Renowned French economist to join Obama’s team

[mocgator]

You can't make this stuff up. It would be funny if it wasn't so damn scary.... Please tell me congress has some oversight to this insane appointment.

http://www.france24.com/en/20130105-usa-french-economist-duflo-join-barack-obama-team-policy

France’s Esther Duflo, a world renowned economist, has been nominated by US President Barack Obama to join a government body dedicated to advising the administration on global development policy.

Called the Global Development Council, the group was founded by Obama in 2010 to help shape US development efforts abroad.

While Duflo’s nomination will likely be viewed with a sense of pride in France, it comes as Obama’s leadership continues to be dogged by unflattering comparisons in the media to European-style socialism. Just Friday, the cover of financial news magazine The Economist depicted Obama wearing a beret, red neckerchief and a striped mariner shirt, under a headline that read “America turns European”. The article criticised the country’s recent fiscal-cliff deal as “lousy”, saying its mismanagement bore striking similarities to the “mess in the euro zone”.

Duflo, who was raised in a “left-leaning Protestant” family, said she became aware of economic divides and social injustice at a very early age.

[Dreamliner]

Either 'French' or 'economist' would have me running, screaming from the room.

[gatordowneast]

Can we just expedite this and have Moody's lower our bond rating. I'm looking for Obama to next suggest changing our flag to the hammer and sickle with 57 stars.

[G8trGr8t]

maybe we can join the EU soon

[ChartsandGrafs]

France’s Esther Duflo, a world renowned economist, has been nominated by US President Barack Obama to join a [U.S.] government body dedicated to advising the administration on global development policy.

Of course, another globalist lackey, courtesy of the international bankers who put the Puppet-in-Chief Obama in office. Just what the beleaguered American people need.

"Global development policy", LOL.

[busigator96]

Don't we have American economists?

[ThePlayer]

Is Duflo here to tax our wealthy 75% of their income too?

[DSRrg]

Of course, another globalist lackey, courtesy of the international bankers who put the Puppet-in-Chief Obama in office. Just what the beleaguered American people need.

"Global development policy", LOL.

This screams Agenda 21 to me.

[ChartsandGrafs]

This screams Agenda 21 to me.

Without a doubt. The term 'global development' is code language for Agenda 21, but they can't tell the public that.

There's language for us plebes, and then there's language for those who pull the strings and their agents in government.

[DSRrg]

Without a doubt. The term 'global development' is code language for Agenda 21, but they can't tell the public that.

There's language for us plebes, and then there's language for those who pull the strings and their agents in government.

You forgot the third language. The one that is transparent for people like me and you. Just the plain truth out in the open.

[mdgator05]

Wow people really have no idea what they are talking about here. Duflo is one of the most well respected economists in the entire field. She has been in the US for about 15 years, most of it at MIT. I had an adviser that went to school with her. His exact quote (and remember this is a multiple time graduate from MIT) was that he has never met a smarter person than her. Probably why she got a genius grant a little while back. She was retained by MIT after completing her PhD there. That does not happen.

Her work on global poverty and natural experiments is almost beyond reproach. She is already short-listed for a Nobel despite graduating barely a decade ago.

She is a microeconomist not a macroeconomist, and has probably had about the same amount of contact with bankers as any of you.

It really is amazing how ridiculous the conspiracy theories are when you bother to look beneath the surface.

[DSRrg]

Wow people really have no idea what they are talking about here. Duflo is one of the most well respected economists in the entire field. She has been in the US for about 15 years, most of it at MIT. I had an adviser that went to school with her. His exact quote (and remember this is a multiple time graduate from MIT) was that he has never met a smarter person than her. Probably why she got a genius grant a little while back. She was retained by MIT after completing her PhD there. That does not happen.

Her work on global poverty and natural experiments is almost beyond reproach. She is already short-listed for a Nobel despite graduating barely a decade ago.

She is a microeconomist not a macroeconomist, and has probably had about the same amount of contact with bankers as any of you.

