Honest Political Question

[onviousluu]

I don't know why I have to spell it out, but I will. If someone has a different understanding of a particular subject that doesn't immediately make them wrong. That simply means you personally disagree with them. So repeatedly making the comments, "No you're wrong", or "you don't understand" doesn't add anything to the conversation or debate. So repeatedly implying ignorance on the part of the one you're talking when you're providing no facts to prove this can only be taken as an insult. Not too mention that if you are able to prove the ignorance of someone labeling them ignorant ruins everything you have done because instead of listening to what you have actually said, they'll simply get defensive.

I don't know about you, but I don't like to be called ignorant! Especially if it on something that I personally study, and have simply come to a different conclusion. (despite the fact that I readily acknowledge my own ignorance on various topics)

Whether you want to admit it or not, there are several in this thread that have gotten quite irritated at tuodor.

Here are some insulting posts that I have quoted:

Tuoder,

What kind of elitist "I am god" complex do liberals suffer from that they believe without their own personal intervention in others lives they will starve to death? I find the idea that one person must control another to save them is just as morally repugnant as slavery. What makes a liberal more qualified to know how to live my life better than I do?

And again you prove my earlier statement regarding how much Austrian economics you've actually read.

At this point it is not safe to assume any knowledge on your part.

I actually laughed out loud at this one. I'm beginning to wonder if you've been paying attention at all to the world around you.

Only because I am lazy, I don't feel like picking out every insult. I do need to be clear on the ones that I have quoted however. I realize that anyone with a thick skin can handle these mild insults. Of course. The point is how juvenile it is to ever use any kind of wording that could be misconstrued as an insult while debating. All that does is take away from the discussion. The general "flabbergasted" attitude most everyone has that people have differing opinions is really needless and actually encourages the idea that people on this board are close minded and ignorant! Now I personally don't feel that is the case at all, just mentioning how needless it is to be intolerant of other beliefs.

I feel the same way when I (one of those Ron Paul guys) gets labeled "crazy" "extreme" and other various insults when I try to discuss my beliefs with liberals. This only hurts what should be the real goal of liberty loving citizens, and that is to encourage discussion and education about our current politics.

 

[Fletch]

The general "flabbergasted" attitude most everyone has that people have differing opinions is really needless and actually encourages the idea that people on this board are close minded and ignorant!

You still don't understand what we're saying. Allow me to summarize by analogy:

Tuoder: 2 + 2 = 5
Me: No, 2 + 2 = 4
You: Why are you insulting Tuoder for having a different opinion?

 

[onviousluu]

You still don't understand what we're saying. Allow me to summarize by analogy:

Tuoder: 2 + 2 = 5
Me: No, 2 + 2 = 4
You: Why are you insulting Tuoder for having a different opinion?

I'll bite.

Tuodor: 2 + 2 = 5
You: haha you're wrong, and ignorant and you obviously live in lala land. I must laugh at you now.
Me: Can't you just illustrate why he's supposedly wrong?

But really I guess if you don't see it as insulting then very well.... He obviously does though... just food for thought.

(of course that also makes the broad assertion that everything you have said right, and everything he has said is wrong)

 

[JetGirl]

I'll bite.

Tuodor: 2 + 2 = 5
You: haha you're wrong, and ignorant and you obviously live in lala land. I must laugh at you now.
Me: Can't you just illustrate why he's supposedly wrong?

But really I guess if you don't see it as insulting then very well.... He obviously does though... just food for thought.

(of course that also makes the broad assertion that everything you have said right, and everything he has said is wrong)

Wow...you really put a spin on that, didn't you?
It's not like that at all.
There was no "I must laugh now" or anything of the sort. It's not an insult to say someone is ignorant...that just means they lack information or knowledge about something. For instance, Fletch knows a lot about writing software and such. I know nothing about it. So it is fair to say in regard to that topic, I am ignorant. Why do you view that as an insult? It's fact.
Your scenario is better played like;

Tuodor: 2 + 2 = 5
Fletch: No. 2+2 = 4
You: Can't you just illustrate why he's supposedly wrong?
Fletch: He should read the material instead of getting it from me in partially digested broken down spoonfuls.
You: How dare you insult him!

 

[Fletch]

I'm quite aware of what Greenspan argues.

....

The guy says he's an Austrian disciple, he talked like it, he acted like it, and he hung out with Rand herself. I've got a clip of him saying he was in error in believing completely in the Austrian School. If that doesn't convince you, I doubt I can.

Rand was not an Austrian economist, but an Objectivist philosopher. Association with her proves nothing. Now, I have heard that Greenspan hung out with Mises for a short time, and that would be a somewhat better argument, but again it proves nothing. I've given you a list of Austrian scholars I've read, and none of them agree with what you're saying. Mises.org has literally dozens of articles taking Greenspan to task over his management of the Fed, and none of those agree with what you're saying. It is not ME you have a disagreement with, but the Austrian school -- you are saying they believe something that they most emphatically do not.

I'm aware the Austrian school opposes the existence of anything like the Fed. Greenspan was never in a position to decide if there should be a Fed. But he was put in charge of it, and followed the Austrian prescription for how such a thing should be run, if it must be run.

There is no such prescription.

Austrians: Interest rates must be free to float with the market.
You: Greenspan fixed interest rates according to how Austrians say to do it.

If you read what he writes, and listen to what he says, Austrian economics prescribes low interest rates to encourage investment.

Austrians: Interest rates must be free to float with the market.
You: Greenspan fixed interest rates according to how Austrians say to do it.

Do you understand the conflict yet? Austrians are foursquare against the idea of setting interest rates. They raged at Greenspan for lowering them. It doesn't matter if Greenspan thought he was following the Austrian prescription, because he was wrong. Austrians believed, the entire time, that the "real" interest rate was much higher, and said so. Repeatedly. Emphatically. They shouted it from the rooftops. Anyone, Greenspan included, who was paying the slightest bit of attention to the Austrians at the time would have known that they were saying Greenspan was doing the wrong thing.

Greenspan was following the Keynesian prescription of money-pumping. All of that easy credit is a quintessentially Keynesian scheme. It's manipulating the money supply through credit rather than the printing press, but the effect is the same. There are literally decades' worth of articles and books from the Austrian school saying that this is the wrong thing to do.

And this is not Ron Paul, et al, throwing him under the bus. Austrians have opposed him for longer than you've been alive. For example:

Greenspan's real qualification is that he can be trusted never to rock the establishment's boat. He has long positioned himself in the very middle of the economic spectrum. He is, like most other long-time Republican economists, a conservative Keynesian, which in these days is almost indistinguishable from the liberal Keynesians in the Democratic camp. In fact, his views are virtually the same as Paul Volcker, also a conservative Keynesian. Which means that he wants moderate deficits and tax increases, and will loudly worry about inflation as he pours on increases in the money supply.
-- Murray Rothbard, August 1987

How do you know where I get my information from?

I can tell you where you don't get it from: the Austrian school of economics. After that I can only guess.

Have you considered reading from those who disagree with you? Is your mind made up already?

I've listed about a dozen authors and 4 specific titles that are endemic to the Austrian school. Show me an Austrian text which provides a prescription for setting prices. Ask your buddy Greenspan which chapter of Human Action he got the idea from.

We are not having a disagreement over policy. That would be far more edifying, and would make the "reading from those who disagree" comment have a little sense to it. We are having a disagreement in that you claim Austrians support something which is at the core of what they oppose. You might as well be telling me that Jesus Christ preached hatred for all mankind.

Greenspan can say that he did what he did because Austrians told him to, but it doesn't make it true. Kirstie Alley can say she ate only the flavors of ice cream her personal trainer told her to, and it would mean about the same thing. Austrians oppose fixing prices. Personal trainers generally oppose ice cream for fat people. It really is that simple.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I don't know why I have to spell it out, but I will. If someone has a different understanding of a particular subject that doesn't immediately make them wrong. That simply means you personally disagree with them. So repeatedly making the comments, "No you're wrong", or "you don't understand" doesn't add anything to the conversation or debate.

No you're wrong!

 

[Que]

Not to say that it's anyone's intent, but sometimes those who have a relatively good grasp of some concepts can't/won't explain in a way that the less informed can understand. Honestly, I don't understand anything anyone has said in a while, although I have tried. I won't get everyone on the same page, I'm sure, but the reason why people shun the church, politics, constitutional violations, etc., is because they have tried to understand, but have been ridiculed for their lack of understanding.

Now, something else that I do understand, just like I tell students at the University, it is no one's job to teach you everything. One must be willing to take the information, conduct research and try to form his own opinion. Sometimes people form their own opinion from incomplete or faulty information and refuse to take information from others and try to see if it is valid. That's not the right path, either.

I"m in the process of researching some of the information posted on this thread. So, until I have a better understanding, I will have more questions than input. As my dad used to say, if you can't run with the big dogs, then stay on the porch. Meaning, if I believe 2+2=5 and several people have told me that 2+2=4 and I continue to believe 2+2=5, maybe I should take an expeditionary learning approach, instead. There may be a chance that I have applied the information wrong and no one has corrected me, and for that reason I believe it's impossible for 2+2 to equal 4.

Now, back to the porch for me.

 

[Fletch]

Wow...you really put a spin on that, didn't you?
It's not like that at all.
There was no "I must laugh now" or anything of the sort. It's not an insult to say someone is ignorant...that just means they lack information or knowledge about something. For instance, Fletch knows a lot about writing software and such. I know nothing about it. So it is fair to say in regard to that topic, I am ignorant. Why do you view that as an insult? It's fact.

This. A thousand times this.

There is no shame in ignorance. It simply means you don't know. It's also easily fixed.

 

[Fletch]

Not to say that it's anyone's intent, but sometimes those who have a relatively good grasp of some concepts can't/won't explain in a way that the less informed can understand. Honestly, I don't understand anything anyone has said in a while, although I have tried.

I understand your frustration; but honestly without quoting, word for word, the various texts I've mentioned, it's impossible for me to do a better job than they have.

 

[jsgolfman]

Nor should you have to , Fletch.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

I have immensely enjoyed learning about economics and economic theory in this thread. Good job, fellas!

 

[onviousluu]

No you're wrong!

hahah, very well.

 

[jsgolfman]

I'm not as patient as Fletch, so you'll not see me posting lengthy explanations. He obviously doesn't understand Austrian Economics as well as he thinks, so I suggested he read http://mises.org/books/failureofneweconomics.pdf
Once that is done, if he still feels the same way I would be happy to discuss the specific points he still disagrees with. If he would like to read Keynes theory in his own words, I provide this link The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes
Should he wish to learn about Keynes, I provide this link http://mises.org/books/keynes_the_man_rothbard.pdf

 

[Fletch]

I'm not as patient as Fletch, so you'll not see me posting lengthy explanations. He obviously doesn't understand Austrian Economics as well as he thinks, so I suggested he read http://mises.org/books/failureofneweconomics.pdf
Once that is done, if he still feels the same way I would be happy to discuss the specific points he still disagrees with. If he would like to read Keynes theory in his own words, I provide this link The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes
Should he wish to learn about Keynes, I provide this link http://mises.org/books/keynes_the_man_rothbard.pdf

And here is Callahan in PDF format: Economics For Real People

It's easily accessible to anyone with an 8th grade reading level.

 

[JetGirl]

I'm not as patient as Fletch, so you'll not see me posting lengthy explanations. He obviously doesn't understand Austrian Economics as well as he thinks, so I suggested he read http://mises.org/books/failureofneweconomics.pdf
Once that is done, if he still feels the same way I would be happy to discuss the specific points he still disagrees with. If he would like to read Keynes theory in his own words, I provide this link The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by John Maynard Keynes
Should he wish to learn about Keynes, I provide this link http://mises.org/books/keynes_the_man_rothbard.pdf

Good links. And don't forget the Mises Institute: Ludwig von Mises Institute - Homepage
Might I also suggest some bite sized economics.

 

[jsgolfman]

Thanks Annie. I always liked the curmudgeon site.

 

[JetGirl]

Thanks Annie.

You're welcome.

I always liked the curmudgeon site.

It is surely full of AWESOME. Just like Fletch.