Post things here that don’t neccessarily deserve their own thread.
Apparently Reuters is posting Youtube content now, in the form of moderated discussions.
This one is particularly awful:
(Lee Doren has an account on Youtube called howtheworldworks and he is a libertarian of sorts)
Murphy vs Krugman debate sponsorship rally
(from Bob’s channel)
So funny!
Schiff debates a Lefty who thinks FED + big government = free market. #facepalm
On that video, it got me to thinking why it’s so difficult some times for us to make any headway with a lot of people. Most folks want to give the outward appearance that they are in the know, that in fact they have a good, educated grasp of the issues. They are persuaded by the technical because it sounds more academic. Machine gunning statistics at another person is what now passes for skilled debate, and this is what Keynesians do.
How many times in that video did Newman’s statistics violate ceterus parabis? How many times was he correlating statistics and assuming causation? It happens over and over again and it makes your eyes glaze over. But the laymen doesn’t have time to consider these logical fallacies for what they are - he’s accustomed, in fact conditioned - to accept statistical citation and mathematical explanation as a superior argument. “Facts” are more important, says the Keynesian. Well, yes, facts are important, but what do the facts mean and are they relevant? Most people understand little in the way of economics; they are persuaded by “fact”-spewing people like Newman
I think this is a major obstacle for Austrian economics. When a person cites statistical relationship X, Y, or Z we simply don’t have enough time in a such a forum to explain the flawed methodology behind its construction, and sometimes we come off as denying the “facts” as the two clowns in the video tried to point out.
Anybody’s thoughts, here? Or am I selling us short?
And his prescription for the economy?..Investment in infrastructure, specifically “smart” investment (whatever THAT is) in green technologies. Nice to know there’s someone out there genius enough to know what’s best for the economy. We should just put this guy in charge, he and his Soviet-style five year plan. What are we thinking?
The productivity argument is interesting though—i.e. that American productivity has risen, though wages have not. I haven’t heard this one before, or at least recently. Mr. Schiff argues, unconvincingly, that we know productivity indeed HASN’T increased—because, after all, the U.S. runs a significant trade deficit. He also says he doesn’t believe the government productivity data: an argument which is definately to be considered seriously, though here Mr. Schiff substantiates it only with his trade deficit argument. I would like to find the answer to this “U.S. productivity has risen, but wages have not” argument.
Income increasingly comes from non-wage sources.
Ah, yes. Of course. Thanks!
My FedEx delivery person said that she owns her FedEx truck (i.e. I guess FedEx is set up like a franchise), and was complaining that FedEx doesn’t pay for her health insurance. I quickly informed her that if they DID pay her health insurance, her wage/income would be less than at present, because FedEx would have to come out of pocket for it.
She looked at me kind of stunned, surprised that her view of the world had been so matter of factly challenged, but silently accepted my statement (whether she believed it is a different matter).
Felt good to politely interfere with, and hopefully change, someone’s economic ignorance.
Personally, I think it’s impossible to know what different viewers will respond to, and what will resonate with them—though your point is a good one.
I think it’s important to have ready, memorable answers to the basic Keynesian/statist talking points. For example, in this debate where Mr. Newman goes into the whole “financial deregulation caused the financial crisis” bit, or how he talks about his magic infrastructure spending program, or how the rich should finance government stimulus, or how stimulus is required because “we don’t want another Great Depression”. All the standard nauseating stuff.
That was painfull to watch. Doug Henwood seems clueless about the basics of economics.
Am I the only person who thinks it is ironic that he runs an outfit called the Left Business Observer and he doesn’t have a single fulltime employee?
Schiff sucks at debating. I’m sorry, but I’ve never seen a 1v1 debate with any of the Austrians or Free Market guys where they destroyed their opponents. This is embarrassing.
More like typical.
Apparently Reuters is posting Youtube content now, in the form of moderated discussions.
This one is particularly awful:
Indeed. At the end I drew a heavy sigh and wondered where these people come from. The least knowledgeable Mises forum member is a genius (me) compared to that woman and the interventionist Vblogger. The nerdy guy tried to talk sensibly, but I think he should have just walked away instead.
I nominate this video as “very bad”, give it a negative 7.2.
Schiff is very good for low level simple debating, he is not and does not pretend to be an academic. There is people who dont understand and wont even bother with an academic debate. Schiff is great for that.
Also, the interview was edited, obviously to make Schiff look bad.
It’s shovel ready.
In this case, it’s the kind of shovel ready that requires hip waders.
I gotta agree with Sieben. I have been listening to Schiff for about 3 years, and he is not a very good debater. It doesnt have anything to do with being an academic.
EDIT: I didn’t make this, by the way.
Sparks goes to the White House: BRAVO, FANTASTIC, STUPENDOUS, INSPIRING. This should be made into a movie. Thanks for posting. MORE! MORE! MORE!
In addition to the excellent content of the entire video, watch Sparks’s gesture at the the beginning when he says “That sounds delightful” (at :28).
I hope this gets 2 million views.
It’s really hard to be a good austrian debater when the people around has little notion of logic, cause, effect, etc. And there is also the fact that austrians acknowledge the knowledge issue, that nobody can be certain about the future.
But then the other side will claim that goverment can impose conditions and create such future scenario and then it becomes almost useless to try to explain why things aren’t that simple.
Speaking of debating, do you guys know any good books on debating technique?