IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Twitterpatted
Rather that try and prove or disprove economics,
I don't dispute that economics is a valuable discipline. What I take issue with is that it's not a Scientific Discipline.

when new evidence pops up that disproves something, like the Phillips Curve and the 1970's, economists try to explain it in terms of the original theory.
Friedman (and the Chicago Classic School) explains everything in terms of Monetary Policy and the Federal Reserve. The Keynesians explain everything in terms of government surpluses and deficits (pump-priming). The Supply Siders explian everything in terms of Tax Cuts. The Marxists explain everything in terms of Capital and Labour classes. The Phillips curve explains everything in terms of Supply and Demand (which by the way assumes perfect competition).

Now if you want to argue the strengths and weaknesses of these economic theories, I'd be happy to oblige. But don't try to pass the theories off as scientific. Each contains valuable information and is useful within certain limits, but using any of them to try to disprove possible Saudi complicity in the events surrounding 9/11 are a stretch.

Rather that try and prove or disprove economics, if you are correct, then all of the politicians in the Democratic and Republican parties are unscientific when they use economic theories to try and help along the economy.
Here comes the science? I should think that your rhetorical statement not only goes without saying, it's self-evident to anyone who knows anything about either (a) Politics; or (b) Economics.

Or let's put it in understandable terms. Let's say that the Republicrates and Democans are being scientific about their economic planks. How do you come up with the fact that an objective discipline like economics can come to opposite conclusions? Science proposes objectivity, yet subjectivity in the interpretation of the data is exactly why two seemingly paradoxical results can arise from economics.

Or to throw in the economic jokes: If you put three economists in a room, you'll wind up with four opinions.

Or was it the one where the best economists only have one arm? That way that can't be constantly waffling about On The Other Hand.


Amazing when I did a "The philosophy of science" search on Wikipedia,
And why is that an amazing fact? Does every graduate or undergraduate text automatically show up with an opinion on Wikipedia. I gave the link on Amazon, that's where you should start your investigation.

Actually the fact that it was in this particular book was incidental. The thing was that the book is merely a collection of famous and not so famous papers that deal with the Philosophy of Science. The one particular that I was dealing with was one by British scholar [link|http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/|Karl Popper]. The particular paper I cited was one of the most influential papers in the study of philosophy over the last 100 years. Special Note for the dense - Philosophy itself is not a Science, and in particular philosophies of science is not Science.

At any rate, whether you happen to stumble across Philosphy of Science, or not, the argument should on the surface (tabula rosa, so to speak), carry the day. Economists are in the business of taking various facts and using them to support their theories. Perhaps your problem is with the word "Pseudo"? Perhaps you think that I equate economics with Alchemy, Astrology, ESP, UFO's and all the sordid affairs. I'd note that each of these has some subjective value (at some level). Alchemy resulted in some discoveries (though none of them involved gold in the end).

But that's not really the level we are talking about "Pseudo". Popper's main concern was with the Freudians and the Marxians of the world (Psychology and Economics if you prefer). Present any sort of human behavior to one of these two types and they'll be more than happy to diagnose it (some sort of anal thing, or class type thing). If the facts don't fit their interpretation, then they simply meta level the fact, and explain it away. Sooner or later, the theories become irrefutable because they are proposed in such terms as refutation is not possible.

Yet I cannot help but feel that you are using it, and thus also abusing or citing it where it is inapplicable. Thus I can logically conclude that what you have said about the Saudis, using the simpler account, could possible be false or wrong in some way.
Weird convoluted logic if you ask me. Yes, what you are saying about the Saudi's could be correct. But it is not a scientific or mathematical formula. It enters into that dirty little world of things we like to call Politics, self-preservation, and yes even the economic motivation of greed.

But simply saying that the Saudis have a vested interest in the American economy (a point that I would cede), does not mean that they are not capable of performing actions which on the surface seem to be at odds with this economic motivation.

