While We Wait: Writer's Block & Other Lame Excuses

[das]

What if we limit it to text in the broader sense that does include oral records? After all, they are increasingly being put into use where possible these days.

Still doesn't include all that prehuman nonsense, which is the sphere of any science but history inasmuch as it affected early human development.

 

[qoou]

Kraznaya, do you really do not know (good) english or are you posting like this for fun. Because if you do not know (good) english, I can understand why you post like this, but if you are posting like this for fun, then it is annoying.

DotA's taken him. R.I.P. in peace Aitah of days past.

 

[Lord of Elves]

DotA's taken him. R.I.P. in peace Aitah of days past.

Rest in peace in peace, eh?

 

[qoou]

Rest in peace in peace, eh?

Common Dota 2 adage
Nevermind, I mixed up by Dota 2 with my Eve here. Désolé.

 

[Kraznaya]

what a disaster

 

[Daftpanzer]

"The modern Keynesian state is broke, paralyzed and mired in empty ritual incantations about stimulating “demand,” even as it fosters a mutant crony capitalism that periodically lavishes the top 1 percent with speculative windfalls."

Thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opinion/sunday/sundown-in-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

 

[Masada]

the author doesn't seem to get that he can't just change the meaning of words to suit his ideological views

 

[Daftpanzer]

I have to admit I felt more educated by the comments section.

 

[Jehoshua]

The article conjures up images of the money hole for me.

 

[Kozmos]

RSAnimate is more fun and educational.

 

[Angst]

Most of the economical problems of the Western world is to me more understandable if demonstrating political-instutional problems rather than pointing out the tax rate, (I don't think self-preserving lobbyism is a Keynesian thing, for example) but I admit I don't get economics that much anyways so whap de doo de da i can into lowercase

 

[Daftpanzer]

Everytime I bring up this topic (admittedly not always in the most sensible fashion), the message from most other NESers seems to be: don't worry, things will work out, the system works...? I have my doubts. Time will tell, I guess.

 

[Shadowbound]

The issue is that there're several iterations of economics to get through before you're able to understand a serious conversation about economics, nevermind take part. When someone says the system works, a parallel would be a professor telling an econ 101 class "Free trade makes people better off."

While in a graduate class, you'd get a more nuanced explanation that, while free trade is good, there are caveats, in that some people would be better off with protectionism, and some theories of economic development that argue it's bad at certain times.

Most NESers don't get past classical theory, nevermind into actual Keynesianism or, y'know, the seventy years of economic thought since then. Most people are worse off: I became physically ill a hundred words into that article, because it has as much to do with economics as flash gordon does to physics.

 

[Dachs]

Everytime I bring up this topic (admittedly not always in the most sensible fashion), the message from most other NESers seems to be: don't worry, things will work out, the system works...? I have my doubts. Time will tell, I guess.

Generally, the best way to get a substantive response is to ask a substantive question or make a substantive complaint.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Economies are much more stable, in terms of how they are propagated and maintained, than certain alarmists would have you believe. The means by which economic destruction are wrought are entirely different from malevolent cabals of international supervillains. Generally speaking it involves a lot more stupidity than design.

 

[Daftpanzer]

EDIT: nm. I think LoE is right, and Dachs is a meanie.

 

[Masada]

You'll note I criticized his use of words and not his economics per say. Special mention really ought to go to his use of "keynesian" as a shorthand for "stuff I don't like".

But I'll critique other stuff because I can.

First, his decision to use debt numbers rather than the far more relevant debt to GDP or debt to revenue that sane people use. Just think of it this way: a debt of $1 million is a lot for an individual but is a rounding error for most governments. In other words: $30 billion might sound like a lot... but it isn't if the state has revenues of $2.45 trillion in FY2012 and a tax base of something like $15.6 trillion in 2012. If you actually look at debt to GDP you'll find that the US has about the same debt-to-GDP ratio as that supposed economic megastar Germany. But omg omg omg big numbers!!!!!!!!

Second, his claims to economic omniscience are also hilarious. How for example does he know that "there was never a remote threat of a Great Depression 2.0 or of a financial nuclear winter?" I mean Jesus H. Christ commercial paper froze. Insurance markets clogged. Main street banks came under threat. Governments couldn't float bonds. That's real economy stuff. The latter in particular if left alone would have resulted in governments being forced to shut-down. (Why? Because state cash flows tend to be concentrated around tax time. So governments tend to issue bonds to cover 'the gap'. If government can't issue paper they can't cover stuff like wages regardless of their underlying solvency).

I sorta agree with a fair few of his other points. He's right about the distributional effect of monetary policy. It has overwhelmingly helped the very rich. Unfortunately, we had no real means of knowing it would do that since most of what was done was new hat. I also agree that how it was executed was problematic for lots of reasons. On the other hand, I strongly disagree with his alternative: fiddle while the economy burns. I also think his predictions of another "collapse" are, well, alarmist. I wouldn't be surprised to see a stock market adjustment but I'm not sure how that will feed into the real economy. I also think his support of a balanced budget adjustment is stupid as hell. I also find his view that the real culprit for the big banks is Keynes rather than a permissive policy environment that was the direct result of free-market reforms aimed at permitting large national banks to form.

 

[Angst]

Wait, so Masada, did you think that the instutionally-favored-economically-dangerous banks are a result of Keynesian politics, or did you think that the institutionally-favored-economically-dangerous banks are a result of free-market reforms? Your last sentence reads weird for me.

I've never understood the superfluous banks as an integral part of an Keynesian economy, which is one of my biggest irks when libertarian teenagers and midwestern moms proclaim that "the spending is out of control" and "a system of spending only helps the rich". I always found the superfluous banks were an indirect result from the numerous other factors of the "Keynesian" societies, these societies being entities way too complex to reduce to a three-quarter century years old theory. Ie saying Keynes is evil for this reason has read, to me, as if saying vodkadrinking is evil because it existed within the Sovjet Union.

To reduce ad absurdium.

(I'm sincerely asking, I haven't touched economics at all since high school. I know I'm spouting a lot of crap)

 

[Azale]

Wait, so Masada, did you think that the instutionally-favored-economically-dangerous banks are a result of Keynesian politics, or did you think that the institutionally-favored-economically-dangerous banks are a result of free-market reforms? Your last sentence reads weird for me.

This one.

Free market itself is a misnomer, but that is closer to the truth.

 

[Angst]

Ah, then I agree with him (with the limited knowledge I have, mind you)