Ron Paul: "Bernie is just a variant of Trump"

[Livermore]

The rate at which the WR churns out idiocy and ignorance is amazing. Seriously top notch.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The rate at which the WR churns out idiocy and ignorance is amazing. Seriously top notch.

True, but relating to what someone (I think Mini) was saying recently, the Austrian stuff might be as dumb as the racist stuff but it isn't as ugly. Greoric is funny in a way that RIPwarrior or LI aren't. So if the group falls back to a bunch of community-college philosophy majors regurgitating arguments about how food stamps are tyranny, it becomes more fun and less disturbing than the Stormfront Lite WR.

Ed: Said "ripskater" when I meant RIPwarrior. One makes fun of religion and the other appears to be a genuine (and genuinely nasty) racist.

 

[Quipling]

True, but relating to what someone (I think Mini) was saying recently, the Austrian stuff might be as dumb as the racist stuff but it isn't as ugly. Greoric is funny in a way that ripskater or LI aren't. So if the group falls back to a bunch of community-college philosophy majors regurgitating arguments about how food stamps are tyranny, it becomes more fun and less disturbing than the Stormfront Lite WR.

Please, you haven't even addressed this misapplication of Weber.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Please, you haven't even addressed this misapplication of Weber.

Someone actually did misapply Weber earlier today, trying to make the exact same argument that Zeke was making (funny how that always seems to happen--must have been a mises.org propaganda piece recently that fired these guys up).

 

[Greoric]

JVS trying to desperately tie racism in with a field of economics that uses deduction as its methodology, and which doesn't even say anything regarding any policy prescriptions. Reads like someone is pretty triggered that they found out the theory they were following was a wash of pseudoscience with a foundation of conjecture.

 

[UpaLoompa]

At what point of being confronted with contradictory evidence does one conclude they've made a deductive fallacy?

 

[Greoric]

At what point of being confronted with contradictory evidence does one conclude they've made a deductive fallacy?

We've been over this Dochter... Would you do the honors of extrapolating that accusation this time?

 

[UpaLoompa]

We've been over this Dochter... Would you do the honors of extrapolating that accusation this time?

Not really much need to retread old ground. A new question though, similar to one often posed to creationists, what evidence would cause you to reject your deductive arguments?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Not really much need to retread old ground. A new question though, similar to one often posed to creationists, what evidence would cause you to reject your deductive arguments?

You're already giving them too much credit. They don't get to the point of rejecting contradictory evidence because they'd first need to acknowledge it.

I already tried to pin Greoric down with a bet, which I won, but he simply denies the facts. I would do it again if there were a taker with more integrity. But it won't change anything.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I already tried to pin Greoric down with a bet, which I won, but he simply denies the facts. I would do it again if there were a taker with more integrity. But it won't change anything.

Wait... I think I remember that bet. Wasn't it about some timeline for a QE? Is the agreed upon period up already? What was the outcome?

 

[wandiswar]

Well you're a fucking idiot. That is EXACTLY what it means to be authoritarian.

You have a Christopher Hitchens avatar don't you dare call anyone a fucking idiot buddy.

 

[Greoric]

Not really much need to retread old ground. A new question though, similar to one often posed to creationists, what evidence would cause you to reject your deductive arguments?

Beautiful question. If we could normalize rates again... even to just 4%, without being presented with a catastrophic deflationary episode that would present fatal problems with my projections. But as we're even seeing now the market can't even handle a quarter of a point hike! Visa vie almost every leading metric we know of indicating heavy deflationary pressure.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you're not appreciating my argument on this being THE science poster on here. The contrarian arguments have to be made by attacking its premises or conclusions. Evidence can help make a case, but it can't absolve any position on its own. Why? Because conclusions made from the evidence would be conjecture without any counterfactuals, which we aren't privy to in macro economics.


Here's a perfect example using unemployment predictions during the GFC that I like to use a lot:

Don't get stuck on what you might think the graph is implying here, I'm actually about to attack that implication...

The economists made the argument that unless they pushed the recovery act through the unemployment rate would be as high as 9%, but the actual unemployment rate went over 10% with the recovery plan! You could reasonably say looking exclusively at the data that the recovery plan didn't work. But here's the thing, they could easily and validly argue that it would have been even higher if they wouldn't have acted. We don't know which one exclusively from this piece of data because neither argument has counterfactual data available to make it verifiable. The answer has to come from attacking the logic of the cases being made... not by exclusively using empiricism.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Wait... I think I remember that bet. Wasn't it about some timeline for a QE? Is the agreed upon period up already? What was the outcome?

He said there would be another round of QE before the end of 2015 (and he also guaranteed no rate hike, but we didn't bet on that) and that YOY GDP growth would be negative (part of his "biggest crash ever" thread). When it became clear that he was going to lose, he pretended to have mistakenly thought that he was betting that the YOY Q4 GDP growth rate would be lower in 2015 than it was in 2014. I said that his claim sounded bizarre given the discussion but that I'd release him from the consequences of his loss.

Interestingly, later in the exchange where he backed out, he indicating that he didn't even know what GDP was. He also betrayed his finance guy act by demonstrating that he didn't even know what shorting was.

Here's what I mean:

But no, if GDP goes negative there is on net a destruction of capital. We've never seen that, and short of a catastrophic natural disaster we won't.

!!!

Don't get stuck on what you might think the graph is implying here, I'm actually about to attack that implication.

The change caused by the ARRA was in line with expectations. The baseline was worse than was estimated at the time of the chart. Bad example.

 

[Greoric]

The change caused by the ARRA was in line with expectations. The baseline was worse than was estimated at the time of the chart. Bad example.

Another strawman out of you. How incredibly convenient.

 

[ineverpost]

the basic gist of Paul's argument is that to achieve either agenda, enormous amounts of money would have to be spent by the government, much of it coming from literally out of nowhere, aka the Federal Reserve Bank. When this happens, you get hyper inflation, making it harder for people on fixed incomes and true middle class (people who don't make enough money to live comfortably but make too much to receive handouts) to live independent from the government. In addition, markets love "spending", so if you have the money to invest (rich people), you make a shit ton, increasing the gap between the rich and the poor. Bernie's plan is really to have a huge welfare system in place for when this gets even worse.

 

[ineverpost]

If I were Ron Paul and people constantly accused me of being a moron or crazy, I'd just point to my bank account and ask them how much they have made betting on what the Fed is going to do. Dude is a millionaire several times over for predicting the gradual collapse of the dollar.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

You have a Christopher Hitchens avatar don't you dare call anyone a fucking idiot buddy.

And you apparently think that this^ is an argument. Newsflash, numbnuts. It's not. It's just you - an asshole - voicing your stupid opinion.

Now, if you had said, "I don't agree with X, Y, and Z things that Hitchens has supported, and if you agree with those things I am likely to find your other positions suspect from the start" that's at least a rational presentation of your opinion. You might still be wrong, but it would be a rational way to make your point. But you didn't do that did you? No. You simply said, "You have a Hitchens avatar. Therefore - you = idiot." That you could actually be satisfied with posting something so stupid as that says a lot about you... and I find your opinions now suspect.

 

[Greoric]

He said there would be another round of QE before the end of 2015 (and he also guaranteed no rate hike, but we didn't bet on that) and that YOY GDP growth would be negative (part of his "biggest crash ever" thread). When it became clear that he was going to lose, he pretended to have mistakenly thought that he was betting that the YOY Q4 GDP growth rate would be lower in 2015 than it was in 2014. I said that his claim sounded bizarre given the discussion but that I'd release him from the consequences of his loss.

Interestingly, later in the exchange where he backed out, he indicating that he didn't even know what GDP was. He also betrayed his finance guy act by demonstrating that he didn't even know what shorting was.

Another example of how disgustingly dishonest you are. I loosely allow the use of GDP in place of GDP growth rate... which I was right on. Funny how I was also right concerning the effect a rate hike would have. Almost immediately following the "increase" we see an accelerated plunge in everything including equities.

Not to mention Yellen's address yesterday also again supporting my assertion that the fed is keeping asset prices boosted up.

You have no clue what you're talking about that's apparent to everyone that already keeps up with markets on their own.

 

[Losfer Words]

RP is correct both Trump and Sanders are very authoritarian.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Jack being a liar, a narcissist, and a fraud is known, Greoric. It comes as no surprise.