Even academics I respect reacted to Ferguson’s comments as if they bordered on unimaginable, unheard-of madness. I understand that we live in a moment where any negative comment connected to homosexuality is not only wrong but “gay bashing.” But Ferguson was trafficking in an old theory that was perfectly within the bounds of intellectual discourse not very long ago. Now, because of a combination of indifference to intellectual history and politically correct piety he must don the dunce cap. Good to know.Perfectly within the bounds of intellectual discourse not very long ago.
If that's what intellectuals were doing — kicking members of an out group when they were on the outside — before the outsiders were on the inside and it became awkward to disrespect them to their face, then why should I be impressed by this history of intellectual discourse?
Maybe times change and it's hard to keep up, but let's not cry over a Harvard professor's difficulty keeping up.
Posts
372 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 372 of 372Obvious poofter economics if you read Keynes rather than hearing about him.
Obvious poofter economics if you read Keynes rather than hearing about him.
Ferguson said:
Ferguson responded to a question about Keynes' famous philosophy of self-interest versus the economic philosophy of Edmund Burke, who believed there was a social contract among the living, as well as the dead. Ferguson asked the audience how many children Keynes had. He explained that Keynes had none because he was a homosexual and was married to a ballerina, with whom he likely talked of "poetry" rather than procreated. The audience went quiet at the remark. Some attendees later said they found the remarks offensive.
What is offensive about suggesting that a gay man married to a heterosexual woman is probalby not procreating all that much. Gay men generally don't have sex with heterosexual women. Certainly not to the degree that heterosexual men and women do.
Talk instead about his "famous" philosophy of self interest versus Burke's philosophy of the social contract of the living and the dead.
On first glance his view SOUNDS almost libertarian, (i.e. self interest over social interest). I would imagine MANY if not MOST liberals would make the argument that libertarians are selfish pricks who don't acre about the future of anyone but themselves.
If one could make the case that a libertarian was also childless, an that him not having kids was tied into his moral philosophy not only wouldn't ALthouse be up in arms about it but most people would probably shake their heads in agreement.
Keynes book, The Economic Consequences of the War, has been described as the most destructive book of the 20th century. In that book Keynes detailed how Germany had been hosed by the Versailles Treaty. In point of fact, the Versailles Treaty was a tad more generous than the one Germany offered France at the end of the Franco Prussian War and far more generous than the one imposed on Russia by Germany when Russia exited WWI. The book was a big best seller among the educated classes of Europe and was a huge best seller in Germany. It helped to shape Hitler's thinking. So there's that. Keynes sympathizd with the losers and not the winners. But not all losers are morally superior to winners.
Ritmo wrote:
Economic trends are easier to quickly change and reverse than are planetary geochemical ones, you silly goofball.
But the high price of gasoline is depressing my consumption of consumer goods, Ritmo!
I think there's now ample evidence that Keynes cared a great deal for mankind's posteriority.
Keynes book, The Economic Consequences of the War, has been described as the most destructive book of the 20th century. In that book Keynes detailed how Germany had been hosed by the Versailles Treaty. In point of fact, the Versailles Treaty was a tad more generous than the one Germany offered France at the end of the Franco Prussian War and far more generous than the one imposed on Russia by Germany when Russia exited WWI. The book was a big best seller among the educated classes of Europe and was a huge best seller in Germany. It helped to shape Hitler's thinking. So there's that. Keynes sympathizd with the losers and not the winners. But not all losers are morally superior to winners.
This is tit-for-tat thinking. No one believes Germany, as the loser, was morally superior save a few skinheads in Hannover.
This doesn't mean that more vengeance, or even vengeance equal to what the morally inferior loser had dictated in the past, would have been wise. Name me a single historian who believes that the crippling economic sanctions on Germany didn't promote the rise of Hitler. You can even query Ferguson on that one, if you like. He is a historian, after all.
And all that said, still doesn't change the fact that Keynes is known for his ideas concerning economics and not the prosecution of military outcomes. That wasn't what he would have been criticized for so one can change the subject as much as one likes.
But the high price of gasoline is depressing my consumption of consumer goods, Ritmo!
Good God, Terry! You can't be one of the "47%", now, can you? Mittens Willard Romney promised me that the price elasticity of demand of gasoline was too low to affect upper crusters, like you and me and his wife! I thought we were all going to install garage elevators together! Make a party of it.
@William: That scenario replayed on an even bigger scale after WWII. Various "plans" were proposed and rejected. One, called the Monnet Plan, become the seed which grew to become the EU. We had our own vindictive plan called the Morgenthau Plan but it gave way to the Marshall Plan.
@El Pollo Real said, "What I see going on with this story--and it's insidiously evil--is that criticism of Keynesian economics is being equated with homophobia."
Bingo.
QE-infinity is now bullet-proof. And that's a very, very bad thing.
@El Pollo Real said, "What I see going on with this story--and it's insidiously evil--is that criticism of Keynesian economics is being equated with homophobia."
Bingo.
Bingno. That's bullshit.
Where were the "criticisms" of his economics? Ferguson was the one who made the issue about something else with his remarks.
People tend to notice that. They sort of lose interest in debating something legitimate with someone who has opinions straight out of the stone age.
Like when Chickie goes on about flat-eartherism. It sort of makes me decide that's about the time when I've got better things to do.
Keynes The Economic Consequences of the War was not destructive, it was prophetic. Keynes pointed out what should have been obvious to everyone: the obligations laid upon the Germans by the Treaty of Versailles were impossible to comply with. Keynes book was not responsible for that reality, the victorious WWI allies were.
Can't a conservative offensively change the subject without everyone making fun of what he offensively changed the subject to?
Ritmo wrote:
Good God, Terry! You can't be one of the "47%", now, can you?
You haven't quite grasped this 'making sense' thing that people try to accomplish when they write things, have you, Ritmo?
I can't make heads or tails out of your response.
Jeff, you may be right, but I'd put a lot more faith in what you say if you got the title of the book right.
I just want to say to Bagoh20: I hope you have some adopted children or children by marriage. Having read your comments here for years, I wish my own father had your wisdom. I mean that, really.
