This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Forget Piketty's 700-Page Tome - Here Is The Shortest Economics Textbook Ever
Forget the 700-plus-page Piketty 'socialism for all' tome; here is economics that everyone can understand.
Click image for link to website
And here they are... the 5 things they don't tell you about economics...
1. 95% of economics is common sense
You don’t need a degree to understand it
We’ve got this profession wrong; a lot of professional economists think what they do is too difficult for ordinary people. You’d be surprised how often these people are stupid enough to say things, at least in private, like ‘you wouldn’t understand what I do even if I explained it to you’. If you cannot explain it to other people, you have the problem.
People express strong opinions on all sorts of things despite not having the appropriate expertise: climate change, gay marriage, the Iraq War, nuclear power stations. But when it comes to economic issues, many people are not even interested, not to speak of not having a strong opinion about them. When was the last time you had a debate on the future of the Euro, inequality in China or the American manufacturing industry, despite the fact that these issues can have a huge impact on your life, wherever you live?
2. Economics is not a science
Despite what the experts want you to believe, there is more than one way of ‘doing’ economics
People have been led to believe that, like physics or chemistry, economics is a ‘science’, in which there is only one correct answer to everything; thus non-experts should simply accept the ‘professional consensus’ and stop thinking about it.
Contrary to what most economists would have you believe, there isn’t just one kind of economics – Neoclassical economics. In fact there are no less than nine different kinds, or schools, as they are often known. And none of these schools can claim superiority over others and still less monopoly over truth.
I accept that being suddenly asked to taste nine different flavours of ice cream when you had thought that there was only one plain vanilla can be quite overwhelming. In order to help, I attach here a simple table that will help you overcome your initial fear.
3. Economics is politics
Economic arguments are often justification for what politicians want to do anyway
Economics is a political argument. It is not – and can never be – a science.
Behind every economic policy and corporate action that affect our lives – the minimum wage, outsourcing, social security, food safety, pensions and whatnot – lies some economic theory that either has inspired those actions or, more frequently, is providing justification of what those in power want to do anyway.
Only when we know that there are different economic theories will we be able to tell those in power that they are wrong to tell us that ‘there is no alternative’ (TINA), as Margaret Thatcher once infamously put it in defence of her controversial policies.
4. Never trust an economist
It is one thing not to foresee the financial crisis; it’s another not to have changed anything since
Most economists were caught completely by surprise by the 2008 global financial crisis. Not only that, they have not been able to come up with decent solutions to the ongoing aftermaths of that crisis.
Given all this, economics seems to suffer from a serious case of megalomania.
The financial crisis has been a brutal reminder that we cannot leave our economy to professional economists and other ‘technocrats’. We should all get involved in its management – as active economic citizens.
5. We have to reclaim economics for the people
It’s too important to be left to the experts alone
You should be willing to challenge professional economists (and, yes, that includes me). They do not have a monopoly over the truth, even when it comes to economic matters.
Like many other things in life – learning to ride a bicycle, learning a new language, or learning to use your new tablet computer – being an active economic citizen gets easier over time, once you overcome the initial difficulties and keep practicing it.
Unless you are willing and able to challenge the professionals, challenge the experts, what’s the point of having a democracy?
There is no excuse for complacency. If you organize and demand reforms then a lot of amazing things happen, but it won’t come easy – we have to fight for it.
And there it is - all you need to know when watching the talking head bloviation and justification day after day...
»
- 101598 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Yes, actually you did in a thread about peak oil last year. Did you think I would forget that lovely thread where you spent half the day pushing peak oil BS for the pricing action of fuel.
Zzzz....
Any time the boss says, "let me do all the talking" is a red flag that means fraud.
On big projects prior to giving contracts based on bids, some contractors and owners insist on talking to the superintendant that is going to be the one that is actually supervising and making sure the work gets done in a timely fashion. Been to alot of those meetings where they ask how many trucks per day how many guys how many square feet per day on average etc. I worked for a guy once who all the way to the meeting kept insisting, "let me do all the talking" After the CEO of the company threatened to have him arrested if he interrupted me one more time he stopped interrupting me. At the end of the meeting they said they agreed to everything I had to say and he could have the job if they were also in agreement with what I had to say.
