MMT is a fine example of why economics is not a science. MMT is an ideology that attempts to "justify" rampant government spending. Now, while it is more historically accurate than the competing ideology of Austrian economics, when it comes to the origin of currency, it is still historically inaccurate. Just go back to England centuries ago? How did England establish currency? Did it just initially spend money it made up out of thin air as MMT claims? Not at all. People who already held gold turned it in to receive back from the government less gold, but in the form of a coin that could be used to buy things. So, while MMT is correct that all currency is based on a political organization that legalizes the use of a currency for the payment of debts, goods and services, it is wrong when it claims money originated by governments making it up out of thin air. The historical reality is that currency started off by governments confiscating wealth from private people.

This is also what would happen if the federal government in the USA started spending like crazy. Inflation will result, which is nothing less than a tax on people's savings.

MMT is an ideology not merely because it rewrites actual history, but because it ignores one of the most basic concepts of all in economics ---- the problem of scarcity. If the federal government prints up money and spends it, all it does is take resources that exist. It's not getting around the problem that in the end resources used for one purpose cannot be used for another.

Rene: The mods deleted my comment, which was basically stating that you don't know what you are writing about, that studies have shown toddlers have a moral sense, which they most definitely did not learn from society. You are basically the equivalent of a young earth creationist, a complete science denier, and that I am sick and tired of science deniers on here, so I am done. Science forums really are far superior to philosophy forums, where basically people write nonsense and expect to be taken seriously.

Mr Phil: You are ignoring what evolution tells us about why you love your mother. It is essentially based on biological evolution. Now, how does evolution affect behavior? Through proximate and distal causes. You are simply ignoring the proximate cause --- your mother loves you, which is why she took care of you. This was evolution's way of making her more successful in passing on her genes. It's the love, by looking at a "cute" baby, that is the proximate cause for the more distal cause of successfully passing on her genes. Evolution also explains parent-child conflicts, sibling-rivalry, kin selection, etc. If you want to take a very non-scientific view of evolution, then I guess you would come to the conclusion you did. But you seriously think generations of scientists would have overlooked such questions?

Why is it that most people accept the idea that parents treat their children better than strangers? Evolution provides the perfect explanation. No moral philosophy does.

Mr Phil: Changing political views? There have been studies done that accurately predicted adult's political orientations based on personality tests given to them as little kids. The facts are that some people do change their political views, but largely we don't do so.

Morality is largely hardwired into our brains due to evolution. Even when it comes to our political views and how we divide into left and right-wing parties across the globe, we are basically divided as a result of evolution, which gave rise to political personality traits. Sometimes evolution favored xenophilia, as breeding outside one's group could promote beneficial genetic diversity, while at other times, evolution favored xenophobia, breeding within one's group and avoiding outsiders, like in cases where pathogens could be a real problem being introduced by outsiders. Because evolution sometimes favored liking outsiders and at other times disliking them, people divide into left and right wing parties over such things as immigration policies, and this is a discussion we are having due to our biological evolution. The same can be said for people's attitudes regarding inequality and human nature, these differences are also mainly due to our evolutionary history sometimes favoring an egalitarian society and other times a hierarchical one, and sometimes favoring mutual support and at other times, not so much.

Most of our political arguments are just cover stories we use to endorse our biological predispositions.

It's not that big of an issue, actually. People tend to needlessly complicated this issue of whether there is objective morality. Just start with your definition for morality. What is it? If you define it something along the lines of getting along well with others, then there are better and worse ways of doing that, which makes morality objective, and even subject to science. Now, if you define morality to be something else, like, whatever a God says it is, then I think you are actually referring to something that has no significance and cannot be established as true in any way.

Charleton: Well, you can make up false claims regarding Marx all day long. In fact, every Marxist I know has never read his works. Marxism is bullshit on steroids. Marx did specifically state that capitalism, socialism and communism had unique historical roles to fulfill. This is a religious claim. No scientist would ever make such a claim, it's absurd. It's like theists who claim humans are the ultimate goal of creation. Marx was not a member of the working class, played the stock market, and lived off of capitalist profits from his buddy, Engels, who was filthy rich. So the whole claim about economic class determining one's beliefs, which is a Marxist claim, is undermined by the very outlook of both Marx and Engels. Marxism ha failed miserably every time it has been tried too, so it's amazing anyone today is a Marxist, when it's not just theoretically a bunch of shit, we have empirical evidence that it leads to mass destruction and death.

A deductive argument is also the basis for all mathematical proofs, even proofs based on "induction." We know that a deductive argument is valid if the conclusion must be true assuming the premises are true. As far as a justification is concerned, the deductive argument provides its own justification. If there is no way that the conclusion can be false if the premises are true, then what else would be needed to justify the argument?

Now, grounding it is a different matter, and it just cannot be done. Just think of it this way ---- eventually one must start off somewhere to get the argument going, or science going, or mathematics going, so there is no way to prove everything that is being used for either deductive logic, science, math, or any other field. So, we will always have to assume that we are on solid enough ground by accepting any particular starting point. This usually works out fine unless it can later be shown that there is an error that we are relying upon.

I admit I did not bother to watch the video. The title was enough to convince me it would be a waste of time. Labeling claims about white privilege a Marxist claim seems like such ideological nonsense that I can't take this guy seriously.

I doubt he even addressed such issues as regulatory capture, which helps to explain sluggish growth and rising inequality. The left typically overlook this issue, which involves the government intervening in free-markets to help the wealthy, because the left looks to the government as a solution, and the right also overlooks this problem, because they think whatever a so-called free-market produces, must be optimal, despite no such realistic proof ever having been established. I have a hard time believing that a guy who does not even know what Marxism is would get this right.

Well, aren't you assuming that this is a bad thing when there is no basis for saying so? After all, if a particular candidate loses do to low voter turnout, that may or may not be a bad thing.

Charleton: Marx lived off of hiss capitalist friend, Engels, and also played the stock market, which are two more signs of his hypocrisy. You never addressed my points though: Since Marx claimed that everything was predetermined, then why claim a revolution was needed? Also, if people are merely a product of their social class, then how come he and Engels, especially Engels, a wealthy capitalist, were communists?

The comment above regarding Chomsky is a classic!

I'm you asking about a justification for the use of logic, or an actual so-called grounding?

Your comment about justifying logic because it has been successful in the past, reminds me of the problem of induction that occurs in science. Science, contrary to many people's way of thinking about science, is not grounded. We use induction in science, because it has worked in the past. But, that is merely using induction to justify induction, which is circular reasoning, plus, there are examples where this doesn't always turn out to be true. So, the same problem would occur if one tried to use the success of logic to ground it. Besides which, logic uses deductive reasoning as well as inductive, and insofar as it uses deductive reasoning it produces proofs, which are still not grounded, because assumptions have to be made to determine the structure of the logical system being used.

But, your suggestion really is the most practical and most relevant --- we use logic because it is helpful and it works. This may cause some philosophers to pull their hair out in frustration, but, it's the best we have managed to come up with to date.

It makes Marx a hypocrite, doesn't it? After all, he was in the non--working class, yet, he claims to have been able to identify with them. According to Marx, this should have been impossible. Marx also called for armed revolution, but, why bother if everything is predetermined anyway?

I am not sure why anyone thinks morality must be grounded, as nothing else has ever been grounded. Mathematics relies on unfounded axioms, so math is not grounded. Science has the problem of induction, and remains ungrounded. Reason is ungrounded. So, why should there be this exception for morality?

Morality does not have to be based on any metaphysical absurdist claims. Morality is about getting along well together, and we know objectively that there are better and worse ways of doing that. We also know our morality started off from evolution, and to this day, about 50% of any person's political views, which are moral views, are based on evolutionary biology that gave rise to their political personality traits, which are approximately 50% heritable.

CuddlyHedgehog: I'm sure that is true for some people, but the vast majority of us certainly have time to learn at least some of the issues currently facing us. Far too many people are getting their information from social media sites, and that's definitely proving to be a problem. Pretty much any nonsense can be found over the net.

It depends on whether one is a layperson or an expert in the field. As a layperson, would you drive across a bridge that 97% of structural engineers told you would collapse if you did? Most people wouldn't, but these same people often reject 97% of climate scientists. If you believe in science, and are not an expert in the field, then you have to go along with the scientific orthodox view. As a lay person you just lack the knowledge to justify a contrary opinion.

Now, this is different for subjects like physics, chemistry, math, engineering, than it is for topics like sociology, economics, and other social sciences which are not as reliable as physics, chemistry or applied mathematics. But, even then, if 97% of economists held a specific viewpoint, absent expertise in the field, you would not be justified to disagree with them.

Aporiap: I wouldn't use another system besides a democratic one, and I do understand that in the USA we are a Constitutional Republic, but still, ultimately, we are governed by democratic policies. I would push more for education, including teaching people that one of the main ideas behind democracy is that an individual citizen needs to be able to articulate a logical argument to support their political position, which helps to build better citizens as they go through formulating arguments and using logic to address competing arguments. Democracy is also based on the idea that the citizen should not just base his political decisions on self-interest, but for the good of the country as a whole. I think those two aspects of democracy, and what the system is supposed to be about have been long forgotten. We certainly don't get rational, logical debates from most politicians and most political pundits.

I think your best bet is to start with a mathematics textbook that assists students in transitioning from computational classes to classes dealing with proofs. I think there are a number of good books out there, and one I have in my personal library is titled something like "Mathematical Reasoning," just not sure of the subtitle off the top of my head. Many books on logic do not provide answers, as do many math books on non-computational subjects, like in discrete mathematics, so you should see what the people reviewing such books say online. Is it self-study friendly? That's the main thing you need to make sure the book is good at --- allowing one to study it without an instructor, so the books will definitely need exercises along with answers. I'm teaching myself a lot of math in the hope of going to grad school in applied mathematics, and I have been burned a number of times by purchasing books online only to later discover that there are no answers to any of the exercises.

When Chomsky writes about economic issues for the mass public, and he has no degree in economics, admitted he gets his economic ideas from watching Star Trek, and he has never once published a paper in any economics journal that is peer-reviewed, then we know he is not a reliable source for information regarding economics. Not to mention his numerous lies, like denying the Cambodian genocide.

To find reputable authors look for people who are actually addressing topics that they have degrees in, as well as a significant amount of work experience. Richard Dawkins, as an example, may be an expert on evolutionary biology, but he is not an expert on religion, ironically enough, since that is what he spends most of his public life on. He's never had a single paper published on religion in a peer-reviewed journal. In fact, most public intellectuals talk about subjects that they are not even remotely experts in, and have spent hardly any time studying. Like Bill Nye on climate change. He sucks at discussing the issue; it's like he only knows some vague generalities. But, Bill Nye likes the attention he gets when he talks about all sorts of subjects he is not an actual expert in, so there you go --- never take someone's word for something who is not an actual expert on the topic.

Trump is doing nothing different from what the GOP has accused the Democrats of doing, since the days of FDR. The GOP is not giving a tax-cut, because there is no government spending reduction along with the "tax cut." That means that the debt will rise as deficits skyrocket, which will then require a larger tax increase down the road to pay for it. Trump's economic plan is based on party politics that has existed for almost a century now. Like the Who sings, "Here comes the new boss; same as the old boss."

The reason why populist movements have failed in the past is because their economic policies never work. We know that a trade-war was one of the major causes of the Great Depression of the 1930s. We also know that even a child can see why the use of tariffs is a policy doomed to fail. If we did gain some advantage by imposing a high-tariff, which is actually paid for by Americans through higher consumer prices, then we can easily expect the other country to respond with a high tariff of their own against our exports. So, the end result is no advantage from the use of trade tariffs, while having reduced the amount of economic activity taking place overall. In other words, one has to be extremely naïve to think Trump's plan is going to work.

Yatagarasu: I don't think that the government is controlling all information, so people are falling in line with political ideologies that are doomed to fail. The information is readily available to everyone about economics, history, science, etc. People are basically lazy and don't want to learn. If you want to learn about a topic, one needs to spend some time reading books on the subject, from reputable authors and reputable publishers. Instead, people do quick Google searches, and often accept BS as if it were fact, or perhaps the information is factual as far as it goes, but completely out of context, so the site gives a distorted impression. People are lazy, don't like to think, and it shows. It's far too easy these days for someone to pick up a group slogan, get praised for repeating it, and then not bothering to learn anything more at that point.

Stupidity is our biggest enemy.

Well, let's see? Trump campaigned on a policy of supporting high tariffs. This is a bad idea. We know that a tariff war was one of the major causes of the Great Depression of the 1930s. We also know that the idea is overly simplistic --- so we will impose high tariffs to gain an alleged advantage, and other countries will not impose their own high-tariffs against us in retaliation? That's nuts. We also know that our exporting firms pay higher wages on average than our domestic firms that compete against foreign imports. This is because to be able to produce domestically and outsell someone selling in another country where they are located, takes a great deal of efficiency. Yet, we know other countries can only pay for our exports by acquiring US dollars, which are acquired by selling us imports. So, cutting off imports simultaneously reduces our exports, but since exports pay more than other companies, this loss leads to an overall decline in our domestic wage rates.

It's such a demonstrably bad idea it's amazing millions think it was a good idea. The fact millions cannot even grasp the most basic economics tells us that direct democracy is doomed to failure. However, representative democracy is also doomed to failure when such a large percentage of the population adopts BS from politicians. Democracy only works when two things occur: 1. The population is educated, and 2. people are concerned about public well-being and not just their own personal well-being. In the western "democracies," we see our democracies imploding in a mob of ignorant selfish people.

Bitter Crank: It's hardly a sign of being an intellectual that one argues in support of child-rapists. That's different from being a child-rapist. It's actually far uglier to defend child-rapists, in the name of some mythical beliefs of the Vatican. That's as anti-intellectual as it can get.

It's a statement that first of all involves a value judgment, therefore, it is a statement that cannot be assigned a truth value ----- either true or false.

Charleton: Actually, since you are an admitted math illiterate, your opinions are worthless. I'm an atheist, and would never claim that two Popes, especially one who protected child rapists, were "intellectuals." You come off as a complete nutter. And, yes, I am personally insulting you, since you have personally insulted me a number of times already. Hell, I probably knew more math than you when I was ten.

BlueBanana: I'm not following you, but I really have no interest in spending any more time on the issue you are trying to raise.

Charleton: The real question is how are you any different from Icke, and the answer is you aren't. Where Icke is unable to understand basic mathematics, neither are you able to understand basic math. Whereas Icke is a God-believer and thinks such beliefs are rational, you think two Popes are intellectuals for essentially arguing over matters no more significant than arguments over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'll stick to reality, and you can continue worshipping the Popes, the very people dedicated to nonsense, and child molestation.

BluBanana: If it's false, how could it possibly be knowledge? Saying we can't prove anything doesn't really matter, that's a given in first semester philosophy, and then we all move on from there and ignore it because it serves no purpose as a practical matter.

Marx was as anti-Semitic as any stormtrooper, and not a Jew. He wrote that the Jews worshipped money, that they should be killed off, considered them racially inferior and referred to them as niggers. This is why the USSR persecuted Jews throughout its existence ---- they were following Marx's anti-Semitism.

By the way, before becoming Chancellor of Germany, Socialist Hitler held joint strikes with his communist allies. Stalin was also allied with Hitler at one point, and the Germans assisted Lenin in rising to power in Russia.

BlueBanana: That's been my point, but you are the one claiming that false claims amount to knowledge. That is what you wrote. Perhaps you made a mistake in writing it?

