It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: seeker1963
And we know where some of that money ends up don't we ?
Shelling out tax dollars for studying kids getting drunk, and having unprotected sex. HIgh end furniture for the EPA., and teaching Chinese hookers to drink 'responsibly'.
LOL.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Semicollegiate
If that were true I wouldn't pay income taxes or have a Social Security number. Lefties are always imposing their beliefs upon others.
Can we then say that the constitution, which allows for the laying of taxes, is a Leftist document?
Nonsense. The state does not have mystical powers and cannot all the needs and wants of the people. That's just ignorant hyperbole.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Semicollegiate
Actually perfect competition/rational man comes from classical economics and pre-dates Keynes by about 150 years. Fractional reserve banking is even older.
Trying to define externalities in terms of property rights may sound nice in theory but in practise is simply unworkable and ridiculous (unless you really love lawyers).
For monopolies how do you deal with economies of scale or barriers to entry (those property rights you are so keen on for example)
Also are you really arguing that majority people were better off or freer during the industrial revolution than they are now?
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp
While I disagree with a lot of the conclusions of Austrian economics I think it often asks very interesting questions regarding the methodology and assumptions of conventional economics.
I also find your comment interesting as I am interested in whether peoples economics influences their political/social views or if it is that people choose to believe the economic theory that best suits their politics. If I am honest I don't even know the answer with regard myself.
Thanks for indulging my interest.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp
While I disagree with a lot of the conclusions of Austrian economics I think it often asks very interesting questions regarding the methodology and assumptions of conventional economics.
I also find your comment interesting as I am interested in whether peoples economics influences their political/social views or if it is that people choose to believe the economic theory that best suits their politics. If I am honest I don't even know the answer with regard myself.
Thanks for indulging my interest.
We have made some progress here on ATS of late regarding the nature of socialism and its various incarnations in recent history. I hope that the myth of fascism not being socialism has been laid to rest.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp
While I disagree with a lot of the conclusions of Austrian economics I think it often asks very interesting questions regarding the methodology and assumptions of conventional economics.
I also find your comment interesting as I am interested in whether peoples economics influences their political/social views or if it is that people choose to believe the economic theory that best suits their politics. If I am honest I don't even know the answer with regard myself.
Thanks for indulging my interest.
I know what you mean.
I can't say I can prove Austrian Economics, but it always comes up with a reasonable answer, so far. And its method applies well to history and sociology too.
The core of Austrian Economics is that people will do what they want to. They will always choose what they think is the best or most fun.
The core of Socialism is that people will do what they should, so as to keep the machine fair and equal.
That is somewhere in the first chapter or so in Human Action by Ludwig von Mises
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The core of Austrian Economics is that people will do what they want to. They will always choose what they think is the best or most fun.
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp
While I disagree with a lot of the conclusions of Austrian economics I think it often asks very interesting questions regarding the methodology and assumptions of conventional economics.
I also find your comment interesting as I am interested in whether peoples economics influences their political/social views or if it is that people choose to believe the economic theory that best suits their politics. If I am honest I don't even know the answer with regard myself.
Thanks for indulging my interest.
I know what you mean.
I can't say I can prove Austrian Economics, but it always comes up with a reasonable answer, so far. And its method applies well to history and sociology too.
The core of Austrian Economics is that people will do what they want to. They will always choose what they think is the best or most fun.
The core of Socialism is that people will do what they should, so as to keep the machine fair and equal.
That is somewhere in the first chapter or so in Human Action by Ludwig von Mises
It's funny how we both dance around the terminology, I have yet to actually attempt to do a thread on praxeology.
For now, the term economics seems as snooty as I want to risk!
Experience tells us, indeed, what is, but not that it must necessarily be so, and not otherwise. It therefore gives us no true universality; and reason, which is so insistent upon this kind of knowledge, is therefore more stimulated by it than satisfied. Such universal modes of knowledge, which at the same time possess the character of inner necessity, must in themselves, independently of experience, be clear and certain. They are therefore entitled knowledge a priori; whereas, on the other hand, that which is borrowed solely from experience is, as we say, known only a posteriori, or empirically. Now we find, what is especially noteworthy, that even into our experiences there enter modes of knowledge which must have their origin a priori, and which perhaps serve only to give coherence to our sense-representations. For if we eliminate from our experiences everything which belongs to the senses, there still remain certain original concepts and certain judgments derived from them, which must have arisen completely a priori, independently of experience, inasmuch as they enable us to say, or at least lead us to believe that we can say, in regard to the objects which appear to the senses, more than mere experience would teach -- giving to assertions true universality and strict necessity, such as mere empirical knowledge cannot supply.
The expression 'a priori' does not, however, indicate with sufficient precision the full meaning of our question. For it has been customary to say, even of much knowledge that is derived from empirical sources, that we have it or are capable of having it a priori, meaning thereby that we do not derive it immediately from experience, but from a universal rule -- a rule which is itself, however, borrowed by us from experience. Thus we would say of a man who undermined the foundations of his house, that he might have known a priori that it would fall, that is, that he need not have waited for the experience of its actual falling. But still he could not know this completely a priori. For he had first to learn through experience that bodies are heavy, and therefore fall when their supports are withdrawn. In what follows, therefore, we shall understand by a priori knowledge, not knowledge independent of this or that experience, but knowledge absolutely independent of all experience. Opposed to it is empirical knowledge, which is knowledge possible only a posteriori, that is, through experience. A - priori modes of knowledge are entitled pure when there is no admixture of anything empirical. Thus, for instance, the proposition, 'every alteration has its cause', while an a priori proposition, is not a pure proposition, because alteration is a concept which can be derived only from experience.