advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VII

Le Baron said:
Answer the question or if you can't then don't reply to me. There is no interest in your psychological observations, fella.
Click to expand...
I’ve replied to some of what you have asked despite your ill manners, others have too. Meanwhile, you fail to reply to virtually anything, rolling out the tired excuse of “it’s the wrong question” and continuing to preach. You still have absolutely no suggestion of a realistic way forward.

Your insistence only yourself and one other member accepts the ‘national credit card’ notion is bollocks....is bollocks.

We have a GE in the next couple of years and I want a change of govt. What is it you want?
 
Brian said:
I’ve replied to some of what you have asked despite your ill manners, others have too. Meanwhile, you fail to reply to virtually anything, rolling out the tired excuse of “it’s the wrong question” and continuing to preach. You still have absolutely no suggestion of a realistic way forward.

Your insistence only yourself and one other member accepts the ‘national credit card’ notion is bollocks....is bollocks.

We have a GE in the next couple of years and I want a change of govt. What is it you want?
Click to expand...
None of this bothers me, because you're merely ranting. The proof is in the pudding. I just laid out a very clear and comprehensive post and you won't address it because you can't. The astonishing ability to call people 'ill-mannered' tells us you don't read your own posts with a balanced eye.

You have provided nothing at all. To say I haven't replied to points directly is contradicted in black/white above for anyone to read, so anyone is invited to do so. They'll note that I provided answers rather than "LOL" and one-sentence evasion. I'm at peace.

Your last sentence is ridiculous, because the last few pages were to highlight the problems around that very question. I can even predict the next posts going round and round and never learning from discussion:

- What is your solution?
- Why don't you make a party to carry out your view?
- Do you prefer the Tories?
- Labour s the only solution...

It's boring.
 
klfrs said:
The contradiction is advising to "beware of reading from the internet" at same time as inviting everyone to read your MMT opinions from the internet.
Click to expand...
They can go and check reputable research to support it as well. If they care to. Or just cut-n-paste an opinion piece from Bloomberg et al.
 
Brian said:
I’ve replied to some of what you have asked despite your ill manners, others have too. Meanwhile, you fail to reply to virtually anything, rolling out the tired excuse of “it’s the wrong question” and continuing to preach. You still have absolutely no suggestion of a realistic way forward.
Click to expand...

This is a tired old tactic, to ask an irrelevant question, then despite any number of attempts to answer it directly, you claim it hasn’t been answered because it doesn’t address the irrelevance of the question. The way forward has been answered time and time again. If you can only see a way forward that is in a vote for a mainstream political party, that’s up to you. But, for a recognition that tax does not fund government spending, the answer is not there.

Your insistence only yourself and one other member accepts the ‘national credit card’ notion is bollocks....is bollocks.
Click to expand...
I note your carefully worded sentence, so I will have to ask exactly what you mean by the “national credit card notion is bollocks”.

What is this “notional credit card notion” of which you speak, and how is it “bollocks”

We have a GE in the next couple of years and I want a change of govt. What is it you want?
Click to expand...

A government that isn’t elected on known lies
 
Le Baron said:
None of this bothers me, because you're merely ranting. The proof is in the pudding. I just laid out a very clear and comprehensive post and you won't address it because you can't. The astonishing ability to call people 'ill-mannered' tells us you don't read your own posts with a balanced eye.

You have provided nothing at all. To say I haven't replied to points directly is contradicted in black/white above for anyone to read, so anyone is invited to do so. They'll note that I provided answers rather than "LOL" and one-sentence evasion. I'm at peace.

You're last sentence is ridiculous, because the last few pages were to highlight the problems around that very question. I can even predict the next posts going round and round and never learning from discussion:

- What is your solution?
- Why don't you make a party to carry out your view?
- Do you prefer the Tories?
- Labour s the only solution...

