Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
A year left: Obama running against history
Topic Started: Nov 7 2011, 01:29 PM (885 Views)
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ngc1514
Nov 8 2011, 10:01 AM
Chris
Nov 8 2011, 08:43 AM
Yeah, those pesky untils always get you in the long run. As John Maynard Keynes put it "In the long run we are all dead." --Oh, and that was A Tract on Monetary Reform (1923) Ch. 3. :-)
Looking at that list of US recessions in Wiki, it appears that the economy has never had a prolonged period without recessions. In fact, the longest periods without recessions (up to an interval of 10 years) ALL took place since the end of World War II. Isn't that the same time frame when many say the era of big government really took off? Looking at the list going back to the founding of the nation, recessions seem to occur no matter what the government does or doesn't do.

Do you disagree with Keynes statement about all being dead?
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
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?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
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.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ngc1514
Nov 8 2011, 09:52 PM
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?
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Chris
Nov 9 2011, 03:01 AM
ngc1514
Nov 8 2011, 09:52 PM
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?
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.

Physics is so much easier. And, from my point of view, far more interesting.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ngc1514
Nov 9 2011, 05:07 AM
Chris
Nov 9 2011, 03:01 AM
ngc1514
Nov 8 2011, 09:52 PM
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?
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.

Physics is so much easier. And, from my point of view, far more interesting.
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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
Moderator
[ * ]
Chris
Nov 9 2011, 08:42 AM
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.
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?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
ngc1514
Nov 9 2011, 10:53 AM
Chris
Nov 9 2011, 08:42 AM
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.
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?

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.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Speaking of quantum physics, Testing the Copenhagen interpretation: a matter of live and dead cats
Quote:
 
Quantum theory, which measures the truth of what we perceive to be real, is nearing a landmark moment in its history...

However, in recent years, proposals have been made to explain what really goes on, by introducing a mechanism for collapse into quantum mechanics, rather than simply assuming that it happens. Recently, one of the biggest names in physics, the Nobel prize-winner Steven Weinberg, posted a blueprint online of models that can explain why molecules and cats never let us witness a superposition, but instead “collapse”.

The earliest and most well-known of these new models is known as the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber-and-Pearle theory, or GRWP, which was proposed in the 1980s. In this theory, wave function collapse is a consequence of the vast numbers of atoms in a measuring apparatus interacting with whatever is being observed. This mission to upgrade quantum mechanics has been continued by others.

Now, there is finally a prospect of lifting this debate beyond dry philosophy by actually testing the GRWP proposal, with the help of a clever experiment devised by Markus Arndt’s team at the University of Vienna (in collaboration with Klaus Hornberger in Duisburg). Using ultra-precise instruments known as matter wave interferometers, the team hopes to spot tell-tale signs that can reveal if one of the modified versions of quantum theory is correct and test how real the wave-function collapse is.

The interferometers are named because when two wave functions meet, they can interfere with one another – cancelling out where a peak meets a trough and reinforcing where peaks align. If wave function collapse is linked to millions of atoms being present, as GRWP says, this interference pattern should be less pronounced or even vanish when there are sufficiently big clusters of atoms. “Nature will decide who is right,” says Arndt.

If his experiment challenges (or refutes) GWRP, it would be the simplest outcome and back the “shut up and calculate” pragmatists. But if it suggests that GRWP is correct, it could provide the first real evidence that the universe does not split into parallel worlds: that the possibilities of a living and a dead cat do indeed collapse into one reality when we look at it.

Any such experimentally verified deviation from traditional quantum predictions would mark a revolutionary turning point in physics – spurring the debate over what the wave function really means and cracking open a door to reveal a deeper level of reality.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ngc1514
Member Avatar
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.
Quote:
 
Today, quantum information science is among the most exciting scientific frontiers, attracting billions of dollars in funding and thousands of talented researchers. But as MIT physicist and historian David Kaiser reveals, this cutting-edge field has a surprisingly psychedelic past. How the Hippies Saved Physics introduces us to a band of freewheeling physicists who defied the imperative to “shut up and calculate” and helped to rejuvenate modern physics.

In the 1970s, amid severe cutbacks in physics funding, a small group of underemployed physicists in Berkeley decided to throw off the constraints of academia and explore the wilder side of science. Dubbing themselves the “Fundamental Fysiks Group,” they pursued an unconventional, speculative approach to physics. They studied quantum theory alongside Eastern mysticism and psychic mind-reading, discussing the latest developments while lounging in hot tubs. Unlikely as it may seem, their work on Bell’s theorem and quantum entanglement helped pave the way for today’s breakthroughs in quantum information science.
Link

It's on my To Read list, but not near the top.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis