Protecting the rentier class
- Thread starter Ricter
- Start date
I honestly don't get you folks. You call it cut and paste, and it technically is, but when we point out facts and data and don't cut and paste, you scream about how we need a source. So which is it?
Cutting and pasting articles, supporting documents, etc. is part of an online debate. It's when ALL you do is cut and paste and offer no commentary of your own in how it relates to the point of contention that it is useless. If all you're going to do is throw links around, that isn't debate.
As for Jem and his religious arguments, this is economics - something you can show definitive information on. It's nothing at all like a discussion on the nature of the universe.
You keep posting excuses for not debating, but, you refer to me as stupid. However I'm the one that is offering you the chance to prove how stupid I am. Yet you are the one who is apprehensive of getting into the debate. You then claim it's because of my "style" of debating, yet in every other thread, you are engaged in flame wars of a far greater magnitude than anything I have ever thrown your way, so that can't be it either.
In every economics thread I've tried to make a point, I've referred to sources, data and supporting logic in all of my arguments, yet neither Ricter, bigarrow nor now you wish to engage with me to debate the points I have made. Each time you attack me, or the author of the article. Rarely, if ever, has any one of you made a counter argument to something in the meat of the discussion.
Observers of the thread have thrown out why they believe this is, and I am inclined to agree - but would like to offer you the ability to prove me wrong. I honestly would like to debate this stuff with someone on "your" side who is capable, willing and informed enough to do so. But I just can't seem to find one who has any of those three characteristics - much less all of them.
I don't challenge your side on many other topics, simply because I don't feel I have solid ground to form my argument outside of opinions. This doesn't seem to stop many of you wading into economics discussion when you clearly aren't willing to back up your words and "cut and pastes".
It must suck to have the whole applied Keynesian school of thought be
described in one cartoon.
Too much "cut n paste"for ya?
Actually I did add the all important last line .
No Keynesian advocate would forget the "free gov't money", part of the scheme.
So what do you consider "fact" in economics? Aren't Keynes' theories predicated on opinions of people deemed "qualified" or "recognized" in economics? Where do you draw the line on "fact" outside of a data point?
How do you argue something like QE being effective if all you can show is how it effects things like interest rates and inflation? You have to use opinion and speculation to argue how these are "effective" or not.
You know this. Or should I simply follow you around on all your posts where you argue something and say "that's opinion, not fact!" We both know that debates are about tying one's argument to a series of accepted principles.
Why don't you detail what Keynesian economics suggests in your own words?
Then you can have a discussion without the dreaded "cut n paste" plus the accusations of straw-men arguments.
To be fair, I don't think you're stupid at all. You merely choose to act that way when it suits you, by obfuscating the obvious. This provides very little motivation for me to spend (waste) any meaningful time sparring with you. I have asked Ricter time and again why he adds to the already considerable sunk cost of engaging you and others like you in this ongoing back-and-forth. I had done so in the past for a time, and it was a meaningless exercise, where my comments were either ignored or reframed out of context. I would no more debate you about economics than I would a sociopath about empathy. Not that I am suggesting for one moment that you are a sociopath, because I am quite sure you are not. However, you are a committed ideologue. Experience has shown that committed ideologues don't actually debate.