• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Right Wing Ideology Fails in Economics As Well

I don't know how you can listen to Krugman, who is entirely inconsistent and routinely injects his personal politics in economics to satisfy his believe structure.

You're going to run into this often with scientists and economists.

Over 50% describe themselves Democrats...just 6% Republicans.

People with high IQ's, well trained in using critical thinking skills, and questioning everthing they are told, can see right through right wing propaganda.

But there is nothing wrong with interjecting values and political beliefs into an op-ed if you remain consistent in your arguments and your facts are correct.

This is what drives right wingers crazy about Krugman. He's been right about almost everything over the last 10 years including his criticism of Alan Greenspan when he was being treated like a God by the right wing.

Remember those days? When Bush and the GOP Congress would brag about the housing industry growing the economy???....They rode that bubble all the way to the end....LOL
 
Last edited:
I've already posted the link in another thread. Go find it yourself

I'm not going to waste my time searching through your posts to find a link that I'm sure doesn't say what you claim it does.
 
And the Chicago School never advocated any such sentiment, let alone the monetarist Friedman. That's the purview of the far more utopian and marginal Austrian School.
 
Just because you keep repeating the same socialist lie it doesn't become any less ridiculous.


From another thread --

No, silly, businesspeople didn't lose money because they wanted to (which is what you're implying). In a free market there exists a powerful incentive not to take irrational risks: you can lose. Natural selection takes place fairly quickly: money flows from people who are bad at calculating risks to those who are good at it, thus creating a rational investment environment.

The government has created the current economic collapse, like many other recessions in recent history, by holding a gun to everyone's head and forcing them to operate in an artificial business environment with an expansionary monetary monopoly and other interventionism that forces dangerous risk-taking.


And now, a few replies...


They've touted Milton Friedman and the "Chicago School" for thirty years and it's been a miserable failure.

Yeah, sure, Chile is doing so much worse than Cuba, and South Korea so much worse than the North. :roll:



You're going to run into this often with scientists and economists.

You have to stop worshiping titles like "scientists" and "economists" like they were infallible religious titles, which is utterly incompatible with the rational nature of the actual scientific method. Government employees have a socialist bias - that's how they were educated by government-funded institutions, that's how they were selected, and their cushy jobs (and their psychological sense of superiority) depend on it entirely.

That is why you have so many government scientists saying that 2 + 2 adds up to 5, on issues like economics, environment, and so on. The small minority of scientists who have the financial means and the courage stand up to government propaganda have debunked all those pro-government lies to pieces.


(The false paradigm of there being any tangible difference between "left" socialism and "right" socialism ignored.)


I still have faith in the free market. I have no faith in government, other than a firm belief that it will continue to **** everything up.

The free market is an empirical system that does not require faith.


And the Chicago School never advocated any such sentiment, let alone the monetarist Friedman. That's the purview of the far more utopian and marginal Austrian School.

There's nothing Utopian about scientific economics (AKA the Austrian School) - everything else is just political propaganda.
 
Last edited:
What aspect of his comment involves focus on "a social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community"? :2wave:
 
I still have faith in the free market. I have no faith in government, other than a firm belief that it will continue to **** everything up.

I say nuke DC:lol:
 
The free market is an empirical system that does not require faith.

Everything requires faith. Even reason itself is not the absolute that people make it out to be, because humans can never venture beyond their own intellect.
 
You're going to run into this often with scientists and economists.

Over 50% describe themselves Democrats...just 6% Republicans.

Even if true, it's meaningless. A majority doesn't make fact. And in their field almost nothing is universally accepted, because economics is far from a perfect science.

People with high IQ's, well trained in using critical thinking skills, and questioning everthing they are told, can see right through right wing propaganda.

They can also see through the left wing's and choose to think for themselves

But there is nothing wrong with interjecting values and political beliefs into an op-ed if you remain consistent in your arguments and your facts are correct.

This is what drives right wingers crazy about Krugman. He's been right about almost everything over the last 10 years including his criticism of Alan Greenspan when he was being treated like a God by the right wing.

