|
|
On October 19 2012 02:07 Zaqwert wrote:
Businesses don't distort the market, they ARE the market.
Only the government can distort the market because they have a monopoloy on force.
GM can't FORCE you to buy one of their cars, however the government can force you to pay taxes and then give those taxes GM.
Every time the government props something or someone up, they always do so at the expense of someone else.
Ayn Rand said it best:
"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others." -- Ayn Rand
Yeah, well, when people start quoting Rand, I stop listening. Same for Lenin, and all those people fighting for tyranny in the behalf of their ridiculous principles and their childish quest of purity.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
yea there is no distortion at all when that guy freely made you buy water. your preferences are that buying water for 10k zennies is better than dying of cholera for 10 zennies.
|
On October 19 2012 02:07 Zaqwert wrote:
Businesses don't distort the market, they ARE the market.
Only the government can distort the market because they have a monopoloy on force.
GM can't FORCE you to buy one of their cars, however the government can force you to pay taxes and then give those taxes GM.
Every time the government props something or someone up, they always do so at the expense of someone else.
Ayn Rand said it best:
"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others." -- Ayn Rand
Randroid detected, Epocolypse defense mechanisms activated. How about you actually read some political theory instead taking the tired words of a spiteful ex-soviet as some sort of divine speak.
|
On October 19 2012 02:07 Zaqwert wrote:
Businesses don't distort the market, they ARE the market.
Only the government can distort the market because they have a monopoloy on force.
GM can't FORCE you to buy one of their cars, however the government can force you to pay taxes and then give those taxes GM.
Every time the government props something or someone up, they always do so at the expense of someone else.
Ayn Rand said it best:
"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others." -- Ayn Rand
you cant arbitrarily draw lines on what is and isnt the market. the goverment, the people, the companies, everything is the market.
the government can not give money to GM, it bought part of GM, it made an investment which it got a return on. if you dont like it vote for someone else.
Ayn Rand is an idiot. yes the government can influence the distribution of wealth, but so do private companies.
When Bain Capitol comes in to a small town, buys up the only factory, ships the jobs overseas and leaves the area with massive unemployment. they have come in by force, the workers had no say, taken their income away and given it to someone else. thats the free market at work. so she didnt want that, what she wanted was anarchy where the complete lack of ability for anyone to build anything is what keeps everyone equal, not some free market invisible hand.
her ideas are contradictory at the best of times, and retarded at the worst.
|
On October 19 2012 02:08 Zaqwert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 02:07 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 02:04 Zaqwert wrote:
I love all the people attacking Romney's plan
"The numbers don't add up!"
"It wont' fix the deficit!"
etc.
As though Obama has been doing such a great job at those things.
Obama's fiscal policy has been a disaster and will continue to be a disaster.
Romney's will be pretty bad too.
What people here don't understand is that this has nothing to do with truth, an election isn't a math problem, this is about getting votes, you have to view it through that prism.
Pointing out the flaws in Romney's numbers as some sort of GOTCHA! is like picking up the National Enquirer and being like "HAHA! I can prove this isn't wrong! I beat the National Enquirer!"
You're missing the point, while also demonstrating your bias by not applying the same standard to Obama's failed administration. You can agree or disagree with Obama's budget, but you can't accuse it of not adding up. It's a 250 page document, that's been scored by the CBO, and it adds up. Obama: "Here's my budget that explodes the deficit and the national debt." Romney: "Here's my budget which doesn't" (but it actually does) big difference?
Not really.
See Figure 1 and 2: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-16-APB1.pdf
Note that:
CBO Baseline = Hit fiscal cliff.
CBO Alternative = Avoid fiscal cliff
As you can see, Obama's budget stabilizes debt to GDP at around 80%, which is about the halfway point between avoiding the fiscal cliff and hitting the fiscal cliff.
|
On October 19 2012 02:00 Zaqwert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 01:51 See.Blue wrote:On October 19 2012 01:39 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:33 See.Blue wrote:On October 19 2012 00:42 mordek wrote:On October 19 2012 00:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 00:35 mordek wrote:
What are the main criticisms of Ron Paul from a liberal's point of view? I'm asking purely for understanding the political views from that side, hopefully it's not off-topic because he's not on the ballot. Gold standard. Cool thanks. Something to look into now. In general I like his stances on issues so I want to be critical  I'm a liberal and I generally think he's a negative on the electoral process. He unfortunately serves to a legitimize ideas like libertarianism to a lot of people who are not particularly knowledgeable or educated about economics. I think most of his policies are downright dangerous to a significant number of americans; central government plays a huge role in the sustenance of a great many people who would get quickly destroyed in a libertarian country. Unfortunately now libertarianism has become sort of intellectual hipsterdom, too amongst the less well-read which is just sort of a drag to listen to for those of us with a background in economics. You see, libertarians actually respect normal people and believe that they can function in the world just find without a huge government to hold their hand. Your philosophy is founded on the belief that normal people are like children. Your belief is founded on ignorance of economics. Libertarians are the only people who truly understand economics. Both Deomcrats and Republicans are obsessed with distorting the market for their own goals, even if they think those goals are somehow moral or ethical, they are still just market distortion.
Of course, the free market doesn't exist and it never will. Saying that they don't understand economy doesn't ring true to me, something you implicitly admit when you say that they both offer market distortions. That does not mean they don't want these market distortions, nor, as you also implicitly admit, does it mean that they aren't positive on the whole (morally, ethically or as I argue in my spoiler below, human wellbeing wise).
In any case you should ask yourself; Why is a strong economy desireable (free market or otherwise)?
+ Show Spoiler +My answer: Strong economy -> Everyone is better off -> Everyone is happier. Since the end goal is to make people happier and better off, the economy is only a means to an end. As such the economy should, in simple terms, be controlled in the way in which the most possible human wellbeing is achieved. Be that less or more government intervention. + Show Spoiler +And from that I build all of my economic political standpoints. Fuck the free market if people are hurting. Reduce the impact of recessions if possible. The underlying idea here is simple. The actual solutions less so.
|
On October 19 2012 01:57 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 01:47 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:On October 19 2012 01:32 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 01:21 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 19 2012 00:45 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
EDIT: I almost forgot Ryan and Palin. I would literally crap myself if either one of them found themselves as president, and the fact that they have both been in a position where that situation is conceivable.... wtf America. wtf. Comments like this one are precisely why I don't bother explaining to liberals which conservatives are "intelligent" and why. Total waste of time. Liberals mostly believe that the best way to make the world a better place is to have a sophisticated and powerful government that will make lots of decisions for ordinary people who lack that ability to make those decisions for themselves. Obamacare is the most obvious example. But in order to believe this one has to have a pretty low opinion of "normal" people. I think this is why so many liberals seem to think of themselves as way smarter than the average voter. I think this is also why liberals always seem to be caught up in talking about how right wing politicians are stupid. Even in the case of obviously intelligent people like Paul Ryan, your average poster on team liquid is somehow able to believe that he's an idiot in order to avoid cognitive dissonance with the rest of his deeply held belief system. What has Paul Ryan done to make you think he's smart? His budget is basically, assume that government spending is x% of GDP, tax revenue is y% of GDP, and voucherize Medicare, now lets calculate the deficit. It's a scam. It's as void of details as Romney's tax plan. Serious question. Do you believe that you are more knowledgable about these issues than Paul Ryan? Do you believe that you are "smarter" than him, in any sense of the word? Or even Sarah Palin? No we believe the actual experts who have gone over his and Romneys plans and concluded that they are impossible. So instead of trying to figure out things for yourself, you just try to figure out which "expert" is most credible and believe them. Don't you see what's wrong with this approach? this is exactly the best approach? the worlds knowledge is far too vast for any one person to know much about anything, so how do you make choices on economics, safety, politics? you have to trust experts. but how do you know which experts to trust? you trust in their methods, reputation and peer review. an expert has nothing to gain from being right than being right itself. a professor of economics, or a scientist rarely gets any monetary benefit of proving that global warming exists, their only interest is in getting the right answer, so for them to try and sway the facts or data to push their own view point is self destructive. when mcdonalds tells you their food can be part of a healthy life style they have their own benefit and profits in mind. when a dietitian tells you its bad for you, you can take it or leave it, they arent making any money from you. this is a crucial factor in weighing evidence. you judge who it is coming from, and what they have to gain from getting you to agree. this is like entry level critical thinking.
There are two problems with this approach. The smaller problem is that it is often difficult to figure out the motivations of the supposed "experts", who often turn out to have greater personal incentives than are readily apparent. In many cases its probably easier to actually figure out the issue that it is to figure out which purported experts have which biases and to what extent.
The larger problem is that people who don't try to figure things out themselves are abdicating their ability to actually understand the world. Often things aren't really that complicated, and with a little hard work anyone can get a decent understanding of them. But if your reaction to a seemingly complex subject is to say "too hard for me, let's see what Jon Stewart [or Rush Limbaugh] has to say about it" then you are unfortunately dooming yourself to a life of not understanding the world around you.
Even if issues are hard, people should still try to figure them out. If you look up a few posts you have paralleluniverse quoting from a write-up by the CBO and while I don't give him many marks for reading comprehension, he certainly deserves credit for at least trying to understand the issues.
I read an interesting book a few years ago by Neil Postman. At the start of the book he explains how he would often start lectures by making some kind of totally bizarre factual claim about the world. I think his example was that he would tell the audience that the chairs they were sitting on contained a significant quantity of salmon skin. He said he was surprised by how often the audience would just nod with interest as if they completely lacked the critical facilities to realize that this was obvious nonsense. His point (at least how I recall it) was that the world is becoming so complex that people are largely giving up on using their own common sense.
Another person who has written on a similar issue is a prof named Ilya Somin. He has written a lot about what he calls "rational ignorance" (of course he didn't come up with this idea) -- the idea that voters don't bother to inform themselves about the issues because, from the perspective of an individual there is no real benefit. The odds of one person affecting the election and miniscule, so why make the fairly significant time commitment to try to make an informed choice? It's not worth it. Of course while this may be true for the individual, it's very harmful to democracy as a whole.
edit: referred to the wrong poster, sorry!
|
Frustrates me when people simply put other people on a podium because of their position.... The guy asking "do you really think you are smarter than Sarah Palin or Ryan"... Intelligence isn't based on the amount of information you hear or how much you remember, it's based on how you ask questions and how you collect data and interpret it... A calculator isn't smarter than a person because it can do math better, Palin and Ryan aren't brilliant becasue they can read written speeches and teleprompters.
It's time we start realizing what intelligence and charisma are and start to differentiate them accordingly, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Steven Hawking are intelligent, Sarah Palin is an idiot and to think otherwise is a lie.
On the election, that last debate was pretty ugly for Romney. After you hear "well it was a tie"... Felt like I was watching a different program, Romney didn't answer a single question as it was asked. "What about deductions?" "Well you see, I'm going to talk about everything but deductions!"... "How will you handle Immigration" "China and my financing!"
Now that guy is an idiot. And everyone who argues "look what he did in Masusettssach" should realize that when he was the governor he was liberal.... He banned assault weapons, he closed down coal plants because of the environment, he implemented a healthcare policy almost exactly the same as "obamacare" seeing as it was modeled after Masusettssach's success." He literally wants to do everything that is against what he did then on the premise of "I made money, look at me go!".
If that's all you need, making money, Donald Trump and Oprah Winfrey should be equally applicable since all of his other plans are fucking stupid.
|
On October 19 2012 02:10 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 01:39 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:33 See.Blue wrote:On October 19 2012 00:42 mordek wrote:On October 19 2012 00:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 00:35 mordek wrote:
What are the main criticisms of Ron Paul from a liberal's point of view? I'm asking purely for understanding the political views from that side, hopefully it's not off-topic because he's not on the ballot. Gold standard. Cool thanks. Something to look into now. In general I like his stances on issues so I want to be critical I'm a liberal and I generally think he's a negative on the electoral process. He unfortunately serves to a legitimize ideas like libertarianism to a lot of people who are not particularly knowledgeable or educated about economics. I think most of his policies are downright dangerous to a significant number of americans; central government plays a huge role in the sustenance of a great many people who would get quickly destroyed in a libertarian country. Unfortunately now libertarianism has become sort of intellectual hipsterdom, too amongst the less well-read which is just sort of a drag to listen to for those of us with a background in economics. You see, libertarians actually respect normal people and believe that they can function in the world just find without a huge government to hold their hand. Your philosophy is founded on the belief that normal people are like children. Because grown ups have magical powers and can make anything they desire happens? As much as you may want it there are things that you can't control in a society as an individual and just because you think the government have a place there doesn't mean you think normal people are children.
"Grown ups" can decide how to live their lives. And they can accept the consequences if things don't work out. That's what it means to be a "grown up", at least to me.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well, the danger of not figuring out how things works, in this case, is for someone to believe in ryan rather than the other way around.
|
On October 19 2012 02:16 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Sarah Palin is an idiot and to think otherwise is a lie.
This is a very confusing sentence.
|
On October 19 2012 02:16 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 01:57 turdburgler wrote:On October 19 2012 01:47 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:On October 19 2012 01:32 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 01:21 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 19 2012 00:45 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
EDIT: I almost forgot Ryan and Palin. I would literally crap myself if either one of them found themselves as president, and the fact that they have both been in a position where that situation is conceivable.... wtf America. wtf. Comments like this one are precisely why I don't bother explaining to liberals which conservatives are "intelligent" and why. Total waste of time. Liberals mostly believe that the best way to make the world a better place is to have a sophisticated and powerful government that will make lots of decisions for ordinary people who lack that ability to make those decisions for themselves. Obamacare is the most obvious example. But in order to believe this one has to have a pretty low opinion of "normal" people. I think this is why so many liberals seem to think of themselves as way smarter than the average voter. I think this is also why liberals always seem to be caught up in talking about how right wing politicians are stupid. Even in the case of obviously intelligent people like Paul Ryan, your average poster on team liquid is somehow able to believe that he's an idiot in order to avoid cognitive dissonance with the rest of his deeply held belief system. What has Paul Ryan done to make you think he's smart? His budget is basically, assume that government spending is x% of GDP, tax revenue is y% of GDP, and voucherize Medicare, now lets calculate the deficit. It's a scam. It's as void of details as Romney's tax plan. Serious question. Do you believe that you are more knowledgable about these issues than Paul Ryan? Do you believe that you are "smarter" than him, in any sense of the word? Or even Sarah Palin? No we believe the actual experts who have gone over his and Romneys plans and concluded that they are impossible. So instead of trying to figure out things for yourself, you just try to figure out which "expert" is most credible and believe them. Don't you see what's wrong with this approach? this is exactly the best approach? the worlds knowledge is far too vast for any one person to know much about anything, so how do you make choices on economics, safety, politics? you have to trust experts. but how do you know which experts to trust? you trust in their methods, reputation and peer review. an expert has nothing to gain from being right than being right itself. a professor of economics, or a scientist rarely gets any monetary benefit of proving that global warming exists, their only interest is in getting the right answer, so for them to try and sway the facts or data to push their own view point is self destructive. when mcdonalds tells you their food can be part of a healthy life style they have their own benefit and profits in mind. when a dietitian tells you its bad for you, you can take it or leave it, they arent making any money from you. this is a crucial factor in weighing evidence. you judge who it is coming from, and what they have to gain from getting you to agree. this is like entry level critical thinking. There are two problems with this approach. The smaller problem is that it is often difficult to figure out the motivations of the supposed "experts", who often turn out to have greater personal incentives than are readily apparent. In many cases its probably easier to actually figure out the issue that it is to figure out which purported experts have which biases and to what extent. The larger problem is that people who don't try to figure things out themselves are abdicating their ability to actually understand the world. Often things aren't really that complicated, and with a little hard work anyone can get a decent understanding of them. But if your reaction to a seemingly complex subject is to say "too hard for me, let's see what Jon Stewart [or Rush Limbaugh] has to say about it" then you are unfortunately dooming yourself to a life of not understanding the world around you. Even if issues are hard, people should still try to figure them out. If you look up a few posts you have paralleluniverse quoting from a write-up by the CBO and while I don't give him many marks for reading comprehension, he certainly deserves credit for at least trying to understand the issues. I read an interesting book a few years ago by Neil Postman. At the start of the book he explains how he would often start lectures by making some kind of totally bizarre factual claim about the world. I think his example was that he would tell the audience that the chairs they were sitting on contained a significant quantity of salmon skin. He said he was surprised by how often the audience would just nod with interest as if they completely lacked the critical facilities to realize that this was obvious nonsense. His point (at least how I recall it) was that the world is becoming so complex that people are largely giving up on using their own common sense. Another person who has written on a similar issue is a prof named Ilya Somin. He has written a lot about what he calls "rational ignorance" (of course he didn't come up with this idea) -- the idea that voters don't bother to inform themselves about the issues because, from the perspective of an individual there is no real benefit. The odds of one person affecting the election and miniscule, so why make the fairly significant time commitment to try to make an informed choice? It's not worth it. Of course while this may be true for the individual, it's very harmful to democracy as a whole. edit: referred to the wrong poster, sorry!
trusting experts doesnt abdicate responsibilty because you have to choose who to trust.
and its in no way easier to learn the issues than it is to learn about the person. if you want to argue that every person should have a working knowledge of nuclear physics, global economics, socio-economic and religious background to the middle east etc etc etc. then good luck.
but id rather argue that the power of peer review is that its allows experts to grade experts, and that allows the uninformed person to look in, see the aggregate of what is being said, whether it be ryans tax plan doesnt add up, or global warming is happening, and say. "look, the majority of people who are informed on this subject say this, its our best effort to believe them".
|
On October 19 2012 02:20 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 02:10 nam nam wrote:On October 19 2012 01:39 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:33 See.Blue wrote:On October 19 2012 00:42 mordek wrote:On October 19 2012 00:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 00:35 mordek wrote:
What are the main criticisms of Ron Paul from a liberal's point of view? I'm asking purely for understanding the political views from that side, hopefully it's not off-topic because he's not on the ballot. Gold standard. Cool thanks. Something to look into now. In general I like his stances on issues so I want to be critical I'm a liberal and I generally think he's a negative on the electoral process. He unfortunately serves to a legitimize ideas like libertarianism to a lot of people who are not particularly knowledgeable or educated about economics. I think most of his policies are downright dangerous to a significant number of americans; central government plays a huge role in the sustenance of a great many people who would get quickly destroyed in a libertarian country. Unfortunately now libertarianism has become sort of intellectual hipsterdom, too amongst the less well-read which is just sort of a drag to listen to for those of us with a background in economics. You see, libertarians actually respect normal people and believe that they can function in the world just find without a huge government to hold their hand. Your philosophy is founded on the belief that normal people are like children. Because grown ups have magical powers and can make anything they desire happens? As much as you may want it there are things that you can't control in a society as an individual and just because you think the government have a place there doesn't mean you think normal people are children. "Grown ups" can decide how to live their lives. And they can accept the consequences if things don't work out. That's what it means to be a "grown up", at least to me.
Another important part of being a grown up is realizing that there's a real world and other people and there's actually no such thing as a happy freedom theme park
your earnestness is cute, however
|
im not even looking for intelligent. i just want a conservative senator or congressman who 'believes' in global warming, womens rights, separation of church and state etc etc. the ones you see get paraded around on TV day in day out all seem to have some idiotic notions attached, so im just wondering, from people who probably know more less famous representatives if there are any normal people serving for the GOP.
I am a registered independent for many of the reasons (other than global warming) you listed here. I am so tired of conservatism being hijacked by the "religious right" I could puke. I support Romney in this election for one reason...I think Obama's fiscal policies are dangerous for the welfare of our country. I disagree with Romney and Ryan on many other social issues but I put those issues on the back burner when compared to basic economic and security issues. I don't think Romney/Ryan (despite their beliefs) would ever push through a ban on abortion because there are too many other important issues they need to handle first. There is no actual danger that their beliefs in this case will lead to a ban on abortion in my opinion. I also disagree with their stance on gay rights and marriage...which it seems both sides are guilty of ignoring.
The problem with republicans is that they think they can't get elected if they don't pander to the religious right which has forgotten that this country was founded on religious freedom and separation of church and state which means that we don't force our religious, or non-religious beliefs on anyone via legislation. The government needs to stay out of both sides.
I believe in God...I was raised a Christian, but I was taught that Christianity meant that we lead by example, not by force. That a Christian treats everyone with love and respect regardless of race, income, beliefs, or any other human differentiating factor. The Christian right is guilty of becoming what it fears about Muslim Sharia law. They would seek to legislate their religious beliefs into our government just like Sharia does. Admittedly it's nowhere near as extreme as Sharia but they're moving in that direction.
Even if the intent is well meaning its still wrong to force your beliefs on others. The thought that I can't vote for someone who is strong on the economy, strong on national defense, and believes in limited government who isn't a total hypocrite when it comes to forcing their religious beliefs down others throats infuriates me, even if it's my own religious beliefs.
Both sides have done "terrible terrible" damage to our nation and the state of our politics to divide people and make them hate each other. Republicans and democrats despise each other right now....why? because out politicians are all total ass holes and can't do a !@#$ing thing to actually benefit our country rather than to try to secure more political power or financial gains. I have avoided political forums for so long because the total bull on both sides makes me so frustrated.
I'm sadly convinced that we're past the point where simply voting will change a totally broken political system whereby we're only given a choice between the lesser of two evils.
- End rant
|
On October 19 2012 02:16 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 01:57 turdburgler wrote:On October 19 2012 01:47 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:On October 19 2012 01:32 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 01:21 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 19 2012 00:45 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
EDIT: I almost forgot Ryan and Palin. I would literally crap myself if either one of them found themselves as president, and the fact that they have both been in a position where that situation is conceivable.... wtf America. wtf. Comments like this one are precisely why I don't bother explaining to liberals which conservatives are "intelligent" and why. Total waste of time. Liberals mostly believe that the best way to make the world a better place is to have a sophisticated and powerful government that will make lots of decisions for ordinary people who lack that ability to make those decisions for themselves. Obamacare is the most obvious example. But in order to believe this one has to have a pretty low opinion of "normal" people. I think this is why so many liberals seem to think of themselves as way smarter than the average voter. I think this is also why liberals always seem to be caught up in talking about how right wing politicians are stupid. Even in the case of obviously intelligent people like Paul Ryan, your average poster on team liquid is somehow able to believe that he's an idiot in order to avoid cognitive dissonance with the rest of his deeply held belief system. What has Paul Ryan done to make you think he's smart? His budget is basically, assume that government spending is x% of GDP, tax revenue is y% of GDP, and voucherize Medicare, now lets calculate the deficit. It's a scam. It's as void of details as Romney's tax plan. Serious question. Do you believe that you are more knowledgable about these issues than Paul Ryan? Do you believe that you are "smarter" than him, in any sense of the word? Or even Sarah Palin? No we believe the actual experts who have gone over his and Romneys plans and concluded that they are impossible. So instead of trying to figure out things for yourself, you just try to figure out which "expert" is most credible and believe them. Don't you see what's wrong with this approach? this is exactly the best approach? the worlds knowledge is far too vast for any one person to know much about anything, so how do you make choices on economics, safety, politics? you have to trust experts. but how do you know which experts to trust? you trust in their methods, reputation and peer review. an expert has nothing to gain from being right than being right itself. a professor of economics, or a scientist rarely gets any monetary benefit of proving that global warming exists, their only interest is in getting the right answer, so for them to try and sway the facts or data to push their own view point is self destructive. when mcdonalds tells you their food can be part of a healthy life style they have their own benefit and profits in mind. when a dietitian tells you its bad for you, you can take it or leave it, they arent making any money from you. this is a crucial factor in weighing evidence. you judge who it is coming from, and what they have to gain from getting you to agree. this is like entry level critical thinking. There are two problems with this approach. The smaller problem is that it is often difficult to figure out the motivations of the supposed "experts", who often turn out to have greater personal incentives than are readily apparent. In many cases its probably easier to actually figure out the issue that it is to figure out which purported experts have which biases and to what extent. The larger problem is that people who don't try to figure things out themselves are abdicating their ability to actually understand the world. Often things aren't really that complicated, and with a little hard work anyone can get a decent understanding of them. But if your reaction to a seemingly complex subject is to say "too hard for me, let's see what Jon Stewart [or Rush Limbaugh] has to say about it" then you are unfortunately dooming yourself to a life of not understanding the world around you. Even if issues are hard, people should still try to figure them out. If you look up a few posts you have paralleluniverse quoting from a write-up by the CBO and while I don't give him many marks for reading comprehension, he certainly deserves credit for at least trying to understand the issues. I read an interesting book a few years ago by Neil Postman. At the start of the book he explains how he would often start lectures by making some kind of totally bizarre factual claim about the world. I think his example was that he would tell the audience that the chairs they were sitting on contained a significant quantity of salmon skin. He said he was surprised by how often the audience would just nod with interest as if they completely lacked the critical facilities to realize that this was obvious nonsense. His point (at least how I recall it) was that the world is becoming so complex that people are largely giving up on using their own common sense. Another person who has written on a similar issue is a prof named Ilya Somin. He has written a lot about what he calls "rational ignorance" (of course he didn't come up with this idea) -- the idea that voters don't bother to inform themselves about the issues because, from the perspective of an individual there is no real benefit. The odds of one person affecting the election and miniscule, so why make the fairly significant time commitment to try to make an informed choice? It's not worth it. Of course while this may be true for the individual, it's very harmful to democracy as a whole. edit: referred to the wrong poster, sorry!
Maybe, just maybe those people who disagree with you actually have studied the material they defend? If someone is throwing out random one liners and unsubstantiated claims, then call them out on it, by all means. But preempting the arguments of those who disagree with you through an unsubstantiated indictment of their investigation is no way to go about getting to the bottom of things. Furthermore, your entire diatribe is undermined by your lack of response to the multitude of people asking you for a demonstration of the viewpoint you are offering forth. Austrian economics, the centerpoint of pretty much every libertarian's economic model, tosses out deductive reasoning in economic representation/truth-seeking, do you know what this means and how do you defend it?
|
On October 19 2012 02:16 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 01:57 turdburgler wrote:On October 19 2012 01:47 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:On October 19 2012 01:32 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 01:21 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 19 2012 00:45 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
EDIT: I almost forgot Ryan and Palin. I would literally crap myself if either one of them found themselves as president, and the fact that they have both been in a position where that situation is conceivable.... wtf America. wtf. Comments like this one are precisely why I don't bother explaining to liberals which conservatives are "intelligent" and why. Total waste of time. Liberals mostly believe that the best way to make the world a better place is to have a sophisticated and powerful government that will make lots of decisions for ordinary people who lack that ability to make those decisions for themselves. Obamacare is the most obvious example. But in order to believe this one has to have a pretty low opinion of "normal" people. I think this is why so many liberals seem to think of themselves as way smarter than the average voter. I think this is also why liberals always seem to be caught up in talking about how right wing politicians are stupid. Even in the case of obviously intelligent people like Paul Ryan, your average poster on team liquid is somehow able to believe that he's an idiot in order to avoid cognitive dissonance with the rest of his deeply held belief system. What has Paul Ryan done to make you think he's smart? His budget is basically, assume that government spending is x% of GDP, tax revenue is y% of GDP, and voucherize Medicare, now lets calculate the deficit. It's a scam. It's as void of details as Romney's tax plan. Serious question. Do you believe that you are more knowledgable about these issues than Paul Ryan? Do you believe that you are "smarter" than him, in any sense of the word? Or even Sarah Palin? No we believe the actual experts who have gone over his and Romneys plans and concluded that they are impossible. So instead of trying to figure out things for yourself, you just try to figure out which "expert" is most credible and believe them. Don't you see what's wrong with this approach? this is exactly the best approach? the worlds knowledge is far too vast for any one person to know much about anything, so how do you make choices on economics, safety, politics? you have to trust experts. but how do you know which experts to trust? you trust in their methods, reputation and peer review. an expert has nothing to gain from being right than being right itself. a professor of economics, or a scientist rarely gets any monetary benefit of proving that global warming exists, their only interest is in getting the right answer, so for them to try and sway the facts or data to push their own view point is self destructive. when mcdonalds tells you their food can be part of a healthy life style they have their own benefit and profits in mind. when a dietitian tells you its bad for you, you can take it or leave it, they arent making any money from you. this is a crucial factor in weighing evidence. you judge who it is coming from, and what they have to gain from getting you to agree. this is like entry level critical thinking. There are two problems with this approach. The smaller problem is that it is often difficult to figure out the motivations of the supposed "experts", who often turn out to have greater personal incentives than are readily apparent. In many cases its probably easier to actually figure out the issue that it is to figure out which purported experts have which biases and to what extent. The larger problem is that people who don't try to figure things out themselves are abdicating their ability to actually understand the world. Often things aren't really that complicated, and with a little hard work anyone can get a decent understanding of them. But if your reaction to a seemingly complex subject is to say "too hard for me, let's see what Jon Stewart [or Rush Limbaugh] has to say about it" then you are unfortunately dooming yourself to a life of not understanding the world around you. Even if issues are hard, people should still try to figure them out. If you look up a few posts you have paralleluniverse quoting from a write-up by the CBO and while I don't give him many marks for reading comprehension, he certainly deserves credit for at least trying to understand the issues. I read an interesting book a few years ago by Neil Postman. At the start of the book he explains how he would often start lectures by making some kind of totally bizarre factual claim about the world. I think his example was that he would tell the audience that the chairs they were sitting on contained a significant quantity of salmon skin. He said he was surprised by how often the audience would just nod with interest as if they completely lacked the critical facilities to realize that this was obvious nonsense. His point (at least how I recall it) was that the world is becoming so complex that people are largely giving up on using their own common sense. Another person who has written on a similar issue is a prof named Ilya Somin. He has written a lot about what he calls "rational ignorance" (of course he didn't come up with this idea) -- the idea that voters don't bother to inform themselves about the issues because, from the perspective of an individual there is no real benefit. The odds of one person affecting the election and miniscule, so why make the fairly significant time commitment to try to make an informed choice? It's not worth it. Of course while this may be true for the individual, it's very harmful to democracy as a whole. edit: referred to the wrong poster, sorry!
Can you explain to me the mathematical details of how time series filters work and how they are chosen to smooth temperature in climate change?
Ultimately, everyone puts trust in experts, because it's infeasible to understand everything. Some things, like the above example, are overly technical. Do you trust that your car engine will work properly and not explode? Or do you personally research and check it?
|
On October 19 2012 02:07 Zaqwert wrote:
"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others." -- Ayn Rand
I've never understood the fascination some experience with the Rand doctrine. What makes an ex-soviet fiction author's opinion on economic theory so much more valid than, say, professional economists?
Maybe the world really just wants an L. Ron Hubbard for every avenue of life.
|
On October 19 2012 02:00 Zaqwert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 01:51 See.Blue wrote:On October 19 2012 01:39 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:33 See.Blue wrote:On October 19 2012 00:42 mordek wrote:On October 19 2012 00:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 00:35 mordek wrote:
What are the main criticisms of Ron Paul from a liberal's point of view? I'm asking purely for understanding the political views from that side, hopefully it's not off-topic because he's not on the ballot. Gold standard. Cool thanks. Something to look into now. In general I like his stances on issues so I want to be critical I'm a liberal and I generally think he's a negative on the electoral process. He unfortunately serves to a legitimize ideas like libertarianism to a lot of people who are not particularly knowledgeable or educated about economics. I think most of his policies are downright dangerous to a significant number of americans; central government plays a huge role in the sustenance of a great many people who would get quickly destroyed in a libertarian country. Unfortunately now libertarianism has become sort of intellectual hipsterdom, too amongst the less well-read which is just sort of a drag to listen to for those of us with a background in economics. You see, libertarians actually respect normal people and believe that they can function in the world just find without a huge government to hold their hand. Your philosophy is founded on the belief that normal people are like children. Your belief is founded on ignorance of economics. Libertarians are the only people who truly understand economics. Both Deomcrats and Republicans are obsessed with distorting the market for their own goals, even if they think those goals are somehow moral or ethical, they are still just market distortion.
Distorting the market doesn't imply a lack of understanding of economics. They might simply believe that the benefits of the distortion outweigh the costs. Similarly, they might not like the result that the market gives and actually want to change it.
Now there are many D's and R's who don't understand economics. However I would also say that many Libertarians are engaging in wishful or "magical" thinking in their descriptions of how a totally free economy would end up looking like.
|
On October 19 2012 02:22 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 02:16 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:57 turdburgler wrote:On October 19 2012 01:47 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:40 Gorsameth wrote:On October 19 2012 01:32 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On October 19 2012 01:21 ziggurat wrote:On October 19 2012 01:14 xDaunt wrote:On October 19 2012 00:45 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
EDIT: I almost forgot Ryan and Palin. I would literally crap myself if either one of them found themselves as president, and the fact that they have both been in a position where that situation is conceivable.... wtf America. wtf. Comments like this one are precisely why I don't bother explaining to liberals which conservatives are "intelligent" and why. Total waste of time. Liberals mostly believe that the best way to make the world a better place is to have a sophisticated and powerful government that will make lots of decisions for ordinary people who lack that ability to make those decisions for themselves. Obamacare is the most obvious example. But in order to believe this one has to have a pretty low opinion of "normal" people. I think this is why so many liberals seem to think of themselves as way smarter than the average voter. I think this is also why liberals always seem to be caught up in talking about how right wing politicians are stupid. Even in the case of obviously intelligent people like Paul Ryan, your average poster on team liquid is somehow able to believe that he's an idiot in order to avoid cognitive dissonance with the rest of his deeply held belief system. What has Paul Ryan done to make you think he's smart? His budget is basically, assume that government spending is x% of GDP, tax revenue is y% of GDP, and voucherize Medicare, now lets calculate the deficit. It's a scam. It's as void of details as Romney's tax plan. Serious question. Do you believe that you are more knowledgable about these issues than Paul Ryan? Do you believe that you are "smarter" than him, in any sense of the word? Or even Sarah Palin? No we believe the actual experts who have gone over his and Romneys plans and concluded that they are impossible. So instead of trying to figure out things for yourself, you just try to figure out which "expert" is most credible and believe them. Don't you see what's wrong with this approach? this is exactly the best approach? the worlds knowledge is far too vast for any one person to know much about anything, so how do you make choices on economics, safety, politics? you have to trust experts. but how do you know which experts to trust? you trust in their methods, reputation and peer review. an expert has nothing to gain from being right than being right itself. a professor of economics, or a scientist rarely gets any monetary benefit of proving that global warming exists, their only interest is in getting the right answer, so for them to try and sway the facts or data to push their own view point is self destructive. when mcdonalds tells you their food can be part of a healthy life style they have their own benefit and profits in mind. when a dietitian tells you its bad for you, you can take it or leave it, they arent making any money from you. this is a crucial factor in weighing evidence. you judge who it is coming from, and what they have to gain from getting you to agree. this is like entry level critical thinking. There are two problems with this approach. The smaller problem is that it is often difficult to figure out the motivations of the supposed "experts", who often turn out to have greater personal incentives than are readily apparent. In many cases its probably easier to actually figure out the issue that it is to figure out which purported experts have which biases and to what extent. The larger problem is that people who don't try to figure things out themselves are abdicating their ability to actually understand the world. Often things aren't really that complicated, and with a little hard work anyone can get a decent understanding of them. But if your reaction to a seemingly complex subject is to say "too hard for me, let's see what Jon Stewart [or Rush Limbaugh] has to say about it" then you are unfortunately dooming yourself to a life of not understanding the world around you. Even if issues are hard, people should still try to figure them out. If you look up a few posts you have paralleluniverse quoting from a write-up by the CBO and while I don't give him many marks for reading comprehension, he certainly deserves credit for at least trying to understand the issues. I read an interesting book a few years ago by Neil Postman. At the start of the book he explains how he would often start lectures by making some kind of totally bizarre factual claim about the world. I think his example was that he would tell the audience that the chairs they were sitting on contained a significant quantity of salmon skin. He said he was surprised by how often the audience would just nod with interest as if they completely lacked the critical facilities to realize that this was obvious nonsense. His point (at least how I recall it) was that the world is becoming so complex that people are largely giving up on using their own common sense. Another person who has written on a similar issue is a prof named Ilya Somin. He has written a lot about what he calls "rational ignorance" (of course he didn't come up with this idea) -- the idea that voters don't bother to inform themselves about the issues because, from the perspective of an individual there is no real benefit. The odds of one person affecting the election and miniscule, so why make the fairly significant time commitment to try to make an informed choice? It's not worth it. Of course while this may be true for the individual, it's very harmful to democracy as a whole. edit: referred to the wrong poster, sorry! trusting experts doesnt abdicate responsibilty because you have to choose who to trust. and its in no way easier to learn the issues than it is to learn about the person. if you want to argue that every person should have a working knowledge of nuclear physics, global economics, socio-economic and religious background to the middle east etc etc etc. then good luck.but id rather argue that the power of peer review is that its allows experts to grade experts, and that allows the uninformed person to look in, see the aggregate of what is being said, whether it be ryans tax plan doesnt add up, or global warming is happening, and say. "look, the majority of people who are informed on this subject say this, its our best effort to believe them".
This is exactly what I would like to see. Although it's not realistic for one person to be a technical expert in all those areas, it is in no way impossible to have a general base of knowledge about them. Of course along with this people would need to be humble to at least entertain the possibility that they're wrong on specific questions.
|
On October 19 2012 02:07 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 02:04 Zaqwert wrote:
I love all the people attacking Romney's plan
"The numbers don't add up!"
"It wont' fix the deficit!"
etc.
As though Obama has been doing such a great job at those things.
Obama's fiscal policy has been a disaster and will continue to be a disaster.
Romney's will be pretty bad too.
What people here don't understand is that this has nothing to do with truth, an election isn't a math problem, this is about getting votes, you have to view it through that prism.
Pointing out the flaws in Romney's numbers as some sort of GOTCHA! is like picking up the National Enquirer and being like "HAHA! I can prove this isn't wrong! I beat the National Enquirer!"
You're missing the point, while also demonstrating your bias by not applying the same standard to Obama's failed administration. You can agree or disagree with Obama's budget, but you can't accuse it of not adding up. It's a 250 page document, that's been scored by the CBO, and it adds up. It would be good if Romney had a plan which is mathematically possible, so that it can be scored and compared with Obama's. But all we have it a plan that doesn't add up. Romney can't keep all his tax promises.
As long as it adds up that is the important thing right? It doesn't matter if we are still continually digging a deeper hole every year with the deficit.
AS LONG AS IT ADDS UP, DAMNIT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
