Wait, you guys appeal to authority all the time by pointing to how all economists agree with you and not me. Actually, in fact, you guys started that game. I just finished it. Don’t cry now that it’s come back to explode in your face. Your ‘economists’ are about as accurate as the weather men of old.
As for economics… everything you’ve said has been wrong. Your arguments are all one-dimensional and cartoonish. You live entirely by economic theory and you have no relevance to economic reality.
The only benefits you can come up with that are associated with offshoring are:
Lower wage jobs. (Admitted by the Economist.)
Higher unemployment.
Total loss of bargaining power for workers.
Loss of job security. (Except for the bankers and CEOs.)
A permanent employer’s market.
A shrinking middle class.
A poor class that’s growing faster than the rich.
Your problem is not appeal to popularity - it’s that almost everyone out there sees right through you. You peddle scams, and the whole country is wise to it.
You are nothing more than a snake oil salesman peddling shit that doesn’t work. Bottom line. That’s all you ever will be. When will this finally sink into your thick skull?
Ranting about how economists disagree with me is in fact appealing to authority. There, I just demonstrated to you what appeal to authority is. You can now admit you’re an idiot. Again. You won’t counter argue this because I’ve got the wikipedia definition waiting in the wings to shut you the fuck up. Go ahead, argue with me on this.
Furthermore you can also try and explain what comparative advantage is - or do you know what it is? I’ve explained it to you. Now it’s your turn to put up or shut the fuck up.
I’m sure you have a case for why wikipedia’s definition is wrong? Or how it contradicts me when I say that saying economists disagree with me is appealing to authority?
Or maybe you jumped into this without any idea of the facts (which Lord Rashtard has been doing all along)?
Did I say that wikipedia’s definition was wrong? No.
Did I jump into this without any idea of the facts? No.
Are you making baseless accusations because I had the gall to call you out on using 1) wikipedia, which is not a good citeable source, when there are thousands of other sources available, and 2)not actually citing the source, and merely alluding to it? Yes.
But you aren’t saying wikipedia’s definition was wrong. So what’s your problem with wikipedia? If they’re not a good citeable source in this case then show they’re wrong. If they’re wrong spit it out; if not then show where I don’t know what I’m talking about with regards to the definition of appeal to authority.
My problem with wikipedia being used to prove things is that they’re not a citable source. It may not be wrong in this instance, but it is not a citable source. I did not say you didn’t know what you were talking about in regards to the definition of appeal to authority–I was mocking you for using wikipedia as your source. I seem to have struck a nerve though, seeming as it caused you to attack me with unfounded allegations. So, do you really understand the fallacy of appealing to authority, or are you merely regurgitating something you read on wikipedia?
Well, you know what? When I cite them and they are actually wrong then I’ll take your point seriously.
I know it well enough to know that when more than one fucktard on here claims I am posting stuff that contradicts what ALL ECONOMISTS AGREE AS TRUTH… that is, in fact, appealing to authority.
And that is why Lord Ashtar was talking out of his ass in his last post.
What I want to know is, do you guys know what comparative advantage is? Your pals have been asking me this for days and when I laid down my cards, they took off and ran instead of laying down their knowledge of CA. Funny, how I knew that was going to happen as soon as I pointed out that CA does not justify offshoring jobs.
I haven’t even gotten to the fact yet that our currency is in a high danger of collapsing - which will make offshoring impossibly expensive anyway…
[QUOTE=Le Jacquelope]
I know it well enough to know that when more than one fucktard on here claims I am posting stuff that contradicts what ALL ECONOMISTS AGREE AS TRUTH… that is, in fact, appealing to authority.
[/QUOTE]
And yet you’ve epically failed to provide a cite showing a respected economist who agrees with you, or a peer reviewed paper supporting your assertions. It’s only an appeal to authority when there is a valid counter argument showing that the appeal to authority is making assumptions concerning the validity of such an appeal. You haven’t demonstrated that the appeal is misdirected, or that authority is wrong or split on it’s consensus regarding the use of tariffs or the other bullshit claims you’ve made.
Q.E.D. you don’t actually understand what the fallacy actually is.
You mean like it’s been explained to you several times without your response? And like you’ve been asked to explain YOUR understanding of, but have failed epically to do so? You want it explained AGAIN so you can ignore the responses and rant off on some tangent…AGAIN? Like that? Why should anyone take such a request from you seriously, at this point?
Dude, seriously…it’s like you don’t think that anyone reading this thread can fucking scroll up and see that several posters have answered this, by YOU HAVEN’T! Seriously…people on this message board can, you know, fucking read…and they have more than the attention span of a nat. I think both items are things you aren’t used to, posting on whatever cluster fuck of a board you came from before.
You’ve been told that our currency isn’t in danger of collapse, except in your own little Chicken Little pea brain. You’ve also been told that if our currency DOES collapse, that actually means that our export goods and services will actually become more viable…MUCH more viable. That is, assuming that the entire worlds economy wouldn’t go tits up if the USD ‘collapsed’ (whatever the fuck that is actually supposed to mean).
Again…it’s like you don’t realize that people can read more than the post or two immediately above the one you are on right now, or that they can actually go read the other threads on this subject you have spewed in.
You didn’t read the whole page, did you? From your cite:
To sum up: when some loudmouth blowhard on the internet is talking macroeconomics and his theories disagree with virtually every economist on the planet (as well as common sense), to whom should I listen?
It doesn’t work that way. One has to use serious sources in order to be taken seriously. Just because your broken watch is right twice a day doesn’t make it useful.
If common sense were a person you would be sued down to your baby shoes for likening your tripe to them.
Oh and plenty of surgeons get shit wrong, too. Which is why appealing to authority is just as big a fallacy as appealing to popularity. In fact, in this case you have actually managed to do both!
Furthermore you have yet to show that economists have in any way managed to understand what’s going on with offshoring… or, in fact, why they should even be listened to when it comes to this jobs-killing business tactic. You have yet to show exactly how relevant economists are to this situation.
Offshoring is killing American jobs. Yes, American jobs. Jobs pertaining to the production of goods and services for the American market. American jobs.
You seem to be quite tone-deaf about this, dude, so I will explain it to you in one sentence:
Offshoring will result in strong anti-offshoring tariffs or it will end for good with the collapse of the U.S. Dollar.
That idiot still doens’t understand what appeal to authority is, he actually thinks it’s a logical falacy to indicate what an entire professional field thinks about their subject of expertise.
Fuck it, if 86% of the population decides pi = 3, then by golly it’s going to be or it will end for good with the collapse of the US dollar.
they’re volatile. God damn you are a special kind of stupid. The cost of food and energy go way up and way down in short periods of time, which could actually show deflationary pressure, giving the sense that inflation is lower then it really is.
Here are the relevant wiki’s on the subject
“Previously the Federal Reserve had used the US Consumer Price Index as its preferred measure of inflation. The CPI is still used for many purposes, for example, for indexing social security. The equivalent of the CPI is also commonly used by central banks of other countries when measuring inflation. The CPI is presented monthly in the US by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This index tends to change more on a month to month basis than does “core inflation”. This is because core inflation eliminates products that can have temporary price shocks (i.e. energy, food products). Core inflation is thus intended to be an indicator and predictor of underlying long-term inflation.”
A month from now that article could just as easily read “Why High Inflation Seems Low.”
Damn you are awesome, that totally made my day.
You know what would be a better measure of inflation? If we just polled people at random, that way if 86% of the population thinks things are more expensive, we have high inflation. Brilliant!
Or said another way, this is a CLASSIC REASON why people without even first year economics should shut the fuck up.
Without appealing to authority, here is the Departed of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics webpage on the subject. “In addition to the All Items CPI, BLS publishes thousands of other consumer price indexes. One such index is called “All items less food and energy”. Some users of CPI data use this index because food and energy prices are relatively volatile, and these users want to focus on what they perceive to be the “core” or “underlying” rate of inflation.”
Dude, seriously…it’s like you don’t think that anyone reading this thread can fucking scroll up and see that several posters have answered this, by YOU HAVEN’T! Seriously…people on this message board can, you know, fucking read…and they have more than the attention span of a nat. I think both items are things you aren’t used to, posting on whatever cluster fuck of a board you came from before.