| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| A year left: Obama running against history | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 7 2011, 01:29 PM (885 Views) | |
| Chris | Nov 8 2011, 11:04 AM Post #21 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That's an interesting observation, based on at least a fact that, according to the link, at least one economist also argues. To me it focuses on a single data set to the exclusion of others, which, as the link also explains, we didn't measure before the Great Depression. I think we know more nowadays about the nature of business cycles, whether you're a Keynesian, Monetarist (Friedman, Chicago) or Austrian (Mises, Hayek, Rothbard), and that knowledge helps people manage business better by economic means and, some argue, political means. As Hayek pointed out though the curious business of economics is to tell us how little we do know about economies, that, iow, "recessions seem to occur no matter what the government does or doesn't do." Generally from a Monetarist or Austrian view the basic rule is the less government does the less recession are prolonged and effect economic growth. Only Keynesians argue for government intervention, though Keynes argued only for small stimuli for short-term effect, leaving only neoKensians arguing large stimuli for long-term effects, their arguments make little sense if "recessions seem to occur no matter what the government does or doesn't do." And that doesn't consider the negative affects of government taking private money and spending publicly in the face of the economic calculation problem I mentioned earlier. --I'm sort of drifting I realize, but in a way to say there's much more to consider than frequency and duration of recessions. It would be interesting to table frequency and duration together and make some comparison though. At least it would be arguing from facts. BTW, I consider the era of big government to have begin with Lincoln. :-) (To understand why I say that see Herbert Spencer's 1884 The Man Versus the State for a good history of how classical liberalism transformed into modern liberalism.) Yes, Keynes was right about one thing, but it shows a lack of concern about generations to come. Edited by Chris, Nov 8 2011, 11:06 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Nov 8 2011, 09:52 PM Post #22 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So which school of economics (assuming the use of the word school is correct - I know nothing about the subject and freely admit that) is correct and how do you know? |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Nov 9 2011, 12:44 AM Post #23 |
|
Deleted User
|
The problem is they are all right & they are all wrong. I came to the conclusion some time ago that outside forces are more important than internal economic policy, and the more globalism that takes place, the more that is the case. Governments need to be flexible enough in their economic policies to adjust to those conditions. That is what I see as the problem with the US, in particular, now. People are divided into 2 opposing camps of rigid economic policy dogma and are unable, or unwilling, to be creative. For some reason this all looks very familiar when you examine the collapse of previous empires. |
|
|
| Chris | Nov 9 2011, 03:01 AM Post #24 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Tough general question. Keynes has been proven wrong, neoKeynsians don't even follow him, and many economist reject altogether his invention of macroeconomics. My problem with Keynes is the same as with Marx, both envisioned what they believed ought be and invented prescriptive theories to change society and man that ignored who man is socially and biologically. They might be compared to religionists in these respects. That leaves the monitarists and the Austrians. Both are descriptive theories. The former is wholly data based and fairly mathematical and concerned with money. The later are theoretical, not mathematical, and concerned with purposeful human action. While I appreciate the former, I have more interest in the latter because it can be tied to moral choice of action and a more libertarian view, a theory of liberty. So I read and follow the the Austrians more closely than the others I don't think there is any truly knowing which is correct in the sense of proving it. But I look at the world around me and read widely others' views and the Austrians in terms of purposeful human action come closest to what might be called justified true belief. This something akin to the way David Deutsche in "The Beginning of Infinity" describes scientific explanations. The Austrians tell the better story. Edited by Chris, Nov 9 2011, 03:03 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Nov 9 2011, 05:07 AM Post #25 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Physics is so much easier. And, from my point of view, far more interesting. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Nov 9 2011, 08:42 AM Post #26 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm interested in physics as well, for reading, but find it harder to discuss. Deutsche's book is much easier going than Herbert's Quantum Reality. |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Nov 9 2011, 10:53 AM Post #27 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I found Quantum Reality especially good in the discussion about wave forms, Fourier analysis and what a quantum measurement is. Quantum theory is all about waves and the quantum measurement problems gets into the heart of what quantum mechanics and what we can know. But I did enjoy Deutsche's book as well. He gives one a lot to think about, doesn't he? |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Nov 9 2011, 12:17 PM Post #28 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Just began reading it and agree. Just finishing Alfred J Nock's Our Enemy, The State, more of lengthy essay, that would upset even a Tea Partier, before I plow into Deutsche's book. |
![]() |
|
| Chris | Nov 10 2011, 11:19 AM Post #29 |
![]()
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Speaking of quantum physics, Testing the Copenhagen interpretation: a matter of live and dead cats
|
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | Nov 10 2011, 12:13 PM Post #30 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Interesting. There is a book out about the "shut up and calculate" crowd and how some young physicists moved away from that group. The book is called How the Hippies Save Physics by David Kaiser. Included in the "Fundamental Fysicks Group" was Nick Herbert. The book has received mixed reviews.Link It's on my To Read list, but not near the top. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




10:44 PM Jul 11
