Godwin'd on post one

[Keller]

A comment from a legal blog I read daily. The discussion was on the state of the BIGLAW economy (firms disolving; hundreds, if not thousands, looking for work):

"hang in there kids. the world survived hitler. we will survive bush."

[NocturnalRob]

nazi analogies to bush always make me chuckle.

[Clove]

Yeah Bush only killed 11 million retirements :D

[NocturnalRob]

Yeah Bush only killed 11 million retirements :D

zing

and blaming bush for the economy is just laughably wrong

[Back]

zing

and blaming bush for the economy is just laughably wrong

Of course. We all know it was Darth Cheney and the Republican party. :)

Sarchasm aside, it was bad business practice and greed.

The Hitler/Bush allusion is laughable as you say. The economy is not killing people like the Holocaust.

[Keller]

Of course. We all know it was Darth Cheney and the Republican party. :)

Sarchasm aside, it was bad business practice and greed.

The Hitler/Bush allusion is laughable as you say. The economy is not killing people like the Holocaust.

Where is ClydeR to tell us no one really died in the Hollocaust?

[Back]

Where is ClydeR to tell us no one really died in the Hollocaust?

Wouldn’t it be a trip if we found out that ClydeR was actually Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Just sayin. Its possible.

[Drunken Durfin]

zing

and blaming bush for the economy is just laughably wrong

If the economy was booming he would totally take credit for it.

[NocturnalRob]

If the economy were booming he would totally take credit for it.

as would any president

[Clove]

zing

and blaming bush for the economy is just laughably wrongUnder the Bush administration the US debt has risen to over 10 trillion dollars. Whom should we blame?

[Gan]

Dr. Evil

[Daniel]

Dr. Evil

The surprise post of the day goes to Gan.

[g++]

Sarchasm aside, it was bad business practice and greed.

Yah the best indicator of a good economy is altruism.

[Daniel]

Yah the best indicator of a good economy is altruism.

Because a system that promotes getting retarded rich at all costs is obviously working out well?

[g++]

Because a system that promotes getting retarded rich at all costs is obviously working out well?

Pretty well yah. Theres 7 billion of us and several of us have managed to buy homes and cars.

[NocturnalRob]

Pretty well yah. Theres 7 billion of us and several of us have managed to buy homes and cars.

not this guy!! woohoo!!

[Jorddyn]

Because a system that promotes getting retarded rich at all costs is obviously working out well?

How rich does one have to be to fall into the "retarded rich" and not just "really rich" classification? (Since I'm currently working on my '09 goals)


Pretty well yah. Theres 7 billion of us and several of us have managed to buy homes and cars.

I only have one home (actually just a condo) and one car (but not an SUV). Damn fiscal responsibility. Maybe when I'm retarded rich.

[TheEschaton]

The Socialist revolution is coming, my sisters and brothers. But take comfort, it will be a revolution of the heart and soul, and not one of guns and death, as our capitalist paymasters, ever seeking to enforce the status quo, have brainwashed us to believe revolution must be.

-TheE-

[g++]

The Socialist revolution is coming, my sisters and brothers. But take comfort, it will be a revolution of the heart and soul, and not one of guns and death, as our capitalist paymasters, ever seeking to enforce the status quo, have brainwashed us to believe revolution must be.

-TheE-

LOL youl need lots of money for your campaign. Television, radio, debates. Im sure we can work some kind of donation out for some financial considerations once your new regime comes to power.

[TheEschaton]

The revolution will not be televised!

(I had to say it. I believe it's in our Socialist manifesto.)

[Daniel]

Pretty well yah. Theres 7 billion of us and several of us have managed to buy homes and cars.

Let's assume "having a car and buying a home" classifies you as retarded rich. It doesn't, but what ever.

By "several" are you including the few billion people in this world who subsist on a few bucks a day?

[TheEschaton]

Few billion? Half the world lives on less than a dollar a day, and almost 3/4ths of it on less than 2 dollars a day.

-theE-

[NocturnalRob]

Well, for just 80 cents a day, you can sponsor a child like Amanda...

[Clove]

Few billion? Half the world lives on less than a dollar a day, and almost 3/4ths of it on less than 2 dollars a day.

-theE-Well tell them to get the fuck out of India and become DA's.

[TheEschaton]

If you ask my father what made him different from every single other Indian he went to school with, he'd say sheer, blind luck. He wasn't the smartest, the most ambitious, nor even the most hard-working.

Edit: Yet he still kicked the ever-living shit out of every person in this country, motherfuckers!

-TheE-

[g++]

Let's assume "having a car and buying a home" classifies you as retarded rich. It doesn't, but what ever.

By "several" are you including the few billion people in this world who subsist on a few bucks a day?

Im glad were getting down to the brass tacks of the issue...what is the income bracket of "retarded rich". If we can figure that out well have done some good work here today.

Im responding sarcasticly to a post that barely made any sense to begin with. I said altruism is a good measure of an economy sarcasticly just to say that greed is always present in any market and has little to do with why the economy went off the rails and you respond

"Yeah because a system that promotes getting retarded rich at all costs is working fine".

Even if we take it for granted that we actually live in a system of "getting retarded rich at all costs" a phrase im pretty sure is printed on the dollar bill. You have put no idea forward for a better way to do things.

I think it goes without saying that when I say several out of 7 billion I am not talking about the ones who dont. Otherwise I would have said all of us or more than half, or a quarter. Several implies not many.

[Clove]

If you ask my father what made him different from every single other Indian he went to school with, he'd say sheer, blind luck. He wasn't the smartest, the most ambitious, nor even the most hard-working.

Edit: Yet he still kicked the ever-living shit out of every person in this country, motherfuckers!

-TheE-That must be it then. We've had 200+ years of really good luck.

[Daniel]

Im responding sarcasticly to a post that barely made any sense to begin with. I said altruism is a good measure of an economy sarcasticly just to say that greed is always present in any market and has little to do with why the economy went off the rails and you respond


My point of my post was to point out how silly you are for saying that a root cause of our economic problems right now are not attributible to unfettered greed on behalf of people and corporations in the western world.

You can not point to a single incident or factor of the economic crisis that does not have "greed" as one of it's root factors.




Even if we take it for granted that we actually live in a system of "getting retarded rich at all costs" a phrase im pretty sure is printed on the dollar bill. You have put no idea forward for a better way to do things.

I think it goes without saying that when I say several out of 7 billion I am not talking about the ones who dont. Otherwise I would have said all of us or more than half, or a quarter. Several implies not many.

