Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 39018
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2005/8/5-7 [Science/GlobalWarming, Finance] UID:39018 Activity:nil
        "Corporations followed his lead, pouring a steady stream of money into
        think tanks that created a sort of parallel intellectual universe, a
        world of 'scholars' whose careers are based on toeing an ideological
        line, rather than on doing research that stands up to scrutiny by their
        "... supply-side economics, a doctrine whose central claim - that tax
        cuts have such miraculous positive effects on the economy that they pay
        for themselves  -  has never been backed by evidence."
        "...discredit research on global warming.  Despite an overwhelming
        scientific consensus, ... impression that the issue is still
        \_ Insert obligatory NYT bashing.
        \_ Supply-side economics  is pseudo-science now? -- ilyas
           \_ it depends on what he meant by "never been backed by evidence"
              \_ I think this 'never been backed by evidence' claim is pretty
                 stupid.  The problem is, doing real empirical work to test
                 'big theories' in economics amounts to experimentation on
                 humans, so people tend to invent new theories when old ones no
                 longer explain what's happening, rather than explain the
                 humans, so people tend to invent new theories when old ones
                 no longer explain what's happening, rather than explain the
                 'experimental data someone collected.' -- ilyas
                 \_ ^pretty stupid^his conclusion as an expert in the field of
                    \_ This is where I bring up that supply-side first arose
                       because Keynesian economics didn't correctly explain
                       what was happening in the 70s.  But yeah, it's all
                       pseudo-science with pseudo-scholars.  No real economists
                       are proponents of supply-side, it's all right-wingers
                       and fundies. Such utter dumbassery. -- ilyas
                       \_ No serious economist believes that cutting taxes
                          always increases government revenue. So it is a
                          bit of a straw man, but apparently believed by you.
                          \_ No, I think the original claim was talking about
                             supply-side economics as 'bad science,' it is you
                             who is now trying to beg off on some weaker
                             version of the original retarded statement.
                             No supply-sider believes the statement you just
                             made.  -- ilyas
2017/09/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

You may also be interested in these entries...
2013/5/7-18 [Science/Physics] UID:54674 Activity:nil
        This is totally awesome.
        "equips each node in the network with quantum transmitters–i.e.,
        lasers–but not with photon detectors which are expensive and bulky"
        \_ The next phase of the project should be stress-testing with real-
           world confidential data by NAMBLA.
2012/12/4-18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:54545 Activity:nil
12/4    "Carbon pollution up to 2 million pounds a second" (
        Yes, that's *a second*.
        \_ yawn.
        \_ (12/14) "AP-GfK Poll: Science doubters say world is warming"
        \_ (12/14)
2011/11/12-30 [Finance/Banking, Finance/Investment] UID:54225 Activity:nil
12/12   What percent are you?
        \_ A newer article on the same site: "The Myth of 'Record-High'
           "But by the latest measures, inequality is actually lower than it
Cache (766 bytes)
By PAUL KRUGMAN (NYT) Op-Ed 775 words Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 15 , Column 6 ABSTRACT - Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says sheer political power of some of America's most powerful politicians has not been enough to get creationism into school curriculum; says their answer has been to create widespread impression that scientific consensus on theory of evolution has shaky foundation; says intelligent design, which spreads doubt about evolution without being too overtly religious, may succeed where creation science failed; says merely creating confusion, along with political muscle of religous right, may be enough to start process that ends with banishing Darwin from classroom Please Note: Archive articles do not include photos, charts or graphics.