Will North America recover economically, politically, culturally?

[someone]

I was being facetious, however he does, in fact, have economic theory down pat.

As I have pointed out many times in other threads he does not have a clue.

I don't agree with it (no two economists agree on much, and I'm not even an economist), but there are economists who would agree entirely with him.

Actually that is a popular misconception. Economists agree on far more than they disagree on. The biggest disagreements are in macroeconomics and concern fluctuations in the business cycle which are not issues that have been raised here.

As one who clearly believes he has a monopoly on economic understanding, let's here it. The floor is yours.

I did not say I have a monopoly but as an economist I know enough to find this thread to be amusing. Libertarianism is a philosophy. Neoclassical economics (which likely makes up 95+% of academic economists) is a science. The two have little in common. There is an alternative to neoclassical economics called Austrian economics but that has more to do with Libertarian philosophy than economic theory. Indeed, traditionally Austrians have rejected the use of scientific method and mathematics as a tool in studying human behaviour.

 

[blackrock13]

I was being facetious, however he does, in fact, have economic theory down pat. I don't agree with it (no two economists agree on much, and I'm not even an economist), but there are economists who would agree entirely with him.

As one who clearly believes he has a monopoly on economic understanding, let's here it. The floor is yours.

You were being what? I had to look that one up. I learned something today

'Someone' has never made that claim ever, but is known to have 'some' incite into the darker corners of economics. Just joshin' SO.

 

[GotGusto]

Actually that is a popular misconception. Economists agree on far more than they disagree on. The biggest disagreements are in macroeconomics and concern fluctuations in the business cycle which are not issues that have been raised here.

I'm sure that economists agree on many things. They can agree on mathematic formula and methodology. But they do disagree on economic policy. Issues related to economic policy have been raised in this thread and are central to the original questions posted.

Please accept my apology on terminology, but my point was simply that markvee's views concern economic policy (e.g. whether taxes should or shouldn't exist), and some economists would agree with him. You're absolutely right that the discussion so far has little to do with the calcuations involved in measuring GDP.

I did not say I have a monopoly but as an economist I know enough to find this thread to be amusing. Libertarianism is a philosophy. Neoclassical economics (which likely makes up 95+% of academic economists) is a science. The two have little in common. There is an alternative to neoclassical economics called Austrian economics but that has more to do with philosophy that economic theory. Indeed, traditionally Austrians have rejected the use of scientific method and mathematics as a tool in studying human behaviour.

We can agree that 1 + 1 = 2, and we can agree on the study of human behavior, yet derive completely opposite views on economic policy. And this is precisely what happens when economics is applied in the real world.

Who gets the first "1" and who gets the second "1", or does one person get both? How much tax should be applied on each "1"? The questions go on and on.

Let us not forget that psychology is a science and still in its infancy (read: extremely imperfect) which is why we cannot predict complex human behavior.

Economics, philosophy, sociology, and psychology become interwind when questions concerning economic policy are raised.

 

[someone]

I'm sure that economists agree on many things. They can agree on mathematic formula and methodology. But they do disagree on economic policy, and related issues have been raised in this thread and are central to the original questions posted in the thread.

The original questions posted in this thread were silly which is why I ignored them.

We can agree that 1 + 1 = 2, and we can agree on the study of human behavior, yet derive completely opposite views on economic policy. And this is precisely what happens when economics is applied in the real world.

Who gets the first "1" and who gets the second "1", or does one person get both? How much tax should be applied on each "1"? The questions go on and on.

Here you are getting positive and normative analysis confused. “Economic theory” (the specific term you used in posts 29 and 60 that I responded to) deals with positive analysis which economists are generally agreed on. With the exception of macroeconomic stabilization problems, economists’ disagreements over the positive aspects of economic policies are much less than you realize. However, whether or not the positive effects of an economic policy are “good” or “bad” is a normative issue. Like everyone else economists have different normative views. For example, a positive effect an increase in the savings rate is that future generations will have a greater capital stock to work with. Whether that is good or bad depends on ones normative views regarding the welfare of the current generation (that has to consume less to increase the savings rate) versus the welfare of future generations.

 

[GotGusto]

That was only a short list that I could quickly put my hands on and I'm not comparing just Canada and the US, but all the 200+ countries. I could have brought in the longevity list and we all know where the US sits on that list.

I know the lists are subjective, but that's why the caveat on the parameters, yet but as a group they do show trends. The only people who don't like lists tend to be the ones who don't do well, just like politicians and polls.

If the US ranked below all Western nations perhaps there would be cause for concern. But it consistently ranks quite well.

The longevity list is the result of a multitude of factors.

 

[Rockslinger]

Nobody in their right mind wants to live in Arab countries.

Even some Arabs don't want to live in an Arab country.

 

[blackrock13]

If the US ranked below all Western nations perhaps there would be cause for concern. But it consistently ranks quite well.

The longevity list is the result of a multitude of factors.

I never said it ranked badly, there are 200+ countries.

 

[HafDun]

a good read.
Why your World IS About to Get A Whole lot Smaller, Jeff Rubin http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780307373205


According to maverick economist Jeff Rubin, there will be no energy bailout. The global economy has suffered oil crises in the past, but this time around the rules have changed. And that means the future is not going to be a continuation of the past. For generations we have built wealth by burning more and more oil. Our cars, our homes, our whole world has been getting bigger in the cheap-oil era. Now it is about to get smaller.

There will be winners as well as losers as the age of globalization comes to an end. The auto industry will never recover from this oil-induced recession, but other manufacturers will be opening up mothballed factories. Distance will soon cost money, and so will burning carbon – both will bring long-lost jobs back home. We may not see the kind of economic growth that globalization has brought, but local economies will be revitalized, as will our cities and neighborhoods.

Whether we like it or not, our world is about to get a whole lot smaller.

 

[poker]

Will North America recover economically, politically, culturally?

Are we suggesting we give all the land back to the Native Peoples as a start? Cause until that happens...... No.

Cheers!@

 

[GotGusto]

The original questions posted in this thread were silly.

It must be nice to believe that you live in a vacuum.

Here you are getting positive and normative analysis confused. “Economic theory” (the specific term you used in posts 29 and 60 that I responded to) deals with positive analysis which economists are generally agreed on. With the exception of macroeconomic stabilization problems, economists’ disagreements over the positive aspects of economic policies are much less than you realize.

I'm not an economist, so for the moment, I'll accept this to be true. Also, If I got my economic terminology mixed up, forgive me.

However, whether or not the positive effects of an economic policy are “good” or “bad” is a normative issue. Like everyone else economists have different normative views.

Ah, so generally when we discuss economic policy outside of the classroom setting, we're discussing "normative views". And this is where the disagreement among economists occurs. Terrific.

For example, a positive effect an increase in the savings rate is that future generations will have a greater capital stock to work with. Whether that is good or bad depends on ones normative views regarding the welfare of the current generation (that has to consume less to increase the savings rate) versus the welfare of future generations.

Alright, I get it. I see the distinctions between economics (the science), normative views (opinion), and philosophy (e.g. ideas about role of government in economic policy, what is good and bad economic policy and why)

Well, where do normative views come from? They're partly derived from an individual's philosophy. Normative views are just as important as economics itself. This is not something abstract, it has real world effects, and normative views influence policy and decision making.

While I appreciate the economics lesson, this is really off track from the original discussion (those silly questions you ignored), and really just irrelevant.

May I suggest that you ignore the remainder of the thread unless you actually have something to add?

 

[GotGusto]

I'm really tired right now and I have work to do (yes, even on Saturdays). If "someone" responds again with more of his uppity rhetoric, I'll get back to it tomorrow.

 

[someone]

Ah, so generally when we discuss economic policy outside of the classroom setting, we're discussing "normative views". And this is where the disagreement among economists occurs. Terrific.

Clearly you don’t understand what we are discussing. If you don’t understand the positive effects of a policy, any opinion you have about its normative merits is worthless.

While I appreciate the economics lesson, this is really off track from the original discussion (those silly questions you ignored), and really just irrelevant.

I used the word “silly” to be polite. Although the world “stupid” would have been more accurate, I thought it might sound offensive.

May I suggest that you ignore the remainder of the thread unless you actually have something to add?

Given that these issues are beyond your comprehension, I don’t think you would know if I did or did not have something to add.

 

[GotGusto]

Alright folks, our uppity friend "someone" has started with the insults. We know what that means - he had no argument to begin with. You might as well shred your economics degree "someone".

Just another day for me, another dragon slain. Another liberal beaten down by logic.

 

[someone]

Alright folks, our uppity friend "someone" has started with the insults. We know what that means - he had no argument to begin with. You might as well shred your economics degree "someone".

Just another day for me, another dragon to slay.

Who's next?

I pointed out that you did not know what you were posting about and you get defensive. You really think my showing that you were wrong about every point in our exchange is your slaying the dragon? You remind me of Fuji when he is losing an argument. LOL.

 

[GotGusto]

I pointed out that you did not know what you were posting about and you get defensive. You really think my showing that you were wrong about every point in our exchange is your slaying the dragon? You remind me of Fuji when he is losing an argument. LOL.

You pointed out nothing. You made a statement - in summary "you know nothing".

The defensive person is you. When you begin with a barrage of insults it's because somehow you feel like you're up against the ropes. Calm yourself, there is no reason to get upset and I'm not attacking you. All will be ok.

I don't know Fuji or what relevance he has to this.

 

[someone]

You pointed out nothing. You made a statement - in summary "you know nothing".

The defensive person is you. When you begin with a barrage of insults it's because somehow you feel like you're up against the ropes. Calm yourself, there is no reason to get upset and I'm not attacking you. All will be ok.

Look guy, I pointed out that every point you made in our exchange was wrong. Thus, perhaps you are right when you say that in summary this means that I basically said “you know nothing”. That is your interpretation of what I said but I will not deny that explaining that every point you made was wrong might amount to saying that.

 

[GotGusto]

someone, if the discussion is so horrendously stupid, do what a rational person would do, and eject yourself from it.

If you feel that discussing some of the most important topics of our time is stupid, I really don't think we have any common ground for any type of discourse.

 

[GotGusto]

Look guy, I pointed out that every point you made in our exchange was wrong. Thus, perhaps you are right when you say that in summary this means that I basically said “you know nothing”. That is your interpretation of what I said but I will not deny that explaining that every point you made was wrong would amount to saying that.

You pointed out nothing and your claim now is that you didn't want to bother explaining why I was wrong. To save yourself the hassle and time? Yet you're willing to go back and forth with me now with variations of the "you know nothing" theme? C'mon man.

I recommend that you stay out of the thread and go back to reading textbooks about economics and let the rest of us discuss the real world ramifications of economic policies.

 

[someone]

someone, if the discussion is so horrendously stupid, do what a rational person would do, and eject yourself from it.

Originally I thought pointing out your error in the first post I responded to might be worth well. You then demonstrated additional misunderstandings when you responded to that post which I also thought might be worth well to correct. Some people like to be corrected when they are wrong so they can learn something. However, I now know that you are not one of those people. Nonetheless, there may be other people the thread that would have had similar misconceptions.

If you feel that discussing some of the most important topics of our time is stupid, I really don't think we have any common ground for any type of discourse.

“Discussing some of the most important topics of our time” is not stupid. When somebody starts a thread to discuss “some of the most important topics of our time”, I will be interested in following it.

 

[GotGusto]

Originally I thought pointing out your error in the first post I responded to might be worth well. You then demonstrated additional misunderstandings when you responded to that post which I also thought might be worth well to correct. Some people like to be corrected when they are wrong so they can learn something. However, I now know that you are not one of those people. Nonetheless, there may be other people the thread that would have had similar misconceptions.

I like to be corrected. In fact my original posts asks for somebody to correct me - to tell me why my thinking is wrong. The original post is filled with questions I wanted answers to. I'm all about asking questions to learn new things.

Did you miss all of that?

“Discussing some of the most important topics of our time” is not stupid. When somebody starts a thread to discuss “some of the most important topics of our time”, I will be interested in following it.

I have a challenge for you. Start your own thread right now about what you believe are some of the most important topics of our time. I'm curious to know what issues you think are important (there I go wanting to learn again).

Let's face it - you don't have a clue.

You're not the first, nor will you be the last person that I rip to shreds.