Get pissy much? I was responding sarcasticly to your sarcastic post. I wasn't aware I had to do a policy analysis to make fun of someone saying something stupid.

Also, you may think it goes without saying, but I'd say that it should be one of the central points brought up when touting the "successes" of our economy.

[Daniel]

Well tell them to get the fuck out of India and become DA's.

Wow. You really are a retard.

[Clove]

Wow. You really are retarded rich.Fixed.

[Daniel]

Good one.

[Clove]

Good one.I make my responses proportionate.

[g++]

My point of my post was to point out how silly you are for saying that a root cause of our economic problems right now are not attributible to unfettered greed on behalf of people and corporations in the western world.

You can not point to a single incident or factor of the economic crisis that does not have "greed" as one of it's root factors.

The moon and ocean are root causes of rain. I suppose we can start predicting whether it will rain tomorrow by checking if the moon is still in orbit and on whether the ocean has evaporated or not. Unfettered greed on behalf of people and corporations in the western world has been going on for hundreds of years it did not cause the recession even if it is unseemly.



Get pissy much? I was responding sarcasticly to your sarcastic post. I wasn't aware I had to do a policy analysis to make fun of someone saying something stupid.


Im not pissy. I did not ask for a policy analysis but if your going to disagree with something I think your argument could stand on something a little firmer than "Yeah because a system that promotes getting retarded rich at all costs is working fine". Ok your saying our current way of doing things is bad. Im an open minded person please lead to me to salvation we can both get out of this deplorable free market economy together. Im just not ready to commit on that awesome phrase alone, we should probably have a better idea first.



Also, you may think it goes without saying, but I'd say that it should be one of the central points brought up when touting the "successes" of our economy.

I did not mean goes without saying in the sense that it would be somehow obscurely implied. I meant goes without saying because the literal English interpretation of "There are 7 billion of us and several of us have" means not many of us.

[Clove]

Few billion? Half the world lives on less than a dollar a day, and almost 3/4ths of it on less than 2 dollars a day.

-theE-And for the record the world average income per capita is around 7k per annum. According to the World Bank Development Indicators, 2008 about 45% (about 3 billion) of the world lives on less than 2.50 a day. About 12% live on less than a dollar a day (included in the 45%). I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

[Tea & Strumpets]

A comment from a legal blog I read daily. The discussion was on the state of the BIGLAW economy (firms disolving; hundreds, if not thousands, looking for work):

"hang in there kids. the world survived hitler. we will survive bush."

I'm guessing that whoever wrote that didn't "survive Hitler".

-Survivor of Ghengis Khan

[ClydeR]

Did you hear about the grocery store somewhere in Pennsylvania that refused to make a birthday cake for a 3 year old because the child's first name was Adolph and his middle name was Hitler? It's true (http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/today/index.ssf/2008/12/holland_township_family_angry.html).

The family was able to get a cake at Walmart, though.

The birthday boy's younger sister, whose middle names are "Aryan Nation," will probably have the same problem on her birthday.

[Daniel]

The moon and ocean are root causes of rain. I suppose we can start predicting whether it will rain tomorrow by checking if the moon is still in orbit and on whether the ocean has evaporated or not. Unfettered greed on behalf of people and corporations in the western world has been going on for hundreds of years it did not cause the recession even if it is unseemly.


Unfettered capitalism has gone on for hundreds of years? You sure? I'm guessing you haven't taken a basic economic course, ever.






Im not pissy. I did not ask for a policy analysis but if your going to disagree with something I think your argument could stand on something a little firmer than "Yeah because a system that promotes getting retarded rich at all costs is working fine". Ok your saying our current way of doing things is bad. Im an open minded person please lead to me to salvation we can both get out of this deplorable free market economy together. Im just not ready to commit on that awesome phrase alone, we should probably have a better idea first.


So wait. You can make snide sarcastic comments and I can't? Blow me.





I did not mean goes without saying in the sense that it would be somehow obscurely implied. I meant goes without saying because the literal English interpretation of "There are 7 billion of us and several of us have" means not many of us.


Right.

[Stanley Burrell]

nazi analogies to bush always make me chuckle.

Yeah, Hitler was actually intelligent.

[g++]

Unfettered capitalism has gone on for hundreds of years? You sure? I'm guessing you haven't taken a basic economic course, ever.



Unfettered greed on behalf of people and corporations in the western world has been going on for hundreds of years .


So for you unfettered greed on behalf of people and corporations in the western world can be summarized as capitolism. Nice job Karl. I have taken micro/macro. I never got around to taking the one where colonialism, slavery, and money driven war and exploitation never happened over the past few hundred years because its inconvenient for my argument course. Is that graduate level?

[Clove]

We never covered unfettered capitalism in Economics, but Wealth of Nations was written in 1776.

[Methais]

Yeah, Hitler was actually intelligent.

That's why he keeps getting banned from WoW right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JF03i7NfIU

[Daniel]

So for you unfettered greed on behalf of people and corporations in the western world can be summarized as capitolism. Nice job Karl. I have taken micro/macro. I never got around to taking the one where colonialism, slavery, and money driven war and exploitation never happened over the past few hundred years because its inconvenient for my argument course. Is that graduate level?

You're right. Capitalism is just another manifestation of greed. Your point?

I was specifically referring to the capitalistic model that promotes the individual over the collective at all costs and is implemented through massive deregulation and diminished mechanisms for social goods and services aka the model we've been following for the last couple of decades.

Do please try and catch up.

[Clove]

What's that model called?

[g++]

You're right. Capitalism is just another manifestation of greed. Your point?

I was specifically referring to the capitalistic model that promotes the individual over the collective at all costs and is implemented through massive deregulation and diminished mechanisms for social goods and services aka the model we've been following for the last couple of decades.

Do please try and catch up.

You mis-quoted me then implied greed has not existed for hundreds of years and told me I was uneducated. I showed you mis-quoted me and that your outlook on capitolism as a system of repression rather than a system of economics is basically the view point of a person in favor of a socialist economy. That was my point.

Your right it is hard to keep up when you abandon your position and change the subject every post. Anyway time to clock out, see you tomorrow.

[g++]

What's that model called?

Danielomics its taught in econ897 lrn2econ nub

[Stanley Burrell]

What's that model called?

post-Viet', he's talking about Mercantilism/Capitalism(/Imperialism, depending on how radical your professor is) Stage III.

[Clove]

Mercantilism, like that practiced in 1600's Europe? Imperialism? Even older than that.