It really is amazing how ridiculous the conspiracy theories are when you bother to look beneath the surface.

Not sure how familiar you are with Agenda 21 but it is no theory.

[mdgator05]

Not sure how familiar you are with Agenda 21 but it is no theory.

The way it is being used on this thread certainly is. It is the taking of the most extreme position and then linking fairly normal activities to this exceptionally extreme interpretation. It is an issue that has become a fairly big problem on the far right recently. The hope was that when one of these ridiculous theories could be definitively proven wrong (as it was when the right developed a similar conspiracy involving every pollster in the election), they would stop. But it seems far more ingrained than that within the current political right in the US.

[GatorSaint]

It really is amazing how ridiculous the conspiracy theories are when you bother to look beneath the surface.

Takes much less time to run with a stereotype and shoot their mouths off then do any research.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Wow people really have no idea what they are talking about here. Duflo is one of the most well respected economists in the entire field.

LOL. Yeah, and so were all the government economists who crashed the global economy in 2008 and continue to flush it down the toilet with one bad policy after another.

Geniuses, all of them.

Duflo is one of the most well respected economists in the entire field.

Considering the current state of the economics profession, that's not saying much.

She has been in the US for about 15 years, most of it at MIT.

Wow, that's really something. An MIT egghead, huh? That obviously proves something, I'm just not sure what.

I had an adviser that went to school with her. His exact quote (and remember this is a multiple time graduate from MIT) was that he has never met a smarter person than her. Probably why she got a genius grant a little while back. She was retained by MIT after completing her PhD there. That does not happen.

And? There are a lot of smart people. Bernie Madoff was said to be smart at one time. Many psychopaths are geniuses.

Is that all that matters to you? That she's considered "smart"?

Her work on global poverty and natural experiments is almost beyond reproach. She is already short-listed for a Nobel despite graduating barely a decade ago.

Impressive.

Say, didn't Obama win a Nobel Peace Prize? What's he doing now? Isn't he frequently ordering the murders of women and children with his many drone bombings?

She is a microeconomist not a macroeconomist, and has probably had about the same amount of contact with bankers as any of you.

Right, she's being promoted by the bankers' puppet in the White House, and she just happens to be pushing global economic development polices favored by the banker-created United Nations, but I'm sure she's had no contact with any bankers.

It really is amazing how ridiculous the conspiracy theories are when you bother to look beneath the surface.

There it is! Yes, just label anything that doesn't fit your media-generated version of reality as a "conspiracy theory" and wish it away.

[mdgator05]

LOL. Yeah, and so were all the government economists who crashed the global economy in 2008 and continue to flush it down the toilet with one bad policy after another.

Geniuses, all of them.



Considering the state of the economics profession, that's not saying much.



Wow, that's really something. An MIT egghead, huh? That obviously proves something, I'm just not sure what.



And? There are a lot of smart people. Bernie Madoff was said to be smart at one time. Many psychopaths are geniuses.

Is that all that matters to you? That she's considered "smart"?



Impressive.

Say, didn't Obama win a Nobel Peace Prize? What's he doing now? Isn't he frequently ordering the murders of women and children with his many drone bombings?



Right, she's being promoted by the bankers' puppet in the White House, but I'm sure she's had no contact with them.



There it is! Yes, just label anything that doesn't fit your media-generated version of reality as a "conspiracy theory" and wish it away.

If you wish to intelligently comment on economics, you should probably know something about the field. For example, you just used the performance of Macroeconomists to discuss a Microeconomist. If you knew anything about Econ, you would realize how ridiculous this makes you sound. In fact, many microeconomists are strongly critical of macroeconomists to the point of almost wanting to break the field into two.

You have absolutely no evidence of her having any mental issues or not being a good person. So you are just blindly speculating there. Which makes sense as a tactic when somebody really knows nothing about the topic. But it is still sad.

The fact that you don't understand the difference between a Nobel Prize in Econ and a Peace prize is more proof you really have no idea of what you are discussing.

And you get mad when somebody labels what you are doing "conspiracy theories," the sentence after engaging in pretty much the behavior typified. You have no actual evidence of her having any involvement with any of these "bankers." And yet, they are somehow putting her in that position, because....well because they have to be.

You see, if you want to be taken seriously, it is probably a good idea to start with actual direct evidence of your accusations, and then work to a theory. If you start with an outlandish theory, and can't even work back to direct evidence, you are going to be dismissed for engaging in conspiracy theorizing.

[T3goalie]

My guess is that she does not subscribe to the Austrian School. That she is not purported to be a another macro central planner is at least encouraging.
______
The ivy league lawyers have bankrupted DC and the ivy league MBA's damn near destroyed Wall Street while referring to themselves as the "masters of the universe." Personally not impressed by academic genius.

[mdgator05]

My guess is that she does not subscribe to the Austrian School.


No she is a believer in empirical evidence and statistics.

[ChartsandGrafs]

If you wish to intelligently comment on economics, you should probably know something about the field. For example, you just used the performance of Macroeconomists to discuss a Microeconomist. If you knew anything about Econ, you would realize how ridiculous this makes you sound. In fact, many microeconomists are strongly critical of macroeconomists to the point of almost wanting to break the field into two.

You would have a point if you made that distinction in your comment, but you didn't. You referred to her simply as an "economist", and so I simply referred to other economists as well. But that's beside that point.

The point is, a lot of people are considered "brilliant" in some field or discipline, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are.

You have absolutely no evidence of her having any mental issues or not being a good person.

Likewise, you have no evidence that she's a good person.

For all you know, she's a complete and total psychopath.

So you are just blindly speculating there. Which makes sense as a tactic when somebody really knows nothing about the topic. But it is still sad.

And you're speculating as well. You have no more evidence than I do.

The fact that you don't understand the difference between a Nobel Prize in Econ and a Peace prize is more proof you really have no idea of what you are discussing.

Actually, the point, which you apparently missed again, is that winning an award of that type is meaningless. It doesn't necessarily prove anything.

What, you think the Nobel Committee is beyond political considerations? LOL!

And you get mad when somebody labels what you are doing "conspiracy theories," the sentence after engaging in pretty much the behavior typified.

Mad? LOL. No, I love it when I can elicit the "conspiracy theory" label from people like you. Use of the term "conspiracy theory" says far, far more about the person who uses it than the person it's targeted at.

You have no actual evidence of her having any involvement with any of these "bankers." And yet, they are somehow putting her in that position, because....well because they have to be.

And you have no evidence that she's working independently of bankers. You're speculating just as I am. We're even.

You see, if you want to be taken seriously, it is probably a good idea to start with actual direct evidence of your accusations, and then work to a theory.

What accusations have I made? Are you able to comprehend what you are reading in this thread?

If you start with an outlandish theory, and can't even work back to direct evidence, you are going to be dismissed for engaging in conspiracy theorizing.

What "outlandish theory" are you talking about?

You're not making any sense.

[mdgator05]

You would have a point if you made that distinction in your comment, but you didn't. You referred to her simply as an "economist", and so I simply referred to other economists as well. But that's beside that point.

Umm...from my post "She is a microeconomist not a macroeconomist." So you should probably try again.


The point is, a lot of people are considered "brilliant" in some field or discipline, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are.


Generally, it is pretty good evidence. Plus, she is widely considered brilliant by people outside of her field.


Likewise, you have no evidence that she's a good person.

For all you know, she's a complete and total psychopath.


Actually, I do and she isn't a "psychopath." But, you were the one who speculated on it. So maybe you shouldn't blindly speculate.


And you're speculating as well. You have no more evidence than I do.


I'm not sure you know what speculating is. Please tell me where I have speculated on her.


Actually, the point, which you apparently missed again, is that winning an award of that type is meaningless. It doesn't necessarily prove anything.

What, you think the Nobel Committee is beyond political considerations? LOL!


