The case against Dr. Paul

[marksman]

Don't trust what you learn about economics in college, don't trust textbooks, don't trust the news, don't trust government. Dig around on the internet

So we should trust the internet?!

 

[drkitten]

So we should trust the internet?!

Hey, anything badly speled, written in green, and oversized must be troo.

 

[D'rok]

You really need to "get it" because this is important. Silver and gold are already rising. I bought silver for around $14 in November. It's now February and pushing $20. See the chart below, I think you can click on it for more detail.

It shows the last year for gold, silver and platinum. You see the trend is rising. It's going to keep rising, as more and more people start becoming aware of the financial crisis the USA is in, and start dumping dollars in favor of real things like precious metals. Now if you say it was $14 in November and $19 in March (I'm being conservative) that's 35% in 4 months. That means in one year it will grow about 150%. So one dollar will become $2.50 in one year, which is more than doubling every year.

While you're waiting around seeing what gold and silver do, to determine if I'm on the level, you'll be missing out. Look at the past several years. I've entered the game in the middle. I didn't know any of this stuff I'm writing before October of last year. So you could say I've found religion and am trying to convert the rest of the poor sinners.

This stuff is real, it is worth digging into. I'm never asking people to trust me. I'm telling people to trust yourself. Don't trust what you learn about economics in college, don't trust textbooks, don't trust the news, don't trust government. Dig around on the internet and do your own research. The internet isn't controlled like the other outlets are. You get a lot of noise, but you get a lot of truth. You need to trust your own ability to discern which is which. The faster you do this, the more you stand to gain, financially, by understanding what is going on. You need to hurry if you want to benefit, because things are happening fast now.

-Dave

So let's refine your claim then. I see three possibilities given your statements so far:

1. You purchased silver in November 2007 for $14. According to your prediction, it should reach $28 by November 2009.
2. Your prediction is that the current price will double in 2 years. Which means that in March 2010, the price will be approx $38-$40.
3. Your are predicting that the November 2007 price will double 2 years from now - i.e., $28 in March 2010.

Obviously, option 3 gives you the most wiggle room, but nonetheless, it would be helpful if you clarified your claim.

If you end up being correct, and we are both still hanging around here, I will tip my hat to you. Still, it will not be very compelling evidence that your doomsday scenario is accurate. For that claim to be convincing, you will have to make a firm prediction on one of your scarier indicators.

Also, google trends shows a rough correlation between the price of silver and inflation in general. Make of that what you will. It seems perfectly logical to me and does not require Armageddon as an explanation.

http://www.google.com/trends?q=silver+price,+inflation&ctab=0&geo=US&date=all&sort=0

 

[D'rok]

Let me rephrase my post for the internetz:

 

[dash]

So we should trust the internet?!

Trust yourself. Flood yourself with input, from all sources, and let your own intellect put it all together. That's what the mind does. You have to question your beliefs, question things you've taken on faith. Don't automatically reject things you read just because they're not "common knowledge".

It is so easy to simply follow a path of disbelieving everything. Scoff at all statements that go against the mainstream. That is a philosophy, it works to a certain extent. But on some rare, rare occasions, you get the lemmings going, en masse, to drown in the oceans. That's the situation we're in right now.

You have to be willing to face criticism of people, such as the scoffers on these forums, so I'd suggest not announcing you're going to delve into any of these issues. Just start digging, one thing will lead to another. The only thing is you might not have enough time to do it. I was lucky enough to be able to. YMMV.

In another forum elsewhere I told a woman some similiar advice, then I jokingly ended with, "Just stop questioning everything when you start beleiving in UFO's." Then later in that forum I was introduced to some New Age material (Law Of One) and I realized something profound.

I had been trying to encourage certain people of faith there (Christians) to question their faith and the impact it had on their decision making processes. The realization I had was that if I was going to ask them to question their faith in god, I had to be willing to question my faith that there isn't a god, otherwise I'm being a hypocrite. So that got me digging. So if there might be a god, might there be UFO's? Might there be a big cover up? Might 9/11 be a conspiracy? Might these people that claim to channel ET spirits and whatnot be telling the truth?

Well I did some investigation, posted some questions in another forum here (which dudalb delights in bringing up, even though I never claimed to believe the stuff, I was merely seeking advice from skeptics). I've since decided it's not productive digging into that stuff. I haven't had any paranormal experiences myself, so I can't reconcile what other people claim with my own perceptions of reality. The two just don't mix, like oil and water. And there was no payoff in spending further time trying to resolve the issue. So I remain undecided -- it's pushed into the "irrelevant" category until new information comes to light, and I have no incentive to intentionally seek this new information.

But economics -- this has immediate rewards. It's everyday, has to do with how much money in your pocket you have. It's important. So it's worth spending the time. And it seems to be paying off well for what I've invested so far.

I keep trying here to reach some people, even just one person would be enough. Somehow I was lucky enough to acquire this knowledge, I kind of feel obligated to give back somehow. Pass it on. Spread the word. Don't scoff at it because it sounds ridiculous. Don't scoff at it because I have a vested interest. Everyone always has a vested interest. When poor people call for more taxes for more government benefits, such as universal health care, they have a vested interest. There is no escaping it.

The end result? It's the ability to think for yourself, to trust your own instincts, to believe that you yourself can determine right/wrong, truth/fiction, regardless of what degree you have. You don't have to trust a person on a subject just because he's got a PHD. You don't need to trust everything just because it's published in a book.

One final point -- catch yourself when you post something abusive/belittling, and then when you read a followup posting from someone in your group that agrees with you. Pay close attention to the feeling you get when you get affirmation, from any source. It's particularly powerful in these forums. I feel it when I'm struggling to make a point and someone like HH posts something supportive, it's a feeling of camradery, brotherhood, belonging. Being part of a group. Pay attention to that, because it is something you have to learn to control. It is like a narcotic, it becomes addictive. It's the basis of racism and so many other atrocities. The need to be part of a group, or herd. Don't get caught up in it, because it really leads nowhere in a lot of cases.

-Dave

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Trust yourself. Flood yourself with input, from all sources, and let your own intellect put it all together. That's what the mind does. You have to question your beliefs, question things you've taken on faith. Don't automatically reject things you read just because they're not "common knowledge".

OK.

It is so easy to simply follow a path of disbelieving everything. Scoff at all statements that go against the mainstream. That is a philosophy, it works to a certain extent. But on some rare, rare occasions, you get the lemmings going, en masse, to drown in the oceans. That's the situation we're in right now.

Doesn't follow.

You have to be willing to face criticism of people, such as the scoffers on these forums, so I'd suggest not announcing you're going to delve into any of these issues. Just start digging, one thing will lead to another. The only thing is you might not have enough time to do it. I was lucky enough to be able to. YMMV.

Nonsense again, here's the issue. We aren't doing this because we don't like the idea (Most of us). We're doin it because the idea is wrong.

In another forum elsewhere I told a woman some similiar advice, then I jokingly ended with, "Just stop questioning everything when you start beleiving in UFO's." Then later in that forum I was introduced to some New Age material (Law Of One) and I realized something profound.

I had been trying to encourage certain people of faith there (Christians) to question their faith and the impact it had on their decision making processes. The realization I had was that if I was going to ask them to question their faith in god, I had to be willing to question my faith that there isn't a god, otherwise I'm being a hypocrite. So that got me digging. So if there might be a god, might there be UFO's? Might there be a big cover up? Might 9/11 be a conspiracy? Might these people that claim to channel ET spirits and whatnot be telling the truth?

Sure. It's possible, but it's the limit of n as n approaches 0 of 1/n. (Hint.)

Well I did some investigation, posted some questions in another forum here (which dudalb delights in bringing up, even though I never claimed to believe the stuff, I was merely seeking advice from skeptics). I've since decided it's not productive digging into that stuff. I haven't had any paranormal experiences myself, so I can't reconcile what other people claim with my own perceptions of reality. The two just don't mix, like oil and water. And there was no payoff in spending further time trying to resolve the issue. So I remain undecided -- it's pushed into the "irrelevant" category until new information comes to light, and I have no incentive to intentionally seek this new information.

But economics -- this has immediate rewards. It's everyday, has to do with how much money in your pocket you have. It's important. So it's worth spending the time. And it seems to be paying off well for what I've invested so far.

I keep trying here to reach some people, even just one person would be enough. Somehow I was lucky enough to acquire this knowledge, I kind of feel obligated to give back somehow. Pass it on. Spread the word. Don't scoff at it because it sounds ridiculous. Don't scoff at it because I have a vested interest. Everyone always has a vested interest. When poor people call for more taxes for more government benefits, such as universal health care, they have a vested interest. There is no escaping it.

Uhm.. sure. They like living without poor health. Most people do. I'd dare say almost everybody does.

The end result? It's the ability to think for yourself, to trust your own instincts, to believe that you yourself can determine right/wrong, truth/fiction, regardless of what degree you have. You don't have to trust a person on a subject just because he's got a PHD. You don't need to trust everything just because it's published in a book.

See, textbooks (which I saw in a quote, as I'm actually posting this before I reconfirm your ignore list) are vetted by others to be accurate. By stating that the expert is wrong, the textbook is wrong, you are attempting to state that all of the current thought is dead wrong. Without backing.

One final point -- catch yourself when you post something abusive/belittling, and then when you read a followup posting from someone in your group that agrees with you. Pay close attention to the feeling you get when you get affirmation, from any source. It's particularly powerful in these forums. I feel it when I'm struggling to make a point and someone like HH posts something supportive, it's a feeling of camradery, brotherhood, belonging. Being part of a group. Pay attention to that, because it is something you have to learn to control. It is like a narcotic, it becomes addictive. It's the basis of racism and so many other atrocities. The need to be part of a group, or herd. Don't get caught up in it, because it really leads nowhere in a lot of cases.

Reverse argument to popularity.

And welcome back to ignore as I'm not entirely sure you even respond to points anymore.

 

[marksman]

Trust yourself. Flood yourself with input, from all sources.

And yet you tell me not to trust what I have learned in college, from textbooks, and rather seek information from the internet.

And from my six-word question, you followed with a 762-word ramble. Really, of all the things you could have learned form Ayn Rand -- a healthy dose of skepticism for conspiracy theories, an appreciation for the self-correcting power of capitalism, an ability to construct coherent rational arguments -- you chose to adopt her unfortunate penchant for multi-page rambling discourses?

I did some investigation, posted some questions in another forum here (which dudalb delights in bringing up, even though I never claimed to believe the stuff , I was merely seeking advice from skeptics)

This behavior is known as "JAQing off" (JAQ = "just asking questions") and is considered a form of trolling. (I also not that your sentence construction indicates that you do not believe yourself to be skeptical -- in contrast to your advice to me in the beginning of the post.) If you have honest questions, ask them honestly. Don't ask questions on topics you do not believe just to get a rise out of people.

Somehow I was lucky enough to acquire this knowledge, I kind of feel obligated to give back somehow. Pass it on.

The problem is that you're not doing so in a logical of coherent manner. You're not constructing an argument and a logical argument is the best way to get skeptics to accept your proposal. You make ad hoc statements, mixed with emotion and then peppered with references to outside sources, but you don't tie it together in a coherent fashion.

Such methods are often effective at convincing those predisposed to be convinced. Such methods are woefully inadequate for convincing skeptics.

On a side note, your posts also come off as sanctimonious, coming from the presumption that the people to whom you address your comments are unenlightened and ignorant, rather than considering the possibility that they are merely skeptical and are waiting for you to make the effort to present your arguments in a proper and convincing fashion. You are taking other people's refusal to accept your argument as evidence of their stupidity and not as evidence that 1) you haven't presented your argument properly or 2) your argument has holes that you failed to perceive.

So my advice to you is to take some time, learn the basics of making a logical argument. Muster your evidence in support of your argument. Keep an open mind when you encounter data that doesn't fit your argument. Be prepared to re-examine your theory based on such data. Most specifically, in economics, it is useful to look at historical data -- as much as you can manage -- to see if similar conditions existed in the past.

Then when you're ready, present your argument in a neutral and methodical fashion. State your premises clearly. Acknowledge any and all assumptions. Present your evidence with references. Make sure there are no gaps in the argument, no unstated hypotheses, and no untestable assertions.

When people respond, do not assume their failure to accept your argument is a function of their inadequacies. Rather, take their comments to heart and address them in a neutral, non-hostile manner. Respond with facts, preferable with references.

That's how you convince people on these forums, if that is truly your aim.

 

[dash]

That's how you convince people on these forums, if that is truly your aim.

Nevermind, I've invested as much time as I'm willing to in this endeavor.

-Dave

 

[marksman]

QED

 

[D'rok]

Woe to we swines who saw not the pearls cast before us.

 

[Chaos]

Woe to we swines who saw not the pearls cast before us.

I am now going to regurgitate something that has been cast before me by someone both more logically consistent and less profligate with shrill "repent, for the end is at hand" rhetoric than our dear dash. You make up your own mind if this is a pearl, and if this makes us swine.

The lecturer who did Central Bank Watching this past semester (and who, incidentally, is an adviser for the Central Bank of Mauritius) said that, for the US, a reliable indicator for how likely the incumbent party is to be re-elected is the state of the economy. Then he added, with a sly smile, "I expect the Democrats to win this year".

...

...

You´ll notice, perhaps, that this prediction is neither as ambitious in its unlikelyness of becoming true, nor as earth-shattering in its consequences if it does come true. That´s because this is economics, not woo-woo.

 

[dudalb]

Don't trust what you learn about economics in college, don't trust textbooks, don't trust the news, don't trust government. Dig around on the internet

But trust any crackpot who puts up a webpage on the Internet.
That is brilliant.
This is a good example of psuedo skepticism: Totally distrust any Mainstream source, but buy totally into any Anti Establishment Source that comes along.

 

[Mister Agenda]

ummm....

I recall a poster or two (both RP fans) claiming that once the REP race got down to 2 or 3 that it would be much better for RP, and things would get "interesting"...

when is that gonna happen?

TAM

They were exactly wrong. RPs best chance was in a crowded field, Republican nominees dropping out like flies sunk whatever chance he may have had. He knew going in that he would have no chance in ordinary cirucmstances, being the only non-neocon in a field of nine candidates was what drove the calculation that he could make a real race of it. Now he's in a position similar to a rock star who has to do an encore (stay in the race) so his fans won't riot.

 

[OneShotKi11]

Nonsense again, here's the issue. We aren't doing this because we don't like the idea (Most of us). We're doin it because the idea is wrong.

The idea may be wrong, but exactly what is wrong with researching it before trusting some random forum?

Uhm.. sure. They like living without poor health. Most people do. I'd dare say almost everybody does.

Once again attacking the example and not the idea. Actually making no real point in the process.
Looks to me like you comment sometimes just to have a response.

See, textbooks (which I saw in a quote, as I'm actually posting this before I reconfirm your ignore list) are vetted by others to be accurate. By stating that the expert is wrong, the textbook is wrong, you are attempting to state that all of the current thought is dead wrong. Without backing.

He did not state that the supposed expert is wrong. Learn to read my friend and it might be useful when trying to debate.
He basically said not to completely trust anything for face value without going outside of it, and trying to do the research yourself. In the end your original source might turn out to be the most accurate. As well as the one you agree with, but atleast you went and made the effort to make sure.

The world was once Flat, did you know that???

Think about it.

And welcome back to ignore as I'm not entirely sure you even respond to points anymore.

I dont think much of what you said this whole post had a point to it.
All i got out of your words was you disagree with Dave.

So what was the point Dave should be responding to?

 

[OneShotKi11]

But trust any crackpot who puts up a webpage on the Internet.
That is brilliant.
This is a good example of psuedo skepticism: Totally distrust any Mainstream source, but buy totally into any Anti Establishment Source that comes along.

Clearly you are an example of the type Dave was speaking of. He did not say trust the random website. He assumed that each individual has some sort of intelligence, enough so that one might be able to decide for ones self what they would like to believe after proper research.

You clearly are another who does not read what has been written. I dont understand how his point is so clearly going over everyones head. I am actually just shocked.

All he is saying is do the proper research, and not to trust one source without gathering all the information you can on a given subject. Take information from mainstream as well as the "crackpot" sources. Use your own intellect to decide in the end what is accurate.

How else can this be said???

 

[marksman]

Clearly you are an example of the type Dave was speaking of. He did not say trust the random website. He assumed that each individual has some sort of intelligence, enough so that one might be able to decide for ones self what they would like to believe after proper research.

And yet he presumed by his criticism that people who use textbooks could not do so intelligently.

I dont understand how his point is so clearly going over everyones head. I am actually just shocked.

Because he wrote vaguely enough that people who were predisposed to agree with his overall point would imply what they wanted (that he was merely asking people to think critically) and people who were disinclined to believe his overall point would imply what they wanted (that he was telling people not to trust anything published by scholars and instead limit their information from the internet). That's the peril of writing poorly.

All he is saying is do the proper research, and not to trust one source without gathering all the information you can on a given subject. Take information from mainstream as well as the "crackpot" sources. Use your own intellect to decide in the end what is accurate.

How else can this be said???

The way you said it was infinitely better than the way Dave said it. Had he written that, he wouldn't have gotten the reception he did. However, since "crackpot" sources rarely source their data (which is what makes them crackpot), relying on such sources is generally unhelpful.

 

[OneShotKi11]

I am now going to regurgitate something that has been cast before me by someone both more logically consistent and less profligate with shrill "repent, for the end is at hand" rhetoric than our dear dash. You make up your own mind if this is a pearl, and if this makes us swine.

The lecturer who did Central Bank Watching this past semester (and who, incidentally, is an adviser for the Central Bank of Mauritius) said that, for the US, a reliable indicator for how likely the incumbent party is to be re-elected is the state of the economy. Then he added, with a sly smile, "I expect the Democrats to win this year".

...

...

You´ll notice, perhaps, that this prediction is neither as ambitious in its unlikelyness of becoming true, nor as earth-shattering in its consequences if it does come true. That´s because this is economics, not woo-woo.

Im missing something....

I dont get the point.

 

[OneShotKi11]

And yet he presumed by his criticism that people who use textbooks could not do so intelligently.

I think that is more of your own assumption then actually what has been stated by Dave. This could be just a difference in our interpretation of words but i do not believe anywhere he said people "could not use textbooks intelligently", or even implied that type of thought.

From my understanding of Dave, he is encouraging the reading of textbooks and outside sources. Not just the reading our college professors and states have deemed for us the most accurate. He feels that is not an intelligent way of going about learning. Thus my example as far fetched as it may sound was used in an earlier post.
Schools once taught the earth was flat, and this was Fact. The supposed outside soruces (CrackPots) suffered from insane amounts of "woo" and would make claims such as they believed it to be round.

He never made the claim that what you are learning in college is wrong. He merely was stating that you should not rely solely on college sources for a topic.

Because he wrote vaguely enough that people who were predisposed to agree with his overall point would imply what they wanted (that he was merely asking people to think critically) and people who were disinclined to believe his overall point would imply what they wanted (that he was telling people not to trust anything published by scholars and instead limit their information from the internet). That's the peril of writing poorly.

Again he did not say limit your information from the internet, for that would be stupid. I believe it was more along the lines of dont disbelieve because its not from scholars.
I think from what you posted you are complaining about what you consider to be a vague writing style with no clear position. I believe i see his position and are just trying to clearly translate it.

The way you said it was infinitely better than the way Dave said it. Had he written that, he wouldn't have gotten the reception he did. However, since "crackpot" sources rarely source their data (which is what makes them crackpot), relying on such sources is generally unhelpful.

Well i only stated "crackpot" because of the forum im dealing with. What i have should have said was "outside" sources.

Then again you must consider this which inturn would go along with Dave's point....
Did i really just explain his point better? Or was it that many on this forum did not actually read what he had written and interpreted it their own way.

Why did i understand what he said?

 

[D'rok]

OneShot, dash called textbook economics "voodoo" - literally...he used that precise word twice. I don't know how you can possibly interpret his rants as balanced and reasonable scepticism.

 

[WildCat]

From my understanding of Dave, he is encouraging the reading of textbooks and outside sources. Not just the reading our college professors and states have deemed for us the most accurate. He feels that is not an intelligent way of going about learning. Thus my example as far fetched as it may sound was used in an earlier post.
Schools once taught the earth was flat, and this was Fact. The supposed outside soruces (CrackPots) suffered from insane amounts of "woo" and would make claims such as they believed it to be round.

He never made the claim that what you are learning in college is wrong. He merely was stating that you should not rely solely on college sources for a topic.

Hmmm, let's go with this analogy a bit further. Economists once believed that all currencies had to be backed by a tangible asset. But then economies started to grow beyond the value of those tangible assets. Fiat money came into being, under the principal that it isn't what a curency is backed with that makes it valuable, but what it can purchase - the currency is a store of value, your labor converted into currency. So long as currency still has to be earned, it has value. This has worked well for the last 75 years or so in just about every country on the planet. Now along comes Ron Paul and his water carrier dash with the gold standard nonsense. This is the equivalent not of the early Greeks deducing that the Earth was round in that long-ago age when everyone thought it was flat, but of the Flat Earthers today trying to convince everyone that the Earth is flat when everyone with a shred of common sense knows it is indeed round.

Ron Paul is to economics as the Flat Earth Society is to the shape of the Earth.

QED