quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Addendum: I was thinking about this on the drive home, and the more I think about it the more eager I am to hear your response, Sam. Because I'm having a hard time thinking of a study on this topic that wouldn't, in essence, boil down to an aggregate of anecdotes or a summary of trends and correlations. So I'm curious to see what I'm missing.
Or is it just that, yes, that is the only way to do it, and studies show that the anecdotes and correlations are pretty much what you'd expect geographically? (Leftist on the coasts, right wing in the south, etc.)
The most important thing to come away from this is to note that we're now in proving-negatives land. Assuming no such sufficient study or real data exists, what does that say of those who have made the case that there's a "strong leftist bias" in schools? Pretty much exactly as I stated.
It is not the only way to do it, though, and there have been concerted methodological systems designed to root out bias and the undue politification of classrooms by teachers and communities. Not too long ago, they quashed out testing and student analysis systems which rated students in their 'attentivity' to environmental affairs in a way which graded them as 'deficient' if they weren't essentially answering towards a politically environmentalist narrative. Given the structure of our school systems and the wide (and institutionally shitty) gulf of permissions given to the states to set their own educational standards, the main systemic and identifiable systems of bias are through boards and the general environment of political pressure in that area. The largest systemic bias is preserved in the american south. You can guess which way it goes. The primary victims are usually history (students come out with a severely insufficient view of world history, with obvious distortions) and the sciences, especially biology.
The largest factor seems to be to what degree a state has institutionalized the politicization of school curriculum to pursue an obvious agenda. The better states limit the damage a politicized board or a rogue teacher can do. The worse states give them plenty of room to go hog-wild.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Despite this, the US Constitution included numerous pieces of anti-slavery language, and was fundamentally an anti-slavery document.
Huh. I'd really love to dissect how and from what places someone gets this view of the constitution, since the opposite is true: it was a pro-slavery document, with the right to own people built very straightforwardly into it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, okay. Often these days, you hear the founding fathers spoken of - invoked even - by conservatives as if they could do no wrong. As if they were demi-gods blessed with some special insight that we could not obtain. This is the image that those TN law-makers seem to be trying to protect. The. Constitution is an extraordinary blueprint for government, wrought by flawed men (as all men are flawed) filled with compromise and the best solutions available at the time. It is not a sacred document brought down from the mountain top.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask: People don't understand Ron Paul's solutions because they don't understand economics.
This is the most sellout mentality possible. It does nothing more than pretty much clarify for the class that you are so dogmatically wrapped up in those ideas that you are mentally uninterested in challenging them. So, what to do about the thorny dissonance of most people thinking he's nuts? Apparently, the solution is to do what is easiest to not have to think about why they are so frequently disagreed with.
And here I was wondering how the forum was going to make do without a new Lisa. >:[
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Addendum: I was thinking about this on the drive home, and the more I think about it the more eager I am to hear your response, Sam. Because I'm having a hard time thinking of a study on this topic that wouldn't, in essence, boil down to an aggregate of anecdotes or a summary of trends and correlations. So I'm curious to see what I'm missing.
Or is it just that, yes, that is the only way to do it, and studies show that the anecdotes and correlations are pretty much what you'd expect geographically? (Leftist on the coasts, right wing in the south, etc.)
The most important thing to come away from this is to note that we're now in proving-negatives land. Assuming no such sufficient study or real data exists, what does that say of those who have made the case that there's a "strong leftist bias" in schools? Pretty much exactly as I stated.
Could you clarify why we're in proving-negatives land?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It is not the only way to do it, though, and there have been concerted methodological systems designed to root out bias and the undue politification of classrooms by teachers and communities. Not too long ago, they quashed out testing and student analysis systems which rated students in their 'attentivity' to environmental affairs in a way which graded them as 'deficient' if they weren't essentially answering towards a politically environmentalist narrative. Given the structure of our school systems and the wide (and institutionally shitty) gulf of permissions given to the states to set their own educational standards, the main systemic and identifiable systems of bias are through boards and the general environment of political pressure in that area. The largest systemic bias is preserved in the american south. You can guess which way it goes. The primary victims are usually history (students come out with a severely insufficient view of world history, with obvious distortions) and the sciences, especially biology.
The largest factor seems to be to what degree a state has institutionalized the politicization of school curriculum to pursue an obvious agenda. The better states limit the damage a politicized board or a rogue teacher can do. The worse states give them plenty of room to go hog-wild.
