|
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:13:42 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote: Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:23:58 GMT, (George Cleveland) wrote: (snips) If that was so, the corporations would not have allowed the imposition of social security taxes, collective bargaining, the SEC, high income taxes, fair housing laws, OSHA, EPA, the ADA, minimum wage laws, all the rest of the post-1933 nanny/security state. But all those - and more - WERE enacted, because the corporations did lose their power. Jeez, I couldn't have made a better case for strict regulation of corporations. Virtually every one of those "nanny" state regulations has made the lives of working people tolerable under capitalism. Without them the existence of capitalism itself would be in doubt. Revolution, *Red revolution* was on the agenda in the U.S. in the 1930s. Laissez-faire capitalism had failed. Roosevelt was able to deflect the demands for radical change by making humane reforms to an inherently inhumane system. Perhaps you don't realize it, but above you have made my case that the corporations did lose their power. "Laissez-faire capitalism had failed." Indeed it had. Except that it hadn't. First of all, there never was a period of "laissez-faire" capitalism. No, of course not. I was using his term. I took it to mean something along the lines of, "those who favor laissez faire capitalism," i.e., industrial capitalists. They did fail. Their stock market failed to preserve the capital invested in it during the late 20s. Then they failed to stop the New Deal's security state from displacing them at the top of political power. People had lost faith in industrial capitalism as the basis for their economic well being. They turned instead to the New Deal. That's a myth perpetuated by leftwing teachers' unions in high school "history" classes for over 60 years. Secondly, the depression was NOT brought on by any "failure" in the market. The depression occurred because the Federal Reserve cut the money supply by some 30%. I don't mean they cut the growth rate of the money supply; they cut the absolute amount of money in circulation by 30%, leading to a massive and uncontrollable deflation. Milton Friedman basically won his Nobel prize in economics for showing this. The reduction of the money supply (made necessary by the previous inflation caused by fractional reserve banking) could have been accommodated in the economy if costs had been allowed to decline. But instead the FDR administration put in place even more costs such as higher income taxes, SS taxes, collective bargaining, a disruption in the capital market by the imposition of the SEC, institutionalizing inflexible wage rates, etc. They made the depression worse and much longer than it needed to be. We did need a market correction to wash out the inflation and bubble market speculation which occurred during the 20s. We did not need the Great Depression. FDR didn't save us from the depression. He made it worse. (rest snipped) -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:13:42 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:23:58 GMT, (George Cleveland) wrote: (snips) If that was so, the corporations would not have allowed the imposition of social security taxes, collective bargaining, the SEC, high income taxes, fair housing laws, OSHA, EPA, the ADA, minimum wage laws, all the rest of the post-1933 nanny/security state. But all those - and more - WERE enacted, because the corporations did lose their power. Jeez, I couldn't have made a better case for strict regulation of corporations. Virtually every one of those "nanny" state regulations has made the lives of working people tolerable under capitalism. Without them the existence of capitalism itself would be in doubt. Revolution, *Red revolution* was on the agenda in the U.S. in the 1930s. Laissez-faire capitalism had failed. Roosevelt was able to deflect the demands for radical change by making humane reforms to an inherently inhumane system. Perhaps you don't realize it, but above you have made my case that the corporations did lose their power. "Laissez-faire capitalism had failed." Indeed it had. Except that it hadn't. First of all, there never was a period of "laissez-faire" capitalism. No, of course not. I was using his term. I took it to mean something along the lines of, "those who favor laissez faire capitalism," i.e., industrial capitalists. They did fail. Their stock market failed to preserve the capital invested in it during the late 20s. Then they failed to stop the New Deal's security state from displacing them at the top of political power. People had lost faith in industrial capitalism as the basis for their economic well being. They turned instead to the New Deal. That's a myth perpetuated by leftwing teachers' unions in high school "history" classes for over 60 years. Secondly, the depression was NOT brought on by any "failure" in the market. The depression occurred because the Federal Reserve cut the money supply by some 30%. I don't mean they cut the growth rate of the money supply; they cut the absolute amount of money in circulation by 30%, leading to a massive and uncontrollable deflation. Milton Friedman basically won his Nobel prize in economics for showing this. The reduction of the money supply (made necessary by the previous inflation caused by fractional reserve banking) Fractional reserve banking does not by itself cause inflation. We still have fractional reserve banking today. could have been accommodated in the economy if costs had been allowed to decline. Costs DID decline: that's what deflation is, and we experience a horrific deflation. But instead the FDR administration put in place even more costs such as higher income taxes, SS taxes, collective bargaining, a disruption in the capital market by the imposition of the SEC, institutionalizing inflexible wage rates, etc. The depression was well under way long before Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933. They made the depression worse and much longer than it needed to be. The "making worse" didn't happen until 1937, when the administration cut spending in pursuit of a balanced budget. We did need a market correction to wash out the inflation and bubble market speculation which occurred during the 20s. We did not need the Great Depression. FDR didn't save us from the depression. He made it worse. (rest snipped) -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
"Left wing kookiness"
