The free market and unintelligent design

[iNow]

You are arguing on premises that are unconnected with reality, and then attacking others when they point out where your assumptions are flawed. Obviously, this is indicative of the fact that your arguments cannot stand on their own merits.

 

And I find your responses uneducated and wilfully ignorant.

 

<...>

 

Again, since you are vehemently debating a subject you seem to know almost nothing about and have not studied, I don't expect this conversation to get far either

Thanks for reinforcing my closing argument. It is much appreciated.

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This week, Frontline did a special called "The Warning."

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

 

<...>

 

Watch Online --> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

 

So, has anybody besides me seen this?

Edited October 23, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[bascule]

Again, since you are vehemently debating a subject you seem to know almost nothing about and have not studied, I don't expect this conversation to get far either

 

I have to agree... you're quite the blowhard. Cutting people down like that is not helpful in a discussion. I have seen many, many cases of experts in hard sciences on these very forums having meaningful discussions on hard science topics with laymen. Perhaps if you didn't take every remark someone makes as an opportunity to get on your Austrian school soapbox and bore everyone to death, but instead discussed the issues broached within the scope of the original discussion you'd find people more willing to engage with you.

 

Then again...

 

[padren]

So, has anybody besides me seen this?

 

Thanks to your post I have - excellent recommendation. I have to say Alan Greenspan's recanting of market self-regulation really hit me when he first made those comments. Debate wise appeals to authority are of course as fallacious when the experts of the opposing side recant their position as they are when the opposing side tries to laud their expertise over everyone - but as far as experts go that one is sure one heck of an about-face.

 

I had never known the story of Brooksley Born, too bad she got shafted so completely. It always amazes me how market self-regulation is touted as this great Darwinistic system where every mutation is explored and the strongest survive. It's a noble view but in reality a diverse market means some do a little better and some do a little worse - then everyone jumps ship to whatever is doing even a little better. It is about as analogous to evolution and genetic diversity as the human genome would be if we could control our own genes and modify them at will to copy others. Should that ever be possible the human race would have the genetic diversity of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt - not exactly the sort of diversity that protects against the unforeseen.

 

Regulation allows us to throttle the limits of these adaptations so not to dissuade the diversity in the markets but be aware of when it becomes dangerously uniform. I just can't believe how stubbornly they insisted that "everything everybody is doing is already a good idea, so there is no reason to regulate it." The whole point of regulation is to step in when everyone else is already committed to going over the cliff because it's "such a good idea."

 

It's just sad that while Alan Greenspan goes though this wonderful adventure and comes full circle to realize that, just maybe the regulations following the great depression weren't completely ridiculous, that the rest of us had to go along for the ride with him and all his friends.

 

"Thanks guys."

[ParanoiA]

I have to agree... you're quite the blowhard. Cutting people down like that is not helpful in a discussion. I have seen many, many cases of experts in hard sciences on these very forums having meaningful discussions on hard science topics with laymen. Perhaps if you didn't take every remark someone makes as an opportunity to get on your Austrian school soapbox and bore everyone to death, but instead discussed the issues broached within the scope of the original discussion you'd find people more willing to engage with you.

 

So let me get this straight...

 

I find your responses myopic, and rather frustrating. You are arguing on premises that are unconnected with reality, and then attacking others when they point out where your assumptions are flawed. Obviously, this is indicative of the fact that your arguments cannot stand on their own merits.

 

^ That's not "cutting people down"? That's helpful to a discussion?

 

abskebabs was defending himself from a goddamn insult. And you all wonder how conservatives can argue about Global warming - a science they don't understand nearly as deeply as a freakin' scientist - and disparage your results as if they were experts? You've just done the same, damn thing. Don't wonder how right wingers can doubt you...you do understand the phenomenon, first hand.

 

On a science forum? You just ran off an obviously studied participant in the field of economics? Someone, unlike you and iNow, can actually knowledgably negotiate the philosophical structure of economy, the varying models and modes of banking systems, the nature of money?

 

I wanted to scan through here and see how abskebabs fielded your substative arguments today - I thought I was going to see the scientists show the rest of the political forums how it's done. I thought it would be an excellent learning opportunity to see his Austrian philosophy get tested with logical, clinical discussion.

 

But hell no. This place is a left wing as it gets. You've insulted and run off everyone that hasn't gulped the liberal cool-aid and failed at proving any of them wrong.

 

I'm sorry I even stopped in. The reasons I left have only inflated.

[bascule]

abskebabs was defending himself from a goddamn insult.

 

Was that what he was doing here? And that's certainly not the only time he's questioned the ability of his opponents to reason about economics (specifically myself).

 

Do you see any of the science experts around here doing that?

 

Every time I see him doing that it makes me want to ignore him.

 

And you all wonder how conservatives...

 

Because pointing out that insulting your opponents is a left/right issue? Zuh?

[iNow]

On a science forum? You just ran off an obviously studied participant in the field of economics? Someone, unlike you and iNow, can actually knowledgably negotiate the philosophical structure of economy, the varying models and modes of banking systems, the nature of money?

The challenge was his arguments were not rooted in reality. His assumptions were non-representative. His premises flawed, and his conclusions suspect as a result.

 

We've spent months and months being patient in our interactions with him and demonstrating why and where his arguments are unfounded and weak. When all he does is repeat assertions previously demonstrated to be invalid, fails to acknowledge the limitations of his approach, and then bashes others as unintelligent when they are merely skeptical of his claims and dare question his assumptions... Then, yeah... We respond in kind.

 

You haven't been around much lately, ParanoiA. You need to take this thread in the larger context of the last year of interactions with us three, instead of rushing in and acting like some babysitter trying to slap me on the wrist because you saw one instance of something you didn't like after being totally absent for 98% of the other interactions which have taken place.

 

My criticisms of his approach remains unanswered. It's that simple. If one's description of reality is invalid and non-representative/inaccurate, then one should not be using that description to form conclusions and argue policy.

[Sisyphus]

abskebabs isn't an expert on economics, he's just read a lot about a single (fringe) point of view, and accepted its assertion of indisputable truth as license not to bother with any others. That's the impression I've gotten, anyway.

 

That said, it's not like there's much substance in the rest of this thread, and there's plenty of juvenile, bullying behavior all around. Good work, everyone!

[ParanoiA]

Because pointing out that insulting your opponents is a left/right issue? Zuh?

 

No. Because the phenomenon of the causually interested insulting studied experts is not unique. I thought you'd appreciate realizing the similarity when its practice in the GW debate was noted. I know that scientists get frustrated as hell when Rush Limbaugh flaunts his ignorance and challenges the whole of climate science with local observations - that's exactly what is taking place here with this economic discussion.

 

abskebabs is going to argue the nuts and bolts of economic theory because he understands them. Just like you're going to argue your particular field of expertise in a more thorough, deeper manner because you understand it.

 

Further his posts are going to indict the fractional reserve system. Try participating in a thrread about a country without a government where folks are asking how to stop the violent crime. You're going to respond "you need a damn government". And they respond "your views are myopic and fail to comprehend the reality". Ok, then...you still need a damn government. It's impossible to force yourself in such a box and pretend as if the pretense of anarchy is workable, and then join in as if...

 

The challenge was his arguments were not rooted in reality. His assumptions were non-representative. His premises flawed, and his conclusions suspect as a result.

 

No, his arguments are on a level of theory you don't care to debate. Fine. But stop pretending he's an idiot because he's comfortable with the philosophy of economics.

 

The reality is your banking solution in the US is only a little over a hundred years old. Previous solutions in the world thrived longer than that and still toppled down, replaced with something else. Talking about the fraudulent nature of fractional reserve banking and the false security and growth impaled on the psyche is not out of bounds. You may not want to discuss it, so don't. It's still fascinating and quite relevant on a science forum in the politics section.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

abskebabs isn't an expert on economics, he's just read a lot about a single (fringe) point of view, and accepted its assertion of indisputable truth as license not to bother with any others. That's the impression I've gotten, anyway.

 

 

You should ask him then. If I remember correctly he's been studying up on this stuff for several years now, several different books and economic methodologies. I don't believe he's exclusively limited himself to Austrian theory, but I could be wrong.

Edited October 23, 2009 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

You may not want to discuss it, so don't. It's still fascinating and quite relevant on a science forum in the politics section.

You may not be aware of this, but generally on a science forum we expect that the assumptions and premises be valid. His are not, ergo he is taken less seriously. It's akin to debating a creationist. They are so wrapped in their ideology that they forget that the claims they make must align with reality and also be accurate.

 

 

I don't believe he's exclusively limited himself to Austrian theory, but I could be wrong.

You are. In support of his contentions... when challenged... he has never once cited a source other than mises.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Do you really believe it is possible to win an argument by telling your opponent they are shortsighted and attacking others because they know their position is groundless? You just make them angry at you; the statement otherwise has no persuasive value whatsoever. You achieve nothing but making yourself feel better about your opinion and making them feel worse about you.

 

In other words, there is nothing persuasive about "I'm clearly right, so you're clearly just attacking me because you have nothing to stand on." You may have made cogent arguments earlier in the thread, but this kind of crap is no substitute for further discussion.

 

As Sisyphus said, "there's plenty of juvenile, bullying behavior all around. Good work, everyone!"

 

That's all for this thread. I hope next time there can be a more substantive debate.

[The Bear's Key]

[Cap'n Refsmmat, I was in the middle of a response but the thread closed. I'm posting it with the hope this is of enough substance. If you disagree, you're free to remove it obviously and I won't repost]

 

 

It's too bad ParanoiA, you're one of my favorite members in this section. And really you should investigate back as iNow suggested, a few months perhaps to get better context.

 

 

abskebabs was defending himself from a goddamn insult.

 

Here's what abskebabs responded to. It's certainly not an insult....

 

Originally posted by iNow

Not too "crucial" to fail, but too "big." They are big precisely due to the lack of regulation. Finally, we're not a pure free market, nor will we ever be. You continue to argue using a constantly shaped and sized spherical cow in an attempt to describe the set of all mammals, which are themselves constantly evolving. In other words, your idealized case is too far removed from reality to be useful.

 

 

 

^ That's not "cutting people down"? That's helpful to a discussion?

I think people got slightly condescending and emotional, but they didn't really cut people down as you say. For example, people (abskebabs included) did somewhat manage to criticize the argument instead of the person (in bold)...

 

 

Originally posted by abskebabs

Equally, I find

your responses

to demonstrate very little critical reasoning or thought with regard to the concepts under discussion.

 

You're right we entirely disagree. I brought up mercantillism precisely to respond to

your claims

about credit being the alleged lifeblood of the economy;

a treacherous half-truth

at best.

 

You seem

to miss the point that liquidation would have brought about massive deflation....

 

I also would like to apologise for being rude eariler. The nature of what I've seen discussed on this forum lately, from defenses of marxism to utter blindly naive defenses of current economic policy has really ruffled my feathers.

(Plus he apologized. Commendable gesture)

 

 

Originally posted by iNow

I find

your responses

myopic, and rather frustrating. You are arguing on

premises that are

unconnected with reality, and then attacking others when they point out where

your assumptions

are flawed. Obviously, this is indicative of the fact that

your arguments

cannot stand on their own merits.

 

 

 

You just ran off an obviously studied participant in the field of economics?

abskebabs has demonstrated expertise only within a narrow *view* of economics, casting aside whatever doesn't fit that narrow view.

 

 

Someone, unlike you and iNow, can actually knowledgably negotiate the philosophical structure of economy, the varying models and modes of banking systems, the nature of money?

Doubtful. abskebabs says lots of things, but the only evidence is a link to a biased source -- or unsupported claims which I doubt anyone here can relate to, much less visualize in life.

 

For example, here's one claim abskebabs made...

 

Originally posted by abskebabs

As I tried to point out, this would not culminate in a complete collapse of either the financial sector or the economy. There were plenty of smaller banks

ready to take the place

of the failing ones.

Where?

 

And how do you verify those banks would actually be ready and not have been dominoes-effected away? Take the hands-off market crowd's word for it? No thanks.

 

 

 

It's impossible to force yourself in such a box and pretend as if the pretense of anarchy is workable, and then join in as if...

Great word to bring up, to construct an example from.

 

Let's say a member's expertise was in a form of anarchy, insisting that our problems are counfounded by laws, so then we make new laws to handle the resulting problems, which instead just magnifies the number and severity of problems.

 

So in the end what's really needed is to completely eliminate all laws, as the population is self-correcting. Anyone who'd behave inappropriately or hazardously towards others suffers the consequences, and therefore beneficial people remain.

 

The true destabilizer here is the lawful system, and unless we can dissolve all laws you'll never see the real potential.

 

How is that different whatsoever from the normal claims about total deregulation?

[bascule]

There were plenty of smaller banks ready to take the place of the failing ones.

 

And this really is the critical issue. Credit is as essential to our economy as oil is to an engine. It would seem abskebabs thinks that were there no bailout, the economy would recover in relatively short order, despite the ensuing credit crunch as major financial institutions collapsed as the toxic debt burned through them one by one. In FreeMarketVision, smaller institutions should spring up to accommodate the demand for credit when the larger ones fail.

 

Citigroup was in danger of failure. Citigroup holds $1.93 trillion in assets. The failure of Citigroup would be worse than 3 Lehman Brothers failing at once.

 

In the event of that scale happened, do you really think small lenders are going to be willing to extend the amount of credit needed to keep our economy running, much less able?

 

Unfortunately, abskebabs never replied to the thread asking if the bailouts were a good idea, sharing with us what he believes would've happened had the bailouts not happened, so it's really hard to gauge exactly how he thinks the world would recover from such a collapse of the credit system.

[swansont]

The add-on posts have been moved here from another thread.

 

The "this was/was this an insult" discussion isn't relevant to any discussion. If you have a problem with a post, report it using the "repost post" function. (The red-outlined triangle). The staff will discuss and take action as the situation requires. Sidetracking the discussion with this just adds to the downward spiral before we can do so, and at that point closure becomes the only solution.

 

Closed threads should not be cloned