|
On December 19 2009 08:30 agorist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 03:07 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 03:05 agorist wrote:On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good. So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees? I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares? I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble? Taxes are theft, are they? I certainly never said "throw money" at anything, though you're pretty clearly a rabid conservative in love with capitalism and the sanctity of the market. I think the current state of health care in this country serves as ample evidence that free market capitalism does not work for health care and that the "rules" simply do not apply. In fact, there are some things that are not ethically justifiably subject to the rules of capitalism - like health care and education. Further it's appalling to me when people like you take offense to the suggestion that the wealthiest members of society should be expected to give something back to help the least fortunate. The system we have allows them to get filthy rich and gives them endless advantages and avails them to lifestyles of extreme exorbitance. There are a substantial number of countries who provide a solid safety net for the poor and jobless, health care, and quality education both before and including college. They do so with reasonable taxation of the wealthy and with effective spending of that tax revenue. It's not theft, it's called living in a society, and behaving as a member of that society, and paying your fair share. The end all, be all of human existence is NOT to acquire vast sums of wealth, and an "open market" is not an end itself. It's not even an adequate or ethically viable means to any worthy goal. Not that you will believe me, and not that I have to explain this, but I make about $125k per year, and I donate $250 per month each to two charities. In addition to this I'm a contractor and pay more taxes than someone who is an employee. I'll start off with a question for you to think about as I explain a few things. Are we a free-market capitalist society? How is our healthcare "free-market"? I can't purchase healthcare across state lines or prescriptions from China. States mandate what insurance companies must cover in plans, meaning I have very little choice in my coverage. Private insurance companies (now reduced to monopolistic status due to inane barriers to entry) compete only against subsidized federal entities. You can go ahead and blame a healthcare insurer, but ask yourself -- why have the direct costs for healthcare increased? Subsidization has fueled healthcare inflation in rates far beyond standard economic inflation for decades. Has private greed caused of this? Yes. How did it do it? Law. The only way to avoid competition is to use force, and, nobody is better at force than government. Taxation on wealth and income is theft. You can lie to yourself all you'd like, however, ask yourself what happens when you stop paying your income taxes. You might say "Hey, it's the cost of living in a society!" or even worse, "without the society, you wouldn't have earned anything!". You'd however be perpetuating the gross misunderstanding that all that we earn is possible by the grace of our altruistic buddy, government. Jobs don't exist because employment is the fundamental component of a functioning society. A job exists because someone noticed a demand for a product and service and provided to others what they wanted. An exchange can only be made voluntarily in the absence of force. In this aspect, capitalism is an engine that most accurately meets demand with supply. To deviate from this balance is folly; you cannot do better without impacting something else (windfall). I love your rather gross misunderstanding of reality. Fair share? What is that? Do you get to decide what others should pay? What in fact is the point of living? Helping others? Helping the state help others? Helping the state help others for the greatness of our society? This sounds familiar... I believe your income and your charity. I admire the fact that you actually donate to charity, it at least shows you support some of your ideals. Pardoning the false compromise I'm about to make, wouldn't you rather donate to charity 30% of your personal income how you pleased rather than to a government? Do you really think the government can spend your money better than you can?
Alongside most economists, I believe that a free market that allows demand to be met by supply without restriction is the only fair way to allocate resources. However, some things must be centralized. One of those things is the protection of the right to life. I'm talking about services like the fire department, the police force, the judiciary system, etc. You could argue that we could privatize that as well, such as private fire fighters and private policing units. Why not pay some people to protect me from robbers? I'd gladly pay a few thousand a year for that, and they'd probably do a better job! Nonetheless, to settle disputes, an arbitration committee is required whose decisions are "final" that both parties accept, as per some kind of law. Otherwise it's just one guy's word against another. That all necessitates a centralized service that settles disputes, makes policy decisions, and enforces them, (i.e. government) and for that tax is not theft.
Health care and education, on the other hand, is a trickier issue. I think capitalism could definitely work in education, so long as getting educated is what everyone wants.
Usual public school teachers in Korea don't get paid much, but many private "hakwon" (academy) teachers in South Korea make a killing for their services. The main reason is that there is so much demand for high intelligence and "making it out there in the world" that the citizens are willing to pay good money for it.
It's a shame that intelligence isn't really the standard that Americans as a culture aspires for. All this leads to a low demand for education and thus lower pay for teachers. Now, you could ask yourself, has capitalism worked? But it seems far less than optimal to have a culture of uneducated people running our future. In the end it all boils down to convincing people that intelligence is hot, but when so many people are indifferent, it's difficult. To reiterate, i think that if demand were higher (if being smart is culturally savvy) capitalism would work on education.
|
|
|
How is our healthcare "free-market"? I can't purchase healthcare across state lines or prescriptions from China. States mandate what insurance companies must cover in plans, meaning I have very little choice in my coverage. Private insurance companies (now reduced to monopolistic status due to inane barriers to entry) compete only against subsidized federal entities. You can go ahead and blame a healthcare insurer, but ask yourself -- why have the direct costs for healthcare increased? Subsidization has fueled healthcare inflation in rates far beyond standard economic inflation for decades. Has private greed caused of this? Yes. How did it do it? Law. The only way to avoid competition is to use force, and, nobody is better at force than government.
Actually, health care costs went up for four simple reasons:
1: The increase in lifespan, and the abundance of illnesses that strike our elderly population.
2: Similarly, the simple fact that there's a vast amount of diseases that we now know about and can treat.
3: The special interest caused government funding of corn, soy & other agricultural industries yielding food products that create an environment where it is cheaper to consume foodstuff that is much more likely to cause weight problems, and hence related health issues.
4: The 'for profit' attitude toward a very basic and required social service has caused massive amount of funds to be directed toward advertisement, enticement, copyright related costs (lobbying, etc). The purpose of large research pharma companies is just as much profit making for shareholders as it is research. The health care spending bubble is quite largely caused by greater spending on prescription drugs -- patients choosing to treat diabetes with a pill rather than excersize.
Again, you must understand that the GOVERNMENT is not an institution that stands AGAINST the corporate america. It exits in a symbiotic state, with the corporate america providing vast amount of funding for both parties, sitting on committees. foundations and think tanks that shape our thinking process and act as the first source whenever congress wants technical know-how. They have quite a say in what law gets to get passed. Take a look at NAFTA -- it is riddled with special interest exemptions.
Taxation on wealth and income is theft. You can lie to yourself all you'd like, however, ask yourself what happens when you stop paying your income taxes. You might say "Hey, it's the cost of living in a society!" or even worse, "without the society, you wouldn't have earned anything!". You'd however be perpetuating the gross misunderstanding that all that we earn is possible by the grace of our altruistic buddy, government. Jobs don't exist because employment is the fundamental component of a functioning society. A job exists because someone noticed a demand for a product and service and provided to others what they wanted. An exchange can only be made voluntarily in the absence of force. In this aspect, capitalism is an engine that most accurately meets demand with supply. To deviate from this balance is folly; you cannot do better without impacting something else (windfall).
Since you do not have an understanding of how jobs are created, let me tell you how they are destroyed. Corporations move their job overseas, and create a feeling of resentment between local & foreign workers, when in fact the us and them are corporations & all workers. Great 'captains of industry' use to hire mobsters and goons to break up union meetings, maiming leaders. They would use tools such as mccarthyism to demonize and haunt any kind of left / union ideas. They would, historically, create a racial divide among workers pitting white workers against black workers, creating divisions based on race because it would help their cause.
You lack any kind of historical understanding of class & economic theory. You can not just simply spew forth ideological libertarian agenda without having done the research beforehand.
If you honestly think that we're best off allowing life dependent services such as health care & others to a free market... I propose you consider the often cited example about postal service. If postal service was to be a commercial enterprise. Think of all the small towns that are unprofitable -- they would lose service or get charged quite a lot.
|
On December 20 2009 03:25 Culture wrote:Show nested quote +
How is our healthcare "free-market"? I can't purchase healthcare across state lines or prescriptions from China. States mandate what insurance companies must cover in plans, meaning I have very little choice in my coverage. Private insurance companies (now reduced to monopolistic status due to inane barriers to entry) compete only against subsidized federal entities. You can go ahead and blame a healthcare insurer, but ask yourself -- why have the direct costs for healthcare increased? Subsidization has fueled healthcare inflation in rates far beyond standard economic inflation for decades. Has private greed caused of this? Yes. How did it do it? Law. The only way to avoid competition is to use force, and, nobody is better at force than government.
Again, you must understand that the GOVERNMENT is not an institution that stands AGAINST the corporate america. It exits in a symbiotic state, with the corporate america providing vast amount of funding for both parties, sitting on committees. foundations and think tanks that shape our thinking process and act as the first source whenever congress wants technical know-how. They have quite a say in what law gets to get passed. Take a look at NAFTA -- it is riddled with special interest exemptions.
