That's not a "more important part", you're merely elaborating on what I already stated: that it doesn't work for you, it works for them.
But I do agree completely with what you say; it's more or less what I was getting at. Keynesian economics puts the reins in the hands of people who can most easily manipulate things to their own benefit... and arguably many those same people are among the least fit to be doing it.
That is what anti-trust laws are for; to keep people playing within the capitalist system, and prevent those monopolies and oligopolies from forming in the first place.
Even Adam Smith recognized this tendency, and mentioned that it was necessary to keep monopolistic forces in check. That is supposed to be part of the system if it is to work properly; if you don't have that part (elimination of Glass-Steagall for example) then you should expect it to have problems.
"Perhaps you're unaware of the different meanings of the word 'noise'?"
I am quite aware of them. I am contrasting 'noise' to 'signal'. What I am saying is that enough of the OWS protesters have it wrong enough that we are seeing an erroneous signal, not just 'noise'... although I agree about its irrationality. That is precisely the part that is troubling to me.
"One could just as easily point out that Marxist economists predict there will be an economic recession every few years -- but "when" is inexact."
Not the same at all. We're talking about prediction that the housing bubble would crash within a couple of years, and recognition of the sub-prime debacle, etc. Very specific stuff. Not at all comparable to some generalized prediction of gloom and doom that must happen at some vague time in the future.
Control of the money supply via the Fed, by means of manipulating interest rates (and printing money), is essentially a Keynesian concept, and we have had it since the Fed was created in 1913. Which means our entire economy is based on a Keynesian model. (If you like, you can add fractional-reserve banking to that.)
I am not saying these ideas originated with Keynes; but they are ideas that were central to Keynesian economic theory.
"You want it to get better? Start with admitting to yourselves that those who are in charge (yes, those wonderful people you voted for because they said all the things you love to hear, and my god, they just must really mean it) are only there to further the interests of themselves and those like them. Yes, they're causing you pain. They don't care. Their lives are awesome."
Yep. Pretty much.
But let's be clear about something: the theory they all spout, is Keynesian economics. Why has Keynesian economics (or its basic principles anyway) lasted upwards of 80 years, when it has never been shown to work worth a tinker's damn?
The reason is simple: it doesn't work for YOU. It does, however, work for them.
Keen tries to be coy and call the economics he is debunking "neo-classical". What he really means is "Keynesian", he just didn't have the guts to come out and say so.
And as far as it goes, he was probably right. We shall see.
"...as evidenced by the outstanding success of statistical mechanics, and the outstanding failure of economics."
Sigh. You're as bad as the others. "Economics" has not failed. It is only economics as preached and practiced by your government that has failed.
Some alternative schools of economics have NOT failed, and in fact have made better predictions of economic events than our current, "mainstream" view of economics that is self-servingly spread by our government and its friends, who always seem to benefit.
"...if you have enough of them the individual irrationalities are just noise."
Unfortunately, that is not so, as the many blogs by OWS protesters show. Many of them, bizarrely Michael Moore-like, have been claiming that "capitalism" is the enemy.
To borrow the words of Founder James Madison: there are "a plethora of proofs" that this is not so, and the issues that Occupy Wall Street are protesting are a result of lying, cheating, and corruption of the system, not the system of capitalism itself.
But again: enough of them have been saying "capitalism is the enemy" to make it clear that many of them believe it, no matter how untrue it may be.
And perhaps that is not a model of "random" rationality, but rather a reflection of "strange attractors" instead. After all, there ARE people trying to sway the protests to their own purposes.
Yes, but as "janimal" points out, very large numbers of people fell for this very thing. They were being told -- by very interested parties -- that everything was wonderful. The people who were disinterested but correct, were ignored because their message was not pleasant.
So, in pied-piper fashion, vast numbers of Americans were led to make bad investments. Because they were told it was okay. Because the people telling them that it was okay were the financiers and the government, who they were brought up to trust.
If that isn't mass psychology, I don't know what is.
It was the recognized authorities who were performing the stupid acts (as we can see, indisputably, in hindsight). Not the others, who made the accurate predictions and who were laughed at by the "experts" (see the Peter Schiff video) and ignored.
I daresay this is a mass psychological phenomenon on it's own: the blind following of "authority" even over a cliff, much like the (untrue) legend of the lemmings, rather than take the effort to research and think for oneself.
Not entirely true. Ron Paul, who until now has always been pushed aside as irrelevant to the party, predicted it clearly and concisely. He predicted what would happen, approximately when, and exactly why. And all three of those came to be. ("When" was of course inexact... nobody is claiming clairvoyance here.)
More to the point, he predicted what would happen afterward, which has also been coming to pass.
Peter Schiff, who is also of the Austrian school of economics, publicly predicted the same, back in 2006-2007. There is a great YouTube video of him arguing with Keynesians who were all basically saying "The economy is fine!"
That is the only possible explanation for the persistence of Keynesian economics in America, since it demonstrably hasn't worked since 1913.
Wait... I wrote "only possible". That's not true. Another possible reason for its existence is that it gives the rich and the politicians instant access to virtually unlimited, as-yet-uninflated dollars at somewhere between low and no interest.
Well... whichever one you think is the greatest cause. Whatever that may be, it certainly isn't viable as a real economic theory.
Like that woman in whatever state it was who allowed her 15 3/4-year-old daughter to have sex with her 18-year-old boyfriend (which, by the way, would be legal "parental consent" in many states)? The woman who is now labeled for life as a "sex offender" even though the daughter the boyfriend are now married and were never charged with anything?
I know of a case in Idaho, not many years ago, in which a man went to state prison for having oral sex with his WIFE.
I agree: actual, intentional molestation of a child is one thing. Many of our laws, though, have become something else entirely.
This "sex offender" BS is an embarrassment to America. It needs to go away.
"You are still incorrect. For the familiar bicycles we ride every day..."
Ehhhhhhhh. (sound of buzzer going off). You lose. You simply proved the point I made in my last comment:
Repeat: "You are confusing whether trail does have an effect on a standard bicycle, with whether it is necessary for the stability of a bicycle." [emphasis added]
Yes, I have the paper, but it is irrelevant to the discussion.
It is not I who is having trouble here. You are confusing whether trail does have an effect on a standard bicycle, with whether it is necessary for the stability of a bicycle.
I apologize if my unfortunate choice of words (e.g., "not an important factor") misled from the point I was trying to make: that according to the Cornell study it is neither the most important factor, or even necessary.
No, apparently you are still somewhat confused. The article that I linked to is about some research done at Cornell, but doesn't include an abstract. And it does discuss trail.
But you neglected the part of the study that showed eliminating trail had no significant effect on the stability. While that is not an explicit statement by a researcher, it strongly implies that trail is not, in fact, an important factor.
Slashdot Mirror
Ron Paul has publicly stated that he recognizes lack of adequate regulation was instrumental to the meltdown of 2008.
It is true that in general, he is not big on regulations. Nevertheless, that is not the same as not supporting regulations that are clearly necessary.
That's not a "more important part", you're merely elaborating on what I already stated: that it doesn't work for you, it works for them.
But I do agree completely with what you say; it's more or less what I was getting at. Keynesian economics puts the reins in the hands of people who can most easily manipulate things to their own benefit... and arguably many those same people are among the least fit to be doing it.
That is what anti-trust laws are for; to keep people playing within the capitalist system, and prevent those monopolies and oligopolies from forming in the first place.
Even Adam Smith recognized this tendency, and mentioned that it was necessary to keep monopolistic forces in check. That is supposed to be part of the system if it is to work properly; if you don't have that part (elimination of Glass-Steagall for example) then you should expect it to have problems.
"Perhaps you're unaware of the different meanings of the word 'noise'?"
I am quite aware of them. I am contrasting 'noise' to 'signal'. What I am saying is that enough of the OWS protesters have it wrong enough that we are seeing an erroneous signal, not just 'noise'... although I agree about its irrationality. That is precisely the part that is troubling to me.
"One could just as easily point out that Marxist economists predict there will be an economic recession every few years -- but "when" is inexact."
Not the same at all. We're talking about prediction that the housing bubble would crash within a couple of years, and recognition of the sub-prime debacle, etc. Very specific stuff. Not at all comparable to some generalized prediction of gloom and doom that must happen at some vague time in the future.
Control of the money supply via the Fed, by means of manipulating interest rates (and printing money), is essentially a Keynesian concept, and we have had it since the Fed was created in 1913. Which means our entire economy is based on a Keynesian model. (If you like, you can add fractional-reserve banking to that.)
I am not saying these ideas originated with Keynes; but they are ideas that were central to Keynesian economic theory.
The source was a story about sex offender laws that was published about a year ago in The Economist. I do not recall the month.
The Idaho case I mentioned was written up in the Coeur d'Alene, ID, local newspaper.
"You want it to get better? Start with admitting to yourselves that those who are in charge (yes, those wonderful people you voted for because they said all the things you love to hear, and my god, they just must really mean it) are only there to further the interests of themselves and those like them. Yes, they're causing you pain. They don't care. Their lives are awesome."
Yep. Pretty much.
But let's be clear about something: the theory they all spout, is Keynesian economics. Why has Keynesian economics (or its basic principles anyway) lasted upwards of 80 years, when it has never been shown to work worth a tinker's damn?
The reason is simple: it doesn't work for YOU. It does, however, work for them.
Keen tries to be coy and call the economics he is debunking "neo-classical". What he really means is "Keynesian", he just didn't have the guts to come out and say so.
And as far as it goes, he was probably right. We shall see.
High-frequency trading has no relationship to "economics". It's nothing more than a game of Whack-A-Mole.
If you can find stupid ways to do things, you can probably label it "mainstream economics".
It's only the "geneous" part that is in dispute.
