|
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. |
well, it is not unknown for me to read books about economic history, so please recommend if you can and I will gladly read if it is not a piece of blatant propaganda. I don't know what 'blindly questioning' means as I have trouble parsing it, I think I am questioning precisely because I feel that we are blind.
I stopped believing in the predictive power of economics in 2008
if you can convince me, well that is your job, but it is my job to be skeptical and to take some work to convince. If you can think of a way to try, I welcome it, but i am not going to believe you just because you are an economist because that is precisely the bias I would expect you to have. So do you see that we ar at an impasse with the simple accusations of who is more blinded by their disciplonary affiliation?
edit: it is always strange to me when people imply that I must hate capitalism because I am a marxist, and that this blinds my judgment. What life history do they imagine for me? Isn't it obvious that I must have become a marxist because I hated capitalism, and not the other way around?
|
On September 22 2013 07:10 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 06:52 aksfjh wrote:
I wonder if any Republican "masterminds" are sitting in a corner somewhere thinking a "default" is a win-win, in the same way some saw the Sequester. Treasury bonds would definitely see a spike, making a case to "reign in spending."
I hope nobody would think that, but I have a sad feeling that maybe some are. If the US defaults on it's debt and the world plunges into a new and worse recession the GOP loses the House and never sees control of the Senate for years to come.
right. GOP retarded policies at most cost them one election cycle. Lying about Iraq WMD + pissing away 2 trillions into that rabbit hole = GOP gets a time out for exactly 2 years. The genius of the Southern strategy was that as long as you can dangle some kind of regressive social policy to the base, you can do whatever. I mean, obviously now that the party elite lost all ability to control the tea party types its all coming undone a bit but expect for the completely insano tea party types like Bachman and West the rest of the caucus survived ok.
|
Solar power and other distributed renewable energy technologies could lay waste to U.S. power utilities and burn the utility business model, which has remained virtually unchanged for a century, to the ground. That is not wild-eyed hippie talk. It is the assessment of the utilities themselves. Back in January, the Edison Electric Institute — the (typically stodgy and backward-looking) trade group of U.S. investor-owned utilities — released a report [PDF] that, as far as I can tell, went almost entirely without notice in the press. That’s a shame. It is one of the most prescient and brutally frank things I’ve ever read about the power sector. It is a rare thing to hear an industry tell the tale of its own incipient obsolescence. I’ve been thinking about how to convey to you, normal people with healthy social lives and no time to ponder the byzantine nature of the power industry, just what a big deal the coming changes are. They are nothing short of revolutionary … but rather difficult to explain without jargon. So, just a bit of background. You probably know that electricity is provided by utilities. Some utilities both generate electricity at power plants and provide it to customers over power lines. They are “regulated monopolies,” which means they have sole responsibility for providing power in their service areas. Some utilities have gone through deregulation; in that case, power generation is split off into its own business, while the utility’s job is to purchase power on competitive markets and provide it to customers over the grid it manages. This complexity makes it difficult to generalize about utilities … or to discuss them without putting people to sleep. But the main thing to know is that the utility business model relies on selling power. That’s how they make their money. Here’s how it works: A utility makes a case to a public utility commission (PUC), saying “we will need to satisfy this level of demand from consumers, which means we’ll need to generate (or purchase) this much power, which means we’ll need to charge these rates.” If the PUC finds the case persuasive, it approves the rates and guarantees the utility a reasonable return on its investments in power and grid upkeep.
Source
|
On September 22 2013 07:02 sam!zdat wrote:
yeah I understand the principle. I'm just skeptical that we have as much control over it as we think we do. Recently I switched from gas stove to electric and I can't control the fucker. I'm afraid monetary policy is like that but worse, only we have the priesthood of Science telling us how much the understand because their math is very complicated
There's underlying math that tells them how hard to hit the throttle and brakes, which can be wrong at times. However, they know which ways the arrows point in most economic situations. To use your metaphor, they may overcook/undercook the bacon, but they aren't going to burn the house down with that electric stove.
|
On September 22 2013 15:11 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 07:02 sam!zdat wrote:
yeah I understand the principle. I'm just skeptical that we have as much control over it as we think we do. Recently I switched from gas stove to electric and I can't control the fucker. I'm afraid monetary policy is like that but worse, only we have the priesthood of Science telling us how much the understand because their math is very complicated There's underlying math that tells them how hard to hit the throttle and brakes, which can be wrong at times. However, they know which ways the arrows point in most economic situations. To use your metaphor, they may overcook/undercook the bacon, but they aren't going to burn the house down with that electric stove.
Yes, we know how to control some variable, like inflation. But we have a hard time understanding the long term effect of those variables on the economy, despite all the models and the mathematics we have, mainly because behind those variables there are people who makes choices, and we can't predict those things (altho we still do by making some assumption on their behavior - or "rationality").
Being skeptical is a good idea, but the question should not be "can we prevent inflation from going rampage ?", but more "what will be the long term implication of inflation ?". Personally I think it is the best solution, but I don't think a 4% inflation target would entirely solve our unemployment problems.
|
I thought the 4% inflation target was more to offset the effects of future recessions. It would essentially give more 'slack' to the currency.
Either way, I think monetary policy has its limits. What matters more is financial regulation, breaking up the banks, progressive taxation, and effective government oversight.
Honestly, I get annoyed when people demonize the FED, because pretty much all they do is try to keep inflation at 2%. Yet we have crazy people saying that they are 'debasing the currency' and I'm not really sure why. It's just seems like they do highly technical boring things. The FED ain't the problem.
|
On September 22 2013 21:02 DoubleReed wrote:
I thought the 4% inflation target was more to offset the effects of future recessions. It would essentially give more 'slack' to the currency.
Either way, I think monetary policy has its limits. What matters more is financial regulation, breaking up the banks, progressive taxation, and effective government oversight.
Honestly, I get annoyed when people demonize the FED, because pretty much all they do is try to keep inflation at 2%. Yet we have crazy people saying that they are 'debasing the currency' and I'm not really sure why. It's just seems like they do highly technical boring things. The FED ain't the problem.
QE is there to give more slack to the currency. You don't need a long term objective (inflation target) to solve short term economic problems.
And the FED is way better than the BCE. They are not perfect but they are pretty okay. I agree with you entirely on the limits of monetary policy.
|
On September 22 2013 18:09 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 15:11 aksfjh wrote:On September 22 2013 07:02 sam!zdat wrote:
yeah I understand the principle. I'm just skeptical that we have as much control over it as we think we do. Recently I switched from gas stove to electric and I can't control the fucker. I'm afraid monetary policy is like that but worse, only we have the priesthood of Science telling us how much the understand because their math is very complicated There's underlying math that tells them how hard to hit the throttle and brakes, which can be wrong at times. However, they know which ways the arrows point in most economic situations. To use your metaphor, they may overcook/undercook the bacon, but they aren't going to burn the house down with that electric stove. Yes, we know how to control some variable, like inflation. But we have a hard time understanding the long term effect of those variables on the economy, despite all the models and the mathematics we have, mainly because behind those variables there are people who makes choices, and we can't predict those things (altho we still do by making some assumption on their behavior - or "rationality"). Being skeptical is a good idea, but the question should not be "can we prevent inflation from going rampage ?", but more "what will be the long term implication of inflation ?". Personally I think it is the best solution, but I don't think a 4% inflation target would entirely solve our unemployment problems.
Not sure if you know what you're talking about or you're just being blindly skeptical...
