... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I0K-ymOTS4
Back on topic .
The Economist article is not really very good. It still places Austrian Economics, which tradition goes back to Leibniz, Condillac, Hume, Hutton, De Tracy, Say, Bohm-Bawerk, Fetter, Mises, and Hayek, and today has people like De Soto & Garrison, who've done real nice work, with some nonsense bloggers who advocate infinite inflation, as if all opposite claims are on equal footing, and interview, of all people, Yeager, who has never really impressed me for instance.
As usual, Economist is still basically a socialist source.
thelion:... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I0K-ymOTS4
Funny video.
Which side do you think each of us is on?
thelion:The Economist article is not really very good. It still places Austrian Economics, which tradition goes back to Leibniz, Condillac, Hume, Hutton, De Tracy, Say, Bohm-Bawerk, Fetter, Mises, and Hayek, and today has people like De Soto & Garrison, who've done real nice work, with some nonsense bloggers who advocate infinite inflation, as if all opposite claims are on equal footing, and interview, of all people, Yeager, who has never really impressed me for instance.
Good point. I guess that's paternalism for you.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Autolykos:I still haven't changed my mind.
That response was never supposed to make you.
Circularity strikes again!
!
How so?
Black and white is more dull?
Autolykos: John James:That's probably because (apparently) you see that a lot of places. Are you now admitting that that was your intention?
John James:That's probably because (apparently) you see that a lot of places.
Are you now admitting that that was your intention?
Huh? How do you get that from my pointing out that you might have a complex?
Autolykos: John James:It's working quite well for the purposes I've done it. I fail to see how.
John James:It's working quite well for the purposes I've done it.
I fail to see how.
That's because you fail to accept the fact that your assumptions are wrong. You seem to think I have ulterior intentions behind everything I've posted (including a belief that a Price is Right horn is supposed to intimidate you, and the phrase "that's too bad" is suppose to change your mind about something).
Once again, I have to say, you're wrong. I don't know any other way to put it. You fail to see how what I've done is working because you are hellbent on holding incorrect assumptions.
At the beginning of this exchange - as I see it - you attempted to berate me and make me feel dumb for even questioning whether that was Bob Murphy in the linked cartoon.
Exactly. And again, as has been established (by more than one user in this thread alone), you may have a complex.
I didn't feel dumb then, and I don't feel dumb now.
Tony Robbins would be proud!
Whether you think I'm dumb doesn't matter to me.
That's nice to hear.
Claiming that you're now just doing this for laughs and entertainment is disingenuous IMHO.
K.
It's just another tactic for you to try to "win" here - where "winning" involves feeling like you've made me feel a certain way.
Wow is this how you really see things? That's too bad.
Even if you are honestly doing this for laughs and entertainment at this point, you've shifted the goalposts for yourself.
Not sure what that's supposed to mean. But okay!
That's right.
what is? K?
Autolykos: John James:That doesn't mean what I heard made any sense.Somehow I think it did. Regardless, you still heard me. I don't think I need to repeat myself.
John James:That doesn't mean what I heard made any sense.
Well no, if what you said doesn't make any sense, it would make even less sense to repeat it, now wouldn't it?
John James:That response was never supposed to make you.
Then what was the point of saying it?
John James: Huh? How do you get that from my pointing out that you might have a complex?
I don't see how that pointed out that I might have a "complex".
John James:That's because you fail to accept the fact that your assumptions are wrong. You seem to think I have ulterior intentions behind everything I've posted (including a belief that a Price is Right horn is supposed to intimidate you, and the phrase "that's too bad" is suppose to change your mind about something). Once again, I have to say, you're wrong. I don't know any other way to put it. You fail to see how what I've done is working because you are hellbent on holding incorrect assumptions.
I believe my assumptions are correct. You claim they're incorrect, but without supporting that claim. So I don't believe you, and I don't trust your word - at least not when it comes to this.
John James:Exactly. And again, as has been established (by more than one user in this thread alone), you may have a complex.
So you're now claiming that you weren't attempting to berate me and make me feel dumb for asking that question? Then what was the point of your response? I can see no other point to it, so please (try to) enlighten me.
Accusing me of having a complex also won't shut me up.
John James:Tony Robbins would be proud!
I still don't feel dumb for asking that question.
John James:Wow is this how you really see things? That's too bad.
Yeah, that is how I see things as far as this exchange goes. I don't think you were expecting me to respond the way I did. So what's followed has been a game of brinkmanship. I really don't see what kind of entertainment you could get from this, so I figure you're just using that as another ploy.
John James:Not sure what that's supposed to mean. But okay!
Oh come on. You know full what what it's supposed to mean. It means you failed to make me feel dumb, so you decided to change the goal you wanted to accomplish (assuming your claim about this being all about laughs now is honest - I still have my doubts there).
John James:what is? K?
No, what you responded "K" to.
John James:Well no, if what you said doesn't make any sense, it would make even less sense to repeat it, now wouldn't it?
That presumes, of course, that what I said necessarily doesn't make any sense. I certainly think it does make sense - otherwise, I wouldn't have said it.
Autolykos:Then what was the point of saying it?
To express the sentiment in literary form?
...maybe that's further evidence that you have one! They say denial is the first sign.
I believe my assumptions are correct.
So like I said, you're still wrong.
You claim they're incorrect, but without supporting that claim.
That's only because I'm unaware there is a way to prove what is in someone's head.
So I don't believe you
That's too bad. It means you're wrong. But I guess you're probably used to that by now.
So you're now claiming that you weren't attempting to berate me and make me feel dumb for asking that question?
You're not always a victim Autolykos. And don't ever let anyone tell you different.
Then what was the point of your response?
To offer a response to your question.
Again, it's not supposed to.
Good for you, slugger!
Yeah, that is how I see things as far as this exchange goes.
...and apparently quite a few others.
I really don't see what kind of entertainment you could get from this
That's too bad.
It means you failed to make me feel dumb, so you decided to change the goal you wanted to accomplish
Oh I see.
Nope. Still wrong.
Oh. Well in that case, no it isn't.
Autolykos: John James:Well no, if what you said doesn't make any sense, it would make even less sense to repeat it, now wouldn't it? That presumes, of course, that what I said necessarily doesn't make any sense.
That presumes, of course, that what I said necessarily doesn't make any sense.
...hence the phrase "if what you said doesn't make any sense".
You apparently see no need to explain yourself, but you also apparently expect me to believe you about everything. As far as I'm concerned, those two things don't add up. So I don't think there's any hope of this ending unless and until you stop expecting me to be a mind-reader and actually explain yourself. If I'm as wrong as you claim, that shouldn't be too difficult. Simply repeating the assertion that I'm wrong will have no effect on me, as I think should be abundantly clear by this point. And if you're so certain that I am wrong, then why bother to continue asserting it? It can't be to convince me, so there must be one or more ulterior motives. Again, since I'm not a mind-reader, I can only guess at what it or they could be. Instead of clarifying yourself, you've apparently decided to try to obfuscate things. I don't think that looks good at all on your part. But if you want to keep acting like an ass, be my guest. I certainly can't stop you.
... And in case you were wondering, this is not necessarily my last word in this thread.
Fucking idiots, we should be arguing with the statists.
And I meant that in an attempt to intimidate you all.
NonAntiAnarchist:Fucking idiots, we should be arguing with the statists.
You be sure and bring that class with you when you do