Log In
Create Account
SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ
Login
Create Account
Search
Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...
RSS Feed
Hosting by DigitalOcean
Support ST on Ko-Fi
Links Only
50 Results
100 Results
250 Results
500 Results
1000 Results
5000 Results
2 Weeks
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
2 Years
5 Years
All Time
Live
Down to Post
Backboards:
Live
________________
1: Dec 1, 17:33
2: Dec 1, 11:23
3: Nov 30, 15:54
4: Nov 30, 09:41
5: Nov 29, 16:44
6: Nov 29, 08:01
7: Nov 28, 16:19
8: Nov 28, 09:42
9: Nov 27, 18:07
10: Nov 27, 12:04
11: Nov 27, 08:26
12: Nov 26, 18:06
13: Nov 26, 12:05
14: Nov 26, 08:29
15: Nov 25, 18:33
16: Nov 25, 11:12
17: Nov 25, 07:08
18: Nov 24, 13:17
19: Nov 23, 18:13
20: Nov 23, 06:17
Posts: 152
In response to
"
I didn't, but I'm not surprised it's the Cato Institute putting it out.
"
by
znufrii
That their claims are factually suspect is a matter of opinion you'd surely agree? -- nm
Posted by
Loyola
Feb 15 '09, 14:54
(No message)
Responses:
not really. they're presenting an overly simplistic view of both economics and history,
-
znufrii
Feb 15, 15:03
5
It seems pretty clear to me. They address a claim that there is no disagreement by stating that there is disagreement.
-
Loyola
Feb 15, 15:12
4
their disagreement stems more from opinions derived from their ideological position, than an objective analysis of the facts.
-
znufrii
Feb 15, 15:17
3
That's your opinion that their position on government spending to stimulate an economy is not based on empirical evidence.
-
Loyola
Feb 15, 15:26
2
Did you forget the letter sent to George Bush in May 2001, signed by dozens economists, including several Nobel laureates, in opposition to OECD?
-
Trish
Feb 15, 15:41
yet in the examples they cite, and the manner in which they do so, the idea that it would have been better for the government to do nothing
-
znufrii
Feb 15, 15:41
Post a message
top
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.