Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
The Economic Crisis
Posted 10/1/11 , edited 10/1/11

longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Don't contradict the scientific rigor and its methods, when you just contradicted your own disposition due to your own assumption and superstition

Now I'm not telling you this story because I think Archie Cochrane is a dude, although Archie Cochrane is a dude. I'm not even telling you the story because I think we should be running more carefully controlled randomized trials in all aspects of public policy, although I think that would also be completely awesome. I'm telling you this story because Archie Cochrane, all his life, fought against a terrible affliction. And he realized it was debilitating to individuals and it was corrosive to societies. And he had a name for it. He called it the God complex. Now I can describe the symptoms of the God complex very, very easily. So the symptoms of the complex are, no matter how complicated the problem, you have an absolutely overwhelming belief that you are infallibly right in your solution.(citation)

Scientific Rigor

Modern science achieves its rigor through a set of approaches that ensures its progress and accuracy. First, the objects of science must be empirical; they must occur in the observable world. Second, the claims of any given study must be verifiable and repeatable. Third, the findings of any given study must not be stated as proofs of something about the world, but rather as models of trends in the world that can potentially be falsified. While its data and methods are different in nature, qualitative research is still concerned with discerning things about the observable world, and therefore does require scientific rigor; a social scientist must attempt to convey her findings so that others can uncover similar concepts or trends in the same--or a completely different--cultural context. Furthermore, the social scientist must be highly sensitive to her own subjectivity when conveying her findings.(citation)
.
Just where have you observed that a scientific hypothesis still persist itself, despise that it isn't "verifiable and repeatable"? All I'm seeing is you intentionally and desperately defending something that you can't even define "accurately" with "progression": humanity as empathy. That's a logical fallacy obscurum per obscurius.

Next comes your obscure concept of individuality, when you can't even define the western indoctrination of individualism without yourself justify selfishness and apathy. While certain aboriginal culture has enough communal diversity to allow, celebrate, and accept the discovery of alternative gender identity. How arrogant of you to overgeneralize individuality, without yourself to observe the extreme opposite of belongingness: extreme isolation.

Thirdly, how would you even know what a book is in the first place? Before you could even decide for yourself that "I want the book for its own sake", you were socialized by your immediate social group about what a book is.

Finally, your biology suggests sex, not pornography. Your society OTOH just persuades you that its the next best thing through its materialistic and consumerist cultural values. And the resource based economy is just a change in cultural values that's modeled on humanity as empathy.


I do not doubt the scientific rigour, I am only stating what is fact- Science, as far as we can tell, is not a complete picture of what is and what isn't, and any of its current tenants, when faced with something with stronger evidence, will have to be discarded in favour of that. Therefore, it isn't perfect, and we do not know completely what is true and what isn't, only what is most accurate at the moment. Given its fallibility, it allows room for more study. But, to say we are able to copy from nature in miniature, and apply it to man is to say we have completed all science, and, by the by, have all understanding of nature, which is completely idiotic. We don’t have a complete understanding of nature, so we can’t copy it, and hope it works. We can’t copy a house in miniature if you only see part of the building outside, and a few beams inside- our view of the house is too incomplete.

Of course, then you say I have a God complex- I do not pretend to be an expert in any field, nor do I pretend, as you do, that my individual experience and experience of other are representative of all mankind, and children should be moulded in so and so way. If that lady-who-is-too-tight-fisted-to-lend-her-own-kin’s father’s method works for her, God be with him and let him go about his way with no interference from me, but, to say all are so and so is absolute tomfoolery based upon the idea that ‘because I am so, all are so’. You seem to suggest the same. But beside that, you seem keen on attacking the very idea of individualism, which is, as I understand it, and I do admit to having a very incomplete understanding of all things philosophical, the idea that everyone is an individual person, complete with a unique set of thought, unique processes, unique association of ideas, forged by unique experience, with individual needs and wants, in short, a unique creation that is able to reason and mete out judgement by itself. Each creature is endowed with this, otherwise, argument would not exist, and we would be no better than extensions of one another, in complete agreement at all time. This definition does not conflict with Moral Objectivism in that Moral Objectivist hold that there is a universal set of ethics, like the law of gravity, which governs us all, while we still exist as individuals within this universal set of ethics, just as monkeys and giant pandas are still bound by the same law of gravity while being different species. We need not be selfish, greedy, apathetic, and overall horrid people to be individuals as you seem to suggest.

Then you confuse the actual item of a book with its content- no one desire a book because it is a mass of paper collected and collated in thus way, we buy books because of what is in it- and no one decide our taste in the content. We may find a book we like isolated from any societal influence. Thus, we desire the book for its own sake, not because we are in some social group telling us that books are good and we should go buy ‘em. That is an example of material desire that is not a product of society’s want or biological need. I see something new that I would like to eat while passing a pastry shop- I suppose you shall tell me that I desire that because I am part of a social group that instilled this desire in me by some witchery or some magick. Or should I desire to taste some fruit I have never seen or heard of before, and I happen to pass it by whilst in a supermarket, maybe that can be chalk up to societal or biological determinism as well. As I see it, your system seems to want to surmount this form of desire by denying it exist altogether, then brainwash the children to get rid of such fancies he may have.
That line in red just distorted and contradicted your entitlement claim on science. Because why would you want something that you're not an expert on? In other words, how could you not know about a book without you first got socialized/experienced it, either personally by another person or impersonally by a medium? Your denial on observable social science isn't helping your cause nor establishing your claim.

And such is the case of how you completely made unaware of the fact that how one Milton Friedman's obsession on disaster capitalism through economic shock doctrine, had allowed the elitists within the private sector to profit and benefit through nonstop political and economical crisis creation and conflict exploitation on global society.

Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.(citation)

That's your "absolute tomfoolery" in a nutshell. While your "having a very incomplete understanding of all things philosophical" is but an excuse, within the context/reality of open-source learning experience of philosophy.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/1/11

DomFortress wrote:

That line in red just distorted and contradicted your entitlement claim on science. Because why would you want something that you're not an expert on? In other words, how could you not know about a book without you first got socialized/experienced it, either personally by another person or impersonally by a medium? Your denial on observable social science isn't helping your cause nor establishing your claim.

And such is the case of how you completely made unaware of the fact that how one Milton Friedman's obsession on disaster capitalism through economic shock doctrine, had allowed the elitists within the private sector to profit and benefit through nonstop political and economical crisis creation and conflict exploitation on global society.

Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.(citation)

That's your "absolute tomfoolery" in a nutshell. While your "having a very incomplete understanding of all things philosophical" is but an excuse, within the context/reality of open-source learning experience of philosophy.


I suppose that is your try at absurdist humour, why would I want a book on something that I am not a expert on? Should I limit my taste to what I am familiar with, and never go beyond those boundries? Should I keep to what I know only? I am not denying what can be observed, for example, I can go to a bookshop, browse through their collection, find something interesting, which I have not been socialised into, and desire the book for its own sake. But, all this by and by, I shall not comment further upon this point because your statements are all in gross error to what is easily observable and easily dispelled with common sense, which, as John Dryden tells us, should be a rule for everything but religion and revelation- religion and revelation being things that are so offensive to common sense that the suspension of common sense is require for the retention of it. But, I suppose, you will stick to your views as religion, when emperical observation can easily disprove you idea that all is the result of socialisation.


Then, I have no idea what you are trying to say by linking me with some Shock Doctrine conspiracy, that every disater is made to foist less and less regulated Capitalism, in hopes of promoting Laissez Faire- I do not know if this is true or not, but that only discredit their form of capitalism, not capitalism as a whole, nor does that advance your ideology in anyway. All this peaking the many unaddressed inconsistencies in your argument, like how do we get to this blissful state? Who distributes? How is want satisfied? &c.
n-k 
37209 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Not quite here
Offline
Posted 10/2/11
I tried following this thread somewhat, but I have gotten completely lost. My understanding is this crisis is credit driven. Lenders loaned money too cheaply to risk borrowers. As a result banks were in trouble of failing. To prevent banks from failing, which in turn would affect lending and slow down our modern economy the policymakers have attempted both fiscal and monetary policy.

1) Government fiscal stimulus - Let the government spend money to spur demand by purchasing goods and services. This in turn keeps demand up and jobs. In turn payments are used by producers to then spend as well.

2) Central Bank monetary stimulus - The Fed is printing money to keep asset prices up and borrowing costs in the near term down. This also increases inflation which hurts creditors and helps debtors. Banks will recognize fewer principal losses and debtors can repay their debts.

Well that is the theory anyways. The problem is that still too much credit was given out and lenders and individuals are still too nervous to spend, or lend. Losses or potential losses at banks are still high. Stimulus has not increased jobs for various reasons, and inflation has not come into play. However, outside of the most recent upheavals, risky asset (non-US Treasury assets) prices have remained high.

I think at this juncture developed governments are out of ammo so I think the next few years are going to be ugly for both developed and emerging countries.

Admittedly the rest of the conversation I cannot follow. It appears I lack the vocabulary to understand it.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 10/2/11 , edited 10/2/11

n-k wrote:

I tried following this thread somewhat, but I have gotten completely lost. My understanding is this crisis is credit driven. Lenders loaned money too cheaply to risk borrowers. As a result banks were in trouble of failing. To prevent banks from failing, which in turn would affect lending and slow down our modern economy the policymakers have attempted both fiscal and monetary policy.

1) Government fiscal stimulus - Let the government spend money to spur demand by purchasing goods and services. This in turn keeps demand up and jobs. In turn payments are used by producers to then spend as well.

2) Central Bank monetary stimulus - The Fed is printing money to keep asset prices up and borrowing costs in the near term down. This also increases inflation which hurts creditors and helps debtors. Banks will recognize fewer principal losses and debtors can repay their debts.

Well that is the theory anyways. The problem is that still too much credit was given out and lenders and individuals are still too nervous to spend, or lend. Losses or potential losses at banks are still high. Stimulus has not increased jobs for various reasons, and inflation has not come into play. However, outside of the most recent upheavals, risky asset (non-US Treasury assets) prices have remained high.

I think at this juncture developed governments are out of ammo so I think the next few years are going to be ugly for both developed and emerging countries.

Admittedly the rest of the conversation I cannot follow. It appears I lack the vocabulary to understand it.


Well, actually, yeah, I think that is a very accurate assessment of our position as a nation right now,and, overall, a great summary of our problems, and I commend you for that.

However, the rest of the conversation was discussing DomFortress' solution, which was to replace our current system with a type of Socialism that involve the fair, sustainable, and equal distribution of energy and resources, founded upon and driven by the milk of human kindness, the abolition of money, especially fiat money, and that Capitalism is evil.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.