Elitist view or rational thing?

[tedteague]

Just wanted to propose a question . . .
In the wake of the big economic recession, almost everyone has become an economist overnight and I can't go anywhere without hearing about why the stimulus bill isn't working or when employment will pick back up again. Normally, I love it when people talk to me about these things, but the truth is, I can't take it anymore. I'm currently an economic grad student, and if things go according to plan, I'll be getting my Ph.D in about 2 more years, and from that point of view, all these people who just read internet blogs are CLUELESS. Then it struck me, if most people don't really understand the economy (it took me 4 years of undergrad and will take at least 5 more years), then theres a pretty solid chance nobody in DC does either.
So, the question is . . . should we leave the economy to the economists (trust me, I'm painfully aware that little group of pretentious a-holes can't agree on anything), or do we let everyone have a say, regardless of qualifications?

[steelish]

I say we leave the economy to free market. It will right itself sooner than it will with government involvement. Government needs to cut spending and leave alone the market. By doing so, they will stimulate the economy much faster than by spending and printing money. I've never understood those whom think that if you spend money, you will make money. The only people who can do that are the savvy bond/market investors.

[denuseri]

And the Keynesians lol.

And if memory serves...the vast majority of the so called "economists" have more to do with academic theory than they do with actual management of the economey to begin with.

[tedteague]

if you're implying that my years of hand on study of the economy, former economic systems, ect. mean nothing, you are sadly mistaken. theres more to it than theory, its cause and effect,much of which is not theory, but as factual as you can get

[denuseri]

Yet doesnt negate the fact that the vast majority of those in the field of study in question will never get to actually control the economy that they so diligently studied all those years.

Which means they spend lots of time on theory as opposed to actual manipulation of the system.

And I wasn't "implying" anything, just stating my opinion based upon my observations.

[tedteague]

good, no real economist wants to control it anyway

[oww-that-hurt]

I say we leave the economy to free market. It will right itself sooner than it will with government involvement. Government needs to cut spending and leave alone the market. By doing so, they will stimulate the economy much faster than by spending and printing money. I've never understood those whom think that if you spend money, you will make money. The only people who can do that are the savvy bond/market investors.

For one thing, people toss around the word 'economy' like they are talking about something as casual as the size of their favorite coffee mug. When I was in college (1970's) in an economics class an assignment I will never forget is that we were to break down the cost of a loaf of bread. REALLY break it down. You know, all the way back to the cost of growing, harvesting and shipping the wheat to processing it to shipping that, etc., and then on to the other ingredients. Follow that through all the steps until you are finally in line with your bread at the store, pay for it, and it is in your kitchen. After all that, you barely get a glimpse of what the economy is all about.

Side note: with this health care 'reform' package, just how is fining us for not having insurance going to get us any closer to having insurance? We make too much for government hand-outs (which we wouldn't take, anyway) but there isn't enough left over to buy insurance. THAT is going to hurt the local economy because instead of spending money on a dentist exam every 6 months, it will now be done every year or two. Just for background before anyone thinks we can cut out our frills, we DON'T have: cable or satellite TV, cell phones, high-speed internet (we have free 56K dial-up), go bowling, take lavish vacations, eat at fancy restaurants, drive new cars, or anything else frilly.

The government spending all of this 'stimulus' money is just a feel-good measure in many instances. Many localities were given stimulus funds for more police officers or special school programs. Well, in case after case, the recipients used those funds to hire the officers or implement the programs, but when the funds dried up, the officers were let go and the programs dropped. What kind of fool thinks that if the localities couldn't afford those items before the stimulus funds, why would they afford them afterwords? It may look good at some press conference, but the reality of it is that if the local taxpayer (in Montana the locals pay for a lot of this stuff) couldn't handle those items before, and if there isn't some HUGE surge in the local job market with large wage increases, the items get dropped.

I better quit, I get to rambling too much!

[Lion]

Didn't free market, with lack of regulations cause the subprime mess?

[the_moirae]

Didn't free market, with lack of regulations cause the subprime mess?

:hubbahubb I think I just fell in love. ;)

[tedteague]

i dont think anybody would say the market is free at all

[denuseri]

The "Market" has never really been free...and I doubt it ever will, to have that you need to have zero interference and or control from governmental sources.

I love Milton Friedman when it comes to a lot of things, but, his ideals, though they look good in "theory" imho are no more realistic in practical aplication than comunisium turned out to be and it looked great in theory too.

A lack of general knowledge coupled with a lack of ethics when it comes to business, (especially corperations) investment speculation, and a variety of other things; a ...not a so called "free market", is the real crux of the problem.

[tedteague]

a lack of ethics doesnt make the market less free, it can affect the market, but it will not make it any less free, same with investment speculation. If you stop either of those things, the market is not free
remember, greed makes the world go round

[steelish]

Didn't free market, with lack of regulations cause the subprime mess?

The federal government regulated the life out of the free market. THAT contributed greatly to this subprime mess.

[the_moirae]

Didn't free market, with lack of regulations cause the subprime mess?


i dont think anybody would say the market is free at all


The "Market" has never really been free....


The federal government regulated the life out of the free market. THAT contributed greatly to this subprime mess.

I often avoid even reading threads like this because I get to angry, but I feel compelled to say: among the things I trust least in this world is Big Business running rampant sans regulation. Disagreeing with the (i.m.h.o.) self-centered, free market dogma may lead to me being labeled a socialist, but hey - I'm jiggy w'it.

[tedteague]

without regulations, those big businesses you hate so much (citigroup, AIG JPMoragn, Goldman Sachs) would have all gone out of business and filed bankruptcy. Regulations gave them billions of dollars of tax payer money to keep operating

[DuncanONeil]

Apparently the great sate of Louisiana has figured that out. Unemployment there is apparently the lowest in the nation, currently around 7%. And a whole bunch of things associated with small government. Not that they are but they are acting like one.


I say we leave the economy to free market. It will right itself sooner than it will with government involvement. Government needs to cut spending and leave alone the market. By doing so, they will stimulate the economy much faster than by spending and printing money. I've never understood those whom think that if you spend money, you will make money. The only people who can do that are the savvy bond/market investors.

[DuncanONeil]

Some say Government handouts are not so much about helping people as it is making people dependent.


For one thing, people toss around the word 'economy' like they are talking about something as casual as the size of their favorite coffee mug. When I was in college (1970's) in an economics class an assignment I will never forget is that we were to break down the cost of a loaf of bread. REALLY break it down. You know, all the way back to the cost of growing, harvesting and shipping the wheat to processing it to shipping that, etc., and then on to the other ingredients. Follow that through all the steps until you are finally in line with your bread at the store, pay for it, and it is in your kitchen. After all that, you barely get a glimpse of what the economy is all about.

Side note: with this health care 'reform' package, just how is fining us for not having insurance going to get us any closer to having insurance? We make too much for government hand-outs (which we wouldn't take, anyway) but there isn't enough left over to buy insurance. THAT is going to hurt the local economy because instead of spending money on a dentist exam every 6 months, it will now be done every year or two. Just for background before anyone thinks we can cut out our frills, we DON'T have: cable or satellite TV, cell phones, high-speed internet (we have free 56K dial-up), go bowling, take lavish vacations, eat at fancy restaurants, drive new cars, or anything else frilly.

The government spending all of this 'stimulus' money is just a feel-good measure in many instances. Many localities were given stimulus funds for more police officers or special school programs. Well, in case after case, the recipients used those funds to hire the officers or implement the programs, but when the funds dried up, the officers were let go and the programs dropped. What kind of fool thinks that if the localities couldn't afford those items before the stimulus funds, why would they afford them afterwords? It may look good at some press conference, but the reality of it is that if the local taxpayer (in Montana the locals pay for a lot of this stuff) couldn't handle those items before, and if there isn't some HUGE surge in the local job market with large wage increases, the items get dropped.

I better quit, I get to rambling too much!

[DuncanONeil]

No! At least not with out a push!!


Didn't free market, with lack of regulations cause the subprime mess?

[SadisticNature]

Milton Friedman himself said that a free market would require someone to own the air and enforce their rights to it in order to properly charge externalities like pollution. Of course this means someone is fully justified in charging people for breathing and if they don't pay while then the owner just makes them stop breathing, a simple enforcement of property rights.

So the free market quickly becomes the radically corrupt police state.

I'm glad it doesn't exist.

[SadisticNature]

Apparently the great sate of Louisiana has figured that out. Unemployment there is apparently the lowest in the nation, currently around 7%. And a whole bunch of things associated with small government. Not that they are but they are acting like one.

Well among other factors in that low unemployment rate, was a natural disaster leading to population loss through both casualities and massive emigration to other states, followed by significant money put into the city of New Orleans resulting in a massive inflow of construction jobs.

So I suspect a lot of that low rate relates to federal "big government" too.

[SadisticNature]

Just wanted to propose a question . . .
In the wake of the big economic recession, almost everyone has become an economist overnight and I can't go anywhere without hearing about why the stimulus bill isn't working or when employment will pick back up again. Normally, I love it when people talk to me about these things, but the truth is, I can't take it anymore. I'm currently an economic grad student, and if things go according to plan, I'll be getting my Ph.D in about 2 more years, and from that point of view, all these people who just read internet blogs are CLUELESS. Then it struck me, if most people don't really understand the economy (it took me 4 years of undergrad and will take at least 5 more years), then theres a pretty solid chance nobody in DC does either.
So, the question is . . . should we leave the economy to the economists (trust me, I'm painfully aware that little group of pretentious a-holes can't agree on anything), or do we let everyone have a say, regardless of qualifications?

I guess you answered your own question when you said economics wasn't about controlling the economy.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter, but that doesn't mean something else is better. Replacing the right to free speech by a right to free speech when talking about something about which you are qualified to speech sounds pretty terrible. You might be able to have a conversation about economics, but god forbid you want to comment on the quality of a movie without your PhD in an appropriate arts field.

