Ron Paul pulls into second in Iowa

[RabidMongoose]

🙄

Says the guy thread crapping in a thread about Ron Paul.

I'm not thread crapping at all.

In fact, I haven't even posted in this thread yet.

You see, that's what you just tried to do with the Ron Paul newsletters.

Makes sense. Ron Paul follows an economic school of thought that doesn't believe in the real world and thus doesn't use empirical data. Makes sense that you need to make shit up now.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I'm not thread crapping at all.

In fact, I haven't even posted in this thread yet.

Bolded for LOL.

You see, that's what you just tried to do with the Ron Paul newsletters.

Makes sense. Ron Paul follows an economic school of thought that doesn't believe in the real world and thus doesn't use empirical data. Makes sense that you need to make shit up now.

So basically you have no actual grasp as to how deductive reasoning works based on the understanding and study of human action (aka Praxeology) or how this can be applied to form logical and factual arguments that toss neat little formals into the gutter once reality moves away from the implied views that are imparted via these devised mathematical formulas based on factors that are almost always impossible to predict or control in a ever changing economic environment in the world/reality we inhabit.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Bolded for LOL.



So basically you have no actual grasp as to how deductive reasoning works based on the understanding and study of human action (aka Praxeology) or how this can be applied to form logical and factual arguments that toss neat little formals into the gutter once reality moves away from the implied views that are imparted via these devised mathematical formulas based on factors that are almost always impossible to predict or control in a ever changing economic environment in the world/reality we inhabit.

Exactly.You just quoted your outright refusal to acknowledge empirical data when it comes to economics. Paulbots have taken it a step further as we see that some of them such as yourself refuse to acknowledge reality, even when Ron Paul himself has acknowledged it.

I suppose in order to support such a demented racist, you must be pretty deranged.

I can't wait until that vile racist old troll Ron Paul inevitably loses and finally gets the hell out of politics. It's still amazing that people can support a vile old racist who doesn't believe in empirical data and follows a school of economic thought now largely based and influenced out of some shitty third rate universities, hates the Constitution, and abhors individual rights.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Exactly.You just quoted your outright refusal to acknowledge empirical data when it comes to economics. Paulbots have taken it a step further as we see that some of them such as yourself refuse to acknowledge reality, even when Ron Paul himself has acknowledged it.

Empirical data is not the end all or be all of economics. Without a clear understanding of human action and/or the ability to formulate logical and sound conjectures based on clear and undeniable established facts one cannot accurately make decisions on the nature of all economic future activities (along with their outcomes) based solely on mathematical formulas. Even with a firm grasp on both spheres of reasoning and analysis any sort of "prediction" is still prone to error as human activity which is solely based on individual motivation and desires can vary so greatly from person to person even within a given time period of their existence. Thus even those who make a living by employing empirical economic data based on extremely complex mathematical formulas will admit that they cannot reliably map out all human actions and their inevitable results with any degree of concrete accuracy.

A perfect example how flawed it is to rely solely on mathematical formulas in order to manage economies (or even smaller segments of the economy) would be the true story on how math and computer experts known as Quants almost destroyed Wall Street with their (and Wall Street's) sole reliance on complex mathematical formulas that for all their complexity only adhered to one view of the financial markets (i.e. that everyone would be happily paying off their mortgages pre-mortgage bust).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed2FWNWwE3I

I suppose in order to support such a demented racist, you must be pretty deranged.

And to be an irrational loon you have to ignore reasoning and sound logic/arguments just as you have done in this thread.

I can't wait until that vile racist old troll Ron Paul inevitably loses and finally gets the hell out of politics. It's still amazing that people can support a vile old racist who doesn't believe in empirical data and follows a school of economic thought now largely based and influenced out of some shitty third rate universities, hates the Constitution, and abhors individual rights.

LoL Keep dreaming loon.

 

[fskimospy]

He has already come out on the record as stating that he did not write those letters and that he did not have any knowledge of their content.

So why did he defend the letters previously? Seems to me that no matter if you wrote them or not, that's pretty horrendous.

 

[werepossum]

So why did he defend the letters previously? Seems to me that no matter if you wrote them or not, that's pretty horrendous.

Agreed. This is the dilemma for a politician. You can refuse to condemn your racist friends and/or associates, or you can dodge charges of racism, but you can't do both. He should have exercised better judgment when licensing out his name, and he should have vigorously rejected these writings immediately when they came out. (I'm assuming here that he DID license out his name, but the fact that he didn't go after these people with both barrels when this came to his attention seems prima facie if not conclusive evidence to that effect.)

When something racist comes out under your name, nothing less than 100% effort to dissociate yourself with it, and expose those responsible, is required to avoid contamination. I'm not saying Paul is a racist, but at the least he seems uncomfortably comfortable with those who are. Some of that stuff is pretty vile, and even the stuff that might have a germ of a point within (e.g. the destructive effect of welfare) is couched so badly that one can't help but wince and hear racism so loud that any potential point is drowned out.

 

[dank69]

Agreed. This is the dilemma for a politician. You can refuse to condemn your racist friends and/or associates, or you can dodge charges of racism, but you can't do both. He should have exercised better judgment when licensing out his name, and he should have vigorously rejected these writings immediately when they came out. (I'm assuming here that he DID license out his name, but the fact that he didn't go after these people with both barrels when this came to his attention seems prima facie if not conclusive evidence to that effect.)

When something racist comes out under your name, nothing less than 100% effort to dissociate yourself with it, and expose those responsible, is required to avoid contamination. I'm not saying Paul is a racist, but at the least he seems uncomfortably comfortable with those who are. Some of that stuff is pretty vile, and even the stuff that might have a germ of a point within (e.g. the destructive effect of welfare) is couched so badly that one can't help but wince and hear racism so loud that any potential point is drowned out.

Come on, man. Why do we have to keep going in circles about this? He defended the statements by saying they were taken out of context. This implies that he thought the statements were okay in context when they clearly are not okay in ANY context.

 

[xj0hnx]

So why did he defend the letters previously? Seems to me that no matter if you wrote them or not, that's pretty horrendous.

He didn't "defend" the newsletters.

It's pretty funny watching the try-hards going full blast, so cute.

 

[werepossum]

Come on, man. Why do we have to keep going in circles about this? He defended the statements by saying they were taken out of context. This implies that he thought the statements were okay in context when they clearly are not okay in ANY context.

I agree, I've seen several things I can't imagine being okay in any context, which is why I've never bothered to search out and read them in context. I'm taking him at his word here that he did not write this stuff and saying that he's being a typical politician, trying to avoid repudiating the actual words while also trying to avoid being tarred as a racist - and he can't do both. That doesn't necessarily mean he IS a racist, but it is evidence that he is at best uncomfortably comfortable with those who are racists, as I said.

 

[dank69]

I agree, I've seen several things I can't imagine being okay in any context, which is why I've never bothered to search out and read them in context. I'm taking him at his word here that he did not write this stuff and saying that he's being a typical politician, trying to avoid repudiating the actual words while also trying to avoid being tarred as a racist - and he can't do both. That doesn't necessarily mean he IS a racist, but it is evidence that he is at best uncomfortably comfortable with those who are racists, as I said.

If he thinks those comments are okay in ANY context, he is a racist, whether he wrote them or not. Generalizations based on skin color are nothing if not racist.

 

[guyver01]

He didn't "defend" the newsletters.

keep telling yourself that if it helps you support a racist..


In a 1996 interview with the Dallas Morning News, Ron Paul was asked about his newsletters. In that interview he defended them. You can read a copy of the interview here.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.
He also said the comment about black men in the nation’s capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the ineficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“These aren’t my figures,” Dr. Paul said Tuesday. “That is the assumption you can gather from” the report
​

From this interview we gather Ron Paul knew about the content, defended the content and wrote the content.

If he didn't write the comment... why would he defend them??

Wouldn't it be easier to say "these aren't my figures... stevie from research found them and wrote them down for me"

 

[The-Noid]

Ron Paul is doing well because democrats will vote for him. Let's be honest.

They are going to elect the Looney so big 'Bo gets the reelection.

Any win by Paul is a win for the democrats.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Empirical data is not the end all or be all of economics. Without a clear understanding of human action and/or the ability to formulate logical and sound conjectures based on clear and undeniable established facts one cannot accurately make decisions on the nature of all economic future activities (along with their outcomes) based solely on mathematical formulas. Even with a firm grasp on both spheres of reasoning and analysis any sort of "prediction" is still prone to error as human activity which is solely based on individual motivation and desires can vary so greatly from person to person even within a given time period of their existence. Thus even those who make a living by employing empirical economic data based on extremely complex mathematical formulas will admit that they cannot reliably map out all human actions and their inevitable results with any degree of concrete accuracy.

A perfect example how flawed it is to rely solely on mathematical formulas in order to manage economies (or even smaller segments of the economy) would be the true story on how math and computer experts known as Quants almost destroyed Wall Street with their (and Wall Street's) sole reliance on complex mathematical formulas that for all their complexity only adhered to one view of the financial markets (i.e. that everyone would be happily paying off their mortgages pre-mortgage bust).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed2FWNWwE3I





And to be an irrational loon you have to ignore reasoning and sound logic/arguments just as you have done in this thread.




LoL Keep dreaming loon.

The loon is the person who believes in an economic theory centered out of third rate universities and that doesn't even believe in empirical data for any use of its economic theory (LOL), mathematics (LOL), and even the most basic of scientific principles (LOL). How convenient. Oh yeah, and the person who believes in supporting a vile old racist troll (LOL) is a loon, too.

Ron Paul is just messed up. He believes in a ridiculous economic school of thought that doesn't believe in the most basic of things and is centered out of shitty third rate universities. He doesn't believe in the Constitution, despite his lies about supporting it. He doesn't believe in civil liberties, despite his lies about supporting them. And he's a vile old racist troll of a man. Plus he can't wear a suit properly.

 

[airdata]

Seeing somebody refer to Ron Paul as a demented racist has really made my day... With posts like that, no argument could possibly be lost on these forums.

 

[GaiaHunter]

The loon is the person who believes in an economic theory centered out of third rate universities and that doesn't even believe in empirical data for any use of its economic theory (LOL), mathematics (LOL),

Mathematics in many cases needs to be adapted by other sciences to have a meaning in the physical world - Physics is basically that.

Secondly, economy is a young science, the monetay system we use currently use, FIAT money, is only 40 years old, and economy predictions based on mathematical principles alone have a history of being incorrect.

Third most theories before reaching acceptance and becoming mainstream are obscure theories laughed at by the holders of the truth - what all those holders of the truth forget is that scientific knowledge is never complete and it is always in a state of change, a theory is only valid until someone refutes it.

 

[First]

He didn't "defend" the newsletters.

It's pretty funny watching the try-hards going full blast, so cute.

lmao @ tard.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Mathematics in many cases needs to be adapted by other sciences to have a meaning in the physical world - Physics is basically that.

Secondly, economy is a young science, the monetay system we use currently use, FIAT money, is only 40 years old, and economy predictions based on mathematical principles alone have a history of being incorrect.

Third most theories before reaching acceptance and becoming mainstream are obscure theories laughed at by the holders of the truth - what all those holders of the truth forget is that scientific knowledge is never complete and it is always in a state of change, a theory is only valid until someone refutes it.

That's fine, but Paul rejects the most basic of scientific principles when it comes to the study of economics. That is ridiculous. Paul doesn't believe in the mathematical or scientific side of the study. He believes in a more philosophical and make believe study of this discipline.

And let's not pretend that this school of economics is from some group of incredible intellectual minds that are pioneering some incredible new theory. It's centered around a few third rate universities and it doesn't accept the most basic of scientific principles, so it'll never be accepted or even proven as a holder of the truth because it isn't a part of the scientific or mathematical discipline and its adherents demand that it only be viewed from a position that is divorced from the real world.

 

[First]

Mathematics in many cases needs to be adapted by other sciences to have a meaning in the physical world - Physics is basically that.

Secondly, economy is a young science, the monetay system we use currently use, FIAT money, is only 40 years old, and economy predictions based on mathematical principles alone have a history of being incorrect.

Third most theories before reaching acceptance and becoming mainstream are obscure theories laughed at by the holders of the truth - what all those holders of the truth forget is that scientific knowledge is never complete and it is always in a state of change, a theory is only valid until someone refutes it.

While most of this is true, it says nothing about Austrian economics, which has no empirical merit. And bottom line is that makes the Austrian school of thought a dead-end in research universities, which is where basically every great and revolutionary scientific ideas have come from the last several hundred years. Without science there's no real point in pretending to "know" much of anything particularly important to our lives.

 

[werepossum]

Seeing somebody refer to Ron Paul as a demented racist has really made my day... With posts like that, no argument could possibly be lost on these forums.

I don't think Ron Paul is demented nor racist, but surely you can see that his behavior in this matter naturally leads others to think so?

If something is put out with your name on it, you simply MUST monitor it closely since people will think (and logically so) that it's either written by you, or on your behalf with your approval. If that something contains horrific statements, you simply MUST immediately and energetically repudiate it, with no equivocating. Paul did not; he attempted to equivocate and claim they were taken "out of context". I'll admit that I have not read these statements in context, but some of these quotes are so outrageous that it's impossible to see what context could make them acceptable. If that context exists, it's up to Paul to put it forth and explain it, because with an honest reading even someone moderately Paul-friendly such as myself can imagine no such acceptable context.

Since Paul did not put out such a context, one naturally assumes that one's original thought - that there exists no such context in which these statements are acceptable - is in fact correct. That leaves only two possible explanations. First, Paul himself holds those views, or second, that Paul is so personally close and/or politically entangled to those who do hold those views that he will take the political heat for their views rather than burn that relationship. I've seen nothing else that makes me think Paul is a racist, much less of that caliber, so I'll give him a pass on the first, but I cannot in good faith give him a pass on the second. And the second also has some stain about it - a substantial amount actually. If one is to be a representative and a leader, much less President, one cannot afford the luxury of letting such racism stand, not among one's friends and certainly not in a publication under one's own name. When something so vile goes out in one's name, one needs a much more strenuous defense than "you don't understand" to escape any stain. I don't judge it a complete disqualifier any more so than Obama's relationship with Reverend Wright, but like that this is a serious issue in judgment - only more serious since the majority has more power to oppress than does the minority.

 

[GaiaHunter]

While most of this is true, it says nothing about Austrian economics, which has no empirical merit. And bottom line is that makes the Austrian school of thought a dead-end in research universities, which is where basically every great and revolutionary scientific ideas have come from the last several hundred years. Without science there's no real point in pretending to "know" much of anything particularly important to our lives.

And can we ignore people in economy, reducing it to number and statistics?

Statistics based on small time frames considering the grand scheme of things.

After all in the end, the economy is work done by everyone of us and represented by an easy to trade "token" that we then can exchange to obtain things/services created by others work.

Because we can look at whatever charts, create correlations, draw trend lines, etc, but in the end if there is no creation of something of value for the individual, the value of something is 0, and you don't need a trend line for that, although it helps you if you want to enter a bubble and exit with a profit based on someone else losses, like the dotcoms.

And when I listen to major representatives of some economic schools saying that what we need is "a fake alien invasion" to sort all of our problems, I wonder which universities are actually third rate and who is a loony.

 

[werepossum]

And can we ignore people in economy, reducing it to number and statistics?

Statistics based on small time frames considering the grand scheme of things.

After all in the end, the economy is work done by everyone of us and represented by an easy to trade "token" that we then can exchange to obtain things/services created by others work.

Because we can look at whatever charts, create correlations, draw trend lines, etc, but in the end if there is no creation of something of value for the individual, the value of something is 0, and you don't need a trend line for that, although it helps you if you want to enter a bubble and exit with a profit based on someone else losses, like the dotcoms.

And when I listen to major representatives of some economic schools saying that what we need is "a fake alien invasion" to sort all of our problems, I wonder which universities are actually third rate and who is a loony.

LOL Well said. Far too often economists forget that an economy must in the end produce at least as much wealth as it consumes to survive.

 

[cybrsage]

And to be an irrational loon you have to ignore reasoning and sound logic/arguments just as you have done in this thread.

LoL Keep dreaming loon.

Why do you have against ducks?

 

[woolfe9999]

Empirical data is not the end all or be all of economics. Without a clear understanding of human action and/or the ability to formulate logical and sound conjectures based on clear and undeniable established facts one cannot accurately make decisions on the nature of all economic future activities (along with their outcomes) based solely on mathematical formulas. Even with a firm grasp on both spheres of reasoning and analysis any sort of "prediction" is still prone to error as human activity which is solely based on individual motivation and desires can vary so greatly from person to person even within a given time period of their existence. Thus even those who make a living by employing empirical economic data based on extremely complex mathematical formulas will admit that they cannot reliably map out all human actions and their inevitable results with any degree of concrete accuracy.

A perfect example how flawed it is to rely solely on mathematical formulas in order to manage economies (or even smaller segments of the economy) would be the true story on how math and computer experts known as Quants almost destroyed Wall Street with their (and Wall Street's) sole reliance on complex mathematical formulas that for all their complexity only adhered to one view of the financial markets (i.e. that everyone would be happily paying off their mortgages pre-mortgage bust).

Because economic models based on empirical data have limitations does not validate an economic paradigm based entirely on theory and totally divorced from material realities.

 

[RabidMongoose]

While most of this is true, it says nothing about Austrian economics, which has no empirical merit. And bottom line is that makes the Austrian school of thought a dead-end in research universities, which is where basically every great and revolutionary scientific ideas have come from the last several hundred years. Without science there's no real point in pretending to "know" much of anything particularly important to our lives.

It's easy to come up with a theory when you never have to worry about the real world or actual results. Austrian economics is about as valid as creationism.

 

[First]

And can we ignore people in economy, reducing it to number and statistics?

I don't think reducing anything to numbers and statistics diminishes the veracity of said tenacity.

Statistics based on small time frames considering the grand scheme of things.

There are tons of long-run economic models based on basic, well known mathematics; e.g. IS-LM.

After all in the end, the economy is work done by everyone of us and represented by an easy to trade "token" that we then can exchange to obtain things/services created by others work.

Because we can look at whatever charts, create correlations, draw trend lines, etc, but in the end if there is no creation of something of value for the individual, the value of something is 0, and you don't need a trend line for that, although it helps you if you want to enter a bubble and exit with a profit based on someone else losses, like the dotcoms.

And when I listen to major representatives of some economic schools saying that what we need is "a fake alien invasion" to sort all of our problems, I wonder which universities are actually third rate and who is a loony.

Except Krugman's point about space aliens had nothing to do with space aliens and everything to do with a pretty common sense observation about human activity and the utility of production. Nothing loony about that, and it's why Austrians are laughed out of 99% of research institutions. In the end, this is irrefutable and makes any defense of Austrian economics about as near impossible a defense one could muster.