Just kidding.
If you've never read Twain's piece on the German language, you should look it up. It's a hoot.
We're basically in agreement. The only part I would say is not entirely true was
"... and any politician who'd done so would have been replaced by someone who'd allow the credit-fueled binge to continue."
Here, the few who did accurately predict were not replaced, but were largely ignored. Not enough of a difference to make an argument over, probably.
"...as evidenced by the outstanding success of statistical mechanics, and the outstanding failure of economics."
Sigh. You're as bad as the others. "Economics" has not failed. It is only economics as preached and practiced by your government that has failed.
Some alternative schools of economics have NOT failed, and in fact have made better predictions of economic events than our current, "mainstream" view of economics that is self-servingly spread by our government and its friends, who always seem to benefit.
"...if you have enough of them the individual irrationalities are just noise."
Unfortunately, that is not so, as the many blogs by OWS protesters show. Many of them, bizarrely Michael Moore-like, have been claiming that "capitalism" is the enemy.
To borrow the words of Founder James Madison: there are "a plethora of proofs" that this is not so, and the issues that Occupy Wall Street are protesting are a result of lying, cheating, and corruption of the system, not the system of capitalism itself.
But again: enough of them have been saying "capitalism is the enemy" to make it clear that many of them believe it, no matter how untrue it may be.
And perhaps that is not a model of "random" rationality, but rather a reflection of "strange attractors" instead. After all, there ARE people trying to sway the protests to their own purposes.
Yes, but as "janimal" points out, very large numbers of people fell for this very thing. They were being told -- by very interested parties -- that everything was wonderful. The people who were disinterested but correct, were ignored because their message was not pleasant.
So, in pied-piper fashion, vast numbers of Americans were led to make bad investments. Because they were told it was okay. Because the people telling them that it was okay were the financiers and the government, who they were brought up to trust.
If that isn't mass psychology, I don't know what is.
It was the recognized authorities who were performing the stupid acts (as we can see, indisputably, in hindsight). Not the others, who made the accurate predictions and who were laughed at by the "experts" (see the Peter Schiff video) and ignored.
I daresay this is a mass psychological phenomenon on it's own: the blind following of "authority" even over a cliff, much like the (untrue) legend of the lemmings, rather than take the effort to research and think for oneself.
Not entirely true. Ron Paul, who until now has always been pushed aside as irrelevant to the party, predicted it clearly and concisely. He predicted what would happen, approximately when, and exactly why. And all three of those came to be. ("When" was of course inexact... nobody is claiming clairvoyance here.)
More to the point, he predicted what would happen afterward, which has also been coming to pass.
Peter Schiff, who is also of the Austrian school of economics, publicly predicted the same, back in 2006-2007. There is a great YouTube video of him arguing with Keynesians who were all basically saying "The economy is fine!"
But of course, he's not a politician. Yet.
That is the only possible explanation for the persistence of Keynesian economics in America, since it demonstrably hasn't worked since 1913.
Wait... I wrote "only possible". That's not true. Another possible reason for its existence is that it gives the rich and the politicians instant access to virtually unlimited, as-yet-uninflated dollars at somewhere between low and no interest.
Well... whichever one you think is the greatest cause. Whatever that may be, it certainly isn't viable as a real economic theory.
Like that woman in whatever state it was who allowed her 15 3/4-year-old daughter to have sex with her 18-year-old boyfriend (which, by the way, would be legal "parental consent" in many states)? The woman who is now labeled for life as a "sex offender" even though the daughter the boyfriend are now married and were never charged with anything?
I know of a case in Idaho, not many years ago, in which a man went to state prison for having oral sex with his WIFE.
I agree: actual, intentional molestation of a child is one thing. Many of our laws, though, have become something else entirely.
This "sex offender" BS is an embarrassment to America. It needs to go away.
"You are still incorrect. For the familiar bicycles we ride every day..."
Ehhhhhhhh. (sound of buzzer going off). You lose. You simply proved the point I made in my last comment:
Repeat: "You are confusing whether trail does have an effect on a standard bicycle, with whether it is necessary for the stability of a bicycle." [emphasis added]
Yes, I have the paper, but it is irrelevant to the discussion.
It is not I who is having trouble here. You are confusing whether trail does have an effect on a standard bicycle, with whether it is necessary for the stability of a bicycle.
I apologize if my unfortunate choice of words (e.g., "not an important factor") misled from the point I was trying to make: that according to the Cornell study it is neither the most important factor, or even necessary.
No, apparently you are still somewhat confused. The article that I linked to is about some research done at Cornell, but doesn't include an abstract. And it does discuss trail.
I should add that your comment has also restored my earlier belief that caster and trail are indeed calculated differently.
But you neglected the part of the study that showed eliminating trail had no significant effect on the stability. While that is not an explicit statement by a researcher, it strongly implies that trail is not, in fact, an important factor.
But you were replying to ME, and the article I linked to specifically covered trail.