I have the day off tomorrow. I will watch all the videos and then respond (if I can make through the thread without reading stuff that is patronising).
Fascist Dictator of the Heath Davis Appreciation Society
Supporting Petone's Finest since the very start - Iain O'Brien
Adam Wheater - Another batsman off the Essex production line
Also Supporting the All Time #1 Batsman of All Time Ever - Jacques Kallis and the much maligned Peter Siddle.
Vimes tells it how it is:
It's got nothin' on "economic geography". The **** who taught us spent all his lectures justifying the existence of his subject.
Human geography as a whole though is a joke. So annoyed I had to take that paper in order to get my double major.
As I said though, some things aren't controversial nor is it hocus pocus: i.e. you print more money, the less value the currency will ultimately have. People who work and save thus lose purchasing power. That is what you call a hidden tax. Now what about this is unreliable?
The irony of it is, and if you were consistent you'd say; that both sides are extremist regardless. For how can you make a qualitative or quantitive statement if you do not consider economics at all. At worst they should both be as bad as each other or, more logically, unknown to you considering you do not use this lens to judge.
Anyway, I find it hard that someone who could even begin to talk about law and politics could leave economics out. A huge body of those frameworks concern itself with the accumulation and distribution of resources. It is inescapable to consider it.
Last edited by Ikki; 26-04-2012 at 07:51 AM.
Freidman was wrong. Not stupid, but wrong. Fundamentally so.
WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
"People make me happy.. not places.. people"
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson
"Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn
#408. Sixty three not out forever.
Says Burgey. Don't worry about arguing it, though. Case closed.
Last edited by Ikki; 26-04-2012 at 07:50 AM.
Well I could have recapitulated an argument by someone with a contrary POV, claimed it as my own and tacked a video on, then said in 500 words what could have been done in 50, but I thought better of it.
You could, but the arguments that go to the contrary revolve around Keynesianism which is somewhat dead and has been for about 30-40 years now. All you have now are other people trying to borrow from that disastrous period and hack on some free-market principles to save face and say we can do it better. It's like the bailouts; if they dont work, don't admit defeat, just print more!
I don't really mind though, you can still hack on words of people you admire if it intelligibly advances the discussion. I don't hold the standard that you yourself have to be a nobel award winning economist to have an opinion. Only that it is a relevant and intelligible opinion. Chances are I've heard it anyway .
FTR, I don't agree with him on everything either. The grand scheme of his argument however is definitely right IMO and I don't think anyone has argued it more effectively.
Last edited by Ikki; 26-04-2012 at 08:57 AM.
Ikki if you're not going to be able to make a point without coming across being so sanctimonious and condescending then I suggest you go elsewhere. It's not your opinions which have done the most to alienate every single poster in this thread from you, though undoubtedly it has contributed, it is your posting style, which consistently takes a smug ("Chances are I've heard it anyway"? Really?), high and mighty ivory-tower tone with others. As Hurricane has hinted, it is patronising and tiresome and has driven more or less everyone from the thread. It's fine to have a different opinion, it is most definitely not fine and incredibly tunnel-minded to make the presumption that others' opinions are of lesser value because they don't agree with yours and it is absolutely abhorrent, IMO, to be making snide insinuations about the mental faculties of other posters who disagree with you to rationalise why they might disagree, which is what you are effectively doing by labelling them as "indoctrinates". Whilst I take an aggressive style of debating myself, I'd hope I'd not fall into this trap with those who disagree with me are automatically less intelligent than me. It is entirely reasonable that Burgey or I would have studied the world, studied how society and history has been shaped by economic events and come to an entirely different conclusion. That is not indoctrination, that is how we come up with opinions. Accept that or go elsewhere.
On Friedman, he is undoubtedly one of the greatest economic thinkers of the 20th century but he is not the only economic thinker. That you would so consistently and regularly simply reply to an argument by quoting or, worse, posting a youtube link is deeply alarming as it suggest that you yourself have not given adequate critical thought to the matter. No human being will ever, ever agree with another entirely if they have thought about their opinion properly, even up to minor differences. To constantly repost the same person, cite the same source, is truly infuriating. It contributes to the smug air of the posts by making it look as if you have a prefabricated argument for whatever (and hence no actual argument at all) and more to the point, no one here is arguing with Friedman who (a) wrote his critical works many years ago, (b) is dead, (c) is not you, who is the person we are arguing with. The expectation is that you should be able to argue your case without relying on the same fallback every single time. In my opinion, the two greatest minds of the 20th century were Albert Einstein and Richard Feynman, but I would argue that Einstein wasted the last half of his life working on a premise I would say is patently false and he should have recognised it as such - half - and I have deep reservations about Feynman's politics. It just goes to show, if you find yourself agreeing with the same person over and over to an overwhelming extent, it suggest you haven't thought about the matter properly. Moreover, that you consistently reply with the same theoretical arguments, without any citation of empirical evidence of their validity does not endear others to your view. Smart people are by their nature inherently skeptical and pragmatic; theoretical arguments will not convince someone. Hard, on-the-ground, detailed evidence at a micro level, which is what people care about, will.
In the end though, this is all secondary to the main point - your posting style. I will reiterate: Hurricane has described it as patronising and I would have to agree. This is not about your beliefs; as I have hinted, had you chosen another topic the chance that I myself (who has debated at length with plenty of libertarians) would agree with you would have been much, much higher. But in the end, your posting style has more or less driven everyone else from this thread save to make pithy, snarky comments in your direction. Given that this is a very, very broad thread about a topic which I've had a deep, long-standing interest in, it irritates me deeply to see everyone more or less driven away because of the last few pages.
Ball's in your court.
Last edited by Spark; 26-04-2012 at 09:33 AM. Reason: comedy error
May I humbly suggest that we just move on from this debate? It's been comprehensively covered and has only lead to frustration for all involved. I say we move on to new topics and perhaps redeem this thread.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)