RE: Economics 101 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Musicmystery -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 8:37:56 AM)

quote:

strictly speaking, you're going to have to either agree or disagree...


Strictly speaking, that's a fallacy--false dilemma.



variation30 -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 9:16:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

Well, it's because the Austrians base their voodoo on "Axioms" rather than empirical evidence.


empiricism is fantastic...assuming you can account for (let alone, recognize) all the variables that contribute to your study. as economics is a study of human action...that's impossible. so any approach that impotently attempts to gain knowledge through horrendously flawed and incomplete empirical methods
will itself be horrendously flawed and incomplete. and this is ignoring the fact that one can only gain knowledge through reason...not through empiricism. but I have my doubts as to whether or not an individual who identifies as a hippie would be equipped for such an argument concerning epistemology.

if you can illustrate how any of the axioms upon which austrian economics is founded are not patently valid or if you could illustrate how the chain of logic that follows those axioms is flawed, you would have a good argument. if you cannot do that, I would suggest you call it voodoo again...as name calling is the only refutation one could resort to if they were at such a disadvantage.



variation30 -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 9:23:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

strictly speaking, you're going to have to either agree or disagree...


Strictly speaking, that's a fallacy--false dilemma.


as it has undoubtedly been decades since you last took your foray into the vast intellectual world of a 101 philosophy class, allow me to refresh you. a false dilemma is when you are forced to chose between a position while it ignores other possible positions. for instace, if I said you either liked red or blue, that would be a false dilemma - as there are other colors you might like. if I said you were either at home right now or not at home right now, that would not be a false dilemma as there are no other options than home or not at home in the entire universe. likewise, if I said that you either agreed with a sentence, or did not agree with a sentence (commonly referred to as disagreeing), this would not be a false dilemma as either agreeing with something or not agreeing with something are the only two outcomes possible.

in other words, p v -p.

or in more common parlance, you can't be a little bit pregnant.



slaveboy291 -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 9:31:53 AM)

Interesting you bring up philosophy because this guy sounds like the economic equivalent Baudrillard.

Hey, maybe he also believed that the economy stimulates the consumer.



variation30 -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 9:38:51 AM)

which guy?



Musicmystery -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 3:42:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

strictly speaking, you're going to have to either agree or disagree...


Strictly speaking, that's a fallacy--false dilemma.


as it has undoubtedly been decades since you last took your foray into the vast intellectual world of a 101 philosophy class, allow me to refresh you. a false dilemma is when you are forced to chose between a position while it ignores other possible positions. for instace, if I said you either liked red or blue, that would be a false dilemma - as there are other colors you might like. if I said you were either at home right now or not at home right now, that would not be a false dilemma as there are no other options than home or not at home in the entire universe. likewise, if I said that you either agreed with a sentence, or did not agree with a sentence (commonly referred to as disagreeing), this would not be a false dilemma as either agreeing with something or not agreeing with something are the only two outcomes possible.

in other words, p v -p.

or in more common parlance, you can't be a little bit pregnant.



Ad hominem is also a logical fallacy--one of your favorites, actually.

To state a reader "must" agree or disagree with an argument is ridiculous. Often an argument raises good points but fails in other ways. Or, the argument is good as far as it goes, but the assumptions of its basis may be questioned. Further, your read of these arguments is that no further evidence will ever arise that would call into questions the conclusions.

False dilemma is just at the top of the list.

And incidentally, this is WHY people don't bother to seriously discuss matters with you. A reasonable person is one willing to listen to reason. You are a partisan, not a thinker--an ideologue anxious to sell his adopted approach, convinced none other could ever challenge it. This is as unscientific and illogical as it comes. It's the role of fundamentalist religion, not intellectual discourse.

Just saying. Enter new ridicule here.



Lordandmaster -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 3:45:39 PM)

I love learning about economics from all the non-economists on Collarme.  Rigolo!



philosophy -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 3:46:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboy291

Interesting you bring up philosophy because this guy sounds like the economic equivalent Baudrillard.



...no i don't.....my voice is unique [:D]



variation30 -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 5:39:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Ad hominem is also a logical fallacy--one of your favorites, actually.


don't confuse an insult and an ad hominem.

for instance, if I were to say that your senility is catching up with you, that would be an insult.

if I were to say that you're senile, ergo my position is correct, that would be an ad hominem.

I insulted you, then addressed your contention. that's not the same as an ad hominem, which relies solely on the insult to back the argument at hand.

quote:

To state a reader "must" agree or disagree with an argument is ridiculous. Often an argument raises good points but fails in other ways. Or, the argument is good as far as it goes, but the assumptions of its basis may be questioned. Further, your read of these arguments is that no further evidence will ever arise that would call into questions the conclusions.


if the argument raises good points but ultimately fails, then I would assume the reader would disagree with it.

as far as the assumption of its basis being questioned, that does not preclude agreement. I may agree that the age of the earth is the a few billion years old but still question the assumption that radioactive decay occurs at a constant rate. in the end, I look at the complete argument and agree with it or disagree with it.

quote:

And incidentally, this is WHY people don't bother to seriously discuss matters with you. A reasonable person is one willing to listen to reason. You are a partisan, not a thinker--an ideologue anxious to sell his adopted approach, convinced none other could ever challenge it. This is as unscientific and illogical as it comes. It's the role of fundamentalist religion, not intellectual discourse.


