Which of you twits...

[Dauphin]

Vera Duckworth does it for you?

[Provost Harrison]

I'm more of a Hilda Ogden man...

[Cort Haus]

Duckworth Lewis

[Egbert]

Question: was I referring to you, me, or both?

Your original post was not subtle but it was disengenious.

As you know I google searched your business profile and left a "calling card".

Why did I think of google searching you? I saw in a thread in which a number of forumites googled another forumite whom they considered to be a jackass. Thus the idea of googling a jacjkass entered my head.

Your argument with danubbis was conducted as a young student might quote from a weighty textbook without really understanding his text or the context in which he was applying that text. (This was actually what prompted me to check your credentials). You appear to hold yourself out as an having expertise in respect to economic and financial matters. I was curious about your credentials. You have no qualifications relevant to finance or economics. You have 9 months experience in the finance industry in a back room job. You do not have the credentials, or the expertise, to back up your mouth.

It appears that you have an entry level backroom job at Goldman Sachs as an analyst and you seem to be pretending to have some sort of Gordon Gecko style job.

It turns out you are a puffed up little rooster.

Anybody can google you and check for themselves.

[Al B. Sure!]

Yeah, FYI, Braindead, Genius Clique members KrazyHorse and Kuciwalker do not have any financial or economics academic background. They haven't even taken any college courses in the subjects, something which they have both expressed pride in. KH does have a PhD in Physics, though, so he's mathematically astute and he presumably is more than capable of learning stuff on his own.

What I question though is the fact that I think learning economics on their own has caused them to be very one-sided in their understanding. I've taken a crapload of economics courses and with economics professors coming from diverse economics backgrounds and therefore constantly contradicting each other, I came away from all my courses with an almost deconstructionist view of economics in which there are no absolutes, ideas like et ceteris paribus, endogeneity, and homo economicus are completely meaningless, and therefore, statements taken as fact by KH and Kuci like "Increases in minimum wage decrease employment" are only absolutely true under conditions which do not exist and the same economic policy can have widely different outcomes in even similar situations. My attitude is increases in minimum wage should decrease employment if the world followed simplistic economic theory but since it does not, we have things like Card & Krueger's famous study in which an increase in minimum wages increased employment. There are just so many exogenous factors at work (not to mention prevalent human economic irrationality) that blanket statements like they make are meaningless.

There were a few times where Kuci's lack of a financial background was apparent when he didn't know even basic 101-level stuff (like capital losses being tax-deductible, the existence of TIPS or tax-free muni bonds), but I have yet to see or notice KH demonstrate such low-level ignorance.

[Aeson]

You should dig a bit deeper to get to the really important information. KrazyHorse is a MMA fighter who designs custom choppers. :thanksgoogle:

Choppers and babes... badass!


Although his fighting style leaves me wondering if perhaps the babes are just for show...

[Egbert]

Is KH thje one taking up the backside?
Or is he the one giving it?

[Kuciwalker]

Basically, AS took a bunch of econ classes, wasn't smart enough to understand them, and came away thinking that the entire subject must be meaningless.

There were a few times where Kuci's lack of a financial background was apparent when he didn't know even basic 101-level stuff (like capital losses being tax-deductible, the existence of TRIPS or tax-free muni bonds)

You keep repeating this, which is weird because I knew all of those things, they were just completely irrelevant to the topic.

[Egbert]

Albie, KH doesn't seem to understand the concept of "ceteris paribus", that's just for starters.

He has a lot of trouble with "simplifying assumptions".

OTH He is highly experienced at arguing "you f*cking moron" until the other person gets sick of it and goes away. He then thinks he won the argument.

To give him credit he is highly intelligent in some rather narrow intellectual ways but mind boggling daft in other ways.

[Al B. Sure!]

Don't make me do it, Kuci. I can go back and get the quotes. They were definitely relevant. In the capital losses case, we were specifically talking about the capital gains tax and you repeatedly told me that capital losses were tax-deductible and would not believe me when I told you they surely are. In the TIPS case, we were discussing differences in the burden of inflation borne by the rich and the poor and you specifically expressed ignorance in the existence of a large market for CPI-adjusted securities.

[Kuciwalker]

Q: In an analysis of the inter-temporal distortion of consumption due to various compounded taxes on investment earnings (viz. capital gains tax and the income tax when applied to interest), what do you think the consequence is of introducing a limited category of tax-sheltered investments?

A: oh no, a bit of our inter-temporal consumption distortion turns into a distortion between classes of investments. This is so much better!

[Egbert]

BTW Albie. IIRC the idea of google searching twits was posted by you. It turned out to be highly entertaining.

Thanks old chap.

Albie. No need for a pointless debate about the finer points of economics. Eh?

[Kuciwalker]

Don't make me do it, Kuci. I can go back and get the quotes. They were definitely relevant. In the capital losses case, we were specifically talking about the capital gains tax and you repeatedly told me that capital losses were tax-deductible and would not believe me when I told you they surely are.

1) fix your negatives
2) no

[Kuciwalker]

In the TIPS case, we were discussing differences in the burden of inflation borne by the rich and the poor and you specifically expressed ignorance in the existence of a large market for CPI-adjusted securities.

Q: When analyzing the relative effects on inflation on the rich and poor, where the poor will generally have fixed-income debts and the rich will own a mix of assets, how relevant is the existence of a limited class of inflation-indexed sovereign bonds?

A: Almost none!

[Al B. Sure!]

Here's Case A, Kuci:

http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/191231-for-nye?p=5797065&viewfull=1#post5797065

AS: I believe in the US people can only deduct capital losses from capital gains, not from earned income. So your example is broken. Even if it did work, all you would have shown is that a capital gains tax provides favorable rates to people who make bad investments. ...why is this a good thing?

WHAT DID YOU SAY, KUCI?