Economics

[EdwardBaiamonte]

believing prosperity was just around the corner slowed the stimulus, It was too quick and bingo.

Liberals simply lack the IQ to understand that stimulus spending merely inflates a mal-investment bubble that will burst soon enough.
Obviously if liberals or soviets knew where to spend money the worlds economic problems would have been solved centuries ago.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There's no such thing as a free market.

dear, you're a perfect idiot liberal incapable of learning. In econ 101, class one, day one we learn that all economies are mixed between the free market and socialism. The USA has been among the most free market while the USSR and Red China are among the most socialist. They are/were all mixed with elements of free markets and socialism. Its hard to imagine how that can be over a person's IQ, but then again most humans worshipped the sun for a centuries.

 

[regent]

believing prosperity was just around the corner slowed the stimulus, It was too quick and bingo.

Liberals simply lack the IQ to understand that stimulus spending merely inflates a mal-investment bubble that will burst soon enough.
Obviously if liberals or soviets knew where to spend money the worlds economic problems would have been solved centuries ago.

So of the 200 or so nations on this earth which one takes the prize for providing all of its citizens with the basic necessities, does not have recessions/depressions and does not have economic problems?
When you name the country can you give us its economic system, and resources?
OK, can you just name the nation that comes closest to an ideal economic system?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

believing prosperity was just around the corner slowed the stimulus, It was too quick and bingo.

Liberals simply lack the IQ to understand that stimulus spending merely inflates a mal-investment bubble that will burst soon enough.
Obviously if liberals or soviets knew where to spend money the worlds economic problems would have been solved centuries ago.

So of the 200 or so nations on this earth which one takes the prize for providing all of its citizens with the basic necessities, does not have recessions/depressions and does not have economic problems?
When you name the country can you give us its economic system, and resources?
OK, can you just name the nation that comes closest to an ideal economic system?

do you change the subject to show us you lack the IQ to comment on the subject?? Liberals simply lack the IQ to understand that stimulus spending merely inflates a mal-investment bubble that will burst soon enough. Is this mistaken?? Why??

 

[Kimura]

And Walter Williams says capitalistic 'greed' is silly talk for the profit motive that drives a free market system to everybody's benefit. And there is nothing wrong with it as it serves us all very well.

As Adam Smith said, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

It also seems like Walter Williams has never bothered to write about rent-seeking behavior in some of his more geriatric diatribes. Or how concepts such as marginal productivity theory should be relegated to the dustbin of history.

There's no such thing as a free market. Yeah, we had a "free market" when humans were hunter-gatherers, but once humans started to organize city-states, we entered the realm of political economy.

Well I'm sure you are a very smart man, but I frankly don't have any issues with Dr. Williams theories on free markets and economics in general. What specifically do you have to quarrel with in his illustration of the modern supermarket and the can of tuna that is sold there? See Post #39.

I don't have a quarrel with his supermarket analogy.

My problems are that he never properly addresses total market failures, such has health care, for example, nor does he address sectoral balances and basic accounting identities to his readers. He's either a) disingenuous or b) ignorant. Either way, he's still comes across as a disingenuous ideologue at times.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

My problems are that he never properly addresses total market failures, such has health care, for example,

too stupid of course. He and all conservative/libertarians see the current health care system as a failure thanks to massive government intervention. Is that really over your head??

 

[Kimura]

There's no such thing as a free market.

dear, you're a perfect idiot liberal incapable of learning. In econ 101, class one, day one we learn that all economies are mixed between the free market and socialism. The USA has been among the most free market while the USSR and Red China are among the most socialist. They are/were all mixed with elements of free markets and socialism. Its hard to imagine how that can be over a person's IQ, but then again most humans worshipped the sun for a centuries.

If I'm an idiot, what do you think that makes you? Seriously, every time I read one of your posts, it makes me rethink forced sterilization. I hope to God you haven't found someone to breed with you. Lord help us, the world is already overpopulated by fucking idiots.

The US never had a "free market", quite the contrary. We became an economic power through the American School (National System), starting around the the tail end of the 1850s. Stop lying Ed, you've never stepped foot in anything resembling an Econ 101 class. I doubt you can even understand double-entry bookkeeping.

 

[oldfart]

However, honest economists without an ax to grind now almost ALL admit that FDR's keynesian efforts to spend the nation back into prosperity failed miserably for the most part and only prolonged the pain.

You really don't read economic history do you? Where do you get this drivel? "almost ALL admit that FDR's keynesian efforts to spend the nation back into prosperity failed miserably for the most part and only prolonged the pain." I've never read a single economic historian who took this position. I'm sure you can dredge up some hack who said it from Liberty University or somewhere, but among non-delusional historians who didn't get their degrees out of a Cracker Jack box, I doubt if you can find one.

It's one thing to be wrong, but to be so sure of a position with absolutely no credible support is truly breathtaking.

Admit it, you are making this shit up.

 

[oldfart]

When Friedman said we are all Keynesians now was Friedman referring to American presidents? It's just possible that since FDR all of our presidents have followed the stimulus part of Keynes but no one has attempted to do the pay-back part. How long can we do the stimulus thing?

Given that the quote is from a speech given to the American Economic Association, I think it's fair to infer he was referring to the membership.

 

[oldfart]

ALL admit that FDR's keynesian efforts to spend the nation back into prosperity failed miserably for the most part and only prolonged the pain. Will history be any more kind to Obama?

yes!! the 1936-1937 depression was the inevitable bust that came after the FDR started inflating his bubble the second he was elected.

Liberals simply lack the IQ to understand that stimulus spending merely inflates a mal-investment bubble that will burst soon enough.

So you are Foxfyre's historian source, Ed?

 

[oldfart]

Confiscated individual gold in 1933, but implemented a Gold sterilization program in 1937. So combined with the Jihad on "Undistributed profits" he sent the economy (the economy is not the same as the US government) into a tailspin

I've read this four times and have no idea what it means. You seem to have developed a new language. That is not a compliment.

 

[AmazonTania]

Laissez faire is a direction for how an economy can be run. It is not a state of being of an economy.

I am happy to read that you are reasonably in touch with reality and do understand that markets demand rules to work.

Free Markets doesn't necessarily means of absent of rules. Free, in the essence of a Free Market, just means in absence of force. In an ideal Free Market, there would be no force or fraud at all. Everyone would engage in voluntary transactions that increase wealth for all parties involved.

But most are not so naive to believe this will actually happen all the time on it's own. Acknowledging that people will seek profits means acknowledging that greedy people will engage in force or fraud to obtain them, regardless of the economic system. The Free Market has a few ways of dealing with this.

What makes them FREEr than the USA?

We are speaking in terms of economic freedom. Hong Kong, for starters, it's the worlds most competitive market with a zero percent tariff rate and a very transparent investment framework. The tax rate are much lower with 15% being the highest marginal tax rate, 16% corporate tax and 0% on capital gains and investments. It's considered one of the easiest place to start a business, very straight forward, quick and easy registration with little to no licensing required. Despite the fact that Government owns all land, people are free to lease and maintain ownership of their property.

There are a few setbacks. It was one of the very few countries not dumb enough to institute a minimum wage law, until 2011 but I suppose this was due to the high cost of living. Despite everything, Hong Kong still maintains a strict policy of non-interventionism embedded in their constitution.

Well in this case you need to preach to those idiots on the right who IM<AGINE they know what Keynesian economic theory means because those notwits DO imagine that there are a single set of rules that will make economy run smoothly.

YOu happen not to be so ignorant but you are ascribing beliefs to Keynes that he NEVER held as IN

I like to keep my economic reading material as balanced as I can possibly stand.

When YOU see centrally planned policies?!

Give me an example of what you mean please.

Isn't the entire system CENTRALLY PLANNED?

If not what the fuck is the FEDERAL RESERVE?

The Federal Reserve is just one explain I've already given. It's enacted in response to market crisis and recessions, but in essence when given an active role in the market place, it can make inherent problems bigger. There is really no reason why the American economy shouldn't be able to operate without the Federal Reserve.

 

[regent]

ALL admit that FDR's keynesian efforts to spend the nation back into prosperity failed miserably for the most part and only prolonged the pain. Will history be any more kind to Obama?

yes!! the 1936-1937 depression was the inevitable bust that came after the FDR started inflating his bubble the second he was elected.

Liberals simply lack the IQ to understand that stimulus spending merely inflates a mal-investment bubble that will burst soon enough.

So you are Foxfyre's historian source, Ed?

Speaking of historians, do our opinions carry as much weight as the historians that rate the presidents? In the last poll, 2010, the poll asked 238 noted historians and presidential experts to rate the presidents on 20 presidential characteristics, one characteristic being how the president handled the US economy. I wonder how FDR fared among all those forty-four presidents regarding the American economy? Anyone?

 

[oldfart]

I see economists as cheap historians. They pretty much try to describe what the politicians have done and are doing with the economy. They also create a large jargon of economic terms to do the describing and much of economic education is spent learning the jargon. They also learn theories of economists, the schools of economics, and economic history. But in actually having some control over the economy or directing the economy they are powerless except through the few politicians that might listen to them. To this day economists have not come with, nor agree on, the prevention of recessions/depressions or the cures of same. That would be their biggie. They certainly cannot seem to educate the public, we still believe in economic myths, and only one economist seems to have had any impact on the world--Karl Marx.

Most economists work in areas where they are paid to do something other than research or publish macro theory (most of us only teach macro theory). So no, the President has never asked for my advice. My old monetary theory prof used to work for the Fed of Chicago, and some of my grad school buddies work in the big econometric houses, but that's as close to influencing policy as anyone I know. But we all had to pass doctorals in monetary theory, macro, econometrics, history of economic thought, economic history, micro, and our major field (in my case mathematical economics) so we are all "qualified" to shoot the bull.

I think that the mainstream of the profession from the mid-60's to the mid-80's had a practical consensus on garden variety macro policy, pretty close to what CBO turns out now. Economists who get paid to predict accurately (numbers crunching nerds) still have the same approach. But beginning with "supply-side" theories there is a trend to base policy on theories with really no econometric basis, pulling things like cost savings out of thin air and resulting in stuff like the Ryan budget which are long on magical thinking and magical asterisks. It reminds me of the "New Soviet man" who wore size seven shoes and was going to be so much more productive under socialism. These theories sounded as good as standard models that work, but a peculiar thing happened. When they failed in practice, the authors refused to admit the model might be wrong. Some of these guys have been predicting hyperinflation for five years rather than admit that denying we were in a liquidity trap was a mistake.

I guess I have been surprised at how craven a portion of the economics profession has been revealed to be. There is nothing to be ashamed of in being wrong if you admit it and move on. But the contortions folks like Feldman have tied themselves into are embarrassing. There is absolutely no theoretical, econometric, or historical analysis which supports the austerity argument today. It is an intellectually bankrupt position which is no longer sustainable as an ethical position. It is simply professional malpractice. Unfortunately, it is also lucrative and these guys have been well paid for abandoning their professional standards. I can only hope that when the smoke clears the profession has enough integrity left to begin to police itself, or it will die a deserved death for becoming both irrelevant and without professional ethics.

 

[oldfart]

I labored without success to find an economic argument in your political rant. Is there one?

I thought the definitions of the terms had already been addressed. I did not see any reason to address them again. But okay, if you don't see why I don't embrace Keynesian economics as practiced by the U.S. government, so be it. I could explain it in more simplistic terms, but so far you have not been interested, so why bother?

It is not my fault you cannot express economic ideas clearly. If you had any economics training you could make an economic argument rather than a political rant.

 

[AmazonTania]

yes!! the 1936-1937 depression was the inevitable bust that came after the FDR started inflating his bubble the second he was elected.

Liberals simply lack the IQ to understand that stimulus spending merely inflates a mal-investment bubble that will burst soon enough.

So you are Foxfyre's historian source, Ed?

Speaking of historians, do our opinions carry as much weight as the historians that rate the presidents? In the last poll, 2010, the poll asked 238 noted historians and presidential experts to rate the presidents on 20 presidential characteristics, one characteristic being how the president handled the US economy. I wonder how FDR fared among all those forty-four presidents regarding the American economy? Anyone?

Most polls like this are ranked on their overall performance, not just in a particular area. Still, among most polls FDR is ranked pretty high, although I believe it has more to do with his handling of World War II and not the Great Depression. Majority of the top 5 presidents in the Siena Poll are wartime Presidents.

 

[AmazonTania]

I labored without success to find an economic argument in your political rant. Is there one?

I thought the definitions of the terms had already been addressed. I did not see any reason to address them again. But okay, if you don't see why I don't embrace Keynesian economics as practiced by the U.S. government, so be it. I could explain it in more simplistic terms, but so far you have not been interested, so why bother?

It is not my fault you cannot express economic ideas clearly. If you had any economics training you cold make an economic argument rather than a political rant.

I believe FoxFyre is trying to suggest or imply that Keynesian economies generally benefits mostly/only Government instead of the market which is designed to help, in times of an economic downturn.

I don't see how this is political.

 

[oldfart]

The Federal Reserve is just one explain I've already given. It's enacted in response to market crisis and recessions, but in essence when given an active role in the market place, it can make inherent problems bigger. There is really no reason why the American economy shouldn't be able to operate without the Federal Reserve.

I understand that people in the securities and financial sector don't like institutions like the Fed until it's time for those institutes to save the entire financial sector from self-inflicted total bankruptcy with a few trillion dollars. But does the industry need regulation? Of course not. This is the definition of cupidity. But then again you said you had no problem with monopoly power.

In a robust free market system all of the major financial institutions would have failed in 2008--9. In retrospect that would have been a better outcome for America. And I suppose you would be working in another industry.

 

[regent]

So you are Foxfyre's historian source, Ed?

Speaking of historians, do our opinions carry as much weight as the historians that rate the presidents? In the last poll, 2010, the poll asked 238 noted historians and presidential experts to rate the presidents on 20 presidential characteristics, one characteristic being how the president handled the US economy. I wonder how FDR fared among all those forty-four presidents regarding the American economy? Anyone?

Most polls like this are ranked on their overall performance, not just in a particular area. Still, among most polls FDR is ranked pretty high, although I believe it has more to do with his handling of World War II and not the Great Depression. Majority of the top 5 presidents in the Siena Poll are wartime Presidents.

Twenty areas of presidential performance, one being "Handling the US economy."

 

[oldfart]

Friedman and I went to school together, we were just not in the same class.

How old are you anyway? Friedman got his PhD slightly before I was born!