BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Whatever, player. You're not worth it.
.
Yeah, you only want to debate people who will laud your "intelligence". I know...
Your basic "premise" that taxes are theft shows just how far from reality your "ideas" are.
No, I'm interested in people that can use their brain. You're too scattered-brained. Sorry if it's genetic, but I'm not interested in your baloney.
Nice try. Just because you disagree doesn't make the ideas baloney.
And... for all your blather, I did predict several of the recent collapses. in at least one case, I posted here. (re the mortgage crisis, when Frigidus was posting about banks and manna... though that was only maybe a year before the "official" collapse, so not a real prediction).
Predictions that aren't real predictions? Oh boy.
I don't consider saying a collapse will happen six months before it actually fails to be much of a prediction, no.
But, hey, economic predictions go down to less than 10% accuracy just 2 years out, so...
PLAYER57832 wrote:See, economics is really just a measure of human behavior. Economic stats are really just various models for predicting behavior. But.. to get good information means having all of the pertinent factors. In this case, economists have gotten used to ignoring as superfulous a lot of things, becuase they did not seem to matter, because the thresholds of limits had not yet been reached in past years. Now, however we are reaching those thresholds.
That sums up some of the criticism of economics/econometrics from the Austrian Economists, Mises and Hayek. I agree with it, but I don't see how this is related to me or my position.[/quote]
Name it however you wish. It comes from knowing biology and the world around. No great mystery of economics, regardless of who wants to take credit for the concepts. Mises and Hayek probably put some type of quantification, but they did not create the ideas.
It relates because most of what I say falls into the category of stuff considered superfulous previously. Economists STILL largely want to dismiss the natural world -- you have repeatedly dismissed attempts at quantifying damage as just something too big to handle. Well.. in the past, things too big were taken as challenges, not excuses to continue misbehavior. In economics, its too often used as a cover for misbehavior.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Its sort of like if you want to understand how a deer population works, you look at large groups and more or less modes of behavior. If, however, you want to see what groups will survive a long series of blizzards, changing climate over time.. you need to look at specific data points that may not agree at all with the current norm.
Economists don't want to deal with the idea that their basic world is fundamentally changing. But.. it is.
Well, macroeconomics should be fundamentally changing, but it may not because that would be the end for their services. Microeconomics is still promising, and the research from
Neuroeconomics,
behavioral economics, and more is also promising.
The problem is that macro takes awhile to catch up and might be forever limited--much to the denial of the type of economics which the Federal Reserve System produces and reinforces.[/quote]
I think the problem is bigger and far more fundamental.
It starts with essentially the idea that putting a math equation to something automatically means that the prediction is "more real" than just basic common sense.
Its like that old joke, again, that a bed is the most dangerous place to be because more people die in bed. Except, in this case, its probably worse, because the real truth is that some beds actually are dangerous or some people may be more likely to die because they lie in bed (either for a physical /physiological reason or because, say there is a gas leak in the room or some such). If you stop with the "well, of course beds are not dangerous".. which is generally true, you miss the detail that its definitely not always true.
That's where the deer analogy comes in. The world economies are doing badly, but its not because of some great mystery that has to be solved, having to do with the Federal reserve or whatever. Sure, on the short term level they can make changes in the economic situation. BUT, the bottom line is that if you don't have people producing things in sustainable ways, ofr incomes that allow them to live reasonably and people generating crops and selling them for profit, without depending on huge government (other tax payer) subsidies, then those details you speak of just don't matter.
The root problem is that people at the top have managed to find yet another way to skim more and more from average people. This time, thrusting a lot of the responsibility for things ranging from worker pay to cleanup of messes onto other people, as if the government truly were some remote entity with its own money.
That doesn't mean we have to go totally socialistic. I agree with you when you say that people need motivation to work, that too much giving does engender a sense of entitlement. I disagree that its the middle and lower classes that have the biggest problem in that regard. I don't agree that motivating people means that its perfectly OK for a person to work 40 hours and still not be able to afford to rent a small house or apartment. I don't agree that most medical care is optional. Nor do I believe government ensuring those things happen are why the world systems are on the verge of crashing, again.
