Well, I'm taking an economics class at my college again (Microeconomics), and wow...The stupidity is rather painful.
Here are a few gems I've encountered in the first two days of lecture and from the first chapter of my textbook alone.
In red will be the gems, in blue ()'s will be my thoughts/mental response to them.
Unless otherwise stated, the stuff from the Prof will be paraphrased, and the stuff from the textbook will be exact quotes.
Prof: "I don't care what you think; you could be the most liberal liberal, or the most conservative conservative, but as long as you are able to present an educated opinion, that's what counts."
(Which must be why his opinion and what the textbook says is what is on the tests... Also, false dichotomy much? Finally, opinion? I'm sorry, but do biologists debate about whether evolution is a fact or not? Yeah. This is why people often say the social sciences aren't science.)
My textbook: "Supporters of the (minimum wage) law believe that the losses to employers and to workers who are unemployed as a result of the law are more than off by the gains to workers who receive higher wages than they would without the law. Opponents of the law believe the losses are greater than the gains. The assessment by any individual depends, in part, on that person's values and political views. The positive analysis an economist provides would play a role in the decision but can't by itself decide the issue one way or the other."
(Citation needed on that bit of higher than would be wages from the minimum wage law. Gotta love how it ignores over 75 years of economic research, just to make it appear as an opinion issue...Can you imagine a biology textbook doing this? Also, gotta love how they explained in detail the law supporter's position, but pretty much blew off the opposition's...)
Prof: "Cash is what gets you through the tough times. For example, people might buy something at lower cost, and sell it at a higher cost, like a house or a boat. Many people believe that hard assets like housing, gold, and other precious metals are what get you through the hard times; that their prices will always increase with inflation. I'm not one of them. Simply because it hasn't held well for housing."
(Where to begin...Conflicting ideas for one, and other, so...government fucked up prices using fiat currency among other things on housing, therefore gold and silver aren't that good. WTF? Non sequiter (sp?), over-generalization, AND a demonstration of a weak understand how these things work. I mean, come on! This guy claims to have experience in financial markets and as a CFO, and business/corporate adviser and even claims to do so in the summer...Last I checked, government didn't make laws that would create a gold/silver bubble. Then again, he IS a Keynesian...)
Textbook: "A famous debate in economics was about whether the changes in the money supply caused changes in total income or whether the changes in total income caused the changes in the money supply. Each side in the debate accused the other of committing the error of reverse causality."
(*HEADDESK* Because the printing press had nothing to do with inflation, right? This had seriously better not be a debate today...)
Something else my textbook gets into is debates on statistics, data, methods of gathering data, etc.
Man...reminds me of Mises' "Epistemological Problems of Economics" and the Austrian method of Praxeology. If I wasn't a supporter of it before, you can bet I am now.
Prof: "There is no money in the SS 'trust fund'. You guys [younger people] are going to be the ones payer for my retirement in that way. You had a chance with G.W. Bush to have that changed, to allow you to direct some of your own money into your own private account, but through your silence, you blew it."
(Where to even begin... 1st of all, we didn't AGREE to the fucking system to begin with. 2. WE weren't part of the voting population that has known for the past several decades this Ponzi Scheme wouldn't last. 3. WE aren't part of the richest generation to ever walk the face of the Earth. 4. He DOES know that Bush's plan was more bullshit corporatism, right? I've had this guy before in Macro. He's justified us paying for his retirement via SS because he 'paid the max into the system for the max amount of time' or something like that. So what? It's not our fault he's got Stockhelm Syndrome over this shit. And once again, it's been public knowledge that SS would be bankrupted soon for decades now. He's had the time, knowledge, etc to try and change it. Or if anything, at least far more than anyone in MY 20-something generation certainly has had. HE fucked up, not us. Also, tacit consent is bullshit. By his logic, a woman is not raped if she is asleep (and doesn't resist and/or shows inaction) when it happens... Then again, this guy spends a fair amount of paid lecture time making cheap shots at his wife...)
But wait, it gets even better:
Prof: "[In response to being asked what would happen if Social Security was scrapped/abolished/etc] The economy would collapse as a result of those seniors not having the money to spend. So it will always be with us in one form or another."
(1. MAJOR broken window fallacy. 2. Bullshit. Not when the government runs out of money it won't be.)
Those are just the ones I can think of for now.
Wait, I've got more.
Prof: "If you're a one product company or a one product nation and demand goes down for it, you're screwed. The folks at OPEC for example, they're smart. If demand goes down, they reduce supply, bringing the price back up."
([Citation needed] Also, it helps that OPEC is a government organization... He also goes on implying that they have a monopoly. They do not. Even if they did it would easily be challenged and beaten. Anyone remember what happened to Rockefeller when he tried getting rid of the competition by buying out folks and lowering prices? That's right, it didn't work.
Finally, what about zero-product countries like Hong Kong? Explain them.)
Prof: "South Africa has a monopoly on Diamond production. If you were to mine diamonds and sell them, they'd just lower the price to be cheaper than you and beat you out of the market."
(Citation needed, bro...Also, much of the stuff posted for the last quote applies to this one too. Also, who says one person can't do it? Anyone remember Herbert Dow?)
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on January 21, 2011, 12:15:44 AMSomething else my textbook gets into is debates on statistics, data, methods of gathering data, etc.
Man...reminds me of Mises' "Epistemological Problems of Economics" and the Austrian method of Praxeology. If I wasn't a supporter of it before, you can bet I am now.
It's like I've often said: if logic is the art of going wrong with confidence, then economics is the art of going wrong with colorful graphs.
QuoteProf: "There is no money in the SS 'trust fund'. You guys [younger people] are going to be the ones payer for my retirement in that way. You had a chance with G.W. Bush to have that changed, to allow you to direct some of your own money into your own private account, but through your silence, you blew it."
Man, what an asshole! HIS generation spends us into massive debt, HIS generation gets rich off of our backs, HIS generation sets that up to continue so that WE pay for HIS retirement even though he's now a part of the richest demographic in America, and as a result WE'RE the first generation IN AMERICAN HISTORY that won't be at least as well off as our parents, and somehow that's OUR fault???
QuoteProf: "[In response to being asked what would happen if Social Security was scrapped/abolished/etc] The economy would collapse as a result of those seniors not having the money to spend. So it will always be with us in one form or another."
(1. MAJOR broken window fallacy. 2. Bullshit. Not when the government runs out of money it won't be.)
And again, I go back to that "richest demographic" statistic.
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 21, 2011, 06:40:16 AMMan, what an asshole! HIS generation spends us into massive debt, HIS generation gets rich off of our backs, HIS generation sets that up to continue so that WE pay for HIS retirement even though he's now a part of the richest demographic in America, and as a result WE'RE the first generation IN AMERICAN HISTORY that won't be at least as well off as our parents, and somehow that's OUR fault???
Indeed. It was that bit of his that was the final straw, prompting me to start this thread.
Prof: "That amount of public debt of [insert the amount here] is the amount YOU owe the government."
(Bullshit. Why does he think it's called "government debt"? It's the amount the GOVERNMENT owes, not the amount we owe the government...Unless he thinks we are the state, which, last I checked, we aren't...We can't tax each other, we sure as hell can't tax the government back, etc, etc.)
What college is this? Crap like this makes me glad I had the professors at Florida State that I did.
For the sake of my privacy, I'd rather not say. Well, at least not until after I finish this semester. ;)
Anyways, on with the fail!
OK, this next one will require a little bit of context. In economics, at least according to my professor, an economic recession is defined as "negative GDP growth for two quarters (6 months) or more."
Prof: "We are not in a recession. GDP has grown a little bit; it's been a slow growth since last year, but it does mean we are not, by definition, in a recession."
(Increases in GDP according to what? According to government statistics that define government spending as productive? (GDP = C + I + G + Xn)? One could argue that inflation is taken into account to compensate for that, but last I checked, they use the CPI for those measurements: a bullshit standard of inflation that likely doesn't have a single thing most of us even buy, and, as demonstrated before, vastly understates inflation by at least 7%-10%. And even if what he said were true, so what? Unemployment is still hovering around 10%, so it's not exactly economic nirvana.)
Prof: "Unemployment is going down because the people who have been on government unemployment benefits lose those benefits after a long enough time and then they aren't counted"
(Bullshit debunked by FletchforFreedom in this thread. (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=624.0) Here are the relevant paragraphs from the above thread for those who don't feel like going on a text hunt:
Quote from: FletchforFreedomFirst of all, the calculation of the unemployment rate has absolutely NOTHING to do with unemployment claims. Rather, the Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts monthly surveys of 60,000 households and uses those responses, along with Census data to determine the official unemployment figures that they report. (http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm).
)
Prof: "I try my best not to judge people based on group [so far so good actually]. For example, a few years ago, I had a student say that 'all people in social programs are lazy.' [Which to be fair, is bigotry by Shane's rules] A young woman a few rows back stands up and, quite bravely, states that she is in a social program such that her children are in government day care while she works on her degree. And that she wants to graduate and get a good job; and that she can't wait to start paying taxes so that I can help someone who was in my position."
(To be fair, the young man's bigoted comments were somewhat unwarranted. However, my problem is really with the last bit. That, she can't wait to start paying taxes so she can help someone else. First off, given that government welfare (which I imagine this falls under) are, at best, 5%-20% efficient compared to private charities which are at least 80% efficient, if she really wants to help more people, she would want to have those programs abolished so people can donate to private charity and to do the same herself. Sorry, but a few anecdotal success stories don't counter the hard evidence of millions of lives destroyed by the welfare state. What's more, given that we pay over 60% in taxes and regulation (not including broken window effects AND inflation), and given the effects of the welfare state splitting up families, how does she know that if it these programs weren't in place that, 1. She would have a husband, instead of a deadbeat, with a job to support her and her family while she goes of to college? Or for that matter, how does she know that if she wasn't paying what she is in taxes that she'd even NEED a college degree to get a job instead of just working her way up, or what about private charity? I mean, really...the list just goes on...)
I'm planning on posting a topic called, "Sociology Insanity" wherein I do something like this, only for my sociology professor. He was once my psychology professor, and he was what prompted me to post this topic: The State and Mental Illness Patients (https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=333.0).
I plan on re-posting what I have in that topic, and expanding on it a bit.
And even more today.
Prof: "Government intervention into the economy doesn't fail all the time, or even most of the time, just some of the time."
(What's even better are his examples. Keep in mind he considers himself something of a 'capitalist' republican)
Prof: "For example, when government raises the taxes on cigarettes, causing more people to stop smoking."
(He didn't say it specifically, I don't think, but he also talked of government prohibition of drugs/alcohol/cigarettes as good too.
Because as we all know, prohibition never causes any blow-back, amirite? *Awesomeface*)
Prof: "Or when the government pays some farmers not to grow food, so that the supply doesn't get too high, causing farmers to go backrupt. That would cause much higher prices."
(Yeah....citation needed bro.)
Prof: "We don't feel the effects of corn ethanol subsidies in the USA."
(Contradicting an earlier statement that it leads to higher corn and food prices...)
Yeah, I'll let those ones speak for themselves.
OK, I'm feeling too tired to post these ones in color coding, so it will be a bit harder to go through, but I'll try and space it appropriately so it will be easier to digest.
My economics professor likes using appeals to fear in place of reasoned arguments, and probably still thinks he's making valid arguments.
For example:
- In response to me saying we should pull out of Iraq he retorts, "Well what will happen if we do that before the area stabilizes?"
- I've already told you his position regarding abolishing social security, and his response about the 'poor old people not being able to spend the money they are not getting causing economic doomsday', which Shane then falsified.
- A few years ago, before I even became an anarchist, I decided to ask him, "What would happen if ALL government spending--local, state and federal--was zero?"
He goes on a Economic Apocalypse scenario about, "people who rely on federal aid to go to college not being able to afford it, anyone who gets paid by the government not being able to spend that money, thus the economy goes into a tailspin, poor people in the streets because they don't have welfare," etc etc etc etc etc etc
The first one is total bullshit--we are the ones causing issues with stabilization by invading, occupying, and bombing them.
The last one isn't just an appeal to fear--it's the mother of all broken window fallacies. Granted, at the time I *did* assume that taxes would still be collected and only used to pay off government debts and unfunded liabilities, but still.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on February 12, 2011, 01:11:28 AM- In response to me saying we should pull out of Iraq he retorts, "Well what will happen if we do that before the area stabilizes?"
When was the area EVER stable?
Quote- A few years ago, before I even became an anarchist, I decided to ask him, "What would happen if ALL government spending--local, state and federal--was zero?"
He goes on a Economic Apocalypse scenario about, "people who rely on federal aid to go to college not being able to afford it, anyone who gets paid by the government not being able to spend that money, thus the economy goes into a tailspin, poor people in the streets because they don't have welfare," etc etc etc etc etc etc
I think Joseph Spinney handled this one rather well.
Quote from: MrBogosity on February 12, 2011, 06:19:32 AM
When was the area EVER stable?
Not to mention that much of the current instability is thanks to US interventions in the past thirty or so years.
It gets weirder...
It seems he's not too good at reporting other things either.
He points out that, "One of the reasons some economists think health-care is so expensive is because of health insurance."
He goes on some incomprehensible bit about the deductibles, and co-pays (even though those are two different insurance types)...
I personally think Shane nailed it in this video from @1:10 to 3:15
[yt]A7z4iHCNHMI[/yt]
Yet I notice that my econ professor doesn't even touch Medicare and Medicaid, or any of the other stuff listed in ANY of Shane's videos on the subject.
Or how the mandating of health-care via the recent bill ("ObamaCare") WILL lead to the costs being even higher than they are now, as explained by both Jacob Spinney and Stefan Molyneux.
I'm surprised I didn't post the following sooner. Oh well. Better late than never, eh?
Prof: "Consumption is the basis of an economy. No one with even 2 minutes of economics education can dispute that. If I buy another one of these [holds up a dry erase marker], someone will produce another. If I don't, it won't be produced, and someone might lose their job."
(*facepalms* Keep this one in mind. I'll fully rebut it after the next, related epic econ fail quote. I will say that he contradicts himself even more in the next one.)
Prof: "One person once suggested that everyone could help the economy be being unemployed so they could spend their unemployment checks. That has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard."
(Oh? You just said 'consumption is the basis of an economy.' So why does that change now that everyone is consuming? According to your logic, what the guy suggested is a perfect idea. Or could it be that, oh, I dunno, that PRODUCTION NOT CONSUMPTION is the basis for an economy. I mean how pathetically wrong can he be?
In the first one, the only reason he even HAD a dry erase marker to hold in the first place was because it was produced, as he himself implied (whether on purpose or not), not because it was 'consumed'.)
Exactly. Production is dependent on both consumption and investment. You need both. That's why focusing on one (Keynesianism) or the other (trickle-down economics) is idiotic.
Indeed.
Why didn't I post this one sooner? Oh well. I suppose better late than never.
Prof: "Get 12 economists in a room and you'll get 14 different opinions--we tend to flip-flop."
(Then by his own admission, economics--what's taught at most universities anyways--is NOT science. Seriously, I think I've heard an astrologist say something like that quote above in one of Shane's bogosity videos on Astrology. Seriously, I don't care how scientific they're trying to be--with theories, hypotheses, real world data, etc--if they can't even get it straight between each other, then it isn't science. And people wonder why Austrian Economists call Keynesianism "voodoo economics".
For the third time, if I wasn't a supporter of the Austrian Method of Praxeology before, you can bet I am now!)
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 21, 2011, 06:40:16 AM
Man, what an asshole! HIS generation spends us into massive debt, HIS generation gets rich off of our backs, HIS generation sets that up to continue so that WE pay for HIS retirement even though he's now a part of the richest demographic in America, and as a result WE'RE the first generation IN AMERICAN HISTORY that won't be at least as well off as our parents, and somehow that's OUR fault???
And again, I go back to that "richest demographic" statistic.
And speaking of Socialism Security: http://mises.org/daily/5026
That made my blood boil and burn...
I disagree about the bit of the older being able to always tax the young.
It ain't gonna happen. First off, the state WILL sooner or later run out of money, if they have to tax that high, people will just move to the black market, like they did around the collapse of the old USSR.
Prof: "The riots in Egypt could lead to a rebel or terrorist blocking off the Suez canal. 2 million barrels of oil go through that a day. If it gets blocked off, $6/gallon easy."
(He does realize that those people are rebelling against an oppressive regime that our glorious government funded, right? And that what is happening there is like what was happening in 1776, right??? Or that his scenario is about as pie-in-the-sky not likely to happen as can? He might as well have said, "If the entire Empire State building is turned into ice cream; all of NYC will be flooded with it when it melts." He also fails to realize that, including the costs of war, taxes, subsidies, regulations, etc, we're already paying about $12 per gallon easy, right now.)
And bear in mind that he claims to be a capitalist.
His idea of a rebuttal about a specific reduction in government spending is,
Prof: "Well what's going to happen to the people who once received X from the government?"
(I know one possible rebuttal to that would be, "What's going to happen to ALL the people dependent on government when the money runs out?"
It really annoys me when he responds to an idea of reducing gov't spending with, "What's going to happen when those people receiving it don't get that money anymore?"
Gotta love being bludgeoned on the head with morality: its original application.)
OK, this one's a bit too complicated for my standard format, but I'll try and stick close to it:
Alright, this next one's a doosey, whenever someone disagrees with prohibition like one student did today,
he says, "well, unless it's bad for their health, then prohibiting it is a good thing." (Paraphrased)
I also shared him the Cracked.com bit of the people pretending to be actors to get around a bar smoking ban.
He took a legalization of it as, "I should do this."
So if there was no law saying, "Don't murder." He'd take that as, "I should murder"?
I even tried correcting him, saying, "No, I didn't say you should smoke, only that it was legal so long as you were playing a person who smokes."
But no, he continued on with, "Yes, so I should smoke if my persona smokes."
I was thoroughly disgusted at this.
Keep in mind: he claims to be a capitalist conservative.
Really, if he wanted to help the cause of free markets, he's switch to the other side...
We have a special guest today! I won't say who the student's real name is, so I'll call him Jack--based on how much he seems to know:
Prof: "Whenever I'm told about global warming, I'll get something like, 'well the temperature of Earth's crust has risen in 40 years!' And I'll say, 'so what was the temperature of Earth's crust then?' And he would respond like, 'um...well we have the science, so you have to believe it!' and I'm like, 'OK, g'bye.'"
Jack (in response to the above): "Global Warming was shown to be a hoax from those e-mails at that university in England."
(Prof's bit: Citation needed, bro. Jack's stuff: He needs to take a look at Potholer54's videos on the subject. He's covered this in deep detail, complete with sources. I should also note that my prof, the 'capitalist republican' is also operating under the assumption that if the problem exists with Global Warming, it must be the government that solves it. *facepalms* Because evidently he lives in a world apart from here where governments AREN'T the world's biggest polluters...)
Prof: "The job of the Federal Reserve is to stimulate the economy through monetary stability. That is, to keep people spending, which creates economic growth."
(So how's that working out? At another point he even acknowledges that printing money to grow the economy doesn't work. Gotta love it when they can't even speak coherently. I swear, this internal contradiction stuff is only taken seriously in Keynesian Economics...)
Prof: "The best thing about corporations is that they don't have the unlimited liability issue that sole proprietorships and partnerships do. Another disadvantage of non-corporate businesses is how hard it is for them to raise enough funds to operate: that is, only corporations can offer and sell stock and bonds. The others don't have all of those advantages. And because 80% of small businesses fail within the first year, and of the ones that remain, 80% of those will fail within 5 years (only 4% remaining after five years) unless you've got a near spotless record, a bank isn't going to loan you money."
(1. Because corporations being able to initiate force against others, and get away with it is a good thing right? Ironically, economists also bitch about externalities...yeah, consistency or lack thereof, right? Also, as for the funds thing, especially the 4% of businesses being there after 5 years, I wonder if the huge amount of government regulation and taxation, etc has anything to do with that...I don't know as much about the being able to sell bonds thing, but if it's against the law for non-corporate entities to do that, it would be a failure of government, not of the free market that they can't get enough capital.)
Prof: "Well, the government now owns GM, and who's the government? That's right, us!"
(*Headdesk* Debunked so many times it's ridiculous. "We" are not the state.)
My professor is actually doing pretty good: only two today. :P
Prof: "Now we're getting into the stuff that is a bit more varied from person to person, instead of more, 'this is true, period' stuff."
(Um...yeah...Considering he also said that 12 economists in a room would have 14 different opinions on that, "this is true, period" stuff, we can chalk that up as bullshit.)
Prof: "I hate this term--'it's a win-win situation.'"
(If he means this as a subjective preference, I don't care. If not, he's even worse at economics than I thought...
This bit from him is especially ironic as he was one of the people who taught me about the win-win situation of economic surplus.)
Crap, I forget something else worthy of mentioning.
My professor stated that utility is something measured and quantified using "utils" or something like that.
My internal bogometer started going off upon hearing that. I'd say that article I linked to from the Mises Institute on the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility made a pretty damn bullet-proof case that utility is not something that can be measured like force or acceleration: It can't be quantified.
My prof showed us a video of the Federal Reserve's Inspector General (the person who was in charge of auditing the Fed), that she doesn't know what happened to $9 trillion.
My prof was all, "if that doesn't freak you out, nothing will."
I asked him if this level of incompetence surprised him. He said, "No."
It got me thinking...
He knows the Federal Reserve doesn't do a good job, and that historically, it doesn't work.
Yet he thinks we should still have one...
Hm...well, I guess that makes sense. How else is he going to get the rest of us to pay for his retirement? :P
Prof: "The automobile industry is a free market, or it was until the government bailed out the big three."
(A free market? Is he on crack? Citation from the Federal Register or he declares himself full of shit.)
After listening to the 5/23 Bogosity Podcast, I was reminded of these little gems by my economics professor.
Prof: "Only Congress can declare war, the President cannot. This war (Iraq) is not the President's war, it's Congress' [according to our constitution]."
(It also says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period, by ANY level of government.
How's that working out for us? What's more, the president DOES still have responsibility: I learned--even in grade school--that the president is the leader of the armed forces. Meaning he could, at any time he chooses, simply command the troops out. But he always chooses not to.
So no, he is still responsible as the leader of the armed forces, I mean, duh. "Ah", you might say, "but what if the they don't listen to the president?" Irrelevant. If the President doesn't even TRY to exercise what is his own power for the sake of justice, then he is still responsible. He *did* swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution AND promised to bring all the troops home, for those who weren't paying attention. As Lord T Hawkeye stated, if I could end world hunger with but a word but chose not to, would you believe me for even a second when I said I was concerned about the matter?)
Prof: "The President does not lower or raise taxes. No President has ever lowered taxes, because Congress holds the purse strings and is the one that passes laws, not the president."
(Again, yeah, it does say that in the constitution, however...
He also forgot to mention something the president CAN do:
Veto. If the President vetoes it, it's as good as gone, unless Congress can get a 2/3rds vote.
Unless the President has been literally been vetoing every single idiotic (read: every) bill that comes into his office, guess what, he still bears at least some responsibility for those laws. But it gets even worse than that. Perhaps most importantly the President is the head of the executive branch of his country's government. This means it's that part of government to execute and enforce the law (so police are a part of this branch for example). Thus, the president does have some say, and can simply use executive order when needed (as in the case of Harry Browne using that to free all non-violent drug offenders and other such victimless 'criminals'). Or simply refuse to enforce bogus or tyrannical laws. (courtesy's of Shane's Ultimate Arbiter Constitution Lecture series video).
Again, if he doesn't even make the attempt, he is STILL responsible for the laws, including the money used to fund them (how many of us would pay taxes, especially for crap like the wars--including the war on drugs and prostitution--if we knew we wouldn't go to jail for it (and rightfully so)?))
Prof: "The Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means."
(I swear to the Flying Spaghetti Monster I'm not making that up. And yet he claims to be for freedom, thinks America is the greatest country ever, blah blah blah. Even forgiving that this completely contradicts his last set of fail quotes, last I checked, the Constitution was supposed to limit and apply to THEM--The Supreme Court--too. As Lord T Hawkeye pointed out, then it is the Supreme Court who are the ultimate arbiters of what the government can and cannot do, not the constitution. We are ruled by a bunch of unelected politicians in robes called "judges".
Because fuck basic reading and logic, right?)
Another thing my professor said that I NEED to share here. Despite him leaning to the right politically, he still supported Al Gore winning the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. His reasoning?
"Because it has the potential to save lives in the future by making people aware of climate change."
Paraphrased since it was about 6 years ago, but that was the gist of it.
Quote from: Travis Retriever on February 03, 2011, 03:03:10 PM
And even more today.
Prof: "Government intervention into the economy doesn't fail all the time, or even most of the time, just some of the time."
(What's even better are his examples. Keep in mind he considers himself something of a 'capitalist' republican)
Prof: "For example, when government raises the taxes on cigarettes, causing more people to stop smoking."
(He didn't say it specifically, I don't think, but he also talked of government prohibition of drugs/alcohol/cigarettes as good too.
Because as we all know, prohibition never causes any blow-back, amirite? *Awesomeface*)
Prof: "Or when the government pays some farmers not to grow food, so that the supply doesn't get too high, causing farmers to go backrupt. That would cause much higher prices."
(Yeah....citation needed bro.)
Prof: "We don't feel the effects of corn ethanol subsidies in the USA."
(Contradicting an earlier statement that it leads to higher corn and food prices...)
Yeah, I'll let those ones speak for themselves.
Yeah here's something that will show him as a person who is contradictory:
[yt]W1xmGK8PEJw[/yt]