The quote I pulled was not a paraphrase. It was directly pulled from your peak Jiggs energy briefs thread. In the linked thread you argue energy is greater than the economy.

Believe Gambool may be referring to this. And if this is the one: Jiggs, take some basic economics man. It is not all nefarious free market capitalist nonsense.

Link to the post where what you quoted above was immediately followed by what I said.

It's telling when nuance conveniently escapes you. In the thread, I argue that cheap, abundant energy is what dictates to the economy. It's no longer cheap, and the affect on the economy is systemic.

Paul... has a 500% increase in the price of oil the past 15 years affected global demand yet?

Your argument is a little bit like telling an atheist to read more bible.

There's this thing called elasticity in economics, and vehicle manufacturers making switches from manufacturing gas guzzlers to more fuel efficient cars. No one as I have seen is arguing oil doesn't play a part in the economy. Just we kind of have tried to point out that it's not some imminent threat of dragging us back in the dark ages yet.

I'm aware of that. But you're not answering my question. Has global demand for energy gone down in an era of such energy inflation? Making fuel efficient cars doesn't change the equation when consumption of energy keeps rising year after year. Countless studies have shown that efficiency measures only make us consume ever more.

Who said anything about "dark ages?" That's the constant, default straw man of you guys who are viscerally sensitive to anyone questioning any aspect of traditional economics theory.

In any event, I guess it's a difference in degree, then. I believe energy (oil in particular) plays a central role in most every sector of the markets, and that the modern industrial economy can't maintain itself without it. You feel it has its hand in just a few. OK then.

To a degree I did answer you.

And iirc you made some apocalyptic forecasts based on energy.

Classic Jiggs. You still don't understand what a demand curve is but are going to make a fool out of yourself again, you are just too stupid and angry to realize it.

The fact you are arguing that demand hasnt declined to argue that oil doesn't have a downward sloping demand curve means you can add the statement quoted above to the Hall of Fame terrible quote thread.

I will link to the two quoted posts above as you requested for $50 or an exile bet. Page six, energy briefs thread. You quote the Kidd post and say really when.

Man, of all the things you could say to make fun of Economics, you use a quote saying that people who do something for a living.....find it fun?

You, like Gambool, miss the point entirely.

Do you understand what economic theories entail these days, Jiggs?

It's not like some dudes are cutting up and acting a fool. I assume people get enjoyment out of devising their theories and running data sets to see if there's correlation.

Please explain

I understand that modern economic theory is a flawed doctrine that's fun to disassemble.

I understand that the graph you economonks masturbate over implies a mathematical relationship between supply and demand, yet the doctrine has no actual mathematical applications.

I understand that the "demand curve" for oil is about as inelastic and straight-down vertical as anything gets, short of clean drinking water. And that if people don't get enough, they'll get violent and just take it.

I understand that while the "economics profession doesn't take an argument seriously until the argument can be laid out with a well-specified model that respects accepted standards of modeling," your central Law of Supply and Demand is anything but a well-specified model.

I understand that "demand" in this context is a linguistic malapropism, because "demand" is driven by a number of different things beyond price. And yet it's all grouped together in the doctrine.

I understand that the doctrine's term of "equilibrium price" is entirely theoretical, and if attained is purely coincidental.

I understand that the doctrine assumes rational markets for the models they rely on to work, yet markets are hardly rational ... because, you know, humans.

Do you?

Except you don't seem to have the fundamentals down of Economics to begin pointing out the flaws. There's a huge flaw in your logic if you don't believe energy does not follow downward sloping demand curves. Of course they do. People will buy more gasoline or change their preferences in vehicles when gas prices are high or low. Of course their is elasticity with energy. I would believe the consumer treats gasoline the same way they treat medicine, that is to say it is necessary. So demand might remain somewhat of a constant, but that doesn't refute the demand curve much because preferences in vehicles can change costs to consumers.

Markets are rational. I think this is one of the greatest misunderstandings of economic thoughts to people who haven't really studied. Markets can have results that aren't optimal. But that is not because stockholders are irrational. They're trying to optimize and can make mistakes. That's what rational behavior is.

First off, I don't give two ****s about a two sentence pancake theory from ctyri, the established dumbass. You did not "describe at length". You wrote an incoherent, rambling, 2-3 sentence version of the pancake theory, a theory that NIST themselves says is invalid.


Can you understand the difference between saying something is explained and actually explaining it? because I am starting to think you can't. You have made two cut and paste attempts to show me where NIST explains the collapse further than the initiation. You failed both times. Now you come at me with some kind of crazy delusional idea that NIST was referring to some bull**** you made up? But don't worry, this isn't baseball- you have three strikes but you're not out. In fact I will give you unlimited chances to show me where NIST explains the collapse of the twin towers.

Show me the text or GTFO, STFU, and GFY

How come you doubt NIST when they say "readily explainable" when you have absolutely no background in any of the relevant fields? Did you see someone Jewish on their board or something?

Deuces thinks travelling to Japan makes him an expert on their culture and that he has a deeper understanding of humanity than the average person because a guy living on the street told him so. Im sure he thinks being a grad school burnout that loses his poker money to Ikes qualifies him as an engineering expert.

Deuces has only traveled to Japan by watching Kurosawa films or anime.

JFC you ******s can't even do this thread right. You don't argue about the posts you put in here, you just post them and then people either point and laugh at the author or the butthurted moron who brought weak sauce to this thread.

When a supposedly serious scientific investigation completely hand waives away the most critical portion of explanation it has been charged with this creates not doubt, but knowledge that it's members either can't or don't want to give a full explanation.

You're probably not a doctor, but if your loved scratched themselves and died a few days later, would you accept the pathologist telling you "Your loved one scraped themselves and, uh, yada yada yada, they dead now."?

It doesn't take any specialized knowledge to discern clear hand waiving and failure to deliver answers to the key question.

lol poor gambool. He spends so much time criticizing people on the internet but he can't even make up his own cracks.

Gambool, you're just like a lint trap here. You have no faculty for discerning value.

gambool, resident lint trap for ****** defenses of Bush era crimes, all tripe from the government mouthpiece which is rejected by anyone with a shred of common sense, and feeble **** made up about Deuces.

You suck at analogies. They aren't hand waving, they are saying that the rest of collapse was obvious.

Thank you. I truly laughed.

I actually proved fermats last theorem before Wiles, cause I wrote the theorem and then wrote QED. How does that analogy strike you?

You suck at analogies. Because something that is complicated isn't being explained to you in a way that you understand doesn't mean there is a vast conspiracy. The clue should have been the whole "this thing that I've never seen happen before looks funny! I bet there is more to this story than the two big airplanes flying into these buildings. I won't say there were silent thermite hush a bombs placed by the Jews because I don't want to be called retarted, so I'll just ask questions that can never be answered!"