Bring on the pork ...

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

"Nothing, except..."

Did you lose all intelligence over the weekend?

As for "nothing new," well, we did learn you don't know that the labor market and general economic recovery can move independently of each other, that you didn't know Roubini did support my contention, that you didn't realize "analysis" and "study" are synonyms (but not "conclusion" and "analysis"), and now that you can't figure out what someone means when they state a general proposition followed by the word "except." Although if you boil it down to "Tex doesn't understand economics" and "Tex struggles with reading comprehension," then I suppose you are right- we didn't learn anything new.

plus:

"study" and "story" are not synonyms.

The "story" is about the "study."

I pointed out that Tex did not read the AP study.

In defense, Tex chided me for accusing him of not reading the AP story when he did.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Heaven knows you keep trying.

Nah, but if I did, you've provided a good library of examples.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

plus:

"study" and "story" are not synonyms.

The "story" is about the "study."

I pointed out that Tex did not read the AP study.

In defense, Tex chided me for accusing him of not reading the AP story when he did.

The problem with these discussions is we can't have an honest disagreement. Instead, especially with Cali involved (who poisons nearly any thread he posts in), it always devolves into word-parsing. This message board is not a legal courtroom, and we (or at least I) am not submitting carefully worded legal briefs. Making a good faith effort to try and understand what the other person is saying contributes to a decent discussion, even when it's spirited.

I brought up the original distinction between analysis and study, because I was under the impression you thought there was an actual study (in the academic sense) that was somehow being kept from the public (and that was the distinction drawn by the AP reporters). If you didn't think that, and I misread your comments, then I apologize. Whatever you want to call what the AP did, it sounds like they are willing to make their data available. How about you give them a call, and ask them, eh? Or email Cowen.

Personally, I'd like to drop the whole study/story/analysis/conclusion nonsense, because it's a total distraction from what we were debating, which is ... um ... now see, I can't remember.

[Archaea]

Political rhetoric is tiresome at best, it's about spin and gamesmanship, not the academic pursuit of truth, correlation and even sometimes causation.

But political rhetoric likes to borrow from all realms in order to pretend to be accurate for the preservation of power.

Chino and Cali like to listen to liberal economists who spin current liberal economic theory, but when they use it as support for Obama's political positions, they have no more evidence than the next person.

I find it incredible that they, as advocates of Obama's economic policy, willingly accept the argument the economy is working and that the "stimuli" will actually turn the economy around. For example, we will never know if the economy would not have turned itself around, would not of stopped. And we have yet to see the effects of the inflation around the corner which is bound to happen as a result of the treasury bills being floated to fund the unprecedented government spending.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Political rhetoric is tiresome at best, it's about spin and gamesmanship, not the academic pursuit of truth, correlation and even sometimes causation.

But political rhetoric likes to borrow from all realms in order to pretend to be accurate for the preservation of power.

Chino and Cali like to listen to liberal economists who spin current liberal economic theory, but when they use it as support for Obama's political positions, they have no more evidence than the next person.

I find it incredible that they, as advocates of Obama's economic policy, willingly accept the argument the economy is working and that the "stimuli" will actually turn the economy around. For example, we will never know if the economy would not have turned itself around, would not of stopped. And we have yet to see the effects of the inflation around the corner which is bound to happen as a result of the treasury bills being floated to fund the unprecedented government spending.

liberal economists like Tyler Cowen?

And don't worry about the inflation dude. The money printing is there to prop up a weak economy, not to finance the deficit. And it is being held as reserves, not being lent out to businesses. The following explanation is provided by "liberal economist" and Romney adviser Greg Mankiw.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/bu...my/17view.html

Economics is economics, dude.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

liberal economists like Tyler Cowen?

And don't worry about the inflation dude. The money printing is there to prop up a weak economy, not to finance the deficit. And it is being held as reserves, not being lent out to businesses. The following explanation is provided by "liberal economist" and Romney adviser Greg Mankiw.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/bu...my/17view.html

Economics is economics, dude.

Yes, there are explanations galore, and they make for interesting reading, but economics is a soft science, not precise.

I'm familiar with many of the explanations but that doesn't mean I buy into them all, or believe that the explanations completely explain away why things happen the way they do.

Don't worry about inflation? Whoa, brother. Inflation will make the cost of money more expensive. That will harm people borrowing. We don't have any real increase in income but having a real increase in the cost of money will be harmful.

Inflation will also affect our ability to export goods.

We see multiple problems which are not being addressed. Our treasury bills are not attractive to investors any more, despite a low interest rate. Because we will need to raise them, this will negatively affect the cost of money.

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw Carter stagflation again.

And do you really believe the reserve argument? I don't.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Yes, there are explanations galore, and they make for interesting reading, but economics is a soft science, not precise.

I'm familiar with many of the explanations but that doesn't mean I buy into them all, or believe that the explanations completely explain away why things happen the way they do.

Don't worry about inflation? Whoa, brother. Inflation will make the cost of money more expensive. That will harm people borrowing. We don't have any real increase in income but having a real increase in the cost of money will be harmful.

Inflation will also affect our ability to export goods.

We see multiple problems which are not being addressed. Our treasury bills are not attractive to investors any more, despite a low interest rate. Because we will need to raise them, this will negatively affect the cost of money.

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw Carter stagflation again.

And do you really believe the reserve argument? I don't.

First, Carteresque stagflation is impossible. That was driven by skyrocketing oil prices.

Second, if you read the article, no one is borrowing money right now! The Fed will allow some inflation to bring us out of the economy because in the short run, inflation and unemployment are tradeoffs. If inflation starts spiraling, the Fed will slam the breaks.

And last, you say that economics is not precise yet you keep beating the drum that printing more money will drive up inflation. The laws of supply and demand work pretty consistently. The predictive ability of economics is much greater than that of the social sciences; that is why economics is awarded a Nobel Prize, and the social sciences aren't. There's been an explosion in demand for economists are hired in the private sector. You can't say the same for sociologists.

Economists are much more competent too. As Larry Summers said, economists are smarter than political scientists, and political scientists are smarter than sociologists.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

First, Carteresque stagflation is impossible. That was driven by skyrocketing oil prices.

Second, if you read the article, no one is borrowing money right now! The Fed will allow some inflation to bring us out of the economy because in the short run, inflation and unemployment are tradeoffs. If inflation starts spiraling, the Fed will slam the breaks.

And last, you say that economics is not precise yet you keep beating the drum that printing more money will drive up inflation. The laws of supply and demand work pretty consistently. The predictive ability of economics is much greater than that of the social sciences; that is why economics is awarded a Nobel Prize, and the social sciences aren't. There's been an explosion in demand for economists are hired in the private sector. You can't say the same for sociologists.

Economists are much more competent too. As Larry Summers said, economists are smarter than political scientists, and political scientists are smarter than sociologists.

Stagflation can't happen? Now that's arrogance.

Nobel Prize was awarded because it's more predictive? Where the F did you come up with that one?

Here is why I believe inflation will occur, not because of more money but the need for more money. You're the smart guy and I'm the dumb guy as you are wont to say.

Right not the federal rate is near zero and with the currency exchange governments can't afford to buy our notes. Thus, the Fed will be forced to raise rates to allow us to float our bonds to pay for the excesses. That's not economics per se but fiscal realities.

However, inflation will run rampant again and what's to say stagflation can't happen under the scenario I envisage as well as others. I wouldn't be surprised if interest rates start rising in April given the need to fund these unsupported expenditures.

And the argument that sociologists are less intelligent? Logic is not your strong suit unless you're trying to make us all laugh, which I wager was the purpose of your effort there.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Stagflation can't happen? Now that's arrogance.

Nobel Prize was awarded because it's more predictive? Where the F did you come up with that one?

Here is why I believe inflation will occur, not because of more money but the need for more money. You're the smart guy and I'm the dumb guy as you are wont to say.

Right not the federal rate is near zero and with the currency exchange governments can't afford to buy our notes. Thus, the Fed will be forced to raise rates to allow us to float our bonds to pay for the excesses. That's not economics per se but fiscal realities.

However, inflation will run rampant again and what's to say stagflation can't happen under the scenario I envisage as well as others. I wouldn't be surprised if interest rates start rising in April given the need to fund these unsupported expenditures.

And the argument that sociologists are less intelligent? Logic is not your strong suit unless you're trying to make us all laugh, which I wager was the purpose of your effort there.

Ok, let me ask you this: Do you not think the Fed will slam the brakes if there is a hint of inflation running out of control? Like they always have?

You the there's a short-run tradeoff between economic output and prices, right? We need prices to rise a little to get production going again.

And let me ask you this: If economists can't predict worth jack, why is the private sector hiring them left and right?

I never said I was smarter, where the H did you come up with that? You don't sound like a sociologist to me, I don't hear you talking about class struggle or any of the other stuff (Although you do spout off on culture a lot). It's just an observation Larry Summers made. And it's relevant to this discussion because the issue at hand is the competency of the economics profession.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Ok, let me ask you this: Do you not think the Fed will slam the brakes if there is a hint of inflation running out of control? Like they always have?

You the there's a short-run tradeoff between economic output and prices, right? We need prices to rise a little to get production going again.

And let me ask you this: If economists can't predict worth jack, why is the private sector hiring them left and right?

I never said I was smarter, where the H did you come up with that? You don't sound like a sociologist to me, I don't hear you talking about class struggle or any of the other stuff (Although you do spout off on culture a lot). It's just an observation Larry Summers made. And it's relevant to this discussion because the issue at hand is the competency of the economics profession.

Which profession is de jour is just a phase. For a while, it was lawyers, then engineers, now it's economists. We'll learn and move on, as we see how often economists fail in their predictions. As far as I can tell, economists like lawyers to make or build anything.

Not all sociology is about class struggle. You must have read Marx and nobody else. It's about a lot of stuff which is very difficult to predict.

Are you asking me if I trust the Fed to do the right thing? Or to try? Maybe but what happens if they miscalculate? I don't believe it's as easy as stepping into a car and pushing the accelerator or hitting the breaks.