[Daniel]

You mis-quoted me then implied greed has not existed for hundreds of years and told me I was uneducated. I showed you mis-quoted me and that your outlook on capitolism as a system of repression rather than a system of economics is basically the view point of a person in favor of a socialist economy. That was my point.

Your right it is hard to keep up when you abandon your position and change the subject every post. Anyway time to clock out, see you tomorrow.

The comment you responded to said "It was bad business practice and greed".

So, who brought up socialism? It sure as fuck wasn't anybody else.

[Daniel]

What's that model called?

Some people call the group of policies Washington Consensus. Maybe you have heard of it. If not, I'm sure your brother has. To our credit, we haven't adhered to it as much as we made other countries do. That's probably why it's taken us so long to crash.

On a more serious note. I know you're still smarting over being ridiculous wrong on the election season, but please try and let it go.

[Gan]

Danielomics its taught in econ897 lrn2econ nub

LOL

[Clove]

Some people call the group of policies Washington Consensus. Maybe you have heard of it. If not, I'm sure your brother has. To our credit, we haven't adhered to it as much as we made other countries do. That's probably why it's taken us so long to crash.

On a more serious note. I know you're still smarting over being ridiculous wrong on the election season, but please try and let it go.That's a group of reform policies idiot, not an economic model. And they were aimed at revitalizing markets in Latin America. You're right though they are the sort of horrible policies we would never adhere to. Things like legal security of property rights, or expansion of the tax base with moderate marginal tax rates or competitive exchange rates. Oh My GOD it's unfettered capitalism!!!1!!!11!! Chomsky would be very proud.

[Daniel]

That's a group of reform policies idiot, not an economic model. And they were aimed at revitalizing markets in Latin America. You're right though they are the sort of horrible policies we would never adhere to. Things like legal security of property rights, or expansion of the tax base with moderate marginal tax rates or competitive exchange rates. Oh My GOD it's unfettered capitalism!!!1!!!11!! Chomsky would be very proud.

Are you done jerking off?

Okay. Good.

Let's try this one:

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



The term Washington Consensus was initially coined in 1989 by John Williamson to describe a set of ten specific economic policy prescriptions that he considered to constitute a "standard" reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington D.C based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and the U.S. Treasury Department.[1]

Subsequently, as Williamson himself has pointed out, the term has come to be used in a different and broader sense, as a synonym for market fundamentalism; in this broader sense, Williamson states, it has been criticized by writers such as George Soros and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz,[2] The Washington Consensus is also criticized by others such as some Latin American politicians and heterodox economists. The term has become associated with neoliberal policies in general and drawn into the broader debate over the expanding role of the free market, constraints upon the state, and US influence on other countries' national sovereignty.

I think this is the point when you give up on the argument, make some ridiculous comment like "You're all we've come to expect from government training" and try and get the last word.

[Clove]

Are you done jerking off?

Okay. Good.

Let's try this one:

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



I think this is the point when you give up on the argument, make some ridiculous comment like "You're all we've come to expect from government training" and try and get the last word.Way to Wiki, even in its broader sense it's used to discuss economic policies focused on revitalizing Latin America you dumb fuck.

It's used as a synonym, why? Because of dumbasses incorrectly using a proper noun with a specific definition improperly to whine about something they don't understand.

It's become associated with neoliberal policies. Gee that's an economic model too. By the way (I know details and numbers don't mean much to you) but the Washington Consensus is only 20 years old, not 30.

Since we're on a Wiki kick, let's look at some of the specific policies involved in the Washington Doctrine?


The consensus included ten broad sets of recommendations[12]:

* Fiscal policy discipline;
* Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies") toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
* Tax reform – broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
* Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
* Competitive exchange rates;
* Trade liberalization – liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
* Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
* Privatization of state enterprises;
* Deregulation – abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions; and,
* Legal security for property rights.


That's some unfettered capitalism there; and certainly not anything we've really practiced in this country. We just make others do that.

I'll give you one thing, the fucking policies inspired NAFTA which is a piece of shit but in general they aren't bad policies- just an incomplete simple solution for complicated problems. In any case it can hardly be called unfettered capitalism.

[Daniel]

Way to Wiki, even in it's broader sense it's used to discuss economic policies focused on revitalizing Latin America you dumb fuck.

You're being obtuse. Go read some of Williamson's articles 10 years Later. To get the gist: read the bolded portion of the quote I gave you.

The problem with the Washington Consensus is that it became an anathema around the world, to include areas where it was inappropriate even at face value. That is to say nothing of the long term effects of these policies in areas like Latin America, which is a root cause of the emergence of a "new" left in Latin America.

Of course, that's all besides the point which is that the WC refers to a particular model of economic growth which is wrecking havoc around the world today.

So please. Stfu.

[Clove]

So please. Stfu.I'll STFU when you learn WTF you're talking about.

[TheEschaton]

That must be it then. We've had 200+ years of really good luck.

Nah, my dad's lucky, America's gotten what it wants by corporate/government cronyism, and strong-arming burgeoning economies around the world so that they can't do anything but constantly be in a cycle of debt overseen by the Bretton Woods institutions.

-TheE-

[Clove]

Allow me to clarify for the E. When he says corporate/government cronyism he's talking about the relationship of American corporations with corrupt foreign governments. It's true, we do often put terms on our foreign aid though; shocking.

[TheEschaton]

Terms which can't ever be reasonably met = economic bullying, and, as those institutions are largely controlled by the 1st World Western countries, implicates our government.

Which, as I'm sure you know, has had such foreign socio-economic policies since it decided Latin America was a huge playland for American companies to make money in.

[Daniel]

I'll STFU when you learn WTF you're talking about.

Lol. Right. That's why you edited your post? Let me go back and address your retarded points.






It's used as a synonym, why? Because of dumbasses incorrectly using a proper noun with a specific definition improperly to whine about something they don't understand.

Actually, no. I suggest you go read the article that Williamson is quoted from in that article. In it, he acknowledges that the Washington Consensus has grown to include more things, rightly so.



It's become associated with neoliberal policies. Gee that's an economic model too. By the way (I know details and numbers don't mean much to you) but the Washington Consensus is only 20 years old, not 30. Since we're on a Wiki kick, let's look at some of the specific policies involved in the Washington Doctrine?


Geee... I couldn't have meant exactly what I said!


As for 20 years vs 30? The consensus came out of events that happened in the Early eights or 28 years. Since you're so good with numbers feel free to tell me which one that is closer too.



That's some unfettered capitalism there; and certainly not anything we've really practiced in this country. We just make others do that.

I'll give you one thing, the fucking policies inspired NAFTA which is a piece of shit but in general they aren't bad policies- just an incomplete simple solution for complicated problems. In any case it can hardly be called unfettered capitalism.

You're pretty clueless. Seriously. Did I ever say that all 10 reccomendations were bad\wrong? If you can't look @ that list and see some of the root causes of our current problems then you're a complete idiot.

[Daniel]

Here let me help you:

The guy who came up with the term
However, I have gradually developed a second and more significant concern. I have realized that the term is often being used in a sense significantly different to that which I had intended, as a synonym for what is often called "neoliberalism" in Latin America, or what George Soros (1998) has called "market fundamentalism". When I first came across this usage, I asserted that it was erroneous since that was not what I had intended by the term. Luiz Carlos Bresser Pereira patiently explained to me that I was being naïve in imagining that just because I had invented the expression gave me some sort of intellectual property rights that entitled me to dictate its meaning: the concept had become the property of mankind. To judge by the increasing frequency with which this alternative concept is being employed by highly reputable economists (such as Stiglitz 1999, n.33), I fear that Bresser had a point.

Obviously Joseph Stiglitz doesn't know WTF he is talking about!

[Clove]

It is difficult even for the creator of the term to deny that the phrase "Washington Consensus" is a damaged brand name (Naím 2002). Audiences the world over seem to believe that this signifies a set of neoliberal policies that have been imposed on hapless countries by the Washington-based international financial institutions and have led them to crisis and misery. There are people who cannot utter the term without foaming at the mouth.

Did the Washington Consensus Fail?

by John Williamson, Peterson Institute for International Economics


Outline of speech at the Center for Strategic & International Studies
Washington, DC
November 6, 2002John Williamson admits that the term has become used as a catchphrase; that's not the same as agreeing with it.

You're like a little child that repeats things he hears grownups talking about.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll102/learningtewfly/Danielparrot.jpg

By they way Daniel, it's okay to call it a recession now.

Let's continue with Williamson's speech:


My own view is of course quite different. The basic ideas that I attempted to summarize in the Washington Consensus have continued to gain wider acceptance over the past decade, to the point where Lula has had to endorse most of them in order to be electable. For the most part they are motherhood and apple pie, which is why they commanded a consensus.

Let me remind you of the ten reforms that I originally presented as a summary of what most people in Washington believed Latin America (not all countries) ought to be undertaking as of 1989 (not at all times):
1. Fiscal Discipline. This was in the context of a region where almost all the countries had run large deficits that led to balance of payments crises and high inflation that hit mainly the poor because the rich could park their money abroad.

2. Reordering Public Expenditure Priorities. This suggested switching expenditure in a pro-poor way, from things like indiscriminate subsidies to basic health and education.

3. Tax reform. Constructing a tax system that would combine a broad tax base with moderate marginal tax rates.

4. Liberalizing Interest Rates. In retrospect I wish I had formulated this in a broader way as financial liberalization, and stressed that views differed on how fast it should be achieved.

5. A Competitive Exchange Rate. I fear I indulged in wishful thinking in asserting that there was a consensus in favor of ensuring that the exchange rate would be competitive, which implies an intermediate regime; in fact Washington was already beginning to subscribe to the two-corner doctrine.

6. Trade Liberalization. I stated that there was a difference of view about how fast trade should be liberalized.

7. Liberalization of Inward Foreign Direct Investment. I specifically did not include comprehensive capital account liberalization, because that did not command a consensus in Washington.

8. Privatization. This was the one area in which what originated as a neoliberal idea had won broad acceptance. We have since been made very conscious that it matters a lot how privatization is done: it can be a highly corrupt process that transfers assets to a privileged elite for a fraction of their true value, but the evidence is that it brings benefits when done properly.

9. Deregulation. This focused specifically on easing barriers to entry and exit, not on abolishing regulations designed for safety or environmental reasons.

10. Property Rights. This was primarily about providing the informal sector with the ability to gain property rights at acceptable cost.

The three big ideas here are macroeconomic discipline, a market economy, and openness to the world (at least in respect of trade and FDI). These are ideas that had long been regarded as orthodox so far as OECD countries are concerned, but there used to be a sort of global apartheid which claimed that developing countries came from a different universe which enabled them to benefit from (a) inflation (so as to reap the inflation tax and boost investment); (b) a leading role for the state in initiating industrialization; and (c) import substitution. The Washington Consensus said that this era of apartheid was over.

Some of the most vociferous of today's critics of what they call the Washington Consensus, most prominently Joe Stiglitz (whose recent book, for example, specifically endorses gradual trade liberalization and carefully done privatization), do not object so much to the agenda laid out above as to the neoliberalism that they interpret the term as implying. I of course never intended my term to imply policies like capital account liberalization (as stated above, I quite consciously excluded that), monetarism, supply-side economics, or a minimal state (getting the state out of welfare provision and income redistribution), which I think of as the quintessentially neoliberal ideas If that is how the term is interpreted, then we can all enjoy its wake, although let us at least have the decency to recognize that these ideas have rarely dominated thought in Washington and certainly never commanded a consensus there or anywhere much else except perhaps at meetings of the Mont Pelerin Society.

But this is not how everyone has interpreted the idea. A decade ago many countries, especially in Latin America, were attempting to implement an agenda much closer to what I meant by the Washington Consensus than to what Joe Stiglitz means by it. The results have been disappointing, to say the least, particularly in terms of growth, employment, and poverty reduction. Should we conclude from this that the Washington Consensus failed?

In acknowledging disappointment in the outcomes in countries that tried to implement the Washington Consensus, let me be quite clear that I am not including Argentina in that category. Argentina did many good reforms, but it also made two fatal errors: it nailed its mast to a currency board that resulted in its exchange rate becoming grossly uncompetitive, and it failed to follow the strict fiscal policies that would have been needed to give the currency board a chance to work. Both run directly counter to the policies recommended in what I meant by the Washington Consensus, so it is unambiguously wrong to blame the latter for Argentina's tragedy.

That still leaves a real challenge in accounting for the disappointing performance of many countries that made a conscientious attempt to implement the sort of reform agenda that I had described. What accounts for this?

Surely the factor that has been most damaging to economic growth is the series of crises that emerging markets have suffered, starting with that in Mexico at the end of 1994. And it is true that the Washington Consensus did not emphasize crisis avoidance. No country that took the Washington Consensus as I wrote it as a panacea would have been obliged to do the sort of things that led countries into crisis—by opening up the capital account prematurely and letting money flood in and overvalue the currency, or using the exchange rate as a nominal anchor, or pursuing a procyclical fiscal policy. But neither were they warned against such foolish acts. Those were not the urgent issues in the late 1980s, so a warning against them did not get included in the Washington Consensus.

I draw two conclusions from this. (1) Countries ought not to have adopted the Washington Consensus as an ideology. As Moisés Naím (2000) said, an ideology is a thought—economizing device. There will always be other things that matter besides those included in any attempt to lay out a general set of policy guidelines, and for a policymaker to imagine that s/he can stop thinking and simply follow a set of policies that someone else has concocted is irresponsible. (2) Anyone offering a new set of policy guidelines as of 2002 has a duty to include a set of suggestions as to how crises can be avoided.

A second reason that outcomes did not match the hopes of a decade ago is that reforms were incomplete, in two ways. For one thing, some of the "first-generation reforms" were neglected (perhaps most conspicuously regarding the labor market, which has remained strongly dualistic everywhere, resulting in ever-growing informality) or incomplete (e.g. with regard to fiscal reform, where the massive budget deficits were eliminated but opportunity was not taken of the good times to run budget surpluses that would allow deficit spending in bad times). In addition, there is a whole generation of so-called "second-generation reforms", involving the strengthening of institutions, that is necessary to allow full advantage to be taken of the first-generation reforms.

And a third reason for disappointing performance is that the objective that underlay the Washington Consensus was excessively narrow. It consisted in accelerating growth without worsening income distribution, which was as much as I judged official Washington would subscribe to in 1989.1 If one regards poverty as an affront to human dignity, then one will care not simply about the level and growth of income but about its distribution as well. That is why Nancy Birdsall and Augusto de la Torre (2001) authored a tract that aims to complement the Washington Consensus by listing a set of ten reforms intended to improve income distribution without reducing growth. I regard that as important; but as a complement to the Washington Consensus, not a substitute.

But none of this argues for abandoning what I meant by the Washington Consensus. It doesn't argue for returning to the high inflation of yesteryear. Nor for giving socialism another chance; some want to revive industrial policy, which does not strike me as a promising idea2, but is nonetheless a long way from ubiquitous state intervention. Nor for closing economies again. Maybe it would be nice to go back to closed capital accounts, if we could make exchange controls work, but I do not detect a groundswell of support for abandoning export promotion in favor of a new wave of import substitution. Critics criticize, quite understandably, the hypocrisy of Western governments that urge liberalization on developing countries while maintaining trade restrictions on the specific commodities that developing countries are in a position to export to them, or that have pushed intellectual property protection into the WTO. But endorsing those criticisms does not mean returning to the global apartheid of the days prior to the Washington Consensus.

I submit that it is high time to end this debate about the Washington Consensus. If you mean by this term what I intended it to mean, then it is motherhood and apple pie and not worth debating. If you mean what Joe Stiglitz means by it, then hardly anyone who cares about development would want to defend it. In neither case does it merit all the ink that is spilled on the subject or all the foaming at the mouth that it provokes. Of course it is important to analyze why growth and employment and poverty reduction were disappointing in countries that attempted to implement the sort of policies that I intended to cover under the term, but that takes us into a more subtle debate, of the sort that I briefly sketched above.



References

Birdsall, Nancy, and Augusto de la Torre. 2001. Washington Contentious: Economic Policies for Social Equity in Latin America. Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Inter-American Dialogue.

Naím, Moisés. 2000. "Washington Consensus or Confusion?" Foreign Policy (Spring), no. 118: 86-103.

Naím, Moisés. 2002. "Washington Consensus: A Damaged Brand." Financial Times, October 28.

Noland, Marcus, and Howard Pack. 2003. Industrial Policy in an Era of Globalization: Lessons from Asia. Washington: Institute for International Economics. Forthcoming.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2002. Globalization and its Discontents. New York: Norton.

Some other things you might not read in Wiki:

Washington Consensus. The term was coined in 1989 by John Williamson, of the Institute for International Economics, to describe the conventional wisdom at the U.S. Treasury Department, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund on policy reforms that would aid development in Latin America. Williamson later expressed dismay at the "populist definition, "as he called it, of the term that had taken hold in public debate, where the Washington Consensus became synonymous with market fundamentalism, globally applied.

The Economics of Empire
Notes on the Washington Consensus
WILLIAM FINNEGAN / Harper's Magazine May03


What Is (or Was) the Washington Consensus?
As I have complained on innumerable occasions, the term “Washington Consensus” has
been used in very different ways. One can distinguish at least three distinct meanings:
1. My original usage: A list of ten specific policy reforms, which I claimed were
widely agreed in Washington to be desirable in just about all the countries of
Latin America, as of 1989. That is how it acquired the “Washington” in the
title, which was unfortunate in that it suggested (a) to the conspiratorially
minded that this was a list of policies that Washington was seeking to impose
on the world, and (b) to some of the reformers that Washington was seeking to
take credit for the reforms that they were implementing. One of the purposes
of the conference (held in 1989) was exactly to explore how much beyond
Washington views had changed: We concluded (focusing on Latin America)
that there was indeed a big change of views in process (Williamson 1990). We
at the Institute for International Economics like to think that we helped this
process along, principally through the tract that Bela Balassa honchoed for us
in his year off from the Bank (Balassa et al. 1986).
2. The set of economic policies advocated for developing countries in general by
official Washington, meaning the international financial institutions (the IFIs,
primarily the IMF and World Bank) and the US Treasury. Dani Rodrik (2002)
has provided a convenient summary of what he conceived this to consist of in
2
the year 1999 (see table 1). The original ten points were augmented with a
further ten, with a heavy emphasis on institutional reforms and some
recognition of the social dimension. This is also the flavor of the eligibility
requirements for the Millennium Challenge Account, which is the principal
attempt of the Bush administration to help low-income countries.
3. Critics’ beliefs about the set of policies that the IFIs are seeking to impose on
their clients. These vary somewhat by critic, but usually include the view that
the IFIs are agents of “neoliberalism” and therefore that they are seeking to
minimize the role of the state. An odd feature of this literature is that almost
never does it include any citations to substantiate the charge that the IFIs
actually hold the views that the author attributes to them. Many of these are
out of touch with reality: for example, they often include the charge that the
IFIs are pushing cost recovery in primary education, a terrible policy that was
indeed pursued in the early 1980s but was progressively abandoned in the
years following the admirable UNICEF report Adjustment with a Human Face
(Cornia, Jolly, and Stewart 1987)...

