I tend to believe what economists tell me.

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

We should clearly distinguish between economists describing how the machine is connected... versus economists predicting what path the machine will take ...

Also, as long as politicians control the central banks, the money supply and with it the economy will always be cynically manipulated for political gain. But few authors seem to make allowances for a realistic type and quantity of evil.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Although I entirely agree with the first paragraph, the second is silly. Unless one substitutes "human beings" for politicians.

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

Are you fucking kidding? Can you say, quantitative easing?

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

I can also precisely understand the cold stone solid rationale in a liquidity constrained environment under deep deflationary pressure, and with nominal interests rates at near zero.

So it's just a pure random coincidence that the government's actions resulted in fully bailing out the very corporations who caused the train wreck in the first place. The corporations who then used the money for speculation, takeovers, and bonuses while revving up a corrupt and fraudlent foreclosure industry. And oh gee golly gosh, we were in such a hurry about it that we sort of forgot to make notes about who we handed all those free billions to?!?? This was our only option? Uh huh.

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

The US decision to fully bail out the central banks by buying worthless securities at 100% face value was absolutely a political decision, it indisputably affected monetary policy, and there's no question it is having a strong effect on the economy.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

The above is entirely incoherent. Please try to restate in a fashion that makes some sense.

I will be happy to explain, you pin striped pom.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

In any case, if you refer to commercial bank rescues... (i) one must differentiate from US Treasury operations and Central Bank operations... (ii) the said securities are not worthless.

(i) Right. Let's see here... we got the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve. The two organizations who coordinated to impliment the Paulson bank bailout plan at the direction of their political masters. Thus transferring the biggest bad bet in history from the banks to the public. The same too big to fail banks who are now bigger than ever, and have expanded their opaque and unregulated CDO trade to at least several times all the money in the world. Thus becoming even more interlocked and too bigger to fail, while avoiding regulations and reforms through the use of political influence. On top of that, the Federal Reserve is currently buying nearly 60% of all new Treasury bills because the feds can't hustle them to anyone else fast enough. All so that their political masters can continue to rack up the national credit card. Yeah that's right, I said politics.

ii) OK I was exaggerating, they're not totally worthless. All those inscrutible mortgage traunches might at some point be worth some fraction of what we paid for them. We don't really know since they are nearly impossible to deconstruct, the underlying mortgage market is in rapid flux with a very uncertain outlook, and the 'mark to market' rule has been laid to rest, so they are impossible to accurately value. Which was the idea behind the whole stinking scam in the first place. But now it's our problem because of item (i) above.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

As for strong effect on the economy, well yes. One avoided a Great Depression part II.

That very much remains to be determined.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by Ganryu Kojiro

I respect the thought, but go too far down that road and you end up unable to take medicine or use technology.

Certainly not. I think like that and I am perfectly capable of using a computer or understanding the epigenetic proceses by which HIV hijacks a cell.

Fact is, I can't really track down and thoroughly research every facet of everything that might affect me. I'm qualified to evaluate things in my degree, but I'd be lost reading a medical journal, for example.

If you understand the topic well enough you don't have to trust an expert's opinion, you can tell if they are making sense.

Why would you be lost reading a medical journal? I can read a medical journal, and I am not a scientist. You can still evaluate the strength of a study if you have learned how to evaluate studies. Medical journals are not that difficult to read. How many people did they evaluate? Did the study rely upon subjective reporting? There is no reason that an educated adult could not evaluate studies in a medical journal. Certainly much of it will be beyond one's scope, but not all of it.

Now, I have the capacity to understand, just not enough time to invest in every topic. Everyone makes those trade-offs, so it seems that everyone has to take someones word on things. Regrettable, but inevitable.

Sure, but basic knowledge of a topic can help you separate the more obvious chaff much more quickly.

As for the mainstream being simply more popular, that's true. But there's no workaround. All I can do is be open to new information, being aware that the consensus changes.

True, I agree. It's kind of a Pascalian wager at a certain point.

[mswas]

I'd also like to point out that unlike economics, some aspects of medicine are directly observable and based off of a solider tradition of experimentation.

Nevertheless every year old medicine is replaced by new medicine. A drug that was rigorously tested, studied and peer reviewed, is a wonder drug one year and a class action recall the next. Medicine is probably the perfect counter-example to Economics as it has so much more resources devoted to the discipline than economics and it is much more rooted in directly observable phenomena. Nevertheless it revises mistakes all the time.

