Why is it that the last significant economic breakthrough was Milton Friedman when he "discovered" monetary policy? How much research has been spent on economics since then to improve it? With no results. You didn't see the internet bubble coming, you didn't see the housing bubble coming (god only knows how), and you didn't see the bubble of excess in discretionary spending happening that was being funded by debt. And worst of all, you don't see the bubble of that is our government debt. Your "academic Nobel Prize winning" answer is to spend trillions more. Really? Are you that removed from reality? First, how do you even attempt to even make a payment on the national debt? The only answer at this point is inflation, and I mean significant inflation. We run trillion dollar debt, no big shakes. Really? All you have to do is take a look at Bernanke. He's obsessed with the Great Depression. Well, news for you Ben, this ain't it. It's an entirely different globalized world. We are in the exact opposite position of the depression now. You can't even fathom to have deflation, when you print this much money. Its over, there is no chance of continuing on like we are. It may take a few years, but life as we know it is over. I have no idea what the future holds, but I know it ain't nearly as good as it is now. And tenured economist around the world missed it, big time. In my profession, mistakes like this kill people and I can't blame them on anyone else. In economics, well I guess praising is better than truth, sounds like a politician to me.
The reason economics has failed is because it is so politicised. Students of economics are being taught false economic ideologies in university. Economic studies tend to emphasise the benefit of the "free market" and "keynesian" economics, while almost completely ignoring the several other schools of economic thought. Economists basically have no clue how the economy really works, not only because they have been miseducated, but also because the economy is big and complex.
There is a lot of work being done to understand economics. A little over a year ago I stumbled on to a website with about 250, hour long economic podcasts, most are interviews with economist, all given in everyday English (definitions provided in real time for the real economic terms). http://www.econtalk.org/ They created this fight of the century video - Hayek / Keynes [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc"]Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two - YouTube[/ame] They spend a fair amount of time on the Great Depression, the last bust, the housing boom, etc. But, Russ also interviews non-economist to understand real world motivations. Many of the boom bust cycles were the result of government action. The tech / dot.com bubble bust is a classic "beer game". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_distribution_game
Here is a book with 9 different schools, it's more than good vs. evil in economics. http://books.google.com/books?id=f4dJzhtCWZIC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
Not sure who Steven Kates is, can't find any economic credientials. Nothing on Wikipedia Here is what Arnold Kling had to say on Econtalk ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Kling )
Whilst I found humour in those that have replied to your comment, I have to tut at its cretinous nature. You start with the Friedman. His prance was merely a reaction to the bastardisation of Keynesianism and easily discounted. No where in your comment did you make any relevant remark to economic analysis. It therefore displayed zero value. I'm all for an understanding of the limitations of orthodox economics, it just needs a little more than the low brow grunt!
A post that makes claims but gives no substantiation = Low brow grunt. as you have made no remarks relevent to economic analysis.
You still upset over knowing no political economy? Oh well! But at least try and respond to my comment. The OP starts with a reference to Milton Friedman 'discovering monetary policy'. That was of course nonsense as Friedman merely used bastardised Keynesianism to come out with a vertical Phillips Curve and a macroeconomic approach that, via Thatcherism, was shown to be cobblers. Now there is some genuine attack on macroeconomics. One can argue that the theorists that followed, through a lovefest over rational expectations, generated a bogus feeling of understanding that stunted debate. The good thing about the crisis is that the cat is out of the bag, as shown by the successes by the post-autistics in generating debate and encouraging further orthodox-heterodox cross-fertilisation.
Ha !! Your arguments were crushed .. You tried to claim that the cost of projecting power had nothing to do with the state of technological advancement of the enemy. It does not take much to figure out that weilding power over an enemy with advanced military technology costs more than doing so over Islanders weilding sticks and stones. If you can not put your thoughts into laymans terms .. you do not have a good grasp of the subject matter. This is not complex.
Uhhh....yeah. Assuming you normally talk using this ridiculously-complicated gobbledegook...I think you either... a) desperately crave attention. or b) you have few friends. I am guessing both. Have a nice day.
I have listened to 200+ hours of economics podcast, and have never heard the bolded terms. Apparently, they are interested in actually communicating their ideas. I guess you are more of the "eschew obfuscation" school of thought.....
I think the real issue is that our economy isn't run by economists. It is run by politians who, in turn, are run by wealthy special intrest groups and a largely uneducated voting population.
I didn't even make it past this comment. What did those people at the Federal Reserve Bank do before Friedman discovered things for them to do? The Fed was enacted in 1913.
Try some reading! I do love the idea that, just because you don't know well-known analysis, its my fault. I killed the tooth fairy too?
"The Economy" is billions of interactions a day, too involved to be run by anyone. That is why central planning fails. Historically low interest rates, low income taxes, the economy should be booming. Do the politicians need to raise taxes, to cut spending, add another big government "nanny state" program to stimulate the economy? We agree the government is run by special interest groups. But, taxes on the rich - didn't happen when the Democrats had total control, why? They were beholden to the rich. As are the Republican's. Why are there super rich now, and not in the 50', 60', and 70's? Is it all Reaganomics? No. As government became more intrusive, the return on investment for buying politicians and regulators went from marginal to significant. As business, the rich, and special interest poured money into "campaign contributions", politicians and regulators increased their "value" by offering tit for tat. Do you really think the governments attack on Microsoft was about restraint of trade, no - Microsoft hadn't been "involved" enough in politics. Now Microsoft has lobbyist and makes nice campaign contributions... Big business found they could write regulations that kept out competition, passed by the congress people they "invested" in. Without competition, BigCorp could raise their prices. Their profits soared, their shareholders were happy. executives received big salaries and bonuses, politicians received contributions and whatever else was "legal" (congress is immune from insider trading laws - wonder why). Regulators shuttle back and forth between employment in government and the companies they regulate. After all, who knows more about their industry? Add gerrymandering and vitriolic talking points, to overwhelming funding, politicians have little concern about losing voters. Voters don't contribute that much anyhow, and they definitely don't concentrate their contributions. Government has to really screw up to for a lot of congress people fired. 2008 it was the economy, 2010 it was Obamacare, 2012 it will be the economy.
For you to know that, you would have to know what the exact purpose of his watching those podcasts was. Do you and if so, what was it?
It is arrogance to expect the rest of the forum to read books that you never happen to mention. You want to persuade, then you will take the time to write to your audience. If not, then I can only use my experience with people that answer like you do - they don't really know the subject and use buzz words to sound like they are the best informed. The podcasts I listen to do use economic buzz words, which are defined in everyday English when they are used. As I said, these people are trying to educate.
I can answer, as I am the worlds leading expert on my opinion. I wanted to understand what happened in this last crash, and was anyone seeing it coming (the podcasts started in mid 2006). After a few podcasts I was hooked. Russ does a great job picking people to interview, lets them do much of the talking, and plays the devils advocate even when he agrees with the opinion. I have listened (audio - not video) to all but a few. When I finish, I will listen to selected ones again. www.econtalk.org Judge for yourself.
Perhaps he deliberately chose 200 hours of podcasts that avoided Econ 101 and basic economic vocab? I've noted a significant minority on here that believe economic comment involves avoiding economic comment. Perhaps that's where economists have succeeded? They've given them something to avoid
This forum is not some free version of a college intro economics course. Therefore, it is up to you to lean the very basics. Reiver's use of simple economic vocabulary should not be considered "buzz words".
'Mainstream economists sometimes assert that it (Heterodox economics) has little or no influence on the vast majority of academic economists in the English speaking world.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterodox_economics And if you type in what Reiver typed 'orthodox-heterodox cross-fertilisation' in Google? The second result Google finds for the entire history of the web is...this thread. Simple economic vocabulary? Ahhh....yeah.
Please re-read my reply. I wanted analysis of the crash by several high power economist, each with a different viewpoint. After 200 podcasts I suspect I have a better practical understanding of the economy than a Econ 101 class would provide. And, I can express my ideas with ever day language. I did go through the glossary of an Econ 101 book. It didn't have many of your buzz words. A bit more piling on. Words from a light weight - NOT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Palley