thegreatdivide wrote Today at 1:05pm:
Private business risks exist alongside the risks of free market failure.
And also Government failure, failure to address critical problems, failure to hold lease sales, etc.
Whereas private business risks its own money.
thegreatdivide wrote Today at 1:05pm:
But Neoclassical 'austerity' dogma, creating billionaires while the working class everywhere are now experiencing a cost of living crisis, is the worst kind of dogma.
But your assertion doesn't hold water. IF they are not infallible, they must be fallible. And yet your position is one that says only they have the answer. The two positions are diametrically opposed.
thegreatdivide wrote Today at 1:05pm:
You avoided addressing the negative outcomes of unregulated competition, whereas the CCP is now addressing the issue.
You avoided answering about Tiananmen Square.
thegreatdivide wrote Today at 1:05pm:
[i]China’s working and middle classes have experienced rapid income and purchasing power growth over the past few decades, driven by industrialization, urbanization, and poverty-reduction campaigns, outpacing the stagnant real wage growth experienced by lower- and middle-income workers in many Western economies
Only some. The Uighurs are not in that group. How is it that you can compare the poor and disadvantaged in Western society, when you can't support it for the Chinese?
thegreatdivide wrote Today at 1:05pm:
Exit polls and post-election analyses point to several key drivers behind the voter backlash:
Your stated position was - "Note: the US just voted for a government which would fix the cost-of living crisis. " And then went on to explain why it wouldn't be done.
thegreatdivide wrote Today at 1:05pm:
Do try to keep up: exit polls (which proved correct), and post election analyses...
They were your words, own them.
thegreatdivide wrote Today at 1:05pm:
They said they would address the cost of living crisis, but they won't be able to fix it so long delusional TINA Neoclassical economists continue with their "how ya gonna pay for it" dogma.
So they will address it but they don't know how.
thegreatdivide wrote Today at 1:05pm:
people want their wages to cover cost-of-living essentials, they don't want 'free money"; people well know only counter-feiters can access free money........there are severe risks.....
So funny. That would mean counterfeiters have no costs, for it to be free.
thegreatdivide wrote Today at 1:05pm:
You are conflating "free money" with Treasury-issued free money which is only available to a sovereign currency-issuing goverment.
Which you have noted is not necessarily freeee. You have said it can be inflationary.
thegreatdivide wrote Today at 1:05pm:
Economics is both a science and an art—acting as a science in its methodology and theory, and an art in its practical application and policy-making"
So I googled that.
AI: It means economics combines systematic analysis with practical judgment.
Me: Judgement is not science
AI: Right—judgment itself isn’t science. The distinction is that economics can use scientific methods to analyze evidence and predict likely effects, while applying those findings to policy involves judgment, values, and choices. So the quote calls economics an “art” in its application, not because judgment is scientific.
Me: Then they use parameters, and parameters are not science
AI: A parameter isn’t science by itself; it’s a quantity in a model. If it is estimated from evidence and tested against observations, using it can be part of scientific economic analysis. If it is simply assumed or chosen to fit a preferred conclusion, it is not strong scientific evidence.
Me: With four parameters I can make an elephant, with 5 I can wiggle its trunk
AI: That’s a pointed criticism of model flexibility: with enough adjustable parameters, a model can be made to fit almost any pattern—and extra parameters can even capture details that look meaningful. The saying is usually attributed to John von Neumann, though the attribution is disputed.
The lesson isn’t that parameters are inherently unscientific; it’s that a model’s fit alone doesn’t establish that it explains reality. Stronger evidence comes from
clear assumptions, independent data, out-of-sample predictions, and robustness checks.
I am sure you can provide the independent data, and robustness checks.
Please do so.[
quote author=AusbetterWorld link=1642444396/493#493 date=1793934306]Not belief but logic, unlike your macroeconomic 'austerity/scarcity' nonsense. [/quote]
Then provide the answers to the questions - logically. That doesn't mean regurgitate what your favoured economists say.
Forum
Pages: 
A wealth Tax Should Be Introduced In Australia (Read 28628 times)
