Topic: Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman - page 4. (Read 8875 times)

So when did Keynes or Krugman use the scientific method and isolated a human society in a laboratory in order to produce predictable and repeatable results ? 

Austrian economics explicitly rejects the scientific method. It relies on deductive reasoning, but explicitly rejects mathematical deductive reasoning. If you want to call that science.... fine. You can have your faith-based anti-math whatyamacallit, and I'll take the scientific method.

PS Go back to your compound, you home-schooled, gun-wielding, bible-reading piece of shit.

Don't tell a german or belgian you think beer is fungible!

Your posts would be considered more seriously if you provided actual arguments rather than the childish behaviour you're exhibiting. I find it particularly problematic if you use an ad hominem while simultaneously claiming your opponent is unscientific.

Austrian economics is based primarily on deductive reasoning and logic. That puts it into the same category as mathematics. Similarly as mathematics, it is based on axioms. Strictly speaking, it's not science, but a tool that can be used in science.

Why don't you provide actual arguments? You've demonstrated in the past that you are capable of that. Why the change and why are you hiding behind a pseudonym? What are you afraid of?

In Australia you can get most things done with a  case of beer.

Is this classified as sound money ? lol

lol

We don't need science, we need sound money and free markets.

In my view, economics cannot be science anyway, unless you completely understand how humans work. You'd have to start there.

Regarding Keynes vs. Hayes or whatever: fuck that debate. Keynes may be right, I don't know, but his strategies are not implementable because they require responsibly acting leaders/central banks/policymakers, which we do not have at our disposal currently.

Humans fail consistently at regulating even very simple systems, such as a thermostat-controlled freezer. How can you expect a group of humans to succeed at regulating something as complex as the world economy?

You cannot, this is the mistake we made. We thought we could have our economies regulated.

I think we're better off concentrating our efforts on deregulation and coming up with good monies (let the free market use whatever it wishes to use), than arguing about right or wrong of some theories about the behaviour of apes. I'm pretty relaxed about these two things, because they will solve themselves in the end anyway. Solutions will just emerge, the question is how bad we want it to get before we let them.

I do think FunnyFoo is right about the problems bitcoin has (slow transactions, cumbersome to use, scalability issues), he's wrong however in saying that it's easy to come up with a better solution. I point to history (litecoin) to show that.

lol no.  It simply had text books that mention more than one theory.  The exact opposite of what you are saying.

Jesus Christ! They teach Austrian economics in school! Where? Who can I report these bastards too? Bet your school schedule looked like this....
9-10 Austrian Economics
10-11 Intelligent Design
11-12 Chastity-Based Education
12-1 Gun Safety
1-2 Civil War Revisionism
2-5 Opening Day of Hunting Season  -> kids have afternoons off to kill game

I am an economist. You are exactly right. Austrian = pseudoscience. The local inhabitants have a high school level understanding of economics (if that) and are adamantly opposed to learning more. Ron Paul should be an embarrassment. When people promote Ron Paul, I can only think of my 1 year-old removing her diaper and playing with the contents.

Nope, i think i had to pick from several classes, econ being one.

You didn't learn about austrian economics in school? We didn't spend a ton of time on it, but econ was a required high school course for me.

Maybe keynesianism is pseudoscience too.

I would consider this psuedoscience, however: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Methodology

Fixed rate currencies, barter systems, thats all cool with me. And again, I am not well versed in economics. I am not necessarily talking about you, but my guess would be that many bitcoiners go through a series of steps something like this:

1. discover bitcoin

2. like the idea that it has a fixed supply

3. decide that bitcoin is awesome, countercultural, and the answer to many real world problems

4. discover austrian economics because somebody on a forum mentions that austrians like fixed money supplies too

5. fail to read much more on austrian economics

6. decide that austrian economics are awesome, countercultural, and the answer to many real world problems.

lol, how is people simply bartering with whatever they see fit pseudoscience? Keynesianism is pseudoscience.

austrian economics is aging as well though, the old paradigms must go. We need appropriate money for the information age. Bitcoin with P2P credit systems like Ripple (to provide ad-hoc liquidity) or a similar dualistic approach will be the future.

I am no economist, but I appreciate what you are saying here for the most part. Personally, I really get sick of hearing austrian this, austrian that. Correct me if I am wrong here, but I tend to lump it in with the likes of psychoanalysis and chiropractic. I tend to view it as psuedoscience, for lack of a better word.That said, I think bitcoin has a very bright future. And I wish Ron Paul were not the face of libertarianism in America.

Just MHO.

just so people can value your honored opinions, I dug out an old post of yours from November last year:


yesyes, and tulips only flower once.

if you have "no interest in debating" and are apparently the ultimate holder of "established knowledge" then why are you here? Just for having some "fun rubbing it in on a forum populated by a lot of people" you seem to have no appreciation or respect towards? Seriously? Back to kindergarten, HappyFunFoo!

Let me set the record straight about my opinions - I think bitcoin is an excellent proof of concept, but definitely too unrefined and flawed for mainstream acceptance in and of itself.

I also don't have any interest in debating the established fact that Ron Paul demonstrates incredible economic ineptitude.  It's just fun rubbing it in on a forum populated by a lot of people with kindergarten-level understanding of macroeconomics.

hehe, nice.

Krugman about Estonia: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/estonian-rhapsdoy/

Estonia president going on a pretty rant as a reaction: https://twitter.com/#!/IlvesToomas

Thank you for your reply sunnankar,

This is actually a very interesting point. I was originally under the impression that you are required to conduct your accounting in the legal tender. I had heard about the Kahre case, but if I understand correctly, it was about underreporting of value rather than use of a different currency for accounting, in other words, it does not have anything to do with the choice of currency as such.

I found this link which suggests that UK companies must conduct their accounting in pounds.

I was also under the impression that the choice of currency for accounting influences your tax liabilities. Then I ran a couple of simulations and it's not that simple. If the gain/loss is to be calculated based on the total balances, then the choice of accounting currency is irrelevant and leads to the same result (but because exchanges have fees, you'll end up with a lower profit). If however the gain/loss is only realised when you sell the foreign currency against legal tender (which, based on my research, seems to be the case), then the result is only the same if you sell all your balances of the foreign currency. If you conduct your business exclusively in foreign currency (say, Bitcoin) that appreciates against legal tender, and only sell your Bitcoins in order to have enough legal tender to pay taxes, you'll actually end up with a lower tax due!

It turns out that my original assumption that the choice of currency for accounting influences tax liabilities is erronous, irrespective of whether the choice is allowed or not. It's other accounting rules that influence tax liabilities, and it looks like paradoxically, they currently favour Bitcoin.

You are not technically required to 'conduct your accounting in legal tender'. Can you cite the code? The Kahre case was about this but never addressed the issues raised by the unintelligible definition of a 'dollar' under 31 US 5112.