potential consequence wasn't noted by the Reagan administration was damning of them for either not asking the right questions or doing their homework.

In hindsight, that was obvious to everybody.

Better?

[tlongII]

Position X = Deficits don't matter as long as they generate full employment domestically (a bit of a simplification still)

My post was filled with hyperbole of course, but this statement is ridiculous.

[RandomGuy]

My post was filled with hyperbole of course, but this statement is ridiculous.

Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

Description of Appeal to Ridicule
The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is subs uted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:


X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.

So simple I won't even bother spelling it out.

By all means, keep talking. Please.

(edit)

That's five logical fallacies so far.

[RandomGuy]

FWIW:

Here's a list:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/