The Atlas Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts

[Wonkish1]

This is how Wonkish1 convinces people.

Oh no, I think he's a staunch liberal but in the traditional sense which makes him somewhat right-wing.

Your clueless!

Your way of convincing people is...my subjective opinion is fact. No my subjective opinion is fact. My subjective opinion is fact, damn it!

What do you expect someone to say after its very clear that not only is your subjective opinion not fact it is very far off from someone that literally doesn't have a clue!


Now I'm actually going to quote your statement calling Prime Minister Martin an economic conservative as a great example of the ignorance mentioned in this threads title.

[Wonkish1]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes
[/quote]
That is hilariously ignorant and perfect for this thread.

[Wonkish1]

Here's one from Badger doesn't even realize that he completely contradicted himself within a couple sentences.

And as far as the tax cuts being not "real tax cuts (more like subsidies within the tax code like tax credits" that only is correct at all for about $19.1 Billion in such credits. Less than a 10th of the overall cuts

look at the largest ($117 Billion) tax cut of all. A payroll tax credit for new workers. And.....ugh, why do I even try?

[Wonkish1]

This kind of reminds me of the time someone (Wonkish?) claimed that Obama was further to the left than Dilma Rousseff.

Dilma Rousseff may have been a commie revolutionary when she was a kid, but that isn't what she is today. Barack Obama is to the left of Dilma today. She is for privatization of various government services Barack has never once been in support of that. In Brazil she is pro expansion of energy even when its dirty energy on the contrary Barack blocked Keystone and shutdown off shore drilling for the better part of a year by executive fiat. She also respects contract law, with Barack he had his administration goons go out to the GM bond holders and threaten them if they didn't accept the high hair cut Barack demanded(something many poor elderly people were counting on and where they lost a lot of money by force) also he advocated the ability of a judge to void a mortgage contract. You're talking about a woman who frequently got into almost violent fights with people who advocated a statist method of fixing everything when she was a bureaucrat. She is pro-life and Barack was the only Democrat in Illinois to vote to force doctors to kill a fetus that was still alive after a botched abortion. She is anti gay marriage. I'm pretty sure Barack is pro civil union.

Ultimately, Dilma Rousseff is a welfare capitalist who is conservative on social issues. Barack Obama isn't a welfare capitalist because he wants the state to administer everything he can land his hands on and that is completely different than Dilma. Furthermore, he is to left on social issues. So yeah this discussion isn't even close.

And by the way I don't expect a 11 year old who focuses entirely on the fact that she was a guerrilla about 30 years ago to get into this level of detail.

The brilliant thing about this is that not only is there someone who thinks that Barack Obama is more left-wing than Dilma Rousseff, but that he doesn't even consider it close.

LOL the hilarious part is that you completely gave up any attempt to defend your position. Again don't expect a 11 year old kid(like you) to ever go into any detail.

Way to give up and then broadcast it to more people, LOL!

[Wonkish1]

Fox News has really done a number on the poor kid...

precisely my point in another thread where the self-satisfied little enpty-heads are enjoying poo-pooing poor old North Korea - most americans are just as 'mind-controlled' as any North Korean.  This Wonk is a great example.

Opebo its quite easy for me to use "mind control"(I mean how stupid of a notion is that) on you given how much I can get you to run around in circles and argue with yourself. If I ever want to screw with you for my own amusement its pretty easy.

[Wonkish1]

Obama's socialism is just as real as Wonkish1's intelligence.

LOL! Oh okay, buddy!

[Wonkish1]

This kind of reminds me of the time someone (Wonkish?) claimed that Obama was further to the left than Dilma Rousseff.

Dilma Rousseff may have been a commie revolutionary when she was a kid, but that isn't what she is today. Barack Obama is to the left of Dilma today. She is for privatization of various government services Barack has never once been in support of that. In Brazil she is pro expansion of energy even when its dirty energy on the contrary Barack blocked Keystone and shutdown off shore drilling for the better part of a year by executive fiat. She also respects contract law, with Barack he had his administration goons go out to the GM bond holders and threaten them if they didn't accept the high hair cut Barack demanded(something many poor elderly people were counting on and where they lost a lot of money by force) also he advocated the ability of a judge to void a mortgage contract. You're talking about a woman who frequently got into almost violent fights with people who advocated a statist method of fixing everything when she was a bureaucrat. She is pro-life and Barack was the only Democrat in Illinois to vote to force doctors to kill a fetus that was still alive after a botched abortion. She is anti gay marriage. I'm pretty sure Barack is pro civil union.

Ultimately, Dilma Rousseff is a welfare capitalist who is conservative on social issues. Barack Obama isn't a welfare capitalist because he wants the state to administer everything he can land his hands on and that is completely different than Dilma. Furthermore, he is to left on social issues. So yeah this discussion isn't even close.

And by the way I don't expect a 11 year old who focuses entirely on the fact that she was a guerrilla about 30 years ago to get into this level of detail.

The brilliant thing about this is that not only is there someone who thinks that Barack Obama is more left-wing than Dilma Rousseff, but that he doesn't even consider it close.

LOL the hilarious part is that you completely gave up any attempt to defend your position. Again don't expect a 11 year old kid(like you) to ever go into any detail.

Look Wonkish, if you make a post that's just plain silly there's no real point in anyone trying to refute it. Clearly you've decided that Obama's a socialist - more left-wing than the socialist President of Brazil, even - and nothing's going to change your mind. I lack the bug that drives some people to attempt arguing with you, and don't have the time or energy to engage with this third-rate hackery even if I did.

Incidentally, I may be ten years old (or whatever age you've decided I am) but at least I don't post elaborate fantasies in which I'm employed as a highly-paid financial wizard. *cough*

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know, I can't believe it. I'm so embarassed. Truely this is an episode of self-immolation for the ages.

EDIT: From weeks of observation - a template for every single Wonkish post, for public use:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No you just don't know much about the subject so that is why you aren't going to try to refute it. To do so would just show even more people how clueless you are.

So what makes Dilma a socialist and Obama not then? Because I think the facts posted above make a pretty strong case that Dilma is to the right of Obama today. Or do just prefer to talk in platitudes without any real points to make?

Ask Beet, Gustaf, and Clarence whether or not they believe I work in finance. They will laugh at your wishful thinking bull$hit given the conversations we've had.


Well you didn't defend a position so yeah your just advertising to folks that you gave up. You can do that if you want. Just pointing it out!

And my posts on here have carried a hell of a lot more factual information than yours have. My tone aside I wouldn't try to criticize because it would make it even more clear how little you contribute.

[Wonkish1]

Obama's socialism is just as real as Wonkish1's intelligence.

LOL! Oh okay, buddy!

Thanks for proving my point once again

Cute! Funny how I legitimately wonder about your intelligence enough to ponder whether you even picked up on the sarcasm.

[Wonkish1]

We are in fact aware that there's a different historical, cultural, and economic situation, just in general, in Brazil to the one in the United States, right?

I don't dispute that and we have to also add political situation as well. Obama is limited on what he can pass. So do you judge a person based on what they can pass or what they want to pass.

Right now Dilma is in the process of bringing her party considerably more to the center. Obama gets ticked because 60 Dem senators weren't liberal enough for him.

Dilma has proclivities towards allowing the free market to take a greater chunk of the economy while increasing or keeping stable the amount of transfer payments by utilizing the private sector deliver on them. Obama prefers using the public sector to administer, manage, and control the transfer payments and to even in a few instances(student loans, automakers, to some extent banking, to some extent healthcare, etc.) take over parts or all of an industry.

In this particular case "Workers Party" and "Democratic Party" are deceiving. The labels don't point to who is more left than the other, but the records, beliefs, positions, etc. do!

[Wonkish1]

Obama's socialism is just as real as Wonkish1's intelligence.

LOL! Oh okay, buddy!

Thanks for proving my point once again

Cute! Funny how I legitimately wonder about your intelligence enough to ponder whether you even picked up on the sarcasm.

You need to develop an ability to make sacrastic remark first. Then we'll talk, buddy.

Oh $hit I was right to wonder if you did. Wow, admitting your to slow to pick up on it isn't helping your case!

[Wonkish1]

I for one believe Wonkish works in Finance. He seems both stupid and smug enough for that sort of background.

Gee there's another personal attack. I say that word directed at a person directly and I get points, yet look at how much you aren't even worried about getting mod'ed.

This comes off of being called a d*ck just a couple days ago.

[Wonkish1]

Feel free to report me if you really feel insulted.

