22 ms·

I believe (though I obviously can't know) the reason you are getting down votes is that you are making an explicit appeal to authority ("An economist from 1935

I believe (though I obviously can't know) the reason you are getting down votes is that you are making an explicit appeal to authority ("An economist from 1935 disagrees") against another appeal to authority (the "Many economists" from the article). But the thing is, "many economists", who have the added benefit of decades worth of observations and accumulated knowledge in the field of economics are almost certainly _much_ better authorities than someone from the 1930's. Which doesn't prove any points, because appeals to authority never really do. But if you open your argument with an appeal to a weak authority, the rest of your argument will look weak as well. I imagine you wouldn't have been down voted if you had just left out the bits about George Robinson and let the arguments stand on their own.

fexl 15y ago
You're probably right about the downvotes, but the article itself made an appeal to authority and majority (i.e. "many economists"), and I wanted to counter that with a specific exception, and I see no harm in citing him by name. On your other point, I don't put much stock in the decades worth of obfuscation that have followed, such as the silly praise for breaking windows, or digging holes and filling them back up, or other activities only sustainable by confiscating or devaluing property. Here's the thing about gold. I don't care if anyone uses or does not use gold to settle business. I just don't want anyone interfering with people who do choose to use it. (Same goes for bitcoin etc.) That is to say, no harassment, no fines, and no jail time. That's all I ask.
- nhaehnle 15y ago
  For your information, the phrase about "digging holes and filling them back up" is probably one of the most distorted quotes in all of economics. Keynes essentially asked his readers to compare three possible scenarios in a situation where the private sector does not provide enough job opportunities due to a lack of aggregate demand. The scenarios are: (1) mass unemployment (2) the state providing employment in work that is considered useful (3) the state providing employment in "digging holes and filling them back up" Keynes point was that the order of desirability is: (2) is better than (3), and (3) is better than (1) He was not in any way advocating in favour of (3), he was merely pointing out that even though (3) looks stupid, it is still better than (1).
  - fexl 15y ago
    Keynes was making hay out of a disaster. The banks enabled a speculative boom, resulting in a massive mis-allocation of capital for many years. Then when the boom ended, they had mass unemployment. No surprise there. Keynes was wrong to think that (3) is better than (1). All that does it take capital forcibly out of one individual's hands and put it into the pocket of someone doing something useless. You might as well save him the trouble of digging the ditch.

fexl 15y ago

You're probably right about the downvotes, but the article itself made an appeal to authority and majority (i.e. "many economists"), and I wanted to counter that with a specific exception, and I see no harm in citing him by name. On your other point, I don't put much stock in the decades worth of obfuscation that have followed, such as the silly praise for breaking windows, or digging holes and filling them back up, or other activities only sustainable by confiscating or devaluing property. Here's the thing about gold. I don't care if anyone uses or does not use gold to settle business. I just don't want anyone interfering with people who do choose to use it. (Same goes for bitcoin etc.) That is to say, no harassment, no fines, and no jail time. That's all I ask.

nhaehnle 15y ago
For your information, the phrase about "digging holes and filling them back up" is probably one of the most distorted quotes in all of economics. Keynes essentially asked his readers to compare three possible scenarios in a situation where the private sector does not provide enough job opportunities due to a lack of aggregate demand. The scenarios are: (1) mass unemployment (2) the state providing employment in work that is considered useful (3) the state providing employment in "digging holes and filling them back up" Keynes point was that the order of desirability is: (2) is better than (3), and (3) is better than (1) He was not in any way advocating in favour of (3), he was merely pointing out that even though (3) looks stupid, it is still better than (1).
- fexl 15y ago
  Keynes was making hay out of a disaster. The banks enabled a speculative boom, resulting in a massive mis-allocation of capital for many years. Then when the boom ended, they had mass unemployment. No surprise there. Keynes was wrong to think that (3) is better than (1). All that does it take capital forcibly out of one individual's hands and put it into the pocket of someone doing something useless. You might as well save him the trouble of digging the ditch.