Keynesian/marxist dogma.
Well firstly, I like the idea of "Help me refute this video". That says to me: "I don't know enough to actually know that it's wrong, but I'd like somebody to throw together something that sounds logical to confirm my bias, please". Who is it that's really being dogmatic?
Second, it's not at all Keynesian dogma. I'm a Keynesian (or maybe a monetarist, they're basically the same thing now), and I think everything the guy says other than that the Fed should stop paying IOR is garbage.
You guys have really gotta drop the hostility towards conflicting ideas.
Marginal Interest:You guys have really gotta drop the hostility towards conflicting ideas.
I'll be the last to defend the hypocrite in the OP for creating one of these kind of threads, but you might want to rethink this sentence.
John James: Marginal Interest:You guys have really gotta drop the hostility towards conflicting ideas. I'll be the last to defend the hypocrite in the OP for creating one of these kind of threads, but you might want to rethink this sentence.
What do you mean?
I rank my hostility preferences according to the most severe with those diminishing in severity at the lowest. I call this marginal hostility, and it's subjective. Don't tell me how and what to do with it.
Bert:I rank my hostility preferences according to the most severe with those diminishing in severity at the lowest. I call this marginal hostility, and it's subjective. Don't tell me how and what to do with it.
Nice.
a) "you guys" implies everyone in this forum. Generalizations and accusations don't mix well.
b) The idea of not murdering people conflicts with some homicidal tendencies. I think it would be dangerous to not be hostile to those conflicting ideas of murderers...you however seem to think such hostility should be "dropped". In favor of what, I might ask. Perhaps calm consideration of the validity of the murderer's position? Maybe a negotiation to compromise?
John James: a) "you guys" implies everyone in this forum. Generalizations and accusations don't mix well. b) The idea of not murdering people conflicts with some homicidal tendencies. I think it would be dangerous to not be hostile to those conflicting ideas of murderers...you however seem to think such hostility should be "dropped". In favor of what, I might ask. Perhaps calm consideration of the validity of the murderer's position? Maybe a negotiation to compromise?
Okay. I thought it was kind of clear from context that the target was "guys that are hostile towards conflicting ideas" and that anybody who isn't hostile towards alternative views may pay no heed. Also that "conflicting ideas" was probably in reference to "ideas inconsistent with your biases". My fault, I guess. Let me try again: "Hey. You guys should really be less pedantic".
Again, I'm biased toward not murdering people. To be perfectly honest, I really don't give a crap if you think, out of some ignorant need of yours to be combative here, that I need to be less hostile to ideas that conflict with that. I do not think that that bias is illogical or unreasonable, and I do not agree that it is a bad thing that needs to be rethought or reconsidered or replaced with some kind of reasoned discussion about the possible merits of murder or some kind of compromise with people who would like to commit such an act.
I think it is you who should probably consider your own hostility toward people in this forum, as it does not look like you are here to learn anything or teach anything, but instead to essentially troll.
And again, "you guys" is not a very good way to communicate a statement to a specific group of unidentified people, let alone a useful way to start a conversation. Perhaps you should be more specific.
John James: Again, I'm biased toward not murdering people. To be perfectly honest, I really don't give a crap if you think, out of some ignorant need of yours to be combative here, that I need to be less hostile to ideas that conflict with that. I do not think that that bias is illogical or unreasonable, and I do not agree that it is a bad thing that needs to be rethought or reconsidered or replaced with some kind of reasoned discussion about the possible merits of murder or some kind of compromise with people who would like to commit such an act. I think it is you who should probably consider your own hostility toward people in this forum, as it does not look like you are here to learn anything or teach anything, but instead to essentially troll. And again, "you guys" is not a very good way to communicate a statement to a specific group of unidentified people, let alone a useful way to start a conversation. Perhaps you should be more specific.
Aside from the fact that that argument is a complete strawman, it's not the end of my world that somebody doesn't agree with me. I'm happy to agree to disagree.
As to my presence on this forum, there are two reasons. One, I acknowledge certain shortcomings in mainstream economics (most notably, the aggregation problem) and contributions of the Austrian School to the field (most notably, their work on the socialist calculation problem and the use of prices as signals), and figured that I could find some constructive solutions or nuggets of wisdom here; two, I found in previous encounters with Austrian proponents very little understand of mainstream models and a great deal of strawmen being argued against. I figured there would be some degree of mutual benefit that would come from checking out this forum. Instead I found a lot of dogmatic zealots who insist that if I hold an opposing opinion it's because I've been brainwashed and who won't step out of their bubble long enough to give any serious thought to a concept for which there isn't a mises.org article misrepresenting it for them; articles which they frequently direct me to because they don't understand their own theory well enough to explain it in a couple of sentences. The only reason I'm still on here is because I've had some very pleasant and informative conversations with some very reasonable people. I'm hoping that my encounters with ignorant belligerents have just been bad luck.
John James:The idea of not murdering people conflicts with some homicidal tendencies. I think it would be dangerous to not be hostile to those conflicting ideas of murderers...you however seem to think such hostility should be "dropped". In favor of what, I might ask. Perhaps calm consideration of the validity of the murderer's position? Maybe a negotiation to compromise?
Please explain the "straw man" accusation.
Marginal Interest:figured that I could find some constructive solutions or nuggets of wisdom here
Solutions to what, exactly?
I found a lot of dogmatic zealots who insist that if I hold an opposing opinion it's because I've been brainwashed and who won't step out of their bubble long enough to give any serious thought to a concept for which there isn't a mises.org article misrepresenting it for them; articles which they frequently direct me to because they don't understand their own theory well enough to explain it in a couple of sentences.
1) would you care to offer some examples of these "zealots" and the posts in which this occurred?
2) which concepts are you still having trouble with?
3) which Mises.org articles misrepresent these concepts?
I'm hoping that my encounters with ignorant belligerents have just been bad luck.
Again, you might consider the possibility that said belligerence is a direct consequence of your own attitude...Such as displayed by your first post in this thread.
John James: Please explain the "straw man" accusation.
The context of post was that due dilligence had not been done. The OP uses the word "Keynesian" in a derogatory fashion despite not having even an elementary understanding of Keynesian economics (as is apparent both in the fact that there was nothing remotely Keynesian in the video and in lumping Keynesians in with Marxists). Something like murder, for example, has been given due dilligence. You don't have a preconceived prejudice against murder. You understand what murder is fully and so are able to make an informed judgement.
To the problems associated with economic modelling. I assume you don't just go "Well, aggregates aren't great. Let's give up".
1) would you care to offer some examples of these "zealots" and the posts in which this occurred? 2) which concepts are you still having trouble with? 3) which Mises.org articles misrepresent these concepts?
Haha. I didn't realise I was being deposed. How exactly is this line of questioning (which places an absurd demand on my memory) either relevant or useful?
The first post in this thread where I scorned somebody for attempting to confirm their bias (which you agreed with by the way)? I guess I must be a real dick for pointing out intellectual dishonesty.
Marginal Interest:You don't have a preconceived prejudice against murder. You understand what murder is fully and so are able to make an informed judgement.
How do you presume to know what I understand?
Marginal Interest:Solutions to what, exactly? To the problems associated with economic modelling. I assume you don't just go "Well, aggregates aren't great. Let's give up".
It depends on what you mean by "give up". If you mean "stop looking for ways to do the same thing again and again, hoping for a different result", then yes, I actually do do that. It sounds like you're searching for a way to make a flawed methodology work such that it actually reaches accurate and/or logical conclusions. If that is the case, I would say yes, you should "give up".
Your last statement there sounds exactly like leftists who attack advocates for a much more restrained monetary and fiscal policy by exclaiming "you people are saying 'the stimulus didn't make everything better, so we should just cut everything!'...that's just crazy. Just because it wasn't perfect doesn't mean it didn't do some good! We just didn't spend enough!"
Marginal Interest: 1) would you care to offer some examples of these "zealots" and the posts in which this occurred? 2) which concepts are you still having trouble with? 3) which Mises.org articles misrepresent these concepts? Haha. I didn't realise I was being deposed. How exactly is this line of questioning (which places an absurd demand on my memory) either relevant or useful?
"haha?" I would apologize for making you feel on trial, but evidently it makes you happy, so perhaps you should be thanking me. Those questions are both relevant and useful because they will help everyone here know whom and what you're talking about, such that we might help you overcome the misunderstandings you have (which, is essentially why you claim to be here in the first place). But in addition to quite literally being helpful clues to your actual purpose for being in this forum, those examples will also do a great deal to prove you aren't full of crap, and simply making baseless claims so as to further insult and troll members of this forum.
And such a request should not be an "absurd" demand on your memory (unless you are a complete idiot). You have less than 80 posts here, and if I recall, all of those have appeared in less than a couple weeks. Your statement was that you found "a lot" of dogmatic zealots who "frequently" direct you to mises.org articles. Putting aside the questionable validity of the term "frequently" considering the sheer number of posts and amount of time involved (or utter lack thereof), it should nonetheless be quite easy for you to produce at least a couple of examples of such behavior.
What's more, with that few posts in that short of a time, I can't imagine all of your activity here is spread across more than a dozen threads or less.
The first post where you made a generalized blanket statement implicitly painting regular visitors to this forum as unreasonable, dogmatic rubes.
That is a big problem with government, when it gets so big that it is a large employer, then it uses unemployment as a justification to increase the size of the state. This would not be such a problem if the state did not require taxes and debt to fund this operation.
The state also as a defense mechanism will always cut government programs that are most frequently used and desired before cutting services and departments that no one would even notice were gone. This way they can create a big public uproar at the cuts and get the unions involved.
This process will eventually end up where the state is too big for the tax base to support, even with high debt. This could negatively affect the economy to such an extent that it causes a reduction in the tax base. This reduction, which might be seen more so in the private sector. Could cause even more job losses at the public sector, which of course is a vicious circle destined to fail.
John James: How do you presume to know what I understand?
How do I presume to know you understand how murder works? Clutching at straws, maybe?
Note that I didn't actually ask for your opinion, I was just saying that those are the kinds of things that make me interested in this forum. But thanks anyway, I guess.
"haha?" I would apologize for making you feel on trial, but evidently it makes you happy, so perhaps you should be thanking me. Those questions are both relevant and useful because they will help everyone here know whom and what you're talking about, such that we might help you overcome the misunderstandings you have (which, is essentially why you claim to be here in the first place). But in addition to quite literally being helpful clues to your actual purpose for being in this forum, those examples will also do a great deal to prove you aren't full of crap, and simply making baseless claims so as to further insult and troll members of this forum. And such a request should not be an "absurd" demand on your memory (unless you are a complete idiot). You have less than 80 posts here, and if I recall, all of those have appeared in less than a couple weeks. Your statement was that you found "a lot" of dogmatic zealots who "frequently" direct you to mises.org articles. Putting aside the questionable validity of the term "frequently" considering the sheer number of posts and amount of time involved (or utter lack thereof), it should nonetheless be quite easy for you to produce at least a couple of examples of such behavior. What's more, with that few posts in that short of a time, I can't imagine all of your activity here is spread across more than a dozen threads or less.
Irrespective of how much work it is, I'm not really here to prove the validity of my experiences to every person I meet. If you suspect trolling, report it to a moderator.
Pardon me for using informal language. As was explained before, I've encountered a few people on here who don't like to give contrary ideas the time of day. "You guys" doesn't mean "every single person here". If you can't move past that interpretation, I don't really care. I'm not interested in indulging this any further. If you still have problems, take it to a mod.
Marginal Interest:How do I presume to know you understand how murder works? Clutching at straws, maybe?
And of course you're not doing that with the OP.
With your "I assume you don't just..." comment, it could have gone either way. You could have just as easily been intending to get confirmation of your assumption (as you apparently have no problem making them without any real evidential support). This could have easily been one time where you were aiming to actually get some.
No one asked to you prove validity of experiences...I simply asked for examples. When you claimed that doing so placed an "absurd demand" on your memory I simply illustrated that the severe retardation in your recollection facilities is actually quite irrelevant, as the forum history not only removes the need for you to remember anything, but also your severe lack of much history at all here would make locating such examples quite easy, even for someone of your limited retention (especially being as there is apparently so many of them). Under such cirumstances, one would be inclined to believe someone in your position is just making excuses because he simply can't provide such examples.
As was explained before, I've encountered a few people on here who don't like to give contrary ideas the time of day.
So we've gone from "a lot of dogmatic zealots" to "a few people". Any other "informal language" you'd like to clarify?
"You guys" doesn't mean "every single person here".
No, it doesn't. But it certainly implies it...especially coming from someone such as yourself, who identifies himself (at least implicitly) as an outsider to some sort of in-group of people who frequent this forum.
If you can't move past that interpretation, I don't really care. I'm not interested in indulging this any further. If you still have problems, take it to a mod.
I'm curious what your preoccupation with reporting to mods is. If that's your solution to every criticism, why didn't you just report the OP?
I don't understand how you could have discovered this website and still be a Keynesian. Which Austrian theories do you refute, and which Keynesian theories do you support.
'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking