The case for deflation

[mjdgreg]

I think your credibility just went down the plughole.

 

I think you'll find my reputation has been enhanced. It may surprise you to know but if the graph is BS and anybody can prove it then I am quite happy to concede that point. I'm not the one that keeps on banging on about it. In fact I'm quite happy not to discuss it again as at 507% we are dead any way. I'm quite happy to accept Billy's claim that our debt is 507% as I've said earlier.

What is the problem with you people? You all seem intent of making yourselves look incredibilly pedantic and stupid. Get a grip and stop being so silly.

[wilts rover]

As my post above seems to have been missed/not commented on, can I just reiterate it again, with a different link, Moragn Stanley, whose mistakes led to the global economic crises, are a company who seem to have gained a reputation for producing false information, as noted in several court cases, some still ongoing. You are therefore associating yourself with proven liars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Stanley

[Filo]

As my post above seems to have been missed/not commented on, can I just reiterate it again, with a different link, Moragn Stanley, whose mistakes led to the global economic crises, are a company who seem to have gained a reputation for producing false information, as noted in several court cases, some still ongoing. You are therefore associating yourself with proven liars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Stanley

It probably has n`t been missed, rather ignored, because it does n`t suit Micks agenda

[Glyn_Wigley]

I think your credibility just went down the plughole.

 

I think you'll find my reputation has been enhanced. It may surprise you to know but if the graph is BS and anybody can prove it then I am quite happy to concede that point. I'm not the one that keeps on banging on about it. In fact I'm quite happy not to discuss it again as at 507% we are dead any way. I'm quite happy to accept Billy's claim that our debt is 507% as I've said earlier.

What is the problem with you people? You all seem intent of making yourselves look incredibilly pedantic and stupid. Get a grip and stop being so silly.

The more you shovel it on the more transparent you become.

[mjdgreg]

As my post above seems to have been missed/not commented on, can I just reiterate it again, with a different link, Moragn Stanley, whose mistakes led to the global economic crises, are a company who seem to have gained a reputation for producing false information, as noted in several court cases, some still ongoing. You are therefore associating yourself with proven liars.

Your post has been ignored because nobody could care less what you think about Morgan Stanley. Now, if you'd said how you would sort out the nation's finances that might have been a bit more interesting. Unlike me, this task is obviously beyond you.

[mjdgreg]

The more you shovel it on the more transparent you become.

I can see straight through you.

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg.

I'm not saying that you lied about that 900% claim.

I think most people are pretty clear you were calling me a liar.

I'm saying that you posted a lie. Which makes you a gullible fool rather than a devious one.

Are you feeling a bit foolish now?

Show us where the original source is

I have done.

and I will 100% retract my accusations.

I'm still waiting.

So far, you HAVEN'T posted the original source.

I have!

You've posted a graph on a swivelled-eyed rightwingnutter.com site on which is was claimed that the original source was Haver Analytics/Morgan Stanley. But you haven't shown where the original Morgan Stanley/Haver Analytics graph came from.

I have!

Me, at first, I accepted that this would be a real source. But then I went looking for it. And I couldn't find it.

It only took me 2 minutes to find it. You must try harder in future.

I assume that YOU can, because you posted the data in the first place, and you wouldn't have posted data like that without checking it's veracity would you? Would you mjdgreg?

You're right I can find it, no problem. No I didn't check the veracity because unlike you I am a trusting person and don't have an overly suspicious mind. I also have a life to get on with.

Prove it to us. Show us where the original data  or report is.

I have!

My apology is waiting for you

.

Where is it then?

I suspect it'll be waiting a while.

Did you mean to say 'I suspect you'll be waiting a while.'

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

I take it that is a "no" to my question about whether you understand the meaning of the word "original"?

Go have a look on that graph in that report. See what it says for "Source". Then tell me where the source data is. And then you'll get your apology. You'll also get a glass of milk, a bedtime story and I'll even tuck you in if you want.

EDIT:Actually, scrap that last bit. I got mixed up thinking I was explaining basic understanding of English to my 4 year old. Understandable mistake I suppose.

EDIT2: On second thoughts, I'm being unfair to my four year old. He understands things first time and doesn't need to have them explained to him ad nauseum.

[wilts rover]

As my post above seems to have been missed/not commented on, can I just reiterate it again, with a different link, Moragn Stanley, whose mistakes led to the global economic crises, are a company who seem to have gained a reputation for producing false information, as noted in several court cases, some still ongoing. You are therefore associating yourself with proven liars.

Your post has been ignored because nobody could care less what you think about Morgan Stanley. Now, if you'd said how you would sort out the nation's finances that might have been a bit more interesting. Unlike me, this task is obviously beyond you.

From the content of your posts on this thread you exhibit all the knowledge and foresight of George Osbourne and like him, it is certainly beyond you.

Oh btw, which poster was it who wrote the other evening about attacking the messenger rather than the message - shall I go check or will you admit to your hypocracy and apologise for your rudeness?

[mjdgreg]

mjdgreg

I take it that is a "no" to my question about whether you understand the meaning of the word "original"?

Go have a look on that graph in that report. See what it says for "Source". Then tell me where the source data is. And then you'll get your apology. You'll also get a glass of milk, a bedtime story and I'll even tuck you in if you want.

EDIT:Actually, scrap that last bit. I got mixed up thinking I was explaining basic understanding of English to my 4 year old. Understandable mistake I suppose.

EDIT2: On second thoughts, I'm being unfair to my four year old. He understands things first time and doesn't need to have them explained to him ad nauseum.

What a surprise. Moving the goal posts again. Originally you ask for the source of the graph and say you will issue an apology. When I give you the source of the graph you don't issue an apology and then say you want the source of the data. Weasel words.

You've made yourself look a right numptie over this. No doubt if I gave you the data you'd want to know the names and addresses of the researchers and what their qualifications were. What a plonker.

[mjdgreg]

From the content of your posts on this thread you exhibit all the knowledge and foresight of George Osbourne and like him, it is certainly beyond you.

Oh btw, which poster was it who wrote the other evening about attacking the messenger rather than the message - shall I go check or will you admit to your hypocracy and apologise for your rudeness?

Unlike some people on here I do make apologies. I apologise for being rude and admit my hypocrisy. I'm very sorry if I hurt your feelings.

[Filo]

mjdgreg

I take it that is a "no" to my question about whether you understand the meaning of the word "original"?

Go have a look on that graph in that report. See what it says for "Source". Then tell me where the source data is. And then you'll get your apology. You'll also get a glass of milk, a bedtime story and I'll even tuck you in if you want.

EDIT:Actually, scrap that last bit. I got mixed up thinking I was explaining basic understanding of English to my 4 year old. Understandable mistake I suppose.

EDIT2: On second thoughts, I'm being unfair to my four year old. He understands things first time and doesn't need to have them explained to him ad nauseum.

What a surprise. Moving the goal posts again. Originally you ask for the source of the graph and say you will issue an apology. When I give you the source of the graph you don't issue an apology and then say you want the source of the data. Weasel words.

You've made yourself look a right numptie over this. No doubt if I gave you the data you'd want to know the names and addresses of the researchers and what their qualifications were. What a plonker.

Says the guy who`s constantly moved the goal post when every one of his "facts" has been rubbished!

[wilts rover]

From the content of your posts on this thread you exhibit all the knowledge and foresight of George Osbourne and like him, it is certainly beyond you.

Oh btw, which poster was it who wrote the other evening about attacking the messenger rather than the message - shall I go check or will you admit to your hypocracy and apologise for your rudeness?

Unlike some people on here I do make apologies. I apologise for being rude and admit my hypocrisy. I'm very sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Thank you and that is most gracious of you. It would be good if we could (all) keep our differences to the subject rather than the poster.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

What I said when you first presented that graph was:

Here's a challenge for you. Go and dig out the ORIGINAL report that presented that Morgan Stanley graph.

I've now lost count of the number of times you have demonstrated your ignorance of the word "original".

Let me make it simpler for you because you clearly haven't the first idea what I am talking about.

That report is NOT the original source of that graph. It shows a graph with some coloured bars on it, gives a "source" as "Morgan Stanley/Haver Analytics" and then does not discuss anything whatsoever about the graph.

That is not an original source (or if it is, it is meaningless). An original source would explain where the data came from that went into the graph, how it had been analysed etc. Without that sort of information, the graph is meaningless. I assume that a company as renown as MS would have presented their rationale somewhere. Surely they wouldn't assume that they could present a nice coloured graph suggesting that our debt was six trillion quid bigger than everyone else believes, and that anyone would be so suggestible as to just simply accept it as fact without any justification? No-one would be as gullible as that would they?

I've just twigged. You're not being deliberately evasive are you?  You really don't understand the difference between a) published information and b) published information that is properly explained, justified and referenced. You really don't get it do you?

Your approach is that you will believe something if
a) it is published somewhere
b) it says what you want to hear.

If it meets those criteria, you will accept it. If it fails the second, you will reject it.

Your posts all now suddenly make perfect sense. My apologies for accusing you of being deliberately obfuscatory.

[Marydene Rover]

Thats a very poor excuse for an apology Billy I expected better from you.

[mjdgreg]

Thank you and that is most gracious of you. It would be good if we could (all) keep our differences to the subject rather than the poster.

I agree and will try harder to be more civil.

[Filo]

Thats a very poor excuse for an apology Billy I expected better from you.

I see the relations have been called in!

[mjdgreg]

Billy, you said that the graph was a lie. The OED definition of a lie is as follows:

To lie = to make a false statement with the intention to deceive.

Because I referred to the graph you then imply therefore that I am a liar.

You yourself have stated that you cannot find the data that explains how the graph was made up. So therefore if you haven't got this information how do you  then decide the graph is a lie and was made up with the intention to deceive?

You've made some serious assumptions there, and in my opinion you've done this because the graph makes your argument look very weak. Now, I will admit that I took the graph at face value and am prepared to take its findings with a pinch of salt if there is evidence to the contrary. In other words I have an open mind on it.

You on the other hand say it is a lie and therefore I am a liar. That makes you look extremely silly because you have based this opinion on no data whatsoever because it can't be found. For someone who prides himself on doing research before coming to conclusions you have just shot yourself in the foot big time.

