Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Because if part of the purpose of a school of thought is to incorporate new information, then they typically do so. You're free to disagree with me. With respect to economics, clearly there is effort to learn from the past.
|
Sometimes, sometimes not. Sometimes there are overriding biases. Sometimes reality is misinterpreted. Sometimes exceptions appear to be rules.
Which is why, while I would understand 'often,', I haven't quite made the jump to 'most'.
Quote:
|
I wasn't being absolute. You were. Don't try to turn this around. You might get confused and try and call me out for something that you were doing, and that I was not doing.
|
I call "up to date" a crapshoot
not because it's never true, but because it often isn't and is not reliable as a result. Meanwhile, I'm unequivocally 'wrong'. Do I need to point you to a dictionary.com definition for 'absolute' or can you manage that yourself?
Quote:
|
If you think that anyone who has participated in this thread thinks the all of the problems with RP's perspective stem from the fact that it is out of date then you've been misreading. Out-of-date is an adjective. It isn't the whole of why RP is wrong.
|
It's a good thing I don't think or say that.
Quote:
|
It is as if someone said "That rusty car is broken." and your response was to scoffingly point out that "Well, just because a car is rusty, that doesn't mean it's broken." And you were right.
|
For clarification: right about what? That it's silly to slam Ron Paul's ideas for not being "up to date"?
Quote:
|
But in your rightness you also missed the point. You turned a discussion about a broken car into a discussion about the meaning of rustiness.
|
To speak from your analogy, guyy already introduced the issue of rustiness. I'm aware that it wasn't the only part of his paltry attack and I never said otherwise.
Quote:
|
You're trying to reduce guyy's perspective to a single adjective-- you shouldn't be surprised if you can't make sense of it.
|
Jesus Christ. Are you really making a good-faith effort to read my posts? I attacked his single adjective as a single adjective. I did not ignore the rest of his position - I responded to those sentences as well. Do you have some sort of issue with divide and conquer? Am I not allowed to address one thing at a time?
Quote:
|
It is true. If you ever find an economist who thinks there's nothing to learn from the Great Depression, let me know.
|
Admittedly, I
was vague here. I meant that our economic hindsight is not always and forever necessarily better than our foresight. Of course economists learned from the Great Depression. But their findings were not uniform. Someone's wrong. At least some schools of thought devolved.
---------- Post added at 07:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyy
The source is the horse's mouth. Shiny stuff is the One True Value. It's a magpie's understanding of the economy. If you look at his stuff, it's clear that he doesn't understand how the banking system or credit work, or why banks are crucial to a modern capitalist economy. It's laughable, even from a Freidmanite perspective.
|
What's One True Value? Which instance of the horse's mouth opening?
Do you have anything to give me?