yeah, you got that right fumducker (look it up, it's another Mongolese idiom, along with 'phuqueing'), and heavy on the "OLD"!

You can stop trolling, Stucki, and endeavor to be a human now. You've flung enough "invented" pedantic poo and shoveled enough dirt already that it's deep enough for your impending burial should the need arise. :)

yeah, you got that right fumducker (look it up, it's another Mongolese idiom, along with 'phuqueing'), and heavy on the "OLD"!

There was nothing to "look up", dimwit, I coined it, as in 'invented'. If you weren't so brain-dead, you'd recognize when people are 'putting you on', as the saying goes.

Oh, look... an angry old man with declining mental faculties calling me "brain-dead"... such precious projection and painfully slow on the uptake. It's a rather unfortunate fact that the trolling types on this blog seem to share the characteristics of reading comprehension issues as well as the propensity to spew "invented" BS. As I already stated in my comment:

"claiming that others should be able to recognize your bastardized "Mongolese" [not a word] cursing is quite a load of nonsensical bullshit... even for you."

Let us all know what part of the statement "not a word" has confused you and which one of the words "nonsensical bullshit" you need explained and spoon-fed to you like a toddler.

Several of us in the comments section had you and your pedantic bullshit pegged exactly right; thank you ever so much for your written admission, and we're going to go with "fucking moron" for you, Stucki, because it quite obviously suits you. :)

Re "Too retarded to look it (Mongolese) up."

There was nothing to "look up", dimwit, I coined it, as in 'invented'. If you weren't so brain-dead, you'd recognize when people are 'putting you on', as the saying goes.

Yup, you are right. The Cyrillic shows up in both the reply box when copied over and in the preview but only question marks when posted...

I found out when I was "speaking" Russian one day. I spoke it beautifully into my voice recognition software, and it looked wonderful written in the comment box... until I posted it.

Izvini! Prosti!

Well, at least we learned something in this thread. Heh...

Da. Odnogo jazyka nikogda nedostatocno. :)

Well, at least we learned something in this thread. Heh...

While I understand you can't exactly use Cyrillic in CW's comment section

Well, lets just test that out:

Mongolian word for fucking is: ??????????

Authors do not generally manufacture books. Authors write the text, and the actual books are manufactured/produced by publishers.

More deflection from you? The subject you keep avoiding is your statement that capitalism was about making "THINGS, not money," and I'm still waiting for your answer to what planet you're living on where a book is not a thing. You were talking about people buying Wolff's book to "make Wolff rich," and I did my best impression of you and claimed you hated and didn't understand capitalism. Whereupon you started your typical hair-splitting exercises trying to prove it had nothing to do with capitalism.

I realize that's way too technical for the average shithead ignorant bitch, but try to grasp the concept best you're capable.

Blah, blah, blah... all that garbage there does is let me know that you're an angry old man. Thank you for letting me know; it is ever so helpful and not remotely unexpected. :)

If you weren't such a foul-mouthed quasi-illiterate ass hole, you'd know that "phuqueing" is a Mongolese word pronounced 'few-KAY-ing', not "fucking". It of course translates into English as 'fucking'!

You mad bro? *LOL* I regret to inform you, however, that "Mongolese" is not actually a real word. I can see why you'd actually screw this up because of "China/Chinese," but no. Insisting that a word is "Mongolese" is like claiming that "bueno" is "Mexicanese" or "Spanishese"... Duh.

I'm guessing you maybe meant "Mongolian," which hasn't generally used the Latin/Roman alphabet for about eight decades but is written using the Cyrillic alphabet.

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/mongolian.htm

While I understand you can't exactly use Cyrillic in CW's comment section, claiming that others should be able to recognize your bastardized "Mongolese" [not a word] cursing is quite a load of nonsensical bullshit... even for you. Anyway, for future reference, "Mongolese" is NOT a word... perhaps you were just too retarded to look it up.

And if you weren't too retarded to look it up, you'd know that 'profit' and 'profiting' have dual definitions, the one commonly utilized by laymen, er I mean 'layPEOPLE' so you can't scream 'sexism,, and another, more technical, employed by professional economists in the process of economic analysis.

Once again and for effect, Bashi is absolutely correct: "How is it not just being pedantic with terminology?" We accept your admission that you're a "moron"... you can pick your own descriptive adjective, but I'd still seriously consider you go with "fucking moron"... in whatever language you choose... since you twisted yourself into a pretzel insisting that my use of the term "profits" in my comment was meant to be the technical use, which is utter nonsense, while naturally claiming that your use of the term wasn't.

You seeing your problem yet? Because I can assure you from the comments I've read that Neil and Bashi are seeing it, and I'd wager that most likely everyone else here is seeing it very clearly with the exception of you. :)

Authors do not generally manufacture books. Authors write the text, and the actual books are manufactured/produced by publishers. I realize that's way too technical for the average shithead ignorant bitch, but try to grasp the concept best you're capable.

If you weren't such a foul-mouthed quasi-illiterate ass hole, you'd know that "phuqueing" is a Mongolese word pronounced 'few-KAY-ing', not "fucking". It of course translates into English as 'fucking'!

And if you weren't too retarded to look it up, you'd know that 'profit' and 'profiting' have dual definitions, the one commonly utilized by laymen, er I mean 'layPEOPLE' so you can't scream 'sexism,, and another, more technical, employed by professional economists in the process of economic analysis.

Nice try, Stucki, but you've simply mischaracterized what I said... as you so often do... in order to keep up your bullshit argument wherein you actually stated that capitalism is about making "THINGS, not 'money'"... your exact words.

When an author writes a book and people buy it, economists say he has realized "earnings", basically equivalent to the wages that the capitalist's employees earn.

If you want to refer to wage and salary type earnings, such as the writer's income as "profit", as many laymen and certain borderline morons on this forum are want to do, feel free.

Okay, first, since you're always such an asshole about terminology, it's NOT "are want to do"... it's "are wont to do." If you're going to lecture everyone on terminology, then surely you won't mind my pointing that out.

Second, we here accept your admission that you're a "borderline moron," but we would actually go further and classify you as a fucking* moron since it was you... in fact... who described the money Wolff was making as "profiting":

Capitalism is about employing 'capital' (people's savings) in order to Make THINGS, not "money"! No capital involved in writing a book, especially a book that is the literary equivalent of checkout-stand scandal mags. However, I have no objection to Wolff profiting from his efforts, as long as I don't have to contribute. ~ C. R. Stucki {emphasis mine}

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/01/05/ftp466/#comment-113468

The fact is, you were whining about people buying Wolff's book and him writing a book in order to "make Wolff rich," and I did my best impression of you and stated that you Dum/Libers hated and didn't understand capitalism... and then you started your pretty standard bullshit, which I quoted above. I'm still waiting for your answer as to what planet you're living on where a book is not a "THING."

Bashi is exactly right in saying your bullshit is "just being pedantic with terminology," and therein lies your problem, Stucki. You spend so much time spewing poo and bending yourself into a pretzel hounding people on this blog, calling them "ignorant" and continually moving the goalposts, pointing your finger and trolling, that it was only a matter of time until you twisted yourself up so far that your finger is pointing squarely in your own direction and implicating yourself.
_______________

* Please note the correct spelling is "fucking"... not "phuqueing." If you're going to curse and also continually take issue with terminology, Stucki, at least have the decency to spell the words correctly, otherwise you'll appear hypocritical, petty, and fucking illiterate. :)

Yes it is. Calling an entire class of people stupid is definitely an insult and I held back the profanity to quite some degree from my initial reaction.

No, you're NOT "following my lead", but if you want to back off from the ad hominem in favor of more "decorum', I'm totally agreeable, but you may have to shed whatever hypersensitivity leads you to interpret "liberals can't understand" as a personal insult.

You first. To a liberal, "liberals can't understand" is a text book ad hominem. And I'm probably not the only one here who took it as such. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. You insult me, right back at you.

The income of the self-employed author, regardless of how much it is, is not normally considered "profit" for purposes of economic analysis, because his gross income and net income are all the same thing.

How is not just being pedantic with terminology? I've been in plenty of manufacturing situations where contract, that is self employed, designers and engineers are brought in to work on a product. Why are classically designated "artists" treated different under your economic theories?