Plenty of right wing economists have been right for the past 10 years as well. Many saw the Asian and this housing crash coming

Remember those days? When Bush and the GOP Congress would brag about the housing industry growing the economy???....They rode that bubble all the way to the end....LOL

The Democrats bragged as well. Neither party is close to being blameless. Both are almost just as much to blame.
 
Everything requires faith.

No. Science (AKA free-market capitalism) is based on pure reason.


Even reason itself is not the absolute that people make it out to be, because humans can never venture beyond their own intellect.

Humans are aware of their existence and their desires, which tend to be limitless (ex. immortality) in spite of limits that seem to exist in economic reality. This naturally leads to a system of scientific method known as evolutionary pragmatism, through which the objective validity of natural laws can be established from the point of view of human self-interest.

Humans also have the capacity for individual thought, individual action, and experiencing the individual consequences of one's actions, thus establishing a framework through which the validity of various philosophical theories can be tested. The only rational way to judge social rulesets is by the principle of evolutionary competitive advantage - a ruleset that leads to the greatest long-term economic growth (that is the greatest fulfillment of materialistic wants) is the most desirable. Those economic laws are not an arbitrary construct - like fundamental laws of physics, they exist whether you believe in them or not.

It has thus been established that the most effective social ruleset is one of non-destructive competition (AKA cooperation) between individuals that is based on individual self-ownership (see here). That is the rational scientific foundation that scientific (AKA free market) capitalism is built upon.
 
Just because you keep repeating the same socialist lie it doesn't become any less ridiculous.


From another thread --




And now, a few replies...




Yeah, sure, Chile is doing so much worse than Cuba, and South Korea so much worse than the North. :roll:





You have to stop worshiping titles like "scientists" and "economists" like they were infallible religious titles, which is utterly incompatible with the rational nature of the actual scientific method. Government employees have a socialist bias - that's how they were educated by government-funded institutions, that's how they were selected, and their cushy jobs (and their psychological sense of superiority) depend on it entirely.

That is why you have so many government scientists saying that 2 + 2 adds up to 5, on issues like economics, environment, and so on. The small minority of scientists who have the financial means and the courage stand up to government propaganda have debunked all those pro-government lies to pieces.


(The false paradigm of there being any tangible difference between "left" socialism and "right" socialism ignored.)




The free market is an empirical system that does not require faith.




There's nothing Utopian about scientific economics (AKA the Austrian School) - everything else is just political propaganda.

Because if you're not Chicago School you're a Communist!

No thanks sir, I'm not wasting my time with you.
 
Even if true, it's meaningless. A majority doesn't make fact. And in their field almost nothing is universally accepted, because economics is far from a perfect science.



They can also see through the left wing's and choose to think for themselves



Plenty of right wing economists have been right for the past 10 years as well. Many saw the Asian and this housing crash coming



The Democrats bragged as well. Neither party is close to being blameless. Both are almost just as much to blame.

Two points..

Could you give me a few names of these economists who predicted the housing crash?

And give us an example of a Democrat who bragged about the economy during the housing boom when of course Congress was controlled by the GOP?
 
Because if you're not Chicago School you're a Communist!

Um, you're the first person to say the word "communist" on this thread.

And that term can be used relativistically - the Chicago School of economics is biased toward more collectivist coercion, and can thus be called more communist (or more fascist) than the Austrian School.


No thanks sir, I'm not wasting my time with you.

Your loss. You might have learned something.
 
Um, you're the first person to say the word "communist" on this thread.

And that term can be used relativistically - the Chicago School of economics is biased toward more collectivist coercion, and can thus be called more communist (or more fascist) than the Austrian School.




Your loss. You might have learned something.

uh well gee ...that's what you meant by your Cuba and North Korea remark.

You're already tap dancing and we haven't even started.
 
Remember those days? When Bush and the GOP Congress would brag about the housing industry growing the economy???....They rode that bubble all the way to the end....LOL

The housing industry did grow the economy. But Democrats seem to get amnesia when it comes to things like the Community Reinvestment Act, which required financial institutions to make loans to people who probably shouldn't have been buying homes. They also seem to forget when it comes to Fannie and Freddie and the incestuous relationships they had with many House and Senate Democrats. I seem to recall some warnings from the Bush Administration about the risks these government-sponsored enterprises were taking, while people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were telling Bush that they were doing a fantastic job and he should butt out.

