Is tthere any reason anyone with any knowledge of economics should post here?

[TakeAStepBack]

It IS important to remove the garbage dogma in order to further reasonable analysis of conditions. THAT is what Say's law was all about. Removing faulty dogma that plagued the study and kept people spinning in circles over complex problems by offering dogma and nonsense as the conclusions of said problems.

Perhaps it is your lack of understanding Say's Law that makes it appear that those who bring it up are simply name dropping, or can not utilize it in real terms vs. perceived terms.

Just a hunch.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

OK, so your problem here is that you want people to converse about things that peak your interest, or they are just stupid name droppers who googled Say's Law and flung it haphazardly into the discussion.

Got it.

No, not actually. You want to talk about says law, knock yourself out. I would rather go have a root canal. But do what you like. Not my concern. I know how to ignore.

I wasn't addressing you, me boy. Go have a root beer with the root canal.

 

[Kimura]

Keynes did not refute Say's Law. He rejected it out of emotional appeal to policies most governments were already using when he wrote General Theory. And Say's Law was not an integral part of classical economics. It was a precursor that refuted garbled nonsense that stood in the way of reasonable analysis of conditions.

Adam Smith also worked to kill the crap that was part of popular belief at the time. Such as that when business was bad, there were two explanations: Not enough money or general overproduction.

Keynes refutation was bulky and awkward. Marx provided a much more thorough critique, but Keynes decided to omit it from the General Theory for largely political reasons one would assume.

FYI, Say is no longer referenced by modern orthodox (neoclassical) economists. I still see it referenced in DGSE models, because this model assumes that all markets will clear.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Keynes didn't have a refutation, and neither did other inflationists of the time. They used appeal to emotion to REJECT it, out right. And clamored and rally cried through obfuscation that it was without merit. Marx didn't refute it, either. Marx work isn't even worth much discussion considering his entire foundation was built on contradiction after contradiction.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Case in point.

I would be perfectly happy to see a conversation about industrial output and capacity, the importance of inventory levels, the impact income inequality has on consumption growth, the importance of consumption growth on economic growth etc. The problem is that when you try and have this discussion some idiot references "Say's Law" and they think they won the argument.

It is one of the reasons this place is a joke.

The libertarians who equate UHC to "theft" and "rape" being the other major reason.

What you say here is nonsense.

When establishing credentials as one with grand knowledge of certain subjects, it is expected to know basic ideas. In economics, who Adam Smith was, the definition of capital, what a market is, etc. are all part of this foundational knowledge. I brought up Says law not to argue any particular point, but simply to illustrate that the person I was conversing with lacked any sort of knowledge on the subject.

You cannot deny that this and other forums are filled with individuals who spend time on ThinkProgress, read a Krugman diatribe, and pass themselves off as experts in economics.

I will add only that in regard to inventory levels, I assume you are not a fan of JIT?

 

[Kimura]

Keynes didn't have a refutation, and neither did other inflationists of the time. They used appeal to emotion to REJECT it, out right. And clamored and rally cried through obfuscation that it was without merit. Marx didn't refute it, either. Marx work isn't even worth much discussion considering his entire foundation was built on contradiction after contradiction.

In the real world and competitive markets, $$$$ flows from production to workers or capitalists, which can end up being pushed into asset markets and may not necessarily be spent on real goods and services. For this very obvious reason, Say’s Law is a distorted view of how market economies function. Capitalists will always have some type of subjective views about the future in general whether for investment or profitability, and once these views comes crashing back to earth and reality, they may not invest out of any earnings.

Another problem is the assumption of some magical flexible price market. This is where we have service, retail, industrial, capital goods, etc. at a fixed price, and the administered prices are the rule. In modern competitive markets, supply and demand are a result of output and employment, not flexible prices.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Look, my econ degree was over 40 years ago. Says law has not been high on my priority list. Keynesian economics pretty much deleted the concept as a working "law" a long time ago, leaving the true believers to be Supply Siders and Libertarians. And their ilk. The majority of the world understood that supply does not determine demand. And today, few economists pay any attention to it.
So, my thing is you are talking about a supposed economic law that has been debunked in a number of ways over the years, and expecting people to remember the name of the debunked concept. No one much today spends much time on the concept. Pretty much just an economic history subject.

I'm going to hate myself in the morning...

I'll have to agree with Bombur here, the question was less about application and more of general understanding. The question of "do you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about?" And the answer with you is a resounding "no."

One might think Lord Keynes was the final word on all things economics, but if they don't know what a multiplier is, what turns are, or how they interact with deficit spending, then such an opinion is of no worth.

