90% tax on bonuses....

[maxiep]

Supposedly you are trained in economics, why don't you provide some value instead of just being insulting?

barfo

Because it's not my job to continue to guide you along. You'll have to do the heavy lifting for yourself. And it wasn't an insult--it was the truth.

 

[barfo]

Because it's not my job to continue to guide you along. You'll have to do the heavy lifting for yourself. And it wasn't an insult--it was the truth.

It's not your job, true. No one can force you to make meaningful contributions to the board.

And it's not the truth, it's just your opinion, backed up by absolutely nothing.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

It's not your job, true. No one can force you to make meaningful contributions to the board.

You're free to feel that I contribute nothing. Others disagree. Just because I've studied the subject does not mean I'm beholden to continually pass along what I know to those that are too dense to understand.

And it's not the truth, it's just your opinion, backed up by absolutely nothing.

barfo

You're right; it is backed up by "absolutely nothing"--the understanding of the subject evident in your posts.

 

[barfo]

You're free to feel that I contribute nothing. Others disagree. Just because I've studied the subject does not mean I'm beholden to continually pass along what I know to those that are too dense to understand.

It's too bad you think every reader of this board is too dense to understand. Or do you think I'm the only one who reads your posts?

You're right; it is backed up by "absolutely nothing"--the understanding of the subject evident in your posts.

If my posts show no understanding of economics, then they are the same as yours. It doesn't take any knowledge to post things on the order of "oh, you're so stupid". But if that's what floats your boat, so be it.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

It's too bad you think every reader of this board is too dense to understand. Or do you think I'm the only one who reads your posts?

Like Mike DC said, there should be basic education in economics, but not only for elected officials, but also for the populace at large. There are many who understand, and some who don't.

Here's a hint: there's no such thing as a free lunch. You can't create money out of thin air and then pretend it doesn't need to be repaid. The answer to too much debt is not more debt. There is no way to avoid the pain that is coming down the pike. Delaying what needs to happen will only make the pain worse.

If my posts show no understanding of economics, then they are the same as yours. It doesn't take any knowledge to post things on the order of "oh, you're so stupid". But if that's what floats your boat, so be it.

I've explained the same thing too many times. Now is the time to start stating the hard truth. If you believe our posts are the same, then that's certainly your right. It only serves, however, to reinforce everything I've said about your posts.

 

[barfo]

Here's a hint: there's no such thing as a free lunch. You can't create money out of thin air and then pretend it doesn't need to be repaid.

Who has suggested otherwise?

The answer to too much debt is not more debt.

Generally speaking, of course that is true. However, there are exceptions. For example, a business with an excessive debt load might still take on more debt in order to make a purchase that they believed was strategically valuable enough to take the pain that the extra debt brings. An indebted consumer, faced with the choice of going without food/shelter/medical care or putting it on a credit card, might rationally choose to run up more debt.

There is no way to avoid the pain that is coming down the pike. Delaying what needs to happen will only make the pain worse.

Some fairly famous economists disagree with you. What makes you right and them wrong?

barfo