KRUGMAN – THE STAND UP COMIC

48 comments

Posted on 21st April 2012 by Administrator in Economy |Politics |Social Issues

, , ,

This elitist douchebag Ivy League asshole actually declares that there is no inflation and that Bernanke’s zero interest rate policy does not benefit the Wall Street banks while destroying the finances of senior citizens across the land. This is proof that ultra-liberals like Krugman and neo-con scum like Romney believe exactly the same thing. There are no differences among the ruling elite. They are circling the wagons as a small faction of critical thinking Americans reveal their cabal.

Krugman Rebutts (sic) Spitznagel, Says Bankers Are “The True Victims Of QE”, Princeton-Grade Hilarity Ensues

Tyler Durden's picture
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 04/21/2012 15:54 -0400

At first we were going to comment on this “response” by the high priest of Keynesian shamanic tautology to Mark Spitznagel’s latest WSJ opinion piece, but then we just started laughing, and kept on laughing, and kept on laughing…

As a reminder, on Thursday Universa’s Mark Spitznagel, best known recently for explaining in very vivid ways just how central planning has sown the seeds of its own destruction, wrote the following in the WSJ:

How the Fed Favors The 1%

 

The Fed doesn’t expand the money supply by dropping cash from helicopters. It does so through capital transfers to the largest banks.

 

A major issue in this year’s presidential campaign is the growing disparity between rich and poor, the 1% versus the 99%. While the president’s solutions differ from those of his likely Republican opponent, they both ignore a principal source of this growing disparity.

 

The source is not runaway entrepreneurial capitalism, which rewards those who best serve the consumer in product and price (Would we really want it any other way?) There is another force that has turned a natural divide into a chasm: the Federal Reserve. The relentless expansion of credit by the Fed creates artificial disparities based on political privilege and economic power.

 

David Hume, the 18th-century Scottish philosopher, pointed out that when money is inserted into the economy (from a government printing press or, as in Hume’s time, the importation of gold and silver), it is not distributed evenly but “confined to the coffers of a few persons, who immediately seek to employ it to advantage.”

 

In the 20th century, the economists of the Austrian school built upon this fact as their central monetary tenet. Ludwig von Mises and his students demonstrated how an increase in money supply is beneficial to those who get it first and is detrimental to those who get it last. Monetary inflation is a process, not a static effect. To think of it only in terms of aggregate price levels (which is all Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke seems capable of) is to ignore this pernicious process and the imbalance and economic dislocation that it creates.

 

As Mises protégé Murray Rothbard explained, monetary inflation is akin to counterfeiting, which necessitates that some benefit and others don’t. After all, if everyone counterfeited in proportion to their wealth, there would be no real economic benefit to anyone. Similarly, the expansion of credit is uneven in the economy, which results in wealth redistribution. To borrow a visual from another Mises student, Friedrich von Hayek, the Fed’s money creation does not flow evenly like water into a tank, but rather oozes like honey into a saucer, dolloping one area first and only then very slowly dribbling to the rest.

 

The Fed doesn’t expand the money supply by uniformly dropping cash from helicopters over the hapless masses. Rather, it directs capital transfers to the largest banks (whether by overpaying them for their financial assets or by lending to them on the cheap), minimizes their borrowing costs, and lowers their reserve requirements. All of these actions result in immediate handouts to the financial elite first, with the hope that they will subsequently unleash this fresh capital onto the unsuspecting markets, raising demand and prices wherever they do.

 

The Fed, having gone on an unprecedented credit expansion spree, has benefited the recipients who were first in line at the trough: banks (imagine borrowing for free and then buying up assets that you know the Fed is aggressively buying with you) and those favored entities and individuals deemed most creditworthy. Flush with capital, these recipients have proceeded to bid up the prices of assets and resources, while everyone else has watched their purchasing power decline.

 

At some point, of course, the honey flow stops—but not before much malinvestment. Such malinvestment is precisely what we saw in the historic 1990s equity and subsequent real-estate bubbles (and what we’re likely seeing again today in overheated credit and equity markets), culminating in painful liquidation.

 

The Fed is transferring immense wealth from the middle class to the most affluent, from the least privileged to the most privileged. This coercive redistribution has been a far more egregious source of disparity than the president’s presumption of tax unfairness (if there is anything unfair about approximately half of a population paying zero income taxes) or deregulation.

 

Pitting economic classes against each other is a divisive tactic that benefits no one. Yet if there is any upside, it is perhaps a closer examination of the true causes of the problem. Before we start down the path of arguing about the merits of redistributing wealth to benefit the many, why not first stop redistributing it to the most privileged?

And here is how Krugman, who among other pearls of insight references … Joe Wisenthal, responds. This is seriously Princeton-grade humor. We leave it up to readers to enjoy it for themselves unobstructed by our cynical interjections. Fom the NYT (highlights ours)

Plutocrats and Printing Presses

 

These past few years have been lean times in many respects — but they’ve been boom years for agonizingly dumb, pound-your-head-on-the-table economic fallacies. The latest fad — illustrated by this piece in today’s WSJ — is that expansionary monetary policy is a giveaway to banks and plutocrats generally. Indeed, that WSJ screed actually claims that the whole 1 versus 99 thing should really be about reining in or maybe abolishing the Fed. And unfortunately, some good people, like Daron Agemoglu and Simon Johnson, have bought into at least some version of this story.

 

What’s wrong with the idea that running the printing presses is a giveaway to plutocrats? Let me count the ways.

 

First, as Joe Wiesenthal and Mike Konczal both point out, the actual politics is utterly the reverse of what’s being claimed. Quantitative easing isn’t being imposed on an unwitting populace by financiers and rentiers; it’s being undertaken, to the extent that it is, over howls of protest from the financial industry. I mean, where are the editorials in the WSJ demanding that the Fed raise its inflation target?

 

Beyond that, let’s talk about the economics.

 

The naive (or deliberately misleading) version of Fed policy is the claim that Ben Bernanke is “giving money” to the banks. What it actually does, of course, is buy stuff, usually short-term government debt but nowadays sometimes other stuff. It’s not a gift.

To claim that it’s effectively a gift you have to claim that the prices the Fed is paying are artificially high, or equivalently that interest rates are being pushed artificially low. And you do in fact see assertions to that effect all the time. But if you think about it for even a minute, that claim is truly bizarre.

 

I mean, what is the un-artificial, or if you prefer, “natural” rate of interest? As it turns out, there is actually a standard definition of the natural rate of interest, coming from Wicksell, and it’s basically defined on a PPE basis (that’s for proof of the pudding is in the eating). Roughly, the natural rate of interest is the rate that would lead to stable inflation at more or less full employment.

 

And we have low inflation with high unemployment, strongly suggesting that the natural rate of interest is below current levels, and that the key problem is the zero lower bound which keeps us from getting there. Under these circumstances, expansionary Fed policy isn’t some kind of giveway to the banks, it’s just an effort to give the economy what it needs.

 

Furthermore, Fed efforts to do this probably tend on average to hurt, not help, bankers. Banks are largely in the business of borrowing short and lending long; anything that compresses the spread between short rates and long rates is likely to be bad for their profits. And the things the Fed is trying to do are in fact largely about compressing that spread, either by persuading investors that it will keep short rates at zero for a longer time or by going out and buying long-term assets. These are actions you would expect to make bankers angry, not happy — and that’s what has actually happened.

 

Finally, how is expansionary monetary policy supposed to hurt the 99 percent? Think of all the people living on fixed incomes, we’re told. But who are these people? I know the picture: retirees living on the interest on their bank account and their fixed pension check — and there are no doubt some people fitting that description. But there aren’t many of them.

 

The typical retired American these days relies largely on Social Security — which is indexed against inflation. He or she may get some interest income from bank deposits, but not much: ordinary Americans have fewer financial assets than the elite can easily imagine. And as for pensions: yes, some people have defined-benefit pension plans that aren’t indexed for inflation. But that’s a dwindling minority — and the effect of, say, 1 or 2 percent higher inflation isn’t going to be enormous even for this minority.

No, the real victims of expansionary monetary policies are the very people who the current mythology says are pushing these policies. And that, I guess, explains why we’re hearing the opposite. It’s George Orwell’s world, and we’re just living in it.

It… just… does…. not…. compute…. is this the type of thinking of needs to exhibit to get a Nobel?

Does Krugman seriously still not understand that NIM as a business model for banks died about the time banks stopped making loans and relying exclusively on prop, pardon flow, trading and using infinite rehypothecation leverage to juice their returns into the stratosphere, using the offbalance accounting permitted by shadow banking (really read this Paul – you may finally understand how finance DOES work these days), while doing all their best to limit origination and mortgage lending exposure, thank you Bank of Countrywide Lynch (i.e. the opposite of the NIM business model)?

Well at least Krugman is right about thing: there sure aren’t many people living on fixed income anymore. Most of them have already died. And he is most certainly not referring to the $5 billion on average in capital that is weekly rotated out of stocks and into bonds.

Whatever anyone does, do not point out our previous post that it was none other than the Fed warning that monetization and excess reserves could lead to hyperinflation. Or, that none other than JPMorgan pointed out a month ago that his beloved central planning has destroyed Okun’s Law which makes all Krugman Op-Eds in the past 4 years about the same intellectual quality as one-ply Cottonelle.

We may get a scene straight out of Scanners. And we don’t want that – we just want more Krugman humor and more LSAP, aka Large Scale Asshat Publications. In fact, it is time for the Fed to stop printing money and just print Krugman Op-Eds. Following the laughter-induced genocide, unemployment will indeed finally drop for once naturally, instead of as a result of millions of people dropping out of the labor force on a monthly basis.

48 Comments
  1. Administrator says:

    A senior citizen with $100,000 of savings and living off $18,000 of Social Security income was able to generate $5,000 of interest income in 2007 to supplement their SS. That was 22% of their living income.

    Today, that same person can generate $150 of interest income. They have taken a 21% reduction in their living income.

    Meanwhile, Krugman’s non-existent inflation has gone up 14% since 2007, according to the BLS.

    There are millions of senior citizens who have experienced this impact.

    Krugman is a slimy weasel.

    21st April 2012 at 5:11 pm

  2. Muck About says:

    He’s just a mouthpiece for the Fed/Treasury/Banking Cartel. Wind him up, stuff a few million in his Swiss bank account and he’d bend over for anything they want him to do or say.

    Best thing to do is ignore him. Of course, if you need someone to dislike, he, Bernanke and Geithner make fine targets for bile spitting.

    MA

    21st April 2012 at 5:37 pm

  3. DaveL says:

    “This elitist douchebag Ivy League asshole actually declares that there is no inflation and that Bernanke’s zero interest rate policy does not benefit the Wall Street banks while destroying the finances of senior citizens across the land. This is proof that ultra-liberals like Krugman and neo-con scum like Romney believe exactly the same thing.”

    Could you cite me the speeches, ads, interviews, writings, etc. where the “neo-con scum” Romney said there was no inflation and that Bernanke’s ZIRP does not benefit Wall Street banks while destroying the finances of senior citizens across the land? Or do you just make this shit up?

    21st April 2012 at 6:12 pm

  4. Administrator says:

    You make retards look bright.

    Did you watch any of the GOP debates you fuckwad?

    Romney agreed with TARP and all the actions taken by Bernanke during the crisis. Are you so helpless and clueless that you can’t do your own basic research.

    Keep convincing yourself Romney will be much better than Obama.

    As soon as I think you can’t make a more idiotic statement, you rise to the occassion and top yourself.

    I say once again, you add nothing to this site.

    21st April 2012 at 7:28 pm

  5. DaveL says:

    “Administrator says:
    A senior citizen with $100,000 of savings and living off $18,000 of Social Security income was able to generate $5,000 of interest income in 2007 to supplement their SS. That was 22% of their living income.
    Today, that same person can generate $150 of interest income. They have taken a 21% reduction in their living income.
    Meanwhile, Krugman’s non-existent inflation has gone up 14% since 2007, according to the BLS.
    There are millions of senior citizens who have experienced this impact.
    Krugman is a slimy weasel.”

    Now all of that is true and fact, and I’m living proof, but where does calling Romney (and no, I wouldn’t vote for him) a neo-con scum fit into this article?

    21st April 2012 at 7:36 pm

  6. Administrator says:

    ZIRP has left America’s seniors destitute while the banksters feed at the trough of zero cost of funds. It’s Bernankecide, a financial holocaust for America’s elderly savers. Any argument to the contrary, citing a click merchant like Weisenthal as an expert is hollow and morally bankrupt.

    Lee Adler
    The Wall Street Examiner

    21st April 2012 at 7:36 pm

  7. Administrator says:

    Are you incapable of connecting any dots and understanding the big picture? The fact is that ultra-liberals like Krugman believe the Federal Reserve policies are beneficial to the economy just like Republicans believe Federal Reserve policies are beneficial to the economy. Romney is a big fan of the Federal Reserve. He’s a big fan of Wall Street. He comes from Wall Street. Have you heard Romney call for raising interest rates? There is not one iota of difference between the two parties or the candidates. I know thinking hurts that pea brain of yours, but try it sometime.

    Your complete lack of comprehension is astounding.

    I hope I don’t end up as a bitter sarcastic old man who only knows how to regurgitate what others write and then shit on it.

    Again, you add absolutely no value on this site other than as a punching bag.

    21st April 2012 at 7:51 pm

  8. hef says:

    “To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.” -Krugman 2002

    Mission accomplished.

    21st April 2012 at 9:38 pm

  9. Maddie's Mom says:

    hef,

    Bra-vo!

    21st April 2012 at 10:08 pm

  10. Ron says:

    While i read an article here once that showed theyre voting records were about the same,i have listened to Romney talk about energy,and as long as he does what he says his thinking is more realistic than Obamas.
    Ron Paul isnt going to do much of anything. Congress having term limits should be on peoples minds.

    21st April 2012 at 11:02 pm

  11. DaveL says:

    “Administrator says:

    You make retards look bright.

    Did you watch any of the GOP debates you fuckwad?

    Romney agreed with TARP and all the actions taken by Bernanke during the crisis. Are you so helpless and clueless that you can’t do your own basic research.”

    You’re right Jim, I’m just a dumbfuck. No I didn’t watch any of the GOP debates and I was stupid enough to believe that TARP was a federal government program passed by Congress and Mitt Romney.

    22nd April 2012 at 12:19 pm

  12. Administrator says:

    Finally something we agree on.

    22nd April 2012 at 12:21 pm

  13. DaveL says:

    “Administrator says:

    Finally something we agree on.”

    We agree that TARP was passed by Congress and Mitt Romney?

    “I hope I don’t end up as a bitter sarcastic old man.”

    End up? You’ve already reached that zenith. What the fuck are you so angry about that many of your comments sound like talking points from MSNBC lately? What did you gain by tying Mitt Romney to Paul Krugman, other than the fact that you are a Ron Paul supporter? There is a large majority of Congress that supported TARP and many of the subsequent decisions made by the Treasury and Fed. Why just lay it at Romney’s feet? You post a headline related to a story about Paul Krugman, but found it necessary to insert a comment that Mitt Romney is a neo-con scum? I’m surprised you didn’t manage to work the Romney’s dog story in here too. Your bias is showing.

    22nd April 2012 at 1:18 pm

  14. Administrator says:

    We agree that you’re a dumbfuck.

    You are the joke of this website.

    You are a racist ideologue and you are scorned by everyone on the site.

    It’s time for you to pack it in.

    22nd April 2012 at 1:22 pm

  15. Administrator says:

    Talking points from MSNBC. What a tool.

    Only a dumbfuck would actually come to this site everyday and not realize that I tear apart both status quo political parties consistently.

    Why don’t you copy and paste what I’ve written and then make a sarcastic idiotic comment?

    You add nothing to this site – absolutely nothing.

    22nd April 2012 at 1:29 pm

  16. FTL says:

    DaveL – Tread Lightly – You may be permanently banned from further posts on this site and permanently allowed access only to MSM sites in the future.

    22nd April 2012 at 1:59 pm

  17. Administrator says:

    FTL

    Every website needs a village idiot. We have Dave Dumbfuck.

    22nd April 2012 at 2:08 pm

  18. FTL says:

    Long live the amazing Dave Dumbfuck

    22nd April 2012 at 2:20 pm

  19. SSS says:

    The warmth. The love. Recent photo of Admin and DaveL.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSazmCG5aBG1iJuMjF7aBrFYAwyd5JNc_FsQBzFK-ZO-ggDarBC

    22nd April 2012 at 2:59 pm

  20. DaveL says:

    “FTL says:

    DaveL – Tread Lightly – You may be permanently banned from further posts on this site and permanently allowed access only to MSM sites in the future.”

    Oh shit, my life will be over. I see contradiction, I say something. Anyone can be a puppet.

    22nd April 2012 at 3:59 pm

  21. DaveL says:

    Or a parrot.

    22nd April 2012 at 3:59 pm

  22. DaveL says:

    “Administrator says:

    We agree that you’re a dumbfuck.

    You are the joke of this website.

    You are a racist ideologue and you are scorned by everyone on the site.

    It’s time for you to pack it in.”

    My medical directive is up to date. You’re the doctor. Pull the plug. Then some young person can have my job. Old fucks need to die off anyway according to you.

    22nd April 2012 at 4:07 pm

  23. stan says:

    What is amazing is that there are actually people who believe what Krugman say and that he has such a platform to spew his ridiculous bs like the NY slimes.

    I use to get mad when I read Krugman. Now I just laugh and roll my eyes.

    22nd April 2012 at 4:15 pm

  24. ncognito1959 says:

    Tying Romney to Krugman/Bernanke, is very accurate. Romney has already stated that he sees no problem with what the fed has done.

    With Romney as pres, you will get increased military spending and reductions in social spending(maybe).
    With Obama as pres, you will get a complete disregard for any spending cuts because its all about aggregate demand forthe progressives. He does not care how much money is thrown at the problem.

    In the end, we will continue to print money in an attempt to inflate away all the debts. That’s just the way it is going to be.

    22nd April 2012 at 4:39 pm

  25. Administrator says:

    So die already and do the world a favor. The national IQ would rise significantly.

    22nd April 2012 at 5:18 pm

  26. DaveL says:

    “ncognito1959 says:

    Tying Romney to Krugman/Bernanke, is very accurate. Romney has already stated that he sees no problem with what the fed has done.”

    Oh yes, “VERY” accurate.

    http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/Massachusetts/Mitt_Romney/Views/The_Federal_Reserve/

    22nd April 2012 at 6:01 pm

  27. hef says:

    Too much conflict in the comments. While I agree that Romney is a status quo d-bag, there has to be honest debate, not name calling etc. I usually enjoy the articles here (except for the constant boomer-bashing) but will frequent more respectable sites such as Zerohedge, Cato, Reason, etc now.

    22nd April 2012 at 6:03 pm

  28. Administrator says:

    Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out hef.

    22nd April 2012 at 6:22 pm

  29. Administrator says:

    Wow

    Look at Dave Dumbfuck posting a link. I guess that counts for research in his book.

    22nd April 2012 at 6:25 pm

  30. Kill Bill says:

    Too much conflict in the comments -hef

    Flame wars are not discouraged on the burning platform. Witness DaveL’s and admin’s bootiful words of brotherly love.

    22nd April 2012 at 6:26 pm

  31. Kill Bill says:

    (except for the constant boomer-bashing) but will frequent more respectable sites such as Zerohedge, Cato, Reason, etc now.

    The Reason Institute is about the piliest pile of propaganda shit I have had the misfortune to peruse

    Bircher Crap.

    22nd April 2012 at 6:37 pm

  32. llpoh says:

    Hef –

    9318997.jpg

    22nd April 2012 at 6:48 pm

  33. Zarathustra says:

    hef, you’re right. I get my feewings hurt all the time in here. So much so that I will have to go on SSDI as my self-esteem is about gone.

    22nd April 2012 at 6:55 pm

  34. brann says:

    really? we are arguing about paul krugman?really? really? that piece of shit? really? move on–he is dead to me and should be to all.don’t give him any attention at all—please.

    22nd April 2012 at 7:16 pm

  35. Administrator says:

    I’m sorry hef never got the chance to experience Smokey.

    22nd April 2012 at 7:32 pm

  36. Colma Rising says:

    Cry me a fucking river, Huff.

    Bill: The funniest irony about Boomer bashing, when one actually reads the 4th T…

    It’s not a bash at all. Quite the opposite. Should you catch my scathing assesment of Xers sometimes and not ignore them, you would find a fair and balanced commentary.

    Now, just for brann:

    Krugs is a moron. It’s extremely important to point this out. My friend just bought a house, short sale, 20% down because the price was reasonable. He’d have housing unaffordable for the benefit of collateral. Bullshit.

    Sure, she bought for about half of what the folks bought it for. Too bad for them. They were sure spending a lot on fancy cars and high-end threads while they didn’t pay the mortgage… so solly.

    Here’s the economic benefit to society: After saving her ass off and working hard all her life, educating herself and using wise discernment of interest and price, she bought. Now guess what’s happened? She’s turned into a consumer for garden tools, home improvement, and such things that will stimulate the economy far more than krugs’ debt-driven hooey.

    Good for her, shame on krugs. His life work is a sham and he’ll never see it.

    Really… Bubbles, aliens, negative interest…. it’s outright garbage.

    22nd April 2012 at 7:47 pm

  37. DaveL says:

    “Administrator says:

    Wow

    Look at Dave Dumbfuck posting a link. I guess that counts for research in his book.”

    Well I didn’t think it was appropriate to just make some lame comments and then paste a whole article from another site like some people.

    22nd April 2012 at 9:53 pm

  38. DaveL says:

    “brann says:

    really? we are arguing about paul krugman?really? really? that piece of shit? really?”

    Absolutely right brann, Krugman is a piece of shit, but how else would anyone be able to tie Romney into this whole thread unless we post an article about Krugman.

    22nd April 2012 at 9:56 pm

  39. Administrator says:

    Dave Dumbfuck makes 4 comments in succession and each is more worthless then the previous one. He glories in proving to everyone on TBP that he is is incapable of adding one iota of benefit to the dialogue on this site.

    Time to copy someone else’s comment and make a snide comment.

    Worthless.

    22nd April 2012 at 10:19 pm

  40. llpoh says:

    Admin – if I had more energy I would run the dumbfuck off for you. But I am tired. It has been a long couple of weeks, so I will have to attend to that later.

