• 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!

Pau Krugman's austerity predictions aren't aging well.

jmotivator said:
So what you are saying is that Source Watch is a one stop shop for people who would rather claim a person's perceived bias than challenge them on the merits of their actual argument?

Yeah, that is totally different than ad hominem for lazy people. :roll:
Click to expand...

It's called evidence discrediting your source. It's spelled out and gives examples.

You can't just Truther through citation criticism. This is a debate, not a CT meeting.
 
Surrealistik said:
What I'm saying is that whether or not you want to acknowledge the blatant, seething bias of the FEE author which should immediately subject his assessment to greater scrutiny (rather than being taken at face value like so many pro-Austerity cultists have, seeking to confirm their own biases), his conclusions and premise are pretty obviously wrong for the reasons stated by Robert Skidelsky.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that you really dig ad hominem arguments, you just really can't be bothered to formulate your own. I got it.
 
jmotivator said:
So what you are saying is that you really dig ad hominem arguments. I got it.
Click to expand...

If you want to act like a child, that's on you.

My first act was to present the article which clearly countermanded FEE's absurd take; I only presented evidence of bias after KLATTU made the absurd claim that FEE was not partisan or biased.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
It's called evidence discrediting your source. It's spelled out and gives examples.

You can't just Truther through citation criticism. This is a debate, not a CT meeting.
Click to expand...

Ah, you are a fan of ad hominem as well! Not surprising.
 
jmotivator said:
Ah, you are a fan of ad hominem as well! Not surprising.
Click to expand...

Criticizing source is not ad hom. It's required when someone lacks the knowledge to present their own argument and substitutes someone else's.


You're Truthin'.
 
ecofarm said:
Criticizing source is not ad hom. It's required when someone lacks the knowledge to present their own argument.

You're Truthin'.
Click to expand...

Criticizing the source is precisely ad hominem.
 
ecofarm said:
Criticizing source is not ad hom. It's required when someone lacks the knowledge to present their own argument and substitutes someone else's.


You're Truthin'.
Click to expand...

To be clear I only presented evidence of bias when KLATTU made the nakedly ridiculous assertion that FEE wasn't biased/partisan which it very clearly is.

Prof. Skidelsky's article by itself is an excellent, crisp antidote to the silly FEE editorial, which is precisely why I linked it first.
 
ecofarm said:
No. You don't understand the concept. You're stuck in Truther world.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem is attacking the source rather than the argument, which is totally different than attacking the source rather than the argument? :roll: :lamo
 
jmotivator said:
Ad hominem is attacking the source rather than the argument, which is totally different than attacking the source rather than the argument? :roll: :lamo
Click to expand...

Again, Prof. Skidelsky's review, which is the first thing I linked, is more than sufficient refutation for the deficient FEE editorial take.
 
Surrealistik said:
Again, Prof. Skidelsky's review, which is the first thing I linked, is more than sufficient refutation for the deficient FEE editorial take.
Click to expand...

You SURE it's not a case of Prof. Skidelsky saying what a liberal Democrat wants to hear. " Gov't spending good, spending cuts bad"
 
Surrealistik said:
To be clear I only presented evidence of bias when KLATTU made the nakedly ridiculous assertion that FEE wasn't biased/partisan which it very clearly is.

rst.
Click to expand...

Completely false, unless you say they are biased toward the Libertarin party ( does that even count)
Have you seen how many times they rip Trump's economic policies .


They are strictly free market, limited Govt. libertarians beholden to no party. If the GOP stray from that- they will be skewered at FEE.

IF a Democrat supported a small govt , free market idea, they would be praised at FEE, but since they almost never do, they don't.

Here's a post by Jeffrey Tucker , a distinguished fellow at FEE.I suggest that this is the wrong way to think about the matter. We should not obsess over the question of whether we should cheer Trump or condemn him, become his fans or swing into opposition, defend him against enemies or become his enemies.

There is another approach. It is not easy in a hugely partisan political environment, but it is the right one. Stay independent, think clearly, watch carefully, adhere to principle, speak fearlessly, praise when good things happen and oppose when bad things happen, tell the truth as you see it, and otherwise be ever vigilant in defense of rights and liberties, yours and everyone's. To be steadfast and honest in these times is the height of political virtue.
Must We Pick a Side? - Foundation for Economic Education
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
Ad hominem is attacking the source rather than the argument, which is totally different than attacking the source rather than the argument? :roll: :lamo
Click to expand...

You are making the argument. Attacking you, personally and unrelated to discussion, would be an ad hom.

Criticizing the source provided when an opponent cannot make the argument themselves is proper debate.
 
KLATTU said:
You SURE it's not a case of Prof. Skidelsky saying what a liberal Democrat wants to hear. " Gov't spending good, spending cuts bad"
Click to expand...

He's simply saying that there is inadequate information to determine whether Austerity was responsible for growth in the cases cited, and the analysis doesn't support those conclusions; a classic case where correlation isn't necessarily causation.
 
KLATTU said:
Completely false, unless you say they are biased toward the Libertarin party ( does that even count)
Have you seen how many times they rip Trump's economic policies .


They are strictly free market, limited Govt. libertarians beholden to no party. If the GOP stray from that- they will be skewered at FEE.

IF a Democrat supported a small govt , free market idea, they would be praised at FEE, but since they almost never do, they don't.
Click to expand...

You don't have to support or advocate for a specific party to be partisan so much as take up a political alignment which FEE clearly does per the libertarian vantage.


ecofarm said:
You are making the argument. Attacking you, personally and unrelated to discussion, would be an ad hom.

Criticizing the source provided when an opponent cannot make the argument themselves is proper debate.
Click to expand...

I could and did forward an argument: in a nutshell that correlation is not causation as per Prof. Skidelsky, and there is no evidentiary basis for the conclusions of FEE's writer. Again, I was later asked for proof of bias/partisanship which I readily provided.
 
ecofarm said:
You are making the argument. Attacking you, personally and unrelated to discussion, would be an ad hom.

Criticizing the source provided when an opponent cannot make the argument themselves is proper debate.
Click to expand...

Wrong, ecofarm. Ad Hominem Fallacy is attacking the source of the argument rather than the argument. It is an attempt to avoid actually debating the specifics by impugning the source. That is precisely what source watch is there to do, it feeds ad hominem fallacies.
 
jmotivator said:
Wrong, ecofarm. Ad Hominem Fallacy is attacking the source of the argument rather than the argument. It is an attempt to avoid actually debating the specifics by impugning the source. That is precisely what source watch is there to do, it feeds ad hominem fallacies.
Click to expand...

The level of ignorance and stupid in that paragraph is astounding. How is reasoning even possible with that grossly perverted and self serving misconception.

You need to look up the definition of ad hom.
 
Surrealistik said:
Again, Prof. Skidelsky's review, which is the first thing I linked, is more than sufficient refutation for the deficient FEE editorial take.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem fallacy is ad hominem fallacy. The point of debate is to provide an argument on both sides of a given topic, and then each side critique the opposing argument made. It is a pure exchange of ideas. Fallacies are ways in which people attempt to circumvent logical debate with illogical, emotional diversion. Ad Hominem fallacy is an attempt to avoid addressing a counter argument by arguing that the source is not worth addressing. Source Watch's whole purpose is to feed people excuses for not addressing arguments.

If a source is wrong, and an argument invalid, then you should be able to deconstruct the argument without ever addressing the source. Most people can't actually debate, don't really know the subjects well enough to actually debate them, and so places like Source Watch get brisk business from people looking for an excuse not to address other people's arguments by dismissing them via ad hominem.
 
Surrealistik said:
You don't have to support or advocate for a specific party to be partisan so much as take up a political alignment which FEE clearly does per the libertarian vantage.


y provided.
Click to expand...

Well using that logic- nothing could ever be non-biased because every position aligns with one party or another.

What differentiates FEE is that they are principled behind economic principles. They will almost never talk about politics per se, unless there are economic implications.
And they regularly post articles that are not favorable to the GOP. In fact there is on up there right now.They absolutley do not carry water for Republicans
Forget the Low Job Growth, the Number of People Who've Stopped Looking for Work Is the Real Problem - Foundation for Economic Education
And i
 
KLATTU said:
comments welcome.
Click to expand...

One could hardly have imagined a stronger demonstration that the Austerians had it wrong.

But economists on the other side of the battlefield kept working.
Click to expand...
In short, the idiotic proponents of austerity were made to look like fools by Krugman, but desperate to save face they kept digging for a bull**** way to manipulate the numbers to look better than they were.

Here are the facts...
GDP Growth by year
UK 2009 -4.2%
US 2009 -2.8%

UK 2010 1.7%
US 2010 2.5%

UK 2011 1.5%
US 2011 1.6%

UK 2012 1.5%
US 2012 2.2%

In the four years following the great recession the UK continuously favored more austerity than the U.S. did, and in every single one of those years the United States bested the UK in GDP growth. Sometimes quite significantly. This is despite the fact that the U.S. wasn't even close to as aggressive as people like Krugman said we should be.

So yeah, Krugman was right. Austerity was stupid. This so called study is no more than a desperate attempt by conservatives to save face.
 
ecofarm said:
The level of ignorance and stupid in that paragraph is astounding. How is reasoning even possible with that grossly perverted and self serving misconception.

You need to look up the definition of ad hom.
Click to expand...

LOL. It's always fun when ignorant and indignant people demand you look up the definition of a word or phrase that they clearly don't understand. :lamo

Ad Hominem

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."
 
jmotivator said:
Ad hominem fallacy is ad hominem fallacy. The point of debate is to provide an argument on both sides of a given topic, and then each side critique the opposing argument made. It is a pure exchange of ideas. Fallacies are ways in which people attempt to circumvent logical debate with illogical, emotional diversion. Ad Hominem fallacy is an attempt to avoid addressing a counter argument by arguing that the source is not worth addressing. Source Watch's whole purpose is to feed people excuses for not addressing arguments.

If a source is wrong, and an argument invalid, then you should be able to deconstruct the argument without ever addressing the source. Most people can't actually debate, don't really know the subjects well enough to actually debate them, and so places like Source Watch get brisk business from people looking for an excuse not to address other people's arguments by dismissing them via ad hominem.
Click to expand...

Again, I was asked for proof of bias which I then provided.

The FEE author is wrong because he drew unsupported conclusions, not because he and the thinktank he represents are partisan entities.


KLATTU said:
Well using that logic- nothing could ever be non-biased because every position aligns with one party or another.

What differentiates FEE is that they are principled behind economic principles. They will almost never talk about politics per se, unless there are economic implications.
And they regularly post articles that are not favorable to the GOP. In fact there is on up there right now.They absolutley do not carry water for Republicans
Forget the Low Job Growth, the Number of People Who've Stopped Looking for Work Is the Real Problem - Foundation for Economic Education
And i
Click to expand...

Nothing from a human being is technically ever non-biased.

That said, FEE is concretely a partisan think tank where its politics and prejudices strongly and openly afflict and influence its prescriptions and assessments. It exists, per its own words, to promote a specific viewpoint and school of economic thought, to champion a partisan view, rather than to attempt to objectively assess and advise on policy.
 
MrWonka said:
In short, the idiotic proponents of austerity were made to look like fools by Krugman, but desperate to save face they kept digging for a bull**** way to manipulate the numbers to look better than they were.

Here are the facts...
GDP Growth by year
UK 2009 -4.2%
US 2009 -2.8%

UK 2010 1.7%
US 2010 2.5%

UK 2011 1.5%
US 2011 1.6%

UK 2012 1.5%
US 2012 2.2%

In the four years following the great recession the UK continuously favored more austerity than the U.S. did, and in every single one of those years the United States bested the UK in GDP growth. Sometimes quite significantly. This is despite the fact that the U.S. wasn't even close to as aggressive as people like Krugman said we should be.

So yeah, Krugman was right. Austerity was stupid. This so called study is no more than a desperate attempt by conservatives to save face.
Click to expand...

UK vs US. Apples oranges. You know better.

"The Conservative government implemented a program of budget cuts. Over a 5-year period exogenous fixed measures amounted to almost three percent of GDP, two-thirds expenditure cuts, and one-third tax hikes. It was harshly criticized by the IMF, which predicted a major recession. The latter did not materialize and the IMF later publicly apologized. The UK grew at respectable rates."
 
Surrealistik said:
Ag
That said, FEE is concretely a partisan think tank where its politics and prejudices strongly and openly afflict and influence its prescriptions and assessments. It exists, per its own words, to promote a specific viewpoint and school of economic thought, to champion a partisan view, rather than to attempt to objectively assess and advise on policy.
Click to expand...
Yeah the prejudices are SO strong that they posted that article I linked.
They do that all the time.

American Farmers Are the Casualties of Trump’s Trade War - Foundation for Economic Education

Trump’s Tariffs Cost Americans $19 Billion in 2018 - Foundation for Economic Education

Trump's Huawei Ban Vandalizes Basic Economics - Foundation for Economic Education

Trump Displays a Tenuous Grasp of How Tariffs Work - Foundation for Economic Education

Trump's Crackdown on Iran's Oil Exports Poses Risks to Global Economy - Foundation for Economic Education

https://fee.org/articles/trumps-budget-paves-the-road-to-fiscal-failure/

https://fee.org/articles/what-ocasio-cortez-gets-right-about-amazons-2-billion-government-handout/
 
Last edited:
Surrealistik said:
Again, I was asked for proof of bias which I then provided.
Click to expand...

I was responding specifically to this post, which is pure ad hominem.

My comment was specifically that Source Watch is a source for Ad Hominem arguments. That is just a fact. I can have no dispute with anything presented on Source Watch but it is still ad hominem because it's purpose to to avoid arguments by telling you to not even considering arguments from given sources.

You and KLATTU can argue all you want on the specifics of one article or the other, that is reasonable debate, my only interest in your back and forth is the dip into logical fallacy you made in post #5,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom