|
|
 Originally Posted by wufwugy
You had me fooled. You blew my point off as if I was using sensational language to say what you now say is theft.
No, that's not my point. Tell me what my point is.
Different topic.
The language of theft is off topic. We're talking about whether or not unemployment insurance is, on the whole, helpful or hurtful to the society as a whole. Furthermore, we're exploring whether the net -EV for the society as a whole dominates the net +EV for the few who use the program (or if it is a + at all).
Since what I guessed you meant was wrong, I don't know what link you're making between employee theft and anything else.
Help me with the context, then. I don't understand your metaphor.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I link you to a economics professor who has been teaching for a few decades. He used an anecdote merely as an illustration for a broader issue that has been established before that anecdote existed. I then use that to explore our specific topic, and like you have with the last several issues, you just seem to brush it off without considering it more deeply.
His anecdote expresses why he feels the way he feels (right now), and is not a compelling argument for why I should feel anything. Furthermore, even if I had the same feeling, it gives no notion of whether this feeling is in line with a helpful model of reality.
Yes, I brushed it off. I will brush off any attempt to elucidate which relies on emotionally charged language as its foundation.
If you can only discuss your field in these terms, then I guess I understand why you think I'm being flippant with you.
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Then stop portraying such belying behavior. There is virtually no direct evidence of anything in macro. Data-mining is virtually worthless in macro. You say I'm not bringing you worthwhile things, yet when I do it seems you hop to disagreement regardless. Maybe I'm the asshole here, but the types of things you're saying suggest you're not putting much effort into considering the arguments.
I dont know what I'm belying. I just want a conversation with the emotions stripped out of it so that we can learn what all economists would agree on, without dispute. If there is no subset of the field for which this occurs, then I am bored of the field and it can exist w/o my input, like so many things in this world.
My competitive advantage is in focusing on logic-based systems. I am flummoxed by emotion-based systems. I have nothing to offer that someone else couldn't do better.
If the field of macroeconomics is truly this untested, then I'm absolutely bored with the conversation and I'm sorry if you feel I wasted your time.
|
Reply With Quote