is it better to save up for a house or take out a mortgage

armabelle

Suryavarman wrote: »

You're continuously avoiding pointing out what exactly Walsh Associates have to gain from falsifying figures. You just lazily bleat about conflicts of interests because you don't like what they say.

Do you think there might be a reason for them to falsify figures ? Could they gain something by doing so maybe?

armabelle

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Uh, yea - some people with a monetary or professional conflict of interest falsify figures all the time. That's why conflicts of interest are an ethical concern.

I tend to agree here but what do you think they stand to gain if they did falsify them?

Hasschu

The conflict of interest begins with the Gov't and its agencies. NAMA is busily putting development restrictions on developable property it is selling within Town/City boundaries. The property you bid on within Town boundaries comes from NAMA stating that the property cannot be used for residential/commercial purposes indefinitely. There are of course exceptions such as Dublin docklands. You might ask why has Gov't instructed NAMA to take developable property off the market. The answer is that the banks are carrying mortgages that are under water and will remain there unless building comes to a halt. So in Ireland where the "Common Good" is interpreted as being confined to politicians, banks, bondholders and oligarchs policy now mandates land previously earmarked by town councils, county councils and city gov'ts must be taken off the market.

Compare this Irish Gov't policy which guarantees high housing prices far into the future (as long as these restrictions are in place) with Germany where reasonable housing prices are a Gov't priority. Why are reasonable housing prices important you might ask. Because high housing prices put pressure on wages which leads to the country pricing itself out of export markets. This has already led to our 2008 downfall. Surprise, surprise the Gov't has already manoeuvred to ensure the country enters the next slide before we have fully recovered from the 2008 catastrophe. You could ask why Irish economists are not up in arms and letting all and sundry know what is transpiring right under their noses. Because most of them work for Gov't, Banks, Quangos and related organisations. They talk their short term book.

This level of Gov't incompetence will eventually lead to lower housing prices along with high unemployment. Affordability will then be the major issue.

It is important to keep in mind that interest rates are at historic lows, references to Babylonian and the lifetime of the Bank of England lows are being made. Reversion to the mean will be brutal to debt holders who do not have a fixed rate of interest. Avoid floating or variable rates like the plague.

Suryavarman

armabelle wrote: »

Do you think there might be a reason for them to falsify figures ? Could they gain something by doing so maybe?

In this particular case I think not. To expand on the conflicts of interest issue:

Let's take the classic example of conflicts of interest, tobacco company publishes study saying smoking is good for you. People would be immediately skeptical of such a study. Why? Because there is a vast literature saying the opposite and because they could profit from such a perception. So the correct course of action would be to refer to the literature that show the damage smoking does to one's health and/or to find flaw in the tobacco industry study. To not do either and just dismiss the study out of hand would just be lazy.

To take another example, an association of builders/developers commission a study on costs in the housing market. It finds that regulations massively increase the costs of building a home. The association then publicises this study and aims it at the Government. In this instance there is once again a conflict of interest. The members of the association would clearly profit from a reduction in regulation so we should display skepticism. More importantly what we should do is refer to contradictory literature and find flaws in the study.

Finally, to discuss this particular instance. Walsh Associates are a cost consultancy that specialise in cost control. An economist contacts them to get information on building costs so he can write a paper that will likely be published in a low circulation journal and receive little publicity. If they quote an above average price what happens? It's possible (but unlikely) that the Government might act on that paper and deregulate the construction industry. The increased activity could benefit Walsh Associates through increased business. On the other hand, if they quote a price that's way higher than their competitors then they'll reduce the level of business they receive as people will just go to their competitors. The risks seem to outweigh the benefits here.

I therefore think it isn't acceptable to say that Walsh Associates are in the construction industry ipso facto the figures are fudged. Therefore there is an onus on posters claiming other wise to provide a reason to claim there is a conflict of interest and/or provide contradictory figures.

tl;dr: Walsh Associates are just as likely (if not more likely) to reduce business as they are to increase it by misstating figures. Therefore their figures should be taken at face value unless equivalent contradictory figures can be provided

KomradeBishop

Suryavarman wrote: »

You're continuously avoiding pointing out what exactly Walsh Associates have to gain from falsifying figures. You just lazily bleat about conflicts of interests because you don't like what they say.

They don't contradict the Walsh Associate figures though. They measure different things. It's clearly stated in the paper that the Department of Environment figures leave out a number of variables that contribute to the cost of building a house.

I do know what an ideology is. For instance your ideology is that every ill in the world is caused by the wealthy being corrupt, exploiting workers or hoarding wealth. Anyone that then gets in the way of that narrative is biased which automatically makes their opinions worthless. You of course never have say why exactly their opinions are worthless. The fact that you are a paragon of honesty free from bias makes these things obviously true.

And yet you regularly rely on lazy, dishonest debating tactics.

Again, I don't have to convince you of anything - other posters can see the conflict of interest perfectly well.

It's claimed in the papers that the DoE figures leave out a number of variables - the variables the Walsh Associates report use to embellish the figures...given the conflict of interest, I'm not convinced those variables are credible.


You have no idea what 'ideologies' I subscribe to - and I reject your misrepresentation of my views, they're little more than a caricature - don't place views on me, or put words in my mouth, unless I directly state them, thanks...

I have never dismissed anyones opinions as 'worthless' in the fashion you describe - that's a direct lie - and if you accuse me of that or of any lazy/dishonest debating tactics, then quote them directly - whenever I make an accusation like that, it's almost always in reference to a direct quote.

KomradeBishop

armabelle wrote: »

I tend to agree here but what do you think they stand to gain if they did falsify them?

