tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post6297156395453610040..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Who pays for "the kind of society we want"?William L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger69125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-74646714063264604772011-04-19T16:15:35.421-04:002011-04-19T16:15:35.421-04:00Yes I know. This blog has been down this path befo...Yes I know. This blog has been down this path before. I was trying a new approach.<br /><br />It seems many confuse 'capital T' Theory with 'I have a theory(hypothesis)'.<br /><br />A <b>Theory</b> that relies on empiricism is no <b>Theory</b> at all. However, one can empirically test many <b>theories</b>jason hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03795436962579269461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-73177939817900218452011-04-19T12:19:58.924-04:002011-04-19T12:19:58.924-04:00@jason h,
I've been trying to get him to ackn...@jason h,<br /><br />I've been trying to get him to acknowledge this, but have had no success. Thanks for the help.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-2052478176847592152011-04-19T12:11:21.563-04:002011-04-19T12:11:21.563-04:00Here you go social scientists with physics envy. P...Here you go social scientists with physics envy. Please design an experiment that can empirically prove/disprove the Theory of Gravity.<br /><br /><i>Hint: Theory describes the physical mechanism that causes a natural phenomenon.</i><br /><br />Can't be done? At most, empirical evidence can determine that gravitational acceleration is 9.81 m/s2, but it can say nothing about causation.jason hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03795436962579269461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-50119696683261250212011-04-19T07:01:37.132-04:002011-04-19T07:01:37.132-04:00"You started to make tautological arguments t..."You started to make tautological arguments that since economics is the study of scarce resources and human action, then human action is the foundation of economics. Duh."<br /><br />Actually, I should be saying "Duh!". You gave a definition of Economics as the distribution of scarce resources. I ADDED the point that the DRIVER of "distribution" is human action. Therefore, I said that the a proper study of economics has to be based on a study of the consequences of the fact that man acts. How is this tautological?<br /><br />"That is ontological - and even that basis of economics is challenged (rationality vs. cognition and emotion)."<br /><br />Ah!!! So you challenge the application of reason to study the consequences of human action. How?<br /><br />"But even within the rationality paradigm - the actual study of economics is the implications of that foundational premise."<br /><br />Implications.... Consequences... We are saying the same thing. However, I fail to understand this.<br /><br />"That part of economics is inductive, deductive and evidence based."<br /><br />How is it inductive or evidence-based? Do you conduct experiments in your social science laboratory? You a social engineer?Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-26890285468030721772011-04-19T06:20:51.882-04:002011-04-19T06:20:51.882-04:00Since you spoke of "therapy", why don...Since you spoke of "therapy", why don't you address this?<br /><br />In your post <br /><br />April 18, 2011 11:58 AM<br /><br />YOU started the "what's your background?" discussion. Why do you accuse me of bringing up professional and academic qualifications? Why are all Keynesians such pathological liars?<br /><br />Oh!! I forgot that you are not an economist. You cannot therefore be Keynesian. So what kind of pathological liar are you?<br /><br />And if you are not an economist, what is your basis of criticising a school of economics?Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-78497609376107095242011-04-19T06:17:20.973-04:002011-04-19T06:17:20.973-04:00"The basis of that action is not axiomatic - ..."The basis of that action is not axiomatic - rational, psychological, sub-conscious, social, instinct etc... "<br /><br />Since when did economics concern itself with the reasons for action? We Austrian fools keep thinking it has to do with the consequences of the fact that man acts and that the reasons fall in the realm of the behavioural sciences.<br /><br />"Man acts is ontological - it is his state of being."<br /><br />Please define action. You will realise the vacuity of your statement.<br /><br />"You are patting yourself on the back for stating the obvious - or did you just discover the obvious?"<br /><br />Neither. I am just saying that I start from the "obvious" and go on to deduce the consequences of the "obvious". <br /><br />I could take you on an entire line of reasoning and explain preference, value, its ordinal nature, and so on to utility, marginal utility and a whole host of other concepts in economics, but I have no interest or time to educate you. I suggest you read "Man, Economy and State" yourself to get that education.