http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout...or-problem

I think I'm gonna print me up one of those economics degrees.

I think Economist should be prefixed by Keynesian or Austrian.

I wonder what they are snorting?

The problem is that they are approaching it not as economists but rather as political advocates. They want the government to spend more to bring about the socialist/communist agenda that each of them publicly advocates. Therefore they use economic mumbo-jumbo to conjure up some bullsh!t excuse why it's not a problem.

It's like an astronomer who decided that it was suddenly important for us to have a new planet between Jupiter and Saturn, so he looks at all data through the prism that there's a planet there and any scientific evidence suggesting otherwise is somehow flawed or incomplete.

They can give us all the theoretical explanations thy want about why it's not a problem. What they can't do is explain why every time it's been tried it's worked out badly. The scientific method, folks. If actual results don't match the theory, reject the theory.

By the way, separating economists into Keynesians and Austrians doesn't work on this one. Keynes wouldn't advocate what these guys are proposing. Of course, Keynes wouldn't have taken us down the path to indiscipline that LBJ did either.

(11-18-2010 05:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem is that they are approaching it not as economists but rather as political advocates. They want the government to spend more to bring about the socialist/communist agenda that each of them publicly advocates. Therefore they use economic mumbo-jumbo to conjure up some bullsh!t excuse why it's not a problem.

It's like an astronomer who decided that it was suddenly important for us to have a new planet between Jupiter and Saturn, so he looks at all data through the prism that there's a planet there and any scientific evidence suggesting otherwise is somehow flawed or incomplete.

They can give us all the theoretical explanations thy want about why it's not a problem. What they can't do is explain why every time it's been tried it's worked out badly. The scientific method, folks. If actual results don't match the theory, reject the theory.

By the way, separating economists into Keynesians and Austrians doesn't work on this one. Keynes wouldn't advocate what these guys are proposing. Of course, Keynes wouldn't have taken us down the path to indiscipline that LBJ did either.

Yeah, but you can't tell GTS that. He is in love with the Austrians thanks to RP.

(11-18-2010 05:49 PM)blah Wrote:  

(11-18-2010 05:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem is that they are approaching it not as economists but rather as political advocates. They want the government to spend more to bring about the socialist/communist agenda that each of them publicly advocates. Therefore they use economic mumbo-jumbo to conjure up some bullsh!t excuse why it's not a problem.

It's like an astronomer who decided that it was suddenly important for us to have a new planet between Jupiter and Saturn, so he looks at all data through the prism that there's a planet there and any scientific evidence suggesting otherwise is somehow flawed or incomplete.

They can give us all the theoretical explanations thy want about why it's not a problem. What they can't do is explain why every time it's been tried it's worked out badly. The scientific method, folks. If actual results don't match the theory, reject the theory.

By the way, separating economists into Keynesians and Austrians doesn't work on this one. Keynes wouldn't advocate what these guys are proposing. Of course, Keynes wouldn't have taken us down the path to indiscipline that LBJ did either.

Yeah, but you can't tell GTS that. He is in love with the Austrians thanks to RP.

Well, the Austrians sure as hell wouldn't stand for it either. He's on solid ground there.

(11-18-2010 06:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-18-2010 05:49 PM)blah Wrote:  

(11-18-2010 05:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem is that they are approaching it not as economists but rather as political advocates. They want the government to spend more to bring about the socialist/communist agenda that each of them publicly advocates. Therefore they use economic mumbo-jumbo to conjure up some bullsh!t excuse why it's not a problem.

It's like an astronomer who decided that it was suddenly important for us to have a new planet between Jupiter and Saturn, so he looks at all data through the prism that there's a planet there and any scientific evidence suggesting otherwise is somehow flawed or incomplete.

They can give us all the theoretical explanations thy want about why it's not a problem. What they can't do is explain why every time it's been tried it's worked out badly. The scientific method, folks. If actual results don't match the theory, reject the theory.

By the way, separating economists into Keynesians and Austrians doesn't work on this one. Keynes wouldn't advocate what these guys are proposing. Of course, Keynes wouldn't have taken us down the path to indiscipline that LBJ did either.

Yeah, but you can't tell GTS that. He is in love with the Austrians thanks to RP.

Well, the Austrians sure as hell wouldn't stand for it either. He's on solid ground there.

This.

(11-18-2010 12:13 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I think Economist should be prefixed by Keynesian or Austrian.

You could just put fake and real economists there instead =)

Health Officials: AIDS not a problem

Carpenters: Termites not a problem

SUV Owners: Gas prices not a problem

Baseball Fans: Winter not a problem