Their professional income from clients depends upon lucrative property development, so they have a financial incentive to attack anything which eats into development profits, by e.g. exaggerating the costs of regulations ensuring housing quality, in order to push for the repeal of those regulations.

KomradeBishop

Hasschu wrote: »

The conflict of interest begins with the Gov't and its agencies. NAMA is busily putting development restrictions on developable property it is selling within Town/City boundaries. The property you bid on within Town boundaries comes from NAMA stating that the property cannot be used for residential/commercial purposes indefinitely. There are of course exceptions such as Dublin docklands. You might ask why has Gov't instructed NAMA to take developable property off the market. The answer is that the banks are carrying mortgages that are under water and will remain there unless building comes to a halt. So in Ireland where the "Common Good" is interpreted as being confined to politicians, banks, bondholders and oligarchs policy now mandates land previously earmarked by town councils, county councils and city gov'ts must be taken off the market.

Compare this Irish Gov't policy which guarantees high housing prices far into the future (as long as these restrictions are in place) with Germany where reasonable housing prices are a Gov't priority. Why are reasonable housing prices important you might ask. Because high housing prices put pressure on wages which leads to the country pricing itself out of export markets. This has already led to our 2008 downfall. Surprise, surprise the Gov't has already manoeuvred to ensure the country enters the next slide before we have fully recovered from the 2008 catastrophe. You could ask why Irish economists are not up in arms and letting all and sundry know what is transpiring right under their noses. Because most of them work for Gov't, Banks, Quangos and related organisations. They talk their short term book.

This level of Gov't incompetence will eventually lead to lower housing prices along with high unemployment. Affordability will then be the major issue.

It is important to keep in mind that interest rates are at historic lows, references to Babylonian and the lifetime of the Bank of England lows are being made. Reversion to the mean will be brutal to debt holders who do not have a fixed rate of interest. Avoid floating or variable rates like the plague.

Well, NAMA was also set to bankroll a large development of public housing - but private developers are taking the Irish government to the European courts on competition grounds, to block this - so, while I agree the government have been incredibly incompetent, there's a bit of complexity here too.

KomradeBishop

Suryavarman wrote: »

In this particular case I think not. To expand on the conflicts of interest issue:

Let's take the classic example of conflicts of interest, tobacco company publishes study saying smoking is good for you. People would be immediately skeptical of such a study. Why? Because there is a vast literature saying the opposite and because they could profit from such a perception. So the correct course of action would be to refer to the literature that show the damage smoking does to one's health and/or to find flaw in the tobacco industry study. To not do either and just dismiss the study out of hand would just be lazy.

To take another example, an association of builders/developers commission a study on costs in the housing market. It finds that regulations massively increase the costs of building a home. The association then publicises this study and aims it at the Government. In this instance there is once again a conflict of interest. The members of the association would clearly profit from a reduction in regulation so we should display skepticism. More importantly what we should do is refer to contradictory literature and find flaws in the study.

Finally, to discuss this particular instance. Walsh Associates are a cost consultancy that specialise in cost control. An economist contacts them to get information on building costs so he can write a paper that will likely be published in a low circulation journal and receive little publicity. If they quote an above average price what happens? It's possible (but unlikely) that the Government might act on that paper and deregulate the construction industry. The increased activity could benefit Walsh Associates through increased business. On the other hand, if they quote a price that's way higher than their competitors then they'll reduce the level of business they receive as people will just go to their competitors. The risks seem to outweigh the benefits here.

I therefore think it isn't acceptable to say that Walsh Associates are in the construction industry ipso facto the figures are fudged. Therefore there is an onus on posters claiming other wise to provide a reason to claim there is a conflict of interest and/or provide contradictory figures.

tl;dr: Walsh Associates are just as likely (if not more likely) to reduce business as they are to increase it by misstating figures. Therefore their figures should be taken at face value unless equivalent contradictory figures can be provided

Nobody is obliged to take a source as credible and waste their time with it, once sufficient problems with their credibility have been found.

Propagandists love to use discreditable sources that put out loads of misinformation, to try and browbeat opponents with huge amounts of obfuscatory/argument-from-authority 'research' - there are entire networks of economic think-tanks dedicated to putting out misinformation like this.

It is lazy to rely upon sources which have serious credibility issues. If the information is so solid, then surely it can be sourced from a more credible location...

Nobody has said the figures are fudged either - only that there is a conflict of interest. That there is a conflict of interest is very easy to establish here, and requires no further evidence - and the arguments trying to negate the conflict of interest are speculative and not really convincing.

Suryavarman

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Nobody is obliged to take a source as credible and waste their time with it, once sufficient problems with their credibility have been found.

Propagandists love to use discreditable sources that put out loads of misinformation, to try and browbeat opponents with huge amounts of obfuscatory/argument-from-authority 'research' - there are entire networks of economic think-tanks dedicated to putting out misinformation like this.

It is lazy to rely upon sources which have serious credibility issues. If the information is so solid, then surely it can be sourced from a more credible location...

Nobody has said the figures are fudged either - only that there is a conflict of interest. That there is a conflict of interest is very easy to establish here, and requires no further evidence - and the arguments trying to negate the conflict of interest are speculative and not really convincing.

If the conflict of interest is so clear then you should be able to explain what exactly it is. You've been continuously ignoring that request resulting in a drawn out debate just so you can lazily avoid facts that conflict with your world view.

In this whole debate I'm the only one that's actually explained their position. I've explained why the conflicts of interest aren't an issue. You on the other hand continue to engage in lazy dishonest debating tactics so you can ignore facts you do not like.

KomradeBishop

You're just pursuing a red-herring for the sake of nitpicking now - claiming I didn't point out what the conflict of interest was, even though it is obvious to several posters in the thread who have already commented on it, and even though I did point it out just a few posts ago - and you don't even dispute that there is a conflict of interest, you just try to engage in unconvincing 'special pleading' to discount it.

Your 'facts' are tainted with a conflict of interest - a conflict you have failed to explain-away - and instead of bothering your hole citing figures from more credible sources, you're trying to maintain a death-grip on the conflicted/not-credible figures.

Again - I don't have to convince you that the conflict of interest is real, because I know that for ideological reasons (you subscribe to an ideology founded on promoting deception/fraud, barely concealed under free-market views), that you want to either deny the very existence of conflicts of interest, or to downplay all such instances wherever it suits your views - I've explained my position as far as it needs to be (pointing out the conflict of interest and how it pours doubt on the figures), and other posters can see the conflict of interest as well.

You're not going to succeed in badgering your way, into pushing conflicted figures in a discussion like this.

Suryavarman

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're just pursuing a red-herring for the sake of nitpicking now - claiming I didn't point out what the conflict of interest was, even though it is obvious to several posters in the thread who have already commented on it, and even though I did point it out just a few posts ago - and you don't even dispute that there is a conflict of interest, you just try to engage in unconvincing 'special pleading' to discount it.

Your 'facts' are tainted with a conflict of interest - a conflict you have failed to explain-away - and instead of bothering your hole citing figures from more credible sources, you're trying to maintain a death-grip on the conflicted/not-credible figures.

Again - I don't have to convince you that the conflict of interest is real, because I know that for ideological reasons (you subscribe to an ideology founded on promoting deception/fraud, barely concealed under free-market views), that you want to either deny the very existence of conflicts of interest, or to downplay all such instances wherever it suits your views - I've explained my position as far as it needs to be (pointing out the conflict of interest and how it pours doubt on the figures), and other posters can see the conflict of interest as well.

You're not going to succeed in badgering your way, into pushing conflicted figures in a discussion like this.

Once again failing to state what the conflict of interest is. You're putting a lot of effort into avoiding stating your position. Are there any lengths you won't go to to push your ideology? Your holier-than-thou attitude is laughable. Trying to cover up your ideology by making baseless claims that I subscribe to some form of ideology is pathetic.

KomradeBishop

Again, you don't know what an 'ideology' is - pointing out conflicts of interest, is not ideological - unless you reject the very concept of conflicts of interest (which is something Libertarians tend to err towards, trying to downplay conflicts of interest and fraud, to the point of denial).

You don't know what 'holier than thou' means either - you are the person displaying a condescending attitude here - I am calling you out on conflicted figures and dishonest methods of argument; nothing 'holier than thou' about that.

You're are either directly lying or engaging in selective blindness, by saying I have not stated what the conflict of interest is - all anyone has to do is look a few posts up, to see that.

Suryavarman

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Again, you don't know what an 'ideology' is - pointing out conflicts of interest, is not ideological - unless you reject the very concept of conflicts of interest (which is something Libertarians tend to err towards, trying to downplay conflicts of interest and fraud, to the point of denial).

You don't know what 'holier than thou' means either - you are the person displaying a condescending attitude here - I am calling you out on conflicted figures and dishonest methods of argument; nothing 'holier than thou' about that.

You're are either directly lying or engaging in selective blindness, by saying I have not stated what the conflict of interest is - all anyone has to do is look a few posts up, to see that.

I do know what an ideology is. It seems you are the one that doesn't know what an ideology is. You don't even realise that you yourself are an ideologue. Pointing out conflicts of interest isn't ideological. Pointing out conflicts of interest where they don't even exist so you can ignore facts you don't like is ideology.

I'm not sure why you are bringing libertarians in to this. This discussion is about conflicts of interest not libertarians. Although I can see why you might forget what the discussion is about since you keep avoiding stating your position on the matter.

You are acting holier-than-thou by claiming I subscribe to some sort of ideology while pretending you don't. Even though I don't subscribe to any ideology and you clearly do. This is why you are ignoring facts. This is why you are dreaming up a conflict of interest where there is none.

There are no conflicted figures here. There might be conflicted figures if you'd actually quote some reputable figures. You have quoted figures from the Department of the Environment although, as discussed, they don't measure the full cost of building a house. You also linked to a random thread on Boards as well. It's not exactly the best source but at least you tried. A reputable source that measures the full cost of housing might be a bit better. Or maybe you might just admit you are wrong and apologise to Ronan Lyons for implying that he is incompetent and apologise to Walsh Associates for calling their professional integrity in to question.

I have looked through the last few posts and I can't see where you've stated what the conflict of interest is. I'm the only one that is being honest here because I am the only one that has clearly stated their position. I'm the one that has shown that conflicts of interest are no issue here. You are the one that has lazily claimed that conflicts of interest exist without saying what they are. You are the one using dishonest debating tactics saying that I subscribe to some form of ideology even though I don't.

KomradeBishop

Oh I see, so anyone who points out a conflict of interest that you don't believe in is an ideologue, right...well then I guess that would count for several posters in the thread, who clearly expressed seeing a conflict of interest here.

You do subscribe to an ideology - you self-identify as a Libertarian - the exact type of group who would be at pains to deny the existence of conflicts of interest. You don't know anything about any 'ideology' I do or don't ascribe to.

You're the only poster here denying a conflict of interest - several other posters here have cited the conflict of interest; this is pretty much a case of wilful ignorance on your part.

You're also going off on a red herring: I don't have to provide figures countering the conflicted figures, in order to point out the conflict of interest.

