America as a country absolutely disgusts me. Seriously. I'm fucking aghast.

The guy with the bicycle helmet reminds me this



Must be hard to take him seriously =)

hahaha i remember that shit was on tv like 12 years ago.

Yeah i remember when i was 10 going out with my friends on our 18 speed chinese mountain bikes pretending we are "pacific blue" trying to reproduce some of the stunts from the series =)))) Good times =D

I'd do Paula Trickey in a heartbeat..

Malibu CA > Pacific Blue for "12 year old shows" c:

I nearly drown off Malibu Pier :(
Was some rickety fucking wooden thing about 5 miles north of Santa monica.

So much for Baywatch.

Maybe you went to the wrong part?

maybe you weigh too much?

Yes, I wish I could lose weight so I can stay afloat in pacific ocean.

cock.

I wish you attended school instead of pillaging the local mcdonald's so you wouldn't "break the wooden thingy" or atleast be literate in your own fucking language.

It's not America, it's just a dumb cop.

yup, more or less it's the same all around the world :(

WHERE ARE YOU NOW, JONSEY?


edit: vid is from may btw

he would only appear if he were certain that the cop is republican

my best guess is he's boycotting the new "authoritarian nazi rules" (not my words), but who knows

ok jonsey ;)

Too bad it doesn't work like The Old Republic.

This is what is happening is the whole occident.

this one is better..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/05/t...oot-boy-15

Jaime Gonzalez?

Let's behonest, with a name like Gonzalez and carrying guns into school by 15, they probably did the world a favour.

saying that, they could have gone for a bodyshot, but if they did not know it was a peashooter, they would have to risk their life to save someone who to them would not return the favour.

Killing kids is ofc sad, but in america, plenty of kids have shot other kids, if someone is pointing a gun at you, you have few choices whether you're 15 or 55.

Black people and South Americans in particular glamourise a lot of the things they protest to being stigmatised with, so they deservere the attention they get from it be it increased stop and searches or public perception.

Jaime

OMG DUDE ITS YOU!

its a fucking airpistol... how dumb can you be not to notice that from 3m!?!?

if anything he should step towards him and give him a couple of lesson smacks.. but then again, its Texas.

another lmao

+ check 1:17

Yes, because technical difficulties have never happened in the history of television... ever. If CNN didn't want to have Ron Paul's views presented on the air, don't you think they would have avoided interviewing Ron Paul supporters at the Ron Paul headquarters in the first place?

Except CNN (and most other networks) are on a 1 minute delay to be able to do things like this in "live" interviews. For all kinds of reasons of course, in a live interview anything could be said after all.

How exactly does that prevent a technical difficulty from happening and preventing a proper display of the feed?

The "technical difficulty" is just a way not to allow the interview to continue to air.

On what exactly is this claim based on?

The timing of the cutting of the feed and the way it cuts. The interview continues at the location beyond the feed being cut and can be watched online, obviously the image of a US soldier being against attacking Iran wasn't welcome on CNN. Tape to air interviews get cut like this regularly if they stray from what they were hoping to get, although rarely in such a blatant way.

There is absolutely nothing particular about either the timing or the way the cutoff happens - cutoffs exactly like this one happen all the time on TV. Your claim that it was a deliberate attempt from CNN to censor the soldier is supported by no factual evidence whatsoever - it is the product of your personal beliefs regarding the "mainstream media" and its relation to Ron Paul. What do you think "they were hoping to get" when interviewing Ron Paul supporters at the Ron Paul headquarters about what they think of Ron Paul's policies? People disagreeing with Ron Paul?

And no shit the interview continued, who said anything about a malfunction of the actual videocamera used at the event?

I'm going to sleep now, so if you have any more completely unsubstantiated claims on the matter to share I'll reply tomorrow.

troll or dumb.

Yeah that's what actual critical thinking is going to look like to Ron Paul supporters.

Right, because I could not at all go on and on speculating about how they expected to corner a Ron Paul supporter from the military with their sleek questions and make him somehow look stupid, but having realized that his opinion is quite solid and they won't manage to derail him, they simply terminated the interview.

That's about as based on my "personal beliefs regarding the "mainstream media"" as everything you said is.

Yes, that would be another good example of a laughable attempt at fabricating a conspiratorial story based on absolutely nothing factual. What was your point again?

do you view CNN as an unbiased and free source of information?

I'm not too sure of what you meant by "free source", but I apply skepticism when I'm presented with information, and the information provided by TV channels is obviously pretty high up the list :-) It would be absurd to make a statement like "CNN is not biased".

high up the list? that doesn't even make sense. there's no point of reference. is it high up the list of sources you trust or high up on the list of sources you're skeptical about? we can't have a discussion if you keep doing this vagueness thing.

Erm, since when do I "keep doing this vagueness thing"? Sorry if you didn't get my reply but I thought it was pretty straightforward when I wrote it - I am particularly skeptical of the information I receive from news channels.

why?

Notably because the format usually prevents in-depth analysis and fundamental/critical questioning and favors shortcuts, and because the editorial process leaves a lot of room for errors and bias (whether it is conscious and deliberate or not).

so you're saying that bias on a TV network could indeed be conscious and deliberate?

Yes, of course.

sweet

Is there any news organization that is not biased? Seriously, factual news are next to non-existent. What you can do an array of opinions or information about a matter and then try to come up with your own.

Or am I totally off here? :D

Well a postmodernist would tell you that as humans we are incapable of objectively accessing reality and that truth is always socially constructed ;-)

Ultimately, if you want to reach a better understanding of a given topic you're going to have to rely on doubt and skepticism as you browse through books and scientific articles dedicated to the subject. Even doing field research yourself directly to the source is not a guarantee against bias (in this case, your own).

There are, of course, factors that are supposed to help prevent bias and ensure the quality and the validity of published analyses, such as peer review in social science journals. This can however certainly never be a definitive guarantee against bias either. On this matter a paper entitled "Missing the end of the Cold War in International Security" written by Hugh Gusterson comes to mind - in it, the author shows that the vast majority (if not all) of authors (mainly political scientists) who published articles in the academic journal "International Security" (published by Harvard University) before the end of the Cold War were incapable of even imagining that the USSR would soon collapse and the Cold War come to an end. They took for granted a certain vision of the world and subscribed to a "Cold War narrative" which they did not seek to question - and peer review obviously did not help.

Thanks for your input. It seems like you know your shit (: Loving it.

Dunno I'd probably rank guardian, bbc, reuters, and maybe wsj and nyt in the less biased group.

I'm just exploring all the possibilities, which should be familiar to you, Mr. Critical Thinker. And since there's no direct evidence to prove or disprove my claim, we're down to circumstancial evidence showing how the media people tend to treat Ron Paul. There's plenty examples all over the internet, most notably the edited hit-job interview done by a wife of a Washington insider or this slip of the tongue. Even Jon Stewart, who's no libertarian, mocked "the citizens of Talkingheadsylvania" for their approach towards him.

We're not "down to" anything - the "the media will stop at nothing to destroy Ron Paul" lenses you're wearing make you incapable of recognizing a simple technical failure for what it is. What you just mentioned is not related in any way to the cutoff - you're drawing imaginary links between the two because of those lenses.

Oh, so your subjectivity is better than mine. With that, your opinions are unshakeable. Nice going ;)

No, I base my opinion on factual evidence rather than personal beliefs. You have yet to present me with a single piece of evidence indicating it was a deliberate cutoff. Instead, all you've done is show me that your lenses lead you to draw conclusions that have no objective and factual basis.

You are o easy to bait.

Just type Ron Paul, Shiff, Capitalism and there You go...

Oh my...

the relevance of ESReality discussion on political matters is virtually zero; unfortunately, this is further [negatively] enhanced by its own political establishment. I'd already made an intelligent reply to the post which I'm now replying to which was censored by the ESReality administration.

this is about how I expect things are for Ron Paul. amusing, but sad.

I did not see your reply if you did post it.

Read the following article. You'll understand the liberal democratic bias in the media a little more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States

Point: The democratic party is choosing romney as the republican nominee because he's the most moderate of the group, and the biased news outlets are ensuring it happens with biased polls (as apparent by the final outcomes in 2008 and in iowa this year to date.

Where you planning on providing me with something else than the usual ranting of conservatives against the "liberal media" before you wrote that post, or did you think we'd forget you still have no ground to stand on regarding the cutoff?

I don´t think that you should fill all the thread with your so-called factual statements, just because one cannot understand how the interview can goes on if there are technical difficulties, it doesn´t make this strange coincidence just hard luck
from what can be seen, if this interview should have gone flawless, it would have been a very solid document over time on the opinion of a regular soldier abt the trend of going to war against Iran, we all can sees at least one news a week abt Iran -Iran did this, Iran did that, it is obvious someone with big influence in usa that is obsessed by Iran
we have that small island which drills oil from Iran´s resources and we have the embargo and on top of that ONU military boats patrolling the area, because the threat of Somalis pirates, omg how many coincidences, if I´d be you I´d change my name into IAmABeliever

I understood your position and sympathies
or do they pay you to defend your democratic torture point of view

I have a tendency to reply when people talk to me. I find your suggestion that I change my name to IAmABeliever quite amusing considering the only position I've defended in this thread is that I am skeptical of unsubstantiated claims regarding the cutoff. As in I'm doubtful of the validity of conclusions based on belief systems rather than evidence.

if you see three lines [edit: which seem to converge] towards one point, but you have limited view so you cannot see the point these lines could converge, saying that there is a very high probability that the convergence is actually happening, sounds true or false to you?

Your image does not apply.

You Paul supporters are really running out of material.

No, we're not ;)

That would be a great example of why not to vote for Paul. I meant the new "CONSPIRACY AGAINST RON PAUL" material, used as an excuse for why he fails in the polls.

First of all, you'd have to be pretty daft not to notice how the media and the republican establishment treat him.

Exhibit and Explanation

Second of all, have you seen the recent polls and the results of the Iowa caucuses? Get your facts right as far as his failing in the polls is concerned.

ESR seems to be bugging out and losing replies.

The media are doing a favor by ignoring him, especially since they are only doing it because he is unelectable. If his views actually got coverage, he'd push away every rational person who supports him.

The Iowa caucuses were tainted by democrats who registered as republican, just to support Paul. Even with two parties behind him, he STILL lost Iowa. That was the only state where he even had a chance, and he still couldn't take it. Even in NH, where he should have the advantage, he can't compete in the polls.

What's wrong with Paul, vedic? And who are you supporting?

I don't support any of them, but Paul would probably be the worst.

How can you support one of them?

