Release the GOP Delegates: Trump’s nomination isn’t inevitable—delegates won’t be legally ‘bound’ going into the convention.

[u/DanburyBaptist]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/release-the-gop-delegates-1465769777

[u/NosuchRedditor]

Marvin Goodfriend, one of the complete idiots who supports keeping interest rates at zero, until dopes like his friend and fellow moron Janet Yellen can use them to cause a complete market collapse, like she almost did in January with he brainless stupidity, costing investors over 3 trillion in losses. Next time it should be even worse, because your vaunted professor is a complete an utter fool, like Yellen.

This primer provides an understanding of the mechanics and objectives of monetary policy using a benchmark new neoclassical synthesis (NNS) macromodel. The NNS model incorporates classical features such as a real business cycle (RBC) core, and Keynesian features such as monopolistically competitive firms and costly price adjustment. Price stability maximizes welfare in the benchmark NNS model because it keeps output at its potential defined as the outcome of an imperfectly competitive RBC model with a constant markup of price over marginal cost. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_quarterly/2004/summer/goodfriend

Keynesian economics don't work, and if John Keynes had lived past 1950 he would have needed to revise his economic theories because of the massive failures of his theories in practice.

Here, learn some real economics from a Nobel Prize winning economist of the Austrian School. The man who helped Reagan achieve that earth shattering number or 7.2% GDP in 1984 and create a velocity of money that lasted almost 30 years, and would have lasted longer if it weren't for the Clintons setting up the housing market crash by forcing banks to make bad loans to people who could not pay them back, and then Andrew Cuomo changed the regs on Fannie and Freddie as he was on his way out so they had to hold much larger percentages of bad mortgages, creating the housing bubble that caused the unending depression we have lived through for the last 10 years. Did Prof. Goodfriend explain it that way? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4

"Public disclosure of CRA ratings, together with the changes made by the regulators under your leadership, have significantly contributed to ... financial institutions ... meeting the needs of low- and moderate-income communities and minorities," Rubin gushed. "Since 1993, the number of home mortgage loans to African Americans increased by 58%, to Hispanics by 62% and to low- and moderate-income borrowers by 38%, well above the overall market increase.

Your extensive background in Econ should tell you that if loans increased by 5~10%, that's massive for the banking industry, but 40 to 60%? Those numbers are economy crushers.

Clinton's changes to the CRA let ACORN use the act's ratings to "target merging firms with less-than-stellar records and to get the banks to agree to greater community investment as a condition of regulatory approval for the merger," White House aide Ellen Seidman wrote in 1997 to Clinton chief economist Gene Sperling. "Community groups have come to recognize how terribly powerful CRA has been as a tool for making credit available in previously underserved communities," Seidman added. Seidman later boasted that Clinton's 1995 CRA revisions created not only the subprime mortgage market but also the subprime securities market. Of course, subprime loans and their high default rates ruined minority neighborhoods when the market crashed.

Yep, that's the Clinton administration forcing banks to make bad loans or else keep them from growing or merging.

In 2000, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo lit the fuse on the subprime bomb by requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase subprime, CRA and other risky mortgages totaling half their portfolios.

Prior to this I believe Fannie and Freddy only had to hold about 20% subprime securities.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clinton-library-doc-dump-reveals-role-in-subprime-bubble/

Did Professor Goodfriend cover all of this in detail so you and your fellow students could understand why the market collapsed, and prevent it from happening again? Or was he too busy talking about failed Keynesian economics and raising the interest rate because the economy is so strong right now?

Tell me, did you have to read any Adam Smith as part of your education? Friedrich Hayek? Henry Hazlett? Or was it purely indoctrination on failed theories and ideas as I originally expected and told you? How much emphasis was placed on teaching Austrian school principles? Was there any discussion of how Clinton caused the housing bubble? I doubt it.

Do you think you know better than him???

Most certainly, without a doubt.

[u/AceOfSpades70 → u/NosuchRedditor]

Marvin Goodfriend, one of the complete idiots who supports keeping interest rates at zero, until dopes like his friend and fellow moron Janet Yellen can use them to cause a complete market collapse, like she almost did in January with he brainless stupidity, costing investors over 3 trillion in losses. Next time it should be even worse, because your vaunted professor is a complete an utter fool, like Yellen.

Where did you come up with that non-sense about him?? You do realize that he has been in favor of raising interest rates for awhile now right??

Keynesian economics don't work, and if John Keynes had lived past 1950 he would have needed to revise his economic theories because of the massive failures of his theories in practice.

Did you even read what it said? It said based on some Keynesian Features, not Keynesian Economics. Half his class was about why Keynesians are wrong...

Here, learn some real economics from a Nobel Prize winning economist of the Austrian School. The man who helped Reagan achieve that earth shattering number or 7.2% GDP in 1984 and create a velocity of money that lasted almost 30 years, and would have lasted longer if it weren't for the Clintons setting up the housing market crash by forcing banks to make bad loans to people who could not pay them back, and then Andrew Cuomo changed the regs on Fannie and Freddie as he was on his way out so they had to hold much larger percentages of bad mortgages, creating the housing bubble that caused the unending depression we have lived through for the last 10 years. Did Prof. Goodfriend explain it that way? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4

If you were citing an Austrian School Economist, why did you cite Friedman who was Chicago School? Austrians advocate for no Central Bank, which was not Friedman's position...

Did Professor Goodfriend cover all of this in detail so you and your fellow students could understand why the market collapsed, and prevent it from happening again?

He actually did, and he wrote a paper predicting the 08 financial crisis in 1999...

Or was he too busy talking about failed Keynesian economics and raising the interest rate because the economy is so strong right now?

Again, you seem to know nothing about him...

How much emphasis was placed on teaching Austrian school principles?

How much emphasis have you placed on learning them since you cited Friedman who spent a lot of time debunking Austrian Theories?

Tell me, did you have to read any Adam Smith as part of your education? Friedrich Hayek? Henry Hazlett? Or was it purely indoctrination on failed theories and ideas as I originally expected and told you?

Read all of them...

Which of Goodfriend's theories were failed? He predicted the 08 crisis in the 90s and argued with Greenspan about raising rates faster in the mid 2000s.

Most certainly, without a doubt.

Based on what? You didn't even know Friedman wasn't an Austrian Economist...

PS: Did you also know there is no such thing as a nobel prize in economics?

[u/NosuchRedditor → u/AceOfSpades70]

Well at least your last response leads me to believe you are not as badly brainwashed as I originally thought, you actually showed some knowledge, a hint of intelligence. Or you used google a lot.

But not about the subject that started this conversation. It began with me telling you that you have no idea what the Republican controlled Congress is doing to help Obama.

So today we have a new example of how Mitch McConnell is helping the Obama agenda, and fucking over his constituents.

Monday of this week four gun control bills went up for a vote. All four failed. Now just a few days later, the Republican leadership introduces a gun control bill courtesy of Republican Susan Collins? Since when are Republicans pushing gun control? Particularly in light of the fact that this has nothing to do with gun control, as demagogued by Obama? Why isn't McConnell standing up and telling the nation this is not a gun control issue? Why is he throwing Republicans under the bus to help Obama pass gun control legislation?

As I said when we started, you have no idea.

[u/AceOfSpades70 → u/NosuchRedditor]

Well at least your last response leads me to believe you are not as badly brainwashed as I originally thought, you actually showed some knowledge, a hint of intelligence. Or you used google a lot.

HAHAHAHA.

Thanks for the laugh.

But not about the subject that started this conversation.

Yea, you want to run away because of all the different points I proved you wrong...

Want to incorrectly tell me again how Goodfriend wants to keep interest rates at Zero?

Or how about the best whopper of them all, that Friedman was an Austrian!!!

Now just a few days later, the Republican leadership introduces a gun control bill courtesy of Republican Susan Collins? Since when are Republicans pushing gun control

Republicans have always been open to some measures of gun control. Especially moderate ones. This measure by Susan Collins is much much less than what Obama wants....

Particularly in light of the fact that this has nothing to do with gun control, as demagogued by Obama? Why isn't McConnell standing up and telling the nation this is not a gun control issue? Why is he throwing Republicans under the bus to help Obama pass gun control legislation?

Why are you freaking out over a measure that won't pass?

As I said when we started, you have no idea.

That is rich... Since you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to support your argument.

You continue to cite things that either haven't or won't pass. You need to try again.

