noam chomsky vs milton friedman

[Unkotare]

Though not wrong in every detail, the version of events offered by Cole and Ohanian is still a shocking distortion of what happened before FDR took office in March 1933. .

Did you earn your PhD in Economics at the same time as them? Boy, you all must have had some great debates in your graduate classes together!

I'm not arguing from authority. I'm arguing that if Cole and Ohanian have to distort economic data to make their point, then they haven't bothered to let the data guide them to their answers, and instead have to change the data to fit the answers they want.

Why are you afraid to read their study in detail before dismissing it as a threat to your ideology? Their study was four years in the making. Your post was an instantaneous emotional reaction. Why are you afraid to be informed? Why so afraid? Why?

 

[Shanty]

Is that what you want? No wonder conservatives and commies have so much in common.

thats what liberals want becuase for example, the govt helped develop the computer industry so why not every industry. We can ask the soviets for help!!

You're either seriously deluded or lying. Which is it?

Liberals have never gone that route, while conservatives want to socialize losses for the wealthy, while privatizing profits.

Liberals are generally for the invisible hand guiding the economy. But occasionally, temporary help for the invisible hand is necessary to allow it to see growth return in the wake of recessions.

Until deregulation of banking and Wall Street, recessions were relatively short in the Post-WWII era. They could be fixed with monetary policy and small fiscal stimulus. But the deregulation in banking and Wall Street, that led to asset bubbles in the last three recessions should have told conservatives in both parties how much of a failure their policies were.

 

[Shanty]

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2003/7/powell.pdf

Cato. LOL.

Real economists say differently.

Economists at Berkeley are "real" but ones at UCLA are not? Where are you employed as an economist?

Romer didn't have to make the evidence fit the conclusion like Cole and Ohanian did.

 

[Shanty]

Though not wrong in every detail, the version of events offered by Cole and Ohanian is still a shocking distortion of what happened before FDR took office in March 1933. .

Did you earn your PhD in Economics at the same time as them? Boy, you all must have had some great debates in your graduate classes together!

I'm not arguing from authority. I'm arguing that if Cole and Ohanian have to distort economic data to make their point, then they haven't bothered to let the data guide them to their answers, and instead have to change the data to fit the answers they want.

Why are you afraid to read their study in detail before dismissing it as a threat to your ideology? Their study was four years in the making. Your post was an instantaneous emotional reaction. Why are you afraid to be informed? Why so afraid? Why?

Because I've read papers on what the article is based on. I edited my response to it to put in a link that destroys Cato's assertions on Harding being the savior of 1921. Look... Cato has a political agenda. That's fine, but where they fuck it up is they refuse to stick to the data and facts to make their points. If they did stick to the data, they'd basically argue against their own agenda, though.

 

[Unkotare]

Liberals are generally for the invisible hand guiding the economy. ...

Only if it's really the government hand in the pockets of a shrinking pool of people who actually work. That dirty hand is not invisible, no matter what doublespeak you attempt.

Seems like you're afraid to even look clearly at what a liberal is in this day and age. Maybe time for a reassessment?

 

[Unkotare]

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2003/7/powell.pdf

Cato. LOL.

Real economists say differently.

Economists at Berkeley are "real" but ones at UCLA are not? Where are you employed as an economist?

Romer didn't have to make the evidence fit the conclusion like Cole and Ohanian did.

So, "real" economists are only those whose conclusions affirm your ideology? You're afraid to even be honest with yourself.

 

[Unkotare]

Though not wrong in every detail, the version of events offered by Cole and Ohanian is still a shocking distortion of what happened before FDR took office in March 1933. .

Did you earn your PhD in Economics at the same time as them? Boy, you all must have had some great debates in your graduate classes together!

I'm not arguing from authority. I'm arguing that if Cole and Ohanian have to distort economic data to make their point, then they haven't bothered to let the data guide them to their answers, and instead have to change the data to fit the answers they want.

Why are you afraid to read their study in detail before dismissing it as a threat to your ideology? Their study was four years in the making. Your post was an instantaneous emotional reaction. Why are you afraid to be informed? Why so afraid? Why?

Because I've read papers on what the article is based on...

Whoa! You've read papers! Wow. So you are a PhD in economics then? Do you suppose your colleagues at UCLA haven't read any papers? I mean, they only took four years to complete their study. Probably just threw it together at the last minute, huh?

 

[Unkotare]

Funny how everyone who doesn't reach the conclusions that Shitty is comfortable with is lying or uninformed or "afraid" of something. Very interesting pattern...

 

[Shanty]

Liberals are generally for the invisible hand guiding the economy. ...

Only if it's really the government hand in the pockets of a shrinking pool of people who actually work. That dirty hand is not invisible, no matter what doublespeak you attempt.

Seems like you're afraid to even look clearly at what a liberal is in this day and age. Maybe time for a reassessment?

If conservatives weren't so busy making unemployment bigger, you'd almost have a point. I think your problem is that you're buying into the conservatives' positions without bothering to see if they are true or not.

 

[Shanty]

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2003/7/powell.pdf

Cato. LOL.

Real economists say differently.

Economists at Berkeley are "real" but ones at UCLA are not? Where are you employed as an economist?

Romer didn't have to make the evidence fit the conclusion like Cole and Ohanian did.

So, "real" economists are only those whose conclusions affirm your ideology? You're afraid to even be honest with yourself.

Real economists allow the data to bring them to the conclusions, without having to distort and change data or data points to make their case. Cole and Ohanian can't say that. They are basically dismissing how big of an economic failure the 1929 stock market crash was, then saying FDR made the economy worse by changing data that wasn't true.

 

[Shanty]

Though not wrong in every detail, the version of events offered by Cole and Ohanian is still a shocking distortion of what happened before FDR took office in March 1933. .

Did you earn your PhD in Economics at the same time as them? Boy, you all must have had some great debates in your graduate classes together!

I'm not arguing from authority. I'm arguing that if Cole and Ohanian have to distort economic data to make their point, then they haven't bothered to let the data guide them to their answers, and instead have to change the data to fit the answers they want.

Why are you afraid to read their study in detail before dismissing it as a threat to your ideology? Their study was four years in the making. Your post was an instantaneous emotional reaction. Why are you afraid to be informed? Why so afraid? Why?

Because I've read papers on what the article is based on...

Whoa! You've read papers! Wow. So you are a PhD in economics then? Do you suppose your colleagues at UCLA haven't read any papers? I mean, they only took four years to complete their study. Probably just threw it together at the last minute, huh?

Read up on that stats, compare it to Cole and Ohanian, then see if the stats match C and O's use of them.

 

[Shanty]

Funny how everyone who doesn't reach the conclusions that Shitty is comfortable with is lying or uninformed or "afraid" of something. Very interesting pattern...

I'm only hitting Princess on his own use of the term "afraid". He keeps relying on it when I have no fear of the facts. Apparently you and he don't agree, Unibrow.

 

[Unkotare]

Liberals are generally for the invisible hand guiding the economy. ...

Only if it's really the government hand in the pockets of a shrinking pool of people who actually work. That dirty hand is not invisible, no matter what doublespeak you attempt.

Seems like you're afraid to even look clearly at what a liberal is in this day and age. Maybe time for a reassessment?

If conservatives weren't so busy making unemployment bigger, you'd almost have a point.

"In other words, the unemployment rate in all 49 months of Obama’s presidency has been higher than that of any single full month in President Bush’s 8 years in office."

Bush vs. Obama Unemployment January 2013 Jobs Data Reflections of a Rational Republican

I think your problem is that you're buying into the liberals' positions without bothering to see if they are true or not.


*ahem*

 

[Unkotare]

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2003/7/powell.pdf

Cato. LOL.

Real economists say differently.

Economists at Berkeley are "real" but ones at UCLA are not? Where are you employed as an economist?

Romer didn't have to make the evidence fit the conclusion like Cole and Ohanian did.

So, "real" economists are only those whose conclusions affirm your ideology? You're afraid to even be honest with yourself.

Real economists allow the data to bring them to the conclusions, without having to distort and change data or data points to make their case. Cole and Ohanian can't say that. ..

No economist who doesn't affirm your ideology "can" apparently say that, but ALL economists who affirm your predetermined positions "can." That sure is interesting...

 

[Unkotare]

Somebody sure is afraid of facts when it suits them to be...

 

[Shanty]

Liberals are generally for the invisible hand guiding the economy. ...

Only if it's really the government hand in the pockets of a shrinking pool of people who actually work. That dirty hand is not invisible, no matter what doublespeak you attempt.

Seems like you're afraid to even look clearly at what a liberal is in this day and age. Maybe time for a reassessment?

If conservatives weren't so busy making unemployment bigger, you'd almost have a point.

"In other words, the unemployment rate in all 49 months of Obama’s presidency has been higher than that of any single full month in President Bush’s 8 years in office."

Bush vs. Obama Unemployment January 2013 Jobs Data Reflections of a Rational Republican

I think your problem is that you're buying into the liberals' positions without bothering to see if they are true or not.


*ahem*

Looks like you're erasing at least a decade of history on housing markets before Obama took office.

I mean, of you're arguing the housing bubble never took place, then I'll have some fun with you being my target.

 

[Shanty]

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2003/7/powell.pdf

Cato. LOL.

Real economists say differently.

Economists at Berkeley are "real" but ones at UCLA are not? Where are you employed as an economist?

Romer didn't have to make the evidence fit the conclusion like Cole and Ohanian did.

So, "real" economists are only those whose conclusions affirm your ideology? You're afraid to even be honest with yourself.

Real economists allow the data to bring them to the conclusions, without having to distort and change data or data points to make their case. Cole and Ohanian can't say that. ..

No economist who doesn't affirm your ideology "can" apparently say that, but ALL economists who affirm your predetermined positions "can." That sure is interesting...

I don't care what their ideology is. Do they rely on facts? Or do they pull a Cole and Ohanian and change facts to suit their ideology? That's where you're ok with facts being changed, and I'm not.

 

[Shanty]

Somebody sure is afraid of facts when it suits them to be...

It's OK. I'll put a fact based night light in your room to keep the conservative monsters of stupidity from making you into a weenie with mommy issues.

 

[Andylusion]

Is that what you want? No wonder conservatives and commies have so much in common.

thats what liberals want becuase for example, the govt helped develop the computer industry so why not every industry. We can ask the soviets for help!!

You're either seriously deluded or lying. Which is it?

Liberals have never gone that route, while conservatives want to socialize losses for the wealthy, while privatizing profits.

Liberals are generally for the invisible hand guiding the economy. But occasionally, temporary help for the invisible hand is necessary to allow it to see growth return in the wake of recessions.

Until deregulation of banking and Wall Street, recessions were relatively short in the Post-WWII era. They could be fixed with monetary policy and small fiscal stimulus. But the deregulation in banking and Wall Street, that led to asset bubbles in the last three recessions should have told conservatives in both parties how much of a failure their policies were.

No, you are just lying. Conservatives are completely against government socializing the loss.

If you go back to the 2008...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/americas/26iht-repubs.4.16518356.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

As a dose of free-market, enterprise-society ideology, that could be sweet political medicine, at least for more conservative Republicans facing voters unhappy with government in general - especially members whose own seats in Congress are considered safe.

Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, and one of the most vocal critics of the administration's plan, has been urging lawmakers to slow down and consider alternative proposals.

Conservative Republicans tried to propose alternatives to the bailout, multiple times.

You are just wrong on that. I can't think of a single conservative that openly supported using tax payer money to bailout banks. Who exactly would you point to? It certainly wasn't any conservative I know.

It was the Liberals who said, if we don't bail out the banks, we'll end up in a great depression.

It is Conservatives on here who point to Iceland, and say 'see? Letting the banks fail, didn't ruin Iceland'. Or Estonia which allowed their banks to fail.

World Com was huge, and we let them fail. Lehman Brothers was massive, and we let them fail. Enron was massive, and we let them fail.

The economy didn't end. The world didn't stop. But the Liberals are the ones who say "Too Big Too Fail!" We can't let them fail, because they are too big! Funny... they failed, and apparently being big wasn't a problem.

And lastly, Liberals just flat out lie. You people LIE all the time. There was no deregulation. That's just flat out a lie. You lie, because if you don't, you don't have an ideology anymore.

 

[Andylusion]

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2003/7/powell.pdf

Cato. LOL.

Real economists say differently.

Economists at Berkeley are "real" but ones at UCLA are not? Where are you employed as an economist?

Romer didn't have to make the evidence fit the conclusion like Cole and Ohanian did.

So, "real" economists are only those whose conclusions affirm your ideology? You're afraid to even be honest with yourself.

Real economists allow the data to bring them to the conclusions, without having to distort and change data or data points to make their case. Cole and Ohanian can't say that. They are basically dismissing how big of an economic failure the 1929 stock market crash was, then saying FDR made the economy worse by changing data that wasn't true.

No, they are looking at the data, and that's what the data shows. You are just making up excuses for why they are wrong, because otherwise you wouldn't be able to defend your policy ideals.