So, I have no difficulty believing that a right-wing bias in curriculum could cause problems in biology (evolution, I assume?) and world history. But I'm curious about these attempts you're alluding to.
One topic in particular sprang to mind, and a few google searches did not yield satisfactory data. Do you know how often A People's History of the United States is used as a textbook? My impression is: it's common. However this is purely based on my anecdotal data (basically polling people I know). In my google search I found out that in 2008 there was a big push to get it used in middle schools and high schools, but I haven't found how successful that was. Do you know? Or is this sort of question not an appropriate way to root out biases?
And, tangentially I suppose, do you consider that book an example of a leftist revisionist history, or do you think it's a reasonable objective analysis of history that ought to be taught in history classes?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Despite this, the US Constitution included numerous pieces of anti-slavery language, and was fundamentally an anti-slavery document.
Huh. I'd really love to dissect how and from what places someone gets this view of the constitution, since the opposite is true: it was a pro-slavery document, with the right to own people built very straightforwardly into it.
Wow. Dissect, huh? Dissect away, I guess. Start with Douglass, but feel free to speculate on my education after you eviscerate him. Also please direct me to precisely where the right to own people is shown so straightforwardly.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dan, have you read A People's History? What do you think they got wrong?
I read it about 12 years ago, so I can't really give you a blow-by-blow of everything that I think is wrong with it. Sorry.
If it's truly important to you to have a more specific answer I can try to find a copy and re-read it, or refresh my memory by reading excerpts or something. But I'll admit the prospect sounds a little tiring.
Barring that, I certainly remember it well enough to think that it's overall a horrible hack-job of a revisionist history, so...
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could you clarify why we're in proving-negatives land?
Statements such as "there is a strong leftist bias in our schools" come with a burden of proof that lies on those who are claiming that this bias exists and can be measured. That it exists stronger relative to examples of other biases in schools. Without any coherent demonstration of this, the statement is empty air. (well, not entirely empty air: as I described, it's at least helpful in indicating the biases of the claimant)
quote:Do you know how often A People's History of the United States is used as a textbook? My impression is: it's common.
But you have no actual data on which to test your impression that it is common, right? No knowledge that it has become district or state level curriculum anywhere? As just a 'hey look at this' impression in its own right, what do you think the odds are that its school readership matches up to or exceeds, as an individual example, the school readership of texas' conservative-adjusted statewide curriculum?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could you clarify why we're in proving-negatives land?
Statements such as "there is a strong leftist bias in our schools" come with a burden of proof that lies on those who are claiming that this bias exists and can be measured. That it exists stronger relative to examples of other biases in schools. Without any coherent demonstration of this, the statement is empty air. (well, not entirely empty air: as I described, it's at least helpful in indicating the biases of the claimant)
Oh okay, I see what you mean. Right, if I were doing that, you'd be correct.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Do you know how often A People's History of the United States is used as a textbook? My impression is: it's common.
But you have no actual data on which to test your impression that it is common, right? No knowledge that it has become district or state level curriculum anywhere? As just a 'hey look at this' impression in its own right, what do you think the odds are that its school readership matches up to or exceeds, as an individual example, the school readership of texas' conservative-adjusted statewide curriculum?
Umm, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you didn't hack out that one piece of my statement to intentionally misrepresent me.
But... to reiterate what I said above, I'm not asserting that this is the case. I was actually, genuinely, honestly asking if you knew. I explicitly stated I do not yet have any data to test this on, so I wish you wouldn't act like you're calling me out on not having said data.
I was asking if you knew because I've been digging a bit online, and haven't found any data, and this seems to be something you know a lot about. I thought maybe you'd have some idea of a good place to go to see overall assessments of curricula.
As for how it compares to Texas, well, I don't know, that's my whole point. And regardless, the terrible Texas initiatives were much like this Tennessee thing: a reaction to a perceived bias going the other way. And to cut you off early: I don't dispute that even if such a bias exists they went about the solution completely wrong.Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh okay, I see what you mean. Right, if I were doing that, you'd be correct.
You have made the claim, though. And been sold on fighting this narrative. And you come out in others fighting this narrative. It's the reason for the questions. You are (or were at least earlier in this thread) sold on the notion that there is not just a leftist bent in schools, but an intense leftist narrative, that it permeates most schools, and you described a clear and purposeful propagandist intent and effort on its part. This is extremely strong language. You have been sold on a narrative of a narrative, data (or lack of thereof) notwithstanding.
quote:But... to reiterate what I said above, I'm not asserting that this is the case.
I know. I'm using it as an example that you are bringing up as illustration — not 'look! look! see what you are doing??' — of when an impression arises in lieu of anything that can demonstrate the fact. Assuming not much real information about this scary leftist book's 'permeation' exists (not like I can find any myself), I can't say how one could argue for its widespread inclusion as a school resource. I can find pretty general data on McGraw Hill, Pearson, Harcourt, Houghton Mifflin, Core Knowledge, and other widely adopted history textbooks (mostly by trawling EBSCO) but nothing about district adoption or state adoption of this book. Even if it turns out to be demonstrably as rare as this lack of mention suggests, I can only be sure that the book has been and will continue to be used as a sure sign of widespread school leftism by many.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You almost have to admire their determination in the face of being so completely wrong.
In other news, Newt has basically pulled even with Romney in national polls, and with Florida looming (after an especially contentious back and forth last Monday), this thing looks more and more like a two-man race. It remains to be seen at what point Santorum realizes he's done and actually drops out. Maybe after Florida when he realizes that he can't win the big states or the conservative states, the two things he claims makes him most electable. I don't even know how he's hanging in with Florida while having almost no money or organization, but I think he'd be wise to drop out then. I expect Paul to stay in for months. I wonder where Santorum's not inconsiderable 10%+ flows after he drops out.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul will stay in the race until after the National Convention. Until that time, his supporters will insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that he will win the nomination and the election. After the convention, they will be convinced he lost because of an establishment conspiracy. They will insist he run as an independent or on a third party ticket. I think that's as certain as anything in politics ever is.
The only real question is whether Paul will choose to relent and run as an independent this time around.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Dan, have you read A People's History? What do you think they got wrong?
I read it about 12 years ago, so I can't really give you a blow-by-blow of everything that I think is wrong with it. Sorry.
If it's truly important to you to have a more specific answer I can try to find a copy and re-read it, or refresh my memory by reading excerpts or something. But I'll admit the prospect sounds a little tiring.
Barring that, I certainly remember it well enough to think that it's overall a horrible hack-job of a revisionist history, so...
I don't think re-reading is necessary. I am not sure, though, what you mean by "hack job" or "revisionist history". Did you find it inaccurate? Or merely one-sided? I could see one-sided but, as our teaching of history has been one-sided for generations, I think it is important to see the other side. I think that it is a valuable book and should be used in conjunction with more traditional history texts.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask: People don't understand Ron Paul's solutions because they don't understand economics.
No one actually understands economics. At its roots, economic theories are all theories about human behavior and there is no solid science for predicting how human's will behave. It's true that macro-economic theories are predicting the average behavior of groups, which is much easier than predicting the behavior of individuals, but there is still no proven reliable underlying principles to this science.
This is one area in which there truly is nothing approaching a consensus of experts in the field. There are at least a dozen different scholarly schools of economic thought. Economic schools differ both on the principals they use to model economies and in what they see as desirable economic outcomes. Within what is generally considered to be the mainstream of economics there is considerable disagreement about the the amount and kind of government economic regulation that is economically beneficial with some economist favoring Keynesian style government intervention and other favoring freer markets.
No economic theory can be fully supported with solid data because no economic theory has been truly tested in a proper controlled experiment. Even if real controlled economic experiments were possible, it wouldn't be ethical to take the risk. Because real world economies aren't controlled experiments, the data is always ambiguous. When deregulation contributes to a market failure, those who favor regulation can claim support for their theories, but since deregulation is never the only factor that changed, those who oppose regulation can dispute the conclusion. Political decisions are almost always a compromise between different sides, so what governments do is never quite what any economist would advise. That means that when government intervention fails, it's impossible to tell whether its because a particular economic theory was wrong or because the theory was not actually followed.
Ron Paul's economic theories fall on the very fringes of what can be considered main stream today. Ideas that are far more centrist than his have been heavily criticized by many leading economists. From my point of view, the biggest problem with Ron Paul's economic plan is that it is driven by ideology rather than data and sound models. Libertarians favor the free market primarily because it is consistent with their goal of minimizing government as a whole. All the data gets filtered through that lens making any objective assessment impossible.
Because no one really understands economics, any radical change in economic policy is going to be high risk. No one really knows exactly what would happen if we return to the Gold Standard for example. It's possible it could turn out good in the long wrong, but it could also be an unmitigated disaster.
The Precautionary Principal tells us that when there is no consensus among experts on whether a proposed action will cause harm, those who support the action have the burden of proving that the harm will NOT occur. This is something Ron Paul can not do.
[ January 25, 2012, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
There is an excellent Thread over at Something Awful about economics and the differences between "Keynes" (mainstream) and the Austrian School (non mainstream but the media/blogosphere places asa direct opposition to Keynes).
I believe that there actually is a fair degree of empirical data to support mainstream economic thought but I would have to reread.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Paul will stay in the race until after the National Convention. Until that time, his supporters will insist, despite all evidence to the contrary, that he will win the nomination and the election. After the convention, they will be convinced he lost because of an establishment conspiracy. They will insist he run as an independent or on a third party ticket. I think that's as certain as anything in politics ever is.
The only real question is whether Paul will choose to relent and run as an independent this time around.
I think you're exactly right.
I think in the end though, he'll be convinced not to run. I'm constantly on the fence over whether or not Paul is actually buying into his own hype, or realizes just how deluded his own fan base is. Sometimes he really seems to understand his own limitations, other times, when he says crap along the lines of 'I had no idea so many young people were interested in ending the Federal Reserve' just proves to me that he still doesn't understand the forces behind his popularity.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: There is an excellent Thread over at Something Awful about economics and the differences between "Keynes" (mainstream) and the Austrian School (non mainstream but the media/blogosphere places asa direct opposition to Keynes).
I believe that there actually is a fair degree of empirical data to support mainstream economic thought but I would have to reread.
Hmmm, to be accurate, current mainstream economic theories are neither Keynesian nor Austrian School. Both of those schools have had a strong influence on mainstream economic theories, but macro-economics has changed a great deal in the last half century and is no longer accurately described by either of those schools.
My point was, that even within the mainstream there are major controversies about principles and methodology. There is no consensus about the benefits or hazards of different types and levels of government intervention or the value of the free market. Some mainstream economists are far more favorable to Austrian school like laissez faire ideals while others lean much more towards Keynesian like approaches.
The point is that Economics is a field where appeal to any particular authority is a logical fallacy because there is no consensus among the authorities. And the problem isn't that mainstream economics does not rely on emperical data, its that the emperical data does not lend itself to one unambiguous interpretation -- it fits a variety of very different models roughly equally.
I'm certainly no expert in any macro-economic model, but I have done enough systems modelling to know the kind of features that result in unstable systems. Market systems have so many destabilizing features (like long lag times, non-linear responses, and positive feed back loops) that market volatility ought to be expected in the absence of external regulation.
I know that's a very superficial analysis and if someone with more economic expertise can explain what I'm missing that would dramatically change the system dynamics, I'd be happy to listen.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Keynesian concepts are kind of like proto-modern-economics. Economic theory and expanded business models in a world of interconnected trading everywhere all the time tested his stuff and found it lacking, and slowly morphed it into the current model.
The difference between the two is that keynes at least had a framework worth working on. Austrian economics has been defined repeatedly in living memory by the fact that it is fighting against its own obsolescence and abandonment by the working economic models of the world at large, which has either followed or was precipitated by its abandonment en masse by the vast majority of economic theorists. Like, ... per capita theorist. Or something.
Austrian economics is told to be a reasonably unsound theory. I have had economists on both sides of the american spectrum describe it as something that just had too many flaws and contraindications in general economic practice to have ever survived robustly (leaving it today as sort of an insular, dogmatic, circled-wagons entity), and of course on Something Awful they had scores of examples. I dunno. I guess just read SA.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Marx should be included in a class about the history of economics and every (at least macro-)economist should know what his main arguments were. His theory about capitalism actually influenced economic thought right up to Keynes. If anything, arguments about accumulation of capital causing the crisis are still being uttered and everyone should at least engage with the idea intellectually even if it seems to be wrong.
That being said, let's not pretend Marx's appeal had anything to do with the rigidity of his economic thought or that he is particularly useful in a contemporary context. He dressed up his economics as a morality play and his popularity mostly resided on his resonating message of liberation from 19th century work hell and the fact that his work is a blend of economics, pol. sci and sociology written in an eloquent way that makes you want to correct those evils at once. The influence of Marx has more to do with his messianic message rather than how rigid and correct his analysis was (it wasn't at all and to be honest it couldn't have been as crucial parts of mathematics that economists use today weren't all that well known at that point). Marx is/was popular because people want to believe that a system like the socialism he described is feasible in today's society.
quote: I think the simple distinction is this:
Keynesian economics is focused on soft concepts like demand as observed phenomenon. Keynesians talk about managing the economy, ultimately being a matter of managing the aggregated psychology of individuals to generally spend money, employ people, create new businesses etc.