[the_moirae]

without regulations, those big businesses you hate so much (citigroup, AIG JPMoragn, Goldman Sachs) would have all gone out of business and filed bankruptcy. Regulations gave them billions of dollars of tax payer money to keep operating

Dude - did I ever once use the word "hate"?

Did I - even once - voice support for the stimulus? (Something Wall Street was more than happy to claim as their due (despite the reek of socialism born of a taxpayer bailout) with it's former Wall Street fat cat heading up the Congressional advisory.) If corporations truly operated according to the rules of their precious free-market, they'd have been left hanging bare-assed in the breeze (as deserved) for running themselves into the ground.

Aaaaand stick a fork in me, 'cause I've more than had my fill of this thread.

[DuncanONeil]

That sounds silly!

Until I remember that the EPA is regulating CO2. So there is you ownership of air and breathing!


Milton Friedman himself said that a free market would require someone to own the air and enforce their rights to it in order to properly charge externalities like pollution. Of course this means someone is fully justified in charging people for breathing and if they don't pay while then the owner just makes them stop breathing, a simple enforcement of property rights.

So the free market quickly becomes the radically corrupt police state.

I'm glad it doesn't exist.

[DuncanONeil]

The comment was not derived from a readable source but an interview of the Governor of the state. He did say that New Orleans is thriving!

You really mean to say that 30% of the populatin of the state of Louisiana just up and left the state?


Well among other factors in that low unemployment rate, was a natural disaster leading to population loss through both casualities and massive emigration to other states, followed by significant money put into the city of New Orleans resulting in a massive inflow of construction jobs.

So I suspect a lot of that low rate relates to federal "big government" too.

[denuseri]

remember, greed makes the world go round

But it doesnt HAVE to.

[denuseri]

I often avoid even reading threads like this because I get to angry, but I feel compelled to say: among the things I trust least in this world is Big Business running rampant sans regulation. Disagreeing with the (i.m.h.o.) self-centered, free market dogma may lead to me being labeled a socialist, but hey - I'm jiggy w'it.

I am right there with you when it comes to mistrusting what has proven over time to be perhaps the single greatest evil unleashed upon the world in recorded history.

The Institution of the Corperation.

[denuseri]

You really mean to say that 30% of the populatin of the state of Louisiana just up and left the state?

You should have been living in Atlanta and other cities here in the south,when we got overran by all of the people flooding into the city looking for places to live and work in the months after the storm.

Most of the people I spoke to had no intention of ever returning to their former homes eaither.

Which btw has nothing to do really with weather or not the economey or discussion of it should be left to the economists.

[tedteague]

But it doesnt HAVE to.

But what else has worked even half as well?

[DuncanONeil]

But it doesnt HAVE to.

Like many things greed has varying shades. A person experiencing greed that goes out and robs a bank either has a bad form of greed or a poor moral set.
A person that experiences greed and creates something to sell either has a good form of greed or a well formed moral set.

Reading over that it appears that the issue is not "greed" but the person's morals.

A corollary to "greed" is that we all seek to make things better for our kids. That can not be considered bad!

[DuncanONeil]

I am right there with you when it comes to mistrusting what has proven over time to be perhaps the single greatest evil unleashed upon the world in recorded history.

The Institution of the Corperation.

Why are corporations "evil"?

[Thorne]

Why are corporations "evil"?
It's quite obvious, really. They provide consumers with things that they really want, at prices which most of them can afford, all while providing jobs and benefits to their workers. And to top it off, they have the unmitigated gall to actually make a profit!

How evil can they get?

[denuseri]

The also pollute the enviroment, exploit their workers, and trick anyone they can into purchasing their product even if its not really safe or harmful in and of itself in its production or consumption or even useful to consumers in general...all without any apparent concern unless forced to comply by an outside authority.

They basically act like non-repentant social paths in all most every regard.

[Thorne]

The also pollute the enviroment, exploit their workers, and trick anyone they can into purchasing their product even if its not really safe or harmful in and of itself in its production or consumption or even useful to consumers in general...all without any apparent concern unless forced to comply by an outside authority.

They basically act like non-repentant social paths in all most every regard.

Are we talking about corporations, or governments? From your description I can't really tell the difference.

[denuseri]

The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same. ~Marie Beyle

Yet in the end..once they are of no other use to the shepherd...are not the sheep then led to slaughter.

To me the corperation is like a faceless shepherd only his sole consern is in how much profit he will make out of us sheep and how fast he can make it.


As for whose opinions matter when it comes to economics (or anything else)...which btw is the topic of the thread as presented by the op:

The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject. ~Marcus Aurelius

[Thorne]

To me the corperation is like a faceless shepherd only his sole consern is in how much profit he will make out of us sheep and how fast he can make it.
So who knows more about the economics of shepherding, the sheep or the shepherd? And who is more guilty, the shepherd who tends his flock, feeds them and protects them? Or the people who buy their wool, and their meat? And if no one is buying the wool or meat, of what use is the shepherd, or the sheep?


As for whose opinions matter when it comes to economics (or anything else)...which btw is the topic of the thread as presented by the op
The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject. ~Marcus Aurelius
Which is a very good reason to trust the economics of the country to those who actually know something of economics, and not to men and women whose only understanding of money is how to raise enough of it to be reelected.

[denuseri]

Or steal enough of it right out from under everyones noses, or in plain sight and get away with it?

[tedteague]

well personally, i find shaws better than hunter-gathering or growing my own wheatfield and praying the harvest is bountiful.
Corporations do not twist the arms of the people who buy its products, and to say they exploit their workers is too general a statement.
Would you rather have no industry, no cars, probably electricity or running water?
Or would you rather have corporations?

[denuseri]

We had all those wonderful things before corperations came to any kind of surpremacy in the market.

[tedteague]

You're right, we did have cars. except nobody could afford them until Henry Ford made them so cheap most Americans could buy them. You wouldn't have a laptop, no internet, or even power without General Electric. Even if you did have a car that was horribly overpriced because it was made by hand, what would you put in it? No corporations to import gas means no importing gas. And as for pollution, everybody pollutes. It is not just the corporations. The standard of living we enjoy today is the product of corporations. Big ones that make tons of money

[denuseri]

Ford made them cheap, Ford..an individual in charge of a business that he owned in his own right...long before the corperation that his company turned into rose to surpremacy or shed its liability for any wrong doings in the light of the law in conjucntion with all the other big companies over the government.

[DuncanONeil]

The also pollute the enviroment,

Then why has the environment been improving over the past few decades?

exploit their workers,

I am afraid I must ask you to define "exploitation". I do not consider a requirement to work in order to receive a paycheck being exploited.

and trick anyone they can into purchasing their product even if its not really(;)

Please explain how you propose to "trick" me into buying anything. At least more than once!

safe

Who is the responsible person to ensure that a product is used safely? By your statement we can sell no; knives, cars, bicycles, motorcycles, horses, hang gliders, airplanes, pogo sticks, or any of the other myriad things that we can use to hurt ourselves.

or harmful in and of itself in its production or consumption

I suppose that this is meant to refer to cigarettes? What about sterno or matches?

or even useful to consumers in general...

Sorry this is not the least bit objective. Things I might choose not to do without you would have not one single use for.

all without any apparent concern

This is reasonable when you are of the position that the purpose for the existence of a business is the height of evil. But that very thing, the profit motive, is the single most pervasive thing to make a company do what is correct. If one did not there would be no profit.

unless forced to comply by an outside authority.

So you are than of the opinion that the only way to induce anyone to do that which is correct is to force them? I seen to remember hearing that forcing a child to do the correct thing is the absolute wrong thing to do as all it teaches them is "Might Makes Right". If it is wrong in those circumstances it is wrong in all circumstances. Further this requirement for force to ensure the "correct" action leaves all business - and choice - in the hands of Government. For they are the only ones for whom force is an acceptable means of operation.
I believe that is called Communism.


They basically act like non-repentant social paths in all most every regard.

I believe you held that position before the discussion.

[DuncanONeil]

Or steal enough of it right out from under everyones noses, or in plain sight and get away with it?


All crooks eventually get caught.
But you can not have a greedy crook without a greedy victim!

[DuncanONeil]

You're right, we did have cars. except nobody could afford them until Henry Ford made them so cheap most Americans could buy them. You wouldn't have a laptop, no internet, or even power without General Electric. Even if you did have a car that was horribly overpriced because it was made by hand, what would you put in it? No corporations to import gas means no importing gas. And as for pollution, everybody pollutes. It is not just the corporations. The standard of living we enjoy today is the product of corporations. Big ones that make tons of money


I just learned that before the advent of cars gasoline was a waste product of the production of kerosine! And that waste was tossed in the river!!

[DuncanONeil]

Ford made them cheap, Ford..an individual in charge of a business that he owned in his own right...long before the corperation that his company turned into rose to surpremacy or shed its liability for any wrong doings in the light of the law in conjucntion with all the other big companies over the government.


Do you really understand the origin of the "corporation?
The origin was a combining of two companies into one entity. Why do you think it is Ford, Lincoln, Mercury?

[tedteague]

i also dont necessarily think they trick the consumer into anything. corporations exist because we let them. we fund them. we give the revenue

[denuseri]

Actually ...historically speaking the first american corperations were good things but then again they were also temporary things; conglomerations of individual private citizen contributors who came together for the explicite purpose of funding a specific public project such as a park or gas light distribution network or water works or bridge etc in their city or local area and once the specific project was completed they disbanded.

I have no desire to derail the main topic of this thread however. What should have been a single post on my personal yet learned historical based opinions conserning corperate motivations and what their evolution has done to effect economic matters has turned into to large of a sidebar to continue here so I am recomending that we make a new thread for it or take to pm any issues anyone may wish to have with my personal views to my pm box, I will be more than willing to continue such debate in eaither of those venues. I apologize to the other members for presenting this here and actively participating in its continuance.



Now back to the threads actual topic.

Ted I have to ask...what is you personal advice as an economist concerning all the jibber jabber about the economey?

What specifically are we layman to believe or not?

Should the government take a hands off approach or should they regulate things?

What exactly is it about layman opinions that is so wrong you find exception about in all the debate?