Zzzz....
So Mr. Physicist, what is the gradiant of a scalar potential?
Can't we just, "eyeball it"?
I'm sure in his mind it's a set figure. Apaprently, he didn't pay attention when being taught about scalars.
I guess we wouldn't have engineers or lasers and the work they do without them gradiants.
I work with people that hate lasers and insist that we work with water levels. I dont care as long as we have something mathematical to confirm our work.
Game, set and match....
Thank you gentlemen....
Google IBM battleship bldg. and I bet you come up with nothing. IBM had a bldg. in the 80's that was laid out on an hypotenuse and everybody was worried about how to lay out finished materials because they wanted all the lines to be perfect wraps. We had lasers and chaulk boxes and knowledge of A squared+B squared=C squared. How to apply that for a way to confirm work? If three four five is confirmation of square what is the equivalent of an hypotenuse?
Angles with Tri's in them :-)
If I am a laboror which I am, I need numbers to confirm my work. How to convert A squared +B squared = C squared to an hypotenuse? I know the answer
Different kind of gradient, and scalars are mathematical abstractions of specificity.
If they are abstractions then they are not mathematical.
Newsflash, most of math is purely abstraction.
I was holding a small piece of paper with my off the cuff calculations. All I needed was the one out of 27 vice presidents that was the high powered brain in mathematics to confirm my work.
most of math is purely abstraction. ok?
It is abstraction. He is correct.
Have you ever seen a perfect circle?
Just tell someone to calculate for zero, that is usually enough ot get the point across.
Just tell someone to calculate for zero, that is usually enough to get the point across.
I swear that you guys read like Beavis and Butthead, except that it is sad, so sad....
Flakmeister is FlakFRAU. SHE IS A WOMAN...NOT A MAN.
She does not believe that you know the the Hamiltonian is a summation of the potential and kinetic energy in an adiabat.
She does not believe that the you know that the Hamiltonian was derived from the Lagrangian and is a different approach to understanding Thermodynamics.
Her downfall is HER ARROGANCE. But SHE is dishonest and will not admit to HER GENDER. If SHE cannot admit to something as trivial as that then you can bet that when it is of importance to HER AGENDA that she will DECEIVE.
She is just a lying cunt.
Anyone ever tell you that you have a touch of that creepiness a la Norman Bates?
BTW, between Nid and you, you are clearly the brains in the bunch. But that is not nearly as impressive as it might sound..
Edit: Just so you know, H and Ls are not used with thermodynamics... there it is the TdS equations that rule supreme....
"Climate science" is an oxymoron.
And you are a demonstrated Hedgetard....
And a pretty lame troll at that...
Soooooooo. You didn't include global warming with soc and poli sci. Am I missing something or are trying to remain good friends with Al and Barrack. ;-)
Tell us all how the great conspiracy works and how the data was faked and how the people on the Kochs payroll are just too fucking incompenent to figure it out and expose it....
We are all ears...
They admitted the data was falsified. They did that like 10 years ago, have you been stuck in a re-education camp or something?
Still making shit up I see...
Classic Hedgetard...
Yeah, like I have to make up those emails and Climategate and the international inquiries that came as a result. Holy crap you are a pathological liar.
People who believe in AGW have been put under a spell into believing what they believe in is scientific fact. They aren't aware it's a religion, even tho it has all the attributes of one. Non-believers are evil and should be punished. They have an Armageddon - it's been 11:59pm for 40years. All of them are young and stupid and by default easily fooled. The old ones realize they were duped. When facts come out and show things like, ice caps have been melted by heat from the very earth they worship it's conveniently ignored. You cannot reason with them. Delusion is their life.
The most recent line I have heard from them:
"The reason we can not detect the heat is due to it having pushed it's way to the bottom of the ocean through a forced thermal exchange mechanism"
Not an exact quote but you get the idea.
I read this on the IPCC site itself, no shit. It completely ignores any known application of conservation of energy and entropy. Just to think about that explanation makes me confused. How does solar thermal gradiant radiation force itself through ocean water that is dense enough to contain open fissile reactions at the depths they are claiming the thermal energy pushed itself to....
You can't make this shit up, it's plain lunacy.
Oh look, a Hedgetard circle jerk...
Conservation of Entropy?
You are fucking hilarious, could you please remind us of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics...
Open fissile reactions?
Solar thermal gradient radiation?
Would you like some dressing for your word salad?
Wow, you apparently can not read either.
Giving yourself greenies, is so pathetic Hedgetard...
Do you want a balsamic vinagrette?
You are that desperate that you would accuse me of doing something like that... I have never junked you, nor greened myself. I don't put much weight in the opinions of others. I'm not the populist here Flak, that's you.
No, you are not the populist...
Village Idiot comes to mind, though...
well I'll say this for ZH; this little book really stirred up the cuckoo's nest and made my snark look like a poodle's tiny bark.
Yep... Scary, eh?
Hey!!! What are you talking about?!?! The North pole ice cap IS shrinking so there should be a global tax on carbon!!!
But a mystery... Why havent sea levels risen? Clue: It has something to do with the ice caps thickening in the South pole (also true).
Don't you love truth mixed with lies and peddled as causation for taxes?
Remember the global cooling scare of the 70's? How about all the hype about 2012? Yes there was increased solar activity and volcanism, earth wobble and polar wander. The death toll was less than a harsh global flu season including the Indonesian tsunami. Some uknown group of "Scientists" said the earthquake caused the earth axis to shift one degree when it was solar activity and the effects of magnetism that caused it. We shift one or two degrees every 26,000 years. Big whoopeee!
Government is all about keeping you afraid. I am a million times more afraid of being robbed by politicians than global: warming/cooling/cementing/swirling/thrashing/exploding/liquifying/flash freezing.
What is your deal Flak? Don't care if your a woman (I did not approve of Tall Tom Mr. supposed Christian calling you a *unt) but damn your commentary is getting stale. Yelling louder is not convincing me.
Well, why don't you bring something of substance to the table then...
Unless you think that Nidstyles isn't spouting word salad in at least 3/4 of his posts....And in that case, please spare us *your* theory....
BTW, the Icecaps ain't thickening at the poles, learn the difference between land ice and sea ice..
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183/F5.large.jpg
So I would say that you are off to a bad start...
Certified creeper status, you refered to me in a post replying to someone else that did not even mention me....
You are off to a worse start - you didn't even understand what was written.
I don't pay much attention to Hedgetards making shit up...
Grants (money) for global warming research, justified by threat, grants/money lost by counter evidence, prestige and significance lost by counter evidence. The scientific grant system selects for bullshit like global warming. Lying is endemic in research. Any honest scientist knows this.
When did you become a Hedgetard?
So some third party funded outside of the normal framework should set things straight eh?
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
Whoops....
WUWT seems to have removed the posts where AW stated that BEST would "set shit straight"....
7.) economics is axiomatically false.
Are you aware that you posted a fallacy?
no
Have you been playing outside with Godel again?
An axiom is something known to be true or positive. Something can not be proven truthfully false. It's a fallacy due to the contraints of the axiomatic method of applying meaning.
Wrong...
An axiom is posited to be true or false a priori...
I take it you want simple oil and vinegar with that word salad...
You need to learn how to use a dictionary.
A falshood can be true, but a truth can not be a falsehood. Fuck man this is simple logic.
You should start with Axiom
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/axiom
Logic, Mathematics . a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the
consequences that follow from it.
Axiom =/= Axiomatic
Axiom literally means something that is believed to be true. As in it's already accepted to be true, not accepted to be true for the sake of the inquiry, but accepted to be actually true by the general populace. That means it's NOT falsifiable by any known means.
I deduce most of the 'truth' you speak to be ancillary to the company you keep within your echo chambered padded walls.
You talk too much. Particularly for someone a couple deviations shy of the mean. And when I say that trust me... It's fucking OBVIOUS. And I don't give a fuck whether you're nazi or nazi light... When "Fudgepacker" and "porno watcher" (LMMFAO) are your grand slam counterpoints?!?!... You live for the echo.
You're genuinely and consistently a pathetic read.
So...Are you a FlakFRAU alter ego account?
Just asking as I do know of others.
It is amazing what you can find on the Internet.
YOU'RE MY CASE and POINT, you're my case and point, you're my case and point.........
YAY! You can call people names and talk down to them!!!
