Posted by MikeT23 on 6/18/2012 11:02:00 AM (view original):

Maybe, because as has been noted, one can easily find someone with a title who agrees/disagrees with a specific point of view? 

Do you not think that I've already found a link, from a titled source, that says inflation is bad for the economy?

Do you think I'm afraid that you have a link? Don't you think that I have also seen the evidence for your side of the argument?

Do you disagree with this argument?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/good-inflation-bad-inflation/

"Why does deflation have a depressing effect on the economy? Two reasons. First, it reduces money incomes while debt stays the same, so it worsens balance sheet problems, reducing spending. Second, expectations of future deflation mean that any borrowing now will have to be repaid out of smaller wages (if the borrower is a household) or smaller profits (if the borrower is a firm.) So expected future deflation also reduces spending."

If, as you implied, that one should STFU when someone more knowledgeable, based on title, speaks on a subject, don't you think that would mean you should STFU if I post that link?   

Would you do as you say everyone else should if I post a link stating that inflation is not good from a titled source?

Did I say that everyone should STFU when evidence is provided refuting their point?  I don't think I did, did I?

Didn't I just say that you should consider the possibility that you are the one missing something here?

Posted by jrd_x on 6/18/2012 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Do you disagree with this argument?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/good-inflation-bad-inflation/

"Why does deflation have a depressing effect on the economy? Two reasons. First, it reduces money incomes while debt stays the same, so it worsens balance sheet problems, reducing spending. Second, expectations of future deflation mean that any borrowing now will have to be repaid out of smaller wages (if the borrower is a household) or smaller profits (if the borrower is a firm.) So expected future deflation also reduces spending."

Do you disagree with this?

Inflation is bad.

tecwrg
Ph.D., Esq.

Posted by jrd_x on 6/16/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Don't you think there's a difference between disagreeing with someone smarter than you (which you obviously aren't afraid of) and understanding that certain subjects require a great deal of education and technical knowledge, and that when experts put forward an idea that seems contrary to what you think, that maybe you're the one who is missing something?

Is it even remotely possible that you are the one actually missing something?

Now, if I post a link, from a titled source, saying inflation is not good for the economy, will you STFU?

Sure, it's possible.  Is it possible that you are the one missing something?

I never said all inflation is always good, or that there aren't times when inflation is bad.  Just that now, when we are in a deflationary spiral, a little inflation (2 or 3% above what he have now) would be a good thing.  In that narrow context I think you'll have a hard time finding an expert that disagrees.  But if you do, I will certainly be willing to consider the argument on it's merits.  That's the difference between us.  Facts and evidence matter to me.

And, going back to your analogy, the general took the hill because it was necessary to win the war.  The upside was greater than the downside.  The same goes for a little inflation during a deflationary cycle.  Yes, savers and creditors are hurt (as they are with lower interest rates) but the overall benefit to the economy is more important.

Have I ever claimed to be an expert on the economy or SSM?   Or that I'm not capable of missing something?

I don't think you're an expert in anything.  You argue for the sake of arguing, which is great for me, I love to argue and have an interest in these subjects.

Posted by jrd_x on 6/18/2012 12:32:00 PM (view original):
Sure, it's possible.  Is it possible that you are the one missing something?

I never said all inflation is always good, or that there aren't times when inflation is bad.  Just that now, when we are in a deflationary spiral, a little inflation (2 or 3% above what he have now) would be a good thing.  In that narrow context I think you'll have a hard time finding an expert that disagrees.  But if you do, I will certainly be willing to consider the argument on it's merits.  That's the difference between us.  Facts and evidence matter to me.

And, going back to your analogy, the general took the hill because it was necessary to win the war.  The upside was greater than the downside.  The same goes for a little inflation during a deflationary cycle.  Yes, savers and creditors are hurt (as they are with lower interest rates) but the overall benefit to the economy is more important.

Posted by jrd_x on 6/18/2012 10:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by caesari on 6/18/2012 8:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/17/2012 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/16/2012 3:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/16/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Don't you think there's a difference between disagreeing with someone smarter than you (which you obviously aren't afraid of) and understanding that certain subjects require a great deal of education and technical knowledge, and that when experts put forward an idea that seems contrary to what you think, that maybe you're the one who is missing something?

Economics are an inexact "science".  That is why ANYONE with Google can find an "expert" that will agree with their own point of view, including spaghetti monster believers, conspiracy theorists, and Mayan apocalypse doomsayers.

You don't find people disagreeing about the laws of gravity or physics, but you can find contradictory economic theories from a whole bunch of people with a whole bushelful of degrees, job titles, and certifications.  THEY'RE ******* GUESSING.  ALL.   OF.   THEM.

It's true that economics is inexact and that it is possible that there is no right answer/not all black and white/etc.  But I have presented an argument backed by people who study and teach this stuff for a living.  Mike is arguing against it because it doesn't make intuitive sense to him.

There are lots of things in science that aren't intuitive.  People today still argue with a straight face that evolution didn't happen.  They insist that one species changing over millions of years into another species doesn't make sense intuitively.  Just about every expert in biology and chemistry can show them evidence of evolution, yet they refuse to hear it.

Wow this is the falsest statement yet. More and more scientists are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is true, and evolution has too many holes and incosistencies to be true.

Now more than ever science is on the side of intelligent design. When a creationist debates an evolutionist, the evolutionist gets clobbered every time.

No scientists are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is what happened because there is no evidence of intelligent design. That doesn't mean there isn't a god or that he didn't have a hand in evolution, it just means there's no evidence. Evolution is god neutral.

False. There is so much evidence against evolution, the Big Bang, etc. that there is no other option besides intelligent design. What exactly is the last creature to morph into a new one? Where is that today? Why haven't we been changing?

There is "no other option besides intelligent design???"

I disagree.  There is an enormous amount of evidence for evolution and exactly zero evidence of god's influence.  That doesn't mean that god doesn't exist, just thatt there isn't any (and never will be) scientific evidence of god.

Posted by caesari on 6/18/2012 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/18/2012 10:27:00 AM (view original):

Posted by caesari on 6/18/2012 8:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/17/2012 2:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 6/16/2012 3:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 6/16/2012 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Don't you think there's a difference between disagreeing with someone smarter than you (which you obviously aren't afraid of) and understanding that certain subjects require a great deal of education and technical knowledge, and that when experts put forward an idea that seems contrary to what you think, that maybe you're the one who is missing something?

Economics are an inexact "science".  That is why ANYONE with Google can find an "expert" that will agree with their own point of view, including spaghetti monster believers, conspiracy theorists, and Mayan apocalypse doomsayers.

You don't find people disagreeing about the laws of gravity or physics, but you can find contradictory economic theories from a whole bunch of people with a whole bushelful of degrees, job titles, and certifications.  THEY'RE ******* GUESSING.  ALL.   OF.   THEM.

It's true that economics is inexact and that it is possible that there is no right answer/not all black and white/etc.  But I have presented an argument backed by people who study and teach this stuff for a living.  Mike is arguing against it because it doesn't make intuitive sense to him.

There are lots of things in science that aren't intuitive.  People today still argue with a straight face that evolution didn't happen.  They insist that one species changing over millions of years into another species doesn't make sense intuitively.  Just about every expert in biology and chemistry can show them evidence of evolution, yet they refuse to hear it.

Wow this is the falsest statement yet. More and more scientists are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is true, and evolution has too many holes and incosistencies to be true.

Now more than ever science is on the side of intelligent design. When a creationist debates an evolutionist, the evolutionist gets clobbered every time.

No scientists are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is what happened because there is no evidence of intelligent design. That doesn't mean there isn't a god or that he didn't have a hand in evolution, it just means there's no evidence. Evolution is god neutral.

False. There is so much evidence against evolution, the Big Bang, etc. that there is no other option besides intelligent design. What exactly is the last creature to morph into a new one? Where is that today? Why haven't we been changing?

I'll give you one example.

There is a reason why children were married by their early teens.  Having children in their early to late teens.  Dead by mid to late 20's, or some in their early 30's.
This was the norm.
Where are we today?
...and why?...evolution.

Intelligent design, and evolution, are inner twined.
It is my belief that we have evolution because of intelligent design.