I Can't Believe This Was On Fox

[paulieg]

@paulieg - I do not believe in the gold standard although likely for different reasons. In the end - it will not work. As far as sucking it up, well that type of sudden shock is not necessary, we can, in spite what others say, cut back spending to a few years back, limit growth, stabilize business expectations, reduce regulations and grow right out of the current problems.

our deficits are not the root cause of the problem, they are a symptom. growth based on keynesian deficit spending and an unsound monetary policy with x20-x40 multipliers is the problem. those two things are the biggest bubble going, although they're also the best managed bubble, but a bubble nonetheless. you can't manage a smooth transition away from that because the announcement of that transition would cause a panic.

-p

 

[Yuckystuff]

because that's the Libertarian position i see stated all over the place.

-p

The Libertarian position is generally to have competing currencies.

 

[guerilla]

considering i and he were talking about entirely different things, your putdown = fail.

-p

It wasn't a put down.

When I say learn economics, what I really mean is learn economics and philosophy.

And please stop calling yourself an anarchist if you're for government regulation. It makes genuine anarchists like me look bad.

 

[guerilla]

@ guerilla & yuckystuff - I do understand why you do not understand my point. But you are going from theory and I from real world implications.

Ah, the inevitable appeal to reality.

"You guys might be right in theory, but I am right in reality."

Easily the most lazy and mindless assertion in argument anyone can make. Without any fact or reason.

Might as well say "I am right because I am right and you are wrong because you are wrong"

Why not just say it like that and be a man? Be a man, do the right thing.

Changes can be made gradually that will not ruin the lives of the masses.

See below.

Sudden changes and the resulting consequences destroy lives while the economy "adjusts" and quite frankly - I do not want to destroy lives for the greater good.

The economy is going to adjust and destroy a lot on its own. The path you advocate ends only one way. Bankruptcy. Go look at what happened in Argentina. Then imagine that happening in the US. Ugly.

Fear mongering doesn't work on intelligent rational educated people. Save it for an audience stupid enough to believe it.

You throw a guy out of work or have him underemployed for 4-10 years, well, that can screw his live, ruin his kids high school years and future or even cause increased strife, divorce, even suicide all for changes that could have been made more gradual.

Yes, people will have to adjust to the end of their borrowing ways. People will have to downsize their spending, take shittier jobs and make sacrifices.

The consequence of living above your means, is that you will have to live below your means. And people have been living above their means for a long time. The reckoning is not something the government can stop.

Gradualism is weak-kneed nonsense. People are going to be relatively poorer in the future than they are today. That's unstoppable. How and when it happens, it is still unstoppable.

 

[paulieg]

It wasn't a put down.

When I say learn economics, what I really mean is learn economics and philosophy.

you are implying that my knowledge in either or both of these areas is lacking in some way. while that may be true, you failed to point out what led you to that conclusion and that's just lazy ad hominem.

And please stop calling yourself an anarchist if you're for government regulation. It makes genuine anarchists like me look bad.

i don't support the existence of a government (unless established through voluntary association/disassociation obviously), so i can't possibly support any actions it may take, including enforcing regulation. however, there is a big difference between considering something desirable in general and considering something necessary given a specific set of circumstances.

we currently have a capitalist rather than a free market economy and our society is built upon the exercise of coercive force; personal responsibility has been supplanted by laws and regulation imperfectly crafted and imperfectly applied. under this set of circumstances, assuming we have no realistic prospect of changing them in the short to medium term and must make them as workable as possible, certain types of regulation are necessary or we wouldn't have clean water to drink or clean air to breathe. an oxygen addiction is a hard thing to kick.

i'm as reluctant to concede that such regulation is necessary under the current socioeconomic system as i was to exercise coercive force to fight neo-nazis in my (largely misspent) youth. however, admitting that there is a big difference between the world the way it ought to be and the world we live in is a sign of maturity and intellectual honesty, as painful as it might be for an idealist.

-p

 

[paulieg]

Ah, the inevitable appeal to reality.

"You guys might be right in theory, but I am right in reality."

Easily the most lazy and mindless assertion in argument anyone can make. Without any fact or reason.

this. rei is very fond of logical fallacies, it looks like.

Go look at what happened in Argentina. Then imagine that happening in the US. Ugly.

argentina is a bad example, as they've made out quite well considering. if anything, argentina is an example of what a default followed by a reinflation of the keynesian bubble can achieve in the short to medium term. naturally, it will all come crashing down, again, and considerably harder this time, but until it does it's a bad example

Yes, people will have to adjust to the end of their borrowing ways. People will have to downsize their spending, take shittier jobs and make sacrifices.

The consequence of living above your means, is that you will have to live below your means. And people have been living above their means for a long time. The reckoning is not something the government can stop.

this.

Gradualism is weak-kneed nonsense. People are going to be relatively poorer in the future than they are today. That's unstoppable. How and when it happens, it is still unstoppable.

gradualism isn't wrong because it demonstrates a lack of testicular fortitude and isn't hard core enough, it's wrong because it isn't possible. if it were possible, it could conceivably be desirable, but it isn't. once such a correction is accepted as even a slightly likely outcome, everyone will start deleveraging in a panic and the whole house of cards will come crashing down in an exceedingly short amount of time. you can no more make this gradual than you can make an evacuation of a ship by rats gradual once it starts sinking

-p

 

[guerilla]

you are implying that my knowledge in either or both of these areas is lacking in some way. while that may be true, you failed to point out what led you to that conclusion and that's just lazy ad hominem.

That's not ad hominem. Ad hominem is this

"You're wrong because you're an idiot"

or

"You're wrong because you're black"

or

"You're wrong because you're too old"

What I wrote, is that you have not demonstrated an understanding of economics or philosophy with your post(s). Now maybe you are an expert on those topics, and your posts are just trolling. Or you're forgetful. Or you don't know what you're talking about.

I am not speculating about why you don't display a knowledge of those topics, nor do I attack you as being wrong simple because of some characteristic (true or false) about your person.

So please don't use terms like "ad hominem" unless you understand what they mean. When you misuse them, you demonstrate a lack of understanding about logical discourse.

however, there is a big difference between considering something desirable in general and considering something necessary given a specific set of circumstances.

Necessity undermines all ethics. Anything can be justified by the word "necessary".

I suggest you work towards a more coherent and consistent personal philosophy. When you invoke necessity, it's like using the word "but". "But" wipes out everything proceeding it.

"I am for the free market, but sometimes we need regulation"

"I don't believe in government, but sometimes regulation is necessary."

Again, economics and philosophy. Learn them. You can thank me later.

 

[Moxie]

The consequence of living above your means, is that you will have to live below your means.

I agree, but having the biggest gun can sometimes allow one to live above their means, and the US military is still the big kid on the block.

I suggest you work towards a more coherent and consistent personal philosophy. When you invoke necessity, it's like using the word "but". "But" wipes out everything proceeding it.

"I am for the free market, but sometimes we need regulation"

"I don't believe in government, but sometimes regulation is necessary."

Again, economics and philosophy. Learn them. You can thank me later.

"I don't believe in forced taxation, but I would support an amendment banning abortion (which would be enforced with the use of tax money)."

You were recently arguing to this effect, or trying to rationalize why someone like Ron Paul might present this argument.

 

[REIMktg]

Ah, the inevitable appeal to reality. "You guys might be right in theory, but I am right in reality." Easily the most lazy and mindless assertion in argument anyone can make. Without any fact or reason. Might as well say "I am right because I am right and you are wrong because you are wrong" Why not just say it like that and be a man? Be a man, do the right thing.

Back to the personal attacks. Please, this is a message board, let's not talk about who is and who is not a man. I was arguing real world "implications" of theory in practice. Is the problem that you could not argue ,my point and therefore resorted to attacking my approach?

The economy is going to adjust and destroy a lot on its own. The path you advocate ends only one way. Bankruptcy. Go look at what happened in Argentina. Then imagine that happening in the US. Ugly. Fear mongering doesn't work on intelligent rational educated people. Save it for an audience stupid enough to believe it.

Fear mongering because I stated sudden jolts to the economy can harm the lives of those least prepared to weather the change? Once again, apparently you know I am correct and therefore prefer to attack my approach rather than the facts.

Yes, people will have to adjust to the end of their borrowing ways. People will have to downsize their spending, take shittier jobs and make sacrifices. The consequence of living above your means, is that you will have to live below your means. And people have been living above their means for a long time. The reckoning is not something the government can stop. Gradualism is weak-kneed nonsense. People are going to be relatively poorer in the future than they are today. That's unstoppable. How and when it happens, it is still unstoppable.

Weak kneed? Have you suffered in your lifetime? Have you seen lives destroyed over finances because of decisions for the "greater good"? This is the problem with the ivory tower, if gradual change is possible that's how it should be done. It is not necessary to slash and burn.


At one time in my life I would have made the same argument as you have, it was a time of intellectual exploration, reading, and academic development. Then I began to live and the ways in which I interpreted all that I had previously "known" changed substantially. I actually became much more conservative, but also understood the plight of the poor and the need for a safety net in a country this wealthy. The fact is, we can afford it. But we cannot afford everything.

It's one thing to talk strong about sudden change, but in practice, gradualism as you call it is best. Not that everything needs to be gradual, but everything does need to be tempered. For example, in housing, I would advocate taking the hits in a single quarter and moving forward, but that is a single industry. I would not advocate an approach that would hit multiple industries at a time. Call it tempered slash and burn.

 

[guerilla]

Back to the personal attacks.

Calling your arguments lazy isn't a personal attack.

Calling you a fucking idiot and a loser would be a personal attack.

Good thing I didn't do the latter. Then you would really be able to beg for pity and play the victim to deflect from your inability to articulate facts.

 

[REIMktg]

Calling your arguments lazy isn't a personal attack.
Calling you a fucking idiot and a loser would be a personal attack.
Good thing I didn't do the latter. Then you would really be able to beg for pity and play the victim to deflect from your inability to articulate facts.

More of the same. Personal attacks, attacks on my approach, but not against the facts. Funny, I do not feel like a victim and I hardly am appealing for pity, especially around here.

I know most here do not understand my views because they are too young, have not lived, are not in tune with the current economy - Who can tell me where I am wrong in practice without reliance on unproven theories or philosophy.

 

[cheeseman]

then what makes you any different than the supposedly ivory tower theorists you're railing against?

if your arguments were more sound and rooted in practicality than the "alternative", then everyone would be resoundingly adopting your ideas.

and now instead of proving that your argument wasn't lazy, you deliver the ivory tower special "everyone is too dumb to get how smart i am" line

personally, guerilla and monies made more sense to me.

 

[REIMktg]

then what makes you any different than the supposedly ivory tower theorists you're railing against?

if your arguments were more sound and rooted in practicality than the "alternative", then everyone would be resoundingly adopting your ideas.

and now instead of proving that your argument wasn't lazy, you deliver the ivory tower special "everyone is too dumb to get how smart i am" line

personally, guerilla and monies made more sense to me.

1. Monies has not even posted in this thread.
2. People do not adopt ideas "resoundingly" when they are correct - we all wish this were true, but it is not
3. I have yet to say how smart I am - I know I am not nearly as "book smart" as many here

Also, all Guerilla has said is

The economy is going to adjust and destroy a lot on its own. The path you advocate ends only one way. Bankruptcy. Go look at what happened in Argentina. Then imagine that happening in the US. Ugly....
Yes, people will have to adjust to the end of their borrowing ways. People will have to downsize their spending, take shittier jobs and make sacrifices.

The consequence of living above your means, is that you will have to live below your means. And people have been living above their means for a long time. The reckoning is not something the government can stop.

Gradualism is weak-kneed nonsense. People are going to be relatively poorer in the future than they are today. That's unstoppable. How and when it happens, it is still unstoppable.

I believe the process should be gradual, not sudden.

 

[guerilla]

and now instead of proving that your argument wasn't lazy, you deliver the ivory tower special "everyone is too dumb to get how smart i am" line

He's not going to prove anything because he can't.

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

I am still working on this one.

 

[paulieg]

That's not ad hominem. Ad hominem is this
"You're wrong because you're an idiot"
or
"You're wrong because you're black"
or
"You're wrong because you're too old"

What I wrote, is that you have not demonstrated an understanding of economics or philosophy with your post(s). Now maybe you are an expert on those topics, and your posts are just trolling. Or you're forgetful. Or you don't know what you're talking about.

I am not speculating about why you don't display a knowledge of those topics, nor do I attack you as being wrong simple because of some characteristic (true or false) about your person.

So please don't use terms like "ad hominem" unless you understand what they mean. When you misuse them, you demonstrate a lack of understanding about logical discourse.

you are confused about what argumenta ad hominem are. you dismissed my arguments because i, supposedly, don't know anything about X or Y, instead of addressing them. that's ad hominem, even if it's not as obvious as "you're black".

i've made certain assertions, from which i then drew conclusions. you could've argued against one or more of these assertions or any part of the chain of reasoning flowing from those assertions, but you did none of those things. surely, if i know nothing about economics, philosophy or logical reasoning that should've been supremely easy.

it looks to me like *you* are trolling. address my actual arguments or don't respond at all.

Necessity undermines all ethics. Anything can be justified by the word "necessary".

I suggest you work towards a more coherent and consistent personal philosophy. When you invoke necessity, it's like using the word "but". "But" wipes out everything proceeding it.

"I am for the free market, but sometimes we need regulation"

"I don't believe in government, but sometimes regulation is necessary."

yes, necessity can be abused as justification for compromise until nothing is left of the original position, cf trotsky's policy of red terror vs the original rsdlp position of abolishing prisons or the usa's policy of installing right-wing dictatorships to protect democracy against 'communism' in latin american countries. however, that's abuse, plain and simple. abuse does not invalidate the validity of use, viz use of opioids in medicine despite widespread abuse as a recreational drug.

i believe it to be wrong to exercise coercive force (on the days i'm not feeling like a max stirner ego-anarchist), *except* in self-defence. i believe it to be immoral to restrict someone's rights, *unless* he/she has voluntarily given consent to said restriction *or* his/her rights infringe upon mine. many folks believe abortion to be immoral *except* in cases of rape (graded absolutism) or incest (practicality). there is nothing wrong with an ethical position that takes circumstances into account. throughout history, unqualified application of morals has been responsible for an unspeakable amount of evil. graded absolutism rid us of most of this and my position is a generalization of that expanded to encompass something besides moral absolutes.

trains work well, but only in the presence of tracks. lungs work well, except when there's no oxygen. in a society built upon the exercise of coercive force and capitalism, the only means to compel an actor to act in the interest of the greater good is the exercise of coercive force (regulation). indeed, that is the inherent problem with such a society - exercise of coercive force begets more exercise of coercive force and encourages behaviour that does not lead to the greater good when such coercive force is imperfectly applied.

naturally, in a society built upon anarchist principles, these things we consider immoral would be unnecessary, but that presupposes the existence of such a society. there is nothing inconsistent or wrong about holding that we need a society where regulation wouldn't be necessary to keep the air breathable before removing such regulation any more than it would be wrong to hold that you need to get to the surface of the ocean before you remove your scuba oxygen mask.

you could reasonably advance the argument that such a society is best arrived at by gradual revision of the status quo in the correct direction. alternatively, you could claim that the prospects for creating such a society are made weaker by moving in the opposite direction with the status quo. i would disagree, but those are reasonable positions to hold.

Again, economics and philosophy. Learn them. You can thank me later.

i've learned enough to either agree with what you say (your responses to reimktg) or refute your arguments on the rare occasion you manage to respond substantively to my posts. it's a process though. you, however, seem to think that learning economics and philosophy can only lead to one set of positions, namely yours, and that's a very randroid thing to think.

-p

 

[paulieg]

More of the same. Personal attacks, attacks on my approach, but not against the facts. Funny, I do not feel like a victim and I hardly am appealing for pity, especially around here.

I know most here do not understand my views because they are too young, have not lived, are not in tune with the current economy - Who can tell me where I am wrong in practice without reliance on unproven theories or philosophy.

i already have.

deficit spending and a fiat currency coupled with unsound monetary policy have created a bubble, so there will be a correction sooner or later. you have already accepted as much, as the disagreement we have is about how to manage the correction. you are claiming that such a correction can be managed and i am claiming that, although it would conceivably be desirable to do so, it is impossible.

any bubble at this stage of development requires that the markets be confident in its survival in the short to medium term. as soon as measures intended to manage a gradual correction are announced, this confidence will go away and anything and everything it's been propping up will crash through the floor. we've seen this happen time and again with previous bubbles.

-p

 

[guerilla]

you are confused about what argumenta ad hominem are. you dismissed my arguments because i, supposedly, don't know anything about X or Y, instead of addressing them. that's ad hominem, even if it's not as obvious as "you're black".

Pointing out your ignorance about a topic isn't an ad hominem by any definition of ad hominem and I challenge you to produce a third party definition where it is.

Learn economics and philosophy. It will cure you of that nasty habit of asserting and concluding based on an unproven assertion.

 

[Moxie]

Pointing out your ignorance about a topic isn't an ad hominem by any definition of ad hominem and I challenge you to produce a third party definition where it is.

Ad hominem is latin for "against the person."

"Your ignorance" is using the word ignorance as an adjective to describe a person.

Saying "your arguments here are ignorant" would not be ad hominem because ignorant in this usage would apply to the arguments themselves and not the person.

This is my understanding. I'm not trying to argue with you guerilla, lol.

 

[paulieg]

Pointing out your ignorance about a topic isn't an ad hominem by any definition of ad hominem and I challenge you to produce a third party definition where it is.

Learn economics and philosophy. It will cure you of that nasty habit of asserting and concluding based on an unproven assertion.

firstly, you didn't "point out my ignorance", you simply asserted it with no proof whatsoever. in fact, you are yet to produce any substantive reply to anything i said in this thread. i'm afraid that leads me to the conclusion that like many of your randroid bretheren you are only capable of parroting talking points and are found wanting when it comes to discourse with people who actually think for themselves.

secondly, i already explained to you how what you wrote qualifies as ad hominem. since you appear to be having comprehension problems, i'll be happy to explain it again. whether i know anything about subject X has no bearing on the validity of either my starting assumptions or the logical chain that follows and consequently my conclusions; the only acceptable way to challenge them is to either challenge the veracity of one (or more) of the preconditions or one of the reasoning steps leading to the conclusions. someone knowing nothing about a subject certainly does decrease the probability that the preconditions will be correct, but while it is counter-intuitive, the probability of veracity has no bearing on actual veracity. as an example, a 15th century peasant's statement "there'll be rain today" is either true or false depending on whether it does indeed rain that day, rather than categorically false because he knows nothing about meteorology. you made an assertion about my person (whether i know something about subject X or Y *is* an attribute of my person), that assertion had no bearing on the validity of my arguments and you failed to address my arguments in any valid manner, therefore it follows that what you wrote was purely ad hominem. quod erat demonstrandum. iterum.

learn rhetorics. it will stop you looking like an ass when talking to people who weren't shoddily educated in a backward colony. see? two can play this game. it is, however, entirely unnecessary, a waste of time and incredibly bad form. i'll say it again, reply substantively or don't bother.

-p

 

[paulieg]

Ad hominem is latin for "against the person."

"Your ignorance" is using the word ignorance as an adjective to describe a person.

Saying "your arguments here are ignorant" would not be ad hominem because ignorant in this usage would apply to the arguments themselves and not the person.

This is my understanding. I'm not trying to argue with you guerilla, lol.

saying "your arguments are ignorant" might not be universally considered ad hominem - whether it is or not rather depends on how much one feels it reflects on the person in question; i don't consider this change of wording to cause a sufficient change in the semantics to alter the spirit with which the statement was made - but it is still entirely invalid and has no place in reasoned discourse. it's dismissal without cause and would not be tolerated in any strict environment. for example, you can't disprove a theorem simply by saying 'your givens are ignorant'.

if any part of the argument is so obviously ignorant, you simply state in what way and (provided you're correct) the argument is disproved. the only case in which i would be prepared to entertain such an ad hominem is if it were directed at someone claiming to be an expert and essentially arguing from authority; fighting logical fallacy with logical fallacy isn't proper form, but can be effective and at times necessary. however, i never claimed to be an expert and never argued from authority, so even this concession simply doesn't apply.

-p