Blaven Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 ^^^ scrambling for relevance It's comforting to see how H_B relies on the same old arguements time and again. What a wholly insignificant individual. Was he not slogging this dead horse yesterday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 ^^^ scrambling for relevance It's comforting to see how H_B relies on the same old arguements time and again. What a wholly insignificant individual. It's very relevant. Both sides are guilty of treating 'experts' as the oracle when it suits their argument then dismissing them when it doesn't. It's quite pathetic really. That you either cannot or refuse to see this does you no credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 It's very relevant. Both sides are guilty of treating 'experts' as the oracle when it suits their argument then dismissing them when it doesn't. It's quite pathetic really. That you either cannot or refuse to see this does you no credit. And if I had done any of this then you would have a point. I have never treated 'experts' as the oracle and therefore your point is moot really (and utterly irrelevant). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blaven Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 It's very relevant. Both sides are guilty of treating 'experts' as the oracle when it suits their argument then dismissing them when it doesn't. It's quite pathetic really. That you either cannot or refuse to see this does you no credit. Your right. No one can agree with anyone on every matter. There will always be a differing opinion on most matters. Also employing 'experts' to give you research, then taking that research and multiplying it by a factor of ten, because it did not suit the level of argument enough, does not help either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 And if I had done any of this then you would have a point. I have never treated 'experts' as the oracle and therefore your point is moot really (and utterly irrelevant). And where do you come into my point? I was responding to Confidemus' silly reply to H_B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 And if I had done any of this then you would have a point. I have never treated 'experts' as the oracle and therefore your point is moot really (and utterly irrelevant). It's not all about you champ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 And where do you come into my point? I was responding to Confidemus' silly reply to H_B. Follow the chain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Follow the chain. Why? H_B made a perfectly valid point about inconsistent approaches to 'expert' views and Confidemus made a silly, childish response. That's what i was referring to. No need to follow any chain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 It's not all about you champ. Show me where anyone other than you, Ad Lib or other Unionists has bigged up the status of Stiglitz on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Correct, recommended by the Fiscal Commission. So you have Gideon Osborne, Danny Alexander & Ed Balls arguing against Nobel Prize winning Joseph Stiglitz and eminent economists Andrew Hughes-Hallett and Crawford Beveridge. Now let me see, who do I trust more.........??? Show me where anyone other than you, Ad Lib or other Unionists has bigged up the status of Stiglitz on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Why? H_B made a perfectly valid point about inconsistent approaches to 'expert' views and Confidemus made a silly, childish response. That's what i was referring to. No need to follow any chain. OK, so just to follow this up - Show me where I have paraded Mr Stiglitz as an Oracle. When you fail to find this, I will assume that you can then explain to me the relevence of H_Bs reply to my post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 One admirable aspect about the Scottish Givernments Independence econonomic strategy is its stance on London and the southeast. Over-dependency on Britains capital isnt just an issue of geography but of inequality. As Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel prize wnning Economist) points out, rich people (read financiers) spend a lower proportion of their income than the poor. And cutting welfare payments further sucks demand out of the economy. If theres one thing that Britains economy needs at the moment, its an increase in demand in the marginalised regions. Inequality is also demotivating: people dont work as hard beneath a glass ceiling. In general, unequal societies tend to under-perform economically. A developmental Economic goal of an.Independent Scotland will be about reducing financial disparity and giving the lower paid more "spendable" income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 OK, so just to follow this up - Show me where I have paraded Mr Stiglitz as an Oracle. When you fail to find this, I will assume that you can then explain to me the relevence of H_Bs reply to my post. I wasn't commenting on the relevance of H_B's reply to your post. I told you what I was commenting on. Do you suffer from paranoia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Correct, recommended by the Fiscal Commission. So you have Gideon Osborne, Danny Alexander & Ed Balls arguing against Nobel Prize winning Joseph Stiglitz and eminent economists Andrew Hughes-Hallett and Crawford Beveridge. Now let me see, who do I trust more.........??? Show me where anyone other than you, Ad Lib or other Unionists has bigged up the status of Stiglitz on this forum. Fair play in finding a quote. Now if you could just highlight the words that big Stiglitz up that would be helpful. His trustworthyness is not being questioned here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Fair play in finding a quote. Now if you could just highlight the words that big Stiglitz up that would be helpful. His trustworthyness is not being questioned here. Is mentioning his novel prize not bigging him up? The context of that quote is about a currency union - the poster is basically calling the Westminster polticians liars, and Stiglitz part of an impartial expert panel. i would have thought that was pretty clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Is mentioning his novel prize not bigging him up? The context of that quote is about a currency union - the poster is basically calling the Westminster polticians liars, and Stiglitz part of an impartial expert panel. i would have thought that was pretty clear. Sorry, been posting to H_B and Ad Lib and this always increase my level of pedantry. The context was clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banterman86 Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Sorry, been posting to H_B and Ad Lib and this always increase my level of pedantry. The context was clear. Cool. Are we accepting then that other posters on this board have bigged up Stiglitz. Hardly earth shattering news, he is a nobel prize winner! of course they call economics the dismal science for nothing - that's why Krugman and Hayek have almost completley different takes on well..everything. It isn;t suprising that government's cherry pick the bits that suit them best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Confidemus Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 And where do you come into my point? I was responding to Confidemus' silly reply to H_B. It was hardly silly. H_B is wholly irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Fair play in finding a quote. . Multiple quotes. You really have drowned in fail here. There are also Alex Salmond's quotes in Parliament, about Stiglitz. Explicitly using his name as cachet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 3, 2014 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Newsnat's take on the dog bites man "sensational" coup the SNP managed, in being able to pay Stiglitz as an adviser. In a sensational development Joe Stiglitz (pictured), former chief economist of the World Bank and key advisor to former US President Bill Clinton, will join Scotland's Council of Economic Advisors (CEA). Salmond :- "Conference I can tell you today that Joe Stiglitz has agreed to advise the Scottish Government on our country’s economic future. A Nobel prize winning economist backing Scotland.” This development is a coup for Alex Salmond as he seeks to establish his government's economic credibility with the electorate ahead of the Holyrood elections on May 6th next year. http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-economy/831-former-world-bank-chief-economist-joseph-stiglitz-to-be-advisor-to-first-minister-alex-salmond I guess there was some small print saying "If of course he views our policies as increasing social inequality, then he isn't backing Scotland and is instead just a guy with an economics degree that thinks he knows stuff, but doesn't really." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.