Jump to content

Economic News


Mal_Con

Recommended Posts

One of Bail Out's glaring omissons is the return to the gold standard. Two big problems with mortgage backed securities are a) no one seems to know what they're worth and b) real estate values are subject to speculation. We need to base our fractional reserve on something with tangible, intrinsic value that, unlike real estate, is neither volatile nor speculated on.

 

Sunsets, air, the cosmos, emotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 379
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

from NPR- looks like Obama is 7 points ahead. also only 40-some percent stated Palin was qualified as vp candidate. Obama is leading in florida, colorado, ohio and pennsylvania.

chances for bailout are also not looking too good at the moment. one of the "experts" stated, that proposal was kind of like this: there are several boats on a lake, some are starting to sink. the solution- let's drain the lake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be convinced ...

 

it accounts for only one side of the balance equation; no real measure of supply or environmental externalities on relevant time scales, which suggests that your brand of economics isn’t a science,

 

economy is not a science. it's a system of trust. it's something that constantly evolves, therefor we can make assessments about the past and try to predict the future.

 

It is an ideology for most but it should be a science if we want it to have any predictive capacity. Obviously I am no economist but I am amazed by the lack of rigor of so-called experts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I recall, economics is a social science; a discipline with testable theories and mathematical models the predictability of which is limited by the vagaries of human behavior and natural events. Predictability decreases as the system becomes more complex, as with any system, including completely 'scientific' ones such as the space shuttle or an ecosystem. To state it's not science or scientific simply because the accuracy of economic predictions varies belies a lack of understanding of what a complex system is and how deterministically its behavior can be predicted. But hey, I guess meteorology isn't a science, right?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To pretend the economy can expand forever or that ponzi schemes of debt amount to wealth creation isn’t science (social or otherwise), it’s crackpottery that ignores the most basic tenets of scientific accounting. The current lack of predictability has little to do with complexity but everything to do with fairy tales like “free markets” posing as theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To pretend the economy can expand forever or that ponzi schemes of debt amount to wealth creation isn’t science (social or otherwise), it’s crackpottery that ignores the most basic tenets of scientific accounting. The current lack of predictability has little to do with complexity but everything to do with fairy tales like “free markets” posing as theory.

 

It's probably already clear to most readers here that I was referring to economics as an academic discipline, not any particular campaign slogan. If you try real, real hard, you may be able to separate political ideology from the social science in your mind.

 

Scientific accounting? Did you major in that, cuz, like, I don't remember that that being offered in my business school curriculum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To pretend the economy can expand forever or that ponzi schemes of debt amount to wealth creation isn’t science (social or otherwise), it’s crackpottery that ignores the most basic tenets of scientific accounting. The current lack of predictability has little to do with complexity but everything to do with fairy tales like “free markets” posing as theory.

 

It's probably already clear to most readers here that I was referring to economics as an academic discipline, not any particular campaign slogan. If you try real, real hard, you may be able to separate political ideology from the social science in your mind.

 

Economics as praticed today is mostly political ideology that ignores physical realities. It should be a science but it isn't.

 

Scientific accounting? Did you major in that, cuz, like, I don't remember that that being offered in my business school curriculum.

 

Yes I did major in scientific accounting like that found in conservations laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To pretend the economy can expand forever or that ponzi schemes of debt amount to wealth creation isn’t science (social or otherwise), it’s crackpottery that ignores the most basic tenets of scientific accounting. The current lack of predictability has little to do with complexity but everything to do with fairy tales like “free markets” posing as theory.

 

It's probably already clear to most readers here that I was referring to economics as an academic discipline, not any particular campaign slogan. If you try real, real hard, you may be able to separate political ideology from the social science in your mind.

 

Economics as praticed today is mostly political ideology that ignores physical realities. It should be a science but it isn't.

 

Scientific accounting? Did you major in that, cuz, like, I don't remember that that being offered in my business school curriculum.

 

Yes I did major in scientific accounting like that found in conservations laws.

 

Again, you need to separate economics as its practiced by researchers as opposed to the economic platitudes of politicians. Yes, there are career economists who are quacks (just as there are scientists who are global warming deniers and intelligent design proponents), and presidential administrations are good at finding and employing these people, but the majority of professional economists provide a great deal of informed substance and insight to the debate. The fact that the public (and most politicians) don't understand the discipline and its indeterminate nature doesn't cast it into the realm of superstition.

 

Even in your field of study (physics or engineering, I assume), there are widely varying theories regarding some very fundamental processes that are not yet understood. The nature of gravity, dark energy, dark matter, why entropy increases, to name a few. Yet no one claims that, because there is uncertainty in this incomplete body of theory, physics is quackery.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An NYT summary of the bailout. It included most of what I wanted to see, with the glaring exception of granting the ability to re-negotiate primary home mortgages during bankruptcy to address a root cause of the problem.

 

"The final agreement called for the $700 billion to be disbursed in parts: $250 billion at first, to get the program started, followed by $100 billion at the discretion of Mr. Bush and the remaining $350 billion upon request of the Treasury with Congress empowered to block the last installment by acting within 15 days.

 

It is impossible to predict the final cost of the bailout but officials insist it will be far less than $700 billion. Because the Treasury will purchase and then resell assets, potentially at a higher price, there is a chance the program will break even or perhaps turn a profit.

 

The deal provides for tight oversight by two boards, including an independent Congressional panel. And requires the government to use its status as an large-scale owner of distressed, mortgage-backed securities to take more aggressive steps to prevent foreclosures.

 

The bill also seeks to limit the pay of executives of some companies that sell bad debt to the government, including restrictions on so-called “golden parachute” retirement plans.

 

It also provides several taxpayer protections, including a mechanism for the government to take an equity stake, in the form of stock warrants, in some of the firms that seek government help, which will give taxpayers a chance to make money should the companies profit in the months and years ahead.

 

And, if the rescue plan has lost money after five years, the bill requires the president to submit a plan to Congress for recouping the losses from the financial industry, perhaps through fees or a tax on securities transactions."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, you need to wake up and face reality: until recently the crackpots of the Chicago school ruled the roost. There are of course some economists who show rigor in their work but they are marginalized and their work has little to no impact on policy. The immense majority of economists are ideologues who refuse the reality of the physical world.

Edited by j_b
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, you need to wake up and face reality: until recently the crackpots of the Chicago school ruled the roost. There are of course some economists who show rigor in their work but they are marginalized and their work has little to no impact on policy. The immense majority of economists are ideologues who refuse the reality of the physical world.

 

Oh, OK, and now I guess it's time for you to 'tell it like is' to the rest of us. :rolleyes:

 

Until recently, the Neocons ruled the foreign policy roost...all 6 or 7 of them.

Edited by tvashtarkatena
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also useful to point out that policy does not and has not followed theory to the letter, and that theories can have better or worse predictive accuracy depending on what you plug into them.

 

By way of example, Friedman once wrote an article about pollution. It would seem that, without environmental regulation, it's worth it for companies to pollute (empirically true, BTW). This would seem to refute Friedman's free market theories, but he countered that if companies had to pay the actual cost of the resource inputs they use (land, water, air, human lives and health, etc) as well as the actual cost of cleanup, not polluting would be the more economically beneficial option. It's politicians, he argued, not politicians, that determine whether or not companies pay these costs and how much they pay.

 

So Friedman was 'wrong' when one boundary was placed around his theory and 'right' when a broader boundary, which included environmental costs, was employed. He wasn't 'wrong' on the face of it.

 

Some theories, of course, are put forth by fringe kooks who gain favor with the rulers of the day. Every era has its Laffers.

 

It's also helpful to recognize that there is a world outside of the US with its own various schools of economics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's also useful to point out that policy does not and has not followed theory to the letter, and that theories can have better or worse predictive accuracy depending on what you plug into them.

 

By way of example, Friedman once wrote an article about pollution. It would seem that, without environmental regulation, it's worth it for companies to pollute (empirically true, BTW). This would seem to refute Friedman's free market theories, but he countered that if companies had to pay the actual cost of the resource inputs they use (land, water, air, human lives and health, etc) as well as the actual cost of cleanup, not polluting would be the more economically beneficial option. It's politicians, he argued, not politicians, that determine whether or not companies pay these costs and how much they pay.

 

So Friedman was 'wrong' when one boundary was placed around his theory and 'right' when a broader boundary, which included environmental costs, was employed. He wasn't 'wrong' on the face of it.

 

Spare me the nonsense. Friedman knew he had to acknowledge externalities but his work was all about dismantling regulations to maximize profits. Anyway, not everything has a price and, we don't necessarily want to burn it all up, right now, because someone can make a buck out of it.

 

Some theories, of course, are put forth by fringe kooks who gain favor with the rulers of the day. Every era has its Laffers.

 

It's also helpful to recognize that there is a world outside of the US with its own various schools of economics.

 

In case you haven't noticed neo-liberalism was applied almost everywhere, which explains why so many economies have tanked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...