Also, Credit card rewards points are deemed a type of private money, as are things like gold and other hard commodities.
And I still don't understand how I'm not citing enough sources, there's gonna be a 60 minutes piece about it tonight. The last time there was a similar piece (the one I cited, and the one for which I read the book "Throw Them All Out" goes into extensive detail about what occurred) there was immediate action in Congress and a bill passed with only 2 Nay's (which means vote for this or look like a douche nozzle who was exploiting the loopholes.).
It's not about quantity, it's about quality
That and 60 minutes pieces aren't sources. That is not to say they are bad or whatever, but you can't cite such a thing in a paper. The sources we want, MadCaddy, are the sources they use. The original stuff. Because that's stuff we can read and judge for itself, rather than having to look up the information elsewhere to confirm.
If you are citing sources it's not good enough to link to people who are citing those sources. (also I can't be bothered to watch videos.)
I will give you that one of the primary differences in our philosophy is that, outside of usury laws, I feel the government shouldn't control the interest rate, and effectively can't without a totalitarian state due to shadow banking. I'm trying to understand what your ideal economic model begins with, and you've just been telling me I'm wrong and citing dated material as retorts to my arguments, and not making any of your positions known.
What is it that you think "totalitarian state" means?
@Cantelope I'm not down on chargebacks, they're just an aspect of the clearinghouse system that's a little antiquated at this time. I'm more critical of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Clearing_House an antiquated system, designed 40 years ago, that clearly would be a good example of vital infrastructure improvement for the 21st century. With regards to chargebacks, the fact that they're a possibility increases prices due to the uncertainty of whether a transaction will be complete. While, this isn't much of an issue domestically (outside of the fee charged, which gets passed on to the consumer opaquely), but internationally, I believe it was 1 out of 10 (it may be higher) eCommerce transactions are fraudulent. Having a currency with no recourse (outside of Judicial, which is another topic.) is a very valuable medium of commerce.
Also, Credit card rewards points are deemed a type of private money, as are things like gold and other hard commodities.
And I still don't understand how I'm not citing enough sources, there's gonna be a 60 minutes piece about it tonight. The last time there was a similar piece (the one I cited, and the one for which I read the book "Throw Them All Out" goes into extensive detail about what occurred) there was immediate action in Congress and a bill passed with only 2 Nay's (which means vote for this or look like a douche nozzle who was exploiting the loopholes.).
It's not about quantity, it's about quality
So, you're saying 60 minutes isn't quality journalism? How do you feel they're biased? What about the New York Times?
no, this one is actually surprisingly self-consistent
like, if you are a hardcore bitcoiner, then you are obliged to deny the tripartite theory of money. For you, money must stem solely, and only, from its use in exchange. If money stems from government fiat, or by its ability to extinguish debts and taxes and penalties, then the bitcoin is doomed: it has none of these things
of course, at that point you are faced with a crisis, namely "gee, what happens if someone invents lots and lots of different types of money-like objects, that will all have equally appealing use in exchange". and so you conclude that shadow banking destroys the government's control over the money supply.
but since you are not completely crazy, you don't think Hacker McGee can evade the cyberpunk electro-police forever; you merely deride that outcome as 'totalitarian', and when Reddit sadly informs you of KYC requirements, you nod and say that America has become a tyranny, etc. etc.
fwiw I don't think MadCaddy is a hardcore bitcoiner, but I think it is evident he tunes in to the same sphere of thought
So, whose estimates do you agree with wrt the size of the Shadow Economy? And again, I'd like to know your utopian ideals, as I still haven't heard you make one hard rule for the government.
I'm pretty sure ronya isn't going to address your utopian ideals question because we don't live in utopia, utopia does not exist elsewhere, and utopia will never come into being. He's also tried to let you drop that particular line of questioning repeatedly. I'm thinking he sees it as a trap question because it feels like one to me.
I'd focus more on extracting information about how to make the current system better. Maybe cherrypicking ideas from all sides in order to develop a more hardy position.
I'll admit that I'm merely a student of financial and economic systems but I can sniff out unending debates pretty quickly, which this was one from the OP. I'll second the motion for putting up one of the many previous iterations of this thread as a sticky for all to learn from.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Also, Credit card rewards points are deemed a type of private money, as are things like gold and other hard commodities.
And I still don't understand how I'm not citing enough sources, there's gonna be a 60 minutes piece about it tonight. The last time there was a similar piece (the one I cited, and the one for which I read the book "Throw Them All Out" goes into extensive detail about what occurred) there was immediate action in Congress and a bill passed with only 2 Nay's (which means vote for this or look like a douche nozzle who was exploiting the loopholes.).
It's not about quantity, it's about quality
So, you're saying 60 minutes isn't quality journalism? How do you feel they're biased? What about the New York Times?
Journalism isn't an academic source. It's not about bias, it's about science. The New York Times is no better for the purpose, nor is any non-scientific source. You'll notice that ronya mentioned how plenty of folk from either side might offer valid or not opinions on stuff but that doesn't give any credit.
60 minutes is probably quality journalism*. It's still journalism. It's not an actual source nor does it try to be. What is required in an argument is actual scientific sources, or at least clear summaries of them. You need to argue for something yourself, not give us someone elses argument.
*I don't actually know anything about it. But given the sorry fucking state of science journalism in general I'm really doubtful that it is actually quality journalism in this particular field. But my rantings against that shit should probably go into another thread.
I will give you that one of the primary differences in our philosophy is that, outside of usury laws, I feel the government shouldn't control the interest rate, and effectively can't without a totalitarian state due to shadow banking. I'm trying to understand what your ideal economic model begins with, and you've just been telling me I'm wrong and citing dated material as retorts to my arguments, and not making any of your positions known.
What is it that you think "totalitarian state" means?
That an individual has no choice unless the government approves it, or the government constitutes 100% of the labor force, or Big Brother. There's several different types, I'm just trying to find when it crosses the line for someone who is a liberal and believes the government needs MORE control and power, as that is the fundamental difference that I have with most on the forums. I think the US would be better, and more able to be ready to compete in the forthcoming global economy, and post US Hegemony. I feel one of the best ways to ensure this is to loosen the reins on the states, to have the Federal government be most concerned with citizen welfare, guaranteed rights, and interstate/international commerce. I had a conversation about nullification in the fixing the broken US governance, and I feel that that is a perfect example of the federal government intervening. I feel since reconstuction, the federal government has grown less representative of the people, and more and more powerful, and more 'gamed/machined'.
