This sounds like classic projection. It is YOU cherrypicking and moving goalposts. There's nothing "out of context" in any of the posts I used to show that you were lying about my argument (again). You have a real habit of being dishonest and creating a false narrative for people here. If you didn't do that constantly, you wouldn't be roundly loathed around here. You're a liar, and, well, kind of a dick. I think you know it.

As for linking the thread, it's right here, crybaby. I didn't think you needed the reference, considering it's from July and right on the main page of the subforum, dip****. About 40 posts in.

Wrong again, liar. I simply said their desperation was a result of their oil production peaking, and I provided numerous links backing that position up. It's right here in post 58. I said nothing about "increasing." That was you trying to pull me down your rabbit hole, just to AIDS it up, like you always do. You, and you alone, made it a question about net immigration, which you later changed to "gross immigration" when you came to realize deportations kinda matter in net figures.

Don't get all butthurt because someone is finally calling you out for being the perpetual fraud that you are. Troll.

Here's what I said in the thread in response to your rather clever, and desperate, attempt to frame the argument as if I ever once said net immigration was rising. Didn't happen, liar:

So classic of you to isolate a data point, think it wins for you, yet have no idea what it actually means. Figures being down aren't a sign that things are getting better in Mexico, you dumb tool. They are down because U.S. job and housing construction markets are horrible, there's heightened border enforcement by nutjob cons, there's a rise in deportations, as well as all the other dangers associated with illegal border crossings. Are you aware that every Mexican sent home counts towards the stat your trying to champion? Probably not. But what does context matter in the mind of someone like you, who is akin to a RW climate denialist?

You then quickly shifted to gross immigration figures. Noted. Too bad that doesn't explain away their horrid standard of living due to declining oil revenues either.

That means very little, because laughing and surface dismissal is the main arsenal of trolls. It's what you do. Not one of them, especially you, were able to dispute that that country being past peak is precisely why their standard of living has plummeted. All you did was yell "no, that's not why" louder and louder. Rest assured, I was laughing. Mainly because I backed up my argument, and you couldn't actually respond to it.

It is amusing watching you confuse demand (wanting to leave their country) with consumption (actually attempting the journey north, and succeeding) when it comes to the root cause of emigration. ... Fail.

That's the offer I posed to you for lying and losing. Your desperate counter-suit won't save you, welcher. The thread is linked, you lied about my argument, and now you're trying to save face.

GTFO.

TLDR neutral party offer open, etc.

Rudolf Havenstein - he was the central banker during the Weimer republic. He was so convinced keeping interest rates low and printing helped the economy. All it did was lead to hyperinflation and indirectly Hitler. note: reparations did not help either.

What I want to prove is that the bottom 10 percent would be far better off and earn more income if the Koch brothers paid less income tax, minimum wage was eliminated, and all school funding at the federal and state level was eliminated. The Reich/Krugman policy hurt the poor. Instead of focusing on taxes, they should be focused on justice.

As for the book, forum posts are more widely read. If you go to youtube, a lecture might get 5,000-50,000 views, however live in a classroom you might only get 20 views. Some guy on twoplustwo wrote a book and it barely sold any copies.

https://twitter.com/RudyHavenstein
Some guy made a fake twitter account and at times can be very funny.

Well I came across a major snag which should give you liber-alleys a little hope. Trade is not always win-win. Microsoft has a advantage because their os is the standard. The grocery store has the land and best locations. 76% of the the farmers in Iowa own their land thus they are all multi-millionaires, yet there are 1000s on food stamps in the state. The McDonalds employee can't quit and start their own fast food joint due to the red tape.

Furthermore, if you take a bum with a homeless and ask them to do a foot race between Gates and Buffett, the homeless guy may actually win. The line and luck between success and failure is very small. The difference between Negreanu and the average player is very small.

What I propose may seem shocking and it is only a draft. Find out what the median wage is $50K. All income above the median a year is taxed at 50% (possibly averaged over 5 years). Possibly higher at higher income levels. All this money is redistibuted equally. This amount may be $25K. Capital gains and dividends tax may be substituated for a 50% corporate rate, thus foreigners pay the same tax as U.S. citizens and the small investor still gets the $25K.

Rather than government deciding how you spend the money (Obamacare, food stamps, school, solar panels) you just get a check. Most government money should only go to defense and the courts.

found this article

http://taxfoundation.org/article/tho...wealth-america

so you say the bum making $25K is making almost as much as me farming. You would have the option to quit.

The better everyone gets, the more luck plays a role, it is called "the paradox of skill (and luck)". There is a pretty good book by Michael J. Mauboussin about that. Or as you correctly said, nobody reads books, there is a good wharton lecture on youtube about it.

Today was the first day of college for many. Otherwise the day to celebrate the stolen funds of the Koch brothers or taxing (or shakedown) a homeless person $.11 to get a $1.29 McDouble sandwidch at McDonalds. Wandering through campus of carefully manicured lawns hoping not to disturb a blade of grass or campus police will come down on you take out a knee in their batons in their electric carts.