So, you equate me telling you that "liberals can't understand" (something I doubt I ever exactly said, although admittedly likely something comparable) with you telling me I'm "full of shit"??? "Liberals can't understand" is hardly even an insult, and for damn sure, not a personal insult.

No, you're NOT "following my lead", but if you want to back off from the ad hominem in favor of more "decorum', I'm totally agreeable, but you may have to shed whatever hypersensitivity leads you to interpret "liberals can't understand" as a personal insult.

Re your question, "What is the difference . . ." My point is that writers are normally self-employed, not even employees of the publishing house. The publishing house definitely qualifies as a capitalist venture, whose net income (if in excess of overhead and expense) is "profit" in the sense of normal economic analysis. The income of the self-employed author, regardless of how much it is, is not normally considered "profit" for purposes of economic analysis, because his gross income and net income are all the same thing.

(And for gawdsake, PLEASE don't tell me he has to cover the expense of his computer. Pretend he writes his prose longhand on old newspapers.)

First, you are the one who started out with the insults with the "liberals can't understand" BS. Are you really going with half the population, including Ph.Ds in many subjects including economics can't understand what you are talking about? Really? Tell you what, drop the pomp and I'll bring in more decorum. YOU started this.

Second, what is the difference between bringing in a contract product designer and a writer in your economic theory?

However, don't think you have to hold back on account of that. If you're bent on revealing yourself publicly as the officious asshole you seem to be, have at it.

Just following your lead...

So do you have anything beyond a personal attack to make there, like a specific point?

Are you trying to tell me that economists of any school whatsoever normally equate the "incomes" or "earnings" of authors with the "profits" of entrepreneurs, for purposes of economic analysis?

If you're so phuqueing dumb that you think author's incomes constitute 'profits' in the economist's sense simply because they are 'money coming in', you need to find somebody else to insult.

However, don't think you have to hold back on account of that. If you're bent on revealing yourself publicly as the officious asshole you seem to be, have at it.

Having worked in both manufacturing and publishing, you are so full of shit. That may be your ivory tower view, but down in the trenches you have a creative, that can be a writer or product designer(s), then you have implementation which is usually an engineer or graphic designer followed by production. And in most cases each of these rolls have teams rather than individuals. There is very little difference between a book, car or any other marketable product, just a different balance of the work load for the different rolls. And a very similar process exists for digital goods.

I think I have figured you out. Long ago I argued and followed the arguments of the Ron Paulites and their devotion to the Austrian school of economics. You are showing the same behavior. I have no doubt you have studied economics extensively but it seems you have devoted yourself to a single school and can't seem to grasp the limitation thereof. Schools of thought, whether economics or philosophy or any subject really, like to have very rigid definitions of terms in order to help explain the overall theory. Your mistake is to assume that rigid definition is universal and works with other schools of thought within the same subject and it just doesn't.

The question is: what economic school of thought are you devoted to? Beyond the anti-liberal pompous bullshit and the need to inflict your personal definition of terms, you have not really said much on the subject of economics...

When a 'capitalist' employs capital, land and labor
to produce something that people can consume (goods or services) and those goods and services are worth more than are the resources he consumed in the production thereof, we (economists) say he has earned a "profit".

When an author writes a book and people buy it, economists say he has realized "earnings", basically equivalent to the wages that the capitalist's employees earn.

If you want to refer to wage and salary type earnings, such as the writer's income as "profit", as many laymen and certain borderline morons on this forum are want to do, feel free.

We missed the most obvious choice....Putin!

I can think of a considerable number of things to be known in the world other than the three economic subjects of inflation, CDS's and CDO's. For instance, we've never even discussed raising geraniums, nuclear physics, nor ancient Chinese pottery!!!

You ignorant doddering old fool, did you forget that this is a political forum? If you'd like to troll people about how ignorant they are about flowers and pots, you're in the wrong place. :p

Yep... you've quite obviously got a bad case of CRS disease. I said it before, and I'll say it again: Your initials suit you.

Sorry, I don't see how it is you justify making that giant leap from the fact that I very likely DO know more about the handful of specific things we have discussed on this forum, which happened to be within my area of interest and expertise, to the conclusion that I therefore "think I have nothing left to learn".