I think you're misunderstanding his statement. His point was that we don't have a free market because big corporations act in collusion with the government. He never said that the government is against corporate america; in fact, he directly points out that big corporations have come as a direct result of government involvement.
|
On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good.
You're so hilariously missing the point. Isn't that just what I said? That govt. can't control its spending for shit and that a democracy's primary purpose is racketeering for votes (what the hell else is the war on drugs)? What do you think a politician's job is? To continue to get elected. And because that means pandering to voters and buying off votes with spending, that's what politicians do. What do you think a civil servant's job is? Preserving his own ass. And hence, that's what they do. Ever worked in a govt job (I have)? You'll immediately know what I mean. Just like a CEO's real job is making the shareholders and board as happy as possible and thus getting the largest golden parachute possible.
People have this idea that the government is an altruistic disinterested force. It isn't. A government is made out of people, people who are primarily concerned with preserving their own ass as comfortably as possible.
Just as greed for money/profits drives corporations by definition, greed for votes/power and for getting elected/maintaining the status quo is what drives democracies, by definition.
The problem with govt. spending is an institutional one, just as the problem with modern corporations is. There is no easy solution.
P.S. Most people who are long-term homeless are in that state because of drug abuse problems. Its not something you can "solve" because, sometimes people themselves are the problem.
|
On December 20 2009 03:25 Culture wrote:
Actually, health care costs went up for four simple reasons:
1: The increase in lifespan, and the abundance of illnesses that strike our elderly population.
2: Similarly, the simple fact that there's a vast amount of diseases that we now know about and can treat.
3: The special interest caused government funding of corn, soy & other agricultural industries yielding food products that create an environment where it is cheaper to consume foodstuff that is much more likely to cause weight problems, and hence related health issues.
4: The 'for profit' attitude toward a very basic and required social service has caused massive amount of funds to be directed toward advertisement, enticement, copyright related costs (lobbying, etc). The purpose of large research pharma companies is just as much profit making for shareholders as it is research. The health care spending bubble is quite largely caused by greater spending on prescription drugs -- patients choosing to treat diabetes with a pill rather than excersize.
I don't think you quite understand how supply and demand works.
Why would people living longer or more treatments for more diseases increase the average healthcare cost an individual pays? More demand draws more providers to the marketplace to compete (an increase in supply). Oh, what am I saying, that's how it would work if we could quit building artificial government barriers.
Government subsidy? I've already ranted about that. Big Pharma? Turns out the FDA is a great way to reduce competition. Guess how much money and time it takes to pass drug qualification.
I also liked this part:
Since you do not have an understanding of how jobs are created, let me tell you how they are destroyed. Corporations move their job overseas, and create a feeling of resentment between local & foreign workers, when in fact the us and them are corporations & all workers. Great 'captains of industry' use to hire mobsters and goons to break up union meetings, maiming leaders. They would use tools such as mccarthyism to demonize and haunt any kind of left / union ideas. They would, historically, create a racial divide among workers pitting white workers against black workers, creating divisions based on race because it would help their cause.
Why would a corporation move its production overseas? What purpose could it serve? Taxes? Cheaper labor? Union laws? There's a natural balance between employer and employee and it has been evolving for a long time. Sure, things were pretty shitty for a lot of employees back in the day, but I don't see how this contributes to your argument. The bottom line is if you want to not lose jobs, don't make it more expensive for employers to employ individuals. Jobs aren't "destroyed" by evil corporations. Jobs are lost once again due to regulation.
A natural union is a fine entity; it's a group of individuals who seek to improve their working conditions. Grant them legal protection and they quickly turn cankerous. A slim balance must be found where the union doesn't cost a company too much and the workers are able to improve their employment conditions. If the union becomes too burdensome (such that the cost of replacing the workers is less than letting the union siphon) it is crucial that the employer is capable of cleaning house. Is this a bad thing? If the employer is capable of replacing all its union-ized employees I'd have to assert that it's only good. The employer was able to remain competitive, and, its offerings to employees were obviously sufficient considering it could replace the workers. Don't ever forget that a corporation can only make money naturally if it provides something the market wants. Your life is full of products made cheaply off-shores. You live with the benefits daily. Are you ready to eat your own words boycott affordable goods?
We can talk about the evils of corporations and unions all day; however, how about we get some context and scale:
What's the percentage of individuals incarcerated for non-violent crimes? What about the countless millions lost to the ambitions of leaders in war or otherwise poor policy? Hmm.
|
On December 20 2009 00:41 agorist wrote:Why do people think teachers don't get paid enough? http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All_K-12_Teachers/SalaryTeachers make a shit-ton; especially if you consider they literally take half the year off. An additional fact: public school teachers get paid more than private school teachers.
40-45k's not a shit-ton; it's actually pretty fucking low.
|
On December 19 2009 08:30 agorist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 03:07 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 03:05 agorist wrote:On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good. So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees? I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares? I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble? Taxes are theft, are they? I certainly never said "throw money" at anything, though you're pretty clearly a rabid conservative in love with capitalism and the sanctity of the market. I think the current state of health care in this country serves as ample evidence that free market capitalism does not work for health care and that the "rules" simply do not apply. In fact, there are some things that are not ethically justifiably subject to the rules of capitalism - like health care and education. Further it's appalling to me when people like you take offense to the suggestion that the wealthiest members of society should be expected to give something back to help the least fortunate. The system we have allows them to get filthy rich and gives them endless advantages and avails them to lifestyles of extreme exorbitance. There are a substantial number of countries who provide a solid safety net for the poor and jobless, health care, and quality education both before and including college. They do so with reasonable taxation of the wealthy and with effective spending of that tax revenue. It's not theft, it's called living in a society, and behaving as a member of that society, and paying your fair share. The end all, be all of human existence is NOT to acquire vast sums of wealth, and an "open market" is not an end itself. It's not even an adequate or ethically viable means to any worthy goal. Not that you will believe me, and not that I have to explain this, but I make about $125k per year, and I donate $250 per month each to two charities. In addition to this I'm a contractor and pay more taxes than someone who is an employee. I'll start off with a question for you to think about as I explain a few things. Are we a free-market capitalist society? How is our healthcare "free-market"? I can't purchase healthcare across state lines or prescriptions from China. States mandate what insurance companies must cover in plans, meaning I have very little choice in my coverage. Private insurance companies (now reduced to monopolistic status due to inane barriers to entry) compete only against subsidized federal entities. You can go ahead and blame a healthcare insurer, but ask yourself -- why have the direct costs for healthcare increased? Subsidization has fueled healthcare inflation in rates far beyond standard economic inflation for decades. Has private greed caused of this? Yes. How did it do it? Law. The only way to avoid competition is to use force, and, nobody is better at force than government. Taxation on wealth and income is theft. You can lie to yourself all you'd like, however, ask yourself what happens when you stop paying your income taxes. You might say "Hey, it's the cost of living in a society!" or even worse, "without the society, you wouldn't have earned anything!". You'd however be perpetuating the gross misunderstanding that all that we earn is possible by the grace of our altruistic buddy, government. Jobs don't exist because employment is the fundamental component of a functioning society. A job exists because someone noticed a demand for a product and service and provided to others what they wanted. An exchange can only be made voluntarily in the absence of force. In this aspect, capitalism is an engine that most accurately meets demand with supply. To deviate from this balance is folly; you cannot do better without impacting something else (windfall). I love your rather gross misunderstanding of reality. Fair share? What is that? Do you get to decide what others should pay? What in fact is the point of living? Helping others? Helping the state help others? Helping the state help others for the greatness of our society? This sounds familiar... I believe your income and your charity. I admire the fact that you actually donate to charity, it at least shows you support some of your ideals. Pardoning the false compromise I'm about to make, wouldn't you rather donate to charity 30% of your personal income how you pleased rather than to a government? Do you really think the government can spend your money better than you can?
Characterizing a different viewpoint as a gross misunderstanding of reality is asking for nothing but a flame war. You once again completely misread my post - I think you skim - and I'm not going to indulge that with further explanations. I'll just agree to disagree.
|
I am going to give this one more go. I also am quite curious what kind of educational background you're coming from -- I am currently working on my graduate degree in economics.
An increase in lifespan and treatable diseases will clearly increase healthcare spending per person. Imagine living for twenty years and only treating broken bones, and now compare this to the 70~+ lifespan and the plethora of diseases we treat (and the evolutionary inherited high age related illnesses that play no role in young age fitness or perhaps even give an advantage).
TL;DR: Older people require more healthcare.
Why would a corporation move its production overseas? What purpose could it serve? Taxes? Cheaper labor? Union laws? There's a natural balance between employer and employee and it has been evolving for a long time. Sure, things were pretty shitty for a lot of employees back in the day, but I don't see how this contributes to your argument. The bottom line is if you want to not lose jobs, don't make it more expensive for employers to employ individuals. Jobs aren't "destroyed" by evil corporations. Jobs are lost once again due to regulation.
So, by your logic we should get rid of social security, healthcare benefits, increase working hours to longer than a 40 hour work week, etc -- all these steps will make us more welcoming to corporations. Let's turn back social progress so we can be competitive with workers in southeast asia that work for $1-2 a day, instead of bringing the progress we've made here to them.
The us & them does not spread across national borders but rather across socio-economic class.
Honestly, when I read the shit you're saying I want to cry at the lack of any kind of education you have on the subject. What kind of knowledge of union policies, history & operations do you have to make your claims? Have you done research into organizations like Business Roundtable & the like, read a ton of their reports and other published material. Have you sat in on AFL-CIO conferences, researched union history and the relevant information? Do you know of the top of your head what very relevant piece of legislation came out in 1935? How can you talk about a subject where your argument comes from nowhere but this 'ideal' of free markets (Something, you know, actual economists do not advocate, but what would I know about that...).
Let me draw a simple parallel of the argument you're making right now, and we'll draw the comparison to starcraft.
We have a community of economists, sociologists & the like who do plethora of research on the subject. A subset of those are corporate community sponsored thinktanks that work on specific goals set to them by the upper class who see it in their best interest to reproduce their own class without too much social turmoil (for this aspect within starcraft there is no comparison, as there is no cross class conflict).
We'll compare these people to people involved with the korean scene, and folks that play iccup. They have some sort of knowledge, both theoretical and practical, and something similar to peer review (forum discussion, etc).
You, agorist, are outside of this community. You're that flamer on gamefaqs that thinks that starcraft is about massing hydralisks and spamming clicks all over. You simply do not have the knowledge to make your argument.
|
Yeah, neither do those famous Austrian economists either. You're surely more qualified than Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, etc.
|
Austrian school of economics to modern economic understanding is what Aristotle's four elements is to modern chemistry.
You know, the point of a science is that it has to be based in reality and be testable and repeatable with a set of ideas that can be tested. Go to your local university and ask any economics professor about information economics and it's relation to the austrian school. Ask them about what the recent field of game theory has to say to free market economics. Go, google.
|
On December 20 2009 10:25 Culture wrote:
Austrian school of economics to modern economic understanding is what Aristotle's four elements is to modern chemistry.
You know, the point of a science is that it has to be based in reality and be testable and repeatable with a set of ideas that can be tested. Go to your local university and ask any economics professor about information economics and it's relation to the austrian school. Ask them about what the recent field of game theory has to say to free market economics. Go, google.
That's a terrible analogy. The Austrian school of economics as well as the Chicago school of economics is more like what Newtonian physics is to the larger field of physics today (namely, quantum/astro). It still explains largely what is visible in the big picture, but fails to explain the minutiae of individual transactions. When you are discussing a topic as macro as the usage of tax revenues, many of the principles of those schools of thought still apply.
Also, just because you are in graduate school does not give you the right to be a Grade A prick. In fact, you probably suffer from extreme bias based on what school you go to.
|
Also, just because you are in graduate school does not give you the right to be a Grade A prick. Actually, that's exactly what it does. That's why you go to grad school in the first place, so that when people start mouthing off about something they don't know about, you can break their nose with a karate chop, throw your diploma at their face and say "wipe yourself, off, you look disgusting".
|
On December 20 2009 10:25 Culture wrote:
Austrian school of economics to modern economic understanding is what Aristotle's four elements is to modern chemistry.
You know, the point of a science is that it has to be based in reality and be testable and repeatable with a set of ideas that can be tested. Go to your local university and ask any economics professor about information economics and it's relation to the austrian school. Ask them about what the recent field of game theory has to say to free market economics. Go, google.
I'm sorry buddy, Economic science is not at all a science that can be tested empirically. simply because human action is not easily reproducible and if you do test it -- people would act differently because they would know they are in a test -- the factors are just too ????????? ya feeel?.
There is no such thing as quantitative economics. "While it is appropriate in the natural sciences where factors can be isolated in laboratory conditions, the actions of human beings are too complex for this treatment! Instead one should isolate the logical processes of human action -- Praxeology" - some austrian
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
