|
Richard Feynmann lays down the law. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY It's really funny seeing Jrod's posts in comparison.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2014 17:35 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 14:21 |
|
drat, Caros, that was a good beatdown. I'm impressed.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2014 17:43 |
|
jrodefeld" posted:Central planners of all stripes have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the social sciences. They suffer from physics envy. Economists want to consider their discipline a part of the "hard" sciences where empirical research and perpetually falsifiable hypotheses are put forward as the correct method for that line of inquiry. I like how he says that modern economists suffer from physics envy because they go collect facts to make sure their predictions agree with the real world, but then he has the biggest math envy ever even though the pure math that he's pointing to makes absolutely no claims about the real world at all and is only used in situations where we have empirical support for its applicability there. It's actually kind of a funny parallel to Ayn Rand, who regularly castigated physicists for using probabilistic models. Ayn Rand posted:The disintegration of philosophy in the nineteenth century and its collapse in the twentieth have led to a similar, though much slower and less obvious, process in the course of modern science. The nuclear bomb was a lucky guess everyone. Oppenheimer was just a primitive mystic who got lucky because he was coasting on unacknowledged remnants of classical physics. The Standard Model may look like it's been empirically verified to greater precision than any other theory in history, but it's obviously just demon worship.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2014 18:01 |
|
Don't put too much thought into what he's saying here. All of Mises' bullshit is at its core no more than jrodefeld has managed to distill. In a haze of delusion, Mises thought "humans act! Disagree? DISAGREEING IS ITSELF AN ACTION" and there you are, the irrefutable shahada of libertarianism, the "logic bomb" that only faith will allow us to perceive.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2014 18:32 |
|
Caros posted:And I for one will absolutely say that the rigorous application of logic and reason is inherently inferior to empirical testing in all cases. Go take a look at the Social Networking thread and you'll find a kindred spirit who has logically proven that networks are the source of everything. He is just as wrong as you are, because A Priori works as a starting point for a hypothesis, but it is no substitute for testing to see if your insanity matches reality. Which it does not. Eh, let's give Eripsa due credit: he probably understands logic reasonably well, if only because he has to teach it. Also, his lovely ideas are his own and he put actual thought into them. That much of that thought is delusion, wishful thinking, and self-deception is unfortunate jrodfeld does understand the ideas he espouses well enough to phrase them in his own words, while Eripsa isn't so hot in that department. But again, Mr. Network also draws from far more varied and complicated sources and attempts to put them together in order to arrive at original insights. e: we call them shitposters, but they're so entertaining that I have nuanced opinions on their relative merit. There is probably some genuine insight into social networks to be derived from that. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Oct 27, 2014 |
# ? Oct 27, 2014 18:52 |
|
I still can't get over the fact that the dude admitted his ideology wasn't falsifiable, gently caress the evidence. That's some young-earth creationism levels of deluded.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2014 18:53 |
|
sudo rm -rf posted:I still can't get over the fact that the dude admitted his ideology wasn't falsifiable, gently caress the evidence. That's some young-earth creationism levels of deluded. Nah, Young Earth Creationists believe that the evidence is being hidden. Even the ones who literally think Satan is responsible at least admit that, in principle, empirical observation should be reliable enough to challenge their ideas. e: likewise, Scientologists have to be tricked into thinking there is an empirical basis to Dianetics until they are so far into crazyland that they are inducing out-of-body experieces on a regular basis. This poo poo is quite literally crazier than anything short of Time Cube. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Oct 27, 2014 |
# ? Oct 27, 2014 18:57 |
|
sudo rm -rf posted:I still can't get over the fact that the dude admitted his ideology wasn't falsifiable, gently caress the evidence. That's some young-earth creationism levels of deluded. There are a lot of similarities between Libertarians and YECs, rejection of the scientific method and the belief in an all powerful invisible force that guides humanity are just a few of them.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2014 18:58 |
