Skip to main content

View Diary: Has economics found its Andrew Wakefield? (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Who's the Rush Limbaugh here? The person who (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    the fan man, CharlesII

    wants to engage in reasoned debate and give the other side a fair hearing?  The person who wants to consider the arguments all around the issue fully?  There are arguments against unlimited government debt that make sense and are credible.

    The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

    by helfenburg on Thu May 02, 2013 at 05:02:20 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So exactly who (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eddie L, BradyB, Sandino

      is arguing for 'unlimited' debt?

      The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

      by dfarrah on Thu May 02, 2013 at 07:42:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dick Cheney, for one. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        No one gets out alive

        There are a few people on the MMT side who argue that debt doesn't matter. Dick Cheney, too.

        Like many arguments, this one has devolved into strawman arguments on both sides. There is no debt "cliff" vs You don't care about debt.  

        The truth is probably that there probably is a debt cliff but it depends on the country and other circumstances so much that trying to find an exact value is a mistake. Argentina is more likely to have a debt catastrophe than the US, and debt catastrophes are more likely for everyone at times of fiscal crisis than when things are humming along.

        So we should always try to limit debt, but not at the expense of wrecking our country and throwing people under the bus. Starting by stopping tax avoidance and by taxing corporations at effective rates that are consistent with historical norms would be a good place to start. Raising wages would also help.  

    •  Why is it always that the people who are being (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean, Sandino

      screwed are supposed to "engage in reasoned debate" and "consider all the arguments fully?" Sure seems that the ground truths of starvation (oh, "suboptimal nutritional inputs") and suicide and destruction of that middle class thing are there and pretty irrefutable, except maybe in the fartland atmospherics of the pseudoscience called "economics." Where anything is everything if you just know how to fondle the data and create interesting math.

      "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

      by jm214 on Thu May 02, 2013 at 01:48:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Does it help? (0+ / 0-)

        Does it help win an argument if one bases ones criticisms on erroneous information?

        I think one wins arguments by being careful with the truth. One wins arguments by knowing one's opponent better than he/she knows him/herself.  

        •  What's happening now is not an "argument." It's (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          a plain old beat-down, of the sort that was done to unionists back in the day. Probably should not say it, but your spiel sounds like what I hear in conversing with the libertarians I know.

          "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

          by jm214 on Thu May 02, 2013 at 06:22:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site