User Tag List

First 5131415161725 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 276

  1. #141
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    The same reason the anthro professors aren't teaching creationism.

    That would have been my response.
    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    They don't learn Austrian economics for the same reason evolutionary biologists don't learn the ins and outs of creationism.
    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    I hear an echo.
    Quote Originally Posted by nebbykoo View Post
    That's what happens when two INTJs occupy the same space at the same time.
    The echo Jock points out isn't between INTJs.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  2. #142
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Uumlau: I have to say, you've got a pretty solid handle on your economics, especially for someone who (to the best of my knowledge) didn't study and doesn't work in a directly applicable or related field.
    Thanks. Economics has been a hobby of mine since before I took my first physics class. It started with Milton Friedman's Free To Choose, both the book and the TV series. Prior to that (around age 12!), I was watching the news and trying to figure things out, all completely in terms of "Well, if the government did this," then that would make things work out, in a command-and-control way. The rewrite of assumptions that Friedman provided fit my real-world observations much better.

    I hope to one day be able to discuss relativity, quantum mechanics and string theory as effectively as you do political economy.
    I'm sure you will. I suggest reading up on the actual debates people have on the topics. It's useful to know the limits of science (just as it is useful to know the limits of economic theory).

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    "Externalities" is the new left-wing buzzword. It's annoying as shit to read over and over. What exactly do you mean?
    It means "the stuff we don't know how to account for in our command-and-control theories". It's kind of like physicists talking about "dark energy" when they learn that the universe's expansion is accelerating, which contradicts all known theories.

    By positing externalities (which my Firefox spellchecker doesn't even recognize as a real word), one can claim that one's theory is correct, and that it failed to work not because it was incorrect, but do to external factors that it would be totally unfair to hold one personally accountable for missing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest View Post
    Yes because the videos are entertaining and informative and allow me to see things from a different perspective. Contrary to belief I'm not obsessed with winning, or offended by something that would give a different perspective...I simply have very strong values.
    Reading this makes me feel very proud of you. I don't need you to agree with me or hold my point of view. I appreciate it that you listen.

    As for externalities:
    Externalities can cause market failure if the price mechanism does not take into account the full social costs and social benefits of production and consumption.
    An example of external costs created by not weighing social costs/benefits are the extra costs caused by environmental pollution.

    Essentially it means you aren't looking at the big picture.
    "Not looking at the big picture" is a good description of externalities.

    Where the difference of opinion lies is as pure_mercury suggests: "market failure" is used very imprecisely. It puts a hugely loaded value on what a market actually does, and then faults "the market" for getting it all wrong. It's like blaming one's dog for eating something one absentmindedly left out, and then barfs it out all over the floor. The dog is just being a dog; it isn't the dog's fault, nor the dog's failure. The "externality" was one's own lack of attention/understanding of dogginess.

    The fix isn't to blame the dog, the fix is to set boundary conditions that account for dogginess. One has to be very careful about what boundary conditions to set. It's just a dog. One does not get to set a condition like "go run to the bathroom and barf in the toilet, please" or "don't eat food I leave lying around." Dog's don't do that. They can't. The boundary condition has to be "I should be more careful about leaving food out around the house."

    Similarly, in a market, high prices, for example, have a number of possible causes. One can't just set the prices. Markets don't do that. They can't. The high prices are usually due to something else that is important. The market isn't failing, but doing it's job. It's saying, "Watch out. Something is wrong here." Like a dog barking. One should look for the cause of the high prices, causes other than "greed" or "price gouging." Usually there's an obvious economic fluctuation that is causing a particular scarcity. High prices tell people to conserve and consume less, and they usually do.

    With respect to other externalities, things like environmental issues, these are justifiable places for the government to set up boundary conditions. Again, they have to be careful with them. It's possible to set up boundary conditions (e.g., laws or regulations) that sound like they address the problem, but end up asking the market to do things that it cannot do (or are prohibitively expensive to do in a short time frame, or any number of other possibilities).
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  3. #143

    Default

    Any time I hear how libertarians arrive at their reviews I'm more convinced they are in the grip of an ideology rather than objectively interested in economics.

  4. #144
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Any time I hear how libertarians arrive at their reviews I'm more convinced they are in the grip of an ideology rather than objectively interested in economics.
    And every time I hear you drone on about how you hate libertarianism I am reminded that you are in the grip of an ideology.

  5. #145
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Any time I hear how libertarians arrive at their reviews I'm more convinced they are in the grip of an ideology rather than objectively interested in economics.
    I haven't heard a logical-factual rebuttal from you, though, only lots of fluffly sociopoliticopsychological analysis.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  6. #146
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    I thought this might be relevant:

    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hivQvtR66U"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hivQvtR66U[/YOUTUBE]
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  7. #147
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Yeah, I remember encountering Hannan a few years back and being impressed with him.

    This video actually got me going less than the previous ones I'd watched.

    It's a little too general, a little to vague and opaque.

    A friend sent me these last night:

    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLmD9TeUC54&feature=youtu.be"]Part 1[/YOUTUBE]
    I've always liked Schiff to a certain extent, but I disagree with him on the last 10%-20% of his analysis.

    He gets it a lot more right than most, but he gets a little too ideological and crazy on the homestretch.

    Using his metaphor: to pull us off the heroin cold turkey would send us into shock (and possibly kill us).

    It would not be worth the pain it would cause; better to wean us off slowly, as you would a junkie.

    I understand that this leaves open the risk that politicians could just kick the can down the road continuously, and never really accomplish the reforms that are necessary, but to slam our 10%-12%+ deficit down to zero immediately (which is what refusing to lift the debt ceiling would've done) would bring about a known cost so horrific that I'd be willing to risk that potential cost.

    Problems I have with his analysis:

    • Why he thinks that government spending to prop up demand in the short-term cannot have net positive effects (higher growth, less layoffs/firings, less bankruptcies, etc.) is beyond me (I understand that it can become problematic in the long-run, but Austrian economics [or, more narrowly and properly, fiscal conservatism] basically is a prescription one must take before a crisis, in order to keep your economy as healthy as possible in case you enter into a crisis [i.e., don't stimulate when stimulation is not necessary, so you've got plenty of policy bullets when the time comes], but, once a crisis has already happened, I think you gotta go back and take Keynes' recommendations into consideration -- I understand the Austrian response, and I don't disagree that the problems arising from intervention exist, I'm just saying that in certain circumstances, they can actually yield a net positive).

    • Why he is so supply-side blind that he puts all the chips into production but none in demand is beyond me (I get that in the long-run production and technological efficiency are what matter, but in the short run, when demand is collapsing, demand does matter).

    • Why he doesn't see that the government's ability to both borrow from foreigners and print money can allow the government to spend without necessarily pulling capital away from businesses is beyond me. As someone who works in the financial markets, it's always amazing to me to think about economic concepts of savings = investments, government borrowing supposedly crowding out private investment -- it all seems like nonsense to me. Armchair theorizing, not on-the-ground truth. Businesses aren't not investing because too much capital is being used by the government and therefore not enough is available to them! They're not investing cuz there's so much uncertainty in the marketplace, they don't know what demand for their product is gunna look like in 6-12 months, and so they're holding onto their wallets. For Christ's sake, check the numbers, corporations are sitting on a fucking boatload of cash! They're not investing it because, due to lack of demand, the returns don't seem worthwhile!


    He's just way too ideological for my liking (or belief).

    But the other 80%-90%: solid.

  8. #148
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I've always liked Schiff to a certain extent, but I disagree with him on the last 10%-20% of his analysis.

    He gets it a lot more right than most, but he gets a little too ideological and crazy on the homestretch.

    Using his metaphor: to pull us off the heroin cold turkey would send us into shock (and possibly kill us).

    It would not be worth the pain it would cause; better to wean us off slowly, as you would a junkie.

    I understand that this leaves open the risk that politicians could just kick the can down the road continuously, and never really accomplish the reforms that are necessary, but to slam our 10%-12%+ deficit down to zero immediately (which is what refusing to lift the debt ceiling would've done) would bring about a known cost so horrific that I'd be willing to risk that potential cost.

    Problems I have with his analysis:

    • Why he thinks that government spending to prop up demand in the short-term cannot have net positive effects (higher growth, less layoffs/firings, less bankruptcies, etc.) is beyond me (I understand that it can become problematic in the long-run, but Austrian economics [or, more narrowly and properly, fiscal conservatism] basically is a prescription one must take before a crisis, in order to keep your economy as healthy as possible in case you enter into a crisis [i.e., don't stimulate when stimulation is not necessary, so you've got plenty of policy bullets when the time comes], but, once a crisis has already happened, I think you gotta go back and take Keynes' recommendations into consideration -- I understand the Austrian response, and I don't disagree that the problems arising from intervention exist, I'm just saying that in certain circumstances, they can actually yield a net positive).
    I'd actually have to disagree with you, here. There's already going to be enough inertia in the budget to handle the "stimulative" effects you're concerned about. The current "deal" is supposed to eventually cut about 2 trillion over the next 10 years, something like that? If we actually kept spending level, that would come out, in that same math, to be 9 trillion in "cuts." Heck, if we could just keep spending level, we'd be fine, and that would be very stimulative. (I'm not saying it's politically viable: politicians are always less than satisfied with any scenario that doesn't fit their "have your cake and eat it, too" priorities.)

    Why he is so supply-side blind that he puts all the chips into production but none in demand is beyond me (I get that in the long-run production and technological efficiency are what matter, but in the short run, when demand is collapsing, demand does matter).
    It does matter, but you know what stimulating demand means? It means "you and I don't get to save." And if even if we decide to save, we'll have our savings inflated away underneath us, so we might as well spend the damn money now, right? It's still stealing from the future. The only difference between this and raising taxes is that we don't see the numbers on our 1040.

    I agree with you to the extent that the switch from borrowing to staying within a much more limited budget will take a long while. There is no "cold turkey" in a practical sense, but the last time it got this bad (think Carter), we had exactly the prescription Schiff describes: very high interest rates. A recession accompanied it, necessarily, but this was the money reshuffling from inflation-oriented investment (gold and other commodities) to more productive forms. The subsequent growth was so remarkable, Keynesians were left with arguing that it was all that defense spending that was stimulative. (And then in the 90s when defense was cut and budgets were balanced, they had to use the internet as their excuse for non-stimulative economic success. It's nice having non-falsifiable theories, isn't it? I seem to recall Krugman writing that 9/11 should have a great stimulative effect, since there was suddenly a great need for office space in NYC.)

    I believe his main reasoning is that there's no more give on the demand side, we've pushed the string as far as it will go. We have much more leverage on the supply side.

    Why he doesn't see that the government's ability to both borrow from foreigners and print money can allow the government to spend without necessarily pulling capital away from businesses is beyond me. As someone who works in the financial markets, it's always amazing to me to think about economic concepts of savings = investments, government borrowing supposedly crowding out private investment -- it all seems like nonsense to me. Armchair theorizing, not on-the-ground truth. Businesses aren't not investing because too much capital is being used by the government and therefore not enough is available to them! They're not investing cuz there's so much uncertainty in the marketplace, they don't know what demand for their product is gunna look like in 6-12 months, and so they're holding onto their wallets. For Christ's sake, check the numbers, corporations are sitting on a fucking boatload of cash! They're not investing it because, due to lack of demand, the returns don't seem worthwhile!
    I think he does see that, he just weighs it very differently.

    W/r to the bolded, I disagree. Yes, they're sitting on a boatload of cash, but not because of a lack of demand. Businesses look at a lot more than demand. They're trying to forecast years into the future, not merely months, and they cannot even begin to because we've enacted both Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, most of the regulations of which are still entirely unknown. The implementation of Obamacare, so far, has been entirely ad hoc, with random waivers given out here and there, and then there's the secondary and tertiary factors of it potentially being repealed (in part or in whole) by a future congress, or its being overturned by the SC. That's just too damn random. I'd be perfectly happy to sit on my money for a couple years and wait for that to sort out, or find foreign markets with more predictable conditions.

    He's just way too ideological for my liking (or belief).

    But the other 80%-90%: solid.
    Yeah, personality-wise, he comes off as a bit too ideological. But in terms of economics lessons, I think he has two main ones that are of use. 1) deflation is not bad; rather, high deflation is the symptom of a necessary recession. (In this regard, I'm more of the Monetarist school, in that keeping prices "level" allows the layman to plan better.) 2) a recession should be allowed to correct the market; if it isn't, we just end up where we are now, three years later, and we still haven't processed all the foreclosures that will inevitably happen, because they've been largely put on hold.

    (2) is the difficult one to come to grips with, especially in political terms. Everyone has a sympathetic story. No one wants to see bad things happen to people. But until the financial sicknesses have been flushed out of the system as a whole, we're going to stay stuck as is. We are having a recession w/ weak recovery because we aren't allowing the necessary market corrections. Part of my reasoning is along the lines of my views on the Great Depression: we spent 12 years trying to restructure the economy to fix things, never giving the market a chance to respond and adjust. It wasn't war spending that fixed things, but the sheer predictability of a war economy (and fighting a war kind of distracted people from trying to fix the economy). And after that war, we actually cut spending by a lot and paid down debts (no stimulus there), and we were giving out spare cash to Europe in the Marshall plan as our economy grew.

    Anyway, I don't think we disagree that much. I just thought I'd fill in the more interesting spots where there are differences to be discussed.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  9. #149
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I seem to recall Krugman writing that 9/11 should have a great stimulative effect, since there was suddenly a great need for office space in NYC.)
    Was that part of his whole "don't let a disaster go to waste" spiel? The good ol' Broken Window fallacy?

  10. #150
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    470

    Default

    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8"]The Free Lunch Myth[/YOUTUBE]
    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wx5PYZIWcQ"]The Robin Hood Myth[/YOUTUBE]
    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmzZ8lCLhlk"]The Robber Baron Myth[/YOUTUBE]
    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU"]Monopoly[/YOUTUBE]
    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ERbC7JyCfU"]Lesson of the Pencil[/YOUTUBE]

Similar Threads

  1. media coverage of the tea parties
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 03:22 PM
  2. Tax Day Tea Party Protests
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 04-15-2009, 10:47 PM
  3. Civil unrest: National tea party, tax revolt
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-18-2009, 04:14 PM
  4. Let pretend we are at a party!
    By Ypsilon in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 01-25-2008, 05:39 PM
  5. Ron Paul Tea Party... will you be donating?
    By file cabinet in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 12-20-2007, 03:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO