Jump to content
Baltimoron

Paul Krugman and interventionist monetary policy

Recommended Posts

I think Baltimoron and RShackleford might actually find some common ground here with the anti-corporatism stuff.

Could be... maybe... or maybe not...

I guess the question is whether Rothbard, Mises, et al really provide a workable alternative to the corporatist system.

That's the problem. They provide a pure ideological solution based on abstract theory and unproven claims, and which IMO ignores both the complexity and the imperatives of human and social issues that are very real and which must be addressed... unless you wish society to devolve into harsh Darwinism based on economic factors. According to my personal value system, you don't let tens of millions of people starve and go homeless because somebody's theory says it's good for the economy in the long run. So, therefore, we are talking about an active government role in the economy somehow, and it's a matter of deciding what version of it provides the best (least objectionable?) cost/benefit trade-offs.

Which means we're talking about shades of gray. That's a completely different conversation than arguing about theoretcal issues of black vs. white, which is what both the Marxists and Austrians tend to do. They each can see what's wrong with the other guy, but they're both blind to what's wrong with their own theories. What they mainly wanna do is criticize others while putting forth purist solutions, which is way different than having a viable practical solution.

Any time you're talking about human phenomena, purist theories just don't work, simply because our understanding of human phenomena is so incomplete. What happens is that some folks see parts of the truth, a few insights, and erroneously decide that what they notice is the only thing that counts. This is true in any of the human sciences, of which economics is one. It's not like physics where you can list all the relevant factors and come up with formulas that tell you everything you need to know. When you do that with human sciences, you end up coming up with a prescription for tragedy, simply due to all the stuff you miss and accidentally ignore. It's not that they intend to do bad stuff, it's just an unintended consequence of them confusing their model of reality with actual reality.

Edited by rshackelford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could say Corporatism is just another name for Mercantilism, with Mercantilism being defined as the use of force by the State to produce particular winners and losers in the market (In Mercantilism, exporting businesses are favored by the State, in Corporatism, the class of individuals who control corporations). The leftist view of the question in terms of profit tends to lead one to see Mercantilism/Corporatism as just a species of Capitalism.

I see Corporatism as a subset of Mercantilism. Both involve the State's threat/use of force as an essential feature to its existence.

There's lots of ways that one might mis-characterize what Mercantilism and Corporatism are, and that's one of them.

Mercantilism was the precursor to Capitalism. It was based on a whole set of old assumptions about wealth from the pre-industrial era before we knew how to make stuff and add value. It wasn't just about the role government had, it was about old assumptions about wealth, including the idea that there was a static amount of wealth and nobody could make any more of it. Just because you define the term to suit your narrow purposes, that doesn't mean it's either fair or accurate.

Corporatism is what happens in the post-industrial era when you let the leaders of big business control government policy. We agree that big business should not control government policy.

The core disagreement is about whether the modern-day version of a Libertarian approach amounts to the same thing in the end. IMO, it does, even though that's not what real Libertarians want. I know full well that Libertarians do not intend to be Corporatists. I think they end up being pawns of Corporatists anyway, even though they don't want to be. I think a Libertarian approach was perfectly reasonable in Jefferson's day. The problem is that the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of big-time Capitalism in the late 1800's changed the world in a way that changed the Jeffersonian equation. It pretty much comes down to whether you think it makes sense to ban regular people from using a government that is supposedly "of the people, by the people, and for the people" to limit the excesses of raw Capitalism by establishing rules about fairness and human decency. When you boil it down in the end, here's what it comes down to: modern-day Libertarians think that if you keep government out of the equation, then the tension between regular people and mega-Capitalism is a fair fight.

Personally, I don't see how anybody can really believe that. If you take government out of the equation, and prevent it from being society's agency for establishing rules of fairness and decency, then what you get is harsh inhumane Darwinism based on nothing but economic status. It's turns into "might makes right", with the "might" part being about "economic might" rather than "military might". History demonstrates that the best system so far is a moderate version of Capitalism, in which it's not as simple as "economic might makes right", and in which society uses various mechanisms to constrain Capitalism from its natural excesses.

IMO, things went to hell because we quit doing that. America is based on two promises, not one. It's based on both Liberty and Equality, both Freedom and Fairness. There is a tension between these things. IMO what happened is that some forces in society hijacked the Liberty and Freedom part and used it as an excuse for denigrating the Equality and Fairness part. For things to work right, we have to find a way to honor both of America's promises, not just one or the other. Which means any good solution is necessarily a Reasonable Compromise, and not a case of picking either/or. History shows that opting for either/or solutions is how bad things happen.

To use a computing analogy, it come down to what the "operating system" for society is. In the world of computing, every modern operating system has some implementation of a fairness algorithm. In society, government is the agent by which we get to specify what the fairness algorithm for society is. Libertarians think we should not use government to do that. They think that taking a hands-off attitude about economic might, and just letting it all work itself out based on raw Capitalism, will turn out fine in the end. I don't buy that for 1 second. This is because Capitalism is an economic system, not a social system. If you reduce our social system to nothing but the economic system of pure Capitalism, then the value that each human being has gets reduced to his or her economic status. I think that's just plain wrong in moral terms. Economics matters, and it's important, but it's not the only thing that matters.

Edited by rshackelford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rshack,

I'm sorry you have little economic knowledge and most of it seems to be horrendously mistaken. Your posts in this thread make clear you know nothing of Austrian economics, much less economics in general. This makes me sad.

But as long as you insist you know what you are talking about and everybody else is wrong, like for example your belief you know what mercantilism or capitalism entail, I'm going to have to put you back on my ignore list.

I'm disappointed but not at all surprised. I guess my lesson is blowhard know-it-alls can't really be expected to change their ways, especially when they have such a long and well-defined history and pattern of similar trolling.

If you ever want to have a respectful discussion instead of lecturing me with posts chock full of your fallacious mis-understandings, send me a pm.

You may not agree with the Austrians, but you can't define words and concepts for them and then use your definitions and your concepts to argue Austrians are wrong, because that's just a resort to a silly strawman argument.

The Austrians may be all wrong, but as long as you wish to remain willfully clueless of their thoughts and theories, your idle ramblings are just that, idle ramblings.

bye. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chanda Chisala is human rights activist and reporter from the African nation of Zambia who spent last year on a fellowship at Stanford studying “the impact of the internet on the future of African journalism, and the philosophy of human rights.”

He thinks capitalism will save his continent and defend against human rights abuses. He yearns for freedom and writes:

What is capitalism? Why does this writer believe in it so much?

There are many people who oppose capitalism simply because they have a wrong understanding of it, and this is usually because it was explained to them by people who were opposed to it. Most lecturers in the social sciences in any country of the world are traditionally anti-capitalists; it is therefore not surprising that most graduates from the social sciences are opposed to capitalism. It also explains why they have a false understanding of the system.

There are many people who simply associate capitalism with greedy businessmen who go to any lengths to make money, including lying, stealing, deceiving and even killing. And they associate capitalist countries with the same vices. A capitalist country to them is one which oppresses other nations (for natural resources), makes other countries poorer, and even starts wars with resource-rich countries so that they can greedily take over their resources. Globalisation of capital is understood as an attempt by these same evil capitalists to spread their greed around the world and to undermine the sovereignty of the states they enter.

To most people, therefore, capitalism is the very epitome of evil; it is the economic system that brings out the worst in man, as one columnist in a local daily wrote the other week.

It is thus shocking to many when they meet a person like myself who boldly proclaims that capitalism is the ONLY moral socio-political system in the world. It is not ONE OF, it is not even the MOST moral, it is the ONLY moral social system that a nation can adopt. Such a statement contradicts everything that most people have heard throughout their lives, through the media and through their lectures. And yet it is completely true and even logically provable.

Capitalism is the social (or economic) system that is based on total respect for the principle of human rights. It is the only system that recognizes the rights of ALL humans in a society, not just those who are poor and not just those who are rich. There are some systems that grant more rights to the upper classes and the "aristocrats" at the expense of the rights of the poor and there are some systems that grant more rights to the poor and underprivileged at the expense of the rights of the rich or upper classes. Both of these systems are wrong in that they aim at "fulfilling" the rights of one class by trampling on the rights of others.

Unfortunately, there are many people who think that capitalism is also like that: they believe it grants more rights to the rich, the upper class - the bourgeoisie - at the expense of the poor, the labourer, or the "proletariat" to borrow Marx's words. Thus, such people feel that when they fight the capitalist system, they are fighting for the poor, they are joining them in the "struggle" from the oppression of the rich, the capitalists. And they "struggle" in solidarity with the poor, to have the rights of the worker or the poor "respected" and "protected".

All these ideas came from a man called Karl Marx. He was in fact the person who coined the word "capitalism" and it is therefore not surprising that his views are the ones which are taken by many when understanding the capitalist system.By presenting it as a system in which the poorer members of society are oppressed and robbed by the richer members of society, he established a huge following from all those who have a moral sense against such "injustice". It is therefore understandable to find a young person who sincerely and honestly believes in this "struggle" to free the poor from the shackles of the rich.

What is not understandable or forgivable is an intelligent person who continues believing in this error once it is demonstrated to her or him.

Why was Marx wrong? Mr. Karl Marx apparently did not understand that wealth is created, not just shared. What seemed unjust to him was the way the wealth of "society" was being distributed between the "capitalist" and the worker. What he failed to recognize was that there is no such thing as "the wealth of society." The earth does not have any wealth, and neither does "society". All wealth first has to be created. That's the cardinal point and it is the point that all socialists and Marxists miss up to this day for some mysterious, unexplainable reason.

Marx had predicted something that would have happened if his premises had been correct. He predicted that the "workers" would one day revolt against these "capitalists" and overthrow them (thus causing massive unrest in society). But this has never happened and it can never happen. Why? Because it is not true that the two classes were just fighting over limited "wealth". Wealth is limitless because of the fact that it is not just found, it is created by the mind of man. Thus, these working class people found themselves becoming richer even as the "capitalists" became richer, which doesn't make sense in Marx's system because he expected that they would become poorer as the capitalists became richer. Had he realized that wealth was created in the process of production, he would not have made that wrong prediction. History has shown that the countries that are more capitalist are in fact the ones which are even more peaceful (no "revolutions" from the "proletariat") than those that have tried the hardest to distribute wealth between the rich and the poor (communist countries). The "laborers" in the most capitalist nations are happier than the laborers in the most anti-capitalist nations, something which the genius of Marx would have predicted had he realized that there was a process of actual creation of (more) wealth in this system of capitalist production.

Have you noticed that all the intellectual opponents and critics of capitalism begin (and end) their theories with a discussion on the issue of sharing wealth? They take it for granted that wealth is already there and we need to just discuss how to share it. Others have thought only briefly about "wealth creation", but they also think that wealth is created by the labourers. But this is not so.

Wealth comes from ideas, not from manual labour. Without the right ideas (and a good management of them), there is no amount of labour that can produce any wealth for any person. People can just dig trenches everywhere if they wish, but without a solid idea that will intelligently translate those trenches into actual value, these will just remain holes in the earth. There is nothing on the earth that has wealth in itself. All wealth comes from the mind of man, from ideas, from thoughts.

Karl Marx believed we could calculate the value of the worker's input and give him a "fair" wage. But the fact is that if you take that approach to value, every single labourer in the world is massively overpaid today. This is because the value of an idea is so much more superior - it is not even comparable - to the value of manual labour. Laborers have in fact been replaced by machines in many instances, something that you can never do for the man who produces ideas. There is no machine that can come up with ideas, but there are many machines that can take over the manual processes of labour. The value of the man of ideas is therefore indisputably and incomparably higher.

The whole idea of calculating anything is therefore absurd. Human beings deal with each other by trade. You offer your price in exchange for something offered by someone else; if you meet somewhere, the exchange happens. This is the only process that respects every person's rights as a human being: the right to choose, the right of a free will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baltimoron, you are so right. Carl Icahn made billions by forcing his way onto boards and cutting sweetheart deals for himself. All with very little input from the sharholders.

I sense sarcasm and monetary envy (sorry if I am mistaken).

Were the shareholders better or worse off for Mr. Icahn's intervention?

If the MSM (mainstream media) label it as a sweetheart deal for Icahn, who as we know he gets in position for such deals because of his ownership of stock, hasn't he also earned such a deal for other shareholders? Isn't that the point, to protect the capitalists (anybody who buys stocks or otherwise saves their income) from pillage by the corporatists?

What was sweetheart was that the powerful elite class, the corporatists, could not be protected from the great capitalist heros, the raiders. So the ruling corproate elite class got the MSM to work on the public and eventually got the federal and state legislatures to fall in line and we put the kibosh on protecting shareholders, all in the name of preventing "unfair profits" and punishing the evil raiders.

See how this is so easy. Raiders should be highly compensated, they protected share holder wealth on an order of many multiples of their earnings.