I don't. I don't believe in Democracy. They move left, then collapse. But RP is by far and away the least worst candidate. He gets marginalized because of his supporters, I guess.

In addition, rational ignorance is in play regarding Democracy and voting. It is rational to be ignorant of information that is worth less than it costs. Thus hardly anybody has that information, and the vast majority vote ignorantly.

The noose is always around your neck in a leftist world. When it gets tightened is at the point it becomes visible, not at the point that it exists.

I say again: RP is BY FAR the least worst candidate.

How can anyone with a brain look at the Republican lineup and not break out into laughter?

great question. very intelligent analysis. almost [mash]-level. I applaud the eloquence and informed nature of ESReality political discussion.

y not log in, daryl?

They're not Republicans, they're leftists, minus Paul.

this is true, had they let him get more airtime he'd just be exposed for what he is, another republican nutjob. obviously the corporate media wants to keep him out of the republican cake, and since we're talking about a country where GWB won twice, a republican nutjob with an independent twist could well be what the public would vote for.

Notice I asked Vedic a question he didn't answer.

So now I'll ask you: what is wrong with Paul?

gun nut, anti abortion nut, religion nut, anti healthcare nut, anti immigration nut. the list goes on. few things that make him slightly better than the average republican are that he's anti war mixed with few leftist perks here and there.

He has a consistent voting record; he believes in the Constitution and he believes in freedom. Is that so terrible?

He's antiwar because a Libertarian axiom is non-coercion.

All that "nut" stuff really isn't necessary.

"he believes in the Constitution and he believes in freedom"

oh yes, you'll find many politicians who declare that they don't believe in those two.

"All that "nut" stuff really isn't necessary. "

it really really is.

He has a consistent voting record; he believes in the Constitution and he believes in freedom. Is that so terrible?

False. He believes in the constitution when it agrees with him, and disagrees with it when it goes against his conservative/religious views.

Having a consistent voting record means absolutely nothing if you are being consistently irrational. Religious people are also consistently irrational, and they deserve no respect.

He is NOT a libertarian, since he does not actually believe in freedom. He believes in freedom of the STATES, not of the people. He believes that the bill of rights does not apply to the states, that the 14th amendment is invalid, and that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the states. He fully supports states imposing laws against your freedoms, so long as it is on the STATE level.

Paul is not libertarian, just anti-federal government.

He isn't strictly a Libertarian just like all remaining candidates aren't strictly leftists, but leftists nonetheless.

David Friedman is a Libertarian, and maybe you know Libertarians are always arguing about one thing or another but these are highly pedantic arguments of nuance and detail.

Religious irrationality does not hold for other topics that have nothing to do with ones religion. Religious folks are as rational or perhaps even MORE rational about things THAT ACTUALLY MATTER but not about their religion.

He isn't strictly a Libertarian just like all remaining candidates aren't strictly leftists, but leftists nonetheless.

Nobody running could be considered "left". Even Obama could should be considered center-right. Paul is far right, straight into crazy town.

Religious irrationality does not hold for other topics that have nothing to do with ones religion.

It does, though. An inability to logically process evidence is not a localized issue.

A Republican today was a bleeding heart thirty years ago. He's nowhere near a moderate. Then again the current Republican candidates are nowhere near Republican.

No need to confuse left/right with democrat/republican.

No need to use the word "confused" when nothing of the sort has happened.

You were trying to define "Republican" which had nothing to do with what I was talking about.

No I wasn't trying to define "Republican".

You've been quite loose with your verbiage, and so have I, but I'll let this stand as one example of many in this little talk.

No, you brought up left/right, and I commented on left/right. Then you go off on a Republican tangent, when party has nothing to do with it.

"gun nut, anti abortion nut, religion nut, anti healthcare nut, anti immigration nut. the list goes on. few things that make him slightly better than the average republican are that he's anti war mixed with few leftist perks here and there."

Do you think there should be a Department of Penises? I'll assume you don't. Are you then against penises?

All the nut-calling probably stems from your perception that the spectrum of political discourse ranges from Hillary Clinton to Mitt Romney - laughable.

I'm sorry, but anyone who calls himself "an unshakable foe of abortion" and says shit like "Whether it's an automatic weapon or not is, I think, irrelevant" is what we in the industry call a fucking nut.

fuck tourist you're actually smart

He's not. He's arguing with idiots.

good point :>

He missed the point. So in that aspect, you're quite accurate.

zzzzzzzz

retard with QL as only interrest in his entire life.

zzzzzzzzz

What's ironic about this video is I observe these may be state lovers that are being arrested by the state.

The state is my enemy.

enemy of the state?

Get this. Reactions are priceless.

Ha ha... is that Milton? I love Milton.

BTW everyone should be familiar with Hayek and Milton. Both Micro and Macro economists...


Milton Freedman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfdRpyfEmBE
(all other links follow if you want)

Hayek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqU-AZh-wqU

David Friedman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXWFWIM8OCI&am...DA91BC8A81

Ask a leftist if they have heard of Hayek. I am always reminded of how incredibly ignorant they are. It's sad really.

(Day 1 stuff)

friedman is the greatest debator you will ever see.

if you haven't already, watch his documentary series 'free to choose'. extremely interesting.

best rebuttal http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg

Naaah, that's Rothbard. Friedman is an interventionist in comparison to him ;D As far as free markets and liberty is concerned, it doesn't get any better than Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe. Check them out.

Book:

http://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Documents-...amp;sr=8-1

If after reading Lysander Spooner (the greatest American author), Hayek, Milton and then David, then you can start your bullshit about "nuts".

Here's looking at you Tourist. I wish I had more time, but I've already been down this road more than a thousand times.

Good luck.

Edit:

A-synopsis:

As for the book itself, the Road to Serfdom explains the rise of totalitarianism in twentieth century Europe. Yet it also made a more general argument concerning the incompatibility of democracy and comprehensive central planning. Hayek argues that the pursuit of socialist ideals leads to totalitarianism. While socialist ideals seem noble to many, those who persist in realizing these ideals will find it necessary to adopt coercive methods that are incompatible with freedom. Thus socialists must choose between their egalitarian goals and the preservation of individual liberty.

I have literally thousands of economic books, anybody can PM me for some copies.

so socialist ideas -> totalitarianism

wow I had no idea that sweden, denmark etc were such totalitarian regimes. thanks for opening my eyes bro.

... after watching some youtube videos of ron paul, ... this guy makes sense in his opinions and explanations about the current problems of the US.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscree...YjBoHAzhiU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_CxjOOT_XQ&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzl7TwnTu5Y&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn8jNdnGqYQ&feature=related

What is the other side of him that ppl wont/didnt vote for him?

With Ron Paul, most of the information is only half of the story.

- Does not believe in separation of church and state
- Believes the UN is a conspiracy to disarm America
- Believes corporations have a right to discriminate
- Believes sexual harassment victims share the blame
- Supports austrian economics
- Supports the right of states to regulate marriage, and exclude genders/religions/etc
- Attempted to pass federal legislation to make abortion murder
- Racist history
- Voted against giving Rosa Parks a congressional gold medal
- Is opposed to the Civil Rights Act
- Does not believe in a right to privacy
- Would close the Department of Education
- Would close the Environmental Protection Agency
- Is against socialized health care, and any government social programs
- Earmark hypocrisy
- Touted support of pastor who supports death penalty for gays

A lot of people support him for "being consistent", but even if you want to ignore that he's been consistently crazy, if he kept his voting record from congress, he would not be passing ANYTHING as president, essentially forcing congress to cooperate (fat chance), or bringing our country to a halt. Congress can bypass him with a super-majority, but we've already had several government shutdown panics in the past year, due to congress being unable to cooperate - and that's with Obama essentially letting congress walk all over him.

I will rebuke almost every one of these stupid points on Saturday, so, until then, please take it with a grain of salt.

- Supports austrian economics

I will quickly address this one right now, because it's the closest to my heart. Here's the basic argument. It's actually Austrian vs Mainstream economics, but you get the point.

I'll be happy to prove all of your attempted spin wrong!

Your video, for instance, doesn't actually make an argument. Many people were warning about the housing bubble collapse on both sides of the aisle, but the only reason that libertarians ever jump on board with any of these predictions is when they are "ZOMG END OF THE WORLD" issues. How many predictions have they gotten wrong so far? Ron Paul has been warning of hyperinflation since the 1970's. If you claim that the world is ending enough times, you're eventually going to be right.

Austrian economics isn't based on any actual statistics, or evidence. It's just an ideology, that has already failed us. You can't even call our current economic model Keynesian, since the republicans have been interfering in every way that they can.

"Austrian economics isn't based on any actual statistics, or evidence."

From this I conclude that you don't use math. Or maybe you do, but first you'd have to measure a couple hundred right triangles to prove with decent statistical significance that the pythagorean theorem holds for them. Then you obviously would have to conclude thousands more empirical experiments to verify all other laws in maths. See the absurdity of what applying your logic with consistency causes?

Just like math, austrian economics is based on deductive logic from basic axioms, which, as long as the logic is sound, do not require empirical verification. That doesn't mean that conclusions based on austrian economic analysis are inapplicable to the real world. Show some effort and at least get familiar with this article.

My major in uni is econometrics, so I am acquainted with the methodological background of the empiricists' approach towards economics. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of you as far as the rationalist's approach is concerned, which you've beautifully shown by writing something this absurd. At least come clean and admit that you've picked it from wikipedia or salon.com...

As a form of beating a dead horse, I will add that even your claim that austrian econ is ideology is wrong. Ideology presupposes the preference for certain values (ideals), and while the great majority of austrians are libertarians, it is easily conceivable that one could be in favour of things like the minimum wage (if that person's goal is to increase unemployment) or full-on socialism (if that person's goal is the elimination of division of labor). If austrian econ were indeed ideology, such extreme sets of values as libertarianism and socialism could never be vindicated by it.

Just like math, austrian economics is based on

Let me stop you there. It isn't based on math. You know, that whole "applied logic" thing that pretty much drives the entire world, and all of science?

My major in uni is econometrics, so I am acquainted with the methodological background of the empiricists' approach towards economics.

Great, so you must have learned that austrian economics is only really taught to introduce you to the theory, and that it isn't taken seriously in economics.

Ideology presupposes the preference for certain values

Which is exactly what it is. Modern economics can, and does, change based on new information and study. Austrian economics assumes a conclusion, and isn't influenced by the evidence - it is not science.

I didn't say it was based on math, you misread me. Please reread the post and reply accordingly.

"Great, so you must have learned that austrian economics is only really taught to introduce you to the theory, and that it isn't taken seriously in economics."

No. Both economic approaches differ in such basic concepts as value - mainstream economists assume cardinal utility functions (continuous, differentiable) and austrians assume ordinal value scales. There's little room for common ground after that. They may arrive at the same conclusion in a slightly different way though.

"Which is exactly what it is. Modern economics can, and does, change based on new information and study. Austrian economics assumes a conclusion, and isn't influenced by the evidence - it is not science."

Is it the same sort of assumption that the result of adding 2 and 2 is 4? Can you find "new information and study" to the contrary, or would you rather have to point to a mistake in the reasoning or the axioms on which the reasoning is based to disprove the result?

Don't deflect this time.

I didn't say it was based on math, you misread me.

I know that you didn't, and you shouldn't even compare it to math.

Is it the same sort of assumption that the result of adding 2 and 2 is 4? Can you find "new information and study" to the contrary, or would you rather have to point to a mistake in the reasoning or the axioms on which the reasoning is based to disprove the result?

If you can provide proof why adding 2 and 2 isn't 4, it would certainly be worth evaluating. You haven't, though - austrian economics is just "well, MAYBE it isn't 4 - and because I don't accept your proof, I'm going to say that it isn't."

"I know that you didn't, and you shouldn't even compare it to math."

Care to explain why? Because you think so? Catch my in my stupid comparisons and say why they aren't appropriate instead of stating upfront that so and so shouldn't even be done.

The thing is that I know enough about both to make the comparison and back it up. Both disciplines rely on rationalism and not empiricism (Before you say that it isn't true and call austrian econ ideology, don't hesitate to provide some examples of an austrian econ guy (Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe or even Paul, since he's the main subject of this thread) commit a logical mistake in their reasoning.

"If you can provide proof why adding 2 and 2 isn't 4, it would certainly be worth evaluating. You haven't, though - austrian economics is just "well, MAYBE it isn't 4 - and because I don't accept your proof, I'm going to say that it isn't." "

Would that be empirical proof or rational one? The latter part of this quote is just stupid and shows that you know nothing about austrian methodology, which is the same as methodology in maths (theoretical reasoning without empirical verification). If the theoretical proof is correct (given starting assumptions, obviously), there's unanimous agreement about the conclusion. This certainly isn't the case among mainstream economists with examples of free market guys like Friedman and an interventionists like Stiglitz.

"Austrian economics isn't based on any actual statistics, or evidence."

Applying this to math, you consider it ideology. Lovely.

The whole problem with economic verification comes down to the inability to isolate other influencing factors. The popular economic law says:
if the demand for a good increases, the price will rise or remain unchanged.

It actually should be: if the demand for a good increases, all other things equal, the price will rise or remain unchanged.

You cannot verify that empirically, because you can't assure that all other things were equal in the period when you measured the demand and price. For example, the supply could have gone up substantially, so the increase in demand would have been offset by the supply increase, which could have resulted in lowering of the price.

Then, you would have to conclude that when the demand for a good increases, the price decreases, which would possibly be disproven if you used other data. And so on, and so on, you'd be moving in circles.

Sure, there are certain work-arounds to this problem (like instrumental variables) but any sane econometrician will tell you that they are deeply imperfect and arbitrary, because it's down to the researcher to pick the variables.

So, to sum up, you've got contradicting conclusions from the same premise. So much for your economic law.

Contrast this with the austrian reasoning and try to honestly evaluate if it is "cooky" or "ideological".

There are potential buyers on the market who are willing to exchange a certain good for money. They have their maximum buying prices (the highest price they're willing to give up for the good).

Now, if another potential buyer joins the market and his maximum buying price is lower then the prevailing market price, no seller will be willing to sell the good to him, because he can always sell it to someone else for the market price, which, again, is higher. The result will be that the market price doesn't budge.

However, if his maximum buying price is higher then the prevailing market price, sellers will want to sell as much of their stock as he demands, and he will have to offer a slightly higher price than the rest of the potential buyers, if he wants to obtain the good.

So, when the demand for a good increases, all other things being equal (mainly the supply), the price will rise or remain unchanged.

I'm more interested in the other points.

Care to explain why?

It's an insult to math.

Would that be empirical proof or rational one?

Both.

The latter part of this quote is just stupid and shows that you know nothing about austrian methodology, which is the same as methodology in maths (theoretical reasoning without empirical verification).

It isn't theoretical, it's hypothetical, and not supported by actual math.

The whole problem with economic verification comes down to the inability to isolate other influencing factors.

This is why modern economics actually changes, and adapts to new information. This isn't a problem, it's how we rationally approach everything.

Sure, there are certain work-arounds to this problem (like instrumental variables) but any sane econometrician will tell you that they are deeply imperfect and arbitrary, because it's down to the researcher to pick the variables.

Science does not attempt to be perfect - it only attempts to find the truth, as best as it can be found.

So, to sum up, you've got contradicting conclusions from the same premise. So much for your economic law.

The premise is entirely different.

Contrast this with the austrian reasoning and try to honestly evaluate if it is "cooky" or "ideological".

All of your arguments come down to misrepresentations of reality, in order to fit your preconceived ideology. It is not based on evidence, it dismisses the evidence as being incomplete (without evidence), and it is not falsifiable. "Cooky" would be an understatement.

I hereby declare a loss and give up. Not that you've revolutionized the way I think about economics or epistemology, but because sometimes you have to know when you're confronted with a lost cause.

" Would that be empirical proof or rational one?

Both."

That totally made my day ;D Empirical verification or falsification of laws of maths. I'll pass it along for entertainment purposes, if you don't mind. I've even come up with one line already: "I wonder how the introduction of iPhone 5 will influence validity of the Pythagorean theorem." I know it's quite crude but give me time to work on some others.

I hope you're going to rebuke the other points on Saturday as you promised, it should be much more entertaining.

Are you hoping that the things I pointed out aren't true, or were you just hoping to see a discussion? If you don't want to wait for him, I can provide sources.

I actually believe what you wrote is correct (from my limited knowledge of the subject), although I haven't verified everything. Hence why I want to see how he is going to rebuke any of it.

I'll concentrate on the more sensible ones, while omitting rubbish like "- Does not believe in a right to privacy" simply because it flies in the face of a basic libertarian principle of respect for private property and everything I've so far read of Paul is deeply rooted in this principle.

I sprained my ankle yesterday, so I do have some time to go along with the promise/declaration I've made ;p

I'll concentrate on the more sensible ones, while omitting rubbish like "- Does not believe in a right to privacy" simply because it flies in the face of a basic libertarian principle of respect for private property and everything I've so far read of Paul is deeply rooted in this principle.

Paul is not libertarian, and if you don't intend to respond to everything, I'll just back it up with his actual legislation, anyway.

Empirical verification or falsification of laws of maths.

I didn't say "or".

I've decided not to. Even my abundant time is too precious for someone who wants to develop maths empirically, so I'll let Ron Paul defend himself since he's already written a book on most of these topics. Here are the snippets and the full book is available on torrents, which I obviously stronly discourage everyone from using (!). Most topics are covered in 2-3 pages, so it's a light read.

So, your time is too precious to address the points, but not too precious to write a post about how precious your time is?

If I were making my case by throwing around a bunch of vague one-liners like you have above, timewise it wouldn't make a difference whether I write that post or actually address your smear on Ron Paul, but that's not my style.

Smear? I don't even have a problem with the actual Paul supporters who know his policies, and who support them. I have a problem with those people who try to represent him as some liberal, freedom-loving, candidate.

You claimed that you could "rebuke almost every one of these stupid points", which leads me to believe that you're the type who doesn't actually know his positions, and you're just repeating the half-truths that Paul supporters have been spreading. I can only imagine that, in your quest to prove me wrong, you found out that I was correct. At least admit that you are wrong.

you sound like a politician. what victory do you get from appearing to be "right" on ESReality? even if you were, nobody cares. I think you have low self-esteem.

it's obvious that you're trying to smear, considering you're implying that a libertarian is essentially not freedom-loving or socially "liberal." that's patently absurd.

I never said that libertarians aren't, I said that Ron Paul isn't. Ron Paul is not a libertarian.

uh, actually, he is a libertarian in ideology, and ran for president as the libertarian nominee in 1988. you are, again, being an idiot. I was well aware that you were talking about Ron Paul, which is why I said that you're implying such a thing.

you obviously are, as most of your bullet points center around typical libertarian ideas, which are nothing more than demagoguing nonsense:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

- Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

... and? Running as a libertarian does not make him a libertarian. He panders to libertarians because he shares a lot of things in common, but he does not support individual rights, he supports state rights.

Smears:

- Earmark hypocrisy
- Does not believe in a right to privacy
- Racist history
- Believes sexual harassment victims share the blame
- Believes the UN is a conspiracy to disarm America
- Does not believe in separation of church and state

This one I haven't heard about:

- Touted support of pastor who supports death penalty for gays

But it might also be a cunning smear, since you haven't clarified if he supported him for that specific reason.

Others are legit but he's right on these issues if we assume away a voluntaryist society (apart from abortion, which I absolutely can't make my mind up on)

Oh, so now that I've insulted your excuse, this is suddenly worth your precious time. Do you actually intend to respond to them, or are you just going to say that they're smears?

4 of those smears are easily rebuked just on the grounds of basic libertarian principle of non-aggression against private property. Since you haven't made a cogent argument as to why we shouldn't view Ron Paul as a libertarian, I'll side with the most prominent libertarian philosophers, who consider(ed) him as one.

I won't go any further with this because I'm not sure if I am ready to hear another bombshell similar to empirical verification of maths.

So you're not actually going to argue the points, you're just going to say that he's libertarian. I guess I can't expect much from someone who supports austrian economics. It's surprising how much a non-American can be drawn in by this personality cult.

You've exhausted my will to argue in a magnificent style.

Is this about me, or is it about other people reading? You tried to give warning to people that my post shouldn't be taken seriously until you've had a go at it, so what does that have to do with arguing?

First, you put it off until Saturday.. then you spent the entire time up until Saturday writing out long replies on one part of it, only to run away when you can't validate your beliefs with evidence... then Saturday finally comes by, and you say that you aren't going to reply because it isn't worth your time... then my reply to that suddenly makes it worth your time, but only enough to point out which ones you were GOING to rebuke... and now I've exhausted your will to argue? You haven't even begun! Should I expect that your excuse will keep changing, or will you actually be making a decision between responding, and leaving the discussion?

No, no, no, my dear American ;) Right now I'm just making fun of you. Everyone who wanted to get the perspective saw how incohesive and vague your arguments were concerning austrian econ. I've indicated that other points are handled by Ron Paul in Liberty Defined, so it's all there to be found without the risk of my misstating Ron's positions.

actually you haven't refuted a single point of his thus far. why don't you try one, here give it a go.

