@Bmants Yeah they dont have internet in austria :D ... jeez i hoped that was a sarcasm "Austrian school of economics" is called Austrian because the founders of that school came from Austria (they emigrated to US).
Such a reasonable video and so many dislikes >.< I rarely comment on the Youtubes but I don't think the welfare state will rest until humanity is nothing but a pack of dogs barking for food.
So let me get this straight. YOU think capitalism is ok? What about the people? What if we had say for example.. 10,000 people with 20b each and they had 99% of the worlds money. Now the poor people have 1% of the worlds money.. say for example 990,000 people with $1,000 each. Where do you find fairness or equality in that? I think not. Capitalism is evil.. greedy people should be punished with taxes.
@mpc91 How exactly is it the best system for the poor?? Because they're too lazy to get off their ass and actually work for their money? I think what you meant to say is that truthful and caring capitalist people is the best system for the poor. What about the evil capitalist? The ones who only care about themselves? Ever thought of that? Truth is the only way our mess will be fixed. Then we can move onto capitalism. You wonder why we have such a large government now. Cause of LIARS. #Truth
@gurtanator What is an "evil capitalist"? The virtue of capitalism is that by pursuing his own interest a capitalist always engages in social cooperation and by the virtue of the profit/loss system specifically, the capitalist has to adjust his actions to the demands of the customer. By all the implications of its philosophy it can't be evil.
Evil is the grab for power and control. But it's the system that encourages this kind of behavior, not the evil nature of humans generally.
@dubified89 Right like all the power the people had against the Robber baron's when the government wasn't regulating fair business practices. Slave wages, Child labor, unhealthy working conditions, collusion, monopolies, etc. What a great time for the people. It was the people that fixed it. Through elective democracy and government intervention.
And Reich was 100% correct ... who is this guy anyway? He does not know his ass from a hole in the ground... He sounds exactly like my slightly retarded brother and who is on disability for being slightly retarded and votes republican.
@ReligionIsSophistry Exhibit A: When presented a calm, reasoned argument against the claims of a government "intellectual," the state-dependent leftist presents no argument, insults the presenter, maintains that the initial argument is still correct for no reason in particular, and wanders off.
LOL Murphy is a moron. Tax reciepts are historically low because we are coming out of the deepest recession since the great depression coupled with a decade of tax cuts and loopholes added under Bush! You are going to blame that on Obama?
2:14 in, this guy has never heard of the 1974 Oil Crisis. Then he doesn't realise Reagan raised taxes. Then he blames Barak Obama for the 2008 financial crisis. I take it "Austrian School" is another word for clueless idiot.
Bob Murphy of Hillsdale college is going to correct Reich a Harvard and Berkeley college proffesor ranked the 6th most influential business thinker by the wall street journal.
Talk about a nobody trying to bring attention to himself.
@StateExempt one of the greatest economists alive...you must work for rpm consulting because no one in the industry thinks this man is the greatest anything and seeing as how he cant even afford a shirt that isnt sold at Walmart and his plant is in a BUCKET its plain to see this man does not make much money...but then you can tell by his arguments if you had a clue.
@rdrakken "Murphy is a nobody...taking on someone [who] has a clue"
Interesting that the state-centric economic mainstream ignoring the Austrian school's consistent brilliance over the past however many years can somehow be twisted into an argument against Murphy instead of for him.
"anyone with any weight in economics"
Having "weight" in economics today means offering justification for state expansion, not providing valid economic theories. If it were the latter, the Austrians would be obese.
@casualdissent Right which is why a far right leaning rag, owned by people pushing Austrian economics calls him the 6th most influential people in economics and has him on occasion write for them.
You are a political whore, and like all whores you think everything is black and white. Reich will tell it like it is even if it is NOT in favor of his ideology, something mouthbreathers like you cant do.
The response that you just made had nothing to do with anything I said to you, so instead I'm going to repeat myself for emphasis.
The Keynesian establishment that Reich speaks on behalf of has ignored the Austrian school since its inception because their theories don't favor the institution that signs Reich's paycheck. It has nothing to do with whose idea is superior. And to suggest that we can disregard the arguments in this video because Murphy is "a nobody" is just plain idiotic.
@casualdissent The response that you just made completely ignored what I said.
A far right leaning rag, owned by people pushing Austrian economics calls Reich the 6th most influential people in economics AND HAS HIM ON OCCASION WRITE FOR THEM...
No one, however gives a flying fuck about MR nobody in this video because he has NO ORIGINAL IDEAS and holds to one train of thought as if it fits ALL occasions no matter what. You dont get that because you are a mouthbreather.
@rdrakken That's because I didn't care about anything you had to say. It's not that I'm evading you, either; it's that none of what you have said matters.
Let's admit that Reich has more influence in politics than Murphy — the implications of this are what? Does this mean that Reich is automatically correct? Because it sounds to me as if you're just avoiding the actual arguments and just trying to attack Murphy's credibility.
@rdrakken The rhetoric you supplied to close, about Murphy having no original ideas, and thinking his train of thought fits in all occasions no matter what, holds about as much water as a spaghetti strainer.
What idea does Murphy think can be applied to "all occasions no matter what," and why is this not the case? What ideas of his are unoriginal, and how does this affect whether they're actually true? You're dancing around the subject because you have nothing intelligent to say.
Oh, and nothing I've said here has had anything to do with "everything" being in "black and white." Those are what we call buzz words, used by people who have run out of anything more substantial to contribute. In this case, that would be you.
@casualdissent "...ignoring the Austrian school's consistent brilliance..." I read somewhere that the 'Austrian School' is occasionally right in the same way a stopped clock is occasionally right. Saying 'valid economic theories' is interesting when the 'Austrian School' pull theirs out of thin air. Murphy says interesting things in this video, but I don't think the 'Austrian School' are as fair from the mainstream as they like to make out. And Austria is not an 'Austrian School' economy.
First, allow me to congratulate you on the massive lack of argument in your comment. Second, allow me to point out that the title "Austrian Economics" was chosen for the fact that the school's founders and early ideological proponents were from Austria, not because their ideas were actually being implemented in Austria. You may as well be telling me that French fries aren't actually from France; the shock value would be about the same.
@casualdissent ... You didn't make an argument - you parroted PR dogma that the "Austrian School" are "brilliant" and have "valid economic theories". Who says? You?Themselves? I was pointing out to you that the influence of the "Austrian School" is limited - and that they are close to the mainstream than people (including you, it seems) realise. The "Austrian School" (it's said) rejects the scientific method. That's not generally a good start...
@otherfunk No, I've opined that their theories are brilliant, at least compared with the dribble that the rest of the people working in the field have managed to produce. I described them as valid because they actually succeed in explaining economic phenomena; their theories actually make sense to me, while the alternatives are obviously just pandering to state power.
@casualdissent Hmmm... While we can both agree the world economy is messed up, the regulated capitalism in the twentieth century brought greater wealth & development than any other time in history. States and Economists were apparently doing something right. We can agree to disagree, but I rather think the major cause of the current crash was us letting bankers write their own rules (sure, for political reasons). Have 'austrian school' economics ever been seen to actually work in the real world?
The American economy during the 21st Century was not less regulated than it was during the 20th Century. In many modern countries this would have been the case, but not in the United States. It was one of the few that went in the other direction entirely, and it has been paying the price for this. However, the recent recession is not necessarily a result of this; instead, it's the result of undue monetary expansion. You can start by researching the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.
@casualdissent US financial regulation in recent decades (like that across the word) let banks lend billions of dollars which didn't exist to people who could never pay it back. That is what caused the crash. Call it 'monetary expansion' if you like... But the 'austrian school' (like the chap in the video we're commenting on) seems to be very hazy about the actual facts of what has happened and when - the focus instead on this 'cycle' which rather misses the point of the facts on the ground...
They are not hazy on the details. In fact, they're the only people who aren't. If you introduce large amounts of money into an economy, people confuse these gains with actual resources, and invest in capital-intensive projects like manufacturing and construction, and that investment causes an economic boom. Then, as time goes on, they realize that the resources their production was depending on did not actually exist, and that what they were competing for was just inflated money.
@casualdissent ... I don't think your description differs all that much from classical economics. There is of course the notion that economic growth will make up the gap - but that's proven to be wishful thinking on more than one occasion...
@otherfunk So they scrap these projects in an attempt to recover as much of their principal investment as possible. This period is called an economic recession. The whole ordeal, starting from the inflationary period, is what the Austrians call the the business cycle, and, although my explanation here was incredibly simplified for time, this is a subject on which they have gone into much detail and have understood well for decades. It does not "miss the point of facts on the ground."
@casualdissent ... the 'business cycle' is a model. I have to say reading 'austrian school' websites and watching videos like the one above, that often they seem to have a very hazy view of the facts. Do they know Reagan raised taxes? Or that Obama inherited and did not cause the 2008 bust? It sometimes doesn't seem like it... Yes, the 'austrian school' model seems to describe what's happened as you narrate it - but that doesn't you can throw out every other model or understanding...
Yes. But a common argument from Reich and others is that he didn't, and the general consensus on the 'left' seems to be that Reagan was a laissez-faire president who cut taxes and regulations when really it was just the opposite and he was pretty much in line with his successors and predecessors.
