Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who would you trust your retirement investment with? (let's say you got $1,000,000 saved)
A liberal with a a Phd in Economics
or a conservative with a high school education that is a strong supporter of supply side economics?
I guarantee 99% of people would trust their retirement money to the liberal with the Phd
And yet they might be wrong. People who are good at theory are not necessarily good when the rubber hits the road. When you're managing your own money, it literally registers differently in your brain.
That's the best one I heard today. Leftist elite professors with collectivist-statist agendas peer-reviewed by other leftist professors with collectivist-statist agendas.
Absolutely rich.
EVERYTHING coming out of academia today is biased, agenda-driven, peer reviewed, and a pack of lies! From AGW to "privilege" to redistribution to subjectivist-relativist dogma to you-name-it. Garbage. It's all garbage.
Surely you don't know what you're talking about. That's okay. Learning is an opportunity for even you. There's just as many conservatives in academia as there are liberals. Many conservatives have made great contributions just like many liberals. The key similarity was that they were highly educated individuals. What holds this nation back is low-knowledge individuals who aren't capable of making sound decisions. Most of these are people who never attended college.
Research with political or financial motives is not published in academic journals.
I think that's an incredibly naive assumption on your part. Ever hear of groupthink? Most of academia is leftist these days. You're gonna tell me that doesn't influence who and what gets published?
I think that's an incredibly naive assumption on your part. Ever hear of groupthink? Most of academia is leftist these days. You're gonna tell me that doesn't influence who and what gets published?
Have you ever read academic journals? Or been to an academic conference? Each finding has an equal number of people who oppose the findings. This drives combative research... each of the various sides trying to justify their position. This is why you get many conflicting reports analyzing a topic before a consensus is agreed upon. It can go on for decades.
A lot of crap gets published in scientific, economic, and other journals that are not academic journals. Often referred to as academic tabloid. These are not academic journals and contain work that is not properly peer-reviewed. Sadly, they are well syndicated in the news.
Groupthink is what the left and the right have mastered.
Surely you don't know what you're talking about. That's okay. Learning is an opportunity for even you. There's just as many conservatives in academia as there are liberals. Many conservatives have made great contributions just like many liberals. The key similarity was that they were highly educated individuals. What holds this nation back is low-knowledge individuals who aren't capable of making sound decisions. Most of these are people who never attended college.
No, unfortunately that is not true. And if there are, they are locked up and silent in mathematics, or engineering, or theoretical/applied science, etc. And even there, you have irrational infiltration. Witness the formation and advance of a brand new field of study: Political Meteorology. Yes, even a science that is supposed to be based upon Reason can become corrupted and destroyed by bad philosophy.
In the humanities, it is a vast altruist-collectivist wasteland. You can't find a proponent of individual rights and laissez-faire Capitalism anywhere. Not surprising, they are pigs feeding at the public trough. Seeking public grants to do "research" that yields a tendency to formulate and invent "public" problems that of course require "public" solutions. Pure utilitarianism. The most good for the most people and the individual be damned. Only, there is no good for anybody when our rights are squashed. The ends DO NOT justify the means.
And the bigger, louder universities are the farthest to the left. With the only marginalized counterpoint coming from schools based in religion-mysticism (with Reason like this who needs Insanity?)
No, unfortunately that is not true. And if there are, they are locked up and silent in mathematics, or engineering, or theoretical/applied science, etc. And even there, you have irrational infiltration. Witness the formation and advance of a brand new field of study: Political Meteorology. Yes, even a science that is supposed to be based upon Reason can become corrupted and destroyed by bad philosophy.
In the humanities, it is a vast altruist-collectivist wasteland. You can't find a proponent of individual rights and laissez-faire Capitalism anywhere. Not surprising, they are pigs feeding at the public trough. Seeking public grants to do "research" that yields a tendency to formulate and invent "public" problems that of course require "public" solutions. Pure utilitarianism. The most good for the most people and the individual be damned. Only, there is no good for anybody when our rights are squashed. The ends DO NOT justify the means.
And the bigger, louder universities are the farthest to the left. With the only marginalized counterpoint coming from schools based in religion-mysticism (with Reason like this who needs Insanity?)
You have still failed to make the case that laissez-faire capitalism is optimal for the public as a whole. I see plenty of situations around me that indicate that it would not be. We also know from history that overconcentrated wealth and power eventually leads to revolution (which involves a lot of killing).
You have still failed to make the case that laissez-faire capitalism is optimal for the public as a whole.
It's good to get definitions down. This is from Wiki so I hope it is adequate:
"Fundamentals of laissez-faire
As a system of thought, laissez-faire rests on the following axioms:[15]
1. The individual is the basic unit in society.
2. The individual has a natural right to freedom.
3. The physical order of nature is a harmonious and self-regulating system.
4. Corporations are creatures of the State and therefore must be watched closely by the citizenry due to their propensity to disrupt the Smithian spontaneous order.
These axioms constitute the basic elements of laissez-faire thought, although another basic and often-disregarded element is that markets should be competitive, a rule that the early advocates of laissez-faire have always emphasized.[15] To maximize freedom and allow markets to self-regulate, early advocates of laissez-faire proposed a Impôt unique, a tax on land rent to replace all taxes that damage welfare by penalizing production.[21]"
This of course is based upon your recent perusal of the "Quarterly Journal of Economics", "Econometrica," the "American Economic Review," "Review of Economics & Statistics," or the "Economic Journal?" So what did you think of Francesco Caselli, Massimo Morelli, and Dominic Rohner paper on the Geography of Interstate Resource Wars?
Why do you liberals treat education as being at all important in something like economics???
Why do you right winger treat education as being not at all important in anything including economics???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