<br /><br />Further, that you call it the "obvious" means that you are not refuting it. That further means that you are implicitly admitting the validity of Austrian principles of economics but claiming that it makes no sense. Thanks for being this "gracious".Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-58187589015060060342011-04-19T06:05:23.258-04:002011-04-19T06:05:23.258-04:00"So again, there are my responses to your &qu..."So again, there are my responses to your "arguments" without calling you names and avoiding the fact that I schooled you. If you are so confident in the Austrian school and if its deduction is so impeccable - where is the evidence that it works or is correct."<br /><br />Ah!!!! There you are. Ever heard of the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle? Do you realise that it is the only valid, non-contradictory theory that explains the business cycle? Are you aware that it explains all the key aspects of the business cycle as have been observed in reality?<br /><br />Since you are not an economist, it is unlikely that you are. However, if you are and contest my statement, please do explain how the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle is not an explanation of REAL WORLD EVENTS AND PROCESSES.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-65514183274153597262011-04-19T06:01:33.085-04:002011-04-19T06:01:33.085-04:00Man acts is axiomatic. Man acts is ontological - i...Man acts is axiomatic. Man acts is ontological - it is his state of being. The basis of that action is not axiomatic - rational, psychological, sub-conscious, social, instinct etc... <br /><br /><br />You are patting yourself on the back for stating the obvious - or did you just discover the obvious?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-17298603111412630282011-04-19T05:56:37.177-04:002011-04-19T05:56:37.177-04:00Lets trace this nonsense for a second.
You starte...Lets trace this nonsense for a second.<br /><br />You started to lecture me about social science methodology as if you knew something about it. Then I asked you what your background was. Then you shot back a bunch of rants and it seemed to me that you were hurling the question right back at me. So I only mentioned ONCE my background.<br /><br />Then I argued from knowledge, which surprise surprise sometimes comes from spending years studying something (you should try that sometime). You accuse me of arguing from intimidation, but you have not responded to any of my responses - only called me a creep, or fool or some other intimidating name. <br /><br />The foundation of our disagreement is on what constitutes the study of economics. For some reason you wanted a definition, which is fairly easy to do (btw I am not an economist). <br /><br />Then you got in your head that all theory is deductive and not empirical so Hayek and the Austrians are by definition correct. I then argued that no - theory is not only deductive, but inductive and tested. <br /><br />You started to make tautological arguments that since economics is the study of scarce resources and human action, then human action is the foundation of economics. Duh. That is ontological - and even that basis of economics is challenged (rationality vs. cognition and emotion). But even within the rationality paradigm - the actual study of economics is the implications of that foundational premise. That part of economics is inductive, deductive and evidence based. That is the difference between scientific knowledge and faith.<br /><br />So again, there are my responses to your "arguments" without calling you names and avoiding the fact that I schooled you. If you are so confident in the Austrian school and if its deduction is so impeccable - where is the evidence that it works or is correct. Or is the world flat?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-64371416750178790852011-04-19T05:42:33.563-04:002011-04-19T05:42:33.563-04:00Stings doesn't it. Get therapy.Stings doesn't it. Get therapy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-68078688362848962382011-04-19T04:43:32.476-04:002011-04-19T04:43:32.476-04:00GSSP,
Guess who's being 'thin-skinned'...GSSP,<br /><br />Guess who's being 'thin-skinned' now.... ROFLMAO....<br /><br />"but just search through your posts and see how many times you use the words "idiot" or "fool.""<br /><br />Once again... ROFLMAO. Arguing by intimidation would be "Only a fool would not understand this point". You don't even understand the meaning of the terms you use. I hurled abuse while you argue by appeal to authority (when you flaunt your credentials), appeal to numbers (when you talk of the number of people who would find me foolish) and by intimidation (once again, when you talk of how many people would think I am a fool).<br /><br />Creep to the core. True blue Keynesian pathological liar....Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-41163419534194863542011-04-19T04:26:52.752-04:002011-04-19T04:26:52.752-04:00GSSP,
You are a liar. In this post
April 18, 201...GSSP,<br /><br />You are a liar. In this post<br /><br />April 18, 2011 11:58 AM<br /><br />YOU started the "what's your background?" discussion. Why are all Keynesians such pathological liars?Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-29970638056643554112011-04-19T04:24:55.248-04:002011-04-19T04:24:55.248-04:00I asked you for a definition of Economics. You gav...I asked you for a definition of Economics. You gave it. I showed you why you are talking rot. So what's left? What's your response? More gobbledygook?Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-83969712401613947172011-04-19T04:23:29.212-04:002011-04-19T04:23:29.212-04:00Hey GSSP,
It is clear who the loon is out here. C...Hey GSSP,<br /><br />It is clear who the loon is out here. Clearly, it is the one who thinks he can get away with refusing to address arguments by opening a new door each time. What a creep! I wonder why every Keynesian is like this. Their Keynesianism must turn their brains into jelly.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-42681230038376039652011-04-19T04:20:20.717-04:002011-04-19T04:20:20.717-04:00Hey Genius Social Sciences Professor,
"Man a...Hey Genius Social Sciences Professor,<br /><br />"Man acts" is axiomatic. Try denying it without accepting its validity.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-28538759278756238462011-04-19T04:18:53.222-04:002011-04-19T04:18:53.222-04:00Hey Genius Social Sciences Professor,
Please addr...Hey Genius Social Sciences Professor,<br /><br />Please address the argument I have presented based on your definition. If you can't STFU.<br /><br />And you deserve the names you get called.<br /><br />And I did not ask for your credentials. You flaunted them all over the place. What a creep!Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-28392981354704320872011-04-19T03:41:45.110-04:002011-04-19T03:41:45.110-04:00@Bala
Wow! A real loon. You accuse me of arguing ...@Bala<br /><br />Wow! A real loon. You accuse me of arguing from authority (yet you are the one who asked for my credentials) and arguing by intimidation, but just search through your posts and see how many times you use the words "idiot" or "fool." <br /><br />I am pretty sure I made cogent arguments about the process of social science discovery, that even Anderson would have to agree with. What did you do? Claim that the "Action Axiom" supersedes all that.<br /><br />As far as your specific rant, it is really quite simple - you are confusing ontology with epistemology. I would agree that the foundation of economics is rooted in understanding how human behavior impacts distribution. But I would not agree that the basis of those motives or the theories we can derive from those ontological premises are all agreed upon as axiomatic laws or tested empirically. <br /><br />Is man rational? What are the specific consequences of whatever definition of rationality we are using? How do you go from methodological individualism to group behavior? Can a study of economics be devoid of political economy. Under what conditions do those assumptions about rationality actually take place - what informational and institutional contexts matter. <br /><br />None of that is axiomatic territory. It is where real theory building and empirical testing takes place. THAT is the study of economics. <br /><br />Again, juvenile.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-53619312222552962082011-04-18T20:31:50.235-04:002011-04-18T20:31:50.235-04:00"You are making yourself look crazy to anyone..."You are making yourself look crazy to anyone else who might be reading this"<br /><br />Oh!!! How scared I am of public disapproval!!!!!! Freaking fool. Stop trying to argue by intimidation and numbers and instead address the point I have made.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-80487930189518645522011-04-18T20:25:03.769-04:002011-04-18T20:25:03.769-04:00"Typical. Distribution baaad! Must mean gover..."Typical. Distribution baaad! Must mean government. Government baaad!"<br /><br />how come im not surprised that when someone uses the word 'distribution' that you automatically think government, as if resources would not be distributed without government.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-65590192600831638012011-04-18T20:23:51.026-04:002011-04-18T20:23:51.026-04:00OK Genius Social Sciences Professor,
I'll tak...OK Genius Social Sciences Professor,<br /><br />I'll take you on on your own definition. That is good enough to show what a freaking fool you are and what juvenile drivel you are spraying on these boards.<br /><br />"Economics= the study of the distribution of scarce resources. Pretty standard textbook. Your point?"<br /><br />Yeah! Yeah! Coming.... I live in India and sleep at night. But still take time to tear through idiots like you. So, here it comes.<br /><br />The study of "distribution" of "scarce" "resources". Now... there are clearly TWO parts to a "study" of something called "distribution".<br /><br />1. How are scarce resources distributed? - This segment is NECESSARILY EMPIRICAL because the question it asks is FACTUAL. However, whatever answers it throws up says very little ABOUT (not 'for') the other part<br />2. Why are "scarce" resources get "distributed" the way they do? Why DO scarce resources GET distributed the way they DO? - This part of necessarily analytical. It takes as its preliminary assumptions the fundamental conditions and characteristics of the forces that drive "distribution" and deduces the "Laws" that govern the "distribution". And it so happens that the "force" that drive "distribution" is HUMAN ACTION and the primary aspect of the "condition" under which "human action" happens is that "resources" are "scarce". <br /><br />The process of deduction of these laws takes as its starting point the axiom that "man acts", assumes that "resources" are "scarce" and applies REASONING (Get it? Applies freaking reasoning....) to DEDUCE the laws that govern the distribution of "scarce" "resources".<br /><br />By taking as the basis of its deductive process the fundamental force that drives and directs "distribution" and taking into its assumptions the "conditions" under which this "force" operates, the process of deductive reasoning pretty much ensures that it describes the working of the real world as it exists. So much for your "theory without empirical data is useless". The reality is that the "theory" is ROOTED in the fundamental definition of the goddamned study.<br /><br />So, Genius Social Sciences Professor, I've shown how the Austrian Method makes solid sense even by your "definition" of Economics. Will you now shut up and/or sit down and learn?Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-6210876925432581752011-04-18T19:00:24.144-04:002011-04-18T19:00:24.144-04:00@ professor social science
I didn't say anyth...@ professor social science<br /><br />I didn't say anything about "distribution baaad!" or "government baad!" And I certainly didn't say what I said with your mocking and insulting tone.<br /><br />The dictionary definition addresses neither my definition nor yours.<br /><br />I'll ask my question again. Do you see the difference?<br /><br />See if you can respond without resorting to juvenelia, professor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-89264765991301792042011-04-18T18:45:26.678-04:002011-04-18T18:45:26.678-04:00Typical. Distribution baaad! Must mean government....Typical. Distribution baaad! Must mean government. Government baaad!<br /><br />From the dictionary - <br /><br />a : a social science concerned chiefly with description and analysis of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and service<br /><br />Juvenile.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-37303433210950144362011-04-18T18:13:05.813-04:002011-04-18T18:13:05.813-04:00@ professor anonymous of the social sciences
Econ...@ professor anonymous of the social sciences<br /><br />Economics is not the study of the distribution of scare resources. It is the study of how humans act within the context of scarce resources. Do you see the difference? It's an important one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-89260512084313392362011-04-18T16:12:46.442-04:002011-04-18T16:12:46.442-04:00Economics= the study of the distribution of scarce...Economics= the study of the distribution of scarce resources. Pretty standard textbook. Your point?<br /><br />I don't reply to your nonsense because it is pretty juvenile. <br /><br />Correlation causation fallacy? You really think that thousands of empirical social scientists don't think of this (we call it endogeneity too). Get real. Several ways to deal with that. Never said that theory is not important - it is the bread and butter of the discipline. But I theory is only as good as its logic AND data. People thought the world was flat - they were positive until it was proven empirically that it was round. <br /><br />Really, juvenile level of debate here. You are making yourself look crazy to anyone else who might be reading this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-50572480276088788012011-04-18T16:08:55.066-04:002011-04-18T16:08:55.066-04:00"Bala said...
And Genius,
That teeny weeny ..."Bala said...<br /><br />And Genius,<br /><br />That teeny weeny question about explaining how democracy is not 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner is still unanswered. Care to do that?<br /><br />April 18, 2011 3:21 PM"<br /><br />The rest of the quote, Bala:<br />"Liberty is an armed sheep contesting the vote."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com