Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Fenris Wulf]

Edvaard wrote on Sat, 09 October 2010 22:35

The model of perfect competition is used as a starting or reference point

It's an invalid one. See Reisman's treatment of the subject. It's the first time I laughed out loud while reading an economics book.

Quote:

Give it a few decades, maybe a few generations of monopoly pricing induced market distortion and resultant lowered standard of living for society in general, but there's no way this could continue -permanently- in a free market. I feel better now.

More like months, ending in economic ruin for the would-be monopolist. This has been demonstrated both logically and empirically by the Austrian school.

Quote:

"Many"? How many "many" are we talking here? Any appreciable percentage? Is it part of the official platform? Typical MO here.

Anarchism and total unilateral disarmament has become the dominant position in the libertarian movement. I've encountered neo-communists and eco-totalitarians who classify themselves as "libertarian." Some conservatives used to call themselves "small-L libertarian," but stopped using the term because it's become so disreputable.

Quote:

a) don't know, don't care about what neocons think. b) don't know, don't care about any religions, capitalism included. c) nothing difficult at all about understanding laissez-faire; it's a wild-wild-west, every-man-for-himself market beat-down.

So, total disengagement from politics and total ignorance of competing ideologies is a virtue. Then what exactly do economists study? The economics of their belly buttons?

Paul Krugman is an unregenerate old-school Keynesian, a position long abandoned by mainstream economics, and yet he has a column in the country's most respected newspaper and is hugely influential. Many of President Obama's economic advisors are unregenerate Marxists. Have any of your colleagues come forward to warn the public about these people? Or is that not their responsibility?

Mainstream economics rejects Marx's system, but, its hostile and stereotyped view of laissez-faire capitalism owes a great deal to Marx. As a result, economists are unable to defend economic freedom, or even the "middle way" they claim to stand for. They remain silent as the Obama Administration implements major steps in the direction of socialism, against the clear wishes of the American people. If Obama succeeds, socialism will simply become the new status quo and mainstream economics will go along with it.

On the other hand, if the "Tea Party" movement succeeds and American politics swings sharply toward laissez-faire, mainstream economics will suddenly become harshly critical of government policy and will do everything in its power to swing the pendulum back. They will fight to protect their professional turf and keep economics esoteric and inaccessible to the layman.

That's why, if I ever pursue a college degree, I'll stick with a discipline that is actually a hard science and actually immune to political pressure, like electrical engineering. And not anything related to "green technology," but something nice and obsolete like analog circuit design.

I'm sure that my dismissal of the entire field of mainstream economics comes across as incredibly arrogant and disrespectful. So I'll leave you to study what YOU find useful, and I'll do the same.

[Edvaard]

/

[Edvaard]

Fenris Wulf wrote on Sat, 09 October 2010 21:29

So, total disengagement from politics and total ignorance of competing ideologies is a virtue. Then what exactly do economists study? The economics of their belly buttons?

Interest rates, unemployment, GDP, GNP, price elasticities, interest rates, expenditure switching, marginal analysis, covered exchange rate parity, affect of savings rate on steady-state levels of capital and output per worker, interest rates, liquidity preference, econometrics, bond and exchange rate risk premiums, asset and monetary approaches to bond and exchange rate valuations, interest rates ...

So yeah, basically advanced belly button analysis.

I don't know if keeping politics and competing ideologies out of all that is exactly a "virtue" or not but, perhaps disappointingly so, a sufficient number of instructors and most especially students have yet failed to see the 'clarity-added value' (to use "econ-speak") of adding such further complication. More importantly, the fixed income and all types of investment firms hiring those skilled in econometric analysis, and the companies that run factories and provide various services who use economic analysis of various sorts as part of decision making in determining optimum levels of output e.g. have yet to 'see the light' thus far in failing to embrace the political/ideological approach in such determinations.

Quote:

Paul Krugman is an unregenerate old-school Keynesian, a position long abandoned by mainstream economics, and yet he has a column in the country's most respected newspaper and is hugely influential.

Good for him. Free market economies hire idiots too, which describes near 100% of all columnists. Better they be there, where I can avoid them, rather than have to deal with them on the street begging me for money, which is where most of them would be otherwise. Except for the ones industrious enough to be party planners.

Quote:

I may pursue a college degree eventually. But I'll stick with a discipline that is actually a hard science and actually immune to political pressure, like electrical engineering.

This seems to contradict your earlier disappointment with the long-resisted reality that econ classes are not political or ideological at all, viz. the belly button reference. Surprising that you would choose an 'unvirtuous' and esoteric discipline such as electronics.

Quote:

I'm sure that my dismissal of the entire field of mainstream economics comes across as incredibly arrogant and disrespectful. So I'll leave you to study what YOU find useful, and I'll do the same.

You're not disrespecting anyone but yourself when you venture into territory where you don't belong and don't have a clue and make a loud and vocal fool of yourself in the process.

[Fenris Wulf]

Okay, we seem to be talking about two different things. An "economist" can be a crusader discussing large-scale government policy in the context of political theory, or an "economist" can be a technician helping businessmen and regulators to make wise decisions in the context of the existing system.

The latter takes the current political/regulatory climate as a given and works within it. You're quite correct that most businesses have zero interest in promoting one ideology or another.

The latter is certainly a valid job and one that I'm not remotely qualified to do.

That said, I will be curious to see how the profession reacts to the political changes of the next few years. We'll see if economics can actually be apolitical.

The advocates of "anthropogenic global warming" also claim to be apolitical. But their theory has far-reaching political consequences. So we'll see.

[Barry Hufker]

May I suggest that this discussion has become one with only two participants and that anything further be pm'd?

Barry

[Edvaard]

http://www.buddhanet.net/filelib/audio/gong-chinese.wav

[Edvaard]

The gong was for the post prior to the one above it, as denouement.


Someone decided to be the loud pop in the record right at the final chord.