Marx was quite vicious. When he wasn't speculating in the stock-market with his friend's Engel's capitalist earnings, he was writing demented tracks of hatred. What did he say about the Jews that would have gotten him kicked out of Hitler's SS? Nothing.

Harris is not an expert on genetics, and for some reason, he's off on a pro-racist rant lately. Perhaps he needs more subscribers for his podcasts? Who knows. But, he's definitely drinking the Kool Aid on the issue of races being based on biology, much less that there are biological differences among them that leads to IQ differences.

Rene: No, the Marxists infused the government with their Marxist superstitious nonsense. Even to the point of adopting a pseudoscientific claim regarding genetics, that plants could be modified by simply changing their environmental conditions, when real genetics tells us that an environment can only select mutations that are actually present and not create them. Thus, ignoring reality in favor of their supernatural beliefs, the Soviets caused mass starvation.

Capitalism is most definitely not a supernatural belief, it is part of reality. Marx's claim that Capitalism is carrying out some pre-ordained historical role, however, is pure nonsense and a superstitious belief if there ever was one.

If Muslims outlawed Hinduism, in the name of Islam, would anyone then conclude that Muslims must be secular-science-minded people because they were ridding their government of religion, i.e., Hinduism? No. They would recognize that what was taking place was the targeting of one religion by another. Yet, when Marxists do the same thing when they take over, we are supposed to believe that they are atheists and scientifically minded people despite Marxists long history of denying basic Mendelian genetics because it was considered to be too capitalistic?

BlueBanana: I'm not sure I understand your point. Since you are claiming that knowledge can be false, which contradicts the JTB assertion, then how can you say that a false claim is worse than a true one, since, according to you, even a false claim may amount to knowledge?

Right, Charleton, laughing is just such a persuasive argument. Let's see? You claim that two Popes, at least one of whom has a serious baggage problem of Nazism and child-molestation are intellectuals? So, name some scholarly work either has done outside of theology which involves superstitious claims and hardly counts as intellectual achievement.

As far as the math goes, any proof that I am wrong about the impossibility of traveling among interdimensions? Nope. And, as a matter of logic, please explain for everyone here why my mathematical argument would require me to first prove that any interdimensional beings actually exist, when my original argument required no such claim?

But, I'm pretty sure that since you are stumped, you'll merely make another childish response.

Sorry there, Charleton, but those two Popes are not intellectuals at all. How could that possibly be? Because they wear silly hats and expect people to bow down to them because they have a silly hat? How is that being smart?

As far as my proof about inter-dimensional beings being impossible in our dimensional spacetime, I don't need in any way to prove that any such beings actually exist. The math tells us that even if they did exist, they could not exist here, among us, as Icke claims. So, please stop personally insulting me while failing to grasp the basic math.

I think one of his examples where a person looks at a broken clock, that just happens to be stating the correct time, to then say someone does not have a justified true belief in the correct time. But, how does that really create an attack on JTB as being a basis for knowledge? Almost anyone relying on a broken clock will soon figure out the clock is broken and then look at a functioning clock to figure out the correct time. I just don't see how such examples undermine JTB as a general proposition as for what is required to have knowledge.

Charleton: How are the followers of people like David Icke not against those who think? After all, a basic understanding of physics would have made him aware that no higher-dimensional beings could come to our four-dimensional spacetime, without losing all higher-dimensional aspects. It would be like a person trying to live in a two-dimensional physical space. We would simply die in an instant. Icke watched some science fiction as a kid where some one from an allegedly higher dimension just walks through a portal, and voila, there they are, entirely whole, without any worries. Could a person so easily materialize and exist in a two-dimensional physical space? No. And neither could any being from a higher dimension come to our dimensional space and survive. Not to mention his gross distortions of history, economics, politics, the law, and endorsement of anti-Semitism. All signs of anti-intellectualism. If he were all alone and had no followers, I would agree with you, but the problem is he has millions of fans and can fill up sizeable venues when he gives a public talk.