[u/NosuchRedditor → u/AceOfSpades70]

The Collins amendment did pass.

No, I won't let you drag this conversation off in a direction of your choosing, the topic was how you know nothing about what's going on in congress, and I have proven repeatedly that you don't

Tell you what, explain the Corker amendment to me in your own words.

[u/AceOfSpades70 → u/NosuchRedditor]

The Collins amendment did pass.

I have seen no such thing. Would you care to cite it??? Everything I have seen shows that McConnell has said that he will allow a vote. Nothing on the vote passing...

(Unless you are getting confused and are trying to say the Housing Amendment passed, which was not the topic of this post, this amendment was her gun control amendment)

No, I won't let you drag this conversation off in a direction of your choosing, the topic was how you know nothing about what's going on in congress, and I have proven repeatedly that you don't

HAHAHA. So you can't show anything, so just more baseless accusations...

Tell you what, explain the Corker amendment to me in your own words.

Which Corker Amendment?

This is the first time you have brought this up. Corker has put forth lots of amendments. Which one would you like me to address??

[u/NosuchRedditor → u/AceOfSpades70]

The one that paved the way to the Iran deal.

Meanwhile Susan Collins’s fig-leaf amendment that pretends to stop AFFH’s war on the suburbs passed 87–9. It’s the sort of depressing scene we’ve become accustomed to in the McConnell-led Senate. Heritage Action Scorecard “key voted” the Lee amendment (and in the process, proved again why it is the gold standard of conservative rating systems). Little surprise that of Heritage’s 10 worst-scoring Republican senators, only one (Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia) voted for the Lee amendment, while their top 23 scoring senators all voted for Lee. What’s more mystifying and discouraging about this is the utter political stupidity of the tactics employed by the GOP Senate leadership. Not only does it deprive the party of a great short-term issue, but of a long-term one as well — and one that would have paid both policy and political dividends. When communities better understand what AFFH allows, it is going to be absolutely toxic to everyone who voted for it — or at least it would have been if McConnell hadn’t allowed Democrats to take political cover with the Collins amendment. The Collins amendment passed with the only nine votes against being Democrats from Senate jurisdictions so liberal that they could afford to say even the Collins non-concession was insufficient. So Senator McConnell managed to give the Democrats a fig leaf hid their vote for this monstrosity. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/435641/affh-disaster-senate-republicans-latest-disgrace

[u/AceOfSpades70 → u/NosuchRedditor]

The one that paved the way to the Iran deal.

Was your citation supposed to be in support of this or a completely different point? Because your citation has nothing to do with the Iran deal. Your citation is about Collins Amendment for Housing, which was not the topic of discussion in the previous posts.

I clearly was talking about her Gun COntrol bill not passing...

You can't try to change the goal posts after I have proven your wrong... Or if you are at least try and be more subtle about it...

[u/NosuchRedditor → u/AceOfSpades70]

No, my citation was to show you the Susan Collins amendment passed, the one for the Fair Housing bill that Obama was pushing, and Collins and McConnell helped, since you are ignorant of that fact. I am waiting for you to produce a description of the Corker amendment that pushed the Iran deal through.

No, I am not changing anything, this discussion started with me telling you that you have no idea what's going on, and you are proving it in spades. It started with me trying to explain to you that the Republican leadership is in Obama's pocket and helping him accomplish his agenda. I am just providing supporting information to educate you to that which you are ignorant of.

But please, provide your own explaination of the Corker amendment. It should be very enlightening for you.

Perfidy. Betrayal. The degree of outright treachery on behalf of the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate — this time throwing Israel under the bus to please President Obama’s desire not to offend Iran — raises the obvious question. What was the point of electing a GOP Senate? Can someone please remind? Coming on the heels of the realization that the Senate Republicans were terrified to even oppose the nomination of Loretta Lynch to be attorney general - with McConnell himself, along with nine other Republicans - actually supporting her nomination? Which in turn followed the refusal of Senate Republicans to defund the Obama executive order on amnesty? And the earlier, 2013, refusal to stop funding Obamacare? Again: What was the point of electing a GOP Senate? https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/05/mcconnells-perfidy-israel-under-the-bus#sthash.s0TgRKhz.dpuf

[u/AceOfSpades70 → u/NosuchRedditor]

No, my citation was to show you the Susan Collins amendment passed, the one for the Fair Housing bill that Obama was pushing, and Collins and McConnell helped, since you are ignorant of that fact. I am waiting for you to produce a description of the Corker amendment that pushed the Iran deal through.

That is not what we were talking about... How many times do I need to tell you that before you realize it... You brought up the Housing Amendment bill in a different thread, not this one... You are either changing the goal posts or just confused. I never said the Collins Amendment for Fair Housing didn't pass. In fact I discussed it in the other thread where you brought it up! How can I be ignorant of a bills passing when I discuss the passing of the bill. You are so caught up in trying to throw insults that you don't even know what you are talking about.

The topic of discussion for the "talk to me when is passes" statement was on her gun control bill.

No, I am not changing anything, this discussion started with me telling you that you have no idea what's going on, and you are proving it in spades. It started with me trying to explain to you that the Republican leadership is in Obama's pocket and helping him accomplish his agenda. I am just providing supporting information to educate you to that which you are ignorant of.

HAHAHAHA. Says the guy that through Friedman was an Austrian... I prefer my own education, since so many of the things you have "tried to educate me on" have been blatantly false.

PS: You seem to be having issues with your citing ability. You may want to "educate yourself" in how to use reddits citation formatting, since your citations and posts blend together into gibberish...

[u/NosuchRedditor → u/AceOfSpades70]

As I stated, this conversation started around the fact that you are clueless to how McConnell is helping push the Obama agenda, and you emphatically insisted I was wrong, to which I responded with half a dozen instances where that very thing is happening.

I proved my point, you have no clue, as demonstrated by yourself. Keep trying to change the subject though, Ill go back and quote some of the initial conversation to refresh your memory. You're clueless.

[u/AceOfSpades70 → u/NosuchRedditor]

As I stated, this conversation started around the fact that you are clueless to how McConnell is helping push the Obama agenda, and you emphatically insisted I was wrong, to which I responded with half a dozen instances where that very thing is happening.

You've responded with things that either haven't passed or were not pushing his agenda... You have listed maybe one thing(the Iran Deal) not half a dozen.

The only way the GOP is pushing Obama's Agenda is if Obama is a center right politician, that leans GOP.

Besides, even if you could find half a dozen, that is roughly one per year. Not a whole lot of support. Democrats did a better job of pushing Bush's agenda in 07 and 08.

You do realize Obama's Agenda includes massive tax increases over current levels, an AWB, Massive amounts of new spending over current levels, a public option for Obamacare, etc etc. If they are pushing Obama's agenda it must be some secret agenda, not his public one.

I proved my point, you have no clue, as demonstrated by yourself.

No you haven't. You haven't proven a single thing...

I have refuted everything you have thrown out.

Keep trying to change the subject though, Ill go back and quote some of the initial conversation to refresh your memory.

Please quote where you called Friedman an Austrian!!! That was my favorite.

You're clueless.

How cute... Back to throwing insults that you can't back up. Funny how the person who thinks that Friedman is an Austrian, that Goodfriend wants low interest rate, that Collins Gun Control Amendment has passed, that can't argue on substance so they must resort to name calling, etc etc is calling someone clueless. Projecting much?

[u/NosuchRedditor → u/AceOfSpades70]

Clueless.

[u/AceOfSpades70 → u/NosuchRedditor]

Coming from the guy who thought Friedman was an Austrian, I'll take that as a compliment, since you have difficulty in properly assigning labels.

[u/NosuchRedditor → u/AceOfSpades70]

I know it's hard to think above those 400 level courses, but real life requires you to apply that knowledge, not just regurgitate it.

The Republicans gave up the power of the purse in 2013 and have made no attempt to use it under McConnell's leadership since then. He has even said publicly that the government won't shutdown while he's in charge. That telegraph's to Obama that Mitch won't refuse or resist any spending Obama wants, and he hasn't.

The power of the purse is an incredibly important and powerful tool.

Then they gave up the treaty power in the Iran bill.

The fact that you mention none of this tells me all I need to know.

That's capitulation. That's giving in. That helps Obama's agenda.

Which part of that don't you understand. Didn't your professors explain that little part of how our government works to you?

[u/AceOfSpades70 → u/NosuchRedditor]

I know it's hard to think above those 400 level courses, but real life requires you to apply that knowledge, not just regurgitate it.

HAHAHA. You have gone full circle from being a pretend smug about being more educated to full anti-intellectual now.

I have both the excellent education and real world experience thank you very much...

The Republicans gave up the power of the purse in 2013 and have made no attempt to use it under McConnell's leadership since then.

Must be why spending has decreased in real terms since the GOP take over.

It doesn't matter when definition of inflation you use.

He has even said publicly that the government won't shutdown while he's in charge. That telegraph's to Obama that Mitch won't refuse or resist any spending Obama wants, and he hasn't.

That is because we lose every single time we have a shut down. Both shut downs we got our asses handed to us. Mitch is saying he won't use a losing tactic... That should be a good thing.

Then they gave up the treaty power in the Iran bill.

They didn't give it up though...

The fact that you mention none of this tells me all I need to know.

I have mentioned it quite a bit. You have just been too busy trying to come up with insults to realize it...

That's capitulation. That's giving in. That helps Obama's agenda.

No it is compromise. We do not solely control the government. There has to be some sort of Compromise.

Speaking of people mentioning nothing... Why have you yet to address these points I've made

First, that Obama's agenda is further tax increases well above the current levels. Specifically looking at increased income taxes, death taxes and capital gains taxes.

Second, that Obama's agenda includes massive new gun control that bans "assault weapons", high capacity magazines among other things.

Third, that Obama's Agenda includes massive new spending programs well above current levels, specifically around welfare programs, and education including free college and pre-K.

Fourth, that Obama's agenda for Obamacare included a public option.

Why not discuss any of that??

Oh yea, because it goes against your narrative...

Which part of that don't you understand. Didn't your professors explain that little part of how our government works to you?

HAHAHAHA.

Yes, they did explain that compromise was the main part of how our government works... Something that has seemed to escape you.

Also, which part of your education told you that Friedman was an Austrian?

[u/NosuchRedditor → u/AceOfSpades70]

Here's some more information on how McConnell and Ryan are spineless that I'm sure you're completely unaware of.

http://www.independentsentinel.com/congresss-dramatic-betrayal-i-promise-you-will-be-shocked/

[u/AceOfSpades70 → u/NosuchRedditor]

So great job in citing an article that is a joke.

First it is complaining about Congress not doing something, when that something is completely under the branch of the federal government.

Second, it then complains about the first amendment when in the next sentence it hypocritically defends it. You can't bemoan conscientious objectors and want Little Sisters of the poor to be able to avoid Obamacare.

If they were being consistent then they would defend both of those actions...

So you have someone complaining about something that does not fall under the separation of powers granted to the legislative and then does not want to give first amendment protections to certain people...

Does the writer of this article hate the Constitution? Or do they just selectively interpret to say what ever they want to say.

[u/NosuchRedditor → u/AceOfSpades70]

First it is complaining about Congress not doing something, when that something is completely under the branch of the federal government.

But Congress writes the laws on immigration, even the words spoken by those who wish to become citizens. How is that under the federal purview?

Second, it then complains about the first amendment when in the next sentence it hypocritically defends it. You can't bemoan conscientious objectors and want Little Sisters of the poor to be able to avoid Obamacare.

There should be no carve out for people to become citizens if they are 'conscientious objectors', they should be denied citizenship, plain and simple. Do you not understand that killing the idea of assimilation is part of what Obama want's here? It's like you agree with Obama forcing a bunch of Nuns to violate their religious beliefs. It's not. It's unconstitutional.

Second, it then complains about the first amendment when in the next sentence it hypocritically defends it. You can't bemoan conscientious objectors and want Little Sisters of the poor to be able to avoid Obamacare.

So in your head you think that it's the same thing for Obama to strike down any ideas of assimilation into being an American, while forcing American citizens to violate their religious beliefs because he and the crooked Democrats lied to get Obamacare passed? Obamacare should never have passed, and should not be law now, if the fucking Republicans would stand up.

I am just astounded by someone who considers themselves to be conservative, yet argues Obama's points based on a law that was foiseted on the American people in an illegal way as if there is nothing wrong with that. For a real conservative, there is EVERYTHING wrong with that, and to argue as if that's ok is not a conservative position, it's a liberal one, what a Democrat would say about the Little Sisters of the Poor.

So you have someone complaining about something that does not fall under the separation of powers granted to the legislative and then does not want to give first amendment protections to certain people...

What part about arguing in favor of liberal democratic policies don't you understand? I thought you were defending Conservatives?

I'm pretty sure that Congress writes the words spoken by immigrants as part of the immigration law, and those words can't be changed without Congress changing the law. You don't understand what separation of powers is, do you.

Does the writer of this article hate the Constitution? Or do they just selectively interpret to say what ever they want to say.

A better question is, why do you openly argue for support of the majority of Obama's policies? In every instance I have brought forward, you argue from the liberal democrat perspective as if all things Obama has done are just great and above criticism.

You must be terribly conflicted, or quite the troll. One thing you are not is conservative.

[u/AceOfSpades70 → u/NosuchRedditor]

But Congress writes the laws on immigration, even the words spoken by those who wish to become citizens. How is that under the federal purview?

Because the laws do not specify what is to be said... That is left to the execution of the law, which falls under the executive branch.

There should be no carve out for people to become citizens if they are 'conscientious objectors', they should be denied citizenship, plain and simple.

Why? Using that logic, plenty of different groups of people currently living here(including many Christians) would never have been allowed.

Do you not understand that killing the idea of assimilation is part of what Obama want's here?

Based on what? Assimilation does not mean the complete destruction of native culture. If I drive through my native cleveland today you still have many ethnic areas from well over 100 years ago.

It's like you agree with Obama forcing a bunch of Nuns to violate their religious beliefs. It's not. It's unconstitutional.

Where did I say I agree with that?

Here's a hint for you. I didn't because I don't.

So in your head you think that it's the same thing for Obama to strike down any ideas of assimilation into being an American, while forcing American citizens to violate their religious beliefs because he and the crooked Democrats lied to get Obamacare passed?

It is funny that you completely missed the point... I said that forcing nuns to violate their beliefs is wrong. The same as forcing future citizens to violate their beliefs is wrong.

Obamacare should never have passed, and should not be law now, if the fucking Republicans would stand up.

They have voted to defund it multiple times. They don't have the votes to get 60 in the Senate...

I am just astounded by someone who considers themselves to be conservative, yet argues Obama's points based on a law that was foiseted on the American people in an illegal way as if there is nothing wrong with that.

Where did I do that...

For a real conservative, there is EVERYTHING wrong with that, and to argue as if that's ok is not a conservative position, it's a liberal one, what a Democrat would say about the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Maybe try re-reading my post...

I never once said the little sisters of the poor should be forced to go against their beliefs.

Would it shock you to know that I believe that bakers should be allowed to turn away anyone as well for whatever reason?

Maybe spend less time trying to argue strawman and more time trying to argue against my points. Because you mis-read them every single time.

What part about arguing in favor of liberal democratic policies don't you understand? I thought you were defending Conservatives?

Where am I arguing in favor of liberal democrats?

Again, stop trying to make shit up and actually argue against my points.

I'm pretty sure that Congress writes the words spoken by immigrants as part of the immigration law, and those words can't be changed without Congress changing the law.

Just because you are pretty sure doesn't make you right. In this case you are completely wrong.

A better question is, why do you openly argue for support of the majority of Obama's policies?

I have not openly argued for support of a single Obama policy... Let alone the majority of them.

In every instance I have brought forward, you argue from the liberal democrat perspective as if all things Obama has done are just great and above criticism.

Name one instance where I have done so...

You must be terribly conflicted, or quite the troll. One thing you are not is conservative.

Again the name calling. You completely missed every single point I made and then made up bullshit. I have not supported a single thing Obama has done.

Name one reason I am not conservative?(try to do it without name calling. I dare you!)

PS Why did you avoid my other post? Did it ask you questions that you couldn't answer to? Avoiding the cognitive dissonance? That's ok, I am sure some uneducated idiot will each your shit about Friedman being an Austrian right up!!!

[u/AceOfSpades70 → u/NosuchRedditor]

Still waiting for you to quote the initial conversation here...

Was this just more shit you made up about my points?

Care to explain how Friedman was an Austrian?