Posted by: graemebird | February 4, 2009

To Think That This Illogical Retard Will Be Teaching The Kids

Finding some idiot heaping abuse on climate rationalists and tendentiously holding up the science fraud of global warming I decided to weigh in on this dumbasses website.

This idiot not only swallowed the climate change racket, though he is in his thirties and has done classes in both science and philosophy, but he had gone a step further and had taken to hiding behind the Deltoid dwarf in most unmanly fashion, in order to have plausible deniability when it came to abusing an honest and committed scientist.

On the 25th of January, Dr Marohasy posted the following threadstarter,highlighting what still looks like the persecution of an honest man for writing a very good article on the global warming fraud.

“IT is common for Australian academics to publicly express an opinion on climate change including in our newspapers; think Tim Flannery, Ian Lowe and more recently Barry Brook.  

A couple of weeks ago Jon Jenkins, an Adjunct Professor at Bond University, had an opinion piece published by The Australian newspaper.  [1]

The piece was critical of the accepted dogma on anthropogenic global warming with a focus on how global temperatures are recorded and ended with a comment on sustainable development:

“Science is only about certainty and facts. The real question is in acknowledging the end of fossil fuels within the next 200 years or so: how do we spend our research time and dollars?

Do we spend it on ideologically green-inspired publicity campaigns such as emissions-trading schemes based on the fraud of the IPCC, or do we spend it on basic science that could lead us to energy self-sufficiency based on some combination of solar, geothermal, nuclear and renewable sources? The alternative is to go back to the stone age.”

Interestingly Bond University has a new name for its business and IT faculties, The Faculty of Business, Technology & Sustainable Development, but apparently didn’t like Professor Jenkins’ very public opinion on the subject of sustainable development.   For his opinion, Professor Jenkins received an official reprimand from the Bond University Registrar and then was informed last Friday that his adjunct status had been revoked.

No doubt he has contravened some rule or other at the University and no doubt this would have gone unnoticed if Professor Jenkins had a more popular opinion on these most politically charged subjects. ”

It was not known at the time what the Universities pathetic excuse would be. Now you can read what Dr Marohasy wrote on the 25th 1000 times and you will not find a logical fallacy in it. It is honest speculation and commentary and does not pretend to be anything else. She is not claiming total absolutist knowledge of anything she does not know. But the afformentioned idiot, whose name is Bruce, used information he obtained no earlier than the 28th of January to abuse DrM Marohasy on the 1st of February.

He wanted to accuse the Dr of comitting  a formal logical fallacy, and then associate this fallacy as being most typically made by the mentally deranged. That way he could abuse the Doctor by conflation with this paranoid type. So taking the Universities ass-covering as the gospel he retrospectively told the story that the above copied thread contained a logical fallacy.

His (un)reasoning goes like this. All by association:

Climate rationalists are conspiracy theorists, conspiracy theorists commit disproportionately a well-known logical fallacy, Tim Lambert caught the scientist committing this fallacy, ho ho aren’t these climate rationalists so deranged. This is about the gist of it as far as one can interpolate the “reasoning” of a naieve dimwitted lunatic.

Lets make it clear here. He wanted to defame the Dr as borderline mentally deranged and then extrapolate that outwards to all climate rationalists (deniers, delusionists in this idiots terminology). So we have a real insight into the lame thinking of these assholes. On the one hand we have this surface pretense to logic, science and so forth. Dig a little deeper and its really a series of word and image associations that one might expect from someone suffering a bipolar episode.

 That is to say, if you know someone who has bipolar disorder, what happens is they can be pretty smart, but if they are having this turn for the worse, they will go off into strings of faux-reasoning which extrapolate out with the lamest overlapping associations. They think they are having a burst of really great and creative ideas. But the associations are incredibly weak. 

Anyway Jennifer, all fair and square, updated the thread on the 30th with the universities pathetic excuse. Full disclosure. No problem there. Before you skim-read my argument with this young idiot go back over what Jennifer wrote. There was no logical fallacy there. You will not find any logical error in it. You can read it 1000 times and you will simply not be able to find a logical error in it.  He forced what she said into that rubrick so he could try and make this afformentioned series of lunatic associations. 