On this very page, I described the conflict of interest - right in post #67.

Your assertion that the DoE didn't cite the full cost of building a house, relies on arguments behind the conflicted figures - and can be discarded along with those conflicted figures.

You're now putting words in my mouth: I said nothing about Ronan Lyons.
Demanding I apologise for pointing out a blindingly obvious conflict of interest with Walsh Associates, is exactly a 'holier than thou' attitude - and is exactly the kind of thing you'd expect from a Libertarian, aiming to dissuade others from pointing out potentially conflicted figures.


What your posts amount to at this stage, are a repetitive gish gallop of random already debunked arguments.

Suryavarman

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Oh I see, so anyone who points out a conflict of interest that you don't believe in is an ideologue, right...well then I guess that would count for several posters in the thread, who clearly expressed seeing a conflict of interest here.

You do subscribe to an ideology - you self-identify as a Libertarian - the exact type of group who would be at pains to deny the existence of conflicts of interest. You don't know anything about any 'ideology' I do or don't ascribe to.

You're the only poster here denying a conflict of interest - several other posters here have cited the conflict of interest; this is pretty much a case of wilful ignorance on your part.

You're also going off on a red herring: I don't have to provide figures countering the conflicted figures, in order to point out the conflict of interest.

On this very page, I described the conflict of interest - right in post #67.

Your assertion that the DoE didn't cite the full cost of building a house, relies on arguments behind the conflicted figures - and can be discarded along with those conflicted figures.

You're now putting words in my mouth: I said nothing about Ronan Lyons.
Demanding I apologise for pointing out a blindingly obvious conflict of interest with Walsh Associates, is exactly a 'holier than thou' attitude - and is exactly the kind of thing you'd expect from a Libertarian, aiming to dissuade others from pointing out potentially conflicted figures.


What your posts amount to at this stage, are a repetitive gish gallop of random already debunked arguments.

I don't self-identify as a libertarian. I haven't claimed anywhere on this thread to be a libertarian. Stop putting words in my mouth. You claim not to have an ideology but yet you were pushing a heterodox school of economics to other posters in another thread the other day. I'm pretty sure you don't have any formal education in economics. Which would mean you probably don't know anywhere near enough to be doing such a thing. I suppose if a school of economics fits your ideology that would be a sensible thing to do. Perhaps you're just right, it's just a conflict of interest that causes mainstream economists to disagree with you.

So we're supposed to just debate and not use figures then? That isn't how one has constructive debate. If we were to follow your silly line of reasoning then that precludes literally every expert opinion on this topic. You do realise that don't you? All the people that know the most about construction costs work in the construction industry. Literally none of their opinions are good enough for you. I'm sure any objective poster can see just how stupid your argument is.

Stop using fallacious argumentum ad populum arguments. Just because another poster has agreed with you doesn't make it so. Especially when they haven't provided any reasoning for their claim.

You don't know what Red Herring means.

Sorry I assumed that post was meant for the conspiracy theory forum and not for the economics forum. I've already shown why such an argument is silly but I have the good manners to repeat it for you.

Walsh Associates are a cost consultancy firm (not part of the Illuminati by the way). Their job is to help control costs for their clients. If they were to start quoting high figures then they wouldn't be much of a cost consultancy firm now, would they? I know your ideology leads you to believe that all businesses are corrupt and devious institutions. But I'm sure even an ideologue such as yourself can see it takes some pretty impressive mental gymnastics to make it out that it's in Walsh Associates interests to publish misleading figures. Somebody might read Ronan Lyons article. That might lead to the Government repealing a lot of recently passed regulation. Then all the property developers are going to rush to the cost consultancy that published the costs that were way above the market rate. That doesn't seem like a very sensible business decision does it?

The DoE don't give the full costs of building a house and that is a fact. Do you actually believe that professionals provide their services for free when houses are built? Do you think when the Government increases the minimum size of a home that it costs nothing to deal with that increase? Do you think complying with the Part V regulations are free? Do you think when the Government increases energy efficiency requirements that those are complied with free of charge? The Government just waves a magic wand and the insulation just appears in the home? Do you actually believe that or are you being deliberately obtuse?

You're claiming that these figures are meaningless because of a "bilindingly obvious" conflict of interest. If it's so glaringly obvious that a couple of Boards posters (with probably no formal education in economics or any substantive research performed in their lives) could point it out then it implies that the researcher not noticing it is incompetent. It also implies that the peer review system at the Journal of the Statistical & Social Inquiry Society of Ireland didn't do it's job properly. It also implies some degree of incompetence on that society's part considering they awarded Lyons the Barrington Medal for that exact paper.

It's interesting how that source is good enough for a professor of economics at Ireland's top university, it's good for a peer review system but it isn't good enough for some random poster on Boards. Perhaps the reason it isn't good enough for you is because you have some form of agenda to push and that information doesn't suit you. Do you not think the huge amount of incompetence and underhandedness it would take for you to be correct is a bit unlikely?

I think it's time you got down off your high horse and just admitted you are wrong. You don't know anywhere near enough about economic research to be levelling such critiques at papers that have passed peer review. You don't know enough about economic research to be levelling such critiques at somebody that received their training at one of the top economics departments on the planet (hint: it wasn't the Naked Capitalism blog). To suggest other wise is nothing short of arrogant.

KomradeBishop

You do self-identify as Libertarian:
http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=424124&sort=newest&query=libertarian

You also subscribe to Austrian economics - a heterodox school of economics (do you want me to dig out the link of you saying that too?); both things you have been pushing on Boards for years - so does this, by your own standards, make you an 'ideologue'?

