What are economists really good for?...nothing but propaganda

[TC_Triple3]

Anyone who helps a foreign communist slave state take over his country is a traitor who deserves to die.

Pinochet is a hero.

I wouldn't call him a "hero" because he was, after all, a dictator. but as dictators go, Pinochet IS an interesting case study. General Pinochet deserves to be remembered for having rescued his country from becoming the second Soviet satellite in the Western hemisphere, though he is mostly remembered for the death or disappearance of over 3,000 Chilean citizens and the alleged torture of thousands more.

Is is no doubt true that some of those who were tortured or killed were innocent, but many or most were preparing to inflict a far greater number of deaths and a vastly larger scale of suffering on their fellow citizens. This was a war against a Communist takeover. In the process, those defending their property and liberty cannot be expected to make the distinctions present in a judicial process. They must act quickly and decisively to remove what threatens them. That is the nature of war.

General Pinochet was undoubtedly no angel. No soldier can be. But he certainly was also no devil. He did impose major pro-free-market reforms, and used his power to set limits on economic policy debates with frequent warnings that he would not tolerate a return to statist measures. The effect of these reforms was to make Chile the most prosperous and rapidly progressing economy in Latin America.

In the end, dictatorship, like war, is always an evil, but Pinochet's is quite different than most. He was certainly no Mao, or Stalin.

 

[TC_Triple3]

Actually economics has nothing to do with "society" or "democracy," it's about economics, what are you talking about? Where do you get this nonsense?

Actually is has EVERYTHING to do with society. Everything you do is a value choice, meaning, whatever you are doing right at this moment, like reading this post, you are doing because you value it more than whatever else you could be doing, hence EVERYTHING is economics. It is, after all, a social science.

It is not about democracy as a form of government, but it about the democracy of the market. Democracy as a form of government is nothing more than minority oppression. In the democracy of the market place even if 90% choose product A, the 10% that don't want it, won't have this product imposed upon them by majority rule, some entrepreneur will offer an alternative product. Economics, like society is about cooperation, if you don't have cooperation you don't have a society.

 

[hipeter924]

I don't admire economists, as the major ones made up this nonsense about a free market leading to a free society or about democracy leading to a free economy.

Actually economics has nothing to do with "society" or "democracy," it's about economics, what are you talking about? Where do you get this nonsense?

I don't admire economists, as the major ones made up this nonsense about a free market leading to a free society or about democracy leading to a free economy.

Actually economics has nothing to do with "society" or "democracy," it's about economics, what are you talking about? Where do you get this nonsense?

What planet you live on? Because economists have always had a major role in shaping society, and there are plenty of economists that encourage democracy in the workplace (as well as in wider society).

I am friends with an economist, and he enjoys writing about society and how economists can positively shape the future.

Though my point, which went right through you was that economists can shape the world negatively as much as they can positively.

But seems the goal of your post was to make a cheap shot, so I doubt it matters what I say in reply.

 

[hipeter924]

Anyone who helps a foreign communist slave state take over his country is a traitor who deserves to die.

Pinochet is a hero.

I wouldn't call him a "hero" because he was, after all, a dictator. but as dictators go, Pinochet IS an interesting case study. General Pinochet deserves to be remembered for having rescued his country from becoming the second Soviet satellite in the Western hemisphere, though he is mostly remembered for the death or disappearance of over 3,000 Chilean citizens and the alleged torture of thousands more.

Is is no doubt true that some of those who were tortured or killed were innocent, but many or most were preparing to inflict a far greater number of deaths and a vastly larger scale of suffering on their fellow citizens. This was a war against a Communist takeover. In the process, those defending their property and liberty cannot be expected to make the distinctions present in a judicial process. They must act quickly and decisively to remove what threatens them. That is the nature of war.

General Pinochet was undoubtedly no angel. No soldier can be. But he certainly was also no devil. He did impose major pro-free-market reforms, and used his power to set limits on economic policy debates with frequent warnings that he would not tolerate a return to statist measures. The effect of these reforms was to make Chile the most prosperous and rapidly progressing economy in Latin America.

In the end, dictatorship, like war, is always an evil, but Pinochet's is quite different than most. He was certainly no Mao, or Stalin.

I can't endorse Pinochet's regime, but I can't just dismiss it entirely either - even if some of the economic strife was engineered. If Pinochet hadn't come to power then it is likely that Chile would be as messed up as Venezuela.

 

[hipeter924]

Actually economics has nothing to do with "society" or "democracy," it's about economics, what are you talking about? Where do you get this nonsense?

Actually is has EVERYTHING to do with society. Everything you do is a value choice, meaning, whatever you are doing right at this moment, like reading this post, you are doing because you value it more than whatever else you could be doing, hence EVERYTHING is economics. It is, after all, a social science.

It is not about democracy as a form of government, but it about the democracy of the market. Democracy as a form of government is nothing more than minority oppression. In the democracy of the market place even if 90% choose product A, the 10% that don't want it, won't have this product imposed upon them by majority rule, some entrepreneur will offer an alternative product. Economics, like society is about cooperation, if you don't have cooperation you don't have a society.

True. The market system can dramatically shape a nation's fortunes, and economists examples determine what role governments and institutions play - and how people spend their money.

What makes a nation like Greece implode? What makes America or China stay afloat while others are struggling quite severely? It comes down to who the people listen to, and how they prioritize their money and public services.

 

[kaz]

I don't admire economists, as the major ones made up this nonsense about a free market leading to a free society or about democracy leading to a free economy.

Actually economics has nothing to do with "society" or "democracy," it's about economics, what are you talking about? Where do you get this nonsense?

I don't admire economists, as the major ones made up this nonsense about a free market leading to a free society or about democracy leading to a free economy.

Actually economics has nothing to do with "society" or "democracy," it's about economics, what are you talking about? Where do you get this nonsense?

What planet you live on? Because economists have always had a major role in shaping society, and there are plenty of economists that encourage democracy in the workplace (as well as in wider society).

I am friends with an economist, and he enjoys writing about society and how economists can positively shape the future.

Though my point, which went right through you was that economists can shape the world negatively as much as they can positively.

But seems the goal of your post was to make a cheap shot, so I doubt it matters what I say in reply.

Football players cooking dinner are football players, not chefs. Economist can have opinions, sure, but economics isn't about society or democracy.

Economics does have to do with economic policy, and the ideal system is economic freedom, not government control

 

[Marxist]

Well, I'm certainly not going to stop insulting leftists because some imbecile like you is having a hissy fit over it. Such reactions are precisely why I do it.

I hope this forum labels you for the idiot you are, you have openly supported Pinochet as a hero, endorsed his murders, admitted that anyone who supports communism/socialism deserved to die.. Fuck you.

Anyone who helps a foreign communist slave states take over his country is a traitor who deserves to die.

Pinochet is a hero.

This right here folks, this shit right here. You're not even denying it. What, did castro commit mass starvation and prop up gulags everywhere? No, you fucking numbskull. But we do know what pinochet did, he was a psychotic dictator who the united states supported.

Ironic when people that claim they ' support the constitution', but endorse a different system like fascism and dictatorship for the rest of the world. He would be cheerleading for Saddam - if he hasn't made the mistake of invading Kuwait, that you can be certain of.

I don't endorse dictatorship, numskull, but a capitalist dictatorship is far preferable to a communist dictatorship like the kind that Allende was planning to impose. We have fascism right here in the U.S.A. It's the economic system you and all the libturds favor.

We have fascism? Jesus Christ. Oh yeah, show me these fucking plans. lol. Ok. Castro was a lot better then Batista..

 

[Marxist]

You live in curious alternate reality, where only your immature insults count. Now, you are down to semantics.

When does it end? I can answer that, when hell freezes over, and God decides it is time for ice skating.

Well, I'm certainly not going to stop insulting leftists because some imbecile like you is having a hissy fit over it. Such reactions are precisely why I do it.

I hope this forum labels you for the idiot you are, you have openly supported Pinochet as a hero, endorsed his murders, admitted that anyone who supports communism/socialism deserved to die.. Fuck you.

Anyone who helps a foreign communist slave states take over his country is a traitor who deserves to die.

Pinochet is a hero.

This right here folks, this shit right here. You're not even denying it. What, did castro commit mass starvation and prop up gulags everywhere? No, you fucking numbskull. But we do know what pinochet did, he was a psychotic dictator who the united states supported.

There are plenty of gulags in Cuba, and the people have been on the verge of starvation for 60 years. Mass executions were the rule immediately after the revolution. Now they just put people in prison and throw away the key.

Verge of starvation? Utter bullshit, show me any of these things that didn't happen under capitalist dictators

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

if thats true I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??? He gave them the identical advice he gave the entire world: switch to to godly Republican capitalism.[/QUOTE]

Not the entire world, only select countries. .

afraid to bet?? What does your fear teach you liberal ?? Name a country that he didn't advise to switch to saintly Republican capitalism or admit to being stupid or a liar or both./

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Utter bullshit, show me any of these things that didn't happen under capitalist dictators

total lib soviet idiot!!!. You can't be a dictator and a capitalist since capitalism requires freedom.
Do you understand your ABC's now??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. Castro was a lot better then Batista..

Castro's prison Island concentration camp is better?? Castro has the only tropical island in history where boats are illegal!! Do you know why they are illegal little boy? They had new cars in Cuba until the day your Nazi friend took over!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Chile because it is an extreme example of what happens when free market dogma is followed to the letter..

to the letter??? Are you 100% stupid or just a flat out liar??? Provide evidence that they followed to the letter or admit to being a worthless liar!!

 

[oldfart]

I don't admire economists, as the major ones made up this nonsense about a free market leading to a free society or about democracy leading to a free economy.

Actually economics has nothing to do with "society" or "democracy," it's about economics, what are you talking about? Where do you get this nonsense?

I don't admire economists, as the major ones made up this nonsense about a free market leading to a free society or about democracy leading to a free economy.

Actually economics has nothing to do with "society" or "democracy," it's about economics, what are you talking about? Where do you get this nonsense?

What planet you live on? Because economists have always had a major role in shaping society, and there are plenty of economists that encourage democracy in the workplace (as well as in wider society).

I am friends with an economist, and he enjoys writing about society and how economists can positively shape the future.

Though my point, which went right through you was that economists can shape the world negatively as much as they can positively.

But seems the goal of your post was to make a cheap shot, so I doubt it matters what I say in reply.

Economists have friends? I thought we all just hung around picking on sociologists.

Seriously, there has always been a debate about the limits of the field of economics. In Malthus time, demographics was an integral part of economics (Malthus himself held the first chair in political economy in England in 1805). Now it is an independent field in graduate school and associated with sociology in high school.

The tools economists developed to explain economic behavior, often using mathematics that were not the strong suit of other social scientists, were seen to have utility in other disciplines and have been borrowed heavily. Input-output analysis, linear programming, game theory, regression analysis, and a multitude of techniques dealing with decision-making under uncertainty and optimization with sensitivity analysis to boundary conditions turn out to be a large part of the tool kit for political scientists and sociologists.

Economists cheerfully steal from neural science, philosophy, statistical theory, historical method, and organizational analysis and hope other disciplines find our work entertaining or useful.

 

[oldfart]

A number of posts seem to imply that economists are some monolithic group in agreement about what should be done. In my experience the profession is less organized and more injurious to the participants and spectators than a dog fight. Generally speaking about 80% of all economists work in fields where there is no need for them to participate in the grand debates of macro policy and they don't. The closest we get are snide comments when we get stuck with an ECON 101 section with a repulsive textbook that makes us gag. (FWIW my graduate field was mathematical economics and my areas of application were the Soviet economy and labor economics).

The rest of the profession, which generates most of the noise is divided into two camps, each of which thinks the other side is a bunch of idiots. The "freshwater" economists are anti-government, anti-regulation, rooted in a conservative ideology, and constantly warning of hyper inflation. The "saltwater" crowd, hold to the Hicksian version of Keynes, with a big side of Minsky and think that left to their own devices, unregulated markets inevitably crash and burn. I belong to the latter group. The biggest thing we have going for us is that the other side does not have a coherent theory of anything any more. The next biggest thing we have is they have been wrong on every major prediction in the last seven years and we have been right. It seems that if you get paid enough, or have your career invested in an ideological universe that reality does not penetrate, you can exist without logic or facts.