Austrian economics is focused on metrics. Through metrics, models can be constructed that describe an ideal economy, and in particular how this ideal economy should theoretically self-regulate to maximise the aforementioned metrics. Austrian economists then observe, quite rightly, that over-regulation from the Keynesian perspective comes with its own set of costs. Austrian economists then allow themselves to be co-opted by politicians and advocate who believe that (a) these metrics are all that matters, and (b) therefore this market self-regulation should be the only force in the economy.
The fundamental problems with the austrians is that everything is built up from this first principles way, without actually acknowledging how important it is in the real world, and the fact that if you corner them, anyone sane will admit there are certain huge holes in their models of how markets ought to behave.
EDIT:
No, no, rational actors goes a lot further than that. Rational actor theory says essentially that people always act on all the information they have to maximise their expected benefit to themselves, where the expected benefit is some function that obeys certain rules, (e.g. earning more money is always better, etc etc) and that essentially all economic decisions are made that way.
quote:Austrians are a bit of a Poe's Law problem. It's almost impossible to make a caricature of them that is more extreme than what most of them are really like. But really, the important thing to note is that Austrians are fringe philosophy while Keynesians are the mainstream. However, that is referring to academia. There is almost an entirely separate discipline of business/political economists who you'll often find talked about on the net, and they distort the conversation.
For instance, many "internet trained" economics wonks, such as message board posters, will talk about things like Supply Side economics(Trickle-Down/Reaganomics) and the Laffer Curve as if they are real things that most economists respect, rather than something to get you laughed out of your department. That really distorts the conversation. There are a couple of serious academic economists on this board, and you can identify them by their attempts to post densely worded poo poo. However, I don't think they'll disagree with me that Keynesian macroeconomics is essentially mainstream. But to hear from conservative pundit economists, anyone who buys into Keynes is a crazy liberal spendaholic.
quote: I don't have the time to give more than the Cliff Notes version, I'm sure others can fill you in. They're all connected.:
The Laffer Curve: It is a graph without supporting data. The idea is that you graph tax rate and government revenu, and it shapes into an upside down U with single apex. This is silly because generally you design a line to fit the data, and it makes a number of baseless assumptions such as revenue being zero at both extremes(Zero and 100% taxation), that theres a single apex, or that the graph is even a curve. Basically it's complete and utter crap designed to forward an argument of lower taxation, and it's a good litmus test of whether someone knows anything about Economics. If they think it's a A Real Thing with a known shape, they are a moron, ignore them.
Say's Law: The idea that supply creates it's own demand. If that sounds like it doesn't make any sense, you're right, it doesn't. Even Say admitted later in his life that he was wrong, something is ignored by almost everyone who ever mentions it. It's also not a Law, because economics doesn't really have "Laws". That's just an attempt to make the profession sound more like physics than sociology. It is used to justify supply side economics, since giving the rich more money makes no sense if you know anything about diminishing marginal utility(you can only spend so much).
Supply side economics: The idea that you should give the rich tax cuts because it will pay for itself, thanks to the the rich having more money and apparently spending it. The other two points are used to support this, so it's already on a shakey foundation. It doesn't work because you can only spend so much. It ends up just concentrating wealth at the top. There is zero evidence that it works whatsoever and basically it hangs around because it benefits rich people and they can buy political representation. No respectable academic economics department in the country seriously advocates it, it is purely a theory supported by pundits and politicians. Many internet economists refuse to believe it's not basically a joke. due to that disconnect, but it really is.
quote:it's a mistake to consider the two as opposing but equally important ideologies. Keynsian is basically mainstream economics, and Austrians are basically a joke. The political debates are just to what extent we apply Keynsianism, nobody really argues that it works unless they're being disingenuous or really dumb.
posted
Yet another debate tonight, this time in Florida, where the Gingrich/Romney Catfight Roadshow seems likely to continue, with some carping from Santorum and a largely ignored Ron Paul as side dishes. It's funny, I thought with fewer candidates they'd actually get debates where the moderators could, you know, ask them genuine questions and get some good answers out of them. Instead it's just concentrated the vitriol into much more easily coopted and focused zones of control. It's actually remarkable how easy it is for the Media to get Romney and Gingrich to dance to their tune, and the Media has so much control over the process that both of them risk losing if they refuse to cooperate.
The bizarre part is that people think that's because the media is liberal, when in reality its because the media is a profit-driven corporation, with the GOP primary being the only bloodsport in town.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Easy Quoting Others Time: Romney made a good point - Gingrich is going from state to state, promising everything that that state ever wanted ("Hey Florida, how about a MOON BASE!!!!!") while simultaneously running on a ticket that's all about cutting spending / liberals spending too much.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gingrich was asked about the pledge that he made to voters on Florida’s Space Coast on Wednesday, “By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon,” he said. Gingrich also was asked about his idea of granting U.S. statehood to an American lunar colony.
I'd ask how are guys like him considered viable presidential candidates, but then I think of our current president...
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gently, sam was reminded that countries other than the united states exist. At first, he laughs. When he realizes it is not a joke, his smile disappears. "Are they having their republican primary too?" he asks. "What do you mean, they don't all speak american? How does that work?"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
People should ask Newt if he supports Puerto Rican statehood before lunar statehood. Puerto Rico is going to vote on a change of status plebiscite later this year, and it's expected to win a majority vote for statehood for the firs time, after which the GOP is likely going to block it.
On the whole though...I'll admit to being pleased with a president who is excited about space travel. I'd say he was pandering to Florida, but Newt has been starry eyed for decades on NASA. We don't have a ton of extra money right now, but a little goes long way at NASA. Even restoring funding levels from years ago could make Mars in a decade possible.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point is that Economics is a field where appeal to any particular authority is a logical fallacy because there is no consensus among the authorities.
Every field has ongoing academic dialog. That does not mean every viewpoint in the discipline is on equal footing. I used to use that line against climate change scientists.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah, if we'll elect a kenyan muslim, we'll elect anyone!
Umm,Since Corwin is French, I pretty sure was talking about Nicolas Sarkozy not Barack Obama.
We need little flags by everyone's names.
IP: Logged |
quote:The point is that Economics is a field where appeal to any particular authority is a logical fallacy because there is no consensus among the authorities.
Every field has ongoing academic dialog. That does not mean every viewpoint in the discipline is on equal footing. I used to use that line against climate change scientists.
I did not mean to say otherwise. Just as the existence of controversy does not make every viewpoint in the discipline on equal footing, the fact that all disciplines have some controversy does not make all disciplines equally controversial. Economics happens to be a very controversial field. If the controversies in climate science were the size of a basketball, the controversies in Economics would be the size of the moon.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, I would watch the hell out of a movie in which Nick Sarkozy and Newt Gingrich race to establish a moon colony.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes I've seen A Clockwork Orange. I wish I had not. If someone could watch the hell out of the movie, they'd be doing the world a great service.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To challenge people's thinking that Ron Paul is nuts, explain economic thinking in detail.
Economic knowledge is gained from apodictic a priori truths because experiment is virtually impossible since variables can't be isolated.
The precautionary principle referred to by the previous poster assumes that inaction results in less harm. With no evidence of this, it cannot be reasonably asserted that inaction is the best course of action. Inaction could be just as harmful or more harmful than action.
Posts: 338 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are some resources for the curious. "Choice in Currency" is an essay and should be a short read. The last one is a book. They detail some of the theory that I'm sure Ron Paul's ideas are based on. They make the case that competitive banking and competing currencies mitigate inflation.
posted
Actually, while I do think his economic theories are pretty wacky, they aren't what make him most unappealing to me as a candidate. His foreign policy, now, that would make it impossible for me to support him even if I drank his economic Kool-Aid.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? His foreign policy is the sanest thing going for him.
I'm not saying I support a return to total isolationism, but his opposition to the wars, his support for normalizing relations with Cuba and a few other policies are pretty damn solid, and a hell of a lot better than anything else the GOP has. Better than what a lot of Dems have too.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Except for the letting Iran having nukes thing, kinda iffy that. Even I feel the United States has a stake and a constructive role in the prevention of nuclear proliferation.
IP: Logged |
quote:Economic knowledge is gained from apodictic a priori truths because experiment is virtually impossible since variables can't be isolated.
Imagine you were explaining this to someone who is taking their absolute first day in their first economics class. How would you frame this economic hypothesis?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Except for the letting Iran having nukes thing, kinda iffy that. Even I feel the United States has a stake and a constructive role in the prevention of nuclear proliferation.
If only your friends in China and Russia felt the same way.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
