Check out the comments to my blog post, Why the “Stimulus” Will Only Make the Recession Worse, & Why Government Should Not Attempt to Prevent Bankruptcy. A Keynesian who actually seems to be fairly intelligent is debating my argument, and isn’t doing too terrible of a job at it. Any thoughts? And does anyone care to step in on my behalf?
I replied. No hard feelings, but he is a nobody, we've both wasted enough time on him.
You were in over your head from the start, and the more you reply, the more you feed him. I'd advise letting the post die and next time you post about economics, make sure it is on a topic you understand well enough to defend.
Autogestionist: Check out the comments to my blog post, Why the “Stimulus” Will Only Make the Recession Worse, & Why Government Should Not Attempt to Prevent Bankruptcy. A Keynesian who actually seems to be fairly intelligent is debating my argument, and isn’t doing too terrible of a job at it. Any thoughts? And does anyone care to step in on my behalf?
Chuck this at him from page 866 from Man, Economy, State:
Social Income = Y
Income of Reader = R
Income of Everyone else = V
V = 0.9999 Y
Then Y= 0.9999 Y + R
0.0001 Y = R
Y = 100,000 R
The reader's income will increase 100,000 fold according to the magic multiplier
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
He lost me at "spending does create wealth". So eating an apple produces more apples?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Actually someone should cut him apart, to temper his arrogance, as if hiding behind mathematics will salvage a useless argument, and as if "data" will show how the "stimulus" is having any positive effect on anything as opposed to not preventing recovery as much as it could have. If someone tries to use mathematics to prove an economic argument force them to put it in verbal logic.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Laughing man is correct: reductio ad absurdums are the way to go when challenging Keynesian multipliers.
Irish Liberty Forum
I have to be honest, it sounds to me like he's owned everyone's attempts to refute him. I also found out a bit after he posted that this is someone I know and respect from another forum who I've typically agreed with, since we've never gotten indepth on economics. Really, if anyone is up to the challenge I'd like to see a debate here. If not, I'm seriously losing what faith I had left in austrian theory's practicability.
dont lose faith because youre inept, just read some more. his posts read like the same tired keynesian shite.
Hi Autogestionist. Don't feel bad. I've lost my fair share of debates and arguments with economics and such with people of "advise dog" level IQ and "courage wolf" nerve myself.
I must say, It's times like this I'm glad I came to this site to find books on economics to learn up and become more am here to learn up on economics. I was originally here to refute and rebut bogus socialist claims, but you know what? I think I'll stick around and look for arguments debunking the epic steaming pile of fail known as Keynesianism myself, thanks to RJ.
Cheers.
And good luck in becoming more educated on the subject. :)
Sounds exactly like what my parents told me when I showed them failed prophecies and errors in the Bible to explain my rejection of their religion: "Don't lose faith in the Bible just because you're inept at understanding it; read it more." If his posts are just "tired keynesian shite" why is no one able to thoroughly refute him?
I'm not sure if this is a reply to me, but in case it is:
Well, I could hardly get through his posts because:
1. Venom filled posts with constant bashing are hard to get through.
2. He used a bunch of variables spuratically to defend his points (I'm good at math and was taught by a Keynesian).
3. I didn't feel like reading through his sources.
Also, there is one argument of his that was outright riducious.
The idea of "bonds creating more wealth." This is absurd. They create more money in circulation, and therefore create more inflation, and therefore act as a regressive tax.
Autogestionist:I have to be honest, it sounds to me like he's owned everyone's attempts to refute him. I also found out a bit after he posted that this is someone I know and respect from another forum who I've typically agreed with, since we've never gotten indepth on economics. Really, if anyone is up to the challenge I'd like to see a debate here. If not, I'm seriously losing what faith I had left in austrian theory's practicability.
You don't understand it well enough to defend it, so if someone else doesn't do the thinking and legwork for you, you are going to reject it?
And what is this about faith in economics?
The issue is, no one really cares enough to spend time fighting your battles for you. You haven't created a compelling case for your own knowledge, you're asking everyone to assist you, presuming we owe you or the argument something. Wrong.
I'm beginning to suspect you are not the owner of that blog.
liberty student: Autogestionist:I have to be honest, it sounds to me like he's owned everyone's attempts to refute him. I also found out a bit after he posted that this is someone I know and respect from another forum who I've typically agreed with, since we've never gotten indepth on economics. Really, if anyone is up to the challenge I'd like to see a debate here. If not, I'm seriously losing what faith I had left in austrian theory's practicability. You don't understand it well enough to defend it, so if someone else doesn't do the thinking and legwork for you, you are going to reject it? And what is this about faith in economics? The issue is, no one really cares enough to spend time fighting your battles for you. You haven't created a compelling case for your own knowledge, you're asking everyone to assist you, presuming we owe you or the argument something. Wrong. I'm beginning to suspect you are not the owner of that blog.
I suspect he is the one commenting on the blog.
I responded to his response to liberty student.
Actually it sounds to me like a student who can't the theory of evolution so thinks creationism must be true, simply because their professor isn't able to put the theory in terms they can comprehend - only most here are not even professors but laymen. No cupcake, his points were shite and they were countered. He's brought nothing new to the table but bald assertions. The only issue is I cannot access the link he asserts "proves" that the stimulus aided in countering the recession, as if such a thing could ever be "proven" as opposed to being shoddy post hoc reasoning; the rest is flailing pathetically, trying to assert over and over that savings are not what "we" need right now &c. If you give up so easily on a theory I'd wager you're highly suggestible and swayed by appeals to authority, and so can be easily manipulated - am I right?
Autogestionist:Check out the comments to my blog post, Why the “Stimulus” Will Only Make the Recession Worse, & Why Government Should Not Attempt to Prevent Bankruptcy. A Keynesian who actually seems to be fairly intelligent is debating my argument, and isn’t doing too terrible of a job at it. Any thoughts? And does anyone care to step in on my behalf?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoxDyC7y7PM ("Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Bigger Gov't Is Not Stimulus" by the CATO Institute)
This explains much.