Fine... Here is your point by point retort. I hope it is everything you wanted it to be... How I slaved for you:
Doug Davis wrote:*sigh*
Awesome Doug. Start this off with some sweet condescension. If you find it so boring to deal with idiots then why are you spending all day formulating these responses?
Doug Davis wrote:Im familiar with Austrian and Chicago school of thought on economics.
Oh really? You could've fooled me with your initial response. Seemed like you had yet to google it. Glad you finally did because your copy pasta below is beautiful.
Doug Davis wrote:Firstly Hayek isnt a pure subscriber to the Austrian school.
Did I say that he was from the Austrian School. No... Now Doug your reading comprehension scores are dropping. But still you are wrong. Most folks associate him with it. Just check out:
NPR calling him and Austrian School Economist:
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/15/142307737 ... s-new-fansor Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Au ... economists So I guess I pretty much still nailed it despite what anonymous23 said on minimum wage.com . But thanks for your pedantic attitude about someone you seemed to know nothing about. I'm sure those won't be Doug approved links. So just don't bother clicking.
Doug Davis wrote:Because Hayek was incredibly intelligent and understood subtlety...
Well I'll be diddly dipped Doug. Is that respect for someone who disagrees with you about economic theory? SMH... you're slipping buddy.
Doug Davis wrote: where as Mises and the predominance of the Austrian school said the needs of the individual and their freedom supersedes all. Which we know doesntly actually work in a functioning society, where individual needs are suppressed for the good of the whole (we calls these laws).
We don't "know" that in any empirical sense Doug. Unless you wanted to look at the entire world of private institutions on earth that do the same things as states with more efficiency and still turn a profit as functioning... but whatever you don't have to. Remember for Hayek the market is totally natural. It doesn't need a state to run it either. That is the same for anarcho-capatilists like Mises. Who would laugh at your blatant statism in all your responses. But please... Continue!
Doug I didn't bring up this entire lexicon of economic theory to tell you it was right. I brought it up to tell you that you could not say YOU WERE RIGHT WITHOUT CHALLENGE. But if you so desperately need me to copy and paste rebuttals to all of this, here is a nice one.
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2012/09/05/ ... -economicsAnd sense I know you don't follow links here is a sweet quote from the article since you asked for quotes as well:
But it is not the case, as Josh Barro recently argued, “that Austrian economists reject empirical analysis, and instead believe that you can reach conclusions about correct economic policies from a priori principles.” To say so is to misinterpret what Mises meant by the word praxeology and therefore fail to understand what he recommended as the appropriate methods for economists. It is also to rely on interpretations of what people like Mises and Rothbard had to say, as well as the pronouncements of various advocates of Austrian economics on blogs and Internet forums, rather than engaging with the professional research being published in the peer-reviewed journals by practicing Austrians. That research offers a very different picture of the way in which Austrian economics engages the real world.
Doug Davis wrote:Which is what you really end up with when you allow the market to self police itself in areas affecting the common good, such as problems with environmental damage, without government interference.
Just a second ago there was no way to prove any statement about free markets, and here you go ascribing real world problems to it... how would you know? If you say economist can't test free market solutions, you can't act as if you have... cake and eating it too...
Doug Davis wrote:Because in the Australian school of theory,
Typo... totally normal... I shan't tease... but just want to be clear... it's Austrian.
Doug Davis wrote:the humans in their theories always make the intelligent, perfectly rational choices, and as we know humans dont always do that. So their theories only work in a vacuum.
Doug the market exists whether there is a state there to manipulate it or not. Competition for limited resources is something that occurs even in the animal kingdom, whether you like it or not. So don't tell me it can't police itself, because species have died of starvation millennia before there was a state to set a price and start a bread line. You may not like the way supply and demand works, or how bottom up life really is. But all states do is manipulate markets for either perceived good, control, or profit. Same as any other market actor, whether it be a business, a bank, or Beyonce. BUT all that aside, you are still arguing with a Nobel Laureate in Economics in Hayek, and Van Mises who tons of folks subscribe to and write professionally about... Where do you work again buddy? Does F.A. Hayek come and ruin your McNugget count when you're doing inventory at your job? Couldn't you just couch all this bravado and admit you may not have it all worked out?? (Now that is appeal to authority, and ad hominem, and to be fair to you a strawman because I am sure you have a more meaty argument then I'm making it)
Doug Davis wrote:Even the Mises Institute (devoted to Austrian economic policy) admits most modern economists, even those among the Austrian school with which he is associated, dont subscribe to his beliefs.
People don't agree!?? GASP!
Cool. Fine. People are not rational actors. I agree. So governments I suppose are something different than a group of people. Governments must therefore be more rational actors because... wait... wait... no Doug, oh my god... GOVERNMENTS ARE MADE UP OF PEOPLE TOOOOOO!!! Who is gonna control our economy now?? There are no rational actors left!! I mean really Doug... You can't say that these guys are bullshit and then take so long to respond to them... It makes you look crazy.
Doug Davis wrote:Secondly the book you are referring to is a source of debate in the economics community as to whether Hayek even wrote it. Most dont think he did, and that his editor was largely responsible for it.
Again you seem to know way more about it now that you've googled it, cause yesterday it seemed news to you. Sweet. Good for you. I guess the book doesn't contain any ideas that you want to comment on... does it Doug? Even if it was written by ghost writers I'm sure it doesn't contain anything that may contradict what you've been peddling? No... probably not. Moving on!
Doug Davis wrote:Finally if you are going to take the time to engage with me
I did not want to engage with you because you've been a dick to everyone that has...I did not engage you...
YOU engaged YOU in a fake ME debate!!! Well that is fine Doug. Here is the response you craved.
Doug Davis wrote:why not actually contribute to the conversation and show me where and how you think the theories of the economists listed applies to minimum wage and the labor market.
I mean really do you feel that is what you are doing? Contributing to a discussion? Or does it look more like you are flaming Steve and lording your quaint talking points over everyone. Booo... you are keyboard bully bro. And it's lame. So I'm hoping some of your own delicious medicine helps it sink in... But probably not right?
Doug Davis wrote:Rather than just list a bunch of economists you found on google who you hope support your own beliefs?
LOL! Come on Doug. You ever heard of transference? It's like where a cheating wife accuses here husband all the time of cheating, cause she is pushing her secret guilt off on others. Dude, I grew up reading Rothbard, Spooner, Friedman, Hayek, and the lot. Hell I've even read the Bible once. It's not my first scholastic book mobile ride bro. I got a degree in a closet that says I know a thing or two about philosophy so you can take that google crack and stuff it. You love the ad hominem but can you take it? You know the crappy thing about hubris right Doug? It makes crow taste terrible when you have to eat it.
Doug Davis wrote:But since you've reduced the debate to an appeal to authority, here is a letter from 600 economists, including 7 nobel laureates who support raising the minimum wage for the same reasons I do, and go into detail (as I did) about why any effects on the job market will be marginalized.
I didn't appeal to authority Doug, I appealed to you to tone down the rhetoric. But you saw fit to wing a perceived fallacy I made back at me in the form of the same fallacy. I told you not to talk like people don't disagree with you... and then you disagreed with that. I know you are struggling to keep your composure for some reason on this whole minimum wage deal, but geez you don't have to make up things to be mad about. I know that you think anyone who says anything against you in this thread is a moron, but man you couldn't accept just the implication that others disagree without ascribing all these attributes to me... you made up arguments for me Doug, so you could then argue with yourself. It is wild wild stuff.
Doug Davis wrote:Edited to add: Last year the Chicago School, you are appealing to,
There you go again Doug... I didn't appeal to this entire school of theory to have you argue against them. I appealed to you to temper your rhetoric. Guess what it didn't work. Have you ever seen a dog bark at it's own reflection in a pond. It's weird, right?
Doug Davis wrote:actually polled economists in their IGM Forum regarding minimum wage...the majority said yes.
Good for you boss. All of the Chicago Shool of Economics agree... oh wait... no "the majority" agreed... So that means that some didn't. Someone disagrees with you Doug... ROAD TRIP!!
Doug Davis wrote:I'll look forward to your reply with anything other than another list of names.
No you don't, you look forward to giving your next big speech.
You know what sucks about Chess with Pigeons? They crap on the board, knock the pieces over, then strut around like they won.