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

[oldfart]

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.

Which bar? Who's bringing a pen?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/20...r-all-these-years/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Here is someone else who has a serious credibility problem. Can you see where he has either deliberately, or ignorantly misled his flock?

This is a zombie idea, and it's people just like Krugman with all his "prestige", that become availability capitalists, or charlatans.

 

[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.

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.

You are correct that it goes both ways. In the 60s I was embarrassed by what radicals (since re-named liberals, then rebranded as progressives) were using for policy argument. I didn't generally agree with conservatives like Buckley, but I respected their integrity and their often well constructed arguments. I'm sure Buckley got tired of repeating the same logical analysis to some student who could only reply in slogans.

Frankly, I am bothered by the lack of a coherent conservative position on economics. Martin Feldstein comes out for a trillion dollar stimulus and I ask, "Who replaces him as the spokesman for conservative economic ideas, and what are they?" A & A and R & R are rightfully discredited and with them go expansionary austerity and the 90% debt/income tripwire. Milton Friedman is now basically defended by Keynesians against self-declared followers of Rothbard, Mises, and Hayek. The libertarian position has become so ideologically pure ("privatize the justice system") that it is completely untestable. The Right is cannibalizing itself like the Left did in the 60s and 70s.

There is plenty wrong with Keynes analysis applied to today, and the same can be said of the neo-Classical rational markets hypothesis. The insistence on microfoundations for macro models is as widespread as it is sterile. The critiques of each model are more compelling than the defenses.

Now is a great time for some fresh thinking; but I get the feeling we are fighting the war of our great grandfathers. People on this board argue over whether having a central bank is a good idea. Really?

If we can get to discussing ideas rather than slogans we might get somewhere. IT'S WORTH A TRY.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It's very much and extremely relevant to continue fighting over principles and logic (such as the need for a central bank). Fresh ideas do not come from continuing the status quo of more of the same. Yet thats what we get. Meanwhile people who offer alternative ideas to the status quo are osterixized and the charlatan lies are stirred to maintain the status and then we hear about a round of "fresh ideas". It's the same shit with a different paint job and yet we drive it around.

Forgive me of being fed up with that insane ingestion of reality.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

I do judge posters on the quality of their thoughts, Oldfart. The reason that I questioned Rshermr's claims to have taught economics at the college level was two fold...first I'd never heard of an undergraduate teaching college courses (which was what Rshermr claimed he had done)...but more importantly, in the course of our discussion, Rshermr made comments that someone who DID have a degree in economics would simply not make.

What I find to be amusing is that Rshermr spends half of his time here insulting the intelligence of whomever he disagrees with...and the other half whining about "personal attacks" leveled against him.

 

[william the wie]

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.

Thank you kindly for the link. While I have some disagreements with the implied ideology the only math error of omission I saw was when he gave the chicken and egg question about the origin of increasing returns.

But that brings up the history of epidemics and the diffusion of food crops so I'll start another thread to avoid hijacking..

 

[Rshermr]

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.

I do judge posters on the quality of their thoughts, Oldfart. The reason that I questioned Rshermr's claims to have taught economics at the college level was two fold...first I'd never heard of an undergraduate teaching college courses (which was what Rshermr claimed he had done)...but more importantly, in the course of our discussion, Rshermr made comments that someone who DID have a degree in economics would simply not make.

What I find to be amusing is that Rshermr spends half of his time here insulting the intelligence of whomever he disagrees with...and the other half whining about "personal attacks" leveled against him.

Oldstyle, you are nothing if not consistent. I could replay your statement that you would stop the incessant attacks on my statement about helping teach part of an econ class (Not taught economics) if I provided you the details you wanted to know, but have done so to no avail multiple times. Because you simply lie. What I said was in fact true. That you do not believe it is your problem. It was over 45 years ago, me boy, and no big deal, except to you.

Check it out. In 1969 there was no graduate school of economics at Central Washington. I simply had a professor who needed some help. And I and three other undergrads taught parts of a very large economics for non majors class. Which you know. And I have explained over and over. As I also told you, I was hardly the professor of record for the class. Just helped him Clair Lillard. As you have been told many times.
Maybe you would like to try this another 50 times or so. Boring. You know better. And no one else cares.

 

[william the wie]

The other thread is up and everybody bitching about not being able to find serious economic debate is welcome to voice their silly opinions there.

 

[jasonnfree]

They took over the education thread also. Put em on ignore, there's only about 20 or 30 professional thread destroyers. They have no other life so pity them. PC's a robot so it doesn't react to pity. Hope you and the four or five others in the economic business keep posting sometimes.

Say, aren't you the drooling simpleton who was ignorant of Says law, had no idea what the Broken Window theory was, and could never identify a major school of Macro Economic thought?

Sure you were...

. My comment stands. I'm interested in the subject and posts by knowledgeable people. Never claimed to know much about economics, and rather than wade through acres of insults, and crackpot statements, it's easier to put some individuals on ignore. Say's law, broken window theory? What post # was it, I don't remember.

Still waiting for that post # uncensored. I still don't know what your talking about. I'll wait a couple more days then I'll put you on my growing ignore list of thread destroyers.

 

[Truthmatters]

there are people here who only exist here to imagine they are causing someone pain.

they say whatever it takes in their rotted flesh minds to imagine they are causing human pain somewhere.

Then they sit and lick off their fly shit covered screens imagining they are licking the pain of other humans.


Fly shit lickers.


they LOVE that taste.


It makes them dream of being a human being with a fully functioning emotional life.


maybe someone should come up with a flavor of pudding called fly shit.

Trolls would be too busy eating fly shit flavored Pudding to bother the normal people

 

[Oldstyle]

there are people here who only exist here to imagine they are causing someone pain.

they say whatever it takes in their rotted flesh minds to imagine they are causing human pain somewhere.

Then they sit and lick off their fly shit covered screens imagining they are licking the pain of other humans.


Fly shit lickers.


they LOVE that taste.


It makes them dream of being a human being with a fully functioning emotional life.


maybe someone should come up with a flavor of pudding called fly shit.

Trolls would be too busy eating fly shit flavored Pudding to bother the normal people

Wow...that might possibly be the strangest post I've ever seen on this board! "Fly shit flavored Pudding"? LOL...did you smoke a fattie when you rolled out of bed this morning, TM? Drop acid? Please tell me you didn't post that "unimpaired".

 

[Rshermr]

Say, aren't you the drooling simpleton who was ignorant of Says law, had no idea what the Broken Window theory was, and could never identify a major school of Macro Economic thought?

Sure you were...

. My comment stands. I'm interested in the subject and posts by knowledgeable people. Never claimed to know much about economics, and rather than wade through acres of insults, and crackpot statements, it's easier to put some individuals on ignore. Say's law, broken window theory? What post # was it, I don't remember.

Still waiting for that post # uncensored. I still don't know what your talking about. I'll wait a couple more days then I'll put you on my growing ignore list of thread destroyers.

I would suggest that uncensored has submitted his defeat on this one.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Still waiting for that post # uncensored. I still don't know what your talking about. I'll wait a couple more days then I'll put you on my growing ignore list of thread destroyers.

It wasn't in this thread, and I'm sure not going to go searching for it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I would suggest that uncensored has submitted his defeat on this one.

And what exactly is it that I was defeated on?