Any Other Leftists on T-Nation?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Sorry, I don’t understand. Is that first sentence sarcastic and the rest is something self evident? That really heightens my trust in economics.

No, it was not sarcastic. I am a physicist and I too had a problem with economics for the same reason you stated about observation. Observation relies on historical data and history never repeats itself when it comes to human interaction (as compared to revolving planets in the natural sciences, for example). Thus economics requires a different methodology for understanding its laws.

The Austrian method relies on axiomatics instead of observation. The premise is: man acts with purpose. Everything we understand about economics must be derived from the implications of this statement.

If you want more information you can PM me and I will send you some links.[/quote]

You are a sucker for anything aren’t you?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You are a sucker for anything aren’t you?
[/quote]
Not anything. Economic law has to be based on something. If you believe the Keynesians, Chicagoans, et al, then you rely on prophesy. This is untenable. Historical observations do not work for human action. There is no law that will determine how humans behave from one minute to the next.

No mathematician will ever develop an equation for human action.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Sorry, I don’t understand. Is that first sentence sarcastic and the rest is something self evident? That really heightens my trust in economics.

No, it was not sarcastic. I am a physicist and I too had a problem with economics for the same reason you stated about observation. Observation relies on historical data and history never repeats itself when it comes to human interaction (as compared to revolving planets in the natural sciences, for example). Thus economics requires a different methodology for understanding its laws.

The Austrian method relies on axiomatics instead of observation. The premise is: man acts with purpose. Everything we understand about economics must be derived from the implications of this statement.

If you want more information you can PM me and I will send you some links.[/quote]

Ok, I understand that and I will broaden my horizons with new material. I got the name, thank you. As of time being, I’m still unsure of how to control the parameter of purpose in a meaningful way. I can’t help of thinking about Henry Poincare and his three planets.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Sorry, I don’t understand. Is that first sentence sarcastic and the rest is something self evident? That really heightens my trust in economics.

No, it was not sarcastic. I am a physicist and I too had a problem with economics for the same reason you stated about observation. Observation relies on historical data and history never repeats itself when it comes to human interaction (as compared to revolving planets in the natural sciences, for example). Thus economics requires a different methodology for understanding its laws.

The Austrian method relies on axiomatics instead of observation. The premise is: man acts with purpose. Everything we understand about economics must be derived from the implications of this statement.

If you want more information you can PM me and I will send you some links.

[/quote]

You can easily attack Austrian economics by

a) Refuting the premises that are held to be a priori true or

b) show that the conclusions that are deducted from these premises are logically wrong.

That would earn you the Nobel prize for showing how much of the very foundation of modern economics is wrong.

However, I am afraid " You are a sucker for anything aren’t you?" will not do.

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
As of time being, I’m still unsure of how to control the parameter of purpose in a meaningful way.
[/quote]

The beauty of it is that purpose is always subjectively valued. This is what makes free markets work. We all value goods and services differently and thus we must cooperate to come to an agreement to make sure our own interests are met. This is ultimately what drives the betterment of society.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
As of time being, I’m still unsure of how to control the parameter of purpose in a meaningful way.

The beauty of it is that purpose is always subjectively valued. This is what makes free markets work. We all value goods and services differently and thus we must cooperate to come to an agreement to make sure our own interests are met. This is ultimately what drives the betterment of society.[/quote]

You sound like a feminist. That should be your warning signal, ability to explain everything. Run man, run! You are made of flesh and bone, goddammit. You need a slap in the face.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
LOL, Finland has been the epitome of deincentiviness for the last twenty years, hasn’t it? Nokia, Linux, Polar, Suunto? What comes to your comment that " for the individual to better himself it requires a high-regard for individual liberty". Think of alchemy. I like my liberty and welfare but I know it is not necessarily the best way or only way to raise up responsible t what you ehuman beings.

And if everyone in Finland sat around taking their welfare where would your Nokia, etc., be? Would you be better off if you did not have most of your income go to taxes and you could afford to invest in furthering your station in Finland or is welfare more important? Would you be good enough to donate some of that income to helping those less fortunate than you or have you been conditioned to wait for government intervention?[/quote]

Well, if everyone in Finland sat around you would never have heard about Nokia. Or Linux, for that matter. Otherwise, that was really incoherent what you wrote.

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Well, if everyone in Finland sat around you would never have heard about Nokia. Or Linux, for that matter. Otherwise, that was really incoherent what you wrote. [/quote]

Well, just be certain, your country was made by the free market not by government and welfarism. Nokia, et al, only exist because of the ingenuity of the individual spirit.

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
You sound like a feminist. That should be your warning signal, ability to explain everything. Run man, run! You are made of flesh and bone, goddammit. You need a slap in the face.[/quote]

I know no feminists that have been able to explain anything coherently. Maybe that is what you meant. :slight_smile:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You are a sucker for anything aren’t you?

Not anything. Economic law has to be based on something. If you believe the Keynesians, Chicagoans, et al, then you rely on prophesy. This is untenable. Historical observations do not work for human action. There is no law that will determine how humans behave from one minute to the next.

No mathematician will ever develop an equation for human action.
[/quote]

Yet your model is based on nothing and you take it as gospel. Quite funny.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
You are a sucker for anything aren’t you?

Not anything. Economic law has to be based on something. If you believe the Keynesians, Chicagoans, et al, then you rely on prophesy. This is untenable. Historical observations do not work for human action. There is no law that will determine how humans behave from one minute to the next.

No mathematician will ever develop an equation for human action.
[/quote]

I’m new here and already I see why people attack you.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The complexity lies in the fact that what you really want is not realistic.
[/quote]

No, sir. The complexity is that the solution to this problem cannot be reduced to simplified dogma…wheter that be from libertarians or statists. Do you really think that the world would be a better place (for everybody) if we just dismantled governments and let the market decide everything? Is it that simple?

[quote]
You want equality: there is no such thing.
You want fairness: life is not fair.
You want egalitarianism: this defies individual human intuition.

You cannot mandate these ideas because it requires theft and coercion which goes against our only natural right.

Government has no rights – only individuals do.[/quote]

Let’s see. I suppose the African slaves in this country should have just contented themselves with the words, “life is not fair”. Or for that matter, any other exploited people. Is that what you are saying?

Now, we live in a society of diverse people. Under extraordinary circumstances, people may need to resort to violence to counter their oppression; however, one would hope in normal circumstances that they could have recourse to some instrument to settle issues peaceably. That would be a role of government. No? Or do you propose that we return to the law of the jungle?

I am not going to argue that government is a wonderful thing. It’s not. It is a necessary evil. Unless you agree with Rousseau that people are fundamentally good (I don’t…by almost any definition of good) then there must be some mechanism in place to mediate between various groups. No?

Very few people are going to propose absolute egalitarianism. I am not. So please do not assume that just because I do want some fairness, some equality that I want everybody (no matter what their contribution or lack thereof) that I think everyone should be remunerated the same. I don’t think that.

By the way, do I believe in a command economy? No! I can understand how someone in the 19th century-based upon mechanistic determinism-might have believed that a rational economy, a planned economy might work…but it doesn’t. We have history to prove that and we now have complexity/chaos theory to demonstrate why that’s untenable. However, I think it is also folly to go to the opposite extreme and propose that the free market/laissez-faire is the solution to everything. We have a historical precedent for that as well. A lot of people suffered.

Regardless of what you or I think, people will revolt against oppression. Everybody wants to be treated fairly. That’s human nature. That’s not some idea I am imposing upon them. The problem is that with globalization, capital can just escape. The natives get angry over here, we just pull up and take our factory/work over there. Out the window goes worker’s rights, safety, healthy environmental practices, etc.

“Life is not fair”
–Jimmy Carter, Leftist

“Life is not fair”
–John F. Kennedy, Leftist

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
“Life is not fair”
–John F. Kennedy, Leftist[/quote]

It’s not fair. Who said it was supposed to be?

I don’t think the difference is that leftists think it is not fair, and conservatives do. The difference is that leftists think it’s government’s job to level the playing field, and conservatives see that this is not possible, and that all attempts to try and make it fair just make things worse for everyone.

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
The difference is that leftists think it’s government’s job to level the playing field, and conservatives see that this is not possible, and that all attempts to try and make it fair just make things worse for everyone.[/quote]

Bingo.

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
“Life is not fair”
–John F. Kennedy, Leftist

It’s not fair. Who said it was supposed to be?

I don’t think the difference is that leftists think it is not fair, and conservatives do. The difference is that leftists think it’s government’s job to level the playing field, and conservatives see that this is not possible, and that all attempts to try and make it fair just make things worse for everyone.[/quote]

And there is something I really do need to have explained to me.

Why do people on the left (or right these days) assume that all those greedy, selfish bastards would suddenly start to work for the common good (whatever that may be), if only they worked in a government with other peoples money instead of their own.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
Well, if everyone in Finland sat around you would never have heard about Nokia. Or Linux, for that matter. Otherwise, that was really incoherent what you wrote.

Well, just be certain, your country was made by the free market not by government and welfarism. Nokia, et al, only exist because of the ingenuity of the individual spirit.[/quote]

You really like to generalize. That what you wrote borders on absurd.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Yet your model is based on nothing and you take it as gospel. Quite funny.[/quote]

It isn’t a model – it is a method. A model is a representation based on observation that uses mathematics for predicative purposes. The entire point of the Austrian method is that it relies neither on observation nor mathematical models. Therein lies its power.

There are mathematical models for the physical sciences; there are no mathematical models for economics.

An analog of your argument would be to refute the entire branch of mathematics because it “is based on nothing” but axiomatics. Like mathematics, economics is based on simple, irrefutable axiom. That is the only comparison that can be made between the two distinct branches of knowledge.

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
Well, just be certain, your country was made by the free market not by government and welfarism. Nokia, et al, only exist because of the ingenuity of the individual spirit.

You really like to generalize. That what you wrote borders on absurd. [/quote]

All knowledge is generalization.