I can think of a considerable number of things to be known in the world other than the three economic subjects of inflation, CDS's and CDO's. For instance, we've never even discussed raising geraniums, nuclear physics, nor ancient Chinese pottery!!!

Unable to follow your reasoning in arriving at your totally unjustified conclusion.

Frankly sad that you think you have nothing more to learn because you've already decided you know more than everybody on this board.

On you.

Exactly right. :)

I'm still waiting for Stucki's explanation of how Wolff writing a book in order to "make Wolff rich" is not "about capitalism." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the concept that intellectual property is indeed a THING that can be produced and sold to the masses. Part of the production of the intellectual property is not only the book binding, etc., but also ... indeed... the creation of that intellectual property, which is commonly referred to as "writing."

Capitalism is "production for exchange" driven by the desire for personal accumulation of money, and it's really NOT all that complicated a concept unless you're trying to make it seem that way. So Stucki declaring that capitalism is about making "THINGS, not 'money'" might actually qualify as the dumbest thing I have read on this blog. We've had the argument twice now, wherein I have to explain to Stucki that intangible things can be produced and sold for profit; however, he doesn't seem to be grasping the concept. Perhaps his intellect is simply firmly planted in last century concepts.

Best take care, Stucki, to remember the elementary aspects of things combined with 21st century innovations rather than focusing so hard on your trolling that you forget. :)

Frankly sad that you think you have nothing more to learn because you've already decided you know more than everybody on this board.

On you.

Not so much a case of "Intelligent vs. ignorant", more like 'Knowledgeable vs ignorant'. I've spent a lot of time and effort studying this kind of stuff, and seem to have more interest or maybe aptitude for it than most people. Sorry if that offends you, but not sorry enough to let people justify their ideological/philosophical leanings with bogus economic justification for irrational political conclusions.

Not sure how within the parameters of a political blog, we're going to find non-political, non-economic topics that constitute "interesting things" to discuss, unless you happen to be a fisherma, Oops, SORRY, fisherPERSON!

#2 I think Donald Trump was onto something when he said during the first presidential debate that “we’re in a big, fat ugly bubble.”

https://youtu.be/4xn9jLy_TB4?t=59s

Listen to the blowhard, Neil, and please tell me what you think BLOTUS is going to do about it except blame Barack Obama when it bursts? The good news is that Trump has claimed the stock market as his own now... so there's that. :)

Why don't you drop the "I'm intelligent and you are all ignorant" attitude and maybe we can find interesting things to discuss.

Michale is a lost cause, but he's my friend so I put up with a lot from him, and I expect the reverse is also true.

#1 Here is something that I think Ann Coulter got right a couple of days ago:

Close Trump friend Tom Barrack told the author Trump isn't just crazy but also stupid. Coulter said Americans don't care, he was elected to deliver on immigration, trade, and "no more pointless wars."

I think she is right. And, even though I strongly disagree, at least the TPP action was what he said he was going to do.

#2 I think Donald Trump was onto something when he said during the first presidential debate that “we’re in a big, fat ugly bubble.”

Unfair?

See: http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/01/05/ftp466/#comment-113539

;)

One of the old texts I looked up uses the term "inflation of prices" (bottom of page 564, see link below).

It seems very pedantic to limit the meaning of inflation up to the 1960s to mean only the cause (inflation of money supply) when in 1894 the term was in use with respect to prices.

Dictionary of Political Economy, Volume 1
edited by Sir Robert Harry Inglis Palgrave, 1894

https://books.google.com/books?id=byjUAAAAMAAJ&dq=dictionary%20of%20economics&pg=PA564#v=onepage

1) Can you point us to a history of the word "inflation" in economics and show the migration in meaning from focusing only on the cause (inflation of money supply) to the effect (price increases)?

Wolff's lawyer totally eviscerates Trump's argument too. I posted a link to an article that posted the entire correspondence, but the filter ate it. :)

1) We have had a huge increase in money supply with Q.E. I, II, III, etc.

Why haven't we had price increases?

2) CDS - i.e. you mean a way of transferring risk?

I know, right! Elizabeth McNamara from the firm Davis Wright Tremaine, representing the rat Wolff and his publisher Henry Holt really eviscerates them too. Excerpts from the letter:

* "Though your letter provides a basic summary of New York libel law, tellingly, it stops short of identifying a single statement in the book that is factually false or defamatory," McNamara wrote. "Instead, the letter appears to be designed to silence legitimate criticism. This is the antithesis of an actionable libel claim."

