Latest change to Obamacare

[Latrinsorm]

I once spilled soda on my keyboard and after I pressed the W key a Q appeared. Your move.

Did you spill the soda... or did the soda spill you??

[Gan]

You're doing PB semantics to try to get away from the fact that many of the conservative policies that lead to the bubble of the 1920's also contributed to the Depression that took over following them. Then you're both arguing, together, in a rather hilarious turn, that we ought to have more bubbles and more crashes that follow them.

That's not my argument at all. You're illogically thinking that because I'm pointing out your incorrect summation that the Great Depression can be boiled down to one cause, that I'm arguing for bubbles and whatever else you're arguing about with PB (guilt by association.) If you woudl take off the D-Team glasses you would have seen that about 3 posts ago.

And LOL at your almost-minor in economics.

A simple search would have shown that almost all historians and economists disagree to some extent on the actual causes of the Great Depression. Some say that the top five contributors are (in no particular order): Stock Market Crash, Drought Conditions within the US, US Foreign Policy (Isolationism and Smoot/Hawley) and Bank Failures and loss of purchasing power among US consumers. Add to that 5 would also be a housing market bubble (especially in Florida) that also burst in 1929.

But no - you just hammer away at one party's efforts in fixing an obvious hole in regulatory legislation and ignore all the other factors when it is painfully clear to almost every other rational and educated person that a single issue does not a Great Depression make. Congrats - you're part of the divisiveness that's wrong with politics today. Give yourself a hand.

[Gan]

The first time I stubbed my toe, it hurt shortly after. Same with the second time, the third time... by the tenth time, I decided I should probably try to avoid stubbing my toe. I will concede that it is possible my sense experience is entirely independent from the physical world, and that these correlations were all merely coincidental. With that said, I am still going to try to avoid stubbing my toe. If you and I use that standard of proof in this example, why wouldn't we use it for an arguably scientific discipline like economics?

You of all people should know that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Quit trying to argue for arguments sake. Its annoying.

[Latrinsorm]

You of all people should know that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Quit trying to argue for arguments sake. Its annoying.

I didn't say anything about "automatically"; in fact, I specifically pointed out the possibility of no causal link. My point is that repeated correlation inclines us towards seeing causation. It doesn't compel or prove, but every single one of us use it nonetheless. Again, it would be silly not to!

If someone could demonstrate why this particular case of correlation had no causal link, that would be worth discussing. Saying that in general they aren't automatically related is not useful.

[Gan]

...

[Latrinsorm]

...

I know people of your ilk make a lot of hay out of my allegedly arguing semantics, but really. We do treat correlation as evidence of causation in some cases. At no point has anyone who has disagreed with me in this thread given a reason why we shouldn't in this case.

Like I mentioned earlier, if someone doesn't want to do the empirical science thing, that's fine, I can't make them. I do think it would save time if you said so up front next time, though.

[Warriorbird]

Latest change to... 12-28-2011 09:04 PM You believe the Dust Bowl can be attributed made by cuts to the federal budget 10 years prior? You are a fucking dipshit.

I believe you don't have the intellectual courage to really go toe to toe with anybody. That trumps a whole lot of cheap insults on the Internet.

If you're not a total fucking moron and a coward (which sadly you fail at) in your Wikipedia based research (because, durp durp, you've forgotten anything but Econ classes, that history shit teaches us nothing) you might've discovered that apart from drought, the Dust Bowl was caused by extensive farming without crop rotation, fallow fields, cover crops, or anything to stop wind erosion.

And how did these folks get so much land? Oh gosh. Deregulated banks. Land under cultivation in that area tripled from 1925-1930.

How in the fuck did this occur? How in the fuck was this done to incredible virgin topsoil, some of the richest dirt in history?

In the 10 years before the Dust Bowl, you fucking moron, bankers were handing out loans to just about anybody, because of deregulation.

Bubble time! Yes!

The budget had been cut, removing any potential oversight on these bankers, or Jesus Christ, and there weren't agricultural regulations of any sort at all. (That evil EPA and USDA that Republicans want not to exist weren't stopping it)

Small government! Yes! Temporary profits combined with totally fucking the country. (eerily like our current crisis)

To make matters worse, people all over knew it was going to go bad, but they didn't care about the consequences, they just cared about this "great period of profit in the stock market"(PB term style) without giving a damn or having any foresight.

Kind of like modern Republicans. Kind of like you, anonymous bucko.

And, glory be, much of this came from commercial banks and investment banks being one and the same.

But making them separate again is obviously a bad idea. It'd help bring us back to a time more like before our current crisis started.

Evil regulation! Evil not small government! Nooo!

That'd be bad for business. Really.

[Gan]

Why did the Stock Market crash?
Why did the Dust Bowl occur?
Why did the banks fail?
Why did the consumers lose purchasing power?

Continue this road for me while you try to act like small government has no pitfalls?

You can also pretend that Austrian School is all of economics. It just isn't. You're attempting to suggest a qualified person is guilty of oversimplification while you're ignoring a vast swathe of economics.

On an unimportant side note, I don't get how I'm supposed to ever be undivisive in a discussion with PB.

Project much?

[Gan]

I know people of your ilk make a lot of hay out of my allegedly arguing semantics, but really. We do treat correlation as evidence of causation in some cases. At no point has anyone who has disagreed with me in this thread given a reason why we shouldn't in this case.

Like I mentioned earlier, if someone doesn't want to do the empirical science thing, that's fine, I can't make them. I do think it would save time if you said so up front next time, though.

To disagree with a reason would mean you would first have to cite the correlation that you have earlier argued. Feel free to begin.

[Bobmuhthol]

More financial regulation != larger government. Blaming "small government" for stock market crashes is totally insane.