I’m sure it’s hard for you to believe that someone could accomplish what I’ve claimed to, but I am an old fart and we’re talking about decades of school and work experience here. Also I had a very sheltered life where I could focus on my studies when I was in school. I won’t deny that I’m also fairly bright but I think that’s self-evident if you’ve read more than a few dozen of my posts on any matters of substance. It’s certainly more than what I can say of you.
Graduate degrees in the world of business are pretty meaningless to this discussion. You’ve demonstrated an intrinsic lack of understanding of how the U.S. Treasury market actually works in a rating cut scenario.
It sounds like aside from a stint working in the mortgage industry (which you probably understand lots of aspects of–but not the MBS market since in previous threads you’ve demonstrated you do not understand the different between risk analysis and actual performance of an issue), you’ve been employed primarily as a computer programmer and lawyer. Neither of those makes you a particular authority on anything we’re talking about, and an MBA not followed up with years in industry is basically meaningless.
An MBA is something people get to help their career in business, it isn’t something someone who has mostly not had a career in business can flaunt out decades later as proof they are authorities on financial markets.
That’s nice to know. And when you demonstrate that you actually know something that you didn’t fish out of the trash bin at Breitbart.com, maybe I’ll talk to you.
You live abroad? 
Anyhow, my money is in the blue corner for this fight.
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
[looks at boxing trunks] Oh, wait. 
I’m more curious than incredulous.
Law School + Business School + 2nd Bachelors is a healthy chunk of debt to be taking on with such a… transient, intermittent, and ostensibly mediocre-paying job history.
But hey, who knows. Maybe you’re Matthew Lesko.
Also, I’m sure that many on this board are $50 and a couple of brain teasers away from joining MENSA, which is more social club than badge of intellectual credibility. Just because your brain demonstrates the aptitude to learn, doesn’t mean you possess the requisite knowledge base. Just the same as someone with perfect SATs doesn’t necessarily know jack shit about… anything. Let your posts speak for themselves.
Indeed. And I think they have.
BTW. You’re wrong about the second BA. I went to community college for the courses I needed. I don’t think a regular 4 year college at the time would have taught CICS but then I didn’t really bother to check. I also taught there for a semester, but then you won’t believe that either. :eek:
Heck, if you took the SAT before '94, you’ll qualify with a score of 1250 or above (or 1300 or above before '74). Don’t even have to take the brain teasers if you don’t want to. So MENSA isn’t reserved for those rare perfect or even near-perfect SAT types. Yeah, you have to be reasonably smart or test well to get in, but I was surprised when I learned those scores would qualify you just then and there. (Though I’ve never joined MENSA nor have any interest in joining it.)
Are you asking me how I qualified? Hehehe.
I’ll just say that it wasn’t based on only one test. 
Not at all.
Too bad. I was hoping for a chance to say it was the MAT and I scored a 74 when the requirement was a 66
Well, looks like you used it as a chance to brag, anyhow. Well done.
I may as well right? It’s like anyone is going to believe me.
And this is precisely why you lack credibility. Here on these forums, someone who attacks the poster and ignores the argument isn’t going to be taken seriously. People advance supported, valid claims (I cited TreasuryDirect.gov for example, as valid a source as can get for Treasury auction yield histories–you’ve cited nothing.) This is not a forum where you just get to say “I’m smart so what I say goes, and what you say doesn’t.” For better or worse this is a place where someone like Stoid can demand over and over again for several trained lawyers to prove their arguments, and realistically almost none of them do the childish appeal to authority you’re trying to do here.
As with the argument about the NAACP–you advanced an argument, when questioned, you refused to provide any cites to support your argument. Then, you said that unless someone could disprove your argument or submit evidence disproving it that you had no obligation to even respond. Here, and really anywhere people engage in civilized discussion the onus is on the person making affirmative claims to back them up–you do not do that. Anyone can pretend to be a lawyer or whatever it is you’re doing on these forums, but it mostly doesn’t matter because pretty much no one is going to much listen to what you have to say if all you’ve got is a repetitive appeal to authority anytime you’re called on your bullshit. There’s at least 4-5 outstanding discussions I and others have linked to where you’ve refused to back up any of your arguments and instead just dismiss the other posters as too stupid for you to argue with.
This isn’t the first time most of us have been on an internet forum so don’t really expect to be anything more than a punch line around here if you that’s your standard debate technique.
So basically, for the peanut gallery:
Several people point out that the rating agencies ratings of sovereign debt are not really that important. We cite several examples from actual history to support this position. Deltasigma’s response was basically to be an giant baby about it and insult everyone for daring to question the importance of the credit ratings.
I’ll note that right before that even he had already said that a single step down would probably not be a big deal, so the original points were not that far off–but it seems that anyone daring to question the importance of the credit ratings (even when he himself noted a single rating downgrade wouldn’t be that big of a deal) summons fort his frothing-at-the-mouth retard-mode behavior.
Now, there’s almost no one worth listening to that would argue an actual credit default wouldn’t be a big deal. There’s also not many people who would argue that uncertainty leading up to these debt ceiling negotiations has not served well the interests of the United States–it’s obviously bad to keep having these crises. But the ratings agencies being that important? There’s no evidence of it. The fear of China just dumping our debt? That’s also unrealistic. He probably thinks the entire world economy can be run through a Scottrade session. China holds too much of our debt to easily off load it all at once, and there is no real alternative asset where it can easily park so much money. It’d just be holding cash, and aside from a true default it’s not really likely anytime soon China would rather hold different forms of currency versus some sort of sovereign debt instrument. If there was some other sovereign debt instrument out there with over $5T held by foreigners maybe that’d be an option, but on that scale the U.S. Treasury is the only game in town.
Anyway, deltasigma is now best ignored. If he pokes his head into threads like General Questions and Great Debates I’ll happily point out his incorrect arguments and repeatedly demonstrate how he refuses to back up anything with relevant citations. But here in the Pit it’s best to just tell him to go fuck himself and move on with it.
I’m anxiously looking forward to that given the few feeble attempts you’ve made in the past. Hehehe.
I don’t necessarily disbelieve you, it’s just an odd thing to brag about, especially at your age and level of achievement, that’s all.
Anyhow, Martin Hyde does hit the relative points as to why I have difficulty in treating you as a credible poster. Most of all is the attitude of “I’m right, you’re wrong, and if you don’t understand, that’s your problem and stupidity” that is irksome. If you want others to take you seriously, you’ve got to knock that off and engage honestly in discussion without that attitude, especially when posters with established credibility on this board have chimed in and cogently offered an argument as to why your impression of the topic may be mistaken or ill-conceived. I understand this is the Pit, so you’re going to be more abrasive here, but from what little I’ve seen of your posts, I’ve seen this attitude outside this forum, as well.
And that’s all I am going to say on this topic, as Martin has said the rest much more specifically and eloquently. I welcome your posts, but if you really are interested in debate and perhaps changing minds here (though not necessarily in the Pit), you’d be better off by dialing it back a notch.
If you’ve actually read any of my posts, you wouldn’t have said any of that. When I explain monetary theory or economic issues, I try to do so as plainly and simply as possible with cites and links to graphs and charts. I’m not like so many other posters here who simply try to appear smart. I’m confident in my abilities and what I’ve achieved and have no need to have people here reinforce that. I did at one time which is why I still remember things like test scores and missing summa cum laude by a few thousands of a gpa.
I didn’t realize I posted in this thread earlier until deltasigma pointed it out in a different thread on peak oil.
Well, I found this thread again, and if I had realized it was the same poster I wouldn’t have put as much effort in correcting his ignorance in GQ. Some people can’t be right. Everybody else, including experts, have to be wrong.
But yeah, deltasigma: having read this thread again, you are surprisingly ignorant and unsurprisingly stubborn for a know-it-all. It’s fuck-all annoying. Kind of like stepping in bubblegum in a new pair of shoes.
Yes, asshole Bob is focusing on nat gas in a thread on peak oil. Why? I have no fucking idea. I assumed it was personal but clearly I believe him when he says it has no relationship to the fact that I humiliated him in this thread. :rolleyes: