Sit at Home Moms!!

Pahlevoon Nayeb

National Team Player
Oct 17, 2002
4,138
0
Poshteh Kooh
Yeh, that's kind of the point. They can both be demonstrated mathematically. The problem is one is less reliable than the other but even so it doesn't make Einstein's theories 100% always right. Moreover, that's not really the point. You in the beginning were trying to say that you can excuse Einstein because his theories are just 'theories', i.e. they don't claim to be laws. Then you went the opposite way to save face after a quick wiki read, and incorrectly went to thinking Einstein's theories are always 100% mathematically correct.
The point, moron, is that one can be proven by mathematics and the other can’t. Since you’re so full of shit, you still don’t see that that’s what I was saying from the get go. Einstein’s theory deals with an abstract concept whereas social theories deal with concrete realities. The fact that the one that can be proven deals with an abstract concept and the one that cannot deals with concrete reality is the paradox that seems to be beyond your puny brain.

Blah blah blah and trying to change the topic? That tactic lost effect on pre-schoolers. We're talking about your stupid qualification of "if you haven't experienced it, no matter how qualified you are you can't comment" theory. Haha.
I’ve got your blah blah right here shmuck. You’re still a wannabe dipshit, no matter how much you bang your head against the wall.

Don't get angry at me, you admitted it in the previous quote and we've seen your lack of knowledge ever since.
... and you’re delusional.

LOL, if you knew the slightest about economics you'd know Krugman isn't relevant. Even Prescott said no one takes him seriously - especially when he talks about macroeconomics. Let's even take your delusions seriously; do you think Krugman didn't talk about countries he hasn't lived in? Instead of accepting you made a goof you continue this charade to save face. It's sad, really.
Says the wannabe, know-nothing wonder from down under :)

I love Friedman, I don't swing that way. I think Krugman would though.
Awwe, It’s OK, we already know your effeminate tendencies ;)

Haha, no it doesn't; it means you're a shill most of the time. Of course, you're too much of a dumbass to know, but Keynes and Friedman had governments following their ideologies without them actually working for them.
And, you’re a jackass all the time. :) There’s a reason we have something called Keynesian Economics and not one called “Friedmanian” or whatever. Don’t try so hard to attach Friedman to Keynes. Krugman, if your dumb ass doesn't know, follows the latter, no one of any significance follows the former.

LOL, this is funny, you actually think Krugman is a notable figure. TV/Media these days eh? Next you'll tell me Jim Cramer is more relevant than Hayek.
First, quit panting and write coherent, complete sentences. Second, refer to my previous statement.

I'm sure Fonzie still picks up the chicks too.
And this is you. Haha

[video=youtube_share;nzY2Qcu5i2A]http://youtu.be/nzY2Qcu5i2A[/video]

You've created a strawman; no one cares about "women not taking men seriously". We care about proving how single-parent homes make deviant behaviour more prevalent amongst children. LOL, can't even troll right.
Moron, go read BT’s original premise and quit demonstrating the content of the empty space between your ears.

If picking up women is effeminate then you must be manly - which in case you don't get the joke means you're gay.
Yeah, you pick up women like the French kicked Hitler’s ass. LOL! We can tell how “manly” you are by your hissy fits.

Pipsqueak? LOL, you really do belong in the Happy Days era.
Don’t like “pipsqueak” piss ant? Then try peon :)
 
Last edited:
Aug 26, 2005
16,771
4
LOL, insults aside, you made another huge whopper. When people refer to Freidmanian economics they call it the Chicago school. What a blunder.

Some more info: Keynesianism is over, it got things so god awfully wrong that even Keynesians who still love to use it (because they tend to be social interventionists - the left of politics these days) don't call themselves strictly Keynesians anymore - not even Krugman who idolises Keynes. Why do you care about Keynes anyway? According to your logic he isn't relevant because he died much before Friedman. LOL

Embarrassing set of events; from making whoppers about social sciences/criminology, to retarding up Einstein's theories, now economics. Haha, at least you've learned a few things, I guess.
 
Last edited:

Pahlevoon Nayeb

National Team Player
Oct 17, 2002
4,138
0
Poshteh Kooh
Yes, and the “Chicago influence” on Reagan’s voodoo economics has not proven disastrous. LOL

Whereas Keynes was an invitee to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference (where he bitterly, and rightly so, criticized the overly punitive measures on Germany), Friedman was a shill whose ideas ultimately brought us the Great Depression part 2. And, umm, Krugman is neo-Keynesian.

The joke’s on you pal: first you shoot off your mouth about things which you’re clueless, then you commit harakiri to change my argument to yours, now you try to cover your stink with more bullshit. Take a hike.
 
Last edited:
Aug 26, 2005
16,771
4
Reagan was about as much of a free marketer and follower of Friedman as Obama is - LOL, another whopper. He espoused it but practiced radically differently - like Obama preaching about civil liberties then signing the Patriot Act, for example. Ex post, Reagan was more left - he spent a shitload and increased the size of government enormously.

Keynes' was the most respected economist of his time until his theories failed and were largely abandoned. That was in the 1970s. Yes, Krugman is a neo-Keynesian, post-Keynesian and new-Keynesians depending on the day of the week. Keynes was a genius and charismatic - like Friedman - but he got it wrong in the end. In fact both Friedman and Hayek who knew Keynes said that he himself would have changed his views had he stayed alive. Again, no one is strictly a Keynesian anymore. You proved my point for me, thanks. Anyway, Keynes died before Friedman so he is less relevant even using your logic Haha.

BTW don't use the 'Chicago School', use “Friedmanian” economics so we can keep laughing at you. First you argue that Friedman wasn't even important enough to get an administrative job...now you want to say Reagonomics was about him. LOL It's just one calamity after another with you. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

P.S. Reaganomics - voodoo economics? - you used Wikipedia haha. Here's some proper reading, since you can't seem to find any. Here are some excerpts for those following along and wanting a laugh:

Spending

In 1980, Jimmy Carter's last year as president, the federal government spent a whopping 27.9% of "national income" (an obnoxious term for the private wealth produced by the American people). Reagan assaulted the free-spending Carter administration throughout his campaign in 1980. So how did the Reagan administration do? At the end of the first quarter of 1988, federal spending accounted for 28.7% of "national income."

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.

The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.

Foreign aid has also risen, from $10 billion to $22 billion. Every year, Reagan asked for more foreign-aid money than the Congress was willing to spend. He also pushed through Congress an $8.4 billion increase in the U.S. "contribution" to the International Monetary Fund.

His budget cuts were actually cuts in projected spending, not absolute cuts in current spending levels. As Reagan put it, "We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have."

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.
Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection.

But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion.
Bureaucracy

By now it should not be surprising that the size of the bureaucracy has also grown. Today, there are 230,000 more civilian government workers than in 1980, bringing the total to almost three million. Reagan even promoted the creation of a new federal Department of Veterans' Affairs to join the Departments of Education and Energy, which his administration was supposed to eliminate.
 
Last edited:

Pahlevoon Nayeb

National Team Player
Oct 17, 2002
4,138
0
Poshteh Kooh
You’re a riot! Amoo jon, if you read about Reagan in books, I didn’t have to google “voodoo economics,” I lived it. It was called that because it basically said that “if you build it, they will come,” i.e. supply side economics. This is why it’s important for someone to live somewhere before imparting with their bullshit wisdom. You read things in a book for your school project and then, like the child that you are, come back touting what you learned over the weekend.

Reagan did in fact follow Friedman’s ideas, perhaps not to a tee, but to a large degree. But, since you’re such a fool as to stick your foot in your mouth yet again, here’s the man himself, singing Reagan’s praises:

[video=youtube_share;9ASAOrsKqiI]http://youtu.be/9ASAOrsKqiI[/video]


Do you know who else was a great fan of the Chicago School of economics? Mr. Rumsfeld! That’s right, the moron who thought he could pacify Iraq with 100,000 troops and so in the end stunk it up so bad that even George the-moron Bush fired him. In his book Ideology and the International Economy: The Decline and Fall of Bretton Woods, Robert Leeson writes:

“Gerald Ford also wholeheartedly agreed with Friedman about the need to reassert the power of the market relative to the control exerted by the government.” Leeson Later recounts how Friedman argued that “world history would have been profoundly altered had Reagan chosen Donald Rumsfeld as his Vice President in 1980 instead of George Bush.” According to Leeson, Friedman called this “the worst decision of Regan presidency.” Leeson then goes on to say “In 2001, Rumsfeld explained that he was planning to use ‘incentives, through the great principles of University of Chicago economics’ to persuade Afghans to provide information which would have led to the Capture of Osama Bin Laden.” LOL!!

Rumsfeld being a great fan of “Freidmanian” (just for you :) ) economics, Friedman being a great fan of Rumsfeld, and luminaries like the bumbling fool Gerald Ford loving Friedman (though less romantically than you do) should tell anyone what a clusterfuck of an idiot Friedman was. Haha

Aren’t you yet embarrassed for being such a big mouth, know-nothing shmuck?
 
