Report finds global tax havens are currently hiding $21 trillion - the entire economies of the US an

[Lachz0r]

[QUOTE=bohb;36909310]If you smoked a pack a day, it'd cost you over $2000 a year. This isn't counting all of the money you spend on additional healthcare from the negative effects of tobacco use. I could think of better uses for that kind of money, besides filling your lungs with cancer.

And sadly, I don't think anyone in this thread has the mindset to become a millionaire. Everyone here is too busy circlejerking the author of the article and each other to bother doing real research on the subject matter at hand and realize it's a fairy tale. Everyone here is also too busy bitching about how the world is unfair and how the rich people are keeping them down (hint: they aren't) to bother trying to improve themselves.[/QUOTE]

that doesn't equal anywhere near a million dollars! but i mean, i'm not overly concerned about becoming a millionaire, i just wanna get by and live my life and be happy. the problem is, and yeah you're gonna deny this but frankly it's been proven again and again, the rich care only about getting richer, they don't mind if they have to fuck over everyone underneath them so long as they can keep racking up those numbers. sure you can claim they aren't holding the poor down, but the wealthy constantly using their money to manipulate politics in ways that benefit ONLY them makes any of your claims bullshit

[Mr. Someguy]

[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;36894873]Lol, like that'd do any good. In the US we just need to give Congress a nice thorough enema. Get rid of the massive amounts of money flowing into the lawmakers (one major company actually payed more in lobbyists than taxes last year (can't remember which one)). Maybe even elect some third parties for a change. Out of the hundreds in Congress right now, exactly one man is not associated with a major party. I'm sure he gets lonely over there.[/QUOTE]

Honestly with out election system, I'm surprised there's one.

[iFail]

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36895975]it just makes no sense to me at all, it would take me like, almost 150 years? to make a million dollars so how could a millionaire even remotely have to deal with what i have to deal with[/QUOTE]

There's a pretty good book called The Millionaire Next Door that discusses profiles of millionaires and how they got rich/how they live.

[bohb]

[QUOTE=thisispain;36909379]bohb: Or How I Post Like A Condescending Mouthpiece.[/QUOTE]

Hi, I'm a liberal and I can't come up with any coherent and intelligent arguments, so I'll just resort to insults because I know nothing about economics or how the world works. I also spam dumb ratings because I can't be bothered to come up with a cohesive post. I also just find articles like this to circlejerk with other liberals on how conservatives are idiots, the rich are scumbags and how we should raise taxes because that will fix everything. I totally don't do any research myself and believe whatever other liberals write, because it has to be the truth!

If you want me to be nice, stop being stupid.

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36909417]that doesn't equal anywhere near a million dollars![/QUOTE]

Hmm, that pile of saved money totally couldn't be invested in something to make that pile of money bigger, that's preposterous!

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36909417]tthe problem is, and yeah you're gonna deny this but frankly it's been proven again and again, the rich care only about getting richer, they don't mind if they have to fuck over everyone underneath them so long as they can keep racking up those numbers.[/QUOTE]

[Citation Needed]

Of course it's been proven, by liberal fairy tales who nobody questions because liberal reporting is always right, [I]always.[/I] /sarcasm

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36909417]sure you can claim they aren't holding the poor down, but the wealthy constantly using their money to manipulate politics in ways that benefit ONLY them makes any of your claims bullshit[/QUOTE]

Yes, everyone is out for their own interests. If you were smart, you'd exercise your own political rights, but you choose to complain instead.

[Coldmute]

[QUOTE=bohb;36911135]If you want me to be nice, stop being stupid.[/QUOTE]You first.

Funny how your little tirade talks about liberals don't do any research, given how the vast majority of conservative policy and argument isn't based in anything that could ever be described as reality.

[Turnips5]

[QUOTE=thisispain;36909379]bohb: Or How I Post Like A Condescending Mouthpiece.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=bohb;36911135]Hi, I'm a liberal and I can't come up with any coherent and intelligent arguments, so I'll just resort to insults because I know nothing about economics or how the world works. I also spam dumb ratings because I can't be bothered to come up with a cohesive post. I also just find articles like this to circlejerk with other liberals on how conservatives are idiots, the rich are scumbags and how we should raise taxes because that will fix everything. I totally don't do any research myself and believe whatever other liberals write, because it has to be the truth![/QUOTE]

lmao congratulations on doing EXACTLY what he just said you were going to do, you thick fuck

here's a fun game: count the number of times bohb has used the word "liberal" as an insult and compare it to the number of times [I]everyone else in the whole goddamn thread[/I] has said "conservative" (I'm fucking serious. do ctrl-f s. you will laugh)

protip: insinuating that every liberal person is the victim of a liberal brainwashing conspiracy and is simply too stupid to make their own opinions won't help you win arguments. all it does it make you look like a lunatic. get better arguments son

