The Case for Voting Democrat
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-12-2013, 08:52 AM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 07:08 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Without addressing your wider point this is a faulty argument. It amounts to: I'll ignore what happens in the real world and keep insisting the world is as I think it must be without really ever checking. It's OK to come up with models you like but those models also must be tested. That's difficult with economic systems due to their inherent complexity, but reason alone is not sufficient to validate a particular economic model.

You don't understand the concept of axioms, then. Definition: "an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy". So, a true axioms is rarely wrong. It's a bit of fact that you know must be true. And it is a VERY useful. You'll see constantly where Keynesians economists in particular present empirical data and claim it supports a conclusion that logic tells you MUST be wrong. But when you give them thought experiments to prove this, the Keynesians always just laugh at the idea of using axioms, logic and reason to understand the economy and stick only to empirical data. However, in my experience, when you use axioms, logic and reason to analyze empirical data, you'll find that the empirical data usually DOES support the logic and the Keynesians were just looking at it wrong.

And, remember, when you defend the anti-axiom position of the Keynesians, our modern life is only possible because of axioms since this is the primary tool scientists use to make sense of very complex subjects, like relativity, mathematics, quantum mechanics, etc. So it's a very anti-science position, imo, to reject the use of axioms and logic, and just sift through mountains of empirical data, ignoring everything that doesn't match your preconceived notion, until you find something that, if interpreted a certain way does, and then say "See, I'm vindicated". It's pointless because EVERYBODY can vindicate any position that way. Young earth creationists similarly can present empirical data proving they're right.

This post WAS a classic case in point. In the mid 90's, the Democrats said their hands were tied on the economy since the GOP ran the House controlled the government's finances. They predicted the late 90's would be a disaster economically since the GOP shutdown the government, forced massive spending cuts, and refused to raise the debt ceiling. Instead the late 90's were boom years, and so now the same Democrats brag about it and take credit for it. And it ignores the fact that NOBODY should take credit for it since it was just a bubble that exploded soon after so in the end there was no economic growth.

By refusing to accept the use of axioms, logic and reason, Democrats (and Keynesians) will cling to their obviously false conclusion. And I can give you tons of examples where prominent Keynesians, like Paul Krugman, do this ALL THE TIME.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 09:11 AM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
I trained as a pure mathematician.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
03-12-2013, 10:11 AM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 09:11 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I trained as a pure mathematician.

What, Hafnof, you think that means you know anything about axioms, logic, and reason?

Rolleyes

(03-12-2013 08:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You don't understand the concept of axioms, then. Definition: "an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy". So, a true axioms is rarely wrong. It's a bit of fact that you know must be true. And it is a VERY useful.

No, really?

Except economics does not proceed from axioms. Axioms, per your definition, are accepted as true without controversy. Your axioms are not accepted as true without controversy. Hmm.

Different schools of economics begin from different premises and assumptions.

(I give you enough credit to assume you're not just saying, "but my premises are axioms, because they're the true ones")

(03-12-2013 08:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You'll see constantly where Keynesians economists in particular present empirical data and claim it supports a conclusion that logic tells you MUST be wrong.

"Logic". I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Differing premises lead to differing interpretations. That is logic.

(03-12-2013 08:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  But when you give them thought experiments to prove this, the Keynesians always just laugh at the idea of using axioms, logic and reason to understand the economy and stick only to empirical data.

Citation needed.

I mean, Keynesian economics is literally defined as a certain set of premises and theories on the behaviour of economies. I'm fairly sure it would be news to them that they're not using "axioms, logic, and reason". So there's that.

(03-12-2013 08:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  However, in my experience, when you use axioms, logic and reason to analyze empirical data, you'll find that the empirical data usually DOES support the logic and the Keynesians were just looking at it wrong.

"The" logic. Now I'm definitely sure that word does not mean what you think it means.

(but, for future reference: the validity of their premises has not bearing on the logical validity of their analysis)

(03-12-2013 08:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  And, remember, when you defend the anti-axiom position of the Keynesians...

Yeah, Hafnof didn't do that.

(03-12-2013 08:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  ... our modern life is only possible because of axioms since this is the primary tool scientists use to make sense of very complex subjects, like relativity, mathematics, quantum mechanics, etc.

The axioms of science, of course, being derived from analysis of empirical data...

(03-12-2013 08:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  So it's a very anti-science position, imo, to reject the use of axioms and logic,

Yeah, Hafnof didn't do that.

(03-12-2013 08:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  ... and just sift through mountains of empirical data, ignoring everything that doesn't match your preconceived notion, until you find something that, if interpreted a certain way does, and then say "See, I'm vindicated". It's pointless because EVERYBODY can vindicate any position that way. Young earth creationists similarly can present empirical data proving they're right.

And people then publish, discuss, analyse, and pursue those results. Some models may then prove more or less useful or effective.

This is how literally every field of modern study works. I'm not seeing the problem with that?

(03-12-2013 08:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  This post WAS a classic case in point. In the mid 90's, the Democrats said their hands were tied on the economy since the GOP ran the House controlled the government's finances. They predicted the late 90's would be a disaster economically since the GOP shutdown the government, forced massive spending cuts, and refused to raise the debt ceiling. Instead the late 90's were boom years, and so now the same Democrats brag about it and take credit for it. And it ignores the fact that NOBODY should take credit for it since it was just a bubble that exploded soon after so in the end there was no economic growth.

... which has no bearing on the above, but okay.

(03-12-2013 08:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  By refusing to accept the use of axioms, logic and reason, Democrats (and Keynesians) will cling to their obviously false conclusion. And I can give you tons of examples where prominent Keynesians, like Paul Krugman, do this ALL THE TIME.

So, having different axioms is the same as not using logic and reason now, apparently.

Okay, then.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
03-12-2013, 12:11 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 10:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Except economics does not proceed from axioms. Axioms, per your definition, are accepted as true without controversy. Your axioms are not accepted as true without controversy. Hmm.

Wrong, and there's a ton of examples here in this forum to prove it. The last time I used an axiom was here http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid413444

to make the point that when all health insurance companies are universally required to cover routine, planned expenses for every one of their customers, and the insurance companies are required to maintain an 80/20 payout (ie a 25% markup) the insurance company will make more money if those costs rise. Naturally the liberals on this forum defending Obamacare insisted this conclusion was wrong. So I presented a super simple obvious axiom that boiled down to the conclusion that 100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200. Hardly brain surgery. And it fits the definition of an axiom because it is a statement universally understood to be true without controversy. And if I made the statement without any context, so it wasn't proving/disproving a point, everybody would universally agree the axiom is true, and it MUST always be true. But, because I used it prove a point about Obamacare, none of the Obamacare defenders would acknowledge it. I repeatedly asked: “Do you dispute the axiom in my OP?”. Not once did I get an answer. No matter how many times I wrote “why can't you just admit that it's true?”, I could never the Obamacare-defenders to every say if the statement was true or false.

That axiom IS accepted without controversy. If I were to ask Hafnof, or anybody with rudimentary math skills “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200”, they could answer “Yes, it is, and it always will be no matter what”. There IS no controversy around it. That's why it's an axiom. It MUST be true. And then when I point out that they're basing their views on an assumption that defies such a basic axiom, they refuse to address the axiom.

This is a classic case of what happens when debating Keynesians. It's not that Keynesians reject the Austrian's axioms. They just refuse to acknowledge them. Even when the axiom is that obvious and the Keyensians are presenting theories that defy something so basic as simple multiplication, they STILL refuse to adjust their thinking.

Also see: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid401748

I presented a basic spreadsheet showing future value of money. Again, out of context it's irrefutable. But no matter how many times I asked @Carlo “Will you concede that the math and logic are sound and solid?”, he refused to answer. He couldn't find any flaws in my math, or the logic. It WAS uncontroversial. He just didn't like the conclusion, so he refused to address it.

And between us, how many times over and over and over have I asked you basic questions, and you run from them every time without addressing them? If the logic I use were disputed, then you'd gladly point that out. The only reason you run from axioms is because deep down you know they MUST be true, and they reveal a flaw in your premise, but it's easier to ignore the axioms than admit that you're wrong.

(03-12-2013 10:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  (I give you enough credit to assume you're not just saying, "but my premises are axioms, because they're the true ones")

No, to me what makes an axiom true is if you can present it without context, so it's neutral and not being used to refuse anybody's position, and it is universally accepted as true without controversy, THAT makes it a true axiom. My axiom that 100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200 would be universally accepted IF it were presented without context. The only reason it was rejected is because it proved the flaw in liberal's use of “insurance”. Therefore, if someone showed me that my viewpoint violated a basic axiom like that, I would change my viewpoint. I wouldn't just ignore an axiom that was obviously true.

(03-12-2013 10:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 08:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  But when you give them thought experiments to prove this, the Keynesians always just laugh at the idea of using axioms, logic and reason to understand the economy and stick only to empirical data.

Citation needed.

Nobel Keynesian economist Paul Samuelson, considered the father of Keynesian economics, wrote “I tremble for the reputation of my subject” after reading the “exaggerated claims [of Austrian economists] that used to be made in economics for the power of deduction and a priori reasoning.”

I agree that you need to consider empirical data and a posteriori arguments, HOWEVER, axioms and a priori reasoning (like 100kx200>100kx2) are by themselves uncontroversial, and therefore MUST be true, so if you're reaching conclusions that defy such basic uncontroversial axioms, then it requires you relook at the empirical data and see if you can find another way of looking at it that is compatible with axioms.

This is how Einstein did it. The empirical data appeared to contradict his theory of relativity. But by starting with axioms and thought experiments he was able to find another way to look at the empirical data that was compatible with axioms he knew had to be true.

I've found that in every case the empirical data can be interpreted in many different ways, and there are always some interpretations that do not conflict with axioms. But Keynesians reject those interpretations because they don't support their preconceived ideas, therefore they reject the use of axioms and focus purely on finding the empirical data that backs up their beliefs.

(03-12-2013 10:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I mean, Keynesian economics is literally defined as a certain set of premises and theories on the behaviour of economies. I'm fairly sure it would be news to them that they're not using "axioms, logic, and reason".

Nope, it's not news to them. The expressly reject the use of logic and reason. See the quote from Samuelson.

(03-12-2013 10:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The axioms of science, of course, being derived from analysis of empirical data...

What empirical data did Einstein analyze to conclude that we got it all wrong and time is fluid while the speed of light is constant? Try to answer that.

The answer is “NONE”. Because things like that which are so complex (and the economy is like that) are impossible to understand purely by looking at empirical data. Everybody claims the empirical data is on their side. Empirical data can be used to support ANY position at all. Therefore, I look to see who is using logic and reason with the empirical data.

(03-12-2013 10:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  And people then publish, discuss, analyse, and pursue those results. Some models may then prove more or less useful or effective.

This is how literally every field of modern study works. I'm not seeing the problem with that?

Refer again to my exchange with Bucky. He refused to even acknowledge that 100,000x200 was more than 100,000x2. That's not how modern science works. Modern science requires an open mind so that if you've made a conclusion based on a false premise, you must adjust your thinking.

(03-12-2013 08:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  By refusing to accept the use of axioms, logic and reason, Democrats (and Keynesians) will cling to their obviously false conclusion. And I can give you tons of examples where prominent Keynesians, like Paul Krugman, do this ALL THE TIME.

So, having different axioms is the same as not using logic and reason now, apparently.

Okay, then.
[/quote]

No, if there are conflicting axioms, then they're not actually axioms. An axiom is a logical point so uncontroversial that everybody accepts it MUST be true. So, I readily accept ALL axioms. If Keynesians present an axiom, some piece of logic that is uncontroversial and universally understood to be true, I will never reject it. If it something in my viewpoint contradicts such a basic axiom, then that means I have to change my viewpoint—not the other way around where you reject the axiom and stick to your viewpoint.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 12:30 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
My only problem with Democrats is that they can be pussies and give in too much. Ironically Teddy Roosevelt would have had to run on the Democratic ticket if he ran today.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 12:45 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 01:10 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 10:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 09:11 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  I trained as a pure mathematician.

What, Hafnof, you think that means you know anything about axioms, logic, and reason?

Rolleyes

Silly Hafnof. Big Grin

(03-12-2013 08:52 AM)frankksj Wrote:  You don't understand the concept of axioms, then. Definition: "an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy".

No such critter. Like hunting snipes. Tongue

(03-12-2013 10:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  "The" logic. Now I'm definitely sure that word does not mean what you think it means.

(but, for future reference: the validity of their premises has not bearing on the logical validity of their analysis)

Yup. Sound ain't the same as valid. It's fun and interesting to dick with the rules of inference themselves 'cause then you get entirely different logics. Logic programmers threw out the law of the excluded middle a while ago and have replaced it with the the concept of negation as failure. Closed worlds and open worlds and whatnot. Wink

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
03-12-2013, 04:59 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 12:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So I presented a super simple obvious axiom that boiled down to the conclusion that 100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200. Hardly brain surgery. And it fits the definition of an axiom because it is a statement universally understood to be true without controversy

...

That axiom IS accepted without controversy. If I were to ask Hafnof, or anybody with rudimentary math skills “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200”, they could answer “Yes, it is, and it always will be no matter what”. There IS no controversy around it. That's why it's an axiom. It MUST be true. And then when I point out that they're basing their views on an assumption that defies such a basic axiom, they refuse to address the axiom.

...

My axiom that 100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200 would be universally accepted IF it were presented without context.

...

I agree that you need to consider empirical data and a posteriori arguments, HOWEVER, axioms and a priori reasoning (like 100kx200>100kx2) are by themselves uncontroversial, and therefore MUST be true, so if you're reaching conclusions that defy such basic uncontroversial axioms, then it requires you relook at the empirical data and see if you can find another way of looking at it that is compatible with axioms.

What was it someone was saying earlier? Oh, right:
"You don't understand the concepts of axioms, then".

That thing you keep mentioning? That trivial mathematical statement?

That isn't an axiom.

It is a consequence (elementary arithmetic arising as it does from the postulates - axioms, if one prefers - of set theory).

That is a wholly relevant distinction.

(03-12-2013 12:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  This is how Einstein did it. The empirical data appeared to contradict his theory of relativity. But by starting with axioms and thought experiments he was able to find another way to look at the empirical data that was compatible with axioms he knew had to be true.

Yeah. That's not what happened. We'll revisit this in a moment.

(03-12-2013 12:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I've found that in every case the empirical data can be interpreted in many different ways, and there are always some interpretations that do not conflict with axioms. But Keynesians reject those interpretations because they don't support their preconceived ideas, therefore they reject the use of axioms and focus purely on finding the empirical data that backs up their beliefs.

Right then.

Analyses which agree with you are using "axioms".
Analyses which do not are wrong (if indeed they may be called 'analysis', lacking even, as you claim, any application of logic or reason).

I guess I was too charitable when I said I hoped you were better than that.

(03-12-2013 12:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  What empirical data did Einstein analyze to conclude that we got it all wrong and time is fluid while the speed of light is constant? Try to answer that.

Ah! Well. If you will bear with me, I shall gladly do so at some length.

Let us begin by turning to literally the very first sentence of Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity:
A. Einstein Wrote:It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena.

This means nothing less than that then-current theoretical predictions were contradicted by empirical data; it is foundational to the scientific method that where theory and data disagree, theory is wrong (we might call this, "living in reality").

This is referring to certain experiments in electromagnetism and optics, in the years between Maxwell's unifying work (1865) and Einstein's relevant publication (1905). We shall gloss over much of the finer detail, but to establish the topic we note that this concerns moving electromagnetic interaction and the equivalence of phenomena.

Galileo had proposed in his day the "principle of relativity", essentially that no absolute motion can be attributed to observers moving in the same way - whether the two are uniformly 'at rest' or are uniformly moving together is indistinguishable.

Through to Maxwell's day and beyond, electromagnetism was conceived of as propagating through an underlying aetheric medium. This was generally thought to be absolute and immobile. It was Maxwell who had shown that electromagnetism was of the same type as optical interaction - in modern and very anachronistic terms, that photons are the carriers of electromagnetic interaction.

In the late 1800s there was much speculation on the underlying nature of that interaction. Since electromagnetism was waves (as very thoroughly confirmed by Hertz and Heaviside in the 1880s), it must (according to contemporary theories) follow that electromagnetism propagates through a medium, as waves must. This medium was the aether.

There were competing theories for how the aether behaved. Fresnel believed that it was partially dragged. This is refuted by the empirical data of the Michelson-Morley experiments. Stokes believed it was fully dragged. This is refuted by the empirical data resulting from observations of stellar aberration. Lorentz's later thoughts on aether admitted of more useful mathematical models, but were physically untenable, requiring the aether to exert interaction on matter moving through it but yet not in turn be affected.

Mach among others had by now begun to believe that 'absolute' time and space (treating time as a dimension akin to spatial dimensions was an idea then being explored) were meaningless, and that only relative motion was useful. Indeed, the investigation of just what synchronicity meant was of great practical interest at the time - as the whole world was being connected through wired and wireless communication.

Just prior to Einstein's publication, there were therefore several 'known' factors. Electromagnetism was best explained by Maxwell's formulation (as revised by Lorentz), and no existing model of aether was consistent and coherent.

As to light itself - the speed of light did not admit of a privileged rest frame. The speed of light did not change according to motion of the emitting source. The speed of light did not change according to a comoving dragged aether. The speed of light in a medium did not change strictly according to motion of the medium (but did change!). These being observations of empirical data.

Having suppressed the mathematical minutia, we see that the empirical data could not be adequately explained by the then-current theoretical framework. This, then, was the impetus for Einstein to examine the matter, and the framework in which he derived his results.

We may note that Einstein has done here literally the exact thing you say he didn't. He analysed empirical data and attempted to formulate a predictive theory to account for it.

That the speed of light should be taken as an invariant constant was, indeed, axiomatic. But this was emphatically not because it was "self-evident", or reached a priori or ex nihilo in some manner. No one then knew why that should have been, nor why it appeared so, but the consequences of that theoretical background were a better explanation of empirical data.

...

Certainty in physics, however, being a very different matter from certainty in economics.

(03-12-2013 12:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The answer is “NONE”.

*ahem*. See above.

(03-12-2013 12:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Because things like that which are so complex (and the economy is like that) are impossible to understand purely by looking at empirical data. Everybody claims the empirical data is on their side. Empirical data can be used to support ANY position at all. Therefore, I look to see who is using logic and reason with the empirical data.

No shit, Sherlock.

One examines data. One applies analysis. One attempts to explain data from some theoretical framework.

But, it only counts as legitimate when it agrees with you, I guess...

(03-12-2013 12:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Refer again to my exchange with Bucky. He refused to even acknowledge that 100,000x200 was more than 100,000x2. That's not how modern science works. Modern science requires an open mind so that if you've made a conclusion based on a false premise, you must adjust your thinking.

So:
Bucky behaved a certain way,
THEREFORE,
all modern Keynesian economists behave that way.

"Logic".

(03-12-2013 12:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  No, if there are conflicting axioms, then they're not actually axioms.

So, just like in economics, then?

(03-12-2013 12:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  An axiom is a logical point so uncontroversial that everybody accepts it MUST be true. So, I readily accept ALL axioms. If Keynesians present an axiom, some piece of logic that is uncontroversial and universally understood to be true, I will never reject it. If it something in my viewpoint contradicts such a basic axiom, then that means I have to change my viewpoint—not the other way around where you reject the axiom and stick to your viewpoint.




... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
03-12-2013, 06:13 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
@cjlr, please bookmark dictionary.com. You seem to be struggling with understanding basic words in the English language, like 'violence', 'physical force', and now 'axiom'.

