tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post8383765424060717007..comments2024-03-18T22:32:52.802-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: How to win arguments by pretending to be a simpletonNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-50359861710915977122014-03-19T19:58:39.797-04:002014-03-19T19:58:39.797-04:00Aziz: You should try actually reading Krugman bef...Aziz: You should try actually reading Krugman before putting words in his mouth. Krugman states that injecting liquidity when interest rates are at zero is not possible. He does not advocate printing money. He advocates increased spending.Cesiumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02025636403503365433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-16434621859798705322013-12-16T16:50:59.930-05:002013-12-16T16:50:59.930-05:00HHH argument is not an argument from ignorance, bu...HHH argument is not an <i>argument from ignorance</i>, but a <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>: "If printing money can make society richer, why stop printing money? Why not print money ad infinitum?"Floob Boober Bab Boober Bubsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-43753123610799234422013-05-04T13:08:09.595-04:002013-05-04T13:08:09.595-04:00It's all ones and zeros now anyways. Chances a...It's all ones and zeros now anyways. Chances are Hoppe doesn't have any paper in his wallet - just plastic.<br /><br />So now we have to explain to Hoppe how a piece of plastic can make society richer.<br /><br />Sometimes the economic argument you <i>need</i>, and general good breeding won't let you use, is a gold bar in a sock, and a good defense attorney.Davis X. Machinahttp://davisxmachina.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-14425952316307457082013-05-04T12:57:46.688-04:002013-05-04T12:57:46.688-04:00It works on The Simpsons, doesn't it?
Hey, wa...It works on <i>The Simpsons</i>, doesn't it?<br /><br />Hey, wait, it doesn't.Davis X. Machinahttp://davisxmachina.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-9962135244545568332013-05-01T16:25:51.137-04:002013-05-01T16:25:51.137-04:00Seems to me feigning ignorance is a play on the sa...Seems to me feigning ignorance is a play on the saying: "A man convinced against his will is still of the same opinion." By playing dumb you try to force your opponent to take full responsibility (in this case over policy) while exculpating yourself. Basically, Triple H is acknowledging the existence of criticism about their work without acknowledging the effects of that criticism. There's a reason for that; this is actually a strategy. If austerity fails, naturally, they'll claim Keynesians killed it. But when pressed on post-austerity economic policy, they'll claim skepticism. And if accused of dishonesty, they'll claim incompetence. You don't need a degree in economics to know that "stupid" is less-bad than fraudulent.newzbarronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06614986064545992685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-23532139321951359572013-04-27T10:48:42.112-04:002013-04-27T10:48:42.112-04:00HHH: "Please explain how a piece of paper can...HHH: "Please explain how a piece of paper can make society richer"<br />PK: "You don't think a piece of paper can make society richer? OK, then I'll just go through your wallet and take all the paper I find there. Surely you won't mind, since it won't make you any less rich, will it?"<br /><br />To win a debate against someone who is unwilling or unable to understand proper arguments, you may have to resort to anti-heckling techniques as used by stand-up comedians. Not always pretty, but effective.Jeronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-55549987777096753772013-04-27T09:57:58.921-04:002013-04-27T09:57:58.921-04:00There are young earth creationists with degrees in...There are young earth creationists with degrees in evolutionary biology. To get the degree, you just need to prove you can regurgitate the main points of your field and provide satisfactory work in a very narrow topic (your thesis). Believing anything you write or say to get that "worthless piece of paper" is optional.Nate Onoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-11549156370139226092013-04-19T23:30:07.525-04:002013-04-19T23:30:07.525-04:00You need a citation there - how did you get that t...You need a citation there - how did you get that the entire profession, in a unitary voice, was calling for austerity? If I remember correctly, the majority of economists were against austerity, with a minority given huge microphones because they were saying what some people wanted to hear and power because some politicians wanted austerity.<br /><br />And lit comp isn't a profession.Alexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-65916532949143536002013-04-19T00:03:57.386-04:002013-04-19T00:03:57.386-04:00Oh how clever!
I guess we should start picking r...Oh how clever!<br /> I guess we should start picking random guys off the street to run our nuclear reactors and build our airplanes!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00660105508192684771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-76784129599859950882013-04-18T15:31:24.382-04:002013-04-18T15:31:24.382-04:00Serious question: How does someone like Hermann-Ho...Serious question: How does someone like Hermann-Hoppe get a degree in economics? I have a hard time imagining that someone in another branch of science (or, indeed, any comp. lit. student) would dare to use to a tactic like this when debating a highly influential member of their field - certainly not if they actually understood the theories they were trying to mock. Do adherents of Austrian economics get to skip written exams? Or is the general level of ignorance among economists actually high enough to allow such tactics to work?Unsalted Sinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07388516480935688151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-8177558970544259232013-04-18T12:39:55.608-04:002013-04-18T12:39:55.608-04:00given how inaccurate economists have been recently...given how inaccurate economists have been recently - Rogoff is just one example - you have a lot of nerve picking on comp lit students.<br /><br />I mean, you really think the spectacle of your profession urging austerity gives you the right to criticize other professions ?<br /><br />Galbraith to JFK: you seem to think I am arrogant<br />JFK: well, I'm just copying everyone elseSoccer Dadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10745967553131454562noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-5594365548476502142013-04-18T11:45:49.151-04:002013-04-18T11:45:49.151-04:00[I'm a little late to this, and the comment is...[I'm a little late to this, and the comment is going to come off as a personal attack, but it is really is germane to the post, which documents and takes apart argument technique (yes, stylistically, the comment is unusual for the site, but from a substance perspective, it could just as easily be used against people who think Austrians are the bogeyman as those who think Neoclassicists are the bogeyman). To the dear little Pilkington (unless this was some grand hoax on your part to expose how stupid commenters can look making ridiculous arguments), how I appreciate the fruits of your delusions].<br /><br />This exchange was *amazing*.<br /><br />I would have thought the Pilkington comments were spoofed if I hadn’t read him before at Naked Cap (which was actually an interesting site for years until the economy turned around and collective rage at the failure of the hoped-for morality play blossomed into epistemic closure).<br /><br />I’m not sure he realizes how much unrestrained laughter he provokes, but let me just thank him for a moment. His delusional hypocrisy is on the order of a 19th century British novelist’s creation. Reminds me of the Beadle Bumble a little bit, really (with the alliterative initials to boot!).<br /><br />Now, I don’t know him personally, but unless his writings are some kind of elaborate joke, he’s one of the most extreme examples of insecurity breeding a compensatory façade I’ve ever encountered. The unjustified arrogance! The spectacularly kooky confidence!<br /><br />He called his opponent a "keyboard warrior." Amazing!!! No wonder he likes Graeber so much.<br /><br />And this is what makes him a perfect entrant into this thread about argument techniques! What unbiased human could read his “gold star, gold star” comment and not think the writer’s ego had just been bruised? And in a comment where he’s randomly accusing someone else of being trapped by ego!<br /><br />What unbiased human could read the “Grow up” mandate and not think, “did an eight year old write that comment?” And in a comment where he’s accusing the other debater of being immature!!!! It is *hilarious*. :-) :-) :-) <br /><br />[And I think he dropped the mic after the “Grow up” comment, took his ball and went home. I mean, seriously, hi-larious!]<br /><br />And apparently he believes that anyone who remembers the jaw-dropping inanity of his posts and comments is obsessed with him. Oh, dear Pilkington, you may be more annoying than most (and that may make you more memorable), but you are an object of amusement for us, not an object of obsession. To the dictionary, my good man!<br /><br />Oh, little Pilkington.<br />Mister Anonymous Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09982152118420327183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-64683570580907984342013-02-15T23:18:25.833-05:002013-02-15T23:18:25.833-05:00Samuelson's paper is not science, but explorin...Samuelson's paper is not science, but exploring a theoretical idea using some mathematics. Economics is not science, despite superficial mathematical similarities to physics. There is not a single idea in economics which can be used like a law of physics, without leading to errors and contradictions. Economics is all about arguments (usually citing authorities), without scientific proofs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-54724730368288843202013-02-11T09:37:42.416-05:002013-02-11T09:37:42.416-05:00I also like free banking, though I doubt it would ...I also like free banking, though I doubt it would stop panics or crashes. But a data point to consider: back in the days before the 1913 creation of the US Fed., the GDP per capita in the late 19th century was, in the USA and most other Western Europe countries, about the same as in the late 20th century (data: Angus Maddison). So essentially a central bank is irrelevant. Booms and busts are not the issue: the issue is: area under the curve of said booms and busts. A Dirac delta function has infinite 'boom and bust' and yet a nice constant finite area under the curve--so a bunch of these booms and busts side by side could mean prosperity, and it would mean the economy is constantly adjusting in a good way (Austrians claim busts are good--unlike Keynesians--as they flush out the deadwood in an economy).Ray Lopezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134761834999705305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-72873729711097035892013-02-11T09:28:04.295-05:002013-02-11T09:28:04.295-05:00I just looked at this paper: "Paul Samuelson&...I just looked at this paper: "Paul Samuelson's famous 1958 paper on the "social contrivance of money""--it has at least three (3) exclamation marks ("!") in it!!! It's been said that no serious scientific paper has ever been published with an exclamation mark! So is Samuelson's paper the exception to this rule?!Ray Lopezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134761834999705305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-75656408097018363072013-02-09T08:12:07.124-05:002013-02-09T08:12:07.124-05:00Hans Hermann-Hoppe is just a member of the Faith-b...Hans Hermann-Hoppe is just a member of the Faith-based reality tribe. <br /><br />Ideology trumps data with that crowd always. <br /><br /> It's like trying to argue about the Genesis creation myth with a Evangelical Fundamentalist: you will never convince the fundamentalist that not only isn't Genesis not an accurate depiction of the history of the planet and the cosmos, even they themselves do not regard some aspects of Genesis as literally true. You fooling only yourself if you are trying to communicate new ideas to the fundamentalist, and you are only doing bad things to your own health by trying. They will wear you down with stubborn obtuseness and then declare victory (their faith having been tested) the moment you give up trying to reach them.<br /><br />Lulz4l1f3noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-27647193977739886592013-02-07T18:54:05.640-05:002013-02-07T18:54:05.640-05:00Don't know much about 1837 in particular, but ...Don't know much about 1837 in particular, but I assume you're alluding to the numerous 19th century financial panics in the US as counter-evidence against Free Banking. Please refer to the post below on the weaknesses of the US system: http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/how-to-win-arguments-by-pretending-to.html?showComment=1359991178651#c4231613181952883506<br /><br />Even the worst banking examples during this era--the mass failures of the "wildcat" banks in the Midwest (Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio)--did not cause these state banking systems to collapse. Furthermore, some states such as New York saw the rapid evolution of stable free banking systems in the decades prior to the Civil War. Other states would most likely have followed suit if had it not been for the National Banking Acts (which taxed private banknotes out of circulation). <br /><br />See "Wildcat Banking," Dwyer, from p. 68. http://www.terry.uga.edu/~selgin/econ4100/ReadingsPtI.pdfJohn Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-48172867164094653442013-02-07T09:51:50.140-05:002013-02-07T09:51:50.140-05:00John S: "(Free market money isn't just a ...John S: "(Free market money isn't just a "theory" either; Canada's system of privately issued banknotes, w/o a central bank, had ZERO bank failures during the Great Depression)."<br /><br />What about the U. S. system of free banking and the depression of 1837? <br /><br />Thanks. :)Minnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-91557578648079884302013-02-07T05:42:16.475-05:002013-02-07T05:42:16.475-05:00Hoppe was the target of a fun series of posts on N...Hoppe was the target of a fun series of posts on Naked Capitalism:<br />http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/journey-into-a-libertarian-future-part-i-%E2%80%93the-vision.htmlreasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10958786975015285323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-55584865502419495782013-02-05T22:37:29.796-05:002013-02-05T22:37:29.796-05:00Are you sure they're pretending?Are you sure they're pretending?Richard H. Serlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09824966626830758801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-43662041686115118792013-02-05T15:33:05.709-05:002013-02-05T15:33:05.709-05:00"Inserting a "Durr hurr!" at the en..."Inserting a "Durr hurr!" at the end of each such example is optional"<br /><br />Excellent! ha ha<br /><br />I was thinking as I started reading this, that this "argument method" sounds more like a comedic tool, rather than any serious means of asserting a relevant point.<br /><br />It reminded me of a guy I interacted with regularly about a decade ago whose preferred method of humour was a greeting including a bizarre complex question. Instead of saying "Hi how ya doin'?" he'd say something like, "Hey, did you ever get that lice problem cleared up?"<br />(Granted, this guy was far more clever & targeted usually, but I can't remember any examples.)<br /><br />Sounds like this guy in the video is actually advocating sarcasm, often referred to as "the lowest form of humour", as an actual viable argument technique.<br />It's breathtaking!<br /><br />But it makes sense now why clearly clueless people (ie: people who know far less about economics than I do - and I'm no freakin' expert!) can be found commenting on economic issues, with one-line statements that somehow manage to include a false premise, a contradiction, and a personal insult, all with less than 15 words!<br /><br />I had no idea there were actually TRAINING VIDEOS for the misinformed to learn how to combine a couple of logical fallacies, plus an ad hominem attack, with a ba-dum-bum targeted comment.<br /><br />I'm now imagining this video being used to retrain former spam CAPTCHA solvers into the industry of comment thread trolling, in a room where a bank of them get paid $3 per 1,000 anti-social nonsense zinger comments. ha ha haAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-88250960293987989922013-02-05T13:54:55.480-05:002013-02-05T13:54:55.480-05:00Great post Noah. The issue here is that to win the...Great post Noah. The issue here is that to win the heart of other simpletons, like the ones who take LvM institute seriously, you have to become a simpleton yet sound convincing. HHH is betting that he is better at it than Krugman, but he may be he may be suffering from overconfidence bias. For example:<br /><br />If printing pieces of paper to use in transactions doesn't make us better off why not give money up and go back to bartering? CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-64514171367799139952013-02-05T10:27:47.282-05:002013-02-05T10:27:47.282-05:00I am going to send to HHH some Faygo Red Pop, per ...I am going to send to HHH some Faygo Red Pop, per Noah's first pic above...<br /><br />FrankAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-1026524785389991512013-02-05T10:23:46.353-05:002013-02-05T10:23:46.353-05:00I'm thinking HHH feels that he (or anyone) can...I'm thinking HHH feels that he (or anyone) can win a public argument by forcing Krugman into going into a technical explanation of what to "common sense" is an absurdity, thereby losing the (somewhat ignorant)audience, who will, of course, never be intelligent enough to be able to comprehend Krugman's explanation.<br /><br />Since this whole approach rests on the assumption that somehow Krugman has been talked into the debate, sometimes, "the only winning move is not to play". A response on Krugman's part similar to "Wow...that question betrays such a fundamental ignorance of economics that I'd be wasting my time even talking to you. I'm not here to teach Economics 101" would be a show-stopper.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-68926846478477455832013-02-05T01:01:19.259-05:002013-02-05T01:01:19.259-05:00Yep. HHH has no difficulty 'playing dumb'...Yep. HHH has no difficulty 'playing dumb'. Like Ringo Starr in that old Beatles song, all he has to do is "act naturally". Sethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16486234948199900568noreply@blogger.com