I don't believe the political machines of the turn of the 20th century died; they just became more of the 'honest graft' sort. If you'd like a good example of this, again, review the 60 minutes video talking about Pelosi's insider trading on Visa (the original data is public records, and if you don't trust 60 minutes on accurate public records, I don't know what else to say. The STOCK Act that was mentioned up thread was also an immediate reply to it, but also has loopholes still.), Blagoyevich or the Pennsylvania Turnpike scandal and Ed Rendell's state politics.
I'm pretty sure ronya isn't going to address your utopian ideals question because we don't live in utopia, utopia does not exist elsewhere, and utopia will never come into being. He's also tried to let you drop that particular line of questioning repeatedly. I'm thinking he sees it as a trap question because it feels like one to me.
I'd focus more on extracting information about how to make the current system better. Maybe cherrypicking ideas from all sides in order to develop a more hardy position.
I'll admit that I'm merely a student of financial and economic systems but I can sniff out unending debates pretty quickly, which this was one from the OP. I'll second the motion for putting up one of the many previous iterations of this thread as a sticky for all to learn from.
How is asking someone that if they could plan the world from the ground up to be perfect, what would they do a trap? Since he's the revered macro expert around here, I would figure he would have an ideal macro policy, and I'd like to know his stance. How much more influence does the IMF need? Are the revised special drawing rights President Xi's government proposed needed in his view internationally? How does he think the US can best prepare itself for the economy of the future?
I have answers to all these questions/ I'm just being told I'm wrong, and having my direct tough questions dodged, and then feinting another attack because of the consensus within these forums. It's obvious that Gourim hasn't clicked on a single one of the outside links before his original posts, and just is attacking this thread due to ideology.
I want to know when a liberal feels the government has overstepped it's authority. or has become too big.
Also, Credit card rewards points are deemed a type of private money, as are things like gold and other hard commodities.
And I still don't understand how I'm not citing enough sources, there's gonna be a 60 minutes piece about it tonight. The last time there was a similar piece (the one I cited, and the one for which I read the book "Throw Them All Out" goes into extensive detail about what occurred) there was immediate action in Congress and a bill passed with only 2 Nay's (which means vote for this or look like a douche nozzle who was exploiting the loopholes.).
It's not about quantity, it's about quality
So, you're saying 60 minutes isn't quality journalism? How do you feel they're biased? What about the New York Times?
Journalism isn't an academic source. It's not about bias, it's about science. The New York Times is no better for the purpose, nor is any non-scientific source. You'll notice that ronya mentioned how plenty of folk from either side might offer valid or not opinions on stuff but that doesn't give any credit.
60 minutes is probably quality journalism*. It's still journalism. It's not an actual source nor does it try to be. What is required in an argument is actual scientific sources, or at least clear summaries of them. You need to argue for something yourself, not give us someone elses argument.
*I don't actually know anything about it. But given the sorry fucking state of science journalism in general I'm really doubtful that it is actually quality journalism in this particular field. But my rantings against that shit should probably go into another thread.
There's a link to some of the videos that list the citations, and that 60 minutes independently verified their data. It hasn't been rebuked, and resulted in an immediate bill (that Obama asked for in the State of the Union after it aired) to add some regulations to Congress inside trading.
His new book is about the 'honest graft' that both sides can engage in. I've studied the history of honest graft a fair bit, and love to discuss American History (political in particular), which was one of the main reasons I first started actively participating in this particular sub forum as I felt we could have open, friendly debates. If this debate had an easy answer, it wouldn't be worth talking about in my opinion. I was literally taking a break from the forums to try and get more real life stuff handled (I've just recently had a HUGE amount of shit come across my plate I gotta deal with, which is the main reason for the half ass nature of the OP and my less than academic paper worthy prose), but I respect @ronya a great deal, as I've mentioned to him in PM. I just think he fears the greed of private individuals, and believes that government is infallible, which is why I keep asking what limits he would put on government, and what his ideal government in the utopian society would be.
MadCaddy on
0
Options
The Razor's EdgeSimple, but effectiveAin't nothing fancyRegistered Userregular
How is asking someone that if they could plan the world from the ground up to be perfect, what would they do a trap?
The question is asinine. A perfect world would have neither a government nor an economy; everyone would have everything they ever needed and there would be nothing for a government to protect them from and we would all be compassionate, intelligent, wise sages who wouldn't need anyone to tell us what to do.
+7
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
as I still haven't heard you make one hard rule for the government.
Because we're not particularly interested in what a government should want, but rather in what a government should do to achieve what it wants. The issue with libertarian/chicago style economics is not that what it wants from the world is wrong, it is that what they advocate does not achieve their own stated goals.
You're asking a moral question (what should be) in a debate about the reality of the world. Why should he answer it as a condition for you to engage in the actual debate? Surely one's beliefs should not be a topic in a scientific issue?
This thread is like watching the 3rd string rookie QB, behind a sieve O-line go against the best defense in football.
Lots of scrambling, lots of flailing about, you really can't even really tell what play the offense was trying to run half the time, but the defense must be understanding it. Cause they have like 5 INTs 7 forced fumbles and 12 sacks at this points. If I had Ronya in the Fantasy Forum League, I'd have had like a 500 point week.
as I still haven't heard you make one hard rule for the government.
Because we're not particularly interested in what a government should want, but rather in what a government should do to achieve what it wants. The issue with libertarian/chicago style economics is not that what it wants from the world is wrong, it is that what they advocate does not achieve their own stated goals.
You're asking a moral question (what should be) in a debate about the reality of the world. Why should he answer it as a condition for you to engage in the actual debate? Surely one's beliefs should not be a topic in a scientific issue?
Unfortunately, when it comes to social sciences (as economics most certainly is.) a person's biases play a big role in their point of view, as both ronya and I freely acknowledge. It's obvious I come from a more private enterprise, and ronya is from one of the most totalitarian States in the world (And I think it oppresses the poor worse than the US, has unbelievable xenophobic labor laws to decrease foreign workers, and keep internal employment high. and I think there if you're rich enough, you can do anything style of conspicuous consumption/taxation model is extremely unfair a judicial philosophy. Although, I think their automobile system is extremely novel, especially for a city state where it can be so easily orchestrated.).
I just have thought out these things, and think in macro terms beyond governments, and more human nature, since the world is getting smaller, especially as far as micro finance, with sites like kiva, etc. and I feel that government's obstruction has extremely limited the potential growth areas of our global economy.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
as I still haven't heard you make one hard rule for the government.
Because we're not particularly interested in what a government should want, but rather in what a government should do to achieve what it wants. The issue with libertarian/chicago style economics is not that what it wants from the world is wrong, it is that what they advocate does not achieve their own stated goals.
You're asking a moral question (what should be) in a debate about the reality of the world. Why should he answer it as a condition for you to engage in the actual debate? Surely one's beliefs should not be a topic in a scientific issue?
Unfortunately, when it comes to social sciences (as economics most certainly is.) a person's biases play a big role in their point of view, as both ronya and I freely acknowledge. It's obvious I come from a more private enterprise, and ronya is from one of the most totalitarian States in the world (And I think it oppresses the poor worse than the US, has unbelievable xenophobic labor laws to decrease foreign workers, and keep internal employment high. and I think there if you're rich enough, you can do anything style of conspicuous consumption/taxation model is extremely unfair a judicial philosophy. Although, I think their automobile system is extremely novel, especially for a city state where it can be so easily orchestrated.).
I just have thought out these things, and think in macro terms beyond governments, and more human nature, since the world is getting smaller, especially as far as micro finance, with sites like kiva, etc. and I feel that government's obstruction has extremely limited the potential growth areas of our global economy.
Which is why talking about beliefs will just influence the rest of the conversation. And it shouldn't. Because if you're just talking economics itself then everyone involved and reading can judge the proof put forth and the arguments on their own merits. Shit like that needs to stand on it's own.
Which is why you and everyone else needs to cite actual academic sources and put forth solid reasoning, by the way. It's not a matter of journalists being biased one way or the other, it's that you can't know if they are or if you are or if I am. Science, even social science, works because everything scientists do is supposed to be represented in their work. You can judge the conclusions drawn, the quality of research and everything else while the actual persons doing the stuff are irrelevant.
If you feel that governments have limited the growth of the economy it should be scientifically testable. You don't need to know what ronya or anyone else believes because it should be completely irrelevant.
as I still haven't heard you make one hard rule for the government.
Because we're not particularly interested in what a government should want, but rather in what a government should do to achieve what it wants. The issue with libertarian/chicago style economics is not that what it wants from the world is wrong, it is that what they advocate does not achieve their own stated goals.
You're asking a moral question (what should be) in a debate about the reality of the world. Why should he answer it as a condition for you to engage in the actual debate? Surely one's beliefs should not be a topic in a scientific issue?
Unfortunately, when it comes to social sciences (as economics most certainly is.) a person's biases play a big role in their point of view, as both ronya and I freely acknowledge. It's obvious I come from a more private enterprise, and ronya is from one of the most totalitarian States in the world (And I think it oppresses the poor worse than the US, has unbelievable xenophobic labor laws to decrease foreign workers, and keep internal employment high. and I think there if you're rich enough, you can do anything style of conspicuous consumption/taxation model is extremely unfair a judicial philosophy. Although, I think their automobile system is extremely novel, especially for a city state where it can be so easily orchestrated.).
I just have thought out these things, and think in macro terms beyond governments, and more human nature, since the world is getting smaller, especially as far as micro finance, with sites like kiva, etc. and I feel that government's obstruction has extremely limited the potential growth areas of our global economy.
Which is why talking about beliefs will just influence the rest of the conversation. And it shouldn't. Because if you're just talking economics itself then everyone involved and reading can judge the proof put forth and the arguments on their own merits. Shit like that needs to stand on it's own.
Which is why you and everyone else needs to cite actual academic sources and put forth solid reasoning, by the way. It's not a matter of journalists being biased one way or the other, it's that you can't know if they are or if you are or if I am. Science, even social science, works because everything scientists do is supposed to be represented in their work. You can judge the conclusions drawn, the quality of research and everything else while the actual persons doing the stuff are irrelevant.
If you feel that governments have limited the growth of the economy it should be scientifically testable. You don't need to know what ronya or anyone else believes because it should be completely irrelevant.
I mean, with this logic projections wouldn't be an allowable form of data, and therefore our policy would always be addressing the past. Economics isn't apolitical, why there's the debate that there is surrounding it. I don't know what sort of papers you're expecting, but Economists don't even all agree on the cause of the Great Depression, and look at the finger pointing that has occurred during the Great Recession. I didn't start this thread to find the answer to this question empirically; I started it to open a dialogue, and to be pointed to different schools of thought that I could study that forumers I respect put forward, preferably more modern work, as I feel every economy has changed a great deal with the widespread introduction of the internet.
As far as examples of honest graft in US politics, I don't know what sort of paper you'd like if citing convictions, Tammany Hall, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, Jack Abramhoff, Rod Blagoyevich, Enoch Johnson, and the politics of the day leading up to the civil war, and during reconstruction. Again, I don't have free access to the Throw Them All Out data digitally, but that book has all the necessary citations as far as the arguments it made, and I'm eagerly awaiting tonights episode of 60 minutes to examine the newer issue that originally inspired me to post again.
You guys need to learn that just because you disagree with someone over something, doesn't make them the enemy or worthy of accusing of credulousness, and berating one just further entrenches them to their position (which is something science has proven.). If you'd like a scientific work that has influenced me a great deal, I'll say it again, Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman has had the most impact on my personal political philosophy, just due to the revelations of human nature that I feel true.
Again, I respect most of the people who've engaged with real discussion a great deal, and have nothing but respect for @ronya in particular.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
why does this thread read like @ronya is writing the op's econ mid-term for him?
as I still haven't heard you make one hard rule for the government.
Because we're not particularly interested in what a government should want, but rather in what a government should do to achieve what it wants. The issue with libertarian/chicago style economics is not that what it wants from the world is wrong, it is that what they advocate does not achieve their own stated goals.
You're asking a moral question (what should be) in a debate about the reality of the world. Why should he answer it as a condition for you to engage in the actual debate? Surely one's beliefs should not be a topic in a scientific issue?
Unfortunately, when it comes to social sciences (as economics most certainly is.) a person's biases play a big role in their point of view, as both ronya and I freely acknowledge. It's obvious I come from a more private enterprise, and ronya is from one of the most totalitarian States in the world (And I think it oppresses the poor worse than the US, has unbelievable xenophobic labor laws to decrease foreign workers, and keep internal employment high. and I think there if you're rich enough, you can do anything style of conspicuous consumption/taxation model is extremely unfair a judicial philosophy. Although, I think their automobile system is extremely novel, especially for a city state where it can be so easily orchestrated.).
I just have thought out these things, and think in macro terms beyond governments, and more human nature, since the world is getting smaller, especially as far as micro finance, with sites like kiva, etc. and I feel that government's obstruction has extremely limited the potential growth areas of our global economy.
This is what an argument ad hominem actually looks like!
You can see here it's different from when you just call someone dumb.
It's when you actually have the potent mixture of balls and ignorance to think bringing up the country someone's from makes for good debate.
I can't help but notice that rather than actually debunk Ronya's facts you instead chose to ignore them.
I said I'd have to review what he presented to formulate an opinion on what he's countering that I've presented. His material is much more dated than that which I gave, and he's providing entry level citations. As he's mentioned, the Summers paper is what made Summers Summers.
Now, as far as where does capital come from, and what constitutes a currency, there's two types of money, private money, which is extremely volatile and is tied to a particular entity, or public money, which is defined as any form of currency you can pay your taxes with. My assertions about crypto-currency's is that there are a lot of features to the technology which make its use in public money extremely compelling. I've cited every article that has had a significant impact on my way of thought. I did cite some Hayek, but that was to defend my statement of being in favor of a demand side economy with a libertarian philosophy that was called impossible, and I wanted to show that the founder of the modern ideology was in favor for that very thing (not the demand side economy, but the guaranteed welfare state. My idea is more modern, and has to do with reforming all entitlements, budgeting for every citizen as if they were a prisoner, and using that as incentives to not be one, etc.).
Now, I can appreciate how complex this subject is, as it's macro, and haven't wanted to write out what would essentially be a manifesto when I'm not that compelled by this stuff. I'm just looking for more food for thought, and haven't gotten anything modern that's compelling (except Krugman and Summers, which I already read.)
it's true, these are entry-level citations. I'm sorry, but I'm providing them because I think you need to read the entry-level literature.
let me analogize what is going on: you are telling me you want to study, say, general relativity. And so I say: great, here is MTW's 1973 Gravitation, it's a common graduate text. And you object: these are outdated entry-level citations, I've already watched the 2011 PBS film adaptation of The Elegant Universe and Fabric of the Cosmos.
to which I say: I have no words, I have no idea how to even explain to you what you have done wrong
the idea of a social planner budgeting for every citizen 'as if they were a prisoner' dates to the neoclassicals; it is not modern. The key thinkers are Walras and Wicksell and Pareto; they were writing in the 1870s to 1900s. The individual choice problem had been solved by marginalism, but the great problem, then, was that mathematical tools were simply not good enough to grapple with the problem of aggregating individual choices into a theory of market and whole-economy behaviour; Walras settled for handwaving a lot. It took until the introduction of fixed-point theorems to economics in the 1960s for the framework to become rigorously solvable.
if you are interested, the intellectual history is here and it's actually quite interesting. It is complex enough that I will wait your specific questions on it to elaborate. the answer to "the titans of the American neoclassical programme, Samuelson and the Cowles Commission researchers, were nearly all socialists - where is their impact on policymaking today?" is "we already write policy as if we can neoclassically influence every citizen's budget. That's why we talk about Externalities, Incentives, and Social Welfare, and so forth."
in any case, what I would like to emphasize is that the great neoclassical socialists were already 'budgeting for every citizen'. If you think this is 'modern', it is because a charlatan has taken an EC10 textbook and sold its contents to you as New and Innovative Secrets, Yours for Only $19.99.
I will give you that one of the primary differences in our philosophy is that, outside of usury laws, I feel the government shouldn't control the interest rate, and effectively can't without a totalitarian state due to shadow banking. I'm trying to understand what your ideal economic model begins with, and you've just been telling me I'm wrong and citing dated material as retorts to my arguments, and not making any of your positions known.
What is it that you think "totalitarian state" means?
That an individual has no choice unless the government approves it, or the government constitutes 100% of the labor force, or Big Brother. There's several different types, I'm just trying to find when it crosses the line for someone who is a liberal and believes the government needs MORE control and power, as that is the fundamental difference that I have with most on the forums. I think the US would be better, and more able to be ready to compete in the forthcoming global economy, and post US Hegemony. I feel one of the best ways to ensure this is to loosen the reins on the states, to have the Federal government be most concerned with citizen welfare, guaranteed rights, and interstate/international commerce. I had a conversation about nullification in the fixing the broken US governance, and I feel that that is a perfect example of the federal government intervening. I feel since reconstuction, the federal government has grown less representative of the people, and more and more powerful, and more 'gamed/machined'.
I don't believe the political machines of the turn of the 20th century died; they just became more of the 'honest graft' sort. If you'd like a good example of this, again, review the 60 minutes video talking about Pelosi's insider trading on Visa (the original data is public records, and if you don't trust 60 minutes on accurate public records, I don't know what else to say. The STOCK Act that was mentioned up thread was also an immediate reply to it, but also has loopholes still.), Blagoyevich or the Pennsylvania Turnpike scandal and Ed Rendell's state politics.
why would you want to loosen the reins on the states, prior to Reconstruction and incorporation of the amendments against the states, states did enforce all sorts of irregularities like religious tests for public office, prohibitions on free media, ex post facto laws, etc.
I will give you that one of the primary differences in our philosophy is that, outside of usury laws, I feel the government shouldn't control the interest rate, and effectively can't without a totalitarian state due to shadow banking. I'm trying to understand what your ideal economic model begins with, and you've just been telling me I'm wrong and citing dated material as retorts to my arguments, and not making any of your positions known.
What is it that you think "totalitarian state" means?
That an individual has no choice unless the government approves it, or the government constitutes 100% of the labor force, or Big Brother. There's several different types, I'm just trying to find when it crosses the line for someone who is a liberal and believes the government needs MORE control and power, as that is the fundamental difference that I have with most on the forums. I think the US would be better, and more able to be ready to compete in the forthcoming global economy, and post US Hegemony. I feel one of the best ways to ensure this is to loosen the reins on the states, to have the Federal government be most concerned with citizen welfare, guaranteed rights, and interstate/international commerce. I had a conversation about nullification in the fixing the broken US governance, and I feel that that is a perfect example of the federal government intervening. I feel since reconstuction, the federal government has grown less representative of the people, and more and more powerful, and more 'gamed/machined'.
I don't believe the political machines of the turn of the 20th century died; they just became more of the 'honest graft' sort. If you'd like a good example of this, again, review the 60 minutes video talking about Pelosi's insider trading on Visa (the original data is public records, and if you don't trust 60 minutes on accurate public records, I don't know what else to say. The STOCK Act that was mentioned up thread was also an immediate reply to it, but also has loopholes still.), Blagoyevich or the Pennsylvania Turnpike scandal and Ed Rendell's state politics.
why would you want to loosen the reins on the states, prior to Reconstruction and incorporation of the amendments against the states, states did enforce all sorts of irregularities like religious tests for public office, prohibitions on free media, ex post facto laws, etc.
I'm reading and working on a reply to your statements, but I'm not sure how as an economist, you can compare economics to physics. You say that economists have budgeted for every citizen (in the US) as if they were a prisoner since the turn if the previous century, where did you get this information?
The reason I call my side modern isn't because of some charlatan, I can think for myself. I just don't believe government is magic, and am desperate to hear an example when you feel a government has overstepped its role.
Also, comparing physics to economics is so laughable, I don't even know what to say to that. Do you think the standard model needs no adjustments to be comprehensive, and that supersymmetry is still the front runner after we've found the Higgs?
Oops, quoted the wrong post, and all those things you've mentioned the states curbed during reconstruction are protections guaranteed under the federal constitution, I'm not aware where I said to do away with the bill of rights.
I'm saying in the modern age, with modern communication and transport, as well as social norms, the states being the laboratories of democracy would make the USA much more competitive in the global economy.
I'm reading and working on a reply to your statements, but I'm not sure how as an economist, you can compare economics to physics. You say that economists have budgeted for every citizen (in the US) as if they were a prisoner since the turn if the previous century, where did you get this information?
The reason I call my side modern isn't because of some charlatan, I can think for myself. I just don't believe government is magic, and am desperate to hear an example when you feel a government has overstepped its role.
Also, comparing physics to economics is so laughable, I don't even know what to say to that. Do you think the standard model needs no adjustments to be comprehensive, and that supersymmetry is still the front runner after we've found the Higgs?
I did not say this
I said it was not a modern idea
Complete modelling was attempted but did not get very far. It is still the case that many agencies today still use some variant of input-output planning, however. Updates to use more recent econometric tools are actually quite young, as recently as the 1990s and 2000s.
I will continue to refuse to describe any ideal government or its theoretical bounds, of course. I think it is reasonable to say that it is your duty to defend your model here, not me to defend a model I haven't even put forth. Putting any such model forward would just be a distraction from the topic.
as for entry-level physics, I see that you indeed do not understand where you have gone wrong. As I stated:
let me analogize what is going on: you are telling me you want to study, say, general relativity. And so I say: great, here is MTW's 1973 Gravitation, it's a common graduate text. And you object: these are outdated entry-level citations, I've already watched the 2011 PBS film adaptation of The Elegant Universe and Fabric of the Cosmos.
to which I say: I have no words, I have no idea how to even explain to you what you have done wrong
Regrettably, I continue to be at a loss. Anyone else care to try?
I'm reading and working on a reply to your statements, but I'm not sure how as an economist, you can compare economics to physics. You say that economists have budgeted for every citizen (in the US) as if they were a prisoner since the turn if the previous century, where did you get this information?
The reason I call my side modern isn't because of some charlatan, I can think for myself. I just don't believe government is magic, and am desperate to hear an example when you feel a government has overstepped its role.
Also, comparing physics to economics is so laughable, I don't even know what to say to that. Do you think the standard model needs no adjustments to be comprehensive, and that supersymmetry is still the front runner after we've found the Higgs?
I did not say this
I said it was not a modern idea
Complete modelling was attempted but did not get very far. It is still the case that many agencies today still use some variant of input-output planning, however. Updates to use more recent econometric tools are actually quite young, as recently as the 1990s and 2000s.
I will continue to refuse to describe any ideal government or its theoretical bounds, of course. I think it is reasonable to say that it is your duty to defend your model here, not me to defend a model I haven't even put forth. Putting any such model forward would just be a distraction from the topic.
as for entry-level physics, I see that you indeed do not understand where you have gone wrong. As I stated:
let me analogize what is going on: you are telling me you want to study, say, general relativity. And so I say: great, here is MTW's 1973 Gravitation, it's a common graduate text. And you object: these are outdated entry-level citations, I've already watched the 2011 PBS film adaptation of The Elegant Universe and Fabric of the Cosmos.
to which I say: I have no words, I have no idea how to even explain to you what you have done wrong
Regrettably, I continue to be at a loss. Anyone else care to try?
I don't understand how asking for one limit you'd place on government is asking you to model your ideology.
I don't understand how asking for one limit you'd place on government is asking you to model your ideology.
alright, we'll play this game. Here's one limit: I believe the government should not require me to eat cheeseburgers for dinner (sorry, @surrealitycheck).
I'm reading your Leontief-BLS paper, and have a few questions. I'd like to quote from the paper itself, but it's a pdf so I can't c/p, but just the last two paragraphs of the conclusion are most important. They admit in it that their tools of measurement were flawed, and needed set values ("an apt set of basic definitions") to be able to complete a comprehensive model. Why do you feel they felt this way, and do you agree with the conclusion?
I don't understand how asking for one limit you'd place on government is asking you to model your ideology.
alright, we'll play this game. Here's one limit: I believe the government should not require me to eat cheeseburgers for dinner (sorry, "surrealitycheck").
now what
But what if it prices cheeseburgers so that they're the only viable food for you to consume due to your effective taxation rate on other non-ground beef forms of sustenance, and/or lack of choice through sponsored monopolies within the food industry? How many options beyond cheeseburgers (of roughly equivalent nutritional value) does the government owe you for you to feel it's fair?
I don't understand how asking for one limit you'd place on government is asking you to model your ideology.
alright, we'll play this game. Here's one limit: I believe the government should not require me to eat cheeseburgers for dinner (sorry, "surrealitycheck").
now what
But what if it prices cheeseburgers so that they're the only viable food for you to consume due to your effective taxation rate on other non-ground beef forms of sustenance, and/or lack of choice through sponsored monopolies within the food industry? How many options beyond cheeseburgers (of roughly equivalent nutritional value) does the government owe you for you to feel it's fair?
why would it matter what it prices cheeseburgers at
I'm reading your Leontief-BLS paper, and have a few questions. I'd like to quote from the paper itself, but it's a pdf so I can't c/p, but just the last two paragraphs of the conclusion are most important. They admit in it that their tools of measurement were flawed, and needed set values ("an apt set of basic definitions") to be able to complete a comprehensive model. Why do you feel they felt this way, and do you agree with the conclusion?
because the Langean programming project failed, and the capitalist welfare state found its teeth in the theory of neighbourhood effects, not in the planning committee
you will have to find a Gosplan strawman elsewhere, I'm afraid, because I am hardly going to defend centralized planning
0
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
I don't understand how asking for one limit you'd place on government is asking you to model your ideology.
alright, we'll play this game. Here's one limit: I believe the government should not require me to eat cheeseburgers for dinner (sorry, "surrealitycheck").
now what
But what if it prices cheeseburgers so that they're the only viable food for you to consume due to your effective taxation rate on other non-ground beef forms of sustenance, and/or lack of choice through sponsored monopolies within the food industry? How many options beyond cheeseburgers (of roughly equivalent nutritional value) does the government owe you for you to feel it's fair?
This is stupid.
I thought about elaborating about how monopolies are not a government invention but it seems more succinct to just say this is stupid.
Because it is.
