On July 07 2010 08:58 Yurebis wrote: Car manufacturers got a ton of regulations and inspections to go through, and some are subsidized too Hardly a pure market phenomenon that cars are still expensive
Do you not want them to have regulations and inspections?
On July 07 2010 08:58 Yurebis wrote: Car manufacturers got a ton of regulations and inspections to go through, and some are subsidized too Hardly a pure market phenomenon that cars are still expensive
Do you not want them to have regulations and inspections?
On July 07 2010 07:22 Sputty wrote: I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in. That's why I'm mean to libertarians They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
Can you prove that socialism works? The last 30 years have marked the end of one socialist empire after another. Maybe if you actually read history you would learn about that.
The financial crisis was caused by your beloved Government. (Fannie May and Freddie Mac) This fact can only be seen by someone who questions the government and scrutinizes them.
The biggest polluter in the world is the US Government. But somehow this fact doesn't enter your head, it actually makes you trust the Government even more.
I choose to allow people to engage in freedom. The freedom to buy and sell whatever they want. You seem to think that the government can run everything because it's infallible, just because it was elected.
Let me tell you something that they never tell you in school: The government consists of people and thus have all the weaknesses as any human. Being elected does not make you an Infallible God.
Keynes isn't socialism per se but the belief that with a few mathematical provisions you can effectively prevent general market mistakes and promote greater production and consumption etc. etc. through a few monetary alterations
My problem with keynes is that it completely overlooks the broken window fallacy, for one... that's one pretty obvious criticism that every keynesian simply walks over by saying that government spending can be effectively equivalent to investment.
But building tanks isn't an investment imo, nor is war. Many things, if not all things that government does, can't be considered investment nor consumption, for it doesn't come out of the market, it's a completely reallocation of resources that would otherwise be spent in what can be called investment. Basically, investment is only investment in the eyes of the investor, and the government doesn't have it's own money to invest - it can only take money from others, at which point it's no more investment than a thief buying crack with the money from a stolen stereo. I haven't read a good answer for that yet.
You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable.
So you mean, the thief saves the money from the stereo to buy crack at a later time? I missed that bit of detail, but the point still stands.
The point doesn't still stand, the deal is that without this regulation of the economy it will spiral out of control which causes the extreme crashes we saw in the pre ww2 era. Everyone benefits from this, the reason recessions happens is because during a recession it is usually bad to invest since none else is so it will lose value, but someone/something got to turn the trend. This is where the government goes in, they do everyone a favor and starts investing a lot at a time when none else wants to and thus helps turning the negative trend into a positive one.
It would obviously be best if everyone just started to invest again by themselves, but that doesn't happen since everyone knows that they would be alone doing it and thus they would lose a lot on it themselves, which is why we need the state to tax some extra during the happy times so that they can help turn the bad times around.
It doesn't matter to keynesians what the government spends the money on at all, does it? The government could be building giant screws ala soviet union and it would come up as an aggregate investment in the GDP calculation. If it were to hire thousands of window-breakers and break everyone's window so there's an economic incentive to repair them, even the merrier! That's a great investment, is it not?
I'm saying that what you consider to be investment, can't be investment, because the money has been misappropriated from the start. Be it credit, printed money, or just plain old taxation, it's stolen property, and whatever is done with it aftewards is sub-par to what would have been done had the misallocation not happened in the first place.
Edit: plus the theory is just morally preposterous in an individual sense. I need to be forced into contributing to a fund that's going to invest into the market in a time when I would rather not? Who in their sane minds would do such a thing? It's basically just treating entrepreneurs and everyone in general like irrational animals.
You don't understand at all... Do you know why recessions exists? Because someone gets afraid, he withdraws his investments, shares drops in value due to supply-demand, others see a trend that the shares are dropping so they too withdraws. This leads to a downward spiral where people withdraws more and more and causes a crash.
How do you stop that downwards spiral? By investing! Why aren't people investing? Since they are afraid of losing their money! But someone got to invest at some point or the whole economy dies, after a while people will naturally start to invest again when the prices gets low enough, but then it is too late. However by intervening the government can make the whole process a lot swifter and thus make the depression a lot less severe.
It is impossible to get this effect without involving the government, and everyone benefits on this overall. Yes the government isn't as efficient in general as the private sector, but the private sector can't handle a national economic crisis. You can't expect anyone in the private sector to bank during good times and invest during bad times it would be suicide, which is why the public sector needs to force everyone to give a share during the good times and then invest it during the bad times since everyone benefits from it in the end.
I don't know for a fact why any recession happens, the market is a big place and there are millions of variables to account for. I find that the keynesian theory of the business cycle is an oversimplification for many reasons, the main one being the broken window fallacy that you aren't addressing. You already explained the rest, no need to repeat.
Also, if investors are fearful of investing in a recession, why do you feel entitled in forcing them to invest? It seems to me that the fearful and irrational one is not the investor, but the keynesians and governments who are fearful of letting people do what they want to do. You're the ones pushing and messing around so, I think the state is the one being irrational at any rate. Quite the projection, calling people dumb and susceptible to animal spirits when they're the ones stealing and deficit spending like they're responsible LOL.
On July 07 2010 08:58 Yurebis wrote: Car manufacturers got a ton of regulations and inspections to go through, and some are subsidized too Hardly a pure market phenomenon that cars are still expensive
Do you not want them to have regulations and inspections?
I want cheap cars that work for my ends. When the government mandates a certain means to be followed, not only does it wrongly assumes a certain end to everyone, but it also limits me on my prefered means. Even in the case that I did want a safer car, the specifics on what type of safety are hardly reconcilable between a bureaucrat and the manufacturer to meet this consumer's wants.
Which is why, to reach any voluntary end's, it is always preferable to do it without coercion or mandate.
On July 07 2010 07:22 Sputty wrote: I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in. That's why I'm mean to libertarians They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
Can you prove that socialism works? The last 30 years have marked the end of one socialist empire after another. Maybe if you actually read history you would learn about that.
The financial crisis was caused by your beloved Government. (Fannie May and Freddie Mac) This fact can only be seen by someone who questions the government and scrutinizes them.
The biggest polluter in the world is the US Government. But somehow this fact doesn't enter your head, it actually makes you trust the Government even more.
I choose to allow people to engage in freedom. The freedom to buy and sell whatever they want. You seem to think that the government can run everything because it's infallible, just because it was elected.
Let me tell you something that they never tell you in school: The government consists of people and thus have all the weaknesses as any human. Being elected does not make you an Infallible God.
Keynes isn't socialism per se but the belief that with a few mathematical provisions you can effectively prevent general market mistakes and promote greater production and consumption etc. etc. through a few monetary alterations
My problem with keynes is that it completely overlooks the broken window fallacy, for one... that's one pretty obvious criticism that every keynesian simply walks over by saying that government spending can be effectively equivalent to investment.
But building tanks isn't an investment imo, nor is war. Many things, if not all things that government does, can't be considered investment nor consumption, for it doesn't come out of the market, it's a completely reallocation of resources that would otherwise be spent in what can be called investment. Basically, investment is only investment in the eyes of the investor, and the government doesn't have it's own money to invest - it can only take money from others, at which point it's no more investment than a thief buying crack with the money from a stolen stereo. I haven't read a good answer for that yet.
You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable.
So you mean, the thief saves the money from the stereo to buy crack at a later time? I missed that bit of detail, but the point still stands.
The point doesn't still stand, the deal is that without this regulation of the economy it will spiral out of control which causes the extreme crashes we saw in the pre ww2 era. Everyone benefits from this, the reason recessions happens is because during a recession it is usually bad to invest since none else is so it will lose value, but someone/something got to turn the trend. This is where the government goes in, they do everyone a favor and starts investing a lot at a time when none else wants to and thus helps turning the negative trend into a positive one.
It would obviously be best if everyone just started to invest again by themselves, but that doesn't happen since everyone knows that they would be alone doing it and thus they would lose a lot on it themselves, which is why we need the state to tax some extra during the happy times so that they can help turn the bad times around.
It doesn't matter to keynesians what the government spends the money on at all, does it? The government could be building giant screws ala soviet union and it would come up as an aggregate investment in the GDP calculation. If it were to hire thousands of window-breakers and break everyone's window so there's an economic incentive to repair them, even the merrier! That's a great investment, is it not?
I'm saying that what you consider to be investment, can't be investment, because the money has been misappropriated from the start. Be it credit, printed money, or just plain old taxation, it's stolen property, and whatever is done with it aftewards is sub-par to what would have been done had the misallocation not happened in the first place.
Edit: plus the theory is just morally preposterous in an individual sense. I need to be forced into contributing to a fund that's going to invest into the market in a time when I would rather not? Who in their sane minds would do such a thing? It's basically just treating entrepreneurs and everyone in general like irrational animals.
You don't understand at all... Do you know why recessions exists? Because someone gets afraid, he withdraws his investments, shares drops in value due to supply-demand, others see a trend that the shares are dropping so they too withdraws. This leads to a downward spiral where people withdraws more and more and causes a crash.
How do you stop that downwards spiral? By investing! Why aren't people investing? Since they are afraid of losing their money! But someone got to invest at some point or the whole economy dies, after a while people will naturally start to invest again when the prices gets low enough, but then it is too late. However by intervening the government can make the whole process a lot swifter and thus make the depression a lot less severe.
It is impossible to get this effect without involving the government, and everyone benefits on this overall. Yes the government isn't as efficient in general as the private sector, but the private sector can't handle a national economic crisis. You can't expect anyone in the private sector to bank during good times and invest during bad times it would be suicide, which is why the public sector needs to force everyone to give a share during the good times and then invest it during the bad times since everyone benefits from it in the end.
I don't know for a fact why any recession happens, the market is a big place and there are millions of variables to account for. I find that the keynesian theory of the business cycle is an oversimplification for many reasons, the main one being the broken window fallacy that you aren't addressing. You already explained the rest, no need to repeat.
Also, if investers are fearful of investing in a recession, why do you feel entitled in forcing them to invest? It seems to me that the fearful and irrational one is not the investor, but the keynesians and governments who are fearful of letting people do what they want to do. You're the ones pushing and messing around so, I think the state is the one being irrational at any rate. Quite the projection, calling people dumb and susceptible to animal spirits when they're the ones stealing and deficit spending like they're responsible LOL.
Deficit spending is not Keynesianism, at least if you take it over time since it advocates saving up between the recessions. Why do they deficit spend? I think it is because in a democracy you need the support of the people and the people want you to overspend so they do it to stay in power, no economic theory wants you to deficit spend.
On July 07 2010 07:22 Sputty wrote: I made fun of Ron Paul supporters during the presidential primaries and still find it funny how many 'turned' into various shades of socialists and anarchists. I think a lot of them just aren't really convicted to anything but 'change' even if they don't know what they want in it and some have preconcieved notions of economic freedom and others have notions of equality neither are thought through any significant amount. It may be mean but after a while of slamming into libertarians that won't accept anything and just spout bullshit they don't understand all you can do is laugh at them.
Look at Mr. Common Sense over there, too stupid to understand what liberal education means, the difference between a modern political liberal and the institution of liberal education yet he's willing to state proudly he knows all. All you can do is laugh at these people and that's that. There is no debate, nothing to gain from discussion, stating all the examples of great economic 'freedom' that led to huge failures, like 19th century America in the Gilded Age and the wage slavery, local environmental destruction, disregard for personal liberties, etc. Current Keynesian policies make the economy ridiculously more resilient to collapse than the collapses of the past, that the current economic crisis could've been much worse and was brought on in the first place by deregulation in a single large economy. None of this will ever sink in. That's why I'm mean to libertarians They have no evidence to back up any of their claims, they lack any historical examples to say 'it worked here' all they do is shout about the boogeyman of communism and founding fathers and liberty
Can you prove that socialism works? The last 30 years have marked the end of one socialist empire after another. Maybe if you actually read history you would learn about that.
The financial crisis was caused by your beloved Government. (Fannie May and Freddie Mac) This fact can only be seen by someone who questions the government and scrutinizes them.
The biggest polluter in the world is the US Government. But somehow this fact doesn't enter your head, it actually makes you trust the Government even more.
I choose to allow people to engage in freedom. The freedom to buy and sell whatever they want. You seem to think that the government can run everything because it's infallible, just because it was elected.
Let me tell you something that they never tell you in school: The government consists of people and thus have all the weaknesses as any human. Being elected does not make you an Infallible God.
Keynes isn't socialism per se but the belief that with a few mathematical provisions you can effectively prevent general market mistakes and promote greater production and consumption etc. etc. through a few monetary alterations
My problem with keynes is that it completely overlooks the broken window fallacy, for one... that's one pretty obvious criticism that every keynesian simply walks over by saying that government spending can be effectively equivalent to investment.
But building tanks isn't an investment imo, nor is war. Many things, if not all things that government does, can't be considered investment nor consumption, for it doesn't come out of the market, it's a completely reallocation of resources that would otherwise be spent in what can be called investment. Basically, investment is only investment in the eyes of the investor, and the government doesn't have it's own money to invest - it can only take money from others, at which point it's no more investment than a thief buying crack with the money from a stolen stereo. I haven't read a good answer for that yet.
You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about, I knew more about it when I was 10 than you do now! The deal is that the government goes with a surplus when the economy booms and saves up, then when the economy recedes the state starts spending extra. You don't relocate the resources between instances but between time periods. Only a government can do that and it is sorely needed for the economy to stay relatively stable.
So you mean, the thief saves the money from the stereo to buy crack at a later time? I missed that bit of detail, but the point still stands.
The point doesn't still stand, the deal is that without this regulation of the economy it will spiral out of control which causes the extreme crashes we saw in the pre ww2 era. Everyone benefits from this, the reason recessions happens is because during a recession it is usually bad to invest since none else is so it will lose value, but someone/something got to turn the trend. This is where the government goes in, they do everyone a favor and starts investing a lot at a time when none else wants to and thus helps turning the negative trend into a positive one.
It would obviously be best if everyone just started to invest again by themselves, but that doesn't happen since everyone knows that they would be alone doing it and thus they would lose a lot on it themselves, which is why we need the state to tax some extra during the happy times so that they can help turn the bad times around.
It doesn't matter to keynesians what the government spends the money on at all, does it? The government could be building giant screws ala soviet union and it would come up as an aggregate investment in the GDP calculation. If it were to hire thousands of window-breakers and break everyone's window so there's an economic incentive to repair them, even the merrier! That's a great investment, is it not?
I'm saying that what you consider to be investment, can't be investment, because the money has been misappropriated from the start. Be it credit, printed money, or just plain old taxation, it's stolen property, and whatever is done with it aftewards is sub-par to what would have been done had the misallocation not happened in the first place.
Edit: plus the theory is just morally preposterous in an individual sense. I need to be forced into contributing to a fund that's going to invest into the market in a time when I would rather not? Who in their sane minds would do such a thing? It's basically just treating entrepreneurs and everyone in general like irrational animals.
You don't understand at all... Do you know why recessions exists? Because someone gets afraid, he withdraws his investments, shares drops in value due to supply-demand, others see a trend that the shares are dropping so they too withdraws. This leads to a downward spiral where people withdraws more and more and causes a crash.
How do you stop that downwards spiral? By investing! Why aren't people investing? Since they are afraid of losing their money! But someone got to invest at some point or the whole economy dies, after a while people will naturally start to invest again when the prices gets low enough, but then it is too late. However by intervening the government can make the whole process a lot swifter and thus make the depression a lot less severe.
It is impossible to get this effect without involving the government, and everyone benefits on this overall. Yes the government isn't as efficient in general as the private sector, but the private sector can't handle a national economic crisis. You can't expect anyone in the private sector to bank during good times and invest during bad times it would be suicide, which is why the public sector needs to force everyone to give a share during the good times and then invest it during the bad times since everyone benefits from it in the end.
I don't know for a fact why any recession happens, the market is a big place and there are millions of variables to account for. I find that the keynesian theory of the business cycle is an oversimplification for many reasons, the main one being the broken window fallacy that you aren't addressing. You already explained the rest, no need to repeat.
Also, if investers are fearful of investing in a recession, why do you feel entitled in forcing them to invest? It seems to me that the fearful and irrational one is not the investor, but the keynesians and governments who are fearful of letting people do what they want to do. You're the ones pushing and messing around so, I think the state is the one being irrational at any rate. Quite the projection, calling people dumb and susceptible to animal spirits when they're the ones stealing and deficit spending like they're responsible LOL.
Deficit spending is not Keynesianism. Why do they deficit spend? I think it is because in a democracy you need the support of the people and the people want you to overspend so they do it to stay in power, no economic theory wants you to deficit spend.
