3 ms·

These are solvable problems. You are way too aggressive with me. University researchers have many consensus, scientifically based viewpoints on how to improve

These are solvable problems. You are way too aggressive with me. University researchers have many consensus, scientifically based viewpoints on how to improve social issues. The simple fact is that the research is just ignored in favor of radical emotionally-potent ideologies. Many political ideas have been scientifically tested. I spent years in university learning about them and I certainly don't know them all, but I know professors who have worked on these issues for decades and have been able to draw strong scientific conclusions. Economists throughout the world are able to reach consensus (defined as 90%+ agreement) on many issues. Their consensus is ignored politically. Psychologists are able to reach consensus on certain questions of public mental health and the mental health of the poor. Their conclusions are politically ignored. This is the pattern. The pattern is that other countries have demonstrated social success stories and other countries have put the University social science into practice and reaped success. The USA does not. American political policy is a combination of Christian fascist social policy, corrupt Democratic/Republican fake social program pork barrel, and Military-Industrial-Security complex pork barrel. People with reasonable views based on consensus science are underrepresented. If you actually think you can "demolish all my arguments" then you've lost my respect for your lack of humility. You're just one man, you don't have time to be an expert in every field. My opinions are mostly informed by the consensus views of social scientists. When implemented, social science has been very successful. What do I want to do about the poor? I just want scientifically literate people to put more time into politics so that they can counteract the voices of irrationality that currently dominate lawmaking. I want smart people to act on the good science that is out there instead of having the wealthy and intelligent throw up their hands and pretend it is someone else's problem.

justin_vanw 15y ago
I'm too aggressive with you? You are the one that says I advocate positions that are obviously wrong and hurt children. I suspect you aren't accustomed to having someone competently push back when you go on one of your rants? Either you think I advocate hurting children, or you think I just post bullshit to HN without thinking it through. Either way, you are far more insulting than I have been. I have the distinction of being direct, both with my arguments and with my insults. Again, you give a dozen assertions, and again it's without any context, argument or evidence. I would love it if you would give one of these near-universally accepted truths that economists all agree on. I also look forward to your rationalizations when you have to restrict who is a 'real' economist (I really doubt you will find 90% agreement among economists that are Chinese Socialists, members of the Austrian school, distributionists, working economists at major brokerage houses, etc). I suppose you want to limit it to 'mainstream' western economists at big name universities? Try to keep it concise this time, and see if you can give me an example without bringing in another dozen unrelated 'facts'.

justin_vanw 15y ago

I'm too aggressive with you? You are the one that says I advocate positions that are obviously wrong and hurt children. I suspect you aren't accustomed to having someone competently push back when you go on one of your rants? Either you think I advocate hurting children, or you think I just post bullshit to HN without thinking it through. Either way, you are far more insulting than I have been. I have the distinction of being direct, both with my arguments and with my insults. Again, you give a dozen assertions, and again it's without any context, argument or evidence. I would love it if you would give one of these near-universally accepted truths that economists all agree on. I also look forward to your rationalizations when you have to restrict who is a 'real' economist (I really doubt you will find 90% agreement among economists that are Chinese Socialists, members of the Austrian school, distributionists, working economists at major brokerage houses, etc). I suppose you want to limit it to 'mainstream' western economists at big name universities? Try to keep it concise this time, and see if you can give me an example without bringing in another dozen unrelated 'facts'.