40 responses so far ↓

• 1 IanS // Jul 10, 2015 at 9:41 am

  Interesting point. It’s easy to identify professionals, such as dentists or lawyers, but “economist” seems to be something of an amorphous term. In my view, the problem is made all the more difficult by the fact that so many issues relating to economics are closely intertwined with issues relating to politics. As we see over and over again on blog comments, people seem to think that dressing up their political views as “economics” somehow lends them more weight.

  IMO, the issue is not whether someone is an “economist” but, rather, whether someone has training or expertise in economics (regardless of whether one is an “economist”). In the absence of such training or expertise, reference to economics or economists in support of one’s political views is, at best, no more than an appeal to authority.

• 2 spartikus // Jul 10, 2015 at 1:37 pm

  My issue with the field of economics is economists like to view themselves as studying complex systems of numbers when they are really studying complex systems of people. And people are fickle. They will believe in abstract concepts that exist only in the human mind like, say, a currency, until the moment they don’t. And no one can really predict that moment. It can occur quickly or it can occur imperceptibly over time.

  The invisible hand only works so far.

• 3 Lysenko's Nemesis // Jul 10, 2015 at 8:52 pm

  Thank you Frances, now I know that after all these thirty plus years running a solvent business with no debt and never not paying a bill, I must be an economist.

• 4 A Taxpayer // Jul 10, 2015 at 11:20 pm

  I would choose to take my chances with the invisible hand of the market over the heavy hand of a government.

• 5 YVR_City // Jul 11, 2015 at 5:23 pm

  Academic economics uses particular set of methodological tools to look at social and business questions. This yields unique and valuable insights, but that is not the same thing as truth. They, and that’s me because I’m a “card-carrying” economist, do not have anything close to a monopoly on understanding, but hopefully research focused economic analysis can at times question generally accepted beliefs in these areas.

• 6 Chris Keam // Jul 12, 2015 at 10:01 am

  If that were true you wouldn’t live in Canada.

• 7 Kirk // Jul 12, 2015 at 11:23 am

  Economists are like meterologists, except they’re not as accurate.

• 8 A Taxpayer // Jul 12, 2015 at 1:15 pm

  It’s not for lack of trying on the part of your socialist friends but we do not live under the heavy hand of the government in Canada. Yet.

• 9 A Taxpayer // Jul 12, 2015 at 3:03 pm

  However, economic models are more accurate than climate models but I guess that is damning with faint praise, isn’t it.

• 10 Chris Keam // Jul 12, 2015 at 6:14 pm

  Don’t evade your own statement. You presumably have the means to live in a place that better reflects your ideology and claim you would do so. Yet here you are.

• 11 A Taxpayer // Jul 12, 2015 at 8:50 pm

  What part of “we do not live under the heavy hand of the government in Canada” don’t you understand? Or perhaps you believe we do.

• 12 Chris Keam // Jul 12, 2015 at 11:18 pm

  Sorry, but your statement is quite clear. It’s not my misunderstanding. I took your comment at face value.

• 13 A Taxpayer // Jul 13, 2015 at 8:39 am

  You seem to be having as much problem with language as spartikus is having with arithmetic – maybe you two should consider switching.

• 14 Chris Keam // Jul 13, 2015 at 9:12 am

  Apparently. My mistake may have been assuming you stand behind your comments.

• 15 Jeff Leigh // Jul 13, 2015 at 9:50 am

  Common mistake, to confuse climate models with weather forecasting, which is what meteorologists do.

• 16 A Taxpayer // Jul 13, 2015 at 10:55 am

  My comment was unclear – I didn’t mean to suggest meteorologists produce climate models (climate “scientists” do). Perhaps I’ve been reading too many Chris Keam comments and it is having a negative effect.

• 17 Jeff Leigh // Jul 13, 2015 at 2:19 pm

  You should look at more models created by actual climate scientists, and fewer created by climate “scientists”.
  People like Anthony Watts (a former “meteorologist”) can distort things enough to make you believe that the climate models are not tracking accurately.

• 18 A Taxpayer // Jul 14, 2015 at 1:27 pm

  Do you mean someone like the Chair of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri who was an engineer with Indian Railways? Oops, make that former chair since he was forced to resign over that sexual harassment charge. Perhaps he was just researching his latest soft core porn novel.

  Or maybe you mean John Cook, the former self employed cartoonist who was the author of the survey that incorrectly said 97% of scientists accept catastrophic AGW? Michael “the Hockey Stick” Mann who is a Nobel Prize Certificate of Participation winner? Al Gore? The Pope?

• 19 Chris Keam // Jul 14, 2015 at 3:40 pm

  Not sure that folks who look to Scott Walker for economic direction (no discernible credentials or skills at anything) should invite criticism.

• 20 Jeff Leigh // Jul 14, 2015 at 4:19 pm

  Pachauri does not create climate models, to my knowledge.

  With John Cook, you at least got the field right. Yes, he is a climatologist. His paper didn’t say that 97% of scientists accept AGW (catastrophic is how deniers like to categorize it). It said that 97% of the published papers support AGW. Many papers have more than one author. You should read Cook et al (2013). Or, if you like, Oreskes (2004). Or Doran (2009). Or Anderegg (2010). If that is just too much work, reference a legitimate scientific academy that has a contrary position. Meteorologists don’t count. But don’t get confused by the consensus studies. Consensus studies don’t prove that the science behind AGW is sound. It is because the science is sound that the consensus is so high.

  Yes, Michael Mann is a climatologist. If you think Al Gore is a climatologist you should seek help. The Pope is not a climatologist, but speaks to the moral issues of failing to act.

  Next you’re going to tell us that it isn’t warming. Or that if it is, it isn’t human caused. Or if it is human caused, that it will be beneficial. Or if it isn’t beneficial, that it is too expensive to do anything about it, because “we just aren’t sure…” And then incorporate some wild claims about a one world government, seeking to restrict your freedom to pollute.

  And back on topic, the original post talked about “attempting to discredit the target and imply that their views should be ignored” That seems to be exactly what you are doing. If you don’t have any science or evidence to support your position, I suppose it is all you’ve got.

• 21 A Taxpayer // Jul 14, 2015 at 5:56 pm

  You define climatologist pretty broadly if you are going to include John Cook who described himself on his web site as:

  “I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade…..My interest in global warming began when I drew a cartoon spoof of the TV show 24 that wondered what Jack Bauer would do if Al Gore was President and global warming was the “threat du jour””

  He has since found his niche in going after and vilifying as “deniers” anyone who raises any questions about the “settled science” . At least Al Gore has inventing the internet on his resume.

  As for Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology (wouldn’t that make him a meteorologist?) his claim to fame is the Hockey Stick which has since disappeared from IPCC reports.

• 22 A Taxpayer // Jul 14, 2015 at 6:02 pm

  You should stick to posting the results of your Google searches, Chris, as no one is going to be paying attention to the opinions of someone who has at various times has proposed things like ending poverty by the spontaneous, worldwide disarmament by all countries, fixing the affordable housing problem by having all sellers spontaneously reduce their selling prices and by advocating that Canada adopt an open border policy on immigration.

• 23 Chris Keam // Jul 14, 2015 at 6:53 pm

  None of those are really my ideas. Just sharing the perspectives of people like Einstein, B. Fuller, and your boy Scott’s big influence — J. Christ.

  They’re big, ambitious concepts. So, not your realm in other words.

• 24 A Taxpayer // Jul 15, 2015 at 10:26 am

  Now was it Einstein or B. Fuller who proposed solving the affordable housing issue in Vancouver by having all the sellers reduce their selling price at once?

  Doesn’t matter. There is a big difference between simply sharing the ideas of other people and proposing those ideas as solutions to specific problems. So what is it? Are you prepared to stand behind your previous comments proposing these ideas as solutions or are you distancing yourself from them now that you realize they are not very useful as real solutions to any problem.

• 25 Chris Keam // Jul 15, 2015 at 5:09 pm

  That wasn’t what I proposed, but I’m not surprised you have once again misrepresented someone’s remarks. I did say that if an individual wanted to help make housing more affordable and ensure locals could live in the city, they were free to accept a lower bid from the prospective buyer of their choice. This remains an option for anyone who is selling a home and wishes to forego a small amount of profit to help keep housing affordable in the region and I still believe this to be true.

  Now, since you agree that actions should reflect stated positions, let me know when you’re moving. I’ll bring you some boxes.

• 26 A Taxpayer // Jul 16, 2015 at 4:57 pm

  Ever the artful dodger avoiding the issue which was do you still stand behind your statement that the solution to fund the eradication of world wide poverty is worldwide disarmament or have you changed your mind and you were merely sharing someone else’s perspective on the issue?

• 27 Chris Keam // Jul 19, 2015 at 10:11 am

  You asked me specifically about my remarks about housing. Please read your own inane requests before accusing people of acting as you do. I have no problem with reiterating that worldwide disarmament would free up money and time to eradicate poverty (as much as such a thing is possible). I suppose that will raise squeals of “equivocating!” from you Bill, but it’s called realism.

  Now, about that moving day. In which more free market place are you going to live?

• 28 A Taxpayer // Jul 19, 2015 at 4:01 pm

  Chris Keam • a year ago

  “”So your solution to finding funding for all the problems of the world is a spontaneous, worldwide disarmament by all countries.”

  Yes.”

  Can’t accuse you of equivocating with that response can we. Clearly you believe this to be a viable solution to the issue or you are proposing a solution that you know to be impossible to implement. Either way, not very flattering but neither is it surprising.

• 29 Chris Keam // Jul 19, 2015 at 8:11 pm

  You are digging back into year old threads to make some point I am sure. If it’s that you have an unhealthy obsession with my remarks Bill, I think you’ve succeeded.

  cheers,
  CK

• 30 A Taxpayer // Jul 20, 2015 at 10:11 am

  And you have succeeded in demonstrating that you not only don’t stand behind the comments you make, if you can’t find a way to weasel out of them, you just pretend they never happened. (Hard to make the case that “yes” is a nuanced response, isn’t it). Something to reflect on before you decide to accuse someone of not standing behind their comments.

• 31 Chris Keam // Jul 20, 2015 at 10:46 am

  Well, I don’t know that I’ve changed my position much at all. I did know you were waiting for something similarly miniscule in change from my original statement to jump on, but can’t be arsed to go back a year to find my exact comments. You’re welcome. Probably made your weekend eh?

  Maybe you might reflect on the paucity of intelligence required to call out someone for saying something slightly different from a year previous, but essentially within the same attitudinal framework. But perhaps you enjoy associating with people who can’t learn.

• 32 A Taxpayer // Jul 20, 2015 at 2:00 pm

  Ahh Chris, just when it appears that you have made a major breakthrough actually admitting to changing your position you go and spoil it by characterizing it as a “miniscule” change and it fact it really wasn’t a change at all since it was “within the same attitudinal framework”. Wow. I know progressives can twist themselves into a pretzel shape to justify their position but you have taken that to a whole new level.

• 33 Chris Keam // Jul 20, 2015 at 3:28 pm

  Nothing has changed w/r/t my position. Your reading comprehension may be getting worse as your obsession deepens Bill.

• 34 A Taxpayer // Jul 20, 2015 at 5:31 pm

  I acknowledged that you believe you haven’t changed your position but don’t sweat it. Promoting ideas like open borders and spontaneous worldwide disarmament makes it pretty clear that reading comprehension is the least of your challenges.

• 35 Chris Keam // Jul 20, 2015 at 8:31 pm

  They are definitely big, paradigm-shifting concepts that require intelligence and an open mind Bill, but as we have seen throughout history, greater freedom of movement and less violent conflict continues to be the trend. A lot of people are funny that way. They like the idea of greater opportunities and less bloodshed for all. But I’m sure your side has its supporters too.

• 36 A Taxpayer // Jul 22, 2015 at 3:07 pm

  This is utter nonsense. True, we have not repeated the carnage of the two World Wars but ironically it is probably nuclear weapons that greatly contributed to this outcome as the two main competing ideologies, capitalism versus communism, fought smaller proxy wars with conventional weapons to avoid the mutual
  annihilation of a nuclear war. As well, for the last 25 years we have not even really worried about the risk of a
  nuclear war although that may all change if the Iran deal sparks a proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.

  However, to say this is a sign of a trend is to less violent
  conflict is over reaching. If this were true, you would be arguing against yourself since there has been no disarmament and in fact there are more sophisticated weapons in the hands of non-state armies than at any other time. But it is not true. And you are very naïve if you believe that ISIS is not a threat just because the number of casualties do not add up to those of a major conflict.

  Ironically, your two issues are related. Immigration itself is neither good nor bad but there have been serious negative consequences of immigration under a
  multi-cultural environment where differences are celebrated rather than the common, shared values of a Western secular society. Consequently, we are now trying to address the de-radicalization of the no shortage of ISIS recruits from Western countries. Western European countries are trying to reboot their immigration philosophy but it could very well be too little, too
  late.

• 37 Chris Keam // Jul 22, 2015 at 9:08 pm

  An ISIS without access to military-grade weapons is about as dangerous as the Westboro kooks, which is to say barely at all. Figure it out.

• 38 spartikus // Jul 23, 2015 at 9:56 am

  Those Humvees they drive look familiar. I wonder where they got them?

• 39 A Taxpayer // Jul 23, 2015 at 9:56 am

  It only takes a Google search of ISIS and weapons to show how foolish your statement is. Just one of many:

  http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/04/us-has-armed-isis.html

• 40 Chris Keam // Jul 23, 2015 at 3:49 pm

  Great link. thanks for making my point for me!