Chip, you're right. I thought when I was writing that there was something not right about it, but it never occurred to me that the commenter I was responding to had the title wrong. Brain freeze. I'm getting old.
I posted this over in the other Keynes thread but I'm putting it here for Keynes-worshippers: Milton Friedman On Keynes.
I think it's also worth pointing out that we are not in the midst of another Great Depression--not when we have an enormous economic bubble in Washington, DC. This did not occur in the early 1930's.
That's a real boner of a clip, Chickie. 'Cause I'm equally curious about what a resurrected Milton Friedman would have thought about recreating the policies of the 1920s in the lead-up to 2008.
And I'm sure Keynes would have been, too.
We're exactly where you'd expect any European country to be.
I think it's also worth pointing out that we are not in the midst of another Great Depression--not when we have an enormous economic bubble in Washington, DC. This did not occur in the early 1930's.
Uh yo. The Great Depression started in 1929, immediately following the exact same economic boom in the 1920s that we saw in the aughts. They called it "The Roaring Twenties" for a reason.
When will you start familiarizing yourself with some basic, historical facts?
Chip, did you see that clip by Nigel Farage that Insty liked?: OMG!
Ritmo should watch because there's Ron Paul!
Ritmo scores a big win by drawing a major distinction b/w Sept. 1929 and "the early 1930s". Those same "early 1930s" when federal anti-depresssion programs got started.
I make it a point to try to avoid reviewing anything viewed favorably by someone with a name so self-evidently inane as "Instapundit".
Chip doesn't score big by going all Amity Shlaes (who was also, not an economist) on us and making the 1930s out to be a bigger issue than the 1929 crash that made them inevitable.
It's like I said... Conservatives - making revolution inevitable for at least two thousand years.
That'd be a great bumper sticker.
Chip: I'd actually like to respond to your newest post on your blog. I think there's some points there we can actually clarify.
Ritmo, re chickelit's point, I believe he's talking about the fact that the principal beneficiaries of stimulus in the past 4 years have been fed workers and K-streeters.
re my blog, any comments you have are most welcome. I've been pretty busy w/ real life lately and have neglected that--and am really only engaging in approach-avoidance by commenting here today. But if you post a comment I'll be sure to give you a reply as soon as i can.
@Ritmo: I'll be clearer: Much of the US is hurting while DC is booming because of O'Bozo's centralized government policies. His argument, and I gather much of his liberal psychophants is: "why can't you be like us?"
Ritmo: And I qualified 1930's to say "early 1930's" because I'm less familiar with the relative prosperity of DC versus the rest of the country in the late 1930's. I certainly didn't mean the roaring 1920's. Thanks for misreading me. :(
Ah, well that two-minute clip wasn't too painful. Just had to sit through some foreign nativist boilerplate - nothing worse than wading through the usual pile of comments here. And who knows what the E.U. will be able to make of itself economically? His comments can't be any less valuable than Peter Schiff's were, even if Ron Paul's are perennially idiotic and under-informed.
One thing I did notice, however, is that this guy belongs to the UK Independence Party. The same nativist party that gave rise to this raving and anti-semitic idiot.
Welcome: Britain's very own Cedarford.
And then, the guy should have been right at home up there on that stage with Ron Paul, whose very own newsletter had a nice long little record of certain very choice sentiments itself.
Nice company you guys keep.
Thanks for the invite, Chip.
Re: skewed benefits of stimulus, I'm more than happy to hear you point out which beneficiary, (other than the banal "taxpayer" at large rhetoric) of every dollar of "misplaced" stimulus funds should have been redirected.
re Amity Shlaes, as I've said before on this blog she's not peddling original analysis so much as popularizing scholarly work by several researchers, including most notably UCLA's Lee Ohanian.
The long-debated question is why the 1929-31 downturn morphed into the Great Depression. (Compare, e.g., the 1920-21 recession, which was severe but brief.) Friedman blamed most of it on the Federal Reserve. Ohanian's work reinforces a view that's been debated among economists for some time, that it was the New Deal itself that retarded recovery. In fact, Ohanian goes further and blames Hoover's activism for the initial severity of the downturn.
The stock-market-crash story isn't treated very seriously AFAIK. Compare, e.g., the big nothing that resulted from the big crash of '87.
Translating ritmish to English:
One thing I did notice, however, is that this guy belongs to a certain political party. The same party gave rise to an idiot.
Voila: Farage = Cedarford.
And then, the guy should have been right at home up there on that stage with a failed candidate, whose very own newsletter had a nice long little record of certain very choice sentiments itself.
Nice company you guys keep.
Did I miss something?
Friedman blamed most of it on the Federal Reserve. Ohanian's work reinforces a view that's been debated among economists for some time, that it was the New Deal itself that retarded recovery. In fact, Ohanian goes further and blames Hoover's activism for the initial severity of the downturn.
Apparently much further. Even Friedman, in Chickie's video at least, goes on to say that Keynes wasn't wrong, just that his ideas went to far in the 1960s-70s? He said the responses of FDR were necessary. What's the point in having a god of conservative economic philosophy if all he can disagree with FDR on is scope and not direction? Oh, I see. Pick a much more obscure one.
The stock-market-crash story isn't treated very seriously AFAIK. Compare, e.g., the big nothing that resulted from the big crash of '87.
Because it quickly recovered. 1929 took 22 years to recover. Am I missing something here? Crazy pills?
No. You're missing the point that a stock market crash doesn't necessarily cause a depression, as evidenced by the fact that a major one occurred w/o causing a blip in terms of real output.
No. You're missing the point that a stock market crash doesn't necessarily cause a depression, as evidenced by the fact that a major one occurred w/o causing a blip in terms of real output.
Who said it did? 1929 and 2008 did because of the horrible housing/credit bubble policies that led to them. Both the crashed markets and drastically lowered GDP were effects of that.
Any more words you'd like to put into my mouth?
In case that last comment was too terse...the speed of recovery of the stock market reflects the speed w/which investors start to forecast a recovery.
If New Deal policies were a drag on the recovery, there'd be no reason for a stock-market rally in the 1930s.
You seem to think that "New Deal" = "infrastructure spending" or something. There was a lot of other total crap, like government-sanctioned cartelization of industry.
Oh, please do give us a link to the "housing/credit bubble policies" of the Coolidge administration.
At its core, conservatism relies on authoritarian structures that separate the "inferior" from the "superior".
You should quit depending on a decades obsolete definition of conservatism. Modern conservatism is primarily libertarian, while you are talking mostly about the traditional Burkean conservatism. Rather, today, those authoritarian structures are imposed and respected primarily by progressives on the left. They control most of those structures, and use them to impose their Utopian view on society. And, as Rush points out, socialism is for the rest of us, not the socialists, who are the "superior" people in their minds. You can see this repeatedly, with so many of them opting for private schooling for their children, while championing public school education for the rest of us, their attempt to exempt Congress from ObamaCare, etc.
AA: It was kicking the whole group that wasn't present, like making sexist remarks when there are no women in the room. It's a thing people do, get in the habit of disrespecting the people who are not represented in their circle. It's very bad character, by the way, as you should have learned when you were a child. If they didn't notice they were doing it, because they were lazy and having their fun, so much the worse.
This is stupid, Althouse. Inga-level stupid. "This is why women shouldn't be allowed to vote"-stupid.
"It's very bad character, by the way, as you should have learned when you were a child"!?! Oh for fuck's sake.
Chip S.-
If you want info on the housing/credit crisis that led to the stock market crash that caused the Great Depression, you'll have to visit a library in Ritmo's alternate universe.
You seem to think that "New Deal" = "infrastructure spending" or something.
Wiki..
Many historians distinguish between a "First New Deal" (1933–34) and a "Second New Deal" (1935–38), with the second one more liberal and more controversial. The "First New Deal" (1933–34) dealt with diverse groups, from banking and railroads to industry and farming, all of which demanded help for economic survival. The Federal Emergency Relief Administration, for instance, provided $500 million for relief operations by states and cities, while the short-lived CWA (Civil Works Administration) gave localities money to operate make-work projects in 1933-34.[3]
The "Second New Deal" in 1935–38 included the Wagner Act to promote labor unions, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) relief program (which made the federal government by far the largest single employer in the nation
Rapunzel has just called, Chip. She says she has no more hairs for you to split.
There was a lot of other total crap, like government-sanctioned cartelization of industry.
Which I've never said we needed to do.
Coolidge housing bubble? Ritmo the economist? Laughter ensues.
See Robert Shiller (co-creator of the Case-Shiller index) and The Flaw for details on how speculative credit-housing bubbles led to both the crash of 1929 and 2008.
You know, Ritmo, now that you mention it, it's almost as if the Bush policies of late 2008 were like "New Deal 1" and the Obama policies are like "New Deal 2", w/ about the same level of policy uncertainty and market distortions.
Michael being topical and not just a stupid, useless and disruptive asshole?
No punchline necessary.
Michael, go call up United and tell them about what movie selections you'd like to force on everyone.
Whatever, Chip.
Wikipedia, Ritmo? Really? On a controversial topic?
Is that where you learned about 'voodoo economics' and 'trickle down' economic theory?
Ritmo, I've read enough of what Frank, Shiller, and Stiglitz have to say that I'm gonna spare myself the ordeal of watching their ugly faces spout the same stuff for an hour and a half.
Let's just say that if Shiller really wants to blame the Great Depression on a housing bubble there's probably a Nobel prize in it for him if he can pull that off.
It shouldn't be too hard. Just look at those wacky 1920s housing prices!
It's not controversial, Terry. Even Milton Friedman agreed.
Now just go away. You are about a slower learner than anyone. The fact that it took you half a day to understand that Bush used the term Voodoo economics to describe Reagan's policies says just about everything anyone here needs to know about your value to a debate about anything that anyone can read about.
Maybe you'll have a debate with Stephen Hawking and take a few weeks to get back to him on what gravity is.
I don't have time for your monkey wrenches.
Ritmo. He who believes every airline other than United has back of seat entertainment screens on all aircraft. He who believes a housing bubbled preceeded the great depression.
Not sure where you got your chart, Chip. But here's a hint: If it says "Blogspot" in the image URL, it's probably not all that reputable.
Shiller's et al case was that we had so much conspicuous consumption encouraged all throughout the "roaring" 1920s and people bet on the supposedly indefinitely available value of credit which they were encouraged to pursue, not unlike during Bush's reign. Not sure how this is controversial, other than for your quibble about the role of housing leading up to it, if not the foreclosures afterward. Maybe you'll tell us that the problem with the 1920s was too much regulation, or something.
Michael: He who believes a movie with a Rotten Tomatoes rating in the single digits is a great corporate decision to force on its passengers.
The Flaw is a documentary, about which the Hollywood Reporter said "Smart and entertaining"
Well, that makes it true, then!
Chip S. said...
Oh, please do give us a link to the "housing/credit bubble policies" of the Coolidge administration.
I'm given to understand that it was easy margin and business credit that started the rush.
There is the apocryphal story of Joe Kennedy getting stock advice from his shoe shine boy. It was then that he knew the market was oversold and it was time to get out.
Either that, or the accuracy of the facts contained therein or the reasoning of the analyses.
Which would be too good for a guy who spends half a day complaining that Republicans' criticisms of their own party's policies is a biased sound-bite/"cliche" that should never, ever be brought up in no circumstances no way ever.
Until the person stating that comes around to admitting that it's exactly what George H W Bush ran on. Snap.
Not sure where you got your chart, Chip. But here's a hint: If it says "Blogspot" in the image URL, it's probably not all that reputable.
This from the guy who quotes wiki.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
It's not controversial, Terry. Even Milton Friedman agreed.
I bet he did!
And, and, and, you totally don't support the idea of government trickle down economics or anything.
No sireeee!!
You're an embarrassment.
Don't worry, Ritmo;; I generally vet my sources before citing them.
In this case, the chart's constructed from Shiller's own data.
Thanks for the pro tip, tho.
ritty takes to the Internet to pretend GHW Bush's criticism of Reagan's policies, policies that got the US out of a severe recession and led to economic growth and the creation of over 18 million jobs, is valid.
Well, just because.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Not sure where you got your chart, Chip. But here's a hint: If it says "Blogspot" in the image URL, it's probably not all that reputable.
In other words, facts that you can't easily reply to with a silly talking point, will be ignored.
Terry thinks that the phrase "trickle down economics" can't even be used. So go take that up with him.
Jay's an embarrassment to himself.
But I'm sure he'll take advantage of his appearance here to explain to us how he found a contradiction between low demand and high profits. Come on, Jay! You can do it!
Just pretend it's like during the Diaper Derby and your mama was cheering you on at the end of the finish line.
Ritmo. Never said the movie was a good corporate move. Indeed my first post on that old topic was that it was a bad idea. My next point was the crew cant turn off the movie because of a passenger complaint. Finally i made the point that in these situations it is best to shut up and endure.
Because you are not widely traveled you took the attitude we have come to expect from the bourgeois.
Jay totally misses every point anyone could ever make.
But he does think that there's a contradiction between high profits and low demand. That he does think.
Not that he will explain it.
Jay has a lot of brain cells fighting each other in his claustrophobic skull of his. Well, not a lot. Maybe like two at most. But that counts as a lot for his species.
Ritmo. Never said the movie was a good corporate move.
Yes you did. But ok, now that you've changed your mind go ahead and shut up now and stop trying to change the subject.
That goes for your last sentence too, which is about as pathetic an attempt at an underhanded insult as they come. But it's what you're good for.
Ritmo. No i did not. You are a bad reader and listener. And a solid bourgeoisie.
The term 'trickle-down economics' is usually attributed to humorist Will Rogers.
Rogers was a high-school drop out.
Needless to say, many liberals believe that there really is a theory of economics known as 'trickle-down'.
Michael: I've been called worse than "bourgeousie". I also had Mitt Romney complain about the number of garage elevators I've installed.
You're good for a laugh. Because you're an endlessly defensive, reflexively defensive joke. A walking punch line. And yes, you did assume that Alex Cross was a good corporate decision in terms of forced in-flight movies. Until it was pointed out to you that the movie fucking sucked.
You don't even lack any taste, you seem to not know what it means to even have a sense of taste.
Go eat your own poop sandwiches. I'm tired of having you offer them to everyone here.
Lord knows what kind of Madoff-type schemes you offer clients with market research as shitty as what you did in looking up Alex Cross.
Go away.
The term 'trickle-down economics' is usually attributed to humorist Will Rogers.
Rogers was a high-school drop out.
yeah but ritty thinks it is super-duper clever and true.
ritty, no that bright and easily misled.
The term 'trickle-down economics' is usually attributed to humorist Will Rogers.
Rogers was a high-school drop out.
Needless to say, many liberals believe that there really is a theory of economics known as 'trickle-down'.
Terry.
Terry, Terry, Terry.
This is pathetic.
No one cares.
You lost the debate several weeks ago.
The topic has changed.
Focus on something relevant.
Stop eating around the margins. Address the main point.
And be relevant to today's discussion. No one likes the late arrival to a gang-bang, going around waving his dick in the air and telling everyone how much he likes the taste of sloppy seconds.
Say something relevant or go away. I don't need to remedy your lost reputation about a stupid fight that you chose to fixate on and did not win.
Enjoy the day. Do something with your family.
Make yourself useful.
Because you're an endlessly defensive, reflexively defensive joke. A walking punch line
Says the person who actually believes the ACA makes health care affordable and the Democrats are the party of "shared prosperity"
You're like, fucking retarded, little girl.
I don't need to remedy your lost reputation about a stupid fight that you chose to fixate on and did not win.
Mind you, from the author of:
But he does think that there's a contradiction between high profits and low demand. That he does think.
Not that he will explain it.
You're like fucking retarded.
Ritmo. On april 6 i wrote as my first post :
"God help us all. The airline made a poor decision on the movie. The parent made an idiotic request, truly stupid. The screens all come down or up. Even the captain of the plane cannot lower or raise a single screen. The wonderful concerned stupid parent should have told his children not to watch, to read, to close their eyes, to look out the window. No person gives a shit about your views of a movie on an airplane. Shut up and read. Shut up and sleep. Shut up. Please shut up.
This is another reason I will do anything not to fly in steerage. The people in front are steeled to the experience. They have learned to make the most of it. The seats are wider. The food is better. But mainly the first class cabin is not filled with idiots opining on aviation."
4/6/13, 4:19 PM
Get a friend to read you the second sentence of the post.
ritty projects in her silly little comments.
We can call ritty opposite girl.
Whatever the opposite girl says, the inverse is true.
You're like, fucking retarded, little girl.
Jay's way of saying "I totally won't explain the contradiction I told everyone that I found between high profits and low demand!"
There's a word for people like that: Pipsqueak.
Go find your leader, who's looking for you, Mr. Not So Easily Misled.
And yes, you did assume that Alex Cross was a good corporate decision in terms of forced in-flight movies. Until it was pointed out to you that the movie fucking sucked.
Yeah, totally happened just like that, opposite girl.
Really, it did.
Just catching up...my take away is that Chip just pwned Ritmo on economic history is a rather specific way.
This there a larger message here having to do with Keynesian theory or was Chip just lucky?
I'd like to believe that ritmo is as intelligent.
Jay's way of saying "I totally won't explain the contradiction I told everyone that I found between high profits and low demand!"
Remember, opposite girls says fixating on fights is dumb.
Except when she fixates on fights.
Michael: That's not all you said. Look up your comments that Freeman Hunt responded to you.
First lesson of PR in the internet age: Don't lie.
I know it will kill you to admit that not only United, but YOU fucked up, too. But it won't. It will just bring you down to earth. The oxygen's better down here.
And it will get you away from a thread that has devolved to the capture of sloppy seconds, sound-bite thinker Jay.
Who must have a great "leader". Somewhere. On a mountaintop, maybe.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
First lesson of PR in the internet age: Don't lie.
