Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. Okay.
2. Wrong. You can't read. Here's a tip: Do not try to hang me, or anyone else on this board, with improper use of vocabulary. First, we're lawyers, and this being the default retort we see everyday from those who have no substance to add to a discussion, or who are unable to grasp what's being said, and feel insecure about it, it achieves the opposite of the desired result. Second, it reinforces the perception you are a narrow thinker who can almost never grasp the big picture, or how any of the pieces work in concert, and is only capable of focusing on finite issues, and criticizing small points. Third, it reinforces the perception much of what you post derives from some bizarre compulsion to reply to everything, even if you've nothing to add.
Don't reply to this. Let it soak in. Walk away from the keyboard and think, because I am not the first person to flag you for this. But I'd like to be the last, because it's really fucking annoying to have to do it.
|
While we are recommending deep reflection, perhaps you should consider why you view all conversation among friends/acquaintances as an adversarial conflict. And why you constantly see others as "trying to hang you" or using "lawyer tricks" in ways you consider unfair.
Perhaps you know what "multiplier" means, but rather like your idiosyncratic usage of "structural" and whatever other word (inflation?), you, Ty and I went back and forth over for days before we fleshed out that you didn't mean what everyone else means when they say it, you keep saying things that don't make sense as stated.
Your response here was particularly enlightening. Delong was talking about infrastructure spending and laid out two types of multiplier effects -- the effects resulting from employed people having money to spend and the effects of more commerce resulting from private enterprise using the infrastructure the government bought. You ignored/denied the latter and focused on the former to fit your notion of fading.
And, of course, this isn't our first conversation. In the past, when stimulus spending was on the table as a potential policy response, you questioned the first kind of multiplier, criticizing the ARRA because the only good multiplier is the kind that creates value that the private sector could use. Now you take opposite position, insisting that the only multiplier is that resulting from putting money in pockets, which necessarily fades.
I could have written all that, but because I assume you know when you are being full of shit, sometimes it's tiresome to lay it all out.