The long term effects of policy are still controlled by short term actions. It's all about shocks and steady state activities. The only exception is the zero lower bound, in which the proper monetary response requires a coordination with fiscal policy. However, it's still all about very short term policy actions. Long term, everything can (more or less) be corrected for.
|
yes but what happens in the real world in this long term during which you are correcting. That's what you don't know and can't control
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there were real blindspots for the fed and other central institutions certainly in 2008. otherwise that disaster woudl not have happened. the DSGE model is money and debt blind, at least the naive version thought to be ok back then. economics is model building, not really empirical, so when you go overconfident in your models, it can end up badly.
and let's not include in this ideologically fueled fads like efficient market, or lel reverse ricardian equivalence. policy effectiveness has not been all that good when you look at 2008 and follow up responses world wide, including europe
|
You guys would literally shit bricks if you understood what went into engineering then. You would never trust a bridge, a tower, or even a computer. Your expectations are simply ridiculous for any field to follow if you seriously believe we need 100% foresight (or close to it) on society affecting policies and actions before we implement them.
|
On September 22 2013 23:28 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 18:09 WhiteDog wrote:On September 22 2013 15:11 aksfjh wrote:On September 22 2013 07:02 sam!zdat wrote:
yeah I understand the principle. I'm just skeptical that we have as much control over it as we think we do. Recently I switched from gas stove to electric and I can't control the fucker. I'm afraid monetary policy is like that but worse, only we have the priesthood of Science telling us how much the understand because their math is very complicated There's underlying math that tells them how hard to hit the throttle and brakes, which can be wrong at times. However, they know which ways the arrows point in most economic situations. To use your metaphor, they may overcook/undercook the bacon, but they aren't going to burn the house down with that electric stove. Yes, we know how to control some variable, like inflation. But we have a hard time understanding the long term effect of those variables on the economy, despite all the models and the mathematics we have, mainly because behind those variables there are people who makes choices, and we can't predict those things (altho we still do by making some assumption on their behavior - or "rationality"). Being skeptical is a good idea, but the question should not be "can we prevent inflation from going rampage ?", but more "what will be the long term implication of inflation ?". Personally I think it is the best solution, but I don't think a 4% inflation target would entirely solve our unemployment problems. Not sure if you know what you're talking about or you're just being blindly skeptical... The long term effects of policy are still controlled by short term actions. It's all about shocks and steady state activities. The only exception is the zero lower bound, in which the proper monetary response requires a coordination with fiscal policy. However, it's still all about very short term policy actions. Long term, everything can (more or less) be corrected for.
What do you think an inflation target is ? Do you think it's a "shock" ? It is a long term target made because we consider that price needs to be stable (inflation should be low), but that, since Akerlof Dickens & Perry's work, there is a possible long term trade off between inflation and unemployment under a certain inflation rate (from 2 to 4%).
People are not arguing for a higher target for the sake of putting more "oil" in the engine.
On September 23 2013 00:13 aksfjh wrote:
You guys would literally shit bricks if you understood what went into engineering then. You would never trust a bridge, a tower, or even a computer. Your expectations are simply ridiculous for any field to follow if you seriously believe we need 100% foresight (or close to it) on society affecting policies and actions before we implement them.
I suggest you hear Stiglitz conference on macroeconomic after the crisis, he has pretty insightful point of view on all that.
|
On September 23 2013 00:13 aksfjh wrote:
You guys would literally shit bricks if you understood what went into engineering then. You would never trust a bridge, a tower, or even a computer. Your expectations are simply ridiculous for any field to follow if you seriously believe we need 100% foresight (or close to it) on society affecting policies and actions before we implement them.
Please. Macroeconomics and engineering are two completely different things. First thing, a block of concrete isn't a human being. Secondly, good luck making experiments in macroeconomy.
|
On September 22 2013 04:27 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 02:12 DoubleReed wrote:On September 22 2013 01:28 BioNova wrote:On September 22 2013 00:12 WhiteDog wrote:On September 21 2013 10:55 BioNova wrote:On September 20 2013 10:00 Sub40APM wrote:On September 20 2013 05:13 sam!zdat wrote:
to me the bold claim would be that government agencies don't manipulate measures to make them say whatever the want them to say. That to me would be an astounding thing Yes. It is much more believable that a guy with an MBA from the 1970s who runs a website that sells subscriptions to 'alternative statistics' is on the level. Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. Wut? I suppose suppose the next step is to slander where he graduated. Once again Try not to generalize. Economics is pretty specific, so the slander should be too. You know. More than a feeling? Also from the 70's So many people have come and gone Their faces fade as the years go by Yet I still recall as I wander on As clear as the sun in the summer sky It's more than a feeling More than a feeling!!! Krugman's work on international trade and economic geography is pretty brilliant and revigorating for economy as a "science" (trying to take into consideration history through the variables of the model for exemple). People who refuse to see his value as an economist are pretty blind or just plain ignorant imo. I directly focused my critic in that post on the assertion that we should not believe some old fogey from the 70's(obviously must have caveman views) who presents his work for profit. Is Krugman Mother Teresa? Bring me the best argument against Shadowstats methodology versus the 28ish some modifications made since the 70's to what it has become today. Chained CPI and all. Where we end up will be limbo. I have spent too many hours on my own reading both sides. Critics and complaints. Krugman doesn't help his cause by being a egocentric jerk who relies on browbeating and snarky remarks rather than laying it out in clear and comprehensible language. His mannerisms remind me less of a scientific doctor telling me I have cancer and more of a salesman trying finalize a sale. Aziz'onomics logic gaps are more infuriating(in a class warfare sense). The question on the entire subject matter boils down does one method perform better as in accuracy. The assertion that Mr. Williams is 'gaming' people with 'alternative" and entirely doctored information is on the accuser to prove. The best I have seen is it costs 175 dollars. Money that Mr. Williams will never get from me under any scenario despite my personal position, his data on inflation is more accurate. I must be ignorant. Presents his work for profit? What are you talking about? He doesn't work at a think tank or anything. He has a column in the New York Times. Hell, he just wrote an article about how he doesn't have to worry about trying to get any further in his career: Just a personal reaction: I’ve known Larry for all our adult lives, and looking at this sad play I realize how lucky I am to have reached a place where I’m no longer in the rat race. Obviously I’m plenty combative, and in a way still ambitious too; I do track my Twitter followers, wonder how each column will do on the most-emailed list, and all that. But there are no promotions I’m seeking, no honors I desperately desire that I don’t already have.
Nobody’s life feels from the inside the way it looks from the outside. But at least as far as career goes, I’m wonderfully relaxed: no more steps to climb, no more boxes to check. I just do what I feel I should, and try to have some fun along the way.
I’m a very lucky guy. Your characterization of krugman is just plain bizarre. And your criticisms are downright petty. You're trying to argue with somebody that can't spell and will ALWAYS tote the anti-government stat line. If there had been no changes in the methodology for inflation since the '70s, we'd certainly be hearing about how backwards and incompetent the government is. No doubt, we'd be shown to Shadowstats, where the TRUE numbers can be found (for only a small fee of $175 a year)! For a real kick with Shadowstats though, take a look at this chart: ![[image loading]](http://azizonomics.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/alt-cpi-home2-1.gif) Looks like they're not even using old methodology for calculating inflation, just adding some constant to the CPI numbers (somewhere around 2.5-3.0 percentage points).
The statist insists it must be the other guy. If I trolled like you I'd have 5000 posts and voted for Romney. hahah
|
On September 23 2013 02:02 BioNova wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 04:27 aksfjh wrote:On September 22 2013 02:12 DoubleReed wrote:On September 22 2013 01:28 BioNova wrote:On September 22 2013 00:12 WhiteDog wrote:On September 21 2013 10:55 BioNova wrote:On September 20 2013 10:00 Sub40APM wrote:On September 20 2013 05:13 sam!zdat wrote:
to me the bold claim would be that government agencies don't manipulate measures to make them say whatever the want them to say. That to me would be an astounding thing Yes. It is much more believable that a guy with an MBA from the 1970s who runs a website that sells subscriptions to 'alternative statistics' is on the level. Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. Wut? I suppose suppose the next step is to slander where he graduated. Once again Try not to generalize. Economics is pretty specific, so the slander should be too. You know. More than a feeling? Also from the 70's So many people have come and gone Their faces fade as the years go by Yet I still recall as I wander on As clear as the sun in the summer sky It's more than a feeling More than a feeling!!! Krugman's work on international trade and economic geography is pretty brilliant and revigorating for economy as a "science" (trying to take into consideration history through the variables of the model for exemple). People who refuse to see his value as an economist are pretty blind or just plain ignorant imo. I directly focused my critic in that post on the assertion that we should not believe some old fogey from the 70's(obviously must have caveman views) who presents his work for profit. Is Krugman Mother Teresa? Bring me the best argument against Shadowstats methodology versus the 28ish some modifications made since the 70's to what it has become today. Chained CPI and all. Where we end up will be limbo. I have spent too many hours on my own reading both sides. Critics and complaints. Krugman doesn't help his cause by being a egocentric jerk who relies on browbeating and snarky remarks rather than laying it out in clear and comprehensible language. His mannerisms remind me less of a scientific doctor telling me I have cancer and more of a salesman trying finalize a sale. Aziz'onomics logic gaps are more infuriating(in a class warfare sense). The question on the entire subject matter boils down does one method perform better as in accuracy. The assertion that Mr. Williams is 'gaming' people with 'alternative" and entirely doctored information is on the accuser to prove. The best I have seen is it costs 175 dollars. Money that Mr. Williams will never get from me under any scenario despite my personal position, his data on inflation is more accurate. I must be ignorant. Presents his work for profit? What are you talking about? He doesn't work at a think tank or anything. He has a column in the New York Times. Hell, he just wrote an article about how he doesn't have to worry about trying to get any further in his career: Just a personal reaction: I’ve known Larry for all our adult lives, and looking at this sad play I realize how lucky I am to have reached a place where I’m no longer in the rat race. Obviously I’m plenty combative, and in a way still ambitious too; I do track my Twitter followers, wonder how each column will do on the most-emailed list, and all that. But there are no promotions I’m seeking, no honors I desperately desire that I don’t already have.
Nobody’s life feels from the inside the way it looks from the outside. But at least as far as career goes, I’m wonderfully relaxed: no more steps to climb, no more boxes to check. I just do what I feel I should, and try to have some fun along the way.
I’m a very lucky guy. Your characterization of krugman is just plain bizarre. And your criticisms are downright petty. You're trying to argue with somebody that can't spell and will ALWAYS tote the anti-government stat line. If there had been no changes in the methodology for inflation since the '70s, we'd certainly be hearing about how backwards and incompetent the government is. No doubt, we'd be shown to Shadowstats, where the TRUE numbers can be found (for only a small fee of $175 a year)! For a real kick with Shadowstats though, take a look at this chart: Looks like they're not even using old methodology for calculating inflation, just adding some constant to the CPI numbers (somewhere around 2.5-3.0 percentage points). The statist insists it must be the other guy. If I trolled like you I'd have 5000 posts and voted for Romney. hahah
Instead, you use words like statist and stats that are like shadows, ever moving and entirely incorporeal. We all have our thing.
|
bridges much less complicated than economics. Obviously.
|
On September 23 2013 02:14 sam!zdat wrote:
bridges much less complicated than economics. Obviously.
I wonder if a chart on unemployment numbers would measure the same? Wax on, wax off!
|
the point is we can never have 100 percent foresight, never will, there will always be black swan, and so we need to make things that can collapse more gracefully. Too big to fail is an abomination, everything should be built with the expectation that it will someday fail
|
On September 23 2013 02:04 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 02:02 BioNova wrote:On September 22 2013 04:27 aksfjh wrote:On September 22 2013 02:12 DoubleReed wrote:On September 22 2013 01:28 BioNova wrote:On September 22 2013 00:12 WhiteDog wrote:On September 21 2013 10:55 BioNova wrote:On September 20 2013 10:00 Sub40APM wrote:On September 20 2013 05:13 sam!zdat wrote:
to me the bold claim would be that government agencies don't manipulate measures to make them say whatever the want them to say. That to me would be an astounding thing Yes. It is much more believable that a guy with an MBA from the 1970s who runs a website that sells subscriptions to 'alternative statistics' is on the level. Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. Wut? I suppose suppose the next step is to slander where he graduated. Once again Try not to generalize. Economics is pretty specific, so the slander should be too. You know. More than a feeling? Also from the 70's So many people have come and gone Their faces fade as the years go by Yet I still recall as I wander on As clear as the sun in the summer sky It's more than a feeling More than a feeling!!! Krugman's work on international trade and economic geography is pretty brilliant and revigorating for economy as a "science" (trying to take into consideration history through the variables of the model for exemple). People who refuse to see his value as an economist are pretty blind or just plain ignorant imo. I directly focused my critic in that post on the assertion that we should not believe some old fogey from the 70's(obviously must have caveman views) who presents his work for profit. Is Krugman Mother Teresa? Bring me the best argument against Shadowstats methodology versus the 28ish some modifications made since the 70's to what it has become today. Chained CPI and all. Where we end up will be limbo. I have spent too many hours on my own reading both sides. Critics and complaints. Krugman doesn't help his cause by being a egocentric jerk who relies on browbeating and snarky remarks rather than laying it out in clear and comprehensible language. His mannerisms remind me less of a scientific doctor telling me I have cancer and more of a salesman trying finalize a sale. Aziz'onomics logic gaps are more infuriating(in a class warfare sense). The question on the entire subject matter boils down does one method perform better as in accuracy. The assertion that Mr. Williams is 'gaming' people with 'alternative" and entirely doctored information is on the accuser to prove. The best I have seen is it costs 175 dollars. Money that Mr. Williams will never get from me under any scenario despite my personal position, his data on inflation is more accurate. I must be ignorant. Presents his work for profit? What are you talking about? He doesn't work at a think tank or anything. He has a column in the New York Times. Hell, he just wrote an article about how he doesn't have to worry about trying to get any further in his career: Just a personal reaction: I’ve known Larry for all our adult lives, and looking at this sad play I realize how lucky I am to have reached a place where I’m no longer in the rat race. Obviously I’m plenty combative, and in a way still ambitious too; I do track my Twitter followers, wonder how each column will do on the most-emailed list, and all that. But there are no promotions I’m seeking, no honors I desperately desire that I don’t already have.
Nobody’s life feels from the inside the way it looks from the outside. But at least as far as career goes, I’m wonderfully relaxed: no more steps to climb, no more boxes to check. I just do what I feel I should, and try to have some fun along the way.
I’m a very lucky guy. Your characterization of krugman is just plain bizarre. And your criticisms are downright petty. You're trying to argue with somebody that can't spell and will ALWAYS tote the anti-government stat line. If there had been no changes in the methodology for inflation since the '70s, we'd certainly be hearing about how backwards and incompetent the government is. No doubt, we'd be shown to Shadowstats, where the TRUE numbers can be found (for only a small fee of $175 a year)! For a real kick with Shadowstats though, take a look at this chart: Looks like they're not even using old methodology for calculating inflation, just adding some constant to the CPI numbers (somewhere around 2.5-3.0 percentage points). The statist insists it must be the other guy. If I trolled like you I'd have 5000 posts and voted for Romney. hahah Instead, you use words like statist and stats that are like shadows, ever moving and entirely incorporeal. We all have our thing.
Oh Farva, you're bothered that someone who was generalized by a Republican as always taking the anti-government line replies with a word like statist in kind. It's obvious what 'all of our things are'. That we all have our things still doesn't answer who's right or who's wrong, it just becomes insult mentality and pack behavior. I'll forever be outnumbered by a staff of paid trolls and idiots of the world so I don't lose much sleep about it. Written vocab was always weak point, and it pains me so.
Would fascist been a more apt description, I'm not sure. Romney people after all.
|
On September 23 2013 02:14 sam!zdat wrote:
bridges much less complicated than economics. Obviously.
At least with bridges or buildings you're practically guaranteed to not fall out of their operation parameters. You take the strength that would be needed for full capacity and multiply that by at least two or three (or ten). Even though it seems arbitrary, it's actually to plan for unforseen contingencies. Maybe economics models should follow similar principles; it would have helped prevent the 2008 fiasco regardless of what crackpot school of economics you adhere to. The problem is, engineers tend to not take any chances, whereas the average trader thrives on high risk / high reward situations. The more you cut corners, the more unstable your result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
