Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Ron Paul is a loon [TheKwas vs Seneca]

  1. #1
    TheKwas's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,704

    Default Ron Paul is a loon [TheKwas vs Seneca]

    Ron Paul is a loon. By that I mean that he believes in radical positions that are not only rejected by mainstream academia, but also that his radical positions are poorly thought-out, rely on unscientific or unreliable methodology, or are simply just wrong. Of course, this doesn't mean that Ron Paul is wrong on everything, as even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once and a while, but rather his approach to issues is so unscientific and irrational that even if he comes to the right conclusion, he's right for the wrong reasons. However, he's still wrong consistently enough that the label 'loon' is applicable.

    In short: Ron Paul believes in pseudoscience.
    Lets study the evidence.

    b]Exhibit A[/b]:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw
    Ron Paul doesn't believe in Evolution.

    That's right, the good doctor, despite his training in medicine, doesn't believe in evolution and furthermore, doesn't understand the concept of a 'scientific' theory. Lastly, he doesn't even think that a solid grasp of reality is important for the most powerful position in the world.

    I don't know Seneca's position on evolution or science, and I don't want to allow this debate get dragged down in the details of the evolution-creation 'debate', but hopefully it is needless to say that evolution is as close to a fact that is possible in science and creationism is a fringe belief among scientists and highly-educated individuals. Those who do not believe in evolution are considered either loonies or grossly ignorant, and considering Dr. Ron Paul's scientific background, I don't think ignorance is a valid excuse for him.

    Conclusion A: Ron Paul's rejection of the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution is a strong sign that he is a loon.

    Exhibit B: Ron Paul's love of psuedoeconomics (Austrian Economics).

    It is no secret that Ron Paul is deeply committed to Austrian economics. If Wikipedia is to be believed, he has pictures of Fredrick Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig Von Mises hung up in his office in Washington (that sort of idolation should itself be a clue as to his looniness). Austrian economics has become something of a household name for people with a passing knowledge of economics, unfortunately the fact that Austrian economics is considered psuedoeconomics by the majority of professional economists hasn't also become common knowledge. It would be considered a separate field entirely if they didn't try to explain the same phenomenon. Actually, it wouldn't be a field at all if it weren't for a few vested interests (see von Mises institute) keeping the school of thought alive in the layperson's mind.

    Before getting to the heart of Austrian economics, the historian in me compels me to make a few disclaimers. The Austrian school has a long history, and did provide the economic world with some brilliant economists such as Carl Menger in the past before its philosophy was discredited. However, where the Austrian school of economics has stood still the past century, mainstream economics has adopted more rigorous and scientific methodologies. My criticism is centered at modern Austrian economists not at the historical figures in the Austrian school that were writing prior to the adoption of the scientific method in economics. More precisely, this criticism is directed at Austrian economics as defined by Von Mises and Rothbard (which is the 'hard-core' school that Ron Paul subscribes to).


    So now, what separates mainstream economics from Austrian economics, and why is the latter unscientific and utterly rejected?

    Mainstream economics operates quite similarly to how the physical sciences operate: through both theory and observed data. Theory guides hypothesises and general laws that describe economic phenomenon, and data is used to test hypothesises and provide insight as to how economic theory can be improved. The process of testing hypothesises in economics is done through a branch of statistics called 'econometrics'. If I write an economics paper on a certain phenomenon I think should exist in the economy, regardless of how convincing my argument may seem on paper I'll (or someone else) will be expected to find and measure that phenomenon in economic data using econometrics.
    This relationship between theory and data is known as the scientific method.

    Austrian economics reject all of this. Their approach is grounded in 'Rationalism', which is basically the belief that one can acquire all true knowledge using 'a priori' logic. What this means is that you can discover 'truths' about the world using nothing but deductive logic. An example of this is actually my signature, which is a mock of a more famous argument to prove the existence of God using deductive logic alone.

    Those who are knowledgeable in philosophical history will know that 'Rationalism' hasn't been a serious philosophical position since the 18th century, and those who are even more knowledge will note that Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is held in such high regards precisely because it is considered a death blow to Rationalism.

    In short, Austrian economics is grounded in a philosophy that has been de facto dead for 2 centuries.

    A consequence of this philosophy is that no Austrian theories are falsifiable. This is the trademark characteristic of a non-scientific, or pseudoscientific, belief.


    This outdated philosophy guides Ron Paul's approach to almost all of the issues he talks and cares about. He has even written 6 books about Austrian economics, illustrating how dedicated he is to this lunacy.

    Conclusion A: Ron Paul's complete dedication to a discredited and pseudoscientific approach to economics is a very strong sign that he is a loon.

    End Conclusion: Given Ron Paul's rejection of the scientific method in numerous areas, and his complete dedication to pseudoeconomics, it is fair to describe Ron Paul as a 'loon'.
    Last edited by TheKwas; August 02, 2009 at 05:45 PM.
    1) The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
    2) The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
    3) The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
    4) The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
    5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
    6) Therefore, God does not exist.


    Garbarsardar's love child, and the only child he loves. ^-^

  2. #2
    Denny Crane!'s Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    24,462

    Default Re: Ron Paul is a loon [TheKwas vs Seneca]

    Quote Originally Posted by TheKwas View Post
    Ron Paul is a loon. By that I mean that he believes in radical positions that are not only rejected by mainstream academia, but also that his radical positions are poorly thought-out, rely on unscientific or unreliable methodology, or are simply just wrong. Of course, this doesn't mean that Ron Paul is wrong on everything, as even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once and a while, but rather his approach to issues is so unscientific and irrational that even if he comes to the right conclusion, he's right for the wrong reasons. However, he's still wrong consistently enough that the label 'loon' is applicable.

    In short: Ron Paul believes in pseudoscience.
    Lets study the evidence.
    I'm going to add in a qualifier here. That my interest in politicians can be qualified in their ability to get things done and as such I don't give a fig for their personal opinions unless those opinions stretch to pontificating, moralising and forcing their beliefs on others. As evidence I bring forth this quote from myself from a recent discussion.

    Well yes people moralise and pontificate against things that should be able to be objectively analysed. Why do you think I'm an anarchist, I don't respect the average persons ability to be objective.

    Nietzsche was a syphilitic madman but you take what good you can from his philosophy and dismiss the bad. Without letting your own anxiety about his madness override your ability to objectively analyse his philosophy.
    I'm not conceding here, but I do feel that is an important distinction to make when considering any politician.

    Edit: As a further aside my favorite anarchist author who has written some of the most brilliant articles on both philosophy of mind, ethics and anarchism has lately decided to follow mutualism which I find to be abhorrent yet does not make him a loon even though I consider it to be logically flawed.

    b]Exhibit A[/b]:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw
    Ron Paul doesn't believe in Evolution.

    That's right, the good doctor, despite his training in medicine, doesn't believe in evolution and furthermore, doesn't understand the concept of a 'scientific' theory. Lastly, he doesn't even think that a solid grasp of reality is important for the most powerful position in the world.

    I don't know Seneca's position on evolution or science, and I don't want to allow this debate get dragged down in the details of the evolution-creation 'debate', but hopefully it is needless to say that evolution is as close to a fact that is possible in science and creationism is a fringe belief among scientists and highly-educated individuals. Those who do not believe in evolution are considered either loonies or grossly ignorant, and considering Dr. Ron Paul's scientific background, I don't think ignorance is a valid excuse for him.

    Conclusion A: Ron Paul's rejection of the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution is a strong sign that he is a loon.
    It proves he is religious, like millions of other people especially in the USA. Unless we are going to classify a large majority of the US population as loons.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...evolution.html

    Only 14% definitely believe it. About 33% firmly reject the idea.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

    ......................

    Quote Originally Posted by http://blog.oup.com/2008/06/science_religion/
    During a televised debate last year between the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, the host asked if any of them did not believe in evolution. First one, then a second, then a third raised his hand. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee later elaborated on his opposition to evolution, mocking those who ‘believe they are the descendants of a primate’ rather than ‘ the unique creations of a God who knows us and loves us, and who created us for his own purpose.’

    Although to most educated people – especially anyone unfamiliar with the historic strength and depth of creationist beliefs in the United States – these remarks may seem to reveal a shocking level of scientific ignorance, Huckabee knew what he was doing. He is just the latest in a long line of populist American politicians keen to tap into grass-roots religious beliefs. Huckabee, in short, was seeking the approval of that fifty percent of the American population who opinion polls consistently find believe in creationism and not evolution.

    ...............

    So, although the next incumbent of the White House is certain to be someone who, unlike Bryan or Huckabee, believes in evolution (as well as God), the fact that the question is still asked of presidential hopefuls speaks volumes about the historical role of Christian fundamentalism in shaping American political culture.
    HOWEVER


    Here is the most important and relevant distinction. This is a man who has beliefs in various things but the most important part to his belief structure is not forcing his own personal beliefs on other people. He believes in a political system that allows people to explore these things on their own without the state interfering and that is a fundamentally healthy way to organise a society that would allow for the proliferation of good thinking and intellectual growth.

    Pointing out a belief you disagree with, something he is in all probability wrong about does not make him a loon. It means he has certain abberant opinions but is self contained in them.

    Exhibit B: Ron Paul's love of psuedoeconomics (Austrian Economics).
    I love Austrian Economics.