[thisispain]

[QUOTE=bohb;36911135]Hi, I'm a liberal and I can't come up with any coherent and intelligent arguments, so I'll just resort to insults because I know nothing about economics or how the world works. I also spam dumb ratings because I can't be bothered to come up with a cohesive post. I also just find articles like this to circlejerk with other liberals on how conservatives are idiots, the rich are scumbags and how we should raise taxes because that will fix everything. I totally don't do any research myself and believe whatever other liberals write, because it has to be the truth![/QUOTE]

sooo not a liberal, i studied sociology and economics, and i never rate.
but i like how you basically proved me right, i don't even need to do the work

[Lachz0r]

[QUOTE=bohb;36911135]Hi, I'm a liberal and I can't come up with any coherent and intelligent arguments, so I'll just resort to insults because I know nothing about economics or how the world works. I also spam dumb ratings because I can't be bothered to come up with a cohesive post. I also just find articles like this to circlejerk with other liberals on how conservatives are idiots, the rich are scumbags and how we should raise taxes because that will fix everything. I totally don't do any research myself and believe whatever other liberals write, because it has to be the truth!

If you want me to be nice, stop being stupid.

Hmm, that pile of saved money totally couldn't be invested in something to make that pile of money bigger, that's preposterous!

[Citation Needed]

Of course it's been proven, by liberal fairy tales who nobody questions because liberal reporting is always right, [I]always.[/I] /sarcasm

Yes, everyone is out for their own interests. If you were smart, you'd exercise your own political rights, but you choose to complain instead.[/QUOTE]

are you serious

[Phrozen99]

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36912086]are you serious[/QUOTE]

Yes he is serious.

When I was sixteen I used the ability to trade stocks with a low amount of capital because I was a student, three years later I was able to pay for two years of my college after selling the stocks I bought.

There is no excuse to not better yourself if you have the ability. My family used to be poor, living in Milwaukee, with bars on all of the windows. Now after years of hard work*, we were able to move out of the suburbs and live in a safe area.
*Not saying no one else does hard work.

The rich and their taxes are the least of your concerns in this economy.

[Lachz0r]

[QUOTE=QuikKill;36912317]Yes he is serious.

When I was sixteen I used the ability to trade stocks with a low amount of capital because I was a student, three years later I was able to pay for two years of my college after selling the stocks I bought.

There is no excuse to not better yourself if you have the ability. My family used to be poor, living in Milwaukee, with bars on all of the windows. Now after years of hard work*, we were able to move out of the suburbs and live in a safe area.
*Not saying no one else does hard work.

The rich and their taxes are the least of your concerns in this economy.[/QUOTE]

i wasn't referring to that part, i mean, i know i could probably spend smokes money on something better but i like smoking so. i was more referring to his psycho anti-liberal rhetoric

[Phrozen99]

[QUOTE=Lachz0r;36912493]i wasn't referring to that part, i mean, i know i could probably spend smokes money on something better but i like smoking so. i was more referring to his psycho anti-liberal rhetoric[/QUOTE]

Yea but with the "psycho anti-conservative rhetoric" that is around facepunch, I don't blame him.

[thisispain]

well there would be a lot less fucking anti-conservative rhetoric if there weren't people like bohb posting the most inane garbage

[Phrozen99]

[QUOTE=thisispain;36912565]well there would be a lot less fucking anti-conservative rhetoric if there weren't people like bohb posting the most inane garbage[/QUOTE]

What are you talking about? He is the few that are like that. I try to have a intelligent debate in here and mass debate, and most of the time I just get personal attacks about how I'm just a rich, good for nothing conservative. If I say something that has merit, I am called out for being wrong and an idiot. That isn't arguing.

[thisispain]

[QUOTE=QuikKill;36912591]What are you talking about? He is the few that are like that. I try to have a intelligent debate in here and mass debate, and most of the time I just get personal attacks about how I'm just a rich, good for nothing conservative. If I say something that has merit, I am called out for being wrong and an idiot. That isn't arguing.[/QUOTE]

okay let's review:
[quote]The issue isn't that he is hiding something, it's just that he is a very successful businessman and has a lot of money. How do you think low income people are going to feel about a very rich successful businessman as the president?[/quote]

yeah that's exactly what we low income people feel. we're really [i]just jealous[/i] of his success. no doubts about his business practices nope, because even if we did have doubts:

[quote]Perhaps you should stop reading biased liberal newspapers.[/quote]

but at least we can make arguments rig:
[quote]Bullshit to who? Liberals? No, it's not bullshit. It's called an argument.[/quote]

yeah dude i'm confused i don't know why some people might dislike your posts

no that's sarcasm actually.

if you want people to respond to you like you are an adult, then maybe you should stop throwing around liberal like it fucking means something. just in case you didn't know, conservatives in America are liberals.

[Phrozen99]

[QUOTE=thisispain;36912641]okay let's review:

yeah that's exactly what we low income people feel. we're really [i]just jealous[/i] of his success. no doubts about his business practices nope, because even if we did have doubts:

but at least we can make arguments rig:

yeah dude i'm confused i don't know why some people might dislike your posts

no that's sarcasm actually.

if you want people to respond to you like you are an adult, then maybe you should stop throwing around liberal like it fucking means something. just in case you didn't know, conservatives in America are liberals.[/QUOTE]

Where did I say jealous of his success? I bet you would feel more comfortable with a president who came or knew from a low income household, not a successful businessman.

There you go with the personal attacks, again. But, I'll bite. Don' try to play this off as you're some amazing poster, your posts are just as sarcasm filled as mine, and these are just in this thread.

Again, less of the personal attacks, and more of the argument.

[Jetblack357]

[QUOTE=bohb;36908602]Because running a business that provides services and jobs to the community is screwing over countless millions :downs:[/QUOTE]

You do know a fuckton of that money is obtained illegally, right?

[H4wkeye]

Jesus Christ, how greedy are these fucks? Also, banks. Fucking hate them. Why is there no way we can fight this? I mean, Goldman fucking Sachs is laundering money for these people and doing God knows what else, why the hell isn't someone investigating them? Oh yeah forgot they hold half the world's governments.

[LF9000]

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;36913784]You do know a fuckton of that money is obtained illegally, right?[/QUOTE]

[Citation Needed]

Haven't heard of this before

[FuzzyPoop]

This thread is full of pathetic, uneducated riff-raff liberals, the 5% of millionaires are there because they did some good, honest hard work throughout their entire lives, you people are just lazy cunts who can't lift a gram to feed yourselves, you should all be ashamed. Don't come asking for taxes to steal from my success because you can't get your arses out of the couch, fucking work instead.

[H4wkeye]

[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;36915271]This thread is full of pathetic, uneducated riff-raff liberals, the 5% of millionaires are there because they did some good, honest hard work throughout their entire lives, you people are just lazy cunts who can't lift a gram to feed yourselves, you should all be ashamed. Don't come asking for taxes to steal from my success because you can't get your arses out of the couch, fucking work instead.[/QUOTE]

Get out.

[JustExtreme]

Indeed, that would only apply if money were equal to success but one can obtain it through all sorts of trickery and dishonesty and "interesting schemes" without skill in anything apart from maybe finance.

[viperfan7]

if I was super rich I would most likely just let them tax me, theres a reason for taxes to exist

[HumanAbyss]

[QUOTE=bohb;36908418]Most people are smart enough to not inhale cancer. It seems that tobacco addiction is the source of your poverty, seeing as you can barely afford cigarettes.[/QUOTE]

My dad is a fairly well off person(Millionare) and smokes a lot. He's financially fine because of that. The same problems that apply to my poor friends(for instance my girlfriend) like that they literally don't have money enough to eat on a week by week basis no matter how hard the family works to scrape together cash.

Shit man, are you serious? You think that money makes no difference? Then why have money, if money made the least bit of differences to your problems, then what use does it have? It CLEARLY makes things better.

[editline]24th July 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;36915271]This thread is full of pathetic, uneducated riff-raff liberals, the 5% of millionaires are there because they did some good, honest hard work throughout their entire lives, you people are just lazy cunts who can't lift a gram to feed yourselves, you should all be ashamed. Don't come asking for taxes to steal from my success because you can't get your arses out of the couch, fucking work instead.[/QUOTE]

I know people who have worked hard enough to earn a fortune, but didn't have the luck or the chance to win it big and make their lives easy with millions. It's not purely hard work or every hard worker would be rich you dolt.

[editline]24th July 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=QuikKill;36912718]Where did I say jealous of his success? I bet you would feel more comfortable with a president who came or knew from a low income household, not a successful businessman.

There you go with the personal attacks, again. But, I'll bite. Don' try to play this off as you're some amazing poster, your posts are just as sarcasm filled as mine, and these are just in this thread.

Again, less of the personal attacks, and more of the argument.[/QUOTE]

You use liberal as a personal attack, so shut up. It's not one and it's stupid to believe it is.

I would feel more comfortable with a president that was honest about his intentions and about where he got his money from, I frankly don't give a shit if he's rich if he wasn't illegitimate in getting there. You're telling us what OUR issue with him is. You're wrong in for even trying to do that.

[Xenocidebot]

[QUOTE=Noble;36895370]You were talking about the tax [b]rates[/b] that were astronomically high at the time. I was claiming that while the marginal tax rates were nominally very high, that's not even close to what the rich usually paid in reality because there were abundant tax shelters and loopholes for them to abuse at the time, before more strict tax laws came into effect later on. So it's not necessarily true that they "paid more taxes". Paid more taxes as a percent of income? Not necessarily, for reasons I stated above. More as a percentage of GDP? Not according to this:

[img]http://i.imgur.com/plroT.jpg[/img]

[url]http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/5728[/url][/QUOTE]
Something I love about religious economics is how, because it is not actual (read: scientific) economics, you get "laws" used to support claims, the laws not being derived from observations and subsequent theory as in science but from a priori shit, "obvious" axioms, and misunderstood historical "fact".

The source for a discussion of "Hauser's Law" is the guy it's named after making the claim from a think-tank he works for, not an academic article positing its existence based on observed data. No one in academia deigns to seriously discuss Hauser's Law because of a few basic problems:
-It is too ill defined to falsify (Hauser never defines what "approximately 19.5%" means to him consistently)
-It cannot be used to make a prediction due to this vagueness
-It lacks any theoretical basis providing an explanation of why it exists
-To ensure it is difficult to rebut, it is not formulated as a law but as a highly specific statement, making it not actually definable as a law

What's more, actual observation would imply Hauser's definition of "approximate" is large enough to drive a truck through and is contingent on the stability of another factor. We have had a [URL="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41654"]3% change in total effective tax rate from 1979 to 2005[/URL] cause a [URL="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals"]4.5% change in tax revenue of a percentage of GDP over the same time period.[/URL] These shifts are, to anyone with an understand of statistics, correlative. Throw in more modern data and it turns into a goddamn doozy.
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8UVGnCIfOVk/TPRBL9f2fsI/AAAAAAAAAdQ/oAy0Eg_r1dE/s1600/Hauser%2527s_Law_Figure_1.bmp[/IMG]

Again, that doesn't falsify a claim as vague as "no matter what the tax rates have been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5 percent of GDP", but it necessarily adds a few qualifiers. We can reformulate Hauser's "Law" thus:
[QUOTE]While tax rates have remained constant (+/- 1.5%) in postwar America, tax revenues have remained constant at 19.5 percent (+/-2.25%) of GDP.[/QUOTE]
That's not really a useful statement. It's effectively saying "if you try to view the data from really far away while squinting, it appears nothing happens!" To put this into perspective, I can say:
[QUOTE]No matter what the tax rates have been, in 20th and 21st century America tax revenues have always remained at about 20 percent of GDP.[/QUOTE]
That's true. [URL="http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/include/usgr_chart3p21.png"]My "about" is huge, though.[/URL] If I postulated it as [U]Xenocidebot's Law[/U] with an article from the [B]Center for Radical Shit and Strawberry Blowjobs[/B], it wouldn't be any less of an idiotic statement.

Throw in the fact that there's no data to show a similar phenomenon in other nations (that would require a theoretical framework) or an explanation of why "postwar America" is more special than any other time period (also requiring some actual thinking), and Hauser's "Law" can be summarily dismissed. It's not false, but it's also meaningless and used to support arguments (e.g. tax revenue cannot be changed) which [I]are[/I] demonstrably false using the same data set.

[killkill85]

[QUOTE=LF9000;36915039][Citation Needed]

Haven't heard of this before[/QUOTE]

What a fitting avatar

[Ond kaja]

[QUOTE=bohb;36908418]Most people are smart enough to not inhale cancer. It seems that tobacco addiction is the source of your poverty, seeing as you can barely afford cigarettes.[/QUOTE]

Poverty is measured on your income, not what you choose to do with your money.

[smurfy]

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36919330]Something I love about religious economics is how, because it is not actual (read: scientific) economics, you get "laws" used to support claims, the laws not being derived from observations and subsequent theory as in science but from a priori shit, "obvious" axioms, and misunderstood historical "fact".

The source for a discussion of "Hauser's Law" is the guy it's named after making the claim from a think-tank he works for, not an academic article positing its existence based on observed data. No one in academia deigns to seriously discuss Hauser's Law because of a few basic problems:
-It is too ill defined to falsify (Hauser never defines what "approximately 19.5%" means to him consistently)
-It cannot be used to make a prediction due to this vagueness
-It lacks any theoretical basis providing an explanation of why it exists
-To ensure it is difficult to rebut, it is not formulated as a law but as a highly specific statement, making it not actually definable as a law

What's more, actual observation would imply Hauser's definition of "approximate" is large enough to drive a truck through and is contingent on the stability of another factor. We have had a [URL="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41654"]3% change in total effective tax rate from 1979 to 2005[/URL] cause a [URL="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals"]4.5% change in tax revenue of a percentage of GDP over the same time period.[/URL] These shifts are, to anyone with an understand of statistics, correlative. Throw in more modern data and it turns into a goddamn doozy.
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8UVGnCIfOVk/TPRBL9f2fsI/AAAAAAAAAdQ/oAy0Eg_r1dE/s1600/Hauser%2527s_Law_Figure_1.bmp[/IMG]

Again, that doesn't falsify a claim as vague as "no matter what the tax rates have been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5 percent of GDP", but it necessarily adds a few qualifiers. We can reformulate Hauser's "Law" thus:

That's not really a useful statement. It's effectively saying "if you try to view the data from really far away while squinting, it appears nothing happens!" To put this into perspective, I can say:

That's true. [URL="http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/include/usgr_chart3p21.png"]My "about" is huge, though.[/URL] If I postulated it as [U]Xenocidebot's Law[/U] with an article from the [B]Center for Radical Shit and Strawberry Blowjobs[/B], it wouldn't be any less of an idiotic statement.

Throw in the fact that there's no data to show a similar phenomenon in other nations (that would require a theoretical framework) or an explanation of why "postwar America" is more special than any other time period (also requiring some actual thinking), and Hauser's "Law" can be summarily dismissed. It's not false, but it's also meaningless and used to support arguments (e.g. tax revenue cannot be changed) which [I]are[/I] demonstrably false using the same data set.[/QUOTE]

I have no idea whether I agree or disagree with you, but either way I'm not going to argue with you

[Noble]

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36919330]Something I love about religious economics is how, because it is not actual (read: scientific) economics, you get "laws" used to support claims, the laws not being derived from observations and subsequent theory as in science but from a priori shit, "obvious" axioms, and misunderstood historical "fact".

The source for a discussion of "Hauser's Law" is the guy it's named after making the claim from a think-tank he works for, not an academic article positing its existence based on observed data. No one in academia deigns to seriously discuss Hauser's Law because of a few basic problems:
-It is too ill defined to falsify (Hauser never defines what "approximately 19.5%" means to him consistently)
-It cannot be used to make a prediction due to this vagueness
-It lacks any theoretical basis providing an explanation of why it exists
-To ensure it is difficult to rebut, it is not formulated as a law but as a highly specific statement, making it not actually definable as a law

What's more, actual observation would imply Hauser's definition of "approximate" is large enough to drive a truck through and is contingent on the stability of another factor. We have had a [URL="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41654"]3% change in total effective tax rate from 1979 to 2005[/URL] cause a [URL="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals"]4.5% change in tax revenue of a percentage of GDP over the same time period.[/URL] These shifts are, to anyone with an understand of statistics, correlative. Throw in more modern data and it turns into a goddamn doozy.
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8UVGnCIfOVk/TPRBL9f2fsI/AAAAAAAAAdQ/oAy0Eg_r1dE/s1600/Hauser%2527s_Law_Figure_1.bmp[/IMG]

Again, that doesn't falsify a claim as vague as "no matter what the tax rates have been, in postwar America tax revenues have remained at about 19.5 percent of GDP", but it necessarily adds a few qualifiers. We can reformulate Hauser's "Law" thus:

That's not really a useful statement. It's effectively saying "if you try to view the data from really far away while squinting, it appears nothing happens!" To put this into perspective, I can say:

That's true. [URL="http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/include/usgr_chart3p21.png"]My "about" is huge, though.[/URL] If I postulated it as [U]Xenocidebot's Law[/U] with an article from the [B]Center for Radical Shit and Strawberry Blowjobs[/B], it wouldn't be any less of an idiotic statement.

Throw in the fact that there's no data to show a similar phenomenon in other nations (that would require a theoretical framework) or an explanation of why "postwar America" is more special than any other time period (also requiring some actual thinking), and Hauser's "Law" can be summarily dismissed. It's not false, but it's also meaningless and used to support arguments (e.g. tax revenue cannot be changed) which [I]are[/I] demonstrably false using the same data set.[/QUOTE]

I never said anything about Hauser's law or it's precision, I was simply linking to where I got the graph I posted.

I'm going to assume "religious economics" was a swipe at Austrian economics, a criticism people who misunderstand AE often make. AE makes no claims to be a science in the first place, but a praxeological approach to economics. The so-called "real economics" are actually the real pseudo-science though, since they take data and attempt to draw conclusions while disregarding the unpredictable nature of human action. "Real economists" like Paul Krugman made consistently wrong predictions year after year with their "real, scientific" approach to economics, and were totally useless in predicting the 2008 crash (several Austrians did predict it though, with their "religious, pseudo-science approach").

[SigmaLambda]

[QUOTE=QuikKill;36912317]Yes he is serious.

When I was sixteen I used the ability to trade stocks with a low amount of capital because I was a student, three years later I was able to pay for two years of my college after selling the stocks I bought.

There is no excuse to not better yourself if you have the ability. My family used to be poor, living in Milwaukee, with bars on all of the windows. Now after years of hard work*, we were able to move out of the suburbs and live in a safe area.
*Not saying no one else does hard work.[/QUOTE]

well your personal experiences are completely representative of the entire world and all anyone has to do to escape crushing poverty is buck up and invest money into the stock market. nice tip. let me guess, you're a white male with no dependents and no serious disabilities

[editline]24th July 2012[/editline]

cannibalize the rich

[Xenocidebot]

[QUOTE=Noble;36921119]I never said anything about Hauser's law or it's precision, I was simply linking to where I got the graph I posted.[/QUOTE]
Then you should have had the foresight to know you were linking to gibberish.
[QUOTE=Noble;36921119]I'm going to assume "religious economics" was a swipe at Austrian economics, a criticism people who misunderstand AE often make. AE makes no claims to be a science in the first place, but a praxeological approach to economics.[/QUOTE]
Economics being defined as a social science and "praxeology" being a word invented to say "faith-based analysis" without the negative connotations that implies, Austrian school economics are religious economics, i.e. not economics. Your preferred school of thought in the field has, openly, no basis in reality. You can get your economic thought from Wodan if you'd like, you're still stupid.
[QUOTE=Noble;36921119]The so-called "real economics" are actually the real pseudo-science though, since they take data and attempt to draw conclusions while disregarding the unpredictable nature of human action.[/QUOTE]
...According to Austrian school economists, who are, by definition, not discussing observations of reality. That sort of automatically invalidates any issues the field raises with observations of reality!
If human action were truly unpredictable you wouldn't make claims about economic systems, because you'd have to accede they are built upon the actions of humans and are thus unpredictable. Oh, wait, religion, logical consistency has no place here.
[QUOTE=Noble;36921119]"Real economists" like Paul Krugman made consistently wrong predictions year after year with their "real, scientific" approach to economics, and were totally useless in predicting the 2008 crash (several Austrians did predict it though, with their "religious, pseudo-science approach").[/QUOTE]
So, what, you just ignore [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27krugman.html"]that Krugman predicted the housing bubble in '05?[/URL]

Also, what is it with you Austrian guys not having anybody better to yell at? Paul Krugman is not Econ Jesus, he's just one guy in an institution. I know he embarrasses your shit regularly but try to branch out more.

[editline]24th July 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=smurfy;36920768]I have no idea whether I agree or disagree with you, but either way I'm not going to argue with you[/QUOTE]
I can put anything you're having a hard time understanding into layman's terms if need be.