|
BrandorKP posted:Nah even the Chicago school tries to reach conclusions from evidence. It's only the Austrians that start from axiom. Honestly, I still feel like Austrian Econ/Praxeology get a bad rap because folks often gloss over that the Austrians explicitly said that these methods were to be used in conjunction with empirical evidence, as a tool to interpret real world information. Other sciences do this as well. All of the historic geological sciences would go out the window if the Law of Superposition was suddenly challenged.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Honestly, I still feel like Austrian Econ/Praxeology get a bad rap because folks often gloss over that the Austrians explicitly said that these methods were to be used in conjunction with empirical evidence, as a tool to interpret real world information. Other sciences do this as well. All of the historic geological sciences would go out the window if the Law of Superposition was suddenly challenged. Yeah but they do it backwards. They're fishing for evidence for thing preconcluded. Look into Science of Freedom research topics as funded by the Kochs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Yeah but they do it backwards. They're fishing for evidence for thing preconcluded. Look into Science of Freedom research topics as funded by the Kochs. Are we talking about the Kochs, or actual historical Austrian economists? It's been about 10 years or so since I actually read Human Action but as I recall it, Mises pretty much started with a few relatively self evident axioms and built up from there, not the other way around. I always found it a pretty coherent, albeit incomplete explaination of how human economies worked. The incomplete part was of course incorporating history/experience into the picture, but again this was always explicitly part of the practical application if Austrian econ. I'm not looking to get into an Austrian debate, but the accusation that Mises & Co. were anti-data when it came to practical implementation and policy isn't really accurate. Hell, Kevin Carson actually took Mises's ideas and ran with it to show how a truely ideal free market based on Austrian Econ would be a worker-owned system based on a modified labor theory of value that ditched Marx's wacky "simple labor/complex labor". So if they really were fishing around for information to justify a feudal-capitalist hellscape, then they did it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/taxiderby/status/934496896604807168
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
LogisticEarth posted:Are we talking about the Kochs, or actual historical Austrian economists? To be most specific it would be the Koch interpretation of the historical Austrians. As for the historical ones: you find me something equivalent to this : https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...Paj0ponK-10leRo in Mises or the others and I'll reconsider it. Both the Chicago School and the Neo-Keynesians have well defined epistemologies that differ fundamentally from the Austrians. You show me where that isn't the case. When I dug through Human Action I didn't see it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's run by committee as part of the UN :http://www.imo.org/en/about/pages/structure.aspx The key difference is to me is if they are political appointments are not; there is a difference between political technocracy and a bureaucracy even if some positions can be both. That said, if you don't think political appointments exist in that organization, and essentially it is completely depoliticized in any real way internally, then the political technocrats exist at the national level instead. Btw, my critic of liberal economists extends beyond the Koch strain of Austrian economists. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Jerusalem_Post/status/934604151526342656
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, Hot off the presses of the Jerusalem Post. For real, though, I guess they're talking about this, which is old news from earlier in the week: https://www.wsj.com/articles/special-counsel-mueller-probes-jared-kushners-contact-with-foreign-leaders-1511306515
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That said, if you don't think political appointments exist in that organization, and essentially it is completely depoliticized in any real way internally, then the political technocrats exist at the national level instead. I have the luxury of working for someone who was hired by those there at the start. Drunks slapping poo poo together at the last second.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Btw, my critic of liberal economists extends beyond the Koch strain of Austrian economists. I know. That's a seperate conversation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's run by committee as part of the UN :http://www.imo.org/en/about/pages/structure.aspx what the hell are you actually talking about Edit: Like seriously your last several posts just fundamentally dont make any sense at all, its like you are speaking nonsense, asking incoherent questions, and fundamentally just... I dont even know. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:what the hell are you actually talking about I think he has a vague sense of unease at the feeling that people are possibly wrongfully critical of a topic he feels he is familiar with because of his job/coworkers. I am familiar with this feeling; it is what lead me to repeatedly defend the financial industry back around 2008-2009. It's basically the result of taking an initially reasonable idea (that people outside of a field/industry might not have fully informed opinions) and reflexively taking an opposing stance towards them (this is where things go off the rails).
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NBCNewsPR/status/934798127319732233 why is nancy pelosi in a position of leadership again? edit: https://twitter.com/NancyPelosi/status/934834856781107201 why is nancy pelosi in a position of leadership again? Condiv fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Condiv posted:https://twitter.com/NBCNewsPR/status/934798127319732233
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
"There are benefits to being roiled in, and fecklessly responding to, countless sexual assault and harassment allegations in an election year." - Nancy Pelosi, probably
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:47
|
|
Condiv posted:why is nancy pelosi in a position of leadership again? For a lot of reasons, but mainly because right now dems have no power except what they can leverage with their minority caucus, and what they need is an rear end in a top hat to make them fall in line. Also this change from the old guard to the new is only just now happening. It's like asking why a hundred of the other dem house reps are still in there.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:For a lot of reasons, but mainly because right now dems have no power except what they can leverage with their minority caucus, and what they need is an rear end in a top hat to make them fall in line. Also this change from the old guard to the new is only just now happening. It's like asking why a hundred of the other dem house reps are still in there. minority whip seems way more suited to this skillset. i don't know why she's in a leadership position at all considering how terrible she is at leading
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:what the hell are you actually talking about I got the distinction I was feeling around for from Ardennes : political appointment or election as the line between regulators and technocrats. Ytlaya posted:I think he has a vague sense of unease at the feeling that people are possibly wrongfully critical of a topic he feels he is familiar with because of his job/coworkers. There is that and that's on the surface. On the otherhand the international regulation of shipping is esoteric enough that it is fair for me to assume " people outside of a field/industry might not have fully informed opinions". The categories being presented don't fit it well either. But there is a deeper issue than that for me. It'll be a while before I can lay it out, busy today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:It's like asking why a hundred of the other dem house reps are still in there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I got the distinction I was feeling around for from Ardennes : political appointment or election as the line between regulators and technocrats. What even is this. Its like people are talking about baking a pie and you come in saying "the difference between crust and four hundred degrees is whether or not the pie has filling in it" Its completely incoherent. The thing you are saying there just doesnt make any sense at all. And you have had, what, four posts in a row now that read the same way? I cant wait to discover what fundamental misunderstanding ot miscommunication is leading to this particular string of words. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
As far as elections/appointment goes, it doesn't matter to me, it is more about goals. Is an individual there fulfill an ideological vision or to follow the laws already in place? Are they just a mercenary that is ripping it apart for a better position down the line? I fundamentally believe technocrats are ideologues, but it is just due to the Cold War we thought only Soviet technocrats could be trapped by ideology, we were very very wrong. You're right, I don't know personally know the internal mechanics of that particular organization, but I am deeply skeptical there is no contrast between ideology and function in it somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Like look at the above, and recognize that response is basically a "what you are asking and trying to get at makes no sense, but I can try to explain how to bake a pie again if that would help? maybe?" Brandor I think you need to take a few steps back and maybe sound out some underlying definitions and assumptions to get on the same page because this isnt really the sort of conversation I imagine you are aiming for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/934860176192147456
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Like look at the above, and recognize that response is basically a "what you are asking and trying to get at makes no sense, but I can try to explain how to bake a pie again if that would help? maybe?" What is the material thing in the world that allows for neo-liberalism? When they set up the systems after the war, what's the first one they set up? When one is critical of this ideology, that pushes for more and freer movement of capital, people, and goods, if that critque does not seem to fit the systems that allows for the movement of goods... then there is a problem with the critque. But blow me off if you want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
So what does this thread think will happen in the midterm elections? I heard they’re rapidly finalizing various voter suppression tactics to prevent democrats from winning anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:So what does this thread think will happen in the midterm elections? I think it is looking better for the Democrats than it was a few months ago, but everything would have to fall into place to retake the House and the Senate may be a wash. Ultimately, between gerrymandering and voting suppression, the Democrats really need to not only beat but smash the GOP at the polls to make real progress. That said, it is a year away so who really knows, we could be dealing with a totally different situation in a few months.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I think it is looking better for the Democrats than it was a few months ago, but everything would have to fall into place to retake the House and the Senate may be a wash. Ultimately, between gerrymandering and voting suppression, the Democrats really need to not only beat but smash the GOP at the polls to make real progress. I’m seeing reports like this pop up: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/gutting-net-neutrality-is-a-death-knell-for-the-resistance/article37088279/ And it’s making me think the midterms will be a republican landslide. Or just status quo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:I’m seeing reports like this pop up: At this point we basically have to act on the assumption that there is still a chance to forestall all that via the electoral process.