And opposite girl strikes again.
First lesson of PR in the internet age: Don't lie.
Says the silly person who takes to the Internet to say the ACA has made health care "affordable" and the Democrats are the party of "shared prosperity"
You're beyond parody.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Michael: That's not all you said. Look up your comments that Freeman Hunt responded to you.
Why don't you do it and prove him wrong, you big truth teller, you.
Just catching up...my take away is that Chip just pwned Ritmo on economic history is a rather specific way.
No, he made a narrow point about housing in order to avoid admitting that unregulated credit bubbles were the cause of both.
So, in terms that the socially unevolved might understand, he tucked his tail between his legs and barked loudly.
But in your pack, that counts as a "win".
Maybe you two can howl at the moon together, tonight.
But I joke, I would much rather debate Chip on these things than I would permanent spectators.
Why don't you fuck off, Jay. No one cares what you think. (It's all fed to you by your "leader", anyway, right?) All you have are sound-bites and piles of finished debates to jump over, like the monkeys beating bones in 2001.
Ritmo. You dumb bourgeois dipshit. Go to April 6 and find where i said the movie was good. You are a poor reader and a fool.
in order to avoid admitting that unregulated credit bubbles were the cause of both.
Right.
Because there is like no oversight of Fannie & Freddie, no SEC, nothing in the federal register, no HUD rules, nothing.
Totally unregulated.
Really, apt description, retard.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Why don't you fuck off, Jay. No one cares what you think.
Nice projection, opposite girl.
I notice a certain vulgarian jumping over the thread who likes to go on about others using terms like "retard".
Who here thinks Jay is intelligent?
You found the link, Michael. Put in the URL and I'll find it for your lazy ass. I'm not your slave and your plantation has bad decor, anyway.
When one thinks of the housing bubble, and Fannie Mae buying hundreds of billions in subprime MBS (almost 40 percent of newly issued private-label subprime securities were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), a sane conclusion is: Unregulated.
Really. It is.
Ritmo. This comment by Synova?
" My bad, Michael. I apologize. The person who complained about swearing in public and people who expect others to raise their children was BDNYC.
You just thought "don't look" was going to work with children, which is stupid, too, but not the same thing as implying that parents shouldn't expect public places to be places that children should be.
So... if you don't mind, just imagine all that ranting about public places from me as directed at BDNYC.
As it should have been.
4/6/13, 7:54 PM
So now credit was unregulated in the 1920's? Not under-regulated, but unregulated? Do tell me more, oh economic savant who is called 'Ritmo'.
At the end of June 2008, Fannie Mae owned or guaranteed $388.3 billion of Alt-A and subprime mortgage investments.
ritty shouts "unregulated"!
ritty is like, fucking retarded.
Here ya go, Lazy:
Michael said...
Ritmo: Yes, the customer is always right. Especially when they want to change a movie on a flight because they don't like it. Usually the good airlines do what that one customer wants even if the rest of the customers are enjoying the movie.
4/6/13, 7:34 PM
opposite girl's vision of "unregulated" includes:
A federal government agency overseeing a quasi-government mortgage giant being pressured by Democrats to buy more junk mortgages to purse said Democrats goal of "affordable housing"
Again, ritty is like, fucking retarded.
So now credit was unregulated in the 1920's? Not under-regulated, but unregulated?
Why yes Terry, it was totally unregulated in 2006 too.
What we need to get this country going again is more common-sense economic policies! Like we've been enjoying since January of 2009!
Perma-link to Lazy Michael's comment in which he totally does not imply that everyone else is enjoying the Alex Cross movie, with its 12% "FRESH" rating.
Chartered by the government to keep mortgage money flowing, Fannie Mae buys loans from lenders, enabling them to make more loans. It also packages loans into securities for sale to other investors, guaranteeing it will make the payments if borrowers default. Its mortgage-related investments and guarantees total $3 trillion.
Unregulated!!!
Ritmo. Listen fatso, in the age of the internet you need to be mindful that everyone is not as lazy as you. Or as poorly educated. Or as woefully over confident. April 6 2013 posts. Cant find a single word of praise by me for the movie Not. One.
Hey Michael,
Since I know how lazy you are, here's a link also to the Rotten Tomatoes review of your and Jeff Smisek's favorite movie - Alex Cross!
You know, because market research isn't your specialty.
And neither is long-lost thread research.
Ritmo. Not. One. Word.
Bourgeois,twit.
Cant find a single word of praise by me for the movie Not. One.
Oh really? Except for your insinuation that everyone else was enjoying it.
That sounds like praise to me.
Here you go, Michael:
"Usually the good airlines do what that one customer wants even if the rest of the customers are enjoying the movie.
Now which movie, that you were not praising, was everyone else enjoying?
The one with the 12% (out of a possible 100%) rating?
Surely not that one.
RIght?
Ritmo. Not a single word of praise by me for the film. Your 6:40 post is a lie.
Michael said...
God help us all. The airline made a poor decision on the movie. 4/6/13, 4:19 PM
Which is of course before the comment the resident retard linked to.
A totally stunning development.
Ritmo. Again, poor reading skills. Very very weak. Context you dumb lefty. Context.
Ps. You really should not have dropped out.
Yes, Jay, people on the left do tend to mischaracterise things by using absolute statements, don't they? Like how firearm purchases are unregulated, and how banks were unregulated during the GW Bush years.
I suppose it's a rhetorical device intended to further their argument. After all, if the financial crisis of 2008 was caused by incorrect, rather than absent, regulation, then merely swapping one set of regulations designed by pols and the banks for another set of regulations designed by the pols and the banks might not seem like the wisest course.
Michael believes that he can describe a movie as one that "everyone else is enjoying" while not being associated with praise for its 12% (which is very, very, outrageously low) rating.
Michael, you've been pwned.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Oh really? Except for your insinuation that everyone else was enjoying it.
Too say you're a silly, pathetic hack is an understatement.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Michael believes that he can describe a movie as one that "everyone else is enjoying" w
Oh shock, ritty the retard truncates Michael's quote leaving out "even if the rest of the customers are enjoying the movie
In ritty the retard land if=are
And if you don't know that you're a super-duper dummy!
Michael, so let me get this straight.
Are you saying that the movie you described as one that "the rest of the customers are enjoying" was not praiseworthy?
So where did those passengers' "enjoyment" of the not-praiseworthy movie (with a 12% rating) come from?
It would be so much fun to get you on a witness stand.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Michael, you've been pwned.
Actually, you:
1. Ignored his very first post on the topic
2. Mischaracterized his second post on the topic.
Of course you're not intelligent enough to recognize all the "facts" you believe about politics and policy fall into the same category as 1 & 2 above.
Idiot.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Michael, so let me get this straight.
Retard, let's get this straight:
You can't read.
After all, if the financial crisis of 2008 was caused by incorrect, rather than absent, regulation, then merely swapping one set of regulations designed by pols and the banks for another set of regulations designed by the pols and the banks might not seem like the wisest course.
Yes Terry, but that would require thinking.
And the hysterical mob has no interest in that.
"even if the rest of the customers are enjoying the movie..."
Quibble!
In the land of the grammatically stupid, perhaps it might not be common knowledge that a subjunctive form of this sentence would involve the verb form "were", instead of "are".
By using the word "are", Michael made a declarative sentence, not a conditional one. Therefore "even if" does not mean something conditional; it is being used as a contrast against the one passenger's wishes, i.e. the one who complained and was unceremoniously ejected.
What is funny about this is ritty actually believes she is communicating to people as dumb as her fellow travelers at those silly blogs she reads.
Ritty beclowns self, hilarity ensues.
Ritmo. Another comment from me on that thread.
Exile: Well you must be a prog because you can't read. REad my first post asshole, the post where I say that the movie was poorly chosen. You are too stupid to be a conservative.
4/6/13, 7:43 PM
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Quibble!
Here is a hint (in the age of the Internet, no less) dipshit, when you're reduced to diagraming a sentence for grammar to "prove" yourself correct, you're fucking lying.
Notice how you completely ignore the fact you skipped Michael's very 1st post on the topic.
Everyone reading is stunned, I'm sure.
Also, it wouldn't make sense to use "even if" as a subjunctive conditional, as Michael tells us he never implied or believed that it was a good movie. Therefore, there is no reason to make use of that scenario, as it would weaken his case, and not strengthen it, unless he believed that the rest of the passengers might have been enjoying the (horrible) movie.
Are we talking about Alan Keyes?
"It does seem to me that AT THAT TIME that a gay man might be more willing to repudiate his society, not care about the future, et cetera. Because he was so mistreated, viewed as such an outcast, why not show no concern about such a civilization? "You reject me, I'll reject you!"
Again, AT THAT TIME.
There's a much better way of arguing that perhaps Keynes' homosexuality played a part - AT THAT TIME - in his views of how the world works.
Ferguson is a scholar, he should know how to make this argument now as opposed to previous times."
*************
Yet the Left incessantly pillories the Founders as slavers, subjugators of women, and all-round troglodytes for believing in certain things that were unexceptional AT THAT TIME.
Sauce, meet gander.
Jay:
You are too stupid to understand this, so I say it for the sake of the intelligent (and it's funny that Michael's only defender right now is you, HA!), but Michael's first objection was along the lines of everyone else - i.e. the violent content. He did not think that lack of overall enjoyment was a problem.
But he is a liar, so he cannot admit this. Caught red-handed, but still a liar to the very end.
Just like Bernie Madoff.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Also, it wouldn't make sense to use "even if" as a subjunctive conditional, as Michael tells us he never implied or believed that it was a good movie. Therefore, there is no reason to make use of that scenario
Now ritty is reduced to ignoring the preceding sentence.
Ritty is a silly, lying hack.
Mi-chael is a LI-AR! Mi-chael-is-a-LI-AR!
And only the rotten scoundrel pipsqueak Jay is left to defend him.
Ritmo. You shouldnt have linked the thread without reading it. Google sarcasm to understand the post you are misinterpreting.
He did not think that lack of overall enjoyment was a problem.
You're simply a liar.
The preceding sentence doesn't matter. Michael was being sarcastic. He's saying that one passenger's wishes shouldn't take precedence over those of all the others, who are supposedly enjoying the (12%) poorly rated movie.
Hah. Totally pwned.
Ritmo. You could have finished colllege, you know. It would have made a difference. Clearly it would have. As it is I feel a little sorry for you having to try to make me say something I clearly did not say. Sad as you progs ar wont to say. Especially the rank bourgeois ones.
Michael. You are an even worse hack than Jay. You were being sarcastic about the airline's duty to consider the passenger's wishes.
You were not being sarcastic about the rest of the cabin supposedly enjoying it. You used that non-ironically, as it makes the sarcastic sentence preceding it more satirical.
Don't think we don't know what you're up to, Douche Man of the Dixie Confederacy. We know exactly what you did. You act like liberals and normal people don't understand satire, from Jonathan Swift to Jon Stewart. We do.
You've been pwned. Like a pony.
It's time to get little girls to ride you.
Jay will be first in line, too.
Ritmo." He's saying that one passenger's wishes shouldn't take precedence over those of all the others, who are supposedly enjoying the (12%) poorly rated movie. "
Which in dumbland means I loved the flick even when i said i didnt. This is known as deconstruction in progville.
Michael,
Now is the time to pretend you can be the noble Southern gentleman you'd like us to believe you are and admit you were wrong.
Or submit to Jay's mounting of you while he cackles away.
Seriously, dude. You were wrong. Be honorable, for once in your life. Southern pride depends on it.
It appears that Althouse is being raked over the coals for expecting her conservative readers to understand the concept of right and wrong, so simple really, but obviously far too complicated for a good majority of the commentariat. It reminds me of this.
"All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten"
by Robert Fulghum
Most of what I really need
To know about how to live
And what to do and how to be
I learned in kindergarten.
Wisdom was not at the top
Of the graduate school mountain,
But there in the sandpile at Sunday school.
These are the things I learned:
Share everything.
Play fair.
Don't hit people.
Put things back where you found them.
Clean up your own mess.
Don't take things that aren't yours.
Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.
Wash your hands before you eat.
Flush.
Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
Live a balanced life -
Learn some and think some
And draw and paint and sing and dance
And play and work everyday some.
Take a nap every afternoon.
When you go out into the world,
Watch out for traffic,
Hold hands and stick together.
Be aware of wonder.
Atia of the Julii said...
It appears that Althouse is being raked over the coals for expecting her conservative readers to understand the concept of right and wrong, so simple really
No, I agree engaging in gay sex is wrong.
Well, it is immoral, abnormal, and unhealthy, anyway...
Which in dumbland means I loved the flick even when i said i didnt.
Of course.
Look how excited ritty is, slobbering all over herself, breaking down sentences, parsing grammar.
All that to "prove" herself correct.
I didn't say you liked it, I said you believed it was wrong for one person's wishes to be considered against those of everyone else, who apparently also agreed with the low 12% rating, despite the fact that you had an itch to pretend they didn't as some sort of sarcastic subjunctive conditional that expert grammarian "Jay" will explain, along with the workings of the heavens and the cosmos.
Do you have a thing for little girls, Jay?
You seem to like bringing them up a lot.
Should the FBI be alerted to your fixation?
Just let us know. And if you could be so kind as to provide your IP address. That would help immensely.
Thanks!
I see 334 posts and think "Oh, Ritzy showed up".
And I was right.
I see 334 posts and think "Oh, Ritzy showed up"
I see his avatar and think "tsunami of comments" instead of "Northern Light."
It's all Jay's fault, CEO. I admit it. Many fewer comments had it not been for his extreme idiocy to counteract.
But he has mercifully left us for now, you see. Perhaps to ponder the meaning of his fixation with little girls. In forensic terms.
Atia of the Julii said...
A nice list. But lacking one thing.
You don't have to try and single handedly beat off every poster you think is being stupid you know.
It's good advice, CEO. I wish I could heed it more.
Certain flyspecks are more enticing than others, though.
Here is the rest of it for Mr.Pollo
Remember the little seed in the styrofoam cup:
The roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody
really knows how or why, but we are all like that.
Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even
the little seed in the Styrofoam cup - they all die.
So do we.
And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books
and the first word you learned - the biggest
word of all - LOOK.
Everything you need to know is in there somewhere.
The Golden Rule and love and basic sanitation.
Ecology and politics and equality and sane living.
Take any of those items and extrapolate it into
sophisticated adult terms and apply it to your
family life or your work or your government or
your world and it holds true and clear and firm.
Think what a better world it would be if
all - the whole world - had cookies and milk about
three o'clock every afternoon and then lay down with
our blankies for a nap. Or if all governments
had a basic policy to always put thing back where
they found them and to clean up their own mess.
And it is still true, no matter how old you
are - when you go out into the world, it is best
to hold hands and stick together.
Palladian: Lavoisier married a 13 year old when he was 28.
Apparenlty a lot of people did this sort of thing. Jerry Lee Lewis married a 13 year old girl when he was 22. When he was 28, Will Durant married a 15 year old. She roller skated to the wedding ceremony (I love that detail).
I can't be the only one who found "The 'Alex Cross' Affair" obnoxious, hilarious and stupid at the same time. And then I think back to my exchange with Inga regarding "brittle diabetes" and think, "So, THAT'S how it looks to people from the outside."
I also find Ritmo to equal Inga in this thread. Information has been laid out for her clearly and simply and it just "whiffs" right over her head. Though, in fairness, I think she is trolling here. She knows she is wrong but is just getting off on yanking chains despite the fact that her personal amusement involves besmirching someone else. But that is SOP.
Though, in fairness, I think she is trolling here. She knows she is wrong but is just getting off on yanking chains despite the fact that her personal amusement involves besmirching someone else. But that is SOP.
Suppose for a moment that that may be true (but also stipulate that it need not be true).
My only question is why?
The only reasonable answer which comes to me is psychosis.
If I got a thirteen year old girl pregnant, I would marry her. It would be the moral thing to do.
I feel so strongly about this that if I were to get TWO thirteen year old girls pregnant, I would convert to to Islam so I could marry both of them. Note the correct use of the subjunctive verb in the previous sentence.
Insha'Allah.
The only reasonable answer which comes to me is psychosis.
I'm sure that you often see your own psychosis as an answer to things.
Matt, your willful ignorance is like watching Karl Rove on election night. And Dick Morris every night leading up to it.
"Palladian: Lavoisier married a 13 year old when he was 28."
Lavoisier lived in an era when women tended to die young, mostly in childbirth. His wife became his greatest collaborator and carried on after the French revolutionary prosecutor told Lavoisier "The Republic has no need of scientists."
That's cool, Ritmo, but I'm not playing your silly, stupid game.
Nor am I playing yours.
Actually, ritmo, I was addressing that to matt. I already consider you to be a master game player (here).
Actually, Ritmo has already tacitly acknowledged that she is just trolling. Notice, she did not dispute my charge of "troll!". Instead, she disputed the 'why?' of it.
Additionally, when I said I was not going to play her game, her response was to say she was not going to play my game either. Which, again, is acknowledgement that she is just goofing off, yanking chains and trolling. (As to the 'game' I am playing, it is the application of logic to counteract trolls.)
To conclude, in one week I successfully got Ritmo to confess to being a troll and got Inga to disappear (or at least re-invent herself.) Am I on a roll or what!?
---------
Here are the relevant posts in case they go down Ritmo's rabbit hole.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
The only reasonable answer which comes to me is psychosis.
I'm sure that you often see your own psychosis as an answer to things.
5/5/13, 9:34 PM
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Matt, your willful ignorance is like watching Karl Rove on election night. And Dick Morris every night leading up to it.
5/5/13, 9:35 PM
Matt said...
That's cool, Ritmo, but I'm not playing your silly, stupid game.
5/5/13, 9:43 PM
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Nor am I playing yours.
5/5/13, 9:45 PM
I am not a "she" (and ritmo is not a feminine noun, dipshit - talk about a giveaway), but you go right ahead and feel free to proclaim that you're smart enough to declare not only truth, but motives.
You're as clueless as a debutante in a dollar store.
Please go fuck yourself and go cry about the things that matter in life, like the dignified way to refer to diabetes or something.
Maybe this fine chap can help you.
Seriously. Get a life. Now!
(As to the 'game' I am playing, it is the application of logic to counteract trolls.)
Funny. I was about to say the same thing.
But you think you're better than anyone else. I get it. Thanks for that admission. Carry on, asshole!
"Why pick on gay people?"
Bud Dry.
"It suggests it feels right somehow or amusing to kick the gay guy."
What else does it suggest besides how it feels right "somehow" or maybe it's amusing?
What about your bias in choosing those concepts to spotlight when others are lurking, present and able to be expounded on?
What bigotries do you advance and how can you defend them proper against an ideal with no bias or bigotry, acknowledged on your part?
This suggests you argue in bad faith and simply to amuse yourself, no?
If being gay were the same as drinking from a red Solo cup.
Then nothing.
But I understand the problem.
I do not have a solution.
Humans have a sex drive. Many countries have people who cut off women's clit because they are frightened by the human sex drive (and are sadist barbarians I hope die off soon from their own stupidity away from decent folks). Others welcome sexuality in differing degrees from ours, and ours in America is incredibly varied.
This being the case, when one entrenched philosophy, with cause, and resulting in maximum happiness as measured by me and my common sense, sees the wisdom in cautioning sexual activities in order to increase utility in other areas, while another philosophy or identity does not, arguments with ensue with both sides having elements unable to understand how the other side could be a decent person with character other than bad.
So be it.
As long as we Americans all kill kids via starvation because we like the idea of burning corn and making fat rich white Iowa welfare kings richer, fuck us all.
Oh my, struck a nerve did I? I am just giving you what you gave to Michael except, of course, I back mine up with evidence that supports my case! But don't mind me; carry on, Ma'am!
Y'know, Ritmo, I think that you are on to something. Keynes talked about 'mean propensity to consume', or mpc. You want the mpc to be high, that's why you have the government deficit spend in an economic downturn. It makes up for reduced consumer spending.
The thing is, as income goes up, mpc goes down. Poor people spend almost everything they make. People that are wealthier tend to save more and spend less of each additional dollar they earn. Leaving the cause and effect of that aside for the moment, it seems obvious to me that it would be counterproductive to increase regressive tax policies -- like sales and property taxes, for instance -- just so relatively well off public employees can get a raise.
In fact, the wisest thing to do when it comes to increasing the median MPC, would be to cut all the state employee's wages and use the money saved to hire more state employees at the new, reduced wage.
Or hire no new public employees. Let the poor tax payers keep (and then spend) the money.
It's win-win!
"Keynes's homosexuality was the only good thing about him."
I had never thought about it like that, but you are right and I thank you for it.
Perhaps what we need is simply, in addition to wine, humor.
So all this feminism is an attempt to get humorless women to laugh.
"they are either stupid or evil. She's better than that"
Everyone is both stupid and evil.
Sinner/Saint.
Whatnot.
In the main it is about: 1) having prescription of one's thoughts then 2) experience.
So since most everyone is able to have experience in evil or stupidity as well as brilliance (a timely quip) and beautiful acts an acknowledgment proper of the human condition requires understanding, not hateful labeling of me, as the Other, when I just wanna be loved.
Okay.
Thanks Chip S.
Things got be serious.
Keynes was a serious man. Those proclaiming Keynesian economics while increasing the debt by the most in the history of the Republic, which, YES LEFTIES YOU ARE CORRECT, was absolutely on an upward spiral after the year 2000 so fuck you Bush and the GOP, assholes, but anyway, Keynesian economics does not apply to our anarconomics.
Cloward/Pivan and Keynes are enemies. Keynes will be remembered for something much better than what Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barry Obama have done, and rightly so.
Keynes was around, a genius of course which is why we talk of him, when he simply could not comprehend, and it took many many year too frankly, The Fatal Conceit.
You know, why centralization always fails.
Keynes didn't see what we know, although yes of course others did and Keynes should have in my opinion, yet what he did contribute was certainly sane and plausible.
That, sane and plausible, doesn't describe IL or CA or NY.
It, sane and plausible, describes Texas.
> strawmans Jonah Goldberg
> insists she'll respond "honestly"
Perhaps, and I'm talking to you Shouting Thomas, Althouse sees how stupid this is, making economics a Gay issue, and how that would be the dumbest fucking thing ever for low information voters (like yours taught you by example we are to teach them by admirable example via, sadly but also very simply, success via stability (which money provides although oftentimes not in the longest of terms as it were) so separate the crazy anarconomics from Keynes no matter what about the latter's this or that whathow.
It was kicking the whole group that wasn't present, like making sexist remarks when there are no women in the room. It's a thing people do, get in the habit of disrespecting the people who are not represented in their circle.
Who cares if they weren't present? The facts are pretty clear. And frankly, I think it is rude of you to attribute YOUR morality to gays.
Outside of Richard Dawkins "Selfish Gene" Theory, the value of which for homosexuals has been made moot by modern day society, or nearly moot: there is little value to gays caring about the future. They live for the day, as evidenced by such high HIV infection rates, when use of a condom would stop the spread.
You have a blind-spot, Ann. You are too focused on "Society" to understand the underlying genetic imperatives.
Ritmo wrote. "Michael: He who believes a movie with a Rotten Tomatoes rating in the single digits is a great corporate decision to force on its passengers."
5/5/13, 6:40 PM
Michael wrote." The airline made a poor decision on the movie"
Which Ritmo seems to think is a lie. Very odd girl, ritmo.
Discussing anything with Ritmo is a waste of time, because the ultimate source/proof/evidence for everything/anything Ritmo says is Ritmo himself.
@el Pollo Real
Actually, ritmo, I was addressing that to matt. I already consider you to be a master game player (here).
Ritmo's sole area of mastery is baiting in public discussion threads.
Post a Comment