In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1101
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Are you serious? An online survey of 4,800 people and those results leads you to believe that all conservatives understand the economy better than all liberals. Did you even read the questions they asked and the method by which they determine "enlightenment?"
Generally speaking I've always thought you provided decent material to read and think about, but not in this instance.
301 moved permanently
You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#
Even Bruce Bartlett, who worked for Reagan and Bush I says this stuff is sloppy and worthless
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1779/sloppy-right-wing-research?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A CapitalGainsAndGames %28Capital Gains and Games - Wall Street%2C Washington%2C and Everything in Between%29
So you don't think there are any qualified economists who are liberal?
Do you not consider Krugman an economist? If not, what disqualifies him. What about Joseph Stiglitz?
I consider Paul Krugman to be reputable economist like I consider Bill Maher to be a reputable political commentator.
And to be honest, I just found the article in five minutes. I'm sure if I spent some time I could find some scholarly articles that were in line with my thoughts. As I'm sure you could find some to disprove mine.
It's just a matter of opinion. I just don't see how anyone could be a doctor, lawyer (), financial adviser, and support liberal economic policies.
Why about Krugman? What are the reasons that a guy who earns a PhD in economics from MIT and a Nobel Prize is not qualified as an economist?
So, you recognize that there are "scholarly" articles (I'm assuming you mean logical, reasonable, defensible, etc.) that support economic policies consistent with conservative and liberal points of view, but then say you still don't understand how an economist could be a liberal? That seems contradictory. You can understand something without agreeing with it.
Well I am a finance undergraduate major who now is an attorney practicing in tax and estate planning. If you are curious as to why some of my views (even views on economics) lean toward liberal, this is your opportunity to now understand why. I'm not saying I'm correct or you have to agree with me, but at least you will be able to understand it.
Are you sure you didn't read that from the article that quotes him saying that?
Blunt talk from Home Depot CEO about Obama and economy
RIP Lil Julio
Also, I asked why you feel that an economist can't be liberal, not what some hack research says. You said that is what you believe, so why do you believe it?
Article was the reason I asked the question, was like throwing him a slow pitch in softball.
If I'm not mistaken, Yasser Arafat won a Nobel Prize. And of course the 2009 winner, was about as undeserving as one could be. But I digress.
And I'll get to your question, but might take a while to respond.
and they work for the government. Hmmm.
The same scientists that are having their research funded by the government?
Krugman isn't a economist anymore, he left that title many years go when he became a shill for the liberal agenda.
This post was edited by NLeininger 13 months ago
So, by your logic, anyone ever associated with the Heritage Foundation loses all credibility as an economist/scientist/whatever?
Well the Heritage Foundation was a central figure in the "Contract with America" or the principles that ushered in what you guys call the Glorious Clinton years. So they obviously aren't idiots, like a man that proclaimed Obama's stimulus #1 wasn't enough.
Haha nice move. I bet you heard a nice little rant.
Wasn't just last week that you were holding certain economic theories to be the truth?
I shit you not the Subway corporate 'sales pitch' was "if you work at your store 6 days a week 7-9 hours a day you could possibly make FOURTY THOUSAND A YEAR!! (insert confetti drop)" Not to mention the asking price was 240k which would be 6 to possibly 7 years of earnings opposed to the usual 3-5 years worth of earnings most small businesses get sold for.
Nobody is forcing anyone to do that.
Of coarse not, far from it. But when a corporation is designed to shaft their own franchisees(the actual working middle class) I'm sorry if their complaints fall on deaf ears.
Lmao. The reason Subway is the largest restaurant chain in the world is because the franchisees got the shaft.
DESIGNED TO FAIL.
Don't feed this troll guys.
He is an inbred Mongolian incapable of posting a coherent thOught.
He has no idea about anythIng being discussed in this thread.
He is just mad because the starting QB at his high school had the audacity to refuse a blow job from him.
Please do not respond to this mongol reject.
The corporate model is flawless, but all those high paid athletes and nationwide advertising gets paid for in higher than standard franchise fees and not by a corporate marketing team. They also build them blocks away from each other within walking distance, more money for corporate but the franchisees get sabotaged left and right.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports