Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Fun with supply and demand.
Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28533
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:15 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Matt, what is it with you? Your closest elders minimize you to the function of dogs (your Dad humorously if I recall correctly) and rats. Double entry disrespect?
Not really. The respect comes from what they thought I could actually do, not what I said I could do. Once they had trained me, they could then use me. That's how the system works in the entertainment business. It's an extremely specialist field. Friendship is a secondary thing. These bosses wanted big money quickly.

You can't be a boss and a best friend at the same time.


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I expect more from the accounting profession. Gee.... in most professions, the Master bills for all the work performed by servants. How else the 150 hour work week?
Well everyone lodges a minimum of 35 hours of six-minute-unit time-sheets. That is to monitor trainees as well as billable units. The other thing is clients want to speak to bosses, so the bosses still have to do hands on work. I had to travel for about fifteen years when I got into money raising and distribution. I ended up being "the face" at all the various weekly production meetings because I'm such a lovely person. :D

My old Swedish boss, was an expert on client psychology. He went to the USA to sell Beyond 2000 to the Discovery channel. They kept delaying their decision so as to wear him out and accept a lower license fee. So, my ex boss flew his family over to stay with him and went on "go-sees" to other cable distributors. Discovery signed off very quickly. Those are the sorts of tricks he taught me.

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:26 am

supervitor wrote:
Tom-Palven wrote:Did Tsipras take lessons from Brer Rabbit?

"You can skin me alive, boil me in oil, but please don't throw me into that briar patch with tens of billions of euros."


you should address my objections, one by one, if you wish to dispute my assertions about your OP...


It's tempting to compare your assertions about macroeconomics to the defense of astrology. There are sections at Barnes and Noble stores and in libraries devoted to astrology and sections devoted to macroeconomics, both of which pseudo-sciences have similar predictive abilities; that is, none at all.

When Einstein produced reams of calculations describing his theories that predicted nuclear reactions, they may have looked ridiculous to some people, but then there were those big mushroom clouds. The multitudes of calculations in Greg Mankiw's books on macroeconomics have failed to predict anything.

However, comparing macroeconomics to astrology vastly underestimates the extreme political power and academic grandeur associated with macroeconomics.

A much more accurate comparison is comparing Macroeconomics to Christianity, both in the amount of shelf space given them in book stores and in the fervor of their devotees.

Christians are fond of saying that "Nothing succeeds like prayer," while some skeptics calculate that nothing fails like prayer. However, almost nothing fails like prayer, except for Keynesian economics in the long run.

Keynesianism (macroeconomics itself) has managed to create stifling bureaucracies, stagnating economies, crony capitalism, and indecipherable tax codes throughout the West, to the detriment of mom and pop businesses and working people.
http://www.trygve.com/taxcode.html

The macroeconomic recommendations of gurus like Greg Mankiw at Harvard and Paul Krugman at the New York Times have failed to achieve anything more worthwhile than the prayers of Christian gurus like Pat Robertson.

But, to question the track records of Mankiw or Krugman is as blasphemous to academics as questioning the track records of Robertson or Joel Osteen is to Christians.

We are addressing a scam of truly mind-boggling proportions.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-0 ... le-lessons

However, this shouldn't affect enjoyment of the Brady-Manning duel Sunday evening.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:38 am

Keynesianism seems similar to The Emperor's New Clothes or to a $200 bottle of wine.

If one can't appreciate any $200 or $500/bottle of wine more than a glass of Yellowtail or Twisted Vine, one doesn't have a single sophisticated taste bud in one's mouth.

And if one can't appreciate Keynesian economics, or Bernie Sanders, for that matter, one is a misanthropic Neanderthal, or a complete idiot, or both.

Simple as that. End of argument.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28533
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jan 26, 2016 10:42 pm

Tom Palven wrote: If one can't appreciate any $200 or $500/bottle of wine more than a glass of Yellowtail or Twisted Vine, one doesn't have a single sophisticated taste bud in one's mouth.


Ignoring all the bad things with Keynesian economics, the statement you just wrote shows the dilemma.

You, Tom, are an individual with individual tastes and views on what you are willing to spend and you are driving the hidden hand as an individual.

I then calculate and draw up a single demand curve for wine, that has hundreds of thousands of individuals all with different tastes and what they are prepared to spend on wine.

My demand curve is complete mess of oranges and apples, the moment I create it.

However, a demand curve is the best "worst option" and a government does need to look at economics to make policies based on prediction. A government may as well use the best "worst option".

( I think in general, that you and I are on the same page. I think you and I understand that money is only a tool and it is the quality of life of the citizen, that is our concern. I try not to "bog down" on monetary matters if it distracts from the social goal.

Here is a weird, appropriate, military "rule of thumb". Don't make a big gun that simply defeats the enemy's armour. Make a small gun that kills the enemy behind the armour. Do lose sight of the real goal. Don't take on everything at once.

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Wed Jan 27, 2016 12:26 pm

I agree, Matt, that "quality of life...is our concern," and note that hundreds of millions of people in the West are brought up believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and that the quality of their lives can be improved by praying to Him.

And it seems that by the same token, hundreds of millions of people in the West, from the US to Greece, who are True Believers in Eric Hoffer's sense of the word, tacitly accept that along with Jesus Christ, coercive central governments are best equipped to ethically and efficiently improve their lives, having been taught that from birth and having it reinforced from grammar school social studies through college political science and philosophy courses.

But it seems very questionable whether a Bernie Sanders politburo, or any regime led by any of the other Republican or Democrat politicians running for President will act to improve the quality of anyone's life except for those who are politically connected in the Military-Industrial-Educational-Pharmaceutical-Banking-Subsidized Agriculture game of crony capitalism. Instead, we will probably have more of the same, and as Einstein said, expect different results.

Continued murderous foreign intervention and stagnation at home until the US finally implodes like previous empires seems like a probable scenario.

That said, I enjoy what I feel is a sort of "philosophy slam," here at Skeptics Forum, despite my gloomy outlook.

Don't know if you're familiar with the term, but somewhat surprisingly here in northern Florida, "philosophy slams," wherein college professors speak on current topics of interest at various venues in the area, and where there is lots of audience participation and lots of beer is consumed, are quite popular.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14671
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jan 27, 2016 4:48 pm

Tom Palven wrote:But it seems very questionable whether a Bernie Sanders politburo,....
Why play into such a lie? Part of the very reason that complex you next refer to has won the class war. Shame on you.

Tom Palven wrote:...... or any regime led by any of the other Republican or Democrat politicians running for President will act to improve the quality of anyone's life except for those who are politically connected
While mostly correct, that as Ralph Nader said we only have one party in America: the Corporate Party, there is still a slight difference in the non-choice we are presented with: the Dem's being slightly less bad than the Pukes. Small differences count, when only small differences exist.

As always--mindless bitching even when accurate is rather WORTHLESS without alternatives. Yours are?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Tue Feb 02, 2016 10:11 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tom Palven wrote:But it seems very questionable whether a Bernie Sanders politburo,....
Why play into such a lie? Part of the very reason that complex you next refer to has won the class war. Shame on you.

Tom Palven wrote:...... or any regime led by any of the other Republican or Democrat politicians running for President will act to improve the quality of anyone's life except for those who are politically connected
While mostly correct, that as Ralph Nader said we only have one party in America: the Corporate Party, there is still a slight difference in the non-choice we are presented with: the Dem's being slightly less bad than the Pukes. Small differences count, when only small differences exist.

As always--mindless bitching even when accurate is rather WORTHLESS without alternatives. Yours are?


I'll admit to mindless bitching when you admit to mindless apologetics for nationalist coercion and Likudnik expansionism.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14671
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Feb 02, 2016 9:52 pm

Tom Palven wrote:I'll admit to mindless bitching when you admit to mindless apologetics for nationalist coercion ....
Hardly mindless....you mean you disagree or think its a clever wording....right? As for nationalist coercion, again you are involved in mindless bitching. NAME what the alternative in politics in America (TWO Party System) realistically is (ie--having a ghost of a chance of winning any election) and with that reality explain how recognizing reality is any part pf apologetics.

Tom Palven wrote:I'll admit to mindless bitching when you admit to mindless apologetics ....and Likudnik expansionism.

Again--NAME the alternative to your own actual bitching without alternatives. In context, Jerusalem could be put under International control,......if.....International was interested in such a conflict. Otherwise....what are you suggesting other than Arab dictators and monarchies should take over the only democracy in the Middle East. ........ and thank you for tacitly admitting your position on Israel.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Thu Feb 11, 2016 3:57 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:...... and thank you for tacitly admitting your position on Israel.


I don't have to "tacitly" admit anything.

I've been opposed to Likudnik expansionism and the systematic disenfranchisement of the native Palestinians for a long time.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14671
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:53 pm

Excellent. An express admission is better than a tacit one. I'm more neutral to all parties interests. Just recognizing the reality of positions and power.

Are you for National Borders staying where they are forever and if so as of what date? If not, what in your non tacit world justifies movement of borders one way or the other?

IOW--is there any special interest involved in set borders in the East of the Mediterranean Sea area that drives this particular interest?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Wed Sep 14, 2016 12:57 pm

Haven't heard anything from mainstream US economists regarding the imminent collapse of the Chinese economy in a while.
https://www.rt.com/business/359197-chin ... -spending/

Paul Krugman and other Keynesian central planning devotees had been keeping up that mantra on a seemingly weekly basis for at least a decade.

It's not surprising that they are wrong since they have never predicted anything accurately. Nothing.

Now we can joyously anticipate their pronouncements that by tweaking Greg Mankiw's lengthy equations it can be proven that everything they have said so far about the Chinese economy has actually been spot-on!

Meanwhile the US economy under the tutelage of the Keynesians stagnates to the point that it is beginning to resemble that of India.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14671
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 14, 2016 7:07 pm

I don't understand Macro "anything." Too complicated for me. After you get off an island of 12 coconuts and 3 canoes, economics doesn't make sense to me. ERGO: I figure anything I can understand is quite basic and should be understood by all: Keynesian economic policy which has never been followed anywhere at any time (Hint: its only half followed) has next to nothing to do with the stagnating USA economy...or that of the West in general.

What's his face wrote about it in "The Earth is Shrinking" .... or getting Flat .... or whatever. You Know: the rise of the Pacific Ring economies. Flattening will happen when one major economy survives a World War.... plus all the BAD trade deals that were intentionally passed.... and the rise of robots and computers. Where's Keynes????????? ---- exactly.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:09 pm

I am not an economist, and I know I can be wrong when I enter that fray. However, I have had some training in ecology (my degree is in biology) and I see some similarities. Both ecosystems and economic systems have food webs, predators and prey, parasites, disease, symbiosis and cooperation, and a vast network of interactions.

THere is a principle in ecology which basically says that more diversity and complexity adds to stability. The most unstable systems are the simplest, and when you get to a very complex system like a rain forest or a coral reef, ecological changes are muted, leaving a system that changes little, and slowly. ie more stable.

My question is whether people think the same applies to economics. Does a more complex system (the global economic system) show more stability than a small system, such as economics within a tribe of hunter/gatherers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14671
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:15 pm

Lance: such analogies are highly enticing. But as you ask: are they valid?

I don't know why they would be.... but the subject is off my island.

I'd start right off with: What is "stable" and is it good or bad for what purpose in each system?

Its all trying to provide "meaning" or "purpose" in an existential universe. If I "personally" want to dominate a system... do I even want it to be stable? Will it be more stable if I dominate it???

Its who wins and who loses under different conditions... stability just providing such status to one group over another. Stability has little to do with it?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:25 pm

Stable means slow change rather than rapid change. In ecology, rapid change means drastic changes in the populations of the organisms present. Like rapid growth (lemmings) or rapid decline. In economics rapid change means opportunity for some (the more predatory types), but suffering for most. Rapid change is seen with global recession, as in 2008.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9527
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby TJrandom » Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:26 pm

If the goal is economic prosperity across the world instead of just within one market - then I would vote for reduced complexity (universal trade policies, common/stable currency, free movement of people and technology, etc.) but if one wants to beggar their neighbor, then lots of national restrictions may make sense, at least in the short run.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14671
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:29 pm

Good definition. Very pragmatic. But still..... it was the rapid change of that meteor that killed off the Dino's giving space for mammals to thrive. I think the good/bad continuum is therefore not the most important one. Who wins and who loses might be more functional. Stability favors the status quo, "disruption" supports change and "improvement" for those getting the dirty end of the stick under the status quo.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14671
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:32 pm

TJ--excellent point. It follows my good/bad vs who wins/loses analysis. It think today the worlds nations/peoples are in economic warfare. Warfare is about who wins and who loses. I prefer "me" and mine win and all others lose...by comparison as the state of things allows to play out. IE: the USA has a huge internal domestic market that we have not protected...so the average income/life style of USA is in decline. THats good for everyone else, not good for USA. Same for everyone else.

pros and cons to all we do.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:34 pm

I would not say that economic freedom is a reduction in complexity. Quite the opposite. For example, free trade means more participants in the economics of a country, not fewer. I am fully in favor of economic freedoms. Remove barriers to trade and things improve. But they get more complex, because there are more people involved. Government restrictions, like trade barriers and price fixing make things simpler, and stuff it all up.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14671
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:40 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Remove barriers to trade and things improve.


I think you are resisting the point: improve..... for whom? And while its variable depending on the issues....lots of relationships are zero sum games: when things improve for one group, they get worse for other groups. THATS THE WHOLE POINT. If I am being injured....I don't care about the group average. People .... are like that..... and go to war over stuff like that.... the "kinetic" type of war..... not the economic kind.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Sep 14, 2016 9:38 pm

International trade is NOT a zero sum game. It benefits all.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9527
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby TJrandom » Wed Sep 14, 2016 10:24 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:International trade is NOT a zero sum game. It benefits all.


While I generally would agree that it benefits all - it surely benefits some more than others. Overall, it benefits mankind.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Sep 14, 2016 11:06 pm

TJ

EVERYTHING benefits some more than others. So what?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14671
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:15 am

So....that is most often the dominant factor in telling {!#%@} from shinola.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9527
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby TJrandom » Thu Sep 15, 2016 9:09 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:TJ

EVERYTHING benefits some more than others. So what?


The so what - is that both detractors as well as supporters will focus on their piece - ether shilling their loss, or reveling in their gain. It is the reason that there is disagreement over the benefits of such agreements.

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:56 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I am not an economist, and I know I can be wrong when I enter that fray. However, I have had some training in ecology (my degree is in biology) and I see some similarities. Both ecosystems and economic systems have food webs, predators and prey, parasites, disease, symbiosis and cooperation, and a vast network of interactions.

THere is a principle in ecology which basically says that more diversity and complexity adds to stability. The most unstable systems are the simplest, and when you get to a very complex system like a rain forest or a coral reef, ecological changes are muted, leaving a system that changes little, and slowly. ie more stable.

My question is whether people think the same applies to economics. Does a more complex system (the global economic system) show more stability than a small system, such as economics within a tribe of hunter/gatherers?


I suspect that stability can vary in small systems as well as in large systems, but extreme complexity was one of the factors that bankrupted the Soviet economic system due to its centralized pricing.

For example, a strike among zinc miners might lead to higher prices of galvanized nails in a free market economy, but where prices are fixed by government mandate it might mean no galvanized nails available because no one will produce the nails at a loss. In a free market economy increased use of aluminum nails or enamel-coated screws might occur, but higher-priced galvanized nails would still be available for those who really needed them.

In the Soviet Union price controls led to such things as pharmaceutical factories producing medicines without active ingredients and structures collapsing from insufficient Portland cement in the concrete, as well as to black markets in high-quality products.

The much-maligned "invisible hand" adjusts the supply and demand for millions of products, from turnips to trucks, labor, insurance, and so on, on a daily basis in a way that central planning cannot do, creating the same kind of voluntary spontaneous order found in flea markets.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14671
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:25 pm

Tom Palven wrote:The much-maligned "invisible hand" adjusts the supply and demand for millions of products, from turnips to trucks, labor, insurance, and so on, on a daily basis in a way that central planning cannot do, creating the same kind of voluntary spontaneous order found in flea markets.


...and from your own post, this Invisible Hand doesn't do a good job of regulating quality or safety of products. Every "theory" has its pros and cons that too many advocates of their chosen theory fail to recognize and balance. Failure to deal with reality is the downfall of most zealots.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:45 pm

Accidental double post. Sorry.
Last edited by Lance Kennedy on Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:48 pm

Tom

I think your view of 'complexity' might be different to mine. The Soviets tried to control things from a central point. That, to me, is a way to reduce complexity, since it means fewer participants in the process of determining economic actions. Economic freedom means lots and lots of people, companies and small businesses in the economic arena. That is : lots of complexity. If I am right, this complexity means more stability and less chance of a crash.

Now admittedly, I am arguing from a comparison, suggesting a similarity between ecological and economic principles. I am willing to be proven wrong, but at this point, my argument appears to me to have some merit. Certainly most economists will agree that there is benefit in economic freedom, meaning more participants. Free trade, for example, means we all have a stake in economic activity all around the world, meaning many more participants everywhere. Does free trade mean more economic stability?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14671
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:11 pm

Isn't "everyone" a participant in whatever system is under consideration? The Russian central control decides to build the Lada...and no one buys it. Everyone is involved in the market and the market rejects the lada/skoda/whatever. Same with what I guess you say is more involved people the American Hudson?....and no one buys it.

whats the difference regarding stability or anything else? My point being: economics: very definitional.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:17 pm

Bobbo

The Soviet system reduced the number of decision makers and thus reduced the complexity.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14671
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:22 pm

I agree. I was thinking more of "the market" rather than the merchants? OTOH--I thought a more centralized "simpler" approach is a large part of china's success and rise to power? Lots of factors involved in what is important to consider?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Thu Sep 15, 2016 9:26 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Tom

I think your view of 'complexity' might be different to mine. The Soviets tried to control things from a central point. That, to me, is a way to reduce complexity, since it means fewer participants in the process of determining economic actions. Economic freedom means lots and lots of people, companies and small businesses in the economic arena. That is : lots of complexity. If I am right, this complexity means more stability and less chance of a crash.

Now admittedly, I am arguing from a comparison, suggesting a similarity between ecological and economic principles. I am willing to be proven wrong, but at this point, my argument appears to me to have some merit. Certainly most economists will agree that there is benefit in economic freedom, meaning more participants. Free trade, for example, means we all have a stake in economic activity all around the world, meaning many more participants everywhere. Does free trade mean more economic stability?


Okay, I think I see what you are saying, that the unintended consequence of attempting to reduce complexity can be chaos, and I agree, too.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2964
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:08 pm
Custom Title: Yes that one.
Location: Chicago

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:00 pm

"Not a zero sum game" only means that wealth is produced rather than merely being moved around.

It does not mean everybody benefits (though that is a conceivable outcome, unlike with a zero sum game).
Aldous Huxley wrote:A government with a comprehensive plan for the betterment of society is a government that uses torture.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:29 pm

You are correct, Abdul.

IT Is possible to consider economics as two things.
1. Generating wealth.
2. Distributing wealth.

To create a better world, it is necessary to have methods of improving both processes.

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Sun Sep 18, 2016 11:26 am

The washing machine calling the dryer White.
https://www.rt.com/business/359535-alan ... s-economy/
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11528
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Sep 18, 2016 7:57 pm

Tom

Your reference is to Alan Greenspan's comments, who says it is a terrible thing that the mega billions of dollars that the ultra rich were making by selling health insurance is now being reduced by initiatives to make those health services more readily avilable to the poor. Greenspan's sympathies, of course, are to the rich. He has a net worth of more than $US 10 million himself.

I think the economic worth of a country would be better evaluated by measuring the wealth of the poorest 10%, rather than (as in the USA) the total wealth of the country, where 50% is concentrated in the hands of a very few. If we did this, Scandinavian countries would be rated as by far the richest.

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:13 am

Libertarian Jacob Hornberger thanks Keynesian Paul Krugman for the publicity:
http://www.fff.org/2016/09/20/paul-krug ... tarianism/
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9527
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby TJrandom » Wed Sep 21, 2016 9:44 am

Tom Palven wrote:Libertarian Jacob Hornberger thanks Keynesian Paul Krugman for the publicity:
http://www.fff.org/2016/09/20/paul-krug ... tarianism/


At least 170 countries have Social Security programs, and this article points out that…

… Social Security is also found, not surprisingly, in countries like Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, China, and Vietnam, all of which have socialist economic systems.


WTF is this Libertarian BSer on about? Almost as misleading as the Trumpers.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/

Tom Palven
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5372
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Letting Go of Macroeconomics

Postby Tom Palven » Wed Sep 21, 2016 1:24 pm

TJrandom wrote:
Tom Palven wrote:Libertarian Jacob Hornberger thanks Keynesian Paul Krugman for the publicity:
http://www.fff.org/2016/09/20/paul-krug ... tarianism/


At least 170 countries have Social Security programs, and this article points out that…

… Social Security is also found, not surprisingly, in countries like Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, China, and Vietnam, all of which have socialist economic systems.


WTF is this Libertarian BSer on about? Almost as misleading as the Trumpers.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/


Venezuela has government-guaranteed security...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Se ... _Venezuela

'''but what good is it?
http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/venezue ... ooks-like/

I don't think that Hornberger said anything misleading, but suspect that the Chinese and Vietnamese regimes, with robust economies due to the free market efforts of the likes of Deng Xiaoping, will be able to live up to their commitments for a long time as the US continues to increase age eligibility.
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire


Return to “Economics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests