Bernie Sanders drops a truth bomb

[shanm]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're not that lucky. As I've said, and will continue to do so, I don't know this UC. On the other hand, I'll spar with you. Anytime. The question wasn't whether Friedman would have endorsed QE. Per usual, you are once again changing the rules midstream. It's a debate because you acted as if QE could somehow not be implemented because Friedman had died 3 years earlier.

Seems that many think he not only invented QE as we know it, but that he would have been in agreement with its use. How can I make such a claim, you ask? I have it from the horses' mouth. Milton Friedman himself espousing this very idea in regards to Japan and it's economic situation. Once again, you've been measured and found wanting. Give it up, cheesedick.

A simple question; why couldn't you have found this?

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/1...nke-on-qe.html

Crude insults are all I know? Like when I joined this board for spirited debate and you relentlessly referred to me as a cunt, undercunt and any manner of other niceties? Like that? You sir, and I use that word loosely, are the fucking worst. You even admit in your bio that you are a jackoff of all trades and master of none. Never has this been more true than in this current dustup. You know just enough about economics to be made to look like a fucking fool by someone who knows JUST a bit more. And that's all it takes, really. How I would love to see you debate economics in front of a real group of economists, only to have yourself ripped limb from limb, whilst shitting and pissing yourself to beat the band, and all the while I can't stop laughing. You huff and puff and try to do your best at making yourself seem relevant. As I said before, you've been found wanting. Go on now. Get away from me. You disgust me with your ignorance and your insults.

Big surprise, he gets his ass handed to him. Again.

Did you notice he's been missing for more than a day? My guess is he's been working his way through a billion different articles trying to find stuff to projectile vomit onto this board.
Anyone with even a slightly trained eye can see that he is an amateur desperately trying to play in the big leagues. He has NO IDEA how it works, and literally ALL his information comes from hours of biased internet research. I have a background in economics. Therefore, I don't have to go and research what I need to say because I know what I'm talking about. He is essentially the opposite. No education, no insight, just pure internet research done to say "I'm right, you're wrong". Which, of course, ends with hilarious consequences as you've seen previously.

There are many threads on here that I don't intellectually participate in. Why? because I lack sufficient knowledge or insight into the subject to even pretend to offer my opinion. That, apparently, is a thought that never crosses this dipshits mind. He has to weigh in on everything, and that's because he considers himself an expert on everything. He can't handle the fact that he is (willfully) ignorant on a subject so he'll post a 1000 more replies even when proven wrong (case in point). You have no idea how many times he's had me in tears (of laughter) by saying some of the stupid shit he says.

What's worse is his attitude. The "I know what I'm talking about" attitude. When it should be "I'm a clueless dunce". Replying to him gives him a lot more credence than he deserves. He is not much more than an overgrown man-child, desperately trying to appear relevant and "with it", when it has been irrevocably proven that he is not.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

As I've said, and will continue to do so, I don't know this UC.

You're a liar. And a fraud. And a coward. And a poseur. But hey, keep it up because it's oodles of fun to expose you again and again.

WombRaider = Underconstruction

Same dickhead, multiple handles.

Click here for more info:

http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1349219

.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by shanm

I have a background in economics. Therefore, I don't have to go and research what I need to say because I know what I'm talking about.

Yeah right, sham-man. You have a deep, deep background in economics and it shows. You never need to do any research either.



That's why you hide behind a link and, when asked about it, you can't even explain what's in it:

Originally Posted by lustylad

Very good, shammy. What you sent me is a quality paper worthy of in-depth discussion.... Perhaps you would care to take the opportunity to give us all a quick summary of the author's findings and explain how they either support or controvert the competing claims (in post #64) of the DOL versus UC-Irvine economist David Neumark?

Here's how you handled that suggestion and eagerly showed off your “background in economics”:

Originally Posted by shanm

Can someone also tell the "sniveling wimp" that I will not address him on this topic....

And here's another example:

Originally Posted by lustylad

Tell us more, sham-man. What did Friedman argue (more specifically) and how were his arguments proven to be "successful" in the real world? I don't see how the use of tight monetary policy to break a wage-price spiral invalidates the existence of a Phillips Curve trade-off. To the contrary, it supports the model if the cost of stopping inflation is a spike in unemployment - which is precisely what we experienced during the Volker years.

And what is your point? We've now had over 5 years of highly expansionary monetary policy - how is any of this relevant to today's minimum wage debate?

Here's your thoughtful reply to that one:

Originally Posted by shanm

As to your questions, I don't care to answer them....Go fuck yourself.

Wow! Razzle-dazzle us again, shamfucker! You sure know how to flaunt your in-depth knowledge of economics! You truly are a SHAM!





.

[shanm]

Do you think Ben Bernanke would willingly debate a high school kid enrolled in economics 101?

Im not saying I'm Ben Bernanke. But i'm about as close to him as"the sniveling wimp" is to even "a high school kid enrolled in economics 101".
Not close at all, in other words!

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by shanm

Do you think Ben Bernanke would willingly debate a high school kid enrolled in economics 101?

Im not saying I'm Ben Bernanke. But i'm about as close to him as"the sniveling wimp" is to even "a high school kid enrolled in economics 101".
Not close at all, in other words!

You notice he didn't touch my post? I've noticed he does this. When his ass gets handed to him, he deflects or simply ignores said post and moves on to trying to 'expose' me as someone he used to get beaten badly by, I guess. I think Bernanke has forgotten more about economics than LustyTurdBurglar will ever know.

LustyTurd. You've been weighed, you've been measured, and once again, you've been found wanting. Go forth and sin no more you little cocktard. Repeat after me, 'I will not try and play with the big boys anymore, it only gets me my ass handed to me'.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

The question wasn't whether Friedman would have endorsed QE. Per usual, you are once again changing the rules midstream. It's a debate because you acted as if QE could somehow not be implemented because Friedman had died 3 years earlier.

Seems that many think he not only invented QE as we know it, but that he would have been in agreement with its use. How can I make such a claim, you ask? I have it from the horses' mouth. Milton Friedman himself espousing this very idea in regards to Japan and it's economic situation....

A simple question; why couldn't you have found this?

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/1...nke-on-qe.html

What are you trying to say, undercunt? First you tell me “the question wasn't whether Friedman would have endorsed QE” - and then you trot out a column about... wait for it... whether Friedman would have endorsed QE! Why are you trying to prove a question you just said isn't relevant? Please try not to stumble all over yourself here. It's painful to watch.

Then you slide into your usual incoherence. Where did I say (or “act as if”) Friedman's death in 2006 precluded the Fed from pursuing QE three years later? Of course I never said anything remotely like that. You are obviously getting yourself all tangled up trying to remember what you think you are debating here. So calm down, take a deep breath, and go back to the starting line.

Here is the original quote by shammytard, your shallow under-educated inarticulate name-dropping buzzword-bozo wannabe-economist eccie sidekick:

Originally Posted by shanm

Milton Friedman... proved that wage push inflation would be impossible without the effect of government quantitative easing.

This is where your Friedman lovefest started - with shamfucker dropping his pigeonshit on everyone again. He tosses out the “quantitative easing” buzzword because he's seen it in all the economic headlines. He neither knows nor cares that QE is a term coined years after Friedman's death and refers to the Fed's decision to quadruple its balance sheet by going on a massive and unprecedented bond-buying spree to the tune of $3 trillion. Clearly this isn't what Friedman could have been referring to in any supposed discussion of how to stop “wage push” inflation back in the 1970s. Of course, shamdicklickee is as sloppy in his posting as he is in his cocksucking. He won't provide a link because there isn't one. He just makes everything up as he goes along, blithely mixing 1970s economic jargon with buzzwords gleaned from today's WSJ, hoping nobody will call him out on it.

Oh and by the way, I “found” the Brad DeLong column long before you even knew it existed, you phony sperm-burping asshole. It's been posted here before. But then, you wouldn't know about that because you're new to this board, right undercunt? You're such a compulsive liar. By now everyone on this board knows the Freelance Faggot from Arkansas lies about everything - big and small. If you can't even come clean about your prior handles, you will never have any cred here. And if you want to spar with me, you need to do a lot more than up your game. You need to have a fucking game in the first place, dipshit, instead of falling down every time I break wind in your direction. So get up, dust yourself off, stop deflecting and answer the goddam question I have been asking you since I first came on your thread. If you can:

Originally Posted by lustylad

....explain why the Dept. of Labor on its website cited 64 studies finding “no discernable (sic) effect on employment” and neglected to mention that an even greater number of studies concluded exactly the opposite.

.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

What are you trying to say, undercunt? First you tell me “the question wasn't whether Friedman would have endorsed QE” - and then you trot out a column about... wait for it... whether Friedman would have endorsed QE! Why are you trying to prove a question you just said isn't relevant? Please try not to stumble all over yourself here. It's painful to watch.

Then you slide into your usual incoherence. Where did I say (or “act as if”) Friedman's death in 2006 precluded the Fed from pursuing QE three years later? Of course I never said anything remotely like that. You are obviously getting yourself all tangled up trying to remember what you think you are debating here. So calm down, take a deep breath, and go back to the starting line.

Here is the original quote by shammytard, your shallow under-educated inarticulate name-dropping buzzword-bozo wannabe-economist eccie sidekick:



This is where your Friedman lovefest started - with shamfucker dropping his pigeonshit on everyone again. He tosses out the “quantitative easing” buzzword because he's seen it in all the economic headlines. He neither knows nor cares that QE is a term coined years after Friedman's death and refers to the Fed's decision to quadruple its balance sheet by going on a massive and unprecedented bond-buying spree to the tune of $3 trillion. Clearly this isn't what Friedman could have been referring to in any supposed discussion of how to stop “wage push” inflation back in the 1970s. Of course, shamdicklickee is as sloppy in his posting as he is in his cocksucking. He won't provide a link because there isn't one. He just makes everything up as he goes along, blithely mixing 1970s economic jargon with buzzwords gleaned from today's WSJ, hoping nobody will call him out on it.

Oh and by the way, I “found” the Brad DeLong column long before you even knew it existed, you phony sperm-burping asshole. It's been posted here before. But then, you wouldn't know about that because you're new to this board, right undercunt? You're such a compulsive liar. By now everyone on this board knows the Freelance Faggot from Arkansas lies about everything - big and small. If you can't even come clean about your prior handles, you will never have any cred here. And if you want to spar with me, you need to do a lot more than up your game. You need to have a fucking game in the first place, dipshit, instead of falling down every time I break wind in your direction. So get up, dust yourself off, stop deflecting and answer the goddam question I have been asking you since I first came on your thread. If you can:




.

I don't answer to you. You might scare the rest of these shitsippers, but I fart in your general direction. Break wind? Faggot? You're like a girl. Spread that happiness, bitch.

That interview of Friedman was conducted in 2000, not the 70s.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You might scare the rest of these shitsippers.

I know that that's rhetoric, but you should no that NO ONE is scared of this chicken shit. He is consistently the most incorrect poster on this board. Easy pickings you know!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

I don't answer to you. You might scare the rest of these shitsippers, but I fart in your general direction. Break wind? Faggot? You're like a girl. Spread that happiness, bitch.

That interview of Friedman was conducted in 2000, not the 70s.

Give it up. Your ass is deep-fried already. You can't talk substance and your cheap drive-by shots ain't makin' it. You're so lame and out of game you're trying to steal mine again.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Give it up. Your ass is deep-fried already. You can't talk substance and your cheap drive-by shots ain't makin' it. You're so lame and out of game you're trying to steal mine again.

How, exactly, am I doing that? Substance? Don't make me laugh. This from the guy who made it his mission to somehow link me to another member that he didn't like. You fucked with the wrong dude.