Conservative schools Sisyphus on Economics

[Sisyphus]

Let the lesson begin ...

 

[Sisyphus]

Bump ^

 

[imagep]

I guess no one is looking for an education from a self proclaimed extremist. But don't let that stop you.

 

[Gipper]

Explaining economics to a hyper-liberal is like training a toy poodle to fly.

 

[imagep]

Explaining economics to a hyper-liberal is like training a toy poodle to fly.

Explaining economics to anyone who has chosen a particular ideological club is like that. Doesn't matter if it is far left or far right.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Explaining economics to anyone who has chosen a particular ideological club is like that. Doesn't matter if it is far left or far right.

That's the rub. Most approach macro economics with an outcome in mind rather than trying to understand how an economy works and then trying to leverage that knowledge to its best advantage...

 

[Sisyphus]

Explaining economics to a hyper-liberal is like training a toy poodle to fly.

It's alive!!! My schooling begins.

Now then, once we've done a semester on rhetoric, when might my schooling on economics begin?

TIA

-S

 

[Gipper]

Explaining economics to anyone who has chosen a particular ideological club is like that. Doesn't matter if it is far left or far right.

Ideology doesn't matter. You can be an anarchist or a totalitarian - economics doesn't change.

The most socialist economic systems of years past have failed and been subject to hyperinflation, as I've stated on other threads - 70s Chile under Allende, 80s Eastern European blocs, Central America under Sandanista influence. They've all been command economy flops where you could wake up any day and watch your money not be worth the paper it's written on.

While some people talk about going back in time and killing baby Hitler, I talk about going back and killing baby Roosevelt. His New Deal was arguably the most damaging framework this nation has ever seen. Problems arise when people don't realize that you can make a real mess of things when you break out the Keynesian techniques, because they are nothing more than short-term solutions. However, they never use them as such. They want to use short-term solutions on long-term problems, then bitch and wonder why the recipe is flawed beyond recognition.

Today's tax-and-spend crowd need to be lined up and shot.

 

[imagep]

Ideology doesn't matter. You can be an anarchist or a totalitarian - economics doesn't change.

In theory, you should be correct.

However, obviously, no two people with different ideologies seem to agree on many economic topics.

The most socialist economic systems of years past have failed and been subject to hyperinflation, as I've stated on other threads - 70s Chile under Allende, 80s Eastern European blocs, Central America under Sandanista influence. They've all been command economy flops where you could wake up any day and watch your money not be worth the paper it's written on.

Well there you go. You are claiming that socialism causes hyperinflation, others claim it is the printing of too much money, some claim that it is restrictions or reductions in the production or availability of goods. All depends on your ideology what you want to blame hyperinflation on.

While some people talk about going back in time and killing baby Hitler, I talk about going back and killing baby Roosevelt. His New Deal was arguably the most damaging framework this nation has ever seen. Problems arise when people don't realize that you can make a real mess of things when you break out the Keynesian techniques, because they are nothing more than short-term solutions. However, they never use them as such. They want to use short-term solutions on long-term problems, then bitch and wonder why the recipe is flawed beyond recognition.

Today's tax-and-spend crowd need to be lined up and shot.

There are a lot of tax and spenders who would suggest that they get medals, and that anyone who doesn't understand there position is ignorant about economics.

The truth is rarely found at either extreme, it's usually somewhere in the middle.

 

[head of joaquin]

Ideology doesn't matter. You can be an anarchist or a totalitarian - economics doesn't change..

You've already failed Econ 101, since economics isn't a hard science but embedded in political systems and their goals. While it has a large empirical element, it also is divided among schools of thought as to the goals of economic policy. There's a reason why you don't have "schools" of physics, but you do have schools of economic theory. And that's because economic theory not only involved empirical data, but social goals.

Jesus, it's like trying to get a toy poodle to fly or something.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

You've already failed Econ 101, since economics isn't a hard science but embedded in political systems and their goals. While it has a large empirical element, it also is divided among schools of thought as to the goals of economic policy. There's a reason why you don't have "schools" of physics, but you do have schools of economic theory. And that's because economic theory not only involved empirical data, but social goals.

Jesus, it's like trying to get a toy poodle to fly or something.

There are differing schools of thought on physics and aspects of physics.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Watching you guys debate economics is like watching fat ladies in a beauty contest.

 

[Captain Adverse]

You've already failed Econ 101, since economics isn't a hard science but embedded in political systems and their goals. While it has a large empirical element, it also is divided among schools of thought as to the goals of economic policy. There's a reason why you don't have "schools" of physics, but you do have schools of economic theory. And that's because economic theory not only involved empirical data, but social goals.

Jesus, it's like trying to get a toy poodle to fly or something.

WOW! I almost actually agree with you on this! :shock: LOL.

I keep trying to explain to "economists and statisticians" who's "theories" of wages, inflation, money systems, etc. fall hand in hand with propaganda that economic special interests and our government are trying to push is only a form of "polical science," not "hard science." Of course, they argue by pulling out pie charts and graphs and trying to baffle people with their particular brand of B/S. They fail to acknowledge the fact that these are merely constructs created to support whatever crap they are trying to push this year.

 

[Gipper]

You've already failed Econ 101, since economics isn't a hard science but embedded in political systems and their goals. While it has a large empirical element, it also is divided among schools of thought as to the goals of economic policy. There's a reason why you don't have "schools" of physics, but you do have schools of economic theory. And that's because economic theory not only involved empirical data, but social goals.

Jesus, it's like trying to get a toy poodle to fly or something.

In capitalist society, there is one school because there is one goal - profit. You can sit there and wax philosophical and vomit all the Marxist rhetoric you want - it still doesn't change the fact that you're dead wrong. Leftist economics is more of a belief system with levers and pulleys than any sort of results-based groundwork.

Failed Econ 101? I have a piece of paper in a frame that states otherwise. I was learning all of this stuff while you were cruising Daily KOS and getting brainwashed into hating people better and smarter than yourself.

 

[Sisyphus]

In capitalist society, there is one school because there is one goal - profit. You can sit there and wax philosophical and vomit all the Marxist rhetoric you want - it still doesn't change the fact that you're dead wrong. Leftist economics is more of a belief system with levers and pulleys than any sort of results-based groundwork.

Failed Econ 101? I have a piece of paper in a frame that states otherwise. I was learning all of this stuff while you were cruising Daily KOS and getting brainwashed into hating people better and smarter than yourself.

Commie Card. Ergo, epic fail.

 

[Gipper]

Commie Card. Ergo, epic fail.

It's not a fail when the shoe fits. Marxists need to stay in the Philosophy forum and never the Economics forum, since Marx was a philosopher, not an economist.

 

[Sisyphus]

It's not a fail when the shoe fits. Marxists need to stay in the Philosophy forum and never the Economics forum, since Marx was a philosopher, not an economist.

Repeating an epic fail, is a fail on a level that no word can describe.

 

[solletica]

The best economic system is a pure free market where all voluntary transactions are allowed and all theft is banned, including retroactively, i. e. all monies/resources acquired by theft must be returned to their rightful owners. . .

. . .as is clearly apparent, most conservative oppose free markets, as the concept is incompatible w/their (childish) bigotries

 

[solletica]

In capitalist society, there is one school because there is one goal - profit.

False. Free markets only entail permitting all voluntary transactions and banning theft. The profit motive is optional.

 

[solletica]

Watching you guys debate economics is like watching fat ladies in a beauty contest.

?

vs.

 

[imagep]

WOW! I almost actually agree with you on this! :shock: LOL.

I keep trying to explain to "economists and statisticians" who's "theories" of wages, inflation, money systems, etc. fall hand in hand with propaganda that economic special interests and our government are trying to push is only a form of "polical science," not "hard science." Of course, they argue by pulling out pie charts and graphs and trying to baffle people with their particular brand of B/S. They fail to acknowledge the fact that these are merely constructs created to support whatever crap they are trying to push this year.

Conservatives often explain economics based upon the way that they think it should work, not the way that it actually does work.

 

[Kushinator]

Conservatives often explain economics based upon the way that they think it should work, not the way that it actually does work.

Yes!

Normative rants that lack positive support.

 

[head of joaquin]

There are differing schools of thought on physics and aspects of physics.

No, there aren't. They are competing theories that are testable. Not differing schools of physics. There is only one physics and its goal is understanding the physical universe and it has one method -- the scientific method. It has no other agenda. Economics, however, differ as to goals and methods.

 

[head of joaquin]

WOW! I almost actually agree with you on this! :shock: LOL.

I keep trying to explain to "economists and statisticians" who's "theories" of wages, inflation, money systems, etc. fall hand in hand with propaganda that economic special interests and our government are trying to push is only a form of "polical science," not "hard science." Of course, they argue by pulling out pie charts and graphs and trying to baffle people with their particular brand of B/S. They fail to acknowledge the fact that these are merely constructs created to support whatever crap they are trying to push this year.

Propaganda is too strong a word. Economics is a human science with a lot of hard science involved (like statistics and various measurements). But unlike a hard science the schools of economics disagree on goals and methods. So it has a political content.

 

[head of joaquin]

In capitalist society, there is one school because there is one goal - profit. You can sit there and wax philosophical and vomit all the Marxist rhetoric you want - it still doesn't change the fact that you're dead wrong. Leftist economics is more of a belief system with levers and pulleys than any sort of results-based groundwork.

Failed Econ 101? I have a piece of paper in a frame that states otherwise. I was learning all of this stuff while you were cruising Daily KOS and getting brainwashed into hating people better and smarter than yourself.

Saying simplistic things doesn't really make you look anything other than simplistic. There are lots of economic disagreements in our society and the idea that only goal of economics is profit is rather silly, even for you.