Its obvious by the extreme vehemence in his first reply that the OP only started thread to try to trap people (falsely trap) and then spew out a rant at the first person who disagreed.
- Explain, with data, the link between unemployment and the top marginal tax rate?
America: 10% young unemployment rate
Spain,Italy,Greece: 40% young unemployment rate
Youth unemployment (defined as 16-24 year-olds that are actively seeking employment) in the US is more like 16%, and it gets much worse if you remove college graduates from that group.
I'd also love to see your explanation for why black youth unemployment is 28% while all other ethnicities are in the 14-18% range.
Also, Spain and Greece are well over 50% in youth unemployment. Italy is at 40%. Their top marginal tax rates are 42, 42, and 45%, respectively, which isn't a major difference from the top US tax rate of 39.6%. Certainly not enough for your "logical" conclusion that these things are at all connected. It also doesn't work when you consider Germany's 7.5% youth unemployment rate in light of their 45% top marginal tax rate.
Whats different is other sciences you can contest a theory or question its evidence. But economics you can have two Nobel prize level economists look at the same exact numbers and come to totally different conclusions
It's also good to show we have mountains of data and hundreds of years of examples of Lasseiz Faire economics failing, to further drive home the point.
Wait a minute, I have it on good authority that economics tends to be a bunch of "perfect world" scenarios that are based on few facts. As such, how could anyone possibly remark intelligently on the efficacy or lack thereof of a basket of laissez faire policy?
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Its obvious by the extreme vehemence in his first reply that the OP only started thread to try to trap people (falsely trap) and then spew out a rant at the first person who disagreed.
Well, then take the OP's intentions and turn them on their head:
Have a reasonable discussion.
+2
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Whats different is other sciences you can contest a theory or question its evidence. But economics you can have two Nobel prize level economists look at the same exact numbers and come to totally different conclusions
- Explain, with data, the link between unemployment and the top marginal tax rate?
America: 10% young unemployment rate
Spain,Italy,Greece: 40% young unemployment rate
Youth unemployment (defined as 16-24 year-olds that are actively seeking employment) in the US is more like 16%, and it gets much worse if you remove college graduates from that group.
I'd also love to see your explanation for why black youth unemployment is 28% while all other ethnicities are in the 14-18% range.
Also, Spain and Greece are well over 50% in youth unemployment. Italy is at 40%. Their top marginal tax rates are 42, 42, and 45%, respectively, which isn't a major difference from the top US tax rate of 39.6%. Certainly not enough for your "logical" conclusion that these things are at all connected.
His point doesn't make any sense, Spain is flanked on either side the upper tax bracket scale by countries with lower unemployment rates
If taxes had a link to unemployment, The Netherlands would be a great depression style wasteland
Its obvious by the extreme vehemence in his first reply that the OP only started thread to try to trap people (falsely trap) and then spew out a rant at the first person who disagreed.
I don't know, it could just be a mild aspie taking his first home-school econs course.
the OP's arguments very much resemble how I acted when I was a libertarian
show up on forum, try to preach the gospel of my newfound religion, and heap scorn when they don't see the light
you know then I read some books and took a couple of econ courses and watched their wisdom (the wisdom behind the bush tax cuts) lead to a shitty stagnant economy (PRE collapse)
when libertarian economic thought was proven, empirically, to be false I had no choice but to realize maybe the whole ideology was flawed and that running a country without a strong federal government is about as possible as expecting a communist state to resemble anything other than dictatorship
edit: I mean seeing it fail myself led me to read books and take courses which showed me countless historical examples of it failing in the past 2 centuries in America
Its obvious by the extreme vehemence in his first reply that the OP only started thread to try to trap people (falsely trap) and then spew out a rant at the first person who disagreed.
I don't know, it could just be a mild aspie taking his first home-school econs course.
It's a copy-paste of a post that's at least a couple of years old.
Its obvious by the extreme vehemence in his first reply that the OP only started thread to try to trap people (falsely trap) and then spew out a rant at the first person who disagreed.
I don't know, it could just be a mild aspie taking his first home-school econs course.
It's a copy-paste of a post that's at least a couple of years old.
the OP's arguments very much resemble how I acted when I was a libertarian
show up on forum, try to preach the gospel of my newfound religion, and heap scorn when they don't see the light
To me, the more interesting thing is why people are so frequently so unaware of how that kind of approach is likely to be received, and/or that they don't care about whether people receive the message or not.
