How cool would that have been if Dotard had vetoed the bill? The stock market would have tanked immediately. Congress would probably have overridden his veto, but there would be no second Dotard term for SURE.
I don't know how you think "skin in the game" (aka a reason to favor the course of action that saves their skin) means the scientist will have no bias. Apparently your lie about delivering bad news being key to securing future funding covers it (which is idiotic). In this case (I guess) the more believable economist would have to be a wealthy man who owns lots of stock and/or a large business? But wouldn't such an economist have said yes to the bill? What "skin in the game" economist would have advised not to sign it?
Skin-in-the-game means that you die if you are wrong. Not" you have a chance of dying" or "other people die". Like an airplane pilot, you fail, you die DIRECTLY.
We should start executing economists who make incorrect forecasts? What about virologists who predict the number of people who get infected and percentage who die... and are off? They get the death penalty too? I thought we were talking about losing money.
No, we should grant them ALL a symbolic death and ignore their 'expert' prattle. They are merely pundits with opinions, nothing more, nothing less, which are given FAR too much "weight" just because their name is followed by an M.S. or PhD.
Thanks Dotard!
ReplyDeleteThe MSM stampeded him into it. Thanks for nothing, television.
ReplyDeleteLol. He has no responsibility? Clearly he has a very weak will.
ReplyDeleteClearly he has too much faith in "experts" lacking "skin in the game".
ReplyDeleteHow cool would that have been if Dotard had vetoed the bill? The stock market would have tanked immediately. Congress would probably have overridden his veto, but there would be no second Dotard term for SURE.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how you think "skin in the game" (aka a reason to favor the course of action that saves their skin) means the scientist will have no bias. Apparently your lie about delivering bad news being key to securing future funding covers it (which is idiotic). In this case (I guess) the more believable economist would have to be a wealthy man who owns lots of stock and/or a large business? But wouldn't such an economist have said yes to the bill? What "skin in the game" economist would have advised not to sign it?
ReplyDeleteSkin-in-the-game means that you die if you are wrong. Not" you have a chance of dying" or "other people die". Like an airplane pilot, you fail, you die DIRECTLY.
ReplyDeleteWe should start executing economists who make incorrect forecasts? What about virologists who predict the number of people who get infected and percentage who die... and are off? They get the death penalty too? I thought we were talking about losing money.
ReplyDeleteNo, we should grant them ALL a symbolic death and ignore their 'expert' prattle. They are merely pundits with opinions, nothing more, nothing less, which are given FAR too much "weight" just because their name is followed by an M.S. or PhD.
ReplyDeleteThat statement proves what an idiot you really are.
ReplyDeleteAt least I have an M.S. to put after my name. :)
ReplyDeleteYou're Canadian?
ReplyDelete