The data isn't out there. Haver Analytics (closely linked to Morgan Stanley) have removed it from their website. Don't ask me why. So the Morgan Stanley report I gave you is as good as it gets. I proved that the graph was real. It did have data to back it up but this has mysteriously disappeared.

So just apologise. You are asking the impossible (which no doubt you've known all along since I produced the report with the graph in it) by asking for me to now also produce the data that backs up the graph. You only wanted the report with the graph in it. I gave you that. Then you decided not to apologise and used the fact that the data has disappeared to try to wriggle out of you responsibilities. Pathetic really and I fear you will be judged accordingly.

[mjdgreg]

Says the guy who`s constantly moved the goal post when every one of his "facts" has been rubbished!

You are being very silly. I issue you with a challenge. Please provide ten examples of where my facts have been rubbished. Shouldn't be too difficult as I have posted hundreds of facts. I'll give you 10 days to sort it. You can do them one at a time if you wish. If you fail, then I expect an abject apology. It will be gracelessly accepted immediately. If you succeed, I will offer you an abject apology.

[Filo]

Says the guy who`s constantly moved the goal post when every one of his "facts" has been rubbished!

You are being very silly. I issue you with a challenge. Please provide ten examples of where my facts have been rubbished. Shouldn't be too difficult as I have posted hundreds of facts. I'll give you 10 days to sort it. You can do them one at a time if you wish. If you fail, then I expect an abject apology. It will be gracelessly accepted immediately. If you succeed, I will offer you an abject apology.

You`ll be waiting a very long time before you get an apology from me, you`re a bullshitter of the highest order!

[mjdgreg]

You`ll be waiting a very long time before you get an apology from me, you`re a bullshitter of the highest order!

You sound very confident that you will have the ten examples before your time is up. I wouldn't be so sure if I was you. I'm already getting ready to accept your apology.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Right Mick

Here's the deal. I am utterly bereft of ideas on how to communicate with you. You have, through ignorance or wilfull argumentativeness, decided to ignore what I was asking you and the central lesson therein - that simply regurgitating "facts" that cannot be substantiated destroys any concept of meaningful discussion. You have convinced yourself that you have proved something by showing a set of coloured lines in a graph. You appear to have not the slightest interest in why that information is wildly, grossly out of line with anything else published anywhere else in the world. You post it and build an argument around it because it suits you to do so.

 If that is the standard of "proof" that you work by, it's pointless talking to you. I've told you before that I would sack you on the spot if you worked for me with an attitude like that.

So. The deal. I'm taking a vow not to reply to anything else you post. Anything I post will not be directed at you, and you have no need to feel a need to reply to it. We know what your approach to facts and arguments are, so there's no point in taking issue with it.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Billy, you said that the graph was a lie. The OED definition of a lie is as follows:

To lie = to make a false statement with the intention to deceive.

Because I referred to the graph you then imply therefore that I am a liar.

All cats have four legs.

Dogs have four legs.

Therefore all dogs are cats.

[mjdgreg]

Right mjdgreg

Here's the deal. I am utterly bereft of ideas on how to communicate with you. You have, through ignorance or wilfull argumentativeness, decided to ignore what I was asking you

What a load of rubbish. I gave you the graph. I gave you the report. I told you the data has been removed from the Haver Analytics website. I stated that if the graph is dodgy I will accept that. I stated I would accept your version of events that the debt is 507%. I could go on. You are so unreasonable it is untrue.
 

and the central lesson therein - that simply regurgitating "facts" that cannot be substantiated destroys any concept of meaningful discussion.

This graph was your best attempt to prove that I was a liar. You failed abysmally. You did not then provide any other lies despite me prompting you. Says it all.

You have convinced yourself that you have proved something by showing a set of coloured lines in a graph. You appear to have not the slightest interest in why that information is wildly, grossly out of line with anything else published anywhere else in the world. You post it and build an argument around it because it suits you to do so.

You obviously are incapable of reading my posts properly. I've stated more than once that if the graph is dodgy then I will accept that.

If that is the standard of "proof" that you work by, it's pointless talking to you. I've told you before that I would sack you on the spot if you worked for me with an attitude like that.

No need to worry. I'd never work for someone who is as anal as you. You can't see the wood for the trees and with an outlook like that it is only a matter of time before your business fails.

So. The deal. I'm taking a vow not to reply to anything else you post. Anything I post will not be directed at you, and you have no need to feel a need to reply to it.

Hallelujah!!! That is the best thing I've ever seen you post. You really make my piss boil with your uncompromising hard left ludicrous views and it will be an absolute pleasure never having to batter you again. My work is done.

[mjdgreg]

You`ll be waiting a very long time before you get an apology from me, you`re a bullshitter of the highest order!

You sound very confident that you will have the ten examples before your time is up. I wouldn't be so sure if I was you. I'm already getting ready to accept your apology.

Not even one example yet. You are running out of time. I hope you've got your apology prepared.

[mjdgreg]

Right Filo, your time is up. Not even one example. I'm ready to accept your abject apology.