On July 07 2010 03:16 Fwmeh wrote: It would seem to me that this thread has evolved into (yet another) economics thread, which is somehow sad. Economics, just like most social sciences, is severely lacking in its predicting capabilities, and most large-scale tastings would likely be very unpleasant for those involved. Frankly, the usefulness of most models is simply too hard to evaluate.
Therefore, one should be careful when claiming a society need to be a certain way for economic reasons. In most cases, the data supporting such a claim is insufficient, at least from a natural scientific point of view.
Austrian Economics agrees with you. The future can't be evaluated because the ends and means of every individual changes constantly
With that in mind, I think that man (or its representative, the government) should aim to control "the market" as far as is feasible, while still allowing it to function. What it Europe might be called a mixed economy. I do personally not hold any sympathy for the idea that "the market" is what is determine mans deserts.
A centralized, controlled economy simply DOES NOT WORK. The soviet union taught us that. The more control the government tries to implement, the worse the economy does.
[...] if a market is "too free", it doesn't get as powerful and is much more instable in many situations.
like?
Cite an example of a free market that worked properly.
Free Market is an utopia, just like anarchy which you like so much. It makes the claim that everyone will do everything correctly. Unfortunately, shit happens if you just let people do their things.
But then again you don't have the slightest clue about how people would behave in a free market and you make some more assumptions... It's pretty weird that you don't even show any doubt whatsoever, given that you make SO MANY assumptions.
I don't believe in no government, and the free market system isn't perfect, but it's done a helluva lot better than communism. People aren't perfect, so any system will not be perfect. But it's an historical fact that governments that try to control their economies cause WAY more harm than good and the more power a government has, the more corrupt it becomes.
You can't just say "it's an historical fact" and then say something that's not always true.
Why does everyone cling so tightly to their ideals? I feel that it undermines reality. communists defending communism that isn't communism. capitalists defending broken capitalist models. members of constitutional republics defending democracy. Keynesian Economics, like it matters.
"No Economic theory wants you to deficit spend" well then why is it happening? Why do the scholars defend their broken model while everything collapses? It's like doing an experiment on your hypothesis and finding contrary results and then proceeding forwards as if the results were the opposite.
To me this is the issue we should all be uniting on. Why stand behind -anything- that works in theory but will never be applied properly. This includes almost any state or form of power. The second it isn't working as intended, take it back.(or atleast get your paw outta the jar) My 2cents and yeeeee flame away.
edit: didn't realize i deleted the line that said "understand that when i say broken, i don't mean in theory but in application" as such the post below this one is clearly not talking to me. :D
Keynesian theory isn't "broken". Even Keynes knew that deficit spending worked in the short-run and had consequences in the long-run (which didn't matter to him since "we're all dead").
People really shouldn't criticize things they don't understand, not that Keynes should be immune to criticism (far from it)
On July 07 2010 09:36 Motiva wrote: Why does everyone cling so tightly to their ideals? I feel that it undermines reality. communists defending communism that isn't communism. capitalists defending broken capitalist models. members of constitutional republics defending democracy. Keynesian Economics, like it matters.
"No Economic theory wants you to deficit spend" well then why is it happening? Why do the scholars defend their broken model while everything collapses? It's like doing an experiment on your hypothesis and finding contrary results and then proceeding forwards as if the results were the opposite.
To me this is the issue we should all be uniting on. Why stand behind -anything- that works in theory but will never be applied properly. This includes almost any state or form of power. The second it isn't working as intended, take it back.(or atleast get your paw outta the jar) My 2cents and yeeeee flame away.
You do have a point.
I'd say it's praxeologically preferable to cling onto a belief than none at all for those with the ends of "fixing" things.
Those who don't cling onto any belief would have nothing to say and therefore exclude themselves from debate.
It's sad that an argument has to take place period, for I'd rather prefer if people minded their own businesses, and not try to claim control over other's properties saying it's "necessary". Especially those who don't even realize they're infringing self-ownership in a political debate. Very sad.
On July 07 2010 09:36 Motiva wrote: Why does everyone cling so tightly to their ideals? I feel that it undermines reality. communists defending communism that isn't communism. capitalists defending broken capitalist models. members of constitutional republics defending democracy. Keynesian Economics, like it matters.
"No Economic theory wants you to deficit spend" well then why is it happening? Why do the scholars defend their broken model while everything collapses? It's like doing an experiment on your hypothesis and finding contrary results and then proceeding forwards as if the results were the opposite.
To me this is the issue we should all be uniting on. Why stand behind -anything- that works in theory but will never be applied properly. This includes almost any state or form of power. The second it isn't working as intended, take it back.(or atleast get your paw outta the jar) My 2cents and yeeeee flame away.
You do have a point.
I'd say it's praxeologically preferable to cling onto a belief than none at all for those with the ends of "fixing" things.
Those who don't cling onto any belief would have nothing to say and therefore exclude themselves from debate.
It's sad that an argument has to take place period, for I'd rather prefer if people minded their own businesses, and not try to claim control over other's properties saying it's "necessary". Especially those who don't even realize they're infringing self-ownership in a political debate. Very sad.
I wouldn't agree that if you don't cling to any belief that you have nothing to say. Keyword being cling. What I mean is that it is very well possible to understand several contradictory ideals and have extremely wise input into any debate. However, real issue i have here would be that people aren't willing to listen to people who don't agree with them. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm becoming very interested in praxeology lately, however, I feel that the mention above is a fairly narrow application, Couldn't it be argued that the opposite could be true as well. That is would be most "self maximizing" to understand as many angles as possible and provide the most relevant advice possible, As opposed to just recycling rhetoric. This is a matter of social phenomena though. Though I have little education on the finer workings of praxeology, so curious what you think. Cause this shit is frustrating. Bunch of headless pundits chasing headless chickens.
On July 07 2010 09:36 Motiva wrote: Why does everyone cling so tightly to their ideals? I feel that it undermines reality. communists defending communism that isn't communism. capitalists defending broken capitalist models. members of constitutional republics defending democracy. Keynesian Economics, like it matters.
"No Economic theory wants you to deficit spend" well then why is it happening? Why do the scholars defend their broken model while everything collapses? It's like doing an experiment on your hypothesis and finding contrary results and then proceeding forwards as if the results were the opposite.
To me this is the issue we should all be uniting on. Why stand behind -anything- that works in theory but will never be applied properly. This includes almost any state or form of power. The second it isn't working as intended, take it back.(or atleast get your paw outta the jar) My 2cents and yeeeee flame away.
You do have a point.
I'd say it's praxeologically preferable to cling onto a belief than none at all for those with the ends of "fixing" things.
Those who don't cling onto any belief would have nothing to say and therefore exclude themselves from debate.
It's sad that an argument has to take place period, for I'd rather prefer if people minded their own businesses, and not try to claim control over other's properties saying it's "necessary". Especially those who don't even realize they're infringing self-ownership in a political debate. Very sad.
I wouldn't agree that if you don't cling to any belief that you have nothing to say. Keyword being cling. What I mean is that it is very well possible to understand several contradictory ideals and have extremely wise input into any debate. However, real issue i have here would be that people aren't willing to listen to people who don't agree with them. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Ah touché. But even then, your goal could be seen to criticize everything, at least by others. You at least have to have something you agree with, in order to support a certain course of action.
On July 07 2010 09:36 Motiva wrote: Why does everyone cling so tightly to their ideals? I feel that it undermines reality. communists defending communism that isn't communism. capitalists defending broken capitalist models. members of constitutional republics defending democracy. Keynesian Economics, like it matters.
"No Economic theory wants you to deficit spend" well then why is it happening? Why do the scholars defend their broken model while everything collapses? It's like doing an experiment on your hypothesis and finding contrary results and then proceeding forwards as if the results were the opposite.
To me this is the issue we should all be uniting on. Why stand behind -anything- that works in theory but will never be applied properly. This includes almost any state or form of power. The second it isn't working as intended, take it back.(or atleast get your paw outta the jar) My 2cents and yeeeee flame away.
You do have a point.
I'd say it's praxeologically preferable to cling onto a belief than none at all for those with the ends of "fixing" things.
Those who don't cling onto any belief would have nothing to say and therefore exclude themselves from debate.
It's sad that an argument has to take place period, for I'd rather prefer if people minded their own businesses, and not try to claim control over other's properties saying it's "necessary". Especially those who don't even realize they're infringing self-ownership in a political debate. Very sad.
I'm becoming very interested in praxeology lately, however, I feel that the mention above is a fairly narrow application, Couldn't it be argued that the opposite could be true as well. That is would be most "self maximizing" to understand as many angles as possible and provide the most relevant advice possible, As opposed to just recycling rhetoric. This is a matter of social phenomena though. Though I have little education on the finer workings of praxeology, so curious what you think. Cause this shit is frustrating. Bunch of headless pundits chasing headless chickens.
It is important to know as many angles as possible insofar to adopt one and follow that one, and for the matters of discourse so you can criticize them.
On July 05 2010 19:30 endy wrote: Average IQ of youtube comments posters is barely above my grandmother's APM.
Edit : Sorry for making such a short reply, you probably expected a more developed answer, but I think there is nothing else to say. I prefer to have politics debates with my colleagues / friends than with some random fucktards on youtube.
But it's a great idea to start the debate here since I TL community is smart and good at arguing.
I lol'd at that one, everyone should go look at the G20 thread and see how much people got shit on for even suggesting the police weren't acting out of line in SOME cases. Even with reasonable explanations.
Yea I agree completely, and posted in that thread, and wish it took off more
I only bring this up because it is such a fine line between alienating yourself among your peers, and truly understanding enough of the multitude of angles to then proceed to debate among your peers to aim to execute the most efficient means. Obviously the big issues here are bias and apathy because preaching a different sermon to the choir can be quite difficult.
People tend to prefer any short term pleasure over any long term medicine. Furthmore the media and this clinging are really stagnating any true debate. I suppose in short, you could just say that I'm arguing that a combination of false-self-maximizing and stagnant feedback mechanisms to the public are causing the failure in the application of these models.
Furthermore I think this is the most important aspect and should be at the forefront simply because of the mixed nature of the US Economy, and even further, the mixed nature of the global economy.
On July 07 2010 09:41 jalstar wrote: People really shouldn't criticize things they don't understand
How is this a valid argument?
There's an all-too-common misconception that Keynesian deficit spending is supposed to be some magic cure-all, when really it's more equivalent to taking morphine to stop the pain. Actually, a better analogy would be chemotherapy.
On July 07 2010 09:41 jalstar wrote: People really shouldn't criticize things they don't understand
How is this a valid argument?
There's an all-too-common misconception that Keynesian deficit spending is supposed to be some magic cure-all, when really it's more equivalent to taking morphine to stop the pain. Actually, a better analogy would be chemotherapy.
I was addressing your comment that People shouldn't criticize things they don't understand, I think that is marginally if not strictly false. But I do agree with what you say about Keynesian Economics.
On July 07 2010 09:41 jalstar wrote: People really shouldn't criticize things they don't understand
How is this a valid argument?
There's an all-too-common misconception that Keynesian deficit spending is supposed to be some magic cure-all, when really it's more equivalent to taking morphine to stop the pain. Actually, a better analogy would be chemotherapy.
Too bad the patient is worried that the cancer would be coming back so he continues taking the chemotherapy just to be safe!
On July 07 2010 10:09 Motiva wrote: Yea I agree completely, and posted in that thread, and wish it took off more
I only bring this up because it is such a fine line between alienating yourself among your peers, and truly understanding enough of the multitude of angles to then proceed to debate among your peers to aim to execute the most efficient means. Obviously the big issues here are bias and apathy because preaching a different sermon to the choir can be quite difficult.
People tend to prefer any short term pleasure over any long term medicine. Furthmore the media and this clinging are really stagnating any true debate. I suppose in short, you could just say that I'm arguing that a combination of false-self-maximizing and stagnant feedback mechanisms to the public are causing the failure in the application of these models.
Furthermore I think this is the most important aspect and should be at the forefront simply because of the mixed nature of the US Economy, and even further, the mixed nature of the global economy.
Oh ok I missed your posts there.
I think I've said this before but the main problem of a political argument is the vague determination of property. When you have two parties: 1-claiming control over a common resource 2- differing in opinion on the use of the resource, that debate won't ever stop until either party concedes #1 to the other one. #2 doesn't even matter but that's what people argue about 99% of the time. "We should do this, we should do that, blablabla".
When you mix in government property and how the 'democratic' system is set up (everyone has an equal say, now try to settle some issues with your 300 million peers, glhf LOL), it just makes it much worse.
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/USDebt.png/514px-USDebt.png)
2728
2081
519
EPT
