Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

# Calculation of GDP, Productivity

9 views

### James Dow Allen

Dec 16, 2003, 2:39:57â€¯AM12/16/03
to
Please explain how measures like GDP are calculated,
and biases overcome.

Suppose, for example, a company fires its \$100k/year
technician and hires a technical firm for \$200k/year
to do the same job. (To complete the loop, suppose
the firm hires the fired technician at \$100k to do
the work, and pockets the extra \$100k.)

Does GNP then increase by \$100k ? By \$200k ?
What will be the effect on computed productivity?

As a simpler example, suppose Mrs. Brown and Mrs. Jones
are bored with doing free housework for their husbands
and hire themselves out, Mr. Brown paying \$50k to
Mrs. Jones, and Mr. Jones paying the same to Mrs. Brown.
In this case I suppose that whether GNP increases by
\$100k depends on whether Brown and Jones complete the
proper tax forms.

I'm sure there are many better examples of this
measurement problem. I'm sure such questions are discussed
by economists but they don't appear in the popular press.
Perhaps the usual answer is
``Yes there are biases, but they're similar year-to-year,
so computed growth rates and productivity are still
meaningful.''
But with employment structure changing rapidly
in today's America, is such an answer valid?

James

### Tim Worstall

Dec 16, 2003, 6:03:45â€¯AM12/16/03
to
jdall...@yahoo.com (James Dow Allen) wrote in message news:<266426e1.03121...@posting.google.com>...

> Please explain how measures like GDP are calculated,
> and biases overcome.
>
> Suppose, for example, a company fires its \$100k/year
> technician and hires a technical firm for \$200k/year
> to do the same job. (To complete the loop, suppose
> the firm hires the fired technician at \$100k to do
> the work, and pockets the extra \$100k.)
>
> Does GNP then increase by \$100k ? By \$200k ?
> What will be the effect on computed productivity?
>
> As a simpler example, suppose Mrs. Brown and Mrs. Jones
> are bored with doing free housework for their husbands
> and hire themselves out, Mr. Brown paying \$50k to
> Mrs. Jones, and Mr. Jones paying the same to Mrs. Brown.
> In this case I suppose that whether GNP increases by
> \$100k depends on whether Brown and Jones complete the
> proper tax forms.

It's a well known criticism of GNP figures that when a man marries his
housekeeper GNP falls.
But that's just the way the figures are calculated.

Tim Worstall

### Albert Wagner

Dec 16, 2003, 9:11:33â€¯AM12/16/03
to
On 15 Dec 2003 23:39:57 -0800

jdall...@yahoo.com (James Dow Allen) wrote:

> Please explain how measures like GDP are calculated,
> and biases overcome.

"The GDP is simply a gross measure of market activity, of money changing
hands. It makes no distinction whatsoever between the desirable and the
undesirable, or costs and gain. On top of that, it looks only at the
portion of reality that economists choose to acknowledge--the part
involved in monetary transactions. The crucial economic functions
performed in the household and volunteer sectors go entirely unreckoned.
As a result the GDP not only masks the breakdown of the social structure
and the natural habitat upon which the economy--and life
itself--ultimately depend; worse, it actually portrays such breakdown as
economic gain."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ecbig/gdp.htm

<snip>

--
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and
demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of
justice and mercy."
- Wendell Berry

### Grinch

Dec 16, 2003, 11:54:11â€¯AM12/16/03
to
On 15 Dec 2003 23:39:57 -0800, jdall...@yahoo.com (James Dow Allen)
wrote:

>Please explain how measures like GDP are calculated,

>and biases overcome.
>
>Suppose, for example, a company fires its \$100k/year
>technician and hires a technical firm for \$200k/year
>to do the same job. (To complete the loop, suppose
>the firm hires the fired technician at \$100k to do
>the work, and pockets the extra \$100k.)
>
>Does GNP then increase by \$100k ? By \$200k ?

To begin with, GDP and GNP are different things.

>What will be the effect on computed productivity?

And productivity is a third thing....

>As a simpler example, suppose Mrs. Brown and Mrs. Jones
>are bored with doing free housework for their husbands
>and hire themselves out, Mr. Brown paying \$50k to
>Mrs. Jones, and Mr. Jones paying the same to Mrs. Brown.
>In this case I suppose that whether GNP increases by
>\$100k depends on whether Brown and Jones complete the
>proper tax forms.
>
>I'm sure there are many better examples of this
>measurement problem. I'm sure such questions are discussed
>by economists but they don't appear in the popular press.
>Perhaps the usual answer is
> ``Yes there are biases, but they're similar year-to-year,
> so computed growth rates and productivity are still
> meaningful.''
>But with employment structure changing rapidly
>in today's America, is such an answer valid?

You can learn all you want about GDP and GNP from the official
compilers of the data at http://www.bea.doc.gov/

As the FAQ there states: "Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the market
value of goods and services produced by labor and property in the
United States".

That is, it is the net value of all goods and services produced in the
US valued at market prices. Yes, a host of adjustments are made to it
to correct for the many and various biases that can affect that market
data.

*However*, in the case where a housewife joins the market by getting a
job earning a market wage no correction is necessary because there is
no bias -- that is in fact an expansion of the market and is correctly
measured as such.

Something important to remember about GDP is that, as any econ
textbook says right at the beginning, it is *not* a "measure of
welfare" -- it just measures what it measures, no more, no less.

There are a whole flotilla of other measurements of the economy, such
as, oh, the civilian participation rate in the employment market:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART/12/Max
Is the long-term increase seen there, including all those former
housewives going to work, good or bad? Are they driven to work out of
need or attracted to it by new opportunities? That datum only measures
what it measures too, so it's hard to say from it alone.

To get a picture of whether the health of the economy is good or bad
or getting better or getting worse, you have to take a look at a whole
range of such economic measures to form a picture, then make your own
judgment.

To make an analogy, when you go to the doctor to measure your personal
health, your temperature and blood pressure will be measured. But
those measurements only measure what they measure.

You don't complain that they are "biased" and should somehow be
"adjusted" because they don't reveal you have diabetes and skin
cancer. The doctor takes other measurements to reveal other things.

You are right about one thing, GDP data gets thrown around by the
press recklessly, without explanation or understanding, and often
misinterpreted as a basic measurement of welfare. There are two
reasons for that.

The first is that GDP growth does correlate *generally* with the trend
in economic health -- more market transactions mean more sales, more
employment, etc, and vice versa -- just like your body temperature
correlates *generally* with your health. If either your body
temperature or the GDP growth rate gets too high or too low it's a
sign that something's wrong, though not of what. Even though the fact
that either of them is in the "normal" range does not prove nothing is
wrong.

The second is that the press is famously illiterate on economics,
committing howlers all the time on even ABCs, and doesn't know any
better than to keep harping on GDP, which is all they *think* they
understand.

### Grinch

Dec 16, 2003, 12:16:46â€¯PM12/16/03
to
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 08:11:33 -0600, Albert Wagner <alwa...@tcac.net>
wrote:

>On 15 Dec 2003 23:39:57 -0800
>jdall...@yahoo.com (James Dow Allen) wrote:
>
>> Please explain how measures like GDP are calculated,
>> and biases overcome.
>
>"The GDP is simply a gross measure of market activity, of money changing
>hands. It makes no distinction whatsoever between the desirable and the
>undesirable, or costs and gain. On top of that, it looks only at the
>portion of reality that economists choose to acknowledge--the part
>involved in monetary transactions. The crucial economic functions
>performed in the household and volunteer sectors go entirely unreckoned.
>As a result the GDP not only masks the breakdown of the social structure
>and the natural habitat upon which the economy--and life
>itself--ultimately depend; worse, it actually portrays such breakdown as
>economic gain."
>
>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ecbig/gdp.htm

Congratulations, Albert, you are talented at something. Whenever an
econ question arises you consistently manage to avoid linking to every
economist and econ organization in the world -- and there are so many

Here you go back eight years to link to an article people have been
laughing at all that time -- written by a couple San Francisco
activist/journalits with no knowledge of econ at all who proposed an
"improved" measure of GDP that would more accurately measure "welfare"
(just as if GDP was supposed to do that!) by *subtracting* from it
things like the costs of repairs and medical care. Since broken
things and poor health are 'badnesses'. ;-)

Just *remember that* when your roof starts leaking or you have a heart
attack and the medics arrive to save your life. Keeping the water off
your head, or saving your life, will be a *loss* to society!

I'm not sure Google is *your* friend when it keeps directing you to
"authorities" on economics like that alcoholic who short himself in a
bathroom stall while stalking, and this.

It looks more like Google is trying to do you in. Beware!

;-)

### Robert Vienneau

Dec 16, 2003, 3:19:43â€¯PM12/16/03
to
In article <i6eutvg9nfe7256m5...@4ax.com>,
oldn...@midspring.com wrote:

James Glass is ignorant and unable to fashion a valid argument.
His ad hominem is a fallacy.

James Tobin and Bill Nordhaus - actual economists and all - constructed,
in 1971, a Measure of Economic Welfare (MEW). And they contrasted it
with the conventional measure of economic activity, GNP. Tobin and
Nordhaus were addressing some of the issues that Albert Wagner brings
up. And other economists have discussed these sorts of ideas.

I think what economists happened to have included in GNP and what they
excluded when they set up national income accounting have had profound
effects on the discussion of economics, popular and otherwise, ever
since.

> I'm not sure Google is *your* friend when it keeps directing you to
> "authorities" on economics like that alcoholic who short himself in a
> bathroom stall while stalking, and this.

Scaife's role in politics in the U.S.A. is quite curious. And Steve
Kangas's death is strange, however you look at it.

--
To solve Linear Programs: .../LPSolver.html
r c A game: .../Keynes.html
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau

### Albert Wagner

Dec 16, 2003, 4:27:01â€¯PM12/16/03
to
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:16:46 GMT
Grinch <oldn...@midspring.com> wrote:
<snip>

> Congratulations, Albert, you are talented at something. Whenever an
> econ question arises you consistently manage to avoid linking to every
> economist and econ organization in the world -- and there are so many
> of them! -- in your answer.

Nor have I seen you point to "every economist and econ organization in
the world," but rather only those that support your viewpoint.

>
> Here you go back eight years to link to an article people have been
> laughing at all that time --

I suspect only neoclassicals laugh in order to discredit it as you are
doing.

> written by a couple San Francisco
> activist/journalits with no knowledge of econ at all

Roughly equivalent to neoclassical economists who ignore all of the
scientific and mathematical proof that neoclassical economics is based
on lies.

> who proposed an
> "improved" measure of GDP that would more accurately measure "welfare"
> (just as if GDP was supposed to do that!) by *subtracting* from it
> things like the costs of repairs and medical care. Since broken
> things and poor health are 'badnesses'. ;-)

"Broken things and poor health" ARE bad. And in that neoeconomists and
their dupes in the media rely so heavily on a rising GDP as an indicator
of economic health there is a desperate need for another, more useful,
indicator.

>
> Just *remember that* when your roof starts leaking or you have a heart
> attack and the medics arrive to save your life. Keeping the water off
> your head, or saving your life, will be a *loss* to society!

Non-sequitur. Leaking roofs and heart attacks ARE bad. People who fix
broken things ARE good. According to the GDP a massive plague would
show up as a sharp rise in GDP.

>
> I'm not sure Google is *your* friend when it keeps directing you to
> "authorities" on economics like that alcoholic who short himself in a
> bathroom stall while stalking, and this.

Another logical fallacy. Even assuming your accusations were correct
about the writer you refer to, it does not follow that his economic
analysis is flawed.

BTW, what are YOUR economic credentials? Econ 101 on the way to a

### ro...@telus.net

Dec 16, 2003, 10:07:09â€¯PM12/16/03
to
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 17:16:46 GMT, Grinch <oldn...@midspring.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 08:11:33 -0600, Albert Wagner <alwa...@tcac.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On 15 Dec 2003 23:39:57 -0800
>>jdall...@yahoo.com (James Dow Allen) wrote:
>>
>>> Please explain how measures like GDP are calculated,
>>> and biases overcome.
>>
>>"The GDP is simply a gross measure of market activity, of money changing
>>hands. It makes no distinction whatsoever between the desirable and the
>>undesirable, or costs and gain. On top of that, it looks only at the
>>portion of reality that economists choose to acknowledge--the part
>>involved in monetary transactions. The crucial economic functions
>>performed in the household and volunteer sectors go entirely unreckoned.
>>As a result the GDP not only masks the breakdown of the social structure
>>and the natural habitat upon which the economy--and life
>>itself--ultimately depend; worse, it actually portrays such breakdown as
>>economic gain."
>>
>>http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ecbig/gdp.htm
>
>Congratulations, Albert, you are talented at something. Whenever an
>econ question arises you consistently manage to avoid linking to every
>economist and econ organization in the world -- and there are so many

Parroting the standard line takes no brains. Understanding it does.

>Here you go back eight years to link to an article people have been
>laughing at all that time -- written by a couple San Francisco
>activist/journalits with no knowledge of econ at all who proposed an
>"improved" measure of GDP that would more accurately measure "welfare"
>(just as if GDP was supposed to do that!) by *subtracting* from it
>things like the costs of repairs and medical care. Since broken
>things and poor health are 'badnesses'. ;-)

But that is not what Albert posted, is it, Grinch? You are attempting
to put over a strawman fallacy, here. Is there even one sentence
_in_the_exerpt_Albert_actually_posted_ that you claim is false?

-- Roy L

### James Dow Allen

Dec 17, 2003, 7:46:42â€¯AM12/17/03
to
Grinch <oldn...@midspring.com> wrote in message news:<r2butv06u4klt6gc3...@4ax.com>...

> On 15 Dec 2003 23:39:57 -0800, jdall...@yahoo.com (James Dow Allen)
> wrote:
> >Suppose, for example, a company fires its \$100k/year
> >technician and hires a technical firm for \$200k/year
> >to do the same job. (To complete the loop, suppose
> >the firm hires the fired technician at \$100k to do
> >the work, and pockets the extra \$100k.)
> >
> >Does GNP then increase by \$100k ? By \$200k ?

I'm glad my question got responses. Unfortunately none answered my
questions.

> To begin with, GDP and GNP are different things.
> >What will be the effect on computed productivity?
> And productivity is a third thing....

Did I come across as particularly stupid? FWIW I got A+
in college econ, though that was many decades ago.

Is there a forum where people will actually
answer simple econ questions?

James

### susupply

Dec 17, 2003, 10:01:28â€¯AM12/17/03
to

"Albert Wagner" <alwa...@tcac.net>

whose new best friend is the word, "neoclassical",

wrote in message news:20031216152701.1...@tcac.net...

> > Here you go back eight years to link to an article people have been
> > laughing at all that time --
>
> I suspect only neoclassicals laugh in order to discredit it as you are
> doing.

Well, yes, one does have to have enough knowledge to get the joke.

> > written by a couple San Francisco
> > activist/journalits with no knowledge of econ at all
>
> Roughly equivalent to neoclassical economists who ignore all of the
> scientific and mathematical proof that neoclassical economics is based
> on lies.

Would the erudite Mr. Wagner care to list those "lies", as well as the
"scientific and mathematical proof"?

> > who proposed an
> > "improved" measure of GDP that would more accurately measure "welfare"
> > (just as if GDP was supposed to do that!) by *subtracting* from it
> > things like the costs of repairs and medical care. Since broken
> > things and poor health are 'badnesses'. ;-)
>
> "Broken things and poor health" ARE bad. And in that neoeconomists and
> their dupes in the media rely so heavily on a rising GDP as an indicator
> of economic health there is a desperate need for another, more useful,
> indicator.

Starvation and exposure to the elements are "bad" also. Should we subtract
any and all efforts to produce food, clothing, and shelter from GDP?

[snip]

> BTW, what are YOUR economic credentials? Econ 101 on the way to a

Even if he had none, this would be worthy of one of Chris Auld's; Pot,
Kettle, Black Awards.

### susupply

Dec 17, 2003, 10:13:22â€¯AM12/17/03
to

"Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com>

or perhaps, the New Improved Updated Robert Vienneau,

wrote in message news:rvien-4733DE....@news.dreamscape.com...

> James Glass is ignorant and unable to fashion a valid argument.
> His ad hominem is a fallacy.
>
> James Tobin and Bill Nordhaus - actual economists and all - constructed,
> in 1971, a Measure of Economic Welfare (MEW). And they contrasted it
> with the conventional measure of economic activity, GNP. Tobin and
> Nordhaus were addressing some of the issues that Albert Wagner brings
> up. And other economists have discussed these sorts of ideas.

Speaking of fallacies, Albert Wagner didn't link to Tobin, Nordhaus, or any
other credentialed economist. He linked to an article from a notoriously
cranky magazine (the latest developments of Lisztian Trade Authority).
Which is what Grinch responded to.

But, I'm glad you've found another nutcase to take under your wing since Dr.
Food and Lauchlan have deserted you.

### Albert Wagner

Dec 17, 2003, 4:40:44â€¯PM12/17/03
to
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:01:28 GMT
"susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> "Albert Wagner" <alwa...@tcac.net>
<snip>

> > Roughly equivalent to neoclassical economists who ignore all of the
> > scientific and mathematical proof that neoclassical economics is
> > based on lies.
>
> Would the erudite Mr. Wagner care to list those "lies", as well as the
> "scientific and mathematical proof"?

There are many reputable economists who have produced voluminous proofs.
A good starting point for you might be Steve Keen's book, "Debunking
Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences."

<snip>

### Grinch

Dec 17, 2003, 6:42:17â€¯PM12/17/03
to
On 17 Dec 2003 04:46:42 -0800, jdall...@yahoo.com (James Dow Allen)
wrote:

>Grinch <oldn...@midspring.com> wrote in message news:<r2butv06u4klt6gc3...@4ax.com>...
>> On 15 Dec 2003 23:39:57 -0800, jdall...@yahoo.com (James Dow Allen)
>> wrote:
>> >Suppose, for example, a company fires its \$100k/year
>> >technician and hires a technical firm for \$200k/year
>> >to do the same job. (To complete the loop, suppose
>> >the firm hires the fired technician at \$100k to do
>> >the work, and pockets the extra \$100k.)
>> >
>> >Does GNP then increase by \$100k ? By \$200k ?
>
>I'm glad my question got responses. Unfortunately none answered my
>questions.
>
>> To begin with, GDP and GNP are different things.
>> >What will be the effect on computed productivity?
>> And productivity is a third thing....
>
>Did I come across as particularly stupid?

Stupid? No. Ignorant about econ basics, yes.

>FWIW I got A+
>in college econ, though that was many decades ago.

Well, you certainly came across as someone who never took college econ
and got A+ in it to boot, being that you conflate such things and
don't remember the answers to such simple questions.

>Is there a forum where people will actually
>answer simple econ questions?

There is the Bureau of Economic Analysis web site, and as an A+ econ
student you'd know how to follow the link provided for you to it,
right?

And you'd want your answers from the authoritative source, rather than
from who knows what kind of usenet loon, right?

If you can't follow a link to BEA, or prefer to be taught by the
random usenet loon because it's easier that way, then we'll be
considering "stupid".

>James

### Robert Vienneau

Dec 17, 2003, 11:17:53â€¯PM12/17/03
to
"susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> "Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com>

> But, I'm glad you've found another nutcase to take under your wing...

I don't know why Patrick Sullivan thinks I want "to take [him]
under [my] wing".

