These people are our future

[Lyric]

I said credible professional economists. Not a political professional Senior Fellow of a conservative think tank

There's a whole lot of people with academic economic history or positions. Some of them are credible, some of them are politicians or politically motivated. Make sure to distinguish between the two



Oh wait no you're right, the big bad gubmint forced the banks to bribe politicians like Rubin and Gramm to undo the regulations keeping them from merging commercial and speculative banking, the big bad gubmint forced the banks to bribe the SEC to release regulations keeping them from capping derivative leverage, the big bad gubmint forced the banks to sneak around insurance law by devising credit default swaps, and the big bad gubmint forced the banks to bet against the mortgages

Utter hogwash.

Besides, the banks own the fucking Fed anyways. You've bought propaganda, and the big bad gubmint is the scapegoat

Stanford University is where he works now, and his education speaks for itself. Perhaps you don't realize that only half the world thinks like you? That half the professional economists agree with me and half agree with you?

[wufwugy]

Stanford University is where he works now, and his education speaks for itself. Perhaps you don't realize that only half the world thinks like you? That half the professional economists agree with me and half agree with you?

How dense are you?

Me: That's a strawberry
You: That's not a strawberry because I like apples

[IowaSkinsFan]

What this really should say.

How dense are you?

Me: I like Strawberries because ZOMG ITS CLEARLY SUPERIOR TO EVERYTHING ELSE, WHY USE LOGIC.
You: I like Apples, think they are better than Strawberries, here's a bunch of logic supporting this.

[wufwugy]

What this really should say.

You're more intelligent than this

Step outside the echo chamber. There's nothing I can say until you do that.

Go examine "debates" between biologists and creationists, or between truthers and non-idiots, or between AIDs deniers and non-idiots. Without fail, all the evidence or logic in the world does nothing for the people on the wrong side of the "debate" unless they actually step outside of their echo chamber and imagine that they could actually be wrong.

Until you are interested in the possibility of being wrong, you're not going to be able to examine any contrary points. I've gone through this humbling process a myriad of times, including when I began learning econ. Until you honestly examine hundreds of hours of research outside of your echo chamber, you really can't express a quality of opinion on the matter. I used to be inside the libertarian echo chamber; it took several months of research outside my comfort zone before I saw through the holes. This type of thing is pretty standard when engaging in any new topic.

I've seen every fact and every ounce of evidence presented to deniers on several different issues, and it never gets through unless the denier sets their denial aside for a time and tries to fully understand the other argument. If you think I haven't presented evidence for my arguments, that's partially correct, but the reason is because I discovered early on in this debate that the evidence isn't key here, but openness to examining the evidence without prejudice. That's why my response is almost always to just do a ton of research on the subject. I could post evidence all day long for my claims, but I refuse to do so on deaf ears.


But I think you're smarter than that. So here take this advice. Don't listen to a word I say. Think to yourself that I'm a fucking moron who needs to get a clue. Just make sure to step outside of the echo chamber and spend a large chunk of time examining contrary points from the most qualified sources you can find. Personally, I know how formidable echo chambers can be; I've been in several, including the libertarian one, as I said

[Lyric]

You're more intelligent than this

Step outside the echo chamber. There's nothing I can say until you do that.

Go examine "debates" between biologists and creationists, or between truthers and non-idiots, or between AIDs deniers and non-idiots. Without fail, all the evidence or logic in the world does nothing for the people on the wrong side of the "debate" unless they actually step outside of their echo chamber and imagine that they could actually be wrong.

Until you are interested in the possibility of being wrong, you're not going to be able to examine any contrary points. I've gone through this humbling process a myriad of times, including when I began learning econ. Until you honestly examine hundreds of hours of research outside of your echo chamber, you really can't express a quality of opinion on the matter. I used to be inside the libertarian echo chamber; it took several months of research outside my comfort zone before I saw through the holes. This type of thing is pretty standard when engaging in any new topic.

I've seen every fact and every ounce of evidence presented to deniers on several different issues, and it never gets through unless the denier sets their denial aside for a time and tries to fully understand the other argument. If you think I haven't presented evidence for my arguments, that's partially correct, but the reason is because I discovered early on in this debate that the evidence isn't key here, but openness to examining the evidence without prejudice. That's why my response is almost always to just do a ton of research on the subject. I could post evidence all day long for my claims, but I refuse to do so on deaf ears.


But I think you're smarter than that. So here take this advice. Don't listen to a word I say. Think to yourself that I'm a fucking moron who needs to get a clue. Just make sure to step outside of the echo chamber and spend a large chunk of time examining contrary points from the most qualified sources you can find. Personally, I know how formidable echo chambers can be; I've been in several, including the libertarian one, as I said

I started in the liberal echo chamber. Your advice is right on the mark. It's fascinating how we tend to lock ourselves into an opinion and cognitive dissonance won't let us see anything but what we already believe.

[Lyric]

How dense are you?

Me: That's a strawberry
You: That's not a strawberry because I like apples

I'm implying that his education makes it less likely that he is a political puppet. I also ask if you will concede that half of American professional economists agree with me or if I will be forced to offer evidence to support this claim.

[wufwugy]

I'm implying that his education makes it less likely that he is a political puppet.

You'd think so, but unfortunately it's not true with econ. There's way way too much financial and political incentive behind it.

Besides, the Hoover Institute kills it.

Also, what he said isn't entirely wrong. That's part of the play of propaganda. The Bush Admin did express some incentive for easier mortgages and stuff, but that's only a tiny role, and misdirects from the vast majority of what else was going on. When the banks bribe and commit fraud, you can't say it was because the Fed lowered their interest rates

I also ask if you will concede that half of American professional economists agree with me or if I will be forced to offer evidence to support this claim.

You mean economists without political, financial, or corporate conflicts of interest? Have at it, Hoss. Please find me credible economists who think the innocent ol banks were forced by big bad government to make hundreds of billions by overextending themselves and committing legalized fraud

[Lyric]

You'd think so, but unfortunately it's not true with econ. There's way way too much financial and political incentive behind it.

Besides, the Hoover Institute kills it.

Also, what he said isn't entirely wrong. That's part of the play of propaganda. The Bush Admin did express some incentive for easier mortgages and stuff, but that's only a tiny role, and misdirects from the vast majority of what else was going on. When the banks bribe and commit fraud, you can't say it was because the Fed lowered their interest rates


You mean economists without political, financial, or corporate conflicts of interest? Have at it, Hoss. Please find me credible economists who think the innocent ol banks were forced by big bad government to make hundreds of billions by overextending themselves and committing legalized fraud

Are you saying that no legitimate economists are conservative or libertarian? You don't think there are two legitimate sides to this ageless debate?

Are you really saying that all laissez-faire economists including Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Irving Fisher, Frank Knight, Jacob Viner, Arthur Burns, Friedrich Hayek, Homer Jones, Ludwig von Mises, Henry Simons, and George Stigler are all puppets with an evil agenda?

[wufwugy]

Are you saying that no legitimate economists are conservative or libertarian?

Pretty much. This isn't a damn philosophy debate. It's science. Observational and demonstrable evidence. "Conservative economists" is a phrase that exists because people don't even know what fucking economics means. You can't have liberal physics or libertarian chemistry, likewise any politically delineated econ is just as retarded.

You don't think there are two legitimate sides to this ageless debate?

There's more than two, usually. Just don't fool yourself into thinking stupidity is a side. Creationism isn't a "side" in a biology debate, likewise "making shit up that is empirically refuted" isn't a side in an econ debate.

We know for a fucking fact that the policy that is most responsible for the Crisis of 08 was deregulatory. This is not debatable because the scientific observation has already been declared. Only in conservative libertarian fantasy land do we get to fabricate made-up garbage where the Crisis of 08 was magically caused by increasing regulation.

Two examples: we know for a fact that in 1999 Congress deregulated certain mergers without which the Crisis of 08 would not have even been possible. We know for a fact that the SEC deregulating leverage caps for certain banks played an enormous role in the creation and severity of the Crisis

30 minutes on google is enough time to find the wealth of proof that the claim that we've been over-regulating the banks is complete and utter trash. But don't tell that to somebody who doesn't understand the difference between empirical observation and making stuff up

Are you really saying that all laissez-faire economists including Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Irving Fisher, Frank Knight, Jacob Viner, Arthur Burns, Friedrich Hayek, Homer Jones, Ludwig von Mises, Henry Simons, and George Stigler are all puppets with an evil agenda?

Joke list is a joke. Half these guys died before a huge chunk of enormously important economic results arose, and wannabe econ Austrians are a laughingstock for a reason. We're not dealing with philosophy. We're dealing with hard science. One reason this is difficult for people to understand is that in most sciences we have laboratories with the proper controls, but in econ we lack proper controls and society itself is the laboratory. But this doesn't mean it's not just as much of a science as biology, and it doesn't mean that instead of analyzing available empirical data, we can just make shit up.

[Lyric]

Pretty much. This isn't a damn philosophy debate. It's science. Observational and demonstrable evidence. "Conservative economists" is a phrase that exists because people don't even know what fucking economics means. You can't have liberal physics or libertarian chemistry, likewise any politically delineated econ is just as retarded.


There's more than two, usually. Just don't fool yourself into thinking stupidity is a side. Creationism isn't a "side" in a biology debate, likewise "making shit up that is empirically refuted" isn't a side in an econ debate.

We know for a fucking fact that the policy that is most responsible for the Crisis of 08 was deregulatory. This is not debatable because the scientific observation has already been declared. Only in conservative libertarian fantasy land do we get to fabricate made-up garbage where the Crisis of 08 was magically caused by increasing regulation.

Two examples: we know for a fact that in 1999 Congress deregulated certain mergers without which the Crisis of 08 would not have even been possible. We know for a fact that the SEC deregulating leverage caps for certain banks played an enormous role in the creation and severity of the Crisis

30 minutes on google is enough time to find the wealth of proof that the claim that we've been over-regulating the banks is complete and utter trash. But don't tell that to somebody who doesn't understand the difference between empirical observation and making stuff up

Joke list is a joke. Half these guys died before a huge chunk of enormously important economic results arose, and wannabe econ Austrians are a laughingstock for a reason. We're not dealing with philosophy. We're dealing with hard science. One reason this is difficult for people to understand is that in most sciences we have laboratories with the proper controls, but in econ we lack proper controls and society itself is the laboratory. But this doesn't mean it's not just as much of a science as biology, and it doesn't mean that instead of analyzing available empirical data, we can just make shit up.

When people being talking to me about proven facts and insisting that that science is settled and that there is no more debate alarm bells go off for me. Science is always open to new ideas, is constantly questioning reality, and nothing is ever permanently settled in science.

If you want to tell me that it is generally accepted that gravity works like this and that econ works like that -- fine -- but I think it's inappropriate to insist that the entire libertarian and conservative viewpoint regarding economics is a fairy-tale.

If you grew up in the Libertarian "echo chamber" I would imagine you know that the liberal viewpoint and its pundits are viewed with equal disdain. Krugman is considered to be an especially obvious or obnoxious puppet because he wrote a textbook that explicitly teaches the opposite of the viewpoint of his articles.

Further, it is strange that you refuse to speak about economics in simple island terms, with one or five people. It's a simple starting point that we can all understand, and an easy way to see how wealth, money, and economics works.

You claim that it does not apply, but have not offered any reasons. I have only seen a lot of arm waving, insisting that your viewpoint is correct and that libertarians are like creationists, and that economics is so complex that we can't begin to understand it on its most basic level no matter how hard we try.

[CoccoBill]

You mean what would he do if he were starving?

You said the rich man would have no motivation to work if some of his wealth is spread around. You gave this as if it would be a legit possibility that he stop working, please explain what he would, in your opinion, do after doing that.

The point of the island is to break it down into meaningful numbers. Let's imagine that the island has been running for 50 years and the rich guy has stored 500 wheels/bottles of everything, it doesn't change the basic ideas.

He is still accumulating wealth through work and applied knowledge and intelligence, and taxation would encourage him to stop making cheese even more if he could afford to sit on his ass for the next 30 years eating cheese and wine and trading for some fish. Taxing him will slow down his desire to work the richer he gets, and slow down his desires to trade the shit he invents if every trade is taxed.

We don't want him to slow down -- we want him to continue working hard to invent Tylenol and Swiss cheese, and learn how to make whiskey through experimentation (research). We want new islanders to see what they can have through hard work.

The problem is that you're only looking at this through the rich guy's perspective. You picture you're that guy, right? You want to make sure that when you're reaching for you American Dream, there's nothing in your way to stop you. The others who don't succeed don't have the capacity and willpower to achieve your goals, hence they clearly don't deserve it. If someone with an innate disability gets left behind in the process, that's acceptable losses, since it is the rich guy who is the most important.

In a market economy, the larger an investment is, the higher its rate of return. This is due to both economies of scale and the increased range of investment opportunities. In addition to these economic forces, those who control greater amounts of capital within a society are able to participate more directly in shaping government policy, often in ways that further maximize their wealth. Due to both economic and political realities within a market economy, it is a natural process for the wealthiest individuals and firms in a society to become disproportionately wealthier over time. In order to prevent the political instability resulting from the natural stratification of the populace into an ever smaller and wealthier aristocracy or moneyed class, and an ever larger working class, all free market democracies engage in progressive taxation and programs to enhance economic opportunity for the lower and middle classes.

The rich guy's continuing work is getting less and less beneficial for the society, no one has anything he wants and even with slavery, sexual favors etc. only so much of the rich man's wealth ends up generating any common benefits. What is there to stop the rich buy from abusing and establishing tyranny over all the others? The armless persons who can't support themselves will have no chance but to either die or take the food from the others, the latter of which is probably not in the interests of neither the rich nor the middle class, which is why making sure he has enough might be in their self-interests.

[Lyric]

You said the rich man would have no motivation to work if some of his wealth is spread around. You gave this as if it would be a legit possibility that he stop working, please explain what he would, in your opinion, do after doing that.

The problem is that you're only looking at this through the rich guy's perspective. You picture you're that guy, right?

In a market economy, the larger an investment is, the higher its rate of return. This is due to both economies of scale and the increased range of investment opportunities. In addition to these economic forces, those who control greater amounts of capital within a society are able to participate more directly in shaping government policy, often in ways that further maximize their wealth.

The rich guy's continuing work is getting less and less beneficial for the society, no one has anything he wants and even with slavery, sexual favors etc. only so much of the rich man's wealth ends up generating any common benefits.

After he stops working he starts sitting in his house eating cheese and wine; he no longer creates wealth for society. He no longer invents anything and becomes less valuable to the island.

As investments get bigger they enjoy lower ROI. Ask Buffet or any hedge fund manager. Small funds can easily invest in high ROI investments, but when they become larger it becomes harder and harder to find good returns.

I agree that wealthy people influence government inappropriately. This is why government should not have the power to help one private business over another, it shouldn't be permitted to subsidize corn, bail out banks or auto makers, etc.

Imagine he trades away all his cheese and wine and aspirin for gold coins. He holds those coins in his hut. How did he get those coins? By creating a ton of valuable shit that all the islanders are using and enjoying.

[IowaSkinsFan]

In a market economy, the larger an investment is, the higher its rate of return. This is due to both economies of scale and the increased range of investment opportunities.

Actually, this isn't true. An investment can only rarely have greater return without incurring more risk. Businesses who offer investment will try to offer the lowest rate of return on investment possible, because there are not a limited amount of investors. There are a ton of them, all who are constantly working to find the best investment. However, Economies of scale and increased range of investment opportunities can make investments have greater return.

Most of the time it has nothing to do with large or small. It has everything to do with how risky the investment is.


In addition to these economic forces, those who control greater amounts of capital within a society are able to participate more directly in shaping government policy, often in ways that further maximize their wealth. Due to both economic and political realities within a market economy, it is a natural process for the wealthiest individuals and firms in a society to become disproportionately wealthier over time. In order to prevent the political instability resulting from the natural stratification of the populace into an ever smaller and wealthier aristocracy or moneyed class, and an ever larger working class, all free market democracies engage in progressive taxation and programs to enhance economic opportunity for the lower and middle classes.

The rich guy's continuing work is getting less and less beneficial for the society, no one has anything he wants and even with slavery, sexual favors etc. only so much of the rich man's wealth ends up generating any common benefits. What is there to stop the rich buy from abusing and establishing tyranny over all the others? The armless persons who can't support themselves will have no chance but to either die or take the food from the others, the latter of which is probably not in the interests of neither the rich nor the middle class, which is why making sure he has enough might be in their self-interests.

If no one has anything the rich man wants, no one will buy it. No one is forcing you to buy anything he offers.

Bolded part: Yes, you are right, because of the government rich people can become wealthy without actually providing value. Although, the idea of economic forces doing so is not true whatsoever.

"What is there to stop the rich buy from abusing and establishing tyranny over all the others?"

What exactly are you referring to here? Rich people can't abuse and establish tyranny over other people.