Seriously, why do you people argue about the economy?

[tmukg21]

I do believe the general public just handed the private sector $1 Trillion dollars. Seems discussion worthy to me

So should we just argue about Beyonce vs Rhianna all day

 

[schaefmp]

That is a great way to look at this Wally. I was in school in 2002 and we had a similar learning environment.

Its much more painful when you are working through it.

 

[jordanfiend85]

Nobody knows anything about the economy, if we did we could fix it. we just guess. The point of a messageboard is to discuss issues.

 

[jordanfiend85]

.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by VirgilMalloy

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by VirgilMalloy

Originally Posted by kix4kix

A post about dumb people not knowing what they're talking about.................

by a dumb person who doesn't know what he is talking about?

Irony

K. I went to Berkeley, going to grad school at Stanford and will eventually pursue a PhD. So, I probably know more about the economy than 99% of NT, and I say 99% because I probably know all three of the guys that are in that 1%.

Anyway, if I can admit that despite reading dozens of articles and conversing with econ PhDs, grad students, etc. it is very unclear what wide ranging solutions might look like, then I think everyone else can man up and admit that they know nothing and stop arguing too. Nobody totally knows what's going on or how to fix it, and at best we have some speculative theories. So, what your cousin heard on the news is actually not, "the only real solution, which none of those idiots ever thought of"



Put your argumentative energies to better use, like reading, or arguing about the god damned BCS or something. Stupid BCS.

I am a Dartmouth dropout going to Carleton, and also plan on pursuing a PhD education isn't the issue here. I am glad you know the 3, as do I

You are stating that it is pointless to argue when nobody know anything. Of course nobody KNOWS anything, by that logic what is color?....What is time?

Just because there is no right or wrong: does not mean there is no need for debate.

When there's no right or wrong, then there DEFINITELY should be debate.

With the economy, there is I am saying that there IS a right and a wrong. I just don't know what it is, and neither does anybody else except for maybe the ~1000 or so people who are dedicating 18 hours a day and 20 years of education to, debating, conversing and interacting with each other to try to figure it out. Let's let them handle it. Also, second time mentioning it, but Larry Summers for treasury plz. Kthxoboma.

First, what do you mean by "the economy"? There are many facets to our economy and people argue about a lot of subjects that encompass "oureconomy".

Like JordanFeind said technically no one knows anything when it comes to the implementation of economics. If we did then we'd live in a utopia withconstant booms and no busts.
Yes, 99.9% of us do not know and cannot calculate the econometric formulas that show "this is good" or "this is bad". However, for everystudy that shows something "is good" there is a study that says "it's bad".
Economics is not as straightforward as mathematics or another hard science. Economics is a social science.

I'd suggest that you (and all of us) don't live or die by so called "experts". If you go out and ask the top HF/PE managers whether the"intellectual economists" who sit in the classroom or in some gov't office know much about real economics, the vast majority will laugh. Samegoes with successful businessmen.

According to your logic only pro ballplayers can argue about ball, only football players can debate football strategies, and coaches who've never playedpro football shouldn't even coach pro ball.

 

[sthomas131]

VirgilMalloy wrote:
Seriously. You have no idea what you are talking about, so why bother talking at all? Every single little piece of data that you have gathered, every article you have ever read, everything somebody ever told you, etc. is already known by actual economists. Yes, I am sorry but that thing you heard on the talk radio this morning is not a novel idea, and no, the president's staff are not a bunch of idiots that never considered the implications of raising or lowering taxes, or the interest rate, or whatever.


So you mean to tell me that these Actual Economists innately had the knowledge of economics? Wrong, they learned itsomewhere.

Everyone begins somewhere with a topic where they have little to no information about it and they gradually improve, hence the term learning curve. So why on @$+@%$! Earth should anyone not feel free to debate about a topic that impacts their life? Even iftheir views are misguided, they may learn something along the way.

And quite frankly, you are a waste of intelligence. If you contain this capacity for knowledge why not HELP those who may lack some of the information youhave learned?

Stand back and do nothing is what the world wants you to do, nice job being a conformist.

 

[lazyj10]

Originally Posted by VirgilMalloy

Originally Posted by kix4kix

A post about dumb people not knowing what they're talking about.................

by a dumb person who doesn't know what he is talking about?

Irony

K. I went to Berkeley, going to grad school at Stanford and will eventually pursue a PhD. So, I probably know more about the economy than 99% of NT, and I say 99% because I probably know all three of the guys that are in that 1%, and I basically know nothing about it anyway. Nothing PRACTICAL at least, although I could probably tell you something you didn't already know if we discuss non financial markets or something.