Last edited:

IranZamin

IPL Player
Feb 17, 2006
3,367
2
I came back from a 10 day break this week and as soon as I saw this thread was still going I knew exactly the reason without even clicking.:)

Kaz jan, I’ve laughed my ass off reading you take Captain Kool Aid to school. But you do know the poor soul is never going to stop, right?:) Even if it means repeating the same talking points like a mindless parrot, contradicting himself from one post to another, dismissing research and evidence like an illiterate halfwit, or the saddest of all, copying the other person’s words and phrases when his limited intellect and vocabulary fail him...he’ll just keep posting because it’s only by getting the last word that he can convince himself his ideological bubble is still intact. For people like him ideology is not just a set of beliefs, it’s a security blanket they hide under when they find reality too complex to understand or too harsh to accept.

Every thread this wacko steps into goes down the toilet one way or another. There is no use reasoning with fools and zealots. Once you expose them as what they are, you just put them on ignore. Nothing bothers them more than knowing their schizo rants no longer have an audience.

(Now wait for a 4-page essay in response to this post.:) And he won’t be sobbing and banging his head against the monitor at all…he’ll be cool and stable almost like a normal person, and he’ll prove it by putting 6 smilies at the end of every sentence. At least that’s what he used to do before he joined the Invisible Club.)

Ignore List.jpg
 
Aug 26, 2005
16,771
4
LOL, did you read the post at all? How can doubling the size of the department of education be considered a Friedman-like move, when Friedman calls for the abolishment of such departments? How can you increase government spending, breaking records, when Friedman argues to reduce government spending? How can you double foreign aid and call that conservative? Friedman in the above talks about the moves Reagan made with regards to the Fed. Friedman wanted to abolish the Fed! Haha, the above is just someone asking him to say some nice things about Reagan. I am sure he did follow some advice and they were friends but a follower of the Chicago school? You're embarrassing yourself again. I guess you'd also tell me that the health system in America is a free market too haha. Widely touted falsehoods.

Haha, this is like saying that John Terry follows Diego Maradona's football methods. Let's disregard the fact that John Terry is a defender and trips over his own two feet. Or like saying Stoke take inspiration from Barcelona - it might be true, it doesn't mean they played that way. That's how bad the comparison is. Here's another proper article to learn from. Don't say I never taught you nothing! Excerpts:

Reagonomics

Every ideological revolution has to worry
about selling out upon achieving Power, on
surrendering principle to the lure of
pragmatism, respectability, Establishment
acclaim and the mushhead 'vital centre' of
the country's polity. All Reaganites liked to
refer to their accession to power as a
"revolution'. But in order for such a
revolution to succeed in its goals it must be
tough and vigilant, it must have indoctrinated
its members - its 'cadres' - in resisting the
blandishments of the pragmatic. The Reagan
Revolution, in contrast, sold out before it
even began.
The Reagan sell-out was the most thoroughand complete on 'Plank One'- the free-market
part - of the conservative triad. Understandably: since conservatives don't really care
about the free-market as they care about
compulsory morality and especially war with
Communism. The sell-out on the free-market
is massive and enormous. A quick rundown
will suffice. Reaganomics, as enunciated by
Reagan himself before the convention and by
conservatives generally, promised the
following programme: a sharp cut in the
federal budget, a drastic cut in income taxes,
a balanced budget by 1984, deregulation of
the economy, and return to a gold standard.
Actually, thebudget was never cut; it has always
skyrocketed under Reagan. Reagan is by far
the biggest spender in American history. He
is also the biggest taxer. Taxes were never
cut. The piddling and. much publicised
income tax cut was always, from the very
beginning, more than compensated by the
programmed Social Security tax increases,
add by 'bracket creep', that sinister system by
which the federal government prints more
money, thereby causing inflation, and also
thereby wafting everyone into a higher tax
bracket, whereupon the government
completes the one-two punch by taxing away
a greater proportion of his income.
Everyone knows about the deficits. Reagan'sdeficit is enormous, astronomical, regardless
how you look at it, and it bids fair to
becoming permanent. The response of
conservative Republicans who had
denounced evil deficits all their lives? To
adopt the insouciant attitude of liberal
Keynesianism: who cares about the deficit
anyway? Power indeed tends to corrupt.
This is an Austrian school economist criticising Reagan - who considered himself a disciple of von Mises (who started the Austrian school) and not the Chicago school. Too easy.
-----

Haha, IZ jan, I know mate. All true. I really don't care about the last word, I think it's descended to the point where he's written himself off. I doubt anyone is going to take him seriously again. I mean, what utter blunders. From Einstein to Friedman, they're turning in their graves. High school level mistakes. As I said earlier though, some people are going to cling on to their political persuasions like teddy bears. We're lucky he didn't turn out as a basiji or something, though LOL
 
Last edited:

Pahlevoon Nayeb

National Team Player
Oct 17, 2002
4,138
0
Poshteh Kooh
No amount of bullshitting about John Terry and Diego Maradona (are you that desperate?), copy-pasting unrelated items, or copious amounts of bait and switch is going to be as powerful as Friedman’s own words, nevermind "proper" and "improper" articles. Pay attention to the bolded part and learn something (excerpts from Friedman's speech at Cato institute in 1993 http://www.cato.org/special/friedman/). Friedman seems to be agreeing with me. :)

Reaganomics had four simple principles: lower marginal tax rates, less regulation, restrained government spending, noninflationary monetary policy. Though Reagan did not achieve all of his goals, he made good progress.
Friedman wanted to abolish the Fed and Napoleon wanted to capture the world. As we say in these here States, put “want” in one hand and shit in the other and see which one piles first.

I see your patron saint of hypocrisy is back; the dog is once again wagging the tail, eh? ;)
 
Last edited:

masoudA

Legionnaire
Oct 16, 2008
6,199
22
Was it Reagan who said:

Problem with the Liberals is not ignorance - their problem is they know everything about things that aren't so!!
 

Pahlevoon Nayeb

National Team Player
Oct 17, 2002
4,138
0
Poshteh Kooh
Was it Reagan who said:

Problem with the Liberals is not ignorance - their problem is they know everything about things that aren't so!!
Do you know anything about what's being discussed or did you just see the word "Reagan" and decide to pop in with your sound-bite one liner?
 
Last edited:

masoudA

Legionnaire
Oct 16, 2008
6,199
22
Do you know anything about what's being discussed or did you just see the word "Reagan" and decide to pop in with your sound-bite one liner?
Actualy the later.....PN jaan - the art of communicating on the internet is to be short and sweet....your arguments on this thread are far far from it.
But I would for the sake of sanity (mine) say this: A simple political factor can make all economical equations and considerations for null.
 

Fatso

Captain
Oct 1, 2004
8,122
205
Reagan was a idiot who would be considered a communist by today's GOP, tea party and democratic party standards.

Seriously, he's not worth even a second of the hours you guys wasted discussing him.
 

IranZamin

IPL Player
Feb 17, 2006
3,367
2
L
Haha, IZ jan, I know mate. All true. I really don't care about the last word, I think it's descended to the point where he's written himself off. I doubt anyone is going to take him seriously again. I mean, what utter blunders. From Einstein to Friedman, they're turning in their graves. High school level mistakes. As I said earlier though, some people are going to cling on to their political persuasions like teddy bears. We're lucky he didn't turn out as a basiji or something, though LOL
I know aziz. He's a left-over from that generation that jumped off the cliff together in 1979. And when you see him attempt to "think", you really get an understanding of how that nation committed collective suicide.

He's one of those who would have been a hardcore "Marxist, Leninist" after reading two articles. Not an ounce of reason or analytical thought to be found. Just raw emotion, oghdeh against various entities and a healthy dose of intellectual dishonesty to enable his self-delusion.

For me the last straw was when he said all Iranians who oppose abortion are IR supporters! And we're supposed to pretend not to notice how retarded it is when the same tool turns around and gets on a high horse about the "extremism" and "intolerance" of the right!:) I can't even call it hypocrisy - the guy just lacks any form of self-awareness.
 

Pahlevoon Nayeb

National Team Player
Oct 17, 2002
4,138
0
Poshteh Kooh
Actualy the later.....PN jaan - the art of communicating on the internet is to be short and sweet....your arguments on this thread are far far from it.
But I would for the sake of sanity (mine) say this: A simple political factor can make all economical equations and considerations for null.
LOL!

Masoud jon,

Contrary to years of Republicans training their constituents, it is in fact important to actually know what the argument is before opining. Simply giving out what amounts to a grunt won’t cut it anymore. George W like ignorance went out with the moron himself.
 
Last edited:
Aug 26, 2005
16,771
4
Reagan was a idiot who would be considered a communist by today's GOP, tea party and democratic party standards.

Seriously, he's not worth even a second of the hours you guys wasted discussing him.
Haha, that's the point. His policies were so left of centre that to say he was a follower of the Chicago school is hilarious. PN is basically calling Friedman a socialist haha. Embarrassing clanger. It's more funny because PN thanked your post - so he acknowledges you are right; and yet he doesn't know that by his posting he is arguing against you.

