Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Why the Left Hates Economics

jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 6:09:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Okay.

So, the Democrats I know tend to oppose free trade (some BS about "fair trade" which is really just protectionism), support central planning, don't believe incentives matter in tax policy, support price and wage regulations, support other labor market regulations, don't believe deficits are bad, etc.

Obviously, all of economic evidence and theory runs entirely contrary to what every single person on the left believes.

So, the left demonizes mainstream economics because it runs contrary to their worldview.

Don't let anyone on the left fool you into thinking that they are for "doing what works" or "following the data".

The left is more dogmatically anti evidence and anti science than the right.

It is an obsession with egalitarianism and statism above all else. Anything that contradicts must be shut down by thought police.

BTW. I'm not even a rightist. Just a libertarian telling the truth about the left.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 6:21:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 6:09:32 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Okay.

So, the Democrats I know tend to oppose free trade (some BS about "fair trade" which is really just protectionism), support central planning, don't believe incentives matter in tax policy, support price and wage regulations, support other labor market regulations, don't believe deficits are bad, etc.

Obviously, all of economic evidence and theory runs entirely contrary to what every single person on the left believes.

So, the left demonizes mainstream economics because it runs contrary to their worldview.

Don't let anyone on the left fool you into thinking that they are for "doing what works" or "following the data".

The left is more dogmatically anti evidence and anti science than the right.

It is an obsession with egalitarianism and statism above all else. Anything that contradicts must be shut down by thought police.

BTW. I'm not even a rightist. Just a libertarian telling the truth about the left.

"Obviously, all of economic evidence and theory runs entirely contrary to what every single person on the left believes"

I find it somewhat hypocritical that you criticize the left for being "dogmatic" yet do not offer any reasoned argument as to why you disagree with the left.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 6:26:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Aren't you a right-libertarian though? Libertarians are not exempt from the left-right spectrum entirely.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 6:26:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 6:24:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
you do realize that mainstream economics supports keynesian economics.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:08:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 6:32:58 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/15/2013 6:24:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
you do realize that mainstream economists supports keynesian economics.

Perhaps not mainstream like evolution, climate change, holocaust, etc. but certainly a sizeable grouping, probable majority.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:09:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd also add Keynesian economics being left is like Austrian Economics being liberal or neoclassical being conservative. They lend themselves to these positions, but they're not attached in a powerful way.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 8:41:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 6:24:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
you do realize that mainstream economics supports keynesian economics.

1.) The available evidence (and logic) does not at all support keynesianism, but you are correct that mainstream economists are in the neo classical/keynesian synthisis.

2.) Economists of the mainstream do oppose price and wage controls, recognize the efficiency/equity trade off, support free trade, etc.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 8:42:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 6:21:36 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/15/2013 6:09:32 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Okay.

So, the Democrats I know tend to oppose free trade (some BS about "fair trade" which is really just protectionism), support central planning, don't believe incentives matter in tax policy, support price and wage regulations, support other labor market regulations, don't believe deficits are bad, etc.

Obviously, all of economic evidence and theory runs entirely contrary to what every single person on the left believes.

So, the left demonizes mainstream economics because it runs contrary to their worldview.

Don't let anyone on the left fool you into thinking that they are for "doing what works" or "following the data".

The left is more dogmatically anti evidence and anti science than the right.

It is an obsession with egalitarianism and statism above all else. Anything that contradicts must be shut down by thought police.

BTW. I'm not even a rightist. Just a libertarian telling the truth about the left.

"Obviously, all of economic evidence and theory runs entirely contrary to what every single person on the left believes"

I find it somewhat hypocritical that you criticize the left for being "dogmatic" yet do not offer any reasoned argument as to why you disagree with the left.

I have before. But, history is one major confirmation of free market ideas after another and one rejection of state socialism after another.

Literally,.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 8:43:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 6:26:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Aren't you a right-libertarian though? Libertarians are not exempt from the left-right spectrum entirely.

I find the left right spectrum as silly, but I use the terms because they are recognizable.

But, since I am not a libertarian socialist, I guess I am closer to the libertarian right, though I do not support the Republicans and oppose virtually all of their pseudo free market, imperialistic, statist policies.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:02:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 6:24:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
you do realize that mainstream economics supports keynesian economics.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Was just gonna say!
Thank you for voting!
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:09:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also,

I dare you to tell that to Bill Clinton, longest ever non-recession period the US has ever had (lasting about 10 years!)
So much for left economics failing. Furthermore, almost all the rights research does not refute the lefts on economic issues, and the majority of "research" they produce are from conservative think tanks.