- Does not believe in separation of church and state

go at it tiger, it's just a silly smear anway should be fairly easy to prove wrong.

The whole problem with economic verification comes down to the inability to isolate other influencing factors. The popular economic law says:
if the demand for a good increases, the price will rise or remain unchanged.

It actually should be: if the demand for a good increases, all other things equal, the price will rise or remain unchanged.

You cannot verify that empirically, because you can't assure that all other things were equal in the period when you measured the demand and price. For example, the supply could have gone up substantially, so the increase in demand would have been offset by the supply increase, which could have resulted in lowering of the price.

Then, you would have to conclude that when the demand for a good increases, the price decreases, which would possibly be disproven if you used other data. And so on, and so on, you'd be moving in circles.

Sure, there are certain work-arounds to this problem (like instrumental variables) but any sane econometrician will tell you that they are deeply imperfect and arbitrary, because it's down to the researcher to pick the variables.

So, to sum up, you've got contradicting conclusions from the same premise. So much for your economic law.

nothing to do with
- Does not believe in separation of church and state

try again

I was responding to "actually you haven't refuted a single point of his thus far".

meh

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-7...n-ron-paul

"It may sound nice on the surface but if you think it through, it's just a call for corporate tyranny. It takes away any barrier to corporate tyranny.

But, it's all academic. The business world would never permit it to happen because it would destroy the economy. They can't live without a powerful state, and they know it."

This and the fact that no billionaire, no major financial institution backed Ron's candidacy is a dictionary definition of contradiction in two consecutive sentences and overall bullshit.

Btw, what does that Chomsky piece have to do with anything? Some kind of authority complex I should have for him? If I quote a Nobel prize winning economist who calls for a free market solutions to the economy, will u authomatically agree with me? I don't think you will and I would fully understand your rejection if that were the only argument for free markets.

Btw2: on the left of that article I had an article byKrugman and Reich, who are as liberal and partisan as it gets. Don't expect to get any kind of different point of view from that source.

No, there is no contradiction between these two sentences. His argument that if enacted libertarian ideology would remove all barriers to corporate tyranny does not imply in any way that in that situation the economy would be in a better state.

I don't know what your idea of tyranny is, but I find it reasonable to assume that in case of tyranny it is beneficial to the tyrant to remain in that state, therefore he would be in favour of maintaining it. He wouldn't, as long as he were the beneficiary, care one bit about the "economy", whatever the definition of that would in that case be.

Otherwise, he would respect the other party's (property) rights and not impose his tyrannical power, because it would be beneficial to him.

Let me simplify:

Ron Paul's ideas = supposedly free ride for corporations - they call the shots so they can arrange the game the way to benefit themselves as much as possible.
Ron Paul's ideas turn out to be disastrous for the economy, therefore (by Chaomsky's assumption) for the corporations, so they, given their free reign, abandon his (supposedly beneficial to them) ideas, which leaves them where they started from, i.e. more or less today's arrangement. Why would they now advocate Ron Paul's solutions, if they already have what's ultimately beneficial to them today?

And I would be really interested in hearing Chaomsky elaborate on the concept of "tyrranical power" of corporations. Is anyone forced to take the job or buy the product? And if it is the best possible job or product on the market, even though one would wish for better service, aren't the coporations offering one a better option than one'd have without the offer?

Not to mention that he idiotically lumps all kinds of companies together into one term "business world": those companies, which hugely benefit from government regulations limiting their competition, and those, which struggle in complying with these very same regulations every day.

And yet again you don't even mention the health care issue.

You should really pay more attention to what Chomsky is saying. I'll break it down for you again:

a) Libertarian ideology if enacted would allow for corporate tyranny
b) Libertarian ideology if enacted would destroy the economy
c) Because of b), the business world would not allow libertarian ideology to be enacted

Corporations and big businesses would have free reign and would be able to set the rules, but they would be unable to make as much profit as before because the economy would be in a terrible state (notably because of the absence of a powerful state). Since their primary aim is to make profit, they would therefore not want this to happen. There is absolutely no contradiction in Chomsky's argument.

I think you've got it wrong. If we were in a state of corporate tyranny, the corporations would be able to adjust the system in such a way as to get as much money/resources as possible (I deliberately didn't call it 'making a profit', since I assume that if they weren't restrained by consumers' property rights (corporate tyranny after all, right?), they would eventually violate them on a massive scale). So, if they were able to impose any laws and regulations they expected would make them best of, nothing would stop them. If today's arrangement were better than libertarian society for the corporations, I see no reason why they would advocate for libertarianism to be introduced. And, as we all can see, they don't. Big business gather behind the likes of Obama and Romney, not Ron Paul (Chomsky's first premise goes out of the window).

You do realize that Chomsky never said big businesses would support Ron Paul's ideology, right? He said the exact opposite, namely that "the business world would never permit it to happen". You're not pointing out a contradiction in his statements.

let's look at the historical data for a second and examine examples where there was little government control over business in the past. wasn't it precisely the lack of control over banking and investment that caused the 2008 crisis? wasn't it unregulated market and banking that caused the great depression?

granted the u.s. government arguably worsened the situation by making terrible moves, throwing money at "too big to fail" companies, giving billions of unmonitored money to people who caused the fall to begin with, but it wasn't government restrictions that caused the crisis, was it?

unless of course you decide to ignore all empirical evidence... I noticed you tend do that.

Yes, that's how unscientific I am. I am equally amazed as you are how such a dogmatic ignoramus like me can major in "quantitative methods in economics" and know less about it than any ESR user. Most intriguing!

exceptionally unsubstantiated post, you've just outdone yourself my dear polak.

You want substance? Go through this, this, this, and this.

Glad I could help.

let's look at the historical data for a second and examine examples where there was little government control over business in the past.

So why wasn't the 19th century America mired in a 100 years long depression? How does that fit into your mountain of empirical evidence and days of careful study?

I like your way of arguing a point. after conducting a careful research I found a link that refutes your point however, here. I suggest you don't come back before you've read it. ALL of it.

Chile after 1973.

You couldn't even defend austrian economics, which wasn't even something to "rebuke" to begin with.

what are austrian economics?

It's an economic ideology that most libertarians subscribe to. Rather than approaching economics from a statistical/scientific method, they have come to their economic model through a "feel good" approach. Their argument is that you can never account for all the variables (which is exactly what statistics is DESIGNED for), so no matter what conclusion you come to (even if it is the right one), they argue that it is wrong in principle.

In the economic world, it is not taken seriously. While some of the premises are sound, we've long since advanced to a point where they are no longer relevant. Much like Newtonian physics, it was good enough for its time, but is not describing reality.

Their argument is that you can never account for all the variables (which is exactly what statistics is DESIGNED for)

Having barely recovered from the first revelation, you've blown my mind again ;D

Ah, more empty rage! Have you come to tell me how precious your time is, again?

Since when is mockery called rage?

You're not really going to fall into that trap are you?

I am susceptible to that kind of thing, when it comes to discussing economics. Nobody is perfect.

Are you actually going to elaborate on ANY of the other points or are you going to keep on covering them with this useless debate about economics?

taking advice from jamerio is always a good idea

You were capable of somewhat rational discussion, until you were unable to defend your position. You threw a tantrum, and turned to baseless insults.

These 11 lectures will give you the basic idea, if you're genuinely interested.

as interesting as this discussion on economics has been, it achieved nothing other than to show fairly clearly how economics is so far from being a science. (also your attempts to draw on math as a crutch is hilarious at best).

deeply disappointed that you spent all this time making useless comments while not actually spending time to refute his other points as promised.

It's certainly not a natural science, but that doesn't mean that it isn't science. While the scientific method is very instinctive and its appliance in, e.g. physics is widely understood among the general public, the reliance of social sciences on rationalist approach (because of the inability of conducting controlled experiments) is all too often disregarded as being dogmatic.

I'd encourage you to take a look at this for a more elaborate explanation of the dichotomy between social and natural sciences, since I can clearly see an attempt to look at the subject more open-mindedly than certain ignoramuses on this forum.

If it isn't falsifiable, it isn't science.

man o man o man. lol lecture. first off the guys a terrible lecturer. goes around in circles so much it isnt funny.

his examples of apodictical non-hypothetical statements - no 2 objects can occupy the same space. a "material object" cannot be in two places at once. 2 parallel lines dont enclose a space.

i mean really? if you're going to ignore the underlying assumptions and state that these statements are self evident, you should not be talking about logic.

ps: this isnt a criticism of deductive logic applied to economics. but i really had to stop watching the lecture at that point. :). seems to me that its well and good to start applying deductive logic as long as you are constantly checking your assumptions.

anyway interesting topic. but really just an aside. u didnt really address my post. but i expected that. also these primaries and their coverage is fucking funny.

This is just you drawing an arbitrary line between what you think are "worthy" apodictical non-hypothetical statements an "unworthy" ones. You only need one, no matter how worthy or serious you consider it to be, to refute the empiricists' methodological approach to econ. Not to mention that for somebody, let's assume that his name is gienek_, the statement "if A>B and B>C, then A>C" might be more important and useful in day to day's life than a statement pertaining to monetary policy in some distant country with little business relations to his homeland. Again, subjectivity of valuations...

And on top of that you beautifully neglected the second argument against Popperism, which leaves less room for arbitrary interpretation. Namely, that the basic dichotomy between empirical facts and definitions is also a definition, which can, on the grounds of the very same Popperian dichotomy, easily be defined as the opposite, therefore proving to be self-contradictory.

ur reading comprehension seems inversely proportional to your skill at verbosity.

i wasnt arguing for or against anything. i just said that someone who gives "2 parallel lines do not intersect" as a self evident statement clearly has very little understanding of what he is saying and therefore should shut up or at the very least leave himself out of a philosophical argument about the differences between hypotheses and axioms.

i also clearly said that im not really that interested in the debate u were having with vedic.

pz mate.

"someone who gives "2 parallel lines do not intersect" as a self evident statement clearly has very little understanding of what he is saying"

huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_postulate

its a postulate not a self evident statement. and its only true in euclidean systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

kill yourself.

erm within the context of mathematics axioms are merely starting points on which u build ur system.

unless u state clearly the assumption that you are staying within a euclidean framework, the parallel postulate is no longer a self-evident statement.

merely? MERELY?

kill yourself.

"after watching some youtube videos"

lol

:)



















http://www.pr0gramm.com/#newest/face/28/2008/05/1211535899245

zomg u the interweb hero bro, wp



















: )

yes, ... yes i am.

... you shoud plus me.

... will u login?