EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1387
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 02 2014 08:47 oneofthem wrote: not really. no. it means the core analysis of micro economics is still valuable but it should not be tackled by 18th century methods. Vauable how ? And which 18th century methods ? | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 02 2014 08:21 nunez wrote: should be really easy to support it then. i'm very curious to see it. OK well there are various ways to look at it. You can look at the history of anti-trust regulation. Typically when firms command too large of a power in a market the government acts to reduce their power. Governments usually do not do this on a whim, there's often a negative they are trying to correct for with anti-trust actions like excessive profits, squashing new innovations or crummy service. Ex. AT&T used to be a national phone monopoly. When it was broken up it was due to poor service and high prices. You can look at the history of various industries. Typically, the big improvements in productivity come from new entrants (ex. Toyota in autos, Southwest in airlines, microbreweries in beer) which are a form of competition. You can do event studies on new entrants. Ex. when a Walmart moves into an area prices typically fall and real incomes rise. You can look at individual firm dynamics. Ex. retailers routinely compare prices with each other and lower their prices to match the competition. You can look to exceptions and their justifications. Ex. patents and copyrights reduce competition. Their justification is basically that there is an exploitable flaw in the market that the patent corrects for. Meanwhile no one would dispute that the patent / copyright increases the firm's profits. Do you need more? | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
On November 01 2014 16:09 Sub40APM wrote: Dude the first time you posted re Princes of Yen I actually went back to my notes on it to make sure I wasnt being unreasonably hostile to your interpretation of it. It has multiple points. East Asian catch up growth was possible with illiberal, anti-Washington consensus methods. In the 80s, BoJ window guidence led to speculative growth to compensate for the slowdown of the export-focused system.The Bank of Japan repeatedly sabotaged the Japanese government's attempt to stimulate the economy by cutting money supply rates in the face of expansionary fiscal policy . That the bank became incredibly insular and wanted to push through reforms of the illiberal economy instead of using monetary policy in concurrence with fiscal policy to get through the deflation-depression. Right, so it was about how technocrats used their power over central banking, and their ability to present themselves as experts in mysterious and arcane systems which cannot be understood by common folk, in order to secretly pursue a revolution from above (directing attention to the discount rate when actually they were pursuing policy through window guidance, intentionally worsening the economic situation so that they could push through structural reforms). The moral of the story is clearly that you cannot trust technocrats, especially when they present themselves as the holders of esoteric expertise and the only ones qualified to have opinions about socioeconomic questions, because they are serving their own interests and using their supposed expertise as a smokescreen to make them immune from accountability. Do we see any parallels with our situation today and the rhetoric of people like Paul Krugman? The Fed's monetary police (QE and ZIRP) is a revolution from above, perpetrated by unelected officials in a revolving door oligarchy, justified by appeals to the esoteric expertise of academic economists and the anti-democratic belief that anyone without a PhD in neoclassical economics is unqualified to have opinions about things of basic importance to their lives and the continued vitality of our supposedly democratic polity. Gionvanni Arrighi - The Long Twentieth Century. Fernand Braudel - The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip the Second. Panitch and Gindin - The Making of Global Capitalism. David Harvey - the Limits to Capital. It's nice that you've found the ability to engage in something more substantive than one line insults. you're really growing up. On November 02 2014 05:02 Vegetarian wrote: The USA once had the highest standard of living in the world. It achieved this when the market was mostly free, and income taxes did not exist. I am not speculating I am using logic to explain capitalism. This is not a new idea, but an old idea that many seem to have trouble grasping. What is wrong with arguing for the system that results in the highest standard of living? Why are you attached to the idea that standard of living should be reduced to allow for the central planning of politicians? lol. The US achieved its high standard of living when it was basically a fascist command economy under wartime mobilization. On November 02 2014 03:00 oneofthem wrote: this is beyond ridiculous. do any of you actually know what the boj is up to? you have the secret knowledge, i'm sure. enlighten us On November 01 2014 20:52 coverpunch wrote: Only the politics thread could turn reading books into a pissing contest. Why not? If people end up reading some books from an argument, that's about the only thing good that could come out of it. I learned a lot from getting into an argument with Sub40 and reading books that he recommended (it's just that he didn't like what I learned) | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On November 02 2014 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote: You can look to exceptions and their justifications. Ex. patents and copyrights reduce competition. Their justification is basically that there is an exploitable flaw in the market that the patent corrects for. Meanwhile no one would dispute that the patent / copyright increases the firm's profits. Patents and copyrights aren't corrections for flaws; they are flaws. they're pretty much the definition of rent-seeking | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On November 02 2014 09:56 bookwyrm wrote: Right, so it was about how technocrats used their power over central banking, and their ability to present themselves as experts in mysterious and arcane systems which cannot be understood by common folk, in order to secretly pursue a revolution from above (directing attention to the discount rate when actually they were pursuing policy through window guidance, intentionally worsening the economic situation so that they could push through structural reforms). Except that in the 1980s and 90s they pursued radically different policies, and right now they are again pursuing a radical different policy. The moral of the story is clearly that you cannot trust technocrats, especially when they present themselves as the holders of esoteric expertise and the only ones qualified to have opinions about socioeconomic questions, because they are serving their own interests and using their supposed expertise as a smokescreen to make them immune from accountability. It is that moral if you are a pol pot impersenator whose only solution is to (a) burn all the money (b) go to living in communes. Different technocrats act differently. Do we see any parallels with our situation today and the rhetoric of people like Paul Krugman? Yes. If people listened to Krugman the deflation in EU wouldnt have happened, the American recession would have been shorter and the study of the Japan in the 90s wouldnt have been pushed back into obscurity by triumphalist real business cycle conservatives in the 90s but would have been a key topic at graduate level macro courses. The Fed's monetary police (QE and ZIRP) is a revolution from above, perpetrated by unelected officials in a revolving door oligarchy, justified by appeals to the esoteric expertise of academic economists and the anti-democratic belief that anyone without a PhD in neoclassical economics is unqualified to have opinions about things of basic importance to their lives and the continued vitality of our supposedly democratic polity. You are unqualified not because you dont have a PhD, you are unqualified because your suggestion -- no monetary easing -- has been tried repeatedly and repeatedly has led to brutal deflation. So yes, who do I trust, a doctor who says "I dont know, this might work" or a guy who says "hey to cure cancer just punch yourself in the testicle until you taste piss and you are good to go!" let's note that I have read books which you said to read, but you have certainly never read a book which I have recommend. I'm up on you 4-0 Gionvanni Arrighi - The Long Twentieth Century. Fernand Braudel - The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip the Second. Panitch and Gindin - The Making of Global Capitalism. David Harvey - the Limits to Capital. It's nice that you've found the ability to engage in something more substantive than one line insults. you're really growing up. Wow not even on Hobsbawm citation, what surprise, you are a hipster communist. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
Monetary easing is about inflating assets and keeping Boomers secure in their fake wealth. It's about transferring wealth upwards to the asset-owning classes. It's about providing cheap credit for companies to finance stock buybacks and tax inversions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with helping the real economy or making a functional society for young people, and certainly nothing to do with helping to solve our pressing ecological problems. The problem is you only know one trick, and in the face of that trick not working, all you can do is go on believing dogmatically in that same trick (QE isn't working? Well that's obviously because just haven't had enough QE). Basically when the situation gets as absurd as things have been for the last few years, that is a symptom that something is fucked up at a very deep level. Why is deflation bad? We need to design a deflationary economics. WWII is the only war in history after which there was not a deflationary correction, and policies designed to avoid deflation from occurring set us onto an unsustainable path of a permanent inflation which demands irrational consumption and pointless growth. If you'll go back and read Adam Smith, you'll discover that pretty much the entire justification for the free market system was that it produces deflation (competition makes goods cheaper). Deflation is only bad because it's bad for capitalists, who control the means of production and then hold people hostage to their "job creation" (which is threatened by deflation). If people owned their own means of production, deflation wouldn't be a problem. so yeah. this has actually helped me think through things. I am pro-deflation. There should be deflation. This means that you need to have a society which is less indebted/leveraged and in which people have the means of reproducing their own lives without being held hostage to "job creators" On November 02 2014 10:09 Sub40APM wrote: Wow not even on Hobsbawm citation, what surprise, you are a hipster communist. why would you want to read hobsbawm when you could read braudel. world-systems theory is where it's at. longue duree baby | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 02 2014 10:13 bookwyrm wrote: My recommendation is not "no monetary easing." I agree fully that without some sort of basic reform of our economic system, monetary easing is the only way to keep the system going. However, it's not working! So if the only possible solution to keeping your system going is not working, then the only thing to do is to change the system at some fundamental level Hrmm, not sure what you mean by 'it's not working'. We're easing, the EU really isn't, and our economy is recovering faster. Sweden tried raising rates too soon and its economy faltered. Monetary easing is about inflating assets and keeping Boomers secure in their fake wealth. It's about transferring wealth upwards to the asset-owning classes. It's about providing cheap credit for companies to finance stock buybacks and tax inversions. It has nothing whatsoever to do with helping the real economy or making a functional society for young people, and certainly nothing to do with helping to solve our pressing ecological problems. That's not really what it's about. The main thrust of the program is to lower interest rates which have a real effect on the economy by making long term assets cheaper. Buildings, equipment and the like all become cheaper. If you follow how businesses make investment decisions and consumers make decisions regarding durable goods, cheaper financing helps on both accounts. Also, QE and the like doesn't 'transfer wealth upward'. What QE does is take income away from wealth holders. A side effect of this is that the market price for existing assets goes up. On net, it is a detriment to wealth holders. The problem is you only know one trick, and in the face of that trick not working, all you can do is go on believing dogmatically in that same trick (QE isn't working? Well that's obviously because just haven't had enough QE) Supporters of QE do not propose that QE is a magic silver bullet that will solve all our problems. The Fed has reiterated this point multiple times. QE and ZIRP offer the economy support, but were never expected to solve all its problems on its own. Why is deflation bad? We need to design a deflationary economics. WWII is the only war in history after which there was not a deflationary correction, and policies designed to avoid deflation from occurring set us onto an unsustainable path of a permanent inflation which demands irrational consumption and pointless growth. Deflation is bad for a variety of reasons. A couple big reasons are that past debts are harder to repay, consumers have an incentive to delay purchases and businesses have an incentive to delay investments. If you'll go back and read Adam Smith, you'll discover that pretty much the entire justification for the free market system was that it produces deflation (competition makes goods cheaper). Deflation is only bad because it's bad for capitalists, who control the means of production and then hold people hostage to their "job creation" (which is threatened by deflation). If people owned their own means of production, deflation wouldn't be a problem. Deflation in consumer good prices don't help you if you also have deflation in wages. You seem to be missing this point. The price level rising or falling does not mean that real income is rising or falling. so yeah. this has actually helped me think through things. I am pro-deflation. There should be deflation. This means that you need to have a society which is less indebted/leveraged and in which people have the means of reproducing their own lives without being held hostage to "job creators" Deflation... you keep using that term, but I do not think it means what you think it means  | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 02 2014 09:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote: OK well there are various ways to look at it. You can look at the history of anti-trust regulation. Typically when firms command too large of a power in a market the government acts to reduce their power. Governments usually do not do this on a whim, there's often a negative they are trying to correct for with anti-trust actions like excessive profits, squashing new innovations or crummy service. Ex. AT&T used to be a national phone monopoly. When it was broken up it was due to poor service and high prices. You can look at the history of various industries. Typically, the big improvements in productivity come from new entrants (ex. Toyota in autos, Southwest in airlines, microbreweries in beer) which are a form of competition. You can do event studies on new entrants. Ex. when a Walmart moves into an area prices typically fall and real incomes rise. You can look at individual firm dynamics. Ex. retailers routinely compare prices with each other and lower their prices to match the competition. You can look to exceptions and their justifications. Ex. patents and copyrights reduce competition. Their justification is basically that there is an exploitable flaw in the market that the patent corrects for. Meanwhile no one would dispute that the patent / copyright increases the firm's profits. Do you need more? Picking exemples and thinking you can deduce a broad reasonning out of it is not very exemplary. One could say anti trust regulation is the perfect exemple as to why market forces naturally leads to uncompetitive environment, and thus that the unregulated market both strive on competition and kill it - which is a contradiction in the marxist sense. Same for the history of various industries : most grounding / radicals innovations do not appear in a competitive environment and we have yet to find any good way to finance basic research through the private sector because it does not permit any direct profit, altho it's absolutly necessary for increasing our production. The justification for patern is that a market by itself does not permit profit out of knowledge : it's not a flaw in the market, it's a short term way out of the market competition. | ||
|
bookwyrm
United States722 Posts
edit: On November 02 2014 10:09 Sub40APM wrote: Except that in the 1980s and 90s they pursued radically different policies, and right now they are again pursuing a radical different policy. what's your point? this seems like an irrelevant thing to say. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 02 2014 10:46 WhiteDog wrote: Picking exemples and thinking you can deduce a broad reasonning out of it is not very exemplary. For exemple, one could say anti trust regulation is the perfect exemple as to why market forces naturally leads to uncompetitive environment, and thus that the unregulated market both strive on competition and kill it - which is against a contradiction in the marxist sense. Same for the history of various industries : most grounding / radicals innovations do not appear in a competitive environment and we have yet to find any good way to finance basic research through the private sector because it does not permit any direct profit, altho it's absolutly necessary for increasing our production. The justification for patern is that a market by itself does not permit profit out of knowledge : it's not a flaw in the market, it's a short term way out of the market competition. My examples were to demonstrate how competition can help a market, not argue that competition is always a virtue. Refer to my previous post: | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 02 2014 10:41 bookwyrm wrote: jonny, when I say "people should own the means of production and be able to reproduce their own lives without being hostage to job-creators" and then you tell me about deflation in wages, that's when I remember about why I don't talk to you Most bookworms appreciate knowledge given | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
nor is it something i am convinced you can draw broad conclusions from! definitions? model? data? i am so disappointed jonny. i vote for whitedog, he is a champion. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On November 02 2014 11:32 nunez wrote: an example of you assuming that this is the case is not much of a demonstration! nor is it something i am convinced you can draw broad conclusions from! definitions? model? data? i am so disappointed jonny. i vote for whitedog, he is a champion. I'm even more disappointed. You're trolling skills are degrading with time. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On November 02 2014 11:32 nunez wrote: an example of you assuming that this is the case is not much of a demonstration! nor is it something i am convinced you can draw broad conclusions from! definitions? model? data? i am so disappointed jonny. i vote for whitedog, he is a champion. nunez as a communist programmer, i am genuinely curious why you havent yet advocated using the increases in processing power and parallelisms to simply replace market functions with a program's estimate of next years demand, unlike the soviets and their analog dreary attempts this might be possible. especially since so many firms internally already do this. add the soft manipulation of the masses via a combination of predictive analysis -- that story about target figuring out how a girl is pregnant by her shopping and then sending her more brochures on baby things hidden within more generic ads so she doesnt even notice she is being manipulated -- and there you go. | ||
|
nunez
Norway4003 Posts
in a meaningful way, that would mean a lot of hard work, and maybe not even possible! however i was at least expecting that you'd contrast the data from two similar markets with different levels of competition and flesh out a simple non-linear model reflecting your business dynamic! dismiss-as-troll escape-strategy? coward! market heuristic soundly rejected! | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On November 02 2014 10:51 bookwyrm wrote: what's your point? this seems like an irrelevant thing to say. That the claim "technocrat conspiracy" isnt sustained by what happened over the last 30 years in BoJ, even within the constraints of their institutional narrow mindedness. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On November 02 2014 10:13 bookwyrm wrote: Why is deflation bad? We need to design a deflationary economics. Because conceptually as the population grows, the supply of money decreases. And because historically people who live in depressions mysteriously seem pretty miserable and without jobs. WWII is the only war in history after which there was not a deflationary correction, Yes, the one time in history when the labor classes were actually capable of democratic access to power also coincides with a period of inflation instead of deflationary misery. SURPRISE! oh wait no. If people owned their own means of production, deflation wouldn't be a problem. Of course it would be a problem, are individual people incapable of holding the means of ALL the production they consume in aggregate without the invention of Star Trek technology that just manifests things you want in your living room? No they are not. So they need a market mechanism, a mechanism that your deflation would break. | ||
| ||
