Had to slither out from under your rock and admit you are the “cunty cocktard” who started this thread 3 weeks ago, didn't you undercunt? Since you're obviously returning to reclaim your thread, you can start with this - explain why the Dept. of Labor on its website cited 64 studies finding “no discernable (sic) effect on employment” and neglected to mention that an even greater number of studies concluded exactly the opposite. If you talk to the DOL, be sure to give them the correct spelling for DISCERNIBLE.
Oh, and by the way, you still haven't explained why you suddenly ran off and disabled your account, only to sneak back in here with a new handle. Were you tired of all the brickbats? Was the contempt oozing through your computer screen too intense for you to bear? Did you regret outing yourself as gay on a straight hooker board by telling everyone how much you like to suck dicks? What exactly was the problem? Inquiring minds want to know!
Oh, and another thing - if you had any background in economics you would know there is a spirited debate among economists over whether or not (and if so, the extent to which) Milton Friedman would have endorsed the policy of “quantitative easing” rolled out by the Fed after his death. If QE was Friedman's idea as you claim, explain why this is even a subject for debate. You are a libtard shit-stirrer. You think Friedman is a conservative god and you notice some conservatives are critical of QE - so you think you can smear shit by yelling “Friedman invented QE!” The reality is far too nuanced for a simple-minded shit-smearer like you. Crude insults and superficial talking points are all you know. So just admit it and stop pretending you can spar intellectually with anyone else on this board.
.
Originally Posted by lustylad
You're not that lucky. As I've said, and will continue to do so, I don't know this UC. On the other hand, I'll spar with you. Anytime. The question wasn't whether Friedman would have endorsed QE. Per usual, you are once again changing the rules midstream. It's a debate because you acted as if QE could somehow not be implemented because Friedman had died 3 years earlier.
Seems that many think he not only invented QE as we know it, but that he would have been in agreement with its use. How can I make such a claim, you ask? I have it from the horses' mouth. Milton Friedman himself espousing this very idea in regards to Japan and it's economic situation. Once again, you've been measured and found wanting. Give it up, cheesedick.
A simple question; why couldn't you have found this?
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/1...nke-on-qe.html
Crude insults are all I know? Like when I joined this board for spirited debate and you relentlessly referred to me as a cunt, undercunt and any manner of other niceties? Like that? You sir, and I use that word loosely, are the fucking worst. You even admit in your bio that you are a jackoff of all trades and master of none. Never has this been more true than in this current dustup. You know just enough about economics to be made to look like a fucking fool by someone who knows JUST a bit more. And that's all it takes, really. How I would love to see you debate economics in front of a real group of economists, only to have yourself ripped limb from limb, whilst shitting and pissing yourself to beat the band, and all the while I can't stop laughing. You huff and puff and try to do your best at making yourself seem relevant. As I said before, you've been found wanting. Go on now. Get away from me. You disgust me with your ignorance and your insults.