An economic theory on the other hand can take more than a century and hundreds of millions of deaths fought in thousands of little wars in hundreds of countries on half a dozen continents before people finally figure out that it's a bunch of hokum.

[Lounsbury]

For some boring reason the Board does not like to parse this message.

Anyway, if in trying to correct the board's zapping of parts of this I have fucked certain items up, advance apologies.

So it's just a pure random coincidence that the government's actions resulted in fully bailing out the very corporations who caused the train wreck in the first place.

Well, rather no. In fact rather the opposite of a coincidence, one typically engages in rescues of the firms that are actually in trouble, not random entities. That is rather how it works, which for those of us with actual technical and practical knowledge is not surprising. For the know-nothing lunatics and whankers, well perhaps more surprising.

Further, of cou

The corporations who then used the money for speculation, takeovers, and bonuses while revving up a corrupt and fraudlent foreclosure industry.

Your American pop news link pretty much tells me fuck all about real impact, but unless a bank nationalisation scheme included the very bad idea of direct government lending directions to specific firm, the real world - grown up adults - knows that money is fungible.

"Use the money for X, Y or Z"is a fairly worthless and political populistic posturing statement, that merely again undermines your supposed CB critique, which was the point of this (although it does highlight my original point about the primitive knowledge behind 'critiques').

There are 40 years of good data international history for proper financial sector specialists relative to the impact of banking crises, and roughly a century of reasonable financial history on them. There is not any about among non-partisans, non-demogogues that a financial sector collapse is a serious bloody disaster to be avoided for not only its short term but long term losses.

And oh gee golly gosh, we were in such a hurry about it that we sort of forgot to make notes about who we handed all those free billions to?!?? This was our only option? Uh huh.

As I was there and involved, yes pretty good option actually.

Naive, know-nothing second guessing from people unable to distinguish between first and second order effects and events can ramble on, however the lessons of Credit Anstalt and the wider lessons from subsequent history teach more effectively than populist hand waving.

(i) Right. Let's see here... we got the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve. The two organizations who coordinated to impliment the Paulson bank bailout plan at the direction of their political masters.

I personally prefer that entities coordinate than not. This of course says nothing about what I wrote.

Thus transferring the biggest bad bet in history from the banks to the public

.

Biggest? Well I guess provincial Americans would think so. But a banking sector collapse is by its nature a hit on the public. Save the banks or no, you take a hit. Your writing merely reflects financial economic illeteracy and ranting populism.

The only question, in a financial system collapse is HOW the public is going to bear the cost, the size of the bill and HOW LONG the pain will borne.

Transferring the cost to the public is in the end a meaningless statement in a collapse. One pays either via a public restructuring of the banks, or one pays via macro economic collapse. There is ample empirical and comparative evidence that while politically unpopular, the former is less costly than the later.

This entirely explains Bernanke's response, as well as Paulson, contra their politics.

That is not to say that every call they made was correct. But it is to say that their rational was not "politicians" but fundamental.

The same too big to fail banks who are now bigger than ever

So?

Adult systems - non-US have worked perfectly fine with large banks. With proper systems in place.

That says nothing in particular about this subject, although I again note your introduction of fundamentally political, populist - and non technical - critiques. This merely highlights the observation that your framing this as "control of politicians" is utter nonsense, it is merely "human beings are in control and surprise surprise decisions do not match 100% my political views."

On top of that, the Federal Reserve is currently buying nearly 60% of all new Treasury bills because the feds can't hustle them to anyone else fast enough.

Leaving aside I believe your figure is incorrect, US central bank buying is driven by a specific CB policy objective, NOT by an inability of US Treasury (a different entity, again) to place its money. There is no sign in the auctions that they have a current lack of buyers.

All so that their political masters can continue to rack up the national credit card.

No, they working the system to avoid a liquidity trap. That few people understand this is not surprising.

Yeah that's right, I said politics.

Yes you did. You also claimed a number of other ideologically driven things. Boring.

ii) OK I was exaggerating, they're not totally worthless. All those inscrutible mortgage traunches might at some point be worth some fraction of what we paid for them.