I know aziz. He's a left-over from that generation that jumped off the cliff together in 1979. And when you see him attempt to "think", you really get an understanding of how that nation committed collective suicide.

He's one of those who would have been a hardcore "Marxist, Leninist" after reading two articles. Not an ounce of reason or analytical thought to be found. Just raw emotion, oghdeh against various entities and a healthy dose of intellectual dishonesty to enable his self-delusion.

For me the last straw was when he said all Iranians who oppose abortion are IR supporters! And we're supposed to pretend not to notice how retarded it is when the same tool turns around and gets on a high horse about the "extremism" and "intolerance" of the right!:) I can't even call it hypocrisy - the guy just lacks any form of self-awareness.
Ah, I know man. It is cringeworthy. There are so many red flags that he is learning things as he goes - and off Wiki - that I feel embarrassed for him. When he comes back after knowing a bit more he'll get it. Hopefully. At least he's exposed now for what he is.

No such things as Friedmanian haha. Cracks me up every time.
 
Last edited:

IranZamin

IPL Player
Feb 17, 2006
3,367
2
Haha, that's the point. His policies were so left of centre that to say he was a follower of the Chicago school is hilarious. PN is basically calling Friedman a socialist haha. Embarrassing clanger. It's more funny because PN thanked your post - so he acknowledges you are right; and yet he doesn't know that by his posting he is arguing against you.
Oh that's just standard procedure for the genius. Every discussion he takes part in, half his posts end up contradicting the other.

Ah, I know man. It is cringeworthy. There are so many red flags that he is learning things as he goes - and off Wiki - that I feel embarrassed for him. When he comes back after knowing a bit more he'll get it. Hopefully. At least he's exposed now for what he is.
I can't read his current drivel. But in the other thread I had him to the point where he was pretending to love Masoud.:D And I can assure you he'll never get it. If he was 18 or 25 there would be some hope. When you're in your 50s, this is pretty much who you are. This stuff is his religion. You'll have as much luck getting common sense to penetrate his skull as you would arguing about evolution with J4P. [And don't be surprised if he starts saying he likes him too.;)]

BTW, has he been parroting your words yet? In the other thread he would take my phrases from two posts up, change a couple of things, and present them as his own! divoonegi ham bad dardieh:)
 

Natural

IPL Player
May 18, 2003
2,559
3
Oh that's just standard procedure for the genius. Every discussion he takes part in, half his posts end up contradicting the other.

I can't read his current drivel. But in the other thread I had him to the point where he was pretending to love Masoud.:D And I can assure you he'll never get it. If he was 18 or 25 there would be some hope. When you're in your 50s, this is pretty much who you are. This stuff is his religion. You'll have as much luck getting common sense to penetrate his skull as you would arguing about evolution with J4P. [And don't be surprised if he starts saying he likes him too.;)]

BTW, has he been parroting your words yet? In the other thread he would take my phrases from two posts up, change a couple of things, and present them as his own! divoonegi ham bad dardieh:)
Lord IZ, your huge typical persian ego is quite interesting to witness and its funny how the irony is lost on you. this is fun to watch on so many different levels.
 

IranZamin

IPL Player
Feb 17, 2006
3,367
2
IZ and Kaz, please beware of falling into the "herding" mentality that you both have voiced concerns about before. Just an observation.
The point is taken, but the herd mentality I've talked about is where people get attacked simply for their beliefs. I've called out Masoud before even though he's on the opposite side of PN. And in fairness Masoud is rarely as aggressive as this guy.

The problem with this character is not that he's on the left or right; it's that he's intellectually dishonest and propagandist, uninformed yet stubborn as a mule, and most importantly, obsessively hostile to opposing viewpoints. And it's about time he got called out for the toxic influence he has on discussions around here.

Frankly, I've grown a little sick of seeing thread after thread get flushed down the toilet with ONE guy being the constant factor in almost all of them. The only guy with a worse track record in that regard is GP. This dude is not here to discuss ideas; he's only interested in shoving his religion down people's throat and he throws bitch fits as soon as people start pointing out the holes in his talking points. Maybe others have more patience than me, but I can't pretend not to find it moronic when the same guy who calls pro-life Iranians IR supporters tries to constantly present himself as the champion of freedom and tolerance against tyranny. At least the bullshit wouldn't be as annoying if he wasn't so obsessed with pushing it.

So I have to stand by my comments in this thread. They're a very accurate description of his character and mentality.