* "The law treats sources like Mr. Bannon as adults, and it is Mr. Bannon's responsibility — not Henry Holt's or Mr. Wolff's — to honor any contractual obligations," the letter explained, calling Harder's argument "a perversion of contract law" that "[n]o court would support."

* One weakness that Wolff did appear to have stems from an admission in his prologue that some of his sources contradicted each other, and in some cases lied, leaving him to piece together what he believed to be the truth. An analysis of what that could mean can be found here, but McNamara defended this, saying:

... Mr. Wolff responsibly tells his readers his approach to confronting the well-established reality that many in this administration, most prominently the President, routinely traffic in verifiably false statements. Thus, Mr. Wolff explains how he attempted to reconcile conflicting accounts. [emphasis mine]

http://ussanews.com/News1/2018/01/08/patently-ridiculous-michael-wolffs-lawyer-rips-trump-legal-threat-to-shreds-in-response-letter/
_______________________

There's a copy of the entire letter posted at the link above if anyone is interested in the painful truth facing Trump in his efforts to silence and American citizen.

Say hello to the First Amendment... ain't karma a witch? :)

That's where we are today: a Putin-d!ck-licking orange man trying to suppress a book because it makes him look bad, and a publisher telling him to pound sand.
Kudos to John Sargent, President of Macmillan Publishers.

"Yet another. Get each one of Trump's ex-wives to do it. I am sure Ivana and Marla would be thrilled.

This is what passes for intellectual discussions around here..

No wonder we have President Trump.... :^/"

Exactly. If you wanted intellectual discussion, then you should have elected Hillary! BWHAAAAAAAA! :-)

Yeah, that's the ticket! instead of actually making Mexico pay for it with THEIR money, we'll make them pay for it with AMERICAN money that we simply withhold from giving them. Same thing with remittances. Why make them pay for the wall with MEXICAN money created inside MEXICO, when we can do it with AMERICAN money made inside the UNITED STATES instead! Only in TRUMP WORLD does that perfectly LOGICAL sense!

Now, now, John M, the Trump sycophants and uneducated morons have bought "all in" to the utter nonsensical bullshit that withholding American taxpayers' money from Mexico would be the equivalent of making Mexico pay for the wall because their Orange Worship said it would.

Then people like you have the temerity to come along and state the completely obvious, revealing how utterly stupid they are and their total inability to reason... AND you're only going to confuse them. :)

This is what passes for intellectual discussions around here..

No wonder we have President Trump.... :^/

"I wonder if Hillary would be willing to do the audiobook for Fire & Fury?"

Yet another. Get each one of Trump's ex-wives to do it. I am sure Ivana and Marla would be thrilled.

I'd have thought you'd be fully aware of most of that from previous discussions, but hey, I aim to please.

1. The classical and historical definition of inflation, up until perhaps 50 yrs ago, was "An unwarranted increase in the money supply, resulting in general price rises." (The "unwarranted" meant 'out of proportion to the current level of GNP, (we now call it GDP) economic output, or comparable measures).

As a result of the extraordinarily and unprecedentedly (for the U.S. at least) high level of monetary inflation caused by fighting wars with newly-printed money rather than taxation in the decade of the '60's, which produced unprecedented high levels of price inflation, the term pretty much evolved in popular understanding from the cause (monetary inflation) to the effect (price inflation), an unfortunate result because it led to near total ignorance of the reality of what was actually happening.

2. CDS's ("Credit Default Swaps") are essentially insurance policies against the risk of bond default, with the very important distinction that the sellers are (or at least were) willing to sell such insurance to people who had no financial interest/ownership in the underlying equities, thus rendering them a prime vehicle for financial speculation (aka gambling, for Dems/Libs).

2. CDO's (Collateralized Debt Obligations) are bonds created by bundling/packaging hundreds/thousands of retail mortgages to be offered for sale to retail investors, banks mutual funds, etc.

3. I don't even have a guess.

Once again, Victoria threatens the DOX instead of having a valid rebuttal argument...