Anyway, if I can admit that despite reading dozens of articles and conversing with econ PhDs, grad students, etc. it is very unclear what wide ranging solutions might look like, then I think everyone else can man up and admit that they know nothing and stop arguing too. Nobody totally knows what's going on or how to fix it, and at best we have some speculative theories. So, what your cousin heard on the news is actually not, "the only real solution, which none of those idiots ever thought of"



Put your argumentative energies to better use, like reading, or arguing about the god damned BCS or something. Stupid BCS.

Is Michael Lewis still teaching at Cal?

Wow you know a lot about principles of economics, kudos to you. People argue about them to voice concern and opinions.

Do I want GM to receive billions? Nope. Will I argue about it, surely.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by LazyJ10

Originally Posted by VirgilMalloy

Originally Posted by kix4kix

A post about dumb people not knowing what they're talking about.................

by a dumb person who doesn't know what he is talking about?

Irony

K. I went to Berkeley, going to grad school at Stanford and will eventually pursue a PhD. So, I probably know more about the economy than 99% of NT, and I say 99% because I probably know all three of the guys that are in that 1%, and I basically know nothing about it anyway. Nothing PRACTICAL at least, although I could probably tell you something you didn't already know if we discuss non financial markets or something.

Anyway, if I can admit that despite reading dozens of articles and conversing with econ PhDs, grad students, etc. it is very unclear what wide ranging solutions might look like, then I think everyone else can man up and admit that they know nothing and stop arguing too. Nobody totally knows what's going on or how to fix it, and at best we have some speculative theories. So, what your cousin heard on the news is actually not, "the only real solution, which none of those idiots ever thought of"



Put your argumentative energies to better use, like reading, or arguing about the god damned BCS or something. Stupid BCS.

Is Michael Lewis still teaching at Cal?

Wow you know a lot about principles of economics, kudos to you. People argue about them to voice concern and opinions.

Do I want GM to receive billions? Nope. Will I argue about it, surely.

+1

Also what makes you so sure that you know more than 99% of anything? Just because you're going to Stanford?

I'm not going to Stanford or pursuing a PhD (a JD though) and I can assure you that I've put way more hours into studying economics than you have.
However, just because I have doesn't mean that my opinion is necessarily more valid than someone who has put less hours into studying the topic. Economicsisn't a hard science. Much of it is subjective and dependent on external factors.

"I'm going to Stanford......." ........and?
You're great at regurgitating material. Congrats. So are billions of other people.

 

[dr spaceman]

So basically dude is all theory and no practice...like the rest of us?

 

[wawaweewa]

Not an economist/ expert hence he shouldn't have even bothered with this:

Political economists (aka more politics than hard economics except Riccardo)..they didn't go to Stanford...what were they thinking..

More non economists....... Should've stayed home ...f'in wannabe's ...they actually though their feeble non economic minds would build thewealthiest nation on Earth in the shortest period of time....

 

[lazyj10]

lol @ wawawawawwawawawwer7263algf

 

[boogie bwoy]

"You know what college does for you?
It makes you really smart man.
All you kids wanted talk in the back of the class?
Not me, I listened, ok
I was a, hall-monitor.
It was meant to be.
You know how many classes I took?
Extra classes, extra classes
No I've never had sex!
But ya know what?
My degree keeps me satisfied.

When a lady walked wit me she say
Ya know what's sexy?
No I don't know what it is
But I bet I could add up all the change in your purse,
Very fast."

 

[virgilmalloy]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

this is the OP's argument in a nutshell....

"you can't do anything about it...so why bother talking/arguing about it"

quite defeatist if you ask me

No, it's actually "you have no idea what you are arguing about, so stop arguing about it." That's very different than not beingable to do anything.

 

[virgilmalloy]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by VirgilMalloy

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by VirgilMalloy

Originally Posted by kix4kix

A post about dumb people not knowing what they're talking about.................

by a dumb person who doesn't know what he is talking about?

Irony

K. I went to Berkeley, going to grad school at Stanford and will eventually pursue a PhD. So, I probably know more about the economy than 99% of NT, and I say 99% because I probably know all three of the guys that are in that 1%.

Anyway, if I can admit that despite reading dozens of articles and conversing with econ PhDs, grad students, etc. it is very unclear what wide ranging solutions might look like, then I think everyone else can man up and admit that they know nothing and stop arguing too. Nobody totally knows what's going on or how to fix it, and at best we have some speculative theories. So, what your cousin heard on the news is actually not, "the only real solution, which none of those idiots ever thought of"



Put your argumentative energies to better use, like reading, or arguing about the god damned BCS or something. Stupid BCS.

I am a Dartmouth dropout going to Carleton, and also plan on pursuing a PhD education isn't the issue here. I am glad you know the 3, as do I

You are stating that it is pointless to argue when nobody know anything. Of course nobody KNOWS anything, by that logic what is color?....What is time?

Just because there is no right or wrong: does not mean there is no need for debate.

When there's no right or wrong, then there DEFINITELY should be debate.

With the economy, there is I am saying that there IS a right and a wrong. I just don't know what it is, and neither does anybody else except for maybe the ~1000 or so people who are dedicating 18 hours a day and 20 years of education to, debating, conversing and interacting with each other to try to figure it out. Let's let them handle it. Also, second time mentioning it, but Larry Summers for treasury plz. Kthxoboma.

First, what do you mean by "the economy"? There are many facets to our economy and people argue about a lot of subjects that encompass "our economy".

Like JordanFeind said technically no one knows anything when it comes to the implementation of economics. If we did then we'd live in a utopia with constant booms and no busts.
Yes, 99.9% of us do not know and cannot calculate the econometric formulas that show "this is good" or "this is bad". However, for every study that shows something "is good" there is a study that says "it's bad".
Economics is not as straightforward as mathematics or another hard science. Economics is a social science.

I'd suggest that you (and all of us) don't live or die by so called "experts". If you go out and ask the top HF/PE managers whether the "intellectual economists" who sit in the classroom or in some gov't office know much about real economics, the vast majority will laugh. Same goes with successful businessmen.

According to your logic only pro ballplayers can argue about ball, only football players can debate football strategies, and coaches who've never played pro football shouldn't even coach pro ball.

Your logic falls apart in the last line, but you were solid through there. A more apt comparison would be that I would argue, "only pro ballplayers should talk about what it's like to be a pro ball player," which of course, I agree with.

 

[virgilmalloy]

Originally Posted by sthomas131

VirgilMalloy wrote:
Seriously. You have no idea what you are talking about, so why bother talking at all? Every single little piece of data that you have gathered, every article you have ever read, everything somebody ever told you, etc. is already known by actual economists. Yes, I am sorry but that thing you heard on the talk radio this morning is not a novel idea, and no, the president's staff are not a bunch of idiots that never considered the implications of raising or lowering taxes, or the interest rate, or whatever.

So you mean to tell me that these Actual Economists innately had the knowledge of economics? Wrong, they learned it somewhere.

Everyone begins somewhere with a topic where they have little to no information about it and they gradually improve, hence the term learning curve. So why on @$+@%$! Earth should anyone not feel free to debate about a topic that impacts their life? Even if their views are misguided, they may learn something along the way.

And quite frankly, you are a waste of intelligence. If you contain this capacity for knowledge why not HELP those who may lack some of the information you have learned?

Stand back and do nothing is what the world wants you to do, nice job being a conformist.


This is the best part about Niketalk. If you say that actual murder is worse than attempted murder, everyone will crucify you for saying thatattempted murder is OK.

 

[virgilmalloy]

Originally Posted by LazyJ10

Originally Posted by VirgilMalloy

Originally Posted by kix4kix

A post about dumb people not knowing what they're talking about.................

by a dumb person who doesn't know what he is talking about?

Irony

K. I went to Berkeley, going to grad school at Stanford and will eventually pursue a PhD. So, I probably know more about the economy than 99% of NT, and I say 99% because I probably know all three of the guys that are in that 1%, and I basically know nothing about it anyway. Nothing PRACTICAL at least, although I could probably tell you something you didn't already know if we discuss non financial markets or something.

Anyway, if I can admit that despite reading dozens of articles and conversing with econ PhDs, grad students, etc. it is very unclear what wide ranging solutions might look like, then I think everyone else can man up and admit that they know nothing and stop arguing too. Nobody totally knows what's going on or how to fix it, and at best we have some speculative theories. So, what your cousin heard on the news is actually not, "the only real solution, which none of those idiots ever thought of"



Put your argumentative energies to better use, like reading, or arguing about the god damned BCS or something. Stupid BCS.

Is Michael Lewis still teaching at Cal?

Wow you know a lot about principles of economics, kudos to you. People argue about them to voice concern and opinions.

Do I want GM to receive billions? Nope. Will I argue about it, surely.

The guy who wrote liar's poker? I have no idea, I didn't even know he was there to begin with.

 

[virgilmalloy]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by LazyJ10

Originally Posted by VirgilMalloy

Originally Posted by kix4kix

A post about dumb people not knowing what they're talking about.................

by a dumb person who doesn't know what he is talking about?

Irony

K. I went to Berkeley, going to grad school at Stanford and will eventually pursue a PhD. So, I probably know more about the economy than 99% of NT, and I say 99% because I probably know all three of the guys that are in that 1%, and I basically know nothing about it anyway. Nothing PRACTICAL at least, although I could probably tell you something you didn't already know if we discuss non financial markets or something.

Anyway, if I can admit that despite reading dozens of articles and conversing with econ PhDs, grad students, etc. it is very unclear what wide ranging solutions might look like, then I think everyone else can man up and admit that they know nothing and stop arguing too. Nobody totally knows what's going on or how to fix it, and at best we have some speculative theories. So, what your cousin heard on the news is actually not, "the only real solution, which none of those idiots ever thought of"



Put your argumentative energies to better use, like reading, or arguing about the god damned BCS or something. Stupid BCS.

Is Michael Lewis still teaching at Cal?

Wow you know a lot about principles of economics, kudos to you. People argue about them to voice concern and opinions.

Do I want GM to receive billions? Nope. Will I argue about it, surely.

+1

Also what makes you so sure that you know more than 99% of anything? Just because you're going to Stanford?

I'm not going to Stanford or pursuing a PhD (a JD though) and I can assure you that I've put way more hours into studying economics than you have.
However, just because I have doesn't mean that my opinion is necessarily more valid than someone who has put less hours into studying the topic. Economics isn't a hard science. Much of it is subjective and dependent on external factors.

"I'm going to Stanford......." ........and?
You're great at regurgitating material. Congrats. So are billions of other people.

No, the Stanford bit was related to the guy who was like LOLZ U ARE DUMB. If you missed the whole point of that, anyway. I was saying thatit's silly to argue with ridiculous statements like YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING, X IS OBVIOUSLY RIGHT HOW CAN YOU BE SO DUMB AS TO NOT SEE IT, when in factneither you, nor I, have any clue what's going on. Tone it down, y'all.

I think it's silly that you 'assure me that you have spent way more hours spending economics than I have.' You have no idea who I am or whatI'm doing. Anyway, I won't argue, because if you are making that claim it's probably true.

I would disagree with your assessment that Econ isn't hard though, for the exact factors that you cited... at least once you get past the undergrad level.

 

[dirtylicious]

Originally Posted by VirgilMalloy

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

this is the OP's argument in a nutshell....

"you can't do anything about it...so why bother talking/arguing about it"

quite defeatist if you ask me

No, it's actually "you have no idea what you are arguing about, so stop arguing about it." That's very different than not being able to do anything.

ah...so basically you're stating we're all too stupid to discuss economics unless we have PhD's and what not?...

 

[virgilmalloy]

Originally Posted by DJprestige21

Your admitting your inferior and your opinon doesn't matter to anyone.

Irony is one of my favorite things. What about you?

 

[virgilmalloy]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by VirgilMalloy

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

this is the OP's argument in a nutshell....

"you can't do anything about it...so why bother talking/arguing about it"

quite defeatist if you ask me

No, it's actually "you have no idea what you are arguing about, so stop arguing about it." That's very different than not being able to do anything.

ah...so basically you're stating we're all too stupid to discuss economics unless we have PhD's and what not?...

I think at some point in this thread I said I would be willing to listen to you if you had a BS (or BA? Which do you get for econ, anyway?). AndI prefer the word 'argue' to 'discuss.' I don't mind people discussing things, I just get bothered when they get into really loudarguments that assault me with their stupidity.

 

[dr spaceman]

I kinda agree with the guy a bit, i do see quite a few condescending posters confident in their ignorance. They have no real grasp on the issue, but they forsure know what the correct answer is.

 

[dirtylicious]

got it..
just wanted to make sure that you were being an intellectual snob.

cool

 

[lazyj10]

Originally Posted by VirgilMalloy

Originally Posted by LazyJ10

Originally Posted by VirgilMalloy

Originally Posted by kix4kix

A post about dumb people not knowing what they're talking about.................

by a dumb person who doesn't know what he is talking about?

Irony

K. I went to Berkeley, going to grad school at Stanford and will eventually pursue a PhD. So, I probably know more about the economy than 99% of NT, and I say 99% because I probably know all three of the guys that are in that 1%, and I basically know nothing about it anyway. Nothing PRACTICAL at least, although I could probably tell you something you didn't already know if we discuss non financial markets or something.

Anyway, if I can admit that despite reading dozens of articles and conversing with econ PhDs, grad students, etc. it is very unclear what wide ranging solutions might look like, then I think everyone else can man up and admit that they know nothing and stop arguing too. Nobody totally knows what's going on or how to fix it, and at best we have some speculative theories. So, what your cousin heard on the news is actually not, "the only real solution, which none of those idiots ever thought of"



Put your argumentative energies to better use, like reading, or arguing about the god damned BCS or something. Stupid BCS.

Is Michael Lewis still teaching at Cal?

Wow you know a lot about principles of economics, kudos to you. People argue about them to voice concern and opinions.

Do I want GM to receive billions? Nope. Will I argue about it, surely.

The guy who wrote liar's poker? I have no idea, I didn't even know he was there to begin with.

Yes, and he was/is a guest professor at Cal.

 

[virgilmalloy]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

got it..
just wanted to make sure that you were being an intellectual snob.

cool

You will receive no argument from me here.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by VirgilMalloy

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by VirgilMalloy

Originally Posted by kix4kix

Originally Posted by VirgilMalloy

Originally Posted by kix4kix

A post about dumb people not knowing what they're talking about.................

by a dumb person who doesn't know what he is talking about?

Irony

K. I went to Berkeley, going to grad school at Stanford and will eventually pursue a PhD. So, I probably know more about the economy than 99% of NT, and I say 99% because I probably know all three of the guys that are in that 1%.

Anyway, if I can admit that despite reading dozens of articles and conversing with econ PhDs, grad students, etc. it is very unclear what wide ranging solutions might look like, then I think everyone else can man up and admit that they know nothing and stop arguing too. Nobody totally knows what's going on or how to fix it, and at best we have some speculative theories. So, what your cousin heard on the news is actually not, "the only real solution, which none of those idiots ever thought of"



Put your argumentative energies to better use, like reading, or arguing about the god damned BCS or something. Stupid BCS.

I am a Dartmouth dropout going to Carleton, and also plan on pursuing a PhD education isn't the issue here. I am glad you know the 3, as do I

You are stating that it is pointless to argue when nobody know anything. Of course nobody KNOWS anything, by that logic what is color?....What is time?

Just because there is no right or wrong: does not mean there is no need for debate.

When there's no right or wrong, then there DEFINITELY should be debate.

With the economy, there is I am saying that there IS a right and a wrong. I just don't know what it is, and neither does anybody else except for maybe the ~1000 or so people who are dedicating 18 hours a day and 20 years of education to, debating, conversing and interacting with each other to try to figure it out. Let's let them handle it. Also, second time mentioning it, but Larry Summers for treasury plz. Kthxoboma.

First, what do you mean by "the economy"? There are many facets to our economy and people argue about a lot of subjects that encompass "our economy".

Like JordanFeind said technically no one knows anything when it comes to the implementation of economics. If we did then we'd live in a utopia with constant booms and no busts.
Yes, 99.9% of us do not know and cannot calculate the econometric formulas that show "this is good" or "this is bad". However, for every study that shows something "is good" there is a study that says "it's bad".
Economics is not as straightforward as mathematics or another hard science. Economics is a social science.

I'd suggest that you (and all of us) don't live or die by so called "experts". If you go out and ask the top HF/PE managers whether the "intellectual economists" who sit in the classroom or in some gov't office know much about real economics, the vast majority will laugh. Same goes with successful businessmen.

According to your logic only pro ballplayers can argue about ball, only football players can debate football strategies, and coaches who've never played pro football shouldn't even coach pro ball.

Your logic falls apart in the last line, but you were solid through there. A more apt comparison would be that I would argue, "only pro ball players should talk about what it's like to be a pro ball player," which of course, I agree with.

It's not the strongest line of reasoning but I think it still stands.
If only those "really knowledgeable" in economics can debate economic policy than those who "really know the game of football "(those whoactually practice the game) can only be involved in the practice of pro football.

PhD economists can only talk about what it's like to hold a PhD in economics. I'd agree with that statement too.

btw, there are a lot more folks who don't hold degrees in economics who are more knowledgeable about the subject than those who hold PhD's.
Textbook economics is a little...well...out of touch with reality. There are simply too many external factors that cannot be accounted for.