Replies

Actually, YOU'RE the one taking my post out of context to try to alter its meaning.

What I originally posted to you was a comment relating to your claim that Jorgenson eas saying that wages must fall when I said:

"You fall prey to what others have done in claiming that the economist Jorgenson has claimed wages must fall. He did not despite all the opponents' claims that he did so. That's not what his study showed and you even agreed with that assessment with ancient_geezer in earlier postings. Are you now wishing to take back what you said to him? Sort of like putting the Genie back in the bottle isn't it?"

I made no comment at all regarding the wages in the initial base case of the model which is where the economist ASSUMED they would fall. My comment related to your statement that Jorgenson was saying wages would fall ... which clearly he did not say and which you agreed with ancient_geezer that he did not say. The pertinent post numbers you gave were actually #234 and #235. Using #232 as you attempt is merely you "wriggle" effort. Why not just admit your error and move on?

Apparently you have no interest in the substance of debate (everytime someone tries that with you, you run away.) It seems you would rather waste everyone's time by pretending you know what everyone else is thinking and saying. You're so sure everyone else is wrong that you take criticisms of your arguments as personal attacks.

As a result, you spend so much time defending your ego and attacking everyone who dares question the FairTax that you completely lose the thread of substance.

I'm not playing anymore.

If you want to return to substance, fine; I'll be happy to engage. If you want to keep playing "he said ... she said," you're gonna have to play by yourself.