EXACT opposite. Complete, epic, fail.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Negative Interest Rates Implications - deflationary and inflationary
- Thread starter TraderD
- Start date
M
morganist
Now you are contesting other economists. So you are just a view point.
Yes. You got it EXACTLY wrong - you got the direct exactly wrong.
I don't subscribe to the school that -1 is the same as 1. It's not. It's the opposite. And the opposite matters.
You are dead wrong. You are charlatan for pretending to know macro economics. You are a child for still insisting that you got that answer right.
And no, calling it chimerica does not make you look smarter.
I don't subscribe to the school that -1 is the same as 1. It's not. It's the opposite. And the opposite matters.
You are dead wrong. You are charlatan for pretending to know macro economics. You are a child for still insisting that you got that answer right.
And no, calling it chimerica does not make you look smarter.
Quote from morganist:
Looks like I got after all. I just had to guess around which one it was. Because there are many other factors. That you are not aware of otherwise you would not say this is the biggest reason.
M
morganist
Quote from DontMissTheBus:
Yes. You got it EXACTLY wrong - you got the direct exactly wrong.
I don't subscribe to the school that -1 is the same as 1. It's not. It's the opposite. And the opposite matters.
You are dead wrong. You are charlatan for pretending to know macro economics. You are a child for still insisting that you got that answer right.
And no, calling it chimerica does not make you look smarter.
You are assuming your view is right. I don't think it is.
As the article mentions it argues against other economists. What makes you think you are right.
How about Krugman then? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/opinion/15krugman.html)
Look - economists disagree on what to do about it, not why it happen.
Your world view seems to consist of the fact that everyone has opinions and thus you can just make things up because they are opinions. It's sad, really.
Look - economists disagree on what to do about it, not why it happen.
Your world view seems to consist of the fact that everyone has opinions and thus you can just make things up because they are opinions. It's sad, really.
Quote from morganist:
You are assuming your view is right. I don't think it is.
As the article mentions it argues against other economists. What makes you think you are right.
No. It's not. You are making the same mistake as our moderator: +1 does not equal to -1. Future consumption is not the same as present consumption, which is not the same as past consumption.
Order matters - otherwise yesterday is the same as tomorrow.
Order matters - otherwise yesterday is the same as tomorrow.
Quote from Random.Capital:
Just a different way of saying the same thing.
M
morganist
Quote from DontMissTheBus:
How about Krugman then? (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/opinion/15krugman.html)
Look - economists disagree on what to do about it, not why it happen.
Your world view seems to consist of the fact that everyone has opinions and thus you can just make things up because they are opinions. It's sad, really.
I don't see the Chinese keeping up investing in America. Downgrade?