recalling the following Nobel Prizes

Page 3 of 3 First 123
  1. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    See the meaning of "Laissez Fare" and square that with advocating central planning of money and credit, as Friedman did.



    If you're talking about supply side monetarism, youi'd be correct. If you're talking about free markets, you'd be incorrect.



    Actually he's correct. A job is not a physical thing in which one can have a property right; it is impossible to export it. What it is possible to do is regulate so heavily opportunities fail to open here but do open in zones that have marginally more freedom. Jobs are not and can not be exported, they are simply not opened up here because of onerous regulations. However since the demand that creates the opportunity for the jobs is still extant, it stands to reason then that the opportunity will open up elsewhere.



    A guy who routinely quotes Marx. No wonder he's a ****ing moron.

    As before Luther you need to square reality in your brain and set it apart from rhetoric. In a frog says he's a beaver and then croaks and shoots out his tongue to catch a fly and can't build a damn for ****, he's probably a frog despite what he says. Likewise, an economist who sees government action as the solution for damn near every problem and who advocates the centralization of control of the monetary base and credit supply, a page you'd realize was ripped right from Karl Marx if you'd ever actually read his ****, likely isn't a free marketeer despite his protestations to the contrary. Milton Friedman, despite his nominal advocacy of capitalism, advocated the ultimate in central planning; government control over money and credit. That's a form of fascism, his rhetoric one way or the other be damned.
    To my understanding Friedman strongly argued against Keynesian policies and was a strong proponent of laissez-faire policies. To my understanding Friedman was a strong advocate of libertarian economic policies with the exception of something about stabilizing inflation.

    You seem to know a lot more about all this economics stuff though.

    Edit: also, it seems that there are a lot of talks about Keysnesian (sp) policies not working but I've not seen a lot of critical support of that contention. Also, many of the economists out there today seem to think that the bank and stimuli programs are the correct thing to do (I'm thinking of some of the individuals that predicted the credit bubble burst back in '05 and '06)


  2. Quote Originally Posted by strategicmove View Post
    It is sometimes deceptively easy to cast down ideas and their advocates. Any serious student of the History of Economic Thought must, however, remember that the advocates of different ideas, whether defunct or extant, from pre-mercantilism to Neo-Marshallian Economics to the Neo-Classical Synthesis, Monetarism, Neo-Keynesianism, the New Classical Macroeconomics, and so on, all contributed directly or indirectly in enriching current economic science.
    No, they didn't. That's the standard 'Great Thinkers' approach to teaching. Straussian in nature. The idea that 'everybody brings something of value to the table' is inherently at odds with the idea of correct and incorrect, right and wrong, reality and fantasy.

    The Keynesian response to his critiques lead to a revamping of Keynesian ideas, a new and stronger synthesis.
    You can't have a new and stronger synthesis of something that is, at base, incorrect. I'm not saying we need to personally lambast these people, though if you read about Keynes' life he probably deserves it. The guy was a real *******. But the whole Great Thinker approach to any field is problematic at best, especially in that once someone is labeled a Great Thinker, then there is an assumed consistency of quality of their thoughts which is completely incorrect. This leads to tortured intepretations of what they wrote vs what their followers say they 'really meant', and whether or not either has anything to do with reality.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    To my understanding Friedman strongly argued against Keynesian policies and was a strong proponent of laissez-faire policies.
    Tto my understanding Obama is brilliant, an eloquent speaker, and post racial. Of course he's none of those things, but I'm sure he likes to think he is, and lots of people say he is, therefore he must be...

    To my understanding Friedman was a strong advocate of libertarian economic policies with the exception of something about stabilizing inflation.
    Libertarian perhaps. Libertarian is not synonymous with Free Market, Austrian, or any other school of economics. There are plenty of Keynesian big and little 'L' libertarians, and even some socialists who think that system is more in line with individual freedom. Friedman was a monetarist, plain and simple, which means he was vaguely and more or less consistently for the idea of free markets but also supported the centralization of markets for money and credit, and likely for any other portion of the market with similar level 'neighborhood effects'. He was a free marketeer through utilitarianism, not principle. He was also dead wrong on his extreme positivist view of economics and trying to get it to ape physics and other hard sciences.

    Edit: also, it seems that there are a lot of talks about Keysnesian (sp) policies not working but I've not seen a lot of critical support of that contention.
    Then why are they almost always wrong? It was the Keynesians who by and large didn't see this financial crisis coming. They were wrong. It was the Keynesians who thought when the link between gold and the dollar was cut that the dollar would soar and gold would fall. They were wrong. It was the Keynesians who by and large thought we'd drop back into a recession after WWII, they were wrong. It was Keynesians who initially proposed the inflation/unemployment dicotomy which said you couldn't have an inflationary recession, they were wrong. It was proto Keynesians who figured that by the Fed stabilizing the price level that recessions would no longer be possible and an age of perpetual prosperity would begin, and they were not only wrong, the result was The Great Depression. They were at least on board mostly with the internet bubble, but they totally missed the housing bubble. Based on track record alone one would tend to wonder why the **** anyone still listens to them. But the bottom line is that they are the one school of economics that tends to approve of government intervention aside from Socialists. So it's no wonder which economists get endowed chairs, government funding, cushy jobs at think tanks, etc., and it ain't the ones telling politicians to keep their hands off the economy.

    This actually goes to something I saw last night, criticisms of Bill Maher calling this country "stupid". He's right and he's wrong. This country has a strong anti intellectual trend to it, and rightfully so and thank God for it. It's a continuation of a rebellion against the alliance of throne and altar. The throne used to tax people unfairly and treat them like ****, and the altar, the church in other words and the presiding intellectuals of the day, were always called in as apologists and justifiers of the state's actions through such bull**** doctrines as Divine Right, etc. In western Europe as the alliance between the church and the state was dissolved 'intellectuals' and politicians looked for a way to reformt he alliane along secular lines. The result was, in the end, progressivism.

    You see the market has little use for pontification intellectuals; it demands their talents be put to productive use at least for a time, and they can pontificate while at leisure. So those with a tendency toward navel gazing and a general desire to tell the rest of the world how to live but not actually be accountable for the results of those decrees seek out state alliance. They serve the government as planners and apologists for planning and the inevitable **** results. They serve the old role of the church intellectuals whose job it was to justify and excuse every intrusion of the government's **** into the asses of the private population. As such our country, founded on the idea at least of freedom and individual responsibility and free markets, tends to be hostile towards intellectuals who don't at least produce ipods or similar things first before they presume to explain to the rest of us how we're supposed to live our lives.

    It is of little surprise then, that the 'intellectuals' you see in any field, the ones who get the cushy jobs, the government grants, the air time on major networks who depend on politicians for access and who won't dare endanger that, tend to support state empowerment on any issue. In the case of economics, that would be Keynesians primarily.

    Also, many of the economists out there today seem to think that the bank and stimuli programs are the correct thing to do (I'm thinking of some of the individuals that predicted the credit bubble burst back in '05 and '06)
    Because they are incorrect in thinking that a lack of spending is the problem. A lack of spending isn't the problem, a lack of savings is. Many people, free market or not or explicitly Keynesian or not, still hold to the simple a vulgar expression of Keynesianism that spending is what drives the economy. It isn't.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    No, they didn't. That's the standard 'Great Thinkers' approach to teaching. Straussian in nature. The idea that 'everybody brings something of value to the table' is inherently at odds with the idea of correct and incorrect, right and wrong, reality and fantasy.
    It is not in itself surprising that a genuine advance of knowledge should in this manner become on occasion a source of new error. If no false conclusions followed from new generalizations, they would be final truths which would never need revision. Although as a rule such a new generalization will merely share the false consequences which can be drawn from it with the views which were held before, and thus not lead to new error, it is quite likely that a new theory, just as its value is shown by the valid new conclusions to which it leads, will produce other new conclusions to which further advance will show to have been erroneous.

    "Intellectuals and Socialism" by Hayek (1949)

    I would merely say that while no theory, as a function of being propagated thought, has intrinsic value, most theories lay claim to a contribution to theoretical progression vis-a-vi negation - in this sense, theoretical progression is much like Hegel's description of the "Philosophical ladder", by which each preceding philosophy claimed a rung to be stepped on and over by the newer illumination. (And, often, the new theory exists solely to negate the previous one.) Often times, the practical contribution of any particular theory/theorist is often irony by way of theory: its value is not necessarily the way it attends to its stated goal, but rather; the manner in which another theorist reaches a practical goal by overcoming its erroneous logic. Most knowledge tends to propel in this confrontational manner.

    I can certainly see what you are driving at, though: the concept of saying, "All theories may be right when applied to a particular instance", is fundamentally contradictory to the very empirical concepts we tend to hold dear.

  5. I love Selma Hayek. Who knew she was so old?!
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    No, they didn't. That's the standard 'Great Thinkers' approach to teaching. Straussian in nature. The idea that 'everybody brings something of value to the table' is inherently at odds with the idea of correct and incorrect, right and wrong, reality and fantasy....
    With hindsight, we are all smart. The phrase, "everybody brings something of value to the table" is yours, not mine. My comment referred to economists, philosophers, and other scholars whose works have been recorded in the history of economic thought, works that not only provided the foundation for economic science, but also stimulated its advancement. That comment remains consistent. Furthermore, "the idea of correct and incorrect, right or wrong", not only is loaded with value judgment, but also pretends economics is an exact science. Consequently, you must draw a distinction between a logically consistent and coherent model (based on its assumptions and predictions) - one that can be correct or incorrect, regardless of practical relevance - and a model with a practical application - that may be regarded by some opponents as wrong. Something else: the conclusion of rightness or wrongness of an idea, ignoring the innate subjectivity and possible bias, cannot be made independently of the contemporary social context. Lastly, these sometimes subjective valuations (right or wrong) must be temporal. Something that is wrong today may be right tomorrow.

    You can't have a new and stronger synthesis of something that is, at base, incorrect. I'm not saying we need to personally lambast these people, though if you read about Keynes' life he probably deserves it. The guy was a real *******. But the whole Great Thinker approach to any field is problematic at best, especially in that once someone is labeled a Great Thinker, then there is an assumed consistency of quality of their thoughts which is completely incorrect. This leads to tortured intepretations of what they wrote vs what their followers say they 'really meant', and whether or not either has anything to do with reality.
    Let us not delve into the epistemology of "synthesis". What is, at base, incorrect? Classical economics? Keynesian economics? The Neo-Classical Synthesis? Have you read Keynes' The General Theory? I mean every page? That book was revolutionary at the time, and whether anyone accepts it or not, it changed economics, especially macroeconomics, forever (the microfoundations were developed subsequently). Forget about his private life. I am familiar with it, but it is completely irrelevant here. Frankly, I find it astonishing, in a negative sense, when someone retrospectively simplistically dismisses a crucial idea as wrong or inconsequential, without specifically suggesting a superior alternative.
    Product Educator | USPowders
    Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders’ opinion as a whole.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    I would merely say that while no theory, as a function of being propagated thought, has intrinsic value, most theories lay claim to a contribution to theoretical progression vis-a-vi negation - in this sense, theoretical progression is much like Hegel's description of the "Philosophical ladder", by which each preceding philosophy claimed a rung to be stepped on and over by the newer illumination. (And, often, the new theory exists solely to negate the previous one.) Often times, the practical contribution of any particular theory/theorist is often irony by way of theory: its value is not necessarily the way it attends to its stated goal, but rather; the manner in which another theorist reaches a practical goal by overcoming its erroneous logic. Most knowledge tends to propel in this confrontational manner.

    I can certainly see what you are driving at, though: the concept of saying, "All theories may be right when applied to a particular instance", is fundamentally contradictory to the very empirical concepts we tend to hold dear.
    Also the above Hegelian approach is, i think wrong. Knowledge does not always progress. That's whig theory. Knowledge can be lost, one paradigm can giv way to a lesser paradigm. Especially in social sciences where controlled experimentation is not possible, it becomes more possible for the winds of fashion along to push one more deserving ideology aside as another one takes its place for no reason other than that people find it more appealing.
  8. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post

    Tto my understanding Obama is brilliant, an eloquent speaker, and post racial. Of course he's none of those things, but I'm sure he likes to think he is, and lots of people say he is, therefore he must be...



    Libertarian perhaps. Libertarian is not synonymous with Free Market, Austrian, or any other school of economics. There are plenty of Keynesian big and little 'L' libertarians, and even some socialists who think that system is more in line with individual freedom. Friedman was a monetarist, plain and simple, which means he was vaguely and more or less consistently for the idea of free markets but also supported the centralization of markets for money and credit, and likely for any other portion of the market with similar level 'neighborhood effects'. He was a free marketeer through utilitarianism, not principle. He was also dead wrong on his extreme positivist view of economics and trying to get it to ape physics and other hard sciences.



    Then why are they almost always wrong? It was the Keynesians who by and large didn't see this financial crisis coming. They were wrong. It was the Keynesians who thought when the link between gold and the dollar was cut that the dollar would soar and gold would fall. They were wrong. It was the Keynesians who by and large thought we'd drop back into a recession after WWII, they were wrong. It was Keynesians who initially proposed the inflation/unemployment dicotomy which said you couldn't have an inflationary recession, they were wrong. It was proto Keynesians who figured that by the Fed stabilizing the price level that recessions would no longer be possible and an age of perpetual prosperity would begin, and they were not only wrong, the result was The Great Depression. They were at least on board mostly with the internet bubble, but they totally missed the housing bubble. Based on track record alone one would tend to wonder why the **** anyone still listens to them. But the bottom line is that they are the one school of economics that tends to approve of government intervention aside from Socialists. So it's no wonder which economists get endowed chairs, government funding, cushy jobs at think tanks, etc., and it ain't the ones telling politicians to keep their hands off the economy.

    This actually goes to something I saw last night, criticisms of Bill Maher calling this country "stupid". He's right and he's wrong. This country has a strong anti intellectual trend to it, and rightfully so and thank God for it. It's a continuation of a rebellion against the alliance of throne and altar. The throne used to tax people unfairly and treat them like ****, and the altar, the church in other words and the presiding intellectuals of the day, were always called in as apologists and justifiers of the state's actions through such bull**** doctrines as Divine Right, etc. In western Europe as the alliance between the church and the state was dissolved 'intellectuals' and politicians looked for a way to reformt he alliane along secular lines. The result was, in the end, progressivism.

    You see the market has little use for pontification intellectuals; it demands their talents be put to productive use at least for a time, and they can pontificate while at leisure. So those with a tendency toward navel gazing and a general desire to tell the rest of the world how to live but not actually be accountable for the results of those decrees seek out state alliance. They serve the government as planners and apologists for planning and the inevitable **** results. They serve the old role of the church intellectuals whose job it was to justify and excuse every intrusion of the government's **** into the asses of the private population. As such our country, founded on the idea at least of freedom and individual responsibility and free markets, tends to be hostile towards intellectuals who don't at least produce ipods or similar things first before they presume to explain to the rest of us how we're supposed to live our lives.

    It is of little surprise then, that the 'intellectuals' you see in any field, the ones who get the cushy jobs, the government grants, the air time on major networks who depend on politicians for access and who won't dare endanger that, tend to support state empowerment on any issue. In the case of economics, that would be Keynesians primarily.



    Because they are incorrect in thinking that a lack of spending is the problem. A lack of spending isn't the problem, a lack of savings is. Many people, free market or not or explicitly Keynesian or not, still hold to the simple a vulgar expression of Keynesianism that spending is what drives the economy. It isn't.
    I'm wondering how much of this is opinion and how much is your own dogmatic position.

    A lot of it seems to be mostly the latter.

    For instance, that the US did not going back into a deep recession after WW2 has in most things I've read been in large part attributed to the massive governmental spending following ww2 and the strong role military spending then played.

    Also since Keynes didn't publish the bulk of his material until 1936 it seems a bit odd to chastise him for a failure to predict the Great Depression.

    edit: by the way, what is your position on environmental regulations? (not talking about cap and trade)

  9. Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    For instance, that the US did not going back into a deep recession after WW2 has in most things I've read been in large part attributed to the massive governmental spending following ww2 and the strong role military spending then played.
    See woirk by Robert Higgs, Amity Schlaes, Richard Vedder, Benjamin Anderson (on pre Great Depression downturns and lack of intervention). FDR stopped his assault on business at home a few years into the war and essentailly let the economy recover which it hadn't been able to do until then. To suggest that government spending during and after the war ended the depression is to ingore that the spending could only increase in proportion to productivity of American workers, and that started to increase no after the war nor upon its begining, but when domestic legislative attacks on business ended mid war.

    Also since Keynes didn't publish the bulk of his material until 1936 it seems a bit odd to chastise him for a failure to predict the Great Depression.
    To paraphrase Hazlett, almost nothing he wrote was original, and that which was original was wrong. Keynes' treatise on money came out much earlier, 1930 I believe. And he wasn't the only game in town. Many if not most main stream economists, classical adherents excluded for the most part, thought the Fed would stop the business cycle. Their fixation on the price level would I guess make them proto monetarists if anything.

    edit: by the way, what is your position on environmental regulations? (not talking about cap and trade)
    If they can be handled at the property level, I want them handled that way, meaning damages have to be real a provable. Where that kind of approach isn't practical but damages are still clear, I'd be for narrowly focussed legislation that either taxes or bans certain behaviors, emissions, etc.

    Also, to suggest dogma here is to ignore empirical reality as it's been demonstrated time and again. Why don't you look up statements made by prominent economists pre crash, like old Bernanke himself. Just as there's a video called Peter Schiff was right, there's now a video for Benny called Bernanke was wrong. Stunningly, unbelievably wrong. As was Greenspan.
  10. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    See woirk by Robert Higgs, Amity Schlaes, Richard Vedder, Benjamin Anderson (on pre Great Depression downturns and lack of intervention). FDR stopped his assault on business at home a few years into the war and essentailly let the economy recover which it hadn't been able to do until then. To suggest that government spending during and after the war ended the depression is to ingore that the spending could only increase in proportion to productivity of American workers, and that started to increase no after the war nor upon its begining, but when domestic legislative attacks on business ended mid war.



    To paraphrase Hazlett, almost nothing he wrote was original, and that which was original was wrong. Keynes' treatise on money came out much earlier, 1930 I believe. And he wasn't the only game in town. Many if not most main stream economists, classical adherents excluded for the most part, thought the Fed would stop the business cycle. Their fixation on the price level would I guess make them proto monetarists if anything.



    If they can be handled at the property level, I want them handled that way, meaning damages have to be real a provable. Where that kind of approach isn't practical but damages are still clear, I'd be for narrowly focussed legislation that either taxes or bans certain behaviors, emissions, etc.

    Also, to suggest dogma here is to ignore empirical reality as it's been demonstrated time and again. Why don't you look up statements made by prominent economists pre crash, like old Bernanke himself. Just as there's a video called Peter Schiff was right, there's now a video for Benny called Bernanke was wrong. Stunningly, unbelievably wrong. As was Greenspan.
    Re: the environment.
    Tragedy of the commons.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    Re: the environment.
    Tragedy of the commons.
    Which is why I prefer property based solutions where possible. Unfortunately the world isn't perfect so there will likely be a few areas where, God help us, government stewardship is the practical answer. I've noted elsewhere on threads on this very subject, it was the courts in the late nineteenth century that stopped hassle suits against smoke spewing factories because they figured it was better for the 'overall social good' for industry to get a pass. After that the courts decided pollution was a relative thing, and that so long as you weren't polluting out of proportion to everyone else, you were golden. The history of wrecked environments in this country, and I'd wager abroad, is littered with government quashed attempts to assert property rights in the overused resources which would have had the effect of limiting pollution.

    There's a simple solution to the tragedy of the commons: let someone own them and charge for access. This is the only real way to overcome it. And you'll never see it endorsed by any greenies because implicit in it is that there is an optimal level of pollution people will tolerate. But again, empirically you get market baseed views justified. The government claims ownership and/or thwarts attempts at extending property rights into these areas, the predicted result is overuse, which is exactly what happens. Which people then blame on the free market...

  12. I about fell out of my chair when I read that Milton Friedman's Nobel Prize was going to be revoked...and then I realized that it was satirical, but still it wouldn't suprise me. Friedman is one of my heroes.

  13. After Al Gore received the prize over Ira Sendler (who saved thousands of children), I lost all respect for those who decide who gets it.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by panmerc View Post
    After Al Gore received the prize over Ira Sendler (who saved thousands of children), I lost all respect for those who decide who gets it.
    Not when they gave the peace prize to arafat? I mean the prize is given out by the Swedish central back, so it's no surprise they favor heavy government intervention advocating economists. But when it comes to giving peace prizes to mass murderers you'd think they would draw the line.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    ...I mean the prize is given out by the Swedish central back, so it's no surprise they favor heavy government intervention advocating economists.....
    Not quite. Alfred B. Nobel designated the Norwegian Parliament to select a committee of five individuals. This committee awards the Nobel Peace Prize (which Mr. Gore received). In terms of the Economics Prize, formally referred to as the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel, the Sveriges Riksbank (Central Bank of Sweden) designated the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences with the task of selecting the prize winner (beginning 1968).
    Product Educator | USPowders
    Statements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders’ opinion as a whole.
  16. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by IrishRugby34 View Post
    I about fell out of my chair when I read that Milton Friedman's Nobel Prize was going to be revoked...and then I realized that it was satirical, but still it wouldn't suprise me. Friedman is one of my heroes.

  17. l want to know when are they actually going to allow and use most of the fantastic inventions instead of holding them back so our lives remain mediocre one example is Nikola tesla his invention of wireless power just like we get wireless communication was kept quiet because it was not commercially viable for fat greedy capitalists. His final 30 years of research was banned and kept hidden by the U.S government.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 63
    Last Post: 01-29-2009, 04:19 PM
  2. Doses for the follow BF loss stack
    By 0-hero in forum Supplements
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-21-2006, 01:31 PM
  3. when will the following be back in stock?
    By logan in forum Nutraplanet
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-24-2006, 05:06 PM
  4. what would you do with the following????
    By rdj6107 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-26-2005, 10:01 AM
  5. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-16-2005, 11:16 PM
Log in
Log in