And once again and as always, YOU LIE. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to dox the ignorant fools that are stupid enough to make comments wherein they volunteer their personal information all by themselves.

Pointing out the level of the ignorance of a board troll and the FACT that they fabricate on a regular basis is all the proof I need at the moment, but I am certainly amenable to posting the links to your comments wherein you reveal your identity if you'd like more "valid rebuttal argument." :)

"I wonder if Hillary would be willing to do the audiobook for Fire & Fury?"

How about all the women who have accused Trump of sexual harassment? They could all take turns reading passages.

"I wonder if Hillary would be willing to do the audiobook for Fire & Fury?"

Here's another. How about Obama doing the voice over?

"I wonder if Hillary would be willing to do the audiobook for Fire & Fury?"

How about Alec Baldwin doing it as Trump? This could be fun! Any other suggestions?

1. What is inflation?
2. What are CDSs? CDOs?
3. Do you think Bitcoin is a fad that will crash?

1. What is inflation?
2. What are CDSs? CDOs?
3. Do you think Bitcoin is a fad that will crash?

Re You don't expect anything 'cause you think I'm afraid to be contradicted or proven wrong.

Do you expect me to volunteer something out of the blue? If you want me to explain something you don't understand, you need only ask. I've no fear of being contradicted or proven wrong. Go ahead and suggest/ask, but make it concrete, I don't debate ideology, religion, etc, where there's no right or wrong.

You are a star, CRS!

:)

Once again, Victoria threatens the DOX instead of having a valid rebuttal argument...

Typical....

And yet, you still keep trying to prove him wrong.. :D

And you FAIL every time.. :D

Two full time trolls on the board - Michale and CRS.

Those who make personal and immature personal attacks have no argument.. :D

The ignorant old fool already exposed himself by supplying enough information that revealed his identity. Ignorance, sophistry, and fabrication are just a few of the things the trolls on this board have in common. :)

By that criterion, however invalid, I'm doing great, right?

Michale at least pays-for-play (what was your number this year Michale?)

CRS is just trying to be smart by smug little comments that he things gets a rise from us.

You have not proved any insight or understanding yourself. Just that you think I don't know what I'm talking about.

Try to understand the difference.

Nobody is impressed with your understanding of economics, capital markets, etc. because you don't demonstrate any understanding - only your opinion of everybody else.

I don't expect anything, because, frankly, if you ever did put anything on the record you would be open to questions and counter points that might expose your lack of knowledge.

Thus you are trolling, and it is boring. And sad. But mostly boring.

Says the guy (again) who has demonstrated that the extent of his understanding of financial derivatives is that they are simply a manifestation of Wall St greed, and the same guy who admits that it never occurred to him that price inflation is the result of currency inflation (unwarranted expansion of the money supply)

Rest my case.

Boring.

All we get from ya'all is name-calling and NO FACTS....

Telling....

Understanding ya'all's Party slavery explains PERFECTLY where ya'all are coming from...

I never said it would help with economics. I said it might help you with understanding what other people are saying, instead of simply projecting your own ideas into what you thought they said.

All we get is how smart s/he is and ignorant everybody else is. Classic troll behavior.

Boring.

"Wall St traders are NOT 'making money' (in the sense of manufacturing it), they are providing a SERVICE, (which, along with 'goods', is the other half of making THINGS which people can consume to improve their lives), and obviously they do so in the hope that their efforts will produce a profit, which leads to the near-universal misunderstanding of damn near everybody about the nature of 'money' and 'making money'."

By your own "definition" of "capitalism" that you used earlier, (Capitalism is about employing capital, people's savings, in order to make THINGS, not money) which is what I was addressing, a "service" does not fall under "capitalism" as it is NOT a "tangible" "manufactured good."

Suddenly it was you who changed the meaning of what you said previously, so that providing a SERVICE becomes the other half of making THINGS. Yet another example of moving the goalposts.

Wall Street Traders are not "creating" money that did not previously exist. They are taking a percentage of that money for the service of moving or transferring that money around, period.

If you think an understanding of the principles of Economics can be had by studying English (and PARTICULARLY "colloquial English"), that no doubt explains why you have none. Colloquial English most likely FOSTERS misunderstanding of most things.