@casualdissent ... Really? Can you show me where Reich says that? I agree Reagan - despite his rhetoric - was pretty much in line with everyone else. But it's the hardcore of the US right which claims him as a saint, and yet would drum him out of the current party as a 'Rino". Reagan like Thatcher flirted with hardcore monetarism before coming back to more central ground.
Reich didn't say that, Krugman did. Here's the link: goo . gl / 49pNw
Yes, and they are, like Murphy in this video, willing to play on that saint-like portrayal of him to make political points. However, their reasons for thinking this portrayal is incorrect differ — Murphy thinks Reagan wan't a saint because he didn't actually stand up for the principles he professed, while Reich presumably thinks Reagan wasn't a saint because Reich disagrees with the principles Reagan professed.
@casualdissent ... You obviously (a) don't understand humour; and (b) miss the point Krugman was making, that a concerted national effort to get America out of recession would work way better than sitting around scoring political points and letting the economy fester, which is precisely what the GOP has been doing - they WANT the economy to fail so they can blame Obama.
How don't I understand humor? Because you think that I didn't understand Krugman's use of an alien attack as a hyperbolic example of something that would effect large-scale production? The underlying point is the same -- destruction is not production. Going around breaking things does not produce economic growth. It's the most backwards economic idea anyone has ever come up with. They should get this man to read some of Bastiat's work.
@casualdissent ... You completely mis-undertand what Krugman was saying. Seriously, dude, you're going to have to do more than comment in youtube threads if you are going to learn anything.
Although you don't seem to be stating it directly, I'm just going to jump the gun and say that I'm not defending the "hardcore of the US right," Reagan, or the Republican party in general. The Democrats and Republicans are both state-authoritarian looters; they differ in terms of which class they generally loot in favor of, with the Democrats leaning toward the lower-middle class and the Republicans leaning toward the rich (and this divide is only semi-discrete, hence "republicrats").
@casualdissent ... Indeed... A plague on all there houses... Except much of the US right has apparently lost its mind. Reagan a Rino? Obama a "marxist" for promoting a healthcare policy very similar to that of the GOP in the 90s? Looking to ban birth control? This is cloud cuckoo land...
>"Obama inherited and did not cause the 2008 bust?"
Murphy did not blame the 2008 bust on Obama. The point of the beginning of this video was, as he summarizes at 3:06 that they started high and then "it was a steady, downward trend, and that's clearly not what's happening." The downfall wasn't due to, ah, the influence of wealthy individuals, but due to the recession, in other words.
@otherfunk That said, the factor being ignored is the federal reserve, something that I'm sure you heard about, which is basically the unaccountable agency responsible for expanding the money supply and creating the American business cycle.
Now, why did this cycle mainly affect real estate? The government was already targeting mortgages and whatnot in an attempt to create 'affordable housing' at a time when the money supply was expanding, so much of the speculation went into that industry.
@casualdissent ... Lehman Brothers were allowed to lend $40 for every $1 they had. Whether the Fed allowed that or anything else allowed that, it was sure to end in disaster. We let the banks write their own rules. You may see the "Fed" as the big-bad-wolf in all this, but look at Germany where their central bank has been much more successful in weathering financial storms. Where the 'austrian school' preaches prudence, I applaud it... But it's not the magic beans you describe :) Nice talking'..
@otherfunk The Lehman Brothers could take that risk, and it could have been disastrous FOR THEM. The problem was that the government was taking on 'affordable housing' legislation, getting the banks to lend to people who couldn't afford it, that politically connected people knew that they would get bailed out and thus had no incentive to avoid risky behavior, and this all happened during a huge monetary expansion period. The results were as you described.
>"at Germany where their central bank has been much more successful"
They apparently chose the right policies, meaning anti-inflationary. Isn't their currency not even controlled by them directly because they're part of the Eurozone? I'm not all that informed on European politics. Either way, lucky them.
The Austrian approach to economics involves developing a rational theory before collecting data, while the neoclassical or Keynesian approach is to collect data and derive theory from it. This is unreliable because economic theory cannot be tested, observed, repeated, or falsified; attempting to apply the scientific method to economics is nonsensical, but the state economists don't care.
@casualdissent ... The 'austrian school' base their theories on axioms which they claim are 'self evident'. Self event to who, I wonder? How do they test that these axioms are correct? They also reject the use of statistics and other commonly used tools. So how can they test whether their theories are correct? It looks to me that you don't understand the scientific method and its limitations, and therefore you just throw it out and pick the model that fits your prejudices and expectations...
@otherfunk They don't reject statistics or empiricism, they simply reject the notion that theory can be derived from observation. To this date, there are too many factors involved in economic decision-making for any scientist to be aware of all relevant data, and thus economics fails the first requirement for being called scientific because it is not properly observable.
@casualdissent ... We can make a good effort at forecasting the weather without our understanding being perfect or our forecasts always right. All economics 'schools' provide models for understanding how things work: whether it's classical, keynsian, monetarist or 'austrian school'. Your argument sounds very like the one creationists use against evolution or that used by climate change deniers...
@otherfunk Second, if you're dealing with chemicals in a closed system, it's easy to repeat certain reactions and deduce an equation such as that chemical X, when added to chemical Y, produces compound Z, based on the fact that every time we mix chemical X with chemical Y, the result is the same. This is not possible in economics because no two people are identical, and thus no one test is repeatable.
@casualdissent It is the 'Austrian school' which claims it has 'self-evident axiom's about behaviour, and dogmatic about its predictions. You seem to be arguing that we can never predict the weather because the wind blows slightly differently each time...
@otherfunk The weather is far more simple than a modern economy. Perhaps in the future we could invent some sort of machine that allows us to understand and measure what all consumers are thinking at one time and through some means take all factors into account, but the best we have now is looking at certain so-called indicators that have proven ineffective as the means to economic insight.
@casualdissent No offense, but you completely misunderstand how science works and what economists claim. Our understandings of gravity, evolution, medicine and everything else in science come from examining the data and find a model which best fits them. We don't have a complete understanding of *anything*. The vast majority of economists would disagree that their work is entirely "ineffective", and they'd say they have plenty of data to back that up.
>"Our understandings of gravity, evolution, medicine and everything else in science come from examining the data and find a model which best fits them"
Not once did I claim otherwise.
>"The vast majority of economists would disagree that their work is entirely 'ineffective',"
Duh. Why would they say otherwise? It's their work.
An example of an axiom that they claim to be self-evident is that people prefer things now as opposed to later. Most are statements that can be considered true simply based on the definitions of the terms being used, and thus don't require scientific evaluation or investigation. The classic example is that if I said all bachelors are unmarried, we know that this is the case based on the definition of 'bachelor', the definition of 'are', and the definition of 'unmarried'.
@casualdissent That's a serious /facepalm. Everything humanity has ever built from huts to moon landings comes from the ability to see that effort now might have a reward later. 'Bacherlor' and 'husband' are just labels - there are plenty of husbands who behave like bachelors, and vice versa. Your words sound like the 'game theorists' of the 50s, who modelled everything on behaviour which can only be described as psychopathic. We only moved on from that when we realised behaviour is complex...
It would be pointless to go out into the world in an attempt to find a married bachelor to disprove this affirmation, because such a thing cannot exist by definition. This is the reason that it would be considered a priori knowledge, meaning knowledge that does not require observation.
But this is just a method of understanding; a device used to explain how and why the economy works. That is to say, there's a lot more to what the Austrians believe than what can be expressed in the form of axiom.
@casualdissent I say again, your understanding is science is completely wrong. You need to look at actual data to build your theory - which is only ever a model. If you just make up rule, you might be right sometimes accidentally (as people just about the 'austrian school'), but unless you're willing to change your model to fit the data (as economists and scientists always hopefully do) you are not doing science.
@casualdissent Your understanding of science, never mind the social sciences, is completely backwards. You don't "develop a theory before collecting data". If you are not willing to reject your "theory" in the face of contradictory data (they very thing you seem to be accusing other people of) then you don't have a theory - you have a dogma. You should google "unconscious incompetent". You are not aware of what you don't know.
>"Your understanding of science, never mind the social sciences, is completely backwards. You don't 'develop a theory before collecting data'."
How many times do I have to say this? I'm not talking about SCIENCE when I say that theory cannot be derived from data (and the meaning of "THEORY" in ECONOMICS is different from the meaning of "THEORY" in SCIENCE), I'm talking about the field of ECONOMICS, which is NOT SCIENCE.
Even on a larger scale, you face the challenge of finding identical economies to which this policy can be introduced, while ensuring that this policy is the one and only difference between the them. This has never been accomplished, and even it it had been, it would still require to function that all people within economy A are identical to the people with economy B, and that they have the same resources to work with, and are not allowed to interact with each other. It's a total mess.
@casualdissent ... Seriously. go and read a event book about the history of science... And also look for a good introduction to the social sciences, to get a feel for what they claim and what they don't claim. You are currently stuck in a loop worrying about things economists - and scientists - do not actually claim.
@casualdissent You claim that anything claiming to be a science has to have a complete understanding of all variables before it can provide a usable model. That is gibberish. Your description of inflation approaches that of classical economics - but you don't know what you don't know, so you keep telling me everyone else is wrong and you - somehow - are right. Sorry, but I don't see this conversation going anywhere.
@casualdissent ... This is like talking to a wall. You said that modelling was useless in economics because it's impossible to know all the variables involved. Scientists deal with randomness and uncertainty all the time. I keep telling you that much of what you are saying is found in standard economics - you keep insisting the 'austrian school' is different. Google "conscious incompetent". That is you. Not everyone is unaware of their ignorance as you are.
No. I never said that modeling was useless in economics. I said that in economics, the theory has to come before the data, because which theory you accept affects your interpretation of that data. The argument against this approach is that it's unscientific, to which I explained that economics is not science and that attempting to treat it as if it were is irrational.
@casualdissent Now, if you want to respond to that explanation and make the case that economics is actually a hard science and that treating it as if it were can lead to useful conclusions, then go ahead.
But all you've done here is regressed to the "unscientific" argument while acting as if I think my description of the Austrian economic approach can be used in science, despite the fact that I've repeatedly insisted otherwise.
@casualdissent ... Word salad posts get us nowhere. This is getting very boring. I never said ecumenic was hard science. You could try reading what I write.
@casualdissent ... You hold yourself out as an expert in 'austrian economics', but you are wildly wrong on easily checked facts about how science and the social sciences build their respective theories. You are a classic 'unconscious incompetent'. You claim to be an expert, but have no clue as to the deficit of your knowledge and further claim such knowledge would be useful. Your cognitive dissonance is so great you won't even google the words 'top prognosticator'. No wonder you've nothing left.
>"You hold yourself out as an expert in 'austrian economics',"
When did I say that? Also, I wasn't gonna ask, but why do you put quotation marks around Austrian economics, as if it's some foreign term you're unfamiliar with? You have been doing it this entire time; it's vaguely stupid.
>"you are wildly wrong on easily checked facts"
Name one.
>"about how science and the social sciences build their respective theories"
I've not talked about how social sciences build their theories.
@casualdissent The quotes are a habit. They do look silly after time... You are wrong about Krugman's predictions being worse than chance. (Still terrified of google? Of course, he's not always right). You have too talked about how social sciences build their theories - you said they have to build a theory first then look at the data - which is complete gibberish, right across science and the social sciences. You said repeatedly modelling was useless in economics, before walking back on that...
@casualdissent Yes you did. "The Austrian approach to economics involves developing a rational theory before collecting data, while the neoclassical or Keynesian approach is to collect data and derive theory from it." Your words. Don't you believe that? I thought you were the world's leading expert in what you believe...
Just stop being a coward and call me an idiot like a normal person. Trying to be scientific about your insults doesn't mean you're avoiding the topic any less than you would be otherwise.
>"You claim to be an expert,"
When did I claim this?
>"but have no clue as to the deficit of your knowledge"
Stop alluding to information that you obviously do not possess. If you think I'm missing something relevant, then go ahead and enlighten me.
@casualdissent I do not think you are an idiot. You write eloquently and you're obviously interested in the topic. Your knowledge is just way more narrow that you realise. You said you were the worlds leading expert in what you believe - and you act like an authority on the austrian school. But your knowledge of the history of economics is apparently zero outside of that narrow field. Your description of how science and the social sciences work was plain wrong.
@casualdissent Really? I'm not the world's leading expert in anything I believe in. Psychological tests ask the same question different ways precisely because people are often unclear about what they believe in.
Not leading "expert." Leading "authority." Meaning, that I have more authority over the topic of "what casualdissent believes in" than anybody else. I don't know why you're trying to take such a simple statement and turn it into a political point, but I do ask that you stop.
@casualdissent ... I don't know a lot about the austrian school, but I know a little about economics and to my read you misunderstand neoclassical and keynsian economics, and from my little bit off reading elsewhere on the austrian school, you don't get that entirely right either. Your certainty about "way you believe" is holding you bank. I can't fix that.
If there is some kind of mistake that I'm making or some kind of information that I'm not taking into account, then tell me about it. From what I can make out, you're being extremely vague on purpose to avoid posing any serious criticism.
@casualdissent Serious criticism? I've spelled out very clearly where you have said things which are simply not true. I quoted your own words which show you said things you said you didn't say.
I've expanded the length and scope of this discussion; you have narrowed and shortened it, removing economic discourse and replacing it with insults and generalizations (and of theories you clearly do not understand). You are the one who has nothing left, which is the reason that this final reply is but one post long and contains no argument whatsoever.
>"you seem to think we've been having an entirely different conversation from the one documented here"
You have repeatedly been assigning certain views to me that I did not espouse and more generally making claims about my position that cannot be supported while talking about my incompetence and general lack of knowledge. Tell me how I'm supposed to interpret this.
@casualdissent For example... "To this date, there are too many factors involved in economic decision-making for any scientist to be aware of all relevant data, and thus economics fails the first requirement for being called scientific because it is not properly observable." Gibberish. "the neoclassical or Keynesian approach is to collect data and derive theory from it. This is unreliable because economic theory cannot be tested..." Nonsense.
@casualdissent More. "They have been right more than other economists, especially in historical trends and predictions." Not according to most economists. You don't count all their failed predictions of crashes.
I didn't say it was 'according to most economists'.
>"You don't count all their failed predictions of crashes."
If there's a huge period of economic expansion, they'll warn that a collapse is coming. They have generally been right about this more than anyone else. You're talking about their "failed predictions"? Name one.
@casualdissent ... look up wikipedia, austrian school, business cycle theory. In part: 'In 1969, Milton Friedman, after examining the history of business cycles in the U.S., concluded that "The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false."[50] He analyzed the issue using newer data in 1993, and again reached the same conclusion.[39]'.
@otherfunk Milton Friedman was an economic wonder in every area except for monetary policy. The reason he rejected the ABCT is because he wanted to push his own alternative, called monetarism, which didn't work because it still clung to the idea that the state should be in charge of the money supply.
@casualdissent Riiiiight. And the other criticisms of the a-s are just people who want to push *their* theories. It must be so nice not to have to deal with challenges to what you believe by just assuming the world is out to get you...
@otherfunk It wasn't a challenge. You quoted Friedman as saying that it conflicts with the evidence. What am I supposed to say in response? "Friedman is wrong and the evidence does support the ABCT," basically just stating the opposite of what he said, with just as little justification? You have no idea how arguments actually work, do you?
@casualdissent The comment section is going all loopy for me, spamming me with updates from comments that were actually posted days ago. I don't really feel like trying to circumvent this problem just to argue with a liar, so instead I'll be leaving.
@casualdissent ... I quoted a noted economist, with a reference that contained a detailed discussion on criticisms of the a-s and further links to direct sources. Your childish gainsaying means jack sh_t. You apparently aren't able to form arguments outside of your own head. No-one is saying the a-s is all wrong. You are the one insisting on your own authority that everyone else is wrong and the a-s is "brilliant".
@otherfunk You went to the Wikipedia page for "Austrian School," scrolled down to the "criticism" subheading, quoted a line about Friedman verbatim, and now you think you've formed some groundbreaking criticism that I actually have to reply to, despite the fact that the quote from Friedman didn't make any actual argument; all he said is that he examined the data and concluded that the ABCT is wrong — good for him.
This entire time, you have not made any real criticism of Austrian theory, nor of anything that Murphy said in this video. You have criticized their methodology, and when I responded to that criticism, you dropped the subject altogether, insisting that I don't "understand science." Then you distorted my position for the whole of a few days. And that's where we find ourselves now — you, still without an argument; and me, still lounging around waiting for you to formulate one.
@otherfunk Read some of Robert Murphy's material on the ABCT. He's gone over a lot of these "lack of evidence" accusations and the "doesn't explain everything" argument made by people like Paul Krugman.
@casualdissent ... No one is saying the a-s is always wrong... Just that it is not the whole picture, based on dubious 'axioms', rejects useful and proven tools... Of course, economies are insanely complex. No-one is always right.
@otherfunk I've responded to your nonsense about axioms and 'rejecting' useful and 'proven' (not) tools already. That economies are so complex is why only their methodology makes sense thus far, as I've been explaining to you over the past week. I'm leaving right now if you're just going to regress to shit I've already gone over. Click the 'see all' button and read this over.
@casualdissent ... Yeah, I did click the "see all" button when I quoted back words to you that you denied saying (theory before data). And you said before that modelling was not useful. No wonder you've walked back from that.
You claimed I said this about social sciences when I really said it about economics. You have spent a lot of time trying to confuse economics with science to make it look as if I'm claiming scientists should not examine evidence.
>"And you said before that modelling was not useful"
When, and in what context? What kind of modelling? What isn't it useful for? You're just pulling this stuff out of nowhere.
>"you won't even google the words 'top prognosticator'."
Since you refuse to give an actual source, I've searched for that term and am assuming that we're on the same page (learn some debate etiquette next time) which is a poll done by Hamilton College, which found that Krugman was the most accurate among 26 people over a selected 16 month span. I presume that no Austrians made the list, and that their understanding of a claim being 'correct' is just going on the mainstream...
...economic interpretation that Krugman helps to define.
It looked at (mainstream) pundits and columnists in an effort to compare democrats to republicans, and found that pundits overall are less accurate than a coin toss (comparable to my initial claim that his policies and predictions are worse than those of an "uneducated person making random guesses"), without mentioning whether this includes Krugman. That said, this study didn't really vindicate your argument at all.
@casualdissent And I didn't say that Krugman was the worst pundit, or that other pundits are more accurate, or that I preferred people such as Cal Thomas (who came in last). Nor did I focus entirely on his predictive capabilities, instead saying that his predictions AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS (this inclusion is statistically significant) were worse than that of an uneducated guess (which, for the record, is slightly better than a coin toss).
@casualdissent ... It contradicted your assertion that Krugman was worse than chance... And do you really think if there had been serious predictions from any austrian school pontificators to measure that they would not have measured them? My goodness. It seems you do. I've said repeatedly that the austrian school is criticised for making predictions that don't come to pass. More, it's commonly described as not making testable predictions at all. I'm not here to push dogma. You are.
The closest I came is that I said that I 'presume' that no Austrians made the list of pundits examined. I'm going to look up 'presume' in a dictionary, just for you:
"Suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability."
So, were there any Austrians on the list? I'm still doubting it. Why? Is it a conspiracy against the Austrians? No. In fact, I explained why already:
>"It looked at (mainstream) pundits and columnists in an effort to compare DEMOCRATS to REPUBLICANS"
@otherfunk There's nothing about the Austrian theory that is dogmatic. They're much open to criticism. For example, look at the video we're commenting on right now. You're free to respond to the arguments that Murphy has made in this video (which you haven't, because you can't). Now go to the video that Murphy is responding to, here: /watch?v=JTzMqm2TwgE and notice that comments are disabled. But it's Murphy who's dogmatic, right?
@casualdissent We've gotten into a long and convoluted discussion, and now your changing the topic. I've laid out standard criticisms of the a-s, and you've responded with nonsensical statements that I've had to quote back to you and which you have subsequently ignored.
No, you criticized their methodology without explaining how it relates to their actual economic theories, while doing everything in your power to avoid criticizing their economic theories. You've stuck to the same rut of "oh look, they believe in axioms," and "oh look, they dont treat economics like a hard science," without actually making an economic argument whatsoever.
You have not quoted me. It'd be a treat if you did, considering how often you blatantly lie about my position and ignore me when I call you out on it, asking for you to go back and find the part where I said what you're erroneously claiming I said.
@casualdissent Reposting: or example... "To this date, there are too many factors involved in economic decision-making for any scientist to be aware of all relevant data, and thus economics fails the first requirement for being called scientific because it is not properly observable." Gibberish. "the neoclassical or Keynesian approach is to collect data and derive theory from it. This is unreliable because economic theory cannot be tested..." Nonsense.
@otherfunk I'm done trying to deal with Youtube's stupid character limit just to argue this. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant something completely different than what you typed. I will say though, that austerity did not screw Europe. Massive amounts of borrowing and huge deficits screwed Europe.
@llamaeatataco Massive debt spending and inflation messes up their economies, so the conservatives parties try to cut spending, and then they blame the negative effects of the debt spending and inflation on spending cuts. This shit has been going on for ages.
@llamaeatataco I was talking on both occasions about getting out of the mess we're in. You could try reading in context. And yeah, Youtube comments suck as a forum.
What you're citing is called a closed study, meaning that they don't disclose the details or actual data used to reach conclusions, they just publish their conclusions. If I'm wrong and this is not the case, send me to the actual data, not just a blurb about "oh look he won a nobel prize and he writes for the NYT and he's accurate according to us, okay onto the next person now.."
@casualdissent Uh, apologies, you said worse than uneducated guesses - which is still wrong. And I showed you how to find the study itself (which does put Krugman better than uneducated guesses). You seem to have skipped over several of my replies.
@otherfunk I have yet to see which predictions they were examining, how they determined the predictions were correct, how they decided which predictions would be used in the study, and how a 16 month period is substantial enough to call him the best prognosticator overall, and how being better than 25 other people makes you the 'top prognosticator'. It's a closed study with hidden information that as far as I'm concerned has proven nothing.
@casualdissent ... Yeah, of course you assume that. /facepalm. I found an interesting if technical discussion of the austrian school predictions here - tinyurl com . 798y8fc - which to me bears little relation to your claims....
@casualdissent 'refusing to give an actual source'. I was assuming you weren't a drooling moron. I take it it took you two seconds to find the study when you looked for it.
None of the sources even gave information concerning which predictions of Krugman's were used or how they were determined to be correct.
But anyway, no, telling me to Google two words ('top prognosticator') is not a source. Watch:
Robert Murphy is the most brilliant economist in the world and I can prove it. Just Google "most brilliant economist" and find that one study that I'm thinking about right now where a certain group of people decided so with utmost authority.
@casualdissent I hate to be the one to break it to you, but youtube comments are not a formal forum for debate, nor are they a way of learning what you don't know. I gave you an immensely simple way of finding the Hamilton study - and I wanted to make you go to the effort of looking. You threw a hissy fit because I was telling you what you did not want to hear. Now you are "assuming" the study must be flawed and biased - again, because it is telling you what you do not want to believe.
@casualdissent Since you've clearly never even taken an introductory course in economics, I'll move on from this part of the conversation. Try googling "Four stages of competence" and "history of economics". Apart from anything else, you notion that the 'austrian school' does not have the same subjectivity problems as other economic models is absurd.
Sorry, I will go with Reich. What are you doing here if you teach in Austria?
Bmants 17 hours ago
@Bmants Yeah they dont have internet in austria :D ... jeez i hoped that was a sarcasm "Austrian school of economics" is called Austrian because the founders of that school came from Austria (they emigrated to US).
MrJigssaw1989 15 hours ago
Ad hominem attack.
NotMuchNU 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Such a reasonable video and so many dislikes >.< I rarely comment on the Youtubes but I don't think the welfare state will rest until humanity is nothing but a pack of dogs barking for food.
KraljevicPavle 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Comment removed
KraljevicPavle 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
So let me get this straight. YOU think capitalism is ok? What about the people? What if we had say for example.. 10,000 people with 20b each and they had 99% of the worlds money. Now the poor people have 1% of the worlds money.. say for example 990,000 people with $1,000 each. Where do you find fairness or equality in that? I think not. Capitalism is evil.. greedy people should be punished with taxes.
gurtanator 1 week ago
@gurtanator JAHUAHUAHUAAHUAHUAHU
paunocu666 1 week ago
@gurtanator - Capitalism is more than OK - it's the best system in the world - FOR THE POOR.
You want to find the places where the poor are doing the best, it's in the countries with the freest market economies.
You want to find the worst poverty, it's in the countries with the greatest amount of government control over the economy.
I have no doubt that you mean well, but anti-capitalism always claims to be for the poor, while in reality benefiting ONLY the political elite.
mpc91 6 days ago
@mpc91 How exactly is it the best system for the poor?? Because they're too lazy to get off their ass and actually work for their money? I think what you meant to say is that truthful and caring capitalist people is the best system for the poor. What about the evil capitalist? The ones who only care about themselves? Ever thought of that? Truth is the only way our mess will be fixed. Then we can move onto capitalism. You wonder why we have such a large government now. Cause of LIARS. #Truth
gurtanator 6 days ago
@gurtanator What is an "evil capitalist"? The virtue of capitalism is that by pursuing his own interest a capitalist always engages in social cooperation and by the virtue of the profit/loss system specifically, the capitalist has to adjust his actions to the demands of the customer. By all the implications of its philosophy it can't be evil.
Evil is the grab for power and control. But it's the system that encourages this kind of behavior, not the evil nature of humans generally.
rustyrusky 5 days ago
@rustyrusky Your just ignorant.. don't get involved with the convo..
I said what an evil capitalist was right than and there. lol
gurtanator 4 days ago
@rustyrusk But humans ARE EVIL by nature,duh!!! You fail.
KJBPSkipper 3 days ago
I think your an Idiot
cyjo2009 1 week ago
you assholes wont let me respond
cyjo2009 1 week ago
Comment removed
casualdissent 1 week ago
Yeah, because when the companies had the power to regulate things were so much better! Politicians are liars, but CEOs are saints.
pyrowipe 2 weeks ago
@pyrowipe In a free market customers are the ones who have the power to regulate things.
dubified89 2 weeks ago
@dubified89 Right like all the power the people had against the Robber baron's when the government wasn't regulating fair business practices. Slave wages, Child labor, unhealthy working conditions, collusion, monopolies, etc. What a great time for the people. It was the people that fixed it. Through elective democracy and government intervention.
pyrowipe 1 week ago
this guy is great
carbott101 2 weeks ago
Does Robert have a youtube channel of his own?
spol07 2 weeks ago
Blame Obama?? Notice how the tax receipts started going down when bush was president.
limas312 3 weeks ago
And Reich was 100% correct ... who is this guy anyway? He does not know his ass from a hole in the ground... He sounds exactly like my slightly retarded brother and who is on disability for being slightly retarded and votes republican.