I cannot say that I see any close connection between the third concept of the Washington Consensus and either of the other two. It seems to me that since the word “consensus” implies a wide measure of agreement, there is an obligation on those who use the term in this way (of whom the most intellectually eminent is Joe Stiglitz) to demonstrate that the views that they subsume under the term are indeed widely held in Washington, or at least in the IFIs. This they have notably failed to do, for the compelling reason that these views are not in fact widely endorsed even in the IMF, let alone in the World Bank. Accordingly, I regard this usage of the term as mischievous.
The Washington Consensus as Policy Prescription for Development
John Williamson
Senior Fellow, Institute for International Economics
A lecture in the series "Practitioners of Development" delivered at the World Bank on
January 13, 2004. The author is indebted to colleagues at the Institute for International
Economics for comments on a previous draft.

[Daniel]

John Williamson admits that the term has become used as a catchphrase; that's not the same as agreeing with it.

So? What point do you think I was trying to make?

Let's recap for the slow people.

You ask me what economic model I am referring to when I say that our current economic model is a failure, mainly due to unfettered greed.

I say "Washington Consensus" which, per the creator of the term can be used appropriately in two ways. 1) The way he first intended it and 2) the way it has been referred to since.

You say "The WC only refers to policies in Latin America" which is untrue because A) It was used in plenty of other countries outside of Latin America and B) it has taken on another connontation, per the creator of the term .

So. What exactly do you think you are proving here? It is obvious what I was referring to. Do you want to continue that discussion or do you want to continue to fail at semantics?

Either way you look like a jackass and of course this whole discussions makes this next comment even more laughable.



You're like a little child that repeats things he hears grownups talking about.


Right.



By they way Daniel, it's okay to call it a recession now.


Rofl!!!!11!!

Way to bring up another epic failure of yours

Let's sum up the argument there.

I said "We are in a recession".

You said "No we aren't".

Hmmm....Who was right about that?

I'll give you a hint....We've been in a recession for quite some time.

[Keller]

That whole recession bit was an epic failure.

Fucking ostriches.

[Clove]

So? What point do you think I was trying to make?

Let's recap for the slow people.

You ask me what economic model I am referring to when I say that our current economic model is a failure, mainly due to unfettered greed.

I say "Washington Consensus" which, per the creator of the term can be used appropriately in two ways. 1) The way he first intended it and 2) the way it has been referred to since.

You say "The WC only refers to policies in Latin America" which is untrue because A) It was used in plenty of other countries outside of Latin America and B) it has taken on another connontation, per the creator of the term .

So. What exactly do you think you are proving here? It is obvious what I was referring to. Do you want to continue that discussion or do you want to continue to fail at semantics?

Either way you look like a jackass and of course this whole discussions makes this next comment even more laughable.



Right.



Rofl!!!!11!!

Way to bring up another epic failure of yours

Let's sum up the argument there.

I said "We are in a recession".

You said "No we aren't".

Hmmm....Who was right about that?

I'll give you a hint....We've been in a recession for quite some time.The Washington Consensus isn't our economic policy or model, certainly not when it's used to refer to neoliberalism. Williamson has taken great pains to point that out. It wasn't used in plenty of other countries outside of Latin America, per the creator of the term, there were additional policies that weren't originally included. If you want to continue to make a jackass out of yourself by putting words into Williamson's mouth, be my guest.

We are in a recession now. We weren't when you (yet again) used the term incorrectly.

[Daniel]

The Washington Consensus isn't our economic policy or model, certainly not when it's used to refer to neoliberalism. Williamson has taken great pains to point that out. It wasn't used in plenty of other countries outside of Latin America, per the creator of the term, there were additional policies that weren't originally included. If you want to continue to make a jackass out of yourself by putting words into Williamson's mouth, be my guest.

We are in a recession now. We weren't when you (yet again) used the term incorrectly.

Lol.

Are you fucking with me? Or are you seriously this stupid?

A) The policies set forth by Williamson were indeed implemented and used as a model in other countries.

B) Williamson acknowledges that the term "Washington Consensus" is used to describe Neoliberalism and has come to accept that. It doesn't matter if he agrees with it totally or thinks it's entirely fair. The issue is whether or not there is another use of the term "Washington Consensus" outside of the original policy descriptions laid forth by Williamson. If he can accept that, then I really think you should too.

C) Neoliberalism is still a economy theory, if not a model. You're splitting semantic hairs and failing.

D) We have "officially" been in a recession since Dec of 2007. That means we were in a recession when I made my original statements as such.

You were wrong. Suck it up boyo.

[Keller]

We are in a recession now. We weren't when you (yet again) used the term incorrectly.

Hypothetical: It is (20) F in Miami everyday through the entire summer. On the first day of fall, your local television weatherman says, "and we just finished the coldest summer on record in Miami!"

On August 1st, was Miami in the middle of the coldest summer on record?

[Daniel]

Since you seem content to rehash other stupid arguments:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/news/economy/recession/index.htm

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The National Bureau of Economic Research said Monday that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007, making official what most Americans have already believed about the state of the economy .

The NBER is a private group of leading economists charged with dating the start and end of economic downturns. It typically takes a long time after the start of a recession to declare its start because of the need to look at final readings of various economic measures.

The NBER said that the deterioration in the labor market throughout 2008 was one key reason why it decided to state that the recession began last year.

Employers have trimmed payrolls by 1.2 million jobs in the first 10 months of this year. On Friday, economists are predicting the government will report a loss of another 325,000 jobs for November.

The NBER also looks at real personal income, industrial production as well as wholesale and retail sales. All those measures reached a peak between November 2007 and June 2008, the NBER said.

In addition, the NBER also considers the gross domestic product, which is the reading most typically associated with a recession in the general public.

Many people erroneously believe that a recession is defined by two consecutive quarters of economic activity declining. That has yet to take place during this recession.

The NBER did not give any reasons or causes of the recession. But it is widely accepted that the housing downturn, which started in 2006, is a primary cause of the broader economic malaise.

The fall of housing prices from peak levels reached earlier this decade cut deeply into home building and home purchases. This also caused a sharp rise in mortgage foreclosures, which in turn resulted in losses of hundreds of billions of dollars among the nation's leading banks and a tightening of credit.

The current recession is one of the longest downturns since the Great Depression of the 1930's.

The last two recessions (1990-1991 and 2001) lasted eight months each, and only two of the 10 previous post-Depression downturns lasted as long as a full year, according to the NBER.

In a statement, White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto said that even though the recession is now official, it is more important to focus on the steps being taken to fix the economy.

"The most important things we can do for the economy right now are to return the financial and credit markets to normal, and to continue to make progress in housing, and that's where we'll continue to focus," he said. "Addressing these areas will do the most right now to return the economy to growth and job creation."

President-elect Obama's transition team did not have an immediate comment on the recession announcement. But other top Democrats said this is further proof of the need for another economic stimulus package, which Obama has advocated.

"With rising costs of living, rising unemployment, record foreclosures and depleted savings, we must do more to help families make ends meet," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in a statement. "With the cooperation of our Republican colleagues, we intend to send a plan to the White House as soon as possible following President-elect Obama's inauguration next month."


Nonetheless, several economists said the real concern is that there is no end in sight for the downturn.

Some suggested that the best case scenario for the economy is that it would reach bottom in the second quarter of 2009. And even if that happens, that would still make this recession the longest since the Great Depression.

Rich Yamarone, director of economic research at Argus Research, said the only good news for the economy is that some of the steps already taken by the government earlier this year could start to spur growth soon. For example, he said interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve, which started in September 2007, "should be working their magic any day now."

In February, Congress passed a $170 billion tax rebate meant to stimulate the economy. But that only boosted GDP during the second quarter.

The financial market and credit crisis worsened during this summer, prompting Congress, the Treasury Department and the Fed to pump trillions of dollars into the economy through a variety of programs, including a $700 billion bailout of banks and Wall Street firms and hundreds of billions of lending by the Fed to major companies and lenders.

But Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of Economic Cycle Research Institute, said that at this point, the only solution for the recession is time.

"All the hand waving and real cash that policymakers are throwing at the problem won't change the fact we're stuck in this nasty recession," he said. "The ultimate cure of a recession is letting it run its course."

Achuthan's research firm tracks weekly leading economic indicators that are supposed to signal a change in direction for the economy four or five months ahead of time. Those indicators are continuing to fall at a record pace.

Still, he said he's not worried about the current recession turning into a depression, as many Americans fear.

[Daniel]

Lol. I have pictures turned off for work and I just said your JPG when I read the thread as a guest.

Good show Clove. That really proved your point. I'm glad you took the time and effort to do that.

Let me guess? You have a picture of me in glasses saved on your hard drive for just such an occasion or have you been working on that for some time looking for the right opportunity to bust it out?

Great display of internet pwnage. Bravo, Clove. Bravo.

[Clove]

Lol.

Are you fucking with me? Or are you seriously this stupid?

A) The policies set forth by Williamson were indeed implemented and used as a model in other countries.

B) Williamson acknowledges that the term "Washington Consensus" is used to describe Neoliberalism and has come to accept that. It doesn't matter if he agrees with it totally or thinks it's entirely fair. The issue is whether or not there is another use of the term "Washington Consensus" outside of the original policy descriptions laid forth by Williamson. If he can accept that, then I really think you should too.

C) Neoliberalism is still a economy theory, if not a model. You're splitting semantic hairs and failing.

D) We have "officially" been in a recession since Dec of 2007. That means we were in a recession when I made my original statements as such.

You were wrong. Suck it up boyo.Yeah Williamson admits that critics have used the WC as synonomous with Neoliberalism. Unfortunately Neoliberalism has been around much longer and is much less specific than the WC and (as Williamson pointed out) Neoliberalism has certainly NOT become a consensus in Washington or anywhere else.

Suck it up boyo, you're wrong. You could hardly consider 10 economic policies an economic model. It isn't symantics, you just don't know what you're talking about.


3. Critics’ beliefs about the set of policies that the IFIs are seeking to impose on
their clients. These vary somewhat by critic, but usually include the view that
the IFIs are agents of “neoliberalism” and therefore that they are seeking to
minimize the role of the state. An odd feature of this literature is that almost
never does it include any citations to substantiate the charge that the IFIs
actually hold the views that the author attributes to them. Many of these are
out of touch with reality: for example, they often include the charge that the
IFIs are pushing cost recovery in primary education, a terrible policy that was
indeed pursued in the early 1980s but was progressively abandoned in the
years following the admirable UNICEF report Adjustment with a Human Face
(Cornia, Jolly, and Stewart 1987)...It really isn't a question of being fair- it simply isn't true. But Chomsky and his ilk are known for twisting definitions (he is a linquist after all).

Daniel. You can't read. It's okay there are literacy programs that can help you with that.

[Daniel]

I've brought up Chomsky when? I see you have avoided saying anything against the one person I did bring up: Joseph Stiglitz. What? You don't want to insult someone who has won a Nobel Prize in Economics for not knowing something about Economics?

Interesting.

At the end of the day, I'm not feeling pretty bad about myself cause some internet troll calls me stupid over something a Nobel Laureate has said quite frequently.

[Clove]

I've brought up Chomsky when? I see you have avoided saying anything against the one person I did bring up: Joseph Stiglitz. What? You don't want to insult someone who has won a Nobel Prize in Economics for not knowing something about Economics?

Interesting.I don't have to, Williamson has addressed Stiglitz often and Stiglitz has endorsed some of the main policies included in the WC.

[Daniel]

I don't have to, Williamson has addressed Stiglitz often and Stiglitz has endorsed some of the main policies included in the WC.

So? He's also said the exact same thing I'm saying. I don't think I've ever said that every single policy rec of the WC is bad. In fact, I've said the opposite.

So, why does he get consideration when I'm stupid? Afterall, if I can't read logic dictates he can't read right?

[Clove]

So? He's also said the exact same thing I'm saying. I don't think I've ever said that every single policy rec of the WC is bad. In fact, I've said the opposite.

So, why does he get consideration when I'm stupid? Afterall, if I can't read logic dictates he can't read right?

Some of the most vociferous of today's critics of what they call the Washington Consensus, most prominently Joe Stiglitz (whose recent book, for example, specifically endorses gradual trade liberalization and carefully done privatization), do not object so much to the agenda laid out above as to the neoliberalism that they interpret the term as implying. I of course never intended my term to imply policies like capital account liberalization (as stated above, I quite consciously excluded that), monetarism, supply-side economics, or a minimal state (getting the state out of welfare provision and income redistribution), which I think of as the quintessentially neoliberal ideas If that is how the term is interpreted, then we can all enjoy its wake, although let us at least have the decency to recognize that these ideas have rarely dominated thought in Washington and certainly never commanded a consensus there or anywhere much else except perhaps at meetings of the Mont Pelerin Society.Neoliberalism simply ISN'T the same as the WC. I can't help it if Joe Stiglitz wants to lump them together. Williamson didn't endorse Neoliberalism and doesn't endorse it. 10 policies are not an economic model and certainly don't begin to encompass Neoliberalism.

[Daniel]

So. Stiglitz is stupid? Gotcha.

So, you want to go back to discussing the issue at hand or have you "won" for the day?

(I'm glad you dropped the recession issue. It really was making you look beyond ridiculous -- you were approaching the PB zone).

[Clove]

So. Stiglitz is stupid? Gotcha.

So, you want to go back to discussing the issue at hand or have you "won" for the day?

(I'm glad you dropped the recession issue. It really was making you look beyond ridiculous -- you were approaching the PB zone).Stiglitz is wrong (just like you were about the definition of a recession). If you want to talk about Neoliberalism, call it Neoliberalism instead of referring to a specific group of policies that had little to do with Neoliberalistic ideals. I can't help it if they use the wrong terms around the water cooler and you're too lazy to read a book.

[Keller]

Stiglitz is wrong (just like you were about the definition of a recession). If you want to talk about Neoliberalism, call it Neoliberalism instead of referring to a specific group of policies that had little to do with Neoliberalistic ideals. I can't help it if they use the wrong terms around the water cooler and you're too lazy to read a book.

Too lazy?

Wait, I thought he couldn't read?

Double racist.

[Clove]

Too lazy?

Wait, I thought he couldn't read?

Double racist.You darkies all stick up for each other. He's too lazy to go to a literacy program.

[Keller]

You darkies all stick up for each other. He's too lazy to go to a literacy program.

That's not even funny.

Work + winter = palest I've been since college in west Michigan.

[Clove]

That's not even funny.

Work + winter = palest I've been since college in west Michigan.But, but, you're bleck.

[Daniel]

Stiglitz is wrong

Hmm. Nobel laureate and the preponderance of academic literature of the last decade vs. Idiot.

That's a tough call.


(just like you were about the definition of a recession).

Really? So how do you feel about the nber declaring a recession for the last year despite not fulfilling your conditions for a recession?

Feel free to post a picture of your face on a parrot.

[Clove]

Hmm. Nobel laureate and the preponderance of academic literature of the last decade vs. Idiot.

That's a tough call.When did you go against a Nobel prize winner? You know I hear Olympic gold medal winners never lose competitions.

[Daniel]

I'll take that as an admission of fail.

[Clove]

I'll take that as an admission of fail.I admit you fail at recognizing the differences between the WC and Neoliberalism. Williamson has made exhaustive attempts to point out those differences (which are significant).

[Daniel]

That's fine. When you want to discuss the actual topic of discussion feel free. I'm sure you'll still reveling in your perceived internet victory, so take your time.

[Clove]

That's fine. When you want to discuss the actual topic of discussion feel free. I'm sure you'll still reveling in your perceived internet victory, so take your time.At least you can admit when you're wrong. Oh I'm so sorry I dragged you away from discussing Godwin'ing a thread on the first post; try to use your big words like mommy taught you (she does work at a college after all!) and we won't have this problem.

[Warriorbird]

http://www.mattcutts.com/images/duty_calls.png

Mid holiday season...everybody cares about this argument.

[Daniel]

At least you can admit when you're wrong. Oh I'm so sorry I dragged you away from discussing Godwin'ing a thread on the first post; try to use your big words like mommy taught you (she does work at a college after all!) and we won't have this problem.

Lol. You so got me Clove. I'm like reeling here. The way you like, pulled something out of my life and tried to use it to insult me? It's like the time you said I was trained by the government and that made me stupid, but only better. Oh man. One day I hope to excel @ the internet like you. Hopefully, if I work hard I'll get there one day.

[Sean of the Thread]

If I can win at life having been trained by the government so can you!



oh.. wait. Nevermind.

Shit.

[Clove]

Some people call the group of policies Washington Consensus. Maybe you have heard of it. If not, I'm sure your brother has. To our credit, we haven't adhered to it as much as we made other countries do. That's probably why it's taken us so long to crash.

On a more serious note. I know you're still smarting over being ridiculous wrong on the election season, but please try and let it go.
...

Lol. You so got me Clove. I'm like reeling here. The way you like, pulled something out of my life and tried to use it to insult me? It's like the time you said I was trained by the government and that made me stupid, but only better. Oh man. One day I hope to excel @ the internet like you. Hopefully, if I work hard I'll get there one day.

[Daniel]

...

[Keller]

I think he was suggeting that you were saying even his brother understood it.

Maybe his brother is Trig Palin and he took offense to it.

I don't know.

[Clove]

I think he was suggeting that you were saying even his brother understood it.

Maybe his brother is Trig Palin and he took offense to it.

I don't know.
He's still aghast that anyone in my family could attend University of Chicago and butt hurt that I wasn't going about to give him personal information about my family so he could get the lunch-lady to stalk my brother.

[Keller]

He's still aghast that anyone in my family could attend University of Chicago and butt hurt that I wasn't going about to give him personal information about my family so he could get the lunch-lady to stalk my brother.

Wait, Trig Palin attended the UoChicago?

[Daniel]

Rofl. I could give a shit. That explanation has about the same credibility as you saying I was wrong about there being a recession.

[Stanley Burrell]

Mercantilism, like that practiced in 1600's Europe? Imperialism? Even older than that.

We go by phases, we're currently in Mercantilism III. Mercantilism I was your basic colonization. With muskets. Mercantilism II was <nrghnmfgrmngngh> and stage III Mercantilism is when you have the IMF and WTO building factories and making Kingston poor + "rebels" being called "guerrillas."

So sayeth my macro professor three years ago. And less Stanley'd.

[BigWorm]

We go by phases, we're currently in Mercantilism III. Mercantilism I was your basic colonization. With muskets. Mercantilism II was <nrghnmfgrmngngh> and stage III Mercantilism is when you have the IMF and WTO building factories and making Kingston poor + "rebels" being called "guerrillas."

So sayeth my macro professor three years ago. And less Stanley'd.

Personally I am holding out for Mercantilism MAX. Also I saw a commercial for a show on the Discovery Channel and they showed a dead gorilla and it was sad.