State of the Union

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by radditsu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is not a testimony, by law, evidence?

In a strict sense, yes. But what is it evidence of? The goal of the testimony was not to support the claim that there has been deregulation of the financial sector, and so it was not evidence for the claim that Lune is making. I hope you were just being facetious.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Lojik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think the point Orruar is trying to make is that the financial sector is pretty intricate, and for anyone person to simply say "deregulation caused this" is a little tough to swallow as convincing evidence considering that this is one of, if not the most heavily regulated industry. ...

Actually, that was going to be my second point.

Lune claimed that B occurred because A implies B.

From a logic standpoint:
My first goal was to get him to prove that A is true. He has utterly failed at this.
My second would be to get him to prove that A implies B is true.

[Raavak]

But starting in 1992 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given minimum requirements on buying what is deemed "high risk" mortgages (and these minimums were raised several times), based on changes to the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

precisely what orruar is not acknowledging because then they can continue to say that there hasn't been evidence provided by lune.

There's a huge difference between evidence given in testimony and actual scientific evidence. If someone wants to make claims about economic causation, they better come up with something a little more rigorous than "that old dude who ran the Fed says it's true". No physicist has ever talked about relativity and said "Einstein said it, so it's true."

And Greenspan wasn't even giving testimony in an attempt to prove what Lune is being asked to prove. It would be like if I asked you to give some evidence for the claim "the Earth spins on its axis once every 24 hours" and you came back with some congressional testimony about the morning after pill where someone said "you can take it up to a day later and have it be effective". Yes, they vaguely referenced the fact that there is a concept of "day", but they weren't making any attempt to prove that claim.

[aowen]

Here is a 60 page or so breakdown of how Greenspan, Bernanke, Henry Paulson, and the financial sector are demonstrable vile pieces of shit. Far from the only document tracing forces and changes in laws/financial instruments to conclude that they are indeed scum of the earth.

http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/...on_Too_Big.pdf

http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/confere..._big_part2.pdf

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There's a huge difference between evidence given in testimony and actual scientific evidence. If someone wants to make claims about economic causation, they better come up with something a little more rigorous than "that old dude who ran the Fed says it's true". No physicist has ever talked about relativity and said "Einstein said it, so it's true."

And Greenspan wasn't even giving testimony in an attempt to prove what Lune is being asked to prove. It would be like if I asked you to give some evidence for the claim "the Earth spins on its axis once every 24 hours" and you came back with some congressional testimony about the morning after pill where someone said "you can take it up to a day later and have it be effective". Yes, they vaguely referenced the fact that there is a concept of "day", but they weren't making any attempt to prove that claim.

question: are you making the assumption that economics is an exact social science?
there's a lot of guesswork that goes into those calculating algorithms they run. besides all of us aren't robots.

i understand your comment about lune's greenspan quotes, but that also doesn't discount that the man who headed the federal reserve(the most powerful person in the world, seemingly) admitted that the act of deregulation and his support for it was an act that upon reflection was not the best course of action (he can make the statement because he cannot change what has happened and is free of any scrutiny) due to the effects there of. the clinging to specificity of "evidence" is destroying your argumentative ground because it is equivalent of closing your eyes, putting your hands over your ears, and going "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA" just because you inherently disagree.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by aowen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here is a 60 page or so breakdown of how Greenspan, Bernanke, Henry Paulson, and the financial sector are demonstrable vile pieces of shit. Far from the only document tracing forces and changes in laws/financial instruments to conclude that they are indeed scum of the earth.

http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/...on_Too_Big.pdf

http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/confere..._big_part2.pdf

the american dream has always been the desire for a license to steal

[baalzy]

I find it funny that someone is spouting off about needing scientific evidence while supporting libertarianism when there are 3 decades worth of economic data showing that the only 'trickle down' effect is the concentration wealth at the top.

[aowen]

Originally Posted by baalzy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I find it funny that someone is spouting off about needing scientific evidence while supporting libertarianism when there are 3 decades worth of economic data showing that the only 'trickle down' effect is the concentration wealth at the top.

This website needs a like button

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by baalzy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I find it funny that someone is spouting off about needing scientific evidence while supporting libertarianism when there are 3 decades worth of economic data showing that the only 'trickle down' effect is the concentration wealth at the top.

You achieved the rare feat of engaging in more fallacies than the number of words in your post. Very high density, congrats.