On behalf of those deviations comprehending debate... the defense rests.
hear hear
Since an axiom is an undisputed truth then...
Undisputedly truly false?
How is that fallacious? Just curious.
Something can not be true and false at the same time. It can however be false and yet truly false. Logic is fun like that. :-)
#9 - Until "stocking of academia" by the Fed is halted, young minds will continue to be schooled in "Fiat Money & Banking" nonsense called economics.
I like #6 above very much. So now this is 9. If 6 were 9, I don't mind.
Fiat money and banking makes sense if you believe resources and technology that consumes them are infinite. There is a lot of psychology invested in that belief since the past 150 years has seen an explosive parabolic increase of same over that time period.
A hotly debated topic amongst our .gov control freaks is how to control all the bagholders of that psychology.(X,Y,Z and beyond generations) The last 150 years ain't gonna be extrapolated any further into the future than 2005. Sure there is plenty of energy left to extrapolate innovation and technology, but that can only succeed if .gov control freaks are left in charge.
He forgot to include the 1st law of bullshit. Adding bullshit to anything adds value for the bullshitter:
morals + bullshit -> religion
goverment + bullshit -> politics
paint + bullshit -> spatter art
stuff + bullshit -> bling
trade + bullshit -> economics (?)
Bullshit, ask for it by name.
Like the old adage goes: 1 tbsp of poop + 1 lb sugar == 1 lb of poop + 1 tbsp of sugar.
What's bullshit^2?
Be a bit more specific. Keynesian.
Austrian is no great shakes either for that matter...
That Schumpeter guy may have been on to something:
"Schumpeter's theory is that the success of capitalism will lead to a form of corporatism and a fostering of values hostile to capitalism, especially among intellectuals. The intellectual and social climate needed to allow entrepreneurship to thrive will not exist in advanced capitalism; it will be replaced by "laborism" in some form. He points out that intellectuals, whose very profession relies on antagonism toward the capitalist structure, are automatically inclined to have a negative outlook toward it even while relying upon it for prestige. There will not be a revolution, but merely instead a trend in parliaments to electsocial democratic parties of one stripe or another." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter
Ever the optimist that Schumpeter ... instead the trend is a return to feudalism, bread and circuses in the short term not withstanding.
he should have just read atlas shrugged on a beach somewhere.
Ol' Joey hit that one out of the park.
You can't get more exact than that.
More properly named 'eclownomists'
I think #3 is the key to everything. When people realize that "economics" is always used to redistribute goods (this can never be a scientific process), economists will finally be exposed for the politicians they all are.
Polinomics. I think he nailed that one.
Regarding the importance of experts.... somebody on here used to always post (with known sarcasm):
"If you ever find yourself struggling to make up your mind about an extremely complicated issue, remember, the question is not what you should believe but who, and the answer to that question can be found only by carefully examining credentials of the world’s leading experts."
Rule 1. Don't spend more than you earn!
For fuck sake it isn't hard!!
Rule 2: Free money is the best kinda of money there is; second only to other people's money.
Rule 3: Debt is free money.
Rule 1: Act like a dumbshit and they will treat you like an equal.
Rule 2: People will pay to know what they really think.
J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Salesman/Savior
Well, economists would not agree that economics is not a science. They say that of all the social sciences theirs is the most logical and rational one. And then they leave economy to the market.....
Okay all you geniuses, what do you replace economics with? Sociology? LMFAO
Let me see if I understood your point: if I have an anal cyst removed I need to replace it with something else?
In his suggestion, that would equal a buttplug
I'm thinking a band-aid but thats a hell of a place to get one to stick.
I'm not sure what you mean. Economics IS sociology. The bullshit ABOUT economics is that it's a science and is therefore ONLY understandable by wise experts who use lots of math (whooooa) to lead the unwashed masses to enlightenment.
If you ever watch the Quants of Wall Street, the neat documentary that came out 3 days before the Flash crash, #1 Quant in the World, Paul Wilmott says "economists don't have laws, they just think they do...Isaac Newton has laws".."economists just have an idea that may or may not work"..
He nailed it perfectly a long time ago...algorithms with their current complexities took their job away from them being able to predict..
http://ducknetweb.blogspot.hk/2012/09/quants-alchemists-of-wall-street-v...
