A question from a real PhD? What economic philosophy disagrees with the foundation of the following sentence?
960678
Keynsian economics theory disagrees with that, doesnt it?  I think i spelled Keynsian wrong though
647267
I think it's "Ad hominem". \n\nThis link will give you more info: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
48454
lololol...the ghost of Ayn Rand....lololol.\nI absolutely love it & hate it all at the same time.\n\nAyn certainly had one part of the equation correct, and I wonder how Leonard Piekoff is handing down her legacy. He done a marvelous job of slamming/exposing Kant, Hegel, and Marx---I love that part. But I dont care for Ayn's disking of family, values, and morality unto money alone. But I do give her much credit for acknowledging a monetary value beyond the fiat cohorts. \n\nPerhaps, allow me to get just slightly serious for a moment and scream this out. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REPUBS AND THE DEMOS, that feels better....lololol. Heck ole drop me pantaloons billclintonix is good pals with W and daddy Bush both. Why is that? Skull & Bones Yalestyle, maybe? Masonic order perhaps?\n\nPresidentes and most all political blowhards are mere puppets to the financial elite pulling their strings. Thee placed central banking presidentz do not get shot at. Only free thinking presidents of real change get that privledge.\n\nYeah yeah....have we not all heard it before. So who are these people that decide those parties people, and right to run for the presidente? \n\nI will tell you who.\n\nThe FRB\nThe CFR\nThe Trilateral commission\nThe Foundations (rockefeller, morgan, ford etc. etc.) \nThe oil money\nThe drug money\nThe irs\nThe teachers college (supported by rockefeller communistic funds)\n\nBut, here is the 3 biggies\n\nThe BIS\nThe Worldbank\nThe IMF\n\nAnd here are the 3 key dates\n\n1913\n1933\n1971\n\nHistory has two parallels being told at all times, one is used for control of its subjects, (media propaganda) thee other is used for passed down truthful information to the select few.\n\nSeriously, this nation is already a socialist state and does yet not realize it.\n\nNice question, sorry I had to abbreviate so much, but, if you research the topics from a non federal/brainwashed/politically correct point of view, then you may just learn more then you ever wanted too.\n\nHope I atleast scratched the surface of curiosity.\n\nTakecare
1147884
Why doesn't he get a degree in Economics assuming he is college.\nIf he is not then help him get through high school and then he can get his degree in Econmonics
957371
Capitalism in Retrospect\nCE Ayres - Southern Economic Journal, 1943 - JSTOR \n\nCheck this out, if you haven't already. The quote is noted as intact within the article, and I'm sure it must be cited.\n\nInteresting quote and idea-- I'm surprised it's not more known. I don't have access to JSTOR or a library with this journal, so can't be sure of the reference. But the quotation is present in the text.
885857
Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.
335405
I don't think it should necessarily be taught as a political science, because "economics" is a very broad term. Granted, macroeconomics such as trade, the federal budget, the stock market, are very closely related to public policy. However, economics also covers much smaller scale issues such as a how to operate your own business. In this regard, it is not necessarily all that political.
306838
"if you live with no regrets, you will not be guilty of what you have done."\n\ntotally false.  think about it.
658852
Where did you get that thought. I have studied Economics and there is nothing that says it is beneficial to an economy if a few people hold greater wealth.
80642
Keynesian economics is one philosiphy of money.  Monetarism theory is the other philosiphy of money.  Monetarists believe there is direct causual relationship between the money supply and economic activity.  Where as Keynisian economics is interest rate oriented.  e.x. If interest rate goes down, Investment goes up, therefore GDP goes up.  Remember that GDP, which is a measure an aggreate measure of our economy, is made up of Consumption, Investment, Government expenditures, and Net exports.  And that Investment is a function of interest, while Consumption is a function of income.
87337
Kelsen's theory is based on the consideration of a law as a norm, that is, a “should”. Every law can be traced back to another law that validates it as a law, until one reaches the final validating “basic norm”, or, in German, Grundnorm. An effective law, coming from a court, is validated by the statute which tells the court what to do and gives the court the power to make the law. The legislature derives such power from, usually, a constitution. The constitution derives its normative force from the Grundnorm.\n\nKelsen's theory has the essential problem that nothing can be said to explain the Grundnorm and its own validation; he was driven in his later works to admit that it could be considered a fiction. Notwithstanding these drawbacks, Kelsen's work was invaluable in bringing into legal discourse the unremittingly reasoned approach that philosophers have long demanded.\n\nMicrosoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
916087
"Let's agree to disagree."\n\nThat's the best political philosophy I know of. I credit Jesus with coming up with that one.\n\n'Love thy enemies.'
850468
In my book, money is often the cause of unethical behaviors, thus having more money but no more brain would not safe Bush from himself.\nBut I like your "tongue in cheek" argument.
294437
Latin.\n\nBuyer Be aware, its a marketing and business philosophy typical of the 50 and 60's where the buyer had to take te product "as is" and check all before he buyed, he had no right to reclamation whatsoever, the enterprise philosophy and strategy was to produce a lot... not to attract customers and care about their needs.\n\nIn the other hands, today the philosophy has changed, customer is more informed and enterprises fight for positioning (the place a product occupies in a customer`s mind) so philosophy has also changed, today caveat emptor has transformed into "Caveat venditor" (may the seller be aware, take care of himself) and/or "Cavea Emptorum" (Take care of the customer, be aware of the buyer)
460019
Some like to points to passages like this as evidence that Scripture contradicts itself.  \n\nBut that is hardly the explanation for a case like this\nNotice that the book of Proverbs intentionally puts these two proverbs side by side!  The suggestion that the collector was so incompetent as note to notice that the two successive verses said exactly the OPPOSITE is a bit much.\n\nIn fact, those who have studied the making and collecting of proverbs around the world (a fascinating area of study called "paremiology") have found that it is COMMON in this sort of literary collection to deliberately put two complementary, even seemingly contradictory sayings together.   For that matter, it would not be difficult to find seemingly contradictory parables WE have used.  For example: “Look before you leap” versus “He who hesitates is lost” and “Birds of a feather flock together,” versus “Opposites attract”\n\nThe point is that proverbs are "generalized" widsom -- obsevations about how life works -- but one can't mechanically apply them.  It takes real insight/wisdom to know which 'rule-of-thumb' applies in a given situation.  When the collector of Proverbs put THESE two together he clearly wanted to underline this point (which is made in other ways in the opening chapters of the book), and to challenge us to 'chew it over.'
814031
Kevin Federline\n\n"Is making babies for money wrong?"
485636
Yup. Because in the integrated definition of the afore mentioned appropriation that you collaborated and presented, the integral section of the multi-answerable response would be internationally and irreputably inconsistent with the immesaureable antecedent to the original propositional theoretical deliberation you asked us to focus on!!!!!