I used to go to extremely conservative Christian boards all the time, it was pretty easy to spot the atheists and whatnot who were just wasting their time with toilet paper accounts.
I mean I don't want it to sound like liberal economics are my religion
I'd support Paul Ryan tomorrow if his economic arguments had merit (or like, even took into account the fact that math exists), including his argument about switching medicare to vouchers. Like if there was compelling evidence that would work and save everyone money without leaving the elderly hanging I'd hop onboard, but there isn't
override367 on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
You have to google specific bits to get a sort-of copy; they're smart enough to protect themselves if you try to google the whole thing.
This is fascinating to me, though.
+2
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
There are a lot of reasons why we don't treat Climate Change like Capitalism. The most obvious is the difference between a hard science and a soft science. No scientist, who isn't backed by an interested party, has examined the data for climate change and concluded that it's not happening.
In economics, this is not the case. As others have pointed out, two economists can look at the same data and walk away with different conclusions. Who is right?
Another major reason is that economists are interested parties. Whatever theories and ideas they support, they want those to be right.
While scientists are also interested parties, they don't have any particular agenda other than to observe the world and do their best to find out How Stuff Works. A scientist who does otherwise is a bad scientist, and is likely being paid lots of money to make their claims.
I'm pretty sure we do treat economics like climate change. Which is to say, its a complex topic with a lot of interesting things going on it, which will be roundly ignored by anyone who doesn't understand it but feels they'll be somehow impacted by it (energy prices/taxes) leading to a startling number of people suddenly deciding that despite a lack of any formal training or interest beyond reading the morning paper, they know exactly what's going on and how it should be done.
In my experience this is also uniform regardless of profession outside of the ones under discussion: medical doctors are still not climatologists or economists, but depending how much money they have they know exactly what the truth is of both these things.
Although in the case of climatology, there's a stark rise in weasel words on it lately - arguing around the point, or blaming China - whereas in economics government debt is still definitely always bad and the cause of all problems that currently exist.
The distinction made by the OP between "leftism" and "libertarianism" is a false one, and an infuriating one to leftist libertarians like myself.
Libertarianism is traditionally a leftist political philosophy! Most people in any time or place aside from the US in the past few decades would either laugh or stare in confusion if you declared yourself to be a libertarian and a capitalist at the same time.
The distinction made by the OP between "leftism" and "libertarianism" is a false one, and an infuriating one to leftist libertarians like myself.
Libertarianism is traditionally a leftist political philosophy! Most people in any time or place aside from the US in the past few decades would either laugh or stare in confusion if you declared yourself to be a libertarian and a capitalist at the same time.
at this point it is rather like arguing about hackers/crackers, I'm sorry to say
The distinction made by the OP between "leftism" and "libertarianism" is a false one, and an infuriating one to leftist libertarians like myself.
Libertarianism is traditionally a leftist political philosophy! Most people in any time or place aside from the US in the past few decades would either laugh or stare in confusion if you declared yourself to be a libertarian and a capitalist at the same time.
at this point it is rather like arguing about hackers/crackers, I'm sorry to say
In talking about yourself I think it's better to stick to issues anyway. You're always going to run into problems when you find the need to try and assign yourself an identity out of the terms we have (especially when they're largely used derogatorily).
As someone who studied economics, I'm pretty in favor of government oversight/regulations, because there's a bunch of reasons (externalities, the tragedy of the commons, moral hazard (the banking industry being one of the more poignant examples)...) that companies' optimal strategies aren't actually the most optimal/efficient for society at large.
I am pro-Free Trade, but with the caveat that the biggest winners should be supporting the least, through welfare/retraining (and Free Trade is something of a red herring, far more jobs have been lost from the US due to technology than due to outsourcing).
Oh, so this is just a copy-paste of some bullshit you've apparently been spamming across the internet for years.
Yeah, we don't need that shit here. Most of our trolls at least try to be interesting and creative. Your biggest failing, Mr. SmarterThanYou, isn't that you're an asshole, or that you can't write for shit, or that you don't know thing one about proper debate. Your biggest failing is that you are lazy. Begone, slacker.
If someone wants to start a new thread to discuss economic issues, that's cool, but this one reeks of low aspirations and I'm killing it with fire.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
Youth unemployment (defined as 16-24 year-olds that are actively seeking employment) in the US is more like 16%, and it gets much worse if you remove college graduates from that group.
I'd also love to see your explanation for why black youth unemployment is 28% while all other ethnicities are in the 14-18% range.
Also, Spain and Greece are well over 50% in youth unemployment. Italy is at 40%. Their top marginal tax rates are 42, 42, and 45%, respectively, which isn't a major difference from the top US tax rate of 39.6%. Certainly not enough for your "logical" conclusion that these things are at all connected. It also doesn't work when you consider Germany's 7.5% youth unemployment rate in light of their 45% top marginal tax rate.
Wait a minute, I have it on good authority that economics tends to be a bunch of "perfect world" scenarios that are based on few facts. As such, how could anyone possibly remark intelligently on the efficacy or lack thereof of a basket of laissez faire policy?
Well, then take the OP's intentions and turn them on their head:
Have a reasonable discussion.
At least one of them is usually wrong, though :P
His point doesn't make any sense, Spain is flanked on either side the upper tax bracket scale by countries with lower unemployment rates
If taxes had a link to unemployment, The Netherlands would be a great depression style wasteland
I don't know, it could just be a mild aspie taking his first home-school econs course.
show up on forum, try to preach the gospel of my newfound religion, and heap scorn when they don't see the light
you know then I read some books and took a couple of econ courses and watched their wisdom (the wisdom behind the bush tax cuts) lead to a shitty stagnant economy (PRE collapse)
when libertarian economic thought was proven, empirically, to be false I had no choice but to realize maybe the whole ideology was flawed and that running a country without a strong federal government is about as possible as expecting a communist state to resemble anything other than dictatorship
edit: I mean seeing it fail myself led me to read books and take courses which showed me countless historical examples of it failing in the past 2 centuries in America
It's a copy-paste of a post that's at least a couple of years old.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
really?
so hes just trolling us
To me, the more interesting thing is why people are so frequently so unaware of how that kind of approach is likely to be received, and/or that they don't care about whether people receive the message or not.
I used to go to extremely conservative Christian boards all the time, it was pretty easy to spot the atheists and whatnot who were just wasting their time with toilet paper accounts.
I'd support Paul Ryan tomorrow if his economic arguments had merit (or like, even took into account the fact that math exists), including his argument about switching medicare to vouchers. Like if there was compelling evidence that would work and save everyone money without leaving the elderly hanging I'd hop onboard, but there isn't
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25275
last year
There are other evolutions, too.
You have to google specific bits to get a sort-of copy; they're smart enough to protect themselves if you try to google the whole thing.
This is fascinating to me, though.
In economics, this is not the case. As others have pointed out, two economists can look at the same data and walk away with different conclusions. Who is right?
Another major reason is that economists are interested parties. Whatever theories and ideas they support, they want those to be right.
While scientists are also interested parties, they don't have any particular agenda other than to observe the world and do their best to find out How Stuff Works. A scientist who does otherwise is a bad scientist, and is likely being paid lots of money to make their claims.
except that a Austrian would never say "the science of economics" since they don't believe that economics is a science but more a praxeology.
In my experience this is also uniform regardless of profession outside of the ones under discussion: medical doctors are still not climatologists or economists, but depending how much money they have they know exactly what the truth is of both these things.
Although in the case of climatology, there's a stark rise in weasel words on it lately - arguing around the point, or blaming China - whereas in economics government debt is still definitely always bad and the cause of all problems that currently exist.
epidemiology uses much the same techniques, right down to the event studies
the reasons for non-reproducibility are the same: ethical concerns. But there you go
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
a reputable climate scientist applying for a job with Exxon will find himself no longer reputable but flush with cash
Libertarianism is traditionally a leftist political philosophy! Most people in any time or place aside from the US in the past few decades would either laugh or stare in confusion if you declared yourself to be a libertarian and a capitalist at the same time.
at this point it is rather like arguing about hackers/crackers, I'm sorry to say
In talking about yourself I think it's better to stick to issues anyway. You're always going to run into problems when you find the need to try and assign yourself an identity out of the terms we have (especially when they're largely used derogatorily).
I am pro-Free Trade, but with the caveat that the biggest winners should be supporting the least, through welfare/retraining (and Free Trade is something of a red herring, far more jobs have been lost from the US due to technology than due to outsourcing).
Yeah, we don't need that shit here. Most of our trolls at least try to be interesting and creative. Your biggest failing, Mr. SmarterThanYou, isn't that you're an asshole, or that you can't write for shit, or that you don't know thing one about proper debate. Your biggest failing is that you are lazy. Begone, slacker.
If someone wants to start a new thread to discuss economic issues, that's cool, but this one reeks of low aspirations and I'm killing it with fire.