On February 01 2010 18:42 QibingZero wrote: Economics is a very, very soft science. It's certainly nothing like engineering or biology, and it's quite disingenuous of you to infer otherwise. Any moderately well-read person is capable of understanding the subject well enough to discuss the real world implications of economic policy. Perhaps instead of lecturing people on their perceived faults, you could be adding something to the conversation?
I'm sorry but I don't think you're right. How do you define 'any moderately well-read person'? Journalists and popular writers continue to get basic economics wrong. This thread is a case in point. There isn't a basic understanding of high school concepts let alone anything relevant to discussing policy.
Why do you have this idea that 'economics is a soft science' so reading the newspaper and some magazines qualifies you to be an expert? It's mind blowing.
'Lecture': An exposition of a given subject delivered before an audience or a class, as for the purpose of instruction. The OP is lecturing. I am not. But he does not understand his subject and therefore really isn't in a position to give instruction. I am merely pointing that out.
My addition to the conversation is simple and not really so unreasonable either. If you're interested in economics, do some reading. Pick up a popular economics book to start. I recommend Undercover Economist by Tim Harford, an editor of the Financial Times. Then have a look at some basic undergraduate texts and see how you go from there.
What's mind blowing is that you think you're smart enough to call other people stupid. HF with your undergrad courses. I'm sure they make you feel super special.
ur st00pidz lolololos u cantz giev instructionz Ok I swear this was the last meaningless post.
It really isn't. He replied to a pure argument from authority with no content by telling him that he isn't an authority.
On January 31 2010 01:22 ParasitJonte wrote: "You're right. Calling somebody a whore, is not in the least misogynistic."
No, it's not. Read the definition... Would you also portray me as misandrist if I call George Bush a whore?
""Naomi Klein is a liar" in particular is a video that purports to hate Klein's 'smear' campaign while doing exactly the same thing itself."
Yes, I don't like videos like that either but it makes the simple point that she is a liar. Why? Not because her statements are in conflict, but because that video has been thoroughly prepared and reviewed before going into production. And Friedman never said the military should be privitized.
"Here is Friedman during the war ..."
Notice that it doesn't say anywhere that he actually supports the war. Read the questions and the answers.
"So, his two main points. First he says she quoted Friedman out of context, "real change comes after a crisis". He follows up by saying "If you look at the real quote"... then doesn't say anything about the quote at all. Whoops."
Well, I own the book so I know the quote; not memorized though. Anyways, the way Klein presents it in her video and at her speeches is disingenuous to say the least. You can probably find the real quote on amazon by previewing the book if you're interested.
"In my eyes, lying factually about, and distorting the message of, a talented reporter is disgusting."
She is not a talented reporter. She is an anti-capitalist lying piece of scum. That aside, it just so happens that you can find ALL her smeartalking and distortions in her book and on youtube. She doesn't even try to hide it.
Would you please explain why she talks about Milton Friedman while showing those kinds of pictures and then continuing with that narrator thingy taken from some CIA book perhaps? She paints a very false picture and she is not an honest person.
If you truly believe that Johan Norberg is the one that cannot be trusted here then you will have to find yourself on the far left edge of society with very few supporters. That doesn't mean that you are wrong of course; but I'm trying to put things in context here a bit.
Her underlying claim throughout the entire book is that free market libertarians somehow need or support military dictatorships. It's a work of fiction; and not a very good one.
I really can't believe you're still trying to defend your "Naomi Klein is a whore" statement.
You presented the videos as a king hit by a apparently well respected analyist. I showed them to be full of crap and the best you can come up with in response is a bit of vague handwaving about how you have the actual quote and how Friedman doesn't specifically say "I support the war in Iraq".
Then you launch back into your hatred and unsubstantiated personal opinions. Good one.
Forgot about this thread. Perhaps a mistake to bring it back up, but I guess I should at least try to defend myself.
No, you did not show that they were full of crap. And, yes, I will have to reiterate that Friedman, obviously, never explicitly said that he was in support of the war. It doesn't even sound like that in the interview. But if you want it to sound like that, then that is how you will read it.
Look, I have hatred against Klein (and that's why I just go ad hominem at her instead of really giving serious critique to her statements - because that would just be a waste of time) because she's not a fair player.
