freediver wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2011 at 9:56pm:


Quantas enjoyed a unique safety reputation until it started outsourcing. But now it is only going to outsource maintenance. This will pay how?

Australian iron ore is exported to China and returns as railroads, brought by Gina Rhenhardt,  to further the extraction of more ore. This works for Australia how?

Australian intellectual property is manufactured by countries with scant regard for patent rights. This works for Australia how?

'Dumping' of manufactured goods in Australia to drive Australian manufacturers to the wall works in Australia's interests how?

History walks over the bones of 'experts' who refused to recognise the faults of entrenched doctrines.

freediver wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2011 at 10:28pm:


Perhaps I should do a Freediver and dispense with argument altogether and just post questions? Mote and beam, eye business.

Quote:


I am not the one trying to throw out the entire field of economics without even knowing what it is. You are, hence my suggestion that you attempt to come up with a rational argument.

Quote:


So you reject this wisdom on the grounds that you don't understand it?

Are you suggesting that you understand economics and I don't?

What tide? Do you realise how small a minority you are in?

Why are you proud? I have no problem with people rejecting recieved wisdom through insight, but you do not understand the knowledge you reject, nor can you give any rational reason for rejecting it, beyond complaining about things that happen that you don't like. This sounds like a stereotypical bogan who revels in his own ignorance.

People would not flock to someone who rejects modern medicine without understanding it, nor purchase advice from a lawyer who makes no effort to understand the law and claims to know better than those who do. What makes you think people will follow your lead? Is there something special about economics that any fool of the street can become an expert by virtue of the fact that he really cares about losing his job?

Quote:


Please explain this one.

Quote:


I thought that's what Twitter was for. You on the other hand have taken nothing and stretched it out over a few pages.

Quote:


If you go on a politics forum and reject well establish economic principles without understanding the principles you reject or even giving a justification for rejecting them, then obviously people are going to criticise you and put little effort into building an alternative narrative. If you don't put any thought into your posts why should people put effort into their responses? How is it even possible to give you a thoughtful response when your claims are all over the place? Am I supposed to post the entire field of economics in the hope that some part of it addresses whatever argument is going on in your head?

The best I can make out is that you don't like companies going broke and people losing their job so you lept to the 'obvious' conclusion that we need to turn economics on it's head and hope for the best.