No need. You've had a lower lip tremble over basic economics comment. There isn't anything interesting in it Those failing to learn basic economics run the risk of becoming sheep for the ideological. Its an understanding of economic theory that provides us with a means to critique stance. Its an understanding of political economy that provides us with a means to critique the conclusions from any specific school of thought. Its not possible, for example, to critique Friedman's analysis into monetary policy without considering the Phillips Curve debate and its linkages to the natural rate of unemployment. I see your shift away from podcasts as a minor success. Keep up the reading!
Get it right now. On a thread about political economy, I referred directly to different schools of thought (from neoclassical analysis into market failure to the liberal approach to the military-industrial complex), using that to understand how the arms industry has evolved (whilst of course presenting evidence into support, particularly the importance of economies of scale and the blurring of the boundaries between the public and private sector). And that's why the title of this thread isn't cunning. Economics, being a multidisciplinary discipline which encompasses a diverse set of schools of thought, continues to be particularly vibrant. For every complaint at failure (such as the theoretical weaknesses of Friedman-inspired monetarism), there's already analysis from an alternative outlook. Folk seem to think disagreement (and heterogeneity in conclusion) is a bad thing. It isn't.
You are so focused on book definitions, that you missed the OP's point. The economy tanked, because the infuential economists got it wrong. It didn't matter if a 1000 economist got it right, they weren't influential. Disagreement only has practical (in contract to academic) value, if the result is a better economy. In this case, those in power heard the economist that foretold the crash, and didn't listen. Why? To refer to one of the pod casts, even those in power that were "hurt" in the crash only made 10's of millions, instead of 100's of millions. They had no downside risk. Unfortunately, like always, there are toadies that will confirm what those in power want to believe (the toadies make more money). Even economist. The powerful give these economist air time (influence).
Basic economics? This from a guy that NEVER (to my knowledge) factually backs up his theories with real world examples. A guy who wouldn't seem to recognize a number if it hit him in the head. He knows the terminologies, but appears to not have a clue how they relate to the real world. So he resorts to a thesaurus, condescension, insults and attempted intimidation to make himself feel better. Sad...and a tad sick, imo. Imo, he is a troll - little more. All bark...no bite. And lately anyway; the more he types, the more I pity him.
Sounds like you want tabloidism. I refer directly to econometric analysis. Hypothesis testing is paramount. Catch up! (apologies if you're ask busy with the podcasts)
I continue to refer to economics on an economics sub-forum. The OP started with a ludicrous comment over Friedman. I of course put that right. You could also have achieved that if you bothered with some basics!
1) Providing unbiased sources to proven facts to back up a claim is 'tabloid ism'? Riiiiight. tab·loid (tbloid) n. A newspaper of small format giving the news in condensed form, usually with illustrated, often sensational material. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tabloidism I want facts, not sensationalism. You certainly have NEVER provided the former (that I can see) to back up your claims. And your condescending and insulting comments could be considered sensationalism. So, it appears to me, that you are the one who seems to want tabloidism. and 2) I said nothing about any podcasts. Perhaps it is you that needs to 'catch up'.
Yes, you "refer" to economics, but you don't forward the conversation. The "answer" above is a prime example. Are you brave enough to be so condescending face to face to anyone other than some little school kid that needs your grade to graduate. I can only assume you are an academic, you certainly don't educate.
You provide nothing but tabloidism as you deliberately refer to spurious relationship and ignore the need for sound hypothesis testing methods. There's no debate in it. Put it right!
You want to have a conversation over economics without knowing economics. I essentially don't need to converse with you, you can just give me the podcasts that have informed you of your position SME consultant. Not surprisingly real life involved me learning some economics. My buyers wouldn't be impressed by a "we don't need to know stuff, just watch a podcast". Arrogant sods!
Asking for facts to prove ones opinion is tabloidism? You may wish to look up the meaning again - because I do not think you understand what it means. I await your normal reply full of (imo) attempted intimidation, condescension and insults; a troll of the first magnitude. I would tell you this in private and save having to waste the board's time...but I see you have your pm's turned off. Now why does that not surprise me? Have a nice day.
Try to read, and understand, what I said: "You provide nothing but tabloidism as you deliberately refer to spurious relationship and ignore the need for sound hypothesis testing methods". Its a standard game amongst the likes of the Daily Mail! We have two failed approaches on this thread. First, the fellow that thinks knowing basic economics isn't required for economics comment. Second, you and your belief that you can make unsupportable claims because you do not understand how econometric analysis is undertaken. I do find both approaches just a little tedious. Sort it out!
For you to know what I deliberately do - you would have to be me. Since you are not - then you do not. So your point is totally irrelevant. And your normal chatter changes nothing...you have yet to prove ANYTHING you have posted with unbiased, factual evidence (to my knowledge). So every point you have made is nothing but theory...without the slightest shred of proof to back it up. And will continue to be treated accordingly. BTW - why do you have your pm turned off? Have a nice day.
You either deliberately refer to spurious relationship or you do not understand the concept. I was being nice! Again, this is a mere repetition of tabloidism. To refer to evidence in economics one will necessarily be drawn towards hypothesis testing. That doesn't generate fact. That generates reject or fail to reject. The podcast fan might have come across the premise!
Again, another statement even though you do not know me. Once again your statement means nothing. 1) Try to theorize your way around it all you wish, the fact remains, you have never (to my knowledge) provided any unbiased, factual evidence to back up any thing you have ever said about your theories? Yes or no? And if yes - prove it. Assuming you cannot, your theories have no basis in fact...only theory. And they will be treated accordingly. 2) For the second time...and I will keep asking you until you answer probably...why do you have your pm shut off? 3) Why do you keep mentioning 'podcasts'? Do you have a fixation about them or something? 4) Outside of dealings with me - why do you have to be so rude and condescending to people? Especially when they have not done so to you previously? Have a nice day.
There is only an 'either/or'. I chose the nice one despite not knowing you. This is just a tedious attempt at ignoring the content of my comment. You haven't realised that I don't just refer to theory. I also refer to the direct testing of that theory. In contrast, you refer to bog all and then, like a tabloid, assume fact.
Wrong again. Where exactly did I refer to an un-genuine relationship? Which one specifically? If you cannot prove I did, then you are proven wrong (imo) yet again. Once again, you are telling me what I am thinking when you have absolutely no way of knowing what I am thinking; - only I can know whether I am ignoring you or not. - and only I can know what I have realized. - on top of which, you do not suggest that i am doing these things - you are stating them as facts. Another mistake. You are not big on exactitude are you? And I will ask you for a third time - why do you have your pm turned off? And why are you so hesitant to answer this simple question?
And - for the second time - outside of dealings with me, why do you have to be so rude and condescending to people? Especially when they have not done so to you previously?
While "free market" principles are the foundation of economics, it is only a simplified concept. It was never meant to be transformed into a strict ideology. The main problem is that there are so many "externalities". The legal system, on which private property rests, is fundamentally flawed. Our legal system rests on the assumption that what one does with their own property does not effect anyone else, but the problem is it actually does! But those that have suffered damages cannot seek compensation in the courts. Americans think they can do whatever they want with their land because it "belongs" to the owner. This is not how much of the rest of the world works. Fencing off your land may, for example, prevent me from walking through your land to enjoy nature. The sprawling suburbs have created walls of houses, with maze-like roads, that make it difficult to travel within the neighborhood on foot. Or a homeless person might go hungry because the land owners prevent him from growing food. More common, one unkempt house detracts from the pleasantness of the neighborhood. In many cities that have experience an influx of poor immigrants, the overcrowding in one house effects all the other residents through noise, lack of parking from all the cars in the street, or all the unsupervised little disrespectful children yanking out the flowers in the front yard. When a government refuses to address externalities, the free market responds in other inefficient ways. For example, forced racial integration of neighborhoods has resulted in the white middle class segrating itself into gated communities and school districts that the minoritiesare typically unable to afford. But this is very inefficient, because it costs the white middle class much more money. "It seems pretty obvious why the prices of homes in the White suburbs have climbed up into the hundreds of thousands. It isn't the nice landscaping or the tree-lined streets. White people pay these incredibly high prices to escape Black crime, Black filth, and Black chaos. People, who buy their 400,000 dollar homes in the suburbs, are building a "wall of money" around themselves to keep out Blacks and Mexicans. The huge increase in housing prices is due almost entirely to Blacks and Mexicans invading middle class neighborhoods and turning them into gang-infested hell holes. White people are forced to pay insanely inflated prices for houses just to live in a safe neighborhood. Millions of White couples, whose parents were able to buy homes, find that they must raise their children in small, crowded apartments without the security and luxury of a backyard." http://www.churchoftrueisrael.com/nsforum/ns1-16.html When the government pretends that an externality does not exist, it creates severe distortions in the market. Whether that is unaffordable housing, deteriorating school districts, or civil unrest amongst the poor.
Free markets work best when government is limited to two roles, and does them well. Protect personal rights / freedom and protect the commons (water, air, public areas, etc.) No it doesn't. Even in rural areas, with little control, anything you do that prevents me from doing what I want on my property has civil, and many time legal recourse. Property in towns, has building codes, waste disposal requirements, etc. The one area government is supposed to function (per the Constitution) is to keep me from limiting your rights, and vice versa. Your solution is to lay out neighborhoods in a grid pattern (a bit difficult here - too many canyons), and give everyone free passage on to anyone's property? In the house, can they borrow my car? Is this really a problem? There aren't a lot of crops that provide food year round. Besides, there are a lot of rural areas a homeless person can grow their own food. That is a problem. HOA's are one answer. Otherwise, you'll have to work on getting the laws, that I'm sure exist, enforced.
"anything you do that prevents me from doing what I want on my property has civil, and many time legal recourse" What if I do not own property? Some people own much more property than others, this is obviously economic discrimination. "The one area government is supposed to function (per the Constitution) is to keep me from limiting your rights" If you keep me off your property, and I do not have my own similar property, you are limiting my rights. You can argue about what peoples rights should be. But the truth is that the right to life is not really secure unless there is also a right to land. And the truth is that plenty of people do not own land, or are unable to own more than a very small portion of it. Your whole free market argument unravels when we start trying to define rights and property.