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message ink.net... Don wrote: "Jonathan Ball" wrote Not all leftists are "vegan", but all "vegans" are leftists. Get it, now? Be careful where you paint with that wide brush, you may paint yourself in a corner. Nope. One very articulate and obviously intelligent poster in alt.food.vegan thought he had disproved my contention, because he is a reflexive defender of Republican and conservative orthodoxy, and he said he was "vegan". However, once I induced him to look in on talk.politics.animals and alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, he realized, and freely admitted, that he had erroneously conflated following a "vegan" diet with BEING a "vegan". He no longer calls himself a "vegan", because he eschews animal products in his diet entirely for health reasons. BTW: Your ASSumption isn't even close. It's spot on. Bring on your *30 political issues*, I double dog dare ya. LOL I don't have a 30 point test, but the following 10 point quiz worked well enough two other times. When I posted this in alt.food.vegan, twice about a year apart, the self-styled "vegans" gave consistently leftwing answers 85% of the time or higher. One of the problems with this particular quiz is, it's possible to disagree with the statement from either leftwing or rightwing perspective. It's important, therefore, to add a few *honest* explanatory words in addtion to your yes/no or agree/disagree answer. State whether or not you're "vegan" or tend to agree with the tenets of "veganism", then answer yes or no, or agree or disagree, along with a short explanation of your answer. 1. Military service should be voluntary. (No draft) There should be no gov't forced military. 2. Government should not control radio, TV, the press or the Internet. Gov't should control nothing. 3. Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults. No regulations on anything, that is for the free market, and free people to decide. 4. Drug laws do more harm than good. Repeal them. No laws, period. Laws do not change behavior, they only assign a penalty. 5. People should be free to come and go across borders; to live and work where they choose. But of course. 6. Businesses and farms should operate without govt. subsidies. Subsidies = theft Theft is a no no. 7. People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. Tarrif = theft. see above 8. Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them. Employers should pay what they wish. 9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. Just like the free market. 10. All foreign aid should be privately funded. All people should control their lives, completely and be responsible for their behavior, completely. Now, which side of the aisle do I stand on? (I'm painting you into a corner with a very narrow brush) |
"Left wing kookiness"
"paghat" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wrote
"Jonathan Ball" wrote 9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. sounds lika a good idea, but it won't work. how would you pay for schools, public health programs, etc? Why should YOU pay to school MY kids? Once YOU approve of paying for MY needs, YOU will be broke in short order. |
"Left wing kookiness"
In article , "Don"
wrote: "paghat" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wrote Paghat wrote nothing quoted by Don. 9. End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. sounds lika a good idea, but it won't work. how would you pay for schools, public health programs, etc? Why should YOU pay to school MY kids? Once YOU approve of paying for MY needs, YOU will be broke in short order. A certain cretinish moron with a mandrill's blue ass forged comments in my name which I never made & you apparently fell for it. I did address this issue in an actual post of my own, but didn't use the school system as an example. I asked, instead, how it would serve citizens if the fire department put out fires only for people who could afford to pay ten thousand dollars (minimum) for the service, or if the police department only answered phone calls for paid-up subscribers. Unfortunately the Libertarian form of conservatism you seem to be advocating is vastly too utopian & idealistic, which alas has no more practical applicability than any random Jesus freaks belief that if we'd all love Jesus it would be a perfect world. I am by & large a civil libertarian AND progressive, but the broader conservative libertarian claptrap is simply no more likely to function than ever was the idealised theory of communism or even of pure anarchy -- all such systems have at their heart a beauty & perfection that makes sense only when divorced from humanity's actual nature. There is no chance of it working because people do not abide by the theory & never care so much about the world as about their own country, never as much for their country as for their immediate community, nor as much about their immediate community than their immediate family, nor as much about their family as about their own personal SHORT TERM gain, since for the majority immediate always takes precidence over future outcomes. I want to **** NOW; i want to eat NOW; i want to sit where you're sitting NOW; I will not help put out your burning house because mine doesn't need putting out NOW. Everything but Self is up for grabs without legal systems of penalty & rewards, & taxation to enforce at least a moderate level of sharing of resources for roads & fire departments & suchlike, no such sharing would occur, & a caste system would soon fill the void where law & taxation vanished, with anyone stepping outside the caste system (outcastes) utterly banished if not sumarily slaughtered. When its tested, it fails. We already have pay-as-you-go medicine in America that permits the poor to drop dead with inadequate care. And even people who have shitloads of money -- if they have a RARE disease there won't be treatment advances because there's no profit in medicine for dozens as there is in medicine for the common ailments of thousands. So despite having the best theoretical medicine of any country in the world, Americans do not rank on top for such things as infant mortality. Or despite that advances in treatment of tropical diseases could save millions of lives, there is no research into it because in our pay-as-you-go system, it isn't profitable to treat people who have no way to indebt themselves to the nth degree. The Libertarian concept of a self-restrained society which keeps its own long-term wellbeing uppermost in mind, of a pay-as-you-go society without taxes or environmental protection laws & whatnot, would lead instantaneously to a sinister pecking order of the most deadly kind. But it's fun to play Imaginary Land in which libertarian self-interest of the One leads logically to a defacto kindly protection of the All, with no excesses of behavior to use up all resources in a trice & never have access to them ever again, since everyone knows that'd be stupid in the long run & simple self-preservation dictates that we all be careful about such things. The reality is there is no "in the long run" without societal restraints, because the needs of society as a whole DO NOT match up with the needs of the individual who never really thinks long-term. For each of us as individuals there's NOW and MINE, at any cost to the whole. It's equally fun to have playtime in which communism results in equal sharing of combined resources out of the goodness of everyone's heart & everyone's a song-filled Musketeer with blissful tankards of one for all & all for one. Fat chance that'd ever happen outside of a group of ten with blood ties or a specialized shared goal, & even one of that jolly ten would in tme kill one of the nine others over one extra blueberry or a mating priority. It's also great fun to quote Ann Frank's opinon of humanity's inherent goodness & try to believe THAT for a while, at the same time trying to sort out her ashes from those of millions of others. -paghat the ratgirl -- "Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher. "Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature. -from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers" See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
"paghat" wrote
"Don" wrote: Unfortunately the Libertarian form of conservatism you seem to be advocating is vastly too utopian & idealistic, I have advocated nothing of the such and you might consider being less presumptuous. And you still haven't answered the question of, *Why should you pay for my childrens education?* |
"Left wing kookiness" (was: Self-Sufficiency Acreage...?)
