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-...ma-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]

Originally Posted by mocgator

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]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

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]

Originally Posted by DSRrg

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]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by DSRrg

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]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

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]

Originally Posted by T3goalie

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

No she is a believer in empirical evidence and statistics.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

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]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

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.