I swear it's one of the best layman level videos that explains math modeling.
The same can be said for all "sciences". All are subject to academic and corporate abuse. All have a limited understanding of the universe and how it functions. All are beholden to special interests and grants.
The problem is a lack of honesty and integrity.
Science is nothing more than the study of a particular subject area. In economics, there are reasons it continues to fail: government and corporate intervention are always disclaimers to economic theory. The degree of intervention is proportional to the ineffectiveness.
Almost all science is 95% common sense. This is the real jewel in this little thesis. If you put a little effort in learning, it becomes quite clear quickly. If all science was merely a question of the scientific method, we would not have to change the "science" every ten years.
When you go on like this, it only demonstrates that you are *way* out of your league...
Common Sense?? Really?
If anything modern physics, i.e. Quantum Mechanics, Relativity. Cosmology are triumphs over the predjudices of common sense...
you forgot how easily statistics is abused.
but given your proclivity to take all AGW supporting ideas as gospel, its not surprising you missed that.
The only people that get fooled by abused statistics are Hedgetards like yourself... And that is because you *want* to be fooled...
BTW, remind us, was is the Book of Isaiah where the Gospel of Infrared Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer was laid down? Or was it Genesis? Some Hedgetards think all the science we need to know is in Genesis, are you one of those?
whatever, hockey stick believer
go ahead and keep clicking your heels together, there's no place like yamal, there's no place like yamal...I dont care how many times its been refuted, I belieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeve
An example of Hedgetardery at it's finest...
If it was gospel, then it would be predictive and as most climate models have shown, they are about as predictive as econometrics. You have a snazzy set of calculations for insertions in models that fail to work convincingly. This smacks of religion as much as the book of Isaiah.
I would say this is pretty fucking good, from 1970 no less
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/conrath1970IRspectrum.png
taken from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC075i030p05831/abstract
You would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the data and theoretical prediction...
" A preliminary search for spectral features attributable to minor atmospheric constituents other than CO2 H2O, and O3 has resulted in a positive identification of only CH4 thus far. Comparisons of temperature profiles estimated from selected spectra with those obtained from radiosonde measurements on an individual basis and in the form of maps for selected locations and times indicate that meaningful atmospheric temperatures can be obtained, even in the presence of clouds. Similar comparisons of water vapor estimates with radiosonde measurements demonstrate that good humidity profiles can be obtained under almost clear sky conditions, but, when clouds are present within the field of view, the estimates become unreliable."
So, as long as there are no clouds in the field of view?
Do you know how a satellite based measurment is performed, its data taken and recorded? You seem to think that it is some kind of snapshot...
Do you think that the experts were aware of the possible effects, did you even read the abstract where they said
Are you implying that you are smarter than the people that did the measurement? Or those that repeated the experiment later or even reviewed the paper?
Did you even understand that the abstract is talking about measurements of Water vapor wrt your comment about clouds?
Apparently you can't read at all. It clearly closed with saying that the measurements with cloud cover are UNRELIABLE.
HUMIDITY measurements, with cloud cover, are unreliable.
Humidity is how thermal density in the atmospere is read.
When guys on *your* side are taking you to school, that should be telling you something very important....
It's time to step back from the keyboard and STFU....
I read the paper Flak, You obviously didn't.
Yes Tom, that is indeed correct...
Did you even read that paper? It doesn't appear so.
Coming from you, that is truly rich..
Usually by the time things make it to a introductory science textbook, you can be sure that it has been vetted...
You mean like the Big Bang and General Relativity? LMAO!
Apparently vetted has a different definition in your world compared to the rest of us.
Clearly you have not been watching closely...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1913%2B16
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamda_CDM
----
But I do agree, that Cosmology could be shaken up once Dark Matter and/or Dark Energy is elucidated...
That is why they ain't in introductory textbooks,,
So you displayed the exact data that was used to present the horizon problem in the first place. Holy fuck dude, you should just stop.
Zzzzz....
Stick to fudge packing and private porn shows or whatever it is that you do now.
It's more than obvious that you are already in way over your head here.
SHE is a CHICK, dude.
Sorry, but those are terrible examples you cited. I can't even begin to outline everything that is wrong with your final statement. I only wish you were versed in tensor calculus and Einstein's field equations, so we could have a friendly discussion. But alas, after reading your past responses to so-called 'man-made global-warming deniers', it seems you are not one to listen to alternatives. Let's leave it to the 'experts' eh Flakmeister?
g mu nu, bitchez...
Care to go a few rounds?
Me first:
How about a gimme, take the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian of any classical system, what is their sum?
A second gimme:
What is lowest order radiation multipole that comes out of the field equations? What Legendre polynomial does that correspond to?
Drachma,
Bzzzzt...
Your time is up, you lose poseur...
Saw that on utube
I am, let's have a go.
Delving to the fundamentals of physics (cosmology to quantum physics) defies "common sense", because there is nothing common in the everyday sense about them, e.g. "I drove my car at .99c yesterday, what a rush".
So, when dumbshit states 95% of science is common sense, he/she is WRONG.
And what if subquantum kinetics is correct? Then all your established cosmology is dead wrong.
\facepalm...
/facepam is not a response of consequence. Believing the big bang happen in a closed cosmology system with the laws of thermodynamics is a reasonable challenge. Subquantum kinetics has been around since the 1930's and is published in peer review publications.
Why am not suprised when a simple search shows the theory to be popular with "conspiracy" theorists re: UFO propulsion, free energy whackadoos and the like...
Here is a history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics
And this is the "misunderstood" original phenomena
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld%E2%80%93Brown_effect
Go ahead and cling to crank theories, all it does is demonstrate that your grasp of how science really works is non-existent...
Then your simple search should have lead you to the Belousov-Zhobotinskii reaction and chemical wave patterns and reaction-diffusion processes that are the basis for cell metabolism. An organic explanation to ether in the cosmology. A living process. No, you want to use "wikipedia", where all the good science is proofed and use source material on anti-gravity, which I never mentioned.
Of course, you could respond to my initial query about where the energy came from for the big bang in a closed system with entropy.
Don't bother this guy can't answer it. I doubt he even understands or can quantify the horizon problem either.
And that was why Guth and Linde came up with Inflation, a hypothesis strongly supported by the recent PLANCK data...
You have no clue what you are talking about. Inflation doesn't solve the horizon problem unless Earth is the center of the universe and there were no gradient changes in the red-shift. Oops, the red-shift is not consistent with inflation and the Earth could not possibly be the center of the universe hence the horizon problem.
My degree was focussed on cosmology and large particle systems Flak. You could at least attempt to educate yourself with the issue involving inflation and the Big Bang along with everything that is not related to quantum mechanics as tha this the only field that is not truly riddled with holes these days. The other option is that you remain as ignorant as you are now and simply get junked out of every conversation.
State the Virial theorem in your own words...
Or better yet, give it a break troll...
I see, attack my credibility because you can't beat the argument. Who do you work for again?
I told you already, you are too stupid to realize it...
Realize that you're just another bitch on the internet?
No believe me, I knew that a long time ago.
Oh, and yes, I do know who you are. ;-)
As any cosmologist will tell you, the Big Bang was a free lunch...
BTW, you are assuming a closed system, what occured before the Hot Big Bang is beyond experiment except in a few specific cases. There well could have been an external mechanism. Though the simplest Ekpyrotic universes have been ruled out by precision CMBR data...
Psst, you know that whole sub-quantum crap is a subset of electrogrvitics, or did you look at your "peer reviewed" paper by Violette (or whatever his name was)...
I have never met a Cosmologist that would say anything was a free-lunch unless they were intellectually lazy.
The big bang suffers from far many more issues than what you have tried to display here.
Electrogravitics... FFS, you're an idiot.
Science is a process, a methodology, for continually working towards a better understanding of the universe; it is not an idealogy or belief system.
Well it is true that the 'scientific community' told us once if not a million times since the 1970's that eating meat would cause obesity. Only now, and pretty quietly has that same community acknowledged that meat doesn't cause obesity or high cholesterol or diabetes.
Economists=E-con-comics. In other words: bankster/washinton shills!
Economics is the continuation of Ideology by other means....
Flakmeister 2008
So is your version of "Climate Science"
Well Hedgetard, if it was, then you could come up with some science that says otherwise...
But we know you can't...
Funny how you Hedgetards love all the neat things science has brought you except when its conclusion are in conflict with *your* ideology...
Do you really want to make a complete ass of yourself like Nidstyles? I only have a few minutes before I have to go but I can do my best...
Flakmeister is doing a tremendous job of threadjacking. The article is about economics not climate theory.
He can't let people speak about economics and learn anything, his boss might get pissed at him.
Well Mr. Raging, why don't you follow the time stamps?
You will see that I did no such thing...
Take it up with the word salad spewing trolls...
You mean the ones that showed you saying you were leaving and still posting your attacks throughout the thread?
Are you sure that you are not poe'ing us all...
I mean, I couldn't be consistently as stupid as you if I tried...
My new drinking game : bottom's up everytime you post a variation of "hedgetard".
I'll try my best to get you plastered but it is is really up to the Hedgetardi to deliver their nonsense....
the chicken or the egg analogy?
Father Guido Sarducci was an excellent spokesman for how economics works as well.
In economics, the majority is always wrong.
John Kenneth Galbraith
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.
Thomas Sowell
The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.
Friedrich August von Hayek
I think we're miserable partly because we have only one god, and that's economics.
James Hillman
Where there is politics or economics, there is no morality.
Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel
I'd reorder the list
4,5,4,1,4,3,4.2,4
You cannot repeat 4 often enough.
Time for a Krugman drone strike.
6. The 10-day weather forecast is not a substitute for an economics forecast.
Technology is War
The passive until aggressives are always at war, establishing the rules of war, civil law, fighting over surplus, creating little monsters ‘breaking’ the law, to serve as scapegoats, to proliferate more laws. The Internet is simply being deployed to take the MAD process global, with mechanical robots to serve human robots.
Legacy controls the boundaries, under civil FILO, feeding the following critters debt, to fight more wars for increasingly scarce resources, giving legacy more control over borders. Oil is not required to run an economy, never has been. The Internet is not required to run an economy. They are control mechanisms, layer upon layer upon layer.
The Internet is a weapon. Food is a weapon. Occupying Iraq to keep oil of the market is a weapon. Everything the critters touch becomes a weapon, because artificially scarce resources is the only possible outcome of organizing to consume surplus. Of course the critters see labor and land as commodities.
Homeland Security is embedded at the root, and you are the leaf. To communicate to the leaf next door, you must transmit back to the root and all the way back again, through layer upon layer of middlemen.
The programmers can’t copy code fast enough, the engineers can’t make hardware small enough, and the certified technicians can’t replace proprietary systems fast enough, as global knowledge, false assumption, grows exponentially, as a make-work project, consuming everything in its path.
All the rules amount to one thing, we win and you lose, so be pleasant and go starve to death under a rock somewhere, or join the machine. Legacy has been breeding middle class layers for 5000 years, trying and failing to replace labor every time, because civil marriage does no work. It’s like putting up a solar grid and expecting no unintended consequences. Build a green energy industry to combat the oil industry, owned by the same families, brilliant.
The critters are too stupid to conceive an end and a beginning. Start there, and leave the critters to the planet, which consumes them every time. You cannot choose life for others. Technology is not bad or evil; most of it is just stupid replacing stupid to make stupid more efficient.
Net neutrality is a bad joke. The Internet is, and has been since its inception, a weapon, creating gravity, of which there is no shortage. You require an implicit infrastructure - a food bank, a communication system and an education system. The critters aren’t going to be happy until they torch the entire planet, and then they won’t be happy.
Civil law is MAD. Did it ever occur to you that the laws cannot be effectively popped off the stack for a reason?
Extortion is a one-way game, in which all the participants lose, sooner or later. The law follows behavior, breeding patterns, not the other way around. Fortunately, the critters breed themselves out, with civil marriage. The Burgermeister Meisterurgers come and go, yet life continues.
All a bank can do is print. All the critters can do is compete for surplus, chasing the debt for conversion. It’s up to you to discount, the stupidity out of your life. They need that train, Dubai, fracking, and all the rest because they have locked themselves into a die-off, the slow moving train wreck. Of course they want to produce children without parents.
The Internet is just a bigger TV, for robots, noise to sleep by.