### Tim Worstall

Dec 18, 2003, 4:37:14â€¯AM12/18/03
to
jdall...@yahoo.com (James Dow Allen) wrote in message news:<266426e1.03121...@posting.google.com>...
> Please explain how measures like GDP are calculated,
> and biases overcome.
>
> Suppose, for example, a company fires its \$100k/year
> technician and hires a technical firm for \$200k/year
> to do the same job. (To complete the loop, suppose
> the firm hires the fired technician at \$100k to do
> the work, and pockets the extra \$100k.)
>
> Does GNP then increase by \$100k ? By \$200k ?
> What will be the effect on computed productivity?

GDP does not change. Consider, there are three broad ways to calculate
it. As an accounting definition, it is either all incomes, all
spending or all production. Total incomes above have not changed. The
tech is still getting \$ 100,000 a year. The consultancy is getting \$
100k a year in profits. But as we have the same work being done ( ie
no change in productivity ) where has that 100 k of profits come from
? Obviously from the reduction by \$ 100 k in profits made by the firm
which originally fired the technician and hired the consultancy.
So the grossed up income in the economy has not changed : we've just
moved some of it around.

>
> As a simpler example, suppose Mrs. Brown and Mrs. Jones
> are bored with doing free housework for their husbands
> and hire themselves out, Mr. Brown paying \$50k to
> Mrs. Jones, and Mr. Jones paying the same to Mrs. Brown.
> In this case I suppose that whether GNP increases by
> \$100k depends on whether Brown and Jones complete the
> proper tax forms.

This does increase GDP. As I said earlier, it is acknowleged that when
a man marries his ( paid ) houskeeper and turns her into an ( unpaid )
housewife, recorded GDP falls. You are simply positing the reverse.
So, to answer the question you haven't asked, but probably want to,
yes, there are anomalies in the way GDP is calculatd, in that it
leaves out all of those things that people do outside the cash
economy. Other examples are subsistence farming, growing your own
vegetables, unpaid volunteer work and so on.

But then, GDP is just trying to measure economic activity ( more
specifically, value added ) and so to complain because it does not
register things that are not economic activity is a little perverse.

There are many attmept out there to measure the health of the economy
differently, usually starting with the assumption that solely
considering value added is not fully reflective of reality. And that
is correct. But it is useful to have a number which both claims to,
and does, measure solely that, val;ue added in the domestic economy.

Tim Worstall

### Robert Vienneau

Dec 18, 2003, 8:12:06â€¯AM12/18/03
to
jdall...@yahoo.com (James Dow Allen) wrote:

> I'm glad my question got responses. Unfortunately none answered my
> questions.

Well, you now have more responses.

I took your original post as suggesting you hadn't quite managed
to totally articulate your question, but wanted comments on certain
themes.

I think it false to assume that there is something out there called
"economic activty" that exists independent of how we measure it or
of the discourses in which we use those measurements.

And I think that if you were to look at the details of the
definitions - although it's been some time since I did that -
you can find plenty of places where ambiguities have to be
resolved by some sort of convention.

For example, one might define income as what can one can consume
without eating into one's capital stock. If one expects the
value of one's capital to go up, then one can consume more
immediately. Increased expected future capital gains imply one's
current income is higher. But then different people could then have
different perceptions of their income. Would it make sense to
aggregate income across individuals when these individuals do
not agree on their beliefs?

And difficulties arise with respect to depreciation, technical
change, etc. (This all gets to why it is GDP, not NDP.) So
national accounting contains many conventions to handle such
details.

Going further afield, I have a book on my shelf where some
Marxists tried to use national income statistics to examine
Marxist theories. They found that the categories had to be
mapped into another set for their theories to be examined.
This gets into assigning "value added" to activities. If
a different set of concerns had been commonplace when the
national income statistics were set up, perhaps they would be
quite different.

I have even read a paper on "feminist accounting".

> Is there a forum where people will actually
> answer simple econ questions?

You see that authoritarian bullies actually try to prevent
discussion of economics in this forum. Curious.

### susupply

Dec 18, 2003, 11:13:25â€¯AM12/18/03
to

"Albert Wagner" <alwa...@tcac.net>

or one of them, recently claimed of himself and his intellectual peer, Roy:

> (1) We marshal facts and produce a logical interpretation of them.

Yet, in response to a request that he do just that,

wrote in message news:20031217154044.2...@tcac.net...

> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:01:28 GMT
> "susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > "Albert Wagner" <alwa...@tcac.net>
> <snip>
> > > Roughly equivalent to neoclassical economists who ignore all of the
> > > scientific and mathematical proof that neoclassical economics is
> > > based on lies.
> >
> > Would the erudite Mr. Wagner care to list those "lies", as well as the
> > "scientific and mathematical proof"?
>
> There are many reputable economists who have produced voluminous proofs.
> A good starting point for you might be Steve Keen's book, "Debunking
> Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences."

No, no. I asked YOU to list "lies" and what YOU believe the "scientific and
mathematical proof" is that established them as lies. Whatsamatta, you fail
English and Composition?

I did NOT ask you for the name of a notorious crackpot--who by the way, has
had his inanities humiliatingly demolished by sci.econ's own Chris Auld.

### susupply

Dec 18, 2003, 11:25:12â€¯AM12/18/03
to

"Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com>

perhaps being tutored in English by sci.econ's leading expert,

wrote in message news:rvien-806D54....@news.dreamscape.com...

> "susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > "Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com>
>
> > But, I'm glad you've found another nutcase to take under your wing...
>
> I don't know why Patrick Sullivan thinks I want "to take [him]
> under [my] wing".

Who said anything about "want"? I'm merely describing your history here.

### Albert Wagner

Dec 18, 2003, 2:27:14â€¯PM12/18/03
to
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:13:25 GMT

"susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> "Albert Wagner" <alwa...@tcac.net>
<snip>
> > There are many reputable economists who have produced voluminous
> > proofs. A good starting point for you might be Steve Keen's book,
> > "Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences."
>
> No, no. I asked YOU to list "lies" and what YOU believe the
> "scientific and mathematical proof" is that established them as lies.

Steve Keen wrote a 335pp book. Not being an economist, I doubt that I
could condense what he said to a single usenet post. However, even
though I am currently only halfway through the book, I find myself
marveling at the profound stupidity and stubbornness of neoclassical
economists.

> Whatsamatta, you fail English and Composition?

No, straight 4.0s.

> I did NOT ask you for the name of a notorious crackpot--

Nor did I give you one. I am sure that you see the above remark as both
a scientific and mathematical refutation of Steve Keen's work, but it
just won't fly outside your own small circle of deaf and blind bullies.

