|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 04 2016 03:51 Doodsmack wrote:
Leaks and statements coming from within Trump's campaign are pretty alarming right now. You can't even pretend it's media hysteria because it's people on Trump's team saying those things.
I just imagine what it must be like, I can only imagine the effort it takes to become a political staffer in the first place... and then you just happen to be ready at the exact time in history where you're stuck with the Drumpf.
|
On August 04 2016 03:03 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 02:55 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2016 02:47 WhiteDog wrote:
And also the fact that the science is biased at its core (econ). I've always found it remarkable how far within (US academic) economics you have to go before there is any mention at all of the fact that capitalism may not be the end-all be-all of how best to structure an economy. Not entirely without merit, but biased to a fault. that isn't how it is though, it is the market and not capitalism that is held as sacrosanct. maybe at the university of chicago and other places where austrian theories hold sway capitalism itself is put on a pedestal in the econ departments. the market really is the end-all be-all of how to best structure an economy, you can have a very generous 'socialist' welfare state as long as you don't fuck with the market too much. that's how the scandinavians do it anyway even though they've pulled back on the spending a bit recently. . keep the market humming and it will generate a lot of wealth and you can spend a good chunk of it on social welfare. that's where venezuela screwed up, it destroyed the market and spent spent spent at the same time. Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 02:58 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2016 02:55 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2016 02:47 WhiteDog wrote:
And also the fact that the science is biased at its core (econ). I've always found it remarkable how far within (US academic) economics you have to go before there is any mention at all of the fact that capitalism may not be the end-all be-all of how best to structure an economy. Not entirely without merit, but biased to a fault. Its ok, there are a lot of people in the US who hold that opinion. Sadly we worship the mythical god known as the "Free Market" and saying that this god can't solve every problem on the planet is a terrible sin. better to pray to a god that actually delivers than to one that doesn't. the supremacy of keeping closer to free market principles than otherwise is very very obvious.
Except for all those other successful nations with smarter kids, better healthcare, better public services, police that manage to avoid killing so many people and a rocking economy on top of that. And in the US we still argue about the “merit free market of health care” like a service were you can’t get the price should even be considered a market.
The US, #1 at convincing ourselves we are #1 anything that could even be considered good.
|
On August 04 2016 02:37 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 02:30 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2016 02:26 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2016 02:07 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2016 02:00 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2016 01:37 TheYango wrote:On August 04 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:
I think of the statement "people have enough of experts" as stupid when said explicitly, but that the sentiment behind it is the same kind of sentiment you would use for dismissing some of the long-winded, "data driven" biased posters in this thread who will remain unmentioned: people with some degree of expertise who twist the facts and use a biased interpretation to support a position that is less so true and more so made for personal political gain. The "experts" being referred to are in social science fields where explicit bias plays a much bigger role than in the hard sciences. While I agree with this, I think responding to those "experts" in such a dismissive way rather than engaging them in rational discourse dumbs down the discussion in a way that's thoroughly unproductive. Really, it's ignorance and laziness to just say "I don't want to deal with you". While some do question the "experts" a lot of people are just laymen, who can at best say something is fishy about what said experts say but can't give a full rebuttal because data and data collection are in the hands of a biased party, and they themselves aren't educated enough in that field to give a proper response. For example, if the government doesn't collect race or nationality in police statistics, is it still fair for people to suspect that immigrants from the Middle East are most responsible for crimes? I think it's a reasonable low-level assertion that the "experts" have often vehemently denied with willful dismissal of facts. Are there people who are stupidly opposing the views of the experts? Yeah. There are also people blindly following the word of biased experts which is also stupid. But "people have enough of experts" is a valid, even if stupidly worded, sentiment. I am uncomfortable with any blanket dismissal of someone with high levels of training and knowledge on any subject. Especially when we are still trying to convince our country that climate change is real, conversion therapy is torture and we have several high level profile elected officials saying vaccines should not be mandatory. I don’t approve of people stoking fear of violence when it is down nationwide and has been for over a decade. Feeding into the fear for police when the job has never been safer. Leadership’s job is to reassure the public and lead them forward based on the best information. Not claim that the information is biased or false based solely on the fact that isn’t what the public believes is true. That isn’t leadership. In general this is true and most of the time the experts in any given field are correct. The problem is when the leadership starts giving credibility to biased experts (of which there are many) who will just shill for the position that the leadership wants whether or not it is accurate. That diminishes the degree of trust that people have in those experts, for good reason. Look no further than Ben Carson if you want an example of a highly trained person who can say things that are batshit insane and that directly contradict the field they are in. You could say that he's just wrong about politics, but his dismissal of evolution is very strongly at odds with his training in medicine. A blanket dismissal of his opinion on a wide range of issues is not unwarranted. Or the experts who said there were WMDs in Iraq. Very trustworthy. I agree that we have a huge problem with biased "experts" and people believing what they want. Carson is a prime example of this. But giving into the very irrational idea that all experts are bad/biased is not productive. In fact, it only feeds into the problem and gives license to people like Ben Carson. In general experts should be trusted. The problem is when bad experts poison the well of trust, and the politicians who support them. That tends to lead to people distrusting real experts as well as fake ones. On August 04 2016 02:28 zlefin wrote:
Carson is only an expert in medicine; biology is a related, but different field. Medicine is also much more practical than scientific, at least for the parts Carson was in.
It is sad how unknowledgeable he seems to be outside of that. Biology is central enough to medicine that it can be reasonably inferred that he is at least well-educated enough in biology to understand why evolution is pretty clearly correct. general biology isn't actually that pertinent to medicine; it's pertinent to its history and research, but not so much to its practice. Human anatomy is quite a small subset of biology, so thats' more studied directly, rather than as a component of biology. And the case that documents why evolution is correct is generally not covered in detail unless you go in much deeper, as is common in science, most of the actual proofs are long and complicated work of a great many people.
The primary science necessary to actually practice medicine is physiology.
Physiology is a combination of biology, chemistry, and physics as it's applied to the human body, and those three sciences are each important in that order. While you can't successfully practice medicine without understanding all three, more biology knowledge is needed than any other field of science when you learn and practice medicine.
You need a pretty damn good understanding of biology to be a physician. While Carson is a surgeon (requiring more mechanical skill that pure theoretical knowledge), he still doesn't get a pass for being a creationist.
|
On August 04 2016 03:59 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 02:58 Gorsameth wrote:
Economics suffers heavily from human interactions (which are often irrational) and the inability to test theories and models as well as overall complexity and number of interacting elements. It's not even a question of testing theories and models, it's also that some of those theories and models are just false from a basic logical standpoint. Many mainstream models have been debunked (think about the model of the market which is a complete fraud) but students don't learn that until they are in master degree. Even textbooks basically present arguments in a way that make it seems like the critics are a footnote when they are, in reality, complete rebutals (sonnenschein comes to mind).
You have to properly indoctrinate people before you can tell them that the market model is accurate under some, rather than all, circumstances.
|
On August 04 2016 02:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 02:23 Naracs_Duc wrote:On August 04 2016 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2016 02:07 Plansix wrote:On August 04 2016 02:00 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2016 01:37 TheYango wrote:On August 04 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:
I think of the statement "people have enough of experts" as stupid when said explicitly, but that the sentiment behind it is the same kind of sentiment you would use for dismissing some of the long-winded, "data driven" biased posters in this thread who will remain unmentioned: people with some degree of expertise who twist the facts and use a biased interpretation to support a position that is less so true and more so made for personal political gain. The "experts" being referred to are in social science fields where explicit bias plays a much bigger role than in the hard sciences. While I agree with this, I think responding to those "experts" in such a dismissive way rather than engaging them in rational discourse dumbs down the discussion in a way that's thoroughly unproductive. Really, it's ignorance and laziness to just say "I don't want to deal with you". While some do question the "experts" a lot of people are just laymen, who can at best say something is fishy about what said experts say but can't give a full rebuttal because data and data collection are in the hands of a biased party, and they themselves aren't educated enough in that field to give a proper response. For example, if the government doesn't collect race or nationality in police statistics, is it still fair for people to suspect that immigrants from the Middle East are most responsible for crimes? I think it's a reasonable low-level assertion that the "experts" have often vehemently denied with willful dismissal of facts. Are there people who are stupidly opposing the views of the experts? Yeah. There are also people blindly following the word of biased experts which is also stupid. But "people have enough of experts" is a valid, even if stupidly worded, sentiment. I am uncomfortable with any blanket dismissal of someone with high levels of training and knowledge on any subject. Especially when we are still trying to convince our country that climate change is real, conversion therapy is torture and we have several high level profile elected officials saying vaccines should not be mandatory. I don’t approve of people stoking fear of violence when it is down nationwide and has been for over a decade. Feeding into the fear for police when the job has never been safer. Leadership’s job is to reassure the public and lead them forward based on the best information. Not claim that the information is biased or false based solely on the fact that isn’t what the public believes is true. That isn’t leadership. In general this is true and most of the time the experts in any given field are correct. The problem is when the leadership starts giving credibility to biased experts (of which there are many) who will just shill for the position that the leadership wants whether or not it is accurate. That diminishes the degree of trust that people have in those experts, for good reason. Look no further than Ben Carson if you want an example of a highly trained person who can say things that are batshit insane and that directly contradict the field they are in. You could say that he's just wrong about politics, but his dismissal of evolution is very strongly at odds with his training in medicine. A blanket dismissal of his opinion on a wide range of issues is not unwarranted. In fairness to Carson, not a fan of him personally, but just because someone's conclusion from the evidence is different from yours does not mean he is automatically wrong. Carson could simply have not been convinced by the evidence of evolution, doesn't mean he has an agenda just because the argument was bad. Believers in science don't believe in true answers anyway, just most the most recent and likely explanation to the observed and inferred phenomena. Scientists understand that they could be wrong about everything and accept that its possible they're wrong about things people think are true. The problem is that at present, the evidence in favor of evolution is so strong that any dismissal of it is basically willful ignorance and denial of the facts. Listen to his reasons why evolution isn't real and you would quickly see that he is full of shit and just taking a religious stance on a science issue. The ability for science to be wrong doesn't support the conclusion that "any interpretation is as valid as any other." No, some people are definitely more correct than others. Though since we're talking about political rather than scientific experts, perhaps the WMD example is more pertinent.
The problem is that you guys are putting much more emotional weight on this than you really should. It is absolutely irrelevant how "valid" an interpretation is. Giving one more or less validity is, for the most part, a fools errand.
He took a look at the data available to him, made a conclusion, and is willing to publicly state that conclusion. He's just ONE data point of the opinion of that specific topic. There are Z total data points of conclusions of those topics. Each of those data points came to the conclusion they come to for whatever arbitrary reason. All those data points say is what people believe or understand to be true--but it does not actually dictate truth. If 100% of the human population say that the earth revolves around the moon, it won't make it true. For much the same reason that if 100% of humans say that the earth revolves around the sun, it also does not make it true.
Everything is about evidence present, and evidence interpreted. Just because someone has a different conclusion than you based on the evidence provided does not make him wrong. But him having a different conclusion than you does not make you wrong either. He can use the conclusion he has however he sees fit--say to get a voting block during a presidential election. And you can use your knowledge about evolution however you see fit--say to make fun of people with different opinions than you.
Whatever you use your conclusions for, its your conclusions. The evidence remains the same regardless. Fossils and Genes don't disappear from existence just because someone believes in creationism. For the same reason that God is not disproven just because you believe in Evolution. The only things that are "true" is the evidence present. Everything else is interpretation. Science understands that, and in fact hinges on it.
|
What? Basically everyone learns that a perfectly free market is just a model and that real life works differently.
|
On August 04 2016 05:15 RvB wrote:
What? Basically everyone learns that it's just a model and that real life works differently.
Majority of people can't even tell you what an economic model is, let alone be able to say "just a model" vs "real life."
|
On August 04 2016 05:16 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 05:15 RvB wrote:
What? Basically everyone learns that it's just a model and that real life works differently. Majority of people can't even tell you what an economic model is, let alone be able to say "just a model" vs "real life."
Let me correct myself then. Everyone who had economics at high school level.
|
On August 04 2016 05:15 RvB wrote:
What? Basically everyone learns that a perfectly free market is just a model and that real life works differently.
The problem is the people in the US confuse objectivism with free market and assume they are the same thing. The free market is supposed to be managed by the government. There also is The Free Market nationwide, but many smaller markets that exist and lightly interact with each other. The free market for rent in the city of Boston is very separate from the investments in mobile app software.
The free market, as coined by Adam Smith, also accepts that the mentally ill, disabled and criminal should be cared for or handled by the government so they can return to the free market. That taxes and public services are critical to making it function. He also said that the free market should be managed to avoid harming the public good through unchecked capitalism. And so on and so on.
But people like that part about how the government should avoid over managing the free market and forget that other stuff. They take that part, mix in a bunch of the Fountain Head and Atlas Shrugged to create the modern concept of the Free Market, proper noun.
|
“The current race is which of these two is the more unacceptable, because right now neither of them is acceptable,” Gingrich said in a Wednesday morning telephone interview. “Trump is helping her to win by proving he is more unacceptable than she is.”
Gingrich said Trump has only a matter of weeks to reverse course. “Anybody who is horrified by Hillary should hope that Trump will take a deep breath and learn some new skills,” he said. “He cannot win the presidency operating the way he is now. She can’t be bad enough to elect him if he’s determined to make this many mistakes.”
Gingrich seems worried https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-reaches-new-level-of-panic-over-trumps-candidacy/2016/08/03/de461880-5988-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html
|
It's funny after he pushed so hard for the VP slot
|
Once again, this is the man who argued that crime was higher in the US because people believed it was higher. And that he was with the people and their beliefs, while the mean reporter was over there with the facts.
|
On August 04 2016 05:15 RvB wrote:
What? Basically everyone learns that a perfectly free market is just a model and that real life works differently.
Not sure exactly to what extent the curriculum differs in your nation. In the US, however, this isn't really true. The idea of free market capitalism or a slight variation on that theme is taught as the only model worth considering until you reach the graduate level. It's not always explicit but there is a severe amount of indoctrination that says "markets good. markets always good." before you are given the chance to learn things from any other perspective.
|
He's not wrong.
The only one who can cost Trump the election at this point is Trump himself.
|
On August 04 2016 05:31 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 05:15 RvB wrote:
What? Basically everyone learns that a perfectly free market is just a model and that real life works differently. Not sure exactly to what extent the curriculum differs in your nation. In the US, however, this isn't really true. The idea of free market capitalism or a slight variation on that theme is taught as the only model worth considering until you reach the graduate level. It's not always explicit but there is a severe amount of indoctrination that says "markets good. markets always good." before you are given the chance to learn things from any other perspective.
while there was a focus on markets; I don't recall any discussions of good/bad in my econ; it was mostly just math and some stuff that may not apply to the real world. but my memory isn't super-precise on that.
I also only recall a discussion of markets in general, nothing about free-market capitalism specifically, or at least not much.
|
On August 04 2016 05:36 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2016 05:31 LegalLord wrote:On August 04 2016 05:15 RvB wrote:
What? Basically everyone learns that a perfectly free market is just a model and that real life works differently. Not sure exactly to what extent the curriculum differs in your nation. In the US, however, this isn't really true. The idea of free market capitalism or a slight variation on that theme is taught as the only model worth considering until you reach the graduate level. It's not always explicit but there is a severe amount of indoctrination that says "markets good. markets always good." before you are given the chance to learn things from any other perspective. while there was a focus on markets; I don't recall any discussions of good/bad in my econ; it was mostly just math and some stuff that may not apply to the real world. but my memory isn't super-precise on that. I also only recall a discussion of markets in general, nothing about free-market capitalism specifically, or at least not much.
Economics starts with a pretty high-level view of supply and demand, markets, market failures, government policies and macro-issues they try to address, and short/long term issues. That's about the high school / introductory college level economics. Then the major sequence starts by formalizing a few assumptions about human behavior (that are simple and generally valid) and shows how, under micro conditions, that supports a market approach to allocation. Then that theory of behavior is extended to small, simplified macroeconomies, which is sometimes reasonable but also sort of presumptive and only valid under certain circumstances in the real world. As whitedoge noted, those questionable assertions are sort of brushed aside as footnotes while basically advocating the free market approach in general. From there goes a lot of applications of that market approach and some mathematical studies that help to put that approach into perspective. Then comes graduate level studies that actually consider situations under which that market approach is and isn't valid, but at the undergraduate level you are basically just taught a free market approach as the One True System™ for all cases.
As a disclaimer, economics wasn't my primary field of study, but I studied a fair bit in the US.
|
as did I ; I'm simply saying my recollection of what they taught was a little bit different, and described that.
|
On August 04 2016 05:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:He's not wrong. The only one who can cost Trump the election at this point is Trump himself.
That would make sense if he wasnt losing to her in almost every poll and more importantly losing to her in pretty much every battleground and even some states that should not be battlegrounds (why are they tied in Georgia? Its probably just an off survey but he cant lose georgia and hope to win. He cant really lose any battleground and hope to win honestly)
The problem is that he does not actually know anything about the issues he talks about so if he starts talking about the issues and gets pressed on them than instead of the current scandals he has with the Khan family he will have more where he shows no real knowledge of the economy or presidential power or of foreign policy.
Basically he has less world knowledge about governing than Sarah Palin did and she was exposed as an idiot fairly quickly but he is masking it by instead by instead of talking about issues which he knows nothing he just attacks people and looks like a jerk all the time and says he is merely "telling it like it is". You cant really pull that when you are just flat out wrong on an issue like when he was just wrong about Russia and Ukraine last week.
|
On August 04 2016 05:54 zlefin wrote:
as did I ; I'm simply saying my recollection of what they taught was a little bit different, and described that.
Really, it was more of an implication than a direct statement of fact that "free market capitalism always good." You would have to consider the issues in far more depth than they are taught to avoid the default line of thought of, "markets good. markets always good." that was the norm. Also there was a fair bit of ideology pushing by most instructors.
|
Mine were evidently different from yours; and/or I filtered out the stupid. I don't recall them pushing ideology at all; they were just saying the models we were working with. And some other models that are too complicated to deal with now.
and markets as a general thing, can be looked at without an ideology. And there's the places where markets don't work well, various kinds of market failures.
how many different places did you study it at? I ask because sometimes individual institutions have different sets of standards/beliefs; and it seems likely we're both working from a small sample size. Just two for me of relevance to this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
