4 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.