|
Hodgepodge posted:Nah, Young Earth Creationists believe that the evidence is being hidden. Even the ones who literally think Satan is responsible at least admit that, in principle, empirical observation should be reliable enough to challenge their ideas. Well, Jrod did dip his toe in the conspiracy theorist pool by insisting that science can be bought to bring about any result.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2014 19:01 |
|
I Am The Scum posted:Well, Jrod did dip his toe in the conspiracy theorist pool by insisting that science can be bought to bring about any result. But only when those results support a minimum wage or theories about anthropogenic climate change or tobacco's link to cancer are they obviously bought. Economic and scientific studies funded by Koch industries or Exxon or Marlboro are would never be biased, oh no. In the free market only truthfulness is rewarded economically, unlike in universities where the only criterion for advancement is conformity. sudo rm -rf posted:I still can't get over the fact that the dude admitted his ideology wasn't falsifiable, gently caress the evidence. That's some young-earth creationism levels of deluded. To be fair, he's taking the Rothbardian approach of accepting evidence which supports praxeology. It's just that, well there's a lot of people out there who claim to have empirical evidence, so the axioms of praxeology are a good guide for determining what to keep (eg, evidence for meritocracy) and what to throw out (eg any research suggesting black poverty is due to racism and not any inherent inferiority of the darker races). You can't just look at things and draw conclusions without some philosophy to inform you when the things you're seeing are real and when the evidence is a trick by Satan to test your faith.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2014 19:08 |
|
I Am The Scum posted:Well, Jrod did dip his toe in the conspiracy theorist pool by insisting that science can be bought to bring about any result. Which is an adorable sentiment, considering the "think tanks" that Libertarians run.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2014 19:08 |
|
People did predict the mortgage backed securities crisis, they were just shouted down by Ayn Rand fanboys. The market is not prepared to hear that maybe we should put the brakes on something wildly profitable. It's the nature of the beast. It is the entire reason that Keynes proscribes government intervention.quote:I'll end with a question about where Keynesianism and the empirical approach to economic analysis has lead us. I don't think I have to remind everyone that the "empirical" mainstream economics profession failed spectacularly to warn us about the impending crash of the housing market in 2008.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2014 19:19 |
|
Hodgepodge posted:In standard economics, this is an a posteriori claim based on the observation that when free to do so, humans tend to choose which actions to perform based on how they evaluate the consequences for things they value. It's not a claim based on observation. It's a simplifying assumption about why people make decisions that permits economists to model behavior in a way that produces results. The argument is some formulation of this: 1) If people do stuff it's because it seems worthwhile, to them, to do that stuff for some reason. 2) Furthermore, if a person does a thing it's because it seems like the most worthwhile thing to do for whatever reason, out of the set of things they believe they could be doing. 3) Therefore if a person is observed doing a thing, we can infer that what they chose to do was the most worthwhile thing of all the things they thought they could be doing. And it motivates the utility maximization framework from which we derive a bunch of microeconomic models. Those are assumptions rather than claims based on observation. Bonerslam could probably explain this way better than I can, if he's reading.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2014 19:26 |
|
wateroverfire posted:It's not a claim based on observation. It's a simplifying assumption about why people make decisions that permits economists to model behavior in a way that produces results. The argument is some formulation of this: Yeah we've been over this. The thing is, your formulation, let's call it the Weak Action Axiom, is a tautology which is all fine and well (although it of course has no predictive value then). Libertarians are making a strong formulation, the Strong Action Axiom so to speak, as a basis to conclude that therefore coercion is always a net negative to the well-being of society. A conclusion that the Weak Action Axiom doesn't allow. For example, take the gender pay gap. The Weak Action Axiom has no problem explaining in its tautological way how this could happen without women's work being inferior. Most of the people in charge could just be overtly or unconsciously sexist and think that paying a woman less is the most worthwhile thing of all the things they could be doing. Supporting Equal Pay legislation wouldn't run afoul of your formulation because we could just decide that what those people think is worthwhile (basing career opportunities on sexism) is not actually best for society. But ask a Libertarian about that. He can never support equal pay legislation because it's coercive and by the Strong Action Axiom coercion always leads to suboptimal outcomes. So if you ask someone at the Ludwig von Mises institute, you'll get. mises.org posted:Now it obviously cannot be the case that women are paid 72 percent of what men are for doing the same work, not only because that violates the Equal Pay Act of 1963, but also because in that case any employer in his right mind would simply fire all his male employees and hire women at the lower wage rate. If businesses could really pay women less for equal work, then by the Strong Action Axiom they'd only hire women, so women must get less money because of their silly ovaries hurting their productivity, QED Get what I'm saying, my man? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Oct 27, 2014 |
# ? Oct 27, 2014 20:34 |
|
Who What Now posted:drat, Caros, that was a good beatdown. I'm impressed. Dawws, thanks. I do hope he comes back tonight, but considering he has a full page of well reasoned responses to his stuff instead of the typical replies that he gets when he starts up a thread, I'm not sure if he will. Can't exactly argue about tone.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2014 22:49 |
|
Caros posted:Dawws, thanks. I do hope he comes back tonight, but considering he has a full page of well reasoned responses to his stuff instead of the typical replies that he gets when he starts up a thread, I'm not sure if he will. Can't exactly argue about tone. Even if it was nothing but he, as being a superior logical capabilities, should be above even noticing it and have no problem actually divorcing the message from the medium. People who argue over tone often don't have arguments.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2014 23:02 |
|
Strawman posted:If they did measure real triangles to see if they conformed to Pythagorean Theorem, what do you think they'd find? Easily done. All these economists are Austrians and they predicted and warned about the impending crash caused by an unsustainable housing bubble: Mark Thornton: "Housing: Too Good to be True" http://mises.org/daily/1533 Frank Shostak: http://mises.org/daily/1882 Stefan Karlsson: "America's Unsustainable Boom" http://mises.org/daily/1670 Peter Schiff on business news networks (CNBC, Fox Business, etc): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgRGBNekFIw Robert Wenzel: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/07/government-isnt-god-fdic-sticks-banks.html Hanz Sennsholz: "The Fed is Culpable" http://mises.org/daily/1089 Of course Ron Paul, who is not a professional economist but is nonetheless well read on the subject, also loudly and publicly predicted and warned of the housing bubble and impending crash on the House floor and on television. By contrast, here are some select articles by Paul Krugman during the same time span. Not only is he not warning about an unsustainable boom and impending crash, he is calling for ever lower interest rates, as well as explicitly advocating for a housing bubble: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/02/opinion/reckonings-dodging-the-bullet.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/14/opinion/reckonings-delusions-of-prosperity.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/07/opinion/reckonings-fuzzy-math-returns.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/28/opinion/could-ve-been-worse.html http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/hair-of-the-dog http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/10/opinion/spin-the-payrolls.html http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/bush-is-right-about-something http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27krugman.html
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 00:43 |
|
jrodefeld posted:By contrast, here are some select articles by Paul Krugman during the same time span. Not only is he not warning about an unsustainable boom and impending crash, he is calling for ever lower interest rates, as well as explicitly advocating for a housing bubble: I just picked one of these at random. Paul Krugman, Housing Bubble Cheerleader posted:Nobody thought the economy could rely forever on home buying and refinancing. But the hope was that by the time the housing boom petered out, it would no longer be needed. I think we have different definitions of "not warning about an unsustainable boom and impending crash."
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:02 |
|
Hey guys, there's going to be a boom and bust cycle. Call me the loving oracle.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:05 |
|
sudo rm -rf posted:Is it just me or did jrodefeld just come out and admit that austrian economics isn't falsifiable? Your reading comprehension isn't very good. Did you watch the youtube video I linked to? Austrian economists use empiricism quite often in their research but they know where it is appropriate to use it and where it is inappropriate. Empirical studies can and do support the a priori economic laws regarding human action that the Austrians assert but these laws are still NOT hypotheses. Let us take the first law of economics. Humans act. Now, do we need to do an empirical study to determine whether humans act or not? Obviously everything we do is an action. The fact of human action must be logically assumed because it cannot be denied without engaging in a performative contradiction. There are logical implications of the fact of human action that can be deduced that don't require constant testing to verify or falsify. A hypothesis in the Natural sciences is merely a tentative "law" that is established because we haven't YET seen any evidence that contradicts it. Yet we assume that at any time we might find new information that invalidates our previous hypothesis. This is how science evolves in the hard sciences, through continuous testing. This is how Physics work. The social sciences, among which includes economics, are decidedly different and require different approaches. Now, once certain economic laws that can be deduced from the fact of human action are established, THEN Austrians use empiricism to evaluate many different kinds of economic phenomenon. Empirical testing can, and has repeatedly, validated and supported the Austrian view on the effects of minimum wage laws, the causes of economic recessions and depressions and many other things. The difference is that the economic laws that are established at the outside are not reliant upon empirical validation, but rather are established through a rigorous logical deductive method. Central planners rail against economic laws and would love to convince you that they can raise living standards through hikes in the minimum wage, for example. Or they want to convince you that wage and price controls don't have deleterious effects on the economy at large. To assume that ALL of economics merely consists of tentative hypotheses based on the latest round of State-funded empirical testing means that the discipline is merely flailing about, without any direction. We are merely subject to the whims of the technocrats who happen to be in charge at that particular point in time. We hear endless pronouncements from these "experts" such as "we now understand what caused the Great Depression and it will never happen again" to "we have cured the boom and bust cycle by finding the perfect centrally planned interest rate". Keynesian theory was blown out of the water in the 1970s when we had stagflation, which was not supposed to be possible according to Keynesian theory. Again and again we are assured that the central planners have solved the boom and bust cycle and we are due for perpetual economic growth. Then inevitably in a few years we suffer through a major recession. This is because these economists are ignoring economic laws. Through their hubris they think they can subvert objective reality through legislation. The Austrians have a much better record because they use a priorism based upon reason, logic and argumentation, coupled with empiricism to bolster their economic and historical analysis. Certain predictions of the Austrians have in fact been invalidated and rejected or modified by subsequent Austrian economists due to observable reality. Like any other science, economics relies upon subsequent generations improving upon the theories and arguments of their predecessors. What is baffling is the insistence by some that the rigorous use of reason and logic, the law of non contradiction and the necessary implications of human action are "unscientific" or un-serious or indicative of a cult. You just don't understand the difference between social sciences and hard sciences.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:06 |
|
JRod. You and your idols don't understand what a voluntary transaction is. Your ideals only work if you first make sure that every person is provided with all they need and lack only wants. Only then can transactions be truly voluntary. And you need a state or some kind of central planning to do this. Socialism for needs, capitalism for wants. That's the way to do it. It maximizes individual liberty far beyond any of the dross you are peddling.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:06 |
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Hey guys, there's going to be a boom and bust cycle. Call me the loving oracle. Actually the crash that will make 2008 look like a light sneeze will be here by the end of this year Peter Schiff posted:Two-thousand and eight was just an overture. The opera is coming. The real financial crisis is coming in 2013, 2014. And so, we’ll get a real choice, a fork in the road. One way is going to lead toward complete authoritarianism, complete totalitarian government, and the other way is going to lead back to freedom. Get ready!!
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:07 |
|
I called it. If it isn't this one, it's the next one. I promise.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:09 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Your reading comprehension isn't very good. Did you watch the youtube video I linked to? Austrian economists use empiricism quite often in their research but they know where it is appropriate to use it and where it is inappropriate. It is a coincidence that the correct times to use empiricism is when it happens to back the Austrian position. I am sure.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:09 |
|
Ok I tried to read the doomsaying article, and I got to "the government had inflated Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae far beyond their natural size." and started laughing. I got one, "the dollar is overvalued" and "inflation is coming, any day now, just wait for it." China calling in our gold, bubble commodities invest in precious metals Ron Paul chaos reigns.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:12 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Easily done. All these economists are Austrians and they predicted and warned about the impending crash caused by an unsustainable housing bubble: Christ Jrod, do we really have to do this every loving thread? Low hanging fruit first, and then I'll go into some of the lesser known ones. Peter Schiff - Peter Schiff is a a doomsayer. He has an austrian belief that government will eventually cause the US economy to collapse, so what he does is he constantly declares that the US economy will collapse. His entire buisness practice is based around this, with Euro-Pacific capital designed to get people to move their money overseas or into gold because the US economy is going to collapse. Here he is predicting a collapse in 2013. Here he is predicting a 2014 economic collapse. Here is a youtube video of him predicting collapses between 2009-2012[/url]. Pick a year, and I can guarantee you I can find an example of Peter Schiff predicting an economic collapse in that year. That does not require grand prognostication ability, it requires a small grasp of the english language and people stupid enough to listen. What is worth noting is that Peter "Predicted the crash" Schiff lost tons of customer money during the crash, which he shouldn't have since he predicted it. Mark Thornton - He predicted a housing bubble in 2004. Whupty loving do. I predicted a housing bubble in 2004 by virtue of going "But housing prices can't increase forever." There are tons of economists who understood this basic fact, that wasn't the question you were asked. You were asked if you could find economists who agreed with your views and predicted a 2008 housing market crash caused by deregulation allowing fraud on a massive scale to occur. Mark Thornton recognized a bubble, a properly trained monkey could do that. Frank Shostak - You might want to suggest this link instead, because your link barely mentions the housing bubble. He is actually the closest of any of them to getting things right, incidentally. Stefan Karlsson - Again, nothing about when the bubble would pop, or about the specifics of what would happen. When people say 'predicted the crash' they mean both in timing and in effect. There is nothing here talking about seized credit lines, derivatives or anything else. This is boilerplate prognostication that could be done by anyone. Robert Wenzel - You copied these right from the mises links didn't you, complete with not realizing you are linking to a $9 paid journal source. That is funny. Hanz Sennsholz - See the above. Now on top of all of that, the key defining difference between the prediction of people like Dean Baker, who predicted the collapse with startling clarity, and people like Ron Paul or Peter Schiff, is in the details. For example, Ron Paul predicted: quote:“Refinancing especially helped the consumers to continue spending even in a slowing economy. It isn’t surprising for high credit-card debt to be frequently rolled into second mortgages, since interest on mortgage debt has the additional advantage of being tax-deductible. When financial conditions warrant it, leaving financial instruments (such as paper assets), and looking for hard assets (such as houses), is commonplace and is not a new phenomenon. Instead of the newly inflated money being directed toward the stock market, it now finds its way into the rapidly expanding real-estate bubble. This, too, will burst as all bubbles do. The Fed, the Congress, or even foreign investors can’t prevent the collapse of this bubble, any more than the incestuous Japanese banks were able to keep the Japanese ‘miracle’ of the 1980s going forever …. With the current direction of the dollar certainly downward, the day of reckoning is fast approaching. A weak dollar will prompt dumping of GSE securities before treasuries, despite the Treasury’s and the Fed's attempt to equate them with government securities. This will threaten the whole GSE system of finance, because the challenge to the dollar and the GSEs will hit just when the housing market turns down and defaults rise. Also a major accident can occur in the derivatives markets where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are deeply involved in hedging their interest-rate bets. Rising interest rates that are inherent with a weak currency will worsen the crisis.” Now read that really quickly. Ron Paul predicted an economic collapse back in 2001, I'll give you that. The problem? His reasoning for expecting that collapse had nothing to do with reality. The US financial collapse of 2008 had nothing to do with a weak dollar or GSE (government sponsored Enterprise) securities being dumped. This is the important part that you fail to realize Jrod. Just because they said "Hey guys, this ongoing bubble we're in, yeah, its a bubble" doesn't mean they predicted anything beyond even the skill of a layman. To a man the austrians failed to recognize anything more than the baseline obvious causes, or in some cases, merely shrieked like harpies about how the sky was falling.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:14 |
|
Other analysts who predicted the crash: -Lyndon LaRouche -Sylvia Browne -a street preacher in front of the Seattle Art Museum with a huge beard
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:16 |
|
An article by Mark Thornton:quote:
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:19 |
|
SedanChair posted:Other analysts who predicted the crash: My dog took an unusually large dump once and it was easily more meaningful than anything that came out of Mises, but you don't see me bragging that my dog's bowels predicted the 2008 collapse.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:21 |
|
jrodefeld posted:What is baffling is the insistence by some that the rigorous use of reason and logic, the law of non contradiction and the necessary implications of human action are "unscientific" or un-serious or indicative of a cult. Ahhhh no stop it stop it stop it. No one is claiming that the law of non-contradiction is cultish. The problem is you take tautologies like jrodefeld posted:Let us take the first law of economics. Humans act. And use it to derive a bunch of bullshit that doesn't logically follow like jrodefeld posted:If you accept that human's act, there are certain truths that are necessary implications of that fact. There are other things that can be established. If two people engage in a voluntary transaction, it must mean that both parties have reverse preference orders, meaning they both expect to be made better off, for example. Even though I have already listed plenty of examples where people take voluntary actions that don't make them better off like VitalSigns posted:
And you'll use it to make claims like this jrodefeld posted:Scientific law established by the Austrian method, for example, proves that, all things being equal, that if you raise the price of a good less of it will be sold. This is not a hypothesis that requires constant testing. It is a necessary and logical implication of the fundamental axioms of human action. Now, empirical testing can and does bolster this reality, but it cannot falsify it. For example, suppose someone ran a test on a group of people and found that, on one occasion, that raising the price of a good actually increased sales. Would this invalidate that law? Of course not. It would be clear that some other factor was not adequately accounted for and controlled in the study. Either some other factor had indeed changed, or the study was undertaken for too brief a time period. Even though that's directly contradicted by examples of where higher prices have lead to more of it being sold http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016748709700038X quote:We investigate brand buying patterns among four cosmetics product, and find, as hypothesized, that visible status goods have a lower price-quality correlation (i.e., a higher status premium) and that the pattern of brand buying favors higher-priced (i.e., status) brands. And examples of goods where a higher price affects perception of quality quote:According to researchers at the Stanford Graduate School of Business and the California Institute of Technology, if a person is told he or she is tasting two different wines—and that one costs $5 and the other $45 when they are, in fact, the same wine—the part of the brain that experiences pleasure will become more active when the drinker thinks he or she is enjoying the more expensive vintage. You can't get out of proving how these conclusions follow from the premise that humans act by accusing anyone who disagrees with your conclusion of admitting they're a rock or possibly an interesting piece of motionless scenery. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Oct 28, 2014 |
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:22 |
|
Caros posted:Mark Thornton - He predicted a housing bubble in 2004. Whupty loving do. I predicted a housing bubble in 2004 by virtue of going "But housing prices can't increase forever." There are tons of economists who understood this basic fact, that wasn't the question you were asked. You were asked if you could find economists who agreed with your views and predicted a 2008 housing market crash caused by deregulation allowing fraud on a massive scale to occur. Mark Thornton recognized a bubble, a properly trained monkey could do that. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Oct 28, 2014 |
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:23 |
|
Hans Hoppe on empiricism: http://contrast2.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/hans-herman-hoppe-on-empiricism/ quote:The Mises Institute has recorded audio books of several of it’s publications. They have been publishing some of them on their podcast. I listened to some of Murray Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty (text version) and found his account of Purtian New England very interesting. The most recent book on the podcast is Hans Herman Hoppe’s Economic Science and the Austrian Method (text version).
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:24 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Hans Hoppe on empiricism: We get your point, we think you are wrong. Express and defend it yourself or why are you here? Edit: My point here is that no one wants to pick apart the work of Hans Hermann Hitler. There isn't any point because you can just go "I disagree with that" and then smugly end the conversation. Caros fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Oct 28, 2014 |
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:26 |
|
Stop posting articles at us and argues something. Anything really.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:29 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Hans Hoppe on empiricism: Has HHH proved these statements from his axioms or are they empirical: quote:if only towns and villages could and would do what they did as a matter of course until well into the nineteenth century in Europe and the United States: to post signs regarding entrance requirements to the town, and once in town for entering specific pieces of property (no beggars, bums, or homeless, but also no Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Catholics, etc.); to expel as trespassers those who do not fulfill these requirements quote:[T]rue libertarians cannot emphasize enough [...] that the restoration of private property rights and laissez-faire economics implies a sharp and drastic increase in social “discrimination” and will swiftly eliminate most if not all of the multi-cultural-egalitarian life style experiments so close to the heart of left libertarians. quote:vulgarity, obscenity, profanity, drug use, promiscuity, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, polygamy, pedophilia or any other conceivable perversity or abnormality quote:They — the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism — will have to be physically removed from society too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order. quote:Unlike states, [insurers] could and would not want to disregard the discriminating inclinations among the insured towards immigrants. To the contrary, even more so than any one of their clients, insurers would be interested in discrimination, i.e., in admitting only those immigrants whose presence adds to a lower crime risk and increased property values and in excluding those whose presence leads to a higher risk and lower property values. That is, rather than eliminating discrimination, insurers would rationalize and perfect its practice.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:30 |
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Stop posting articles at us and argues something. I assume you already know this but just in case: Jrod isn't here to argue; he's here to proselytize.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:33 |
|
Who What Now posted:My dog took an unusually large dump once and it was easily more meaningful than anything that came out of Mises, but you don't see me bragging that my dog's bowels predicted the 2008 collapse. If you return to the basic truth that A=A, you will see this was in fact the case.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:34 |
|
I'm not saying I reject empirical evidence if it contradicts my assumptions, that would be anti-science, but I am saying that my assumptions are an infallible guide for deciding which empirical evidence to reject as obviously flawed for contradicting my assumptions.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:34 |
|
jrodefeld posted:Let us take the first law of economics. Humans act. Now, do we need to do an empirical study to determine whether humans act or not? Obviously everything we do is an action. The fact of human action must be logically assumed because it cannot be denied without engaging in a performative contradiction. What about humans in a vegetative state? Do they act? What about humans who are comatose? Do they act? What about sleeping humans? Are they acting? What about infants? Do they act? What about people who are not thespians? Do they act? In all of these cases, depending on the definition of the word "act" you use, we could say that these humans are not acting. Acting is an incredibly broad word, and so your statement is meaningless. quote:Now, once certain economic laws that can be deduced from the fact of human action are established, THEN Austrians use empiricism to evaluate many different kinds of economic phenomenon. Empirical testing can, and has repeatedly, validated and supported the Austrian view on the effects of minimum wage laws, the causes of economic recessions and depressions and many other things. The difference is that the economic laws that are established at the outside are not reliant upon empirical validation, but rather are established through a rigorous logical deductive method. What is with you guys and your Vulcan like love of logic. Seriously. You bring it up, Molyneux talks about it, it's amazing. "Using logic and reason" is the go to response for Libertarians, which is a polite way of saying "You're pulling it out of your rear end." Logic and reasoning is actually pretty weak, especially without concrete observations. Because I can use logic to argue anything, even if it isn't wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g This video shows you how logic can be used to reach incorrect conclusions. If you watch the scene, the logic follows throughout the whole scene. Of course, you know it's wrong because you have other facts to follow it up, but that doesn't make the conclusions reached by the characters of this scene illogical. That's the problem with logic and reason - it's entirely dependent on your experiences as a person. Someone who grew up in a different society could reach different logical conclusions based upon their experiences. It's only through further research and knowledge that we can actually best use logic and reasoning. quote:The Austrians have a much better record because they use a priorism based upon reason, logic and argumentation, coupled with empiricism to bolster their economic and historical analysis. A record of 0 misses means nothing when you also have 0 hits. Can you back up this claim, or do I have to accept it a priori that Austrians have a much better record.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:34 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 14:21 |
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I assume you already know this but just in case: Jrod isn't here to argue; he's here to proselytize. I know and I will accept anything at this point. What is your favorite color? Who is the best character on Dragon Ball Z. Anything.
|
# ? Oct 28, 2014 01:34 |