- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 24,412
- Reaction score
- 10,441
- Location
- Upstate SC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No one said that this was the only cause of the job losses, just that is one of the causes. Try again, please, and this time could you put a LITTLE effort in??
That is because it is not true. George HW Bush had a degree in economics, as did Reagan and Ford. Clinton had studied economics as part of his PPE at Oxford but dropped out of there to go to Yale.
I just "fact checked" that, and you appear to be correct as usual.
No J, based on his answer, what he reports, he doesn't run a national economy. He cannot expertly speak as he tries to do. He and you just keep trying to hide his failure to acknowledge the point made by me and others.
As for abrasive, you're far too sensitive. As for arrogant, between us, that's kind of a pot to kettle comment on your part.
No one said that this was the only cause of the job losses, just that is one of the causes. Try again, please, and this time could you put a LITTLE effort in??
So, you'll only accept information that runs counter to your own beliefs if it is given by someone whom controlled a national based economy? No one in the lay fields is able to debate with you? That seems rather convenient. It seems his experience is vastly superior to your own, yet you talk as though you know more than he would on the subject...It's not that I am ''sensitive'' as you frame it, I just recognize jerk behavior when I see it. See, I am smart enough to know when someone has more experience than I do, therefore, I may not agree with them, but would at least acknowledge that what they are saying is based on more than I might know...
Your approach is purposely dismissive, and irritating to the point that people would just as soon leave you with a polite "if you say so" and move on....However, unfortunately that only leaves you believing that you know what you are talking about....When in reality, you don't.
If it is nothing more than personal information, yes. That is the standard. If it is your word personally, based on your experience, offered as evidence, yes you must have experience with what we are talking about. I hold the same standard for myself.
Now, if anyone has a national study, so support that is garnered by looking at the national economy, I'd be more than willing to view it.
That is not being dismissive. And it is what you should expect as well.
You've been offered as much in the past, but beyond that if you are demanding that others provide legitimate studies to support their arguments, where are yours? Simply sitting back and dismissing the experience of running a nationally based business that has international reach, when your experience is locally based at best, and coming off like he doesn't know what he is speaking of, is jaw droppingly ignorant. So, using your standard, and since you haven't provided any studies to back up your own assertions, have you run a national economy? I know the answer, and it is no. So, I guess by your own standard, you are dismissed as well.
Prove that the market crash was not the sole creator of job losses.
Some have offered some things (not what you're jumping in on however) and it is often countered (that's how this is suppose to work). And no, his experience, like mind, is not enough. Taking his word at face value, which is problematic by itself for any of us, still doesn't show he has the appropriate experience to answer a national economic question. That you don't see that is jaw droppingly ignorant (see I can do that as well).
...
But over state some and reach the wrong conclusions. No matter what government does, no matter how much they deregulate or cut taxes or appease business, business will not take risks where there is no demand. People with money to spend will help more than anything else. As long as we pay low wages, limiting the buying power of working people, business will remain stagnant. And you can't shrink government without both losing jobs and taking money out of the economy. And no, I'm not arguing that we need to grow government. I'm just trying to make the problem clearer. There is no easy answer.
Just because you post something you agree with to counter others doesn't mean that what you are using is absolute, or correct does it? Because if you think that, then you are lost.
That part right there, that's the problem, which there is politically viable answer to, particularly with our current level of partisanship and nearly equally divided left vs right rhetoric.
I suspect that if the rhetoric of either the extreme right or left was actually implemented, it would create an environment that would please no one, not even the extreme that "won". Which may explain why even when one party is in control of both houses of congress and the POTUS, that side never fully gets rid of what they complain about, and never fully implements what they advocate for. I believe that in secrete, the leaders of both extremes realize that if their rhetoric was implemented, it would be a huge failure.
"Prove" that it was and I'll address your assertions.
Something as complex as the biggest economy on the planet is a little difficult to narrow down to single causes for ANYTHING.
Exactly. Which says what about the OP, the thread topic, and the "study" cited by the OP?
The study stated that this was ONE of the causes of the job losses, not THE cause of the losses, which is exactly what I've been saying as well. You're the one trying to make it sound like what's being said is that it was THE cause...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?