I don't understand how asking for one limit you'd place on government is asking you to model your ideology.
alright, we'll play this game. Here's one limit: I believe the government should not require me to eat cheeseburgers for dinner (sorry, "surrealitycheck").
now what
But what if it prices cheeseburgers so that they're the only viable food for you to consume due to your effective taxation rate on other non-ground beef forms of sustenance, and/or lack of choice through sponsored monopolies within the food industry? How many options beyond cheeseburgers (of roughly equivalent nutritional value) does the government owe you for you to feel it's fair?
why would it matter what it prices cheeseburgers at
qua my limits, it doesn't require me to eat them
If it controls the entire economy with no limits, even if it does have a rule that they can't force you to eat cheeseburgers, it can make it so you have no alternative but eat cheeseburgers or starve from malnutrition, die from a heart attack/cholesterol or have to grow your own crops. You're comfortable with that level of social engineering within government?
I don't understand how asking for one limit you'd place on government is asking you to model your ideology.
alright, we'll play this game. Here's one limit: I believe the government should not require me to eat cheeseburgers for dinner (sorry, "surrealitycheck").
now what
But what if it prices cheeseburgers so that they're the only viable food for you to consume due to your effective taxation rate on other non-ground beef forms of sustenance, and/or lack of choice through sponsored monopolies within the food industry? How many options beyond cheeseburgers (of roughly equivalent nutritional value) does the government owe you for you to feel it's fair?
why would it matter what it prices cheeseburgers at
qua my limits, it doesn't require me to eat them
If it controls the entire economy with no limits, even if it does have a rule that they can't force you to eat cheeseburgers, it can make it so you have no alternative but eat cheeseburgers or starve from malnutrition, die from a heart attack/cholesterol or have to grow your own crops. You're comfortable with that level of social engineering within government?
well that was fast! In two posts we are back to this.
Sadly I refuse to define any ideal model of government or its theoretical bounds, save that single point about cheezburger, so I guess you will have to ask another question instead
Also, another question, what is your stance on the poverty index? How do you feel the minimum wage has influenced it, and whom do you draw your primary thought on it from? This ie one of the areas I have mixed feelings about, and why I'd prefer to see just state minimum welfare guarantees and tax the corporations to pay for those, rather than regulation. As well as having extremely heavy torts on malfeasance, and fines/sanctions for worker abuse.
I'm not anti-Union except for Government employees, BTW. I just feel they're obstructionist and are a big cause for our entitlement gridlock we're currently in. I also think our corporate welfare is the biggest atrocity of the modern era. The bailout of AIG is one of those stories I'm gonna definitely be waiting for the tell all memoir of in 10-20 years, as I don't understand how they could have leveraged themselves so heavily, and had so much exposure with the regulations that were in place.
you're looking for a poster willing to play the part of the strawman that the populist-conservative podcasts you listen to like to thump, and I'm afraid that I, for one, am not going to volunteer
I don't understand how asking for one limit you'd place on government is asking you to model your ideology.
alright, we'll play this game. Here's one limit: I believe the government should not require me to eat cheeseburgers for dinner (sorry, "surrealitycheck").
now what
But what if it prices cheeseburgers so that they're the only viable food for you to consume due to your effective taxation rate on other non-ground beef forms of sustenance, and/or lack of choice through sponsored monopolies within the food industry? How many options beyond cheeseburgers (of roughly equivalent nutritional value) does the government owe you for you to feel it's fair?
why would it matter what it prices cheeseburgers at
qua my limits, it doesn't require me to eat them
If it controls the entire economy with no limits, even if it does have a rule that they can't force you to eat cheeseburgers, it can make it so you have no alternative but eat cheeseburgers or starve from malnutrition, die from a heart attack/cholesterol or have to grow your own crops. You're comfortable with that level of social engineering within government?
well that was fast! In two posts we are back to this.
Sadly I refuse to define any ideal model of government or its theoretical bounds, save that single point about cheezburger, so I guess you will have to ask another question instead
Back to this? I asked a direct question, with very specific caveats. I don't understand why you dodge these questions. Your entire argument thus far has been I'm too stupid to understand the complex world of macro because I spend my time interacting with markets instead of studying other people's work on macrotheory. I've asked questions I think relevant, and I am willing to have this conversation in whatever way you deem most appropriate for it to be constructive and have us express our differing views.
What is your opinion of the 60 minutes piece on honest graft from last night?
I don't understand how asking for one limit you'd place on government is asking you to model your ideology.
alright, we'll play this game. Here's one limit: I believe the government should not require me to eat cheeseburgers for dinner (sorry, "surrealitycheck").
now what
But what if it prices cheeseburgers so that they're the only viable food for you to consume due to your effective taxation rate on other non-ground beef forms of sustenance, and/or lack of choice through sponsored monopolies within the food industry? How many options beyond cheeseburgers (of roughly equivalent nutritional value) does the government owe you for you to feel it's fair?
why would it matter what it prices cheeseburgers at
qua my limits, it doesn't require me to eat them
If it controls the entire economy with no limits, even if it does have a rule that they can't force you to eat cheeseburgers, it can make it so you have no alternative but eat cheeseburgers or starve from malnutrition, die from a heart attack/cholesterol or have to grow your own crops. You're comfortable with that level of social engineering within government?
well that was fast! In two posts we are back to this.
Sadly I refuse to define any ideal model of government or its theoretical bounds, save that single point about cheezburger, so I guess you will have to ask another question instead
Back to this? I asked a direct question, with very specific caveats. I don't understand why you dodge these questions. Your entire argument thus far has been I'm too stupid to understand the complex world of macro because I spend my time interacting with markets instead of studying other people's work on macrotheory. I've asked questions I think relevant, and I am willing to have this conversation in whatever way you deem most appropriate for it to be constructive and have us express our differing views.
What is your opinion of the 60 minutes piece on honest graft from last night?
Posts
That and 60 minutes pieces aren't sources. That is not to say they are bad or whatever, but you can't cite such a thing in a paper. The sources we want, MadCaddy, are the sources they use. The original stuff. Because that's stuff we can read and judge for itself, rather than having to look up the information elsewhere to confirm.
If you are citing sources it's not good enough to link to people who are citing those sources. (also I can't be bothered to watch videos.)
What is MadCaddy even arguing?
I don't even know. I am enjoying the back and forth though.
What is it that you think "totalitarian state" means?
So, you're saying 60 minutes isn't quality journalism? How do you feel they're biased? What about the New York Times?
So, whose estimates do you agree with wrt the size of the Shadow Economy? And again, I'd like to know your utopian ideals, as I still haven't heard you make one hard rule for the government.
I'd focus more on extracting information about how to make the current system better. Maybe cherrypicking ideas from all sides in order to develop a more hardy position.
I'll admit that I'm merely a student of financial and economic systems but I can sniff out unending debates pretty quickly, which this was one from the OP. I'll second the motion for putting up one of the many previous iterations of this thread as a sticky for all to learn from.
Journalism isn't an academic source. It's not about bias, it's about science. The New York Times is no better for the purpose, nor is any non-scientific source. You'll notice that ronya mentioned how plenty of folk from either side might offer valid or not opinions on stuff but that doesn't give any credit.
60 minutes is probably quality journalism*. It's still journalism. It's not an actual source nor does it try to be. What is required in an argument is actual scientific sources, or at least clear summaries of them. You need to argue for something yourself, not give us someone elses argument.
*I don't actually know anything about it. But given the sorry fucking state of science journalism in general I'm really doubtful that it is actually quality journalism in this particular field. But my rantings against that shit should probably go into another thread.
That an individual has no choice unless the government approves it, or the government constitutes 100% of the labor force, or Big Brother. There's several different types, I'm just trying to find when it crosses the line for someone who is a liberal and believes the government needs MORE control and power, as that is the fundamental difference that I have with most on the forums. I think the US would be better, and more able to be ready to compete in the forthcoming global economy, and post US Hegemony. I feel one of the best ways to ensure this is to loosen the reins on the states, to have the Federal government be most concerned with citizen welfare, guaranteed rights, and interstate/international commerce. I had a conversation about nullification in the fixing the broken US governance, and I feel that that is a perfect example of the federal government intervening. I feel since reconstuction, the federal government has grown less representative of the people, and more and more powerful, and more 'gamed/machined'.
I don't believe the political machines of the turn of the 20th century died; they just became more of the 'honest graft' sort. If you'd like a good example of this, again, review the 60 minutes video talking about Pelosi's insider trading on Visa (the original data is public records, and if you don't trust 60 minutes on accurate public records, I don't know what else to say. The STOCK Act that was mentioned up thread was also an immediate reply to it, but also has loopholes still.), Blagoyevich or the Pennsylvania Turnpike scandal and Ed Rendell's state politics.
How is asking someone that if they could plan the world from the ground up to be perfect, what would they do a trap? Since he's the revered macro expert around here, I would figure he would have an ideal macro policy, and I'd like to know his stance. How much more influence does the IMF need? Are the revised special drawing rights President Xi's government proposed needed in his view internationally? How does he think the US can best prepare itself for the economy of the future?
I have answers to all these questions/ I'm just being told I'm wrong, and having my direct tough questions dodged, and then feinting another attack because of the consensus within these forums. It's obvious that Gourim hasn't clicked on a single one of the outside links before his original posts, and just is attacking this thread due to ideology.
I want to know when a liberal feels the government has overstepped it's authority. or has become too big.
http://peterschweizer.com/wordpress/blog/
There's a link to some of the videos that list the citations, and that 60 minutes independently verified their data. It hasn't been rebuked, and resulted in an immediate bill (that Obama asked for in the State of the Union after it aired) to add some regulations to Congress inside trading.
His new book is about the 'honest graft' that both sides can engage in. I've studied the history of honest graft a fair bit, and love to discuss American History (political in particular), which was one of the main reasons I first started actively participating in this particular sub forum as I felt we could have open, friendly debates. If this debate had an easy answer, it wouldn't be worth talking about in my opinion. I was literally taking a break from the forums to try and get more real life stuff handled (I've just recently had a HUGE amount of shit come across my plate I gotta deal with, which is the main reason for the half ass nature of the OP and my less than academic paper worthy prose), but I respect @ronya a great deal, as I've mentioned to him in PM. I just think he fears the greed of private individuals, and believes that government is infallible, which is why I keep asking what limits he would put on government, and what his ideal government in the utopian society would be.
The question is asinine. A perfect world would have neither a government nor an economy; everyone would have everything they ever needed and there would be nothing for a government to protect them from and we would all be compassionate, intelligent, wise sages who wouldn't need anyone to tell us what to do.
Because we're not particularly interested in what a government should want, but rather in what a government should do to achieve what it wants. The issue with libertarian/chicago style economics is not that what it wants from the world is wrong, it is that what they advocate does not achieve their own stated goals.
You're asking a moral question (what should be) in a debate about the reality of the world. Why should he answer it as a condition for you to engage in the actual debate? Surely one's beliefs should not be a topic in a scientific issue?
This thread is like watching the 3rd string rookie QB, behind a sieve O-line go against the best defense in football.
Lots of scrambling, lots of flailing about, you really can't even really tell what play the offense was trying to run half the time, but the defense must be understanding it. Cause they have like 5 INTs 7 forced fumbles and 12 sacks at this points. If I had Ronya in the Fantasy Forum League, I'd have had like a 500 point week.
Unfortunately, when it comes to social sciences (as economics most certainly is.) a person's biases play a big role in their point of view, as both ronya and I freely acknowledge. It's obvious I come from a more private enterprise, and ronya is from one of the most totalitarian States in the world (And I think it oppresses the poor worse than the US, has unbelievable xenophobic labor laws to decrease foreign workers, and keep internal employment high. and I think there if you're rich enough, you can do anything style of conspicuous consumption/taxation model is extremely unfair a judicial philosophy. Although, I think their automobile system is extremely novel, especially for a city state where it can be so easily orchestrated.).
I just have thought out these things, and think in macro terms beyond governments, and more human nature, since the world is getting smaller, especially as far as micro finance, with sites like kiva, etc. and I feel that government's obstruction has extremely limited the potential growth areas of our global economy.
Which is why talking about beliefs will just influence the rest of the conversation. And it shouldn't. Because if you're just talking economics itself then everyone involved and reading can judge the proof put forth and the arguments on their own merits. Shit like that needs to stand on it's own.
Which is why you and everyone else needs to cite actual academic sources and put forth solid reasoning, by the way. It's not a matter of journalists being biased one way or the other, it's that you can't know if they are or if you are or if I am. Science, even social science, works because everything scientists do is supposed to be represented in their work. You can judge the conclusions drawn, the quality of research and everything else while the actual persons doing the stuff are irrelevant.
If you feel that governments have limited the growth of the economy it should be scientifically testable. You don't need to know what ronya or anyone else believes because it should be completely irrelevant.
I mean, with this logic projections wouldn't be an allowable form of data, and therefore our policy would always be addressing the past. Economics isn't apolitical, why there's the debate that there is surrounding it. I don't know what sort of papers you're expecting, but Economists don't even all agree on the cause of the Great Depression, and look at the finger pointing that has occurred during the Great Recession. I didn't start this thread to find the answer to this question empirically; I started it to open a dialogue, and to be pointed to different schools of thought that I could study that forumers I respect put forward, preferably more modern work, as I feel every economy has changed a great deal with the widespread introduction of the internet.
As far as examples of honest graft in US politics, I don't know what sort of paper you'd like if citing convictions, Tammany Hall, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, Jack Abramhoff, Rod Blagoyevich, Enoch Johnson, and the politics of the day leading up to the civil war, and during reconstruction. Again, I don't have free access to the Throw Them All Out data digitally, but that book has all the necessary citations as far as the arguments it made, and I'm eagerly awaiting tonights episode of 60 minutes to examine the newer issue that originally inspired me to post again.
You guys need to learn that just because you disagree with someone over something, doesn't make them the enemy or worthy of accusing of credulousness, and berating one just further entrenches them to their position (which is something science has proven.). If you'd like a scientific work that has influenced me a great deal, I'll say it again, Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman has had the most impact on my personal political philosophy, just due to the revelations of human nature that I feel true.
Again, I respect most of the people who've engaged with real discussion a great deal, and have nothing but respect for @ronya in particular.
oh wait...
This is what an argument ad hominem actually looks like!
You can see here it's different from when you just call someone dumb.
It's when you actually have the potent mixture of balls and ignorance to think bringing up the country someone's from makes for good debate.
it's true, these are entry-level citations. I'm sorry, but I'm providing them because I think you need to read the entry-level literature.
let me analogize what is going on: you are telling me you want to study, say, general relativity. And so I say: great, here is MTW's 1973 Gravitation, it's a common graduate text. And you object: these are outdated entry-level citations, I've already watched the 2011 PBS film adaptation of The Elegant Universe and Fabric of the Cosmos.
to which I say: I have no words, I have no idea how to even explain to you what you have done wrong
the idea of a social planner budgeting for every citizen 'as if they were a prisoner' dates to the neoclassicals; it is not modern. The key thinkers are Walras and Wicksell and Pareto; they were writing in the 1870s to 1900s. The individual choice problem had been solved by marginalism, but the great problem, then, was that mathematical tools were simply not good enough to grapple with the problem of aggregating individual choices into a theory of market and whole-economy behaviour; Walras settled for handwaving a lot. It took until the introduction of fixed-point theorems to economics in the 1960s for the framework to become rigorously solvable.
if you are interested, the intellectual history is here and it's actually quite interesting. It is complex enough that I will wait your specific questions on it to elaborate. the answer to "the titans of the American neoclassical programme, Samuelson and the Cowles Commission researchers, were nearly all socialists - where is their impact on policymaking today?" is "we already write policy as if we can neoclassically influence every citizen's budget. That's why we talk about Externalities, Incentives, and Social Welfare, and so forth."
in any case, what I would like to emphasize is that the great neoclassical socialists were already 'budgeting for every citizen'. If you think this is 'modern', it is because a charlatan has taken an EC10 textbook and sold its contents to you as New and Innovative Secrets, Yours for Only $19.99.
why would you want to loosen the reins on the states, prior to Reconstruction and incorporation of the amendments against the states, states did enforce all sorts of irregularities like religious tests for public office, prohibitions on free media, ex post facto laws, etc.
I'm reading and working on a reply to your statements, but I'm not sure how as an economist, you can compare economics to physics. You say that economists have budgeted for every citizen (in the US) as if they were a prisoner since the turn if the previous century, where did you get this information?
The reason I call my side modern isn't because of some charlatan, I can think for myself. I just don't believe government is magic, and am desperate to hear an example when you feel a government has overstepped its role.
Also, comparing physics to economics is so laughable, I don't even know what to say to that. Do you think the standard model needs no adjustments to be comprehensive, and that supersymmetry is still the front runner after we've found the Higgs?
I'm saying in the modern age, with modern communication and transport, as well as social norms, the states being the laboratories of democracy would make the USA much more competitive in the global economy.
I did not say this
I said it was not a modern idea
Complete modelling was attempted but did not get very far. It is still the case that many agencies today still use some variant of input-output planning, however. Updates to use more recent econometric tools are actually quite young, as recently as the 1990s and 2000s.
I will continue to refuse to describe any ideal government or its theoretical bounds, of course. I think it is reasonable to say that it is your duty to defend your model here, not me to defend a model I haven't even put forth. Putting any such model forward would just be a distraction from the topic.
as for entry-level physics, I see that you indeed do not understand where you have gone wrong. As I stated:
Regrettably, I continue to be at a loss. Anyone else care to try?
I don't understand how asking for one limit you'd place on government is asking you to model your ideology.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50157523n
alright, we'll play this game. Here's one limit: I believe the government should not require me to eat cheeseburgers for dinner (sorry, @surrealitycheck).
now what
But what if it prices cheeseburgers so that they're the only viable food for you to consume due to your effective taxation rate on other non-ground beef forms of sustenance, and/or lack of choice through sponsored monopolies within the food industry? How many options beyond cheeseburgers (of roughly equivalent nutritional value) does the government owe you for you to feel it's fair?
why would it matter what it prices cheeseburgers at
qua my limits, it doesn't require me to eat them
because the Langean programming project failed, and the capitalist welfare state found its teeth in the theory of neighbourhood effects, not in the planning committee
you will have to find a Gosplan strawman elsewhere, I'm afraid, because I am hardly going to defend centralized planning
This is stupid.
I thought about elaborating about how monopolies are not a government invention but it seems more succinct to just say this is stupid.
Because it is.
If it controls the entire economy with no limits, even if it does have a rule that they can't force you to eat cheeseburgers, it can make it so you have no alternative but eat cheeseburgers or starve from malnutrition, die from a heart attack/cholesterol or have to grow your own crops. You're comfortable with that level of social engineering within government?
well that was fast! In two posts we are back to this.
Sadly I refuse to define any ideal model of government or its theoretical bounds, save that single point about cheezburger, so I guess you will have to ask another question instead
I'm not anti-Union except for Government employees, BTW. I just feel they're obstructionist and are a big cause for our entitlement gridlock we're currently in. I also think our corporate welfare is the biggest atrocity of the modern era. The bailout of AIG is one of those stories I'm gonna definitely be waiting for the tell all memoir of in 10-20 years, as I don't understand how they could have leveraged themselves so heavily, and had so much exposure with the regulations that were in place.
Back to this? I asked a direct question, with very specific caveats. I don't understand why you dodge these questions. Your entire argument thus far has been I'm too stupid to understand the complex world of macro because I spend my time interacting with markets instead of studying other people's work on macrotheory. I've asked questions I think relevant, and I am willing to have this conversation in whatever way you deem most appropriate for it to be constructive and have us express our differing views.
What is your opinion of the 60 minutes piece on honest graft from last night?
Have you stopped beating your wife?