No, in fact the structured securities may very well, if held to maturity, be worth a rather large fraction. Terrible return for the original buyers, relative to their expectations of double digit returns, but not particularly terrible for a strategic buyer - as in probably net positive, even on a purely financial basis (as the Treasury program was re Fin Sec).

Unless of course one posits that housing in the USA is of zero future value or some such similar scenario.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

As for strong effect on the economy, well yes. One avoided a Great Depression part II.

That very much remains to be determined.[/QUOTE]

No, it doesn't. It is very clear to economically literate adults that this was achieved. I direct you to Wolf and Clive. However, that is not a guarantee on the future.

[Jaglavak]

Good show! I like you, Lounsie. I'm still going to disassemble your arguments and serve them up on a platter, of course. Right now I'm afraid I've got some chores to do, but I'll be back.

I will make one note; the banks were not nationalized. In fact they haven't been modified or muzzled in any significant way. They were quite simply gifted tens of billions of dollars, by buying toxic securities at full face value with no strings attached. Contrast this kid glove treatment to the way the auto makers were slapped around during their bailout.

[Anacanapuna]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

you are so very tender. I don't need credibility enhancement, this is a fucking little message board. The Gweeb is an amusement centre.

Then why waste your precious time and obviously gargantuan intellect? Or is this your very best Sauron impression?

You are a twit and everyone can see it.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by mswas

Certainly not. I think like that and I am perfectly capable of using a computer or understanding the epigenetic proceses by which HIV hijacks a cell.

I would much rather pay a medical doctor to tell me how to treat my HIV than spend time I could otherwise use enjoying life buried in Wikipedia until I discover antiretroviral drugs.

[Wolf Larsen]

Originally Posted by Anacanapuna

You are a twit and everyone can see it.

Actually, he knows more about the financial system than everyone else on the board put together.

[Anacanapuna]

Originally Posted by Wolf Larsen

Actually, he knows more about the financial system than everyone else on the board put together.

Probably so, but that doesn't give him an excuse to be an asshole about it. And by asshole, I mean the guy's posts are as offensive as a shit-smeared anus projected on a wide-screen TV. He can teach without being an asshole.

[Wolf Larsen]

Originally Posted by Anacanapuna

as offensive as a shit-smeared anus projected on a wide-screen TV

What's offensive about that? Around here we call that "Tuesday".

[Anacanapuna]

Yeah, yeah. But you know what I mean.

[Darmund]

Originally Posted by Anacanapuna

He can teach without being an asshole.

He could, but it wouldn't be nearly as entertaining.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

I would much rather pay a medical doctor to tell me how to treat my HIV than spend time I could otherwise use enjoying life buried in Wikipedia until I discover antiretroviral drugs.

You love to miss the point. (autocomplete input mises ironically)

The point is that as an educated person, you can judge which expert is full of shit and which is not. To the degree that you understand the topic.

I am not dismissing economics as a science. For instance, I understand how foreign aid to Haiti can make it difficult to build sustainable infrastructure. By supplying foreign resources for free they undercut the haitians who would like to charge for that service. They also often demand concessions from Haiti for the aid, like the reduction of import tariffs, which tend to benefit the creditor state more than Haiti. Then aid packages are made conditional, so Haiti can lose programs due to failing to behave a certain way politically that matches up with the benchmarks the donor stipulates. Or the fund that sustains a project may simply run out of money and the program runs out of money. Since the Earthquake, Port-au-Prince became the Republic of NGOs. If those NGOs left Haiti a massive revenue stream to the nation would dry up.

It is possible to know a bit about economics, but you shouldn't have to trust economists, for their information to be useful to you, you shiuld be able to verify some of it yourself, then you have the tools to verify that someone is making sense, and you can rationally evaluate what they say without resorting to a priori trust.

I trust economists to the degree I understand what that are saying.

[WednesdayAddams]

Jesus, I watch one basketball game....
[Moderating] 'Puna: I realize Lounsbury gets on your nerves, but at least he's staying on topic. I would thank you to do the same. If you feel the need to call attention to his many flaws, I would direct you to the Pit, where you can dwell fulsomely on each and every foible. [/mod]

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by mswas

The point is that as an educated person, you can judge which expert is full of shit and which is not. To the degree that you understand the topic.

Yeah and beyond the scope of my minor in economics, I don't intend to understand it any better. That being the case, I have to take it on faith that the basic principles I learned are confirmed later by advanced science. I'll gauran-damn-tee Marxism makes perfect sense to a freshman at the 101 level. The reason it isn't being taught is because it stops making sense at the graduate level.

I absolutely have to trust the professionals that neoclassical models work just as well on a Nobel laureate's computer as they do on my scribbled napkins.

[mswas]

Then with a minor in econ, you are armed to analyze it yourself and will learn it more deeply as you go along through life just by reading and understanding essays those of us without that education might tldr.

It is only useful in as much as it enables you to accurately model real phenomena.

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by WednesdayAddams

[Moderating]

Hmmm, that's going to cramp my style. Oh well, if it gets to be a problem just let me know I'll take it to the Pit. Or maybe the Box.

Originally Posted by Wolf Larsen

Actually, he knows more about the financial system than everyone else on the board put together.

Yeah, and it's still a crock. You don't have to be a master pipefitter to know a steaming pile of crap when you see one.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Well, rather no. In fact rather the opposite of a coincidence, one typically engages in rescues of the firms that are actually in trouble, not random entities. That is rather how it works, which for those of us with actual technical and practical knowledge is not surprising. For the know-nothing lunatics and whankers, well perhaps more surprising.

When one is engaging in the rescue of a company, the first thing one does is to change the actions that got said company into trouble. The responsible parties are dismissed, new management is installed with specific directions to revise the activities of the company, all that boring stuff.

That is, unless one is simply submissively handing money to one's politically influential masters as expected and required. In that case nothing is done to change the risky behavior, and the responsible parties instead receive multimillion dollar bonuses. Pop quiz; which path was chosen? Tsk, tsk. Do try to pay attention, Lounsie.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

"Use the money for X, Y or Z" is a fairly worthless and political populistic posturing statement, that merely again undermines your supposed CB critique, which was the point of this (although it does highlight my original point about the primitive knowledge behind 'critiques').

There are 40 years of good data international history for proper financial sector specialists relative to the impact of banking crises, and roughly a century of reasonable financial history on them. There is not any about among non-partisans, non-demogogues that a financial sector collapse is a serious bloody disaster to be avoided for not only its short term but long term losses.

Heh. Data, that's a good one. I got some real world for you. For anyone who is wondering where the feds intend to go from here, I draw your attention to this report. A compendium of all the filthy tricks that various governments have used over the years to evaporate their pesky debt situations down to size. Note the investment restrictions and debasement of the currency, thus robbing folks who are trying to save for the future.

If the US were in the position of going to the IMF for a loan, we would get the same advice as any third world country:
1) Break up our banking oligarchy. Break up any bank that is too big to fail.
2) Enact effective regulations to separate depository banking from speculation. (In our case, repeal the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and reinstate the Glass–Steagall Act.)
3) Mark to market all assets, public and private.
4) Identify bad debt and write it off.
5) Establish a regulated exchange for all derivatives, with sufficient tracking and transparency requirements to allow fair valuation. Restrict trade in derivatives to parties with a legitimate interest in the underlying physical asset. Require all parties to maintain sufficient cash reserves to pay off their bets.
6) Establish a real, workable plan for paying off the remaining debt.
7) Follow the plan or get declared insolvent.

Of course the US won't take it's own medicine. Instead we have done almost exactly the opposite, point by point. Thus ensuring that there will be another banking crisis, and another, and perhaps another after that before it's through.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Naive, know-nothing second guessing from people unable to distinguish between first and second order effects and events can ramble on, however the lessons of Credit Anstalt and the wider lessons from subsequent history teach more effectively than populist hand waving...But a banking sector collapse is by its nature a hit on the public. Save the banks or no, you take a hit...The only question, in a financial system collapse is HOW the public is going to bear the cost, the size of the bill and HOW LONG the pain will borne...Transferring the cost to the public is in the end a meaningless statement in a collapse. One pays either via a public restructuring of the banks, or one pays via macro economic collapse. There is ample empirical and comparative evidence that while politically unpopular, the former is less costly than the latter...This entirely explains Bernanke's response, as well as Paulson, contra their politics.

This is true if, and only if, the bad actors are effectively reformed, and regulations are enacted to separate banking from speculation. In the absence of such regulation, bank bailouts are merely a gift of wealth from public to private. Yet you conveniently ignore the elephant in the room and natter on about theory. It is amusing, I'll give you that.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Adult systems - non-US have worked perfectly fine with large banks. With proper systems in place.

That says nothing in particular about this subject, although I again note your introduction of fundamentally political, populist - and non technical - critiques. This merely highlights the observation that your framing this as "control of politicians" is utter nonsense, it is merely "human beings are in control and surprise surprise decisions do not match 100% my political views."

Oooh, now we get to the really stinky part. "With proper systems in place". But as we all know, the proper systems are not in place. In fact they have been systematically removed. Using political influence, for the profit of a few politically influential folks. Pesky political fact, that.

No country should allow any company to get 'too big to fail'. Any company that does get that big should be broken up whether or not it's having a financial crisis at the time. Moral hazard, and all. I'm surprised that you don't grasp such a basic risk management concept. Oh yes that's right; ignoring it is more profitable at the moment. Silly me.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Leaving aside I believe your figure is incorrect, US central bank buying is driven by a specific CB policy objective, NOT by an inability of US Treasury (a different entity, again) to place its money. There is no sign in the auctions that they have a current lack of buyers.

Bullshit.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

No, they working the system to avoid a liquidity trap. That few people understand this is not surprising.

I understand exactly what a liquidity trap is. However, there are a lot of ways to apply the money. Simply handing it to the same pack of thieves with no strings attached is not a 'pretty good option'. In fact it's the dumbest thing we could have done, and ensures that we will continue to bite the dust until the banksters are finally reined in. We don't need partial differential equations to understand that, now do we.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Yes you did. You also claimed a number of other ideologically driven things. Boring.

Or perhaps I was protesting about having a substantial slab of my life savings carved off, while the swine who intentionally caused the problem walk away with fortunes. They got the gold mine, we got the shaft. Are you sure you're following all this, Lounsie?

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

No, in fact the structured securities may very well, if held to maturity, be worth a rather large fraction. Terrible return for the original buyers, relative to their expectations of double digit returns, but not particularly terrible for a strategic buyer - as in probably net positive, even on a purely financial basis (as the Treasury program was re Fin Sec).

Unless of course one posits that housing in the USA is of zero future value or some such similar scenario.

Do you even know what's in those trauches, Lounsie? Here's a hint for you. I'm sorry that you must bend your patrician eyes to a mere populist source once again. Here, let me wipe those tears away. However if you draw upon your inner grit and persevere, you will find that the vacant houses are moldering away pretty fast. With more than 1 in 10 houses standing vacant nationwide, yes I do propose that they will be worth much, much less than what they are currently valued at on paper. Paper that the public now holds because we're too stupid to put a stop to it.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

It is very clear to economically literate adults that this was achieved.

Yes, I think is is very clear. We're headed for a brick wall and we will keep colliding with it until we do something different. Very clear indeed.

While we're being clear, I do not dispute that there was a very real need for the feds to take fast action to avoid a financial collapse. However, any financially literate adult who is speaking truthfully cannot deny that the basic problem has not been addressed and the criminals who caused the problem have not been punished.

How much longer do you think the US dollar will be the world's reserve currency, Lounsbury?

[u wan buy dvd?]

As far as I can tell, this is what the whole Lounsbury vs Jaglavak dance battle has to do with my glorious OP:

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Contra the popular view, among properly trained people there are some clear zones of agreement, but "on the margins" lots of debate.

In other words, nuttin. I dare one of them to remind me why this boocrap does not reside on the margins of consensus.

[hatesfreedom]

I read The Economist so I consider myself an expert, and when people ask I tell the system is to large so maybe nobody knows a goddamn thing but a few of them occasionally make some pretty good guesses. I'm basically a superstar.

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

I dare one of them to remind me why this boocrap does not reside on the margins of consensus.

We are discussing the fact that, while conventional economic theory is allright as far as it goes, we can't ignore the fact that our banking industry is broken and is being operated by a criminal oligarchy. If that's too much thread drift for you I'll be happy to take it to another thread.

[u wan buy dvd?]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

We are discussing the fact that, while conventional economic theory is allright as far as it goes, we can't ignore the fact that our banking industry is broken and is being operated by a criminal oligarchy. If that's too much thread drift for you I'll be happy to take it to another thread.

If this broken banking industry and criminal oligarchy is relevant to conventional economic theory then I'd absolutely LOVE to hear it here. What all of this means or doesn't mean for theory is very much of interest to me.

[Lounsbury]

Originally Posted by Anacanapuna

Then why waste your precious time and obviously gargantuan intellect?

Amusement value, obviously, although I clearly disclaimed a "gargantuan intellectual" - only the minor and fairly pedestrian ability to know when I don't fucking know something and not spout off or make declarations, and rather read and ask questions. Thus my interventions (this kind of posting) in areas other than my real expertise are limited. This apparently escapes you. Your "butthurt" is noted.

You are a twit and everyone can see it.

An interesting opinion.

Originally Posted by u wan buy dvd?

If this broken banking industry and criminal oligarchy is relevant to conventional economic theory then I'd absolutely LOVE to hear it here. What all of this means or doesn't mean for theory is very much of interest to me.

The sole point of real correspondence is the illustration of the problem of naive judgement of expertise, which really holds true as much for economics as for say human genetics, or bio-engineering.

Using the habitual whinging about myself (supra to justify its inclusion), as an illustrative leverage point: people over-estimate (I do not exclude myself) their own ability to judge complex fact sets. And use naive and relative to almost all abstract issues as I understand the science in this area, deeply flawed heuristic models. That's an interesting point of economic research by the way, as this touches on Jaggies dispute with me, but also a real fundamental economic analytical issues (e.g. a not well explored structural problem with real investor decisioning, although the behavioural peeps are doing some interesting work here - in 20 years we may have some rather improved thinking on the granular issues, but we should understand this is thanks to better data and analytics due to IT that even ten years ago was impossible).

This I think has direct relevance to your OP (and rather more useful than people whinging on).

But untangling.... not easy. Not easy.

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

We are discussing the fact that, while conventional economic theory is allright as far as it goes, we can't ignore the fact that our banking industry is broken and is being operated by a criminal oligarchy. If that's too much thread drift for you I'll be happy to take it to another thread.

I will note that the statement above (jaggie's) is neither an economic analytical statement nor an objective statement.

That rather gets to the problem posed by the OP - evaluation of expertise. It is painfully clear from this thread that the subject area (versus say genetic engineering) is a broadly politicised on, and one where at the same time judgement is not easy for the superficially educated.

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

Good show! I like you, Lounsie.

First, I like Lounsie. Has panache, and even on the insulting side (I can see a call to Lousy as in crappy) it has style. Good work. original.

And I like you too, butting heads aggressively is not a reason to have bad blood.

To try to respect the OP and his follow on focus comments, a discussion further should be perhaps in another thread. (Also as an aside to the GIRAFFE et al, I note an annoying and Jaggie (as far as I can tell) specific board issue, his posts don't quote correctly in responses, I would else (if it were not so bloody late) respond to OP relevant points. But since several attempts got the same crappy crazy screwed up quotes...

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

The sole point of real correspondence is the illustration of the problem of naive judgement of expertise, which really holds true as much for economics as for say human genetics, or bio-engineering.

I will agree that there are a lot of marginally aware commentators out there, including many who call themselves economists. I freely admit that I am not an economist. You will note that I avoid debating advanced economic theory with you, because that is over my head at present.

However I am quite familiar with math modelling. My point is, GIGO. If the books are cooked and key bits of reality are ignored, the results will always be garbage no matter how detailed the model. I aim to show at least two fundamental ways that current economic theory ignores reality to a fatal extent. So far we have only discussed one of those ways. Finally, while I do enjoy tweaking your elevated nose, I do not see our views as mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

To try to respect the OP and his follow on focus comments, a discussion further should be perhaps in another thread.

That would be fun. I'm out of town in a few hours but I'll be back next week, and I'm looking forward to it.

Originally Posted by Lounsbury

Also as an aside to the GIRAFFE et al, I note an annoying and Jaggie (as far as I can tell) specific board issue, his posts don't quote correctly in responses, I would else (if it were not so bloody late) respond to OP relevant points. But since several attempts got the same crappy crazy screwed up quotes...

I seem to recall that Big G turned off the concatenated quotes feature, to keep threads from getting too long. Yes, it is annoying. I've been cutting and pasting from the Reply window to a text editor so I can see the HTML tags.

[Lounsbury]

I have to fuck off, but Jaggie man, last item just in trying to quote you clean I get totally fucked up results. Okay this needs to go to another forum. Hope to get back to substance, but some fucked up crap to deal with which will fuck the weekend, etc.