State of the Union

[Orruar]

You type a lot of words yes. But you say very little. I'm asking you for a shred of evidence to back up your claims of massive deregulation. You offer anecdotes and testimony of people who give no evidence of your claims themselves. Just think critically and objectively for 5 minutes and try to think of a way to determine whether banking regulation decreased or increased as a whole during the period in question. You can go back to your emotion-based arguments after that 5 minute period, if you choose to.

[Lune]

No, you're just moving the goalposts. If you don't like my evidence, that's your problem. I've already explained it sufficiently and addressed your objections.

[Orruar]

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

No, you're just moving the goalposts. If you don't like my evidence, that's your problem. I've already explained it sufficiently and addressed your objections.

I'm moving the goalposts? When did I ever say that I'd accept anecdotal evidence and testimony devoid of data as evidence of your claim of deregulation? I think you may have picked the wrong cliche.

[Lune]

I've responded to every one of your assaults on my evidence, but now you're demanding that I reply in a very specific way and you're trying to dictate the conditions under which I can make my point. All this while implying I'm being subjective and ignoring my defense of my evidence.

Moving the goalposts isn't about the conditions you've omitted, it's about the ones you are trying to enforce.

The idea that a testimony isn't evidence is fucking laughable, especially when you don't even try to make a compelling case against Greenspan.

[radditsu]

Is not a testimony, by law, evidence?

[Lojik]

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. Also, there was no considerable deregulation after 2000, note the examples that Lune gave, and creating affordable housing goals dates back to 1932 and more simliar to what we see today in the late 60's. We're talking some serious policy lag here. Something else that was happening while this bubble was forming? Greenspan cut the fed funds rate from 6.5% in 2000 down to a low of 1%, which actually kept the real interest rate negative for 3 years. I'd argue the negative interest rates led more to a housing bubble than deregulation.

[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.

[Ahldagor]

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

Is not a testimony, by law, evidence?

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

[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.

[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.