Notice that I'm not even taking a stand here, I'm just pointing out that you lack the foundation to grasp what the questions are, much less offer a cogent answer.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes. For thinking economists. But not for Libertarians.
But it was not just Keyenes. It was historical economic experience. It was when we found out there was such a thing as a liquidity trap. It was our experience during the great depression. And the great recession, where producers horded rather than spent. And others. You have to really really want to believe in Says law. Because it is far from intuitive in our current experience. You are, after all, looking at a law based in Classical Economics, from around the start of the 19th century.

Can you explain the iPhone?

(can you grasp why that question is relevant?)

 

[william the wie]

Keynes did not refute Say's Law. He rejected it out of emotional appeal to policies most governments were already using when he wrote General Theory. And Say's Law was not an integral part of classical economics. It was a precursor that refuted garbled nonsense that stood in the way of reasonable analysis of conditions.

Adam Smith also worked to kill the crap that was part of popular belief at the time. Such as that when business was bad, there were two explanations: Not enough money or general overproduction.

Keynes refutation was bulky and awkward. Marx provided a much more thorough critique, but Keynes decided to omit it from the General Theory for largely political reasons one would assume.

FYI, Say is no longer referenced by modern orthodox (neoclassical) economists. I still see it referenced in DGSE models, because this model assumes that all markets will clear.

Actually Say argued that Economics is barter with financial intermediaries. The oft quoted "Supply creates its own demand." was the 19th century equivalent of a bumper sticker and is not generally attributed to him. His own summation was that "Products are paid for with Products." and no school of economics disagrees with that.

Say did not claim that all markets clear, fads existed in his era too as well as creative destruction. There are legitimate arguments about whether circuit breakers work in markets because let's face it Mandelbrot's refutation of circuit breakers is a stone cold bitch with both daily limits and trade suspensions needing equally dense but separate disproofs. Schumpeter's and Juglar's disproofs also tend to be a bear. The product life cycle is destabilizing and no arbitrary cure has yet to demonstrate that the cure is as good as the disease.

 

[Bombur]

It IS important to remove the garbage dogma in order to further reasonable analysis of conditions. THAT is what Say's law was all about. Removing faulty dogma that plagued the study and kept people spinning in circles over complex problems by offering dogma and nonsense as the conclusions of said problems.

Perhaps it is your lack of understanding Say's Law that makes it appear that those who bring it up are simply name dropping, or can not utilize it in real terms vs. perceived terms.

Just a hunch.

And there ends the discussion because some people would rather reference something like Say's Law or some other economist as opposed to actually talking about the issue at hand.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It IS important to remove the garbage dogma in order to further reasonable analysis of conditions. THAT is what Say's law was all about. Removing faulty dogma that plagued the study and kept people spinning in circles over complex problems by offering dogma and nonsense as the conclusions of said problems.

Perhaps it is your lack of understanding Say's Law that makes it appear that those who bring it up are simply name dropping, or can not utilize it in real terms vs. perceived terms.

Just a hunch.

And there ends the discussion because some people would rather reference something like Say's Law or some other economist as opposed to actually talking about the issue at hand.

So you do not understand Say's Law and why it is significant and not a soundbite. That's fine. It sounds like you do not really want to discuss the issues either. You want soundbites that sing to your interest and perception.

 

[Kimura]

Keynes did not refute Say's Law. He rejected it out of emotional appeal to policies most governments were already using when he wrote General Theory. And Say's Law was not an integral part of classical economics. It was a precursor that refuted garbled nonsense that stood in the way of reasonable analysis of conditions.

Adam Smith also worked to kill the crap that was part of popular belief at the time. Such as that when business was bad, there were two explanations: Not enough money or general overproduction.

Keynes refutation was bulky and awkward. Marx provided a much more thorough critique, but Keynes decided to omit it from the General Theory for largely political reasons one would assume.

FYI, Say is no longer referenced by modern orthodox (neoclassical) economists. I still see it referenced in DGSE models, because this model assumes that all markets will clear.

Actually Say argued that Economics is barter with financial intermediaries. The oft quoted "Supply creates its own demand." was the 19th century equivalent of a bumper sticker and is not generally attributed to him. His own summation was that "Products are paid for with Products." and no school of economics disagrees with that.

Say did not claim that all markets clear, fads existed in his era too as well as creative destruction. There are legitimate arguments about whether circuit breakers work in markets because less face it Mandelbrot's refutation of circuit breakers is a stone cold bitch with both daily limits and trade suspensions needing equally dense but separate disproofs. Schumpeter's and Juglar's disproofs also tend to be a bear. The product life cycle is destabilizing and no arbitrary cure has yet to demonstrate that the cure is as good as the disease.

Kaldor didn't use the flexible price and fixed price terminology, but it's worth the read in your spare time.

Here

Forgot to add:

Also, Say never recognized the distortions which can be caused by speculation in flexible price markets. We can build retard proof models to show what occurs if investors engage in speculation (price increases and incomes aren't sufficient to absorb any output so to speak). When investors no longer have the ability to hoard, markets are bombarded, prices go through the floor, balance sheets are destroyed, and we have a very large unemployment line.

It's shocking the economics profession has yet to realize this. Minsky, Kalecki, Kaldor, and some others are obvious exceptions. We can build these models at a bar with some beers, napkins and a pen.

 

[Bombur]

It IS important to remove the garbage dogma in order to further reasonable analysis of conditions. THAT is what Say's law was all about. Removing faulty dogma that plagued the study and kept people spinning in circles over complex problems by offering dogma and nonsense as the conclusions of said problems.

Perhaps it is your lack of understanding Say's Law that makes it appear that those who bring it up are simply name dropping, or can not utilize it in real terms vs. perceived terms.

Just a hunch.

And there ends the discussion because some people would rather reference something like Say's Law or some other economist as opposed to actually talking about the issue at hand.

So you do not understand Say's Law and why it is significant and not a soundbite. That's fine. It sounds like you do not really want to discuss the issues either. You want soundbites that sing to your interest and perception.

LOL. This is just more meaningless nonsense on your part. The scenario is simple, someone makes an argument, that argument is countered by someone claiming that their argument is invalidated because of says law and claims victory. It is a logically fallacious argument that amounts to no more than an appeal to a vague authority.

Any questioning of this logic is deemed to be evidence of ignorance. Any attempt to establish how the law is being applied is argued to be evidence of ignorance. It becomes a trump card to the argument whether it is actually correctly applied or not or whether or not the Law is actually valid or not.

You are a clown and are acting the part of clown right now. You are proving the original premise of the thread though and my theory as well.

 

[Bombur]

Case in point.

I would be perfectly happy to see a conversation about industrial output and capacity, the importance of inventory levels, the impact income inequality has on consumption growth, the importance of consumption growth on economic growth etc. The problem is that when you try and have this discussion some idiot references "Say's Law" and they think they won the argument.

It is one of the reasons this place is a joke.

The libertarians who equate UHC to "theft" and "rape" being the other major reason.

What you say here is nonsense.

When establishing credentials as one with grand knowledge of certain subjects, it is expected to know basic ideas. In economics, who Adam Smith was, the definition of capital, what a market is, etc. are all part of this foundational knowledge. I brought up Says law not to argue any particular point, but simply to illustrate that the person I was conversing with lacked any sort of knowledge on the subject.

You cannot deny that this and other forums are filled with individuals who spend time on ThinkProgress, read a Krugman diatribe, and pass themselves off as experts in economics.

I will add only that in regard to inventory levels, I assume you are not a fan of JIT?

You have personally used Say's Law as an appeal to authority multiple times. It is a logical fallacy. When pressed you demonstrate that you don't really know what is being talked about. For example you reference the demand for an iphone.

Why would I have a problem with JIT? Are you just fishing? I brought up inventory levels because the issue in question is the relationship between production and consumption. Say's Law is often brought up in reference to anyone pointing out that production reacts to consumption levels.

 

[oldfart]

OK, a little over two days ago I made the OP and we are now at 100+ replies, making this the most active thread in the Economy forum by a considerable bit. It has been characterized by a frequent lack of civility and a general lack of substantive content, which were the problems I started out with.

Collectively we have a choice to make. We can have an adolescent name-calling contest going back and forth (behaving as trolls) or we can have substantive economic discussions. We cannot have both at the same time. Our choice.

We? Collectively?? You gotta mouse in your pocket oldfart?

Never leave home without one. Seriously, bulletin boards from the beginning have been virtual communities, and when they cease to satisfy their participants they die. That's why I made the OP. The decision to participate or not is made individually, but the cumulative effect of those decisions define what kind of community a board is at any given time. Folks have been pulling out.

Posting on a forum is a solo gig. YOU may need to make a decision. But nobody else does. Also, this is a POLITICAL FORUM. The language can be gritty and real. This is not a lecture hall. If you want an academic discussion you really should find a forum devoted to the subject (if there even is one, the topic is not exactly "exciting") .

You are partially correct. There are a number of excellent forums for economists and other professionals and I actively participate in seven of them. I like to keep track of what's happening at Wharton Econometrics, the Harvard-MIT Joint Center for the Study of East European Economies, and the Procedurally Speaking blog sponsored by tax law professors. I post a little and read a lot. I have plenty of choices.

As to this being a "political" forum, you need to get out more often. Not all political forums are this adolescent. The bar is intentionally set pretty low here are there is no real effort at moderation, so this board is pretty much going to be what everyone wants to make it.

Anyway, I hope you grow a set of balls, er, I mean "thicker skin" and stay. I've enjoyed at least one of your posts!

Board posts lose most nuance in the posting process. I battle with the most feared terrorist organization on the face of the earth every working day. You are projecting an emotional response that you imagine onto a strategy I have used in similar situations. My goal is to modify behavior. If I fail, I did my bit for the good of the order and move on. Simple as that.

PS- Regardless of what you decide, nobody really cares.

You have a grossly inflated sense of your self-worth. NO ONE matters much to other posters. Some of us just have options in the real world and don't seek validation on the internet.

OH!! and one other thing- normal people detest sniveling whiners ........

What? I'm just sayin!!

Taken in the spirit it is offered. Just remember that your reactions to me say much more about your character and thought process than they do mine. People who detest other people are generally cowards and bullies. That's why you fit in so well with the crowd around here.

 

[oldfart]

There's also the fact you have to argue with people that don't even understand basic macro and monetary operations. Many just repeat talking points and long discredited theories about how markets function. I really don't care, but it becomes a chore have to repeatedly cover stuff that would be covered in community college courses.

I don't think most folks understand that some ideas that appear new to them may be well traveled. They are called "zombie ideas" for a reason; they cannot be killed off. They get refuted time and again, but reappear a couple months later. Replaying Groundhog Day gets old after the twentieth time or so, no matter how important the point.

 

[oldfart]

What you got were a group that know economics well, and exposed that your compatriots are ignorant of the subject.

I've seen nothing from you that indicates you have the slightest knowledge of the subject.

You are correct that one of us must not have a grasp of the subject.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There's also the fact you have to argue with people that don't even understand basic macro and monetary operations. Many just repeat talking points and long discredited theories about how markets function. I really don't care, but it becomes a chore have to repeatedly cover stuff that would be covered in community college courses.

I don't think most folks understand that some ideas that appear new to them may be well traveled. They are called "zombie ideas" for a reason; they cannot be killed off. They get refuted time and again, but reappear a couple months later. Replaying Groundhog Day gets old after the twentieth time or so, no matter how important the point.

And there are main stream zombie ideas as well. We were discussing one earlier regarding Keynes and says law. Thats where a lot of time is always spent on these subjects and we can thank availability cascades for it. It's just what most subjects are bogged down by whether it's economics, or any other host of soft sciences that aren't necessarily solidified by a hard science structure.

 

[oldfart]

Toro vouched for him, which is good enough for me.

BUT, anyone can claim to be anything on the internet. One claiming to be a PhD. has no real meaning unless there are posts that back it up.

There are. Many.

Yeah...like the guy that claimed to have taught college level economics as an undergrad...but then didn't know what the term "school of economics" meant? The next intelligent post you make having to do with economics will be your FIRST intelligent post on that subject!

Or my favorite...that your spelling and grammar were so bad because your "private secretary" always took care of those things FOR you!

Can we lay this old canard to rest? No one wants to debate credentials. What matters is the quality of the thought revealed in the posts. Appeals to authority directly or indirectly don't make bad analysis into good analysis, and it goes both ways. If I put something out there that you think stinks, call me on it. Tell me your reasoning and give me a chance to respond. That's how I learn, by being challenged. But don't retreat into that "everybody knows...." garbage.

You, I, and Rshermr, like every other poster should be judged by the quality of their thought and constantly dredging up old posts, whether the mistakes are imagined or real, is no more than a diversionary tactic we should get rid of.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There are. Many.

Yeah...like the guy that claimed to have taught college level economics as an undergrad...but then didn't know what the term "school of economics" meant? The next intelligent post you make having to do with economics will be your FIRST intelligent post on that subject!

Or my favorite...that your spelling and grammar were so bad because your "private secretary" always took care of those things FOR you!

Can we lay this old canard to rest? No one wants to debate credentials. What matters is the quality of the thought revealed in the posts. Appeals to authority directly or indirectly don't make bad analysis into good analysis, and it goes both ways. If I put something out there that you think stinks, call me on it. Tell me your reasoning and give me a chance to respond. That's how I learn, by being challenged. But don't retreat into that "everybody knows...." garbage.

You, I, and Rshermr, like every other poster should be judged by the quality of their thought and constantly dredging up old posts, whether the mistakes are imagined or real, is no more than a diversionary tactic we should get rid of.

Not in whole. There are credibility issues at hand when debating. If someone has a clear case of credibility issue, it should be brought forward. Thats not to say that if one shows ignorance on one subject that it discredits there knowledge in other areas, but to say that credibility should be merited by the post, then some have a serious and repeated credibility problem. Which leads to snarky remarks instead of people wasting their time engaging. Rshermr is a prime example of this. And in this very thread no less.