Um - it was Krugman and the Keynesians accurately predicted the 2008 crash and who accurately predicted the aftermath. Libertarians predicted it too, but they have been predicting total social collapse since 1932 as well as demanding a return to the gold standard. Sooner or later they were bound to be half right.
Wasn't it Krugman and the Keynesians that created the Housing Bubble? Wasn't it Ron Paul that predicted that Krugman's supported policies are what would cause collapse? No. Most responsible economists spent the years 2003 to 2007 at least warning that the US housing market was being over-inflated. I can google for Krugman quotes which is why he is useful. Ron Paul has been predicting social collapse and race wars since the 90s. Sooner or later he was going to be a little bit right. The point here is not that Krugman and his ilk were right. Who cares if they were? The point is that libertarians don't have any special claim to have been right so can't complain that they are being treated like Cassandras. I am not finding a single non-Austrian economist that predicted the 2008 collapse. One did, but he used Austrian principles. Feel free to refute me with citations at any time. |
|
|
|
Target: http://www.w3.org/The W3C mission is to lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by developing protocols and guidelines that ensure the long-term growth of the Web. They set the standards for HTML, CSS and so forth. Bitcoin benefits from this significantly and it can be argued that Bitcoin helps their cause as well. Send an email to membership@w3.org about how you want to become a W3C support and/or anonymous donator through a Bitcoin donation. |
|
|
|
Um - it was Krugman and the Keynesians accurately predicted the 2008 crash and who accurately predicted the aftermath. Libertarians predicted it too, but they have been predicting total social collapse since 1932 as well as demanding a return to the gold standard. Sooner or later they were bound to be half right.
Wasn't it Krugman and the Keynesians that created the Housing Bubble? Wasn't it Ron Paul that predicted that Krugman's supported policies are what would cause collapse? |
|
|
|
|
What It Feels Like To Be A Libertarian
by John Hasnas, Associate Professor; McDonough School of Business
Political analysts frequently consider what it means to be a libertarian. In fact, in 1997, Charles Murray published a short book entitled "What It Means to Be a Libertarian" that does an excellent job of presenting the core principles of libertarian political philosophy. But almost no one ever discusses what it feels like to be a libertarian. How does it actually feel to be someone who holds the principles described in Murray’s book?
I’ll tell you. It feels bad. Being a libertarian means living with an almost unendurable level of frustration. It means being subject to unending scorn and derision despite being inevitably proven correct by events. How does it feel to be a libertarian? Imagine what the internal life of Cassandra must have been and you will have a pretty good idea.
Imagine spending two decades warning that government policy is leading to a major economic collapse, and then, when the collapse comes, watching the world conclude that markets do not work.
Imagine continually explaining that markets function because they have a built in corrective mechanism; that periodic contractions are necessary to weed out unproductive ventures; that continually loosening credit to avoid such corrections just puts off the day of reckoning and inevitably leads to a larger recession; that this is precisely what the government did during the 1920's that led to the great depression; and then, when the recession hits, seeing it offered as proof of the failure of laissez-faire capitalism.
Imagine spending years decrying federal intervention in the home mortgage market; pointing out the dangers associated with legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act that forces lenders to make more risky loans than they otherwise would; testifying before Congress on the lack of oversight and inevitable insolvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to legislators who angrily respond either that one is "exaggerat[ing] a threat of safety and soundness . . . which I do not see" (Barney Frank) or "If it ain’t broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals" (Maxine Waters) or "[T]he problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place" (Gregory Meeks) or that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are "one of the great success stories of all time" (Christopher Dodd); and arguing that the moral hazard created by the implicit federal backing of such privately-owned government-sponsored enterprises is likely to set off a wave of unjustifiably risky investments, and then, when the housing market implodes under the weight of bad loans, watching the collapse get blamed on the greed and rapaciousness of "Wall Street."
I remember attending a lecture at Georgetown in the mid-1990s given by a member of the libertarian Cato Institute in which he predicted that, unless changed, government policy would trigger an economic crisis by 2006. That prediction was obviously ideologically-motivated alarmism. After all, the crisis did not occur until 2008.
Libertarians spend their lives accurately predicting the future effects of government policy. Their predictions are accurate because they are derived from Hayek’s insights into the limitations of human knowledge, from the recognition that the people who comprise the government respond to incentives just like anyone else and are not magically transformed to selfless agents of the good merely by accepting government employment, from the awareness that for government to provide a benefit to some, it must first take it from others, and from the knowledge that politicians cannot repeal the laws of economics. For the same reason, their predictions are usually negative and utterly inconsistent with the utopian wishful-thinking that lies at the heart of virtually all contemporary political advocacy. And because no one likes to hear that he cannot have his cake and eat it too or be told that his good intentions cannot be translated into reality either by waving a magic wand or by passing legislation, these predictions are greeted not merely with disbelief, but with derision.
It is human nature to want to shoot the messenger bearing unwelcome tidings. And so, for the sin of continually pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, libertarians are attacked as heartless bastards devoid of compassion for the less fortunate, despicable flacks for the rich or for business interests, unthinking dogmatists who place blind faith in the free market, or, at best, members of the lunatic fringe.
Cassandra’s curse was to always tell the truth about the future, but never be believed. If you add to that curse that she would be ridiculed, derided, and shunned for making her predictions, you have a pretty fair approximation of what it feels like to be a libertarian.
If you’d like a taste of what it feels like to be a libertarian, try telling people that the incoming Obama Administration is advocating precisely those aspects of FDR’s New Deal that prolonged the great depression for a decade; that propping up failed and failing ventures with government money in order to save jobs in the present merely shifts resources from relatively more to relatively less productive uses, impedes the corrective process, undermines the economic growth necessary for recovery, and increases unemployment in the long term; and that any "economic" stimulus package will inexorably be made to serve political rather than economic ends, and see what kind of reaction you get. And trust me, it won’t feel any better five or ten years from now when everything you have just said has been proven true and Obama, like FDR, is nonetheless revered as the savior of the country.
|
|
|
|
How can we take an "if" as a premise?
Hypotheticals form unsound arguments.
There's a reason quantum physicists don't bother with hypotheticals. They're interested in what's observed. "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, did it make a sound?" Answer: The question is pointless and fails to beget an answer.
You propose only nihilism because arguments at this level must take faith in prior axioms. However the funny thing is that I am arguing for the lowest skeptical viewpoint possible: the only thing that can be proven to your perception is your own perception. Nothing else can be proved to be observable outside of the realm of self. I don't propose nihilism at all. Truth cannot be known through thought or through words. You cannot abstract it if you want to truly know it. And, faith is critically important to happiness and is arguably one of the root causes of our ability to survive. Faith basically boils down to intention. "What one can know, he cannot prove. What one can prove, he cannot know." Truth is varying human concepts only catering to various human desires. It cannot be known universally. Objective reality, which one can consider truth, just is. It does not have any ties to the human perception, assuming anything exists outside your individual perception. Let me make that clear: It just is.Ones own truth can be known to oneself through whatever medium they please, whether it be through words or cognitive means. Intention does not have meaning to all individuals. Anyways, I can believe some things are more probable than others but I cannot have complete faith in anything. I cannot even choose to do so. Some systems always inevitably fail even when such failure was not expected. Immortality has yet to be proven in some observable systems. Even immortality as a concept, may find itself non-existent. Now if non-existence and existence were to cease as concepts... What if the rules saying in order for they to be existence there must be nonexistence ceased? Then what exists outside of existence? Can there be a plane of perception outside of this? Goddamn, I am going to fucking bed. In the end, currently, existence can only be defined within your individual perception. All else is pedantry. |
|
|
|
How can we take an "if" as a premise?
Hypotheticals form unsound arguments.
There's a reason quantum physicists don't bother with hypotheticals. They're interested in what's observed. "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, did it make a sound?" Answer: The question is pointless and fails to beget an answer.
You propose only nihilism because arguments in this subject level must take faith in prior axioms. There are only some things that can be truly observed depending on the level and subject of the argument. However the funny thing is that I am arguing for the lowest skeptical viewpoint possible: the only thing that can be proven to your perception is your own perception. Nothing else can be proved to be observable outside of the realm of self. Anyways, we're getting very deep. I hope the arguments ahead don't stay at their current level. Let's go deeper. |
|
|
|
Yeah, that's it.
Anyways, is Butterfly accepting investors?
I would't invest in them. Their FPGA's are not profitable at this point. It will take 7+ months for someone with their FPGA to break even, but that's assuming the difficulty stays the same. And to stay on this thread's topic, here's a photo  They are currently profitable if you assume Bitcoins will rise in value. |
|
|
|
|
The solution is simple: Just ignore the guy.
When he wants his refund, he'll get it. If he calls all of you guys scammers, he's lying. You can sue him for defamation.
...or you could just put the money in his address and walk away.
Anyways, I'm not your daddy. Do whatever makes you happy.
|
|
|
|
If a transporter was proven to exactly replicate the mind as it was, I would use it. My perceived reality has been proven to be stable thus far and I would trust it in this circumstance.
So you would submit yourself to being killed, and allow a replica of yourself which contains the exact memories and brain structure to be created to replace yourself? How can you prove my perception was destroyed and not reincarnated to the replica? How can we deduce which latter event is more probable? |
|
|
|
|
This reminds me of a guy who got a traffic ticket, went to court and just sat there and didn't comply with any of the proceedings. He didn't plead guilty or innocent. He didn't stand for the judge, nada.
All the court bureaucrats were agitated because they couldn't proceed with their paperwork and processes. Eventually the guy just went home, didn't pay the fine and nothing happened.
I can only expect the same result here until Goat gets desperate enough for his money. I have a feeling it's pocket change to him.
Anyways, this is retarded. Both parties are wasting their time unless Goat is just a master troll.
In that case, Goat is doing some entertaining work.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that's it.
Anyways, is Butterfly accepting investors?
|
|
|
|
I've only heard Daniel Dennet speak a few times (never read any of his stuff), and I remember him being unimpressive.
Basically, he claims that we are essentially tricked into thinking we're conscious. This takes more faith than believing in a giant spaghetti monster. |
|
|
|
The existence of our perceptions can only be proven to our perceptions.
Yes, but you might want to differentiate more clearly perceptions vs. qualia. Both Dennett and Chalmers would probably agree with what you're saying, which means something is amiss with you what you're saying. Dennett and Chalmers both agree that 1 + 1 = 2, but that's generally not the subject of the discussion. When you start thinking of it in a way where you agree with one and disagree with the other, then you're on the right track. On a different note, but related, would you (or anybody reading this) step into the Star Trek Transporter Room, assuming it has been demonstrated to work 100 percent of the time? I would hope solipsism is assumed. I doubt it is. Losing faith in a god is one thing. Losing faith in reality as more than perception is another. If a transporter was proven to exactly replicate the mind as it was, I would use it. My perceived reality has been proven to be stable thus far and I would trust it in this circumstance. Otherwise, I don't fear death. |
|
|
|
|
Your mental states are the only things you have access to. Even the perception of another mental state is still only within the purview of your perception. You cannot conclude the existence of anything outside of your mental states.Therefore only your mental states exist.
As for myself, I can only be a perceived entity. Nothing more. Nothing more can be proven to you.
The existence of your perception can only be proven to your perception. Mine can only be proven to mine.
The human brain, its structure and so forth can only be proven as a perception while being perceived by another perception.
Understand where I am coming from? As long as we are limited to our perceptions -- how we provably cannot be is not yet shown -- reality outside the individual perception is not yet provable. Any stability, consistency and so forth can only be reasonably explained as a perception as well.
The structure and beauty we perceive is not proof. It only is. It's all just perception. It's all just mental states.
Anyways, this is now making me depressed. I am going to bed.
|
|
|
|
|
Solipsist here. To me this is too metaphysical to be knowable.
|
|
|
|
http://lesswrong.com/lw/oi/mind_projection_fallacy/This article for instance just screams pedantry. We have Mr. Smartass here criticizing casual art on the basis that it isn't likely that an alien species could desire the female form in the first place. To me, this is just socially retarded. As I said, the whole thing screams aspergers. I don't find anything pleasurable about questioning crap like this with no real utility in the end. They even have politics banned from what I've heard. In a nutshell, it's a circlejerk of pedants.
|
|
|
|
|
It interested me at first -- then I found it underwhelming.
To me it screams aspergers and obsessions with the details. Sure, sound logic is good but it's not worth obsessing about -- to me at least.
Rationality stems from accounting for the following: Reality only exists within the individual human perception. Humans are independent actors subject to evolutionary and cultural forces.
Everything else will follow accordingly. Everything less wrong covers stems from that. Human systems are complex but as a whole aren't that difficult to comprehend from core principles.
|
|
|
|
|
If being mental is considered being in constant stress and/or pain, yes, I am mental.
Does it prevent me from living a fulfilling life? Nope.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