    Dave – don’t you have a schoolgirl to molest or something? And your habit of cutting and pasting whole sections of posts blasting you for being a shit-for-brains isn’t endearing. It is just rather sad. I have a long history of being able to discover and exploit the weaknesses of dumbfucks that occassionally do not learn, and their pain is usually too much for them to bear. So do us a favor, and shaddup a before the flamethrower gets turned your way.

    22nd April 2012 at 11:04 pm

  41. llpoh says:

    A couple of recents snaps of DaveL:

    Dirty-Old-Man-87781.jpg

    ktbl-dirty-old-man12.jpg

    22nd April 2012 at 11:13 pm

  42. SSS says:

    Well, it’s 2315 Admin’s time. He’s probably asleep, so maybe I can give him something to think about tomorrow morning on the way through the 30 Blocks of Squalor.

    He said to DaveL in this thread, “So die already and do the world a favor.” I was shocked that Admin said that. The rhetoric here can get really explosive, but that one is, in my view, beyond the pale. It was uncalled for and inexcusable.

    Now, then. Hef seems to be offended by such give and take, as I am in at least one instance in this case, but counters that he “will frequent more respectable sites such as Zerohedge, Cato, Reason, etc now.”

    Really, hef? You get all sniffy about some flame-throwing comments and proclaim you will will take your attention elsewhere? Go ahead. Guaranteed you’ll be bored to death. Boredom is not a watchword on TBP.

    22nd April 2012 at 11:45 pm

  43. brann says:

    while we waste time on krugman,the real enemy works his magic on the masses—-forget krugman he is a diversion as all msm is—-focus ,focus ,focus.

    22nd April 2012 at 11:55 pm

  44. Kill Bill says:

    It was uncalled for and inexcusable. -SSS

    So was that pic llpoh posted.

    23rd April 2012 at 12:22 am

  45. Zarathustra says:

    I read this blog daily and I don’t get the animus for DaveL, but I don’t always pay much attention to the comments. Since I don’t have a dog in this hunt I have stayed out of it.

    23rd April 2012 at 12:28 am

  46. Kill Bill says:

    I have no animus towards DaveL

    Its all in good fun Dave.

    Damn the torpedos.

    23rd April 2012 at 1:33 am

  47. Bruce says:

    Dave,
    The way a post is written but not necessarily what it says can provoke a response either negative or positive. Same as with talking to people. Probably you understand this. You are quite adept at phasing your posts in a fashion that will get a negative response even if your argument is valid which in this case in regards to Romney I think your argument is. But it sure came across in an arrogant way. At least to me it did and probably to others. Possibly it was not meant that way. I think your bright enough to figure out how to question or disagree with someone with out causing them to get pissed or defensive. It’s amazing to me how people want someone to conceded on a point or come round to agreement with ones position then set up words to do combat or to aggressively debate rather than influence. Winning a debate is just that ………winning a debate. Rarely does a winning debate change or influence the opinion of the other contestant or his supporters. Mostly it just generates resentment. In the real world debate will never put coin in your pocket. To do that you must influence, persuade and control the conversation and yourself. Of course if your looking to stir the pot or turn the heat up then you are doing well and I need to tell you nothing. I know I’ve written some things that when I’m done I think to myself “That will get em’ stirred up good”. It’s so easy to do. Kicking the ant pile got me kicked off Crooks and Liars forever. Not that I care too much but it was one of the greatest sites to see people completely flip out in so many truly interesting and creative ways when presented with facts, truths, corrections or by pointing out their hypocrisy.

    23rd April 2012 at 6:36 am

  48. DaveL says:

    A reprint from earlier today when there was site problems:

    Bruce says: “Of course if you are looking to stir the pot or turn the heat up then you are doing well and I need to tell you nothing.”

    Caught me. Not quite a scorpion/frog tale, but close. Don’t get wadded up ladies. I’m a big boy now and have few illusions about reactions to thing I say. If I stick my hand in the beehive, I expect to get stung. Take very little personal.

    23rd April 2012 at 6:25 pm

Leave a comment

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.