4 Politically Controversial Issues Where All Economists Agree

[Peregrinator]

It's a shame AJ bails out before noon everyday. Ridiculing him would be more fun if he was still around.

A shame he has a life, you mean?

 

[mercury14]

This is just another thread where conservatives exploit the inherent less-than-100% uncertainty of science to dismiss it as wholly meaningless.

Nothing new here.

 

[Disgustipated]

A shame he has a life, you mean?

I doubt it's because of that.

 

[Peregrinator]

I doubt it's because of that.

Ya think?

 

[Peregrinator]

This is just another thread where conservatives exploit the inherent less-than-100% uncertainty of science to dismiss it as wholly meaningless.

Nothing new here.

I wonder if Luntz knew, when he wrote that infamous memo, how far-reaching the implications and consequences would be.

 

[mercury14]

I wonder if Luntz knew, when he wrote that infamous memo, how far-reaching the implications and consequences would be.

Would a memo be more of a blog or more of a book?

 

[Peregrinator]

Would a memo be more of a blog or more of a book?

Hah! Nice.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Would a memo be more of a blog or more of a book?

I think this was a SAT question;

memo is to blog as..........

 

[zipman]

This thread is full of the lulz. I wasn't expecting it to be so entertaining, either.

Well the hilarity of the non-relevant stupidity of koala and off2bed are pretty much a given.

But it takes A_J to bring the house down.

That one is going to be repeated back to him every time he quotes American Thinker.

 

[Peregrinator]

Well the hilarity of the non-relevant stupidity of koala and off2bed are pretty much a given.

But it takes A_J to bring the house down.

That one is going to be repeated back to him every time he quotes American Thinker.

Yup. That one was epic.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That's what I was thinking. Apparently Miles To Go Before I Sleep is in the camp that doesn't see social sciences as "real" sciences. I think that if you use the scientific method to study the topic, it probably qualifies as science.

ETA: I have a good friend who's a Ph.D in social psych, and he says he's a scientist. It was funny when SeanH posted on my FB wall that psychology isn't science, and the friend professor saw it...

FWIW, the American Association for the Advancement of Science does have a section for "Social, Economic, and Political Sciences".

But, this is the same AAAS that believes in anthropogenic climate change, so, its credibility in this forum, well . . .

 

[Sean]

That has nothing to do with your thread. Economics is not science. Even if it were, nothing in science is established fact, if you want to get technical. All we have are theories no one has yet disproven.

And the Garbage Can award for April goes to...

 

[richard_daily]

And the Garbage Can award for April goes to...

He's basically throwing capitalism out the window in one fell swoop...

 

[eyer]

...the president doesn't have to submit a budget and historically it's not done.


http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=40494637&postcount=16

This ^^^ is my favorite GB OOPS! moment...

 

[renard_ruse]

We need a socially conservative, economically center left party.

Bourgois liberalism of left and right is a societal disease and the patient is just about dead.

 

[Sean Renaud]

We need a socially conservative, economically center left party.

Bourgois liberalism of left and right is a societal disease and the patient is just about dead.

Such a thing will never ever happen nor could it. You could pull the revers of that which would actually be rather sucessful but not that.

 

[Loring2]

This is just another thread where conservatives exploit the inherent less-than-100% uncertainty of science to dismiss it as wholly meaningless.

Nothing new here.

Yeah Merc ... some of the people are so conservative that they contend the Model T Ford is still the car to own and the F-86 is still the best fighter in the air.

Some people are just like that you know and remember "reason has never won a round from dogma". I guess it just makes them feel comfortable

The reason for the quote marks is that a guy named John Boyd used to stress that phrase to me. .... know who Boyd is? ...Yeah I'm an old man.

 

[Loring2]

Such a thing will never ever happen nor could it. You could pull the revers of that which would actually be rather sucessful but not that.

Yeah it could happen and we're not all that far from it either but the difference is always in rhe details.

 

[mercury14]

This ^^^ is my favorite GB OOPS! moment...

How come you edited out my comment saying the pres has to submit a budget for the federal government (but not Medicare, Medicaid, and other mandatory expenditures)?

 

[eyer]

How come you edited out my comment saying the pres has to submit a budget for the federal government (but not Medicare, Medicaid, and other mandatory expenditures)?

That's okay, katy...

...I'm pretty sure anyone can click the link to the entire thread to read all the ineptitude you freely offered on the issue.

But, just in case anyone'd like a glimpse of your squat:

That FY2013 $3.73 trillion federal budget Obama didn't have to propose...

...but then did have to propose, but then it doesn't cover "Medicare, Medicaid, and other mandatory expenditures", because what the President doesn't have to propose - wait a minute - does have to propose, is only 1/3 of the total budget which "Medicare, Medicaid, and other mandatory expenditures" make-up the other 2/3 of.

Whew!

Here's your political assertation of the federal budget:

1. "the president doesn't have to submit a budget and historically it's not done."

When you are told law requires the President to submit a budget every FY and, in fact, President Obama just submitted his 4th...

2. then you adjust to yeah, the law says the President must submit a budget, but it's not the entire federal budget - it's only "about 1/3" of the total federal budget that the law says the President must submit.

So...

...the total federal budget for FY2013 which President Obama just recently submitted - since you assert Obama's proposal of $3.73 trillion is only 1/3 - is actually $11.19 trillion in mercury1/4 political economic calculations.

That's right, right?

The federal budget for FY2013 will be somewhere around $11.19 trillion?

Just like last year - when Obama proposed a $3.8 trillion federal budget - the total budget was really around $11.4 trillion...

...right?

Same thing for the year before and FY2010?

Or...

...do you have even more adjustments your ego needs to make?

Nerds and their pocket-protectors everywhere are counting on you, toots...

 

[mercury14]

The president doesn't have to provide a budget that includes mandatory spending programs, only for executive branch and independent govt programs. You can't deny that.

The president is also free to include anything he wishes in the budget but there's no law compelling such action. The Pres can recommend to congress that it change its Medicare reimbursement rates for instance. But it's only a recommendation that congress doesn't have to even look at.

And yes there have been plenty of years where the President made no recommendation about changing medicare's programming. Or made no recommendation in the budget but worked on it elsewhere.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I usually stop reading when I see the words "all [economists, scientists, whatever] agree." After scanning Perg's OP my instinct was reinforced.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Well the hilarity of the non-relevant stupidity of koala and off2bed are pretty much a given.

But it takes A_J to bring the house down.

That one is going to be repeated back to him every time he quotes American Thinker.

I'm sorry, but how the hell did I do that?

There are four points that every single economist is said to disagree upon, but in the last several months on at least two of the points I have posted dissents from real, actual practicing economists.

Now, if perg wants to reframe the discussion to a majority, a consensus, a leading body of, then we can have a discussion, instead the goal merely seems to be an exercise in flinging poo with a not-so-clever opening gambit.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm sorry, I thought you said you had four points on which all economists agree.

Read books, not blogs.

Sophisms of the Protectionists, Bastiat

Could you please c&p something from "American Thinker?"

Wow. I am humbled by your deep thinking.



Contra Bernanke on the Gold Standard
Mises Daily: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 by Frank Shostak

Since the gold standard determines the money supply, there's not much scope for the central bank to use monetary policy to stabilize the economy.… Because you had a gold standard which tied the money supply to gold, there was no flexibility for the central bank to lower interest rates in recession or raise interest rates in an inflation.

This is precisely why the gold standard is so good: it prevents the authorities from engaging in reckless money pumping of the sort Bernanke has been engaging in since the end of 2007 by pushing over $2 trillion in new money into the banking system.

Frank Shostak is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute and a frequent contributor to Mises.org. His consulting firm, Applied Austrian School Economics, provides in-depth assessments and reports of financial markets and global economies.
http://mises.org/daily/6003/Contra-Bernanke-on-the-Gold-Standard

Since I can locate one easily, then ALL was a fucking stupid statement and goes to the extreme bias of the blog.

I'm glad to see that your grasp of economics is equal to your grasp of all thing "Science."



PS - This is my third and last post in this thread. It shows basically that you and zip are practitioners of knee-jerk ad hominem,

 

[off2bed]

Economics isn't science? Then what is it? Economists sure present it that way.

What partisan manner? I c&p-ed a blog entry that discusses the results of a poll of a panel of highly regarded economists. If that somehow disagrees with your politics, then maybe you should ask yourself why. Or refute what they're saying with the opinions of other experts. This isn't my BS; it's the BS of a bunch of experts in the field. So far all you've been able to come up with in reply is "Nuh-uh! Doodyhead!"

I'm like a little kid, but what I'm saying is that 99% of biologists agree that dinosaurs are the genetic forebears of modern birds. You seem to be saying that's a problem for your political position. So be it. Post the counter theories.

Or just continue to be a whiny little bitch and make everyone think you really are miles.

Economics is a "dismal" attempt to predict human behavior. Nothing more. It's sociology combined with money. And we all know how successful humans are at predicting each others behavior.