So you head to the $50 million dollar gym or see a performance at the $125 million arts center. So you can hang out with the working people that pay for it all with their gyms with no air conditioning, old crt tvs, and broken equipment.

You got to ask yourself, do you really want to listen to Reich, Piketty, and Krugman (who claims government is schools), when you can go on to youtube and watch the same lecture in your pajamas from a UC college? 40,000 views of a chem 1A lecture. Basically 1000 classrooms worth of teaching or $1 a credit.

Isn't time to end all school funding and give the money back to the people so they can build their own monuments? Or do you want to listen to some pompous economics professor and their marble floors and posters of Obama and Clinton on the walls. As they head to ask more collectivists, the nobel prize board to give them more prizes to boost their credibility. A nobel prize as long as you support Keynes, liberalism, collectivism, and the federal reserve.

94% of professors voted for Obama over Romney, and if you were republican you were either fired or banned to speak at commencement because you were most likely successful.

i don't even...

Romney is a ****ing moron, but would be surprised by that. Do you have a cite? Would be a pretty interesting fact about academia.

Here is the list of colleges that the Koch brothers have voluntarily donated money to

http://www.kochfamilyfoundations.org...tyPrograms.pdf

Prob should stop pretending they (or really anybody) agrees with your insane rants.

I have a hard time being on board for the "koch-brothers-are-powerfulandevil" argument. Let me preface it by: yeah they suck. Yeah, they donate to a lot of schools. Doesn't make steelhouse's points invalid. Just adds a: "it is not only taxes that support the idiocies of the rich" to the argument (edit: deleted because not part of the argument)

Not sure what you are saying. Clearly the Koch brothers don't agree with Steelhouse on the worth of universities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhfn2zgFFJ8

Bloomberg said 96% donated to Obama at Ivy league faculty and employees 10:40. I don't know if that included PACs. I do know Harvard is probably one of Obamas top ten donators. Many denied job or giving a commencment speech if conservative.

As for the Koch brothers those were donations. I was refering to taxes. I used the Koch brothers becasue ehre are the top titles if you enter Koch brothers on youtube.

People and Power the Koch Brothers
Koch Brothers exposd
Rachel Maddows fends off Koch Brothers
How the Koch Brothers fleeced America
The Koch Brothers tried to shut up Maddow, bad idea.
Robert Reich of the Koch Brother Problem
Koch Brothers, Its the evil thing.
Michael Savage - Koch Brothers behind lavish facilities for Illegals.
Bill Maher makes the Koch brother shill look foolish.

Steelhouse, approximately how much of the "information" you've attained over the past decade has come from the Utubez?

This is the cite you're looking for: 96% of political donations from Ivy League faculty & staff went for Obama

Problems:
1. The methodology is not documented - it just says "a Campus Reform investigation compiled using numbers released by the FEC"
2. The organization ("Campus Reform") has a clear partisan agenda
3. Even if accurate, this is Ivy League only
4. Even if accurate, donations do not necessarily reflect voting patterns of the entire academic population

So the assertion ("94% of professors voted for Obama over Romney") is not supported.

I am sorry, I was drunk. Failed to see the subtle irony in your answer.

Hey, thanks a lot! You even did my work for me!

And thanks steelhouse, but this source is really slim.

This just in: Really smart people voted for Obama.

So if the numbers were true, you would not think they were problematic? What about those poor Republicans, who are systematically oppressed from becoming university professors?

I believe discrimination based on intelligence is still legal.

Yes, that is why women earn less.

God, I can see, why people resort two one-liners.

Yes, I know: it is only discrimination/oppression, if the different treatment is based on irrelevant characteristics.


What I don't know:
a) Why is diversity in teams considered to be oh so important when it concerns females and minorities but not difference in height or difference in politics or difference in other personality traits, that are not so politically charged. This is a very fine example to show how important the "Forschungsinteresse" (how scientists choose what to research) is, because there is tons of research on females and minorities but almost none on other characteristics.


b) Why are you so sure, that Dems are smarter than Reps. And even if they are. 94% vs 6%?

c) Why are you so sure university profs and staff are smart? Would love to make a bet on who is smarter: a low level math guy at Swiss Re or the sociology prof at your state uni. Or your median staff member at an ivy league.

Just stop.

I guess today was the wrong day for me to attempt a joke.

It has been shown, that people actually consider the height of another person when making decisions about them. It is shown, that there is a difference in power perception between tall and small men. And I am sure, there are tons of other studies I am not aware off. So it is not that far off to actually study, whether height diversified teams perform better, if you're into diversity studies.

I wasn't playing, you seeiously need to stop. There's no way for you to continue this line without the hole deepening.

Don't defend Steelhouse, he is quite insane.