Economy to grow at 5.4% rate in first quarter, Atlanta Fed tracker shows

I'm sorry. Let me put it in a way you can understand it.

Did the faux conservative watch "Silence of the Lambs" too many times?

The faux conservative has this weird Buffalo Bill character third person speech thing going on.

 

So you are indeed saying bush and a republican held congress were liberals.

 

sure it is. Friedman wrote the definitive history of monetarism which showed that libcommie govt cant stimulate the economy with monetary policy. Do you understand?

 

Why yes. Bush came in on a conservative platform of tax cuts, military spending, and eliminating regulation because business can regulate itself, don't you know?

And he did what he promised. He slashed taxes and the surplus vanished. He greatly expanded military spending and the deficits exploded. And he reduced regulation and the housing market went bonkers.

And after f***ing everything up, conservatives want to claim he's a liberal.

No thanks. Those weren't liberal policies. We don't want him.

 

You're talking nonsense again. He argued that any stimulus through fiscal policy would only make only temporary gain. The focus therefore should be on monetary policy and controlling inflation. He was found to be talking bollocks. Britain is still recovering from the 1980s stupidity spawned by his guff

 

personal attack , substance free because a typical liberal lacks IQ for substance

 

bollocks?? so fiscal policy bubbles and inflation are actually good for economies???

 

You don't actually understand what Friedman said do you?

 

yes, so what did Bush do that was conservative??

 

he said that libcommie govt could not stimulate economy with fiscal and monetary policy; that Laissezfaire capitalism caused growth. Now do you understand?

 

I didn't ask for rant. I asked if you understood his approach. Do you understand that his output was a reaction to bastardised Keynesianism and that his output was really just some naive notion of a vertical Phillips Curve based around the idea of money illusion? Its a yes or no question!

 

Well if the faux conservative believes it is a "personal attack" to ask the faux conservative why the faux conservative communicates in the third person when addressing someone in the second person, then maybe the faux conservative should not use such an inane style of speech reminiscent of "Buffalo Bill" in "Silence of the Lambs".

Does the faux conservative understand now?

 

don
don't care about his approach ( whatever that means) just whether his macroeconomic conclusions were accurate.

 

Why did the faux conservative delete virtually all of my post and then ask me a question that was specifically addressed in the part of my post the faux conservative deleted?

 

substance free because liberal lacks IQ for substance

 

economics thread. Why not go elsewhere to discuss your nonsense?

 

Why is the faux conservative engaging in personal attacks on me shortly after the faux conservative was complaining about personal attacks?

Other than the fact that the faux conservative has no valid response to the substance of my post addressing the faux conservative.

 

You admit that you don't actually have a clue what Friedman's monetarism meant. Shameful.

 

Why doesn't the faux conservative simply address my question?

 

My post:

Will the faux conservative please explain why the faux conservative claims this post is not related to economics?

I appreciate the faux conservative has nothing intelligent to say in response to my post, but my post is in fact economics related, regardless of what the faux conservative claims.

 

he wrote definitive monetarism history of US from which he concluded fiscal and monetary policy could not stimulate economy, but would do tremendous harm if used to try to stimulate economy. Still confused?

 

"Why yes. Bush came in on a conservative platform"

our subject is not what he came in on but what he was. If you say he was a conservative then tell us what he did that was conservative.

 

You only tell me that you're ignorant of the economics. He used the vertical Phillips Curve bobbins to suggest that monetary policy was key (coupled with policies to reduce the natural rate of unemployment). And when it was adopted? Monetarism destroyed the British economy. It demonstrated one maximisation: child poverty

 

Did you bother to read my entire post, or did you just stop the first sentence?

 

Friedman carefully explained there was no long term relationship between inflation and employment. Now do you understand?