(Though strictly speaking I said 'seem', so really that's only about your online persona, not about 'you yourself', and all that stuff, you know, but yeah seriously, feel free to report me.)

Maybe I'm not as pathetic as some people on here in reporting every time someone tries to "hurt my feelings." And "seem" or not I've been infracted for much less. I've twice got nailed for it being "implied".

[Wonkish1]

Dilma has proclivities towards allowing the free market to take a greater chunk of the economy while increasing or keeping stable the amount of transfer payments by utilizing the private sector deliver on them. Obama prefers using the public sector to administer, manage, and control the transfer payments and to even in a few instances(student loans, automakers, to some extent banking, to some extent healthcare, etc.) take over parts or all of an industry.

In this particular case "Workers Party" and "Democratic Party" are deceiving. The labels don't point to who is more left than the other, but the records, beliefs, positions, etc. do!

Records and positions don't necessarily perfectly reflect beliefs, though. Dilma's strategy is similar to that pursued by various European socialist parties in the 1960s, and I sincerely hope you wouldn't consider Obama to the left of them. Brazil's economy has also been, relative to expectations, outperforming that of the United States for some time now; Obama's policies are those of somebody in charge of a country that's been in more-or-less-permanent crisis mode for years (hence the bailouts if nothing else). Dilma's aren't.

Dilma isn't a socialist technocrat. She is a welfare capitalist. They are different things. Socialist technocrats believed that they could deduce all of economic behavior down to a single formula that rested primarily on government spending. A welfare capitalist would prefer to just put as much as they can in the hands of private enterprise(including the administration of welfare itself), but make sure that transfer payments to the underprivileged stay the same or rise.

You can tell the reason why she is this way today is because she got a reputation in Lula's administration as someone who could get things done. When others came up short she delivered. And the reason why she got things done was because she relied on private firms instead of government bureaucrats to carry out the things she wanted. It has been out of that experience that has formed a lot of her views.

In the case of Obama there is no way he would ever let any state function be privatized. Its antithetical to his belief system. And that is regardless of the way the economy is doing here or there.

Lastly, Brazil isn't just kicking our a$$ in growth "relative to expectations" they are in fact just literally kicking our a$$ regardless of expectations. The reason of course has been the 'China bid' for iron ore of which is now slowing down. Brazil's situation is about to change and we'll see pretty quickly whether or not Dilma will start acting like Barack. I wouldn't hold your breath though.

[Wonkish1]

Socialist technocrats believed that they could deduce all of economic behavior down to a single formula that rested primarily on government spending.

Somehow I doubt that any serious theorist on the left has ever done this.

Well you doubted wrong! To the extent that the politicians just listened to those people instead of were those people is a different matter. But it is in fact true.

[Wonkish1]

I for one believe Wonkish works in Finance. He seems ... that sort of background.

I agree.  I do find it quite believable, though I had always heard that such people 'worked 18 hour days'; thus his presence here casts doubt on either the 'hard working' myth about the financier, or his claim to be one.

Then again isn't he in Wisconsin?  I think the only 'finance' people in a state like that are insurance salesmen.

I don't work in I-Banking(those are your consistent 18 hour day people) which is sell side. I work on the buy side which is very different. When I showed up at my firm, which is a small boutique firm, I consistently put in about 70 hour weeks. After the first couple years things calmed down considerably and now it usually averages about ~40 territory, but for the last several months my workload has dropped off a cliff. Its starting to pick up a little bit now though. And there are a few events we are looking to and when they happen you probably wont be seeing much of me on here really at all.

I'm not commenting on where I live as it relates to Wisconsin or not. I can assure you the city I work in has more than 1 boutique financial firm.

[Wonkish1]

Socialist technocrats believed that they could deduce all of economic behavior down to a single formula that rested primarily on government spending.

Somehow I doubt that any serious theorist on the left has ever done this.

Well you doubted wrong! To the extent that the politicians just listened to those people instead of were those people is a different matter. But it is in fact true.

could you name one instance of these socialist technocrats and their single formula and etc.?  because it sounds awesome to me.  reminds me of the last paragraph or so of Part I of Brothers Karamazov, where Father Paissy tells Alyosha that scientists have only studied the parts but ignored the whole..

Here's one!

[Wonkish1]

Obama's socialism is just as real as Wonkish1's intelligence.

Thank you for you admiration or Workish1's intelligence, and admitting to Obama's socialism.

Convenient this was posted directly into the Deluge.

Convenient that you even type in this thread because practically everything you type on here belongs in this thread.

[Wonkish1]

Obama's socialism is just as real as Wonkish1's intelligence.

Thank you for you admiration or Workish1's intelligence, and admitting to Obama's socialism.

Convenient this was posted directly into the Deluge.

Convenient that you even type in this thread because practically everything you type on here belongs in this thread.

I contribute a hell of a lot more useful and factually based information here than you do, buddy! Look on the econ sub forum and then point to me anything you've posted that even comes close.

If you can't I would probably suggest you can it!

[Wonkish1]

I apologise for posting Wonkish's post in the thread. While I do feel it was a ridiculous suggestion - incidentally, I wasn't debating him, although I would agree that had I been it would have been bad form to do so - I should have known it would ignite a sh!tstorm.

For what it's worth, I'd also like to apologise personally to Wonkish. While I do feel he can be rude at times - just my opinion - that's no excuse for me to respond insultingly. Sorry.

Apology accepted and I'll extend my apologies for being a little rude to you at times. I try to only be blunt and harsh to A) comments that leave the opportunity, but also B) to posters who act in ways that deserve it. Given the comment above I can safely say I misjudged you. So...

Your getting added to my nice poster list. I'll try to refrain from any rudeness to you in the future and if I mistakenly respond too harshly to one of your posts let me know.

And I wish you a Merry Christmas!

[Wonkish1]

This is some pretty basic stuff, guys.

Some people still believe these cute graphs are somehow representative of reality.

LOL, your comment afterward is perfect for this thread. Clearly an example of a mistake in quoting that in here. Great job is showing that you just prefer to be ambivalent to the world completely.

Coming up next Antonio V is about to post a picture of a math text book with the same line. LOL!

[Wonkish1]

I had some right-wing teachers in high school.  in college not openly in the sense that none of them openly spoke favorably about Republican candidates, but the economics profs spouted enough neoliberal orthodoxy to make all that irrelevant, regardless of whether or not they may have voted Obama.

Just like you to claim that the study of economics is an "orthodoxy".

the neoliberal takeover of economics/business departments of the past 30-40 years (starting before that of course) amounts to a orthodoxist movement, yes.  with striking consequences esp. in the third world.

[Wonkish1]

Despite the abundance of red avatars, this place is pretty right-wing. It just so happens that the only choice is between a moderate, center-right party and a bunch of idiot crypto-fascists.

Its funny how people like to advertise how crazy to the left they are.

OK, let's clear things up once and (hopefully) forever.

Are left-wingers the main politcal group in this forum ? Yes, American liberalism/European social-democracy is the most numerically strong ideological viewpoint represented in the Atlas. Fair enough.

Is our average poster left-wing ? Depends what you refer to as left-wing. Regarding social issues, the liberal/permissive view is definitely prevailing. There is a significant socially conservative wing, but every poll tends to demonstrate 60-70% of the forum is a progressive on most topics. This is certainly, as Hughentho said, a byproduct of the Atlas' demographics, with a dominance of young and wealthy posters. Fair enough.
But now let's be serious. On economic issues, on topics like taxation, welfare or labor unions, it is silly to say the forum is left-wing. Sure, there are a lot of economic left-wingers. But if you have a look at our median poster you actually find an economic centrist, a market liberal who believes some government intervention is necessary, but not too much. Just look at how many posters have an economic score comprised between 3 and -3. Think to people like Torie, Franzl or Gustaf. These people represent the Atlas consensus : if you are to their right, you are to the right of the forum as a whole, and conversely. If there is a qualificative you can apply to this forum relative to economic issues, from a neutral standpoint, it's moderate/pragmatic. Which doesn't mean this is the view of the forum as a whole. Maybe, at the maximum, the tally is 40%/30%/30% (more probably 35/35/30 or 35/30/35), but in this case econ progressives still are only a plurality.

Are left-wingers overrepresented ? Conservatives are underrepresented for sure, but does that mean left-wingers are overrepresented in this forum ? If they are, the difference is very slight. The most overrepresented group is certainly the libertarians (which explains the huge gap between social and economic views). There are easily 20% of libertarians in this forum, even though in the US as a whole they are a pretty marginal group (and if you include Europe they outright disappear). So really, all the talks about a "left-wing" bias is, at best, exagerated.

Are left-wingers more hackish than libertarians, conservatives and moderates ? No. Just no. No matter how you define hackish, you can't honestly claim the average leftie is more hackish than the average forumer. This just isn't true. You do find a lot of posters who don't have particularly original views, or stubborn posters who assert their views without debating. These ones could be called "minor hacks" Of such posters, liberals, conservatives and libertarians are pretty equally represented.
Now, let's talk about "major hacks", that is narrow-minded, self-righteous people who are totally unable to question their own views, who systematically engage in name-calling, logical fallacies and oversimplifications, who think the entire everybody is stupid because they don't agree with them. I'm sorry to say, but these posters are far more common among conservatives and libertarians than among other posters. I'm saying this in absolute objectivity. There have been, and still are major hacks among left-wingers (Hoffmanjohn, Link and a couple more). But let's take a quick look at how many conservative and libertarian hacks we have or had ! Let's see if I manage to cite all. AZmagic, CARLHAYDEN, Hamilton, Libertas, Wormyguy, Feeblepizza, JCL, DWTL back in time, SvenssonRS, BigSkyBob, JewishConservative, Wonkish, CaDan, Saorsa. I'm certainly forgetting most of them. How many can I count on the left side ? Well, there are/were Link, Hoffmanjohn, Pbrower... I honestly can't think about more (though there certainly are a couple more). What about Opebo ? He has extreme views and is pretty assertive about them, yes. But if you include him there's no reason not to include Jmfcst too. Extremism doesn't equal hackery.

But aren't you (and the left-wing majority) biased against conservatives and libertarians ? Well, maybe. Who knows ? But if you are to engage in this way, there isn't much left to argue. You can even go on and claim that reality is biased in favor of the left.


I doubt this will make the whiners shut up, but it feels better to say it.

I'm going to repeat what I said before, "Its funny how people like to advertise how crazy to the left they are." Strike through warranted because of an improvement over the last one.

And Torie isn't the median person on these forums. A much better guess would be Beet(especially when you are talking on the E side of the PM). He's probably to the right to almost all of the liberals that don't participate on the econ board, but he is still considerably to the left of someone like Torie.

Maybe Atlas is becoming a "Dem hack site", but to say the Democrats are a "left-wing" party is mind-numbingly stupid, and very Americentric, I might add.

Again, "Its funny how people like to advertise how crazy to the left they are."

By American standards this site is very left-wing: the conservatives tend to support gay marriage, are pro-choice and are willing to support the welfare state while the a significant minority of the left are outright socialists. I don't see how that makes us a "Dem hack site" though, it just means that the GOP is really repulsive to anyone with a modicum of education. Notice that there isn't much Democratic cheerleading on this site, even from posters with red avatars. We tend to support them as a lesser of two evils. If you want to go to a Dem hack site, visit Daily Kos Elections.

If this is about Mitt Romney receiving a lot of flack here, that has more to do with his plastic mannerisms and character traits, his avarice/lust for power and the fact that we really enjoy drawn out elections. Seeing as this is a site for people who are devoted to following elections and analyzing psephology that shouldn't surprise you.

Again, "Its funny how people like to advertise how crazy to the left they are."

Thanks Antonio for posting all of the stupid $hit other people posted for me! You really know how to do our work for us, and make yourself look bad.

I mean this is only coming off you embarrassing yourself by posting an attack on economics by you on here a week or so ago.

Your on a roll!

[Wonkish1]

Dear moderators,


Please move all Wonkish posts directly to this thread.

I'll tell you what how about you go ahead and do it yourself. It would only make yourself look pathetic just like Antonio V posting a picture of a supply and demand chart and then trying to make fun of it.

You want to embarrass yourself be my guest.


Oh and I could have a field day tracking down some of those retarded post gems you've made on here. Not calling you retarded(that would be against the rules), but man some of your posts you've made on here I mean WOW!

[Wonkish1]

You want to embarrass yourself be my guest.

LOL, cute. But way to show the best you can do!

[Wonkish1]

This should save us a lot of posting

That's your big comeback? Again way to post right into the deluge. Keep it up and this can become the Kalwejt thread of "absurdity, ignorance, and bad posts."

This thread was perfectly created for your crap!