Either you ascribe the value of 'true' to the basic tenets of capitalism and the notion of Markets, or you don't.
If you do, then you have to present a mechanistic argument by which losing 3% of our oil supply, or even <3% of the global oil supply will result in sustained or even temporary price increases of, as you claim, $9/gallon of oil (thus throwing us into the next great depression, etc). You furthermore have to argue why Gasoline did not reach anything near that level during the several months in which the US received 0% of its oil supply form Iraq, and during the several months in which the entire world was deprived of Iraqi Oil. IE, you have to use numbers and introduce a rational argument If every model of markets and capitalism and their necessary notion of 'correcting' markets is to be respected
If you do not, however, hold that the economic theory behind free-market capitalism is true, then you have more wiggle room. In fact, if you argue that markets are not correcting and are not based on supply and demand, and/or it is not the case that rational (profit seeking) behavior emerges in markets as irrational (IE not self interested) behavior cancels out, then you may indeed argue anything. There are two (very steep) prices you have to pay if you really want to have this cake and eat it too
1. You have to give up the notion that anything you say about economics can either be provably true or provably false. IE, you are no more correct than someone saying Belgian beer is 'tastier' than German Beer. You are limited to making claims that are subjective and qualitative in nature. You, at best, can only make 'opinions' about any matter economic. This is a necessary result of rejecting any rational foundation to economics, and any economic theory that includes any rational principles.
2. You should never argue in favor of Objectivism or claim adherence to any philosophy of Ayn Rand, as you are clearly outside of even that flawed system.
Even stochastic market models and markets with partial production controls (OPEC) are still governed by economic theory.
So what is it, Techie?
Yeti
Off Topic » in reply to It's hopeless.
Maybe if I speak slowly enough, you will understand.
The whole thread (67 posts)
- "Perils Of Victory" (February 3, 2003 Newsweek)
- Prescience
- Yes, well....
- Heh.
- Attention Robet S.
- No kidding
- Can I at least get some idea of how we're scoring this?
- The scoring system is very simple
- Okay, you win.
- That was just plain stupid
- And here...
- Tell you what, how about you just beat this mark?
- What, Tom- cat got your tongue?
- Dude, you had to go back five years.
- Tom used the word "dude"?
- Actually...
- I do it too, for comedy's sake. (n/t)
- I know, right? (n/t)
- Far out, man. (n/t)
- I know, right? (n/t)
- I do it too, for comedy's sake. (n/t)
- totally! (n/t)
- Actually...
- Insane
- Track record
- The value of the US in Iraq made really, really simple.
- Tom used the word "dude"?
- Dude, you had to go back five years.
- What, Tom- cat got your tongue?
- Tell you what, how about you just beat this mark?
- Okay, you win.
- re: Oh! Easy one- number of wars started for causes that were fictions
- The scoring system is very simple
- re: No kidding
- Actually
- Hey Arrell
- Can I at least get some idea of how we're scoring this?
- No kidding
- What???!!! There is no way even YOU can revise history that way.
- Attention Robet S.
- Heh.
- Yes, well....
- Prescience
