I mean look at all the jobs you'll be cutting if you get rid of them. Look at all the new, well-paying jobs we're getting because of them.
Personally, I would like to see some actual peer reviewed scientific studies and proof that tax cuts and tax breaks generate more jobs than government programs, rather than having to take it all on faith...
But then conservatism is a faith based political movement anymore.
Scientific analysis of the market has as much place in telling us about economics as scientific analysis of the geology and astronomy have in telling us about the creation of the world. Or doing scientific experiments to determine best course of action in fields like medicine or psychology.
That is, None!
It is part of a grand design, and you just gotta have Faaaaaith!!! it'll work out.
Well yeah, the theories of loss aversion and sunk cost fallacy are just that: theories. I mean, evolution is just a theory. And theories have no place in any of our faith based policies or education.
For instance, Bubbles were just caused by natural “market forces” that we really don’t understand . They are just the way things are. There have been like absolutely no studies on bubbles or what causes them or anything like that.
No one ever acts irrationally when it comes to economic decisions. It is all perfectly thought out. Our ships of state are all steered by perfectly emotionless, perfectly rational, perfectly knowledgeable captains. In fact, they are the Platonic ideals of benevolent philosopher kings.
Personally, I would like to see some actual peer reviewed scientific studies and proof that tax cuts and tax breaks generate more jobs than government programs, rather than having to take it all on faith...
Unfortunately, such studies are amazingly complex. You'd have to find some way to control for all of the other possible causes of job creation, and in a working market doing so is pretty scary, especially when seemingly minor factors like weather can have a noticeable statistical effect.
Essentially, anyone who tried to get such a study published would likely be rejected in the peer review process because they couldn't have properly covered their bases. Too bad, really, because such real data would be quite interesting.
I mean look at all the jobs you'll be cutting if you get rid of them. Look at all the new, well-paying jobs we're getting because of them.
Personally, I would like to see some actual peer reviewed scientific studies and proof that tax cuts and tax breaks generate more jobs than government programs, rather than having to take it all on faith...
But then conservatism is a faith based political movement anymore.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
That is, None!
It is part of a grand design, and you just gotta have Faaaaaith!!! it'll work out.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
For instance, Bubbles were just caused by natural “market forces” that we really don’t understand . They are just the way things are. There have been like absolutely no studies on bubbles or what causes them or anything like that.
No one ever acts irrationally when it comes to economic decisions. It is all perfectly thought out. Our ships of state are all steered by perfectly emotionless, perfectly rational, perfectly knowledgeable captains. In fact, they are the Platonic ideals of benevolent philosopher kings.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
And totally cannot be applied in any other way to support evolution.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Rational thought!
Rational thought and deduction!!
It's all we will ever need!!!
Reply
I say this as an economist.
Reply
( ... )
Reply
Zero taxes = infinite economy = infinite tax revenue.
St. Laffer of Onan foretold this.
Reply
So stealing that.
Reply
Unfortunately, such studies are amazingly complex. You'd have to find some way to control for all of the other possible causes of job creation, and in a working market doing so is pretty scary, especially when seemingly minor factors like weather can have a noticeable statistical effect.
Essentially, anyone who tried to get such a study published would likely be rejected in the peer review process because they couldn't have properly covered their bases. Too bad, really, because such real data would be quite interesting.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Leave a comment