Who is Lyndon Larouche?

by cynicus 38 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  You Know

  LARK:

  At this time, I am not interested in persuing this line of inquiry. Now, if one line of inquiry which I request is not worth providing to me, why would another line of inquiry be a valid one to provide, one that I had not requested?

  LOL. You are pretty slick man. It doesn't matter if you aren't interested. I challenged you to comment on it. You claim to know all things economic. If you think there is no connection betweenn the two it shows either two things: 1)You are competely ignorant. Or, you are very cunning knowing that if you commented on it I would expose your ignorance. Whatever. The link I posted and asked you to comment on, which you refused to do, I will repost here for the reader. >>> http://www.prudentbear.com/credit.htm

  What those few graphs show is the increase in the actual money supply through the various mechanisms used to create credit and liquidity. Those are not theoretical numbers but are obtainable through official bank sources. Granted, that is just one aspect. It does not chart the financial claims against the economy such as the stock market and bonds, real estate debt and all the rest. Neither does it chart the actual physical production. What is graphically indicates though is a steep rise in money issued to service the increasing demands of the financial debt. Now, back in 1994 LaRouche issued his now famous Triple Curve Collapse Function diagram. >>> http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/1998/lar_forecasting/lar_forecasting.html

  It is very simple. It's called a triple curve because it projects the rise in financial claims, as well as monetary aggragate following the rise in financial claims, and the decline of the physical economy is charted on the thrid line of the triple curve. Mind you, that the triple curve is a predictive model. It is not the same as an actual graph or chart as is the one I linked you to on the Credit Bubble Bulletin site. But, the several graphs on the Bulletin site tracking the rapid increase in the money supply actually validates the prediciton that LaRouche made nearly 8 years ago as far how it would be necessary to inflate the money supply to feed the ever-growing bubble of fictious financial claims.

  It is becoming more obvious by the day to people who watch this sort of thing and who understand what's really going on that the global finacial system has entered an end game. At some point it will no longer be possible to issue enough money to service the bubble. Following the present trajectory of the two upper most curves there are really only two possible outcomes. One is that hyperinflation will suddenly ignite and render the paper worthless, or, the financial bubble will rupture and the whole thing will collaspe.

  Given the present state where the underlying physical economy is in freefall, evidenced by the daily announcements of more layoffs and profit disappointments and budget shortfalls, followed by more layoffs and profit warnings, it really shouldn't be too much longer before we find out how it's going to end. / You Know
• 

  Eric

  Hey, You Know,

  Have you ever figured out why rail traffic was at such a low on Jan. 01, 2000?

  Eric
• 

  cynicus

  Why the obvious strawman YK? Comment on the words of his wife in their own newspaper of which Lyndon is the responsible editor. Please explain what scheinheiliger Holocaust-schwindel means in your book.

  Why this man would hire a convicted Klan-leader is of course sheer circumstancial info. Since it is documented in a court case it means you can't dismiss it as lies. However, you can downgrade it's importance and that's what your're doing very aptly. I don't mind, anyone still following this discussion is able to value this information for what it's worth.

  The documented relation with a Nazi-magazine published by someone with bloodlinks to the SS (and not just 'some' SS, better look his daddy up) is also total circumstancial. Via this magazine and its editor all the persons and institutions mentioned before come in the picture: Carto, Zundel, McCalden, IHR, and Liberty Lobby. Not to mention David Irving, the Spotlight-magazine, Farrakhan and the NOI.

  You however said that this man a) never said or supported anything related to holocaust-denial; b) has no relations at all which any of the exremist groups, and dismissed it repeatedly as 'blantant' [sic] lies. I showed you three documented instances that prove that either you are willfully blind or a willfull liar.

  The latter has been voiced here more than once, albeit not by me. Is there really a pattern of lies YK? Or do you rationalize it all away by the good old 'theocratic warfare' hobbyhorse? Or maybe am I not entitled to the truth?
• 

  You Know

  Why the obvious strawman YK?

  That's what I should be asking you. I challenged you to find something in LaRouche's writings that would indicate that he was a racist or Marxist. You have so far produced zero---zip. / You Know
• 

  cynicus

  You have so far produced zero---zip.

  You are completely right. I have made a complete ass out of myself.
• 

  You Know

  You are completely right. I have made a complete ass out of myself.

  Yes, I'd say so. I suppose that explains the grocery bag over your head. / You Know
• 

  larc

  You Know,

  You are a pretty slick man yourself and are apparently ignorant of LaRouch's econometrics and operational definition of his productivity construct, if, in fact, there are such measures and definitions.

  On another subject: So I can assume that a 6.8% drop in manufacturing over a period of a year and a half can be defined as "free fall." Is that correct?

  Do others see this hyperinflation you are predicting? Apparently not, or the price of gold would start rising. By the way, I have a question. On one post you said that the central banks are selling off gold to prop up the dollar. Are they acting in unison, or are these independent actions by different banking systems? This point was not clear to me.
• 

  larc

  You Know,

  It has been awhile since we have had a chance to communicate. I asked a question about the selling of gold by central banks, but have not received an answer. I am asking because I don't know how this part of the system works. Please educate me.

  On another subject: you thought my research into the three different methods of measuring the reliability of human judgement was the funniest thing you had read on the internet. Well, why don't you tell me the following: how are accuracy scores derived, how is the coefficient of stability determined, what is the correction formula for pair wise judgements? If you do a search, you will not find the answers. If I gave you references, it would take you some time to figure it out. Therefore, you must chalk it up to the realm of the unimportant and trivialize it. A common response for the intellectually lazy and the easily converted to a dogma.
• 

  dubla

  yk-

  you said to me in a previous thread (and ill go back and quote it if you like) that there has never been an "apostate" that posed a question you ignored because you were unable to answer, and that you never sidestep issues. ive just sat down and read this thread for the first time today, and i find it a prime example of how this statement of yours was completely false. i will show this with quotes (issues that you sidestepped).

  first off, lets get one part straight....larouche is crazy, this we all know.....and you will never admit this, which we all know as well. you are blinded by your own arrogance.

  now you say that the larouche quotes on the first post were "taken out of context"....and i say: you have got to be kidding, right? he specifically says that he believes ashcroft to be involved in this conspiracy behind the wtc attacks! how can you take that out of context? but you failed to comment on that one didnt you? you were much more intent on debunking the beatles statement.....like who really gives a shit what he said about the beatles anyway? you make it sound like these quotes were taken from years and years ago.....but the 9-11 quotes were obviously very recent....and the man is obviously very disturbed/paranoid/insane.

  from hs:

  I actually see no disconnect here, as surely some of the most brilliant thinkers throughout mans history also have their fatal flaws. I think it is possible to have the 'crazy' and 'brilliant' connected in one man and often at one moment. Do you not agree?

  excellent point by hs, which you ignored, as per normal.

  from cynicus:

  Had he used a simple searchengine query he would have found out that Jesse Ventura's (actually James Janos) career not only consisted of 'smack down' wrestling. In fact he would have found out that the man was a Navy SEAL for six years, a Vietnam veteran, that he attended college, and that he was mayor of the 6th city in Minnesota for several years before becoming governor. Compare that with YK's selfprojection about Jesse Ventura --- a 'degenerated' wrestler --- used as a sneering defense for a nutters' lack of media attention.

  that quote you didnt ignore, completely that is. you did play it off nicely though, what choice did you have? this ventura thing is a prime example of what you do best....speak first, with smokescreen, and hope no one realizes that you dont know what youre talking about. for the most part, you speak in proclamations, but your facts are entirely paper thin. its just like the whole "oversold" argument we had......you thought "oversold" was a term used to describe a buyers market, when in actuality it was a scientific number spit out by a scientific formula. most of the time you really dont have the slighest clue what youre talking about, you just cut and paste your links from all the "bear" and "larouche" websites......never taking into consideration the opposing side of your so-called "evidence".

  from cynicus:

  Comment on the words of his wife in their own newspaper of which Lyndon is the responsible editor. Please explain what scheinheiliger Holocaust-schwindel means in your book.

  again, no response from you. you respond selectively as you always have, picking and choosing which statements to reply to without having to ever admit error. why no response about the newspaper article quoted? do you deny its authenticity? if so, then say so. is it not relevant because his wife (who he supports) said it and not him? if thats what you think, then at least say so. by not responding, by ignoring, you continue to show that you are in fact unable to respond, as you have been so many times in the past. this is par for the course.....and i really wouldnt be surprised if you did not respond to this post either, as you very well may be unable.

  aa