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:I’m seeing reports like this pop up: I'm not buying it. The net neutrality repeal is going to be tied up in the courts for months, if not years. It's certainly not going to be in place soon enough for them to totally lock down the internet, even if that was the idea. Electorally, given what we've seen in Virginia, the situation is getting *worse* for republicans, not better. This is implying that this is all part of a broader, insidious strategy to rig the elections wholesale and essentially launch a coup. But when have these idiots shown that kind of coordination or skill? If this was THE PLAN, why would there not have been a leak amidst all the hundreds of other leaks? The tax plan, the net neutrality repeal, all of it is part of of a desperate fire sale as they realize the hammer is coming down in 2018. They want to make as much money as possible and set up their parachutes for when they're booted out of office. They're definitely doing nasty damage, but I haven't been afraid of these chucklefucks being competent enough to pull off a Reichstag Fire type coup since the summer. I agree with Hieronymous. In the absence of real, credible evidence and not just speculation that this is all a set up for a proper coup, we have to assume that civil elections can still make a difference. Democratic victories in Virginia and surprise close margins/victories in deep red strongholds don't lend much credence to the fearful imaginings. TheBalor fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Nov 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Could you see them launching a coup out of a desperate attempt to avoid possible consequences of they think the Dems will start convicting those of them who did crimes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Could you see them launching a coup out of a desperate attempt to avoid possible consequences of they think the Dems will start convicting those of them who did crimes? The democrats would never do any such thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:The democrats would never do any such thing. Reminder: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a12787808/jp-morgan-mortgage-scam/
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Lol you guys really think that Net Neutrality is going to change anyones mind when it comes to voting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:There is that and that's on the surface. On the otherhand the international regulation of shipping is esoteric enough that it is fair for me to assume " people outside of a field/industry might not have fully informed opinions". The categories being presented don't fit it well either. But there is a deeper issue than that for me. It'll be a while before I can lay it out, busy today. It's kind of strange that you're specifically bringing international regulation of shipping into this, though. Like, this sort of reminds me of when I'd see people complaining about finance fat cats around the time of the financial crisis and thought "man these people don't know anything about the way the industry works," and I was often correct in thinking this. But, at the end of the day, their opinion was still more correct than mine, despite having less information. At the end of the day, you have to balance the experience of being involved in an industry with the inherent bias that goes along with it. I find that the best source of information is often the minority of people who are opposed to an industry despite having experience in it. These people aren't always correct - there might be some personal vendetta involved or something - but you can usually tell pretty easily if what they say is valid. It's also helpful to listen to people sort of "adjacent" to the industry. To use finance as an example, this could be people who study finance academically (and have never worked in the industry) or people who used to work in the industry and aren't likely to ever work there again. People who are both defensive of the industry and actively involved in it are generally too biased/compromised to be useful sources. This isn't to say they're wrong, but just that there's no way to really ensure they're reliable. You should at least seek out the sort of people I mentioned to corroborate their perspective. By the way, as a side comment I'm sorry if my earlier post came off as really condescending. I'm not sure how to say that sort of thing (basically making assumptions about how someone's perspective might be compromised/biased) in a way that isn't inherently condescending, but I also feel like the stuff I mentioned is often a legitimate issue. It's impossible to ever be unbiased, but it helps to actively/consciously keep in mind the things that might be influencing your perspective (just as an example, I'm personally biased in terms of giving domestic political issues disproportionate weight over foreign policy, so I have to actively remind myself that the influence in terms of lives/suffering is just as great with the latter).
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
NothingMatters posted:Lol you guys really think that Net Neutrality is going to change anyones mind when it comes to voting. If they're paying more for Internet access they might. One thing about this country- once you give people something for free they will never pay for it if they don't have to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:If they're paying more for Internet access they might. One thing about this country- once you give people something for free they will never pay for it if they don't have to. No I mean if you think that net neutralities censorship might actually have any effect on information being spread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
I think the line from loving over net neutrality to stealing elections is a long, tenuous and tortured one. Dismantling net neutrality is all about letting telecom megacorporations get their return on investment for shoveling money into politicians. It's not the GOP trying to subvert democracy. Granted, they're doing that in a lot of ways I just don't think this is one of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:I think the line from loving over net neutrality to stealing elections is a long, tenuous and tortured one. Dismantling net neutrality is all about letting telecom megacorporations get their return on investment for shoveling money into politicians. It's not the GOP trying to subvert democracy. Agreed. People are way too quick to see malice and ambition where base greed suffices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:33 |
|
|
NothingMatters posted:No I mean if you think that net neutralities censorship might actually have any effect on information being spread. I doubt that much but I'm sure we'll be paying more for worse service.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2017 05:01
|
|
