Quote from: ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ Nick Mc ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ on January 17, 2015, 08:00:33 PMQuote from: Camnator on January 17, 2015, 07:54:54 PMQuote from: ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ Nick Mc ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ on January 17, 2015, 07:49:56 PMQuote from: Camnator on January 17, 2015, 07:47:54 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on January 17, 2015, 05:02:42 PMQuote from: Camnator on January 17, 2015, 04:56:25 PM. . . You keep espousing this idea that your arguments are based on history and experience, and are appreciative of facts, but I'm yet to lay witness to this awe-inspiring rationality. I'm still waiting for you to say some even remotely meaningful when it comes to what we know about the economy. Now, the fact that you want to claim some sort of epistemic authority while making cryptic statements about picking up a 'bigger stick' and robbing from the entire world, then all it does is demonstrate your sheer lack of understanding. Inflation was stable during Clinton's tenure, and the economy did grow. If you had the appreciation of facts you claim to have, you'd know this and understand that everything I'm telling you is based in evidence and looking at prior monetary policy to see what works, and what economic indicators actually tell us what is working. So far, however, nobody has been fortunate enough to lay witness to your clear superiority on this issue. So--much like God--you must forgive us when we question its existence.All you have to do is look at the world around you and do a little research. Follow the money. I've said many meaningful things, you just can't grasp the concept. I recommend you read this entire thread three or four times, it may help you. The only one lacking understanding is you. Look at all of the recent wars we've been in. You want me to give you a history lesson because you're slow? Sorry, not going to happen. I've said what needs to be said. If you think what we currently have is working, there is no helping you."My only argument here is to say that I'm right, you're wrong. I don't need any basis or statistics to back it up, I'm just out here for a sTROLL."I have backed up my argument, which you'd realize if you actually read the thread.No, you really haven't. Meta has been providing graphs, charts and links. You've only provided the US Debt Clock website and nothing else outside of "Oh you don't understand this hurdurr"His graphs were irrelevant or only proved him wrong. The debt has been my main point all along, it's the very fabric of my argument. If you have been reading this thread you'd know this. It's why any other point here is moot, as the entire monetary system is already worthless. You and Meta are so far behind in the argument, which is what I've been trying to explain.
Quote from: Camnator on January 17, 2015, 07:54:54 PMQuote from: ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ Nick Mc ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ on January 17, 2015, 07:49:56 PMQuote from: Camnator on January 17, 2015, 07:47:54 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on January 17, 2015, 05:02:42 PMQuote from: Camnator on January 17, 2015, 04:56:25 PM. . . You keep espousing this idea that your arguments are based on history and experience, and are appreciative of facts, but I'm yet to lay witness to this awe-inspiring rationality. I'm still waiting for you to say some even remotely meaningful when it comes to what we know about the economy. Now, the fact that you want to claim some sort of epistemic authority while making cryptic statements about picking up a 'bigger stick' and robbing from the entire world, then all it does is demonstrate your sheer lack of understanding. Inflation was stable during Clinton's tenure, and the economy did grow. If you had the appreciation of facts you claim to have, you'd know this and understand that everything I'm telling you is based in evidence and looking at prior monetary policy to see what works, and what economic indicators actually tell us what is working. So far, however, nobody has been fortunate enough to lay witness to your clear superiority on this issue. So--much like God--you must forgive us when we question its existence.All you have to do is look at the world around you and do a little research. Follow the money. I've said many meaningful things, you just can't grasp the concept. I recommend you read this entire thread three or four times, it may help you. The only one lacking understanding is you. Look at all of the recent wars we've been in. You want me to give you a history lesson because you're slow? Sorry, not going to happen. I've said what needs to be said. If you think what we currently have is working, there is no helping you."My only argument here is to say that I'm right, you're wrong. I don't need any basis or statistics to back it up, I'm just out here for a sTROLL."I have backed up my argument, which you'd realize if you actually read the thread.No, you really haven't. Meta has been providing graphs, charts and links. You've only provided the US Debt Clock website and nothing else outside of "Oh you don't understand this hurdurr"
Quote from: ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ Nick Mc ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ on January 17, 2015, 07:49:56 PMQuote from: Camnator on January 17, 2015, 07:47:54 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on January 17, 2015, 05:02:42 PMQuote from: Camnator on January 17, 2015, 04:56:25 PM. . . You keep espousing this idea that your arguments are based on history and experience, and are appreciative of facts, but I'm yet to lay witness to this awe-inspiring rationality. I'm still waiting for you to say some even remotely meaningful when it comes to what we know about the economy. Now, the fact that you want to claim some sort of epistemic authority while making cryptic statements about picking up a 'bigger stick' and robbing from the entire world, then all it does is demonstrate your sheer lack of understanding. Inflation was stable during Clinton's tenure, and the economy did grow. If you had the appreciation of facts you claim to have, you'd know this and understand that everything I'm telling you is based in evidence and looking at prior monetary policy to see what works, and what economic indicators actually tell us what is working. So far, however, nobody has been fortunate enough to lay witness to your clear superiority on this issue. So--much like God--you must forgive us when we question its existence.All you have to do is look at the world around you and do a little research. Follow the money. I've said many meaningful things, you just can't grasp the concept. I recommend you read this entire thread three or four times, it may help you. The only one lacking understanding is you. Look at all of the recent wars we've been in. You want me to give you a history lesson because you're slow? Sorry, not going to happen. I've said what needs to be said. If you think what we currently have is working, there is no helping you."My only argument here is to say that I'm right, you're wrong. I don't need any basis or statistics to back it up, I'm just out here for a sTROLL."I have backed up my argument, which you'd realize if you actually read the thread.
Quote from: Camnator on January 17, 2015, 07:47:54 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on January 17, 2015, 05:02:42 PMQuote from: Camnator on January 17, 2015, 04:56:25 PM. . . You keep espousing this idea that your arguments are based on history and experience, and are appreciative of facts, but I'm yet to lay witness to this awe-inspiring rationality. I'm still waiting for you to say some even remotely meaningful when it comes to what we know about the economy. Now, the fact that you want to claim some sort of epistemic authority while making cryptic statements about picking up a 'bigger stick' and robbing from the entire world, then all it does is demonstrate your sheer lack of understanding. Inflation was stable during Clinton's tenure, and the economy did grow. If you had the appreciation of facts you claim to have, you'd know this and understand that everything I'm telling you is based in evidence and looking at prior monetary policy to see what works, and what economic indicators actually tell us what is working. So far, however, nobody has been fortunate enough to lay witness to your clear superiority on this issue. So--much like God--you must forgive us when we question its existence.All you have to do is look at the world around you and do a little research. Follow the money. I've said many meaningful things, you just can't grasp the concept. I recommend you read this entire thread three or four times, it may help you. The only one lacking understanding is you. Look at all of the recent wars we've been in. You want me to give you a history lesson because you're slow? Sorry, not going to happen. I've said what needs to be said. If you think what we currently have is working, there is no helping you."My only argument here is to say that I'm right, you're wrong. I don't need any basis or statistics to back it up, I'm just out here for a sTROLL."
Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 17, 2015, 05:02:42 PMQuote from: Camnator on January 17, 2015, 04:56:25 PM. . . You keep espousing this idea that your arguments are based on history and experience, and are appreciative of facts, but I'm yet to lay witness to this awe-inspiring rationality. I'm still waiting for you to say some even remotely meaningful when it comes to what we know about the economy. Now, the fact that you want to claim some sort of epistemic authority while making cryptic statements about picking up a 'bigger stick' and robbing from the entire world, then all it does is demonstrate your sheer lack of understanding. Inflation was stable during Clinton's tenure, and the economy did grow. If you had the appreciation of facts you claim to have, you'd know this and understand that everything I'm telling you is based in evidence and looking at prior monetary policy to see what works, and what economic indicators actually tell us what is working. So far, however, nobody has been fortunate enough to lay witness to your clear superiority on this issue. So--much like God--you must forgive us when we question its existence.All you have to do is look at the world around you and do a little research. Follow the money. I've said many meaningful things, you just can't grasp the concept. I recommend you read this entire thread three or four times, it may help you. The only one lacking understanding is you. Look at all of the recent wars we've been in. You want me to give you a history lesson because you're slow? Sorry, not going to happen. I've said what needs to be said. If you think what we currently have is working, there is no helping you.
Quote from: Camnator on January 17, 2015, 04:56:25 PM. . . You keep espousing this idea that your arguments are based on history and experience, and are appreciative of facts, but I'm yet to lay witness to this awe-inspiring rationality. I'm still waiting for you to say some even remotely meaningful when it comes to what we know about the economy. Now, the fact that you want to claim some sort of epistemic authority while making cryptic statements about picking up a 'bigger stick' and robbing from the entire world, then all it does is demonstrate your sheer lack of understanding. Inflation was stable during Clinton's tenure, and the economy did grow. If you had the appreciation of facts you claim to have, you'd know this and understand that everything I'm telling you is based in evidence and looking at prior monetary policy to see what works, and what economic indicators actually tell us what is working. So far, however, nobody has been fortunate enough to lay witness to your clear superiority on this issue. So--much like God--you must forgive us when we question its existence.
. . .
I've said many meaningful things
The debt has been my main point all along
as the debt still grew massively..
Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 18, 2015, 01:30:05 AMQuote from: Camnator on January 17, 2015, 07:47:54 PMI've said many meaningful thingsSorry, you just fucking haven't.Except I have.
Quote from: Camnator on January 17, 2015, 07:47:54 PMI've said many meaningful thingsSorry, you just fucking haven't.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 18, 2015, 11:22:34 AMQuote from: Camnator on January 18, 2015, 01:56:14 AM as the debt still grew massively..You're just completely wrong.Why do you keep posting irrelevant graph? The debt still grew massively, they just didn't spend everything they stole. How are you not getting that?
Quote from: Camnator on January 18, 2015, 01:56:14 AM as the debt still grew massively..You're just completely wrong.
Nothing you posted contradicted me. Also, you just insulted me after a warning, great job.
You seem to think the massive debt somehow isn't a big deal when it has already destroyed the economy. The fact is Clinton did nothing to help, there was just more of the same theft, borrowing, "printing" and debt.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 19, 2015, 07:43:33 AMQuote from: Camnator on January 19, 2015, 02:19:59 AMYou seem to think the massive debt somehow isn't a big deal when it has already destroyed the economy. The fact is Clinton did nothing to help, there was just more of the same theft, borrowing, "printing" and debt.Except Clinton made the debt smaller in terms of the whole economy. . . What about that are you finding so difficult to grasp. The economy grew under Clinton because of agricultural and telecommunications deregulation, lowering the tax rate on the middle class and--most importantly--sound monetary policy. Nominal income remained on track for pretty much all of Clinton's administration thanks to Alan Greenspan; there was no excessive printing of money.You're only further proving yourself wrong. Inflating the economy at the time was an awful thing to do, and at least you are now admitting he increased the national debt. Nothing about the government's monetary policy is sound.
Quote from: Camnator on January 19, 2015, 02:19:59 AMYou seem to think the massive debt somehow isn't a big deal when it has already destroyed the economy. The fact is Clinton did nothing to help, there was just more of the same theft, borrowing, "printing" and debt.Except Clinton made the debt smaller in terms of the whole economy. . . What about that are you finding so difficult to grasp. The economy grew under Clinton because of agricultural and telecommunications deregulation, lowering the tax rate on the middle class and--most importantly--sound monetary policy. Nominal income remained on track for pretty much all of Clinton's administration thanks to Alan Greenspan; there was no excessive printing of money.
The fact you think debt doesn't matter shows how naive you are, exactly.
There hasn't been growth
Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 19, 2015, 08:34:08 AMQuote from: Camnator on January 19, 2015, 08:21:58 AMThe fact you think debt doesn't matter shows how naive you are, exactly. See you're not even paying attention--I didn't say that. I said the only proper way to measure the importance of the debt is in comparison to GDP; I actually think the debt at the moment is too big.All you're doing is making wild claims with no evidence--no, common sense doesn't count, you economically illiterate dope--and making unfalsifiable claims. . . How has the economy become artificially inflated? How come we've actually seen real growth since then? How come nothing bad has happened over the course of this century-long, monolithic artificial inflations when we've seen throughout history that it doesn't take that long? You can't answer these questions properly because you're just presenting false of even insignificant propositions.How come all of the reliable indicators from 1992 to 2006 show a near-perfect monetary framework that was, if anything, actually tight, from 2001-2006.The only one making wild claims with no evidence other than the type that proves you wrong is yourself. Of course you aren't aware of common sense. There hasn't been growth, there's been delusion and we're worse off than ever before. Nothing bad has happened? Wow, you're legitimately that delusional? Look at the state of this world. Price increases, lack of jobs, massive debt, criminal wars, senseless deaths, unjust laws, infringements of our liberty and the income tax alone proves you wrong.
Quote from: Camnator on January 19, 2015, 08:21:58 AMThe fact you think debt doesn't matter shows how naive you are, exactly. See you're not even paying attention--I didn't say that. I said the only proper way to measure the importance of the debt is in comparison to GDP; I actually think the debt at the moment is too big.All you're doing is making wild claims with no evidence--no, common sense doesn't count, you economically illiterate dope--and making unfalsifiable claims. . . How has the economy become artificially inflated? How come we've actually seen real growth since then? How come nothing bad has happened over the course of this century-long, monolithic artificial inflations when we've seen throughout history that it doesn't take that long? You can't answer these questions properly because you're just presenting false of even insignificant propositions.How come all of the reliable indicators from 1992 to 2006 show a near-perfect monetary framework that was, if anything, actually tight, from 2001-2006.
Innovation is irrelevant to the economy.
The European Central Bank is finally doing something--but it won't be enough