Like I said..

*NO FACTS*.. Just Party slavery and immature personal attacks..

You mean, like when Odumbo pointed to glaciers melting in summer as "proof" that Humans Cause Global Warming is real???

You don't get it, JM... You have absolutely NO FACTS to stand on.. All you have is spin and Party slavery...

"Don't feel bad if this stuff is over your head, it's also over damn near everybody else's head, although I never could understand why."

For someone who keeps saying that, you sure have a poor understanding of the use of colloquial English or the venacular as in the phrase "making money" as it is widely understood by everybody else. Perhaps you should go back and do a review of English grammar?

So if I simply post a link to a map showing summertime temperatures in the USA, that would be equally as valid as proof in SUPPORT of global warming right? Ok, GOT IT!

Because their Party slavery won't allow them to acknowledge facts and reality..

That's why they felliate the author of an Anti-Trump book, even though the author himself says that the book is bullshit...

Dumbocrat's response to that is a NAZI-chic selfie

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DS44S_RXcAAeIQw.jpg

Dumbocrats... What morons....

Dumbocrat's response to that is a NAZI-chic selfie

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DS44S_RXcAAeIQw.jpg

Dumbocrats... What morons....

Another egregious mis-reading of the realities of economics.

Wall St traders are NOT 'making money' (in the sense of manufacturing it), they are providing a SERVICE, (which, along with 'goods', is the other half of making THINGS which people can consume to improve their lives), and obviously they do so in the hope that their efforts will produce a profit, which leads to the near-universal misunderstanding of damn near everybody about the nature of 'money' and 'making money'.

Don't feel bad if this stuff is over your head, it's also over damn near everybody else's head, although I never could understand why.

Yea, that's the PARTY UBER ALLES explanation..

For those NOT enslaved by Party ideology, the answer is quite different..

Ya'all got yer asses kicked and now yer whining like little biatches with butt-hurt... :D

Meanwhile, a happy tale about a nazi being exposed by students and losing his job: http://www.newsweek.com/alt-right-maryland-teacher-gregory-conte-fired-after-identity-white-773708

"Once things get rolling, it will be easy to make Mexico pay for the wall... Start docking Mexico's aid unless we see some tangible effort by a RESPONSIBLE government.."

Yeah, that's the ticket! instead of actually making Mexico pay for it with THEIR money, we'll make them pay for it with AMERICAN money that we simply withhold from giving them. Same thing with remittances. Why make them pay for the wall with MEXICAN money created inside MEXICO, when we can do it with AMERICAN money made inside the UNITED STATES instead! Only in TRUMP WORLD does that perfectly LOGICAL sense!

"Is there anything President Trump CAN'T do!!! :D"

Apparently not. Since he can be just as illiterate as you apparently are.

Egregious economic ignorance. Capitalism is about employing 'capital' (people's savings) in order to Make THINGS, not "money"! No capital involved in writing

Too bad then that what most right wingers tout as our "entrepreneurial" class are actually company CEO's and traders on Wall Street who are far more interested in making "money" rather than "things." Otherwise things like dividends to shareholders and stock prices would not take on such importance in their minds to the exclusion of everything else.

You gotta understand something about Neil and the other Weigantians..

Their thoughts are *TOTALLY* ruled by their Party slavery..

They have no independent thoughts of their own.. The Party supplies ALL their thoughts...

I made no claim on that one way or the other...

Michale is still ducking the value of the Wall vs. holding CEOs and ranch owners responsible for hiring illegal immigrants.

Really??

Because it's clear I said above "You are correct.. Faithful enforcement of those laws WOULD reduce illegal immigration considerably..."

Once again, the facts totally refute your BS fact-less claims..

Enforce the laws of the land first, Michale. Your panties are in a knot over sanctuary cities,

I never even mentioned sanctuary cities. You did..

Once again, we have your hysterical bullshit and we have MY facts...

Says the guy (?) to whom "It never occurred that price inflation is actually overwhelmingly the result of currency inflation"!!!, something that for most folks falls into the same category as 'the sun rises in the east', and 'self-proclaimed geniuses usually are actually dolts"!!!

Instead he wants to spend billions of our tax money on border control - walls, more ICE agents, lawyers, etc.

Enforce the laws of the land first, Michale. Your panties are in a knot over sanctuary cities, but you don't want effective enforcement of your own types.

It is a fact that women are ignorant about economics, Michale?

I think when you get called on the FACTS you resort to cheap name-calling and childish personal attacks...

Facts support my thoughts and not yours.. :D

One more of Michale's deflections when left in the intellectual dust.

Says the guy who resorts to name-calling and personal attacks when his ass is intellectually kicked.. :D

Once again.. We are in complete agreement... :D

One more of Michale's deflections when left in the intellectual dust.

I think Kick and the rest of us can spot a cheap little troll when we see it.

Disappointed CRS turned out to be so weak minded.

Not particularly surprised however, s/he had been very vocal on their own expertise on economics never could explain anything or demonstrate any errors in anybody else's points.

Sad.

Once again.. We are in complete agreement... :D

If 45 can get Mexico to build a giant wooden rabbit and pay for it, I couldn't care less.

I don't think the wall will make much difference to illegal immigration.

For example, over 50% of illegal immigrants flew into the U.S. then overstayed their welcome. But they tend to be whiter than the ones that walk across the border, so for some reason not so important.

CRS is right, perp walk 2-3 CEOs and 90% of the problem will disappear. It would take one quarter, a small ICE team and then ICE could be significantly shrunk and most of the agents laid off.

Where do you think the real problem with immigration control is?

The wall?

You keep believing Michale.

Oh please please PLEASE run an ANTI-TRUMP-NOTHING-ELSE stragety in 2018, Dems..

PLEASE.....

NOTHING will guarantee a larger GOP majority than that... :D

OOOOOOooooooo yer gonna burn for that one!!!! :D

hehehehehehe

Funny...

You telling me 'Kick' is the pseudonym of a person of the feminine persuasion??? Well, THAT explains the economic ignorance problem!! Shoulda known!

I disagree.. California put up a borderwall and illegal immigration was reduced by 92%...

If we really don't want Mexican/Latin Am immigrants, we could solve the problem in a minute by making it illegal to hire them.

It already is.. But it's not enforced..

You are correct.. Faithful enforcement of those laws WOULD reduce illegal immigration considerably...

The wall is mostly a hopeless cosmetic effort to restrict immigration. It constitutes anti-immigration "theater", the exact equivalent of the "security theater" function Homeland Security performs at airports. And the expenditure of $billions on a wall would not significantly alter that situation.

If we really don't want Mexican/Latin Am immigrants, we could solve the problem in a minute by making it illegal to hire them. Perhaps that means we really do want them???

BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Between that and the foreign aid to Mexico the US generously gives every year, that wall will be paid down in no time! :D

Soooo...

You don't have ANY problem with the wall???

You just want to make sure Mexico pays for it..

Kudos, Neil... You are one step closer to being a Trump supporter... :D

Do you know how the government "gets" people to pay back GI Bill loans when they are delinquent??

Think about it.. It'll come to you.. :D

Victoria??? She's a girl....

Not a single person in the entire world who actually is a genius, or even qualifies as "smart", would ever proclaim such on his own behalf!

Yea... Brilliant people are NEVER egotistical... :D

Are you sure you aren't from the afore mentioned Mirror Universe?? :D

It's working out great so far.. :D

Once things get rolling, it will be easy to make Mexico pay for the wall... Start docking Mexico's aid unless we see some tangible effort by a RESPONSIBLE government..

May take a few decades to do it, but hay... Not much different than a mortgage... :D

Nice ST:ENTERPRISE tie in ST:DISCOVERY had in the mid-season premiere...

Discovery is really getting so good, the CANON issues don't much bother me anymore...

Yeah, he gets Mexico to pay for the wall like he promised and I'd agree to that.

45: "Whose going to pay for the wall?"

Believers: "Mexico"

45: "I can't hear you"

Believers: "MEXICO!"

How's that working out, Michale-the-Believer?

Well, I agree with that, even though I'm surprised you have finally come round to reality.

Hysterical Trumpers also believe that 45 isn't a serial liar even though there is a super abundance of evidence (almost 2,000 lies since the inauguration for Pete's sake).

Hysterical Trumpers also don't read books but are experts in every page ;)