Go ahead folks.
Go ahead folks.
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. ^-^
The reasons you listed for him being a loon are some of the reasons why I like him
I really don't think you will get very far in this, as its such a subjective topic and you will have to go into great detail about your premises to get anywhere.
The arguement would be lost in the details as that is where the subjectivity rules (not to give any hints out though I kinda made it clear in my OP)
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. ^-^
First -- Austrian School Economics is not anti econometrics. The idea of all economists is to develop ideas based on theory and then test the ideas against the real world. The Austrians just focus more on the behavioral questions and less on equations. Galbraith was not an Austrian and he also focused on theory without an equation based model system. This is and was common until computers could be utilized. There is a danger to drowning in the data and not seeing a proper theory to base tha model on. There is always a temptation to data mine the theory from the data rather than develop the theory and then test with date.
Second -- As Denny Crane! previously known as Seneca stated -- his personal beliefs are not the problem. However, government policies based on those beliefs can be a problem though. Paul, Schiff, etc. called the downturn causes correctly. So what. They also believe we should go back to the gold standard as well. That would be an economic disaster. Being right on something does not make you right on everything. Ron Paul is right on a great deal, but wrong on a great deal as well. So is every other politician in national office.
Third -- I like loons.
Grandson of Silver Guard, son of Maverick, and father to Mr MM|Rebel6666|Beer Money |bastard stepfather to Ferrets54
The Scriptorium is looking for great articles. Don't be bashful, we can help with the formatting and punctuation. I am only a pm away to you becoming a published author within the best archive of articles around.
Post a challenge and start a debate
Garb's Fight Club - the Challenge thread
.
Originally Posted by Hagar_the_Horrible
Math is incredibly important to understanding the fundamentals of theories. Don't get caught up in it though, the world can't fit into equations, it's too chaotic for one and unquantifiable for another. There needs to be a balance between the math and the gut and one should never be completely discarded for the other.
I know my last forecast on insurance premium tax collections, I only had an annual frequency of ten years of data. So... I had to go all out on logic and gut feel theory versus any kind of hardcore econometric analysis.
Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.
TheKwas, this debate is entirely pointless. You are attempting to use scientific models and empirical data to prove that your insult of someone's character is valid. The entire debate falls flat on its head from the opening title. You and Seneca are basically going to list all of the disadvantages of each other's perspectives on economics and social policy and end up acquiring no further appreciation for the other argument.
A more appropriate debate would be, is Ron Paul really accurate in his perspectives?
Also so far, I've seen attacks on Austrian school economics and the rumor that he doesn't believe in evolution. (The latter having nothing to do with his formulation of domestic policy nor his actions in Congress so far. Ron Paul, if anything, is an enemy of the religious right lobby) What I have not seen are criticisms of his outlook on the role of government, on social policy, on his deep concerns about monied interests and nationalized banks, on his free market approach to healthcare, on his idea of moving more towards a non-interventionist foreign policy, his proposal for withdrawal from the Middle East, his perspective on leaving North Korea alone, his various proposals for tax system reforms, change in ballot access laws, and making cut-backs or outright dismantling various federal departments, nor whether his constitutionalist perspective is validly constitutional or not.
Note that there are quite a few of Ron Paul's proposals that I will not and probably won't ever support, but because of what I believe to be more pragmatic solutions.
Last edited by Admiral Piett; August 04, 2009 at 04:51 AM.
Heir to Noble Savage in the Imperial House of Wilpuri
A loon indeed.. Check the connections, why does he surround himself in scum like the above videos show.
wut? whos ron paul?
I've taken a few days rest from the debate. It happened during a confluence of night outs, yesterday I was hungover, tonight I am slightly drunk again.
And worse still confuse correlation with causation (ie. like the false belief that deflation caused unemployment and vice versa)
They also believe we should go back to the gold standard as well. That would be an economic disaster. Being right on something does not make you right on everything. Ron Paul is right on a great deal, but wrong on a great deal as well. So is every other politician in national office.
Why, what would happen if we went back to the goldstandard? No more manipulation with our money?
That statement is true, but one must keep in mind that just because a social science can mirror how the physical sciences opereate, doesn't mean the value of the results are the same.Mainstream economics operates quite similarly to how the physical sciences operate
As to Ron Paul, for the sake of his own political future, it is best that his policies don't get enacted.
Check the connections that every politician has and tell me if any one of them doesn't have questionable ones. Just because Paul got $500 from a KKK member or two doesn't mean he somehow endorses the organization. This is the same with the Obama-terrorist connections. It's guilt-by-association crap.
And my dad has been a speaker for the Sons of Confederate Veterans and is currently an interpreter/re-enactor of the 7th Texas Regiment Co. H. Is he a racist?
Heir to Noble Savage in the Imperial House of Wilpuri
I don't think I have used a scientific model yet, although I have a feeling Seneca will press me to provide a defense of mainstream economics relative to austrian economics.
The way I see the debate going, it's mostly going to turn into an attack on/defense of Austrian economics with Ron Paul merely being the poster-boy for Austrian economics and its general philosophy.
[quote]
Galbraith (who is probably my economic idol along with Veblen), also focused primarily on political economy and economic history, which are generally fields that can't be formalized using equations anyways (although, many of Galbraith's insights could now be expressed more formally using Game Theory).Galbraith was not an Austrian and he also focused on theory without an equation based model system. This is and was common until computers could be utilized. There is a danger to drowning in the data and not seeing a proper theory to base tha model on. There is always a temptation to data mine the theory from the data rather than develop the theory and then test with date.
I still believe that Macroeconomic models are still divorced from reality in many ways--and many of the ways have been outlined by people like Galbraith--but that doesn't mean that the entire field of econometrics is useless (which IS the conclusion of most die-hard Austrian economists). Rather, it means that it is limited in its ability to provide evidence in favour or against certain hypothesises. These other hypothesises have to be subjected to the same sort of analysis we expect from sociological hypothesises.
Also, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a single economist being dedicated to just theory. Many, if not most, economists are dedicated to just theory. This is no different from some physicists being just theoritical physicists and others being experimental physicists, the important thing is that there is someone trying to rigorously test theory, whether it be physics theory or economic theory.
The Austrians often focus on the same questions that Macroeconomists do: the role of the central bank, the buisness cycle, the cause of recessions, how to get out of recessions, the effects of fiat currency vs pegged currency, ect. Econometrics and statistics in general can play a very important role in addressing all of these questions, and indeed I would argue that it has played an important role in addressing those questions in the field of macroeconomics.idea of all economists is to develop ideas based on theory and then test the ideas against the real world. The Austrians just focus more on the behavioral questions and less on equations.
I'm biased in the sense that I don't really care about many of these issues. Furthermore, I think that Ron Paul's perceptive on many, if not all, of these above issues is a result of his more fundamental belief in Austrian economics and completely free markets.Ron Paul, if anything, is an enemy of the religious right lobby) What I have not seen are criticisms of his outlook on the role of government, on social policy, on his deep concerns about monied interests and nationalized banks, on his free market approach to healthcare, on his idea of moving more towards a non-interventionist foreign policy, his proposal for withdrawal from the Middle East, his perspective on leaving North Korea alone, his various proposals for tax system reforms, change in ballot access laws, and making cut-backs or outright dismantling various federal departments, nor whether his constitutionalist perspective is validly constitutional or not.
I don't mind addressing these issues at all it they arise, but my original post was long enough being just focused on Austrian economics (which is still, in my opinion, his most loony aspect).
Oh, of course not. Economics is called the dismal science for more than one reason.That statement is true, but one must keep in mind that just because a social science can mirror how the physical sciences opereate, doesn't mean the value of the results are the same.
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. ^-^
Grandson of Silver Guard, son of Maverick, and father to Mr MM|Rebel6666|Beer Money |bastard stepfather to Ferrets54
The Scriptorium is looking for great articles. Don't be bashful, we can help with the formatting and punctuation. I am only a pm away to you becoming a published author within the best archive of articles around.
Post a challenge and start a debate
Garb's Fight Club - the Challenge thread
.
Originally Posted by Hagar_the_Horrible
Dinner at my place?
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. ^-^
So what if he doesn't believe in evolution? Does't mean all of his supporters don't (I believe in evolution) and doesn't make him so ultra religious freak.
He's already stated that religion should be left out of government/politics.
This debate is a bunch of BS, no wait, scratch that, this whole conversation on weather he's a loon or not is BS. The only reason why we are having this debate (Not me to btw) is because he has a huge fan base and lots of supporters.
Last edited by touchmaster; August 22, 2009 at 04:31 AM.