3 ms·

> You need to justify that, otherwise it's pointless claptrap. The far left advocates for lots of government-provided services, which means markets without comp

> You need to justify that, otherwise it's pointless claptrap. The far left advocates for lots of government-provided services, which means markets without competition. I'm not aware of economic theories that strongly back the idea that no competition is best for social utility. I don't need to qualify it. You can study it. You don't walk up to a physicist and ask them to qualify relativity they say it's science and to go learn it. So go learn you some economics for make benefit your brain. > Well there are large portions of economics that are bunk. If you have a field that has multiple "schools of thought", then it's not really scientific because it means there aren't experiments to reproduce. If it's not reproducible, it's not science You can have different schools of thought, take super symmetry vs multiverse in physics right now. I also don't know how you can go from multiple schools of thought to not being reproducible and thus not science. Different ways of looking at a problem will yield the same answer if it's correct. Im aware of nothing in economics that goes against this. The different schools of thought are trying to solve largely different problems. Assuming I at all understand what you mean by this... > So most 'economics' studies that compare things like government structures, entitlements, etc are about as useful as trash. There are so many confounding variables that can't be controlled for that it's really easy to ignore all of the ones that disagree with the author's premise. Can't be controlled for yet. Neuroscience will put all the social sciences out of business one day. And to make such a broadly sweeping statement is just full of so many fallacies I'm not sure where to start addressing them so I won't because it's pointless. Have you studied economics? Or can you more thoughtful provide examples?

hueving 9y ago
>Have you studied economics? Yes, a significant amount about pricing and market theory. Very little of it supports significant government intervention into markets. Look at net neutrality for example, the reason ISPs can be assholes is because of regulatory capture effectively granting them local monopolies. Google, one of the richest companies in the world, had to give up on Google Fiber because local regulations blocked them at every step. Now we're left with cable being the only viable high speed connection (fast enough for HD video, etc) for huge swaths of the US because of excessive regulation. So the only feasible way forward by most left-leaning people is even more regulation on how traffic can be handled. Nothing to introduce more competition, just more fuel for the regulatory capture fire. >And to make such a broadly sweeping statement is just full of so many fallacies I'm not sure where to start addressing them so I won't because it's pointless. I'm not sure you are using the word 'fallacies' or the phrase 'full of' correctly. I'm making one assertion in that context, and it's that any large-scale economic study that tries to extract findings by looking at the after-effects of a policy change is little more than tarot card reading because there is no control group. >Or can you more thoughtful provide examples? Lookup any economic paper that tries to argue the importance of something like the New Deal. There is no control group, so you can provide as much analysis as you want but there is no way to really say whether or not it was the reason for the recovery because there are far too many confounding variables. The same thing will happen with the analysis of the quantitative easing programs by the Fed. Doves will produce a wealth of things seeming to show that it prevented the second great depression and hawks will produce a wealth of things claiming that it prevented the important aspect of cutting weak companies from the market. >I don't need to qualify it. You most certainly do. You can't state something as brazen the left making the most scientific sense without citations.

hueving 9y ago

>Have you studied economics? Yes, a significant amount about pricing and market theory. Very little of it supports significant government intervention into markets. Look at net neutrality for example, the reason ISPs can be assholes is because of regulatory capture effectively granting them local monopolies. Google, one of the richest companies in the world, had to give up on Google Fiber because local regulations blocked them at every step. Now we're left with cable being the only viable high speed connection (fast enough for HD video, etc) for huge swaths of the US because of excessive regulation. So the only feasible way forward by most left-leaning people is even more regulation on how traffic can be handled. Nothing to introduce more competition, just more fuel for the regulatory capture fire. >And to make such a broadly sweeping statement is just full of so many fallacies I'm not sure where to start addressing them so I won't because it's pointless. I'm not sure you are using the word 'fallacies' or the phrase 'full of' correctly. I'm making one assertion in that context, and it's that any large-scale economic study that tries to extract findings by looking at the after-effects of a policy change is little more than tarot card reading because there is no control group. >Or can you more thoughtful provide examples? Lookup any economic paper that tries to argue the importance of something like the New Deal. There is no control group, so you can provide as much analysis as you want but there is no way to really say whether or not it was the reason for the recovery because there are far too many confounding variables. The same thing will happen with the analysis of the quantitative easing programs by the Fed. Doves will produce a wealth of things seeming to show that it prevented the second great depression and hawks will produce a wealth of things claiming that it prevented the important aspect of cutting weak companies from the market. >I don't need to qualify it. You most certainly do. You can't state something as brazen the left making the most scientific sense without citations.