3 ms·

sigh You linked to absolute bullshit. Dody T. Eid is a fucking nobdoy. Straight up just some jackass who has no background in economics writing very conservat

sigh You linked to absolute bullshit. Dody T. Eid is a fucking nobdoy. Straight up just some jackass who has no background in economics writing very conservative op-eds. Next up is Joris, who let me quote the wikipedia block from google: "[..] is a Dutch non-fiction author, anthropologist, news correspondent, and TV interviewer. Wikipedia" You can credit my Economics background for my astute bullshit detector. > Of course you have to correlate it. Do you know what QE was? Without QE fixing the balance sheets of the banking system and low interest rates, we'd most likely be facing major deflation. Without QE and low interest, bloomberg's net worth would be much smaller and that most definitely would affect his spending. Yeah, great idea deflation, that's how the great depression happened because the government at the time and federal bank said "piss off wankers." It triggers a deflationary spiral, which stops spending, and causes economic collapse, here's a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation#Deflationary_spiral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflation#Deflationary_spiral It's safe to say it's you, friend, who does not know anything about QE, economic history, theory, or its application. FWIW, I hate Milton Friedman and think he was an asshole who had an enormous amount of bullshit ideological driven policies that strayed far from the science, but god damn he hit the nail on the monetary policy preventing the great depression... which is exactly what happened in 2008/9 by the FED holding interest rates low or negative. I do like Keynes mostly, but unfortunately, because a lot of America has no idea about how economics works, especially on a macro scale, we didn't get the "new deal." We should have we got "the shitty deal," which was no investment infrastructure.

dntbnmpls 7y ago
> You can credit my Economics background for my astute bullshit detector. Is that because of all the bullshit in economics gave you ample practice in detecting bullshit? Well be patient with me because my limited economics background most likely pales in comparison to yours. > Yeah, great idea deflation I didn't say deflation is great. You are reading into things too much. I just said QE and low interest rates had an impact on inflation. Something which you cavalierly dismissed. I said QE and low interest rates prevented deflation. > It's safe to say it's you, friend, who does not know anything about QE, economic history, theory, or its application. All you've provided are just ad hominems and just cnbc talking points with nonpertinent rants on the side. Everything you disagree with is "bullshit" and everything you say is "gospel". Typical economics background behavior. For someone "with an economics background", you would know how it has so many "gurus" and so much unsettled "science" in it. How one nobel prize winning economist could say the world economy is going to collapse after the previous election and another can say it will be great and economics couldn't settle the issue either way. But then again, this comment thread is precisely why I view economics as a religion rather than a science. Where people make up shit that aligns with their agenda and worship their prophets ( Keynes, Marx, etc ). Sometimes it's hard to differentiate between a religious zealot and someone with "an economics background".
- rubyn00bie 7y ago
  I only want to quote you from a couple days ago because I think you need to reflect here and take time to stop spewing non-sense which you're making up... and I don't think you're seeing it clearly; so, maybe this will help you out... In reply to this: >> I rely on Matt Levine to explain, more clearly than I could, how brokerages make money You wrote: > You rely on someone who never worked for a brokerage to teach you how brokerages worked? Maybe you should really think that through in the context of economics.
  - dntbnmpls 7y ago
    > I only want to quote you from a couple days ago You are invested in this. That's the type of religious zeal I'm talking about. > Maybe you should really think that through in the context of economics. Only if economics worked like brokerages work. The fact that you have to go "3 days back into comment history" rather than using the "science" in economics to support your argument should tell you something. That's the difference between religion, economics, political science, etc and physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc. One responds with straw man and red herrings, the other responds with actual science and facts.

dntbnmpls 7y ago

> You can credit my Economics background for my astute bullshit detector. Is that because of all the bullshit in economics gave you ample practice in detecting bullshit? Well be patient with me because my limited economics background most likely pales in comparison to yours. > Yeah, great idea deflation I didn't say deflation is great. You are reading into things too much. I just said QE and low interest rates had an impact on inflation. Something which you cavalierly dismissed. I said QE and low interest rates prevented deflation. > It's safe to say it's you, friend, who does not know anything about QE, economic history, theory, or its application. All you've provided are just ad hominems and just cnbc talking points with nonpertinent rants on the side. Everything you disagree with is "bullshit" and everything you say is "gospel". Typical economics background behavior. For someone "with an economics background", you would know how it has so many "gurus" and so much unsettled "science" in it. How one nobel prize winning economist could say the world economy is going to collapse after the previous election and another can say it will be great and economics couldn't settle the issue either way. But then again, this comment thread is precisely why I view economics as a religion rather than a science. Where people make up shit that aligns with their agenda and worship their prophets ( Keynes, Marx, etc ). Sometimes it's hard to differentiate between a religious zealot and someone with "an economics background".

rubyn00bie 7y ago
I only want to quote you from a couple days ago because I think you need to reflect here and take time to stop spewing non-sense which you're making up... and I don't think you're seeing it clearly; so, maybe this will help you out... In reply to this: >> I rely on Matt Levine to explain, more clearly than I could, how brokerages make money You wrote: > You rely on someone who never worked for a brokerage to teach you how brokerages worked? Maybe you should really think that through in the context of economics.
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  > I only want to quote you from a couple days ago You are invested in this. That's the type of religious zeal I'm talking about. > Maybe you should really think that through in the context of economics. Only if economics worked like brokerages work. The fact that you have to go "3 days back into comment history" rather than using the "science" in economics to support your argument should tell you something. That's the difference between religion, economics, political science, etc and physics, chemistry, astronomy, etc. One responds with straw man and red herrings, the other responds with actual science and facts.