This is what drives right wingers crazy about Krugman. He's been right about almost everything over the last 10 years including his criticism of Alan Greenspan when he was being treated like a God by the right wing.

Where I have a problem with people like Krugman is the idea that we need a second stimulus package and should try to spend our way out of this mess. This is the same Keynesian gobbledigook that was supposed to have been buried during the Carter Administration when the Misery Index peaked at 21.98%. Basically, the disease is too much risk-taking resulting from too much spending using borrowed money, but Democrats seem to have bought the line that they way you cure a spending disease is by spending even more. You may increase aggregate demand temporarily, but it will also ensure that capital that should have been liquidated remains in unproductive hands.
 
Last edited:
You're going to run into this often with scientists and economists.

Over 50% describe themselves Democrats...just 6% Republicans.

People with high IQ's, well trained in using critical thinking skills, and questioning everthing they are told, can see right through right wing propaganda.

But there is nothing wrong with interjecting values and political beliefs into an op-ed if you remain consistent in your arguments and your facts are correct.

This is what drives right wingers crazy about Krugman. He's been right about almost everything over the last 10 years including his criticism of Alan Greenspan when he was being treated like a God by the right wing.

Remember those days? When Bush and the GOP Congress would brag about the housing industry growing the economy???....They rode that bubble all the way to the end....LOL

"Right Wing Ideology Fails in Economics as Well"....

Considering that we don't even know what is "right-wing" anymore, and yes, I am being critical of the so-called "conservative" Bush admin there, I don't see where you or Krugman come off saying that it fails. But that's just liberal divide and conquer strategy, isn't it?

I called it, this thread is fail.
 
The housing industry did grow the economy. But Democrats seem to get amnesia when it comes to things like the Community Reinvestment Act, which required financial institutions to make loans to people who probably shouldn't have been buying homes. They also seem to forget when it comes to Fannie and Freddie and the incestuous relationships they had with many House and Senate Democrats. I seem to recall some warnings from the Bush Administration about the risks these government-sponsored enterprises were taking, while people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were telling Bush that they were doing a fantastic job and he should butt out.

Where I have a problem with people like Krugman is the idea that we need a second stimulus package and should try to spend our way out of this mess. This is the same Keynesian gobbledigook that was supposed to have been buried during the Carter Administration when the Misery Index peaked at 21.98%. Basically, the disease is too much risk-taking resulting from too much spending using borrowed money, but Democrats seem to have bought the line that they way you cure a spending disease is by spending even more. You may increase aggregate demand temporarily, but it will also ensure that capital that should have been liquidated remains in unproductive hands.

The CRA/Housing crisis myth is an urban legend. I'm very familiar with it. Is started from a factless IBD editorial. Additionally I've posted in the past Congressional testimony from Bush Administration officials that told Congress point blank the CRA had nothing to do with. Furthermore I've posted multiple statements by experts stating the CRA was a non issue.

You likely want to blame liberals and minorities for the oversight failure so you latch on the CRA myth.
 
uh well gee ...that's what you meant by your Cuba and North Korea remark.

You're already tap dancing and we haven't even started.

Because they rank last in terms of economic freedom, which was central to the argument I was making in defense of Milton Friedman (who isn't perfect, but one shouldn't let "perfect" be the enemy of "good"). Sure, I could as well have compared Chile and South Korea to the more distant Zimbabwe and Turkmenistan, but that would have been just a bit less poetic. (And Venezuela wasn't as economically restricted for as long as Cuba.)
 
The CRA/Housing crisis myth is an urban legend. I'm very familiar with it. Is started from a factless IBD editorial. Additionally I've posted in the past Congressional testimony from Bush Administration officials that told Congress point blank the CRA had nothing to do with. Furthermore I've posted multiple statements by experts stating the CRA was a non issue.

You likely want to blame liberals and minorities for the oversight failure so you latch on the CRA myth.

Got a link for any of this, or is this in some other thread somewhere that you'll say we should go find?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom