Said nothing of the sort. Point out to me where I said there are no conflicting viewpoints in economics. When I said this:
Is that where I said it?
Or was it here?
Never said anything of the sort. Not even close.
You’re really bad at this, aren’t you? You can’t just divide apples by oranges to get a legitimate percentage. 1.36% is a valid number if, (1) only the 300 or so economists who signed the letter previously cited are opposed to the stimulus / feel the New Deal was ineffective, and (2) everybody else in the 21,000 feels differently. Now, what would be the flaw in your percentage? Hmm? Could it be that you don’t know that either (1) or (2) is correct, so your percentage is meaningless? Yeah! That’s it!
Stop it! This is pathetic yet again. How about you said there were no dissenting voices worth notice? Too few to assign any weight to? Pick whatever way you want to qualify your nonsense you’d like, anything but parsing every idiotic post you made in this thread. Just what the fuck were you objecting to then? What was your point? Stop it! Please, you’re embarrassing yourself (more, that is).
Slowly, now.
I’m using, for purposes of this argument, only cited figures in this thread. Nothing more and nothing less.
This is, again, where you provide some sort of evidence that there are more economists that disagree with this plan, or, better yet, some sort of actual argument that the stimulus bill signed into law by the President will be ineffective.
While you go diggin’ on the Freeper site, I’ll simply again state that the construction, paraphrased: ‘Bush-Obama Economic Plan’ is a cheap rhetorical device utterly at variance with demonstrated fact, designed only for political purpose, and that it is a desperation ploy to fool the gullible and to preach to those whose minds were already made up by their parents in a woodshed somewhere in their childhood.
You divide two unrelated numbers and now it’s my job to counter the illogical conclusion this provided? That’s how this works? Okay, again using only data in this thread, there are 99% of economists who agree with the Cato guys. I base this on elucidator’s post count divided by the number of commas on page two of the thread, taken to the power of the version number of vbulletin. That’s pretty indisputable, so now it’s your turn. Jesus, you’re bad at this.
One more piece of advice: that “slowly, now” gag works a lot better when your post isn’t imbecilic.
Wow. This is completely unrelated to the topic at hand – that Newt Gingrich is an asshat for his tawdry lie that Bush and Obama are acting in lockstep and are equally responsible for the economic meltdown occuring now. (That’s an implied connotation… no need to go looking for commas… tee hee…)
Anyway, I’m letting someone else play Mexican-boy-at-his-birthday-party to your piñata… see ya, Fender!
More redirect bullshit when you got your ass handed to you. You’re the one who asserted that 1.36% was some kind of rebuttal. If it was off topic, why the fuck did you post it? Then when it was pointed out that your post was nonsense, you decide that this is unrelated to the OP and declare victory. What a waste of time. You’re just not good at this. At all.
Wow. You give me a load of shit for saying something I didn’t say. I say “Show me where I said that”, and you bail. And then, to top it off, I show you where I said pretty much the opposite! Nothing. No effect, bounces off you like a rose petal off a warthog.
You keep going like this, you’ll collapse beyond neutron density, you’ll have your own event horizon.
I already clarified my statement, so please, stop with the butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-your-mouth bullshit. Everyone reading this thread knows what you said, dude. Again, what was your fucking point if not that there was no substantial opposing economic thought? This is standard elucidator, from my perspective. Glib bullshit when caught in an untenable position. Obscuring, redirecting bullshit, suggesting with an innocent shrug that this clusterfuck of an exchange was all about whether you said there was ZERO opposing economists.
How much easier would it have been to say much earlier, “Yeah, you’re right, there is a substantial–even if minority, who knows?–economic school of thought that does NOT support the stimulus, that does not believe the New Deal was effective. But who cares, let’s debate who is right…” But you painted yourself into a corner, and we spent a few pages where you started with “Are there as many as two people with such beliefs, huh, is there?” then onto “what, is it ten economists? Is there even that many–just show 'em, and we can call that ‘many’ and move on” then transitioning into “Oh. A few hundred, huh? Oof. Um, well, let’s parse the phrase ‘many, many’ for a while,” and now you’re parsing posts to redirect notice completely. “When did I say there’s no opposing thought?” When I clarified, that you said variations on “no opposing viewpoints of any substantial size,” even though anyone with an ounce of sense knew exactly what I meant–including you–you fired off one more round of glib, quasi-clever bullshit.
You were wrong and you gloated and insulted when you had no basis to, and you spent a couple of pages of this thread arguing over the inarguable because you could not stomach conceding the simplest of self-evident points. :shrug: Again, it’s on you how you come across, whether or not you debate honestly. No skin off my back.
I don’t think some of those are economists. I went through just the first six, searching on Google Scholar for papers, and it seems that at least William Albrecht and JJ Arias are not economists. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like there’s something fishy here.
Here’s Albrecht, here’s Arias. I assume you’re just looking to show they’re not pastry chefs or Latin teachers–I have no idea what their reputations are, but they’re econ guys.
I’m being savagely mauled by a chihuahua. Help. Help. Woe is me.
Albrecht is an economist. True.
I’m so vastly reassured.
More weak bullshit. Not surprising at this point.
Keep flailing, brother.
How’s he feel about anthropogenic climate change. 
Still it is nice to see Stratocaster actually make an effort to back up his claim. You really did have to do that if you wanted any credibility, Strato.
Yeah, what a light-weight.
For the record, Stratocaster’s original statement was “the stimulus is X.” It was not “there are some people who believe the stimulus is X.” Obviously the latter would be true, and is in fact self-evident from the very post stating it. Now, if Frank or Stratocaster think “my post is my cite” is sufficient for “the stimulus is X”, they are both just wrong. It is a statement full of factual implications and requiring, at a minimum, some minimal level of defense if not citation. And it is not enough to merely cite other people who believe this (not that Stratocaster even made that bare minimum of effort), just as it is not enough to prove the existence of God by pointing to the existence of believers.
Now, Stratocaster later made an assertion about the number of economists who doubt the New Deal, etc. That statement is also not self-evident, but it can be proven by pointing to economists who believe that. I happen to believe that the statement is true (Greg Mankiw, for example), but it is not unreasonable to ask for a cite. Asking for some evidence of that statement is not the strawman that Frank draws of disbelieving that anyone could oppose a Democratic plan.
Why don’t you try it sometime, chum?
The CATO Institute is a corporate shill full of libertarian loons not a reputable think tank. Anyone who associates with them, or for that matter cites them as an authority, cannot be taken seriously.
You might as well use Pravda as a cite for the existence of UFO’s or Bigfoot.