FINE AS FROG HAIR     21 Jun 12 22:11  
Can someone explain this to me.
By Menelaus' standards we are all pretty much economically illiterate on here.
But he says that if we unconditionally latch onto his ideas and forecasts, we are being extremely perceptive and smart.
However if we don't and tend to believe what many other experts are saying, we are being stupid and ignorant.
It seems to me, at the very least, it could be claimed that we are being lead by the nose either way.
And at least the other experts don't all seem to be claiming they are irrefutably correct in all they say.
My personal bias is to always go with those who know their flaws and weaknesses and operate accordingly.


The idiot will follow his heart and his feeling and yabber watever because his in a state of denial. He denies fact.truth etc

The smart man will do his research, investigate the facts, understand internal and external factors, check property history in uk, region and in particular area and road and then

Carlos
I have to respect you calling me an idiot, because it takes one to know one.
Are you off your meds or something ?
Or are you always this strange and loony ?

melanoma

They do say immitation is the sincerest form of flattery. So feel to keep stealing my lines. In the meantime perhaps you could answer my questions:

How do you and Friedman differ? What school are you and who is in it?

It is myself who should feel honoured.

How do you and Friedman differ? What school are you and who is in it?


By continuing to ask that, you clearly demonstrate that this debate is over your head and that your knowledge of Friedman's theories is superficial.

First of all, I don't feel a need to pigeon-hole economists nor myself as belonging to a particular school. This is not jurisprudence where one must decide what particular article of law applies to a given situation. All schools have some sound ideas, and none have all the answers. I embrace the ideas that make sense to me as opposed to embracing a rigid adherence to the theories of  a particular school, and as a result having to force fit data and analysis to prove predetermined ideas and models. It's the other way around with me but I must admit it requires some effort and something few people display on this forum…….…..critical thinking.

As far as where I differ with Friedman goes, I am a lot better looking, taller and have a full set of blonde hair. Beyond that I don't remember where I posted on this forum that inflation is necessary and the best way to achieve it is by the central bank to steadily and constantly expand the money supply. I'm not sure you are aware but it was Friedman who first made the statement that government can fight deflation by using a helicopter to drop money. I advocate no such nonsense nor do I believe deflation should be feared. Only the banking cartel fears deflation because it destroys their members and exposes the ponzi that today's monetary system really is. That's why they ALWAYS opt for debasing the currency as opposed to letting deflation run it's course. Remember, the outcome is predetermined, the path can be different but central bankers ALWAYS choose the same "print money" path. Just study history.

I can understand however how you can confuse some of the ideas I'm posting with Friedmanism. I too believe in free-market economics and would like to abolish the FED but I also want a much smaller, less intrusive, less controlling government and certainly don't believe in social shock programmes to achieve the economic state nirvana and social panacea that Friedman envisioned in his ideology.

Steve Keen debunked Friedman's monetarism theories in his work, that's why the efforts of the BoJ for the last twenty years, and the FED and the BoE now, to reflate the economy are like pushing on a string. It does though keep zombie banks alive which is truly their only point and interest to begin with. Look into it.

I think all those hours you spent taking a creative writing course would have been better spent on a course is basic economics.

I answered your ill thought question by pointing out, in rather graphic detail, how the thoughts and beliefs that I have been posting on here very greatly from Friedmanism.  Clearly you thought they didn't otherwise you wouldn't have asked the question repeatedly, in what now seems like a failed premature celebration of an "I got you" moment. Yet, you now claim that I haven't told you something you don't already know. I think if we applied the test of a reasonable man, it would be easy to prove that if that was indeed the case then you wouldn't have been repeating your question over and over. Simply you wouldn't have asked it in the first place.

You insist in trying to pigeon-hole me with a particular school of economics. knock yourself out, it's your prerogative. Dropping Steve Keen's name about a half a dozen times on here and even suggesting that you look into his theories, was not enough of a clue for you? Are you also aware that "Austrian" economics has different movements withing the school. You should get someone with an economics degree to explain this stuff to you.

I said it before and I'll say it again, you just know enough to make you dangerous. The real danger is that you don't even realize it.

And yes, I make it a habit to be patronizing to all the members of the "benny the clown halfwit cartel" in which you insist in maintaining a membership, despite your clearly higher intellect than the rest of its loyal members. Not that that is saying much.....

If a BOTTY post appears on here and no one is there to listen to it, does it make a sound?

Can we please stop the myth that  melly has a high intellect!!!!!

he does'nt.

Hes as thick as 2 short planks.Has no opinion of his own , rather its just the same old banging on the mony printing= disaster drum.Thats all hes got, a one trick pony.

He's fond of dropping names- a sure fire sign of insecurity.

Come on posters, take a read of the "wrong for 1100 days  in a row "thread.

ETO- "Despite your patronising tone you haven't told me anything I don't know there and despite your superior tone you haven't posited anything which is revelatory in that passage "

  of course he does'nt tell you anything you don't know- he doesnt know anything that he is told .Thhe guy could'nt read between the lines if it was spelt out for him letter by letter.

He is dumber than dog do do.Thats your pigeon hole melly.

For those who are in any doubt- please find a post where melly got it  right-  go one FIND ONE!.You can't.
You can however find plenty where he claims to be right at some unknown point in the future.

Its a joke that he even posts here in the earnest manner he does.Its even dumber than anyone takes a single word seriously.


I'm like froggy, just give up on this "legend in his own mind''

Ask the turkey about gold over the last week.  He wont say a word  unless it has a few big up days, then he will post " see I told you I was a genius".Give me a break

I'm aware of Keen and have seen him interviewed a few times

That's precisely your problem. You think you understand and know something because you are simply "aware" of it, or someone's complex monetary theories because you watched him interview a few times. Not only claim an understanding if I may add, but also feel qualified enough to comment on it rather loudly on a public forum.

One more time with feeling.....YOU JUST KNOW ENOUGH TO MAKE YOU DANGEROUS. Happens a lot on here......




P.S. Learning words like monetarisism (sic) or modern monetary theory is not enough. You have to demonstrate that you understand what they mean. Clearly from your rants about "Friedmanism", you haven't a clue. I answered your stupid question (Friedman, what school, who's in it blah blah blah) quite succinctly. If you don't understand the answer, it's your problem not mine.

I have no problem with doffing my hat to Menelaus' superior grounding in economics theory.
My problem lies in accepting that he is a better economist than all the others out there who express differing views to his.
Also I have a problem with economists who claim that their theories explain or predict what financial markets are doing in response to all the basic economic data out there.
Their track record on that is abysmal to say the least.

Menelaus

If that is the case then get to it instead of telling everybody about it. What is your prescription for our way out of our current travails?

3 in a row!

By the way I do indeed know that the Austrian school is a very broad church. In fact your hero Keen said he is 75% an Austrian if that definition was to be applied to the work of Schumpeter. What is somewhat amusing given the fact that you think you will be right in the long run but will have lost everything you have on your bad calls until that time is that Schumpeter himself went bankrupt.

Btw EO I think your posts do not need all the smileys.
Why dilute/soften any message to someone so clearly as arrogant as Menelaus is ?

YOU. ARE. TRYING. TOO. HARD.


You posted enough empty, generalized, conflicting, confused and plain wrong diatribe on here, mixed with the occasional "hey, look over there" attempt at misdirection, to establish any sort of credibility with me. Economics is NOT your background. Your knowledge is anecdotal. It shows. You just know enough to be dangerous..........despite the colorful language and all.

What is your prescription for our way out of our current travails


I'll answer you question as if it were a serious one. There is no way out of this crisis without first the system collapsing. When there is not enough organic growth to pay the coupon the ponzi monetary system fails. It was designed that way from the start. Central bankers know that, only fools who post on here evidently still don't.

Massive and unprecedented central bank intervention is creating the illusion that the system is still functional and can be saved. It can't and bright guys like King and Bernanke know it. They are just giving the banking cartel members and their favorite politicians enough time to get on the lifeboats.

Once we get on the other side, for starters:

1. We need sound money, not money that can be conjured out of thin air.

2. We need to turn banks into utilities, not gambling houses.

3. We need to re-balance our relationship with China (and other EMs). We can't afford to continue allowing them to be the world's workshop simply because our global corporations wanted it that way, and benefited from it. Globalization was good for you was a hoax.

4. We need to adjust to a way of life that is consistent with expensive oil. This is probably the toughest part of the transition. The phenomenal growth we have experienced the last 30 years has been on the back of a pyramid of debt and cheap oil. The former collapsed of its own weight, the latter is gone. FOREVER.



If your posts didn't oscillate so much between being semi-intelligent attempting to get some ideas across to simply still being angry trying to get even from being given a lesson in Pavlovian involuntary responses and the psychology of managing perceptions, you'd have a much better chance of getting me to be more patient with you so you could understand this stuff. After all, you are turning out to be a very slow student.

Fine

I think behind the arrogance is a scared little man who is desperately trying not to be found out. Unlike The Great Oz the poor fellow doesn't even have a curtain to hide behind. I was using the smileys so as not to frighten him too much but I will refrain in future. As for him regretting my presence I tend to take a different view which is in keeping with my sobriquet. He surely can't keep rolling the dice trying for a six? Perhaps I will present him with an opportunity to drop the pretence and cut his losses. Is it just feasible that the facade will crumble and we will actually get to the heart of the man and find he is just a big cuddly teddy bear?

I may be the right man at just the right time but just not in the way that he seems to be hoping.

Here you go menelaus. Like I said, Mises said it earlier, more concisely and without the sneer:

There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.

--- " Whereas others sre merely talking about ----"

Chatlame
Because I freely admit that I don't know the answers to all this mess. I just know a few pertinent questions, and I also know that nothing is as certain as Menelaus is implying.
His knowledge of economic theory is not in debate, merely his totally inflexible mehod of applying it to the current crisis.
He might in fact turn out to be proved totally right, but for all our sakes let's earnestly hope not.
I simply do not believe that all current decisions being made by the persons in power are being made in the purely self-interested desire/need to get into the last lifeboats before everything sinks.
A world in total economic despair is not the interests of anybody, banking cartel members or not.

Apparently that phrase " **** this sucker might go down " was what the great George W. said when first being briefed on the current financial crisis.
Sounds about right to me.