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

[Frederick]

if all rich money was in country taxes, we'd have so much free healthcare for us and others!!

thats why were the 99 percent :-(

[Sobotnik]

[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]

Isn't this like an argument that pseudo-scientific healthcare stuff claims whenever somebody calls bullshit on their technique or snake oil working.

Because if they predicted the 2008 crash I want to know what made them come to this conclusion, their suggestions on what to do, and if it wasn't just a random guess.

[Noble]

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36921418]
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.

...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]

They are discussing observations of reality. I would recommend reading some Rothbard and Hayek (you know, the Austrian economist who won the Nobel prize back when it was worth something) so that you can gain the slightest understanding of what you're attempting to criticize.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;36921418]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][/QUOTE]

No, I don't ignore that at all. Actually, he was calling for the creation of the housing bubble in 2002.

"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36921525]Isn't this like an argument that pseudo-scientific healthcare stuff claims whenever somebody calls bullshit on their technique or snake oil working.

Because if they predicted the 2008 crash I want to know what made them come to this conclusion, their suggestions on what to do, and if it wasn't just a random guess.[/QUOTE]

Peter Schiff published a book about it in 2007, called "Crash Proof". You can read it to find out all of those things.

[Coldmute]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36921525]Isn't this like an argument that pseudo-scientific healthcare stuff claims whenever somebody calls bullshit on their technique or snake oil working.

Because if they predicted the 2008 crash I want to know what made them come to this conclusion, their suggestions on what to do, and if it wasn't just a random guess.[/QUOTE]Some just used a shotgun-style approach to predicting, making so many different predictions that eventually one was bound to fall close, others would make their predictions by being decidedly vague so as that almost anything could apply. Then some used actual economic methods and completely ignored the Austrian system, then tried to use that as evidence of why Austrian Economics was better, not realizing that they defeated themselves in the process by showing that the system they were criticizing actually worked.

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=Noble;36921651]
Peter Schiff published a book about it in 2007, called "Crash Proof". You can read it to find out all of those things.[/QUOTE]

Well I'm too busy reading Terry Jones "Medieval Lives" at the moment so can you maybe provide an argument here?

[Electrocuter]

What gets me the most is that these people could help others a lot.

These people have the power to actually make a difference, they could invest in private space business, medical research, energy research or just donate it to a good cause.

Look at Bill Gates, he donates a ton of his money, if more rich people were like him we'd probably have less problems in the world.

[Xenocidebot]

[QUOTE=Noble;36921651]They are discussing observations of reality. I would recommend reading some Rothbard and Hayek (you know, the Austrian economist who won the Nobel prize back when it was worth something) so that you can gain the slightest understanding of what you're attempting to criticize.[/QUOTE]
What seems to be the case, as is always the case with the educated and the religious, is that I've read all that needs to be read on your idols, and you're only following a secondhand understanding of them as presented to you by ideologues.

Hayek once said of theories in the social sciences that they can "never be verified or falsified by reference to facts." That would mean he does not speak about observations of reality, having explicitly dismissed them. Hayek is a sad case, being noteworthy briefly for having done actual research (mainly the calculation problem) before retreating into antiscience rhetoric and general batshittery, such as vocally supporting a brutal dictatorship. His Nobel Prize was in tandem with another man as a political balancing act, which he himself admitted, for his early, pre-insanity work. The guy made some lovely contributions to economics while he was still openly denouncing praxeology, ("I had never accepted Mises’ a priorism") and will be fondly remembered for his minor contributions to macroeconomics. That he got a prize once does not magically validate a brand of Austrian school econ he himself is dissociated from, nor would it mean anything even if he was explicitly associated with it. After all, Krugman, who is your great Satan, also won a Nobel ([I]alone[/I]), yet I would never tout this as a display of theoretical authority as I'm discussing science, not religious icons.

Rothbard is a lunatic, and that you would mention him a permanent mark against you in any serious discussion. Granted, I'm replying to humor myself and onlookers, because you cannot rationalize with the irrational (otherwise I'd be preaching empiricism to the pope), but if you go so far as to start citing an ideological mercenary who proposed a baby market (with the potential for the starvation of the deformed) and exploited racism for political sway, we can just skip the econ and go straight into why you're a horrible person.
[QUOTE=Noble;36921651]No, I don't ignore that at all. Actually, he was calling for the creation of the housing bubble in 2002.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, you can't shift the goalposts on this one. You criticized him for failing to make a prediction. He made the prediction. You are wrong, thanks for playing.

You may now separately criticize his stance on the issue- though it will be like not be based on observation of reality, starting another debunk.

[Noble]

You shifted the goalposts earlier, I was talking about the 2008 crash, not the housing bubble. He did not predict the financial crisis of 2008, but Austrians like Schiff did. Again, Krugman was actually the one recommending the creation of a housing bubble early on. I guess that's what made it so easy for him to "predict".

As for Rothbard and Hayek, I see no evidence debunking a single thing they contributed to economic thought, just clear bias and rhetoric, as well as unsupported claims that are taken out of context or simply not true. I really don't understand your obsession with using personal attacks and loaded language that contribute nothing to the discussion.

[quote]Hayek once said of theories in the social sciences that they can "never be verified or falsified by reference to facts." [b]That would mean he does not speak about observations of reality, having explicitly dismissed them.[/b][/quote]

In what bizarre twist of logic do you come to that conclusion? He is arguing that you can't use precise mathematical deduction to draw conclusions in economics, where human behavior is absolutely not constant and can sometimes be irrational, that testibility in economics is impossible for that reason. You have no way to know everything that is going on in the brain of every single person in the economy when they make a decision. He is not "dismissing observations of reality", just admitting that there are limits to the conclusions he can draw from the data. The data alone, which is missing all the variables that go into the complex human action element, doesn't bring in enough information in order to make conclusions about it, so yes, they are unable to be verified or falsified for that reason. I don't see the supposed "insanity" behind that. The Austrians do use and refer to real world data all the time, though, it's totally wrong and misleading to say they don't take into account observations of reality. They just have different views about the data and the conclusions that can be drawn from it.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36921705]Well I'm too busy reading Terry Jones "Medieval Lives" at the moment so can you maybe provide an argument here?[/QUOTE]

Basically he demonstrates why the foundation of the economy at the time was not sound and was headed for disaster. Loss of production, going from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation, etc. You'd have to read the book if you want all the details, or check out some of Schiff's pre-2008 videos which are all over youtube.

[Xenocidebot]

[QUOTE=Noble;36924089]You shifted the goalposts earlier, I was talking about the 2008 crash, not the housing bubble. He did not predict the financial crisis of 2008, but Austrians like Schiff did. Again, Krugman was actually the one recommending the creation of a housing bubble early on. I guess that's what made it so easy for him to "predict".[/QUOTE]
The housing bubble is what caused the crash. Which is why he talks about what will happen if the bubble bursts. Your disliking what his opinion on the bubble was in 2002 is irrelevant. You said something incorrect. Put on your big boy pants and deal with it.
[QUOTE=Noble;36924089]As for Rothbard and Hayek, I see no evidence debunking a single thing they contributed to economic thought,[/QUOTE]
Negative proof fallacy. You're looking for academic acceptance of their beliefs as demonstrably valid.
[QUOTE=Noble;36924089]just clear bias and rhetoric, as well as unsupported claims that are taken out of context or simply not true.[/QUOTE]
"It's not fact when I disagree with it."
[QUOTE=Noble;36924089]I really don't understand your obsession with using personal attacks and loaded language that contribute nothing to the discussion.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard"]Rothbard is objectively a shitheel.[/URL] Sorry, Charlie. Find yourself an idol that isn't a fiend.
[QUOTE=Noble;36924089]In what bizarre twist of logic do you come to that conclusion? He is arguing that you can't use precise mathematical deduction to draw conclusions in economics, where human behavior is absolutely not constant and can sometimes be irrational, that testibility in economics is impossible for that reason.[/QUOTE]
Incorrect. He's arguing against inductive reasoning (using observations of reality) in favor of deductive reasoning based on a priori factors, which is why he goes on to speak about assumptions.

Which is sad. "Math is hard, statistics are hard, things are not in fixed states" doesn't invalidate physics, psychology, chemistry, or any other field, yet you guys pretend it invalidates economics.
[QUOTE=Noble;36924089]You have no way to know everything that is going on in the brain of every single person in the economy when they make a decision.[/QUOTE]
And you need to know what goes on in the brain of every single person in the economy when they make a decision [I]because?[/I] If you can't actually demonstrate why, with data, there's no validity to that claim. I may as well attempt invaliding electrical engineering because no one can know in absolute terms what is going on with every electron inside a wire. It's called noise, we take it into consideration, it doesn't effect large-scale phenomena, it effects small-scale phenomena in a predictable way.

Thanks for demonstrating the Austrian school relies on the same type of thinking as creationist irreducible complexity, down to the inability to accept the universe is made up of probabilistic elements and omnipresent noise.
[QUOTE=Noble;36924089]He is not "dismissing observations of reality", just admitting that there are limits to the conclusions he can draw from the data. The data alone, which is missing all the variables that go into the complex human action element, doesn't bring in enough information in order to make conclusions about it, so yes, they are unable to be verified or falsified for that reason. I don't see the supposed "insanity" behind that.[/QUOTE]
This is demonstrably wrong, based on the existence of functioning predictive economic theories. The insanity is that you assume it is not necessary for you to attempt pointing out what cannot be known with data (hint: you can actually do this [I]with data[/I], take a fucking college statistics course) because you take orders from your deities on what is and is not true.
[QUOTE=Noble;36924089]The Austrians do use and refer to real world data all the time, though, it's totally wrong and misleading to say they don't take into account observations of reality. They just have different views about the data and the conclusions that can be drawn from it.[/QUOTE]
Claiming observational data cannot be used to come to conclusions about phenomena is not a "different view", it's explicitly and anti-empiricism, anti-science sentiment that rejects reality in favor of faith. Thus, praxeology, rejection of observation of reality in favor of assertions about reality.
[QUOTE=http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-aussm.htm]This is not to say that Austrians do not refer to real-world events and data in their writings. They just don't do it in the usual scientific way. Here is Austrian economist Ken Gaillot, Jr., describing their use of data:

"The Austrian economist sees his task as deducing the implications of human choice under conditions observed in the real world. The assumptions of economic theory are the point at which the theory is empirically verifiable. This approach allows qualitative prediction of economic events, explanation of observed patterns, and evaluation of government policy." (2)

[B]In other words, Austrians get to critique the real world, but the real world is prevented from informing their theories.[/B] Even their predictions are "qualitative," not "quantitative" -- meaning they are free to call the government "bad," without being held down to the statistics that would verify this claim.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for playing, skippy.