now, this is getting very interesting.
Obama speech on new US policy regarding Middle East issue
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13461682
Tonkyhonk wrote:now, this is getting very interesting.
Obama speech on new US policy regarding Middle East issue
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13461682
Projeear wrote:
In short:
Osama is the scapegoat for all the wars that have been cast in the middle-east. Now Osama is dead, so is the regime of the Americans in the east.
Projeear wrote:Now Osama is dead, so is the regime of the Americans in the east.
loftar wrote:pyrale wrote:jorb wrote:Testing implies that there is a theory to be tested. Facts cannot be interpreted at all without some sort of theory or hypothesis. Are you trolling?
I'm saying, precisely, that the happy economists building models end up with an economic model which is either oversimplified, or uncomputable.
But noone ever tried to model the market in its entirety. Except the communists. Which is why communism failed. The welfare state tries to do it in part, and fails just as spectacularly. Only because it leaves part of the market to the individual does it not fail as quickly as communism.
The whole point of classical and Austrian economics is precisely that that is impossible, and therefore also, by extension, that central planning is impossible, which is the reason why planning should be left to the individual.
Of course, the fact that the market in its entirety cannot be modeled does not entail that specific phenomena, such as the "trade cycle", certain factors in price determination, and the often misinterpreted "invisible hand", cannot.pyrale wrote:Yeah, using auction theory = bidding like an idiot.
Please cite the source of this "auction theory".
EDIT: I'm left wondering what you're trying to argue with it. You seem to be picking some obviously faulty theory, demonstrate that it doesn't work, try to point out that it is an "economic theory", and therefore conclude that the whole field of economics must be faulty and barren. If you intended for something else to be read into your words, please expound it, for I do not see it.
dagrimreefah2 wrote:I also love how Keynesians argue that inflation can only happen when an economy grows, and it is impossible to have inflation when an economy is contracting.
jorb wrote:I love how Keynesians measure price increases on an arbitrary collection of arbitrarily categorized goods of unequal quality and call the number they pull out of that can of worms inflation. Measuring the actual expansion of the money supply would give the scam away, I suppose.
ScegfOd wrote:quick, get that idiot commie back in here !!
Users browsing this forum: Claude [Bot] and 2 guests