That is a really bad argument.

He is with abortion and yet he has children!!!!

So what?! Is his wife pregnant? For all you know maybe she had an abortion at one point in your life. Saying something is ok for people to do doesn't necessarily mean you are going to do it yourself. You make it seem like all pro-choice activists hate kids, which certainly is NOT true!

Peter missed (by his own admission) the rebound of the dollar. Yet, I do agree that Peter, Dr, Doom, Robert Chapman, Joe Stiglitz and a few other economists accurately predicted the current economic recession. They seem to be the only economists who have the balls to tell the public that all is not rosy in the future while their counterparts offer-up optimistic appraisals of the coming party.

Their counterparts, who seem to receive a lot of media attention, universally and unanimously always see the US economy through rose-colored glasses. Coincidently, they are the same economists whose opinions make headline news and whose opinions are sought by politicians.

However, the economists I named are extremely wary of the gigantic stimuli of the world’s governments and Central banks ( the stimuli: The race to debase the worlds currencies). But their politically, friendly counterparts have nothing but praise for the same. And it is this latter group of economists from which dull-minded Americans seem to derive hopium.

Explain to me why it is obvious.

It was obvious because 1) That's the way the term is most often used in US political discussions 2) Conservatives have made it clear that they will object to anything and everything Obama does or attempts to do. It therefore follows that they will call his policies disastrous regardless of reality. 3) Conservatives are obviously not always entirely irrational. The italics hinted that I was half-joking, that I was taking a dig at the opposition.

If you would have used the term ‘conservative’ I would have supposed you were referencing republicans exclusively. Yet, the term you used is ‘conservative ideologues’. And while you may argue that republicans are conservative ideologues I would also argue that republicans are not the only conservative ideologues. For I personally know many democrats who are conservative ideologues.

I could submit thirty failed predictions of thirty economists of the past ten years.

This statements reflects a lack of understanding of the fallability of anecdotal evidence. You can't just go outside and pick out thirty white stones and thereby assert that all stones are white. However, a random sampling of essays in a major economics journal might do the trick.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!

The following is an illustration of the very reason why I asked you to qualify what you call extraordinary evidence:

You affirm that there are no stones that are white. I affirm that there are stones that are white. You assert that my assertion is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. I in turn request the number of stones that you require as evidence that there are stones that are white. And you reply that my evidence is anecdotal if I present the evidence of white stones.

Remember, I am seeking to satisfy your request to provide the necessary evidence that brings into question the prudence of relying upon the consensus opinion of mainstream economists. I am not attempting to prove that the consensus opinion of mainstream economists is true or false in the future. You must realize that I am attempting to demonstrate the fact that when a group of individuals has consistently misled our expectations we must realize that we have been misguided. And unless we want to be misguided in the future I recommend that we consider the track record of those who guide our expectations. Not that they may be right or wrong in the future, its just a matter of whether or not we are willing to follow the same course.

I’ll address your other statements after we settle this latest disconnect.

(You have assumed that I am attempting to draw an invalid inference.)

And ffs, it was obvious that when I said "conservative ideologues", I was using the term to mean politically opposed to liberals. Any reasonable person would have seen that. Stop being intentionally dense.

Explain to me why it is obvious. Because nothing contained within your post would allow me to validly infer that you were referencing a republican or something similar.

(Do you not realize the ambiguity inherent in the term conservative ideologues?)

Shall I explain?

This is the extraordinary claim that I am referring to. To support this claim, you would need to show a comprehensive review of predictions by mainstream economists…

Very well!

Who do you consider to be mainstream, and how many failed predictions of the same do I need to present? I could submit thirty failed predictions of thirty economists of the past ten years. However, you would then argue that

A. they are not mainstream

B. that thirty is not enough

C. ten years is too long or not long enough

D. or whatsoever else may suit your denial.

I think you ought to study the history of The Glass Steagall Act and the consensus opinion of economists concerning the Act. You will find a lot of evidence that may just try your trust of mainstream economists.

(Many economists assert that today’s economic crisis can be directly traced to the repeal of Glass Steagall which occurred in 1999.)

I find it extremely laughable that there is not one iota of reason contained within any of your arguments which would justify your blind-trust of the consensus opinion of economists.

Now, allow me the license to appeal to your sense of reality. In the last thirty years, and more quickly the last ten years, there has been an uninterrupted progression of the transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the upper class. The record profits of Wall Street are occurring at the same time that record wealth is being lost from the common man. Now, explain to me why most mainstream economists are not advising anything other than more of the same? Hell, we can go back thirty+ years on this truth of reality.

Conclusion:

Go ahead and trust the consensus opinion of mainstream economists and likewise observe the continued transfer of your wealth. And perhaps you may learn that maybe, just maybe, the economists are effecting policy for that very purpose. Consistency establishes intent! A man (economist) who consistently advocates policy that transfers your wealth to another is guilty of seeking to transfer your wealth.

I thought liberals were for the little guy? Well, I am no liberal, but I certainly am for the little guy.

What say you?

I'm not saying this is definite or anything and I don't want to jinx it, but if New Jersey can elect a Republican governor, then there is still hope. New Jersey is one of the most liberal/democratic states due to its population density and urban background, but on Tuesday, we elected Chris Christie as the next governor of the state, a Republican. :D

Also, I feel like Obama had so much hype that a lot of Americans are sort of disillusioned. Of course, many still think he's the Messiah, but more and more people who voted for him and supported him are realizing that he's not doing nearly as much as he said he would.

Doesn't saying "Economists expect" suggest that they are all in agreement? That is not the case. Not all economists agree with that. There are very successful and reputable economists that say that we have not seen the worst of it yet!

Its not a matter of people finding jobs so much as it is companies hiring those people.

It is my opinion that the current administrations policies are not favorable for that happening.

I disagree with your assertion that the bail outs were the correct thing to do but that is another debate.

Just my opinion.

Looking forward to your "rational" response. :_)

You are correct with that they do expect us to see more pain ahead how much more I don't know. But when you are talking about a huge budget, increase with more taxes during a time when people and employer's are struggling to make it, it leaves no incentive to hire. i attend a monthly business group here in Charlotte NC with different companies and they all say the same thing there is a big issue with uncertainty and confidence is low. The biggest concerns lie with new legislation that will require more capital from companies in time when capital is needed.

Well, i m not saying that he is not going to, but i dont want him to....he is messing up our country!!!

I don't think so. He won becuase a large independant base and even Republican base voted for him I am one of those. His ideals and policies are too radical and he may have a tough time getting re-elected. His best hope is that the GOP does a bonehead move and put another McCain Palin like ticket. IF someone like Bob McDonell runs I think Obama will lose.

Hey nice job electing Chris Christie!

Anyways, most conservatives hate the north east, but I like it. Minus the liberals. (=

Just like they only expected unemployment or at least the ones on Obama's payroll to hit 8.5% today we hit 10.2% and still going higher. If you ask them where are the new jobs they don't know. He has at least 2.5 years to do something and to have hopes of re-election but juding by the recent races in New Jersey and Virgina his base has made a shift that Obama should have concern about. We shall see! I hope for all of us that things get better.

I agree. Most of his support was based off of Bush's failures. The American public failed to realize that Bush does not equal McCain. Instead, they assumed McCain would do the same things as Bush. Also, they saw Obama as sort of a messiah, a savior for America.

Maria Skłodowska-Curie

Linus Paulin

The Curie family claim the most Nobel Prizes, with five:

Maria Skłodowska-Curie

Her husband Pierre Curie

Their daughter Irène Joliot-Curie

Their son-in-law Frederic Joliot-Curie

In addition, Henry Labouisse, the husband of the Curies' second daughter Ève, was the director of UNICEF when it won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1965.

Gunnar Myrdal (Economics, 1974) and wife Alva Myrdal (Peace, 1982)

J. J. Thomson, awarded the Nobel prize for Physics in 1906, was the father of George Paget Thomson who was awarded the Nobel prize for Physics in 1937.

William Henry Bragg shared the Nobel prize in Physics in 1915 with his son, William Lawrence Bragg.

Niels Bohr won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1922, and his son Aage Bohr won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1975.

Manne Siegbahn, who won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1924, was the father of Kai Siegbahn who shared the Nobel prize in Physics in 1981.

Hans von Euler-Chelpin shared the Nobel prize in Chemistry in 1929 with Arthur Harden. His son, Ulf von Euler, was awarded the Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1970.

C.V. Raman who won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1930, was the uncle of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar who won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1983.

Arthur Kornberg shared with Severo Ochoa the 1959 Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discovery of the mechanisms in the biological synthesis of ribonucleic acid and deoxyribonucleic acid.[37] Kornberg's son Roger won the 2006 Nobel prize in Chemistry for his studies of the molecular basis of eukaryotic transcription.[38]

Jan Tinbergen, who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1969, was the brother of Nikolaas Tinbergen who shared the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Konrad Lorenz and Karl von Frisch.

Did you say no one wins the Nobel Prize?

I don't think so because he said he will change the United States. But the United States is still going deeper in debt. We need someone who can stand up to Economic Crisis... Not someone who is just going to let our COUNTRY go deeper in debt.

Ah, so you want to go to the beginning of our correspondence?

Very well!

Yes. Economists expect employment to be back by the end of 2010.

Firstly you didn’t distribute your subject, economists. And in response I rationally supposed that you meant some economists. For no man in his right mind would make the error of supposing that all economists agree. Furthermore, I even granted you the supposition that you were referring to the consensus opinion of economists concerning employment of 2010.

Secondly, no question I asked you remotely hints at suggesting that all economists are nit-wits. I repeatedly asked questions that implicated only some economists, and never could it be rationally asserted that I implicated all economists.

If you disagree, then consider the following example.

Economists expect employment to be back by the end of 2010.

A contrary rebuttal: Not all economists expect employment to be back the end of 2010.

Finally, demonstrate to me how any question I posed in my original post implicated all economists; for you certainly responded as though I had.

Moving on…

You refer to conservative ideologues, and then imply they are not rational people.

All US economists are conservative ideologues. Why? Because all US economists want to conserve the free-market capitalism of the US which they believe to be perfect or near perfect. Yet, most economists supported the abandonment of free market principles for the sake of capitalism as a means to conserve capitalism. So, who is rational, the economists who protected their ideological view, or the economists who supported the reign of free-market principles.

Finally, the track record of the consensus opinion of economists is so poor I can’t believe any person would use the opinion of the same as a premise of an argument. Albeit, the track records of the maverick economists are more in-tune with reality though.

My evidence: Reality! Why? If the track record of economists was as worthy of policy as you assert then the economy of the US would not be so fucked up as it is now. Economic forecasts are intended to preclude the mess that we are currently struggling with. Shall I drive that point further?

And the reason, I suppose, that my post was up-voted multiple times is because, believe it or not, I spoke of that which they too are witness. And like me, they too have lived long enough to know that an economist predicts so far into the future that most men are not likely to remember the previous forecast of a year ago. Yet, if there are some who do remember, I assure you that the same economists will provide an explanation of why their forecast was wrong.

Shall I continue with the remainder of our correspondence?

(Better to be pissed off than pissed on.)

Oops, I almost forgot!

Don’t ask me (implicitly) to divine the un-employment rate of the US for 2010 as an evidence of why the consensus opinion of economists is wrong!

They were wrong about this year’s rate of un-employment and I have no reason to believe they can foresee next year’s rate.

um..no. i hope to god he don't. he is trying to make schools go year round....screw him. i mean i'm a junior and he doesn't need to go running everyone lives. he needs to get a hobby and stand down as president. in the end someone will take a stand and tell that man how they truly feel about him. 85% of Tennesseans voted for him out of pity. McCain should have won....i would have voted for him if i was old enough.

Before I post a refutation of your latest rebuttal, are you willing to admit before hand that it is logically possible to refute your argument? If you are not willing to admit the possibility of seeing your argument reduced to utter non-sense then there is no necessity on my behalf to demonstrate your failure to refute.

When you refuse to recognize your straw-man arguments it suggests to me that you will not recognize a valid refutation of your view.

(Why all the emotion?)

I dont think he should get voted in again...we have people over here starving to death,people who cant afford to go to the doctor,no jobs anywhere....but yet lets send 7.3 billion dollars to another country to help them out...it dont make sence. you have to take care of your own first

disregard this message i am tired :)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I even voted myself down!

Thats 50 years I think you just proved my point.

Thank you for your response.

does this guy even know why he won the prize? well if you wanna know its for doing his damn job thats right all he did was take some nukes which is his job, to be a peace keeper, maybe not in other countries but we always do anyway

you ever heard of a man by the name of martin luther king junior, if im not mistaken he has his own national holiday?

No, he will not win in 2012. BECAUSE:

His "change" remarks, never came true. He's done nothing to help this country. I believe he told everyone, when he's president, he'll take ALL of the troops out of the Middle East, (which I enjoy them there..) But you know what he did? He sent 40,000 MORE.

i don't think he should because he still is trying to fight the war

where i live only the black people like obama and thats because hes black and they dont have any idea why is a good president. if you ask they look stupid for a second then call you racist because apparently they think that we made a judgment about him being black and that has absolutly no bearing on the fact that he has never done anything to help me as an individual and all the other things that are other debates so i cant bring them up at this time

I don't really understand your contempt for economists (or rather, economists). Are you saying members of the profession are universally untrustworthy and majorly biased?

Something to read:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/07/priceless-how-the-federal_n_278805.html

Wait? Because Obama is African-American you appeal to the public as somehow deciding for Obama on that reason? Hillary Clinton would have probably been President if not for Obama.

Don't make this a racial issue because if Obama fails miserably than what does that do for history and the first African-American President?

Unless Obama shifts more to the center I see no way other than national emergency that he will remain in office. My support could have easily been yes and the same argument applies. The radical Saul Alinsky type blinders the President has are becoming manifest. But Barack Obama is still a rock star who no doubt has more tricks up his sleeve.

obama has done such a horrible job as president so far and more and more people are staring to realize it every day so i dont even think he should be nominated for the democratic party for the 2012 election.

I think that obama wont win year 2012 because there are a lot of people that were really angry with the outcome and with more teens become the age to vote then I feel that if he does apply again for president he won't win. . . Unless the candidates are even stupider then him..

Explain to me why it is obvious.

It was obvious because 1) That's the way the term is most often used in US political discussions 2) Conservatives have made it clear that they will object to anything and everything Obama does or attempts to do. It therefore follows that they will call his policies disastrous regardless of reality. 3) Conservatives are obviously not always entirely irrational. The italics hinted that I was half-joking, that I was taking a dig at the opposition.

I could submit thirty failed predictions of thirty economists of the past ten years.

This statements reflects a lack of understanding of the fallability of anecdotal evidence. You can't just go outside and pick out thirty white stones and thereby assert that all stones are white. However, a random sampling of essays in a major economics journal might do the trick.

However, you would then argue that...

Again you assume nefarious motives on my part. This reflects your bias toward paranoid thinking. When are you gonna learn that I'm just a humble seeker of truth?

there is not one iota of reason contained within any of your auments which would justify your blind-trust of the consensus opinion of economists.

How about having a basic faith in humanity? It is not unreasonable to assume that people are generally honest enough to be trusted.

there has been an uninterrupted progression of the transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the upper class...

You really should offer citations when making claims of fact like this. Also, I think you are being a bit hasty in this assertion. But I will agree with you that this seems to be the trend.

Now, explain to me why most mainstream economists are not advising anything other than more of the same?

They are not. There are a number of policy suggestions out there. (example) Now admittedly, it's rare to hear a mainstream economist call for some radical shift in the way our economy is run. But radical changes are dangerous, incremental change is generally preferable whenever possible. How would you remake our economy? I myself see no easy answers here.

"transfer of your wealth...economists are effecting policy for that very purpose.

One glaring problem with this assessment:

"Median annual wage and salary earnings of economists were $77,010 in May 2006."

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos055.htm

Seems to me economists aren't the beneficiaries of this transfer of wealth.

OK lets stop rite now and lets look at Obamas accomplishments. No he will not win in 2012 unless he does some mighty big things until then.

Well in your initial agument it certainly seems as though you are attacking economists in general. Perhaps you could try being more clear in the future.

Or perhaps you could be a little more discerning about word usage, particularly when it is my argument you are considering.

All US economists are conservative ideologues...

You misuse the term "conservative" to mean "believer in free markets". This is misleading because liberals also believe in free markets. It's only a question of the degree of government oversight that should exist. You won't find many purists at either end of the spectrum.

Conservative: in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change.

Ideologues: a particularly zealous or doctrinaire supporter of an ideology.

All US economists are conservative ideologues; regardless of whether or not they are democrats, republicans, or independents etc.

My argument is about economists not politicians. I described attributes of all economists, none of which are political.

(If you mean the conservative political party, then communicate what you mean, for I can only understand what you mean by what you state. And if what you state is not what you mean then choose words that communicate the meaning of what you’re thinking.)

Finally, the track record of the consensus opinion of economists is so poor...the track records of the maverick economists are more in-tune with reality though.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thus far you have presented none.

Finally, we get to the core problem of your viewpoint.

You’ve not researched the opinions of other economists whose opinions are not the consensus. Case in point, Nouriel Roubini, one of many economists who predicted the current economic mess, did so in 2006. Nor was he the only economist who predicted today’s crisis. But, it is self-evident to me that you failed to do your own research, and then as a consequence you find that my assertion, ”the track records of the maverick economists are more in-tune with reality though.”, is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

What is extraordinary is the fact that you are blinded by your own biased viewpoint, so much so that you presumed there is no evidence to contradict your viewpoint and therefore there is no reason to consider a contrary or contradictory viewpoint of the consensus opinion of economists.

However, if you do find it within yourself to challenge your viewpoint, you will find that there were many Economists who predicted the crisis. And you will find that the consensus of economists was predicting good times. Moreover, the economists who were predicting good-times were mocking and laughing at economists such as Dr. Doom.

.

Yes, it's clear that most economists fucked up in the case of the current recession. How many times do we have to go over this? The future is hard to predict. The best we can do is make educated guesses. Why is that concept so hard for you to grasp? We can't predict the weather with 100% certainty, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

You must stop with the straw-man arguments with me. I am being as polite as I can be, but you are testing my limits of politeness.

We both know that the consensus of economists missed the current ‘great recession’ , but what you fail to recognize is that there are some economists who did predict this recession. Not only did they predict the recession, their opinions were not the consensus. Albeit, your refusal to research the opinions of maverick economists indicates to me that you deny that there are indeed economists who predicted this recession. Furthermore, you take it to the extreme of being extraordinary, both in claim and evidence.

If you find the above to be obscure in terminology, consider the following illustration.

You can’t call my evidence extraordinary when you fail to even go look for contrary evidence before assuming a valid viewpoint.

I could continue with this rebuttal, but I think you realize the error in your argument.

Then post an argument that is worthy of being logically challenged.

Paranoid Ad Hominem?

Paranoia? Bullshit, you only hope that it is I and not you who is paranoid!

Are you unaware that only some ad hominem arguments are invalid? Regardless of your understanding of ad hominem arguments and when and why they are valid or invalid, I will inform you that my series of questions is implied ad hominem but is certainly not fallacious.

I am trying to remember when the last liberal president won re-election with out being a centrist?

Help anyone?

No he will not win.

No!

At least I hope he doesn't.

The thing I don't get is that every thing that went wrong during the Bush Administration is Bush's fault.

Everything that has gone wrong in the Obama administration is the people's fault because we voted for him (even though I didn't vote for him)

No because obama sucks. He said hes not going to send any more troops to Iraq but i heard he did so he is a liar i don't like him. So no i don't think he going to win in 2012.

Obama won't win because he's a horrible president and people will regret voting for him and they will vote against him.

I don't think he'll make it that far. And NO, I'm not talking about that. I think he'll be bannished before then.

Whatever.

................................................

HEY guess what!?!?!?!? Thats my point even you can't say what he has done RIGHT NOW. There's a lot of "will's" instead of "is" in your argument. And I guarantee you over half of those goals you listed won't get accomplished while he's in office. And the American people could see that unlike you.

No, he isn't a very good presidant!!! He is with abortion and yet he has children!!!!