    It is no secret that Ron Paul is deeply committed to Austrian economics. If Wikipedia is to be believed, he has pictures of Fredrick Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig Von Mises hung up in his office in Washington (that sort of idolation should itself be a clue as to his looniness).
    Hang on, I have a statue of Siddartha Guatama Buddha in my bedroom. People often accuse buddhism of idolatory but they fundamentally misunderstand the concept of enjoying a subject, being focused on it and living in a system of beliefs as being idolatory or worshipful. Something you are obviously guilty of I'm afraid.

    This is a man who believes in fundamental economic principals, that will improve peoples lives and has devoted his life to implementing them. The fact that he is devoted to such a subject and lives his life working towards them (a vast portion of his life) means they hold his interest and his surroundings reflect that.

    It is intellectually disingenuous for you to assume a level of zeal and irrationality on his part, as much as it is for people to assume I'm a fanatical religious zealot (strong atheist, buddhist) because I've imagery or statues of Buddha. They are merely the point of focus for my life at a given time.

    Austrian economics has become something of a household name for people with a passing knowledge of economics,
    Except for those thoroughly knowledgable about it of course.

    I could say the same thing about Keynsian economics, or about any socialist who believes in bailouts and how fundamental they are to the system or that banks are greedy and responsible for the crisis. People who have no education but are quite happy offering analysis on something that is shaking the economic world to its foundations (and that last part is paraphrased from a debate from two respected economists in a debate on Radio4, in their words economic theory and beliefs will be shaken and reformed according to this crisis and conclusions on their part are still being formed)

    unfortunately the fact that Austrian economics is considered psuedoeconomics by the majority of professional economists hasn't also become common knowledge. It would be considered a separate field entirely if they didn't try to explain the same phenomenon. Actually, it wouldn't be a field at all if it weren't for a few vested interests (see von Mises institute) keeping the school of thought alive in the layperson's mind.
    A quick note about these glorious mainstream economists:

    “She was asking me if these things are so large, how come everyone missed it?”
    Luis Garicano on the Queen’s visit to London School of Economics, November 2008

    Her question was directed at LSE Professor Luis Garicano, who responded: "At every stage, someone was
    relying on somebody else; and everyone thought they were doing the right thing." (Pierce, 2008)


    In an October 12, 2005 speech to the National Association for Business Economics, the then
    Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan spoke about the "development of financial products, such as asset-backed securities, collateral loan obligations, and credit default swaps, that facilitate the dispersion of risk… These increasingly complex financial instruments have contributed to the development of a far more flexible, efficient, and hence resilient financial system than the one that existed just a quarter-century ago."

    "I don't expect that we will run into anything resembling a collapsing [housing] bubble, though it is conceivable that we will get some reduction in overall prices as we've had in the past, but that is not a particular problem."

    Similarly, the Canadian academic Philip Das in a 2006 survey article of financial
    globalization pointed out its benefits as “[f]inancial risks, particularly credit risks, are no longer borne by banks. They are increasingly moved off balance sheets. Assets are converted into tradable securities, which in turn eliminates credit risks. Derivative transactions like interest rate swaps also serve the same purpose [of eliminating credit risks, DJB]”. Likewise, in August 2006, the IMF published “Financial Globalization: A Reappraisal” which, despite its title, confirmed IMF conventional wisdom that (p.1) “there is little systematic evidence to support widely cited claims
    that financial globalization by itself leads to deeper and more costly crises.”
    As to the business community, Landler (2007, 2008) reports that Klaus-Peter Müller, head of the New York branch of Commerzbank for more than a decade, in a 2008 New York Times article asked “Did I know in March of ’04 that there was a U.S. subprime market that was going to face serious problems in the next few years? No, I didn’t have the slightest idea. I was a happy man then.” Josef Ackermann, CEO of Deutsche Bank, likewise remembers a July 2007 luncheon 6 attended by chief executives of leading banks, political leaders, and senior Federal Reserve officials to discuss the looming risks to the financial system, on which the deepening woes in the subprime
    mortgage market did not figure high on the agenda: “We clearly underestimated the impact”, said Ackermann.



    A quick word from the alternative viewpoint and I'll keep this brief:

    Ron paul, schiff and others predicted this crisis long before and to many times with to much accuracy for it to be coincidence, always pointing out the flaws others are now leaping upon.

    The tyranny of the majority is always a crime, nevermoreso than in academia and especially when it is so terribly wrong.

    ...............................................

    The fact that most economists consider it badly isn't actually a criticism. The economists who follow it aren't laypeople.

    Using laypeople as a form of criticism isn't valid considering their is (for example on TWC) more laypeople throwing around support for keynsian economics than Austrian economics. This isn't meant as evidence but have a quick look around TWC. Compare the economic knowledge of those sympathetic to keynsian economics or socialism and then look at those sympathetic to libertarian economics. The other month I was arguing with one poster about economics who then proceeded to PM me asking what fractional reserve banking was, what the fiat system was etc etc.