And the alleged "unfair profits" are a good thing, because they are a signal to others that says in effect "our corporations are being bilked and run like crap, and thus there are huge buyout arbitrage opportunities here for those who will stand up in the name of economic progress and efficiency and protecting the shareholders by doing what is in their own self-interest."

=====

Yup, greed is good, as it regulates the greed of others.

The trouble is when you start granting monopoly power backed by the threat of violence to the greedy - aka the State.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the question is whether Rothbard, Mises, et al really provide a workable alternative to the corporatist system.

Its the same answer to every question (excepting the most minarchist functions of the Night Watchman* State).

I'll give you a hint. :scratchchinhmm:

F_ _ _ M _ _ _ _ _

If you guessed "Flea Market" you are so very close. :):)

---

* Yup, "V for Vendetta" and "Watchmen" are anti-statist graphic novels, for as you might know Alan Moore is an anarchist too. The movie Watchmen and the somewhat limited acceptance it received is what inspired me to revive this thread. I should get into that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Rshack,

I'm sorry you have little economic knowledge and most of it seems to be horrendously mistaken. Your posts in this thread make clear you know nothing of Austrian economics, much less economics in general. This makes me sad.

But as long as you insist you know what you are talking about and everybody else is wrong, like for example your belief you know what mercantilism or capitalism entail, I'm going to have to put you back on my ignore list.

I'm disappointed but not at all surprised. I guess my lesson is blowhard know-it-alls can't really be expected to change their ways, especially when they have such a long and well-defined history and pattern of similar trolling.

If you ever want to have a respectful discussion instead of lecturing me with posts chock full of your fallacious mis-understandings, send me a pm.

You may not agree with the Austrians, but you can't define words and concepts for them and then use your definitions and your concepts to argue Austrians are wrong, because that's just a resort to a silly strawman argument.

The Austrians may be all wrong, but as long as you wish to remain willfully clueless of their thoughts and theories, your idle ramblings are just that, idle ramblings.

bye. :)

You keep putting words in my mouth that I never said. I have repeatedly said that the Austrians are not "all wrong". I think they are partially right. I simply reject the view that they have a comprehensive answer, that's all.

Your response is consistent with some other advocates of that perspective I have known: either others completely buy the what they're selling, or else they treat you like the enemy, call you names, and break off communication. They leave no room for dialogue or discussion, just as you have done. As per usual, anytime you are challenged, you call the other person a troll (but say it's the other person who is being disrespectful), and then take your ball and go home. There is more to discussing these matters than simply dishing out page after page of dogma and rhetoric while refusing to tolerate any disagreement whatsoever. This is similar to how many Marxists used to act: either you're with them or against them. Either you agree with their economic dogma, or else you're the enemy.

As for the way you defined Mercantilism, I don't know what your definition is based on, but it's certainly not history. Mercantilism is as I described it: it was the precursor to Capitalism. It was the established economic system at the time of the American Revolution. It was based on the pre-industrial assumptions about economics and static wealth that lead to the creation of parallel colonial empires that refused to trade with one another. All you have to do is just read some actual history, and you could easily find this out. There is nothing radical or controversial about what I'm saying about that. Once you know what the Mercantile economic system was based on, and what the underlying assumptions of it were, you can see that it has very little in common with modern Corporatism, which makes your assertion that they're the basically the same very bizarre. About the only single thing they have in common is that they both involve government in some controlling way. But virtually everything else about them is different. The differences are huge, and their basic ideas about the nature of wealth are entirely different.

One place to see what the assumptions of Mercantilism are is to read Adam Smith, because Mercantilism is the economic system he was criticizing when he published the Wealth of Nations in 1776. That book was basically the beginning of the field of economics, and is a touchstone for advocates of free trade and free market economies, so I would think you would be somewhat conversant with its contents and the fundamental assumptions of Mercantilism. If you knew what Mercantilism was, then you would know that its assumptions about economics are radically different from *any* economic views that arose after the Industrial Revolution. Based on how you have characterized Mercantilism, that is evidently not the case. I'm not sure how anybody could think that pre-industrial and post-industrial views of economics are the same, but evidently you do. I'm just puzzled as to why you would think that. The Industrial Revolution made the basic assumptions of Mercantilism obsolete. I'm a huge Jefferson fan, and I don't think very highly of Hamilton, but IMO this is the main way in which Alexander Hamilton was right and Thomas Jefferson was wrong.

