Yeah, this I really don't get at all. So you're just in the internet forum post correction business? You're not putting forward a normative claim? Why in the name of all things holy would you start with pretty obscure political arguments on a poker forum? Aren't there some Islamic fundamentalist forums making some pretty glaring factual errors?

LOL this is SOP for Max. It's the forum version of "SOME PEOPLE SAY" that news anchors love to use.

And I am explaining to you that people with no "knowledge of economics" can still understand arguments based on what you might term "practical economics". The explanation of how a specific phenomenon (say, the maintenance of a park that is open to all, or provision of armed individuals to maintain security in a given location) plays out in a free market, how the government might intervene, and what risks are inherent in that intervention and in the handing of that authority to intervene... these are all things that can be understood by anyone with some level of critical thinking and practical wisdom.

You appear to approach the problem from an academic perspective. Politics is life.

So now your argument is "ya i'm totally wrong. But people exist who are more wrong."? I likely post here for the same reasons most do

If they stuck to political or moral arguements I wouldn't have a problem. Why pretend you have mathematically rigorous arguments when you clearly don't? I'm against slavery and I don't have to invent a bunch of faux math arguments to explain why

Do you agree or disagree with this? Do you find this to be a "political or moral" argument? Can it be characterized as economic? Does any argument that claims to be economic also claim to be mathematically rigorous? I suspect the ACists and Austrians around here take exception to this equivalence.

are you saying economic arguments are always mathematical?

You didn't exactly make an argument. But to say that some solution to those problems is optimal would likely involve math

I didn't start this thread, xorbie.

Also, why do anything? I get some amusement from popping stuffed shirts. Borodog gets some enjoyment from defending Holocaust denial. You get some enjoyment from trying to moderate an internet debate between a group of morons and a group of jackasses.
Yes, Homer's problem with the implication is why he disagreed. It's why you people(and, just for vhawk, by that I mean EVERY SINGLE ACIST) always get antsy when the microeconomics gets to the undergraduate level.

You guys were taught that economics is a normative logical and moral framework used to justify public policy. It is not.

You're seriously going to characterize
as being equivalent to your bolded paraphrases? Because it's not. HomerNoon does not believe in market failure. He believe mainstream economists(corrupted by the incentives of academia) might subjectively apply the concept of market failure to outcomes they personally dislike. That's simply not what those words mean.

He uses that definition because his chosen political system requires an infallible market to grant it the sheen of "logic" or whatever, instead of just being a subjective policy preference for lower taxes.

You are mistaking two statements as being one:

1. To mathematically prove that a solution is optimal requires stating the problem and solution in mathematical terms and then going through some calculations to show that the proposed solution is logically identical to optimality.

2. To say that some solution is probably optimal for the purposes of convincing someone else only requires a somewhat specific understanding of what the problem is, what the solution is, and the understanding that no other proposed solution appears to be better on a cost-benefit analysis.

You have yet to demonstrate why an argument based in what you call economics must be taken to the point of rigorous, mathematical certainty. Society makes "economic" decisions on a daily basis without such certainty.

edit: In fact it would be quite interesting to see you attempt a proof that the rigorous mathematical certainty you argue for is, itself, optimal. You may attempt such a proof either with rigorous, mathematical language or with ordinary English.

The rigor argument is mostly a joke. Ac posters claim arguments are rigorous but its clear to everybody that they aren't. I'm not saying real economics is actually rigorous, nobody that knows any math would claim that. Im only asking for a minimum level of honesty

wtf are you so obsessed with math itt?

Also, I don't think I've ever used the word 'rigorous' in any context on this forum.

According to search, you quoted it once is all

It's not clear to me that every ACist argument isn't rigorous. But if you don't want to have a serious discussion and would rather cast generalized verbal aspersions about the lack of rigor in generalized verbal arguments, then have it.

I don't recall saying anything to you.

Hilarious retort in a thread started by you regarding your supposed humility.

Well you mentioned "AC posters" so I disagree.

Learn some math and learn what rigor is. Or else don't waste people's time talking about it

I think ACers are the humblest people I know, far more humble than anyone else and I make sure everyone knows it.

I have a degree in math and I have excelled at graduate level courses in both math and economics. Learn some humility, or else don't waste people's time talking about it.

score

I'm an ACist afaik.

LOL at your summary of what happened in that thread.

I was called out by Fly for not knowing jack about economics based on a statement I made about market failure many threads ago.

I responded by stating that I wasn't ashamed of the quote and felt no reason to be.

You, in your Fly-esque arrogance, interposed because I used the word "argued" to describe the concept of market failure.

I accused you of nothing, you accused me of not understanding market failure, and I remained on the defensive the whole thread, as I naturally suspect I will in this one as well.

Pro-tip: Associating with Fly by supporting his ill-conceived attacks and micharacterizations on libertarians/ACers wont earn you any points in the humility column. Fly is the opposite of humility, he certainly doesn't disregard human life because he thinks he's inferior to it.

lots of broad brushed attacks itt i think is the problem.

I don't recall saying anything about humility. I have no problem with arrogance, most people good at anything have some. Give me some specific arguments you think are rigorus if you want to continue

Why should I continue, after you insult my intelligence? If you want to have a conversation, feel free to provide a rigorous proof (to whatever standards of rigor you feel are appropriate) of how ACists generally fail to be rigorous in their arguments.