And history? What are you talking about?
The conservatives have lobbied on "ending the fed" when in actuality the US has had 3 central banks. Funny enough, when the first two were taken down? **BAM!** Recessions hit!

Hell even Milton Friedman was a proponent of min wage (in the form of a supplementary base line security payment), and refusal to end the feds due to this compelling point. Even though he served under Reagan, seems as though these are now liberal policies, because the Right is so heavy lassaez-faire and fueled by business, they want to harm the common person for an unconscious one. Lets talk logic bro, because I'm here for you!
Thank you for voting!
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:54:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 10:09:17 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Also,

I dare you to tell that to Bill Clinton, longest ever non-recession period the US has ever had (lasting about 10 years!)
So much for left economics failing. Furthermore, almost all the rights research does not refute the lefts on economic issues, and the majority of "research" they produce are from conservative think tanks.

This is why nobody should take left wingers seriously on economics. You think that the fact that the tech boom took place during the Clinton Presidency somehow affirms the left wing economic agenda. That is obviously wrong and any person who knew even the slightest about economics would know that.

And, this is a common tactic. Just write off all the evidence as products of "conservative think tanks".

In reality, the evidence really does reject all the left wing economic ideas.


And history? What are you talking about?
The conservatives have lobbied on "ending the fed" when in actuality the US has had 3 central banks. Funny enough, when the first two were taken down? **BAM!** Recessions hit!

Ya. Because, the greatest depression in the USA history happened in the absence of a fed.... oh wait. The fed was around during the Great Depression and in fact caused it.


Hell even Milton Friedman was a proponent of min wage (in the form of a supplementary base line security payment), and refusal to end the feds due to this compelling point. Even though he served under Reagan, seems as though these are now liberal policies, because the Right is so heavy lassaez-faire and fueled by business, they want to harm the common person for an unconscious one. Lets talk logic bro, because I'm here for you!

Milton Friedman didn't support the minimum wage. The fact that you say that shows how little you know about this.

Look at linked video.

The Democratic party wasn't always as radical as it is today.

Unfortunately, we have one centrist party (Republicans) and one radical statist left wing party (Democrats).
THElittleRISK
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 11:00:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Unfortunately, we have one centrist party (Republicans) and one radical statist left wing party (Democrats).

I'm curious, why do you see Democrats as radical statists and Republicans as centrists?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 11:08:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 10:54:36 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 7/15/2013 10:09:17 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Also,

I dare you to tell that to Bill Clinton, longest ever non-recession period the US has ever had (lasting about 10 years!)
So much for left economics failing. Furthermore, almost all the rights research does not refute the lefts on economic issues, and the majority of "research" they produce are from conservative think tanks.




This is why nobody should take left wingers seriously on economics. You think that the fact that the tech boom took place during the Clinton Presidency somehow affirms the left wing economic agenda. That is obviously wrong and any person who knew even the slightest about economics would know that.

Then how come no Republican ever pulled this feat off as well? Hell why does Reagan in the 1980's increase taxes instead of decreasing them? Quite the liberal position ..

And, this is a common tactic. Just write off all the evidence as products of "conservative think tanks".

Right .. not like the Koch brothers have money to influence them or anything..

In reality, the evidence really does reject all the left wing economic ideas.

Give me 5 peer-reviewed journals supporting Republican idealism
Hint: I'll give you 5 easily for liberals.




And history? What are you talking about?
The conservatives have lobbied on "ending the fed" when in actuality the US has had 3 central banks. Funny enough, when the first two were taken down? **BAM!** Recessions hit!


Ya. Because, the greatest depression in the USA history happened in the absence of a fed.... oh wait. The fed was around during the Great Depression and in fact caused it.

correlation =/= causation...







Hell even Milton Friedman was a proponent of min wage (in the form of a supplementary base line security payment), and refusal to end the feds due to this compelling point. Even though he served under Reagan, seems as though these are now liberal policies, because the Right is so heavy lassaez-faire and fueled by business, they want to harm the common person for an unconscious one. Lets talk logic bro, because I'm here for you!


Milton Friedman didn't support the minimum wage. The fact that you say that shows how little you know about this.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

what?

Look at linked video.

I am, like I said he supported a minimum wage as a source of supplementary payments, they call it a "basic income" (which is pretty much min wage handed out from the gov.t instead of businesses)

The Democratic party wasn't always as radical as it is today.

Dude what radicalism? We've moved center and even had to take on some of Reagans policies to please you @$$hats and you claim we're radicals? We're not the ones screaming communism at the thought of anything the liberals do now are we?

Unfortunately, we have one centrist party (Republicans) and one radical statist left wing party (Democrats).

Uhh .. Tea party you idiot? The tea party is proto-fascist!

Try again johnny try hard.
Thank you for voting!
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 11:33:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 6:24:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
you do realize that mainstream economics supports keynesian economics.

Mainstream economics is the neoclassical synthesis.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 11:39:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 11:33:12 PM, DanT wrote:
At 7/15/2013 6:24:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
you do realize that mainstream economics supports keynesian economics.

Mainstream economics is the neoclassical synthesis.

.....and I quote: "being largely Keynesian in macroeconomics and neoclassical in microeconomics" (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Is this reffered to in the political world as New Keynesianism? Or what is different about this?
Thank you for voting!
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 11:48:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 10:54:36 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:

The fed was around during the Great Depression and in fact caused it.

Thats completely idiotic to claim. The FED certainly made it worse but they definitely didnt cause it.

Unfortunately, we have one centrist party (Republicans) and one radical statist left wing party (Democrats).

Saving that for later....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 11:53:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 6:32:58 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/15/2013 6:24:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
you do realize that mainstream economics supports keynesian economics.

I just want to note, once more, what Kermit said. That is sufficient to end this thread.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 11:53:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 11:39:52 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/15/2013 11:33:12 PM, DanT wrote:
At 7/15/2013 6:24:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
you do realize that mainstream economics supports keynesian economics.

Mainstream economics is the neoclassical synthesis.

.....and I quote: "being largely Keynesian in macroeconomics and neoclassical in microeconomics" (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Is this reffered to in the political world as New Keynesianism? Or what is different about this?
It is called "the neoclassical synthesis".
Macroeconomics is not the same as Microeconomics. Macroeconomics is based on Microeconomics. You cannot deal in Macroeconomics without a solid understanding of Microeconomics.

MICROECONOMICS: The branch of economics which investigates economic policy in terms of individual decision-making, for example supply and demand, competition, capital flows, government and corporate finance, and income distribution.

MACROECONOMICS: The branch of economics which investigates monetary policy in terms of aggregate economic statistics at a national level, such as budget and trade deficits and overall growth, unemployment and interest rates.
http://www.bioscience-bioethics.org...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 12:01:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 11:53:56 PM, DanT wrote:
At 7/15/2013 11:39:52 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/15/2013 11:33:12 PM, DanT wrote:
At 7/15/2013 6:24:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
you do realize that mainstream economics supports keynesian economics.

Mainstream economics is the neoclassical synthesis.

.....and I quote: "being largely Keynesian in macroeconomics and neoclassical in microeconomics" (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Is this reffered to in the political world as New Keynesianism? Or what is different about this?
It is called "the neoclassical synthesis".
Macroeconomics is not the same as Microeconomics. Macroeconomics is based on Microeconomics. You cannot deal in Macroeconomics without a solid understanding of Microeconomics.


MICROECONOMICS: The branch of economics which investigates economic policy in terms of individual decision-making, for example supply and demand, competition, capital flows, government and corporate finance, and income distribution.


MACROECONOMICS: The branch of economics which investigates monetary policy in terms of aggregate economic statistics at a national level, such as budget and trade deficits and overall growth, unemployment and interest rates.
http://www.bioscience-bioethics.org...

And I quote

"Most early macroeconomic models, including early Keynesian models, were based on hypotheses about relationships between aggregate quantities, such as aggregate output, employment, consumption, and investment. Critics and proponents of these models disagreed as to whether these aggregate relationships were consistent with the principles of microeconomics. Therefore, in recent decades macroeconomists have attempted to combine microeconomic models of household and firm behavior to derive the relationships between macroeconomic variables. Today, many macroeconomic models, representing different theoretical points of view, are derived by aggregating microeconomic models, allowing economists to test them both with macroeconomic and microeconomic data.

Critics of the Keynesian approach to macroeconomics soon pointed out that some of Keynes' assumptions were inconsistent with standard microeconomics. "
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 12:26:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 10:54:36 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Unfortunately, we have one centrist party (Republicans) and one radical statist left wing party (Democrats).

So would anarcho-capitalism be "right-leaning centrism" to you? What about pure socialism (no private sector)? I don't think that there are many more modifiers you can add to "radical statist left-wing" to accommodate socialism.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 4:14:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 11:00:04 PM, THElittleRISK wrote:
Unfortunately, we have one centrist party (Republicans) and one radical statist left wing party (Democrats).

I'm curious, why do you see Democrats as radical statists and Republicans as centrists?

Because that's what they are.

Both parties are statist and therefore gravely flawed. Democrats are more radical statists in rhetoric (but in practice there is no difference).
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 4:21:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 11:08:12 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 7/15/2013 10:54:36 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
At 7/15/2013 10:09:17 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
Also,

I dare you to tell that to Bill Clinton, longest ever non-recession period the US has ever had (lasting about 10 years!)
So much for left economics failing. Furthermore, almost all the rights research does not refute the lefts on economic issues, and the majority of "research" they produce are from conservative think tanks.




This is why nobody should take left wingers seriously on economics. You think that the fact that the tech boom took place during the Clinton Presidency somehow affirms the left wing economic agenda. That is obviously wrong and any person who knew even the slightest about economics would know that.

Then how come no Republican ever pulled this feat off as well? Hell why does Reagan in the 1980's increase taxes instead of decreasing them? Quite the liberal position ..

Because comparing growth rates under presidents is an exercise in uselessness. Too many factors that need to be disentangled.

Plus, Republicans have not implemented for more "free market" policies in practice.

Anyone who argues that the fact that an economy did well or not well under a certain president is relevant for comparing economic models is not knowledgable on the topic (though the media often does this).


And, this is a common tactic. Just write off all the evidence as products of "conservative think tanks".

Right .. not like the Koch brothers have money to influence them or anything..

That really doesn't matter.


In reality, the evidence really does reject all the left wing economic ideas.

Give me 5 peer-reviewed journals supporting Republican idealism
Hint: I'll give you 5 easily for liberals.

I'm not a Republican. I'm a libertarian.

I'm also smart enough to know that reality trumps "peer review". A bunch of progressives sucking other progressives diicks doesn't prove a whole lot.





And history? What are you talking about?
The conservatives have lobbied on "ending the fed" when in actuality the US has had 3 central banks. Funny enough, when the first two were taken down? **BAM!** Recessions hit!


Ya. Because, the greatest depression in the USA history happened in the absence of a fed.... oh wait. The fed was around during the Great Depression and in fact caused it.

correlation =/= causation...

Right. This is why you would never argue that the economy doing well under a Democrat proves the superiority of their policies (right!?)

Also, you literally just argued from correlation about the fed.








Hell even Milton Friedman was a proponent of min wage (in the form of a supplementary base line security payment), and refusal to end the feds due to this compelling point. Even though he served under Reagan, seems as though these are now liberal policies, because the Right is so heavy lassaez-faire and fueled by business, they want to harm the common person for an unconscious one. Lets talk logic bro, because I'm here for you!


Milton Friedman didn't support the minimum wage. The fact that you say that shows how little you know about this.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

what?

Look at linked video.

I am, like I said he supported a minimum wage as a source of supplementary payments, they call it a "basic income" (which is pretty much min wage handed out from the gov.t instead of businesses)

No. They are not the same thing.

Minimum wage is a wage control. Friedman argued for replacing the entire welfare state with a minimum guaranteed program.

That is much more radical than anything the Republicans are proposing today.


The Democratic party wasn't always as radical as it is today.

Dude what radicalism? We've moved center and even had to take on some of Reagans policies to please you @$$hats and you claim we're radicals? We're not the ones screaming communism at the thought of anything the liberals do now are we?

Both parties are very statist. Democrats are more radical, however. They support using force to fund our retirements, redistribute wealth, statist health care, etc.

That is much more radical than the Republican agenda which is similar but a bit less of each of those things.

The Dems are more radical.


Unfortunately, we have one centrist party (Republicans) and one radical statist left wing party (Democrats).

Uhh .. Tea party you idiot? The tea party is proto-fascist!

Try again johnny try hard.

Nope. As I explained, the radicals are the statists.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 4:22:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 11:53:33 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/15/2013 6:32:58 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 7/15/2013 6:24:46 PM, darkkermit wrote:
you do realize that mainstream economics supports keynesian economics.

I just want to note, once more, what Kermit said. That is sufficient to end this thread.

DanT is doing a good job explaining why this is not true.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 4:23:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 12:26:27 AM, drhead wrote:
At 7/15/2013 10:54:36 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Unfortunately, we have one centrist party (Republicans) and one radical statist left wing party (Democrats).

So would anarcho-capitalism be "right-leaning centrism" to you? What about pure socialism (no private sector)? I don't think that there are many more modifiers you can add to "radical statist left-wing" to accommodate socialism.

The reality is that both parties support forced wealth redistribution, some degree of socialized medicine, forced socialized retirement, etc.

Dems just support a bit more and are thus more radical.
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 8:53:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 6:09:32 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Okay.

So, the Democrats I know tend to oppose free trade (some BS about "fair trade" which is really just protectionism), support central planning, don't believe incentives matter in tax policy, support price and wage regulations, support other labor market regulations, don't believe deficits are bad, etc.

Obviously, all of economic evidence and theory runs entirely contrary to what every single person on the left believes.

So, the left demonizes mainstream economics because it runs contrary to their worldview.

Don't let anyone on the left fool you into thinking that they are for "doing what works" or "following the data".

The left is more dogmatically anti evidence and anti science than the right.

It is an obsession with egalitarianism and statism above all else. Anything that contradicts must be shut down by thought police.

BTW. I'm not even a rightist. Just a libertarian telling the truth about the left.

Neoclassical economics may be useful as a model that often approximates human behavior, but it is just that, a model. Psychology has shown that people frequently are not rational in their decision making (indeed, their limited cognitive ability make compete rationality impossible), often do not have the willpower to control themselves even when the know they are not choosing a utility-maximizing activity, and often perform acts of altruism and self-sacrifice that are not predicted by assuming people act only on their own self interest and that if their household.

Furthermore, there is have been few experiments (either actual experiments with control and test groups or natural experiments where events in the real world approximate a control and test group) to confirm economic theory. Just saying this policy was implemented, and prosperity followed, and this other policy was implemented, and recession followed, is not enough to even begin to establish causation.

As I said economics is useful, but only as a model with limitations at explaining human activity.
jimtimmy2
Posts: 403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 9:26:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 8:53:35 AM, rockwater wrote:
At 7/15/2013 6:09:32 PM, jimtimmy2 wrote:
Okay.

So, the Democrats I know tend to oppose free trade (some BS about "fair trade" which is really just protectionism), support central planning, don't believe incentives matter in tax policy, support price and wage regulations, support other labor market regulations, don't believe deficits are bad, etc.

Obviously, all of economic evidence and theory runs entirely contrary to what every single person on the left believes.

So, the left demonizes mainstream economics because it runs contrary to their worldview.

Don't let anyone on the left fool you into thinking that they are for "doing what works" or "following the data".

The left is more dogmatically anti evidence and anti science than the right.

It is an obsession with egalitarianism and statism above all else. Anything that contradicts must be shut down by thought police.

BTW. I'm not even a rightist. Just a libertarian telling the truth about the left.

Neoclassical economics may be useful as a model that often approximates human behavior, but it is just that, a model. Psychology has shown that people frequently are not rational in their decision making (indeed, their limited cognitive ability make compete rationality impossible), often do not have the willpower to control themselves even when the know they are not choosing a utility-maximizing activity, and often perform acts of altruism and self-sacrifice that are not predicted by assuming people act only on their own self interest and that if their household.

The great strawman is that free market schools of economics require perfect rationality and total self interest. It simply isn't true.

Just because we find this assumption useful for some models doesn't mean that the assumption has to be 100% true for our models to be useful.

Take the tragedy of the commons. It doesn't require everyone to be selfish and rational. It just takes SOME to be selfish and rational.


Furthermore, there is have been few experiments (either actual experiments with control and test groups or natural experiments where events in the real world approximate a control and test group) to confirm economic theory. Just saying this policy was implemented, and prosperity followed, and this other policy was implemented, and recession followed, is not enough to even begin to establish causation.

This is actually 100% correct. This is why the guy who said earlier that the fact that the economy did well under Clinton proves something is wrong.

But, over great periods of time with tons of different countries, it is clear that lower taxes, private industry, modest regulation, free trade, and weaker unions means better economic performance.

That doesn't establish causality, but we have the theory, logic, and the evidence as well.


As I said economics is useful, but only as a model with limitations at explaining human activity.

True.