There are plenty of things I am convinced that no other individual could challenge. for instance, if I were to say "objective statements exist" I am more than a little convinced that no one could question that statement. is this being partisan? is this being illogical? am I adhering to religious dogma?



variation30 -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 5:42:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

I love learning about economics from all the non-economists on Collarme.  Rigolo!


if anyone is teaching economics in this thread, it's Hazlitt.

edit: and Lew Rockwell

they're an economist.



MadAxeman -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 6:35:34 PM)

Hazlitt was a journalist, not an economist. The father of the Austrian school was Carl Menger. The two main disciples of the Austrian School were Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk who at least became finance minister and Friedrich von Wieser who produced the respected and ambitious 'Social Economics'. Hazlitt never even completed a degree. It is disappointing that you scorned any mention of Keynes, as Hazlitt's small amount of fame was based upon his critique of Keynes General Theory. Why didn't you know that?
Even in a narrow search of Austrian economists Hazlitt doesn't register. You're the kind of contraire that would call Ringo Starr the creative force behind The Beatles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Austrian_scientists#Economists



Truthiness -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 6:52:31 PM)

Eh, degree or not, Hazlitt seemed to be accepted as an economist.  (The NYT refers to him as a "Self-taught economist").



MadAxeman -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 7:02:42 PM)

Hazlitt is most commonly called an economics commentator. The gist is that he was a minor figure, not the giant that is claimed in this thread.



Truthiness -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 7:08:20 PM)

I don't see anyone claiming Hazlitt's some kind of "giant".  variation referred to him as an economist (which, as mentioned, so does the NYT, and many others), and said he wrote this awesome introduction to economics, and mentioned his criticism of Keynesian economics.

So where's the claim that Hazlitt is a giant?



cloudboy -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 7:30:50 PM)

The greatest economic fallacy I've witnessed as an American is "supply side" economics and the LAFFER CURVE --- which claimed that cutting taxes would actually help the federal government balance its budget.

Well, not once under a series of Republican tax cuts did I witness single balanced budget or any approximation thereof.

The next great fallacy is that markets are naturally self regulating and don't tend towards monopoly and corruption.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 9:34:15 PM)

I am no rocket scientist, but do I have the option to agree with half of it and disagree with the other half? If so, then wouldn't that make another option other than to agree or disagree? What if I just said moo? Is not choosing a choice?



variation30 -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 10:29:16 PM)

Damn it feels good to be a gangsta
Automatin' orange accounts to milk t-bills
Although once I was a social-libertarian
Now I'm on kitco makin' deals
Damn it feels good to be a gangsta
I mean one that you don't really know
Browsin' with my broker, sniping bailout assets
And turnin' all my loot into gold
Now gangsta-praxeologists come in all shapes and colors
Some got ridiculed in the past
But these gangstas here are the smart ones
Studied marginal utility and they'll last

And all I gotta say to you
Wannabe, gonnabe, rent-seeking', bailout-takin' prankstas
Cuz when dollar takes a dive what the fuck you gonna do
Damn it feels good to be a gangsta .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o

blast from the past (2006) featuring my homeboy Peter Schiff (Ron Paul's economic advisor)



variation30 -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 10:45:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadAxeman

Hazlitt was a journalist, not an economist. The father of the Austrian school was Carl Menger. The two main disciples of the Austrian School were Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk who at least became finance minister and Friedrich von Wieser who produced the respected and ambitious 'Social Economics'. Hazlitt never even completed a degree. It is disappointing that you scorned any mention of Keynes, as Hazlitt's small amount of fame was based upon his critique of Keynes General Theory. Why didn't you know that?
Even in a narrow search of Austrian economists Hazlitt doesn't register. You're the kind of contraire that would call Ringo Starr the creative force behind The Beatles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Austrian_scientists#Economists


ah yes, the ever so popular wikipedia citaion. well...as this seems to be extent of your acadmeic abilities, I'll match you in kind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Hazlitt

you may want to look at some of the comments made by contemporary Austrians (Lew Rockwell, Jeffery Tucker, and Walter Block especially ...assuming they are 'real' economists) concerning Mr Hazlitt. I think you'll find that he, and especially his work, Economics in One Lesson, is highly revered. Moreso than his critique on keynes.

If you want keynes bashing, go to Hayeck. keynes evaded debates with that man...which was quite comical.



variation30 -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 10:57:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness

I don't see anyone claiming Hazlitt's some kind of "giant".  variation referred to him as an economist (which, as mentioned, so does the NYT, and many others), and said he wrote this awesome introduction to economics, and mentioned his criticism of Keynesian economics.

So where's the claim that Hazlitt is a giant?


I will say that Hazlitt's book is the best introduction to sound economic thought out there. It may not be the best or most thorough, but it is very easy to pick up and comprehend by any literate individual. It is a great first step into economics.

You don't really want to start an economics 101 thread with people of varying degrees of interest and suggest they delve into "Man, Economy, and the State", "Human Action", or the "Theory of Money and Credit".



MadAxeman -> RE: Economics 101 (12/1/2008 10:58:13 PM)

I can spell academic for a start, got a more thorough education than both Hazlitt and you by the looks of things.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875