It's boring.
Click to expand...
Yes, very noticeable how infectious TINA a an be.
 
klfrs said:
The contradiction is advising to "beware of reading from the internet" at same time as inviting everyone to read your MMT opinions from the internet.
Click to expand...
Yes, thought that was what you were trying to do, but that is no more than selective quoting out of context for a purpose only you know.

As I say, any moderately reasonable person reading that post can see that I was not advising that someone on an internet forum should not go on the internet. Even if only a half reasonable person was in any doubt, they might read the word “much” which you have carefully edited out. And even if some was even less reasonable, they would still notice the internet link at the end of the post.

For absolute clarity I was not suggesting that the internet should not be used, or that some information on there is useful, I meant that what I said. “Beware of reading from the internet, much of it is anti MMT and proceeds from, “MMT says x, therefore y”, but in most cases MMT doesn’t say x, and false presumptions lead to false conclusions
 
ks.234 said:
Yes, thought that was what you were trying to do, but that is no more than selective quoting out of context for a purpose only you know.

As I say, any moderately reasonable person reading that post can see that I was not advising that someone on an internet forum should not go on the internet. Even if only a half reasonable person was in any doubt, they might read the word “much” which you have carefully edited out. And even if some was even less reasonable, they would still notice the internet link at the end of the post.
Click to expand...
If only you were in charge of deciding who is a "moderately reasonable person", and what should be read on the internet.
 
klfrs said:
If only you were in charge of deciding who is a "moderately reasonable person", and what should be read on the internet.
Click to expand...
This is not a fair representation of what Ks is saying. It was simply that practically all of the negative kickback against any MMT/post-Keynesian discussion is ill-informed and relies heavily on arguments from hit-pieces and hack journalism, based upon false premises. Often to confirm a bias.
 
klfrs said:
If only you were in charge of deciding who is a "moderately reasonable person", and what should be read on the internet.
Click to expand...
Poor grade trolling there ol chap. Again you selectively misquote. I was not using “moderately reasonable person” in reference to the whole internet, just your own nonsense posts.
 
Le Baron said:
This is not a fair representation of what Ks is saying. It was simply that practically all of the negative kickback against any MMT/post-Keynesian discussion is ill-informed and relies heavily on arguments from hit-pieces and hack journalism, based upon false premises. Often to confirm a bias.
Click to expand...
He knows it is not what I was saying, he’s just trying to troll. Again.
 
You give people the best weapons available to fight neoliberalism as an ideology and they throw them back at you and shout "false!" It's some masochistic Stockholm Syndrome going on there.
 
Le Baron said:
You give people the best weapons available to fight neoliberalism as an ideology and they throw them back at you and shout "false!" It's some masochistic Stockholm Syndrome going on there.
Click to expand...
Other methods of processing differences of opinion are available.
 
klfrs said:
Other methods of processing differences of opinion are available.
Click to expand...
Sounds clever, but isn't. I'm referring to facts, not opinions.

But my interest is piqued, what are the other effective methods? Discounting for uninformed bias?
 
Le Baron said:
Sounds clever, but isn't. I'm referring to facts, not opinions.

But my interest is piqued, what are the other effective methods? Discounting for uninformed bias?
Click to expand...
Comprehending opinions aren't facts would be the place to start. hth
 
klfrs said:
Other methods of processing differences of opinion are available.
Click to expand...
You came into this discussion on the back of my post saying that tax does not fund government spending, if you have a difference of opinion about that, why just not say what it is?
 
klfrs said:
Comprehending opinions aren't facts would be the place to start. hth
Click to expand...
Again, what is it you are disputing? You addressed my post about tax not funding spending. If you have a different opinion, for God’s sake, let’s hear it.
 
ks.234 said:
Again, what is it you are disputing? You addressed my post about tax not funding spending. If you have a different opinion, for God’s sake, let’s hear it.
Click to expand...
chill out
ks.234 said:
You came into this discussion on the back of my post saying that tax does not fund government spending, if you have a difference of opinion about that, why just not say what it is?
Click to expand...
Will post as and when I wish. Subject to AUP, but not self-appointed fuzz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top