    I'm going to forgive you the use of the fallacy of appealing to the majority but it isn't exactly compelling as an arguement. One of the majority was the leader of my current government who kept calling the growth sustainable and praising the actions that led us here! Great paragons of economic thought!

    Your basically saying that there is a difference in Austrian economics in that it isn't quantitative like other mainstream schools, thus putting it at odds. THat does not make it wrong. It is a philosophical difference of working from empiricism or first principles or axioms.

    Most people won't get that, because they have little understanding of philosophy or trying to define and understand methodological differences. The fundamental difference being this belief, mainstream economists believe they can judge based off observations. Empiricism fails in the face of such complexity though because the thing being observed is to complex and that is partly because it must account for human nature and observe human behaviour, how they react to external influence and internal influences (sometimes just the act of observation will change that, whereas the other works on set fixable axioms, an aristolean method.

    Before getting to the heart of Austrian economics, the historian in me compels me to make a few disclaimers. The Austrian school has a long history, and did provide the economic world with some brilliant economists such as Carl Menger in the past before its philosophy was discredited. However, where the Austrian school of economics has stood still the past century, mainstream economics has adopted more rigorous and scientific methodologies. My criticism is centered at modern Austrian economists not at the historical figures in the Austrian school that were writing prior to the adoption of the scientific method in economics. More precisely, this criticism is directed at Austrian economics as defined by Von Mises and Rothbard (which is the 'hard-core' school that Ron Paul subscribes to).
    Scientific methedologies that created models that have pretty much failed. That is why I have listened to various debates between behavioural economists and other modelists debating about how their theories will be affected by it.

    THey are operating on theoretical principles and predictions that clearly aren't based on set laws, set principles but like psychology it is soft science. They are creating models and they are testing them in the market place and finding out that they don't fit. Why? Human behaviour.

    So now, what separates mainstream economics from Austrian economics, and why is the latter unscientific and utterly rejected?
    One school is consistently right, the other consistently wrong and you call Austrian school unscientific?

    They've consistently proven to be right more than another, now who is playing fast and loose with the idea of science. If you pick up a ball, predict it will fly to the ceiling when you drop it and it doesn't then claim you have an amazing scientific theory about how balls fly up to the ceiling it doesn't automatically make you right because you measured how far and how fast the ball dropped to the floor.

    Mainstream economics operates quite similarly to how the physical sciences operate: through both theory and observed data. Theory guides hypothesises and general laws that describe economic phenomenon, and data is used to test hypothesises and provide insight as to how economic theory can be improved. The process of testing hypothesises in economics is done through a branch of statistics called 'econometrics'. If I write an economics paper on a certain phenomenon I think should exist in the economy, regardless of how convincing my argument may seem on paper I'll (or someone else) will be expected to find and measure that phenomenon in economic data using econometrics.
    This is something (not having studied economics) that I don't have familiarity with. But if one person is consistently right in terms of well.... everything they say, and the other mixed bag sometimes right sometimes wrong....well forgive me for following one not the other.

    This relationship between theory and data is known as the scientific method.

    Austrian economics reject all of this. Their approach is grounded in 'Rationalism', which is basically the belief that one can acquire all true knowledge using 'a priori' logic. What this means is that you can discover 'truths' about the world using nothing but deductive logic. An example of this is actually my signature, which is a mock of a more famous argument to prove the existence of God using deductive logic alone.
    You might say the same about psychology. When you have to many variables like in human behaviour to be able to apply true empiricism you end up with soft science. The field of NLP has been dealing with the prejudice of people like yourself for 30 years or more because they are interested in what works not what can be deduced using methods impractical for the object in question. That is why one only employs methods that suceed and another that engages in many and varied methods some of which are effective and some of which aren't with little communication between the varied and disparate groups. NLP to accepted psychiatry is like Austrian economics to Mainstream economics. One works and the other doesn't. One relies on the acceptance of mainstream academia and the other doesn't, one works and the other is shaky.

    Your trying to paint economics out as being hard science and it isn't. This is your fundamental component to your arguement and criticisms and where you fall down because plainly there is huge flaws in the current accepted methods and that is why they have run into such huge problems. Because it isn't hard science it is extremely soft. It is by neccesity parts empiricism, part epistomological and part social science.

    Those who are knowledgeable in philosophical history will know that 'Rationalism' hasn't been a serious philosophical position since the 18th century, and those who are even more knowledge will note that Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is held in such high regards precisely because it is considered a death blow to Rationalism.
    Sigh...another appeal to majority opinion? I'm not forgiving you that one.

    Lots of people hold Kants moral theories in regard, prominent philosophical academics despite the fact that they can be so easily torn apart. Hell there are plenty of people who would defend Platos presuppositions of idealistic world of forms but it doesn't make it right.

    In short, Austrian economics is grounded in a philosophy that has been de facto dead for 2 centuries.

    A consequence of this philosophy is that no Austrian theories are falsifiable. This is the trademark characteristic of a non-scientific, or pseudoscientific, belief.

    This outdated philosophy guides Ron Paul's approach to almost all of the issues he talks and cares about. He has even written 6 books about Austrian economics, illustrating how dedicated he is to this lunacy.
    Hang on your mixing up philosophy and science here but it isn't particularly relevant to the debate. I'm letting myself get distracted between details and right and wrong.

    Conclusion A: Ron Paul's complete dedication to a discredited and pseudoscientific approach to economics is a very strong sign that he is a loon.

    End Conclusion: Given Ron Paul's rejection of the scientific method in numerous areas, and his complete dedication to pseudoeconomics, it is fair to describe Ron Paul as a 'loon'.
    [/quote]

    I feel I was getting off course dedicating my discussion to economics, one that I as a layperson am probably profoundly unsuited for. What I can say as a layperson it that aside from all the bollocks of who is academically respected and who is not. One lot has been wrong, one person has been right consistently.

    The word loon carries to me strong connotations of being disconnected from reality. Which to be fair would more adequatly fit Gordon Brown than Ron Paul, correct or not? One was right and one was wrong. Who is the loon?
    Last edited by Denny Crane!; August 02, 2009 at 09:45 PM.

  3. #3
    TheKwas's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,704

    Default Re: Ron Paul is a loon [TheKwas vs Seneca]

    Quote Originally Posted by Seneca View Post
    I'm going to add in a qualifier here. That my interest in politicians can be qualified in their ability to get things done and as such I don't give a fig for their personal opinions unless those opinions stretch to pontificating, moralising and forcing their beliefs on others. As evidence I bring forth this quote from myself from a recent discussion.



    I'm not conceding here, but I do feel that is an important distinction to make when considering any politician.
    That's a fair belief, although I do disagree. However, regardless of his ability to get things done my job is to illustrate that he is a loon, and rejection of an established theory like evolution is a very strong indication that he is a loon, as rejection of evolution is a 'looney' belief.

    It proves he is religious, like millions of other people especially in the USA. Unless we are going to classify a large majority of the US population as loons.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...evolution.html

    Only 14% definitely believe it. About 33% firmly reject the idea.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
    Note my actual conclusion from Exhibit A:
    : Ron Paul's rejection of the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution is a strong sign that he is a loon.

    Creationism is a looney belief, but merely believing in it doesn't automatically make you a loon; nor does having a single radical belief make you a radical. I would suggest that a loon would be someone who believes many loony things and/or is deeply involved in promoting loony ideas; just as a radical would need to believe many radical things and/or be deeply involved in promoting radical ideals.

    Hopefully we can agree on this general description of a loon?

    So, with that in mind it's clear that most Americans aren't loons, they have just been mislead on this one issue by clever propaganda and simply don't care enough to do any in depth research. Most Americans are simply people who have a loony belief. However, a person like, say, Micheal Behe is a loon because he's deeply involved in promoting loony ideas.

    I cite his rejection of evolution as evidence that he believes in loony things. Combining this evidence with further evidence that he believes many other loony things (and actively promotes loony ideas) will lead us to the conclusion that he is a loon.


    Here is the most important and relevant distinction. This is a man who has beliefs in various things but the most important part to his belief structure is not forcing his own personal beliefs on other people. He believes in a political system that allows people to explore these things on their own without the state interfering and that is a fundamentally healthy way to organise a society that would allow for the proliferation of good thinking and intellectual growth.
    That's fine and dandy, but doesn't change the fact that he's a loon. The loon that wears a tin-foil hat, spins around 3 times before sitting down anywhere, and is building a bomb shelter in his mom's basement is just as much as a loon as the politician that believes that public education is an invention of the devil and the end of the world will come when Israel is destroyed. The latter is just a bit more dangerous.

    Perhaps Ron Paul's creationism is not that dangerous, but his austrian economics are.

    Hang on, I have a statue of Siddartha Guatama Buddha in my bedroom. People often accuse buddhism of idolatory but they fundamentally misunderstand the concept of enjoying a subject, being focused on it and living in a system of beliefs as being idolatory or worshipful. Something you are obviously guilty of I'm afraid.

    This is a man who believes in fundamental economic principals, that will improve peoples lives and has devoted his life to implementing them. The fact that he is devoted to such a subject and lives his life working towards them (a vast portion of his life) means they hold his interest and his surroundings reflect that.

    It is intellectually disingenuous for you to assume a level of zeal and irrationality on his part, as much as it is for people to assume I'm a fanatical religious zealot (strong atheist, buddhist) because I've imagery or statues of Buddha. They are merely the point of focus for my life at a given time.
    Point conceded, I meant it as nothing other as a backhanded comment.

    Austrian economics has become something of a household name for people with a passing knowledge of economics,
    Except for those thoroughly knowledgable about it of course.

    I could say the same thing about Keynsian economics, or about any socialist who believes in bailouts and how fundamental they are to the system or that banks are greedy and responsible for the crisis
    You could say the same thing about Keynsian economics. There's nothing wrong with laypeople having a causal knowledge of economics and famous schools of economics. However, there is something wrong with the general public having the perception that Austrian economics actually represent a signficant field within economics. It's like the general public having the perception that astrologists make up a significant portion of scientists that study space.

    People who have no education but are quite happy offering analysis on something that is shaking the economic world to its foundations (and that last part is paraphrased from a debate from two respected economists in a debate on Radio4, in their words economic theory and beliefs will be shaken and reformed according to this crisis and conclusions on their part are still being formed)
    Would these economists be Edmund Conway and Andrew Lilico?

    Allow me to simply agree with Mark Thoma and Chris Dillow: http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...economics.html

    The crisis didn't really present any phenomenon we haven't seen before or couldn't explain. The banking problems that caused this recession were quite similar to the banking problems that caused other, smaller recessions in other parts of the world. What the current crisis did was emphasize how difficult it can be to determine if certain, well-known, recession-causing mechanisms are turned on.
    A quick note about these glorious mainstream economists:

    *snip*


    A quick word from the alternative viewpoint and I'll keep this brief:

    Ron paul, schiff and others predicted this crisis long before and to many times with to much accuracy for it to be coincidence, always pointing out the flaws others are now leaping upon.
    Yes, many mainstream economists were wrong. Infact, I'd even say most of them didn't predict the severity of the recession (this is due to some of the original risks appearing in hidden markets, I'll try to dig up some of the details) . Also yes, Ron Paul and his advisor schiff did correctly point out the housing bubble. I give them total kudos for that. However, the notion that all mainstream economists didn't predict the housing collapse is simply wrong. There were plenty of outspoken mainstream economists that did predict the housing collapse. A friend of mine made the following collection in about 10 minutes:

    Dean Baker in 2002: http://media.ft.com/cms/3e3b6ca8-7a0...144feabdc0.pdf
    Joseph Stiglitz in 2005: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz64
    Nouriel Roubini in 2006: http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/142759
    James Galbraith in 2006: http://utip.gov.utexas.edu/papers/utip_40.pdf
    Paul Krugman in 2002: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/op...0bubble&st=cse

    This is only the tip of the barrel, since all of the above are fairly public economists (particularly Kurgman, Stiglitz and Galbraith) and only two of these links are actual economic papers, meaning there's probably a myriad of other actual economic papers that make similar arguments.

    How can this be? How can Ron Paul and mainstream economists (and even a good number from the economic left, like Krugman, Galbraith and Stiglitz) agree on an issue? Well, quite simply this wasn't an issue that Austrian economics addresses significantly different from mainstream economics. Nothing in Ron Paul's prediction relied on Austrian economics, just general economic knowledge concerning moral hazard and economic bubbles. Blind squirrel gets a nut.


    A better way to judge Ron Paul's loony Austrian economics would be to take a prediction that actually does rely on economic aspects where Austrian economics and mainstream economics disagree. For example, Ron Paul also predicted that there will be a 15 year long 'inflation depression' caused by fiat money and the numerous stimulus packages that global governments issued. This is a prediction I'm willing to bet against.

    The fact that most economists consider it badly isn't actually a criticism. The economists who follow it aren't laypeople.

    *irrelevent snip*

    I'm going to forgive you the use of the fallacy of appealing to the majority but it isn't exactly compelling as an arguement. One of the majority was the leader of my current government who kept calling the growth sustainable and praising the actions that led us here! Great paragons of economic thought!

    Your basically saying that there is a difference in Austrian economics in that it isn't quantitative like other mainstream schools, thus putting it at odds. THat does not make it wrong. It is a philosophical difference of working from empiricism or first principles or axioms.
    The fact that the majority of professional economists consider your line of work pseadoscience, and the majority of professional philosophers consider your philosophical approach to be completely discredited is a cricitism. If 99.9 percent of professional biologists tell you that creation biology is complete garbage, that's a pretty damning criticism by itself, and pretty good indication that biologists that are creationists are loons.

    I'm not committing an appeal to authority fallacy because I'm not saying that Austrian economists must be wrong because the authority in question is infallible, nor am I cherry-picking an authority that just happens to agree with me. I'm saying that when an entire scholarly field has rejected an old methodolgy (and the entire field has rejected the Austrian methodology, I doubt you could find any major University with a core of Austrian economists), chances are they did so for some pretty good reasons and those that do hold on to ideas that are widely discredited are probably loons.

    Not a conclusive argument all by itself, but rather one more piece of evidence.

    Scientific methedologies that created models that have pretty much failed. That is why I have listened to various debates between behavioural economists and other modelists debating about how their theories will be affected by it.
    They have? No one told me. They have failings along with numerous differences depending on the modeller, but in general the models are fairly accurate in describing economic phenomenon. The Solow-growth model generally explains growth in different countries, trade models based off Krugman accurately explain the diversity of global products, New Keynesian models accurate predict the effects of stimulus, ect.

    One school is consistently right, the other consistently wrong and you call Austrian school unscientific?

    They've consistently proven to be right more than another, now who is playing fast and loose with the idea of science. If you pick up a ball, predict it will fly to the ceiling when you drop it and it doesn't then claim you have an amazing scientific theory about how balls fly up to the ceiling it doesn't automatically make you right because you measured how far and how fast the ball dropped to the floor.
    Wait... when did we reach the conclusion that Austrian economics is consistently right? They don't even make predictions to prove that they are right (or wrong). It's like trying to argue that Religion X has been proven to be right when Religion X is based purely on faith rather than evidence. You can't prove something that's based on faith.

    Furthermore, economic models DO accurately explain plenty of phenomenon and ARE subjected to different econometric analysis. Why do you think that macroeconomic models have evolved from Classical, through Neo-Keynesian, Neo-classical and into New Classical and New Keynesian models in just the last century? The reason is that the models improved and older models were replaced when they failed to explain phenomenon as accurately (according to econometrics) as newer models.

    Austrian theories, however, have no such rigor when testing for superiority.

    You might say the same about psychology. When you have to many variables like in human behaviour to be able to apply true empiricism you end up with soft science. The field of NLP has been dealing with the prejudice of people like yourself for 30 years or more because they are interested in what works not what can be deduced using methods impractical for the object in question. That is why one only employs methods that suceed and another that engages in many and varied methods some of which are effective and some of which aren't with little communication between the varied and disparate groups. NLP to accepted psychiatry is like Austrian economics to Mainstream economics. One works and the other doesn't. One relies on the acceptance of mainstream academia and the other doesn't, one works and the other is shaky.
    I'm not overly well-educated in psychology, but psychiatry and NLP try to address some very different problems. NLP can't treat schizophrenia and doesn't even attempt to (as far as I know). NLP has to be weighed and compared against other pyschotherapy or other types of hypnotherapy, and frankly my understanding there's little empirical evidence that it does any better. Do you have any empirical evidence that it does any better? If not, on exactly what basis are you claiming that it works better?

    Your trying to paint economics out as being hard science and it isn't. This is your fundamental component to your arguement and criticisms and where you fall down because plainly there is huge flaws in the current accepted methods and that is why they have run into such huge problems. Because it isn't hard science it is extremely soft. It is by neccesity parts empiricism, part epistomological and part social science.
    I certainly never meant to pain economics as a hard science. It generally has no access to lab experiments and has to instead rely on the limitations of real-world experiments and the limitations of econometrics. It's best described as a soft science. However, the point is that it tries to make itself as rigorous as possible given these limitations and keep true to the scientific method. Without a level of rigor, there's no way to tell if one model or theory is better than another, or any way to falsify one theory or model.

    Lots of people hold Kants moral theories in regard, prominent philosophical academics despite the fact that they can be so easily torn apart. Hell there are plenty of people who would defend Platos presuppositions of idealistic world of forms but it doesn't make it right.
    I think you're underestimating just how dead a priori/pure reason is in philosophical AND scientific circles. It's simply not scientific and provides no insight to the objective world. However, feel free to provide a defense for pure reason if you wish to pursue this issue further.

    The word loon carries to me strong connotations of being disconnected from reality. Which to be fair would more adequatly fit Gordon Brown than Ron Paul, correct or not? One was right and one was wrong. Who is the loon?
    I'm not entirely sure what Gordon Brown's beliefs were about the American housing market, but supposing that he was wrong and Ron Paul was right about that particular issue, that still doesn't mean that Gordon Brown is a bigger loon. Gordon Brown has shown himself to be probably the most effective national leader in dealing with the global crisis by applying the best economic tools to solve the problem. Ron Paul is wrong and misguided on so many other economic issues that had he been in charge of a country during the global crisis, I'm fairly certain that he would have allowed it to whirlwind down to a depression by avoiding all attempts at a stimulus, returning the country to the gold standard, and abolishing the central bank (and declare that the resulting depression is for the best anyways, to add insult to injury).

    So no, Ron Paul is a much bigger loon.
    1) The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
    2) The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
    3) The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
    4) The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
    5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
    6) Therefore, God does not exist.


    Garbarsardar's love child, and the only child he loves. ^-^

  4. #4
    Denny Crane!'s Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    24,462

    Default Re: Ron Paul is a loon [TheKwas vs Seneca]

    First of all I apologise that my replies are coming so far apart. Work has left me slightly deranged, I've been in no fit state to answer. I'll answer the first half now and the second much larger half later.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheKwas View Post
    That's a fair belief, although I do disagree. However, regardless of his ability to get things done my job is to illustrate that he is a loon, and rejection of an established theory like evolution is a very strong indication that he is a loon, as rejection of evolution is a 'looney' belief.


    Note my actual conclusion from Exhibit A:
    : Ron Paul's rejection of the overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution is a strong sign that he is a loon.

    Creationism is a looney belief, but merely believing in it doesn't automatically make you a loon; nor does having a single radical belief make you a radical. I would suggest that a loon would be someone who believes many loony things and/or is deeply involved in promoting loony ideas; just as a radical would need to believe many radical things and/or be deeply involved in promoting radical ideals.

    Hopefully we can agree on this general description of a loon?

    So, with that in mind it's clear that most Americans aren't loons, they have just been mislead on this one issue by clever propaganda and simply don't care enough to do any in depth research. Most Americans are simply people who have a loony belief. However, a person like, say, Micheal Behe is a loon because he's deeply involved in promoting loony ideas.
    So he thinks it isn't an important question but the freedom to pursue individual beliefs is. Thats a lot less loony than supporting wars that kill people, torture, drug wars and laws that would inhibit freedom.

    Writes Joe Schembrie: “Here is the unedited Youtube of Ron Paul’s remarks on evolution.

    “Here is the highly-edited version that is referenced by Andrew Sullivan’s blog.

    “Here is a transcript, with the deleted words bracketed:

    “‘Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it’s a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [it probably doesn't bother me. It's not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think] the Creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side. [So I just don't...if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it's an interesting discussion, I think it's a theological discussion, and I think it's fine, and we can have our...if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn't be running for public office.']

    “As you can see, half of RP’s words were censored. His real message was, ‘We’re fighting for freedom and can’t afford to be split over a debate about fossils.’”

    I cite his rejection of evolution as evidence that he believes in loony things. Combining this evidence with further evidence that he believes many other loony things (and actively promotes loony ideas) will lead us to the conclusion that he is a loon.

    That's fine and dandy, but doesn't change the fact that he's a loon. The loon that wears a tin-foil hat, spins around 3 times before sitting down anywhere, and is building a bomb shelter in his mom's basement is just as much as a loon as the politician that believes that public education is an invention of the devil and the end of the world will come when Israel is destroyed. The latter is just a bit more dangerous.

    Perhaps Ron Paul's creationism is not that dangerous, but his austrian economics are.


    Point conceded, I meant it as nothing other as a backhanded comment.
    A lunatic is a commonly used term for a person who is mentally ill, dangerous, foolish or unpredictable: a condition once called lunacy

    Primarily I expect this debate to evolve to focus primarily on Austrian vs mainstream economics as it is clearly what we are both interested in so I'm going to split this arguement into two distinct sections. What is and is not a dangerous or lunatic idea with special importance given to the consequences of that dangerous ideas in politics and governance. This can be referenced back when we come to the main arguement about economics.

    So for various reasons whether politic or personal belief or even simple lack of knowledge he rejects an idea that isn't particularly or even slightly relevant to his politics. There is absolutely no danger whatsoever from his personal religious beliefs since they are entirely discounted in his political philosophy.

    The beliefs of other politicians on the other hand causes real death and misery. The incarceration of more people than any other western country in the USA, the laws that would allow the state to intrude on its own citizens, allow people to be tortured, kill hundreds of thousands in wars amongst other things. That is ''dangerous'' and therefore loony. If I can convince you that mainstream economic policies that have been pursued during the recession and before are flawed (long shot I know) then it will be further proof that normal politicians follow a collection of lunatic beliefs. That their behaviour because a lot of it is reactionary is unpredictable, that the reckless spending is foolish and positively dangerous for the future of millions of peoples jobs and security.

    Society is built from the grassroots upwards, the danger is in politicians who would force their morality and personal belief systems on others. Not in the ones who would provide a safe secure environment for people to operate in and deduce their own beliefs.
    Last edited by Denny Crane!; August 11, 2009 at 08:24 AM.

  5. #5
    TheKwas's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,704

    Default Re: Ron Paul is a loon [TheKwas vs Seneca]

    No need to apologize for the delay. I myself have been extremely busy the last week (finals were much harder than I anticipated), so I was somewhat relieved to see that I wasn't missing much here.

    Since this was originally your topic, I'll allow you to define 'loon' as you please. I was operating on the assumption that one can be a loon without being dangerous (simply being a person detached from reality), but if we instead include 'dangerous' as a fundamental aspect of a 'loon', then I will withdraw my argument (atleast for the time being) in regards to the evolution.
    1) The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
    2) The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
    3) The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
    4) The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
    5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
    6) Therefore, God does not exist.


    Garbarsardar's love child, and the only child he loves. ^-^

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •