Pragmatarian Discussion Thread

[Galloism]

Nana says she loves you and you can marry both of us.

Did we ever get an answer on the Rothbard thing?

No. I asked nicely and everything.

But it’s 99% likely to be bullshit, so we’ll never hear of it again.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Doing taxes for a living isn't the same thing as studying public finance. Because I have studied public finance I know for a fact that Galloism has not.

Considering all the bullshit you have spewn on this thread, I don't believe you have studied public finance at all.

[Galloism]

Doing taxes for a living isn't the same thing as studying public finance. Because I have studied public finance I know for a fact that Galloism has not.

Given I had to explain to you how the government is structured, how budgets work, how directors are confirmed, appointed, and removed, how funds are treated, who owns them, who holds them, and how they're distributed, I can only conclude you paid as much attention when studying public finance as you did when studying economics.

[Herador]

Why is it dumb for people to find expert testimony that supports their own beliefs? Are you arguing that everybody in this thread is agnostic?

It's not, demanding they do or their criticism isn't valid is.

LOL. Do you think I'm forcing you to take my word for it? Did I expressly forbid you from contacting those experts yourself? Uh, nope. If you think that I'm lying, go ahead and e-mail them.

If you aren't trying to convince people with it, why bother? This whole thread seems like an exercise in wasting time.

Doing taxes for a living isn't the same thing as studying public finance. Because I have studied public finance I know for a fact that Galloism has not. Yet, he is one of my most outspoken opponents. It's not a coincidence that he doesn't think it's necessary to e-mail subject matter experts.

I can't speak for him, but maybe he can't be bothered to find your proof for you?

It really seems like you have a blatant double standard.

The burden of proof isn't a double standard. If they want to go off and do the same, bully for them they can go nuts, but they don't have to. You, on the other hand, do need to provide some sort of compelling evidence, in this case, expert testimony seems to be your thing.

First you told me that I should e-mail experts myself because it wasn't that difficult to do. Now you're arguing that my opponents should not have e-mail experts themselves. Why shouldn't they have to make a little effort to substantiate their own beliefs?

Because the burden of proof is on you.

There should only be one standard... in all cases you should make the effort to substantiate your beliefs. This means asking the subject matter experts.

I don't think you understand how this works. The onus is on you to prove your case/provide evidence, not them.

My opponents believe that BV is sometimes more effective than DV at ranking things. Therefore, they should substantiate their beliefs by asking the subject matter experts. Like you yourself said, it's not that difficult to do.

No, they don't have to, you on the other hand do. The claim is yours and you've made a deal out of this expert testimony, so it's yours to provide, not there's.

[Herador]

Doing taxes for a living isn't the same thing as studying public finance. Because I have studied public finance I know for a fact that Galloism has not.

Given I had to explain to you how the government is structured, how budgets work, how directors are confirmed, appointed, and removed, how funds are treated, who owns them, who holds them, and how they're distributed, I can only conclude you paid as much attention when studying public finance as you did when studying economics.

Doing taxes for a living isn't the same thing as studying public finance. Because I have studied public finance I know for a fact that Galloism has not.

Considering all the bullshit you have spewn on this thread, I don't believe you have studied public finance at all.

Well, now I don't have to guess Gallo's position on what you said.

Savage.

[The Holy Therns]

Doing taxes for a living isn't the same thing as studying public finance. Because I have studied public finance I know for a fact that Galloism has not. Yet, he is one of my most outspoken opponents. It's not a coincidence that he doesn't think it's necessary to e-mail subject matter experts.

I suppose. One has to know things and the other has to learn things.

[Xerographica]

My opponents believe that BV is sometimes more effective than DV at ranking things. Therefore, they should substantiate their beliefs by asking the subject matter experts. Like you yourself said, it's not that difficult to do.

No, they don't have to, you on the other hand do. The claim is yours and you've made a deal out of this expert testimony, so it's yours to provide, not there's.

My opponents claim that sometimes BV is better than DV at ranking things. Why, exactly, do they not have to support their claim with expert testimony? You already acknowledged that doing so isn't difficult.

[Herador]

Doing taxes for a living isn't the same thing as studying public finance. Because I have studied public finance I know for a fact that Galloism has not.

Given I had to explain to you how the government is structured, how budgets work, how directors are confirmed, appointed, and removed, how funds are treated, who owns them, who holds them, and how they're distributed, I can only conclude you paid as much attention when studying public finance as you did when studying economics.

Double take on this one. Remember when I said that a person can provide valid criticism without expert opinion?

This right here proves it. Underline mine.

My opponents claim that sometimes BV is better than DV at ranking things. Why, exactly, do they not have to support their claim with expert testimony? You already acknowledged that doing so isn't difficult.

I don't know how I can more simply explain the burden of proof to you. They don't have to provide evidence, you do, that's the long and short of it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, they don't have to, you on the other hand do. The claim is yours and you've made a deal out of this expert testimony, so it's yours to provide, not there's.

My opponents claim that sometimes BV is better than DV at ranking things. Why, exactly, do they not have to support their claim with expert testimony? You already acknowledged that doing so isn't difficult.

We have not claimed BV is better than DV at claiming anything.

We have just said your system sucks, repeatedly, over the course of years.

[Xerographica]

My opponents claim that sometimes BV is better than DV at ranking things. Why, exactly, do they not have to support their claim with expert testimony? You already acknowledged that doing so isn't difficult.

I don't know how I can more simply explain the burden of proof to you.

I claim that BV is never more effective than DV at ranking things. My opponents claim that BV is sometimes more effective than DV at ranking things. You said that it isn't difficult to e-mail the experts. I agree, which is why I have done so. My opponents, on the other hand, have not done so. Why is that?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I don't know how I can more simply explain the burden of proof to you.

I claim that BV is never more effective than DV at ranking things. My opponents claim that BV is sometimes more effective than DV at ranking things. You said that it isn't difficult to e-mail the experts. I agree, which is why I have done so. My opponents, on the other hand, have not done so. Why is that?

Because we have a good understanding how both methods of voting work?

Unlike you, we can read about a subject we're talking about.

[Herador]

I don't know how I can more simply explain the burden of proof to you.

I claim that BV is never more effective than DV at ranking things. My opponents claim that BV is sometimes more effective than DV at ranking things. You said that it isn't difficult to e-mail the experts. I agree, which is why I have done so. My opponents, on the other hand, have not done so. Why is that?

Because they don't have to and you haven't provided this correspondence to be verified, in your own words "LOL. Do you think I'm forcing you to take my word for it?" so it seems like you don't actually care if we believe it or not.

They don't have to, neither do you but you have chosen to lean on it and called out for not having it.

Also there's this, the changes to the quote are mine.

We have not claimed BV is better than DV at claiming anything.

They can argue against you all they want without evidence, the burden isn't their's to provide it. If their arguments are so weak that they need an expert to back them, why haven't you, someone apparently well educated in this field, refuted them?

Why has Gallo apparently had to explain so much to you?

[Xerographica]

I claim that BV is never more effective than DV at ranking things. My opponents claim that BV is sometimes more effective than DV at ranking things. You said that it isn't difficult to e-mail the experts. I agree, which is why I have done so. My opponents, on the other hand, have not done so. Why is that?

Because they don't have to and you haven't provided this correspondence to be verified, in your own words "LOL. Do you think I'm forcing you to take my word for it?" so it seems like you don't actually care if we believe it or not.

I said that, if you think I'm a liar, then all you have to do is e-mail the experts yourself.

They don't have to, neither do you but you have chosen to lean on it and called out for not having it.

They don't have to, but they should. You already said that it isn't difficult to e-mail experts. Would you like to retract this statement?

[Xerographica]

I claim that BV is never more effective than DV at ranking things. My opponents claim that BV is sometimes more effective than DV at ranking things. You said that it isn't difficult to e-mail the experts. I agree, which is why I have done so. My opponents, on the other hand, have not done so. Why is that?

Because we have a good understanding how both methods of voting work?

Unlike you, we can read about a subject we're talking about.

If you've read somewhere that BV is sometimes better than DV at ranking things, then why haven't you shared the quote?

[Herador]

I said that, if you think I'm a liar, then all you have to do is e-mail the experts yourself.

Which isn't their problem, so your claims remain baseless, don't get fussy at other people because they won't finish your work for you.

They don't have to, but they should.

No, they shouldn't. It isn't their problem to do it, it's yours. If you can't be bothered that says more about you than the people you are arguing with.

You already said that it isn't difficult to e-mail experts. Would you like to retract this statement?

Maybe, your stubborn refusal to actually do it is making me think most people might actually find this a difficult task.

[Xerographica]

I said that, if you think I'm a liar, then all you have to do is e-mail the experts yourself.

Which isn't their problem, so your claims remain baseless, don't get fussy at other people because they won't finish your work for you.

They don't have to, but they should.

No, they shouldn't. It isn't their problem to do it, it's yours. If you can't be bothered that says more about you than the people you are arguing with.

You already said that it isn't difficult to e-mail experts. Would you like to retract this statement?

Maybe, your stubborn refusal to actually do it is making me think most people might actually find this a difficult task.

Why are you under the impression that I'm refusing to e-mail experts when I've already shared evidence with you that I've done so?

[Herador]

Why are you under the impression that I'm refusing to e-mail experts when I've already shared evidence with you that I've done so?

You know, in the time it took you to post I actually emailed an expert of my own.

Lol, this fool crazy -Paul Krugman

This is equally valid when compared to any proof you have provided of any kind of exchange.

[Xerographica]

Why are you under the impression that I'm refusing to e-mail experts when I've already shared evidence with you that I've done so?

You know, in the time it took you to post I actually emailed an expert of my own.

Lol, this fool crazy -Paul Krugman

This is equally valid when compared to any proof you have provided of any kind of exchange.

Please link me to the page where you found Krugman's e-mail address.

[Herador]

You know, in the time it took you to post I actually emailed an expert of my own.



This is equally valid when compared to any proof you have provided of any kind of exchange.

Please link me to the page where you found Krugman's e-mail address.

Nah, wouldn't want to give it to just anyone. He's a good buddy of mine and I wouldn't just send that out into the wild.

I decided to do it.

Shoot him an email at this_totally_isn't_fake@gmail.com

I promise it won't be me on the other side.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because we have a good understanding how both methods of voting work?

Unlike you, we can read about a subject we're talking about.

If you've read somewhere that BV is sometimes better than DV at ranking things, then why haven't you shared the quote?

I haven't read BV is better than DV at ranking anything.

I have read both BV and DV and how they work and have come to my own conclusions about both systems myself.

I don't need an expert to make an opinion for me when I can read about both systems and come to my own conclusions.

[Xerographica]

If you've read somewhere that BV is sometimes better than DV at ranking things, then why haven't you shared the quote?

I haven't read BV is better than DV at ranking anything.

I have read both BV and DV and how they work and have come to my own conclusions about both systems myself.

I don't need an expert to make an opinion for me when I can read about both systems and come to my own conclusions.

Nobody is saying that you need an expert to make your opinion for you. I'm just saying that it's a good idea to have an expert "grade" your work. If they give you a good grade, then this doesn't mean that you're right, it just provides some support for your opinion. If, on the other hand, they give you a bad grade, then this doesn't mean that you're wrong, it just doesn't provide any support for your opinion.

Earlier you shared this...

I love how Xero keeps quoting relevant people who agree with him, so here's an excerpt by Sen which very much is on point on what happened the last three test between me and Xero:

There is another non-empirical- and possibly simpler-reason why the conception of man in economic models tends to be that of a self-seek- ing egoist. It is possible to define a person's interests in such a way that no matter what he does he can be seen to be furthering his own interests in every isolated act of choice.⁹ While formalized relatively recently in the context of the theory of revealed preference, this approach is of respectable antiquity, and Joseph Butler was already arguing against it in the Rolls Chapel two and a half centuries ago. The reduction of man to a self-seeking animal depends in this approach on careful definition. If you are observed to choose x rejecting y, you are declared to have "revealed" a preference for x over y. Your personal utility is then defined as simply a numerical representation of this "preference," assigning a higher utility to a "preferred" alternative. With this set of definitions you can hardly escape maximizing your own utility, except through inconsistency. Of course, if you choose x and reject y on one occasion and then promptly proceed to do the exact opposite, you can prevent the revealed preference theorist from assigning a preference ordering to you, thereby restraining him from stamping a utility function on you which you must be seen to be maximizing. He will then have to conclude that either you are inconsistent or your preferences are changing. You can frustrate the revealed-preference theorist through more sophisticated inconsistencies as well. But if you are consistent, then no matter whether you are a single-minded egoist or a raving altruist or a class conscious militant, you will appear to be maximizing your own utility in this enchanted world of definitions. Borrowing from the terminology used in connection with taxation, if the Arrow-Hahn justification of the assumption of egoism amounts to an avoidance of the issue, the revealed preference approach looks more like a robust piece of evasion.

9. If a person's actions today affect his well-being in the future, then under this approach his future interests must be defined in terms of the way they are assessed today. In general, there is no reason to presume that the future interests as assessed today will coincide with those interests as assessed in the future. This adds an additional dimension to the problem, and I am grateful to Derek Parfit for convincing me of the conceptual importance of this question. Io. J. Butler, Fifteen Sermons Preached at the Rolls Chapel (London, 1726); see also T. Nagel, The Possibility of Altruism (Oxford, 1970), p. 8I.

I think you see this as a refutation of Samuelson's revealed preference approach. Except, compare Sen's passage to Buchanan's passage that I shared with you in the previous thread...

Individuals do not act so as to maximize utilities described in independently existing functions. They confront genuine choices, and the sequence of decisions taken may be conceptualized, ex post (after the choices), in terms of "as if" functions that are maximized. But these "as if" functions are, themselves, generated in the choosing process, not separately from such process. If viewed in this perspective, there is no means by which even the most idealized omniscient designer could duplicate the results of voluntary interchange. The potential participants do not know until they enter the process what their own choices will be. From this it follows that it is logically impossible for an omniscient designer to know, unless, of course, we are to preclude individual freedom of will. - James M. Buchanan, Order Defined in the Process of its Emergence

Who is Buchanan arguing against? Who is he disputing?

Earlier in this thread I shared this quote from Rothbard...

One of the most absurd procedures based on a constancy assumption has been the attempt to arrive at a consumer’s preference scale . . . Through quizzing him by questionnaires. In vacuo, a few consumers are questioned at length on which abstract bundle of hypothetical commodities they would prefer to another abstract bundle, etc. Not only does this suffer from the constancy error, no assurance can be attached to the mere questioning of people. Not only will a person’s valuations differ when talking about them than when he is actually choosing, but there is also no guarantee that he is telling the truth. - Murray Rothbard, Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics

Just before this he wrote...

“Revealed preference”—preference revealed through choice—would have been an apt term for our concept [of demonstrated preference]. It has, however, been preempted by Samuelson for a seemingly similar but actually quite different concept of his own. The critical difference is this: Samuelson assumes the existence of an underlying preference scale that forms the basis of a man’s actions and that remains constant in the course of his actions over time. Samuelson then uses complex mathematical procedures in an attempt to “map” the individual’s preference scale on the basis of his numerous actions.

What was Samuelson's objective?

The Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many skeptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive. - Paul Samuelson

Samuelson genuinely believed that markets aren't necessary. He was great at math but terrible at economics. His concept of "revealed preference" was critiqued by Rothbard, Buchanan, Sen and all the other economists who had at least half a brain.

So personally I'd give your work a "D". But maybe I'm wrong. So it's a good idea to also have your work graded by subject matter experts.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So personally I'd give your work a "D". But maybe I'm wrong. So it's a good idea to also have your work graded by subject matter experts.

A "D" coming from Mr. "I don't know shit about economics but totally trust me guys I went to school for public finance" means nothing to me.

[Xerographica]

So personally I'd give your work a "D". But maybe I'm wrong. So it's a good idea to also have your work graded by subject matter experts.

A "D" coming from Mr. "I don't know shit about economics but totally trust me guys I went to school for public finance" means nothing to me.

So find somebody whose opinion you trust and ask them to grade your work.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Samuelson genuinely believed that markets aren't necessary. He was great at math but terrible at economics. His concept of "revealed preference" was critiqued by Rothbard, Buchanan, Sen and all the other economists who had at least half a brain.

Your concept and his concept are not that different either.

Yours is simply trying to do so in another way, so do provide a proof that your system is not simply a copy-paste of Samuelson's revealed preference.

[Galloism]

A "D" coming from Mr. "I don't know shit about economics but totally trust me guys I went to school for public finance" means nothing to me.

So find somebody whose opinion you trust and ask them to grade your work.

I'll give him a B+.