If I'm so wrong about this, why don't you try explaining why I'm wrong. And when I say "explaining why" I'm wrong, I don't mean just doing more huge cut-and-paste things where you copy other people's words about extreme free market dogma. I mean actually explaining what I'm wrong about. Hurling insults and calling people names doesn't do that. Calling somebody a troll and a blowhard is not a good substitute for having an Actual Point. If you do have a point, other than just dogmatic belief in unproven free market theory and a theoretical economic system that has never actually existed, what is your point?

Edited by rshackelford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I'm so wrong about this, why don't you try explaining why I'm wrong. And when I say "explaining why" I'm wrong, I don't mean just doing more huge cut-and-paste things where you copy other people's words about extreme free market dogma. I mean actually explaining what I'm wrong about. Hurling insults and calling people names doesn't do that. Calling somebody a troll and a blowhard is not a good substitute for having an Actual Point. If you do have a point, other than just dogmatic belief in unproven free market theory and a theoretical economic system that has never actually existed, what is your point?

What he said, Baltimoron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What he said, Baltimoron.

Thirded.

I have gotten into it with Shack in these types of discussions in the past but your responses to him have been pretty lame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What he said, Baltimoron.
There's lots of ways that one might mis-characterize what Mercantilism and Corporatism are, and that's one of them.

Mercantilism was the precursor to Capitalism. It was based on a whole set of old assumptions about wealth from the pre-industrial era before we knew how to make stuff and add value. It wasn't just about the role government had, it was about old assumptions about wealth, including the idea that there was a static amount of wealth and nobody could make any more of it. Just because you define the term to suit your narrow purposes, that doesn't mean it's either fair or accurate.

Corporatism is what happens in the post-industrial era when you let the leaders of big business control government policy. We agree that big business should not control government policy.

The core disagreement is about whether the modern-day version of a Libertarian approach amounts to the same thing in the end. IMO, it does, even though that's not what real Libertarians want. I know full well that Libertarians do not intend to be Corporatists. I think they end up being pawns of Corporatists anyway, even though they don't want to be. I think a Libertarian approach was perfectly reasonable in Jefferson's day. The problem is that the Industrial Revolution and the emergence of big-time Capitalism in the late 1800's changed the world in a way that changed the Jeffersonian equation. It pretty much comes down to whether you think it makes sense to ban regular people from using a government that is supposedly "of the people, by the people, and for the people" to limit the excesses of raw Capitalism by establishing rules about fairness and human decency. When you boil it down in the end, here's what it comes down to: modern-day Libertarians think that if you keep government out of the equation, then the tension between regular people and mega-Capitalism is a fair fight.

Personally, I don't see how anybody can really believe that. If you take government out of the equation, and prevent it from being society's agency for establishing rules of fairness and decency, then what you get is harsh inhumane Darwinism based on nothing but economic status. It's turns into "might makes right", with the "might" part being about "economic might" rather than "military might". History demonstrates that the best system so far is a moderate version of Capitalism, in which it's not as simple as "economic might makes right", and in which society uses various mechanisms to constrain Capitalism from its natural excesses.

IMO, things went to hell because we quit doing that. America is based on two promises, not one. It's based on both Liberty and Equality, both Freedom and Fairness. There is a tension between these things. IMO what happened is that some forces in society hijacked the Liberty and Freedom part and used it as an excuse for denigrating the Equality and Fairness part. For things to work right, we have to find a way to honor both of America's promises, not just one or the other. Which means any good solution is necessarily a Reasonable Compromise, and not a case of picking either/or. History shows that opting for either/or solutions is how bad things happen.

To use a computing analogy, it come down to what the "operating system" for society is. In the world of computing, every modern operating system has some implementation of a fairness algorithm. In society, government is the agent by which we get to specify what the fairness algorithm for society is. Libertarians think we should not use government to do that. They think that taking a hands-off attitude about economic might, and just letting it all work itself out based on raw Capitalism, will turn out fine in the end. I don't buy that for 1 second. This is because Capitalism is an economic system, not a social system. If you reduce our social system to nothing but the economic system of pure Capitalism, then the value that each human being has gets reduced to his or her economic status. I think that's just plain wrong in moral terms. Economics matters, and it's important, but it's not the only thing that matters.

Everything I placed emphasis on is a strawman or is part of a strawman argument such that i can't separate it from the strawman argument.

===================

I am perpetually confused as to why the forum is such that people can just post such lies and misrepresentations. These are are just personal affronts to those who spend their free time trying to positively interact with other members of the community.

Wouldn't a respectful person interested in true dialogue say something like "what do you mean by x" or "I understood y to mean..." "how does q fit into this"

I'm positive a person disinterested in honest discussion wouldn't do that, but instead would troll and just misrepresent what x or y meant, not bothering to pay any regard to the content of the original messenger.

Are we trying to understand what others are trying to communicate or are we simply trying to prove wrong whatever it is we think the other is trying to communicate (and dammed if we care what he really is communicating or trying to say)?

Why can some just post whatever nonsense they wish, even as they admits/demonstrate they knows not what they are talking about, and consistently put the onus on those who wish to discuss things to constantly have to either 1) bow out of the confrontation after being shouted down by a blowhard or 2) waste lots of time trying to respond to the inane strawmans that are nothing more than diversions form the topic at hand.

Why do we countenance people who post lies?

Why do we think calling someone stupid or some such other personal affront is a bannable offense, but intentionally trolling is not?

What about ad hominems? Is this not the definition of taking a discussion and making it personal by attacking the speaker? Yet Rshack consistently makes me all kinds of insulting, erroneous and misleading characterizations.

I could just post misleading information in an effort to constantly frustrate discussion, to interject sophist nonesense by trying to re-define words and misrepresent other positions, but what good is that?

I give a crap about other people, which is why I try to share what I know in this community.

Its my understanding that a message board is an opportunity for people to communicate. I believe the ultimate form of disrespect is not listening to someone.

One can disagree, and even consider someone else wrong. But to not even bother to respect their communicative efforts, and instead just post fallacious mischaracterizations of their point (so called strawman arguments) is the greatest reproach.

There is no communication without listening and respect for another's position.

I have expressed on multiple occasions the willingness to discuss these issues with Rshack.

Yet instead of responding to what I post, or asking me questions about what I post, he simply tells me I am wrong, misrepresents my argument (i.e lies and posts a bunch of nonsense) and then goes off on his own tangents.

Yet this is countenanced, over and over again.

Rshack criticizes me for posting sources. Board policy requires sourcing.

I don't want to banned but I'm happy to go if the game is posters can just post lies and misrepresentations and personally insulting ad hominems with impunity as such an environment is not for me.

Why do we countenance those who simply do not respond and indeed intentionally frustrate the honest efforts of those who wish to communicate? Rshack has trolled me throughout his time on this board. Continually ignoring what I post and misrepresenting it as a strawman.

Its obvious he is just trying to take what I post and argue against it, and then I post a little more showing his fallacies and he post more fallacies. This can't go on ad nauseum, as he knows I'll tire of responding to his lies.

I tire of arguing with trolls.

I honestly used to think I could post here, share my knowledge and make this a better place. I used to think I could share my knowledge here about SABR and the ideas of places like THT or BP or Tom Tango and help people learn to love and understand and appreciate baseball even more. And knowledge even beyond baseball.

And whether people agree with me or not, aren't people better off knowing the other side, being exposed to the counter arguments? Isn't that learning?

Yet here I am, marginalized once again by a troll, and the burden is once again on me to explain why the stuff he posted is wrong?

Why aren't we wondering why he isn't quoting anything I have written? Read the thread, he talks about all kinda of nonesense that has nothing to do with anything I have posted. Why do we assume he has any credibility or grounding in reality?

Well, I kinda think I should rest. I live in one of the most beautiful cities in the country and have many friends and a good paying job and spend enough time at the local homeless shelter that I know just how lucky I am despite all the reasons I have to complain about my life.

Most of all, there are so many better things to do than to try to communicate with dishonest jerks who can do no better than to lie and consistently attack me.

I wish everybody the best and Go Os.

--

P.S. - Not like I know anything about economics or such but I wonder if encouraging a more respectful, intelligent "conversation" might help boost readership.

After all, we're all just fanatics about a baseball team, looking for good info and somebody to hear us out, a place where blowhards won't shout us down while ignoring what we post.

Guess I shoulda done a barrel roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
P.S. - Not like I know anything about economics or such but I wonder if encouraging a more respectful, intelligent "conversation" might help boost readership.

Maybe if you discuss things like an adult, and don't throw a tantrum and start insulting people as 'blowhard know-it-alls' when they get your panties in a bunch, we could do just that.

If you don't like someone's delivery, points, comments, or questions - ignore them. If someone breaks a board rule, feel free to use the 'report post' feature.

Edited by McLovin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






×
×
  • Create New...