I'll give you just a single example. Like I said, there are tons of examples. This is an unedited video of one of Klein's talks. Just go to ~4:30 and listen to the end. Listen to the way she tries to portray Friedman at the very end. Now, what I take offense to is not the fact that Klein has a different opinion on politics & economy. Debating is great. But just listen to how she paints the picture of this brutal, inconsiderate man who would rush at any disaster as an opportunity to spread his ideas (and fuck the people). In her words: "this is how he spent his last energy, was thinking about how to take advantage of the people of New Orleans in their weakest moment..."
Actually, I'll give you the single best example of how "talented" Naomi Klein is. And what she bases her "serious" and "well-researched" theories on. Again, this is an unedited video. Just jump to 1:52 (or watch it all if you want to) and just listen.
Now, as funny as it may seem, this is actually Klein's coup de grace against Friedman and his companions. Now, let's put the actualy quote into context. Here's the part of the 1982 preface of Capitalism and Freedom from which the quote is taken:
[Note: Prior to the text below Friedman talks about how the climate has changed (regarding peoples interest in libertarian ideas) since he first released his book in the 1960s and now (that is 1982).]
START The change in the climate of opinion was produced by experience, not by theory or philosophy. Russia and China, once the great hopes of the intellectual classes, had clearly gone sour. Great Britian, whose Fabian socialism exercised a dominant influence on American intellectuals, was in deep trouble. Closer to home, the intellectuals, always devotees of big government and by wide majorities supporters of the na- tional Democratic party, had been disillusioned by the Vietnam War, particularly the role played by Presidents Ken- nedy and Johnson. Many of the great reform programs--such guidons of the past as welfare, public housing, support of trade unions, integration of schools, federal aid to education, affirmative action--were turning to ashes. As with the rest of the population, their pocketbooks were being hit with infla- tion and high taxes. These phenomena, not the persuasive- ness of the ideas expressed in books dealing with principles, explain the transition from the overwhelming defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964 to the overwhelming victory of Ronald Reagan in 1980--two men with essentially the same program and the same message.
What then is the role of books such as this? Twofold, in my opinion. First, to provide subject matter for bull sessions. As we wrote in the Preface to Free to Choose: "The only person who can truly persuade you is yourself. You must turn the issues over in your mind at leisure, consider the many argu- ments, let them simmer, and after a long time turn your pref- erences into convictions."
Second, and more basic, to keep options open until circum- stances make change necessary. There is enormous inertia--a tyranny of the status quo--in private and especially gov- ernmental arrangements. Only a crisis--actual or perceived--produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and avail- able until the politically impossible becomes politically in- evitable.
A personal story will perhaps make my point. Sometime in the late 1960s I engaged in a debate at the University of Wisconsin with Leon Keyserling, an unreconstructed collec- tivist. His clinching blow, as he thought, was to make fun of my views as utterly reactionary, and he chose to do so by reading, from the end of chapter 2 of this book, the list of items that, I said, "cannot, so far as I can see, validly be justified in terms of the principles outlined above." He was doing very well with the audience of students as he went through my castigation of price supports, tariffs, and so on, until he came to point 11, "Conscription to man the military services in peacetime." That expression of my opposition to the draft brought ardent applause and lost him the audience and the debate.
Incidentally, the draft is the only item on my list of four- teen unjustified government activities that has so far been eliminated--and that victory is by no means final. In respect of many of the other items, we have moved still farther away from the principles espoused in this book--which is, on one hand, a reason why the climate of opinion has changed and, on the other, evidence that that change has so far had little practical effect. Evidence also that the fundamental thrust of this book is as pertinent to 1981 as to 1962, even though some examples and details may be outdated. END
Now compare this to what Johan Norberg said (it's at the beginning):
Now, which version do you think better maps to reality now that you have had the opportunity to read the relevant part of the 1982 preface?
Actually, now that you got me started I have to post a final example. Again, here's a video from onf of Klein's enlightening talks:
List to what she says. Listen to how she makes it seem as if Friedman was somehow involved in what happened in Chile and has since then tried to erase it. Now, let's listen to what Friedman himself says regarding his involvement in Chile (jump to ~8:48):
The second part is here:
Edit: Also not how the people in the video with Friedman show how you perform a real, fair and honest debate even though you have separating views.
Now, the way I see it, what's currently taught in economics and finance classes in America is this concept of globalization, free market, capitalism, and less taxes/regulation = increased economic prosperity.
The OP obviously hasn't done an economics or finance degree.
At least in my experience of doing such subjects these concepts were neither good or bad. It had a lot more to do with how people used it, just like everything.
EPT
