lawrocket 3 #26 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteI think the Austrian economics people have a much more convincing argument. The Austrian school of economics is pretty laughable. They reject mathematical analysis, because they know mathematics highlights the inconsistencies in their rhetoric. Keynesian is similarly laughable. The mathematics works, but the results haven't worked out too well. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #27 July 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteI think the Austrian economics people have a much more convincing argument. The Austrian school of economics is pretty laughable. They reject mathematical analysis, because they know mathematics highlights the inconsistencies in their rhetoric. Keynesian is similarly laughable. The mathematics works, but the results haven't worked out too well. It's not even close. Keynesian models don't explain all variance (no model does), but that's no reason to throw the model out. It is fundamentally sound.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,489 #28 July 21, 2012 QuoteHamilton supposedly was overheard at a dinner party to suggest that Burr had had sex with his own daughter. You're going to have to help me with this one. Never read about and can't find anything on it in the usual Internet references.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #29 July 21, 2012 Fundamentally sound? Yes. It is based on the notion that by involving the government in conomy through the taking and reinsertion of money into the economy that a certain economic goal can be met. Fundamentally, this is sound and there is no objecrive reason why it should not work. Then there's subjective. It breeds inefficiency. I, for one, do not see the benefit of the Jersey Shore. But - some people do. Indeed, there are those who may believe that the show is good for everyone and therefore Jersey Shore should be subsidized. It will create jobs. Or perhaps we could take money from schools and put that money into increasing disability benefits. Doing so will free up money on those who would purchase essentials, thereby increasing tenancy, lifting up property values and stabilizing property investments. The idea is fundamentally sound, yes. But the idea also foments objection. It can creates a reason to cheat. It creates a reason to shelter. It is also inefficient because the value of a product of service it determined NOT by the public at large but by a person or a small cadre deciding arbitrarily the value of good or products. This creates a glut or a scarcity. Fundamentally sound. It satisfies the government policy of generating demand for a product or service where it would not otherwise exist. The Keynesian system, therefore, prevents to economy from flooring it. But it DOES have the effect of providing a floor. It's not an interstate highway, where high speeds can lead to massive collisions and pileups. Rather, it's a bottlenecked two lane road with potholes and stop signs. Yeah. You can get where you're going, and the danger of a road closure and horrific accident is minimal. But damned if road rage won't be a bigger factor. People finding alternate routes. Driving on the shoulder. Etc... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #30 July 21, 2012 QuoteFundamentally sound? Yes. It is based on the notion that by involving the government in conomy through the taking and reinsertion of money into the economy that a certain economic goal can be met. Fundamentally, this is sound and there is no objecrive reason why it should not work. Then there's subjective. It breeds inefficiency. I, for one, do not see the benefit of the Jersey Shore. But - some people do. Indeed, there are those who may believe that the show is good for everyone and therefore Jersey Shore should be subsidized. It will create jobs. Or perhaps we could take money from schools and put that money into increasing disability benefits. Doing so will free up money on those who would purchase essentials, thereby increasing tenancy, lifting up property values and stabilizing property investments. The idea is fundamentally sound, yes. But the idea also foments objection. It can creates a reason to cheat. It creates a reason to shelter. It is also inefficient because the value of a product of service it determined NOT by the public at large but by a person or a small cadre deciding arbitrarily the value of good or products. This creates a glut or a scarcity. Fundamentally sound. It satisfies the government policy of generating demand for a product or service where it would not otherwise exist. The Keynesian system, therefore, prevents to economy from flooring it. But it DOES have the effect of providing a floor. It's not an interstate highway, where high speeds can lead to massive collisions and pileups. Rather, it's a bottlenecked two lane road with potholes and stop signs. Yeah. You can get where you're going, and the danger of a road closure and horrific accident is minimal. But damned if road rage won't be a bigger factor. People finding alternate routes. Driving on the shoulder. Etc... There's an excellent reason competent economists rely on mathematics rather than rhetoric. It's too easy to misrepresent with rhetoric, as you have demonstrated nicely. One need not even understand economics to do so.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,489 #31 July 21, 2012 QuoteNone of them. Although it may seem like we have at times, the fact is that at no point in our history have we allowed dead people to be elected President. On a more serious note, any poll such as this assumes the person involved would somehow be able to cope with the issues we're currently facing. OK, fine, assume that if you must, but I think it's silly to assume they'd react anywhere near the way they did historically. It's entirely possible, for instance that Ronald Reagan (for instance), after a lifetime of preparing himself to deal with Communists, would have a completely wrongheaded approach to terrorism like we saw on 9/11. Your comment did not fall on deaf ears and has merit. However, part of the equation was observing leadership characteristics.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #32 July 21, 2012 And you realize, of course, that competent economists were also doing things with banks, bundling debts, etc. It wasn't Joe Sixpack that got the banking industry in trouble. Financiers, economists and statisticians played a heavy part, too. From a mathematical standpoint, the old system of due diligence was unnecessary. From a mathematical standpoint, the bad debt could be bought an profitable. But the economist wasn't alone in the blame. Question: do economists run things? No. Politicians do. How about the population of the US who are not economists? Do they fit in? The Austrian school is a reflection of how things are. The Chicago school is how things could be but with a hefty dose of pragmatism. And the Keynesian school is about an ideal world where if everyone just went along things would be fine. The problem is that there are individuals who do their own things and have their own This is what the Austrain system recognizes. The differences in everybody. Keynes? Whomever is in power can individually manipulate the market. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #33 July 21, 2012 QuoteThe Austrian school is a reflection of how things are. Not even close. The Austrian system is to the Keynesian system as religion is to science.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #34 July 21, 2012 I get that. I think it's not quite as bad as that but rather it's a look at the qualitative reasons for economic activity. For example, a keynesian or even a classical economist would argue about the benefit/cost of increasing taxes on the weathy. Meanwhile, an Austrian would argue fairness and "fair share." Like it or not, it's pretty damned relevant and important. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #35 July 21, 2012 QuoteLike it or not, it's pretty damned relevant and important. No, compared to quantitative analysis, the qualitative analysis of economics is of little importance. Economics is, fundamentally, applied math. Reject the math, and it becomes nothing more than political rhetoric, great for persuasion of the ignorant, but useless for developing effective economic policy.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 5 #36 December 9, 2012 QuoteLook at the EU. They are similar in structure to the United States under the Articles of Confederation, That is Absurd. QuoteWe got in the mess we are in because of insufficient government regulation And so is this... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
