Crying "racist" has jumped the shark.

[Greoric]

The irony in your statements is classic. You're insulting me because I disagree with you while at the same time saying that I'm offended because you disagree.

This is a pattern with you: You get into a discussion, and you can only go a post or two before you devolve into childish insults and strawmen. Try a little more logos and a little less pathos.

Of course. The only topic he felt he had a substantial hold over was economics, but then he discovered the theory he held all his faith in was the stuff of leprechauns and unicorns.

We all just need to give him some time to grieve. He just has a lot of dissonance going on right now.

 

[SMEAC]

Of course. The only topic he felt he had a substantial hold over was economics, but then he discovered the theory he held all his faith in was the stuff of leprechauns and unicorns.

We all just need to give him some time to grieve. He just has a lot of dissonance going on right now.

Good god man you are going to crash the jackbot's operating system

 

[Dayman1984]

See other posts "they've taken the teeth out of the word racism" etc. That's the problem they've created. They want us to believe that mean looks (which may or may not have been caused by an eye itch) are racism. They want me to believe that my kids are racist without even knowing it, because they hang out with white people all day. The word has been hijacked entirely, it's almost a joke now. Every time I hear it my eyes roll, because I 90% know what's coming. Some unsubstantiated whiny bullshit with a hashtag.

They stole the word and have cried wolf a million times. At this point we need a new word for the real thing. You can't use the same word for lynchings as you do for delusional BS.

Well you make some solid points to be honest. It's sad that the ugly and depressing thing that is racism might be ignored because of how overused the term is.

 

[Thames]

Even worse. There are posters in here that admit to still being Keynesians despite it being thrown in the trash bin of economic theories back in the 70s.

Lol
This is an unhealthy obsession by now. Are you stalking JVS around 24/7 after he has repeatedly smacked you around? Just waiting for an opportunity to desperately throw a tantrum.

So Austrian economics got 2 journals, where their theories are still used: The quarterly journal of Austrian economics, which was created in 1999 as a desperate attempt to make AE relevant again, and is now managed by the Mises Institute.
So actually only one academic journal uses AE: The review of Austrian economics. That is it. ONE journal. Which is ranked 654...

Meanwhile, there are thousands of real economic journals today that still use Keynesian theories. That obviously includes all the top ranking economic journals like: The Quarterly Journal of Economics, American Economic Review, Econometrica, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization etc. all still regularly publishes journals that use Keynesian theories.

That's not even touching upon the fact that your line of thought, does not just oppose Keynesian theories. It pretty much opposes every other (relevant) economic school of thought in place today.
Mainly because your school of thought rely on praxeology and on hypotheses that are otherwise impossible to test. This means that AE does not meet the required standards for economic analysis today.

That you are this much in denial is quite scary. How hard is it for you to look for information outside your cult blogs?

 

[Jack V Savage]

The irony in your statements is classic. You're insulting me because I disagree with you while at the same time saying that I'm offended because you disagree.

There's no irony at all, unless you don't understand the discussion. I'm not insulting you because you disagree with me (I noted your lack of intelligence because you made a statement that even you have to admit--upon reflection--was pretty dumb), and you said that you can't continue a discussion with someone who thinks you're ignorant. I said nothing like that. I expect that the person disagreeing with me thinks that they know something I don't.

This is a pattern with you: You get into a discussion, and you can only go a post or two before you devolve into childish insults and strawmen. Try a little more logos and a little less pathos.

Er, you said this:

"The differences between dexterity are practical. To imply that black people are like left handed people is offensive in that you are suggesting a physiological difference." in response to my point that righties are at an advantage.

That's not even touching upon the fact that your line of thought, does not just oppose Keynesian theories. It pretty much opposes every other (relevant) economic school of thought in place today.

One of the ways you can tell an AE cultist isn't educated outside of AE propaganda blogs is that they call everyone else "Keynesians."

 

[dontsnitch]

What's worse than someone who's condescending, is someone who is condescending but pretends not to be.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What's worse than someone who's condescending, is someone who is condescending but pretends not to be.

Where do I say I'm not condescending? I don't think you're smart. Sue me. I'm not actively trying to insult you (and saying you don't know something that you don't know isn't an insult), but condescending is certainly fair. My point, again, was that if noticing your ignorance is somehow out of bounds, you're not going to be able to learn anything or generally have a discussion with someone who doesn't already agree with you.

