« First « Previous Comments 50 - 55 of 55 Search these comments
Economics became a religion in the 19th century and has been so ever since. It's time economics stops being a religion and starts being a science and engineering discipline, subject to the scientific method of empirical verification and good engineering practices.
Economics is not a religion. Economics is "The study of scarce resources" It's a social science. It involves a lot of theory and math, but is not a true science.
Yes, it's a social science, however, unlike many social sciences, it's applied as if it's a physical science.
Understand, even psychology is an extension of let's say the medical field of neuro-biochemistry and physiology.
For economics, it's an add-on to let's say political science or sociology, neither of whom are physical sciences.
Coincidentally, he seems to have greatly lessened his presence ever since Patricks most recent attempt to better the site.
Why did you take me off of ignore?
Do you miss me?
No. Patrick neutered you with the ad hominem rule so no real need for ignore anymore
And I'm open to the possibility that even you might post something worth reading, at some point
In a short time, when most white collar jobs disappear due to automation, there will be a huge cry to end capitalism, the way it is today, simply because there'll be nothing for the average person to do to earn a living.
The solution is a modern form of Georgism that includes public ownership of automation. This is, by definition, mutually exclusive with capitalism. The only alternative to this is systemic slaughtering of the masses that used to be middle class workers. That genocide could happen quickly or very slowly, but it is inevitable unless the refinement of Georgism I propose becomes a reality.
why someone like the so-called Tony Starks/IM feels the need to post here, nearly 7x24?
Because it's fun! And I learn things I didn't know, and sort-of meet people.
Rin's referring to Call It Crazy because of his new avatar. Ironically, I am almost exactly like Tony Stark as portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. except more introverted, not as wealth -- of course, I didn't inherent a fortune and a company -- no alcoholism problem, and with slightly different political views, although Stark's political views shifted drastically towards mine in Iron Man 1 and Age of Ultron.
Basically, the character of Tony is an ENTJ whereas I'm an INTJ. Two very similar personality types, although I would have preferred to be an ENTJ as they have more fun and are more financially successful because all our institutions reward extroversion. So the irony is that CIC's avatar is homage to people like me who CIC hates because we are vastly superior to him in every way.
Economics is not a religion. Economics is "The study of scarce resources" It's a social science. It involves a lot of theory and math, but is not a true science.
My point is that economics should be a science but economists, politicians, and the public treat it like a religion. They cling to unquestionable and unjustifiable dogma and simply turn off thinking because they perceive challenging the effectiveness of an economic system as a challenge to their culture. You demonstrate this exact behavior every time the subject of economics comes up. You equate capitalism with Americanism, which is just plain stupid, as if America cannot be great unless capitalism is great. Economic systems should be judged dispassionately and without cultural influences, and they should be changed like underwear, i.e. whenever the need arises.
And I'm open to the possibility that even you might post something worth reading, at some point
Don't hold your breath.
The first truthful thing Call It Crazy ever posted.
« First « Previous Comments 50 - 55 of 55 Search these comments
And Australia, New Zealand, etc, all countries with perfectly fine health care systems.
Drug companies are some of the biggest corruptors of our Congressmen, because they can make such huge profits from people who have to buy the product or else die.
(Who are the Congressmen who take money from drug companies? All of them?)
Drug companies rationalize their abuse by saying that the need such outsized profits to do research, but this is just not true.
* Drug companies spend more on advertising drugs than on research.
* Drug companies make a perfectly fine profit in other developed countries, while selling the same drugs for much less.
* Drug companies are the primary beneficiaries of government sponsored drug research.
* Drugs are not a free market, because customers must have them and drug companies frequently have a monopoly due to a patent.
patrick.net's 40 proposals
https://www.forbes.com/sites/edsilverman/2013/12/31/will-americans-be-allowed-to-import-prescription-drugs/