Dictionary: axiom: a self-evident truth that requires no proof

Look, I agree that calling “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200” an axiom is, well, an insult to axioms since it's such a basic, primitive statement, and not a theory or logical construct, although it does technically fit the dictionary definition of being a 'self-evident truth'. I agree it's embarrassing to call such basic math an 'axiom' since this stuff SHOULD BE so obvious that it doesn't take pages and pages of debate. HOWEVER, even that incredibly basic, primitive statement was too much for the Obamacare defenders in that thread. No matter how many times I asked if they agreed that “100,000x2 is less than 100,000x200” was accurate, they couldn't muster a response. So if THAT basic axiom was already too advanced, there was no point in getting into REAL axioms.

As far as the way you copy and pasted stuff about the theory of relativity, I don't want to get into a rabbit hole debating this since it's so far off-topic. However, read about Einstein's thought experiment with a clock. There were no instruments precise enough to measure the distortion of time, and nobody had been able to accelerate an object to near the speed of light to see how the mass increased. So, he DID have to use axioms and thought experiments to come up with answers where the empirical data was lacking.

And that's all I've been saying. Consider the post about 'does raising the minimum wage have any influence on the rate of unemployment'. The Keyensians all say 'no' it has zero effect, and they claim the empirical data supports their position because whenever the Federal government raised the minimum wage there was no spike in unemployment. The Keynesians stop right there, and assume lack of correlation proves lack of causation.

Austrians accept the empirical data, but use logic and reason. First, we realize the Keynesians MUST be wrong, because anything times zero is always zero. So, if raising the minimum wage $.50 truly had ZERO effect, you could repeat the process indefinitely and it still would never have any effect. But we know that's not true. Therefore, one can conclude that, assuming you're raising the minimum wage higher than what people are willing to work for (which is the whole point), there must be SOME effect, because otherwise we could just keep doing it and raise the minimum wage to $50/hour. So rather than stopping at the Keynesians conclusion, we dig deeper and apply logic to analyze the empirical data. For example, it's easier to get a minimum wage hike passed when the economy is picking up and unemployment is going down, which makes it impossible to say if the minimum wage affected the unemployment rate or vice-versa. Also, when you consider human behavior you realize it could take many years for a change like that to have an affect. For example, all the owners of parking garages aren't going to immediately fire their cashiers the day the minimum wage law takes effect, but the next time they do major building maintenance, which could be many years away, it gives them an extra incentive to replace the cashiers with an automatic kiosk. Therefore, the lack of a sudden spike in unemployment following a minimum wage hike does NOT prove the Keynesians claim that it has zero effect.

Therefore, the only way to know for sure what effect it has is with a controlled study, meaning you take 2 identical jurisdictions and raise the minimum wage for 1 group, but not for the other, and then fast forward several years and measure unemployment. Of course, it's impossible to do since you can never find 2 perfectly identical jurisdictions. But the closest thing would be to look at the 50 states and compare the minimum wage vs. the unemployment rate. This way you're measuring the cumulative effect that may have taken many years to build, and which cannot be determined from a simple time graph. When you do that, voila, the empirical data DOES actually support the logical axiom. The Keynesians were just looking at the wrong data and failing to understand that correlation!=causation. Keynesians ignore logic and axioms, focusing only on empirical data, and only the data that supports their beliefs since they refuse to address the state-based empirical data which the Austrians present. They ignore that empirical data, and ONLY consider the empirical data that DOES support their view. By contrast, the Austrians try to reconcile the empirical data with axioms and logic. That is how Einstein and other scientists work.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 06:17 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 12:45 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  No such critter. Like hunting snipes. Tongue

there are so snipes. Tongue


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 06:25 PM
RE: The Case for Voting Democrat
(03-12-2013 06:17 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 12:45 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  No such critter. Like hunting snipes. Tongue

there are so snipes. Tongue

Hey now. No fair bringing facts in and shit. You sound like cjlr. Tongue

[Image: snipe.jpg]

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: