• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ignored for Years, a Radical Economic Theory Is Gaining Converts

JP Hochbaum said:
Which of those 74 pages, and it's particular critiques are you referring to?
Click to expand...

All of them. Don't worry about it. If you can't read, you can't read. I'm sure you're just waiting to give your critique of an economic expert who knows one million times more than you do. I can't help people who's heads are stuck in the sand, hiding from reality and thinking they know more than the experts do.
 
Moderate Right said:
All of them. Don't worry about it. If you can't read, you can't read. I'm sure you're just waiting to give your critique of an economic expert who knows one million times more than you do. I can't help people who's heads are stuck in the sand, hiding from reality and thinking they know more than the experts do.
Click to expand...

please present an argument for RET or admit you cant and have no reason to be here.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
He hasn't read it, and he wouldn't understand it if he did. Don't even bother.
Click to expand...

Actually I have read it and understood it. It is you who refuse to read something that will destroy the world as you know it. You don't understand it because it debunks MMT and you have no comprehension for anything that debunks MMT.
 
Moderate Right said:
Actually I have read it and understood it. It is you who refuse to read something that will destroy the world as you know it. You don't understand it because it debunks MMT and you have no comprehension for anything that debunks MMT.
Click to expand...

Then prove it. Put his arguments in your own words already.

I won't hold my breath.
 
Moderate Right said:
The whole 74 pages debunks MMT and this is not from a hobbiest economist on DP, it is from a well educated economist who is a financial guru and is well versed in MMT. Did you not read any of it? I realize 74 pages is a lot but surely you can skim? It's not really that hard. Most of you MMT believers seem to always think that those that do not believe in MMT just don't understand it. Roche understands it perfectly and debunks it with much more knowledge and understanding and finesse than I ever could. You either listen to someone who really does know what they're talking about or you are so hooked on MMT that you believe in it hook, line and sinker, no matter what anyone tells you, even Roche.
Click to expand...

I talked to Cullen a few times in the small little econ blogging world, and he is actually quite friendly with MMT, and sides more with the likes of Bill Mitchell (an MMTer). His critiques of MMT don't actually debunk MMT, they rather pick at certain nuances with it.

Please pick something out otherwise your just pulling a copy paste job of something you haven't read....
Here is also a piece just written a ffew days ago by Cullen Roche confirming the major tenet of MMT.

Understanding Flow of Funds Accounting | Pragmatic Capitalism

"What happens here is an expansion of the Central Bank’s balance sheet which results in the flow of new reserves into the private sector and a flow of T-Bonds out of the private sector. This alters the composition of the private sector’s balance sheet, but not its size. So, if we understand endogenous money (the fact that banks don’t lend out reserves) then it’s easy to conclude a few things here:

Banks won’t necessarily increase credit expansion due to having more reserves because that’s not how banks make new loans.
The size of the private sector’s balance sheet is unchanged therefore we shouldn’t expect dramatic changes in future spending since spending is a function of income relative to desired saving.
Inflation likely won’t rise by much as a result of QE and therefore we also shouldn’t expect long-term interest rates to move much."

IN fact I implore you to read his site, Pragmatic Capitalism, on a daily basis, you will learn a lot.
 
Last edited:
Good, o was hoping somebody would point oit that Roche isnt actually "debunking"(what a stupid word, by the way), he is merely disagreeing with some of its points. And not very strongly disagreeing, either.
 
Critter7r said:
Good, o was hoping somebody would point oit that Roche isnt actually "debunking"(what a stupid word, by the way), he is merely disagreeing with some of its points. And not very strongly disagreeing, either.
Click to expand...

You guys are ruining the fun, you know.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
I talked to Cullen a few times in the small little econ blogging world, and he is actually quite friendly with MMT, and sides more with the likes of Bill Mitchell (an MMTer). His critiques of MMT don't actually debunk MMT, they rather pick at certain nuances with it.

Please pick something out otherwise your just pulling a copy paste job of something you haven't read....
Here is also a piece just written a ffew days ago by Cullen Roche confirming the major tenet of MMT.

Understanding Flow of Funds Accounting | Pragmatic Capitalism

"What happens here is an expansion of the Central Bank’s balance sheet which results in the flow of new reserves into the private sector and a flow of T-Bonds out of the private sector. This alters the composition of the private sector’s balance sheet, but not its size. So, if we understand endogenous money (the fact that banks don’t lend out reserves) then it’s easy to conclude a few things here:

Banks won’t necessarily increase credit expansion due to having more reserves because that’s not how banks make new loans.
The size of the private sector’s balance sheet is unchanged therefore we shouldn’t expect dramatic changes in future spending since spending is a function of income relative to desired saving.
Inflation likely won’t rise by much as a result of QE and therefore we also shouldn’t expect long-term interest rates to move much."

IN fact I implore you to read his site, Pragmatic Capitalism, on a daily basis, you will learn a lot.
Click to expand...

I have read it. All 74 pages and it debunks MMT. Obviously, you have not read it or you would know that. I posted another thread with several links debunking MMT. MMT is only believed by a small minority cult following. Most all economists don't give it the time of day. You know this but you won't admit it because your world would come crashing down if you looked reality in the face.
 
Critter7r said:
Good, o was hoping somebody would point oit that Roche isnt actually "debunking"(what a stupid word, by the way), he is merely disagreeing with some of its points. And not very strongly disagreeing, either.
Click to expand...

For those that are just too lazy to read, here are some exerpts:

In the following sections I will describe how this state centered view of the world is wrong
and why MMT does not actually apply to the US monetary system or most modern monetary
systems.

MMT Misunderstands the Importance of Modern Endogenous Money

MMT Misunderstands the market based money system

The entire existence of a market based
money system like the one designed in the USA is at odds with MMT’s state theory of
money. So MMT has no choice but to attack the banks because their very existence voids
the MMT idea that all money comes from the government

The Executive Branch does NOT have a monopoly over money as MMT implies

If all money was truly state money
there would be no need for the Reserve system in the first place

The reserve system and outside money exists almost entirely to
facilitate the competitive private nature of inside money. The very existence of a reserve
system at all renders the MMT description void.

The MMT Job Guarantee is Based on Flawed Operational Reasoning

MMT Downplays the Importance of Private Investment

MMT Often Misrepresents Wynne Godley’s SFB to Generate a Government Centric View
of the World

Conclusion
MMT is an extremely intriguing and illuminating theory of modern money that helps one
better understand many of the key principles of Post-Keynesian Economics. Unfortunately, the
theory is susceptible to political overreach and a flawed attempt to establish validity behind the
State Theory of Money and the concept that “taxes drive money”. In the end, this results in
thought provoking, but flawed theory of money
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
For those that are just too lazy to read, here are some exerpts:

In the following sections I will describe how this state centered view of the world is wrong
and why MMT does not actually apply to the US monetary system or most modern monetary
systems.

MMT Misunderstands the Importance of Modern Endogenous Money

MMT Misunderstands the market based money system

The entire existence of a market based
money system like the one designed in the USA is at odds with MMT’s state theory of
money. So MMT has no choice but to attack the banks because their very existence voids
the MMT idea that all money comes from the government

The Executive Branch does NOT have a monopoly over money as MMT implies

If all money was truly state money
there would be no need for the Reserve system in the first place

The reserve system and outside money exists almost entirely to
facilitate the competitive private nature of inside money. The very existence of a reserve
system at all renders the MMT description void.

The MMT Job Guarantee is Based on Flawed Operational Reasoning

MMT Downplays the Importance of Private Investment

MMT Often Misrepresents Wynne Godley’s SFB to Generate a Government Centric View
of the World

Conclusion
MMT is an extremely intriguing and illuminating theory of modern money that helps one
better understand many of the key principles of Post-Keynesian Economics. Unfortunately, the
theory is susceptible to political overreach and a flawed attempt to establish validity behind the
State Theory of Money and the concept that “taxes drive money”. In the end, this results in
thought provoking, but flawed theory of money
Click to expand...
ROFLMAO.
You can't make this up! That paper isn't "debunking anything."
MMT supporters are some of the people who are quick to bring up the fact that banks create money and the way modern banking actually works!
We're the people who also recognize that, within the domestic private sector, assets always have liabilities to go with them. Almost always, this goes to zero. (When people pay back loans..)
The author's criticism is flawed because MMT uses the word 'government' to describe the monopoly because it's easier to explain to the average person, rather then going into detail about the reserve/treasury etc.
 
