Does this guy sound insane to you?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Dunder cannot ague against Austrian Economics because it is beneath him to actually read any theory and what he has been subjected to here in the forums he has summarily dismissed or just isn’t intelligent enough to understand.[/quote]
I was reading the works of Austrian economists back when you were still a communist, clown.
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
What makes his economics atrocious in your opinion?[/quote]
Paul’s economics - like that of many libertarians - try and apply Man to Economics, rather than applying Economics to Man. He is an ideologue whose economics ignore how human beings actually behave, versus how he would ilke for them to behave.
Paulnuts seem to be under some illusion that Paul had a chance to win in 2008 (he never did) and that he might be able to win in 2012 (his chances are actually worse now, despite the mathematically impossibility of thats statement).
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
From our perspective, people who do not subscribe to our absolute view of freedom are the insane ones.
Perspective is everything.[/quote]
There really is no such thing. We’ve discussed this before and your view of freedom does not exist on this planet. And if there were a such thing you’d probably be the first one to scream foul when someone bigger and badder than you took all your stuff.
Certainly Paul’s idea of freedom and yours are completely different.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
What makes his economics atrocious in your opinion?[/quote]
Paul’s economics - like that of many libertarians - try and apply Man to Economics, rather than applying Economics to Man. He is an ideologue whose economics ignore how human beings actually behave, versus how he would ilke for them to behave.
Applying Economics to man presupposes that man will act, across the globe in a uniform, homogeneous fashion. Following that, it will suppose that I value ends the same as you, that someone in China values ends the same as you. While their can be correlation no doubt, each man has different ends on his value spectrum, at which he seeks to satisfy the most urgent before all others. Including environmental conditions into this, Economics applying to man is at best a most inaccurate model. Now take into account that decisions are made based on this information and then the effects are disseminated to the population of a certain geographic location and you have overallocation of resources, bubbles, inflation. You name it.
The Austrian school does not say “under ideal circumstances man will do X”. People will make decisions once again, based on their individual need, and then form a conclusion whether that was the correct course of action or not. For example, my house is on fire, but I really want some Wendy’s. At the moment, I get wendy’s and in retrospect, determine, that was not the best course of action.
If you can think of specific arguments that you believe are faulty with the Austrian school, such as business cycle theory, inflation, etc, and how the current policies in keynesian/central economic planning are better suited, I would be a welcome audience. However, the current world economic crisis tends to bolster the notion that the adhered to methods have been wrong, and are exacerbating the problem to a greater degree.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Dunder cannot ague against Austrian Economics because it is beneath him to actually read any theory and what he has been subjected to here in the forums he has summarily dismissed or just isn’t intelligent enough to understand.[/quote]
I was reading the works of Austrian economists back when you were still a communist, clown.
[/quote]
So you’ve read some Austrian theory and have only proved that I am correct when I say you don’t understand it.
That’s not anything to be ashamed of. The epistemology of the Austria Method is not easy to to grasp for most people because we have been conditioned to think of man just as we do atoms so that we can erroneously impose mathematical models on him. It just doesn’t work and the Austrian School explains why.
So, what exactly have you read and why are your conclusions different than those who accept it?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Certainly Paul’s idea of freedom and yours are completely different.[/quote]
No, most libertarians agree that freedom is with respect to natural rights in that we want to be free from aggression, coercion, and theft – what we amass into one term called the nonaggression axiom.
Where we disagrees is on how to best to bring freedom about and the role of government in preserving natural rights.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
What makes his economics atrocious in your opinion?[/quote]
Paul’s economics - like that of many libertarians - try and apply Man to Economics, rather than applying Economics to Man. He is an ideologue whose economics ignore how human beings actually behave, versus how he would like for them to behave.
[/quote]
Actually, it seems to me that Austrian economics does the complete opposite. It is actually quite in tune with human nature in my opinion. It seems to me that the mainstream the problems you described above.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Paulnuts seem to be under some illusion that Paul had a chance to win in 2008 (he never did) and that he might be able to win in 2012 (his chances are actually worse now, despite the mathematically impossibility of thats statement).[/quote]
We certainly agree that Ron Paul’s chanced of becoming president are nearly, if not at, zero.
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
What makes his economics atrocious in your opinion?[/quote]
Paul’s economics - like that of many libertarians - try and apply Man to Economics, rather than applying Economics to Man. He is an ideologue whose economics ignore how human beings actually behave, versus how he would like for them to behave.
[/quote]
Actually, it seems to me that Austrian economics does the complete opposite. It is actually quite in tune with human nature in my opinion. It seems to me that the mainstream the problems you described above.[/quote]
Agreed, I think TB has it backwards.
Unfortunately, agreed again.
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
Ron Paul’s chanced of becoming president are nearly, if not at, zero.
[/quote]
I think they’re less than zero. If every republican candidate in the race were to leave the race for some reason and Paul were the only choice there would be talk of drafting a good republican Governor or two. You see, no one wants Paul but the very fringe. And when you get among the very fringe and only hear their loud voices you start to think that they represent everyone.
Be thankful that this is not you.
I guess every one of Paul’s constituents in his Texas congressional district must be on the fringe. Must be a good place to live.
