(He says that gold is currency, but that's not actually the case. Gold is money and can be made into currency, or as a backing of currency, like the old dollar.)

As a clinical psychologist, I'll say that this comes as no surprise.

*promote

While the climate is complicated, the climate science is not. The U.S. winter temperatures plummeted from 1950 to 1979. The scientists reacted to this with a "global cooling" scare, as reported by Science News in 1975 (PDF). As such, NASA warned of a new ice age by the year 2020. Then, after 1979, temperatures got much warmer, so NASA's James Hansen began the global warming scare (PDF).

But after the year 2000, temperatures began to plummet again. So NASA and NOAA responded with the only sensible solution. They altered the data to eliminate the earlier warmth and the current cooling.

But that wasn't sufficient for keeping up with the cooling temperatures, so they renamed "global warming" as "climate change."

It is for these and other reasons that climate science undercuts its efforts with fraudulence.

the sympathetic nervous system is in charge of more than just fight or flight: Fight/Flight/Fuck/Freeze

*brain

> "Sorry, once again you're completely wrong and making shit up."

No, you are wrong and making things up.

> "I never said any of that at all."

You never said any of what you wrote?

> "I challenge you to prove me wrong"

Yes, you are wrong.

> "D'OH!"

What's that all about? Homer Simpson or something?

> "I came back for more because you bold faced lied about me in a public
> thread"

Did not.

> "Why have you continued to come back for more time and time again after at
> least 3 times stating you were 'bored'"

Because you are entertaining. You do get boring here and there, true, but stuff like the "move to Somalia" that's entertaining.

> "you didn't read most of my posts"

I read some of your replies, even if I don't take them seriously.

> "'done with this thread'"

Did I say that? (to paraphrase that cop, if Obama can say we are out of Iraq and then come back, why can't I?)

> "(proving you a liar)"

No, you're the liar.

> "I think most of those following this thread have seen which of us is wrong,
> angry, and frustrated, and it ain't me buddy."

I don't know who is or isn't following the thread, and I don't really care or know if anyone following cares. You obviously do, attention seeker that you are.

> "I feel the need to ask, did you get a number of good temporary tattoos
> before you got that 'diploma'? (It sure is seeming more and more like you got
> it from a Cracker Jack box, your complete lack of reading comprehension
> makes it seem unlikely you could have 'earned' one)"

This is the kind of ridiculous statement that makes you "funny." Keep it up.

Videosift is clearly not the forum on which to teach economics (let alone philosophy or epistemology), but suffice it to say that logic applies to economics, just as it applies to geometry, and the other natural sciences.

Economics follows axiomatic-deduction. Human behavior is too complex to treat empirically (thereby precluding experiments that would be similar to, say, chemistry, which replicates the same results over and over again). With economics, such experiments are impossible because there are too many variables for which there are no controls, so therefore, a deductive approach is used, like with geometry which, if you recall, experiments aren't conducted in geometry, but logical deductions are made based on self-evident axioms.

This is in contrast to what, say, econometricians do. They try to make economics into an empirical science, like physics or chemistry and so they focus on the "science" and ignore the "social" in "social science."

Hermeneuticians/rhetorician on the other hand, ignore the "science" and focus on the "social."
Economics cannot be properly studied as a natural empirical science, but it also cannot be properly studied as rhetoric.

Deductive rationalism is the best fit for economic study.

No one is talking about a comprehensive view of everything relating to the world. But with economics, like geometry, and the other natural sciences for that matter, yes, they follow logic and rationalism. Rational theories are necessary to make sense of the data.


That you seem to understand nothing about it is a completely different issue.

Is that some kind of attempt to pick a fight? Ignore the argument and attack the man? "Let me know how that works out for ya."

Economics is not a matter of faith. It's a matter of rationality. Logic. The laws of geometry do not change on the basis of one's interpretation. Same is true in economics. As such, one can apply this logic in the absence of any particular belief system. I cite Mises' book because it lays out, in a clear and understandable way, why this is so. But you can read others on the topic (e.g., Hazlitt, Hayek, and Rothbard), as I am not attached to any sort of "fundamentalism" despite your attempts to depict me as such. But so long as you (or anyone) believes they're going to gain any understanding or insight or ability to parse the type of rhetoric demonstrated in this video, then the confusion and suffering that it propagates will continue. I assure you, nowhere in the text I linked (nor in any of the work of the authors I've cited) have addressed, specifically, the "babysitter economy" or the "prison camp economy," and yet, somehow I've pointed out the flaws in the postulated arguments here (flaws, I might add, you chose to ignore, opting instead to engage in a diatribe about me personally).

I could care less if you or anyone on videosift likes me as a person, but stupidity can be addressed with education. Willful ignorance, on other hand, cannot be helped.

Haha!

If everyone's a babysitter, well, that's not a genuine division of labor, is it? And if money can only buy babysitting, well, that's not really money, is it?

And free markets don't work by agreeing through contract how much a currency will buy. If you restrict currency to one "babysitting" unit only, then, of course you'll have problems. You don't need to "print" more of these tokens. Deflation will invariably take place instead in an actual market, not in one where you have to contractually "centrally control" the value of each token.

And of course, a prison camp is not a free market. No entrepreneur can simply start supplying the goods and services needed.

The prison camp does not represent a "free economy," but only a prison camp economy.

I don't think either of those two examples are useful in any real way, but what exactly did you think you'd learn from them?

This isn't "how an economy works," but it's maybe how a non-divisible "currency" works in a one product/service "market;" or how a food embargo works.

P.S. If you really want to understand how economies work, you should read Mises' "Human Action" (PDF) and stop being lazy, thinking you'll learn something from these short youtube videos. (Once you hear Krugman mentioned, it's enough to know that everything that follows is about as rooted in reality as a kindergartner's fingerpaintings.)

This video's always worth revisiting...