Why don't two or three states implement Universal Healthcare systems before we even start talking about it on a national scale?

You think Austrian economists disbelieve in economics?

Modern economics, definitely.

Peer review by mainstream economists who roundly reject those limitations on insights drawn from econometric analysis?

For good reasons, since they know much more about the subject than Austrians.

You do realize that reasoning is itself not based on evidence, right?

Yes, the exact problem with relying on "reason" with no deference to data and evidence.

We're going in circles. I say "you can't determine a the criticism o a methodology is invalid by using that methodology" and you say "yeah but according to their methodology that criticism of that methodology is invalid!"

The problem is you can't actually demonstrate the criticisms. You CLAIM they are issues, but don't provide evidence they actually are. If you could you would go through the peer review process.

In other words, you assume cause from result, which is the affirming the consequent fallacy.

This sentence doesn't really make grammatical sense. I'll reiterate. I lay my opinion behind scientific consensus. You don't.

And you think a social science like economics is only equal footing of scientific rigor and analysis as physics and chemistry?

What is the basis for this, other than assuming there is no limit to insights drawn from data analysis?

Why would you assume there are limits to the insights unless you have numbers and science to prove that? On subjects I have low confidence on, I rely on the scientific consensus. From physics, to chemistry, to climate change, to evolution, to economics. If you can scientifically prove them wrong I welcome that. It's the whole point of the scientific process! But don't just "prax it out" and assume you've countered decades of scientific and academic work in economics.

Right because experts have no bias? Krugman wrote a macroecon textbook where he points out that price controls like the minimum wage creates shortages and then when blogging for the NY times suddenly there's no evidence. Oh and he wrote the book 5 years after the Card and Krueger study as well.

OK, so all you're saying is that you're ignorant of all the other MW research done in the past decade.

How is "they didn't account for this" being an ideologue? You realize that peer review is basically "is your hypothesis supported?", not "is your analysis sufficiently exhaustive?" right?

Because most of the time they did account for "this". Just because you're not informed enough to follow the papers and the statistics in them (hint: more than just linear regression) doesn't mean what you cherry pick out of the abstract wasn't actually controlled for.

The sad fact is you are not a trained economist and cannot understand the economics paper being put out. NEITHER AM I. Which is fine. But only one of us is claiming they are wrong.

So basically it's "The people who disagree with group X are wrong because group X is bigger and says they're wrong."

No, it's "The people who disagree with EXPERTS are wrong because EXPERTS are SMARTER and says they're wrong".

The fact that you don't know enough to make it through the peer review process is not my fault.

/r/PoliticalDiscussion Thread Parent