Indeed, if you want to be explicit about economics, you'd state it in terms of Profit (the great motivator). Profit as a microeconomic stimulus is much more well understood than the macroeconomic idea's of GNP. For one thing, GNP is an immeasurable concept as what constitutes Income, Imports, and Exports is purely an idea (an estimate per se). But the idea of profit is very measurable in the small.

Now, ask yourself, how does the Arab monarchy make and maintain profit for itself?
New ObPedanticSpellingFlame: twitterpated, twitterpate!
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
New Rediculous!!!
New Easy
It's gauge invariant.

You can change the basis of the economy without affecting anything. Just re-evaluate all the money. Local shock as the gauge propagates. Eventually everything settles back down to local trading.

So, just give everyone a one-time stake of 1 million disposable dollars.
-drl
New Either that, or make the leaf the new form of currency
And then engage in a campaign of deforestation to maintain it's value.
New No
A one-time massive pump of imaginary wealth. When people have imaginary wealth, they work like hell to increase it. Pumping a sudden shot of value into everyone's pocket would instantly stimulate the economy to do things of real worth - to make expensive things efficiently, for all the new millionaires to buy.

At the same time, completely scrap the current system of taxes - all of them, state local federal and sin. One tax for One People.

Rewrite the bottom line, change the mode of taxation.
-drl
New Bzzzz, sorry. You don't know jack about the Phillips curve. (new thread)
Created as new thread #164824 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=164824|Bzzzz, sorry. You don't know jack about the Phillips curve.]



"What's the use of saving life when you see what you do with it?" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"




[link|http://www.xormad.com:4096/district268|I am from District 268].
     a review of 911 by Matt Labash - (boxley) - (105)
         I shocked, shocked I tell you. - (mmoffitt)
         At least Moore's honest about his craft - (ChrisR) - (6)
             Moore? Honest? He had disclaimers? tell me moore -NT - (boxley) - (5)
                 He admits his craft has a purpose - (ChrisR) - (4)
                     It's a polemic - (deSitter)
                     Conservative AM talk radio station this morning - (lincoln) - (2)
                         As Ebert pointed out.. - (deSitter)
                         National Geographic has a POV - (ChrisR)
         Screw that. Where's *your* review? - (Silverlock) - (24)
             I will do my own review - (boxley) - (20)
                 What's your local theater? - (Silverlock) - (19)
                     problem, how do I explain to 5 other people - (boxley) - (18)
                         I'll donate another ticket for you... -NT - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                             guys, ITS A FRIGGIN MOVIE!!! not the second coming sheesh! -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                                 Just trying to reduce the number of your excuses -NT - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                     no excuses, I will watch it in the same way I watch all - (boxley)
                         Whatever. - (Silverlock)
                         I'll donate another ticket for you... That's 3. - (Ashton) - (12)
                             One from me, that's 4 - (broomberg) - (10)
                                 ROAD TRIP!!! -NT - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                     Thou sayest Well, - (Ashton)
                                 That works for me... - (ben_tilly) - (7)
                                     Seconded - (drewk) - (6)
                                         plastic pint bottles and cargo pants would work -NT - (boxley)
                                         Re: Seconded - (deSitter) - (1)
                                             Spent a whole night playing piano drunk once. - (admin)
                                         Sheesh. - (admin) - (2)
                                             A Fair question - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                 See the headlines now - (boxley)
                             wont be voting there, patriot and ashcroft still in place -NT - (boxley)
             Well, here's one - (inthane-chan) - (2)
                 you didnt use a debit card to pay for the tickey did you? -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                     What, you think I'm an idiot? - (inthane-chan)
         Tip from a Friend on what to do after seeing it. - (mmoffitt) - (3)
             Citoyens! Aux barricades! -NT - (deSitter)
             Re: Tip from a Friend on what to do after seeing it. - (deSitter)
             That is good -NT - (boxley)
         another review of Fahrenheit 9/11 - (Ashton) - (1)
             Made approx. 22 million this weekend as top-grossing movie - (tjsinclair)
         ..and another Weekly Standard-type 'exclusive' (new thread) - (Ashton)
         I agree with the concepts, but not the methods used by Moore - (orion) - (64)
             Norman, Norman - (Ashton) - (63)
                 Thus I say to you - (orion) - (62)
                     Oh, I do so wish to smack you, Norm - (Arkadiy) - (17)
                         Did you ever see Good Will Hunting? - (broomberg) - (16)
                             Re: Did you ever see Good Will Hunting? - (deSitter)
                             Not really - (orion) - (14)
                                 It is a matter of tunnel vision - (broomberg) - (13)
                                     Ironically, I disagree with you... - (ben_tilly) - (5)
                                         Figures - (broomberg) - (3)
                                             Depends how you define economics - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                                 The economic/philosophy term of "Utility" comes to mind. - (ChrisR) - (1)
                                                     Exactly - (ben_tilly)
                                         Sadly, I find your disagreement implicitly supports - (Ashton)
                                     All I ever asked - (orion) - (3)
                                         Hehe. Impeach Bush? - (broomberg)
                                         Logic is the path from assumptions to conclusion - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                             Verily I say, thou hast the Patience of Job.. or was that - (Ashton)
                                     I consider that a cmplement in a way - (orion) - (2)
                                         Enjoy - (broomberg)
                                         BTW - (n3jja)
                     That analysis assumes that Saudis are... - (ben_tilly) - (43)
                         Very well said -NT - (deSitter)
                         Nothing economics can't explain - (ChrisR) - (13)
                             For some value of "explain" -NT - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                 Not to belittle economics too much... - (ChrisR) - (1)
                                     ie.. it Is hard to belittle Econ____too much :-j -NT - (Ashton)
                             Yet ironically - (orion) - (9)
                                 Twitterpatted - (ChrisR) - (6)
                                     ObPedanticSpellingFlame: twitterpated, twitterpate! -NT - (jake123) - (1)
                                         Rediculous!!! -NT - (ChrisR)
                                     Easy - (deSitter) - (2)
                                         Either that, or make the leaf the new form of currency - (ChrisR) - (1)
                                             No - (deSitter)
                                     Bzzzz, sorry. You don't know jack about the Phillips curve. (new thread) - (orion)
                                 Norm throw all that crap out the window - (boxley) - (1)
                                     Sorry I'd rather earn a college degree - (orion)
                         Explain this behavior then - (orion) - (27)
                             The explanation is simple... - (ChrisR) - (5)
                                 Interesting theory - (orion) - (4)
                                     I see college has brought out your natural sophistry - (deSitter) - (1)
                                         Of course - (orion)
                                     Just look up the term you don't know - (ben_tilly)
                                     Big fish catch and release program. - (ChrisR)
                             you are missing a huge point - (boxley) - (18)
                                 The same way we trapped the French in the 1930's then? - (orion) - (17)
                                     where do you get this crap norm? - (boxley) - (16)
                                         Norm is at least half-right on this one - (ben_tilly) - (15)
                                             Been some stress through the years - (ChrisR) - (1)
                                                 True, but that doesn't make me much happier - (ben_tilly)
                                             banking panic had NOTHING to do with gold - (boxley) - (10)
                                                 You'd be wrong on the history of that - (ben_tilly) - (9)
                                                     try horses mouth - (boxley) - (8)
                                                         And how does this contradict what I said? - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                                             thought you were promoting gold as a cause, not effect - (boxley)
                                                         Yet again you are wrong - (orion) - (5)
                                                             ah, the educated fucktard raises his snout and brays - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                 Apples and Oranges - (orion)
                                                             Yeah, and who pays for it? - (inthane-chan) - (2)
                                                                 {{Shhhh!}} we're not sposed to know that. Bad for 'lections -NT - (Ashton)
                                                                 I know that - (orion)
                                             Perhaps Norm is all right? ;) - (orion) - (1)
                                                 Thank you, I learned something from that - (ben_tilly)
                             Blah - gotta hit STOP faster. - (Ashton)
                             Norman, Norman -n (new thread) - (Ashton)

When we check it out dem a brain it small. Seven time rise seven time will fall.
148 ms