And my point in the substantive portion of the discussion (before you decided to get pissy) was that saying that certain groups are privileged is not racist by any reasonable definition of the term. White high-school dropouts are about as wealthy on average as black college graduates. Blacks and whites with the same incomes have vastly different average wealth levels. Why? Intergenerational wealth transfers, which is something that has persisted since there were significant legal hurdles to blacks acquiring wealth. There are many other ways you can see privilege in action. White names are more likely to get interviews on otherwise identical resumes. Blacks and whites have similar rates of drug use but vastly different rates of incarceration for it. Etc. I get that it somehow hurts your feelings for people to point out what should be very obvious, but that doesn't make it racist.

 

[dontsnitch]

I don't like having conversations with people that are rude and dishonest.

 

[StannisTheMannis]

jump the shark has jumped the shark

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't like having conversations with people that are rude and dishonest.

Me neither. And I don't just call people dishonest because they're smarter than me. There are few behaviors lower than questioning a man's honesty without even backing it up.

 

[Greoric]

Lol
This is an unhealthy obsession by now. Are you stalking JVS around 24/7 after he has repeatedly smacked you around? Just waiting for an opportunity to desperately throw a tantrum.

So Austrian economics got 2 journals, where their theories are still used: The quarterly journal of Austrian economics, which was created in 1999 as a desperate attempt to make AE relevant again, and is now managed by the Mises Institute.
So actually only one academic journal uses AE: The review of Austrian economics. That is it. ONE journal. Which is ranked 654...

Meanwhile, there are thousands of real economic journals today that still use Keynesian theories. That obviously includes all the top ranking economic journals like: The Quarterly Journal of Economics, American Economic Review, Econometrica, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization etc. all still regularly publishes journals that use Keynesian theories.

That's not even touching upon the fact that your line of thought, does not just oppose Keynesian theories. It pretty much opposes every other (relevant) economic school of thought in place today.
Mainly because your school of thought rely on praxeology and on hypotheses that are otherwise impossible to test. This means that AE does not meet the required standards for economic analysis today.

That you are this much in denial is quite scary. How hard is it for you to look for information outside your cult blogs?

Its a good thing objective conclusions aren't the result of popularity contests then.

Instead of writing it out again, here's what I discussed with Upa (whom actually agreed to an extent) concerning macro economics as a "science":

The best we can do [concerning macro theory] is compare and contrast case studies. Though that's hardly an objective way to get statistically significant conclusions given the impossible task of controlling for confounding variables or having anything greater than a sample size of one for any given variable set.

Hence this why I appreciate the deductive methodology when it comes to macro theory. Do I think that's superior to a study that appropriately applies both control and experimental groups? Absolutely not, but trying to make inductive conclusions by "winging it" gives a much more distorted understanding.

 

[RubberGuard5]

Blacks and whites with the same incomes have vastly different average wealth levels. Why? Intergenerational wealth transfers, which is something that has persisted since there were significant legal hurdles to blacks acquiring wealth.

What would be the solution to this?

 

[superpunch]

The funny thing is that everyone who accuses you of being racist is the biggest racist in the world themselves.

I always ask them: "Do you believe that dutch men are on average 6'1" tall and that Chinese men are on average 5'6" tall?"

If they say yes, they're 100% racist. And I rub it in their faces that they're racists. They can't stand being outed as a hypocritical racist.

If they say no, they're denying an obvious fact. And I rub it in their faces that they've let devotion to an ideology brainwash them. They're ideologues like a religious extremist is.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What would be the solution to this?

There's not just a single one. You can probably imagine a lot. I'd prefer much higher estate taxes and I'm coming around on tuition-free public colleges (which obviously benefits everyone--not just blacks).

 

[Thames]

Its a good thing objective conclusions aren't the result of popularity contests then.

Instead of writing it out again, here's what I discussed with Upa (whom actually agreed to an extent) concerning macro economics as a "science":

The best we can do [concerning macro theory] is compare and contrast case studies. Though that's hardly an objective way to get statistically significant conclusions given the impossible task of controlling for confounding variables or having anything greater than a sample size of one for any given variable set.

Hence this why I appreciate the deductive methodology when it comes to macro theory. Do I think that's superior to a study that appropriately applies both control and experimental groups? Absolutely not, but trying to make inductive conclusions by "winging it" gives a much more distorted understanding.

Ahh, the infamous Galileo complex is in in effect I see.

This is going off topic. I just once again want to remind you that your understanding of economics is very low.

What modern economists do when studying macroeconomics is using 1: macroeconomic aggregates e.g. GDP, price indexes etc. 2: mathematical models and other econometrics. Austrian economics rejects both.
Certainly, making quantitaive testing and predictions from empirical data and mathematical models is a difficult task. But just because it hard does not mean that A: it should then be rejected, and certainly not B: that mindlessly subjecting economic analysis to the methodology of a priori heuristics, then becomes a valid alternative.

I don't even know what to make of your last sentence. If I didn't know better, I would think that I'm being trolled. Are you actually accusing the economists who use empirical data, econometrics and mathematical models of being the ones who are "winging it"?. Not the austrian "economists" who by the nature of praxeology, claim that verification of assumptions is irrelevant?

 

[Greoric]

This is going off topic. I just once again want to remind you that your understanding of economics is very low.

What modern economists do when studying macroeconomics is using 1: macroeconomic aggregates e.g. GDP, price indexes etc. 2: mathematical models and econometrics. Austrian economics rejects both.
Certainly, making quantitaive testing and predictions from empirical data and mathematical models is a difficult task. But just because it hard does not mean that A: it should then be rejected, and certainly not B: that mindlessly subjecting economic analysis to the methodology of a priori heuristics, then becomes a valid alternative.

I don't even know what to make of your last sentence. If I didn't know better, I would think that I was being trolled. Are you actually accusing the economists who use empirical data, econometrics and mathematical models of being the ones who are "winging it"?. Not the austrian "economists" who by the nature of praxeology, claim that verification of assumptions is irrelevant?

Sure sure. Just remember I wasn't the one that supposed some service with inelastic demand necessitates that its distributed more efficiently with a compulsory funded monopoly.

By the way, you don't understand the last sentence because you don't understand the scientific method and how its incompletely and inappropriately applied to current economic models used by central banks and academia alike.

 

[lifelessheap]

I guess it feels good for racists to talk to other racists about how it feels good to not give a fuck about being called a racist!

Here is what he said:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Ok, so he assumes some are good people so all good! It's possible he isn't racist and is just trying to get racist vote (a major voting block for Republicans) but give me a break guys.

I live in Northern California in the Central Valley. I am surrounded by farms and agriculture and thus, I am surrounded by shit loads of illegal Mexican immigrants. In my town an illegal was found raping a 14 year old girl. He had been raping her for years it turns out, but the family didn't know. He fled to Mexico when he was found out. He returned the next year and used a shotgun to blow the girls head off.

Now for me, I've been attacked by a gang of scumbag Nortenos. It wasn't fun. There are constant murders from illegals all the time. But I guess it is racist to point that out.

 

[RubberGuard5]

There's not just a single one. You can probably imagine a lot. I'd prefer much higher estate taxes and I'm coming around on tuition-free public colleges (which obviously benefits everyone--not just blacks).

Realistically, that won't work. At least, it will not make these groups even. You will improve the life of blacks, but any policy or compensatory program you implement will be used by other groups ( those with a higher starting point) more efficiently. You'll maybe even increase the difference in group averages. It's basic Matthew effect.

To decrease the difference in averages, you'll need to prevent one group from developing.

 

[Greoric]

Where do I say I'm not condescending? I don't think you're smart. Sue me. I'm not actively trying to insult you (and saying you don't know something that you don't know isn't an insult), but condescending is certainly fair. My point, again, was that if noticing your ignorance is somehow out of bounds, you're not going to be able to learn anything or generally have a discussion with someone who doesn't already agree with you.

And my point in the substantive portion of the discussion (before you decided to get pissy) was that saying that certain groups are privileged is not racist by any reasonable definition of the term. White high-school dropouts are about as wealthy on average as black college graduates. Blacks and whites with the same incomes have vastly different average wealth levels. Why? Intergenerational wealth transfers, which is something that has persisted since there were significant legal hurdles to blacks acquiring wealth. There are many other ways you can see privilege in action. White names are more likely to get interviews on otherwise identical resumes. Blacks and whites have similar rates of drug use but vastly different rates of incarceration for it. Etc. I get that it somehow hurts your feelings for people to point out what should be very obvious, but that doesn't make it racist.

Could there be an IQ difference between blacks and whites that accounts for any of that? What about an IQ difference in the white and Asian populations? Jewish and white?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Realistically, that won't work. At least, it will not make these groups even.

It won't completely eliminate the portion of the wealth gap that is directly attributable to racist policy, but it would certainly close it, and it would provide larger benefits. My general belief is that we need more universal rather than targeted benefits (and that doesn't only apply to racial groupings).

Could there be an IQ difference between blacks and whites that accounts for any of that? What about an IQ difference in the white and Asian populations? Jewish and white?

Wouldn't account for any of what I mentioned specifically. In fact, the Asian example makes my point. If you compare Asians and whites with the same level of educational attainment, whites earn more.