After thinking about Ron Paul’s candidacy I’ve come to the conclusion that he is the absolute antithesis of a good candidate. Given every important characteristic of a good candidate Paul is in fact the opposite.
From age and vocal tone, to looks and even power base (congressman). He is the antithesis of a good candidate.
There I said it.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
After thinking about Ron Paul’s candidacy I’ve come to the conclusion that he is the absolute antithesis of a good candidate. Given every important characteristic of a good candidate Paul is in fact the opposite.
From age and vocal tone, to looks and even power base (congressman). He is the antithesis of a good candidate.
There I said it.[/quote]
Maybe the establishment’s idea of what a “good candidate” is is just wrong?
And while we are on it, every other Republican candidate (besides Ron Paul) is the antithesis of morality.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I guess every one of Paul’s constituents in his Texas congressional district must be on the fringe. Must be a good place to live.[/quote]
Yeah, that’s quite a district. Ron Paul got about 46,000 votes the last time he ran. Forty-six thousand people voted for Ron Paul. Which by the way is one of the reasons that Congressmen do not get elected to the Presidency (which I’ve already pointed out). They just flat out do not have a large enough base of support. Mst major cities how many people turn out to vote for the Mayor? One million or so? Heck even in a mid sized city you get at least 50,000 turning out to vote for a Mayor.
Thanks for bringing this up.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
After thinking about Ron Paul’s candidacy I’ve come to the conclusion that he is the absolute antithesis of a good candidate. Given every important characteristic of a good candidate Paul is in fact the opposite.
From age and vocal tone, to looks and even power base (congressman). He is the antithesis of a good candidate.
There I said it.[/quote]
Maybe the establishment’s idea of what a “good candidate” is is just wrong?[/quote]
You are so focused on being anti “establishment” that you just throw that in when it doesn’t even apply. How does someone get elected? By the people, the people choose. They look at who is up for election and then they make a choice. So in this instance using the word “establishment” is just inappropriate. The people DO NOT want Ron Paul. They wish he would just sit down and shut up. (nodding head) Yeah…they do.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yeah, that’s quite a district. Ron Paul got about 46,000 votes the last time he ran. Forty-six thousand people voted for Ron Paul. Which by the way is one of the reasons that Congressmen do not get elected to the Presidency (which I’ve already pointed out). They just flat out do not have a large enough base of support. Mst major cities how many people turn out to vote for the Mayor? One million or so? Heck even in a mid sized city you get at least 50,000 turning out to vote for a Mayor.
[/quote]
Yes, unfortunately true.
[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
Actually, it seems to me that Austrian economics does the complete opposite. It is actually quite in tune with human nature in my opinion. It seems to me that the mainstream the problems you described above.[/quote]
-
Inadequate accommodation for market failures
-
Inadequate accommodation for monopolistic distortions
-
Inadequate accommodation for externalities of environmental problems (and catastrophes)
-
Inadequacy of the gold standard for modern economies
-
General inadequacies are predicated on failing to see that individuals are not homo economicus but instead members of communities that don’t view every aspect of life as an economic transaction
-
General inadequacies invite disgruntled people who have to deal with 1-4 to vote in something far worse, thus the ideological extremism of the Austrian dogma actually acts as the handmaiden of socialism
Some things I like about Austrain economics - the cautionary tale of malinvestment is one of its real strengths - but it is a dogmatic ideology that fails to recognize people as anything other than consumption-bots. They aren’t, and when you try and cram a system down their throats that treats them as such, they actualy begin to act outside of the very “rationality” Austrian economics assumes they have. Application of the dogmatic theory explodes the very assumption the models are founded on.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Thanks for bringing this up. [/quote]
And I used to live near Paul’s district. Paul isn’t exactly unanimously considered a local hero.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
After thinking about Ron Paul’s candidacy I’ve come to the conclusion that he is the absolute antithesis of a good candidate. Given every important characteristic of a good candidate Paul is in fact the opposite.
From age and vocal tone, to looks and even power base (congressman). He is the antithesis of a good candidate.
There I said it.[/quote]
Maybe the establishment’s idea of what a “good candidate” is is just wrong?[/quote]
You are so focused on being anti “establishment” that you just throw that in when it doesn’t even apply. How does someone get elected? By the people, the people choose. They look at who is up for election and then they make a choice. So in this instance using the word “establishment” is just inappropriate. The people DO NOT want Ron Paul. They wish he would just sit down and shut up. (nodding head) Yeah…they do.
[/quote]
They don’t want Ron Paul and they simultaneously quit going to the election booths. So they may not Ron Paul but they don’t “want” anyone else, either. The numbers don’t lie.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
- Inadequate accommodation for market failures[/quote]
Which specific falures are you talking about?
Are you talking about the only monopolies that exist which are created by government?
Uhhhh…insurance.
That’s because gold has always been money and no amount of hand waving by Keynesians will change that. If gold weren’t any good as an exchange medium it would never have been used in the first place. If gold were worthless as an exchange medium it would not get more expensive with respect to the dollar it would get cheaper.
Dude, the Austrians wrote the book on this very thing. You are a liar if you say you have read any Austrian theory and still believe what you wrote. Every action is economics. You may not get it but that doesn’t make it less true.
Hahahaha! Oh, I see your logic: “I don’t understand it therefore it just makes socialism seem more plausible.”
You fail!