#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2023-12-02 03:07 AM
For starters, the "everyone" and "no one" assertions have to go. Economic forward views are not an "everyone" thing, nor is it a "no one" thing. There are differing views. I see them daily.
Your alias is in your "fifth grade grammar teacher" mode again? I thought we were done with that already last couple of times!
Unless your alias wants to post "everyone who pays attention and is supposed to or knows and understands anything about economy or [insert subject here...]" then, if your alias still doesn't understand non-literal shorthand of "everyone" and/or "no one," that's your alias' comprehension problem, which I and your alias have already discussed a couple of times.
Your alias seems to keep trying to pick a fight, especially at 3 in the morning, for some reason. I would appreciate your alias stop being annoying and not wasting my time with that nonsense again.
From what I've seen of your alias' posts, it should know better than that. Maybe I need to lower my opinion of your alias....
From what I keep seeing lately of your alias, I've been lowering my opinion daily... and I don't really care what your alias thinks about me. As I've already suggested to your alias last couple of times, if your alias has difficulties understanding my posts, which most normal people have no trouble understanding, maybe, just maybe, it would be better for your alias to dial up levels of attention and comprehension and dial down highly unwarranted and unattractive condescension and contentiousness.
Your alias may have been BMOC at one time, but it's not all that...
Yeah, you're gonna need to provide a whole lot more facts to substantiate that.
Actually, I don't - I am not posting here just for your current alias' level of comprehension. I suggest your alias try reading my post again, then your own excerpt at post #1 - particularly where it talks about government spending - and if you still don't understand, do some search in financial/economic resources, not the political which write "differing views that you see daily."
So... the Fed's goal of reducing inflation down to 2% looks to be working, according to your comment. Bringing an over-heated economy back down to 2% inflation is not without consequences.
Outside of being a non-sequitur - I didn't even mention inflation or Fed (except its economic report) - I didn't say anything different in my post, not in the facts nor in opinions I provided.
... your comment seems to criticize, but what solution does it offer ...? Criticism is easy. Solutions are more difficult.
Yet another non-sequitur. Must be your comprehension again or seeing things not in evidence.
Criticism of what? Solutions to what?
Your alias keeps looking for politics. My post doesn't nor does it provide some magical "solutions" to undefined problems. I was providing published and well known facts (apparently not well known to "everybody" and certainly not to people or aliases who are just playing "economist" and looking only for favorable political explanations, ignoring "anything / everything" else that doesn't fit that criteria) about economic numbers for past quarter and more current numbers and projections of industry as well as what they may mean for the current quarter and the year overall.
Your alias has a problem with that... why? If your alias doesn't care about these facts, it missed a great chance to stay quiet.
That prompt's me to ask, what's yer point? Or more specifically, what have ye?
Actually, that would be my question - what was your alias' point? Or more specifically, what possessed your alias to make it?