Re: The writing is on the wall

On Aug 31, 4:50 pm, LKruv...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Just like your rant above, who are these economist? I have never heard
any economists think anything of the sort. They may lay out simle
amthematical models within narrow parameters, but that doesn't imply
they don't UNDERSTAND that there's life beyond those...

Perhaps it is fairies, then, as opposed to those who are setting
economic policy.

At what point is demand exhaustion correctly accounted for in
policymaking as it pertains to supply-side economics, which is
inarguably the economic theory with the most political weight behind
it? In fact, the monetarist leanings of the major central bankers
make them unable to admit that such things as liquidity traps could
even exist. The yen carry trade only exists because of Japan's supply-
side error and the incapacity of the monetarists to admit that prices
and industrial activity - real things - are not correctly predicted by
their theories insofar as central banking and fiat currency are
concerned. In English, they have been trying to inflate their way out
of a SYSTEMIC problem, a matter of a real physical headroom issue in
the economy, and it flat out hasn't worked. The inflation has spread
elsewhere.

It is all well and good to talk about models and *** on paper, but
economic theories hit the road when they are made into policies and
there is certainly no shortage whatsoever of those who ignore reality
to further personal pecuniary interests at the expense of truth.

I recall having an argument with someone with a degree in economics
who insisted that oil production *could* be raised past-peak so long
as there was someone willing to pay for this increased production,
even though production is NOT a matter of market price, it is a matter
of physics. Everything in this mindset collapses to a market, the
will of man, a matter of demand and marginal utility. The problem is
that the real world has its own concept of physical laws that may
impinge upon the realization of such absurdities. No matter how much
one is willing to pay, the laws of physics cannot be violated. Now,
economists and politicians may like to believe or strenuously wish
that they can, but it simply isn't true.

You must be miguessing what they think based on the USG economists'
choices. But --like the Military-- enconomists you see publicly are
beholden to politicians, who lay out the parameters.

I certainly disagree with this. Since Keynes, economists have been
politically minded. Your assertion is as disingenuous as to say that
Marx had no real "political" ambition, that he was only a theorist.
Of COURSE his purpose was political in nature; he didn't write the
*** to NOT influence policy anymore than Keynes or Friedman did. The
entire PURPOSE of their writings was to influence policy in the
directions they thought appropriate. It is not adequate to merely
"blame the politicians" for allegedly misusing otherwise valid
economic theory that was "only put on paper" in some kind of narrowly
tailored manner, "For Use Only in Vacuum." That's not the case at
all, and you know better than this.

Petraeus *** a
lot more about fighting than Bush, but Bush is the boss, and Petraeus
has his options only within the narrow parameters of administration
guidelines, even if he disagrees with the "analysis." Being a general
or USG economist a job, with rules. That's got NOTHING to do with
what the analytical limits of the individuals who hold the office.
Invite some general or USG economist out for drinks or dinner
sometime, you live in metro DC.

When's your dad free?

Seriously, though, if one has allowed their employment self-interest
to trump the truth, then, well, I cannot pretend to respect that. A
spade is a spade and all this opinion *** and the notion that the
will of men change physical reality is group hallucination and mass
cognitive dissonance. Just because Republicans and Democrats agree on
a matter does NOT make the matter true. If Petraeus lies out of his
ass because Busch doesn't want the public to hear the truth, then ***
all of them; they are exactly what I said they were.

See, my fundamental premise is that they are either liars or idiots.
I am being generous in giving them the benefit of the doubt as to the
less culpable of the affronts. You aren't.

Trav

.

Quantcast