So this jerkoff retard was making the following methodological errors.

1. interpreting what Jennifer said not by what she actually said. But by Lamberts version of it. So he was making the mistake that CO2-Bedwetters usually do in always taking things secondhand and never getting close as possible to source.

2. He was using retrospective thinking. Since no way could he have had the nerve to accuse her of a logical mistake on the 25th when the Universities own story wasn’t out.

3. He was fitting a square peg into a round hole. In that he was trying to force what Jennifer was saying into the rubrick of a formal mistake in logic so he could then make out that her sanity was lacking…… by then squeezing her over on  the side of the mentally deranged conspiracy freaks (as opposed to informed conspirationist speculation).  

It was a real act of cognitive forcing. Pretend that there was a logical mistake there. Then force her over with the loony bin types on the basis of this distortion.

4. The stupid retarded naieve geeky moron took the Universities bizzare story as gospel, when modern employment law makes all changes to employment an exercise in Byzantine scheming and ass-covering of the most vicious kind. 

Anyway most of the entries only deserve a quick skim-read. The context is that there were two or three other threads and some of the initial argument segwayed in from there. But its when we get down to the bottom that some part of his subconcious must have known he was beat.  Because he kicked the chessboard over, the stupid moronic defaming little unmanly prick.  I actually think it was a bit of a rope-a-dope. Because I didn’t even so much as contest the main issue of the thread for a long time and the dumb bastard must have gotten overconfident.

WordPress is truncating the comments laterally. I may try and reformat some of the final ones later since it is only these later comments that need to be read carefully in order to understand what a fucking idiot this guys is.

He still insists that she made a logical error on the 25th. This is a clear lie. In fact my original accusation that he was lying was a bit flippant. I usually use this accusation for shorthand when it really requires the disclaimer that the fellow could be a total fucking idiot. This logical objection was pointed out to me and I concede the point. Because it is not possible to know in advance whether you are dealing with a liar or a moron or both when an apparent lie is told by a stranger.

Well we have the verdict now. The guy could have deluded himself initially that she had made some mistake in logic. But that he keeps this lying insistence up shows that he is in fact a liar. So if he wasn’t lying then at least we can be satisfied that he is lying now. Never did he let go of this lying notion that she made a formal mistake in logic. This exchange is being kept for the permanent record below:


  1. 1. Evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming.

    2. Evidence that a little bit of human-induced warming during a brutal and pulversing ice age is a BAD as opposed to a GOOD think in contradiction of all logic.

    3. Evidence for more than negligible warming due to industrial-CO2-release.

    Take it away you self-selected stooge.


  2. So what you are saying, it that if I don’t disprove your notion of my incompetance, then your assertion that I am incompetent is true?

    That’s argumentum ad ignoratum, Birdy.

  3. How did I know that you had NOTHING. A serious question. This is science fraud and you are a participant. You don’t know anyone with any evidence whatsoever. You cannot find anyone with any evidence whatsoever. You cannot hunt anyone down who can find someone, to find someone else who has the evidence.

    After 50 billion dollars spend, if you cannot do that, than this movement is a fraud, and you are a stooge.

    Try again. And this time either admit you are wrong or don’t screw up.

  4. You guys are such idiots. You don’t have any evidence and yet you project your ignorance onto me.

    Lets just remind you of the specific hypothesis you are looking for evidence for.

    1. Evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming.
    2. Evidence that a little bit of human-induced warming during a brutal and pulversing ice age is a BAD as opposed to a GOOD thing in contradiction of all logic.
    3. Evidence for more than negligible warming due to industrial-CO2-release.


    And this time don’t f**k it up.


    Moderators note: Comment edited for pottymouth.

  5. Don’t just sit there with egg on your face mate. If this isn’t science fraud you will easily come up with straightforward evidence. But if it isn’t you are going to hum and haw and beat around the bush and ultimately you will come up with nothing or wild goose chases.

    What you ought to do of course is admit you are wrong and have been pimped and resolve not to pass this utter garbage onto the children.

  6. Well come on then. If it was there you would have it by now. Or you would be able to set yourself some sort of deadline as to when you could find someone, to find someone, to send for someone, to send for someone else to go forth and look for evidence for these specific propositions.

    Lets have no more pretensions to competence in philosophy or science until you can come good on this matter.

  7. graemebird, you’re a real specimen.

    Naked assertion and uninformed opinion do not an argument make. Just like a creationist, you go against the scientific consensus and deny the evidence.

    You came to this blog, you made claims. Do you understand the concept of the burden of proof?

    Hint: necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit.

    Nevermind, in my experience, Bruce is a man of his word. You have until Friday.

  8. John,

    He can add argumentum ad nauseum to his list of fallacies. Still, it’s not boring yet.


    Second warning for potty mouth mate. If this were a thread discussing Lady Chatterley’s Lover, it wouldn’t be a problem. But it’s not.

    In any case (not that I have to disprove your unproven assertion that I am lying) how on Earth do you expect anyone to spueeze out the content of climate science relating to climate change in the few small moments between your frenzied postings?

  9. Bruce,

    (not that I have to disprove your unproven assertion that I am lying) 

    Actually, I chuckled at that. As I recall, in the same post he accused you of lying about the topic and simultaneously of being incompetent regarding it.

    For the slow ones (<cough> graemebird <cough>) may I point out that, if Bruce doesn’t know whereof he speaks, he can hardly be lying about it – to lie one has to claim what one knows is untrue.

  10. Well if this wasn’t a science fraud John you might have been able to help Bruce out.

    But as it turned out neither of you have the evidence, both of you are stooges and your filibuster continues.

    How long does this go on until you all own up to being pimped and violated on this matter? Remember the three hypothesis:

    1. Evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming.
    2. Evidence that a little bit of human-induced warming during a brutal and pulversing ice age is a BAD as opposed to a GOOD thing in contradiction of all logic.
    3. Evidence for more than negligible warming due to industrial-CO2-release.

  11. I understand the concept of burden of proof. Clearly both of you have proven your anti-philosophical stance on the matter of burden of proof. Much as you need a special handicap for retards I’m not giving you one.

    Let us have your evidence. Stop mucking about.


  12. I understand the concept of burden of proof. Clearly…

    Clearly you don’t.

  13. So John. You have proved that you don’t understand the concept of the burden of proof. We know that now. But you don’t have any evidence do you?

    So admit I am right. Lets have your admission or lets have your evidence.

  14. Once again you are lying Bruce. Clearly I understand the concept of the burden of proof. The burden is on you. Lets have your evidence.

  15. So you have no evidence? Is this what you are trying to say here? And yet you back this science fraud and believe it, in this totally delusional way, though you have not a stitch of evidence.

  16. Bruce. The man whom logic forgot. The man without epistemology. No evidence whatsoever. But there he is goose-stepping in line with the others, none of whom have any evidence either.

  17. Have you got that burden of proof concept sorted out yet Bruce. Clearly you know nothing about it. Maybe you better get your philosophy textbook out an look into it.

  18. What about you Morales. Philosophical incompetent. Have you sorted out the ins and outs of this burden of proof matter. Is it your contention that CO2-Bedwetting needs a special handicap of this sort?

  19. So nothing. Neither of you have got anything. Well there you are. Taken in. Total stooges. I’ve proved my point absolutely.

  20. Snigger…

    Am I incompetant or am I lying on the matter again, Birdy?

    As John pointed out, the two are mutually exclusive.

  21. ‘Tis funny )

    Hey graemebird, there’s this thing called the Internet.

    You can use it to find out stuff!

    Like this.

  22. YES YOU CAN . I just through that in because I can tell you find Barry Soetoro inspiring. Yes you can. Thats right John. You CAN find many things on the internet. You can find evidence for pretty much any scientific truth that isn’t fraudulent on the internet. So why is there no evidence whatsoever for this absolute disgraceful filthy lying fraud anywhere on the entire internet?

    Its because this is a fraud. Its because I’m right, you are wrong, you ‘ve been pimped. And you have basically flaunted your analytical incompetence.

    So are you now going to retract your lies? Admit that I am right and you are wrong. Since are totally incapable of coming up with any evidence for this CO2-bedwetting rubbish that you speak.


    (To think you zombies aspire to be teaching the kids. We are really dealing with a couple of first class twits here).

  23. Another reminder for the SPECIFIC hypotheses you are trying to get evidence for.

    1. Evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming.

    2. Evidence that a little bit of human-induced warming during a brutal and pulversing ice age is a BAD as opposed to a GOOD thing (in contradiction to all reason and logic.)

    3. Evidence for more-than-negligible warming due to industrial-CO2-release.

    I assure you that no-one has so much as come up with the slightest scintilla of valid evidence for any of this. Hence we know with absolute certainty that this is science fraud.

  24. Birdy, again, the burden of proof is not on me to disprove your allegation and even if it was, well, your stream of consciousness has got quite astray. When you first accused me of lying, it was in responce to my statement that…

    Tim Lambert catches Australian journalist Jennifer Marohasy making false claims (in post hoc ergo propter hoc mode – the conspiracy minded really love that fallacy to death, don’t they?) that Dr Jon Jenkins was turfed from Bond University because he wrote a piece of denialist pap.

    The truth of this statement isn’t predicated on the validity of theories of climate change, but rather on the reasons that Jon Jenkins Assc. Professorship was ended.

    You can add ignoratio elenchi to the list of your fallacies.

    As an optional extra, you can back up this claim as well…

    “So why is there no evidence whatsoever for this absolute disgraceful filthy lying fraud anywhere on the entire internet?”

    How did you scour the entire Internet to confirm this?

  25. You are wrong about the burden of proof. And its a real disgrace for someone trained in philosophy to get this so flagrantly wrong. Both of you who are supporting the science fraud have lined up for a special handicap as to your ideas versus mine.

    The burden of proof isn’t to be alllocated randomly or according to parasites preferences. Like anything else it must be chosen with reason and logic in mind.

    Now as I say two of you have claimed this handicap to yourselves. You cannot abide judging in accordance with one standard. Rather you claim that you need a handicap. A head start. A bit of a boost. A higher net on one side only. One fellow must track the fish down. The othere fellow must have them placed in a bucket.

    So what does that mean? This special request for a handicap on your part?

    In all walks of life a request for a handicap is an admission that you are no good. In this case it is an admission that your ideas are no good.

    If the cripple kid gets to handicap the others in a swimming race that means that his swimming is not that flash.

    So the request for the handicap in this case perversely changes the burden of proof. Since the two of you have admitted your ideas won’t stand without some sort of head start, biased judgement, higher evidence bar and so forth.

    Your special pleading for the benefit of proof logically therefore puts you under the burden of proof. Since it implies that even you know your ideas are no good.

    So lets have that evidence. And attempt to be philosophical or assure me you will sue your lecturers. Because it is not only science fraud that has ripped you off.

    We were after evidence for three specific propositions:

    1. Evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming.
    2. Evidence that a little bit of human-induced warming during a brutal and pulversing ice age is a BAD as opposed to a GOOD thing (in contradiction to all reason and logic.)
    3. Evidence for more-than-negligible warming due to industrial-CO2-release.

    I lack the leftist gift of second sight. I don’t believe in occult epistemology where you use your leftist powers to choose your favourite paradigm and work backwards to the conclusion you wanted to believe.


    How I knew was simple. There is no evidence since this is science fraud.

  26. You don’t know a damn thing about the Jon Jenkins affair. Same deal with that as with the global warming. You just relied on Tim Lambert. Tim is usually wrong and it won’t be the first time the Deltoid dwarf has lead someone astray. The first person to know about this affair is Jon. The chances of him ringing up Lambert to discuss the matter are nil. So Lambert knows jack and the University will surely cover itself if it has anything wrong. This is another case of leftist occult epistemology. You know nothing about it. Neither does Tim. And Tim knowing nothing about it can hardly catch Jennifer out on anything.

    Get it together fella.

  27. Your special pleading for the benefit of proof logically therefore puts you under the burden of proof. Since it implies that even you know your ideas are no good.

    Allegation of special pleading. You’re doing it wrong.

    You made the assertion, the burden of proof falls upon you. End of story.

  28. No the burden of proof falls on you. End of story. Since you know nothing about the affair and you know that Lambert knows absolutely nothing about the affair, your passing on this tainted information was a clear and filthy lie.

  29. Your initial lie was itself an assertion. So we have caught you out on a blatant contradiction.

  30. So of course its now time for you to retract your dirty filthy lie.

  31. graemebird, I’m still coming to terms with your cognitive feebleness. I will try to explain this concept to you via a hypothetical.

    Imagine Bruce had gone to your blog, read a post, and left a comment saying “You’re lying! You’re ignorant! You’ve got the facts wrong!” – would the burden of proof be on you to show Bruce wrong?

    I suggest you do yourself a favour and think about your answer before responding…

  32. Jennifer posted her post on the 25th. She did so on the basis of the facts known on the 25th. You’ve accused her of some logical fallacy. You were lying.

    Lambert rang up the University on the 28th so he said. They gave him their utterly implausible and pathetic excuse which Lambert took as the gospel. On the 30th Jennifer published what the Universities current claims were then at the 30th.

    At no time did she make a logical mistake, act dishonestly or any other such idiocy you accuse her of doing. She updated that thread on the 30th. The story of the universities is without any credibility but thats neither here nor there to you and Lamberts lying.

  33. The burden of proof is on Bruce because he’s been caught lying about Dr Marohasy and he’s fallen for this science fraud, thus bringing his cognitive abilities into question.

  34. Dr Marohasy could not have known what the bogus story of the university would be on the 28th of January since by the dwarfs own admission he had to ring up the registrar on that day to hear their ludicrous story.

    Seeing as how she couldn’t know their feeble bullshitartistry on the 28th she also couldn’t have known their feeble b**************y on the 25th. Probably the University itself didn’t know what crapola they were going to come up with.

    Dr Marohasy made no logical mistake but instead updated her blog with the Universities pathetic side of the story in her usual dutiful way on the 30th.

    Moderator’s note: That’s your third strike for pottymouth, Birdy. Game Over.

  35. You should make an open apology to Dr Marohasy. Since you have been proved wrong. And you ought to resolve never to blindly use information from the Deltoid Dwarf ever again. I tell you it is all tainted.

  36. Your initial lie was itself an assertion.

    I guess you missed the part where I said…

    “notably, she doesn’t mention these additional details despite the fact that it seems everyone else in the discussion, Jon Jenkins included, seem to be factoring them in.”

    Those additional details brought up by Lambert, surrounding the end of Jenkins’ assc. professorship, were verified in the very comments thread I linked to by Jon Jenkins himself.

    Clearly, you share Jennifer’s tendency to ignore facts.

    There is a burden of proof for me to demonstrate her error, but I already satisfied that burden before you even commented here (by citing the thread where Jenkins confirms Lambert’s account). Your utter faliure to pay heed to the sources that I cite, is no fault of mine.

    Naturally, you have still failed to demonstrate how I lied on this matter.

  37. At no time did she make a logical mistake…

    No. It’s a clear and unambiguous post hoc ergo propter hoc. She infered from the mere sequence of events that they were related.

  38. “The truth of this statement isn’t predicated on the validity of theories of climate change, but rather on the reasons that Jon Jenkins Assc. Professorship was ended.”

    How is THAT for retrospective (and therefore invalid) thinking. Given that the university will of course cover its ass the real reason is likely on account of the article but the real reason is not known to you or I.

    But your lying accusation against Dr Marohasy doesn’t depend on something that you or I cannot possibly know. And it doesn’t just depend on what Dr Marohasy says. But also WHEN SHE SAID IT.

    I’ve proven you wrong. You were careless. You 1. Took Lamberts interpretation as the gospel, always the wrong thing to do. 2. Your assessment rewrote history taking the order of events out of it.

    Apologise to Dr Marohasy. She told the story straight and updated on the fly. Like a good journalist and scientist would. You however retrospectively rewrote history with things unknown to the Dr at the time she initially wrote. They were unknown to the Dr since after all the morally diminutive Lambert, HAD TO RING UP FOR HIM. The nerve of that busybody midget.

  39. “No. It’s a clear and unambiguous post hoc ergo propter hoc. She infered from the mere sequence of events that they were related.”

    Of course she did. But that wasn’t a logical mistake. That was a valid supposition. It still is even with what we know of the universities pathetic excuse now.

  40. Dr Marohasy made no logical mistake but instead updated her blog with the Universities pathetic side of the story in her usual dutiful way on the 30th.

    Marohasy updated on the 30th with this:

    That is, an administrative oversight resulted in Dr Jenkins not being informed of his change in status until after he published the controversial opinion piece in The Australian newspaper.

    Perhaps if the piece had been more politically correct his name could have just been added back onto the list?

    Which is still peddling the same post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy she was peddling at Tim Lambert’s blog. Which, you will note, I cited from the outset.

  41. This is bizzare. You retrospectively inferred a logical mistake but you weren’t in a position to even TRY THAT NONSENSE ON prior to the university issuing its lame excuse.

    So you only made the accusation of a logical mistake AFTER you had the universities pathetic excuse which you conveniently took to be gospel.

    Retrospective thinking is always invalid. She made no logical fallacy. Rather a valid inference that stands, even after the universities lame excuse. And she didn’t lock it in like you absolutist nutballs. Her speculation is there AS SPECULATION.

  42. This is bizzare. You retrospectively inferred a logical mistake but you weren’t in a position to even TRY THAT NONSENSE ON prior to the university issuing its lame excuse.

    Marohasy’s allegation was post hoc ergo propter hoc before the University gave Jenkins notice. It was post hoc ergo propter hoc afterwards.

    Of course I’m going to retrospectively infer a logical fallacy. I can hardly call Marohasy out on it before she makes the mistake.

    And you’ve hit your third strike for pottymouth, Graeme. So much for having until Friday. You blew it.



  1. I couldn’t leave this subsequent comment out just to show people what an absolute fucking retard we are dealing with.

    How many of you use the comment “No Doubt”. How many of you use it in the context of reasonable speculation and how many of you use it in a sort of aspergers literalist way to mean “I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever in what I am saying is the absolute gospel truth.”

    In fact NO-ONE who uses this phrase uses it in the latter way. But here goes the retard Bruce. He comes out of a pattern of aspergers-like faux-logic that we used to see from JohnZ:

    “Her speculation is there AS SPECULATION.

    From Marohasy’s own blog:

    “…no doubt this would have gone unnoticed if Professor Jenkins had a more popular opinion on these most politically charged subjects.”

    No doubt? She doesn’t seem quite so speculative to me! lol”

    What a fucking dummy. Actually I better not be too mean. Given his advanced age and his seemingly permanent student status it is quite likely he’s got some sort of bipolar disorder or some other serious problem.

  2. well Bird;

    You were the one that shook Lambert’s hand. So I don’t know why you’re against him now. The deltoid dwarf has more than a lot to answer for and here you are shaking his hand.

  3. Hey Graeme,
    If you were to put the copied comments behind a cut/sub-link, in the blog it’s self, it might not cut of the edges of the comments.
    Keep at ’em.

  4. “Lending won’t start until risk assessment gets easier. Once leverage is reduced, people might want to gear up again, but until the banks feel they can assess credit risk it will be slow at best. We need to see unemployment plateau and assets values stabilise. To early yet I expect.”

    pedro the dummy is actually suggesting that more borrowing and consumer spending is the driver of economic progress. Well its the driver of GDP one supposes. But thats just the way that the figures are compiled. But then we have this very revealing statement by Mark Hill as to why many stupid people go on to get their economics degree and why some smart people drop out:

    “I know a few people who dropped out of commerce degrees because they couldn’t hack macroeconomics.


    “This multiplier stuff is bullshit!”

    Whereas people intuitively accept supply and demand.”

    Do you see that? This dope Mark Hill doesn’t realise that the multiplier stuff IS IN FACT BULLSHIT. The dummy thought his smarter friends who realised that this was utter bullshit “COULDN’T HACK” Macroeconomics. This is all very sad. So very very sad.

    Mark you dummy. Come over here and defend this multiplier lunacy. Or admit that it is an incredibly idiotic doctrine.

  5. You’re wasting your time with this idiots, Bird. The problem with the illiterates at Catallaxy isn’t just economics. It’s morals. You can’t be a scumbag, and then try to fix it with some stats and bogus theories.

  6. Right. Well Jason and the others nihilistic behaviour over the last few years would seem to suggest you are onto something. It must be a pretty tight and restrictive employment setup in the local economics world. Or you would think these guys would have gone out of their way to head off this latest 42 billion dollar vandalism or alternatively they would be attacking Keynes mercilessly so as to head off the next one.

  7. I have to hand it to you – you PWNED those motherfuckers!

  8. Graeme – you are calling me a Keynesian, this is slander. Please make a public apology.

  9. Did I say you were a Keynesian?

    Its pretty clear from your statement that you buy into the spending multiplier? What does that make you? Half Keynesian Stooge? Three Quarters? You are telling the story.

    Now the fact is you haven’t come out in favour of ruthless spending cuts in response to recession. So you can be of no assistance in attempting to campaign against this 42 billion dollar wrecking-ball catastrophe.

    You ought to sit this one out. Any pro-multiplier lies coming out of you, when people need to hear the truth, will be dealt with ruthlessly.


    You’ve been stooged. Now you cannot come here telling lies. Either back up your wrong contention or I am committed to wiping your post.

    Now try real hard.

  11. Look Mark. Why did you claim there was a spending multiplier in the first place. You better be quits with this incredibly dopey notion before you get out of school.

  12. “That’s the way it seems to me. Automatic stabilisers would model budgets as if there was normal as opposed to zero growth and the debt would be small and slowly but easily paid off.

    Why not fund deficits with across the board efficiency dividends? I understand the theory about dampening but I am sceptical as to how well this is proven by empirical research.”

    Mark I’ve figured out where you are going off the beam. You’ve just got to stop running off at the mouth and nail stuff down.

    The above is such absolute bullshit. There is no such thing as an automatic stabiliser. When welfare payments kick in they further drain resources from business-business spending. So don’t talk about these welfare blowouts as automatic stabilisers because thats just lies.

    “Why not fund deficits with across the board efficiency dividends?”

    Because its a really dumb idea. Its just a thieves stalling tactic. If they are lazing around all day they ought to be sacked retrospectively for their bludging, regardless of what they say they’ll do down the track. You talk confidently about things that just don’t exist.

    Where have you seen an efficiency dividend? Its like a fucking Lebrecaun. Get it together man.

    So there is just this big shitrain of talking about things that don’t exist. Automatic stabilisers….. they don’t exist. They are destabilisers.

    Efficieny dividends. They are not real Mark. The phrase is a thieves stalling tactic. Name names if you think I’m wrong.

    Fiscal multiplier? There is no such thing.

    When you talk about economics, try and talk about REAL things.

    DAMPENING? WHAT THE FUCK IS DAMPENING? There is no such thing Mark. When you cut government spending this does not cut total spending. When you increase government spending this does not increase total spending.

    It just shifts the spending around to where Keynesians like yourself can see it.

    I never realised you had swallowed all this Keynesian nonsense. There is nothing of their bullshit you do not confidently believe.

  13. Mark don’t fucking come here and lie.

    If there is a multiplier prove it. You’ve been fucking stooged mate. You’ve been duped.

    Thats what Cambria does. He asserts this nonsense without a fucking reasoned argument.

    There is no multiplier. Stop lying about it you stupid cunt. How could you have been taken in like this. My God man. What will you not buy into of the dumb side of the profession.

  14. So Mark. Come back. Resolve not to lie. If you think there is a multiplier say WHY you believe this.

    Government spending doesn’t and never has increased total spending. Its just shifted it to where GDP can pick it up.

    It steals it from business-to-business spending. And the spending is instead shoveled into government spending and consumer spending, where it is then compiled into the GDP figures.

    So don’t be a stupid cunt and make false claims without some sort of justification.

  15. You do not have a justification for this irrational belief in automatic stabilisers, in a fiscal multiplier, or in the likelihood of efficiency dividends being met. They are just a gyp.

    What about Santa Claus Mark? You believe in him and his elves? Come back and prove it!!!!!!

    If you cannot fucking prove it then they don’t exist.

    But don’t come back and assert this nonsense without some sort of valid argument.

  16. No doubt about it. Mark Hill is a Keynesian. Bent over and violated by Keynes ghost. No wonder he’s so confused all the time. These Keynesian lunatics can never settle on a definition that they will not change midstream. They never come up with unjustified bullshit but that they quickly build upon it.

  17. The Multiplier Mark. That fucking unicorn the Multiplier. That Sasquatch. That giant outback pig the size of an elephant.

    But Mark believes. Oh yes Mark believes. He wishes upon a star and he believes.

    But can he come up with an argument as to why others ought believe. Well not so fucking far he can’t.



    If it exists, which it doesn’t, why can you not prove it.

    It doesn’t exist. You are a moron mate. How could you have fallen for this crap.

    Prove it.

    What a cunt you are. You keep asserting this idiocy, and you never even so much as make an argument for it.

    It doesn’t exist you fucking dummy.

    If you think its exists, make your case you blockhead.

    Is there anyone more stupid than you?

  19. Mark. Prove the multiplier exists.

    I’ve explained why it doesn’t exist. Ten times now you have claimed it does. Prove it you stooge.

    • Mark. Stop dribbling everywhere. Slow down. And prove that the multiplier exists.

      You will have to show that the fiscal activity INCREASES spending, and doesn’t merely shift spending from a category that GDP does not pick up.

  20. While you are at it define very carefully WHAT A FUCKING EFFICIENCY DIVIDEND IS!!!!!!!!

    For fucksakes Mark. You ought not use a phrase unless you know what it means and can apply it consistently. Why not fucking raise a trillion dollars with an efficiency dividend if its a magic pudding.

    Speak fucking English. Say what you mean. If you define this idiotic concept in plain English you will have more chance of seeing the foolishness of it.

    How about 100 billion for a space program?

    Well we’ll just get it out of an EFFICIENCY DIVIDEND.

    If you cannot define precisely what you mean you are talking shit, getting in the way, and confusing the laity. You are not confusing me because I know you are all over the place like a dogs breakfast.

  21. There is no multiplier. I’m not saying its negative. It doesn’t exist. Read what I say.

    Now show it exists or admit you are wrong.

    Its simply a matter of robbing spending from one category and making it show up in C-or-G.

    Thats all it is dummy. Now prove otherwise or resolve not to be a stooge any longer.

  22. Mark you are not to tell lies. I did not say that the multiplier was negative. You lied about that. And you got wiped.

    Don’t tell lies. Just prove the multiplier exists.

    And fucking hell mate. If you cannot do it….. ask one of those other Keynesian stooges. Ask Soon. Ask Cambria. Ask Sinclair.

    They are all Keynesian stooges mate. So they ought to be able to help you out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: