#41
snipe
#42
[account deactivated]
#43

Ironicwarcriminal posted:

Yeah truly I’m ‘fired up’ by economics

same but ironically

#44

Panopticon posted:

i got banned from 420chan/pol/ for telling it like it is



Don't scare me like that.

#45
check it out: paul dougman
#46

mustang19 posted:

LOLOLOLOL go suck a dick Krugman. Marx predicted robots in 1850.



Aristotle had a robot thousands of years before that. Marx and Krugman are cavemen banging bones together and pretending it's music.

#47
aristotle has a robot right now
#48
(its u)
#49
can't throttle the 'stotle
#50
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22223190

But no, he was correct - he'd spotted a basic error in the spreadsheet. The Harvard professors had accidentally only included 15 of the 20 countries under analysis in their key calculation (of average GDP growth in countries with high public debt).
#51

Panopticon posted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22223190But no, he was correct - he'd spotted a basic error in the spreadsheet. The Harvard professors had accidentally only included 15 of the 20 countries under analysis in their key calculation (of average GDP growth in countries with high public debt).



You're citing an article written by a liberal economist. This kind of incrementalism-of-the-deed is killing the Left.

Edited by mustang19 ()

#52

mustang19 posted:

Panopticon posted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22223190But no, he was correct - he'd spotted a basic error in the spreadsheet. The Harvard professors had accidentally only included 15 of the 20 countries under analysis in their key calculation (of average GDP growth in countries with high public debt).

You're citing an article written by a liberal economist. This kind of incrementalism-of-the-deed is killing the Left.

Good. Let's kill the Left and become fascists.

#53

Panopticon posted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22223190But no, he was correct - he'd spotted a basic error in the spreadsheet. The Harvard professors had accidentally only included 15 of the 20 countries under analysis in their key calculation (of average GDP growth in countries with high public debt).



they....they fucked with Debt

#54
Debt is only possible under a liberal system where all forms of rent and interest have not been abolished. You will never see that in the economic study you posted.
#55
[account deactivated]
#56

mustang19 posted:

Debt is only possible under a liberal system where all forms of rent and interest have not been abolished. You will never see that in the economic study you posted.



yep hunter-gatherers didn't have much in the way of debt

#57
Some hunter-gatherers are still liberals, but some are not.
#58

mustang19 posted:

Some hunter-gatherers are still liberals, but some are not.

Catch

#59
I like the OP but I can't really know if its conclusions are true without seeing the actual correlations. Until then it's a lot of meaningless bar graphs.
#60
That's a reasonable post, but meaningless bar graphs and tortured hopscotch are what blogconomics is all about.

www.paulkrugman.com

Edited by mustang19 ()

#61

Panopticon posted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22223190But no, he was correct - he'd spotted a basic error in the spreadsheet. The Harvard professors had accidentally only included 15 of the 20 countries under analysis in their key calculation (of average GDP growth in countries with high public debt).



harvard professors "accidentally" skew data in support of austerity

#62
neocon think-tank "accidentally" falsifies data
#63
cable news "accidentally" wastes their entire budget reporting on oprah, new must-have gadgets, and cat memes
#64
We need to move away from liberal economics and the idea that debt and/or economic growth is a good thing. If debt increases economic growth and social justice then those are already causes for alarm.
#65
Regarding the op: isn't liberal economics actually more of a "success", in that it has enabled the lizardmen of capital to more fully consolidate and exercise power over society and production?
#66

VoxNihili posted:

Panopticon posted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22223190But no, he was correct - he'd spotted a basic error in the spreadsheet. The Harvard professors had accidentally only included 15 of the 20 countries under analysis in their key calculation (of average GDP growth in countries with high public debt).

harvard professors "accidentally" skew data in support of austerity



They do some other disingenuous stuff in that paper but the excel error might actually be accidental. Like 30% of journal articles in economics have major errors because the peer review and publishing system is awful and no one wants to put in the effort to actually check proofs, replicate results, evaluate code, etc.

#67
No shit, it's like videogames nowadays. Academia is a living example of the failure of central planning quotas, when your institution wants to paste 10,000 articles all over the internet you better copy off Wikipedia to compete with the Chinese. Couldn't have said it better myself- I posted it after all.

Academic economics are still less of a joke than the blogs, as easily manipulated as it is. At least you can do a meta-review and detect the bias.

Unless there's only one study ever on a critically important topic because everyone is focused on accumulating more and more foreign aid and trade openness studies.

Edited by mustang19 ()

#68

gyrofry posted:

Regarding the op: isn't liberal economics actually more of a "success", in that it has enabled the lizardmen of capital to more fully consolidate and exercise power over society and production?

"When a liberal sees a beggar, he says the system isn't working. When a Marxist sees a beggar, he says the system is working."
--Juggy Brottleteen

#69

VoxNihili posted:

cable news "accidentally" wastes their entire budget reporting on oprah, new must-have gadgets, and cat memes