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:08:51 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote: But instead the FDR administration put in place even more costs such as higher income taxes, SS taxes, collective bargaining, a disruption in the capital market by the imposition of the SEC, institutionalizing inflexible wage rates, etc. The depression was well under way long before Roosevelt was inaugurated in 1933. Gentlemen...below is the #1 reason the Depression was far more than a market readjustment http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=66 Read it and then discuss it in this thread, alone with its permutations and history of what it later wrought, even though itself only lasted for 2 yrs. Gunner " ..The world has gone crazy. Guess I'm showing my age... I think it dates from when we started looking at virtues as funny. It's embarrassing to speak of honor, integrity, bravery, patriotism, 'doing the right thing', charity, fairness. You have Seinfeld making cowardice an acceptable choice; our politicians changing positions of honor with every poll; we laugh at servicemen and patriotic fervor; we accept corruption in our police and bias in our judges; we kill our children, and wonder why they have no respect for Life. We deny children their childhood and innocence- and then we denigrate being a Man, as opposed to a 'person'. We *assume* that anyone with a weapon will use it against his fellowman- if only he has the chance. Nah; in our agitation to keep the State out of the church business, we've destroyed our value system and replaced it with *nothing*. Turns my stomach- " Chas , rec.knives |
"Left wing kookiness"
"Don" wrote in message ... "paghat" wrote "Don" wrote: Unfortunately the Libertarian form of conservatism you seem to be advocating is vastly too utopian & idealistic, I have advocated nothing of the such and you might consider being less presumptuous. And you still haven't answered the question of, *Why should you pay for my childrens education?* Or your health care? Or pay someone not to work? etc. Its very difficult to make a rational argument for a lot of things our various layers of government do. |
"Left wing kookiness"
Jonathan Ball wrote:
Look: less is more. Right is Wrong. War is Peace. And slavery is freedom... It figures, in your pig-headedness and stupidity, that How observant of you to mention Pigs... Yes, all Pigs are created equal, but some Pigs are more equal than others... Pity you've never heard of Pascal or Montaigne. It's a pity that you didn't recognize the quotes above... But you said it yourself: You really are a stupid ****. Chuckle... -- Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba. Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues |
"Left wing kookiness"
Charles Scripter wrote:
Jonathan Ball wrote: Look: less is more. Right is Wrong. War is Peace. And slavery is freedom... You still don't get it. I am not offering anything that is remotely comparable to the examples of turning truth on its head in '1984'. I could explain the difference to you, but because you are a pig-headed fool, you still wouldn't get it. It figures, in your pig-headedness and stupidity, that How observant of you to mention Pigs... Yes, all Pigs are created equal, but some Pigs are more equal than others... Pity you've never heard of Pascal or Montaigne. It's a pity that you didn't recognize the quotes above... I did recognize them, you stupid ****. They are not applicable to what I said. "Less is more" is not the same thing, not the same thing at all, as the quotes from '1984'. You are a fool. |
"Left wing kookiness"
Charles Scripter wrote:
Jonathan Ball wrote: Look: less is more. Right is Wrong. War is Peace. And slavery is freedom... You still don't get it. I am not offering anything that is remotely comparable to the examples of turning truth on its head in '1984'. I could explain the difference to you, but because you are a pig-headed fool, you still wouldn't get it. It figures, in your pig-headedness and stupidity, that How observant of you to mention Pigs... Yes, all Pigs are created equal, but some Pigs are more equal than others... Pity you've never heard of Pascal or Montaigne. It's a pity that you didn't recognize the quotes above... I did recognize them, you stupid ****. They are not applicable to what I said. "Less is more" is not the same thing, not the same thing at all, as the quotes from '1984'. You are a fool. |
"Left wing kookiness"
Mike Warren wrote:
"Volker Hetzer" writes: (Before you start to argue: I happily eat meat but I'm willing to reduce that if someone convince me that it really helps. Right now it just means that the meat price goes down and someone else in my city eats more meat.) From a carbon-emission standpoint, eating less meat is good. For example, the Canadian government claims not eating meat every other day saves around a quarter ton of carbon-emissions annually; not sure if that counts methane with its carbon-equivalence or not... But, since the United States is a net Carbon SINK of US CO2 emissions, it just doesn't matter to us Yanks (i.e. our forests eat more CO2 than our production creates). This all assumes that global warming is indeed _caused_ by CO2, and not the other way around. Correlation does not imply causation -- wet pavement does not cause rain. It also assumes that the sources of CO2 are primarily due to man (as opposed to natural source, such as the exposure of carbonate rocks, sea bottom, to the atmosphere). And then there's the whole issue of how these "temperature measurents" are being made... (Yes, I have some familiarity with the contents of the NOAA/NCDC databases, and the problems with trying to extrapolate meaningful conclusions from the data contained within). Unfortuantely, I've momentarily mislaid one of my favorite NCDC documents, describing a large number of items that result in "local temperature increases" (i.e. "global warming"), these include changes in instrumentation, changes in personnel, changes in time of day for measurement, and heat island effects. By and large, these have not been corrected nor controlled for... And then there are the issues of solar output (which most certainly changes), adapative aperature hypotheses, and others -- which are never addressed by the alarmists. But my favorite issue has to be that the global warming alarmists always compare temperatures to 1850, the END the "Little Ice Age". That behavior is much like looking at a thermometer in June, and then comparing it to January, and claiming "Look! Global Warming!". And then the real bottom line is: even IF (anomalous) global warming is really occurring, and even IF it is man made, and it is preventable, if it is does not result in deleterious effects, it still doesn't matter. Now don't go cite all the problems that the newspapers claim "global warming" will cause, as it's the exact same list that they predicted back in the 1970s, when they claimed it was "global cooling". -- Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba. Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues |
"Left wing kookiness"
Mike Warren wrote:
"Volker Hetzer" writes: (Before you start to argue: I happily eat meat but I'm willing to reduce that if someone convince me that it really helps. Right now it just means that the meat price goes down and someone else in my city eats more meat.) From a carbon-emission standpoint, eating less meat is good. For example, the Canadian government claims not eating meat every other day saves around a quarter ton of carbon-emissions annually; not sure if that counts methane with its carbon-equivalence or not... But, since the United States is a net Carbon SINK of US CO2 emissions, it just doesn't matter to us Yanks (i.e. our forests eat more CO2 than our production creates). This all assumes that global warming is indeed _caused_ by CO2, and not the other way around. Correlation does not imply causation -- wet pavement does not cause rain. It also assumes that the sources of CO2 are primarily due to man (as opposed to natural source, such as the exposure of carbonate rocks, sea bottom, to the atmosphere). And then there's the whole issue of how these "temperature measurents" are being made... (Yes, I have some familiarity with the contents of the NOAA/NCDC databases, and the problems with trying to extrapolate meaningful conclusions from the data contained within). Unfortuantely, I've momentarily mislaid one of my favorite NCDC documents, describing a large number of items that result in "local temperature increases" (i.e. "global warming"), these include changes in instrumentation, changes in personnel, changes in time of day for measurement, and heat island effects. By and large, these have not been corrected nor controlled for... And then there are the issues of solar output (which most certainly changes), adapative aperature hypotheses, and others -- which are never addressed by the alarmists. But my favorite issue has to be that the global warming alarmists always compare temperatures to 1850, the END the "Little Ice Age". That behavior is much like looking at a thermometer in June, and then comparing it to January, and claiming "Look! Global Warming!". And then the real bottom line is: even IF (anomalous) global warming is really occurring, and even IF it is man made, and it is preventable, if it is does not result in deleterious effects, it still doesn't matter. Now don't go cite all the problems that the newspapers claim "global warming" will cause, as it's the exact same list that they predicted back in the 1970s, when they claimed it was "global cooling". -- Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba. Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues |
"Left wing kookiness"
Economics is a subset of psychology - psychology applied to
matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying and selling, that sort of thing. That's not even in the ball park! Have you ever read an economics text? The closest economics comes to being "psychological" (and it's about as "close " as the North Pole is to the South Pole) is in making the assumption that people always behave "rationally." I.e., that entrepreneurs maximize profit by equating marginal cost with marginal revenue and that consumers "equate at the margin" so that the last penny spent on every good and service provides the same amount of "utility" (want-satisfaction). What could be further form the truth than that? vince norris |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 05:47:03 GMT, "Don"
wrote: "paghat" wrote "Don" wrote: Unfortunately the Libertarian form of conservatism you seem to be advocating is vastly too utopian & idealistic, I have advocated nothing of the such and you might consider being less presumptuous. And you still haven't answered the question of, *Why should you pay for my childrens education?* How about because an uneducated populace would lead to many problems throughout society? Assuming I live a nice, long life, your kids are going to be helping to bail me out of the problems caused by mistakes made by our parents and ourselves. I'm willing to pay so that they have enough information to do a good job of it. k For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp. For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
"Babberney" wrote in message ... On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 05:47:03 GMT, "Don" wrote: "paghat" wrote "Don" wrote: Unfortunately the Libertarian form of conservatism you seem to be advocating is vastly too utopian & idealistic, I have advocated nothing of the such and you might consider being less presumptuous. And you still haven't answered the question of, *Why should you pay for my childrens education?* How about because an uneducated populace would lead to many problems throughout society? Who's talking about *populace*? I said, MY children. If you want to pay for my kids education, come on over and bring your checkbook, as he is homeschooled. Assuming I live a nice, long life, your kids are going to be helping to bail me out of the problems caused by mistakes made by our parents and ourselves. Nope. My kid won't pay for your problems, that is YOUR responsibility. I'm willing to pay so that they have enough information to do a good job of it. That is the root of socialism, did you learn anything at all in school? |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:39:37 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote: Economics is a subset of psychology - psychology applied to matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying and selling, that sort of thing. That's not even in the ball park! Have you ever read an economics text? Yes, I have. I had to read one to help my ex-wife pass an econ class. She didn't understand it, but I did. The closest economics comes to being "psychological" (and it's about as "close " as the North Pole is to the South Pole) is in making the assumption that people always behave "rationally." I.e., that entrepreneurs maximize profit by equating marginal cost with marginal revenue and that consumers "equate at the margin" so that the last penny spent on every good and service provides the same amount of "utility" (want-satisfaction). You just described applied psychology - just as much as studying any other stimulus and response. Do people always react the same to a given stimulus? No, of course not. For one thing, they don't agree on economic values. What could be further form the truth than that? Almost anything. And I don't recall any economist claiming that people always behave rationally. But they often do behave rationally. Your point being...??? -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
"Left wing kookiness"
There are a whole bunch of people here who apparently think that Thomas
Jefferson was an ardent socialist. (Can you believe that Marxist/commie actually thought that tax-supported schools should be a cornerstone of democracy? Shocking, I tell you, shocking) http://www.jeffersonlegacy.org/outreach.htm "Jefferson was the prophet of the American faith in the powers of education to secure the freedom and the happiness of the people. As early as 1778, in his Virginia Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge, Jefferson set forth a comprehensive plan of public education broadly based in primary schools, rising as in a pyramid through secondary schools, with a state university at the apex. The dual mission was, first, “to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large,” and second, to ensure that “those persons whom nature hath endowed with genius and virtue” — Jefferson’s “natural aristocracy” — should be educated to the limits of their abilities in order the better to serve the mass of citizens. Quite beyond its practical benefits to the individual, education at all levels had distinctly moral, social, and civic purposes. It should cultivate virtue, teach the obligations of individuals to each other, and, above all, raise up the informed and responsible citizens a democratic government required. Regrettably, Jefferson’s plan never came to fruition in Virginia; and although his influence was felt in other states, he finally had to be satisfied with the achievement of the state university — the apex of the pyramid without the foundation in the schools. Jefferson’s faith in democracy was, at bottom, a faith in education. Believing, as he said, “that the people are the only safe depositories of their own liberty,” it was essential that they should be educated to a certain degree and prepared to take part in public affairs; moreover, government should be structured in ways that invited widespread citizen participation. Empowerment of the people depended upon education. It was, therefore, a paramount responsibility of democratic government. Tax-supported public education assumed common schools shaping a common citizenship and a common culture. After his retirement as President, Jefferson preached that the future of democracy hung from two hooks: first, general education to enable every citizen to judge for himself how best to secure freedom and happiness, and second, the establishment everywhere of “little republics,” which he called “wards,” and compared to New England town meetings, to encourage due participation in public affairs. The wards should be responsible for the public schools. Jefferson distrusted concentrated power. “What,” he asked, “has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating of all cares in one body.” Where power is dispersed, and common schooling is the rule, every citizen may come to identify his own interest with the interests of the whole. With impassioned eloquence, Jefferson declared: “Where every man … feels he is a participator in the government of affairs, not merely at an election one day in the year, but every day; where there shall not be a man in the State who will not be a member of some one of its councils, great or small, he will let the heart be torn out of his body sooner than his powers be wrested from him by a Caesar or Bonaparte.” If Jefferson was right, the health, indeed the salvation, of American democracy depends upon the making of informed, responsible, and participating citizens. Civic education, therefore, ought to be a central theme in the conduct and curriculum of schools. This includes many things, from the integration of the children of a pluralistic society in a shared culture to thorough instruction in the history and workings of American democracy. In recent years, the achievement of scientific, mathematical, and cultural literacy have been set forth as key goals of K-12 education. Civic literacy, however, has been neglected. Yet in the vision of Thomas Jefferson — the vision as well of Horace Mann and John Dewey among eminent American educators — civic literacy is fundamental, morally, socially, politically. By restoring the iron thread of civic learning and civic purpose in our schools, we help to restore faith in American ideals and institutions. The philosopher Santayana once remarked that in America “the common citizen must be something of a saint and something of a hero.” There is a Jeffersonian ring to that. It encapsulates a worthy idea." Quoted from a letter to American educators from Merrill D. Peterson, Chairman of The Thomas Jefferson Commemoration Commission. |
"Left wing kookiness"
"gregpresley" wrote
There are a whole bunch of people here who apparently think that Thomas Jefferson was an ardent socialist. (Can you believe that Marxist/commie actually thought that tax-supported schools should be a cornerstone of democracy? Shocking, I tell you, shocking) http://www.jeffersonlegacy.org/outreach.htm It should cultivate virtue, teach the obligations of individuals to each other, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You can't get more socialist that that. Of course that is exactly why Jeffersons Constitution fails, in its first three words. Jefferson was also the first president to completely ignore the boundaries set forth in that document. |
"Left wing kookiness"
gregpresley wrote:
Jefferson’s faith in democracy was, at bottom, a faith in education. But, of course, we are not and were not a democracy...despite the attempts of the numerous fools and "theoretic politicians" who patronize this species of government. -- Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba. Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues |
"Left wing kookiness"
Jonathan Ball wrote:
Look: less is more. Right is Wrong. War is Peace. And slavery is freedom... You still don't get it. I am not offering anything that is remotely comparable to the examples of turning truth on its head in '1984'. Gosh Jonathan, what is the subject line again? Why yes, it's all about turning truth on its head. But I guess it's your density to live as a legend in your own mind. -- Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba. Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues |
"Left wing kookiness"
Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65762 rec.gardens:259682 misc.survivalism:502596 misc.rural:115990 rec.backcountry:172721
Charles Scripter wrote: Jonathan Ball wrote: Look: less is more. Right is Wrong. War is Peace. And slavery is freedom... You still don't get it. I am not offering anything that is remotely comparable to the examples of turning truth on its head in '1984'. Gosh Jonathan, what is the subject line again? Why yes, it's all about turning truth on its head. Yes. "Right is wrong" and "war is peace" are examples of that. "Less is more" is not; "less is more" is an observation that, in some things, written expression being one of them, saying less (but saying it well) leads to a more powerful expression of thought. Being a pigheaded fool, you refuse to acknowledge the difference. I think you actually see the difference, but because you are a pigheaded fool, you can't allow yourself to acknowledge it. You have such a bloated ego, the pain of acknowledging your error would be too much to bear. |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 04:28:13 GMT, "Don"
wrote: Who's talking about *populace*? I said, MY children. If you want to pay for my kids education, come on over and bring your checkbook, as he is homeschooled. I thought it was obvious from a societal standpoint that "my" children meant "not your" children. Without going into too much nitpicking over exceptions, society benefits from an educated populace. If you decide to teach your children at home, you just declined the education you were entitled to. Whether that "free" education is worth the cost varies depending on the public schools in question and your own priorities. Assuming I live a nice, long life, your kids are going to be helping to bail me out of the problems caused by mistakes made by our parents and ourselves. Nope. My kid won't pay for your problems, that is YOUR responsibility. Again, I thought it obvious we were talking about society. I said OUR parents and OURselves, you might notice. MY problems are separate from SOCIETY'S problems. And I did not suggest you kid should write a check to solve them; I expect at least some of today's children to become tomaorrow's scientists and politicians. Apparently, you children are being raised to believe they are only in it for themselves, so maybe this assumption does not apply. I'm willing to pay so that they have enough information to do a good job of it. That is the root of socialism, did you learn anything at all in school? Joseph McCarthy is dead. scaremongering is a waste of time. As we've seen many times in this thread, self-sufficiency in the pure sense is not realistic; we must rely on each other to meet our collective needs, and if that's socialism, then socialism is reality. k For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp. For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/ |
"Left wing kookiness"
"Babberney" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 04:28:13 GMT, "Don" wrote: Who's talking about *populace*? I said, MY children. If you want to pay for my kids education, come on over and bring your checkbook, as he is homeschooled. I thought it was obvious from a societal standpoint that "my" children meant "not your" children. Without going into too much nitpicking over exceptions, society benefits from an educated populace. If you decide to teach your children at home, you just declined the education you were entitled to. Whether that "free" education is worth the cost varies depending on the public schools in question and your own priorities. Assuming I live a nice, long life, your kids are going to be helping to bail me out of the problems caused by mistakes made by our parents and ourselves. Nope. My kid won't pay for your problems, that is YOUR responsibility. Again, I thought it obvious we were talking about society. I said OUR parents and OURselves, you might notice. MY problems are separate from SOCIETY'S problems. And I did not suggest you kid should write a check to solve them; I expect at least some of today's children to become tomaorrow's scientists and politicians. Apparently, you children are being raised to believe they are only in it for themselves, so maybe this assumption does not apply. I'm willing to pay so that they have enough information to do a good job of it. That is the root of socialism, did you learn anything at all in school? Joseph McCarthy is dead. scaremongering is a waste of time. As we've seen many times in this thread, self-sufficiency in the pure sense is not realistic; we must rely on each other to meet our collective needs, and if that's socialism, then socialism is reality. I have no problem at all contracting with YOU and others to gain what I need. What I have a problem with is people like YOU that believe there should be an expensive middle man in DC. Yes, that is socialism. All for one, one for all. |
"Left wing kookiness"
Economics is a subset of psychology - psychology applied to
matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying and selling, that sort of thing. That's not even in the ball park! Have you ever read an economics text? Yes, I have. I had to read one to help my ex-wife pass an econ class. She didn't understand it, but I did. You may *think* you did, but you didn't. The closest economics comes to being "psychological" (and it's about as "close " as the North Pole is to the South Pole) is in making the assumption that people always behave "rationally." I.e., that entrepreneurs maximize profit by equating marginal cost with marginal revenue and that consumers "equate at the margin" so that the last penny spent on every good and service provides the same amount of "utility" (want-satisfaction). You just described applied psychology No, I didn't. Psychologists *study* human behavior. Economic theory is based on an *assumption* about behavior, an extremely naive one, and proceeds from there, with no study of behavior to investigate that assumption. I don't recall any economist claiming that people always behave rationally. See above. Your point being...??? My point is, your original post is incorrect, as well as what you said here. (BTW, "being" is not a verb.) Are you sure that book you read with your wife wasn't about HOME economics? vince norris |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:44:02 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote: Economics is a subset of psychology - psychology applied to matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying and selling, that sort of thing. That's not even in the ball park! Have you ever read an economics text? Yes, I have. I had to read one to help my ex-wife pass an econ class. She didn't understand it, but I did. You may *think* you did, but you didn't. Do you have any idea of how easy that argument is to turn around? "I understand economics, but you only think you do." Not exactly overwhelming. The closest economics comes to being "psychological" (and it's about as "close " as the North Pole is to the South Pole) is in making the assumption that people always behave "rationally." I.e., that entrepreneurs maximize profit by equating marginal cost with marginal revenue and that consumers "equate at the margin" so that the last penny spent on every good and service provides the same amount of "utility" (want-satisfaction). You just described applied psychology No, I didn't. Psychologists *study* human behavior. Economic theory is based on an *assumption* about behavior, an extremely naive one, and proceeds from there, with no study of behavior to investigate that assumption. Economists certainly do study human reactions to the economic variables - tax rates, interest rates, monetary creation, regulations, etc. You seem to think there is a single "economic theory" - shared by everyone from Paul Samuelson to Arthur Laffer. Not so. They do not agree about economic behavior resulting from economic policies and conditions. And they do study it - that's what all their graphs and projections are about - not rocks on the other side of the moon - economic behavior. I don't recall any economist claiming that people always behave rationally. See above. Your point being...??? My point is, your original post is incorrect, as well as what you said here. (BTW, "being" is not a verb.) I stand by my original and follow-up posts. Are you an English teacher, grading usenet posts for grammar? If so, you really have your work cut out for you. Are you sure that book you read with your wife wasn't about HOME economics? tsk, tsk... -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
"Left wing kookiness"
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:13:56 -1000, Maren Purves wrote: paghat wrote: In article , Greylock wrote: Good science is apolitical. If one may define economics as political, as a physicist I have a hard time defining economics (at least the areas you go on to describe) as science ... Economics is a subset of psychology Uh...no. Not even close. Economics is the study of choice under constraint. The field doesn't care in the least WHY consumer preference is what it is; preferences are taken as a given. Psychologists may wish to understand human preferences; economists don't. An economics professor I once had told us of an alleged contest, maybe back in the 1940s or 1950s, to define economics in 30 words or fewer. I still remember the definition he gave us, over 30 years ago: Economics is the branch of learning that deals with the social organization and process by which the scarce means of production are directed towards the satisfaction of human wants. - psychology applied to matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying and selling, that sort of thing. If psychology is a science (a highly questionable If), then so is economics. Economics is, without question, the most rigorous of all the social sciences. Nothing else comes close. Political science has gotten a lot better than it once was, but that was because economics "invaded" the field and began applying numerical analysis to issues poli-sci simply couldn't explain, e.g. why people vote (poli-sci couldn't come close to explaining it.) Psychology and esp. sociology are thoroughly unscientific: there are too many political ends to be served. To the extent that advances in economic theory come from peer reviewed articles, and because economics is far and away the most mathematized of all the social sciences, it is probably scientific enough. |
"Left wing kookiness"
vincent p. norris wrote:
Economics is a subset of psychology - psychology applied to matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying and selling, that sort of thing. That's not even in the ball park! Have you ever read an economics text? The closest economics comes to being "psychological" (and it's about as "close " as the North Pole is to the South Pole) is in making the assumption that people always behave "rationally." I.e., that entrepreneurs maximize profit by equating marginal cost with marginal revenue and that consumers "equate at the margin" so that the last penny spent on every good and service provides the same amount of "utility" (want-satisfaction). As many economists have long pointed out, those are safe assumptions. The theory that is derived from the assumptions accurately predicts how consumers and firms behave. All the conclusions of neo-classical price theory can be derived without introducing "utility" at all. A professor at UCLA named Armen Alchian, among others, showed that decades ago. That is, you don't need a three dimensional map, with goods X and Y on their respective axes, and utility on a Z axis; you can get downward sloping demand curves - the fundamental finding of price theory concerning demand - with only X and Y axes. What could be further form the truth than that? Consumers and firms behave "as if" they knowingly equate at the margins. |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:33:31 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote: Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:13:56 -1000, Maren Purves wrote: paghat wrote: In article , Greylock wrote: Good science is apolitical. If one may define economics as political, as a physicist I have a hard time defining economics (at least the areas you go on to describe) as science ... Economics is a subset of psychology Uh...no. Not even close. Oh, not close - correct. Economics is the study of choice under constraint. And that isn't psychology? Since when??? The field doesn't care in the least WHY consumer preference is what it is; preferences are taken as a given. That people HAVE preferences, or what those preferences are? Of course people have preferences, but they aren't universal. "Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks." Psychologists may wish to understand human preferences; economists don't. Oh, sure they do. Or else why do "liberal" econmomists and libertarian economists not agree about the effects of high tax rates? An economics professor I once had told us of an alleged contest, maybe back in the 1940s or 1950s, to define economics in 30 words or fewer. I still remember the definition he gave us, over 30 years ago: Economics is the branch of learning that deals with the social organization and process by which the scarce means of production are directed towards the satisfaction of human wants. economics (èk´e-nòm´îks, ê´ke-) noun Abbr. econ. 1. (used with a sing. verb). The social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems. 2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb). Economic matters, especially relevant financial considerations: "Economics are slowly killing the family farm" (Christian Science Monitor). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. All rights reserved. psychology (sì-kòl´e-jê) noun plural psychologies Abbr. psych., psychol. 1. The science that deals with mental processes and behavior. 2. The emotional and behavioral characteristics of an individual, a group, or an activity: the psychology of war. 3. Subtle tactical action or argument used to manipulate or influence another: He used poor psychology on his employer when trying to make the point. 4. Philosophy. The branch of metaphysics that studies the soul, the mind, and the relationship of life and mind to the functions of the body. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. All rights reserved. I stand by my original assertion. Economics is OBVIOUSLY a subset of psychology. Economists are people who apply psychology to "production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services." (rest snipped) -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
"Left wing kookiness"
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:33:31 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:13:56 -1000, Maren Purves wrote: paghat wrote: In article , Greylock wrote: Good science is apolitical. If one may define economics as political, as a physicist I have a hard time defining economics (at least the areas you go on to describe) as science ... Economics is a subset of psychology Uh...no. Not even close. Oh, not close - correct. Economics is the study of choice under constraint. And that isn't psychology? No. Not in the least. Since when??? Since Adam Smith and Jean Baptiste Say first began thinking about it. The field doesn't care in the least WHY consumer preference is what it is; preferences are taken as a given. That people HAVE preferences, or what those preferences are? Of course people have preferences, but they aren't universal. "Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks." Psychologists may wish to understand human preferences; economists don't. Oh, sure they do. No, they don't. Or else why do "liberal" econmomists and libertarian economists not agree about the effects of high tax rates? They do. An economics professor I once had told us of an alleged contest, maybe back in the 1940s or 1950s, to define economics in 30 words or fewer. I still remember the definition he gave us, over 30 years ago: Economics is the branch of learning that deals with the social organization and process by which the scarce means of production are directed towards the satisfaction of human wants. economics (èk´e-nòm´îks, ê´ke-) noun Abbr. econ. 1. (used with a sing. verb). The social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems. 2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb). Economic matters, especially relevant financial considerations: "Economics are slowly killing the family farm" (Christian Science Monitor). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. All rights reserved. psychology (sì-kòl´e-jê) noun plural psychologies Abbr. psych., psychol. 1. The science that deals with mental processes and behavior. Right: nothing to do with production, distribution or consumption. 2. The emotional and behavioral characteristics of an individual, a group, or an activity: the psychology of war. 3. Subtle tactical action or argument used to manipulate or influence another: He used poor psychology on his employer when trying to make the point. 4. Philosophy. The branch of metaphysics that studies the soul, the mind, and the relationship of life and mind to the functions of the body. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. All rights reserved. I stand by my original assertion. You stand by an error. Economics is OBVIOUSLY a subset of psychology. No, plainly it is not. Economists are people who apply psychology to "production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services." No, I'm sorry, you're wrong. See what I said earlier: consumer preferences are accepted as a given; they are not within the purview of economics, not in any way. |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:49:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote: (massive snippage) Economics is the study of choice under constraint. And that isn't psychology? No. Not in the least. You don't think psychology deals with "the study of choice under constraint"? Then you are lost to reason. (rest of useless arguments, snipped) -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
"Left wing kookiness"
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:49:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: (massive snippage) Economics is the study of choice under constraint. And that isn't psychology? No. Not in the least. You don't think psychology deals with "the study of choice under constraint"? No, I *know* it doesn't. Then you are lost to reason. (rest of useless arguments, snipped) You mean, you dumb ass, that you have snipped out stuff you don't - CAN'T - understand. Economists don't care IN THE LEAST what consumers or the managers of firms *think*; they care about how they BEHAVE, where the behavior is observable without having to communicate with the actors. Economists don't care in the least *how* the actors arrive at their decisions; there is an assumption of rationality. The actual study of rationality is left to the philosophers, psychologists and other poets. It's pretty interesting that you merely keep repeating your assertion with neither support, nor expertise in either of the fields you are blabbering about. I have a graduate degree in economics: I know what I'm talking about. Repeat after me, dumb ass: economics does not study *how* consumers and firms think in making choice under constraint; it makes an axiomatic assumption of rationality, then looks at how the constraints determine the choices available. It posits a theory about what an *assumed* rational actor will do, looks at the choices made, and checks to see if they conform to the theory (they largely do). Psychologists may study the actors' states of mind; economists don't care. |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:12:07 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote: Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:49:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: (massive snippage) Economics is the study of choice under constraint. And that isn't psychology? No. Not in the least. You don't think psychology deals with "the study of choice under constraint"? No, I *know* it doesn't. Then you are lost to reason. (rest of useless arguments, snipped) You mean, you dumb ass, that you have snipped out stuff you don't - CAN'T - understand. Oh, I understand what you wrote. You are wrong and I didn't bother to reply. Economists don't care IN THE LEAST what consumers or the managers of firms *think*; they care about how they BEHAVE, where the behavior is observable without having to communicate with the actors. Economists don't care in the least *how* the actors arrive at their decisions; there is an assumption of rationality. The actual study of rationality is left to the philosophers, psychologists and other poets. You are incorrect. Economists most certainly do care what economic actors think and how they arrive at their decisions. That's why they argue about the effects of differing tax rates, interest rates, monetary policy, etc. Those effects are just another way of saying - how do people react to economic considerations. That is psychology, even if you don't think so. It's pretty interesting that you merely keep repeating your assertion with neither support, nor expertise in either of the fields you are blabbering about. I have a graduate degree in economics: I know what I'm talking about. So if I could find a well-known economist who doesn't agree with you, you are right and he is wrong? (BTW, argument from authority is not particularly convincing.) Repeat after me, dumb ass: There you go again... economics does not study *how* consumers and firms think in making choice under constraint; Some economists certainly do study that. Perhaps your professors have you convinced that they don't, but I doubt they spent much time on that question in class. it makes an axiomatic assumption of rationality, then looks at how the constraints determine the choices available. Once again you are incorrect. The restraints don't determine the choices people make, because people don't react uniformly to any given set of restraints. PEOPLE determine how they will react to restraints. Since PEOPLE are reacting, the study of their reactions is a subset of psychology. It posits a theory about what an *assumed* rational actor will do, looks at the choices made, and checks to see if they conform to the theory (they largely do). Psychologists may study the actors' states of mind; economists don't care. Yes, they do. Why do you suppose they say that economic conditions are so dependent on "sentiment"? "Consumer confidence"? Why do you suppose there are such things as bubble markets? Real estate booms? "Irrational exuberance," as certain Fed Chairman described it? Is Alan Greenspan an economist? -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
"Left wing kookiness"
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:12:07 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:49:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: (massive snippage) Economics is the study of choice under constraint. And that isn't psychology? No. Not in the least. You don't think psychology deals with "the study of choice under constraint"? No, I *know* it doesn't. Then you are lost to reason. (rest of useless arguments, snipped) You mean, you dumb ass, that you have snipped out stuff you don't - CAN'T - understand. Oh, I understand what you wrote. You are wrong and I didn't bother to reply. No, you didn't understand it. You very plainly are not qualified to understand it. You are wrong: economics is not a branch of, nor is it derived from, psychology. It does not study the minds of consumers or decision makers of firms in any way. Economists don't care IN THE LEAST what consumers or the managers of firms *think*; they care about how they BEHAVE, where the behavior is observable without having to communicate with the actors. Economists don't care in the least *how* the actors arrive at their decisions; there is an assumption of rationality. The actual study of rationality is left to the philosophers, psychologists and other poets. You are incorrect. No, I am correct. You are incorrect. You have not studied economics. I have. Economists most certainly do care what economic actors think and how they arrive at their decisions. No, they don't. They make certain assumptions regarding rationality, but other than that, they treat the thinking of consumers and firm managers as a black box. They do not study psychology. That's why they argue about the effects of differing tax rates, interest rates, monetary policy, etc. That's not what they argue about, economics-illiterate one. Those effects are just another way of saying - how do people react to economic considerations. That is psychology, even if you don't think so. It's pretty interesting that you merely keep repeating your assertion with neither support, nor expertise in either of the fields you are blabbering about. I have a graduate degree in economics: I know what I'm talking about. So if I could find a well-known economist who doesn't agree with you, you are right and he is wrong? Find one. (BTW, argument from authority is not particularly convincing.) You demonstrate that you do not understand the study of logic and logical fallacies, either, with a stupid statement like that. The fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam only applies when the "authority" cited is not an authority it the relevant field. In my case, with a degree in economics and Ph.D. level studies in economics at UCLA, I am very much an authority, relative to you. Repeat after me, dumb ass: There you go again... Yes. You've richly earned it. economics does not study *how* consumers and firms think in making choice under constraint; Some economists certainly do study that. No, they don't. Perhaps your professors have you convinced that they don't, but I doubt they spent much time on that question in class. They spent just enough time in class to explain that economics does not study psychology at all. You, on the other hand, have not even sat in an economics class at all. You claim, unconvincingly, to having read ONE economics textbook to help your wife pass a class. I have read a couple of dozen economics textbooks, and have studied economics at a graduate level. I know what I'm talking about; you do not. it makes an axiomatic assumption of rationality, then looks at how the constraints determine the choices available. Once again you are incorrect. No, once again I am correct, and once again you reveal you are an arrogant ass. The restraints don't determine the choices people make, Now you REALLY demonstrate your colossal ignorance. Constraints - not restraints, you moron - most certainly do determine the choices people make. because people don't react uniformly to any given set of restraints. Generally, they do. There is one major constraint that is assumed in the theory of demand, the budget constraint. You don't even know what it is. It posits a theory about what an *assumed* rational actor will do, looks at the choices made, and checks to see if they conform to the theory (they largely do). Psychologists may study the actors' states of mind; economists don't care. Yes, they do. No, they don't. You simply are wrong, and in no plausible position to argue. You are arguing from utter ignorance, compounded now by pigheadedness. Why do you suppose they say Who says? that economic conditions are so dependent on "sentiment"? "Consumer confidence"? Why do you suppose there are such things as bubble markets? Real estate booms? "Irrational exuberance," as certain Fed Chairman described it? Is Alan Greenspan an economist? -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. And an ignorant ass. |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:49:55 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote: (snippage of the rantings of an "expert" with letters after his name, but no common sense at all) Why do you suppose they say Who says? that economic conditions are so dependent on "sentiment"? "Consumer confidence"? Why do you suppose there are such things as bubble markets? Real estate booms? "Irrational exuberance," as certain Fed Chairman described it? Is Alan Greenspan an economist? -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. And an ignorant ass. I see you don't have an answer to Mr. Greenspan's well-known concern about irrational exuberance. Why not? It couldn't be because "irrational exuberance" describes investor psychology in a bubble market, and you don't think "real" economists consider investor psychology - right? So Greenspan isn't a "real" economist, right? You are, by dint of your UCLA diploma, but he isn't? You might consider asking for a refund of your tuition. -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
"Left wing kookiness"
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:49:55 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: (snippage of the rantings of an "expert" with letters after his name, but no common sense at all) In other words, you snip out, once again, authoritative (relative to you) material that you simply cannot refute, because it is right, you are wrong, and you don't know what you're talking about. |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 03:13:36 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote: Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:49:55 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: (snippage of the rantings of an "expert" with letters after his name, but no common sense at all) In other words, you snip out, once again, authoritative (relative to you) material that you simply cannot refute, because it is right, you are wrong, and you don't know what you're talking about. Still no answer to Greenspan's concerns about investors' irrational exuberance? Why not? Too much psychology going on there? -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
"Left wing kookiness"
Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 03:13:36 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:49:55 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: (snippage of the rantings of an "expert" with letters after his name, but no common sense at all) In other words, you snip out, once again, authoritative (relative to you) material that you simply cannot refute, because it is right, you are wrong, and you don't know what you're talking about. Still no answer to Greenspan's concerns about investors' irrational exuberance? He wasn't speaking as an economist. |
"Left wing kookiness"
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:39:47 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote: Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 03:13:36 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: Robert Sturgeon wrote: On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:49:55 GMT, Jonathan Ball wrote: (snippage of the rantings of an "expert" with letters after his name, but no common sense at all) In other words, you snip out, once again, authoritative (relative to you) material that you simply cannot refute, because it is right, you are wrong, and you don't know what you're talking about. Still no answer to Greenspan's concerns about investors' irrational exuberance? He wasn't speaking as an economist. LOL. That's rich. -- Robert Sturgeon, proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy and the evil gun culture. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter