Except that I'm the one who shows why I disagree with said hated economist on given issues (issues which you haven't ever really mounted anything resembling even a marginal defense), whereas you just say Greenspan is "wrong" and we're all supposed to agree because someone as lost in economics as yourself is the one who said it. The truth of the matter is that you don't really understand the base of your own argument, which is why you just dodge and obfuscate.
The Fed has no choice but to raise interest rates and crush the market
- Thread starter Max E.
- Start date
Except that I'm the one who shows why I disagree with said hated economist on given issues (issues which you haven't ever really mounted anything resembling even a marginal defense), whereas you just say Greenspan is "wrong" and we're all supposed to agree because someone as lost in economics as yourself is the one who said it. The truth of the matter is that you don't really understand the base of your own argument, which is why you just dodge and obfuscate.
Again, as long as it's gold, I don't care what form it is in. Are you going to pay or backpedal with semantics covering you?
Truth is, you're trying to save an argument you already lost (by admitting I'd just find currency definitions that exclude gold).
Another dodge. Hint: I don't "lose" an argument with you just because you say so. Losing an argument comes from either failing to provide a rebuttal that is relevant (on the gold is money topic, for example) or failing to back up one's position, or ceding. Or running off, of course. A few of these, but not all, are trademark Ricter maneuvers.
Admitting you could find definitions that exclude gold means that I am aware of, and willing to debate, the other side of the argument. That's why I usually drive you off - because most of the time you're not aware of the tactics the other side uses or lack the depth of understanding of your own argument (on economics - you do well on other topics).
Uh oh, you may have set off a word tsunami.Right-wingers never lose; they just change the subject (or run away)
Except that I provided an argument for my point, including a former chairman of the Federal Reserve who agreed with my point. You just said "he's wrong", like we're supposed to take your word for it.
Keep dodging, though! Let me know if you'd like another try at it.
Last edited:
Right-wingers never lose; they just change the subject (or run away)
The subject hasn't changed, and no one (here) has run away. It's not like someone put another on ignore or something because they were unable to refute statements.
Oh, wait...
Keep shadowboxing!