Do Economists Understand the Economy?

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Mcg-, Apr 5, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    change it to "not everyone wants to avoid work" & add the point that the idea that "people fundamentally want to improve the quality of their leisure" does not equal an argument for an economic system.
    test
  2. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    1- so now you are in agreement (though you chose to not concede this verbally) implicitly that humans actually DO search out leisure

    oK.

    only that what leisure is

    is not strongly defined

    I agree with you

    but would you say then, McGirth

    that leisure is impossible to define?

    perhaps so. well, perhaps if you tried to define leisure for all peoples. that would be impossible to do as all types of people have all types of things they would consider as leisure. you could never answer for everyone who has ever lived, now could you?

    but I dont care about your book characters or a bunch of dead irrelevant indians. I dont care what they want.

    we are talking about the economies and peoples of these cultures and these societies in particular

    lets say, America

    now

    well, now we can begin to look somewhat closer into this to achieve a picture of greater clarity can't we?

    most americans dont like working. sorry but thats the way this is. actually most people everywhere dont like working but I dont want you to purposely muddle this argument again any more than you already have and been purposely trying for this whole thread so I will leave that point alone. i dont want you to say "well you cant read minds so you cant actually definitively say that you know" or something to that effect. one of your typical criticisms.

    its a detriment to their quality of life/leisure in that they would much rather be doing something else

    is this true?

    2 - (this is a completely new argument youve introduced i sense... frustration)

    Mcgirth what part of that question relates to which stage I was talmabout? the skills stage or the leisure stage? I proposed that human labor is effected by two things

    that producers want to save costs by eliminating labor as much as they can and that people dont like working so they also desire eliminating labor. obviously technology would have to be highly advanced to do both things.

    please explain what credit and money restriction have to do with that? they would impede this in what way? honestly i think you ask me that to muddle this up again as is the only card you seem capable of playing these days
    test
  3. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    *pulls mysterious green lever*

    *releases a vat of nickelodian green slime over McGirth's head*
    test
  4. Tequila Jong-il

    Tequila Jong-il SALAD TOSSER

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    4,426
    well, hardly did a day of paid work. Depends on whether you consider the efforts expended on producing his regrettable writings as work or not.
    test
  5. Volaticus

    Volaticus Anarcho-Capitalist

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    3,408
    Austrian economic theory remains true, whether acknowledged or not.
    test
  6. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    no teq, you were right

    marx never did a thing. McGirth was trying to link work with recreation almost as though work = recreation

    which is why he won't concede here that people might not enjoy doing work (ie Marx) who actually revealed this tendency by spending his whole life writing in his diary like a girl instead of loading freight supply or mopping floors like everyone else

    Its clear that soft-body Marx could talk the talk but not walk the walk but McGirth is not allowed to concede this as it would shatter his already horrible stance
    test
  7. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    Volaticus what is the goal of self interest? what is the prize that is won from doing this?
    test
  8. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    I thought Engels was paying him?
    one thing you can say, his writing was original. So if you consider ANY Writing work, you have to consider his writing work.
    Plus, his books did eventually sell millions of copies.

    of course, someone like mark does not fit into Radium's strange idea of how the economy works. What was the quality and quantity of leisure he was seeking?
    test
  9. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    rad:
    1-economics extends beyond america's shores. Economics extends beyond the boundaries of today to times past and into the future. You can't just have a theory of what you think most people think (even if true) and then say, this is the basis for economics.
    you think most people don't like their jobs.... and?

    also you can't have an economy theory that is both based in value and seemingly overlapping concepts of leisure, work, labour, etc. and then have these concepts linked up in a vague way to economics.
    none of what your saying is clear. this is economics not literary analysis.

    3-
    your idea about attempts to eliminate labour... another poster already addressed this so i didn't bother.

    4-do i really have to explain to you what credit and money have to do with economics?


    5-
    I know you want to find the solution,
    for whatever reason, you want me to acknowledge your solution as "the one",
    but sorry, i'm just not seeing it at all.

    Instead i see you getting frustrated, reducing yourself to trying to figure out my motives in my arguments (instead of focusing on content) and engaging in personal attacks.

    PLEASE stop focusing on you and YOUR ideas. This thread isn't about you. Leave your ego out of it. Whether I personally approve of your ideas or not is irrelevant. Its about trying to find holes in current economic thinking.
    test
  10. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    lets quickly use another example of an economic theory other than the one Ive presented here. austrian economics presupposes (as Volaticos would say) "praxeologically" that human self-interest is the base core to economic systems.

    so

    when you say

    "You can't just have a theory of what you think most people think (even if true) and then say, this is the basis for economics."

    you're talking out of your ass. this is a huge statement you've just made that would invalidate not just the theory I've presented in here but also the austrian theory and countless other theories that are based on what is believed to be fundamental human drives.

    McGirth, if humans desire maximizing their leisure as a base guiding drive then how could this possibly not show up expressed in human inventions? how could this possibly not show up expressed the human invention of economy?

    by these reasons (a base guiding drive) it necessarily must have a profound effect on the economy

    at this point I try to show specifically how in my proposed '3 stages' model which you have so far not even attempted to analyze/rebuke. you have been throwing around all these other arguments about how its impossible to know base human drives which I've all proven to be wrong. I've reduced you down to where you now are conceding that there IS a base guiding drive for leisure and yet you are not sure how this relates to the economy.

    I went and showed how I feel this relates to the economy in Post 10 (<<-- click that)

    so if you are only just now asking me how I think the base guiding drive for leisure relates to the economy you are roughly 8-9 posts and 2 pages late. you should have done that on the first page. instead you chose to duck that and try to deconstruct whether or not assessments on base human drives can even be made at all. at this you failed and now you must go all the way back to post 10 and do what you should have done all along instead of arguing a point that ultimately blew up in your face

    so far all of your arguments have been cowardly. you have been trying to break down my argument not by adding constructive counter points that build with my argument dialectically but destructive counter points that seek to unhinge whether or not truths can even be known. that adds nothing to the discourse other than confusion. actually that is by design its only goal: to unhinge and scatter the argument instead of unifying it towards a resolution. thats a cowards technique. you have been arguing your side like a coward.

    at this point you're now conceding that leisure is a base guiding drive so go to post 10 and show what is specifically wrong with my 3 stages model that its based on.

    you have been avoiding that so far but I think the discourse has come to the point where you must do this. I've presented my say, now you must say why you think I am wrong



    McGirth did you think I was playing when I said I was going to toast your ass? Yamada Asaemon was the head decapitator of Edo during the Tokugawa era. they called him Neck-chopper Asa. His purpose in life was to cut off the heads of criminals. He would say that it is not the criminal he punished by separating body from head but that he was only punishing the crime, by separating the evil from the physical world. when he cut off someone's head, their spirit would escape back to the world of forms (the spirit world) taking that evil with them. he hoped that they would realize their error when returned to the world of forms and one day return back to earth with greater clarity than before having now learned their lesson.

    McGirth I see a crime in you. remember Ive uncovered yor weakness. For so long I had thought you had none but I see your weakness now. From now on whenever you reveal your weakness to me it would be just as sure as revealing the nape of your neck to neck-chopper asa. i am going to release you back into the forms so that one day you can come back again with greater clarity than before.
    test
  11. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    *pulls mysterious blue lever*

    *an extendable boxing glove comes out of Mcgirth's computer screen and punches him in the nose*
    test
  12. Volaticus

    Volaticus Anarcho-Capitalist

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    3,408
    This depends entirely upon the specific desires (ends) of the individual. No universal or objective quantification of human ends can be made, because they are individual and internal. I yield to von Mises to describe subjective value theory:

    Emphasis mine.
    test
  13. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    thanks

    so basically, the goal of self-interests are relative to whatever the self-interested actor values yes?

    so

    he acts towards what he values - which translates in my proposed language to attempting to maximize his leisure - or more accurately his personal idea of leisure

    I see the von mises model doesnt attempt to answer the question of what an actor specifically wants, sighting it as being irrelevant information. that is, von mises steers from attempting to explain the fundamental desires that actors may/may not have

    like say, fundamentally desiring recreational activity and physical comfort

    things like that


    anyway i'm different in that i think its imperative to try and answer that question. because answering would give clear picture to the so-called "ultimate end" he proposes

    that is, if man ultimately wants something and we can clearly define this thing then taking this information we can also point to the so-called "ultimate end" of which he is constantly seeking and then describe the nature of what that ultimate end is

    so I will ask you as you are a representative of his thoughts here: would you say there are any specific fundamental things that man values? if so what are these things
    test
  14. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    rad, your menaz like play-by-play of the debate is lame.

    basically, you made 1 point: I did not read your argument on page 10.

    Wrong.

    I read it, it wasn't compelling. I already addressed it: "another poster already addressed this so i didn't bother. " (see post 14) you never addressed/refuted his point. so why bother continuing?
    test
  15. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    pay attention to von mises where he says:

    "Any examination of ultimate ends turns out to be purely subjective and therefore arbitrary."
    test
  16. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    why are you hiding behind Volaticus? you argued with me tooth and claw for 2 pages never once bringing up what Volaticus said in post 14 and only now you do this?

    is this because your main argument blew up in your face and now you must resort to what Volaticus said as a back up or escape argument?

    well let me say this about Volaticus' point about scarcity

    because he actually makes a good point (ie a constructive point designed to carry along the subject dialectically instead of tearing down the whole thing by propagating doubt like a coward)

    scarcity is the big question to a leisure state

    if their is still scarcity (people cant have instant access to everything they want) then a leisure state would be impossible. the argument then becomes what kind of technology would be needed to remove scarcity. the technology must be adequate enough to provide people with instant access to 1. freedom from labor (machines do the labor) and 2. freedom from physical harm (including health related issues and physical injury)

    the reason I didnt address his point was because it would have become an argument about technology. I was actually trying to keep your thread together because as you can see from the response I got from post 10 your thread was in danger of becoming a discourse on technology

    anyway I argue that technology WILL reach a level where scarcity can be eliminated. do you want to challenge that?
    test
  17. Radium

    Radium f k

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,535
    yes and thats where I think he was wrong. I believe its necessary to try and look at the human nature and psyche to see if there is something there than can be said as being a recurring theme.

    Ive found that humans seem to want to be free to do recreational activities whenever they want and to also enjoy the highest level of physical comfort. challenge again McGirth?
    test
  18. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    all that to say that you didn't map out your whole argument or respond to Vol's point. (i mentioned the same thing several times in different words, just you seem to be ignoring substantive points and have replaced thoughtful refutation with narrative about how your winning, incorrect assessments about conclusions i've reached, and personal insults)


    sure, map it out.

    and stop wasting my time with BS. focus on the arguments or i'm out.
    test
  19. Mcg-

    Mcg- New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    183
    i don't know. according to the character your created of me in your narrative, i've already conceded the point.
    test
  20. Volaticus

    Volaticus Anarcho-Capitalist

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    3,408
    In this, he's taken straw man fallacy to a whole new level.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)