Pragmatarian Discussion Thread

[Xerographica]

Of course it's possible that my perspective is faulty. This is the very point of asking an expert to share their own perspective. You can't even name a single expert that you've asked about this topic , despite the fact that you've been debating it for several years.

I don't know an economics professor. I did go through it with a psychology professor. And it blew up.

You don't need to know an economics professor to ask him a question. Here are UCLA economics professors. Go ahead and ask them whether there's any evidence that BV is better than DV at ranking things.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

For question one.. not hard at all but a. I can see plenty of examples that your system is wrong and b. you've done it with little if not no response.. I have a sample of experts who do not think it a useful use of their time.

X = your perspective on my system
Y = the expert perspective on my system

Do you not realize that there's a big disparity between X and Y? If you don't realize this, then either reread the OP or actually talk to some experts.

For question two.. why do you think the charity with the most donations is the most useful when it's the Roman Catholic Church? A religion.. oh the irony!

So ask some experts whether we should use BV rather than DV to rank non-profits.

This is hilarious "well you're not an expert so you don't have anything on me!"

This is not even an argument. This is just desperation.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I don't know an economics professor. I did go through it with a psychology professor. And it blew up.

You don't need to know an economics professor to ask him a question. Here are UCLA economics professors. Go ahead and ask them whether there's any evidence that BV is better than DV at ranking things.

Stop dodging.

[Xerographica]

7 years ago.. viewtopic.php?p=15309978#p15309978

You're not an economist. Go ahead and ask an economist whether there's any evidence that BV is better than DV at ranking things.

[Washington Resistance Army]

7 years ago.. viewtopic.php?p=15309978#p15309978

You're not an economist. Go ahead and ask an economist whether there's any evidence that BV is better than DV at ranking things.

This isn't an economic problem though. It's comparing ways of voting.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

7 years ago.. viewtopic.php?p=15309978#p15309978

You're not an economist. Go ahead and ask an economist whether there's any evidence that BV is better than DV at ranking things.

Ohohohohoh why did I think you'd move the goalposts again?!

"Oh you are an expert, yes, but you're not an economics expert"

Why do you keep moving the goalposts?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

7 years ago.. viewtopic.php?p=15309978#p15309978

To be frank, he would dismiss you even if you proved to be an economics expert.

Because this isn't about the experts.

[Infected Mushroom]

You're not an economist. Go ahead and ask an economist whether there's any evidence that BV is better than DV at ranking things.

This isn't an economic problem though. It's comparing ways of voting.

Voting is fundamentally about the allocation of resources. Its intrinsically tied. This falls within the domain of Economics.

Hence, consulting economic experts on this makes sense.

[Washington Resistance Army]

This isn't an economic problem though. It's comparing ways of voting.

Voting is fundamentally about the allocation of resources. Its intrinsically tied. This falls within the domain of Economics.

Hence, consulting economic experts on this makes sense.

As always Kefka you're wrong about everything.

[Xerographica]

You're not an economist. Go ahead and ask an economist whether there's any evidence that BV is better than DV at ranking things.

This isn't an economic problem though. It's comparing ways of voting.

Is foot voting about economics?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This isn't an economic problem though. It's comparing ways of voting.

Voting is fundamentally about the allocation of resources. Its intrinsically tied. This falls within the domain of Economics.

Hence, consulting economic experts on this makes sense.

It really kinda doesn't.

Economics is the allocation of resources, sure, but they are more preoccupied with monetary and physical allocation of resources, not allocation of logical decisions (logical in the sense that they belong to the realm of the mind).

That belongs to a lot of other fields, but not economics. Because ideas are not a tangible currency.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This isn't an economic problem though. It's comparing ways of voting.

Is foot voting about economics?

That paper doesn't say what you think it says.

[Xerographica]

Is foot voting about economics?

That paper doesn't say what you think it says.

What does it say?

[Bombadil]

7 years ago.. viewtopic.php?p=15309978#p15309978

You're not an economist. Go ahead and ask an economist whether there's any evidence that BV is better than DV at ranking things.

I'm not commenting on economy.. why is that field de facto? I'm commenting on why there's enough evidence to prove you wrong:

Real life examples
NSG experiment
No expert you've asked is bothered to answer
Human behaviour

On the last I know that people can recognise the right thing to do but act contrary to that when put to the test.

So do you, I'll vote Citizen Kane but fuck it, I'm watching The Flintstones II - Viva Rock Vegas, I know Wealth of Nations is a better book but.. is there really bondage in 50 Shades of Grey?

So I don't need an economist here.

[Infected Mushroom]

Voting is fundamentally about the allocation of resources. Its intrinsically tied. This falls within the domain of Economics.

Hence, consulting economic experts on this makes sense.

It really kinda doesn't.

Economics is the allocation of resources, sure, but they are more preoccupied with monetary and physical allocation of resources, not allocation of logical decisions (logical in the sense that they belong to the realm of the mind).

That belongs to a lot of other fields, but not economics. Because ideas are not a tangible currency.

Politics fundamentally comes down to economics though. The scarcity of economic resources is what necessitates politics (otherwise we would all share and be happy happy and no one need to have power). Its essentially how we set up the central economic agency in every single country. The White House, the Kremlin, the CCP etc... they are all fundamentally economic bodies. We call it "politics" as if it somehow elevates it to a separate spheres but what do these people do? They sit down, and make the rules about how to cut up the pie. And they have the guns to enforce their decisions (and a ton of propaganda).

Essentially it makes sense that political science should be submerged under economics, except the political science academics would throw up a tantrum since it would affect their self interests.

[Galloism]

I don't know an economics professor. I did go through it with a psychology professor. And it blew up.

You don't need to know an economics professor to ask him a question. Here are UCLA economics professors. Go ahead and ask them whether there's any evidence that BV is better than DV at ranking things.

How many economics professors have ever answered you Xero?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That paper doesn't say what you think it says.

What does it say?

It's talking about federal expenditures vs local expenditures.

It's not focusing on foot voting. And it most definitely isn't trying to prove foot voting is better than whatever other voting system there is.

It's merely trying to prove or disprove whether or not local expenditures need to follow the Musgrave-Samuelson analysis in the same way federal expenditures do nd it offers rationale for their arguments.

This has nothing to do with foot voting, in fact it doesn't even mention it at all in the PDF. I know, I did a word search on the document for any term that means "foot".

[Xerographica]

You're not an economist. Go ahead and ask an economist whether there's any evidence that BV is better than DV at ranking things.

I'm not commenting on economy.. why is that field de facto? I'm commenting on why there's enough evidence to prove you wrong:

Real life examples
NSG experiment
No expert you've asked is bothered to answer
Human behaviour

On the last I know that people can recognise the right thing to do but act contrary to that when put to the test.

So do you, I'll vote Citizen Kane but fuck it, I'm watching The Flintstones II - Viva Rock Vegas, I know Wealth of Nations is a better book but.. is there really bondage in 50 Shades of Grey?

So I don't need an economist here.

This thread, like most of my threads, is about economics. So yeah, if you want to check and see if your perspective on the topic is correct, then it would behoove you to consult an economist.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It really kinda doesn't.

Economics is the allocation of resources, sure, but they are more preoccupied with monetary and physical allocation of resources, not allocation of logical decisions (logical in the sense that they belong to the realm of the mind).

That belongs to a lot of other fields, but not economics. Because ideas are not a tangible currency.

Politics fundamentally comes down to economics though. The scarcity of economic resources is what necessitates politics (otherwise we would all share and be happy happy and no one need to have power). Its essentially how we set up the central economic agency in every single country. The White House, the Kremlin, the CCP etc... they are all fundamentally economic bodies. We call it "politics" as if it somehow elevates it to a separate spheres but what do these people do? They sit down, and make the rules about how to cut up the pie. And they have the guns to enforce their decisions (and a ton of propaganda).

Essentially it makes sense that political science should be submerged under economics, except the political science academics would throw up a tantrum since it would affect their self interests.

No, politics is the way people make decisions.

Economics is how money moves.

You have to separate them because economic resources are not the same as people's voting choices.

You're trying to compare apples and oranges and declaring we must make a hybrid monstrosity out of them.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm not commenting on economy.. why is that field de facto? I'm commenting on why there's enough evidence to prove you wrong:

Real life examples
NSG experiment
No expert you've asked is bothered to answer
Human behaviour

On the last I know that people can recognise the right thing to do but act contrary to that when put to the test.

So do you, I'll vote Citizen Kane but fuck it, I'm watching The Flintstones II - Viva Rock Vegas, I know Wealth of Nations is a better book but.. is there really bondage in 50 Shades of Grey?

So I don't need an economist here.

This thread, like most of my threads, is about economics. So yeah, if you want to check and see if your perspective on the topic is correct, then it would behoove you to consult an economist.

I love how you think we have to do your work for you.

Also, I love those goalposts moving.

[Infected Mushroom]

Politics fundamentally comes down to economics though. The scarcity of economic resources is what necessitates politics (otherwise we would all share and be happy happy and no one need to have power). Its essentially how we set up the central economic agency in every single country. The White House, the Kremlin, the CCP etc... they are all fundamentally economic bodies. We call it "politics" as if it somehow elevates it to a separate spheres but what do these people do? They sit down, and make the rules about how to cut up the pie. And they have the guns to enforce their decisions (and a ton of propaganda).

Essentially it makes sense that political science should be submerged under economics, except the political science academics would throw up a tantrum since it would affect their self interests.

No, politics is the way people make decisions.

Economics is how money moves.

You have to separate them because economic resources are not the same as people's voting choices.

You're trying to compare apples and oranges and declaring we must make a hybrid monstrosity out of them.

Economics is more then how "money" moves. Money is a medium of exchange. Economics is about the broader science regarding the problem of scarcity and the allocation of limited resources.

Politics is about how people make decisions... ABOUT LIMITED ECONOMIC RESOURCES. Everything fundamentally has an economic dimension to it. Even something like equality rights has an economic calculation attached to it.

Why did it take so long to get rid of slavery? Economics.

[Xerographica]

You don't need to know an economics professor to ask him a question. Here are UCLA economics professors. Go ahead and ask them whether there's any evidence that BV is better than DV at ranking things.

How many economics professors have ever answered you Xero?

Several. If you need proof, then here you go.

[Xerographica]

What does it say?

It's talking about federal expenditures vs local expenditures.

It's not focusing on foot voting. And it most definitely isn't trying to prove foot voting is better than whatever other voting system there is.

It's merely trying to prove or disprove whether or not local expenditures need to follow the Musgrave-Samuelson analysis in the same way federal expenditures do nd it offers rationale for their arguments.

This has nothing to do with foot voting, in fact it doesn't even mention it at all in the PDF. I know, I did a word search on the document for any term that means "foot".

So the Tiebout model has absolutely nothing to do with foot voting? What, exactly, do you think foot voting is?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, politics is the way people make decisions.

Economics is how money moves.

You have to separate them because economic resources are not the same as people's voting choices.

You're trying to compare apples and oranges and declaring we must make a hybrid monstrosity out of them.

Economics is more then how "money" moves. Money is a medium of exchange. Economics is about the broader science regarding the problem of scarcity and the allocation of limited resources.

Politics is about how people make decisions... ABOUT LIMITED ECONOMIC RESOURCES. Everything fundamentally has an economic dimension to it. Even something like equality rights has an economic calculation attached to it.

Why did it take so long to get rid of slavery? Economics.

Yes, but your argument essentially is like saying that because routers make decisions about routing packets, that people who work in networking should also know how to design and engineer a router.

That's just daft.

[Galloism]

How many economics professors have ever answered you Xero?

Several. If you need proof, then here you go.

Huh, an economist seems to be arguing you're wrong about what is an is not a market.

Well, that is someone.