What big secret are the learned economists keeping to themselves that isnt being discussed by john q public?

[Kendal]

Economics is not a precise science (is it really a science). Economists can't agree amongst themselves most times.Economists are like astrologers advising Kings.

You call the people who read internet blogs "clueless". The reason they are clueless is because the economists writing the blogs they are reading are clueless. The public are not supposed to be experts or know. If they knew then what value does an economic phD have. Their job is to be convinced. It's like a jury. The jurors are not legal experts. The lawyers present their cases and the lawyer who presents the most plausible, logical and easy explanation is the one deemed to be right. Saying people are clueless is like a lawyer saying the jury was clueless after it returns a verdict against his client. Perhaps they are right and the lawyer is wrong. Perhaps those clueless blog readers are right and you are wrong.

But it does not matter because right is whatever the jury or blog reader think. Economy is all about trust and confidence in promises. America was ticking over nicely one day then crash the next. The machines are still in the factories. The oil is still in the ground and the oranges on the trees. The crash was all about loss of confidence and herd behavior. It takes just one sentence from a president or fed bank chairman and the stock market drops or rises ten percent and zillions magically appear or disappear. Europe did not suffer from the crash the same as american and moved out faster because European leaders told the people there was no problem and the people believed them and the problem went because of they believed. A self fulfilling prophecy. The army will win the battle if the soldiers believe they will. The soldiers will believe if the King believes and the King will believe if the astrologer can convince him he will. It is the same with the economy.

So to answer your question - let the economists advise but not decide. Let the president decide based on what astrologer (if any) he believes. Let the people believe the president and then whatever the president said will come to pass.

How's that for a theory. Didn't take me years, just a crate of beer to come up with that little thesis.

PS -You will do a written exam or thesis to be read by econmists to decide if you get your doctrate. I would throw you inot a hall full of people and say to you - convince them. Then I ask the people if you should get your degree. If they are clueless you know your fate. If they are conviced then congratuations doctor tedteague !!

[Thorne]

But it does not matter because right is whatever the jury or blog reader think.
This is so far beyond right that it's unfathomable. If I can convince some people that the moon is made of green cheese, does that make me right? Hogwash! It just makes me persuasive. That's why we have to rely on evidence, not on rhetoric. But evidence is tedious, boring, dull, and it goes downhill from there. Rhetoric is much more exciting, and much more enjoyable. Entire religions are based upon this, as well as most political systems.


Economy is all about trust and confidence in promises.
Which is why economy cannot be a science. It's far closer to a religion.


So to answer your question - let the economists advise but not decide. Let the president decide based on what astrologer (if any) he believes. Let the people believe the president and then whatever the president said will come to pass.
Oh, yeah. This will work.


How's that for a theory. Didn't take me years, just a crate of beer to come up with that little thesis.
That would have been my guess.

[Kendal]

This is so far beyond right that it's unfathomable. If I can convince some people that the moon is made of green cheese, does that make me right?
Yes to all intense purposes it will if you are selling shares in a cheese mining space expedition. Yes you are right that the moon's composition is a scientific fact. You are comparing economics to astonomy. Are you are saying economics is a science which can be proven like astronomy.

Which is why economy cannot be a science. It's far closer to a religion.
Here you are saying the opposite. Make your mind up. If we sitick on this side of the fence then if you convince millions of people there is a god then those people will act just the same as if it is a fact and it will make no differnce fact or fiction. You doubt me - tell the devout muslims, christians and jews of the world there is no god.

[Kendal]

Oh, yeah. This will work.
Why do stock market or currency prices react to a comment made by the federal bank chairman. Ever see the movie The Million Pound Note?

[denuseri]

So is their perhaps a scientific way of associating herd behavior in mass market systems that will give us any real sence of perdictability?

[Thorne]

This is so far beyond right that it's unfathomable. If I can convince some people that the moon is made of green cheese, does that make me right?
Yes to all intense purposes it will if you are selling shares in a cheese mining space expedition.
That doesn't make me right, just successful at exploiting stupidity.


Yes you are right that the moon's composition is a scientific fact. You are comparing economics to astonomy. Are you are saying economics is a science which can be proven like astronomy.
No, I'm not trying to say that. I'm saying that economics is essentially gambling. You're betting that your money will be worth something in the future. Sadly, too many people lose that bet because hucksters and thieves can manipulate the markets by making people believe they know what they're talking about.


If we sitick on this side of the fence then if you convince millions of people there is a god then those people will act just the same as if it is a fact and it will make no differnce fact or fiction.
My point exactly. Just because you can make people act as if something is true, doesn't make it necessarily true. It is quite easy for normal, everyday actions, to believe and act as if the world is flat. That doesn't make it so. It's possible for someone to preach beautifully and persuasively about how the world is flat. That does not make it so. Every world leader can stand up in solidarity and proclaim that the world is flat. It does not make it so.

But stand up with a bad toupee and coke-bottle glasses and state that the economy is in the toilet and idiots around the world will panic and make your statement right? That, my friend, is lunacy. We should immediately begin an investigation to see who will benefit from such a panic. I guarantee that Mr. bad toupee will be among them.

And yet again I long for that isolated cabin in the mountains where I can hole up and watch the human race destroy itself in madness.

[Kendal]

I'm saying that economics is essentially gambling. You're betting that your money will be worth something in the future.
I agree.

Just because you can make people act as if something is true, doesn't make it necessarily true. It is quite easy for normal, everyday actions, to believe and act as if the world is flat. That doesn't make it so.
You are fiocusing on what is or is not right (fact). I am saying there is in effect no difference between a real fact or a believed fiction. If we are playing poker and you think I have a full house it does not matter if I do or dont, you fold and I take the pot. You can later argue I did not have a full house. I will say whether I did or did not does not matter. You believing I did was "in effect" the same as me having one.

But stand up with a bad toupee and coke-bottle glasses and state that the economy is in the toilet and idiots around the world will panic and make your statement right? That, my friend, is lunacy.
And that my friend is my whole point. It is lunacy but that is what happens. You tell people there is no problem, they believe you, confidence returns in the economy, economy picks up and it becomes a self fullfilling prophecy. In the USA people do not believe the government. In Germany they do. German economy has picked up. American has not. It's all a game of confidence, trust and hokus pokus. It's poker.

We should immediately begin an investigation to see who will benefit from such a panic. I guarantee that Mr. bad toupee will be among them.Agreed. The is what people like George Soros (name) did with the Malaysian currency. Bulk sell, price falls, the herd rush to sell as well, value plumets then George buys back and makes a fortune while the Malaysian market crashes and Asian markets follow suit.

All these economists, financial experts and gurus yet nobody saw the bank collapse coming? How good are they if they cannot see a crash and depression looming. That's like a weather forecaster failing to see a hurricane coming.

[DuncanONeil]

Quote:
So to answer your question - let the economists advise but not decide. Let the president decide based on what astrologer (if any) he believes. Let the people believe the president and then whatever the president said will come to pass.
Oh, yeah. This will work.





Isn't that what the campaign platform was all about? Hope & Change?

Actually I have been wondering when he is going to stop campaigning!

[DuncanONeil]

Not even close to being mutually exclusive!!
Your statement that right is what a jury or blog says it is the source of the green cheese.
And the grounding in fact Thorne sees in economics is the source for his ascribing it to the realm of philosophy.

See not a single bit of conundrum in there at all!!


This is so far beyond right that it's unfathomable. If I can convince some people that the moon is made of green cheese, does that make me right?
Yes to all intense purposes it will if you are selling shares in a cheese mining space expedition. Yes you are right that the moon's composition is a scientific fact. You are comparing economics to astonomy. Are you are saying economics is a science which can be proven like astronomy.

Which is why economy cannot be a science. It's far closer to a religion.
Here you are saying the opposite. Make your mind up. If we sitick on this side of the fence then if you convince millions of people there is a god then those people will act just the same as if it is a fact and it will make no differnce fact or fiction. You doubt me - tell the devout muslims, christians and jews of the world there is no god.

[DuncanONeil]

Makes perfect sense if that comment is realted to the prime!
That affects all manner of business. Such then affects the value of those businesses. The pronouncement is not a relection on "economics" so much as a cost of doing business.


Oh, yeah. This will work.
Why do stock market or currency prices react to a comment made by the federal bank chairman. Ever see the movie The Million Pound Note?

[DuncanONeil]

Dr Bruce Bueno claims to have an algorithm that is capable of prediction with a rate of accuracy of 90% or more.


So is their perhaps a scientific way of associating herd behavior in mass market systems that will give us any real sence of perdictability?

[DuncanONeil]

In the US the Government is not the economy! When it is that is called socialism. Socialism in the US is the desired result of a minority of the people, those that seek power for themselves at the expense of liberty for all.

As for the poker reference you are both correct and incorrect. In truth it does not matter if you have a boat or not. It does matter if I am willing to put money on the table that I have better cards than do you. Were you to have a full house and I put my money in then you have to decide if I have aces full or four deuces, both of which beat you. However, poker is not a game of facts. It is a game of people.


I'm saying that economics is essentially gambling. You're betting that your money will be worth something in the future.
I agree.

Just because you can make people act as if something is true, doesn't make it necessarily true. It is quite easy for normal, everyday actions, to believe and act as if the world is flat. That doesn't make it so.
You are fiocusing on what is or is not right (fact). I am saying there is in effect no difference between a real fact or a believed fiction. If we are playing poker and you think I have a full house it does not matter if I do or dont, you fold and I take the pot. You can later argue I did not have a full house. I will say whether I did or did not does not matter. You believing I did was "in effect" the same as me having one.

But stand up with a bad toupee and coke-bottle glasses and state that the economy is in the toilet and idiots around the world will panic and make your statement right? That, my friend, is lunacy.
And that my friend is my whole point. It is lunacy but that is what happens. You tell people there is no problem, they believe you, confidence returns in the economy, economy picks up and it becomes a self fullfilling prophecy. In the USA people do not believe the government. In Germany they do. German economy has picked up. American has not. It's all a game of confidence, trust and hokus pokus. It's poker.

We should immediately begin an investigation to see who will benefit from such a panic. I guarantee that Mr. bad toupee will be among them.Agreed. The is what people like George Soros (name) did with the Malaysian currency. Bulk sell, price falls, the herd rush to sell as well, value plumets then George buys back and makes a fortune while the Malaysian market crashes and Asian markets follow suit.

All these economists, financial experts and gurus yet nobody saw the bank collapse coming? How good are they if they cannot see a crash and depression looming. That's like a weather forecaster failing to see a hurricane coming.

[tedteague]

Sorry for the delay in my response . . .
First off, while economics is not a precise science, there is reason to it. To use the religion example. You can have a catholic and protestant debate theology all day long, but if neither one understands transubstantions vs consubstantiation or apistolic succession, you're not getting anywhere.
My real problem with the increasingly mainstream economics being tossed around is the gross oversimplification of it. You can have people fire off talking points like "lowering business taxes will let them hire more people" or even the infamous "high unemployment means there wont be much inflation" and then you have people choosing politicians around here half truths.
Granted, economists may not always agree on the best course of action, but they all still understand the relationships between cause and effects within the economy that leads to the rational decision.
For the sake of example, the above used example of business and taxes
Someone may say lowering business taxes gives them more revenue which leads to more hireing. When you lower taxes on business, a number of things can happen. Sure, they might hire more people . . . or maybe they'll invest into more capitol (which very well may lead to layoffs as machines replace people) . . . or they can pocket the revenue as profit and give CEO bonuses . . . or maybe they'll use it to buy another company (which may also lead to more layoffs).
The point is, politicians and people oversimplify things into talking points. Even if it is more of a religion and nobody within the field agrees, nobody I know would agree with such talking points as universal truth. Instead, those within the field disagree based on big, complex models and years of research.
Whenever someone says "let the economy self correct" and you ask them how it would do that (its possible, dont get me wrong) they just go "well . . it does . . . because . . . it does"

[steelish]

Yeah, I don't understand the "evil" of the corporations either. Does wanting to be profitable equate to "evil"? Isn't that what almost everyone is trying to achieve? Self-sufficiency?

Also - when it comes to economics, I've never understood why some think that spending money is the way to make or save money....it doesn't work for me. I get more in debt when I spend more money. Isn't it the same for governments?

[steelish]

It's quite obvious, really. They provide consumers with things that they really want, at prices which most of them can afford, all while providing jobs and benefits to their workers. And to top it off, they have the unmitigated gall to actually make a profit!

How evil can they get?

This made me snicker.

[steelish]

Ford made them cheap, Ford..an individual in charge of a business that he owned in his own right...long before the corperation that his company turned into rose to surpremacy or shed its liability for any wrong doings in the light of the law in conjucntion with all the other big companies over the government.

Ford developed the concept of production lines. The very thing you vilify for "polluting the environment".

[Thorne]

economics is not a precise science ... Even if it is more of a religion...

So let me get this straight. You're saying that economics, like religion, is all smoke and mirrors? Fantasy and fairy tales? Myth and make-believe?

That explains a lot!

[tedteague]

So let me get this straight. You're saying that economics, like religion, is all smoke and mirrors? Fantasy and fairy tales? Myth and make-believe?

That explains a lot!

hmm . . . not trying to be attacking here, but either you completely misunderstood what I said or I didn't say it very well. you missed the forest for trees.
Economics is a science. It is rather unique, however, because you can't have a real control variable. No two countries have identical economies, so what works in one may be disastrous in another. Its not like one can observe two independent timelines, one with a bailout and one without.
It's still using past behavior to attempt to predict future behavior

[Thorne]

hmm . . . not trying to be attacking here, but either you completely misunderstood what I said or I didn't say it very well. you missed the forest for trees.
Wouldn't be the first time I've done that! But you did compare economics to religion, after all. And at least twice you used a religious analogy to illustrate something.


Economics is a science. It is rather unique, however, because you can't have a real control variable. No two countries have identical economies, so what works in one may be disastrous in another. Its not like one can observe two independent timelines, one with a bailout and one without.
I don't know if you can call it a science, then. If you can't have controls, and you can't duplicate experiments, then there's little that is scientific. From where I sit it sounds more like Astrology than Astronomy. You use scientific sounding terms, but in the end it's all guesswork. When you can say, "Given these conditions, you will get this result; changing that condition will change the result in this manner", then you are working scientifically.


It's still using past behavior to attempt to predict future behavior
Lot's of processes do that, including religion. That doesn't make it science.

[tedteague]

well, 1. i dont know how religion tries to predict anything, unless you want to include those guys who calculate when the world will end by dividing the number of vowels by the amount of times the name of the book is mentioned.
To call i astrology is saying theres a room of people who just randomly assign meaning to certain things
Liken it more to physics. We have general ideas where the electron will be at given moment, but we can't know for sure. And we're still trying to figure out quarks.
Psychology has the same difficulty in controlling variables as everyones mind is different. However, there are many things you can still prove as more or less true, like getting shot in one lobe may impair vision or cause a personality change. The same general rules can be applied to economics like price ceilings will lead to shortages. You then use these relationships and trends to determine the effect any action will have on an economy

[DuncanONeil]

So let me get this straight. You're saying that economics, like religion, is all smoke and mirrors? Fantasy and fairy tales? Myth and make-believe?

That explains a lot!


Pretty good!
And it fits right in to the Thorne ethos.

[Thorne]

Pretty good!
And it fits right in to the Thorne ethos.

Hey! Look, everybody! I got my own ETHOS!

WTF is an ethos, anyway?

[TantricSoul]

Ethos:
n.
The disposition, character, or fundamental values peculiar to a specific person, people, culture, or movement.

[denuseri]

Here you go Thorne...everything you ever wanted to know about the word "ethos'. lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos

<<lives to serve...serves to live...winks.

[tedteague]

*shrugs* thats a tricky word . . . kinda like irony . . .
ill leave it to the english majors ;-)

[Thorne]

I appreciate the help, guys, but I did look it up myself. I was trying to be facetious. Or sarcastic. It's a part of my ethos.

Though I will say I have no idea what my ethos is supposed to be, or how Duncan would know it better than I.

[DuncanONeil]

Hey! Look, everybody! I got my own ETHOS!

WTF is an ethos, anyway?

I'd like to go a little further than Tantric;


e·thos
    Show Spelled[ee-thos, ee-thohs, eth-os, -ohs] Show IPA
–noun
1.Sociology. the fundamental character or spirit of a culture; the underlying sentiment that informs the beliefs, customs, or practices of a group or society; dominant assumptions of a people or period: In the Greek ethos the individual was highly valued.
2.the character or disposition of a community, group, person, etc.
3.the moral element in dramatic literature that determines a character's action rather than his or her thought or emotion.

[DuncanONeil]

I appreciate the help, guys, but I did look it up myself. I was trying to be facetious. Or sarcastic. It's a part of my ethos.

Though I will say I have no idea what my ethos is supposed to be, or how Duncan would know it better than I.

Probably for the same reason that I hold that any individual is their own worst critic. Such evaluations must be left to others, we are all way to close to the subject.

[Thorne]

Probably for the same reason that I hold that any individual is their own worst critic. Such evaluations must be left to others, we are all way to close to the subject.

I suppose I can buy that. So, care to enlighten me about what you consider to be my ethos?

[DuncanONeil]

I suppose I can buy that. So, care to enlighten me about what you consider to be my ethos?


The original statement was predicated on;
" Originally Posted by Thorne
So let me get this straight. You're saying that economics, like religion, is all smoke and mirrors? Fantasy and fairy tales? Myth and make-believe?

That explains a lot!"

Kind of means, to me, that you are like the apocryphal resident of Missouri (or, perish the thought) Doubting Thomas. If it can't be held in your hand or concrete evidence be presented it is just a ruse (tried to find a more appropriate word).
Therefore the above comment is a perfect match for you, and ethos was a good fit in saying so.

[Thorne]

The original statement was predicated on;
" Originally Posted by Thorne
So let me get this straight. You're saying that economics, like religion, is all smoke and mirrors? Fantasy and fairy tales? Myth and make-believe?

That explains a lot!"

Kind of means, to me, that you are like the apocryphal resident of Missouri (or, perish the thought) Doubting Thomas. If it can't be held in your hand or concrete evidence be presented it is just a ruse (tried to find a more appropriate word).
Therefore the above comment is a perfect match for you, and ethos was a good fit in saying so.

I don't know that I would jump to the conclusion that something is a ruse, but I would certainly cast a more critical eye on it. And if someone is going to put forth conclusions, I would expect those conclusions to be based upon reality. If I find hoof prints in the ground I'm probably going to conclude their were horses around. Unless I'm in the Serengeti, in which case zebras will come to mind. But just because I haven't seen a horse or a zebra doesn't mean I can jump to the conclusion that unicorns made the prints!

[denuseri]

lol...Thorne...I think he is saying that your "brutal honesty","critical eye" and overt "show me the money" way of conducting your posts is all part of that ethos we all know and love about you good Sir.

[Thorne]

lol...Thorne...I think he is saying that your "brutal honesty","critical eye" and overt "show me the money" way of conducting your posts is all part of that ethos we all know and love about you good Sir.
Trying to make me blush? Flattery won't do it!

In my own defense, that "brutal honesty" is meant to counterbalance some of the flaming idiocy I see around me in the world. Like people who are willing to assume that the best explanation for anything they don't understand is the supernatural (ghosts, demons, spirits, even gods) or extraterrestrial (flying saucers, alien encounters) or some massive conspiracy. It's my philosophy (or ethos, if you will) to exhaust all of the natural possibilities before even considering the unnatural.

But it's nice to know I'm appreciated.

[tedteague]

This is completely off topic but the camel guy in Duncan's avi just makes me chuckle

[DuncanONeil]

This is completely off topic but the camel guy in Duncan's avi just makes me chuckle

It is not "just" a camel guy. Nor is it really an avatar!