|
On January 24 2012 09:04 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:57 kwizach wrote:On January 24 2012 08:52 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:47 kwizach wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal. You don't. At all. Good try troll. I'm not trolling. By your own admission, the only academic exposure you've had to economics is "one course you took some time ago". All your posts are based on dismissing empirical and historical evidence and pushing forward supposedly "common-sense" arguments that would get you laughed out of Economics 101. Eh. Your wrong about everything. First I never said I only had taken a microeconomic course. I said I have taken a microeconomic course. But education is completely irrelevant. You dont learn to understand economics by being able to do math equations, and you dont proof anything by empirical results. You can only find historical correlations between 2 factors where you most likely has a lot of assumptions included. This isn't evidence.
Actually, you do learn to understand economics by learning equations. Economics is the study of the production and distribution of wealth, and most of these relationships can only be demonstrated through equations.
Economics is not something you "feel" or just instinctively know, it is a social science based upon laws, research, scientific methodology, and empirical evidence. If you have ever read an economic paper, you would notice that the arguments are always based off of both data sets and equations.
|
On January 24 2012 09:04 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:57 kwizach wrote:On January 24 2012 08:52 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:47 kwizach wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal. You don't. At all. Good try troll. I'm not trolling. By your own admission, the only academic exposure you've had to economics is "one course you took some time ago". All your posts are based on dismissing empirical and historical evidence and pushing forward supposedly "common-sense" arguments that would get you laughed out of Economics 101. Eh. Your wrong about everything. First I never said I only had taken a microeconomic course. I said I have taken a microeconomic course. But education is completely irrelevant. You dont learn to understand economics by being able to do math equations, and you dont proof anything by empirical results. You can only find historical correlations between 2 factors where you most likely has a lot of assumptions included. This isn't evidence.
So how exactly do you learn economics? Also I'm pretty sure most higher economics educations is about more than simply learning math equations.
|
On January 24 2012 09:13 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 09:04 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:57 kwizach wrote:On January 24 2012 08:52 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:47 kwizach wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal. You don't. At all. Good try troll. I'm not trolling. By your own admission, the only academic exposure you've had to economics is "one course you took some time ago". All your posts are based on dismissing empirical and historical evidence and pushing forward supposedly "common-sense" arguments that would get you laughed out of Economics 101. Eh. Your wrong about everything. First I never said I only had taken a microeconomic course. I said I have taken a microeconomic course. But education is completely irrelevant. You dont learn to understand economics by being able to do math equations, and you dont proof anything by empirical results. You can only find historical correlations between 2 factors where you most likely has a lot of assumptions included. This isn't evidence. You're a poster child for the importance of education. Any economic textbook, or even economic history textbook, would suffice to destroy the mountain of assumptions and pseudo-common-sense fallacies every post of yours is based on.
What assumptions?
|
I GO SKIING FOR 4 DAYS AND THIS THREAD IS STILL THE SAME ARGUMENT WITH HIDER.
this can't actually be happening. Just make an economics thread for fuck's sake.
|
On January 24 2012 09:16 GreenManalishi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 09:04 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:57 kwizach wrote:On January 24 2012 08:52 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:47 kwizach wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal. You don't. At all. Good try troll. I'm not trolling. By your own admission, the only academic exposure you've had to economics is "one course you took some time ago". All your posts are based on dismissing empirical and historical evidence and pushing forward supposedly "common-sense" arguments that would get you laughed out of Economics 101. Eh. Your wrong about everything. First I never said I only had taken a microeconomic course. I said I have taken a microeconomic course. But education is completely irrelevant. You dont learn to understand economics by being able to do math equations, and you dont proof anything by empirical results. You can only find historical correlations between 2 factors where you most likely has a lot of assumptions included. This isn't evidence. Actually, you do learn to understand economics by learning equations. Economics is the study of the production and distribution of wealth, and most of these relationships can only be demonstrated through equations. Economics is not something you "feel" or just instinctively know, it is a social science based upon laws, research, scientific methodology, and empirical evidence. If you have ever read an economic paper, you would notice that the arguments are always based off of both data sets and equations.
Interpreting graphs isn't = understanding economics. It shows you the correlation between 2 variables. Sure its a good skill to have, but your not getting any proof by doing this. Equations in it self = math skill not an economical skill.
Problem with equations is that they are based on a lot of unrealitic assumptions about human nature, and hence their results become useless if you want ot proove anything from them.
Wiki definiton of economics: Economics is the social science that analyzes the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.
There is nothing in that definition that implies oyu need to use graphs or equations to proof anything. Obv understanding economy according to me = understanding how wealth is created. And if you read my prev. post I have used a lot of time trying to explain how wealth is created and how it is destroyed (hi government).
|
On January 24 2012 09:32 darthfoley wrote:
I GO SKIING FOR 4 DAYS AND THIS THREAD IS STILL THE SAME ARGUMENT WITH HIDER.
this can't actually be happening. Just make an economics thread for fuck's sake.
hehe sorry. I wanted to move on, but then some guy decided to make a new post regarding old post. I should be better disciplined than that.
|
On January 24 2012 09:25 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 09:04 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:57 kwizach wrote:On January 24 2012 08:52 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:47 kwizach wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal. You don't. At all. Good try troll. I'm not trolling. By your own admission, the only academic exposure you've had to economics is "one course you took some time ago". All your posts are based on dismissing empirical and historical evidence and pushing forward supposedly "common-sense" arguments that would get you laughed out of Economics 101. Eh. Your wrong about everything. First I never said I only had taken a microeconomic course. I said I have taken a microeconomic course. But education is completely irrelevant. You dont learn to understand economics by being able to do math equations, and you dont proof anything by empirical results. You can only find historical correlations between 2 factors where you most likely has a lot of assumptions included. This isn't evidence. So how exactly do you learn economics? Also I'm pretty sure most higher economics educations is about more than simply learning math equations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology
You can try and read this book btw if you have lot of time:
http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp
|
On January 24 2012 09:25 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 09:04 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:57 kwizach wrote:On January 24 2012 08:52 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:47 kwizach wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal. You don't. At all. Good try troll. I'm not trolling. By your own admission, the only academic exposure you've had to economics is "one course you took some time ago". All your posts are based on dismissing empirical and historical evidence and pushing forward supposedly "common-sense" arguments that would get you laughed out of Economics 101. Eh. Your wrong about everything. First I never said I only had taken a microeconomic course. I said I have taken a microeconomic course. But education is completely irrelevant. You dont learn to understand economics by being able to do math equations, and you dont proof anything by empirical results. You can only find historical correlations between 2 factors where you most likely has a lot of assumptions included. This isn't evidence. So how exactly do you learn economics? Also I'm pretty sure most higher economics educations is about more than simply learning math equations.
Well, duh.
Anyway, Newt Gingrich seems like the best to me, he has the chops of a wise old dog. Although I sometimes wonder if he would have been more successful in politics if his name wasn't "Newt".
|
On January 24 2012 09:38 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 09:25 nihlon wrote:On January 24 2012 09:04 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:57 kwizach wrote:On January 24 2012 08:52 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:47 kwizach wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal. You don't. At all. Good try troll. I'm not trolling. By your own admission, the only academic exposure you've had to economics is "one course you took some time ago". All your posts are based on dismissing empirical and historical evidence and pushing forward supposedly "common-sense" arguments that would get you laughed out of Economics 101. Eh. Your wrong about everything. First I never said I only had taken a microeconomic course. I said I have taken a microeconomic course. But education is completely irrelevant. You dont learn to understand economics by being able to do math equations, and you dont proof anything by empirical results. You can only find historical correlations between 2 factors where you most likely has a lot of assumptions included. This isn't evidence. So how exactly do you learn economics? Also I'm pretty sure most higher economics educations is about more than simply learning math equations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PraxeologyYou can try and read this book btw if you have lot of time: http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp
This is an amazingly low-quality wikipedia page (not that it's typically a good idea to link to good ones for your arguments). Extremely little is cited, and they somehow do not have a section on critiques, of which there are many. Why would you link to something so awful (to say nothing of the Ludwig von Mises institute)?
|
On January 24 2012 09:55 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 09:38 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 09:25 nihlon wrote:On January 24 2012 09:04 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:57 kwizach wrote:On January 24 2012 08:52 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:47 kwizach wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal. You don't. At all. Good try troll. I'm not trolling. By your own admission, the only academic exposure you've had to economics is "one course you took some time ago". All your posts are based on dismissing empirical and historical evidence and pushing forward supposedly "common-sense" arguments that would get you laughed out of Economics 101. Eh. Your wrong about everything. First I never said I only had taken a microeconomic course. I said I have taken a microeconomic course. But education is completely irrelevant. You dont learn to understand economics by being able to do math equations, and you dont proof anything by empirical results. You can only find historical correlations between 2 factors where you most likely has a lot of assumptions included. This isn't evidence. So how exactly do you learn economics? Also I'm pretty sure most higher economics educations is about more than simply learning math equations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PraxeologyYou can try and read this book btw if you have lot of time: http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp This is an amazingly low-quality wikipedia page (not that it's typically a good idea to link to good ones for your arguments). Extremely little is cited, and they somehow do not have a section on critiques, of which there are many. Why would you link to something so awful (to say nothing of the Ludwig von Mises institute)?
Because puzzlingly, for many, Mises saying x is a truthmaker for x. I have yet to figure out why.
|
On January 24 2012 09:55 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 09:38 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 09:25 nihlon wrote:On January 24 2012 09:04 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:57 kwizach wrote:On January 24 2012 08:52 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:47 kwizach wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal. You don't. At all. Good try troll. I'm not trolling. By your own admission, the only academic exposure you've had to economics is "one course you took some time ago". All your posts are based on dismissing empirical and historical evidence and pushing forward supposedly "common-sense" arguments that would get you laughed out of Economics 101. Eh. Your wrong about everything. First I never said I only had taken a microeconomic course. I said I have taken a microeconomic course. But education is completely irrelevant. You dont learn to understand economics by being able to do math equations, and you dont proof anything by empirical results. You can only find historical correlations between 2 factors where you most likely has a lot of assumptions included. This isn't evidence. So how exactly do you learn economics? Also I'm pretty sure most higher economics educations is about more than simply learning math equations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PraxeologyYou can try and read this book btw if you have lot of time: http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp This is an amazingly low-quality wikipedia page (not that it's typically a good idea to link to good ones for your arguments). Extremely little is cited, and they somehow do not have a section on critiques, of which there are many. Why would you link to something so awful (to say nothing of the Ludwig von Mises institute)?
I agree its not very good. I just found a quick link. Sure there are lots of better links out there.
|
On January 24 2012 09:48 Chunhyang wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 09:25 nihlon wrote:On January 24 2012 09:04 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:57 kwizach wrote:On January 24 2012 08:52 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:47 kwizach wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal. You don't. At all. Good try troll. I'm not trolling. By your own admission, the only academic exposure you've had to economics is "one course you took some time ago". All your posts are based on dismissing empirical and historical evidence and pushing forward supposedly "common-sense" arguments that would get you laughed out of Economics 101. Eh. Your wrong about everything. First I never said I only had taken a microeconomic course. I said I have taken a microeconomic course. But education is completely irrelevant. You dont learn to understand economics by being able to do math equations, and you dont proof anything by empirical results. You can only find historical correlations between 2 factors where you most likely has a lot of assumptions included. This isn't evidence. So how exactly do you learn economics? Also I'm pretty sure most higher economics educations is about more than simply learning math equations. Well, duh. Anyway, Newt Gingrich seems like the best to me, he has the chops of a wise old dog. Although I sometimes wonder if he would have been more successful in politics if his name wasn't "Newt".
how exactly is Newton Leroy McPherson wise? why does everybody keep saying he's intelligent and eloquent and then use that as if he's a good candidate, right after they lambasted Obama for having the same qualities?
|
Haha, Newt does have the chops of a wise old dog. A dog that I would feed and take on walks, but certainly not elect as my leader. 
|
On January 24 2012 09:59 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 09:48 Chunhyang wrote:On January 24 2012 09:25 nihlon wrote:On January 24 2012 09:04 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:57 kwizach wrote:On January 24 2012 08:52 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:47 kwizach wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal. You don't. At all. Good try troll. I'm not trolling. By your own admission, the only academic exposure you've had to economics is "one course you took some time ago". All your posts are based on dismissing empirical and historical evidence and pushing forward supposedly "common-sense" arguments that would get you laughed out of Economics 101. Eh. Your wrong about everything. First I never said I only had taken a microeconomic course. I said I have taken a microeconomic course. But education is completely irrelevant. You dont learn to understand economics by being able to do math equations, and you dont proof anything by empirical results. You can only find historical correlations between 2 factors where you most likely has a lot of assumptions included. This isn't evidence. So how exactly do you learn economics? Also I'm pretty sure most higher economics educations is about more than simply learning math equations. Well, duh. Anyway, Newt Gingrich seems like the best to me, he has the chops of a wise old dog. Although I sometimes wonder if he would have been more successful in politics if his name wasn't "Newt". how exactly is Newton Leroy McPherson wise? why does everybody keep saying he's intelligent and eloquent and then use that as if he's a good candidate, right after they lambasted Obama for having the same qualities?
Especially given proof of his wisdom/intelligence is restricted to his performance in the debates, which is frankly a better measure of his ability to rile up a crowd (see for example his reaction to the moderator's question about his various affairs in contrast to his ablity to play the crowd against Romney on releasing his tax returns).
|
Newt is more aggresive and witty than straight intelligent I think. It definetely works right now with multiple oppenents, but I'm not sure how well it would stand up in a straight fight with Obama.
|
Who's watching the Florida debates in ~15 minutes? I expect it to be an utter shitshow with Mitt and Newt constantly bickering at each other.
Meanwhile, I hope my boy Ron gets a nice chunk of talk time and comes across as the honest, nice dude (which he is).
http://www.nbcpolitics.com/ for the live stream.
|
On January 24 2012 10:44 1Eris1 wrote:
Newt is more aggresive and witty than straight intelligent I think. It definetely works right now with multiple oppenents, but I'm not sure how well it would stand up in a straight fight with Obama.
No, I promise you that Newt is as smart as advertised. Newt is too smart for his own good, which is why he gets into trouble. He'd thrash Obama in a straight up debate.
|
On January 24 2012 10:47 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:Who's watching the Florida debates in ~15 minutes? I expect it to be an utter shitshow with Mitt and Newt constantly bickering at each other. Meanwhile, I hope my boy Ron gets a nice chunk of talk time and comes across as the honest, nice dude (which he is). http://www.nbcpolitics.com/ for the live stream.
I'm hoping to watch it, but NSHS vs Dignitas also looks interesting, and I have a kitchen to clean... better stop posting on tl for a while 
|
|
|
On January 24 2012 10:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 10:44 1Eris1 wrote:
Newt is more aggresive and witty than straight intelligent I think. It definetely works right now with multiple oppenents, but I'm not sure how well it would stand up in a straight fight with Obama. No, I promise you that Newt is as smart as advertised. Newt is too smart for his own good, which is why he gets into trouble. He'd thrash Obama in a straight up debate.
so....can you tell me why he's actually so smart instead of just saying "I promise!". that's a joke of an endorsement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