Your petulant 'argument from authority' doesn't hold any water - I've schooled more than a few formally educated economists on Boards, for their mistakes (most of them have no idea how money is created for starters - which is a crack that splits apart a wide range of mainstream economic views - so it's not really difficult).
I have no formal education in programming or computer science either - yet I make a living from it.

What exact views, are you saying I was pushing the other day, that are heterodox?


You know full well I didn't say anything like "debate without using figures" - that is an idiotic/dishonest straw-man - find some figures which aren't sourced from a group with such an obvious stake/conflict-of-interest in the property business...

If you want a constructive debate, stop flailing around trying to escape the conflict of interest in the figures - you're the only poster saying there is no conflict, several other posters have acknowledged the conflict (this isn't 'argument ad populum' either - *property industry group has conflict of interest with property industry shocker* - you'd go to extreme lengths of obtuseness to try and play that down).

Here are the services they provide - they are not 'merely' a cost consultancy firm, they provide a very wide range of property industry services, giving a wide scope of potential for conflict-of-interest through clients:
http://www.walsh-associates.ie/services/

Yes nice avoidance of a 'holier than though' attitude, by throwing out the 'conspiracy theory' label/condescension...I'm sure any hint of skepticism, of a potential conflict of interest from any group, is a 'conspiracy theory', right?


I never said all businesses are corrupt/devious...you take all examples of skepticism towards any part of private industry, and try to paint them in very black/white extremes - in order to try and dissuade any criticism, or pointing out of issues like conflicts of interest.

You have not established that DoE doesn't give the full costs of building a house - you're still basing this on conflicted figures.


Look, this could go on for pages and pages - if the figures you cite are so obvious, find a more credible source independently producing comparable figures.

A red herring is an irrelevant bait-and-switch question or line of argument, designed to distract and throw someone off the main point - your posts have been and are full of them.


Ah yes, the Barrington Medal - awarded by the trust setup by John Barrington (and incorporated into the Journal of the Statistical & Social Inquiry Society of Ireland) - who used the trust as a propaganda-institute, to 'educate' lower-class workers, to deter them from unionizing in post-famine Ireland:

It reminded lecturers of the circumstances which had led John Barrington to set up the fund, and was, in essence, a vindication of his purpose:
if workers were better informed (through the good offices of political economy) then they would not enter into 'unwise Combinations [Unions] to regulate Wages' or to oppose machinery.

https://books.google.ie/books?id=MUmIAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA108&lpg=PA107&ots=3rhTpTdLCE

Wonder how many Irish economists bother looking up the history of the institutions they hold in high regard...

You also can't level a single criticism at the Naked Capitalism site - all anyone has ever been able to criticise about that site, is some vague insinuation about its name - without any explanation of how that's supposed to be bad.


Reminder: Appeals to authority are fallacious. If you want to make an argument here, you don't get to try and force it through with appeals to authority (very ironic that you're telling anyone to come off their 'high horse' here...) - and if credibility problems can be found with your sources, people can rightfully request that you provide better sources, before they'll take your arguments/figures as credible.

You don't get to wave about authority figures or worthless accreditations, to try and gain special privilege in debate. Here all our arguments are on equal ground, and when there are credibility problems with sources, they can't just be magicked away with further appeals-to-authority.


Appeals to authority are nothing less than the epitome of arrogance - especially when combined with haughty condescension. That'll get you nowhere.

Suryavarman

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You do self-identify as Libertarian:
http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=424124&sort=newest&query=libertarian

You also subscribe to Austrian economics - a heterodox school of economics (do you want me to dig out the link of you saying that too?); both things you have been pushing on Boards for years - so does this, by your own standards, make you an 'ideologue'?

Your petulant 'argument from authority' doesn't hold any water - I've schooled more than a few formally educated economists on Boards, for their mistakes (most of them have no idea how money is created for starters - which is a crack that splits apart a wide range of mainstream economic views - so it's not really difficult).
I have no formal education in programming or computer science either - yet I make a living from it.

What exact views, are you saying I was pushing the other day, that are heterodox?


You know full well I didn't say anything like "debate without using figures" - that is an idiotic/dishonest straw-man - find some figures which aren't sourced from a group with such an obvious stake/conflict-of-interest in the property business...

If you want a constructive debate, stop flailing around trying to escape the conflict of interest in the figures - you're the only poster saying there is no conflict, several other posters have acknowledged the conflict (this isn't 'argument ad populum' either - *property industry group has conflict of interest with property industry shocker* - you'd go to extreme lengths of obtuseness to try and play that down).

Here are the services they provide - they are not 'merely' a cost consultancy firm, they provide a very wide range of property industry services, giving a wide scope of potential for conflict-of-interest through clients:
http://www.walsh-associates.ie/services/

Yes nice avoidance of a 'holier than though' attitude, by throwing out the 'conspiracy theory' label/condescension...I'm sure any hint of skepticism, of a potential conflict of interest from any group, is a 'conspiracy theory', right?


I never said all businesses are corrupt/devious...you take all examples of skepticism towards any part of private industry, and try to paint them in very black/white extremes - in order to try and dissuade any criticism, or pointing out of issues like conflicts of interest.

You have not established that DoE doesn't give the full costs of building a house - you're still basing this on conflicted figures.


Look, this could go on for pages and pages - if the figures you cite are so obvious, find a more credible source independently producing comparable figures.

A red herring is an irrelevant bait-and-switch question or line of argument, designed to distract and throw someone off the main point - your posts have been and are full of them.


Ah yes, the Barrington Medal - awarded by the trust setup by John Barrington (and incorporated into the Journal of the Statistical & Social Inquiry Society of Ireland) - who used the trust as a propaganda-institute, to 'educate' lower-class workers, to deter them from unionizing in post-famine Ireland:

It reminded lecturers of the circumstances which had led John Barrington to set up the fund, and was, in essence, a vindication of his purpose:
if workers were better informed (through the good offices of political economy) then they would not enter into 'unwise Combinations [Unions] to regulate Wages' or to oppose machinery.

https://books.google.ie/books?id=MUmIAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA108&lpg=PA107&ots=3rhTpTdLCE

Wonder how many Irish economists bother looking up the history of the institutions they hold in high regard...

You also can't level a single criticism at the Naked Capitalism site - all anyone has ever been able to criticise about that site, is some vague insinuation about its name - without any explanation of how that's supposed to be bad.


Reminder: Appeals to authority are fallacious. If you want to make an argument here, you don't get to try and force it through with appeals to authority (very ironic that you're telling anyone to come off their 'high horse' here...) - and if credibility problems can be found with your sources, people can rightfully request that you provide better sources, before they'll take your arguments/figures as credible.

You don't get to wave about authority figures or worthless accreditations, to try and gain special privilege in debate. Here all our arguments are on equal ground, and when there are credibility problems with sources, they can't just be magicked away with further appeals-to-authority.


Appeals to authority are nothing less than the epitome of arrogance - especially when combined with haughty condescension. That'll get you nowhere.

hahahaha you're bringing up posts that are 3 years old to prove a point hahaha. I'm no longer a libertarian and I no longer subscribe to the Austrian school of Economics. Not everyone is an ideologue like you. Some of us actually change our opinions when presented with evidence. We don't just lazily dismiss solid evidence because it goes against our ideology like you do.

Oh bravo on the autodidactism. What will your next trick be? Over to the physics forum to demonstrate flaws in the theory of relativity? Over to the biology forum to demonstrate flaws in the theory of evolution?

You were pushing the post-Keynesian school of economics.

You are saying that we have to debate without figures. You're clearly stating that we cannot use the figures of any industry professional. You're deliberately trying to shut down any debate that stops you from spinning your tired old narrative. What figures are we supposed to use considering all expert professional opinion suffers from conflict of interest? Do you not see how unreasonable you are being by ruling out every opinion that actually means something?

They provide a whole host of services related to controlling costs. If they quote abnormally high figures for any of those services they lose business. I know your ideology leads you to have this peculiar view of how a business operates but quoting misleading figures doesn't win you any business. There are no gains to be made from quoting misleading figures.

Pointing out a conflict of interest isn't a conspiracy theory. Engaging in the elaborate mental gymnastics needed to make it out like Walsh Associates publish misleading figures is akin to some of the posts one would see in the conspiracy theory forum.

It's clearly stated in the paper and I clearly stated in my last post why the DoE figures understate the cost of building home. Your ideology probably didn't allow you to see that. Notice as well how I actually stated why they weren't good enough. I didn't just state that there was a conflict of interest like you have. I didn't point out the very valid concern that the DoE have a serious conflict of interest that leads them to understate the costs of regulation. If the housing market were deregulated then they would lose a lot of funding. The DoE have far more to gain from publishing misleading figures than Walsh Associates do.

I haven't engaged in red herrings. I've continuously attacked your central point that there is a conflict of interest here. That your point is so weak that there are many angles to attack it from might make it seem like I'm using red herrings. But they are in fact just a school of standard herrings. None of those red ones.

You do realise that we are talking about the Irish housing market don't you? Do you actually believe that there is a plethora of research out there on this topic? Newsflash. There isn't.

So you're now trying to use information that's over 150 years old to dismiss valid research. Just when I thought your argument couldn't get any weaker. If that's the best you can do we can just end this discussion here. It's clear you don't have a leg to stand on.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with Naked Capitalism as a site. I'm just saying that it isn't a substitute for a rigorous economics education. I'm sure that even an ideologue like yourself can see that?

Saying that an appeal to authority is a fallacy is a fallacy in and of itself. Reasonable people defer to people that are more educated on a topic. It would be arrogant to do other wise. What research have you actually done as a matter of interest? Have you ever actually been published in a journal? Have you ever had to justify your data sources in a peer review process?

You do realise that everyone that actually makes a living engaging in or evaluating research sees no problem with that data source. It's just you and 1 or 2 other posters that have never done economic research in their entire lives. Do you not think that that's a bit strange? I suppose not. You are so blinded by ideology that you could never admit that you were wrong. So blinded by ideology that you could never admit that a group of people more educated and experienced than you might be better at judging the reliability of a source.

Instead of asking me to provide another source (that you will again dismiss without basis) how about you actually provide a source for once? And posts off Boards aren't a source by the way. If you'd ever done some research before you'd know that. If I tried to reference a Boards post when doing research I'd be crucified by my supervisor. And don't give me that rubbish about you not having to post up evidence to support your position. You're supposed to provide evidence to the contrary then we can debate about which source is more trustworthy.

A Phd in economics is a worthless accreditation now is it? Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder. Have some bad experiences in education? Have a bit of a problem with authority figures? Are you mad that teachers used to give other students gold stars but they never gave you one?

Once again, there are no credibility problems with the source in question. Engaging in your little argumentum ad populum to reduce it's credibility won't work. Just because you and another random poster believe something to be true doesn't mean we should discount the opinions of a wide range of educated professionals. It's okay to be wrong sometimes, everyone is wrong sometimes. Just admit you're wrong and we can get back on topic.

KomradeBishop

Fair enough - rare to see a Libertarian/Austrian subscriber, change their views. What do you think is less 'ideological' about your current economic views so?
If your views are lockstepped in orthodoxy, I can guarantee you that they are not based on evidence.

If you can't quote me saying we need to debate without figures, don't attribute that to me...nothing stopping you looking for less-conflicted figures, and we already have the DoE figures (which - to pre-empt you - you can't claim as leaving out costs, without relying upon the conflicted figures as evidence of that...).
I've pointed out a conflict of interest with one set of figures - any claims from you, that I'm attributing it to more sets of figures, are a deliberate (and really transparent) lie...

You obviously don't know the first thing about Post-Keynesianism, if you think it has anything to do with my views on conflicts of interest. Your entire basis for labelling me as an 'ideologue' in this debate, is Post-Keynesianism - yet you can't pin a single thing I've said relating to the conflict of interest, as being a PK view.

I didn't say Walsh Associates have put out misleading figures - I've said they have a conflict of interest which puts the credibility of the figures into question.

Actually no, I pointed out the issues with the Barrington Trust, to blow your 'appeal to authority' attempt at buffing the credibility of the report.

A 'rigorous economic education', in most cases, teaches people things as true, which are empirically wrong. As I said, most economists don't even know how money is created. Accreditations don't compensate for a lack of skepticism and critical thinking - the latter being what led me to discover the Barrington Trust as having a dodgy history, and in general, to discover the massive range of flaws in economic teaching.

Appeals to authority are fallacious when sources have an easily identified bias - which is exactly what we're talking about here.
Expecting people to 'defer' to anyone is pretty much the height of condescending arrogance - no accreditation ever puts anyones position beyond challenge.

It's like an astrologer saying that someone has to have spent years studying astrology, before they can be allowed call bullshít on anything the astrologer says.


Boards is a discussion forum, and when we're talking about a thread specifically for costing house builds, which loads of people have posted figures in (leaving little reason to doubt that people are making genuine posts), anecdotal stats from Boards in this case are perfectly valid for the standard of discussion on Boards - and we already have the DoE stats, which you can't discount without relying on arguments from the conflicted stats.

Don't really have any issues with deserving authority figures, though you seem like you may have a problem with tending towards subservience to authority figures and lack of skepticism, and judging by your haughty condescension, a great desire to become an authority figure that can condescend to others as I suspect your superiors might (where else may you get the condescending attitude, I wonder...).

If a person coming out of an Economics Phd isn't even properly taught how money is created - the case with the vast majority - then yes, that puts the worth of their accreditation and personal economic intelligence into question; in fact, I'd view those people as actively harmful in their stupidity, as they'll end up passing on the same misinformation they were taught, and they won't even know they are misinformed (or how...) - that's a very dangerous level of stupidity.

Have you bothered learning about the vast problems in economic teaching? Or do you just unskeptically digest everything you're taught? You were drawn into one misinformed ideology before, after all.


By any definition of 'conflict of interest' you can find, Walsh Associates fits it - of course a property-development-related firm with loads of property developer clients, and which does a lot of varied property industry work, has a conflict of interest and stands a lot to gain, by promoting deregulation of the property industry... - and all your flailing around here, has done nothing to dent this fact.

Frankly, that you're going to this level of effort to try and discount such a clear and easily explained and proven conflict of interest, is pretty bizarre - and I would judge that you've had zero success in convincing anybody that there is no such conflict of interest.

Suryavarman

Instead of subscribing to an ideology I am now completely unbiased. I only adopt viewpoints based on evidence. I now never use biased information or rely on information from sources with conflicts of interest.

You've said we can't use the DoE figures. They have a conflict of interest. We can't use any professional experts figures. They have a conflict of interest. You are still refusing to provide alternative figures. This is because you don't want to have an honest debate. You never do. You just want to push your ideology because that's all you ever do.

The DoE even state that their figures normally only account for 65% of the build cost of a home. But those figures don't really matter because they source them from suppliers. The conflict of interest is clear here. Building materials suppliers can make a profit from house builds so their figures can't be relied on. They're nowhere near as reliable as Boards posters.

I'm not using post-keynesianism to label you an ideologue. I'm using the fact that for the past few years on both your current account and your old one that your posts have continuously followed the same narrative. There's nothing inherently wrong about post-Keynesianism.

So now you're saying that Walsh Associates figures aren't misleading. If they aren't misleading then they are correct. Then they can be used in this debate.

What would you know about a rigorous economics education? You admit that you haven't done one. So everything you know about such things is second hand. Considering your ideology everything you've learned about economics education is from biased sources with conflicts of interest.

Oh give it a rest with the money creation thing. This discussion came up on another economics forum the other day. The vast majority of posters knew how money was created. Anyway, the vast majority of economists aren't monetary economists so it doesn't really matter if they know the exactitudes of how money is created.

Great. So now you're saying that we should use anecdotal evidence instead of empirical evidence. It's like you're doing your best to make your argument look as ridiculous as possible.

I do employ skepticism. For instance, I'm skeptical that an ideologue that with a history of dismissing evidence he doesn't like managed to find a "blindingly obvious" flaw in a piece of research that a professor of economics and a peer review process couldn't find.

Where have Walsh Associates pushed for deregulation? Now you're just making things up. Walsh Associates have nowhere near as much to gain from deregulation as the DoE have to lose from it btw.

I think it pretty bizarre that you're going to this length to argue with me considering how wrong you are. Your obsession with libertarians (or ex-libertarians in this case) is pretty bizarre if not downright scary. It's the kind of behaviour one would expect from a stalker. I suppose when you're driven by ideology you have no problem sinking your time in to such things.

KomradeBishop

I didn't say that we couldn't use the DoE figures actually. As I said, I only referenced the Walsh Associates figures as having a CoI - and I don't need to provide figures to show the CoI there.

Where does the DoE state that 65% figure?


Again your spouting on about this 'ideology' bollocks - my views staying relatively consistent over the years isn't an indicator of 'ideology'...You just keep throwing the word 'ideology' around like it means something, but you can't pin down my 'ideology' at all - what exact ideology are you alluding to? You keep alluding to 'evidence' I dismissed in the past as well, prior to this debate, for ideological reasons - past evidence such as?

I didn't say the Walsh Associates figures aren't misleading. I said there is a conflict of interest...amazing the lengths you go to, to put words in my mouth - every single post I've had to correct misrepresentations like this from you.


Everything anyone knows, about any topic, is second/third/fourth etc. hand - unless they're sitting down doing tabletop experiments where they see the results for themselves.
I know rigorous economics education, like I know rigorous astrological education: You don't need to be formally educated in a field, to spot bullshít.

One thing I know about a 'rigorous economics education', is that it imbues a disproportionate number of people who study it, with an air of haughtily overbearing condescension, where they don't like being questioned/contradicted - where in better quality sciences and social sciences, people tend to have a lot more humility, and don't tend to rush towards 'argument from authority'.


So in your example, the vast majority of people on a forum knew how money was created, yet it's ok if the vast majority of economists don't? Are you for fúcking real?

If an economist doesn't understand how money is created, then by extension the economist doesn't understand money, debt, banks and the monetary system - many of the most fundamental things every economist must understand - and thus does not understand macroeconomics or economic crises properly (since ideas such as debt-deflation are central to this) - which is not a surprise as hardly any economists saw the last crisis coming.

Many of these misinformed people are the ones advising governments and misleading the public in news media - that's just a downright dangerous level of professional incompetence. So you can see why an economics Phd isn't really something to hold in high regard - it's a reliable indicator of being misinformed about how economies work.


Effectively, the many examples of anecdotal evidence in the Boards build-cost thread, can be collated into stronger statistical evidence - altogether, it builds up to evidence that is easily stronger than evidence that is suffering from a professional conflict of interest.

I didn't say Walsh Associates pushed for deregulation either - I've pointed out how their conflict of interest, creates a financial incentive for them put out figures, that would support such a move - that doesn't mean I'm claiming they have done that though. Inherently, pointing out conflicts of interest, does not involve making an active accusation of anything.


Likening frequently ripping-apart Libertarian arguments, with 'stalker' behaviour, is a pretty ridiculous attempt at smearing - if anything, a huge portion of my debates with such posters, have been driven by the attempts of some of them, to shut-down my arguments - i.e. mobbing me, not the other way around. This has abated a lot now mind, since some of the worst of them (the ones who use straw-men as a primary method of argument) got banned.

Suryavarman

You're saying we can't use sources with a conflict of interest. The DoE have a conflict interest. We therefore can't use the DoE figures.

The DoE quote the 65% figure when they release the cost index. Do keep up.

I've already explained your ideology earlier in this thread.

Somebody that received an economics education would know about it first hand.

The vast majority of economists are not monetary economists. Therefore it doesn't really matter if they know how money is created. It doesn't have any practical implication for their work.

The vast majority of these people aren't advising the Government on monetary policy so it doesn't matter if they know how money is created. A physicist working on a rocket launch doesn't need to know about the finer points of blackholes to provide top quality advice on rocket launches.

Your argument takes yet another ridiculous turn. The Walsh Associate figures are can't be used now because somebody could use them to advocate for deregulation. If that's the case then the DoE figures can't be used because somebody could use them to promote increased regulation which would benefit the DoE.

It's clear to any reasonable person at this how dishonest you are. It's clear to anyone aware of your posting history that this dishonesty is driven by your ideology. I see no reason to continue this debate. I suppose we can pick it up the next time I post factual evidence that conflicts with your ideology.

KomradeBishop

Stop trying to reword what I said to suit your argument - I said that the conflict of interest makes the Walsh figures non-credible, and that a more credible source should be found.
That is not the same as arguing that all possible conflicts of interest, no matter how minor, render sources non-credible.

If you want to argue that the DoE are non-credible, then you're going to have quite a hard time convincing anybody of that.

Cite the DoE giving the 65% figure. Without a citation, then the DoE may be referring to site costs, which were excluded in the figures you're comparing them to - which would not be comparing like with like.

You haven't explained anything about my supposed 'ideology', just put forward some vague waffle, which I explicitly said was a misrepresentation/caricature of my views.


How money is created has practical implications for Every. Single. Economists. work. If you don't know how money is created, you don't properly know how money works, how debt works, how banks work, how the banking and monetary system work, how the conditions for economic crisis develop, how macroeconomics overall works.

A requirement for understanding all of these things, is not reserved for monetary economists - it is a requirement for practically all economists, if they wish to not be misinformed, and if they wish to not misinform - many of these things are fundamental prerequisites for properly understanding an extremely wide range of areas within economics, an economist who does not properly understand these things is arguably incompetent.

This is not a case of neglecting to teach something - it is a case of teaching something that is definitively and empirically wrong - there is absolutely zero justification for this whatsoever, it is misinformation, it's actively harmful.


I didn't say (paraphrasing) "the Walsh figures can't be used because someone may use them to advocate deregulation", I pointed out the conflict of interest...don't let that stop you completely making shít up and pretending I said it though.

Every single post of yours contains multiple deliberate lies about what I said - it's impossible for you to miss this as well.

This is the second time you've claimed you're done with the debate - feel free to prove that as another lie too.

Suryavarman

"There you go again" - Ronald Reagan.