As a footnote, when I started posting on this board, there were at least six practicing economists, about ten business economists, and at least a dozen well informed other members who were able to to support a pretty high level economic discussion. Most of them don't post anymore. I haven't seen a thread in a year that would compare favorably with the old discussions. The reason: no one enjoys being deluged with political cant to the exclusion of honest discussion. It's like teaching the ECON 101 class to a bunch of students who think they already know it all because they have read Ayn Rand (it used to be Malcolm X, which shows both my age and how the looney tunes landscape has shifted from left to right).

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A number of posts seem to imply that economists are some monolithic group in agreement about what should be done. In my experience the profession is less organized and more injurious to the participants and spectators than a dog fight. Generally speaking about 80% of all economists work in fields where there is no need for them to participate in the grand debates of macro policy and they don't. The closest we get are snide comments when we get stuck with an ECON 101 section with a repulsive textbook that makes us gag. (FWIW my graduate field was mathematical economics and my areas of application were the Soviet economy and labor economics).

The rest of the profession, which generates most of the noise is divided into two camps, each of which thinks the other side is a bunch of idiots. The "freshwater" economists are anti-government, anti-regulation, rooted in a conservative ideology, and constantly warning of hyper inflation. The "saltwater" crowd, hold to the Hicksian version of Keynes, with a big side of Minsky and think that left to their own devices, unregulated markets inevitably crash and burn. I belong to the latter group. The biggest thing we have going for us is that the other side does not have a coherent theory of anything any more. The next biggest thing we have is they have been wrong on every major prediction in the last seven years and we have been right. It seems that if you get paid enough, or have your career invested in an ideological universe that reality does not penetrate, you can exist without logic or facts.

As a footnote, when I started posting on this board, there were at least six practicing economists, about ten business economists, and at least a dozen well informed other members who were able to to support a pretty high level economic discussion. Most of them don't post anymore. I haven't seen a thread in a year that would compare favorably with the old discussions. The reason: no one enjoys being deluged with political cant to the exclusion of honest discussion. It's like teaching the ECON 101 class to a bunch of students who think they already know it all because they have read Ayn Rand (it used to be Malcolm X, which shows both my age and how the looney tunes landscape has shifted from left to right).

Economists now rule the world it seems to me. Bernanke may not have seen the bubble coming but he saved the world after it burst and deserves full credit for all he and we now know. Our understanding of Central Banking has never been greater and it is just possible that depressions a severe recessions are in effect obsolete. That of course excludes non financial depressions and recessions that might be caused by external events like war or disease, etc.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I haven't seen a thread in a year that would compare favorably with the old discussions.

Yes, the BS is gone. If you cant say if you are a capitalism or socialist and why you are wasting space here.
You are not an useful economist as much as you are a trivial pursuitist! Great economists got that way by taking positions on the most important issues and changing the world with their brain power. You are afraid of great issues because you were trained to not rock the boat to keep your little academic jobs. You were allowed to slant leftist though as long as you did it in a sneaky way.

 

[oldfart]

A number of posts seem to imply that economists are some monolithic group in agreement about what should be done. In my experience the profession is less organized and more injurious to the participants and spectators than a dog fight. Generally speaking about 80% of all economists work in fields where there is no need for them to participate in the grand debates of macro policy and they don't. The closest we get are snide comments when we get stuck with an ECON 101 section with a repulsive textbook that makes us gag. (FWIW my graduate field was mathematical economics and my areas of application were the Soviet economy and labor economics).

The rest of the profession, which generates most of the noise is divided into two camps, each of which thinks the other side is a bunch of idiots. The "freshwater" economists are anti-government, anti-regulation, rooted in a conservative ideology, and constantly warning of hyper inflation. The "saltwater" crowd, hold to the Hicksian version of Keynes, with a big side of Minsky and think that left to their own devices, unregulated markets inevitably crash and burn. I belong to the latter group. The biggest thing we have going for us is that the other side does not have a coherent theory of anything any more. The next biggest thing we have is they have been wrong on every major prediction in the last seven years and we have been right. It seems that if you get paid enough, or have your career invested in an ideological universe that reality does not penetrate, you can exist without logic or facts.

As a footnote, when I started posting on this board, there were at least six practicing economists, about ten business economists, and at least a dozen well informed other members who were able to to support a pretty high level economic discussion. Most of them don't post anymore. I haven't seen a thread in a year that would compare favorably with the old discussions. The reason: no one enjoys being deluged with political cant to the exclusion of honest discussion. It's like teaching the ECON 101 class to a bunch of students who think they already know it all because they have read Ayn Rand (it used to be Malcolm X, which shows both my age and how the looney tunes landscape has shifted from left to right).

Economists now rule the world it seems to me.

It seems to me that finance rules the world. It used to be that finance served the needs of business and accounted for a little under 10% of corporate profits. Now businesses are just commodities for finance to manipulate and trade in and finance accounts for over 40% of corporate profits. GM is expendable but Wells Fargo is not.

Bernanke may not have seen the bubble coming but he saved the world after it burst and deserves full credit for all he and we now know. Our understanding of Central Banking has never been greater and it is just possible that depressions a severe recessions are in effect obsolete. That of course excludes non financial depressions and recessions that might be caused by external events like war or disease, etc.

We all have a list of heros in avoiding the meltdown. I'd grade Bernanke out at a B. He certainly did better than the Treasury Secretary but not as well as the FDIC. I agree that crashes such as 2007-8 are preventable, even after a major bubble bursts (soft landing as opposed to hard) WITH PROPER POLICY. It's a question of political will, not the knowledge to apply what we know of central banking crisis management policy.

 

[oldfart]

I haven't seen a thread in a year that would compare favorably with the old discussions.

Yes, the BS is gone. If you cant say if you are a capitalism or socialist and why you are wasting space here.
You are not an useful economist as much as you are a trivial pursuitist! Great economists got that way by taking positions on the most important issues and changing the world with their brain power. You are afraid of great issues because you were trained to not rock the boat to keep your little academic jobs. You were allowed to slant leftist though as long as you did it in a sneaky way.

OK, Ed, let me set the record straight. I am a professional economist, trained at the Kenan School at UNC Chapel Hill who taught economics a few years. I have done published research and had some gigs as an expert witness in state and federal courts. In 1979 I passed the Treasury exam and have since made a decent living as tax professional and businessman. In that period I have run a tax services franchise system, a boat dealership, a medical supply company, a general insurance agency, a real estate development company, and a slew of micro businesses. This is not exactly the ivory tower. On this board we should be judged by the quality of our argument, not our qualifications. I provide this information solely to provide context for my posting. Everyone has a right to state an opinion or to attack a position here regardless of their background.

I take your representations of your background at face value (although I do believe you are much more thoughtful than some of your drive-byes would indicate!). Some of your posts indicate substantial depth, so I think you must be having fun with a lot of the ad hominem and over-the-top remarks.

I don't think I avoid big issues. Often I try to give a "state of the profession" view so I minimize my personal ideology in those posts. I guess I need an emoticon for my "professional economist" hat and another for my "ideological warrior" hat.

I didn't get into economics to change the world. At the time most people interested in changing the world who were interested in economics ended up in the Bader-Meinhoff Gang or Weather Underground. Those days conservatives were the voice of reason and the left were the crazies. Now we have "Sovereign Citizens" and a Right with a position on everything and not a clue as to how to logically support it.

I enjoy your ad hominems regarding me, so keep them up! but give me a little more detail on the real issues, like central bank policy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

OK, Ed, let me set the record straight.

Ok great, please tell us if you are liberal or conservative and why or admit you lack the IQ to be here. Thank you so much!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's a question of political will, not the knowledge to apply what we know of central banking crisis management policy.

no dear, liberals still don't admit that Friedman was right about causes of Great Depression. Thus, they are very dangerous and perhaps deadly to our country should they ever control the Fed.