ReligionIsSophistry 3 weeks ago
@ReligionIsSophistry Why so hostile? Can't handle reason and evidence huh, leftist?
truevoice08 3 weeks ago in playlist Liked videos
@ReligionIsSophistry Exhibit A: When presented a calm, reasoned argument against the claims of a government "intellectual," the state-dependent leftist presents no argument, insults the presenter, maintains that the initial argument is still correct for no reason in particular, and wanders off.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
LOL Murphy is a moron. Tax reciepts are historically low because we are coming out of the deepest recession since the great depression coupled with a decade of tax cuts and loopholes added under Bush! You are going to blame that on Obama?
durhamdf 3 weeks ago
@durhamdf That wasn't the crux of his argument whatsoever.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
bs
joshuablueboy 4 weeks ago
2:14 in, this guy has never heard of the 1974 Oil Crisis. Then he doesn't realise Reagan raised taxes. Then he blames Barak Obama for the 2008 financial crisis. I take it "Austrian School" is another word for clueless idiot.
otherfunk 1 month ago
@otherfunk true..
cryhill 2 weeks ago
Corruption is the problem > we need to give the government less power > power vacuum > ??? > profit?
Is the ??? that the groups behind corruption, now without the filter of government, decide to just stop being corrupt?
donfolstar 1 month ago
Bob Murphy of Hillsdale college is going to correct Reich a Harvard and Berkeley college proffesor ranked the 6th most influential business thinker by the wall street journal.
Talk about a nobody trying to bring attention to himself.
rdrakken 1 month ago
@rdrakken - He is one of the greatest economists alive. Too bad Reich and Krugman are too scared to debate him.
StateExempt 1 month ago
@StateExempt one of the greatest economists alive...you must work for rpm consulting because no one in the industry thinks this man is the greatest anything and seeing as how he cant even afford a shirt that isnt sold at Walmart and his plant is in a BUCKET its plain to see this man does not make much money...but then you can tell by his arguments if you had a clue.
rdrakken 1 month ago
@rdrakken - Give a refutation of this video or GTFO.
StateExempt 4 weeks ago
@StateExempt Done. Industry, done. anyone with any weight in economics, done.
Murphy is a nobody trying to bring some attention to himself by taking on someone that actually has a clue.
rdrakken 3 weeks ago
@rdrakken - How does Reich have a clue and where is Murphy wrong in this video?
StateExempt 3 weeks ago
@rdrakken "Murphy is a nobody...taking on someone [who] has a clue"
Interesting that the state-centric economic mainstream ignoring the Austrian school's consistent brilliance over the past however many years can somehow be twisted into an argument against Murphy instead of for him.
"anyone with any weight in economics"
Having "weight" in economics today means offering justification for state expansion, not providing valid economic theories. If it were the latter, the Austrians would be obese.
casualdissent 3 weeks ago
@casualdissent Right which is why a far right leaning rag, owned by people pushing Austrian economics calls him the 6th most influential people in economics and has him on occasion write for them.
You are a political whore, and like all whores you think everything is black and white. Reich will tell it like it is even if it is NOT in favor of his ideology, something mouthbreathers like you cant do.
rdrakken 2 weeks ago
@rdrakken
The response that you just made had nothing to do with anything I said to you, so instead I'm going to repeat myself for emphasis.
The Keynesian establishment that Reich speaks on behalf of has ignored the Austrian school since its inception because their theories don't favor the institution that signs Reich's paycheck. It has nothing to do with whose idea is superior. And to suggest that we can disregard the arguments in this video because Murphy is "a nobody" is just plain idiotic.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent The response that you just made completely ignored what I said.
A far right leaning rag, owned by people pushing Austrian economics calls Reich the 6th most influential people in economics AND HAS HIM ON OCCASION WRITE FOR THEM...
No one, however gives a flying fuck about MR nobody in this video because he has NO ORIGINAL IDEAS and holds to one train of thought as if it fits ALL occasions no matter what. You dont get that because you are a mouthbreather.
rdrakken 2 weeks ago
@rdrakken That's because I didn't care about anything you had to say. It's not that I'm evading you, either; it's that none of what you have said matters.
Let's admit that Reich has more influence in politics than Murphy — the implications of this are what? Does this mean that Reich is automatically correct? Because it sounds to me as if you're just avoiding the actual arguments and just trying to attack Murphy's credibility.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@rdrakken The rhetoric you supplied to close, about Murphy having no original ideas, and thinking his train of thought fits in all occasions no matter what, holds about as much water as a spaghetti strainer.
What idea does Murphy think can be applied to "all occasions no matter what," and why is this not the case? What ideas of his are unoriginal, and how does this affect whether they're actually true? You're dancing around the subject because you have nothing intelligent to say.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@rdrakken
Oh, and nothing I've said here has had anything to do with "everything" being in "black and white." Those are what we call buzz words, used by people who have run out of anything more substantial to contribute. In this case, that would be you.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent "...ignoring the Austrian school's consistent brilliance..." I read somewhere that the 'Austrian School' is occasionally right in the same way a stopped clock is occasionally right. Saying 'valid economic theories' is interesting when the 'Austrian School' pull theirs out of thin air. Murphy says interesting things in this video, but I don't think the 'Austrian School' are as fair from the mainstream as they like to make out. And Austria is not an 'Austrian School' economy.
otherfunk 2 weeks ago
@otherfunk
First, allow me to congratulate you on the massive lack of argument in your comment. Second, allow me to point out that the title "Austrian Economics" was chosen for the fact that the school's founders and early ideological proponents were from Austria, not because their ideas were actually being implemented in Austria. You may as well be telling me that French fries aren't actually from France; the shock value would be about the same.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent ... You didn't make an argument - you parroted PR dogma that the "Austrian School" are "brilliant" and have "valid economic theories". Who says? You?Themselves? I was pointing out to you that the influence of the "Austrian School" is limited - and that they are close to the mainstream than people (including you, it seems) realise. The "Austrian School" (it's said) rejects the scientific method. That's not generally a good start...
otherfunk 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@otherfunk No, I've opined that their theories are brilliant, at least compared with the dribble that the rest of the people working in the field have managed to produce. I described them as valid because they actually succeed in explaining economic phenomena; their theories actually make sense to me, while the alternatives are obviously just pandering to state power.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent Hmmm... While we can both agree the world economy is messed up, the regulated capitalism in the twentieth century brought greater wealth & development than any other time in history. States and Economists were apparently doing something right. We can agree to disagree, but I rather think the major cause of the current crash was us letting bankers write their own rules (sure, for political reasons). Have 'austrian school' economics ever been seen to actually work in the real world?
otherfunk 2 weeks ago
@otherfunk
The American economy during the 21st Century was not less regulated than it was during the 20th Century. In many modern countries this would have been the case, but not in the United States. It was one of the few that went in the other direction entirely, and it has been paying the price for this. However, the recent recession is not necessarily a result of this; instead, it's the result of undue monetary expansion. You can start by researching the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent US financial regulation in recent decades (like that across the word) let banks lend billions of dollars which didn't exist to people who could never pay it back. That is what caused the crash. Call it 'monetary expansion' if you like... But the 'austrian school' (like the chap in the video we're commenting on) seems to be very hazy about the actual facts of what has happened and when - the focus instead on this 'cycle' which rather misses the point of the facts on the ground...
otherfunk 2 weeks ago
@otherfunk
They are not hazy on the details. In fact, they're the only people who aren't. If you introduce large amounts of money into an economy, people confuse these gains with actual resources, and invest in capital-intensive projects like manufacturing and construction, and that investment causes an economic boom. Then, as time goes on, they realize that the resources their production was depending on did not actually exist, and that what they were competing for was just inflated money.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent ... I don't think your description differs all that much from classical economics. There is of course the notion that economic growth will make up the gap - but that's proven to be wishful thinking on more than one occasion...
otherfunk 2 weeks ago
@otherfunk So they scrap these projects in an attempt to recover as much of their principal investment as possible. This period is called an economic recession. The whole ordeal, starting from the inflationary period, is what the Austrians call the the business cycle, and, although my explanation here was incredibly simplified for time, this is a subject on which they have gone into much detail and have understood well for decades. It does not "miss the point of facts on the ground."
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent ... the 'business cycle' is a model. I have to say reading 'austrian school' websites and watching videos like the one above, that often they seem to have a very hazy view of the facts. Do they know Reagan raised taxes? Or that Obama inherited and did not cause the 2008 bust? It sometimes doesn't seem like it... Yes, the 'austrian school' model seems to describe what's happened as you narrate it - but that doesn't you can throw out every other model or understanding...
otherfunk 2 weeks ago
@otherfunk
>Do they know Reagan raised taxes?"
Yes. But a common argument from Reich and others is that he didn't, and the general consensus on the 'left' seems to be that Reagan was a laissez-faire president who cut taxes and regulations when really it was just the opposite and he was pretty much in line with his successors and predecessors.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent ... Really? Can you show me where Reich says that? I agree Reagan - despite his rhetoric - was pretty much in line with everyone else. But it's the hardcore of the US right which claims him as a saint, and yet would drum him out of the current party as a 'Rino". Reagan like Thatcher flirted with hardcore monetarism before coming back to more central ground.
otherfunk 2 weeks ago
@otherfunk
Reich didn't say that, Krugman did. Here's the link: goo . gl / 49pNw
Yes, and they are, like Murphy in this video, willing to play on that saint-like portrayal of him to make political points. However, their reasons for thinking this portrayal is incorrect differ — Murphy thinks Reagan wan't a saint because he didn't actually stand up for the principles he professed, while Reich presumably thinks Reagan wasn't a saint because Reich disagrees with the principles Reagan professed.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent ... You obviously (a) don't understand humour; and (b) miss the point Krugman was making, that a concerted national effort to get America out of recession would work way better than sitting around scoring political points and letting the economy fester, which is precisely what the GOP has been doing - they WANT the economy to fail so they can blame Obama.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
How don't I understand humor? Because you think that I didn't understand Krugman's use of an alien attack as a hyperbolic example of something that would effect large-scale production? The underlying point is the same -- destruction is not production. Going around breaking things does not produce economic growth. It's the most backwards economic idea anyone has ever come up with. They should get this man to read some of Bastiat's work.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent ... You completely mis-undertand what Krugman was saying. Seriously, dude, you're going to have to do more than comment in youtube threads if you are going to learn anything.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
>"scoring political points...letting the economy fester, which is..what the GOP has been doing"
Oh, and the democrats don't do this?
>"they WANT the economy to fail so they can blame Obama."
See above.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@otherfunk
Although you don't seem to be stating it directly, I'm just going to jump the gun and say that I'm not defending the "hardcore of the US right," Reagan, or the Republican party in general. The Democrats and Republicans are both state-authoritarian looters; they differ in terms of which class they generally loot in favor of, with the Democrats leaning toward the lower-middle class and the Republicans leaning toward the rich (and this divide is only semi-discrete, hence "republicrats").
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent ... Indeed... A plague on all there houses... Except much of the US right has apparently lost its mind. Reagan a Rino? Obama a "marxist" for promoting a healthcare policy very similar to that of the GOP in the 90s? Looking to ban birth control? This is cloud cuckoo land...
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk I'd much rather have a Marxist in office than Obama.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent What, too black for you?
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
>"Obama inherited and did not cause the 2008 bust?"
Murphy did not blame the 2008 bust on Obama. The point of the beginning of this video was, as he summarizes at 3:06 that they started high and then "it was a steady, downward trend, and that's clearly not what's happening." The downfall wasn't due to, ah, the influence of wealthy individuals, but due to the recession, in other words.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@otherfunk That said, the factor being ignored is the federal reserve, something that I'm sure you heard about, which is basically the unaccountable agency responsible for expanding the money supply and creating the American business cycle.
Now, why did this cycle mainly affect real estate? The government was already targeting mortgages and whatnot in an attempt to create 'affordable housing' at a time when the money supply was expanding, so much of the speculation went into that industry.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent ... Lehman Brothers were allowed to lend $40 for every $1 they had. Whether the Fed allowed that or anything else allowed that, it was sure to end in disaster. We let the banks write their own rules. You may see the "Fed" as the big-bad-wolf in all this, but look at Germany where their central bank has been much more successful in weathering financial storms. Where the 'austrian school' preaches prudence, I applaud it... But it's not the magic beans you describe :) Nice talking'..
otherfunk 2 weeks ago
@otherfunk The Lehman Brothers could take that risk, and it could have been disastrous FOR THEM. The problem was that the government was taking on 'affordable housing' legislation, getting the banks to lend to people who couldn't afford it, that politically connected people knew that they would get bailed out and thus had no incentive to avoid risky behavior, and this all happened during a huge monetary expansion period. The results were as you described.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@otherfunk
>"at Germany where their central bank has been much more successful"
They apparently chose the right policies, meaning anti-inflationary. Isn't their currency not even controlled by them directly because they're part of the Eurozone? I'm not all that informed on European politics. Either way, lucky them.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@otherfunk
The Austrian approach to economics involves developing a rational theory before collecting data, while the neoclassical or Keynesian approach is to collect data and derive theory from it. This is unreliable because economic theory cannot be tested, observed, repeated, or falsified; attempting to apply the scientific method to economics is nonsensical, but the state economists don't care.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent ... The 'austrian school' base their theories on axioms which they claim are 'self evident'. Self event to who, I wonder? How do they test that these axioms are correct? They also reject the use of statistics and other commonly used tools. So how can they test whether their theories are correct? It looks to me that you don't understand the scientific method and its limitations, and therefore you just throw it out and pick the model that fits your prejudices and expectations...
otherfunk 2 weeks ago
@otherfunk They don't reject statistics or empiricism, they simply reject the notion that theory can be derived from observation. To this date, there are too many factors involved in economic decision-making for any scientist to be aware of all relevant data, and thus economics fails the first requirement for being called scientific because it is not properly observable.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent ... We can make a good effort at forecasting the weather without our understanding being perfect or our forecasts always right. All economics 'schools' provide models for understanding how things work: whether it's classical, keynsian, monetarist or 'austrian school'. Your argument sounds very like the one creationists use against evolution or that used by climate change deniers...
otherfunk 2 weeks ago
@otherfunk Second, if you're dealing with chemicals in a closed system, it's easy to repeat certain reactions and deduce an equation such as that chemical X, when added to chemical Y, produces compound Z, based on the fact that every time we mix chemical X with chemical Y, the result is the same. This is not possible in economics because no two people are identical, and thus no one test is repeatable.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent It is the 'Austrian school' which claims it has 'self-evident axiom's about behaviour, and dogmatic about its predictions. You seem to be arguing that we can never predict the weather because the wind blows slightly differently each time...
otherfunk 2 weeks ago
@otherfunk The weather is far more simple than a modern economy. Perhaps in the future we could invent some sort of machine that allows us to understand and measure what all consumers are thinking at one time and through some means take all factors into account, but the best we have now is looking at certain so-called indicators that have proven ineffective as the means to economic insight.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent No offense, but you completely misunderstand how science works and what economists claim. Our understandings of gravity, evolution, medicine and everything else in science come from examining the data and find a model which best fits them. We don't have a complete understanding of *anything*. The vast majority of economists would disagree that their work is entirely "ineffective", and they'd say they have plenty of data to back that up.
otherfunk 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@otherfunk
>"Our understandings of gravity, evolution, medicine and everything else in science come from examining the data and find a model which best fits them"
Not once did I claim otherwise.
>"The vast majority of economists would disagree that their work is entirely 'ineffective',"
Duh. Why would they say otherwise? It's their work.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@otherfunk
An example of an axiom that they claim to be self-evident is that people prefer things now as opposed to later. Most are statements that can be considered true simply based on the definitions of the terms being used, and thus don't require scientific evaluation or investigation. The classic example is that if I said all bachelors are unmarried, we know that this is the case based on the definition of 'bachelor', the definition of 'are', and the definition of 'unmarried'.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent That's a serious /facepalm. Everything humanity has ever built from huts to moon landings comes from the ability to see that effort now might have a reward later. 'Bacherlor' and 'husband' are just labels - there are plenty of husbands who behave like bachelors, and vice versa. Your words sound like the 'game theorists' of the 50s, who modelled everything on behaviour which can only be described as psychopathic. We only moved on from that when we realised behaviour is complex...
otherfunk 2 weeks ago
It would be pointless to go out into the world in an attempt to find a married bachelor to disprove this affirmation, because such a thing cannot exist by definition. This is the reason that it would be considered a priori knowledge, meaning knowledge that does not require observation.
But this is just a method of understanding; a device used to explain how and why the economy works. That is to say, there's a lot more to what the Austrians believe than what can be expressed in the form of axiom.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent I say again, your understanding is science is completely wrong. You need to look at actual data to build your theory - which is only ever a model. If you just make up rule, you might be right sometimes accidentally (as people just about the 'austrian school'), but unless you're willing to change your model to fit the data (as economists and scientists always hopefully do) you are not doing science.
otherfunk 2 weeks ago
>"You need to look at actual data to build your theory"
In science, yes. That doesn't work in economics, because it's not testable, repeatable, observable, or falsifiable, as I've said before.
>"you might be right sometimes accidentally (as people just about the 'austrian school')"
They have been right more than other economists, especially in historical trends and predictions.
>"unless you're willing to change your model to fit the data...you are not doing science"
Economics is not science.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent Your understanding of science, never mind the social sciences, is completely backwards. You don't "develop a theory before collecting data". If you are not willing to reject your "theory" in the face of contradictory data (they very thing you seem to be accusing other people of) then you don't have a theory - you have a dogma. You should google "unconscious incompetent". You are not aware of what you don't know.
otherfunk 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@otherfunk
>"Your understanding of science, never mind the social sciences, is completely backwards. You don't 'develop a theory before collecting data'."
How many times do I have to say this? I'm not talking about SCIENCE when I say that theory cannot be derived from data (and the meaning of "THEORY" in ECONOMICS is different from the meaning of "THEORY" in SCIENCE), I'm talking about the field of ECONOMICS, which is NOT SCIENCE.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@otherfunk
Even on a larger scale, you face the challenge of finding identical economies to which this policy can be introduced, while ensuring that this policy is the one and only difference between the them. This has never been accomplished, and even it it had been, it would still require to function that all people within economy A are identical to the people with economy B, and that they have the same resources to work with, and are not allowed to interact with each other. It's a total mess.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent ... Seriously. go and read a event book about the history of science... And also look for a good introduction to the social sciences, to get a feel for what they claim and what they don't claim. You are currently stuck in a loop worrying about things economists - and scientists - do not actually claim.
otherfunk 2 weeks ago
@otherfunk
>"worrying about things economists - and scientists - do not actually claim."
Tell me what economist and scientists claim which I claim they don't, or what they don't claim which I claim they do.
>"I don't think your description differs all that much from classical economics"
I don't know what's being referred to here.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent You claim that anything claiming to be a science has to have a complete understanding of all variables before it can provide a usable model. That is gibberish. Your description of inflation approaches that of classical economics - but you don't know what you don't know, so you keep telling me everyone else is wrong and you - somehow - are right. Sorry, but I don't see this conversation going anywhere.
otherfunk 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@otherfunk
>"You claim that anything claiming to be a science has to have a complete understanding of all variables before it can provide a usable model."
I've never said this.
>"Your description of inflation approaches that of classical economics"
And?
>"you don't know what you don't know,"
Neither does anyone else.
casualdissent 2 weeks ago
@casualdissent ... This is like talking to a wall. You said that modelling was useless in economics because it's impossible to know all the variables involved. Scientists deal with randomness and uncertainty all the time. I keep telling you that much of what you are saying is found in standard economics - you keep insisting the 'austrian school' is different. Google "conscious incompetent". That is you. Not everyone is unaware of their ignorance as you are.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
No. I never said that modeling was useless in economics. I said that in economics, the theory has to come before the data, because which theory you accept affects your interpretation of that data. The argument against this approach is that it's unscientific, to which I explained that economics is not science and that attempting to treat it as if it were is irrational.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent Now, if you want to respond to that explanation and make the case that economics is actually a hard science and that treating it as if it were can lead to useful conclusions, then go ahead.
But all you've done here is regressed to the "unscientific" argument while acting as if I think my description of the Austrian economic approach can be used in science, despite the fact that I've repeatedly insisted otherwise.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent ... Word salad posts get us nowhere. This is getting very boring. I never said ecumenic was hard science. You could try reading what I write.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
>"you've clearly never even taken an introductory course in economics,"
>"Word salad posts get us nowhere."
>"You don't have the wit"
>"Try googling [things]"
>"you are so staggeringly ill-informed"
>"You completely mis-understand.."
>"too black for you?"
I'm not replying to posts like these.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent ... You hold yourself out as an expert in 'austrian economics', but you are wildly wrong on easily checked facts about how science and the social sciences build their respective theories. You are a classic 'unconscious incompetent'. You claim to be an expert, but have no clue as to the deficit of your knowledge and further claim such knowledge would be useful. Your cognitive dissonance is so great you won't even google the words 'top prognosticator'. No wonder you've nothing left.
otherfunk 1 week ago
.... would *not* be useful. Doh :)
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
>"You hold yourself out as an expert in 'austrian economics',"
When did I say that? Also, I wasn't gonna ask, but why do you put quotation marks around Austrian economics, as if it's some foreign term you're unfamiliar with? You have been doing it this entire time; it's vaguely stupid.
>"you are wildly wrong on easily checked facts"
Name one.
>"about how science and the social sciences build their respective theories"
I've not talked about how social sciences build their theories.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent The quotes are a habit. They do look silly after time... You are wrong about Krugman's predictions being worse than chance. (Still terrified of google? Of course, he's not always right). You have too talked about how social sciences build their theories - you said they have to build a theory first then look at the data - which is complete gibberish, right across science and the social sciences. You said repeatedly modelling was useless in economics, before walking back on that...
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
>"you said they have to build a theory first then look at the data"
No I didn't.
casualdissent 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@casualdissent Yes you did. "The Austrian approach to economics involves developing a rational theory before collecting data, while the neoclassical or Keynesian approach is to collect data and derive theory from it." Your words. Don't you believe that? I thought you were the world's leading expert in what you believe...
otherfunk 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@otherfunk
>"You are a classic 'unconscious incompetent'."
Just stop being a coward and call me an idiot like a normal person. Trying to be scientific about your insults doesn't mean you're avoiding the topic any less than you would be otherwise.
>"You claim to be an expert,"
When did I claim this?
>"but have no clue as to the deficit of your knowledge"
Stop alluding to information that you obviously do not possess. If you think I'm missing something relevant, then go ahead and enlighten me.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent I do not think you are an idiot. You write eloquently and you're obviously interested in the topic. Your knowledge is just way more narrow that you realise. You said you were the worlds leading expert in what you believe - and you act like an authority on the austrian school. But your knowledge of the history of economics is apparently zero outside of that narrow field. Your description of how science and the social sciences work was plain wrong.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
>"You said you were the worlds leading expert in what you believe"
Yes. And you're the world's leading expert on what you believe in. That's a claim you can make for just about anybody.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent Really? I'm not the world's leading expert in anything I believe in. Psychological tests ask the same question different ways precisely because people are often unclear about what they believe in.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
Not leading "expert." Leading "authority." Meaning, that I have more authority over the topic of "what casualdissent believes in" than anybody else. I don't know why you're trying to take such a simple statement and turn it into a political point, but I do ask that you stop.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@otherfunk
>"Your knowledge is just way more narrow that you realise."
It's rather frustrating that you keep saying this but refuse to tell me what knowledge you think I'm lacking.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent ... I don't know a lot about the austrian school, but I know a little about economics and to my read you misunderstand neoclassical and keynsian economics, and from my little bit off reading elsewhere on the austrian school, you don't get that entirely right either. Your certainty about "way you believe" is holding you bank. I can't fix that.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
>"you misunderstand"
>"you don't get that entirely right"
>"Your certainty...is holding you back"
If there is some kind of mistake that I'm making or some kind of information that I'm not taking into account, then tell me about it. From what I can make out, you're being extremely vague on purpose to avoid posing any serious criticism.
>"I can't fix that."
Then piss off.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent Serious criticism? I've spelled out very clearly where you have said things which are simply not true. I quoted your own words which show you said things you said you didn't say.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
>"Your cognitive dissonance is so great"
You don't know what that term means.
>"No wonder you've nothing left."
I've expanded the length and scope of this discussion; you have narrowed and shortened it, removing economic discourse and replacing it with insults and generalizations (and of theories you clearly do not understand). You are the one who has nothing left, which is the reason that this final reply is but one post long and contains no argument whatsoever.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent ... Seriously, dude, you seem to think we've been having an entirely different conversation from the one documented here.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
>"you seem to think we've been having an entirely different conversation from the one documented here"
You have repeatedly been assigning certain views to me that I did not espouse and more generally making claims about my position that cannot be supported while talking about my incompetence and general lack of knowledge. Tell me how I'm supposed to interpret this.
casualdissent 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@casualdissent For example... "To this date, there are too many factors involved in economic decision-making for any scientist to be aware of all relevant data, and thus economics fails the first requirement for being called scientific because it is not properly observable." Gibberish. "the neoclassical or Keynesian approach is to collect data and derive theory from it. This is unreliable because economic theory cannot be tested..." Nonsense.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@casualdissent More. "They have been right more than other economists, especially in historical trends and predictions." Not according to most economists. You don't count all their failed predictions of crashes.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
>"Not according to most economists."
I didn't say it was 'according to most economists'.
>"You don't count all their failed predictions of crashes."
If there's a huge period of economic expansion, they'll warn that a collapse is coming. They have generally been right about this more than anyone else. You're talking about their "failed predictions"? Name one.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent ... look up wikipedia, austrian school, business cycle theory. In part: 'In 1969, Milton Friedman, after examining the history of business cycles in the U.S., concluded that "The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false."[50] He analyzed the issue using newer data in 1993, and again reached the same conclusion.[39]'.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk Milton Friedman was an economic wonder in every area except for monetary policy. The reason he rejected the ABCT is because he wanted to push his own alternative, called monetarism, which didn't work because it still clung to the idea that the state should be in charge of the money supply.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent Riiiiight. And the other criticisms of the a-s are just people who want to push *their* theories. It must be so nice not to have to deal with challenges to what you believe by just assuming the world is out to get you...
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk It wasn't a challenge. You quoted Friedman as saying that it conflicts with the evidence. What am I supposed to say in response? "Friedman is wrong and the evidence does support the ABCT," basically just stating the opposite of what he said, with just as little justification? You have no idea how arguments actually work, do you?
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent The comment section is going all loopy for me, spamming me with updates from comments that were actually posted days ago. I don't really feel like trying to circumvent this problem just to argue with a liar, so instead I'll be leaving.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent ... I quoted a noted economist, with a reference that contained a detailed discussion on criticisms of the a-s and further links to direct sources. Your childish gainsaying means jack sh_t. You apparently aren't able to form arguments outside of your own head. No-one is saying the a-s is all wrong. You are the one insisting on your own authority that everyone else is wrong and the a-s is "brilliant".
otherfunk 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@otherfunk You went to the Wikipedia page for "Austrian School," scrolled down to the "criticism" subheading, quoted a line about Friedman verbatim, and now you think you've formed some groundbreaking criticism that I actually have to reply to, despite the fact that the quote from Friedman didn't make any actual argument; all he said is that he examined the data and concluded that the ABCT is wrong — good for him.
casualdissent 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@otherfunk
This entire time, you have not made any real criticism of Austrian theory, nor of anything that Murphy said in this video. You have criticized their methodology, and when I responded to that criticism, you dropped the subject altogether, insisting that I don't "understand science." Then you distorted my position for the whole of a few days. And that's where we find ourselves now — you, still without an argument; and me, still lounging around waiting for you to formulate one.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@otherfunk Read some of Robert Murphy's material on the ABCT. He's gone over a lot of these "lack of evidence" accusations and the "doesn't explain everything" argument made by people like Paul Krugman.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent ... No one is saying the a-s is always wrong... Just that it is not the whole picture, based on dubious 'axioms', rejects useful and proven tools... Of course, economies are insanely complex. No-one is always right.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk I've responded to your nonsense about axioms and 'rejecting' useful and 'proven' (not) tools already. That economies are so complex is why only their methodology makes sense thus far, as I've been explaining to you over the past week. I'm leaving right now if you're just going to regress to shit I've already gone over. Click the 'see all' button and read this over.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent ... Yeah, I did click the "see all" button when I quoted back words to you that you denied saying (theory before data). And you said before that modelling was not useful. No wonder you've walked back from that.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
>"(theory before data)"
You claimed I said this about social sciences when I really said it about economics. You have spent a lot of time trying to confuse economics with science to make it look as if I'm claiming scientists should not examine evidence.
>"And you said before that modelling was not useful"
When, and in what context? What kind of modelling? What isn't it useful for? You're just pulling this stuff out of nowhere.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@otherfunk
>"you won't even google the words 'top prognosticator'."
Since you refuse to give an actual source, I've searched for that term and am assuming that we're on the same page (learn some debate etiquette next time) which is a poll done by Hamilton College, which found that Krugman was the most accurate among 26 people over a selected 16 month span. I presume that no Austrians made the list, and that their understanding of a claim being 'correct' is just going on the mainstream...
casualdissent 1 week ago
...economic interpretation that Krugman helps to define.
It looked at (mainstream) pundits and columnists in an effort to compare democrats to republicans, and found that pundits overall are less accurate than a coin toss (comparable to my initial claim that his policies and predictions are worse than those of an "uneducated person making random guesses"), without mentioning whether this includes Krugman. That said, this study didn't really vindicate your argument at all.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent And I didn't say that Krugman was the worst pundit, or that other pundits are more accurate, or that I preferred people such as Cal Thomas (who came in last). Nor did I focus entirely on his predictive capabilities, instead saying that his predictions AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS (this inclusion is statistically significant) were worse than that of an uneducated guess (which, for the record, is slightly better than a coin toss).
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent ... It contradicted your assertion that Krugman was worse than chance... And do you really think if there had been serious predictions from any austrian school pontificators to measure that they would not have measured them? My goodness. It seems you do. I've said repeatedly that the austrian school is criticised for making predictions that don't come to pass. More, it's commonly described as not making testable predictions at all. I'm not here to push dogma. You are.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
The closest I came is that I said that I 'presume' that no Austrians made the list of pundits examined. I'm going to look up 'presume' in a dictionary, just for you:
"Suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability."
So, were there any Austrians on the list? I'm still doubting it. Why? Is it a conspiracy against the Austrians? No. In fact, I explained why already:
>"It looked at (mainstream) pundits and columnists in an effort to compare DEMOCRATS to REPUBLICANS"
casualdissent 1 week ago
@otherfunk There's nothing about the Austrian theory that is dogmatic. They're much open to criticism. For example, look at the video we're commenting on right now. You're free to respond to the arguments that Murphy has made in this video (which you haven't, because you can't). Now go to the video that Murphy is responding to, here: /watch?v=JTzMqm2TwgE and notice that comments are disabled. But it's Murphy who's dogmatic, right?
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent We've gotten into a long and convoluted discussion, and now your changing the topic. I've laid out standard criticisms of the a-s, and you've responded with nonsensical statements that I've had to quote back to you and which you have subsequently ignored.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
>"I've laid out standard criticism of the a-s"
No, you criticized their methodology without explaining how it relates to their actual economic theories, while doing everything in your power to avoid criticizing their economic theories. You've stuck to the same rut of "oh look, they believe in axioms," and "oh look, they dont treat economics like a hard science," without actually making an economic argument whatsoever.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent ... That's not my reading of our conversation - which you made me go through again to quote back your own words to you...
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
>"you've responded with nonsensical statements"
Name one.
>"I've had to quote back to you"
You have not quoted me. It'd be a treat if you did, considering how often you blatantly lie about my position and ignore me when I call you out on it, asking for you to go back and find the part where I said what you're erroneously claiming I said.
>"subsequently ignored"
What have I ignored?
casualdissent 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@casualdissent Reposting: or example... "To this date, there are too many factors involved in economic decision-making for any scientist to be aware of all relevant data, and thus economics fails the first requirement for being called scientific because it is not properly observable." Gibberish. "the neoclassical or Keynesian approach is to collect data and derive theory from it. This is unreliable because economic theory cannot be tested..." Nonsense.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk I'm done trying to deal with Youtube's stupid character limit just to argue this. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you meant something completely different than what you typed. I will say though, that austerity did not screw Europe. Massive amounts of borrowing and huge deficits screwed Europe.
llamaeatataco 1 week ago
@llamaeatataco Massive debt spending and inflation messes up their economies, so the conservatives parties try to cut spending, and then they blame the negative effects of the debt spending and inflation on spending cuts. This shit has been going on for ages.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@llamaeatataco I was talking on both occasions about getting out of the mess we're in. You could try reading in context. And yeah, Youtube comments suck as a forum.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
Uh, I didn't say that Krugman was worse than chance. Stop distorting my views, please. Also, there's no response to my earlier observation, that:
"None of the sources even gave information concerning which predictions of Krugman's were used or how they were determined to be correct."
casualdissent 1 week ago
@otherfunk
What you're citing is called a closed study, meaning that they don't disclose the details or actual data used to reach conclusions, they just publish their conclusions. If I'm wrong and this is not the case, send me to the actual data, not just a blurb about "oh look he won a nobel prize and he writes for the NYT and he's accurate according to us, okay onto the next person now.."
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent Uh, apologies, you said worse than uneducated guesses - which is still wrong. And I showed you how to find the study itself (which does put Krugman better than uneducated guesses). You seem to have skipped over several of my replies.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk I have yet to see which predictions they were examining, how they determined the predictions were correct, how they decided which predictions would be used in the study, and how a 16 month period is substantial enough to call him the best prognosticator overall, and how being better than 25 other people makes you the 'top prognosticator'. It's a closed study with hidden information that as far as I'm concerned has proven nothing.
casualdissent 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@casualdissent ... Yeah, of course you assume that. /facepalm. I found an interesting if technical discussion of the austrian school predictions here - tinyurl com . 798y8fc - which to me bears little relation to your claims....
otherfunk 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@otherfunk
>"Yeah, of course you assume that."
I don't know what you're referring to.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent 'refusing to give an actual source'. I was assuming you weren't a drooling moron. I take it it took you two seconds to find the study when you looked for it.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
None of the sources even gave information concerning which predictions of Krugman's were used or how they were determined to be correct.
But anyway, no, telling me to Google two words ('top prognosticator') is not a source. Watch:
Robert Murphy is the most brilliant economist in the world and I can prove it. Just Google "most brilliant economist" and find that one study that I'm thinking about right now where a certain group of people decided so with utmost authority.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent I hate to be the one to break it to you, but youtube comments are not a formal forum for debate, nor are they a way of learning what you don't know. I gave you an immensely simple way of finding the Hamilton study - and I wanted to make you go to the effort of looking. You threw a hissy fit because I was telling you what you did not want to hear. Now you are "assuming" the study must be flawed and biased - again, because it is telling you what you do not want to believe.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk
>"You threw a hissy fit"
I asked for the direct source.
>"Now you are 'assuming' the study..."
I didn't use the word 'assuming', so you can lose the quotes.
>"...the study must be flawed and biased"
I didn't call it flawed or biased.
>"again, because it is telling you what you do not want to believe."
Baseless.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent And by the way, it took me 5 seconds to find a pdf of the original Hamilton study. Google "site:hamilton.edu krugman". Top result.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@otherfunk Congratulations, you know how to use Google.
casualdissent 1 week ago
@casualdissent ... You should learn. You'd make less of a tit of yourself.
otherfunk 1 week ago
@casualdissent Since you've clearly never even taken an introductory course in economics, I'll move on from this part of the conversation. Try googling "Four stages of competence" and "history of economics". Apart from anything else, you notion that the 'austrian school' does not have the same subjectivity problems as other economic models is absurd.
otherfunk 1 week ago