> who by the
> way, has had his inanities humiliatingly demolished by sci.econ's own
> Chris Auld.

Who the hell is Chris Auld? And why is HE not a crackpot?

### Robert Vienneau

Dec 18, 2003, 1:32:31â€¯PM12/18/03
to
"susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> "Albert Wagner" <alwa...@tcac.net>

> [stupidity deleted]

> wrote in message news:20031217154044.2...@tcac.net...
> > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:01:28 GMT
> > "susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> > > "Albert Wagner" <alwa...@tcac.net>
> > <snip>
> > > > Roughly equivalent to neoclassical economists who ignore all of the
> > > > scientific and mathematical proof that neoclassical economics is
> > > > based on lies.

> > > Would the erudite Mr. Wagner care to list those "lies", as well as
> > > the
> > > "scientific and mathematical proof"?

> > There are many reputable economists who have produced voluminous
> > proofs.
> > A good starting point for you might be Steve Keen's book, "Debunking
> > Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences."

> No, no. I asked YOU to list "lies" and what YOU believe the "scientific
> and
> mathematical proof" is that established them as lies. Whatsamatta, you
> fail
> English and Composition?

Ad hominem is a fallacy.

> I did NOT ask you for the name of a notorious crackpot

Ad hominem is a fallacy.

> --who by the way,
> has
> had his inanities humiliatingly demolished by sci.econ's own Chris Auld.

The stupid one was moaning about a cite.

Newcomers might wonder who poor Chris Auld is that nettrash should
drag his name in. I think the following shows something about why
a stupid liar might cite him:

====================================================================
"My sentence above does not contain a complaint, it contains merely the
observation on my part of the assumption of priestly authority on your
part, which is amply demonstrated by the tone of your postings. If
you take my observation to be itself an insult, so be it. That's the
point of Keen's book, isn't it? Except that Keen's point makes the
more general case, against "most economists" in THEIR assumption of
priestly authority."
-- Bill Ryan, 25 March 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Ryan <william...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>My sentence above does not contain a complaint, it contains merely the
>observation on my part of the assumption of priestly authority on your
>part, which is amply demonstrated by the tone of your postings.

Does everyone else enjoy the "merely" as much as I do?

> If
>you take my observation to be itself an insult, so be it. That's the
>point of Keen's book, isn't it?

Bill's excuse for writing a sequence of offensive, zero-
content posts is that Steve Keen is offensive. Indeed,
that is "the point of Keen's book."
-- Poor Chris Auld, 25 March 2003
====================================================================
I think it's pretty clear that he did -- and congratulations to you,
Tim, on your part in exposing the creep.

The interesting bit of by-play in all of this is the tendency of some
gun nuts to say Hey, Lott is just the victim of lefties trying to get
back at us for the Bellesiles affair.

Me, I'm one lefty that's covered: I sent Clayton Cramer a
congratulations and Bellesiles-should-be-boiled-in-oil note at the time
of *his* good work.
-- David Lloyd-Jones, 17 January 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, DLJ's opinion of Lott's work is essentially religious in nature.
For example, DLJ's first comment on the matter is plainly political:

The interesting bit of by-play in all of this is the tendency of some
gun nuts to say Hey, Lott is just the victim of lefties trying to get
back at us for the Bellesiles affair.

Me, I'm one lefty that's covered:

The stage is clear: It's not statisticians discussing the
properties of multivariate models of the determinants of
crime, it's "gun nuts" versus "lefties." Again there are
no greys, only black and white political camps. One need
only figure out which political camp one belongs to to know
which of two possible opinions of Lott's book one ought to
take.
-- Poor Chris Auld, 24 February 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------
o Does David Lloyd-Jones say he is covered by the charactization
of "lefties trying to get back at [gun nuts] for the Bellesiles
affair"?

o Does poor Chris Auld's editing ambiguate this question of whether
David Lloyd-Jones sees the world as properly described by the
dichotomy of the two groups identified in his text?
-- Robert Vienneau
=====================================================================
CA> This accusation is incorrect.

TL> You are mistaken. The graphs are labelled as Ehrlich says,

CA> The accusation was that Lott deliberately misleads

TL> No the accusation was that Lott misleads the reader. The
-- Poor Chris Auld and Tim Lambert, 20 January 2003
=====================================================================
CA3> Not that it should be confusing in context
CA3> even if he hadn't. I really don't find "but laymen might
CA3> get confused by this!" to be a particularly compelling argument
CA3> against Lott's results.

TL2> Laymen are (not might be) misled by his graphs. That's not an
TL2> argument against his results. The argument against his results is
TL2> that Lott is misled by his own graphs.

CA1> I think you have said repeatedly (after Ehrlich) that Lott's
CA1> graphs are misleading, and repeatedly given the example of
CA1> someone on usenet who was mislead.

TL0> Correct.

CA1> I think it disingenuous
CA1> to claim you never said that when it's pointed out it isn't
CA1> a remotely compelling argument.

TL0> Bizarre. My paragraph you are responding to states that the graphs
TL0> are misleading *and* that Lott was misled by them. How do manage to
TL0> read it as some sort of denial that I ever made the statements that
TL0> are contained in that paragraph?
-- Poor Chris Auld and Tim Lambert, 12 February 2003
=====================================================================

CA> I think John Lott made a mistake in his assertion about correlations.
CA> I don't think this mistake ought to be repeated ad infinitum and
CA> brandished as "evidence of incompetence."

TL> I posted it ONCE because I believe it shows him making the same
TL> conceptual error as in his argument about when the declines started.

CA> You posted it several times, and not for the valid reason
CA> of attempting to show an error in reasoning related to the
CA> discussion but rather as an attempt to discredit Lott
CA> personally ("evidence of incompetence").

TL> It is easy to check via Google and see that you are wrong. What is
TL> your excuse for making such a false claim?

CA> Google says I should have said, "Your exchange with Lott
CA> was posted several times, and you repeated it." It was
CA> previously posted, as you know, by someone else.

TL> You didn't answer my question. You claimed I posted it several
TL> times, I corrected you, and [you] repeated the false claim instead
TL> of checking whether it was true. What is your excuse for your
TL> behaviour?

CA> If you read carefully, Tim, you'll find I did answer your (rude)
CA> question: I corrected myself. Someone else quoted you before, and
CA> you then proceeded to quote the same passage again. My point is
CA> substantively unaltered.

TL> You did not answer my question. Why did you repeat your false
TL> claim after I corrected you?

