Ableton Forum

TomViolenz wrote:In fact this is why there is so much measurement in Economics, they try to prove themselves to be truth, when all they prove is that their system is congurent to itself.

No, this is because the Austrian school is pretty much the only one to still claim that economics is in fact a priori. Most contemporary economists are feckin' eeeeedijts.

Galt wrote:

TomViolenz wrote:I btw. never stated that I see economy (as a system) as an empirical science.

False! See here:

TomViolenz wrote:Technically neither you, nor me can support our claim, since only one history happened

Hm, strange!
For me empirical science means: can be proven, while all other phenomena could be proven, if we just would have all the data.
Not being able to repeat something, just means for me that we can't aquire the data, not that there is a fundamental difference in actio=re-actio and other hallmarks of the natural sciences.
So I still don't understand why Economics being an a priori science invalidated my position, while it doesn't invalidate yours. (on the inheritance issue)

Galt wrote:

TomViolenz wrote:In fact this is why there is so much measurement in Economics, they try to prove themselves to be truth, when all they prove is that their system is congurent to itself.

No, this is because the Austrian school is pretty much the only one to still claim the economics is in fact a priori. Most contemporary economists are feckin' eeeeedijts.

What makes the other approaches wrong (in their logic)? Could you eleborate?
What's wrong with game theory for instance in this regard?

TomViolenz wrote:What makes the other approaches wrong (in their logic)? Could you eleborate?
What's wrong with game theory for instance in this regard?

I don't know enough about game theory to discuss it. But most economists are Keynesians, which makes them only slightly less retarded than Marxists. I'll start a thread on that some day.

Galt wrote:

TomViolenz wrote:

Galt wrote: No, this is because the Austrian school is pretty much the only one to still claim the economics is in fact a priori. Most contemporary economists are feckin' eeeeedijts.

What makes the other approaches wrong (in their logic)? Could you eleborate?
What's wrong with game theory for instance in this regard?

I don't know enough about game theory to discuss it. But most economists are Keynesians, which makes them only slightly less retarded than Marxists. I'll start a thread on that some day.

I don't think Keynes position on spending in a crisis is retarded at all. The problem is (and this is not Keynes fault IMO) that politians like to forget the other side of the coin! You HAVE to also save, when the crisis is over.
And how is Keynes not a priori?

BTW: In the unlikely event that that thread would not be derailed, that would be an interesting thread!

TomViolenz wrote:Hm, strange!
For me empirical science means: can be proven, while all other phenomena could be proven, if we just would have all the data.
Not being able to repeat something, just means for me that we can't aquire the data, not that there is a fundamental difference in actio=re-actio and other hallmarks of the natural sciences.
So I still don't understand why Economics being an a priori science invalidated my position, while it doesn't invalidate yours. (on the inheritance issue)

Empirical means "based on verifiable observation", but not all truth can be gleaned in such a manner. Both maths and logic both are non-empirical sciences. Your claim in regards to history suggested that we could uncover the truth of our dispute through observation.

TomViolenz wrote:I don't think Keynes position on spending in a crisis is retarded at all. The problem is (and this is not Keynes fault IMO) that politians like to forget the other side of the coin! You HAVE to also save, when the crisis is over.
And how is Keynes not a priori?

Like I said, I'll start a thread on this some day

Galt wrote:

TomViolenz wrote:Hm, strange!
For me empirical science means: can be proven, while all other phenomena could be proven, if we just would have all the data.
Not being able to repeat something, just means for me that we can't aquire the data, not that there is a fundamental difference in actio=re-actio and other hallmarks of the natural sciences.
So I still don't understand why Economics being an a priori science invalidated my position, while it doesn't invalidate yours. (on the inheritance issue)

Empirical means "based on verifiable observation", but not all truth can be gleaned in such a manner. Both maths and logic both are non-empirical sciences. Your claim in regards to history suggested that we could uncover the truth of our dispute through observation.

Yes, I'm convinced of this! (But than, I'm a natural scientist. I have to be )

so i dont understand with all this deep shit and stuff that somebody hasn't come up with the philosophy of.."hey you corporation, you can come here and do your shit. we will make every reasonable effort to make sure you make a decent profit, but in exchange you gotta make sure that people are decently paid and treated fairly, cause they want to be able to buy shit and be relatively happy, but if you get out of hand we will tell you to go fuck yourselves and get out cause if you leave that will create a void, that somebody else will fill, and guess what? we will be reasonable with them and, if they play fairly, they will make a profit thus everybody wins in the end".

and that shit company gets stuffed by other governments cause they know they suck.

You're confusing philosophy with policy. Granted they both begin with Ps.

well go with just policy then. i dont care

just get a government that has the balls to say it the way it should be.

you do business here, and conduct yourself within the boundaries we set, you will do well. if you dont like it, bollocks to you, cause somebody else will come in and fill the void.

aint trying to rewrite socialism or whatever other blah blahs are out there, just freaking do it where everybody for the most part does well

arctic ranger wrote:well go with just policy then. i dont care

just get a government that has the balls to say it the way it should be.

you do business here, and conduct yourself within the boundaries we set, you will do well. if you dont like it, bollocks to you, cause somebody else will come in and fill the void.

aint trying to rewrite socialism or whatever other blah blahs are out there, just freaking do it where everybody for the most part does well

Bloody Platonist.

honestly, i dont even know what that is

i will fully admit that i do not come off as one who has the gift for debate, or is educated in philosophy, but the way i see it is there really might be a way that, for the most part, we all can do a days work, get paid, drink a beer and be relatively happy.

Hitler was not a capitalist. His father was a farmer, he spent part of his childhood on welfare, and even went homeless for a while.

They're called books. Use them.

arctic ranger wrote:so i dont understand with all this deep shit and stuff that somebody hasn't come up with the philosophy of.."hey you corporation, you can come here and do your shit. we will make every reasonable effort to make sure you make a decent profit, but in exchange you gotta make sure that people are decently paid and treated fairly, cause they want to be able to buy shit and be relatively happy, but if you get out of hand we will tell you to go fuck yourselves and get out cause if you leave that will create a void, that somebody else will fill, and guess what? we will be reasonable with them and, if they play fairly, they will make a profit thus everybody wins in the end".

and that shit company gets stuffed by other governments cause they know they suck.

From what I understand the Scandinavian countries are pretty close to this ideal.