Nobels in the sciences aren't particularly political. If she wins, it won't be due to politics. It will be because of an incredible set of research that she has conducted.


Mad? LOL. No, I love it when I can elicit the "conspiracy theory" label from people like you. Use of the term "conspiracy theory" says far, far more about the person who uses it than the person it's targeted at.


In this case, it says a person prefers to start with evidence than invent conspiracies and then tie the evidence to these invented conspiracies.


And you have no evidence that she's working independently of bankers. You're speculating just as I am. We're even.


No. Sorry but you are just wrong here. If you make an accusation (in this case that she is "working with bankers"), it is up to you to provide evidence.


What accusations have I made? Are you able to comprehend what you are reading in this thread?

She is "working with bankers" in some form of a "globalist conspiracy." You have also speculated she might be a psychopath.


What "outlandish theory" are you talking about?

You're not making any sense.

See above. Your theories are outlandish and without evidence.

[T3goalie]

No she is a believer in empirical evidence and statistics.

Too bad. We all know there are three levels of liars. 1) liars, 2) damned lairs, and 3) statistics. :lie:

Empircial evidence? wow... another observer.

[trekcid]

Redistribution of Wealth, Plan and Simple. Either through Global warming tactics with carbon taxes or UN ideas. It is all the same agenda in the end.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Umm...from my post "She is a microeconomist not a macroeconomist." So you should probably try again.

As I suspected, you're having difficulty following along with the discussion.

Go back and look at your first post in this thread. Here, I'll copy and paste it for you:

Wow people really have no idea what they are talking about here. Duflo is one of the most well respected economists in the entire field.

You made no distinction, so neither did I.

Derp?

Generally, it is pretty good evidence.

Actually, no, the opposite is true.

Plus, she is widely considered brilliant by people outside of her field.

Because they truly believe it, or because that's what they've been told and they don't know how to think for themselves?

Either way, it doesn't matter. It sounds like a common argumentum ad populum logical fallacy anyway (something is true because a bunch of people believe it's true!).

No dice.

Actually, I do and she isn't a "psychopath."

Evidence?

But, you were the one who speculated on it. So maybe you shouldn't blindly speculate.

Why not? Why should I not ask questions and speculate?

I'm not sure you know what speculating is. Please tell me where I have speculated on her.

Well, for instance, you've speculated that she's not a psychopath. How could you possibly know such a thing without speculating?

Nobels in the sciences aren't particularly political. If she wins, it won't be due to politics. It will be because of an incredible set of research that she has conducted.

How do you know the Nobel Committee isn't politically driven, even just a little?

In this case, it says a person prefers to start with evidence than invent conspiracies and then tie the evidence to these invented conspiracies.

What evidence did you start with when you claimed she isn't a psychopath?

No. Sorry but you are just wrong here. If you make an accusation (in this case that she is "working with bankers"), it is up to you to provide evidence.

Quit being disingenuous. I never used that particular string of words you just ascribed to me.

Whether she's working with or for bankers is completely up in the air.


She is "working with bankers" in some form of a "globalist conspiracy." You have also speculated she might be a psychopath.

More lies. Again, I never used that string of words, and it doesn't qualify as an accusation to suggest someone "might" be a psychopath.

Point rejected.

See above. Your theories are outlandish and without evidence.

What theories? You have no more evidence than I do.

[T3goalie]

The Road To Serfdom :angry:

[mdgator05]

As I suspected, you're having difficulty following along with the discussion.

Go back and look at your first post in this thread. Here, I'll copy and paste it for you:



You made no distinction, so neither did I.

Derp?



I made the distinction later in the post. Are you incapable of handling more than one thought at a time? I'm just speculating on that, by the way.


Actually, no, the opposite is true.


So people thinking a person is brilliant has a negative relationship to how brilliant they are? That Einstein guy sure was dumb.


Because they truly believe it, or because that's what they've been told and they don't know how to think for themselves?

Either way, it doesn't matter. It sounds like a common argumentum ad populum logical fallacy anyway (something is true because a bunch of people believe it's true!).

No dice.


Actually, her work isn't terribly difficult to understand. I'm sure you could get it if you tried. Then you could intelligently comment on her work.


Evidence?

Personal experience.


Why not? Why should I not ask questions and speculate?


Because baseless speculation leads to erroneous conclusions. And many people frankly don't recognize how baseless your speculation was.


Well, for instance, you've speculated that she's not a psychopath. How could you possibly know such a thing without speculating?

Personal experience.


How do you know the Nobel Committee isn't politically driven, even just a little?


Primarily because of the fact that they give the award to advocates of massively different economic philosophies that lead to vastly different political positions. Just in the last few years, they have awarded the award to a thoroughly nonpolitical group doing Game Theory work, a couple of fairly conservative Macroeconomists, and some fairly liberal Labor Economists.


What evidence did you start with when you claimed she isn't a psychopath?

Personal experience.


Quit being disingenuous. I never used that particular string of words you just ascribed to me.

Whether she's working with or for bankers is completely up in the air.

Only in the same way that the statement "The world is run from a secret underwater lair by Morgan Freeman," is still up in the air.


More lies. Again, I never used that string of words, and it doesn't qualify as an accusation to suggest someone "might" be a psychopath.

Point rejected.


So saying that you "might" have murdered someone wouldn't be accusing you of murdering somebody? And here I thought that was the basis for charging somebody with a crime in the American justice system.


What theories? You have no more evidence than I do.

Sorry, but I really do.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I made the distinction later in the post. Are you incapable of handling more than one thought at a time? I'm just speculating on that, by the way.

It was too late by then, because the comment you responded to came BEFORE you responded as you did later in the post. In other words, you complained about my failing to make a rather unimportant distinction just seconds after you committed the same foul yourself.

Open mouth, insert foot.

So people thinking a person is brilliant has a negative relationship to how brilliant they are? That Einstein guy sure was dumb.

I don't see why not.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

- Mark Twain

Actually, her work isn't terribly difficult to understand. I'm sure you could get it if you tried. Then you could intelligently comment on her work.

There's no evidence yet that you even understand it.

Personal experience.

Not convinced.

Evidence?

Because baseless speculation leads to erroneous conclusions.

And sometimes it leads to correct conclusions.

And many people frankly don't recognize how baseless your speculation was.

If so, you're not doing a very good job of convincing them otherwise.

Personal experience.

No evidence.

Primarily because of the fact that they give the award to advocates of massively different economic philosophies that lead to vastly different political positions. Just in the last few years, they have awarded the award to a thoroughly nonpolitical group doing Game Theory work, a couple of fairly conservative Macroeconomists, and some fairly liberal Labor Economists.

That doesn't necessarily prove anything.

Perhaps they were motivated to give out some awards to those different people because they wanted to make it appear as if they weren't politically motivated. If so, you fell for it.

Personal experience.

No evidence.

Only in the same way that the statement "The world is run from a secret underwater lair by Morgan Freeman," is still up in the air.

Indeed.

So saying that you "might" have murdered someone wouldn't be accusing you of murdering somebody?

No, it's a suggestion. A supposition. Conjecture.

And here I thought that was the basis for charging somebody with a crime in the American justice system.

I guess you thought wrong.

Sorry, but I really do.

Well, until you present it:

No. Evidence.

[mdgator05]

It was too late by then, because the comment you responded to came BEFORE you responded as you did later in the post. In other words, you complained about my failing to make a rather unimportant distinction just seconds after you committed the same foul yourself.

Open mouth, insert foot.


It was in the same post. I stated that she was a microeconomist in my initial post. A microeconomist is an economist. A macroeconomist is also an economist. But they are different forms of economists. You used macroeconomists to criticize a microeconomist. That is like criticizing an Oncologist because you had a bad experience with an ER Doctor and then declaring that distinction unimportant.


I don't see why not.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect."

- Mark Twain


Frankly, seeking out the minority viewpoint for the purpose of being a minority viewpoint is no better than doing the same with the majority.
In fact, a whole line of research into the wisdom of crowds would suggest it is far worse. It is mostly just the whole hipster thing. Seeking self-esteem through differentiation.


There's no evidence yet that you even understand it.


If you would like to have a discussion of one of her papers, I would be more than happy to do so. I always loved how she setup her research for her Indonesian School project, but if you would prefer another paper, I would be more than happy to discuss it.


Not convinced.

Evidence?

The fact that she isn't hospitalized for a mental disorder? I am not sure what kind of evidence you are looking for here.


And sometimes it leads to correct conclusions.

Only by sheer luck and accident. And it is rare.



That doesn't necessarily prove anything.

Perhaps they were motivated to give out some awards to those different people because they wanted to make it appear as if they weren't politically motivated. If so, you fell for it.


So your argument here is that maybe they are giving out awards that they can only give out once a year to people they don't agree with to throw everybody off the scent of their political bias? Doesn't that seem a bit counterproductive? "Let's give out an award every three years to a conservative group and an award to a completely apolitical group so that nobody will notice that we give out an award every three years to the people we really agree with." I have to admit, if that is what you believe, it is pretty hilarious.


No, it's a suggestion. A supposition. Conjecture.


You must love this guy:

http://i.qkme.me/357fu0.jpg



Well, until you present it:

No. Evidence.

The irony of the king of wild internet speculation asking for evidence.

[ChartsandGrafs]

It was in the same post. I stated that she was a microeconomist in my initial post. A microeconomist is an economist. A macroeconomist is also an economist. But they are different forms of economists. You used macroeconomists to criticize a microeconomist. That is like criticizing an Oncologist because you had a bad experience with an ER Doctor and then declaring that distinction unimportant.

Doesn't matter, they're still both economists.

The rest of your response is a straw man. Naturally.

Frankly, seeking out the minority viewpoint for the purpose of being a minority viewpoint is no better than doing the same with the majority.
In fact, a whole line of research into the wisdom of crowds would suggest it is far worse. It is mostly just the whole hipster thing. Seeking self-esteem through differentiation.

That sounds an awful lot like hipster projection.

You must be a hipster.

If you would like to have a discussion of one of her papers, I would be more than happy to do so. I always loved how she setup her research for her Indonesian School project, but if you would prefer another paper, I would be more than happy to discuss it.

I don't need you to tell me what Wikipedia says about her. I can go there myself, thanks.

The fact that she isn't hospitalized for a mental disorder? I am not sure what kind of evidence you are looking for here.

So unless someone is in the hospital, then they can't possibly have a mental disorder? Is that really what you're arguing?

You claimed to know that she absolutely is not a psychopath. Well, how do you know this? Has she been tested? Did she let you see the results?

Only by sheer luck and accident. And it is rare.

Luck has nothing to do with it. It's a gift, and you probably don't have it.

So your argument here is that maybe they are giving out awards that they can only give out once a year to people they don't agree with to throw everybody off the scent of their political bias?

Maybe. You don't know. You're just guessing.

Doesn't that seem a bit counterproductive? "Let's give out an award every three years to a conservative group and an award to a completely apolitical group so that nobody will notice that we give out an award every three years to the people we really agree with." I have to admit, if that is what you believe, it is pretty hilarious.

You're right, the Nobel Committee isn't a very credible bunch.

I'd keep my eye on them if I were you.

You must love this guy:

Who is that? Is that another one of Obama's brilliant clown economists from the Globalist Friends Network?

The irony of the king of wild internet speculation asking for evidence.

Yes, and the irony of the king of internet evidence refusing to provide it.

[mdgator05]

Doesn't matter, they're still both economists.

The rest of your response is a straw man. Naturally.


I wonder if you fail to make distinctions like this in all jobs. "Well I see a family practitioner. So why would I need a neurologist to see if I have MS?"


That sounds an awful lot like hipster projection.

You must be a hipster.

You were the one arguing that more people holding an opinion makes it worse. Do you know what a hipster is?


I don't need you to tell me what Wikipedia says about her. I can go there myself, thanks.


Well, if you ever choose to go beyond her wikipedia page, I would love to walk you through her diff-in-diff-in-diff in that paper. It is a truly great setup to a complicated problem. I can understand if you are hesitant to actually learn something, though. But trust me, she writes pretty accessible articles, so it isn't too painful.


So unless someone is in the hospital, then they can't possibly have a mental disorder? Is that really what you're arguing?

You claimed to know that she absolutely is not a psychopath. Well, how do you know this? Has she been tested? Did she let you see the results?


So by those standards, how do you prove that you aren't a psychopath? Typically, I assume most people aren't, since most people actually aren't. In addition, psychosis usually accompanies a loss of reality. It is quite difficult to hide that in a highly successful career.


Luck has nothing to do with it. It's a gift, and you probably don't have it.

And you almost definitely don't based upon your posts.


Maybe. You don't know. You're just guessing.



You're right, the Nobel Committee isn't a very credible bunch.

I'd keep my eye on them if I were you.


As I said, hilarious. Believe it or not, most people in the world aren't playing 12 dimensional chess with the goal of fooling you.


Who is that? Is that another one of Obama's brilliant clown economists from the Globalist Friends Network?

It's the guy from the History Channel that thinks aliens caused everything. You two should talk about how the "Globalist Friends Network" are really just aliens. I would watch that.


Yes, and the irony of the king of internet evidence refusing to provide it.

That is why I prefer to deal with issues that we can actually discuss with evidence. As I said before, if you would like to discuss her work in some depth, I would very much enjoy that opportunity. If you would prefer to speculate on the mental health of somebody you have never met or know anything about, you can continue to do so, with just the gentle sound of mockery to accompany it.

[ChartsandGrafs]

That is why I prefer to deal with issues that we can actually discuss with evidence. As I said before, if you would like to discuss her work in some depth, I would very much enjoy that opportunity. If you would prefer to speculate on the mental health of somebody you have never met or know anything about, you can continue to do so, with just the gentle sound of mockery to accompany it.

LULZ

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZkkId-dbzj8/S2r6YpkXp8I/AAAAAAAAABg/u26UWMJQ-Kw/s320/koolaid.png

[mdgator05]

LULZ

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZkkId-dbzj8/S2r6YpkXp8I/AAAAAAAAABg/u26UWMJQ-Kw/s320/koolaid.png

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/321404672/h214211E5/

[gatordowneast]

If Obama nominates someone for dog catcher, count me as a skeptic. She may be brilliant, but if Obama likes her...she must be a believer in the manifesto. He does not surround himself with those with a contrarian view.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I was always conscientious of the gap between my existence and that of the world’s poor,” she told weekly French magazine l’Express in a January, 2011 article. “As a child, I was extremely troubled by the complete randomness of chance that I was born in Paris to an intellectual, middle class family, when I could have just as easily been born in Chad. It’s a question of luck. It inspired in me a sense of responsibility.

Good grief, another empty-suit socialist, just like Obama.

[mdgator05]

If Obama nominates someone for dog catcher, count me as a skeptic. She may be brilliant, but if Obama likes her...she must be a believer in the manifesto. He does not surround himself with those with a contrarian view.

Said the same day that Obama nominates two Republicans to head huge government agencies. Honestly, why does he bother, since none of you will notice anyways, since it doesn't fit a narrative you want?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Said the same day that Obama nominates two Republicans to head huge government agencies. Honestly, why does he bother, since none of you will notice anyways, since it doesn't fit a narrative you want?

Oh, wow, I guess if they are Republicans they can't be socialists, socialist sympathizers, or allied with socialists to consolidate Big Government power.

Impossible.

[SydneySLee]

Either 'French' or 'economist' would have me running, screaming from the room.Hold on. You are not being fair to Mandelbrot.