CA> I did answer your question. But you snipped mine for some
CA> reason: Why did you quote that exchange again after it had
CA> already been quoted and discussed in thread?
-- Poor Chris Auld and Tim Lambert, around 26 February 2003

### susupply

Dec 18, 2003, 6:41:19â€¯PM12/18/03
to

"Albert Wagner" <alwa...@tcac.net>

who recently conceded he had absolutely zero credentials to establish him as
an critic of anyone's economic analysis,

wrote in message news:20031218132714.3...@tcac.net...

> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 16:13:25 GMT

> Steve Keen wrote a 335pp book. Not being an economist, I doubt that I

> could condense what he said to a single usenet post.

I thought you were an English major. They didn't even teach you to cut and
paste?

> However, even
> though I am currently only halfway through the book, I find myself
> marveling at the profound stupidity and stubbornness of neoclassical
> economists.

You may not know much about economics, but you know what you like?

> > Whatsamatta, you fail English and Composition?
>
> No, straight 4.0s.
>
> > I did NOT ask you for the name of a notorious crackpot--
>
> Nor did I give you one.

That would not be an opinion shared by anyone with a smidgen of knowledge of
economics.

> I am sure that you see the above remark as both
> a scientific and mathematical refutation of Steve Keen's work, but it
> just won't fly outside your own small circle of deaf and blind bullies.

Since Keen himself had to admit to Chris Auld he was wrong about economists
use of dynamic models, and that the math in his book was also in error in
crucial places, I'd say it flew like an F-15 with a smart bomb.

> > who by the
> > way, has had his inanities humiliatingly demolished by sci.econ's own
> > Chris Auld.
>
> Who the hell is Chris Auld? And why is HE not a crackpot?

See for yourself:

http://jerry.ss.ucalgary.ca/debunk.pdf

### susupply

Dec 18, 2003, 7:02:02â€¯PM12/18/03
to

"Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com>

still as self aware as a day old loaf of bread,

wrote in message news:rvien-05075C....@news.dreamscape.com...

> "susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> > No, no. I asked YOU to list "lies" and what YOU believe the "scientific
> > and
> > mathematical proof" is that established them as lies. Whatsamatta, you
> > fail
> > English and Composition?
>
> Ad hominem is a fallacy.

Tell it to your new boy toy. He's the one who originated the phrase, "fail
English and Composition", on this newsgroup.

>
> > I did NOT ask you for the name of a notorious crackpot
>
> Ad hominem is a fallacy.
>
> > --who by the way,
> > has
> > had his inanities humiliatingly demolished by sci.econ's own Chris Auld.
>
> The stupid one was moaning about a cite.

The stupid one was the guy who responded with "Steve Keen" in place of an
answer to my question.

> Newcomers might wonder who poor Chris Auld is that nettrash should
> drag his name in. I think the following shows something about why
> a stupid liar might cite him:

You left out the hilarious error Keen made regarding Nash Equilibrium.

### Albert Wagner

Dec 18, 2003, 8:40:19â€¯PM12/18/03
to
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:41:19 GMT
"susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>
> "Albert Wagner" <alwa...@tcac.net>
>
> who recently conceded he had absolutely zero credentials to establish
> him as an critic of anyone's economic analysis,

Unlike Patrick, who concedes nothing, even when proved wrong and who has
demonstrated absolutely no expertise in economics, logic, rhetoric or
English grammar.
Who the hell is Patrick anyway? Some 13 year old loser with a bad case
of acne and an attitude?

<snip>

> I thought you were an English major. They didn't even teach you to
> cut and paste?

What they taught us is that cut-and-paste is called plagiarism. Is that
how you win debates?

<snip>
> Since Keen himself had to admit to Chris Aid he was wrong about

> economists use of dynamic models, and that the math in his book was
> also in error in crucial places, I'd say it flew like an F-15 with a
> smart bomb.

I suppose that this exchange is documented somewhere and is not just

<snip>

### susupply

Dec 19, 2003, 10:27:44â€¯AM12/19/03
to

"Albert Wagner" <alwa...@tcac.net>

continuing to embarrass his mentor,

wrote in message news:20031218194019.7...@tcac.net...

> Who the hell is Patrick anyway? Some 13 year old loser with a bad case
> of acne and an attitude?

Uh huh, this guy is definitely your cup of tea, Robert.

> <snip>
> > I thought you were an English major. They didn't even teach you to
> > cut and paste?
>
> What they taught us is that cut-and-paste is called plagiarism. Is that
> how you win debates?

Sorry to tell you, but they lied about plagiarism. It's called quotation
for "fair use".

> <snip>
> > Since Keen himself had to admit to Chris Aid he was wrong about
> > economists use of dynamic models, and that the math in his book was
> > also in error in crucial places, I'd say it flew like an F-15 with a
> > smart bomb.
>
> I suppose that this exchange is documented somewhere and is not just
> your wishful thinking.

Oh, most definitely it is documented. For instance:

http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?A2=ind0203&L=hayek-l&O=A&P=4168

Where, in response to Steve Keen's capitulation on a book already published:

> On dynamics--well, I am prepared to concede that I need to do a lot more
> work on that aspect of the paper to make a decent case; it is probably not
> going to appear in the final version.

<< While I appreciate Steve's honesty in capitulating this portion of the
argument, I offer the suggestion that investigating the matter further may
change his mind rather than help him "make a decent case" that economists
don't use dynamic analysis.

<< Since Steve has backed down on his allegations regarding dynamics, has
not
defended his idea that the approximation error from treating prices as
parametric is large rather than vanishingly small, and has offered nothing
to bolster the mathematically incorrect argument that the standard
comparison of monopoly v competitive markets is invalid, I am not sure if
anything even debatable remains in the "new critiques." >>

### Robert Vienneau

Dec 19, 2003, 12:45:47â€¯PM12/19/03
to
In article <20031218194019.7...@tcac.net>, Albert Wagner
<alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:

> Who the hell is Patrick anyway? Some 13 year old loser with a bad case
> of acne and an attitude?

--------------------------------------------------------------
>First, as I have suspected for a long time, Jason has absolutely
>no contact with the world in which the overwhelming majority of
>people live.

Oh yes: go fuck yourself.
-- Jason McCullough, 2/14/2003 (not on sci.econ)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sullivan, I'm sure you have better things to do than
behave like a petty little ass.

Or rather, I'm not sure about you, but I am sure about me. So
please forgive me if I am not going to play with you...
-- Charles Utwatter I, 2/13/2003 (not on sci.econ)
--------------------------------------------------------------
I'll get right to it. I don't know who Patrick Sullivan is,
where he gets his information, whether he is a journalist
or just some right wing Nazi, but he is out of his mind.
-- Jason Leopold, 11/30/02 (not on sci.econ)
--------------------------------------------------------------

By your response you demonstrate an astounding inability to read
nuance...

But I think we both know you passed the point of attempting serious
debate some time ago, in favour of sniping insults and out-of-context
quoting.
-- Robin de la Motte, 10/22/01
--------------------------------------------------------------

...So what? So, I don't think we serve pursuit of truth by sloppy
indictments of other thinkers or by papering over the differences
between different thinkers. You blast Arthur (mistakenly, I believe)
for his supposed backpedaling. Are you not now backpedaling
yourself? If not, then where, oh where, does Arthur ever sign on

You say "But as for backpedaling in mid-stream I don't think I've ever
seen the like of this from Brian Arthur in the Pretext interview." Then
you quote Arthur saying technology comes in waves, so that one is locked
in only until the "next wave" comes along. Isn't this just ceteris
paribus? Where is the backpedaling?

Anyway, I think backpedaling is undervalued. If I state my case too
strongly or fall into error, would you deny me the right to modify my
position? Or would you insist that I cry "uncle" and go over
completely to your position?

It's the spirit of combat that bugs me. Can't we engage in a
conversation with other thinkers? If it's a combat, then we want to
win. I don't want to win; I want to edge closer to the truth. In
the spirit of combat, as it appears to me, your last post actually
denied that the best technology is a member of the attactor set in
typical Polya urn models of technology choice. I'm sure you didn't
mean to say that. After all, that would be a flat error in which
there can be no question of judgment, but only of whether one has
understood the model. I'm sure your meaning was different. But I
can't shake the impression that you made the remark because you were
animated by the spirit of combat. That's the problem.

Yes, yes. We all make our mistakes and so on. I have certainly
been guilty of firing off heated emails that I later regretted...
-- Roger Koppl (not on sci.econ), 7/24/2001

--------------------------------------------------------------

Patrick Susupply quotes stuff he doesn't understand. So I guess
I'll have to repeat part of DeLong's quote. You can take it from
there, Pat, though I doubt anyone really cares. I sure don't.
-- William Hummel, 11/9/1999

---------------------------------------------------------------

Patrick,

I'm sure that you won't believe me, but why don't you get
one of your economist friends to explain to you why David
and Arthur are fine economists and you are a rude ignorant
little boy who doesn't know what he's talking about.
-- John Hillas, 10/9/1999

----------------------------------------------------------------

It is really fascinating to have a look around some of the other
newsgroups. SUSUPPLY's conduct is in all probability an all time low.
The computer programming guys - although divided by ideological
differences about the merits of languages and paradigms and so forth
are civil, informative and a delight to read. The buddhists are
fascinating, and have genuine intellectual discussion with real respect
for each other. Only here does anyone put up with anything approaching
patrick's crap.

I wonder why people do.
-- Lauchlan Mackinnon, 4/17/1999

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Schulman:
>> There you go again. Instead of addressing the truth value of a
>>comment, you concoct an ad hominem fantasy.

Patrick Sullivan:
>...Who wrote
>these "ad hominem fantas[ies]:

[Entries from the "Patrick Sullivan Archive of Injuries Received from
the Richard Schulman" deleted]

Once again, P.S. proves his inability to understand underlying content
as opposed to literal surface. It is this intellectual flaw, more than
anything else, that makes most of his responses so immature and
pedantic.

There is nothing wrong with ad hominem comments when appropriate to
context. What is immature is an ad hominem response (and a false one,
at that) when a substantive reply is called for.

Of course, Sullivan, in his replies, omits the context that would make
his own ad hominem look so immature and evasive...

...That, of course, called for a substantive reply. Instead,
characteristically, Sullivan replied with an ad hominem falsehood
against myself.

It is this sort of behavior which is characteristic of the individual
I call "net trash."

Richard Schulman, 11/7/1998

----------------------------------------------------------------

Unlike Nettrash like yourself, I don't spend all day hovering over the
keyboard waiting to instantly post some banality in answer to an
opponent. The way I generally work is this: after eating dinner, I put
out the garbage. Then I answer yours...

Patrick Suppository:
>I'm certainly developing solid knowledge of you, Richard.

It seems pretty squishy to me. I think you're straining too hard. Or
perhaps it's your diet. As they say in the computer field (of which
you are so ignorant, "GIGO!" (Garbage In, Garbage Out)

-- Richard Schulman, 11/5/1998

---------------------------------------------------------------

I intended my comments on auction markets for the economists
on the newsgroup, but this post offers--quite accidentally,
I'm sure--too good a question to ignore.

Su> Second, ever notice those menus posted in the windows of
Su> restaurants?
Su> Those are offers...

...The menu with the seller's prices, as anyone with an IQ in
three digits can see...

-- Frank Palmer, 10/27/1998

---------------------------------------------------------------

Patrick, much as you fancy yourself some sort of sci.econ moderator, I
happen not to give a damn what you happen to think the point at issue
is. And if that's what you think the point at issue was, then your mind
is even littler than you've made evident so far...

> Just how far up the food chain are you at Cornell, I'm curious.
>
> Patrick

Patrick, dear, I like a good round of insults as much as the next guy,
but your refusal to emply even a tiny bit of imagination in them really
doesn't make it worthwhile. Tata.

-- Enrique Diaz-Alvarez, 6/22/1998

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, let's all shave our heads, hold hands with Patrick, and recite his
mantra:

Hare krishna, hare krishna
government bad, markets good
hare, hare, krishna, krishna
markets good, markets good
krishna hare, krishna krishna
krishna, krishna, hare, hare

Repeat as necessary, until all our public health disasters, pollution
problems, and other such trifles disappear. In the unlikely case this
doesn't work, just move.

-- Enrique Diaz-Alvarez, 6/19/1998

----------------------------------------------------------------

Look, Patrick, my dear haddock, this is the beach. The sea, without
which you will surely expire, is over there, past where Ben and Paraic
are kicking each other's sandcastles because Ben has the remarkably fine
aesthetic sense to despise the dreadful Visage and Paraic doesn't. Why
don't you get back in the water and swim off back to sci.econ and
whatever other noisome depths you usually inhabit?

Mike "wave goodbye" Holmans, 4/21/1998

----------------------------------------------------------------

### susupply

Dec 19, 2003, 3:31:55â€¯PM12/19/03
to

"Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com>

recently heard from on sci.econ declaring:

> Ad hominem is a fallacy.

[snip]

> Ad hominem is a fallacy.

[snip]

> The stupid one was moaning about a cite.

wrote in message news:rvien-913B06....@news.dreamscape.com...

> In article <20031218194019.7...@tcac.net>, Albert Wagner
> <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote:
>
> > Who the hell is Patrick anyway? Some 13 year old loser with a bad case
> > of acne and an attitude?
>
> Temporally, an adult.

Which I think conclusively answers Vienneau's question:

> I don't know why Patrick Sullivan thinks I want "to take [him]
> under [my] wing".

And, if not, the rest of this meticulously detailed post surely does:

### Albert Wagner

Dec 19, 2003, 8:35:51â€¯PM12/19/03
to
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:27:44 GMT
"susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<snip>

> Sorry to tell you, but they lied about plagiarism. It's called
> quotation for "fair use".

I haven't yet figured out how to cut from a paper book for pasting into
a mail composer. I understand the book is in high demand. You should

<snip>

Sorry, Patrick. As usual, you either quote out of context or misquote
totally. So I cannot believe that what you chose to cut-and-paste,
including a single email from Chris Auld, comes anywhere near the truth
of the matter. However, I have been in contact with Steve Keen and he
has authorized me to release three PDFs that counter Chris's attacks. I
can also see why you are so enamored with Chris. He has the same
unpleasant habit that you display of putting words in his opponents
mouth and then attacking a straw man. If you will request them in
private email I will send you Steve's articles. I don't have a site on
which to place them.

BTW, not everyone shares your view of Steve Keen's book:

'Professional economists include their own best critics. Steve Keen is
one of the very best. Drawing on three generations of expert dissent,
adding his own, and translating the algebra into plain language, he
deploys a devastating theoretical attack on the neoclassical theory
which currently shapes the education of economists and much national
economic strategy.'

--Hugh Stretton, Fellow of the Academies of the Humanities and Social
Sciences,
and author of Economics: A New Introduction

'Debunking Economics may not delight economic conservatives, but it is
certainly necessary. Our hope must be that it will be read by enough
people to prompt reform of our economic thinking and save our endangered
societies.'

--James Cumes, author of How to Become a Millionaire without really
working, and other books

'Particularly useful to those, like myself, who are interested in
economics but not formally trained in it. Debunking Economics reveals
that neoclassical economic doctrines are faulty not because conditions
have changed over time, but because the fundamental assumptions from
which such doctrines have been derived are less than self-evident. This
book will help create a more informed public so necessary for improving
economic policy fromulation in a democratic society.'

--Henry C.K. Liu, Chairman, Liu Investment Group

'Keen's serious but accessible look at the shaky logical and
mathematical foundations of neoclassical economics will be of great
interest to students and open-minded economists alike. And his
insightful survey of alternative schools of thought lends substance to
his call for a new economics, one that puts people first by analyzing
the instabilities and inequities of actual market economies.'

--Don Goldstein, Associate Professor of Economics, Allegheny College

'A wide-ranging yet accessible critique of the staples of neoclassical
pedagogy.'

--Alan G. Isaac, Associate Professor of Economics, American University

'If you want to read a book which is economics for economists, then buy
another book. If you are interested in how the economy really works (and
want to challenge an economist) then read this book.'

--James Dick, Professional Members Division, The Economic Society of
Australia

'This text carefully follows the form of argument familiar to all
economics undergraduates, though to conclusions from which
undergraduates are more usually protected. Avoiding polemic or
hyperbole, the case that he presents is all the more damning for its
clarity and systematic approach.'

--John M. Legge, Associate Professor, LaTrobe University

'Debunking Economics -- in combination with Hugh Stretton's A New
Introduction to Economics - will transform the way economics is taught
and thought.'

--Jan Otto Andersson, Professor of Economics, Ã…bo Akademi University,
Finland

'Refreshingly provocative.'

--Geoffrey Fishburn, Department of Economics, University of New South
Wales.

### susupply

Dec 20, 2003, 11:29:21â€¯AM12/20/03
to

"Albert Wagner" <alwa...@tcac.net>

as is his custom, coming up with a new story now that his old one is
discreditted

wrote in message news:20031219193551.7...@tcac.net...

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:27:44 GMT
"susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Sorry to tell you, but they lied about plagiarism. It's called
> quotation for "fair use".

I haven't yet figured out how to cut from a paper book for pasting into
a mail composer. I understand the book is in high demand. You should

And you haven't figured out how to do it from Keen's website either
apparently. Which is passing odd, since you had no trouble cutting and
pasting the review excerpts Keen provided there.

Anyway, since Albert always requires spoon feeding, here is the kind of
thing I was asking him to produce:

http://www.debunking-economics.com/Extracts.htm#4

<< According to economists, monopolies are worse than the alternative of
competitive markets simply because the absence of competitors allows a
monopoly to set price above marginal cost. Perfectly competitive industries,
on the other hand, set price equal to marginal cost. Economists argue that
monopolies are therefore necessarily bad, and that small, competitive firms
are necessarily good, because monopolies produce a lower output for a higher
price, thus restricting the supply of their products and exploiting
consumers by over-pricing. However, the 'proof' of this argument makes the
fundamental mathematical mistake of equating a very small quantity to zero.
When this mistake is corrected, the economic argument against monopolies
collapses, as does the economic theory of competition...>>

Putting aside that the above is laughable (and one of the points Chris Auld
hilariously demolished on the Hayek-L discussion), would that have been so
difficult? Especially for a guy who fancies himself among the smartest 2%
of the population?

### Albert Wagner

Dec 20, 2003, 6:04:57â€¯PM12/20/03
to
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:29:21 GMT
"susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<snip>

Pooh. Just more lies and misrepresentations.

### susupply

Dec 20, 2003, 6:18:01â€¯PM12/20/03
to

"Albert Wagner" <alwa...@tcac.net> wrote in message
news:20031220170457.0...@tcac.net...

> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:29:21 GMT
> "susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Pooh. Just more lies and misrepresentations.

All of which Albert Wagner had to snip because he couldn't answer
substantively. Iow, he is again proving that my description of HIS "process"
is accurate.

### Albert Wagner

Dec 20, 2003, 9:48:43â€¯PM12/20/03
to
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 23:18:01 GMT
"susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<snip>

You don't really need a target for your vomit. Why not just start your

### susupply

Dec 21, 2003, 1:50:23â€¯PM12/21/03
to

"Albert Wagner" <alwa...@tcac.net>

backsliding into inefficiency in the use of his major,

wrote in message news:20031220204843.3...@tcac.net...

> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 23:18:01 GMT
> "susupply" <susu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> You don't really need a target for your vomit. Why not just start your