Moderate Right said:
I have read it. All 74 pages and it debunks MMT. Obviously, you have not read it or you would know that. I posted another thread with several links debunking MMT. MMT is only believed by a small minority cult following. Most all economists don't give it the time of day. You know this but you won't admit it because your world would come crashing down if you looked reality in the face.
Click to expand...

It doesn't "debunk" anything considering MMT supporters recognize most of what he is "critiquing."
"Small cult following."
You know MMT is a "theory" because it's well supported by reality? For example: We know for a fact that a government sovereign in its own currency that doesn't peg/have foreign debts has never defaulted on debt denominated in its own currency. We also know that loans create deposits, deficit spending adds assets to the private sector, and the way modern money operates, being fiat.
You can read this:
Soft Curency Economics paper
 
Moderate Right said:
For those that are just too lazy to read, here are some exerpts:

In the following sections I will describe how this state centered view of the world is wrong
and why MMT does not actually apply to the US monetary system or most modern monetary
systems.

MMT Misunderstands the Importance of Modern Endogenous Money

MMT Misunderstands the market based money system

The entire existence of a market based
money system like the one designed in the USA is at odds with MMT’s state theory of
money. So MMT has no choice but to attack the banks because their very existence voids
the MMT idea that all money comes from the government

The Executive Branch does NOT have a monopoly over money as MMT implies

If all money was truly state money
there would be no need for the Reserve system in the first place

The reserve system and outside money exists almost entirely to
facilitate the competitive private nature of inside money. The very existence of a reserve
system at all renders the MMT description void.

The MMT Job Guarantee is Based on Flawed Operational Reasoning

MMT Downplays the Importance of Private Investment

MMT Often Misrepresents Wynne Godley’s SFB to Generate a Government Centric View
of the World

Conclusion
MMT is an extremely intriguing and illuminating theory of modern money that helps one
better understand many of the key principles of Post-Keynesian Economics. Unfortunately, the
theory is susceptible to political overreach and a flawed attempt to establish validity behind the
State Theory of Money and the concept that “taxes drive money”. In the end, this results in
thought provoking, but flawed theory of money
Click to expand...

Umm wow, I think you need to realize that MMT agrees with a lot of what you typed here. I think the issue is that you think you know what MMT is but you don't.

Your first point, which we have to address before moving onto anything else:

"MMT Misunderstands the Importance of Modern Endogenous Money"

"This led directly to development of the “endogenous money” approach that was already apparent in the Circuit literature. When the demand for loans increases, banks normally make more loans and create more banking deposits, without worrying about the quantity of reserves on hand."

Directly quoted from Randy Wray who is considered the father of MMT. Not sure how you can claim this a misunderstanding of endogenous money supply? The rest of your points are actually based on this misunderstanding so really no point in addressing it until you come to the realization that a major tenet of MMT is realizing money supply is endogenous.
 
And another put together by Wray, Kelton and Fullweiler:

"ENDOGENOUS MONEY AND THE CIRCUIT—AN ENTRY FOR POST KEYNESIANS INTO MMT
We find the French-Italian PK circuit approach particularly useful for driving home the point that the
finance for spending must come from somewhere. (Graziani 1990) Most recognize that to finance a
purchase one needs to use income, to sell an asset, or to borrow. At the individual level that is certainly
true. Yet, the “finance” that comes from income flows as well as the receipts from sales of assets also
must come from somewhere—and an “infinite regress” is not logically compelling. The typical
neoclassical deus ex machina source of finance is saving—but if saving is in financial form it must have
been generated by someone else’s spending, another infinite regress. Hence, when the circuitiste begins
with a bank loan to finance purchase of commodities (to be used to produce commodities) all logical
problems are resolved. "

Modern Money Theory: A Response to Critics by Scott T. Fullwiler, Stephanie Bell, L. Randall Wray :: SSRN
 
And here is all MMT says about state money, none of which should be refuted as it is quite commonly accepted:

"MMT—BRINGING THE STATE INTO THE CIRCUIT
What extension does MMT make?
1. The money of account, at least today, is virtually always a state money of account—a “dollar”
chosen by the authorities.
2. The authorities issue the currency, which consists of notes and coins denominated in that
money of account, and the central bank (whether it is legally independent or not) issues bank
reserves in the same unit.
3. The authorities impose taxes and other obligations in the same unit, and accept their own
liabilities (notes, coins and reserves, together high powered money--HPM), in payments to the
state.
4. The authorities issue HPM denominated in the same unit when they spend.
5. The authorities sell other types of (generally longer term) liabilities denominated in the same
unit, accepting their own HPM IOUs in payment for them."
 
And this is just incredibly odd to say:

"MMT Downplays the Importance of Private Investment"

When MMT says that investment/spending is what drives endogenous money to thrive.
 
I will try to explain the relevance of recognizing BOTH state money and endogenous money.

In our current system money can be created endogenously via a bank loan. And in order for a bank to loan money it has to be to a credit worthy person, otherwise they won't lend it out. And that credit worthy person had to generate sales or accumulates savings via someone else's spending. Thus the basic tenet of spending creates bank loans has be to recognized and adhered to as their would be no credit worthy people without spending.

So recognizing that it becomes obvious that an injection of money, via state money, would only increase spending, and thus increase endogenous money via creating more credit worthy people to lend to.

And from recognizing those two tenets above, TOGETHER, you then get the idea of where MMT says government spending creates bank loans. It is not really that complicated and pretty simple to grasp.
 
Last edited:
David_N said:
ROFLMAO.
You can't make this up! That paper isn't "debunking anything."
MMT supporters are some of the people who are quick to bring up the fact that banks create money and the way modern banking actually works!
We're the people who also recognize that, within the domestic private sector, assets always have liabilities to go with them. Almost always, this goes to zero. (When people pay back loans..)
The author's criticism is flawed because MMT uses the word 'government' to describe the monopoly because it's easier to explain to the average person, rather then going into detail about the reserve/treasury etc.
Click to expand...

Geeeeeeeeeeez. I guess I have to condense it even further for people who can't read or understand. I'm sorry but I can't make it any simpler than this:

wrong

MMT does not actually apply

MMT Misunderstands

MMT Misunderstands

is at odds with MMT’s state theory of
money

voids the MMT idea that all money comes from the government

does NOT have a monopoly over money as MMT implies

The very existence of a reserve
system at all renders the MMT description void.

The MMT Job Guarantee is Based on Flawed Operational Reasoning

MMT Often Misrepresents

Conclusion: In the end, this results in
thought provoking, but flawed theory of money





Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement to me. Please state your credentials that give you the legitimacy to debate or question Roche.
 
David_N said:
It doesn't "debunk" anything considering MMT supporters recognize most of what he is "critiquing."
"Small cult following."
You know MMT is a "theory" because it's well supported by reality? For example: We know for a fact that a government sovereign in its own currency that doesn't peg/have foreign debts has never defaulted on debt denominated in its own currency. We also know that loans create deposits, deficit spending adds assets to the private sector, and the way modern money operates, being fiat.
You can read this:
Soft Curency Economics paper
Click to expand...

Now don't lie. You know that MMT is is widely unaccepted by just about everyone, everywhere. There is a reason for that.
 
JP Hochbaum said:
Umm wow, I think you need to realize that MMT agrees with a lot of what you typed here. I think the issue is that you think you know what MMT is but you don't.

Your first point, which we have to address before moving onto anything else:

"MMT Misunderstands the Importance of Modern Endogenous Money"

"This led directly to development of the “endogenous money” approach that was already apparent in the Circuit literature. When the demand for loans increases, banks normally make more loans and create more banking deposits, without worrying about the quantity of reserves on hand."

Directly quoted from Randy Wray who is considered the father of MMT. Not sure how you can claim this a misunderstanding of endogenous money supply? The rest of your points are actually based on this misunderstanding so really no point in addressing it until you come to the realization that a major tenet of MMT is realizing money supply is endogenous.
Click to expand...

Just yet another example of some rookie amateur questioning an economist and professional financial guru who has far more knowledge than everyone here on DP added together, every time claiming that someone who does not believe in MMT just doesn't understand it. Roche understands it perfectly and has called it wrong, flawed, and a bunch of other things, essentially debunking it. You guys just can't seem to get past the fact that most of the world and leading economists, except for the small cult following, don't believe it MMT and think it is bunk. Heck, the US has never practiced MMT theory and even the Democrats have no desire to practice this theory. Oh, that's right, none of them know as much as you do and none of them understand MMT, probably because they all believe in the gold standard (when actually gold standard believers are even a smaller cult than MMT). I have no intention of trying to change the minds of you cult members but I'm going to make sure those that might think you are so smart realize that you don't really know anything and have no credentials to even back up your small minority cult economic opinions. John even admits that he has zero formal education in economics and has only learned it as a "hobby" and even that has only been five years and yet he tries to come across as someone who knows more than the experts, such as Roche, who clearly finds much fault with the wrong and flawed theory of MMT. I am going to be a thorn in your side for trying to brainwash others into joining your cult. You are a minority cult and you can't prove otherwise.
 
Moderate Right said:
For those that are just too lazy to read, here are some exerpts:

In the following sections I will describe how this state centered view of the world is wrong
and why MMT does not actually apply to the US monetary system or most modern monetary
systems.

MMT Misunderstands the Importance of Modern Endogenous Money

MMT Misunderstands the market based money system

The entire existence of a market based
money system like the one designed in the USA is at odds with MMT’s state theory of
money. So MMT has no choice but to attack the banks because their very existence voids
the MMT idea that all money comes from the government

The Executive Branch does NOT have a monopoly over money as MMT implies

If all money was truly state money
there would be no need for the Reserve system in the first place

The reserve system and outside money exists almost entirely to
facilitate the competitive private nature of inside money. The very existence of a reserve
system at all renders the MMT description void.

The MMT Job Guarantee is Based on Flawed Operational Reasoning

MMT Downplays the Importance of Private Investment

MMT Often Misrepresents Wynne Godley’s SFB to Generate a Government Centric View
of the World

Conclusion
MMT is an extremely intriguing and illuminating theory of modern money that helps one
better understand many of the key principles of Post-Keynesian Economics. Unfortunately, the
theory is susceptible to political overreach and a flawed attempt to establish validity behind the
State Theory of Money and the concept that “taxes drive money”. In the end, this results in
thought provoking, but flawed theory of money
Click to expand...

If you turned that post in to your professor, you would be disciplined for plagiarism.

You still don't understand what Cullen was saying, and you don't understand the context in which he was saying it. And those are the minimum requirements to participate in a debate.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
If you turned that post in to your professor, you would be disciplined for plagiarism.

You still don't understand what Cullen was saying, and you don't understand the context in which he was saying it. And those are the minimum requirements to participate in a debate.
Click to expand...

I understand when he says MMT is wrong and flawed and he devotes 74 pages in which to do it. He didn't devote 74 pages to give MMT his endorsement. Apparently you don't even understand that much but I don't expect any more from someone with no education in economics whatsoever other than a five year hobby. I don't see where you have any credentials at all to even be in the same ballpark as Roche and yet your ego is so big you dismiss all of his "criticisms" of MMT and then try claiming he actually supports it, which he OBVIOUSLY does not. Anyone who takes the time to even read portions of it can see that. That's why you continue to ignore his criticisms and want to debate me, because you think you can win a debate with me when you know you can't counter any of the things he said in those 74 pages and have never once done so. This is not about you and I debating. This is about clear and convincing evidence from many experts (including Roche) that MMT is wrong and flawed. You quote things all the time from someone else, as does just about every person here on DP, so claiming that I plagiarized parts of those 74 pages is just downright ridiculous and nothing but a dishonest diversionary tactic designed to weasel out of responding to a real expert on the subject, Roche. I clearly said right off the bat, "For those that are just too lazy to read (Roche's 74 page paper), here are some exerpts:". As I told others, I have no intention of changing the mind of someone so stubborn they refuse to even listen to a professional critique of MMT by experts but I am going to be a thorn in your sides for trying to convince others that you are some sort of expert when you have no degree in economics of any kind and only 5 years of being a self taught amateur who subscribes to a small minority cult following of MMT believers, not even accepted by most economists or even our very own country. You really know nothing but the brainwashed believings of a small cult.
 
Moderate Right said:
I understand when he says MMT is wrong and flawed and he devotes 74 pages in which to do it. He didn't devote 74 pages to give MMT his endorsement. Apparently you don't even understand that much but I don't expect any more from someone with no education in economics whatsoever other than a five year hobby. I don't see where you have any credentials at all to even be in the same ballpark as Roche and yet your ego is so big you dismiss all of his "criticisms" of MMT and then try claiming he actually supports it, which he OBVIOUSLY does not. Anyone who takes the time to even read portions of it can see that. That's why you continue to ignore his criticisms and want to debate me, because you think you can win a debate with me when you know you can't counter any of the things he said in those 74 pages and have never once done so. This is not about you and I debating. This is about clear and convincing evidence from many experts (including Roche) that MMT is wrong and flawed. You quote things all the time from someone else, as does just about every person here on DP, so claiming that I plagiarized parts of those 74 pages is just downright ridiculous and nothing but a dishonest diversionary tactic designed to weasel out of responding to a real expert on the subject, Roche. I clearly said right off the bat, "For those that are just too lazy to read (Roche's 74 page paper), here are some exerpts:". As I told others, I have no intention of changing the mind of someone so stubborn they refuse to even listen to a professional critique of MMT by experts but I am going to be a thorn in your sides for trying to convince others that you are some sort of expert when you have no degree in economics of any kind and only 5 years of being a self taught amateur who subscribes to a small minority cult following of MMT believers, not even accepted by most economists or even our very own country. You really know nothing but the brainwashed believings of a small cult.
Click to expand...

If you spent half the effort on learning that you put into these ridiculous posts that attempt to convince people that you know the subject (even though you refuse to demonstrate it in your posts), you might know something by now.
 
Moderate Right said:
Just yet another example of some rookie amateur questioning an economist and professional financial guru who has far more knowledge than everyone here on DP added together, every time claiming that someone who does not believe in MMT just doesn't understand it. Roche understands it perfectly and has called it wrong, flawed, and a bunch of other things, essentially debunking it. You guys just can't seem to get past the fact that most of the world and leading economists, except for the small cult following, don't believe it MMT and think it is bunk. Heck, the US has never practiced MMT theory and even the Democrats have no desire to practice this theory. Oh, that's right, none of them know as much as you do and none of them understand MMT, probably because they all believe in the gold standard (when actually gold standard believers are even a smaller cult than MMT). I have no intention of trying to change the minds of you cult members but I'm going to make sure those that might think you are so smart realize that you don't really know anything and have no credentials to even back up your small minority cult economic opinions. John even admits that he has zero formal education in economics and has only learned it as a "hobby" and even that has only been five years and yet he tries to come across as someone who knows more than the experts, such as Roche, who clearly finds much fault with the wrong and flawed theory of MMT. I am going to be a thorn in your side for trying to brainwash others into joining your cult. You are a minority cult and you can't prove otherwise.
Click to expand...

I am earning a master in economics, and majored in computer science, now working at a capital firm that works in trading (pretty much what Cullen Roche does). Also your entire diatribe is just a giant ad hominem fallacy. Even if I was an amateur, which I am not, it wouldn't matter. What would matter is the context of my argument and the objective nature of it. All you have done is personally attack people here and referred to Roche as some supreme authority (appeal to authority fallacy). You've done well at earning your "ignore" badge.
 
Last edited:
JP Hochbaum said:
I am earning a master in economics, and majored in computer science, now working at a capital firm that works in trading (pretty much what Cullen Roche does). Also your entire diatribe is just a giant ad hominem fallacy. Even if I was an amateur, which I am not, it wouldn't matter. What would matter is the context of my argument and the objective nature of it. All you have done is personally attack people here and referred to Roche as some supreme authority (appeal to authority fallacy). You've done well at earning your "ignore" badge.
Click to expand...

In any case boys economic growth comes from Republican supply-siders supplying or inventing great new stuff. That's how we got from the stone age to here. It was not due to monetary policy!! They don't invent great new stuff at the Fed!
 
Moderate Right said:
Now don't lie. You know that MMT is is widely unaccepted by just about everyone, everywhere. There is a reason for that.
Click to expand...
Your rambling is about the same as calling me an idiot for standing in the rain and saying it is raining when the expert meterologist on TV is saying it's going to be sunny. His expertise in the subject matter doesnt override reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom