Poor teaching of econ
Mark-T
to the effect that "the dismal science is dismally
taught".
In one study, college students who passed Econ
101 were tested again 6 months after the final.
Result: they did no better than those who never
took the course. That may astonish some, but
from my observations, personally and watching
the talking heads on teevee, it's more
confirmation than shock.
The writer went on to claim the problem is 'too
much math'; as a result, students fail to learn
the fundamental concepts. He advocates a
new curriculum, based on case studies and
essays, as more effective.
Thoughts? Has anyone tried this?
Mark
S.W.Christensen
Once upon a time the economics profession knew that the economy is a
consequence of the actions of individual human beings; it was also
realised that such a problem was mathematically intractable (this was
long before computers got on stage). Therefore nobody bothered about
mathematics in economics; instead all focus was on understanding the
principles that guide economic processes.
Some time later a lot of economists decided that they WOULD force
mathematics into economics, whether it was tractable or not. Their
solution was to assume that the economy behaves as system governed by
mathematical equations prescribed from above (i.e. they gave up on the
idea that the economy is a consequence of the actions of individual
human beings). Since then they have been happily fiddling with
differential equations to their hearts delight; and this to the extent
that they have almost completely forgotten about the fundamental
principles ruling economic processes.
Personally, I think the only kind of mathematics that really belongs
in economics is non-linear dynamics, because this is a mathematical
representation of economic reality, whereas the differential equations
are not.
That aside, the answer is: once, the only thing economics students
learned WERE the fundamental principles, and I believe that would
work marvelously again.
Best regards,
Stefan W. Christensen
William Elliot
Because of them, and the politicians who encourage them, the integeral of
the American economy around the pole of debt is tens of trillion$.
> That aside, the answer is: once, the only thing economics students
> learned WERE the fundamental principles, and I believe that would
> work marvelously again.
>
It's too damn hard for corruption politicians and capitialists to kick
their o-pi-um habit. (OPM = Other Peoples' Money)
Lantern
> ... a new curriculum, based on case studies and
> essays, as more effective.>
One of the first things we must do to improve economics education is
stop the crime of calling credit "money". For example, use of term
"monetary supply". There is a huge difference between currency supply
and credit supply. Credit is not currency. Currency is not credit.
Money is is a word tnat only cofuses things. This must be fixed at all
levels, especially the education level. This will help with the
mathematics problem such as good usage of the english language and
logic. Good post, thanks.
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
Economics is not like other sciences. Other sciences consist of
mostly cooperative international efforts to increase understanding of
the natural world for the benefit of all. Economics is unique among
sciences in that illumination of its subject matter is NOT to the
benefit of all. It is inconvenient to the financial interests of the
wealthy and powerful. The principal function of economics is
therefore to obscure it.
The cooperative international effort in economic science is
consequently not to increase understanding but to prevent it, by dint
of a confused welter of mostly ill-defined technical terms for
fabricated concepts; a massive edifice of algebraic expressions
purporting to describe phenomena that often cannot even be observed,
let alone quantified; and a narrow focus on mathematical proofs of
untestable hypotheses.
"The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of
ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid
being deceived by economists." -- Joan Robinson
Economics would more accurately be termed the deceitful science, not
the dismal one, and the absence of any measurable increase in
economics students' understanding is not a failure of economics
instruction at all, but its intended result.
-- Roy L
anon
"S.W.Christensen" <s...@energidanmark.dk> wrote in message
news:1187853296.1...@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> The writer went on to claim the problem is 'too
>> much math'; as a result, students fail to learn
>> the fundamental concepts. He advocates a
>> new curriculum, based on case studies and
>> essays, as more effective.
>>
>> Thoughts? Has anyone tried this?
>
>
> Once upon a time the economics profession knew that the economy is a
> consequence of the actions of individual human beings; it was also
> realised that such a problem was mathematically intractable (this was
> long before computers got on stage).
afaik in the old days, what is called "political economy" today was what
everyone meant by "economics".
political economy is too close to the embarassing truth and was slowly
confined to the libraries.
Bill
"Lantern" <lant...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:1187900500.3...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
The academic discipline of economics is not in such dismal shape as is being
suggested here. Economists have many different measures for the amount of
money (i.e. "spending power") in circulation: m1 (rarely considered
seriously by itself) is the amount of currency in circulation, m2 also
includes demand deposit accounts (checking accounts), m3 includes additional
funds (like CDs I think)... It's been over 20 years since I studies
economics formally so I'll leave the interested persons to learn about m3,
m4, m5,... Now I mostly "study economics" as a fan of the financial
markets.
You said "Credit is not currency. Currency is not credit."
They may be different, but they are more alike than different. The
people at Target or Koels are basically indifferent whether you come in
with cash or a credit card. In fact, they may prefer you come with a credit
card, because they know that, psychologically, it's easier to spend money
you can't see rather than the kind you need to remove from your wallet or
purse.
In the 1930s, following the depression, your statement "Credit is not
currency. Currency is not credit." may have been well accepted. In the USA
today, I think the situtation is completely reversed I think too may
folks don't know the difference between credit and currency.
-Bill
Bill
<ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:46cdb987...@news.telus.net...
People use physics, mathematics and engineering to build bombs too. Don't
blame economic principles for their potential to be applied for personal
gain. The principles of economics simple hold--no matter how you or I feel
about them personally. Understanding them can be advantageous, compared to
not understanding them.
-Bill
Ron Peterson
> There was an article in the August 12 NY Times,
> to the effect that "the dismal science is dismally
> taught".
> The writer went on to claim the problem is 'too
> much math'; as a result, students fail to learn
> the fundamental concepts. He advocates a
> new curriculum, based on case studies and
> essays, as more effective.
I think that the problem with economics is that there aren't good
mathematical models that encompass all of political economy. There are
some small models that work on options or other aspects of the economy
but integrating them into a unified theory is too difficult.
--
Ron
Bill
"Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:1188014462....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
This is actually where the individual has the advantage over the big
companies which rely computers. If economics and investing were a game
involving only numbers, the individual investor would never win.
-Bill
>
>
>
anon
"Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:1188014462....@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> mathematical models that encompass all of political economy. There are
> some small models that work on options or other aspects of the economy
> but integrating them into a unified theory is too difficult.
>
this obsession with mathematics is a problem. since economics is related to
individual and group decisions, it really belongs alongside psychology,
sociology and political sciences. None of those fields claims a mathematical
model of human behaviour is needed or feasible. By claiming to be a hard
science, economics has done itself disservice.
That may be because economists (and accountants) eventually end up advising
(and becoming) people in power. So many people get into economics for career
reasons, especially math and physics majors. They bring their own baggage
and have edged out "political economy" - which really is economics.
These days finance has become more attractive for career options, and i see
a lot of "stochastic calculus" and partial differential equations in
finance. Hopefully this may lead to a return to grassroots in economics.
professorchaos
macro and principles of micro. Each institution decides which is
numbered 23XX and 23YY. So I have my doubts about the validity of the
statement when they do not refer to micro or macro. Especially since
both are seen as introductory courses.
Secondly, presentation is a big issue in teaching economics. Most of my
colleagues dislike a lot of the standard textbooks precisely because it
is too much math. The Mankiw textbook was an improvement in the way
things were presented because over half the course is supply and demand
models. It covers previously believed to be optional topics first and
leaves the heavier theory of the firm, all the cost calculations and
learning market structures for last. That is on the micro side. On the
macro side Mankiw waits until very late in the book, by previous
standards, to introduce aggregate demand and aggregate supply.
The arguments are nothing new. In macro a more international focus has
been advocated. The main problem is international trade has most been a
micro issue and although the younger macro economist have a stronger
international backing. The established guys with names people know often
do not. Which makes it hard for macro. Macro is also in such a state of
flux it is hard to decide what to teach. The old Keynesian models went
under fire and were deemphasized about 10 years ago but the replacements
for Keynes and Rational Expectations are not exactly forthcoming and now
with the New Keynesian revival it makes one wonder what should be taught.
The areas we have a stronger handle on like growth and development and
international monetary economics are still unknown to all but a handful
of authors. Mankiw writes as though growth theory stopped at Makiw Romer
Weil. This leaves macro courses being taught by younger generation
economist as confusing. We never spoke of Keynes in grad school. We know
the traditional view is extremely flawed and textbooks present a patched
up model because they believe students can not handle a discussion of
underpinnings and how New Keynesian models work.
My biggest complaint is that macroeconomics falls flat because modern
macro has huge microeconomic foundations. Yet institutions have failed
to make microeconomics a prerequisite for macro. It would be so much
easier to explain Keynes in terms of labor markets, monopolistic
competition (where monopoly analysis is needed, and in terms of
externalities than animal spirits and the half ass philosophy Keynes
presented. Without requiring students take micro first, Macro becomes a
disconnected jumble of theories and is presented more as philosophy of
Friedman vs. Keynes than a class of science. So I have no doubt macro
students do not retain the material as well. It has been my experience
on average macro test scores are much lower than micro scores.
That being said as an economist, I have to admit we do a poor job of
presenting what we have to offer. Grad students are often preped only
for teaching and we still haven't sold the business world as to why
knowing about human behavior and having knowledge of how to apply
economic models is superior to simple accounting formulas that do not
account for human response. Because of the Keynesian hoodoo approach to
macroeconomics the field got a bad rep from the 1930-1970's in which
economist have done little to erase. I think this is largely due to
putting macro on par with micro and not requiring micro first so macro
can built from logical micro foundations learned in microeconomic classes.
Instead of the solid microeconomic foundations that new macro is built
on, I have to joke about things like animal spirits and student often
don't see the actual science after that. Friedman and Keynes because a
discussion that sounds like opinion because the micro foundations are
not there for over half the class. Especially when schools decided to
mark macro as the first semester and students think they have to take
that first. I feel embarassed that in macro classes we have to discuss
this and I feel it also tunes students out as soon as it is mentioned
especially considering it takes a another month to build up to how to
accurately account for expectations.
professorchaos
>
> Once upon a time the economics profession knew that the economy is a
> consequence of the actions of individual human beings; it was also
> realised that such a problem was mathematically intractable (this was
> long before computers got on stage). Therefore nobody bothered about
> mathematics in economics; instead all focus was on understanding the
> principles that guide economic processes.
>
Completely wrong. It is not mathematically intractable and no one
bothered about math before the marginalist revolution because political
economy was in the realm of philosophy and the theorist had little
knowledge of math.
> Some time later a lot of economists decided that they WOULD force
> mathematics into economics, whether it was tractable or not.
Wrong people like Stanley Jevons and Paul Samuelson showed how math was
useful and how it could enrich the study of behavior. Every science
needs proof and you need measures and statistic to do that. Not
philosophers that people think are wise arguing with each other like
Smith, Ricardo, and Marx did to little avail.
>Their
> solution was to assume that the economy behaves as system governed by
> mathematical equations prescribed from above (i.e. they gave up on the
> idea that the economy is a consequence of the actions of individual
> human beings).
Entirely wrong. Most that goes into the equations can be found in Smith,
Ricardo, and other pre-marginalist revolution writers. The rest comes
from the theory of marginal analysis that enriched the ability to use math.
>Since then they have been happily fiddling with
> differential equations to their hearts delight; and this to the extent
> that they have almost completely forgotten about the fundamental
> principles ruling economic processes.
>
If that were true the psychic majors in graduate schools would have a
lot easier time. In graduate schools prior econ majors often trouble
with the math. Previous hard science majors have trouble with the
concepts. They can do the math in their sleep but struggling with
catching up with the principles. You have to know the principles to set
the model up. If you do not know them you have no idea how to write a
model to solve or why you are doing it.
> Personally, I think the only kind of mathematics that really belongs
> in economics is non-linear dynamics, because this is a mathematical
> representation of economic reality, whereas the differential equations
> are not.
>
Differential equations are not really only that common. The dynamics are
often not linear. Have you ever seen a growth model? Do you know
anything about the use of optimal control models for growth and for
renewable resource models? Have you seen a dynamic model in economics?
professorchaos
> Because of them, and the politicians who encourage them, the integeral of
> the American economy around the pole of debt is tens of trillion$.
>
Geez, you are out of touch. When was the last time a politician listened
to an economist? The cases are rare. Greg Mankiw has a great synopsis of
his time as the CEA chair in his textbook. What politicians see as
political reality and what is good economics rarely coincide.
professorchaos
>> ... a new curriculum, based on case studies and
>> essays, as more effective.>
>
> One of the first things we must do to improve economics education is
> stop the crime of calling credit "money". For example, use of term
> "monetary supply".
You are a little behind the curve. M3 hasn't been in textbooks for at
least 10 years. The Fed doesn't even calculate M3 anymore. Even when M3
was around it was hardly used. M1 and M2 have always been the main
measures and have no credit in them.
Now if you are referring to credit as bank money that may be different
but then you miss the point that bank money, money that exist only on
bank books (not currency not credit just numbers representing currency)
then miss the whole point of what a fiat system of money is.
professorchaos
>
> Economics is not like other sciences. Other sciences consist of
> mostly cooperative international efforts to increase understanding of
> the natural world for the benefit of all. Economics is unique among
> sciences in that illumination of its subject matter is NOT to the
> benefit of all. It is inconvenient to the financial interests of the
> wealthy and powerful.
Wrong it is very convenient to the financial interest of the wealthy and
powerful to know it well. Although they might benefit from others not
knowing it. Which is why psuedo-economic rumors like monopolies selling
at lower than cost to drive out competition exist.
> The principal function of economics is
> therefore to obscure it.
>
It may be advantageous to politicians who want economically unsound
policies and those who wish to exploit imperfect information to obscure
economics and take advantage of the fact that economics is not required
circulum in most states. The economist does no such thing. Although we
might be guilty of often writing with the audience of other economist in
mind. I doubt this is very different with psychics. Except that psychics
doesn't deal with human behavior so people do not feel like they
understand it. Psychologist have a worse position too many people think
because they are human they perfectly understand human behavior.
> The cooperative international effort in economic science is
> consequently not to increase understanding but to prevent it, by dint
> of a confused welter of mostly ill-defined technical terms for
> fabricated concepts; a massive edifice of algebraic expressions
> purporting to describe phenomena that often cannot even be observed,
> let alone quantified; and a narrow focus on mathematical proofs of
> untestable hypotheses.
>
In 1936 with John Maynard Keynes this may have been true. Today we stick
to testable hypothesis.
> Economics would more accurately be termed the deceitful science, not
> the dismal one, and the absence of any measurable increase in
> economics students' understanding is not a failure of economics
> instruction at all, but its intended result.
>
Speaking like this could probably get on Coast to Coast. You really
should write a book this type of psuedo-science makes millions. I bet
you believe David Eicke when he tells you the illumanti and the masons
run the world. It is sad that in this day and age psuedo-science and so
subpar research that uses a statement that the council for foreign
relations support ONE bill that pass in the 1970s suddenly proves that
they are running the nation behind close doors can actually be believed.
professorchaos
> "Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
> this obsession with mathematics is a problem. since economics is related to
> individual and group decisions, it really belongs alongside psychology,
> sociology and political sciences. None of those fields claims a mathematical
> model of human behaviour is needed or feasible.
You have been looking at these fields lately. Time series and game
theory are huge in political science and game theory is very big in
psychology. They are coming out of the dark ages. The statistical
methods in the other social sciences are advancing quite a bit. So much
that psychology and political science professors are sitting on economic
dissertation committees.
> That may be because economists (and accountants) eventually end up advising
> (and becoming) people in power.
Very few do. The last economic in a political position, that I know of,
was Phil Gramm he is the chair at TX A&M now. Please don't lump
accountants with economist. I have taken enough accounting course to
know they have no understanding of economics. If it would not have been
required I would have dropped my cost accounting course in the first
week when they claimed that average variable cost are constant.
> These days finance has become more attractive for career options, and i see
> a lot of "stochastic calculus" and partial differential equations in
> finance. Hopefully this may lead to a return to grassroots in economics.
>
>
Stochastic analysis in economics has been used extensively since the
1970's. Have you ever heard of Tom Sergent or Bob Lucas?
Lantern
wrote:
> Now if you are referring to credit as bank money that may be different
> but then you miss the point that bank money, money that exist only on
> bank books (not currency not credit just numbers representing currency)
> then miss the whole point of what a fiat system of money is.>
Right-on Professor! I hope you are really a professor, teaching our
kids. Maybe you could add a little for me regarding "bank money". It
is not currency and it is not credit, it is....it is...What is it?
How'd it get there?
Who put it there?
anon
"professorchaos" <profess...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46d073ed$0$15345$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> anon wrote:
> You have been looking at these fields lately. Time series and game theory
> are huge in political science and game theory is very big in psychology.
> They are coming out of the dark ages.
empirical data to be analyzed needs statistics and time series. that is
reasonable. the economics courses i took resembled math courses, and there
was no emperical data, just partial differential equations and matrices.
that made no sense in the real world.
math courses atleast were useful in some ways. economics + math was
completely useless. it did not help in real life in any way.
people have to write papers, that is a professional requirement. they can
only rehash the facts of political economy and political sciences in so many
ways linguistically. the stuff isn't so complicated anyways. people have to
complicate it to make a living.
>The statistical methods in the other social sciences are advancing quite a
>bit. So much that psychology and political science professors are sitting
>on economic dissertation committees.
> Very few do. The last economic in a political position, that I know of,
> was Phil Gramm he is the chair at TX A&M now. Please don't lump
i also mentioned advising people in power.
a lot of people in power have economics degrees - especially in finance
jobs. a significacnt portion of the US economy is finance related. career
economists do not get to be in power much - i guess because they spend too
much time doing advanced math. mostly they are giving people in power
justification for grabbing more power, or selling power to the rich.
economists can justify any position - for a consulting fee.
>
> Stochastic analysis in economics has been used extensively since the
> 1970's.
i meant that the urge to do math might find an outlet in finance, and
economics might return to political economy.
regards
ro...@telus.net
<profess...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>
>> Economics is not like other sciences. Other sciences consist of
>> mostly cooperative international efforts to increase understanding of
>> the natural world for the benefit of all. Economics is unique among
>> sciences in that illumination of its subject matter is NOT to the
>> benefit of all. It is inconvenient to the financial interests of the
>> wealthy and powerful.
>
>Wrong it is very convenient to the financial interest of the wealthy and
>powerful to know it well. Although they might benefit from others not
>knowing it.
Especially voters.
>> The principal function of economics is
>> therefore to obscure it.
>>
>It may be advantageous to politicians who want economically unsound
>policies
Wrong. Politicians couldn't care less about the economic soundness of
policies. They just want money and power, and the way to get money
and power is to serve the interests of those who have money and power
to dispense. That is why politicians always implement economically
unsound policies that favor the rich, whether they accord with the
fashionable rationalizations of economists or not.
>and those who wish to exploit imperfect information to obscure
>economics and take advantage of the fact that economics is not required
>circulum in most states.
Oh, garbage. Requiring economics would just ensure that everyone was
equally brainwashed with lies. Research by psychologists has shown
that economics students are the most amoral on campus, even beating
out law students. It doesn't take a genius to infer that their
professors are likewise the most amoral on campus. Amorality is the
True Gospel of Economics, and economists are its disciples. Reponding
to incentives just like Pavlov's dogs, economists lie to the public
about economics to serve the interests of the rich, because that is
what pays best.
>The economist does no such thing.
He most certainly does. Proof: the hundreds of economists who have
endorsed the execrable anti-scientific nonsense contained in the
FairTax proposal, a proposal whose economic rationale is laughable,
but that would massively shift the burden of taxation off the idle
rich and onto working people.
>Although we
>might be guilty of often writing with the audience of other economist in
>mind.
Garbage. Economists know very well they are lying for the purpose of
deceiving journalists and voters, not other economists who are also in
on the deceit.
>> The cooperative international effort in economic science is
>> consequently not to increase understanding but to prevent it, by dint
>> of a confused welter of mostly ill-defined technical terms for
>> fabricated concepts; a massive edifice of algebraic expressions
>> purporting to describe phenomena that often cannot even be observed,
>> let alone quantified; and a narrow focus on mathematical proofs of
>> untestable hypotheses.
>
>In 1936 with John Maynard Keynes this may have been true. Today we stick
>to testable hypothesis.
_Liar_. When was any general equilibrium hypothesis ever tested,
hmmmm?
>> Economics would more accurately be termed the deceitful science, not
>> the dismal one, and the absence of any measurable increase in
>> economics students' understanding is not a failure of economics
>> instruction at all, but its intended result.
>
>Speaking like this could probably get on Coast to Coast.
Thanks for proving that you are stupid as well as a liar. Analyses
such as mine are never permitted in the mainstream media at all.
>You really
>should write a book this type of psuedo-science makes millions.
Liar. No publisher will even print this sort of information, let
alone pay the guy who wrote it.
>I bet
>you believe David Eicke when he tells you the illumanti and the masons
>run the world.
Wrong again. That's a perfect score: zero. David Icke gets lots of
press because he is safely and obviously a kook.
If conspiracy kooks did not exist, conspirators would have to invent
them.
Oh. Wait a minute...
>It is sad that in this day and age psuedo-science and so
>subpar research that uses a statement that the council for foreign
>relations support ONE bill that pass in the 1970s suddenly proves that
>they are running the nation behind close doors can actually be believed.
How else do you explain disasters like the invasion of Iraq, which
benefit no one but certain narrow, wealthy interests who reap immense
profits from the immense suffering of others?
-- Roy L
Ron Peterson
> "Ron Peterson" <r...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
> > I think that the problem with economics is that there aren't good
> > mathematical models that encompass all of political economy. There are
> > some small models that work on options or other aspects of the economy
> > but integrating them into a unified theory is too difficult.
> This is actually where the individual has the advantage over the big
> companies which rely computers. If economics and investing were a game
> involving only numbers, the individual investor would never win.
What makes economics difficult is that every new technology or
discovery changes the course of economic development, but it gives
those that understand the technologies, discoveries, and customer
preferences a chance to get above average returns.
--
Ron
professorchaos
Essentially in a fiat system bank move is just like currency but the
definition of currency means it something that be held. Bank is created
by the fractional reserve system. Lets say I deposit $100 in my bank.
The bank keeps a fraction on hand in case I want to withdraw. Some
people withdraw more than others so they have a percentage of total
outflows they can expect on a day to day basis. Lets say it is 10% they
put in the vault.
Ok, then what do they do with the other $90. They loan it. So they keep
$10 to meet expected withdrawals and give out $90 dollars of the deposit
in a loan. They have created bank money. I still have access to my $100
but the person who gets the loan has $90 of the money I deposited.
Although there is no currency to back up my $100 deposit merchants will
take a check or a debit card as payment. So my $100 is money in
circulation but so is the $90 loan. That is how bank money is created.
In reality all cash goes in the vault and the $100 dollar deposit
becomes bank money and so does the $90 loan. The other $10 is also bank
money listed as reserves.
professorchaos
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:17:35 -0500, professorchaos
> <profess...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> Wrong. Politicians couldn't care less about the economic soundness of
> policies.
I would agree but I still have a little more faith and choose to believe
it is because they are ignorant of economic principles.
They just want money and power, and the way to get money
> and power is to serve the interests of those who have money and power
> to dispense.
In the system we have you have to get money to get elected so yes
lobbyist have disproportionate power. This is the whole basis of the
public choice case some economist believe firmly in. You balance budgets
yearly because tax increases are hard to pass. So it limit the money
lobbyist can get. This lowers the payoff from lobbying and decreases
lobbyist money into the system and their power. Still highly inefficient
yet, it will happen until the US people decide they will not vote for
anyone who does not support a law banning campaign contributions and
public funds for elections where the money is divided equally among
candidates.
> Oh, garbage. Requiring economics would just ensure that everyone was
> equally brainwashed with lies. Research by psychologists has shown
> that economics students are the most amoral on campus, even beating
> out law students.
Research this is really funny. First of all a real psychologist doing
real research would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
Good luck there. Garbage into the study garbage out. It was probably
some hippy who defined amoral has meaning wanting a job that pays a
decent amount is amoral.
> It doesn't take a genius to infer that their
> professors are likewise the most amoral on campus. Amorality is the
> True Gospel of Economics, and economists are its disciples. Reponding
> to incentives just like Pavlov's dogs,
There is a huge difference between stimulus and incentive. Pavlov gave
the dogs stimulus not incentives. Incentive gives a reason to want to do
something. You don't have to do it. For example, allowing charitable
contributions as a tax write off gives incentive to invest. It doesn't
mean every does it. In Pavlov's experiment the stimulus created a
response that the dogs had no choice over. You don't really even
understand Pavlov much less economics if you can't understand what an
incentive is.
>economists lie to the public
> about economics to serve the interests of the rich, because that is
> what pays best.
>
Really? When I worked at a community college while finishing my doctoral
degree were my students the rich? Could have fooled me. They responded a
lot better to examples involving Top Ramen than examples involving Romeo
and Juliet Cigars. They did pay a good portion of my salary then.
Students at my own university paid at least 2/3 of graduate stipend. If
you compare in state tuition to out of state tuition(note no state
funding for out of state students). So I should burn all my AERs because
all of those professors from Cambridge to small town Louisana colleges
who have published in them are being paid by the man to lie?
Do you stay up to 4 am listening to Alex Jones, David Eiche, and others
who want to tell you the government is behind everything from UFOs to
9/11? Oh excuse me, the global government run by the Ilumanti or Masons
depending on which psuedo-researcher is presenting the story.
>> The economist does no such thing.
>
> He most certainly does. Proof: the hundreds of economists who have
> endorsed the execrable anti-scientific nonsense contained in the
> FairTax proposal, a proposal whose economic rationale is laughable,
> but that would massively shift the burden of taxation off the idle
> rich and onto working people.
>
Personally, I have not even seen the proposal. Although I did get an
email from the same people I think asking me to sign a petition to stop
the oil taxes congress is proposing. That would not shift anything just
prevent new taxes that are very bad. So I can not comment on what may or
may not be in this proposal. My sense is you have no sense of science so
if I have time I may look at it and evaluate for myself if it is unsound
or not. My guess is Alex Jones said it was unsound over the radio and
you believe him.
>> Although we
>> might be guilty of often writing with the audience of other economist in
>> mind.
>
> Garbage. Economists know very well they are lying for the purpose of
> deceiving journalists and voters, not other economists who are also in
> on the deceit.
>
Man, Alex Jones would love you. I bet he would get a spot on his radio
show. Someone who believes certainly must believe that the government
would have been stupid enough to waste a missile by shooting it into a
building they were going to crash a plane into anyway.
>> In 1936 with John Maynard Keynes this may have been true. Today we stick
>> to testable hypothesis.
>
> _Liar_. When was any general equilibrium hypothesis ever tested,
> hmmmm?
>
Over and over again. The empirical work supports it. Even some of my own
research has dealt with general equilibrium models. Guess what the data
said the model was pretty accurate.
>>> Economics would more accurately be termed the deceitful science, not
>>> the dismal one, and the absence of any measurable increase in
>>> economics students' understanding is not a failure of economics
>>> instruction at all, but its intended result.
>> Speaking like this could probably get on Coast to Coast.
>
> Thanks for proving that you are stupid as well as a liar. Analyses
> such as mine are never permitted in the mainstream media at all.
>
To call this analysis is a joke. I am surprised you do not know what
Coast to Coast is. Art Bell or George Nory would put you on in a heart
beat on that show. You just have to write a book that presents little
fact and draws a conclusion like the Masons run everything to get on
that show. I have had some bouts with insomina in graduate school and it
was delightfully disengage to listen this type of psuedo-science in the
early morning hours. It will helped to pull my head out of OX, modeling,
and cutting edge econometrics. There are very few real scientist on that
show and when they do come on they are on the outskirts talking about
things like string theory and always stop the questioning when the host
wants to pull that into alien abductions.
>> You really
>> should write a book this type of psuedo-science makes millions.
>
> Liar. No publisher will even print this sort of information, let
> alone pay the guy who wrote it.
>
Look up David Eicke, Alex Jones, or Lynda Molten Howell on the internet.
Publishers will publish anything. America is a great place where free
speech is allowed. Alex Jones still hasn't been arrested for claiming
the government was behind 9/11 nor even going further by claiming the
government is controlled by the Masons. There are even books published
saying George Bush is a reptilian alien and that people have seen him
transform into an alien. I can not seriously believe with this claptrap
attacking our government out there that a publisher wouldn't print a
book bashing people politicians don't even listen to.
The real problem is you make McCarthy statements and call it analysis.
There is no analysis in your postings and you can't write more than a
few paragraphs. You wouldn't have the faintest idea of how to put a book
together. Although I wish you would. I would love to call into Coast to
Coast and tear your psuedo-analysis apart while the incredulous lineup
to buy the book.
>> I bet
>> you believe David Eicke when he tells you the illumanti and the masons
>> run the world.
>
> Wrong again. That's a perfect score: zero. David Icke gets lots of
> press because he is safely and obviously a kook.
>
Well that is one thing we agree on. Maybe you are more the Alex Jones type.
> How else do you explain disasters like the invasion of Iraq, which
> benefit no one but certain narrow, wealthy interests who reap immense
> profits from the immense suffering of others?
Iraq hasn't benefited the wealthy. Gas prices are still soaring. Iraqi
oil is not even fully online yet. The wealthy in the UN were in a much
better position when the Oil for food scandals were going on and France
and Russia were giving huge kickbacks to Saddam Hussein in exchange for
contracts under OFF(Oil for Food) and buying Iraq oil at less than
market rates and giving Saddam a cut.
That war had nothing to do with wealthy people getting control of oil.
It had everything to do with Saddam getting wealthy off a corrupt UN
system that Kofi Annon and others were skimming off the top. All the
while giving money back to Saddam so he could restart biological and
nuclear programs. Read the Duefler report no massive stockpiles but
those programs were in existence again with Oil for Food. The OFF
debacle threatened Israel, our ally, and other allies in the region. As
Saddam got back to his old tricks. Granted the stockpiles were not there
and the programs were no where near 1991 levels. However, to keep Iraqi
as a UN colony where certain security members were pillaging what they
could will supporting a dangerous dictator who had no problems using
biological weapons would have led to greater than 1991 levels eventually.
George W. Bush did want Winston Churchill would have done during the
Anschluss or the Munich conference had the pacifist not let him.
Churchill would have gone done in history like Bush if he had been able
to. He would been blamed for starting a small war with Germany and no
one would have known the carnage he prevented if parliament would have
listened him. Bush may have very prevented a huge amount of carnage that
likely would have happened in 10-15 years time if Hussein had been left
in power while corrupt UN policies fed him and corrupt Frenchmen,
Russians, and UN members. Do you realize less than half of Iraqi oil
sales went to Iraqi from 1994 to the invasion? Do you realize the UN got
over 20% of Iraqi oil sales prior to the invasion? That Kuwait was still
getting large reparations? That the UK/US tried price controls to stop
the corruption?
Iraq was all about stopping corrupt interest before it was true late.
>
> -- Roy L
Tim Norfolk
wrote:
> George W. Bush did want Winston Churchill would have done during the
> Anschluss or the Munich conference had the pacifist not let him.
> Churchill would have gone done in history like Bush if he had been able
> to. He would been blamed for starting a small war with Germany and no
> one would have known the carnage he prevented if parliament would have
> listened him.
That's a stretch, as Neville Chamberlain was Prime Minister at that
time.
On the basic contention in this thread (mathematics in economics), one
of the problems that I see is that the econ majors around here don't
take enough mathematics to understand most of the models presented.
Ours only take a baby business calculus and baby statistics course.
As for fiat currency, I have serious concerns in the US and UK,
especially given the tremendous dimunition of the actual reserves held
in the poast 20 years. Off the top of my head, it's down to something
like 0.4%
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> ...
> George W. Bush did want Winston Churchill would have done during the
> Anschluss or the Munich conference had the pacifist not let him.
> Churchill would have gone done in history like Bush if he had been able
> to. He would been blamed for starting a small war with Germany and no
> one would have known the carnage he prevented if parliament would have
> listened him. Bush may have very prevented a huge amount of carnage that
For a hard-nosed, fact-demanding scientist you are
suddenly mighty imaginative.
Joshua Cranmer
> ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:17:35 -0500, professorchaos
>> <profess...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Wrong. Politicians couldn't care less about the economic soundness of
>> policies.
>
> I would agree but I still have a little more faith and choose to believe
> it is because they are ignorant of economic principles.
I would go farther to say that the more accurate description is that
politicians are acting on misconceptions of economics. My basis for this
argument is the Townsend Plan. Its basic idea was to support a
trickle-down theory by giving money to senior citizens, not an
all-together bad idea [*]. However, it promised approximately twice the
average pre-retirement salary (this during the Great Depression)
financed by a 2% value-added tax. Problem is, that wouldn't be near
enough to actually finance the plan. IIRC, Townsend eventually admitted
that he more-or-less made up the numbers.
In short, though, my basic idea is that politicians try to do the right
thing economically, but end up tripping over misconceptions of economics
(e.g. the current China-bashing) and putting some interests over the
economically right thing to do (e.g. Social Security).
>> They just want money and power, and the way to get money
>> and power is to serve the interests of those who have money and power
>> to dispense.
>
> In the system we have you have to get money to get elected so yes
> lobbyist have disproportionate power. This is the whole basis of the
> public choice case some economist believe firmly in. You balance budgets
> yearly because tax increases are hard to pass. So it limit the money
> lobbyist can get. This lowers the payoff from lobbying and decreases
> lobbyist money into the system and their power. Still highly inefficient
> yet, it will happen until the US people decide they will not vote for
> anyone who does not support a law banning campaign contributions and
> public funds for elections where the money is divided equally among
> candidates.
Democracies have some fundamental fatal flaws: the biggest one is that
voters often act irrationally. I have heard a good review of "The Myth
of the Rational Voter" from The Economist which is pertinent to this
topic, so I might cull up the article to explain more effectively.
That brings up another point about politicians: they tend to cater more
to their constituent core than to the good of the country. Given that
voters are often irrational in their decisions (we want more but we
don't want to pay more), politicians tend to put those concerns ahead of
the right thing to do when given a choice.
[*] Actually, I personally hold that schemes like Social Security are a
bad thing, given that the middle- and upper-class are capable of
creating saving schemes to comfortably live out the rest of their lives
and do not need government intervention to do so. Any attempt by anyone
else to dissuade me from this viewpoint would almost assuredly fail, so
don't even bother trying to do so.
Lantern
wrote:
>>Bank (money) is created by the fractional reserve system. >>
Thanks for your patience. I think I understand what the fractional
reserve system is. Your "bank money" sounds like it is bank deposits
that are available for loans. Bank money is available for credit (with
the multiplier). Bank money becomes credit when it is actually lent
out. How am I doing so far ? :)
professorchaos
Bank money is what happens to your money when you deposit. The loan is
turned into money when it is used and deposited into a checking or
savings account. This might occur from the check going straight to a
dealership for a car. The dealership then deposits the check and the
bank balance goes up.
The money available for loans is excess reserves. This is money the bank
is holding in reserve until it is lent and this not counted as part of
the money because it is not available to be used until the bank approves
loans so people can use it. In the car loan example the lending bank
transfers from reserves to the dealership's account. It becomes part of
the money supply then because it can now be circulated.
professorchaos
> On Aug 27, 12:07?am, professorchaos <professorch...@houston.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> George W. Bush did want Winston Churchill would have done during the
>> Anschluss or the Munich conference had the pacifist not let him.
>> Churchill would have gone done in history like Bush if he had been able
>> to. He would been blamed for starting a small war with Germany and no
>> one would have known the carnage he prevented if parliament would have
>> listened him.
>
> That's a stretch, as Neville Chamberlain was Prime Minister at that
> time.
>
Not a stretch at all. Churchill was speaking actively in parliament
around this time about the German threat. He was warning parliament and
the PM action was necessary. He was constantly reporting with alarm
about the german build up of aircraft and aircraft engines that could be
used as bombers and fighters. The UK didn't listen and was slow to even
expand the RAF to meet the threat. There were few Hurricanes and no
spitfires at the time and parliament thought pacifying Hitler would work.
They believed D0-17z bombers were really postal planes and that the
aircraft engines were for civilian use. Read the Dulfer report then read
Gather Storm. The similarities are way too much. All of those dual
purpose chemicals sitting around Iraq that liberals claim were for
industrial use sound a lot like the Do-17Z postal plane, uhmm bomber, to
me.
> On the basic contention in this thread (mathematics in economics), one
> of the problems that I see is that the econ majors around here don't
> take enough mathematics to understand most of the models presented.
> Ours only take a baby business calculus and baby statistics course.
>
Granted. Some institutions do not even put an algebra requirement before
students take economics. Those institutions are really fun to teach in
why 90% of the students miss a question like say what is the temperature
and time at the origin of this graph. That is the pre-test to let them
know what they need to work on math skills wise to be ready for the course.
Rob.Vi...@itt.com
wrote:
> ro...@telus.net wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:17:35 -0500, professorchaos
> > <professorch...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> > Oh, garbage. Requiring economics would just ensure that everyone was
> > equally brainwashed with lies. Research by psychologists has shown
> > that economics students are the most amoral on campus, even beating
> > out law students.
> Research this is really funny. First of all a real psychologist doing
> real research would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
> Good luck there. Garbage into the study garbage out. It was probably
> some hippy who defined amoral has meaning wanting a job that pays a
> decent amount is amoral.
I don't know why this anonymous supposed professor wants to proclaim
his more-than-ignorance.
http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-studying-mainstream-economics.html
> >> In 1936 with John Maynard Keynes this may have been true. Today we stick
> >> to testable hypothesis.
> > _Liar_. When was any general equilibrium hypothesis ever tested,
> > hmmmm?
> Over and over again. The empirical work supports it. Even some of my own
> research has dealt with general equilibrium models. Guess what the data
> said the model was pretty accurate.
Somehow I suspect this anonymous supposed professor is completely
unaware of Alan Kirman's extensions and comments on the Sonnenschein-
Mantel-Debreu results.
Clearly the American Economic Association doesn't care if their
members are liars and thieves. They have no sense of professional
ethics. But I don't think most mainstream economists consciously
lie all the time. Many, I suspect, are ignorant of their ignorance -
"ignorance squared" as it has been called.
professorchaos
> [*] Actually, I personally hold that schemes like Social Security are a
> bad thing, given that the middle- and upper-class are capable of
> creating saving schemes to comfortably live out the rest of their lives
> and do not need government intervention to do so. Any attempt by anyone
> else to dissuade me from this viewpoint would almost assuredly fail, so
> don't even bother trying to do so.
You won't have any argument from me. I don't believe the Democrats when
they say the middle class are too stupid to handle their own money so
they need to give it to the government and that is exactly what they say
and morons agree with it thinking the fathead was talking about everyone
else but them. How many times have we heard liberals argue that people
do not know how to invest and they lose money in the stock market?
I think that is why politicians will never make economics part of the
core curriculum in schools. It teaches kids to think and analyze. If
thought right it teaches students to think about cost and weigh them
against perceived or real benefits. That is the key to teaching
economics not if they the student can remember what the marginal cost
curve looks like. NB: I really wonder if part of the reason why students
were failing the test 6 months after is because the course was taught
right and students learned how to think like an economist then the test
was a bunch of calculations like elasticity, marginal cost, and what is
the shape of this curve rather how do we apply what we know. In the end,
the thinking process being implanted is more important for principles
than what supply and demand look like. Intermediate is a whole different
story but for principles that is what most of colleagues and I want to
achieve.
If all students in the US were educated to do this the democrats and
republicans would be screwed. People would realize minimum wages
decrease employment. That supporting unions means you raise the union
fat cat's salary and some people get a bit of a raise while many are
left unemployed. They realize that those jobs they are supposed to
protect by stopping trade with China actually decrease jobs in other
areas because Chinese incomes do not grow as much and they do not import
as much from us. They might actually start realize the logic in John C.
Calhoun's exposition. They might realize that illegal immigration has
kept housing and food prices down for a long time, even though it does
hurt high school dropouts and manual laborers. They might start thinking
about how it affects me rather than listening to propaganda. They might
even realize they face higher prices when trade is limited and illegal
immigration is stopped. They might realize the cost of stopping illegal
immigration totally far outweighs the benefits. They might realize
curtailing exports lowers prices here. They might realize investing in
mutual funds is safe if you invest for the long haul and don't pull it
out the first time prices drop. They might actually realize that
politicians are calling them stupid on a daily basis and they can make
decisions for themselves that are better than someone in Washington who
knows nothing about them can make.
That is just my opinion I could be wrong.
Butters
"It is fortunate for rulers that people do not think."
Adolf Hitler.
professorchaos
> On Aug 27, 12:07 am, professorchaos <professorch...@houston.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:17:35 -0500, professorchaos
>>> <professorch...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> Oh, garbage. Requiring economics would just ensure that everyone was
>>> equally brainwashed with lies. Research by psychologists has shown
>>> that economics students are the most amoral on campus, even beating
>>> out law students.
>
>> Research this is really funny. First of all a real psychologist doing
>> real research would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
>> Good luck there. Garbage into the study garbage out. It was probably
>> some hippy who defined amoral has meaning wanting a job that pays a
>> decent amount is amoral.
>
> I don't know why this anonymous supposed professor wants to proclaim
> his more-than-ignorance.
>
> http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-studying-mainstream-economics.html
>
learning economics teaches cooperation has nothing to do with moral or
amoral behavior. Cooperation is not necessarily moral. People can
cooperate to kill millions of people like the Nazis did. Does that mean
they were acting morally by cooperation. The link you post on your ill
written blog never once mentions morality. NOT ONCE! The article only
proves no serious research would even mention morality must less try to
prove someone is acting amoral.
> Clearly the American Economic Association doesn't care if their
> members are liars and thieves. They have no sense of professional
> ethics. But I don't think most mainstream economists consciously
> lie all the time. Many, I suspect, are ignorant of their ignorance -
> "ignorance squared" as it has been called.
>
Just because you are not member doesn't mean they are liars. You
actually have to have a degree in economics or be a grad student to be a
member. Excluding people who do not part of the profession is no way
amoral or make the AEA liars. Does the state bar allow people who are
not lawyers in? Does the AMA let people without a MD degree in? NO.
I think that someone who spends their time posting a blog that is
doesn't give its readers a clue of what is talking about and wants to
show that some paper that never mentions morality somehow proves
economist are amoral, by a definition he does not give, is a kook.
You have no idea of what the AEA does do you? It is not a professional
licensing association. It is a forum for economist to discuss ideas.
The AEA does not sanction anyone to be an economist nor do they have to
give their blessing to practice like the AMA, AICPA, or state bar does.
It is a forum for exchange between people in the profession. They hold
meetings and help facilitate the job market for economist but they only
provide the space for interviews at their annual meetings they play no
role in the market itself. You do not even have to be a member to attend
the meetings. Membership subscribes you to their journals and that is it.
Such psuedo-scientific research is stifling. I am not saying the paper
is psuedo-scientific just this Rob is using David Eicke style research.
He takes one little fact he finds, and probably does not understand, and
uses to "prove" some overall conspiracy.
professorchaos
> On Aug 27, 12:07 am, professorchaos <professorch...@houston.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:17:35 -0500, professorchaos
>>> <professorch...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> Oh, garbage. Requiring economics would just ensure that everyone was
>>> equally brainwashed with lies. Research by psychologists has shown
>>> that economics students are the most amoral on campus, even beating
>>> out law students.
>
>> Research this is really funny. First of all a real psychologist doing
>> real research would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
>> Good luck there. Garbage into the study garbage out. It was probably
>> some hippy who defined amoral has meaning wanting a job that pays a
>> decent amount is amoral.
>
> I don't know why this anonymous supposed professor wants to proclaim
> his more-than-ignorance.
>
> http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-studying-mainstream-economics.html
>
an economist the original poster that I was responding to was referring
to some mystery piece done by a psychologist that he does not have a
citation from. You should read more carefully before interceding. If you
find that the JEP article shows amorality then I really can not argue
with you. Morality is not a scientific argument it can not be
scientifically proven, see Ken Arrow's work particularly the Arrow
impossibility theory. I still see no measure for morality or even a
definition of morality in the link you posted. I don't see how this
anything to do with shattering the Arrow impossibility theorem and
showing how we can prove or disprove moral arguments. I may see that you
finds the findings amoral but that has nothing to do with the discussion
about whether morality can be measured and assessed scientifically.
If you think that the behavior described in the article is amoral then
you do. Like I said prove it and I will be amazed. I mean proof not some
philosopher I think is wise said this. I am not going to get into a
discussion of Kant versus Nitchze. I deal with things you can look at
data and prove or disprove. Beyond it is up to individual to decide the
normative aspects. That is really what democracy and the American
constitution is about making those moral judgments for yourself. I am a
firm believer that people make the best decisions for themselves. I
present the cost and benefits and let others decide for themselves if it
is amoral or moral.
You can't prove this or anything else to be amoral. That is a normative
statement that can not be tested. Every has a different ideal of
morality based on our background and experiences.
You should read your readers comments they agree with me. Lack of
cooperation does not necessiarly equate to being a bad person. If it did
people like Heinrich Mueller, Reynhard Heinrich, Joseph Gobbles, and
Henrich Himmler would be saints they took cooperation to a whole new
level and look what it did to millions of people living in Europe that
the Nazis did not like because of their blood line or because they
didn't agree with them.
I really think you, Alex Jones, and David Eicke would get along just
fine. You have that same psuedo-scientific research style.
alexy
>Research by psychologists has shown
>that economics students are the most amoral on campus, even beating
>out law students.
Any cites to such studies?
> It doesn't take a genius to infer that their
>professors are likewise the most amoral on campus. Amorality is the
>True Gospel of Economics,
Can't that also be said of the hard sciences? And for most other
social sciences as well? If any of these disciplines stops being
amoral, then it starts bending its teachings to the moral or immoral
ends that it espouses. (Ending up with a distortion like creationism.)
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
alexy
>You can't prove this or anything else to be amoral.
That's silly. "2+2=4" is a completely amoral statement.
> That is a normative
>statement that can not be tested. Every has a different ideal of
>morality based on our background and experiences.
True, which is why what appears moral to one person is immoral to
another. But no judgement is involved in saying that "2+2=4" is an
amoral statement.
professorchaos
> ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>
>> Research by psychologists has shown
>> that economics students are the most amoral on campus, even beating
>> out law students.
>
> Any cites to such studies?
>
>> It doesn't take a genius to infer that their
>> professors are likewise the most amoral on campus.
If you are a fan of intelligent design or creationism, I think you would
say the biologist have economist beat by a long shot. :)
Rob.Vi...@itt.com
wrote:
> Rob.Vienn...@itt.com wrote:
> > I don't know why this anonymous supposed professor wants to proclaim
> > his more-than-ignorance.
> >http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-studying-mainstream-e...
> [ non sequiturs and lies - deleted ]
> > Clearly the American Economic Association doesn't care if their
> > members are liars and thieves. They have no sense of professional
> > ethics. But I don't think most mainstream economists consciously
> > lie all the time. Many, I suspect, are ignorant of their ignorance -
> > "ignorance squared" as it has been called.
> Just because you are not member doesn't mean they are liars. You
> actually have to have a degree in economics or be a grad student to be a
> member.
I suspect that if I wanted to send a fee in, they would let me join.
> Excluding people who do not part of the profession is no way
> amoral or make the AEA liars. Does the state bar allow people who are
> not lawyers in? Does the AMA let people without a MD degree in? NO..
> You have no idea of what the AEA does do you? It is not a professional
> licensing association. It is a forum for economist to discuss ideas.
> The AEA does not sanction anyone to be an economist nor do they have to
> give their blessing to practice like the AMA, AICPA, or state bar does...
> I think that someone who spends their time posting a blog that is
> doesn't give its readers a clue of what is talking about and wants to
> show that some paper that never mentions morality somehow proves
> economist are amoral, by a definition he does not give, is a kook.
> [More non sequiturs and lies - deleted.]
> ...Morality is not a scientific argument it can not be
> scientifically proven, see Ken Arrow's work particularly the
> Arrow impossibility theory.
Arrow's impossibility theorem does not show morality cannot
be scientifically proven.
> [More non sequiturs and lies - deleted.]
An illiterate, incoherent, self-contradictory, ignorant, and
soi-dissant economist posting to sci.econ from Houston - I
think those of us hanging around here long enough might
guess who this is.
"professorchaos" might as well tell us his name. By the way,
John, have you found a committee willing to suffer through
your thesis and condescend to grant you a PhD?
Andy F.
The bit where you're most obviously wrong is where you claim that
immigration keeps housing prices down.
Joshua Cranmer
> The bit where you're most obviously wrong is where you claim that
> immigration keeps housing prices down.
>
My understanding is that the construction industry has a relatively high
percentage of illegal immigrants working for relatively low wages. Cost
of labor goes down implies that the cost of a new home goes down. Of
course, the effect tends to be masked in relative bubble situations.
professorchaos
>
>> ...Morality is not a scientific argument it can not be
>> scientifically proven, see Ken Arrow's work particularly the
>> Arrow impossibility theory.
>
> Arrow's impossibility theorem does not show morality cannot
> be scientifically proven.
>
On the contrary, it shows that a moral statement can not be
scientifically proven to better than another moral statement. Which is
why you can not prove morality. You can not measure it and you can not
test if one person's idea of morality is better than another person's.
The idea comes strongly in economics when efficiency is discussed. We
come dangerously close to the line of making moral judgments. However,
in this case the moral judgment is made before hand. It is the judgment
that unitarianism is desirable. In efficiency analysis it is assumed
that all resource being employed to their best ability is desirable.
Showing a market is inefficient does not mean that people will see it as
undesirable. It says nothing about people's idea of fairness nor if the
product being sold is a product that offends people's morality, like
prostitution or drugs. After the judgment that efficiency is desirable
is made economics backs out of the morality game.
Lets say that during the 1830's in the US that slave owners didn't have
the clout to pass the ban of importation of slaves or that abolitionist
realized this law actually help solidify the institution of slavery. The
reason being is it shut out foreign competition and kept slaves that had
been freshly captured, who were often warriors that would start revolts,
out of the market. Instead a tariff on slaves was pushed to help
mitigate the effects of imported slaves. Efficiency analysis could show
the gain that producers of slaves would get from the law and the loss to
consumers of slaves. However, it says nothing about if slavery is
desirable. I would hope most people today would say who cares about the
losses and gains slavery is amoral yet efficiency can make no such
judgment just tell about the cost and benefits. Efficiency says nothing
about fairness nor does any economic principle. Economist may speak of
fairness but they are not using economic methods when they do.
I really don't think you fully understand what I am saying. Sure if made
judgments about what is moral or amoral before hand you can measure
people's behavior and see if it is moral TO YOUR DEFINITION. The problem
is that definition of morality is always arguable. You can not measure
the morality of an action. You can not scientifically say this action is
more moral than another action. Any ordinal classification you give can
not be proven to be correct. Non-Hindus believe it is moral to eat beef
Hindus do not. So can we really say it is more moral to eat beef than
pork just because we are in the mindset of the Jewish or Islamic
religion. You can but you can not scientifically prove it.
professorchaos
> "professorchaos" might as well tell us his name.
Leopold Butters. Butters that's me! I suppose you have never watched
South Park is assuming someone posting as professor chaos is a
professor. I do not have that title. I made a decision sometime ago that
I would be happier in a profession devoted solely to research rather
than teaching 3 or 4 sections of principles a semester and have to split
time between trying to give quality teaching and do quality research.
Usually with high course loads one gives a little. I have respect for
those who do that, I just decided it was not for me. I still teach
principles, one maybe 2 sections a semester, but it is not my full time
job. I do still enjoy teaching so I volunteer my time to do so. It
definitely isn't because of the great part time pay. However, I am not a
professor barring huge career change and devoting my spare time to
adding to my publications, I doubt I will ever hold that title.
Lantern
wrote:
> Bank money is what happens to your money when you deposit. The loan is
> turned into money when it is used and deposited into a checking or
> savings account. >
Not exactly. You say, "The loan is turned into money when it is
deposited." There's my point. Loan money is turned into DEBT. I want
to see some kind of term that means money to spend...free and clear
money you can spend and not have to pay it back. How about inventing
the term "cancerous money" ... money that has a cancer, it must be
paid back and with interest. How about using the term "encumbered
money". Citizens must not be led to think borrowed money is money to
be spent carelessly, it must be paid back and with ...horrors...
interest. Especially politicians must get over the concept that, "The
government has plenty of money.. an unlimited supply. The government
can just print more anytime." You learned it here. :)
ro...@telus.net
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>
>>Research by psychologists has shown
>>that economics students are the most amoral on campus, even beating
>>out law students.
>
>Any cites to such studies?
Rob posted one. I'm sure Google can find others.
>> It doesn't take a genius to infer that their
>>professors are likewise the most amoral on campus. Amorality is the
>>True Gospel of Economics,
>Can't that also be said of the hard sciences? And for most other
>social sciences as well?
No. Science -- real science -- is entirely based on a basic moral
injunction: thou shalt not lie. Economists in general do not accept
that moral foundation of science. If it is more profitable for
economists to tell the lies that favor the financial interests of the
rich than to tell the truth, which of course it is, then they tell the
lies. What "immoral"? They are just responding to the incentives!
Prof Chaos is a good example of this phenomenon.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<profess...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>If all students in the US were educated to do this the democrats and
>republicans would be screwed. People would realize minimum wages
>decrease employment.
But in fact, Mr. Science of Economics, there is no credible evidence
that they do.
>That supporting unions means you raise the union
>fat cat's salary and some people get a bit of a raise while many are
>left unemployed.
Depends what you mean by "supporting unions." The vagueness of such
claims fits nicely with your pretensions of scientific respectability.
>They realize that those jobs they are supposed to
>protect by stopping trade with China actually decrease jobs in other
>areas because Chinese incomes do not grow as much and they do not import
>as much from us.
What would China import from us?
>They might realize that illegal immigration has
>kept housing and food prices down for a long time,
??? ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for proving that you understand no economics. I have already
explained why immigration, legal or not, HAS IN FACT made housing
prices soar.
>That is just my opinion I could be wrong.
Ya think?
>"It is fortunate for rulers that people do not think."
>Adolf Hitler.
My nomination for Unconscious Self-Reference of the Month.
-- Roy L
*Anarcissie*
But governments don't print money any more. They
create credit, which they then impart to subordinate
banks. This is not quite the same as printing money
on paper and distributing it. Printed money hangs around
and can go to the wrong people, whereas credit can
vanish instantly if the credit-creator so desires. For
instance, if it starts to fall into the hands of poor
people, thus inflating the price of labor and consumer
commodities and threatening to give the game away.
I am not sure what politicians can do with the power to
create credit, but it is a lot more flexible and mystical
than the ability to print paper money.
ro...@telus.net
<profess...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>Rob.Vi...@itt.com wrote:
>> On Aug 27, 12:07 am, professorchaos <professorch...@houston.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>> ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:17:35 -0500, professorchaos
>>>> <professorch...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Oh, garbage. Requiring economics would just ensure that everyone was
>>>> equally brainwashed with lies. Research by psychologists has shown
>>>> that economics students are the most amoral on campus, even beating
>>>> out law students.
>>
>>> Research this is really funny. First of all a real psychologist doing
>>> real research would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
>>> Good luck there. Garbage into the study garbage out. It was probably
>>> some hippy who defined amoral has meaning wanting a job that pays a
>>> decent amount is amoral.
>>
>> I don't know why this anonymous supposed professor wants to proclaim
>> his more-than-ignorance.
>>
>> http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-studying-mainstream-economics.html
>>
>Just one more thing, the link you provide is to a JEP article written by
>an economist the original poster that I was responding to was referring
>to some mystery piece done by a psychologist that he does not have a
>citation from.
The economist in question was obviously doing psychological research.
>You should read more carefully before interceding. If you
>find that the JEP article shows amorality then I really can not argue
>with you. Morality is not a scientific argument it can not be
>scientifically proven, see Ken Arrow's work particularly the Arrow
>impossibility theory. I still see no measure for morality or even a
>definition of morality in the link you posted.
"I see noss-ink. Nosssss-ink!"
>I don't see how this
>anything to do with shattering the Arrow impossibility theorem and
>showing how we can prove or disprove moral arguments. I may see that you
>finds the findings amoral but that has nothing to do with the discussion
>about whether morality can be measured and assessed scientifically.
That wasn't the discussion. But thanks for proving that when you are
proved wrong, you try to change the subject.
>If you think that the behavior described in the article is amoral then
>you do. Like I said prove it and I will be amazed. I mean proof not some
>philosopher I think is wise said this. I am not going to get into a
>discussion of Kant versus Nitchze. I deal with things you can look at
>data and prove or disprove.
No real scientist would claim that any empirical data "prove"
anything.
>Beyond it is up to individual to decide the
>normative aspects. That is really what democracy and the American
>constitution is about making those moral judgments for yourself. I am a
>firm believer that people make the best decisions for themselves. I
>present the cost and benefits and let others decide for themselves if it
>is amoral or moral.
Hehe. Bingo.
>You can't prove this or anything else to be amoral. That is a normative
>statement that can not be tested. Every has a different ideal of
>morality based on our background and experiences.
"I vass only respondink to inzentiffs!"
>You should read your readers comments they agree with me.
Liar.
>Lack of
>cooperation does not necessiarly equate to being a bad person. If it did
>people like Heinrich Mueller, Reynhard Heinrich, Joseph Gobbles, and
>Henrich Himmler would be saints they took cooperation to a whole new
>level and look what it did to millions of people living in Europe that
>the Nazis did not like because of their blood line or because they
>didn't agree with them.
Because you are despicable, lying filth, you now even claim that Nazi
atrocities were the result not of institutionalized evil, but of
"taking cooperation to a whole new level"!
And btw, you just lost the debate by trying to bring the Nazis into
it.
>I really think you, Alex Jones, and David Eicke would get along just
>fine. You have that same psuedo-scientific research style.
Yet another good example of the pervasive, knee-jerk dishonesty I was
talking about.
-- Roy L
professorchaos
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:34:55 -0500, professorchaos
> <profess...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> If all students in the US were educated to do this the democrats and
>> republicans would be screwed. People would realize minimum wages
>> decrease employment.
>
> But in fact, Mr. Science of Economics, there is no credible evidence
> that they do.
>
You are quiet wrong. There is tons of credible evidence in articles in
peer reviewed journals of all levels showing that fact. There is only
article that published that says it may not work and the data collection
has come under a lot of fire. That was Card and Krueger where they
telephoned fast food restaurants to get data on employment after a city
level minimum wage law was passed.
>> That supporting unions means you raise the union
>> fat cat's salary and some people get a bit of a raise while many are
>> left unemployed.
>
> Depends what you mean by "supporting unions." The vagueness of such
> claims fits nicely with your pretensions of scientific respectability.
>
Giving into anti-trade so union cats can fatter as the prices rise and
demand more money from employers to keep jobs and competition from
non-union laborers from increasing.
>> They realize that those jobs they are supposed to
>> protect by stopping trade with China actually decrease jobs in other
>> areas because Chinese incomes do not grow as much and they do not import
>> as much from us.
>
> What would China import from us?
>
Lots of stuff. For instance China now is blocking some US imports of
chicken and pork as a reaction to the US blocking some imports from
China. You really didn't think a trade deficit means the other side
doesn't buy anything from us did you? If you do are really haven't a clue.
This is just some of the stuff exported to China.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/export-sales/highlite.htm shows soybeans,
cotton, and a few other things. That is just the agriculture stuff.
>> They might realize that illegal immigration has
>> kept housing and food prices down for a long time,
>
> ??? ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Thanks for proving that you understand no economics. I have already
> explained why immigration, legal or not, HAS IN FACT made housing
> prices soar.
>
I am sure you used state of the art econometric and sound economic
analysis to do it. Sorry but the effect of decreasing wages by illegal
aliens affects construction and other low skilled jobs heavily. If you
live in a place with illegals go to your nearest Home Depot or Day labor
center tons are willing to do tile, drywall, etc. Sure they may increase
demands for apartments but the effect of decreasing wages has increased
the supply of construction goods and kept prices from rising. I am sure
you explanation of why immigration has made housing prices soar has
taken this into account. Hasn't it?
So where did you publish this? You care to cite this great work for us?
If you have proven it show me the data. Show me your methodology. Show
me the regressions. Show me the results. I bet you have no data or
theory to prove anything. You keep talking about all this analysis that
no one will print so show it don't allude to it. Cite, post it, do
something. Let others be the judge of if it is correct. Are you afraid?
I can sympathize with the feeling. Peer reviewers can be brutal even
when they accept you article but keeping an open mind and honestly
evaluating comments helps to improve your work.
However, I suppose this is just like the study you said that
psychologist found economist to be amoral. In which that idiot jumped in
to respond that you can't prove something is immoral by posting a paper
that says economics teaching leads to certain behavior and has no
opinion or measurement if the behavior is amoral. Because idiot believes
it is amoral it proves amorality instead of showing that certain
behaviors are more likely among people and making no stance of the
morality of those behaviors as the paper did. I assume your research and
this psychological research is like big foot I have no pictures, I can't
show you were I found it, but it exist I saw it I really did. The fact
that no media will run my story is "proof" that I really saw it and they
are trying to cover it up. The unicorn exist and they don't want you to
know that is why the daily world news won't even buy my story. You know,
the weird thing is if I took you to the exact same place you probably
wouldn't see and no one else have. Is this study in the hands of the
snorkel man or did entities jump out of the portal at your ranch and
snatch it away to another dimension?
So put up and show this analysis. Put in the public eye for people to
evaluate it or you will forever be equated to Alex Jones and Joe
McCarthy who claimed to have proof that conspiracies exist but they
can't show because the government is trying to cover it up. That fact
you can't find the evidence supposedly proves the conspiracy to these
people. It doesn't work that way in science. If you can't find evidence
it doesn't prove anything. You are just nothing more than a conspiracy
kook until you can show something. Show some data show some proof don't
just I proved that sometime ago but I am not going to explain. Assume
people are from Missouri.
>> That is just my opinion I could be wrong.
>
> Ya think?
>
Sorry, I was borrowing from the Man, Dennis Miller that was his sign off
to a rant. I sometimes say that at the end of a rant.
professorchaos
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:23:03 -0400, alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote:
>
>> ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>
>>> Research by psychologists has shown
>>> that economics students are the most amoral on campus, even beating
>>> out law students.
>> Any cites to such studies?
>
> Rob posted one. I'm sure Google can find others.
>
No he did not! He posted a link to a copyright violation that shows that
people educated in economics are more likely to exhibit certain
behaviors. There is no proof this behavior is immoral. Failure to
cooperate is not always amoral. Cooperation leads to Cartels, price
fixing, and other things that people feel are amoral. Is not giving
money to charity amoral? What if some donates their time. What if they
expenditures are focused on their children and little is left for
charity? Is that amoral. You see this is the point science can describe
behavior it can not prove or disprove morality. To you and Rob this
behavior may be amoral but that does not mean people agree with you.
As I said before charitable contributions to the Hitler youth led to a
division of kids being presented to Adolf Hitler to be used on the
battlefield in 1945. Cooperation among Nazi leaders lead to efficient
killing of millions of people who did not agree with Nazism. Cooperation
among oil producing countries led to OPEC. Now is cooperation in and of
itself necessiarly amoral? The moral thing to do was not to cooperate
with NSPAD but millions did it and it led to the killing of millions of
others. The moral thing to is not to give charitable contributions to
Islamic schools that train suicide bombers. However, by your definition
charitable contributions and cooperation are moral behavior. So
cooperating with the Gestapo and ratting out your Jewish or Gyspy
neighbor for 40 francs so he could be sent to Auschwitz is moral.
>>> It doesn't take a genius to infer that their
>>> professors are likewise the most amoral on campus. Amorality is the
>>> True Gospel of Economics,
>> Can't that also be said of the hard sciences? And for most other
>> social sciences as well?
>
> No. Science -- real science -- is entirely based on a basic moral
> injunction: thou shalt not lie. Economists in general do not accept
> that moral foundation of science.
What moral foundations are those? Science has run against what many felt
as morality since the middle ages probably even before then. I am sure
the first guy in Egypt to explain what ever method was used to build the
pyramids had a scientific basis and could be explained was considered
amoral for denying the power of the gods in building the structure. We
would never have known of Bacon or Aquanis had science run at odds with
religious and common morality. Science changed moral notions like the
teachings are important not believing in an earth centered universe just
because the pope said you should. It was necessary for democratic
systems that had been dead since the Republic of Rome to arise again.
Economics is firmly founded in the principles of Ulitarianism. If you
understand what is being done in Parretto optimality and efficiency
analysis then you understand it is about getting the most goods to the
most people. It is not concerned with how those goods are distributed.
If you believe that is amoral then you do. I will not argue with you
either way.
There are definitely somethings that are inefficient that I fully
support. Why because of my set of morals I put aside when doing analysis
have to be picked back up once I know the cost and benefits. I have to
ask things like is it moral to make some minimum wage workers better off
while decreasing employment, making some lose their jobs. No economist
will ever tell you that efficiency or economic analysis is the end point
of policy. It is the beginning. Sometimes it is the end when you realize
the policy will not work as intended but often after knowing the cost
and benefits you have to use your own morals to decide if it is what you
want.
For instance economic analysis might find that an increase in crack
dealers drops the price of crack to $.10 for what quantities they buy.
Do that mean it is good that the price of crack dropped? Does that mean
you should buy crack? My morals would say no but a few people might say
yes. I might give some evidence showing a decrease in crime rates, less
stealing or prostitution necessary for a fix, while addiction rates
soar. Is that good? Your morals have to decide that. Economics nor any
other science can determine your morals or your faith for you.
> If it is more profitable for
> economists to tell the lies that favor the financial interests of the
> rich than to tell the truth, which of course it is, then they tell the
> lies.
David Eicke shows more "proof" than this clap trap. At least he uses
some facts and expands too far on them. You just keep repeating the same
claim with no facts to back it up.
So put up or shut up. What have economist lied about?
professorchaos
> money". Citizens must not be led to think borrowed money is money to
> be spent carelessly, it must be paid back and with ...horrors...
> interest.
interest is horrible that is why I put part of my savings in a money
market account. So I get my cut of the interest banks charge lenders.
For every one paying interest someone gets it back. It is a zero-sum
proposition. Some people borrow and have to pay back. Others put their
money in the bank and get paid back. The bank only takes a cut. How else
do they give interest on those CDs, money market accounts, and IRAs. Do
you think that money comes from no where? It comes from interest
payments on loans. You agree to let the bank keep your money so they can
loan it and give you back more. God bless the borrowers they are what
is making my IRA grow. Without loans and "encumbered" money being spent
people would be making interest and letting their assets for retirement
grow. You would have to invest in bonds, which until recently a lot of
people couldn't do because of the old rules on lots.
ruet...@outgun.com
wrote:
> Economics is firmly founded in the principles of Ulitarianism.
No it's not. And since you just mentioned Arrow's Impossibility
Theorem a few lines up, I have no choice but to conclude that this
statement is an intentional attempt at deception rather than an honest
mistake.
>If you
> understand what is being done in Parretto optimality and efficiency
> analysis then you understand it is about getting the most goods to the
> most people.
No it's not. If Bill Gates had 10 billion sandwiches and the other 5
billion people in the world had none, giving Gates another 5 billion
sandwiches and everyone else nothing would be Pareto optimal; taking
half of his sandwiches away and giving one to each and every starving
person while allowing him to still retain 5 billion sandwiches would
not be Pareto optimal. Getting the most goods to the most people, my
ass.
>It is not concerned with how those goods are distributed.
What???? It may not be concerned with the initial distribution (since
economics considers that a given) but it is most certainly concerned
with any changes to that distribution.
> If you believe that is amoral then you do. I will not argue with you
> either way.
Personally, I consider it to be a sterile, meaningless concept. It's
sort of the last refuge of welfare economists. Economists once
thought they could say a whole lot about the real world implications
of policy proposals and of economic change, over time they realized
that they couldn't, that their models were largely empty, and at most
they could simply say that something made some people better off
without making others worse off.
professorchaos
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:19:55 -0500, professorchaos
> <profess...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> The economist in question was obviously doing psychological research.
>
Not even by a long shot. Psychologist want to explain why people think a
certain way. Economist don't care how people think we want to predict
their behavior. A paper published in the JEP is certainly economic
research. Secondly, economics studies how scarce resources are
allocated. Seeing how education affects employment or how much they give
in charitable contributions is a study of economic behavior not how the
brain works.
>> You should read more carefully before interceding. If you
>> find that the JEP article shows amorality then I really can not argue
>> with you. Morality is not a scientific argument it can not be
>> scientifically proven, see Ken Arrow's work particularly the Arrow
>> impossibility theory. I still see no measure for morality or even a
>> definition of morality in the link you posted.
>
> "I see noss-ink. Nosssss-ink!"
>
I can't see what doesn't exist. Care to cite any statement in that paper
that mentions morality? I will say it one more time. I have no doubt you
and Rob may see the behavior describe as amoral. That being said, the
paper makes no stand on morality. It never defines the behavior as moral
or amoral. It simple says that this behavior is more likely. It is you
and Rob that have determined it is amoral. As I said before you
determine this with no scientific basis. There is no way to
scientifically measure that one behavior is less moral than another.
Again see Kenneth Arrow's work. Particularly the Arrow impossibility
theory.
>> I don't see how this
>> anything to do with shattering the Arrow impossibility theorem and
>> showing how we can prove or disprove moral arguments. I may see that you
>> finds the findings amoral but that has nothing to do with the discussion
>> about whether morality can be measured and assessed scientifically.
>
> That wasn't the discussion. But thanks for proving that when you are
> proved wrong, you try to change the subject.
>
No that was EXACTLY WHAT THE STATEMENT ROB REFERED TO WAS ABOUT. I am
quoting myself exactly as Rob quoted it. "Research? This is really
funny. First of all a real psychologist doing
> real research would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
> Good luck there. Garbage into the study garbage out. It was probably
> some hippy who defined amoral has meaning wanting a job that pays a
> decent amount is amoral."
Rob's response was to my statement that morality can not be
scientifically measured and you can not prove something moral or amoral.
He responds with a study that shows certain behaviors are prevalent. No
where in that paper does it ever say that the behavior is amoral nor
purpose a way to measure morality. Kenneth Arrow proved you can't do that.
>> Beyond it is up to individual to decide the
>> normative aspects. That is really what democracy and the American
>> constitution is about making those moral judgments for yourself. I am a
>> firm believer that people make the best decisions for themselves. I
>> present the cost and benefits and let others decide for themselves if it
>> is amoral or moral.
>
> Hehe. Bingo.
>
If you think that is right then YOU CAN'T MAKE STATEMENTS THAT ECONOMIST
ARE AMORAL AND DATA SHOWS THAT. By agreeing with me you concede the
point that NO STUDY CAN SHOW ECONOMIST TO BE AMORAL. You just agreed
that science can not make normative statements. So why exactly are you
arguing? Do you know what you are arguing or do you have a level of
stupidity that makes you just babble stuff that sounds against things
you agree with.
>> You can't prove this or anything else to be amoral. That is a normative
>> statement that can not be tested. Every has a different ideal of
>> morality based on our background and experiences.
>
> "I vass only respondink to inzentiffs!"
>
Your statement was that a scientific study showed economist to be
amoral. You just admitted you can not do that.
>> You should read your readers comments they agree with me.
>
> Liar.
>
Read it again moron.
"James said...
If the studies you cite are to be believed, they only show that the
study of mainstream economics is associated with a decreased willingness
to cooperate with others. This is not nearly the same thing as being a
bad person as you imply.
So far as I can tell, cooperation is neither good nor bad in and of
itself. Most of the cooperation that I observe is cooperation by some
against others. I have a hard time seeing how the unwillingness to
participate in that sort of thing is characteristic of a "bad person.""
First comment on the blog. Later,
"radek said...
James beat me to it but yeah, when normal folks think "cooperation"
they think of a bunch of hippies sitting in a drum circle or holding
hands and singing songs about love. When economists think "cooperation"
they think "collusion" and "monopoly prices"" Note this is largely
correct and the lack of willingness to cooperate in this context is very
moral in my opinion.
"radek said...
I say that while Robert's away we turn this site into a
neo-classical, neo-liberal, free-markets for every man women and child,
stomping ground. After all he gave us permission.
On that note, I'd like to mention that after reading Rubinstein's
paper (one I linked to) I had the opposite feeling from the author. A
manager of a firm SHOULD act to maximize profits (unless of course doing
so would start WW3, cause Hitler to become resurected in a body of a WWF
pro wrestler or cause someone somewhere to purposely not brush their
teeth that morning). And if he doesn't, not only should he be fired, but
he is also behaving unethically. After all he was hired by the owners of
the firm to run the firm as efficiently as possible and by failing to
uphold his end of the contract he has pretty much lied to them and
caused them to suffer financial loss.
I mean if it was the owner of the firm rather than the manager then
yeah, fine.
Having said that I would like to add that I was quite disappointed
by the performance of the Philosophy students in the simulation since
you'd figure these folks would know a bit or two about ethics and the
subtleties involved.
So maybe an economic education does make for better citizens, just
not in a way you'da thunk."
Do I really need to go on. I suppose you will call Radek and James
economist liars like you do me. Like I said Rob's readers agreed me with
on this one.
>> Lack of
>> cooperation does not necessiarly equate to being a bad person. If it did
>> people like Heinrich Mueller, Reynhard Heinrich, Joseph Gobbles, and
>> Henrich Himmler would be saints they took cooperation to a whole new
>> level and look what it did to millions of people living in Europe that
>> the Nazis did not like because of their blood line or because they
>> didn't agree with them.
>
> Because you are despicable, lying filth, you now even claim that Nazi
> atrocities were the result not of institutionalized evil, but of
> "taking cooperation to a whole new level"!
>
Were they not. Is institutionalism nothing more than a cooperative
effort? Can an institution exist if people of like mind do not cooperate
toward a goal. I used the example because it is the extreme of
cooperation gone wrong. People cooperate to do very evil and amoral
things. Every gang of thieves has a high level of cooperation to steal
maybe even murder does that mean they are acting moral because they
cooperate.
My problem is that you define cooperation as moral behavior. It can be
when people cooperate to bring done dictators or to give something to
their community. It can also be the face of evil when cooperation is
used to stamp out dissent. Millions of Germans voluntarily cooperated
with the Gestapo and informed them of other's political leanings, sex
lives, or religion. The Gestapo was never more than 8,000 official
officers with million who willing helped them out.
Cooperation is neither moral or amoral. It is what to end that
cooperation is used that is important. Yes economics teaches it is bad
for the economy for people to cooperate to price fix or form monopolies.
Do you think that is a bad thing.
> And btw, you just lost the debate by trying to bring the Nazis into
> it.
>
Anyone who thinks using history is an example loses a debate is an idiot
and does not understand empiricism. Anyone who uses an internet rule
probably invented by 13 year old who hasn't seen the light of day in
months because he is playing halo is an idiot. Anyone who thinks this is
more than an one sided explanation by me and that you are actually
making arguments when you say liar and that is it or is not is also an
idiot. There is no debate here. It is me presenting analysis and facts
and you saying liar and that isn't so and not backing a single thing up.
You are just like David Eicke or Alex Jones. They have all of this proof
of how everyone is lying to them and the big conspiracy but when pressed
for proof they change the subject and talk about how they proof of
something else without once showing what proof they supposedly had on
the subject in the beginning.
>> I really think you, Alex Jones, and David Eicke would get along just
>> fine. You have that same psuedo-scientific research style.
>
> Yet another good example of the pervasive, knee-jerk dishonesty I was
> talking about.
>
No dishonesty here. Your so called research and analysis is
psuedo-pscientific you take the results like economist exhibit X
behavior and expand it something much more than it was intended. That is
utter dishonesty when you say that JEP shows amorality by economist when
it mentions nothing of the sort. That is what conspiracy kooks deal in
half-truths and outright dishonesty to prove the man is lying to you.
The only people I know for sure who are outright lying are the
conspiracy kooks.
professorchaos
> On Aug 28, 6:38 pm, professorchaos <professorch...@houston.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> Economics is firmly founded in the principles of Ulitarianism.
>
> No it's not. And since you just mentioned Arrow's Impossibility
> Theorem a few lines up, I have no choice but to conclude that this
> statement is an intentional attempt at deception rather than an honest
> mistake.
>
Oh it is firmly rooted in utilitarianism. I suppose you have never heard
of Jeremy Bentham. Have you?
>
>> If you
>> understand what is being done in Parretto optimality and efficiency
>> analysis then you understand it is about getting the most goods to the
>> most people.
>
> No it's not. If Bill Gates had 10 billion sandwiches and the other 5
> billion people in the world had none, giving Gates another 5 billion
> sandwiches and everyone else nothing would be Pareto optimal; taking
> half of his sandwiches away and giving one to each and every starving
> person while allowing him to still retain 5 billion sandwiches would
> not be Pareto optimal. Getting the most goods to the most people, my
> ass.
>
That is true if the initial distribution is with one person having
everything. However, in a market setting we want to get the most goods
while minimizing cost. This means that the goods are allocated to the
people with the highest value. By lowering or raising price to
equilibrium when it is not in equilibrium people who had lower values on
goods, that are still above marginal cost, can obtain the good whereas
before they could not. So an efficient solution gets the most goods to
the most people. In the situation you describe, yes taking away from
bill and giving to others is inefficient but there is no market because
no one else anything to trade with. Is giving Bill 5 million more
sandwiches efficient? Well that depends on where they come from. Where
they dropped from an airplane or do the people with nothing have
intermediate goods that can make sandwiches. In the later it probably
isn't efficient in that markets can form when these people have endowments.
>
>> It is not concerned with how those goods are distributed.
>
> What???? It may not be concerned with the initial distribution (since
> economics considers that a given) but it is most certainly concerned
> with any changes to that distribution.
>
I was being sloppy with my language trying not to be too technical. It
happens all too often in textbooks as well. What I meant is that
economics is not concerned with equity of the distribution. As you point
out an efficient distribution may not be seen as equitable by everyone.
>
>> If you believe that is amoral then you do. I will not argue with you
>> either way.
>
> Personally, I consider it to be a sterile, meaningless concept. It's
> sort of the last refuge of welfare economists. Economists once
> thought they could say a whole lot about the real world implications
> of policy proposals and of economic change, over time they realized
> that they couldn't, that their models were largely empty, and at most
> they could simply say that something made some people better off
> without making others worse off.
>
Very wrong. If the government had listened to micro economist in the
1980's there never would have been a luxury tax. Welfare economist were
showing that this would have a high dead weight loss and not gain much
revenue. The whole idea of elasticity was crucial to this and not
understood by congress. You tax highly elastic goods and people do make
or buy them. Industries crumble and you get little revenue. That is why
you tax beer and cigarettes people don't adjust their consumption much
when you do.
Welfare economics is extremely applicable to taxation issues,
international trade, measuring externalities, and policies to correct
for externalities. Economist still have a lot to say. Where do think
tradeable permits for pollution came from or that licensing can be
better than regulation? Politicians do not always listen and do stupid
things like put taxes on highly elastic goods that doesn't mean welfare
economics doesn't have much to say.
Paretto optimality is only the beginning of welfare economics. To be
useful you have to move beyond the simple model of here is an endowment
and here are the possible trades you have to add production.
Andy F.
"Joshua Cranmer" <Pidg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fb1e5o$ol0$2...@aioe.org...
> Andy F. wrote:
>> The bit where you're most obviously wrong is where you claim that
>> immigration keeps housing prices down.
>
> My understanding is that the construction industry has a relatively high
> percentage of illegal immigrants working for relatively low wages. Cost of
> labor goes down implies that the cost of a new home goes down.
Only if you pretend that land doesn't exist or doesn't cost anything.
Rob.Vi...@itt.com
wrote:
> ro...@telus.net wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:34:55 -0500, professorchaos
> > <professorch...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> If all students in the US were educated to do this the democrats and
> >> republicans would be screwed. People would realize minimum wages
> >> decrease employment.
> > But in fact, Mr. Science of Economics, there is no credible evidence
> > that they do.
>
> You are quiet wrong. There is tons of credible evidence in articles in
> peer reviewed journals of all levels showing that fact. There is only
> article that published that says it may not work and the data collection
> has come under a lot of fire. That was Card and Krueger where they
> telephoned fast food restaurants to get data on employment after a city
> level minimum wage law was passed.
The above illiteracy is a lie. Card and Krueger's research also
included a meta-analysis.
http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/05/on-david-card-and-minimum-wages.html
> [ Illiterate non sequiturs and lies - deleted. ]
Can John really not see he has no ideas and no ability to express
them?
Rob.Vi...@itt.com
wrote:
> Rob.Vienn...@itt.com wrote:
>
> >> ...Morality is not a scientific argument it can not be
> >> scientifically proven, see Ken Arrow's work particularly the
> >> Arrow impossibility theory.
> > Arrow's impossibility theorem does not show morality cannot
> > be scientifically proven.
> On the contrary, it shows that a moral statement can not be
> scientifically proven to better than another moral statement.
Repeating a non sequitur does not make it any more on point.
Nobody presented a argument relating voting and morality.
> [ More non sequiturs and lies - deleted. ]
> I really don't think you fully understand what I am saying.
One thing is sure. John doesn't understand what he is saying.
> [ More non sequiturs and lies - deleted. ]
Rob.Vi...@itt.com
wrote:
> ruethe...@outgun.com wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 6:38 pm, professorchaos <professorch...@houston.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Economics is firmly founded in the principles of Ulitarianism.
> > No it's not. And since you just mentioned Arrow's Impossibility
> > Theorem a few lines up, I have no choice but to conclude that this
> > statement is an intentional attempt at deception rather than an honest
> > mistake.
> Oh it is firmly rooted in utilitarianism. I suppose you have never heard
> of Jeremy Bentham. Have you?
The above is stupid. The relationship of any article in today's
journals
to any nineteenth century theorist is always going to generate debate.
Some of us have even heard of Amartya Sen, author of "The
Impossibility
of a Paretian Liberal" (The Journal of Political Economy, V. 78, N. 1
(January-February 1970): 152-157).
And I suspect those economists who take the Veblenian dichotomy
seriously
would reject utilitarianism.
> [ More non sequiturs, illiteracy, and ignorance - deleted. ]
Does John really not know that he does not know what he is talking
about?
professorchaos
> On Aug 28, 6:16 pm, professorchaos <professorch...@houston.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:34:55 -0500, professorchaos
>>> <professorch...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> If all students in the US were educated to do this the democrats and
>>>> republicans would be screwed. People would realize minimum wages
>>>> decrease employment.
>
>>> But in fact, Mr. Science of Economics, there is no credible evidence
>>> that they do.
>> You are quiet wrong. There is tons of credible evidence in articles in
>> peer reviewed journals of all levels showing that fact. There is only
>> article that published that says it may not work and the data collection
>> has come under a lot of fire. That was Card and Krueger where they
>> telephoned fast food restaurants to get data on employment after a city
>> level minimum wage law was passed.
>
> The above illiteracy is a lie. Card and Krueger's research also
> included a meta-analysis.
>
> http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/05/on-david-card-and-minimum-wages.html
>
It was poorly done research. I have read the original paper I don't need
a link to your pseudo analysis on it. The study phoned fast restaurants
and got highly unreliable data. Their data was unreliable by any
standard. Economist with Card and Kruger's reputation should have known
better. I think they went and got crappy data just to stir a controversy
so they could get cited if you ask me. Being cited for being wrong and
having problems with your results is often, and unfortunately, just as
good as being cited for being good. It is easier to get notice with work
that has a lot of wholes in it. The academic mantra is whip me, beat me,
just don't ignore me. Being ignored is worse than being wrong when you
are trying to publish and make tenure.
> Can John really not see he has no ideas and no ability to express
> them?
>
And you claim economist lie and try to hide the truth from people. You
can not even make an argument. You have assumed I am professor which I
have no such title and result to liable when you have no logic to refute
an argument with. As usually the conspiracy kooks are the bully liars
who try to shoot over any does not agree and call them liars are part of
the conspiracy. Get a life.
professorchaos
A typical tactic of kooks and pseudo-researchers we can not argue the
logic and they know they have beat they result to insult. Why do you
keep calling me John?
professorchaos
> On Aug 28, 8:43 pm, professorchaos <professorch...@houston.rr.com>
> wrote:
> The above is stupid. The relationship of any article in today's
> journals
> to any nineteenth century theorist is always going to generate debate.
>
The concept of efficiency is firmly rooted in utilitarianism. Optimality
is fully rooted in utilitarianism. No unlike you economist no longer
engage in half ass philosophy and tout it as being in the league of
Plato. Those economist that did are on the scrap heap now. However, the
principles of efficiency being desirable are rooted in ulitarianism. You
claim to know the heritage you should know that.
No one is debating today if Marx's philosophical ideas about
exploitation of labor were superior to Smith and Ricardo's ideas.
However, the principles of Utilitarianism are still the base for the
idea of efficiency. The idea of that a benevolent social planner who
maximizes utility for society as a whole is the idea behind calculating
dead weight loss. Even in my own published research some papers used the
idea of comparing a social efficient solution to the decentralized
solution. To do this you have to have an idea of what is efficient. No
my work doesn't cite Bentham but it is utilitarian principles that lead
one to assume efficiency is desirable.
Your statement is like saying Newton's idea of limits have nothing to do
with an article on mathematics. No serious mathematician trying to
publish would rehash limits but without the idea of limits there is no
calculus. Without utilitarianism there is no basis for comparing an
outcome to a possible outcome where the most goods are produced at
minimal cost and saying it is undesirable if that condition is not met.
I know not all principles classes teach efficiency but in your readings
I would assume you have run across the concept of efficiency. Perhaps
you did and ignored it and forgot about because it did not fit your
preconceived notion. If you truly have studied economic history you know
that quite well. Although, I don't think you have. I think you have
picked and chose what to study with the criteria of studying that
supports your preconceived notions best. I bet you think Thomas Munn was
a great economist.
It is apparent you do not wish to have a real discussion. You prefer to
insult and not take anything that does not fit your preconceived notions
seriously. You are obviously not a scientist, I have no idea what your
background is but I can understand why you blog all the time and post to
the internet. Lack of critical analysis beyond X said this and Y said
that and lack of reading comprehension must make you terribly
unmarketable in the job market. Were you a philosophy major? Some many
of those think they are so wise just because they can quote someone and
have little skill in actually thinking for themselves or analyzing
anything beyond Plato said this or Rousseau said this.
You have something to look forward too. You see I have marketable skills
and I am just on a vacation trying to relax with some low tech
discussions. I will be gone from the forum shortly when my job fills my
time again after my vacation is over. You won't have me pouring cold
water on your fantasy by infusing reality and actual knowledge of the
subject for long.
ruet...@outgun.com
> > On Aug 28, 6:38 pm, professorchaos <professorch...@houston.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Economics is firmly founded in the principles of Ulitarianism.
>
> > No it's not. And since you just mentioned Arrow's Impossibility
> > Theorem a few lines up, I have no choice but to conclude that this
> > statement is an intentional attempt at deception rather than an honest
> > mistake.
>
> Oh it is firmly rooted in utilitarianism. I suppose you have never heard
> of Jeremy Bentham. Have you?
I suppose you are unaware of all of the attempts within economics to
rid themselves of the last vestiges of cardinal utility and
interpersonal utility comparisons while paradoxically trying to retain
the judgements that resulted from those earlier, now-discredited
models.
Yes, we're all aware that the models are so barren that they can be
tweaked to say just about anything.
> >> It is not concerned with how those goods are distributed.
>
> > What???? It may not be concerned with the initial distribution (since
> > economics considers that a given) but it is most certainly concerned
> > with any changes to that distribution.
>
> I was being sloppy with my language trying not to be too technical. It
> happens all too often in textbooks as well. What I meant is that
> economics is not concerned with equity of the distribution. As you point
> out an efficient distribution may not be seen as equitable by everyone.
Not concerned with the equity of the distribution? Are you unfamiliar
with marginal productivity theory? JB Clark was quite clear that he
developed marginal productivity theory specifically to produce an
ethical foundation for the distribution of income and that it was
intended directly as a countermeasure against the ethical claims of
Karl Marx and Henry George. Most economists these days recognize that
marginal productivity theory is at most a theory of factor demand, but
that doesn't stop them from attempting to spin it as a complete theory
of income distribution with implied ethical foundations.
Google on the book, "A Quiet Revolution In Welfare Economics". It's
available online. Prepare to realize that everything you have been
taught about welfare economics was dead wrong, once you accept the
empirical fact that externalities are pervasive throughout the
economy.
professorchaos
> On Aug 28, 6:16 pm, professorchaos <professorch...@houston.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:34:55 -0500, professorchaos
>>> <professorch...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> If all students in the US were educated to do this the democrats and
>>>> republicans would be screwed. People would realize minimum wages
>>>> decrease employment.
>
>>> But in fact, Mr. Science of Economics, there is no credible evidence
>>> that they do.
>> You are quiet wrong. There is tons of credible evidence in articles in
>> peer reviewed journals of all levels showing that fact. There is only
>> article that published that says it may not work and the data collection
>> has come under a lot of fire. That was Card and Krueger where they
>> telephoned fast food restaurants to get data on employment after a city
>> level minimum wage law was passed.
>
> The above illiteracy is a lie. Card and Krueger's research also
> included a meta-analysis.
>
> http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/05/on-david-card-and-minimum-wages.html
>
Just in case anyone else is reading. I admit I omitted the discussion of
the meta-analysis. Why? Simply because it was not shocking nor
surprising. It says little about if the theory behind price controls is
wrong. One must distinguish long run from short run effects. The
employment loss is a short run effect. If capital is held constant then
place a price floor cause the quantity bought and sold to drop and there
to be a surplus in the market. In labor markets by definition this is
unemployment because the surplus says there are more people willing to
accept the job at the current wage than jobs available. This is
unemployment.
However, the long run is absolutely silent to the effect of a price
control. Why? Markets change. Over the past 100 years labor demand has
been increasing, for the most part, faster than labor supply. Note the
result is from static analysis that assumes demand and supply say in the
same place when the price floor is instituted. This has pushed wages
upward, with some expect ions in some periods. So it is not surprised
that if a time is analyzed that long time series see the effect of
minimum wages on unemployment go closer to zero. This would be expected
given labor market trends. A price floor is only binding if placed above
the market price. If supply and demand give pressure for market prices
to move above the minimum wage then employment rises as that happens and
the initial unemployment drops. Eventually employers wish to pay more
than the price floor and the price floor no longer means anything.
I suspect that is exactly what happened in Card and Kruger's
meta-analysis. The last minimum wage law lasted for a long time and was
likely no longer binding when the new minimum wage was passed. If demand
is increasing faster than supply, which it was in the 1990's the
supposed wage slowdown was a myth wages dropped but total compensation
rose, then it is likely the market settled on a price higher than the
required minimum and the law had no effect anymore.
Another reason why we can not say that employment will drop in the long
run is because in the long run capital is not constant. Minimum wages
offset the equality of marginal value products and firms may invest in
more capital. This makes labor more productive and increases labor
demand. Therefore in the long run where capital allocations can be
adjusted it is unclear if the effect of a minimum wage will increase,
decrease, or do nothing to employment. The result only holds in the
short run when the time period is too short to add more capital. Once
firms can have the time to change capital it is unpredictable.
An example of the feedback effect is robotics in the auto industry. At
first they began to replace workers but the increased productivity per a
worker that the equipment gave made it profitable to hire more workers.
In the end, employment in the auto industry went up not down when
robotics were installed. NB: the types of workers employed changed
drastically.
In short the meta-analysis is not surprising and loses any chance of
refuting the theory by analyzing longer time series. The longer the time
series the more likely you are moving into the long run where the effect
is not necessiarly the same. The long the time series the more chance
labor demands have expanded to bring the market price above the minimum
wage and the price floor is no longer binding. If the price floor is not
binding there are no ill effects. If congress passed a law making
minimum wage $.50 an hour it would have no effects because firms would
need to pay more than $.50 to hire workers and the market would be
unimpeded. The longer time series the more likely this is the case.
So I omitted the meta-analysis because it tells us little about short
run effects of the minimum wage. It doesn't tell us anything. The
meta-analysis can not distinguish if market supply and demand moved or
if something else is happening. It can't even tell us the elasticity of
labor supply or labor demand. The elasticity of labor demand is
important for immigration studies because that determines how much wages
increase or decrease when supply changes. The elasticity of labor supply
is irrelevant to immigration because it is the supply curve that is
being affected. Both the elasticity of supply and demand are important
to price controls. Even if you have a highly elastic supply curve
employment will not change much if the elasticity of labor demand is
highly inelastic. The elasticity of demand still makes and affects
employment even if the elasticity of supply is perfectly inelastic.
The studies are clear that minimum wages decrease unemployment and
possibly increase discrimination. There are studies showing that with
every increase of the minimum wage employment of black inner city males
has decreased. I will have look deep into my old files from year 3 or 4
of grad school when I took labor economics to find the citation but it
does exist. It is possibly discrimination due to having more applicants
than jobs but it could also be because inner city people, when these
studies were done, were poor and a raise in the minimum wage meant
decreases in AIFDC benefits. So teenagers had to quit or not find work
so the family welfare benefits were not cut.
professorchaos
> On Aug 28, 8:43 pm, professorchaos <professorch...@houston.rr.com>
> wrote:
> Google on the book, "A Quiet Revolution In Welfare Economics". It's
> available online. Prepare to realize that everything you have been
> taught about welfare economics was dead wrong, once you accept the
> empirical fact that externalities are pervasive throughout the
> economy.
>
You can't be serious here welfare economics is what is used to measure
externalities. Even in my own research welfare concepts like dead weight
and what is the socially optimal level come from welfare economics.
Externalities existing or even being pervasive does not make welfare
economics invalid. You need welfare economics to determine how to
correct the externality and what the optimal amount of the good is. You
have to know what an efficient solution is if you are going to aim for it.
Narasimham
>
---
>
> > It doesn't take a genius to infer that their
> > professors are likewise the most amoral on campus. Amorality is the
> > True Gospel of Economics, and economists are its disciples. Responding
> > to incentives just like Pavlov's dogs,
> There is a huge difference between stimulus and incentive. Pavlov gave
> the dogs stimulus not incentives. Incentive gives a reason to want to do
> something. You don't have to do it. For example, allowing charitable
> contributions as a tax write off gives incentive to invest. It doesn't
> mean every does it. In Pavlov's experiment the stimulus created a
> response that the dogs had no choice over. You don't really even
> understand Pavlov much less economics if you can't understand what an
> incentive is.
(am not fully into the thread). Depends on vantage or viewpoint
location, what is stimulus for the control stimulus imparting Pavlov
is incentive for the incentive receiving, helpless salivating
Pavlovian dog.. which has already come way beyond the point of no
return in its fully conditioned forced behavior.
ro...@telus.net
Because your stupidity and economic illiteracy are unique and
inimitable, John.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<profess...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:34:55 -0500, professorchaos
>> <profess...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If all students in the US were educated to do this the democrats and
>>> republicans would be screwed. People would realize minimum wages
>>> decrease employment.
>>
>> But in fact, Mr. Science of Economics, there is no credible evidence
>> that they do.
>
>You are quiet wrong. There is tons of credible evidence in articles in
>peer reviewed journals of all levels showing that fact.
Lie.
>There is only
>article that published that says it may not work and the data collection
>has come under a lot of fire. That was Card and Krueger where they
>telephoned fast food restaurants to get data on employment after a city
>level minimum wage law was passed.
Lie.
>>> That supporting unions means you raise the union
>>> fat cat's salary and some people get a bit of a raise while many are
>>> left unemployed.
>>
>> Depends what you mean by "supporting unions." The vagueness of such
>> claims fits nicely with your pretensions of scientific respectability.
>
>Giving into anti-trade so union cats can fatter as the prices rise and
>demand more money from employers to keep jobs and competition from
>non-union laborers from increasing.
<yawn> Get back to me when the drugs wear off.
>>> They realize that those jobs they are supposed to
>>> protect by stopping trade with China actually decrease jobs in other
>>> areas because Chinese incomes do not grow as much and they do not import
>>> as much from us.
>>
>> What would China import from us?
>>
>Lots of stuff. For instance China now is blocking some US imports of
>chicken and pork as a reaction to the US blocking some imports from
>China. You really didn't think a trade deficit means the other side
>doesn't buy anything from us did you? If you do are really haven't a clue.
>
> This is just some of the stuff exported to China.
>http://www.fas.usda.gov/export-sales/highlite.htm shows soybeans,
>cotton, and a few other things. That is just the agriculture stuff.
How many people does US agriculture employ per unity of output, vs.
manufacturing?
>>> They might realize that illegal immigration has
>>> kept housing and food prices down for a long time,
>>
>> ??? ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>> Thanks for proving that you understand no economics. I have already
>> explained why immigration, legal or not, HAS IN FACT made housing
>> prices soar.
>
>I am sure you used state of the art econometric and sound economic
>analysis to do it.
Contradiction in terms.
>Sorry but the effect of decreasing wages by illegal
>aliens affects construction and other low skilled jobs heavily.
No, rather lightly, because those people also need a place to live.
And the effect on land prices of increased population is vastly
larger.
>If you
>live in a place with illegals go to your nearest Home Depot or Day labor
>center tons are willing to do tile, drywall, etc. Sure they may increase
>demands for apartments but the effect of decreasing wages has increased
>the supply of construction goods and kept prices from rising. I am sure
>you explanation of why immigration has made housing prices soar has
>taken this into account. Hasn't it?
Because you are stupid, dishonest and ineducable, you refuse to know
the fact that high immigration HAS IN FACT been accompanied by soaring
housing prices.
>So where did you publish this?
Right here.
>You care to cite this great work for us?
Google groups can find it for you.
>If you have proven it show me the data. Show me your methodology. Show
>me the regressions. Show me the results. I bet you have no data or
>theory to prove anything.
One should not need regressions and methodologies to know that it gets
colder in the winter.
>You keep talking about all this analysis that
>no one will print so show it don't allude to it. Cite, post it, do
>something. Let others be the judge of if it is correct. Are you afraid?
>I can sympathize with the feeling. Peer reviewers can be brutal even
>when they accept you article
Hehe. I can only imagine how brutal peer reviewers would be on
economics that has been known for 200 years.
>but keeping an open mind and honestly
>evaluating comments helps to improve your work.
You are obviously unaware that you are begging the question.
Get back to me when the drugs wear off.
>>> That is just my opinion I could be wrong.
>>
>> Ya think?
>
>Sorry, I was borrowing from the Man, Dennis Miller that was his sign off
>to a rant. I sometimes say that at the end of a rant.
Say it at the beginning, so I know to skip the rant.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<profess...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:19:55 -0500, professorchaos
>> <profess...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> The economist in question was obviously doing psychological research.
>
>Not even by a long shot. Psychologist want to explain why people think a
>certain way.
Garbage. Psychologists study human behavior.
>Economist don't care how people think we want to predict
>their behavior.
Garbage. If economists wanted to predict behavior, they would never
mention or think about Pareto optimality, general equilibrium, or the
Coase Theorem.
>A paper published in the JEP is certainly economic
>research.
Research about economics students is meta-economic research.
>>> You should read more carefully before interceding. If you
>>> find that the JEP article shows amorality then I really can not argue
>>> with you. Morality is not a scientific argument it can not be
>>> scientifically proven, see Ken Arrow's work particularly the Arrow
>>> impossibility theory. I still see no measure for morality or even a
>>> definition of morality in the link you posted.
>>
>> "I see noss-ink. Nosssss-ink!"
>
>I can't see what doesn't exist.
And you refuse to see what does.
>Care to cite any statement in that paper
>that mentions morality? I will say it one more time. I have no doubt you
>and Rob may see the behavior describe as amoral. That being said, the
>paper makes no stand on morality. It never defines the behavior as moral
>or amoral. It simple says that this behavior is more likely. It is you
>and Rob that have determined it is amoral.
Any normal person knows it is. You just refuse to know it because you
have embraced the same amorality.
>As I said before you
>determine this with no scientific basis. There is no way to
>scientifically measure that one behavior is less moral than another.
I see your ignorance extends to anthropology, too.
>Again see Kenneth Arrow's work. Particularly the Arrow impossibility
>theory.
Ignoratio elenchi.
>>> I don't see how this
>>> anything to do with shattering the Arrow impossibility theorem and
>>> showing how we can prove or disprove moral arguments. I may see that you
>>> finds the findings amoral but that has nothing to do with the discussion
>>> about whether morality can be measured and assessed scientifically.
>>
>> That wasn't the discussion. But thanks for proving that when you are
>> proved wrong, you try to change the subject.
>
>No that was EXACTLY WHAT THE STATEMENT ROB REFERED TO WAS ABOUT.
No, it wasn't.
>I am
>quoting myself exactly as Rob quoted it. "Research? This is really
>funny. First of all a real psychologist doing
> > real research would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
> > Good luck there. Garbage into the study garbage out. It was probably
> > some hippy who defined amoral has meaning wanting a job that pays a
> > decent amount is amoral."
>
>Rob's response was to my statement that morality can not be
>scientifically measured and you can not prove something moral or amoral.
>He responds with a study that shows certain behaviors are prevalent. No
>where in that paper does it ever say that the behavior is amoral nor
>purpose a way to measure morality.
The implications of research results are not limited to those the
researchers identify.
>Kenneth Arrow proved you can't do that.
Garbage.
>>> Beyond it is up to individual to decide the
>>> normative aspects. That is really what democracy and the American
>>> constitution is about making those moral judgments for yourself. I am a
>>> firm believer that people make the best decisions for themselves. I
>>> present the cost and benefits and let others decide for themselves if it
>>> is amoral or moral.
>>
>> Hehe. Bingo.
>
>If you think that is right then YOU CAN'T MAKE STATEMENTS THAT ECONOMIST
>ARE AMORAL AND DATA SHOWS THAT.
Wrong. _Your_ choice to be amoral does not affect the definition of
amoral.
>By agreeing with me you concede the
>point that NO STUDY CAN SHOW ECONOMIST TO BE AMORAL.
Wrong. I only agreed with your statement about yourself.
>You just agreed
>that science can not make normative statements.
The statement that certain people tend to be amoral is not normative.
>So why exactly are you
>arguing? Do you know what you are arguing or do you have a level of
>stupidity that makes you just babble stuff that sounds against things
>you agree with.
As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"
>>> You can't prove this or anything else to be amoral. That is a normative
>>> statement that can not be tested. Every has a different ideal of
>>> morality based on our background and experiences.
>>
>> "I vass only respondink to inzentiffs!"
>
>Your statement was that a scientific study showed economist to be
>amoral. You just admitted you can not do that.
<yawn> Wrong.
>>> You should read your readers comments they agree with me.
>>
>> Liar.
>>
>Read it again moron.
I've read it, liar.
>"James said...
>
> If the studies you cite are to be believed, they only show that the
>study of mainstream economics is associated with a decreased willingness
>to cooperate with others. This is not nearly the same thing as being a
>bad person as you imply.
>
> So far as I can tell, cooperation is neither good nor bad in and of
>itself. Most of the cooperation that I observe is cooperation by some
>against others. I have a hard time seeing how the unwillingness to
>participate in that sort of thing is characteristic of a "bad person.""
The above is not agreement with you.
>First comment on the blog. Later,
>"radek said...
>
> James beat me to it but yeah, when normal folks think "cooperation"
>they think of a bunch of hippies sitting in a drum circle or holding
>hands and singing songs about love.
A comment that is obviously (one hopes) not intended to be taken
literally.
>When economists think "cooperation"
>they think "collusion" and "monopoly prices"" Note this is largely
>correct and the lack of willingness to cooperate in this context is very
>moral in my opinion.
Equivocation.
[snip more of the same crap]
>>> Lack of
>>> cooperation does not necessiarly equate to being a bad person. If it did
>>> people like Heinrich Mueller, Reynhard Heinrich, Joseph Gobbles, and
>>> Henrich Himmler would be saints they took cooperation to a whole new
>>> level and look what it did to millions of people living in Europe that
>>> the Nazis did not like because of their blood line or because they
>>> didn't agree with them.
>>
>> Because you are despicable, lying filth, you now even claim that Nazi
>> atrocities were the result not of institutionalized evil, but of
>> "taking cooperation to a whole new level"!
>
>Were they not.
No.
>Is institutionalism nothing more than a cooperative effort?
No. Institutions have _sanctions_.
>Can an institution exist if people of like mind do not cooperate
>toward a goal.
Ignoratio elenchi.
>I used the example because it is the extreme of
>cooperation gone wrong.
But not of cooperation. Thank you for admitting that you lied again.
>People cooperate to do very evil and amoral
>things. Every gang of thieves has a high level of cooperation to steal
>maybe even murder does that mean they are acting moral because they
>cooperate.
Equivocation.
>My problem is that you define cooperation as moral behavior.
No, I do not, liar.
>It can be
>when people cooperate to bring done dictators or to give something to
>their community. It can also be the face of evil when cooperation is
>used to stamp out dissent.
Evil has nothing to do with cooperation; it is defined by the nature
of the act, not how many people are required to get it done.
>Millions of Germans voluntarily cooperated
>with the Gestapo and informed them of other's political leanings, sex
>lives, or religion.
No, they were mostly frightened into "cooperating." You are just
equivocating, calling submission cooperation.
>The Gestapo was never more than 8,000 official
>officers with million who willing helped them out.
Stupid lie.
>Cooperation is neither moral or amoral. It is what to end that
>cooperation is used that is important. Yes economics teaches it is bad
>for the economy for people to cooperate to price fix or form monopolies.
>Do you think that is a bad thing.
More equivocation.
>> And btw, you just lost the debate by trying to bring the Nazis into
>> it.
>
>Anyone who thinks using history is an example loses a debate is an idiot
>and does not understand empiricism.
You didn't use history as an example. You used Nazis as a smear
tactic. That is why you proved yourself wrong.
>Anyone who uses an internet rule
>probably invented by 13 year old who hasn't seen the light of day in
>months because he is playing halo is an idiot. Anyone who thinks this is
>more than an one sided explanation by me and that you are actually
>making arguments when you say liar and that is it or is not is also an
>idiot. There is no debate here. It is me presenting analysis and facts
You have presented neither, liar. You have presented nothing but
bald, unsupported claims.
>and you saying liar and that isn't so and not backing a single thing up.
>You are just like David Eicke or Alex Jones.
<yawn>
>>> I really think you, Alex Jones, and David Eicke would get along just
>>> fine. You have that same psuedo-scientific research style.
>>
>> Yet another good example of the pervasive, knee-jerk dishonesty I was
>> talking about.
>
>No dishonesty here.
Liar.
>Your so called research and analysis is
>psuedo-pscientific you take the results like economist exhibit X
>behavior and expand it something much more than it was intended.
I couldn't care less what was intended. The facts say what they say,
whether the person who reveals those facts intends it or not.
>That is
>utter dishonesty when you say that JEP shows amorality by economist when
>it mentions nothing of the sort.
By that "logic," a study showing black people are 10 times more likely
than whites to be left off voters' lists would not be evidence of
racism, as long as it didn't mention the word, "race."
-- Roy L
professorchaos
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 17:16:47 -0500, professorchaos
> <profess...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:34:55 -0500, professorchaos
>>> <profess...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If all students in the US were educated to do this the democrats and
>>>> republicans would be screwed. People would realize minimum wages
>>>> decrease employment.
>>> But in fact, Mr. Science of Economics, there is no credible evidence
>>> that they do.
>> You are quiet wrong. There is tons of credible evidence in articles in
>> peer reviewed journals of all levels showing that fact.
>
> Lie.
>
You really know how to make an argument don't you. Do you say same to
you and more of it a lot? Funny the last time you called me a liar I was
able to give evidence that it was not a lie. Where is your evidence for
anything?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa106.html "For example, the 1983 Report to
the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources of the General
Accounting Office
found virtually total agreement that employment is lower than it
would have been if no minimum wage existed. This is the case even in
periods of substantial economic growth. . . . The severity of the
employment loss varies among different age, gender, and racial groups in
the population. Teenage workers, for instance, have greater job losses,
relative to their share of the population or the em- ployed work force,
than adults.[7]"
"According to the 1981 Report of the Minimum Waqe Study Commission, the
46 percent rise in the minimum wage between 1977 and 1981 destroyed
644,000 jobs among teenagers alone. "The evidence is now in, and the
findings of dozens of major economic studies show that the damage done
by the minimum wage has been far more severe than even the critics . . .
predicted." [8] A 1983 survey, "Time-Series Evidence of the Effect of
the Minimum Wage on Youth Employment," found that studies conducted
between 1973 and 1983 generally agreed that a 10 percent increase in the
minimum wage would result in a 1 to 3 percent reduction in teenage
employment.[9] Given these findings, the proposal to raise the minimum
wage by nearly 40 percent could result in a 4 to 12 percent drop in the
employment of teens."
"It is not surprising that AFL-CIO economist John L. Zalusky disputes
these findings. He predicts that a $1 increase in the minimum wage would
eliminate very few jobs, and his "hunch is that a wage hike would
provide a mild stimulus" to economic growth.[13] According to Zalusky's
model, created for the union by the econometrics firm Data Resources
Inc. (DRI), a $1 increase would eliminate 450,000 jobs during the next
eight years. However, Zalusky says, this loss has little importance when
compared with the 11 million jobs that the model predicts would be
created in the same period"
Not even the AFL-CIO economist is showing job losses. He claim of 11
million jobs created has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MINIMUM WAGE. He is
noting the increase in labor demand due to technology that happens with
or without a minimum. It is smoke and mirrors. As the CATO report
states, "In fact, two theoretical assumptions of Zalusky's model make
its results quite deceptive.
First, the DRI model ignores potential workers who are not seeking
employment and therefore are not counted in the official unemployment
statistics. But one of the most destructive aspects of wage fixing is
that it discourages a large number of potential workers from looking for
jobs. A proper accounting would include all unemployed workers, not just
those seeking employment.
An even greater problem with the model is that it ignores the increase
in employment that might have occurred if a minimum wage had not been
imposed in the first place. A growing economy creates jobs. "
I agree strongly with the author when he says "It is misleading to claim
that a minimum wage does not create a net decrease in the total number
of jobs. A net decrease would indicate that the minimum wage had
destroyed more jobs than the market process had been able to create in
the same period. Such a scenario, although possible if the minimum was
fixed high enough, has not yet occurred. The market has somehow
compensated for past legislative foolishness. A more accurate accounting
would compare the number of jobs created under minimum-wage restrictions
with the number of jobs that might have been created in the absence of
those restrictions."
Some references,
[9] Charles Brown, Curtis Gilroy, and Andrew Cohen, "Time-Series
Evidence of the Effect of the Minimum Wage on Youth Employment," Journal
of Human Resources (Winter 1983).
[16] F. A. Hayek, "Unions, Inflation and Profits," in Studies in
Philosoihv. Politics and Economics (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969),
p. 281.
These are only a couple of sources. Tons more exist.
>>>> That supporting unions means you raise the union
>>>> fat cat's salary and some people get a bit of a raise while many are
>>>> left unemployed.
>>> Depends what you mean by "supporting unions." The vagueness of such
>>> claims fits nicely with your pretensions of scientific respectability.
>> Giving into anti-trade so union cats can fatter as the prices rise and
>> demand more money from employers to keep jobs and competition from
>> non-union laborers from increasing.
>
> <yawn> Get back to me when the drugs wear off.
>
Unions essentially set price controls on the market. It is very
rudimentary theory supported by evidence that a price floor decrease the
amount of the good sold on the market. Anyone who has taken even
principles of microeconomics knows the trade off between higher wages
and employment unions have to face. This is why job with high elastic
supply rarely have unions and jobs like pipe fitters where supply is
relatively inelastic often do.
>>>> They realize that those jobs they are supposed to
>>>> protect by stopping trade with China actually decrease jobs in other
>>>> areas because Chinese incomes do not grow as much and they do not import
>>>> as much from us.
>>> What would China import from us?
>>>
>> Lots of stuff. For instance China now is blocking some US imports of
>> chicken and pork as a reaction to the US blocking some imports from
>> China. You really didn't think a trade deficit means the other side
>> doesn't buy anything from us did you? If you do are really haven't a clue.
>>
>> This is just some of the stuff exported to China.
>> http://www.fas.usda.gov/export-sales/highlite.htm shows soybeans,
>> cotton, and a few other things. That is just the agriculture stuff.
>
> How many people does US agriculture employ per unity of output, vs.
> manufacturing?
>
Agriculture is just one thing. We export manufacturing goods to china as
well.
>>>> They might realize that illegal immigration has
>>>> kept housing and food prices down for a long time,
>>> ??? ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> Thanks for proving that you understand no economics. I have already
>>> explained why immigration, legal or not, HAS IN FACT made housing
>>> prices soar.
>> I am sure you used state of the art econometric and sound economic
>> analysis to do it.
>
> Contradiction in terms.
>
>> Sorry but the effect of decreasing wages by illegal
>> aliens affects construction and other low skilled jobs heavily.
>
> No, rather lightly, because those people also need a place to live.
> And the effect on land prices of increased population is vastly
> larger.
>
PROVE IT! You place conjecture with no evidence to back this up. Illegal
immigrants often live several people to a rental unit and do not push
demands up much. They do decrease wages and keep the cost of
construction down. Give some evidence that the size of the supply shift
is smaller than the size of the demand shift. Again put up or shut up.
You obviously have no economic education and even if you had a Ph.D.
people would want to see proof of such statements. No Ph.D. would make
such a statement though. It would be more cautious stating that it is an
empirical question and that the effect of increasing demands could raise
prices of housing but more study is needed.
>> If you
>> live in a place with illegals go to your nearest Home Depot or Day labor
>> center tons are willing to do tile, drywall, etc. Sure they may increase
>> demands for apartments but the effect of decreasing wages has increased
>> the supply of construction goods and kept prices from rising. I am sure
>> you explanation of why immigration has made housing prices soar has
>> taken this into account. Hasn't it?
>
> Because you are stupid, dishonest and ineducable, you refuse to know
> the fact that high immigration HAS IN FACT been accompanied by soaring
> housing prices.
>
Really, were housing prices in New York city soaring after the Irish
potato famine? Were housing prices in South Cal., NM, AZ, and South
Texas soaring when illegal immigration became a hot issue in the 1980's.
You see miss something extremely important in your so called analysis.
You do not understand that predictions of this sort are holding
everything else constant. That means interest rates, other demands for
land, etc. Because, you saw housing rates soar lately has little to do
with immigration. If anything immigration has been lower since 2001 with
the crackdown on H2B visas and more stringent visa requirements, the
vast majority of illegals enter legally and work illegally. I am not
saying the efforts have been effective on the boarders but more
attention is there too. The flow of immigrants have slowed.
So why soaring housing prices? Because interest rates are lower than
ever and banks have offered no income verification and easy credit terms
at high interest rates to people who should qualify for loans. That
caused the bubble all of these no interest for X year loans and low
interest rates increased demands for housing not immigration. The flow
of immigrants hasn't grown as much as in the past with government
efforts to stop immigrants.
So can prove that during the housing bubble that immigration, illegal
and other rise was higher than other periods? I highly doubt it.
>> If you have proven it show me the data. Show me your methodology. Show
>> me the regressions. Show me the results. I bet you have no data or
>> theory to prove anything.
>
> One should not need regressions and methodologies to know that it gets
> colder in the winter.
>
You have no idea what the scientific method is do you. A lot of people
may think it is colder than it really is in the winter. Without checking
the thermometer you can't see how much colder it is or if it is colder
than last winter. What does it mean you when you say colder in the
winter? Colder than the summer? Colder than last winter? Colder than
fall? What does colder really mean .5 degrees F, .5 degrees C, 10
degrees C? These are the questions real scientist ask and it was leads
to them to better understanding. You are trying to claim you know the
magnitude of changes of supply and changes of demand. You are claiming
that increases in demand for rental housing from immigrants are greater
than increases in supply from decreasing wages. Sorry you just say it is
colder and that is due to X factor without proof. To just say housing
prices has risen and we have had immigration does not prove the point.
Again take heed of the ceterus paribus fallacy.
It is kind of like Eddie Izzard saying why Star Wars could never be a
British movie. "If it were British someone would say the force is strong
with in you. How strong? Strong as a small pony? How do you know the
force is strong within me? Uh some bloke told me?" When you try to
oppose science this is what you deal with. That is why pseudo
researchers like yourself calls us jerks and liars. Simply because they
can't stand up to the rigor required by a true scientist. A
pseudo-research thinks taking a small fact 10 steps further with no
evidence for the links is research and get mad when someone ask them to
prove it and calls that person a liar.
professorchaos
Here we go again you can not refute the logic or the argument so you
turn to libel.
ro...@telus.net
<profess...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:17:35 -0500, professorchaos
>> <profess...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Wrong. Politicians couldn't care less about the economic soundness of
>> policies.
>
>I would agree but I still have a little more faith and choose to believe
>it is because they are ignorant of economic principles.
They aren't. They just choose to serve the rich rather than the
people because it pays better.
>> Oh, garbage. Requiring economics would just ensure that everyone was
>> equally brainwashed with lies. Research by psychologists has shown
>> that economics students are the most amoral on campus, even beating
>> out law students.
>
>Research this is really funny. First of all a real psychologist doing
>real research would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
No, stupid, he wouldn't.
>Good luck there. Garbage into the study garbage out. It was probably
>some hippy who defined amoral has meaning wanting a job that pays a
>decent amount is amoral.
No, stupid, it wasn't.
>> It doesn't take a genius to infer that their
>> professors are likewise the most amoral on campus. Amorality is the
>> True Gospel of Economics, and economists are its disciples. Reponding
>> to incentives just like Pavlov's dogs,
>
>There is a huge difference between stimulus and incentive. Pavlov gave
>the dogs stimulus not incentives. Incentive gives a reason to want to do
> something. You don't have to do it. For example, allowing charitable
>contributions as a tax write off gives incentive to invest. It doesn't
>mean every does it. In Pavlov's experiment the stimulus created a
>response that the dogs had no choice over. You don't really even
>understand Pavlov much less economics if you can't understand what an
>incentive is.
You don't understand what a simile is.
>>economists lie to the public
>> about economics to serve the interests of the rich, because that is
>> what pays best.
>
>Really? When I worked at a community college while finishing my doctoral
>degree were my students the rich?
No, the unfortunate.
>So I should burn all my AERs because
>all of those professors from Cambridge to small town Louisana colleges
>who have published in them are being paid by the man to lie?
Recycling them would be more environmentally responsible.
>My guess is Alex Jones said it was unsound over the radio and
>you believe him.
Wrong, as always.
>>> In 1936 with John Maynard Keynes this may have been true. Today we stick
>>> to testable hypothesis.
>>
>> _Liar_. When was any general equilibrium hypothesis ever tested,
>> hmmmm?
>
>Over and over again. The empirical work supports it.
Garbage.
>Even some of my own
>research has dealt with general equilibrium models. Guess what the data
>said the model was pretty accurate.
So did the data about epicycles.
>>> You really
>>> should write a book this type of psuedo-science makes millions.
>>
>> Liar. No publisher will even print this sort of information, let
>> alone pay the guy who wrote it.
>
>Look up David Eicke, Alex Jones, or Lynda Molten Howell on the internet.
>Publishers will publish anything.
No, they will not.
>America is a great place where free
>speech is allowed.
?? ROTFL!!!
>Alex Jones still hasn't been arrested for claiming
>the government was behind 9/11 nor even going further by claiming the
>government is controlled by the Masons.
What a disappointment...
>I can not seriously believe with this claptrap
>attacking our government out there that a publisher wouldn't print a
>book bashing people politicians don't even listen to.
Claptrap is not dangerous. Duh.
>The real problem is you make McCarthy statements and call it analysis.
>There is no analysis in your postings and you can't write more than a
>few paragraphs.
Why write more than is needed to demolish you?
>You wouldn't have the faintest idea of how to put a book
>together.
Actually, I have edited a number of books.
>> How else do you explain disasters like the invasion of Iraq, which
>> benefit no one but certain narrow, wealthy interests who reap immense
>> profits from the immense suffering of others?
>
>Iraq hasn't benefited the wealthy. Gas prices are still soaring.
And you see no contradiction between those two statements....?
Amazing.
>Iraqi
>oil is not even fully online yet. The wealthy in the UN were in a much
>better position when the Oil for food scandals were going on and France
>and Russia were giving huge kickbacks to Saddam Hussein in exchange for
>contracts under OFF(Oil for Food) and buying Iraq oil at less than
>market rates and giving Saddam a cut.
>
>That war had nothing to do with wealthy people getting control of oil.
>It had everything to do with Saddam getting wealthy off a corrupt UN
>system that Kofi Annon and others were skimming off the top. All the
>while giving money back to Saddam so he could restart biological and
>nuclear programs. Read the Duefler report no massive stockpiles but
>those programs were in existence again with Oil for Food. The OFF
>debacle threatened Israel, our ally, and other allies in the region. As
>Saddam got back to his old tricks. Granted the stockpiles were not there
>and the programs were no where near 1991 levels. However, to keep Iraqi
>as a UN colony where certain security members were pillaging what they
>could will supporting a dangerous dictator who had no problems using
>biological weapons would have led to greater than 1991 levels eventually.
>
>George W. Bush did want Winston Churchill would have done during the
>Anschluss or the Munich conference had the pacifist not let him.
>Churchill would have gone done in history like Bush if he had been able
>to. He would been blamed for starting a small war with Germany and no
>one would have known the carnage he prevented if parliament would have
>listened him. Bush may have very prevented a huge amount of carnage that
>likely would have happened in 10-15 years time if Hussein had been left
>in power while corrupt UN policies fed him and corrupt Frenchmen,
>Russians, and UN members. Do you realize less than half of Iraqi oil
>sales went to Iraqi from 1994 to the invasion? Do you realize the UN got
>over 20% of Iraqi oil sales prior to the invasion? That Kuwait was still
>getting large reparations? That the UK/US tried price controls to stop
>the corruption?
>
>Iraq was all about stopping corrupt interest before it was true late.
Above irrational rant left in just for laughs.
-- Roy L
ro...@telus.net
<profess...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:23:03 -0400, alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote:
>>
>>> ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> Research by psychologists has shown
>>>> that economics students are the most amoral on campus, even beating
>>>> out law students.
>>> Any cites to such studies?
>>
>> Rob posted one. I'm sure Google can find others.
>
>No he did not! He posted a link to a copyright violation that shows that
>people educated in economics are more likely to exhibit certain
>behaviors. There is no proof this behavior is immoral. Failure to
>cooperate is not always amoral. Cooperation leads to Cartels, price
>fixing, and other things that people feel are amoral. Is not giving
>money to charity amoral? What if some donates their time. What if they
>expenditures are focused on their children and little is left for
>charity? Is that amoral. You see this is the point science can describe
>behavior it can not prove or disprove morality. To you and Rob this
>behavior may be amoral but that does not mean people agree with you.
In fact, of course, that study was reported in terms that made it
obvious that people DO agree with me.
>As I said before charitable contributions to the Hitler youth led to a
>division of kids being presented to Adolf Hitler to be used on the
>battlefield in 1945. Cooperation among Nazi leaders lead to efficient
>killing of millions of people who did not agree with Nazism. Cooperation
>among oil producing countries led to OPEC. Now is cooperation in and of
>itself necessiarly amoral? The moral thing to do was not to cooperate
>with NSPAD but millions did it and it led to the killing of millions of
>others. The moral thing to is not to give charitable contributions to
>Islamic schools that train suicide bombers. However, by your definition
>charitable contributions and cooperation are moral behavior. So
>cooperating with the Gestapo and ratting out your Jewish or Gyspy
>neighbor for 40 francs so he could be sent to Auschwitz is moral.
Above rant left in deliberately, as evidence of John's drug-addled
insanity.
>>>> It doesn't take a genius to infer that their
>>>> professors are likewise the most amoral on campus. Amorality is the
>>>> True Gospel of Economics,
>>> Can't that also be said of the hard sciences? And for most other
>>> social sciences as well?
>>
>> No. Science -- real science -- is entirely based on a basic moral
>> injunction: thou shalt not lie. Economists in general do not accept
>> that moral foundation of science.
>
>What moral foundations are those?
Learn to read, $#!+-for-brains.
>Economics is firmly founded in the principles of Ulitarianism.
Wrong.
>If you
>understand what is being done in Parretto optimality and efficiency
>analysis then you understand it is about getting the most goods to the
>most people.
Lie. It is about preserving injustices.
>It is not concerned with how those goods are distributed.
>If you believe that is amoral then you do. I will not argue with you
>either way.
That is self-evidently amoral.
>So put up or shut up. What have economist lied about?
Their motives, for one.
-- Roy L
Lantern
wrote:
> interest is horrible that is why I put part of my savings in a money
> market account. >>
At last we agree on that. I just opened a money market at my local
Wachovia branch and it pays 5%. Darn good, I think (Rate guaranteed
only for 6 months :( It is really nice to be on the receiving end of
interest. Thanks for posting.
Rob.Vi...@itt.com
wrote:
> Rob.Vienn...@itt.com wrote:
> > The above illiteracy is a lie. Card and Krueger's research also
> > included a meta-analysis.
> >http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/05/on-david-card-and-minimum-...
> Just in case anyone else is reading. I admit I omitted the discussion of
> the meta-analysis. Why? Simply because it was not shocking nor
> surprising. It says little about if the theory behind price controls is
> wrong. One must distinguish long run from short run effects. The
> employment loss is a short run effect. If capital is held constant then
> place a price floor cause the quantity bought and sold to drop and there
> to be a surplus in the market. In labor markets by definition this is
> unemployment because the surplus says there are more people willing to
> accept the job at the current wage than jobs available. This is
> unemployment.
>
> However, the long run is absolutely silent to the effect of a price
> control... [ blah, blah, blah ]
Incorrect neoclassical theory claims that in the long run,
cost-minimizing firms will substitute capital for more expensive
labor. One of my peer-reviewed papers demonstrates that the
neoclassical claim is in error.
(I used to have a draft of this paper on my website. Some
soi-dissant on sci.econ mistakenly told me it was not
publishable.)
> [ Continued incorrect charactization of Card and Kruger's ]
> [ meta-analysis - deleted. ]
As I recall, this meta-analysis was not about constructing
a longer time series.
Rob.Vi...@itt.com
wrote:
> Rob.Vienn...@itt.com wrote:
> And you claim economist lie and try to hide the truth from people.
> [ Illiteracy - deleted. ]
And yet on my first post in this thread, I wrote:
"But I don't think most mainstream economists consciously lie
all the time. Many, I suspect, are ignorant of their
ignorance - 'ignorance squared' as it has been called."
Rob.Vi...@itt.com
wrote:> > <professorch...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> [ Drivel - deleted. ]
John was describing my as being dishonest in the following comment:
> > Yet another good example of the pervasive, knee-jerk dishonesty I was
> > talking about.
> No dishonesty here. Your so called research and analysis is
> psuedo-pscientific you take the results like economist exhibit X
> behavior and expand it something much more than it was intended.
> [ blah, blah, blah. ]
But above he is addressing Roy. Clearly the above is a complete
non-sequitur. Whether Roy's "research and analysis is pseudo-
pscientific" can have no bearing on whether one of my blog posts
is "Yet another good example of the pervasive, knee-jerk dishonesty".
Rob.Vi...@itt.com
wrote:
> Google on the book, "A Quiet Revolution In Welfare Economics". It's
> available online. Prepare to realize that everything you have been
> taught about welfare economics was dead wrong, once you accept the
> empirical fact that externalities are pervasive throughout the
> economy.
Thanks for pointing out its on-line availability. I've been
thinking that perhaps I should read that book for years.
professorchaos
> On Aug 29, 6:56 am, professorchaos <professorch...@houston.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> Rob.Vienn...@itt.com wrote:
>
>>> The above illiteracy is a lie. Card and Krueger's research also
>>> included a meta-analysis.
>
>>> http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/05/on-david-card-and-minimum-...
>
>> Just in case anyone else is reading. I admit I omitted the discussion of
>> the meta-analysis. Why? Simply because it was not shocking nor
>> surprising. It says little about if the theory behind price controls is
>> wrong. One must distinguish long run from short run effects. The
>> employment loss is a short run effect. If capital is held constant then
>> place a price floor cause the quantity bought and sold to drop and there
>> to be a surplus in the market. In labor markets by definition this is
>> unemployment because the surplus says there are more people willing to
>> accept the job at the current wage than jobs available. This is
>> unemployment.
>>
>> However, the long run is absolutely silent to the effect of a price
>> control... [ blah, blah, blah ]
>
> Incorrect neoclassical theory claims that in the long run,
> cost-minimizing firms will substitute capital for more expensive
> labor. One of my peer-reviewed papers demonstrates that the
> neoclassical claim is in error.
>
I have no idea what paper you are referring to. Care to give a citation?
I did look at your SSRN page and there is no mention of such of a
paper. Well at least your abstract of your one paper in the Manchester
School journal says nothing about this result. Since I do not subscribe
to the Manchester school journal and do not wish to pay for the article.
I will not comment on the article. If I find some free time in the
library I might see if the library has a subscription but I doubt it and
I have better things to do than hunt claims supposedly in a paper in
which in the abstract says nothing about the supposed claims. If they
are not in the abstract it is likely a secondary result. Curious though
if you did that why was it not the main result of the paper instead of
employment can be determined by labor demand or equilibria but not both?
Obviously you were not using a model of labor demand and labor supply.
Not that is bad just the abstract doesn't imply anything about long run
labor demand being wrong. Indeed, the abstract implies labor demand (no
distinction of long or short run) gives the same result of whatever
equilibria you found.
So I suspect you are being deceptive in your claims.
> (I used to have a draft of this paper on my website. Some
> soi-dissant on sci.econ mistakenly told me it was not
> publishable.)
>
I can not comment on that I have no idea about the discussion you are
speaking of but, I do know drafts can be quite different from the final
product. Perhaps the person was commenting about style and presentation
rather comment. Had I posted some of my drafts of what became
publications I am sure people would have said it is unpublishable in the
present form. Often before submission or doing review processes
commenters may something like it can not be published without a better
explanation of this section of the model. You need to explain X equation
better or table Y needs more discussion. Discuss concept Z less. These
are usually things that make a paper unpublishable in the current form.
I know my first attempt at publishing made me take another look at how
the paper was presented even though it passed my dissertation committee
without a problem.
My guess is that since the paper is theory who said that most likely was
saying equations and the model needed to be explained better than in the
form of the time. Unpublished authors have a bad tendency to just let
the math speak for itself and not put another words between the
equations or in explaining the results. Perhaps the person's comments
helped you to get the paper in proper form to publish. I have had a
colleague look over a draft before and say X and Y need to be done
before it is publishable. Try this or that and see if you get stronger
results. So it is little surprise someone would make such a comment on a
draft of paper that with some editing was later published.
>> [ Continued incorrect charactization of Card and Kruger's ]
>> [ meta-analysis - deleted. ]
>
> As I recall, this meta-analysis was not about constructing
> a longer time series.
>
Curious that posting about Card and Kruger is a dead link now.
Yesterday, it showed you saying something about how the meta-analysis
had not been refuted and how the time series analysis showed that the
effect went to zero in longer time series. I remember that in the paper
you remember that in your posting now the posting is curiously gone and
a deadlink is all that exists.
But never fear the link is broken but the post is still in your
archives. "Their results had two major components: a meta-analysis (Card
and Krueger 1995) and statistical analysis of data gathered in a natural
experiment (Card and Krueger 1994). In their meta-analysis, they
quantitatively examine over 30 time series studies of the minimum wage.
They find that as more data becomes available, the statistical
significance of the employment effect of minimum wages declines." The
more data become available means time series getting longer.
None the less the problem is as I stated before with time series data.
They show dynamic changes that may not control for rising labor demands.
It is no surprise that in a time series the effect tends to go away. It
is a short run effect if you look at it over time then you will
eventually go into the long run. The effect is not a long run effect and
no one would necessiarly expect to see minimum wages still reducing
employment in the long run. Furthermore because time series analyzes
employment over time the effect of the upward trend in labor demands
could very well mask the effect of minimum wages. It is a classic case
of the ceteris paribus fallacy.
Even more curios is why you are even arguing with me. To quote your
blog, "Given this work, I don't see how one can conclude that
politically-feasible increases in the minimum wage will have large
employment-decreasing effects." NOTE LARGE EMPLOYMENT-DECREASING EFECTS
NOT THAT INCREASES IN MINIMUM WAGE WILL NO HAVE ANY EFFECT ON
EMPLOYMENT> You are implying you agree employment will drop it just will
not be a large effect. Your final paragraph seems to indicate your agree
with mainstream economist who favor the minimum wage. There will be a
drop in employment it just will not be large. If not so, then why not
come out and say that increases in minimum wage will have no effect on
employment. Instead you make a very mainstream statement.
I can not refute your statement that is my be hard to conclude that
large employment decreasing effects would occur because it is empirical
question that has not been answered. The elasticities of labor demand
and labor supply for the entire pool of minimum wage workers are
contentious estimates at best. Without good estimates I can not refute
that large employment decreases may not occur. I as all mainstream
economist can tell you that employment will decrease in the short run.
Have large that is for the entire pool of minimum wage workers is
difficult at best to say. I can however, refute with data that
employment does not decrease with the minimum wage which is the argument
you seem to be making here which is quite different from the argument on
your blog.
Personally I believe the answer becomes much better as look at any
industry or even local market at a time. The elasticities of labor
supply and labor demand are crucial for telling us how big a decrease in
employment will be because of a price floor. You are more likely to get
more accurate measures the smaller the area you look at. Each locality
may have different elasticities of labor supply and labor demand. A
wealthy suburban area may have very inelastic labor supply due to the
work pool being mainly teenagers of educated people. While the inner
city might have a more elastic labor supply.
I think Card and Kruger had the right idea to look at a small area but
calling your local McDonald and talking to whomever picks up and answers
your questions about employment over the past few months was a bad data
collection strategy. That is the main complaint of critics of Card and
Kruger.
professorchaos
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:29:44 -0500, professorchaos
> <profess...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> Garbage. If economists wanted to predict behavior, they would never
> mention or think about Pareto optimality, general equilibrium, or the
> Coase Theorem.
>
No all of these issue you discuss predict behavior except Pareto
optimality. Optimality starts with a determination of what is desirable
and uses that as baseline to show if the behavior is desirable or not.
General equilibrium predicts behavior. The Coase theorem predicts
behavior when people are given certain legal rights.
>> A paper published in the JEP is certainly economic
>> Care to cite any statement in that paper
>> that mentions morality? I will say it one more time. I have no doubt you
>> and Rob may see the behavior describe as amoral. That being said, the
>> paper makes no stand on morality. It never defines the behavior as moral
>> or amoral. It simple says that this behavior is more likely. It is you
>> and Rob that have determined it is amoral.
>
> Any normal person knows it is. You just refuse to know it because you
> have embraced the same amorality.
I as I stated before when you started this discussion who the hell are
you to decide for everyone else what is moral and amoral. You can not
prove morality. That is simply what I argued from the beginning. The
paper Rob cites does not prove economist are amoral it shows that
certain behaviors may be encouraged by economic teaching. You, I nor
anyone else has one shred of authority to say that proves amorality. You
may be believe it is amoral but you can't prove that. That is the right
of every person to judge for themselves what is moral and not moral. NO
SCIENTIFIC PAPER CAN EVER PROVE THAT SOMETHING IS AMORAL. It can say
data suggest a certain behavior is more likely. It can not say if that
behavior is amoral or not. Your statement was the paper proved that
economist are the most amoral. It does no such thing. The data indicate
a set of behaviors is more likely. Just because you believe failing to
cooperate is amoral does not mean everyone else has. You are not a God
or a high priest who dictates to everyone what they should believe.
When make statements that every person knows this is amoral you are
better than the right wingers who want everyone to believe just as they
do and damn people who disagree. I hope you like being part of the Pat
Robinson crowd but that is not for me.
>> I am
>> quoting myself exactly as Rob quoted it. "Research? This is really
>> funny. First of all a real psychologist doing
>>> real research would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
>>> Good luck there. Garbage into the study garbage out. It was probably
>>> some hippy who defined amoral has meaning wanting a job that pays a
>>> decent amount is amoral."
>> Rob's response was to my statement that morality can not be
>> scientifically measured and you can not prove something moral or amoral.
>> He responds with a study that shows certain behaviors are prevalent. No
>> where in that paper does it ever say that the behavior is amoral nor
>> purpose a way to measure morality.
>
> The implications of research results are not limited to those the
> researchers identify.
>
You miss the point. I have no problem if you think the behavior is
amoral. I do have a problem with you claiming that science proves a
group of people are amoral. That is pseudo-scientific statement that
brings us back to Aqanuis trying to use science to prove religion. It
can not and should not be done. Faith is not scientific and is
individual. Faith is what provides morals not science.
> Wrong. _Your_ choice to be amoral does not affect the definition of
> amoral.
>
Whose definition? Again who the hell are you to define what is moral for
everyone? This is exactly what the religious right does. I may be
conservative and take my faith seriously but I also believe in free will
and the right of every person to decide for themselves what is moral and
what is amoral. Statements like yours hark to the inquisition when
people who did agree with the Roman Catholic Church were tutored for
having different views.
In addition what definition of morality? Roy's definition? The Hindu
definition? The Buddhist definition? The Christian definition? Define
amoral. We can argue all day if an action is moral or amoral and never
prove anything.
>> You just agreed
>> that science can not make normative statements.
>
> The statement that certain people tend to be amoral is not normative.
>
Of course it is. Moral is a judgment. Normative statements by definition
are involve judgments. It is not a positive statement. To be positive it
has to be able to be tested and proven. You can not test and prove if
something is moral.
> Equivocation.
>
Not my comment. It was Rob's reader's comment. I was just showing that
Rob's readers agreed with me. These are simply the snips from Rob's blog
that showed his readers were agreeing with. I was just simply showing I
was not lying here are the comments. You may not like them but they
exist and are what I based the comments on.
> [snip more of the same crap]
>
Again not my words more proof that Rob's readers made similar statements
to mine.
>> Can an institution exist if people of like mind do not cooperate
>> toward a goal.
>
> Ignoratio elenchi.
>
More insult when the logic can not be refuted. I bet you say same to you
and more of it a lot.
>> I used the example because it is the extreme of
>> cooperation gone wrong.
>
> But not of cooperation. Thank you for admitting that you lied again.
>
Of course it was cooperation without cooperation political entities are
not created. The cooperation in a dictatorship must be maintained
regardless if the dictator acts in an evil or a good way.
>> My problem is that you define cooperation as moral behavior.
>
> No, I do not, liar.
>
Sorry but that was one of the findings of the paper that people with
economic education are less likely to cooperate. They are less likely to
find cooperation solutions in game theory and more likely to take the
non-cooperative solution. This is the heart of what you are calling
amoral. Or do you not have a stand on that and are commenting about the
results of giving to charity. Have you read the paper?
>> It can be
>> when people cooperate to bring done dictators or to give something to
>> their community. It can also be the face of evil when cooperation is
>> used to stamp out dissent.
>
> Evil has nothing to do with cooperation; it is defined by the nature
> of the act, not how many people are required to get it done.
>
Exactly which is why cooperation is not moral or amoral. That is exactly
what I was. Just because students were less likely to choose a
cooperative solution in a game does not make them amoral. Cooperation in
and of itself is not moral or amoral. It is the action that would result
from the cooperation.
>> Millions of Germans voluntarily cooperated
>> with the Gestapo and informed them of other's political leanings, sex
>> lives, or religion.
>
> No, they were mostly frightened into "cooperating." You are just
> equivocating, calling submission cooperation.
>
Oh yes. Every goosestepping sig heiling German claimed they were
coerced. Every French collabrator, Pole informant and so claimed they
did it out of fear. That is the problem with the view of WWII today,
people do not realize Hitler didn't create antisemitism he exploited the
antisemitism that exist in Europe since the middle ages. I am not
defending the Nazis but programs existed in Poland long before Hitler. A
lot of people willing cooperated just as a lot of people willingly
cooperated in the US with the KKK to kill blacks. I am sure many of
those people today might say they gave information to the KKK or Gestapo
out of fear. I don't buy anymore than I buy Eichman was just following
orders. Europe was highly antisemitic at the time and some of these
people really didn't care what happen to the Jews or Gypsies because
they hated them.
>> The Gestapo was never more than 8,000 official
>> officers with million who willing helped them out.
>
> Stupid lie.
>
Not a lie at all. Offical records show office 4 of the security network
(the Gestapo) was never over 8,000 people. They used informants who
willing gave information to do the work. In Belgium they paid people to
do it. In Germany they had plenty of volunteers who contacted the
Gestapo and gave them information.
> You didn't use history as an example. You used Nazis as a smear
> tactic. That is why you proved yourself wrong.
>
No smear tactic at all just an extreme example. It would have been a
smear tactic if I called you a Nazi. I never did that and will not you
have given no indication of agreeing with their ideology. I was simply
pointing out cooperation is not always good. It can be used for moral or
amoral purpose. I do admit the NSPAD example is exterme.
>> Your so called research and analysis is
>> pseudo-scientific you take the results like economist exhibit X
>> behavior and expand it something much more than it was intended.
>
> I couldn't care less what was intended. The facts say what they say,
> whether the person who reveals those facts intends it or not.
>
Exactly and they say nothing about morality to anyone but you in your
pulpit of the grand priest. It is the extension that this proves
amorality and everyone should agree this is amoral simple because high
priest Roy said it is is what I take exception to.
>> That is
>> utter dishonesty when you say that JEP shows amorality by economist when
>> it mentions nothing of the sort.
>
> By that "logic," a study showing black people are 10 times more likely
> than whites to be left off voters' lists would not be evidence of
> racism, as long as it didn't mention the word, "race."
>
Actually it may not be evidence of racism at all. It doesn't even
indicate racism. Now if the study showed that a black QUALIFIED voter is
10 times more likely to be excluded from a voter's list than a QUALIFIED
white voter then it might indicate racism. To jump to the racism
conclusion from your example is pseudo-scientific you have checked the
facts were well to if the those left off the list were disqualified for
valid reasons. You see this is why you are not considered a serious
researcher.
I doubt you see the point but let me try to explain another way. Racism
is well defined and somewhat testable. If you can rule out all other
reasons for why someone is excluded, felonies, didn't register etc, then
you have a case for racism. Racism is well defined as discrimination
based on a person's ancestry.
On the contrary moral does not have one acceptable definition. Therefore
it is not testable. You can not define moral in a way that everyone can
look at the data and say it is likely moral or it is likely amoral. All
you can is say person X killed person Y. Was it moral. Well I don't
know. Was it self defense? If yes some would say it was not amoral, some
would still believe it was amoral. Was it in war? Some again would say
it is not moral in war. Others would argue it is still amoral even in
war. How do we test who is right? We can't. You see the difference the
statement of racism is a positive statement. I can test and support the
statement or find no support for it. The statement of morality is not
positive and leads us into religion and philosophy and out of science.
We can't test it.
It is really very simple.
professorchaos
equivalent to 2.5% a year. The normal rate at Wachovia is 2.48% so it is
not as big of a jump as they claim. Be careful about banks stating
interest in six month terms. 1/2 of the sixth month rate = the yearly
rate. It can be deceptive. However, you didn't get burned here you still
got a better deal perhaps just as not as good as you thought.
professorchaos
> On Aug 28, 8:29 pm, professorchaos <professorch...@houston.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:19:55 -0500, professorchaos
>>> <professorch...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> [ Drivel - deleted. ]
>
> John was describing my as being dishonest in the following comment:
>
>>> Yet another good example of the pervasive, knee-jerk dishonesty I was
>>> talking about.
>
No that was Roy's comment on me. That was not a comment toward you.
>> No dishonesty here. Your so called research and analysis is
>> psuedo-pscientific you take the results like economist exhibit X
>> behavior and expand it something much more than it was intended.
>> [ blah, blah, blah. ]
>
> But above he is addressing Roy. Clearly the above is a complete
> non-sequitur. Whether Roy's "research and analysis is pseudo-
> pscientific" can have no bearing on whether one of my blog posts
> is "Yet another good example of the pervasive, knee-jerk dishonesty".
>
I did not say anything about your blog post as being knee-jerk
dishonesty. That was Roy's comment. Secondly, Roy claimed I was being
dishonest because I said some of your readers agreed that the study said
nothing about morality. Roy called me a liar for saying that. It is
easily refuted by reading the comments to the blog post.
I did say that you post here was deceptive and dishonest to say that the
paper in the post shows economist acting immorally. Curiously in the
link you provided your analysis said nothing about immorality. In fact,
you said you edited the post after reading Redek's comments.
However, when you post here you are trying to use the link to show
economist are amoral. You obviously have a blog face in which you
believe that minimum wages are unlikely to have large employment
decreasing effects and that a set of behaviors is shown by a paper and
sci-econ face in which you believe minimum wages have no effect on
employment and the JEP paper shows amoral behavior. If you want to have
two personalities then one personality should link to the other
personalities postings.
From sci.econ
"> Research this is really funny. First of all a real psychologist doing
> > real research would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
> > Good luck there. Garbage into the study garbage out. It was probably
> > some hippy who defined amoral has meaning wanting a job that pays a
> > decent amount is amoral.
I don't know why this anonymous supposed professor wants to proclaim
his more-than-ignorance.
http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-studying-mainstream-economics.html
"
Here Rob is claiming the link shows amorality. Now lets read his
statement on the link.
" Does Studying Mainstream Economics Make You A Bad Person?
(I had the title and the next three paragraphs written before Radek's
comments today.)"
Here Rob claims that Radek's comments made him rethink the position and
implies he does not agree anymore that the paper shows amoral behavior.
So Rob has a different face for sci.econ than he has for his blog. The
funny thing is that the next three paragraphs refer to open source code
whose opinion does seem to be very different from mainstream economics
and not rather or not the findings of the papers cited show amorality in
the behavior assigned. This leads me to believe that the post was edited
after Redek's comments because whether open source defies mainstream
economics has nothing to do with whether or the paper implies that
studying economics makes one a bad person. The comments made on the blog
seem to indicate it was edited to back away from the position on
morality. A position he picks back up for sci.econ.
So for sci.econ he wants people to believe the study shows that
economist are amoral but for his blog he wants nothing of the sort. I
believe Rob believes the readers of his blog are smarter than the
readers of sci.econ so he can not get away with this sort of chicanery
there.
Again Rob wants to claim that Card and Kruger give evidence that there
is no employment effect of minimum wages here but then he states that
given Card and Kruger he can't see why people believe there would be a
large employment decreasing impact of a minimum-wage. Implying that
employment would decrease it would just be small.
So Rob present one face or at least hide the face you are not using at
the moment.
professorchaos
I have never lied about my motives. They are simply to use theory to
answer real world questions like what would be the benefit of paying a
bonus to my employees or should economic damages in a personal injury or
wrongful death be limited to just the person's wages lost? Defining the
value of damages for a lost life as the risk premium and saying that
just wages strongly understate the value of a life is no way serving the
wealthy powerful. Arguing that household production that can no longer
be done is part of injury damages is no way advocating the power of the
rich and powerful.
You are a conspiracy kook that believes the ilumanti or something pulls
the strings of economist and we say what they want us to say. If that
were true we not be so critical of government policy and especially not
so in support of anti-trust measures and free markets. It is monopolies
and cooperation to fix prices where the super rich get richer at the
expense of the poor and most economists will argue against that any day.
Rob.Vi...@itt.com
wrote:
John's math is exactly backwards.
(1 + 5/100)(1 + 5/100) does not equal (1 + 2.5/100)
Rob.Vi...@itt.com
wrote:
> Rob.Vienn...@itt.com wrote:
> > On Aug 28, 8:29 pm, professorchaos <professorch...@houston.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> >> ro...@telus.net wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:19:55 -0500, professorchaos
> >>> <professorch...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> [ Drivel - deleted. ]
>
> > John was describing my as being dishonest in the following comment:
>
> >>> Yet another good example of the pervasive, knee-jerk dishonesty I was
> >>> talking about.
>
> No that was Roy's comment on me. That was not a comment toward you.
>
> >> No dishonesty here. Your so called research and analysis is
> >> psuedo-pscientific you take the results like economist exhibit X
> >> behavior and expand it something much more than it was intended.
> >> [ blah, blah, blah. ]
>
> > But above he is addressing Roy. Clearly the above is a complete
> > non-sequitur. Whether Roy's "research and analysis is pseudo-
> > pscientific" can have no bearing on whether one of my blog posts
> > is "Yet another good example of the pervasive, knee-jerk dishonesty".
>
> I did not say anything about your blog post as being knee-jerk
My bad. John made this knee-jerk dishonest comment about me:
"I really think you {Robert}, Alex Jones, and David Eicke would get
along just fine. You have that same psuedo-scientific research
style."
Roy commented:
"Yet another good example of the pervasive, knee-jerk dishonesty I
was talking about."
John responded with a non sequitur:
"No dishonesty here. Your [Roy] so called research and analysis
is psuedo-pscientific."
Whether Roy's "research and analysis is pseudo-pscientific" can
have no bearing on whether I have a "psuedo-scientific research
style."
> That was Roy's comment. Secondly, Roy claimed I was being
> dishonest because I said some of your readers agreed that the study said
> nothing about morality.
The above is a lie. John did not say "some" and he had no
hint that my readers were not all of one opinion. (He
could defend his earlier falsehood by acknowledging his
illiteracy.)
> I did say that you post here was deceptive and dishonest to say that the
> paper in the post shows economist acting immorally.
I did not say the paper "shows economist [sic] acting immorally." Nor
did I say otherwise.
I did react to some ignorant illiterate going off about
irrelevancies about hippies.
But I thought I understood what Roy was talking about. And
I showed so.
> However, when you post here you are trying to use the link to show
> economist are amoral. You obviously have a blog face in which you
> believe that minimum wages are unlikely to have large employment
> decreasing effects and that a set of behaviors is shown by a paper and
> sci-econ face in which you believe minimum wages have no effect on
> employment and the JEP paper shows amoral behavior.
Lie. I never claimed "minimum wages have no effect on employment."
And employment going up after a minimum wage hike (e.g., because
of a'perverse' real Wicksell effect) is consistent with
minimum wages being "unlikely to have large employment
decreasing effects"
> From sci.econ
>
> "> Research this is really funny. First of all a real psychologist doing
> > > real research would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
> > > Good luck there. Garbage into the study garbage out. It was probably
> > > some hippy who defined amoral has meaning wanting a job that pays a
> > > decent amount is amoral.
>
> I don't know why this anonymous supposed professor wants to proclaim
> his more-than-ignorance.
>
> http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-studying-mainstream-e...
>
> "
> Here Rob is claiming the link shows amorality.
Lie.
And by the way, note how John has changed the topic.
He's dropped his claim that Roy or I would have to
"scientifically define" morality. That was an
utter non sequitur when he introduced it into
the discussion.
> Now lets read his
> statement on the link.
>
> " Does Studying Mainstream Economics Make You A Bad Person?
> (I had the title and the next three paragraphs written before Radek's
> comments today.)"
>
> Here Rob claims that Radek's comments made him rethink the position
Lie. The reference is to Radek's comments on some other post.
> and
> implies he does not agree anymore that the paper shows amoral behavior.
Lie.
> So Rob has a different face for sci.econ than he has for his blog. The
> funny thing is that the next three paragraphs refer to open source code
> whose opinion does seem to be very different from mainstream economics
> and not rather or not the findings of the papers cited show amorality in
> the behavior assigned.
Incoherent and illiterate balderdash. Open source code does not
have an opinion.
> This leads me to believe that the post was edited
> after Redek's comments
Nope, "Radek's comments" is supposed to refer to the comments on
that post.
> because whether open source defies mainstream
> economics has nothing to do with whether or the paper implies that
> studying economics makes one a bad person. The comments made on the blog
> seem to indicate it was edited to back away from the position on
> morality. A position he picks back up for sci.econ.
Incoherent nonsense.
> [ blah, blah, blah. ]
> Again Rob wants to claim that Card and Kruger give evidence that there
> is no employment effect of minimum wages here but then he states that
> given Card and Kruger he can't see why people believe there would be a
> large employment decreasing impact of a minimum-wage. Implying that
> employment would decrease it would just be small.
Nonsense. The implication is not there.
Employment going up after a minimum wage hike is consistent
with minimum wages being "unlikely to have large employment
decreasing effects"
Rob.Vi...@itt.com
> On Aug 30, 12:46 am, professorchaos <professorch...@houston.rr.com>
> wrote:
> > This leads me to believe that the post was edited
> > after Redek's comments
> Nope, "Radek's comments" is supposed to refer to the comments on
> that post.
Should be:
Nope, John is using "Redek's comments" [sic] to refer to the
comments on that blog post.
sinister
<ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:46d45ce1...@news.telus.net...
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:23:03 -0400, alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote:
>
>>ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>
>>>Research by psychologists has shown
>>>that economics students are the most amoral on campus, even beating
>>>out law students.
>>
>>Any cites to such studies?
>
> Rob posted one. I'm sure Google can find others.
>
>>>professors are likewise the most amoral on campus. Amorality is the
>>>True Gospel of Economics,
>>Can't that also be said of the hard sciences? And for most other
>>social sciences as well?
>
> No. Science -- real science -- is entirely based on a basic moral
> injunction: thou shalt not lie. Economists in general do not accept
> economists to tell the lies that favor the financial interests of the
> rich than to tell the truth, which of course it is, then they tell the
> lies. What "immoral"? They are just responding to the incentives!
> Prof Chaos is a good example of this phenomenon.
I've long thought it very odd that more isn't made of looking at the logic
of incentives as it applies to economists.
>
> -- Roy L
professorchaos
Rob when banks state an interest rate it is A YEARLY RATE. I know this
because I got the same deal from Wachovia. With accountants and banks
interest rates are in yearly terms unless otherwise noted. So a 5%
yearly rate for six months is 6/12 * 5% or 2.5%. You have no idea what
you are talking about. To see what the yearly rate actually is when it
is applied to a period less than a year the formula is months in the
period/12 * yearly rate. Any accountant or accounting textbook can do
this. You might want to pick up an intermediate accounting textbook the
next time before you jump into such a discussion. It could save you some
embarassment.
Rob may be able to do math but here is doesn't understand the concept so
he is applying it incorrectly. What a fumble. I had a good laugh though.
professorchaos
> Whether Roy's "research and analysis is pseudo-pscientific" can
> have no bearing on whether I have a "psuedo-scientific research
> style."
>
No I made that comment because you posted a link that showed a set of
behaviors to refute my comment that morality can not be measured. The
title of the posting was economics make you a bad person but the text of
the post curiously said nothing about morality. I believe you edited
after James and Radek correctly pointed out the paper you speak can not
be construed to say anything about morality. It just shows a lack of
cooperation in games among economic students.
That is why I called you pseudo-scientific. I made the comment that no
study could measure morality and you counter with a paper of that shows
a set of behavior that YOU think is amoral. This David Eicke and Alex
Jones to a T. Let me give you then put my spin on it and try to make you
believe that fact supports my opinions and spin.
>> I did say that you post here was deceptive and dishonest to say that the
>> paper in the post shows economist acting immorally.
>
> I did not say the paper "shows economist [sic] acting immorally." Nor
> did I say otherwise.
>
Really then why the title does studying economics make a bad person? It
seems to indicate we are amoral as Roy claimed. Your readers didn't
agree that this showed this. Radek like pointed out you didn't
understand what cooperation means in economics just I just point out you
didn't understand the difference between a yearly interest rate of six
months and a six month interest rate.
>
> But I thought I understood what Roy was talking about. And
> I showed so.
>
You showed nothing. The paper can be construed as showing morality or
amorality. You showed that you believe that the behavior is amoral and
that studying economics can make you a bad person. I have yet to see a
definition of morality that says cooperation is moral nor even a
definition of what a bad person is. Well at least a definition of a bad
person that is a consensus. Surely we all agree Hitler, Ted Bundy, or
Jeffrey Dahlmer were bad people but that is far for what this claim is.
>> From sci.econ
>>
>> "> Research this is really funny. First of all a real psychologist doing
>> > > real research would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
>> > > Good luck there. Garbage into the study garbage out. It was probably
>> > > some hippy who defined amoral has meaning wanting a job that pays a
>> > > decent amount is amoral.
>>
>> I don't know why this anonymous supposed professor wants to proclaim
>> his more-than-ignorance.
>>
>> http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-studying-mainstream-e...
>>
>> "
>
>> Here Rob is claiming the link shows amorality.
>
> Lie.
>
Then what are you claiming. I just made the comment that to show
amorality you have to define it and measure it. You respond with a link
that any reasonable person would think is a refutation of what I just
said. So if this was not supposed to show that the paper showed amoral
behavior what was it supposed to show? That the criteria was not some
hippy criteria that wanting a decent paying is amoral? It does not do
that either.
Perhaps I and anyone else reading this did not quite understand what you
meant by your comment. I claimed that you have to be able to measure
morality to show something is amoral and my belief is that someone
probably defined amoral in this way. Then you responded with a link and
no explanation of where you thought I was ignorant. Any reasonable
person would believe that:
a. you were posting a link that showed that a paper gave evidence of
amorality or
b. You were posting a link showing that the definition of amorality was
not wanting a decent paying job.
The link shows neither so please do explain to us what you thought I was
arguing and what your response I would really like to know. Was this
just a completely off topic comment?
> And by the way, note how John has changed the topic.
>
I have been consistent with my argument and topic. It is simple morality
can not measure and no paper can show amorality. You nor Roy have
refuted that. You have used a pseudo-scientific argument saying that
economics have found a set of behaviors to be more prevelant as evidence
that morality can be determined by science. Your link does nothing to
refute my argument.
> He's dropped his claim that Roy or I would have to
> "scientifically define" morality. That was an
> utter non sequitur when he introduced it into
> the discussion.
>
I never dropped that claim at all. I have been consistent that your post
does not show that. Good try David Eicke, you have no response to the
claim so you stammer around. Try not to address and call me ignorant
then say I have dropped the claim.
Again how does the link you posted SHOW ANYTHING ABOUT MEASURING
MORALITY OR THAT A STUDY CAN SHOW SOMETHING TO BE AMORAL. You may
believe the behavior to be amoral but Radek and James nor I agreed with
you. When press on an issue you stammer call someone ignorant and
respond with something that has nothing to do with the discussion . The
paper you posted had nothing to do with my argument.
>> " Does Studying Mainstream Economics Make You A Bad Person?
>> (I had the title and the next three paragraphs written before Radek's
>> comments today.)"
>>
>> Here Rob claims that Radek's comments made him rethink the position
>
> Lie. The reference is to Radek's comments on some other post.
>
Does it matter? You would have no put the disclaimer there if you had
not believed Radek had made some valid point that at the very least
weakened your claim. Now would you?
>> and
>> implies he does not agree anymore that the paper shows amoral behavior.
>
> Lie.
>
On the contrary it is a disclaimer showing the Radek made some valid
points that are not addressed in your article. I know you are trying to
be telfon man here but it is not working.
>> So Rob has a different face for sci.econ than he has for his blog. The
>> funny thing is that the next three paragraphs refer to open source code
>> whose opinion does seem to be very different from mainstream economics
>> and not rather or not the findings of the papers cited show amorality in
>> the behavior assigned.
>
> Incoherent and illiterate balderdash. Open source code does not
> have an opinion.
>
The supporters of open source do have an opinion and like I said your
posting has no mention if the behavior is amoral or not other than the
title. The posting really didn't fit the title. Quit trying to pick at
something that is not the issue. You are squirming again and not wanting
to admit the post did not fit the title and nothing to do with whether
or the paper showed that studying economics made you a bad person. It
was about how the idea behind open source coding. You illiterate baboon.
>> This leads me to believe that the post was edited
>> after Redek's comments
>
> Nope, "Radek's comments" is supposed to refer to the comments on
> that post.
>
What you just a few lines earlier that Radek's comments refer to
comments on other post. Which is it? Telfon man. You are trying to be
slicker than Alex Jones again.
>> because whether open source defies mainstream
>> economics has nothing to do with whether or the paper implies that
>> studying economics makes one a bad person. The comments made on the blog
>> seem to indicate it was edited to back away from the position on
>> morality. A position he picks back up for sci.econ.
>
> Incoherent nonsense.
>
Not incorent at all. The fact still remains you chose a bad title for
your posting because it had nothing to do with the discussion. Then you
try to use that title to show that a paper measured morality when it
clearly did not. You can't squirm away from that fact or that anyone
arguing against morality can not be determined scientifically is not
going to be taken seriously when he post a link waves his hands and says
presto see studying economics makes you a bad person.
professorchaos
> <ro...@telus.net> wrote in message news:46d45ce1...@news.telus.net...
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:23:03 -0400, alexy <nos...@asbry.net> wrote:
>>
>>> ro...@telus.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> Research by psychologists has shown
>>>> that economics students are the most amoral on campus, even beating
>>>> out law students.
>>> Any cites to such studies?
>> Rob posted one. I'm sure Google can find others.
Quite the contrary. Rob's post said nothing about amorality. It showed
that in the prisoner's dilemma that economic students were less likely
to cooperate. It said nothing about amorality and there is nothing I saw
in the paper that indicates amorality to me. You would have to think
cartels, and pact of silence made by two murders trying to escape
justice is moral to read amorality into the findings that economic
students tend to cooperate less in the prisoner's dilemma. Did you
actaully read the paper? I know Roy did not because I can't remember a
single reference to law students.
The JEP article was real economic research. It is not going to make a
statement on morality. I will say it again. I am sure Roy, Rob, and you
may find the findings indicate amorality but that is purely opinion. You
have the right to your opinion and I can not prove you wrong but it is
not science.
Smoron
> > ... a new curriculum, based on case studies and
> > essays, as more effective.>
>
> One of the first things we must do to improve economics education is
> stop the crime of calling credit "money". For example, use of term
> "monetary supply". There is a huge difference between currency supply
> and credit supply. Credit is not currency. Currency is not credit.
> Money is is a word tnat only cofuses things. This must be fixed at all
> levels, especially the education level. This will help with the
> mathematics problem such as good usage of the english language and
> logic. Good post, thanks.
Furthermore, we must distinguish currency, credit and capital.
Capital is plant and equipment in place for the the production of
other goods. It doesn't make sense to talk of capital flows when we
really mean the flow of credit.
By the way, the heart of Keynes is the lack of a market for credit.
No wonder there is no talk of "crowding out", the displacement of
private investment with public investment, there is no market where
such displacement could occur.
Rob.Vi...@itt.com
> 5% for 6 months is equivalent to 2.5% a year.
On Aug 30, 2:17 pm, professorchaos <professorch...@houston.rr.com>
wrote:
> ... when banks state an interest rate it is A YEARLY RATE...
> With accountants and banks
> interest rates are in yearly terms unless otherwise noted. So a 5%
> yearly rate for six months is 6/12 * 5% or 2.5%. You have no idea what
> you are talking about.
One of us doesn't.
Rob.Vi...@itt.com
wrote:
> [Incoherent and incorrect speculation - deleted. ]
http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-studying-mainstream-economics.html
> > I did not say the paper "shows economist [sic] acting immorally." Nor
> > did I say otherwise.
> Really then why the title does studying economics make a bad person?
The title of that post does not say, state, or assert that
"studying economics make a bad person [sic]"
> [ Incoherent balderdash - deleted. ]
> > But I thought I understood what Roy was talking about. And
> > I showed so.
> You showed nothing.
Roy gave a vague reference. My understanding of the conversation
is demonstrated by giving a precise reference.
> [ Incoherent balderdash - deleted. ]
> So if this was not supposed to show that the paper showed amoral
> behavior what was it supposed to show? That the criteria was not some
> hippy criteria that wanting a decent paying is amoral? It does not do
> that either.
I thought I would leave the above incoherent and incorrect
illiteracy in.
> [ Incoherent and incorrect speculation revealing an ignorance ]
> [ of blog conventions - deleted. ]
Mark-T
> Requiring economics would just ensure that evryone
> was equally brainwashed with lies.
> that economics students are the most
> amoral on campus, even beating out law students.
OK, I'll bite.
How does one do 'research' into amorality?
How do you define it, observe it, measure
it? How do you scientifically distinguish
between moral, immoral, and amoral?
Among these psychologists, by any chance, was
the redoubtable Alan Sokal?
> Economists know very well they are lying for
> the purpose of deceiving journalists and voters,
> not other economists who are also in on the deceit.
Which would explain, for instance, the
ramblings of the 'eminent economist'
ubersocialist Paul Krugman, in his NY Times
column, which is 99% horseshit?
I don't know... it's unclear whether he
deliberately lies, as you suggest, or he's
genuinely thick... my guess is both...
Mark
Rob.Vi...@itt.com
wrote:
> Rob.Vienn...@itt.com wrote:
> > On Aug 29, 6:56 am, professorchaos <professorch...@houston.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Rob.Vienn...@itt.com wrote:
> >> However, the long run is absolutely silent to the effect of a price
> >> control... [ blah, blah, blah ]
> > Incorrect neoclassical theory claims that in the long run,
> > cost-minimizing firms will substitute capital for more expensive
> > labor. One of my peer-reviewed papers demonstrates that the
> > neoclassical claim is in error.
> I have no idea what paper you are referring to. Care to give a citation?
> I did look at your SSRN page and there is no mention of such of a
> paper. Well at least your abstract of your one paper in the Manchester
> School journal says nothing about this result. Since I do not subscribe
> to the Manchester school journal and do not wish to pay for the article.
> I will not comment on the article...
Exactly. Figure 1 is for a capital-reversing example. And the
paper is about how to correctly analyze a labor market, given
cost-minimimization by firms, etc.
> > (I used to have a draft of this paper on my website. Some
> > soi-dissant [economist] on sci.econ mistakenly told me it was not
> > publishable.)
>
> I can not comment on that I have no idea about the discussion you are
> speaking of but, I do know drafts can be quite different from the final
> product. Perhaps the person was commenting about style and presentation
> rather comment...
On 10 October 2004, some buffoon posted to sci.econ (with
message ID <CJhad.25150$sY3....@fe2.texas.rr.com>):
"I am not going to read this babble again. I can not respond when
it is completely incoherent and pieces are missing. You can not
present something this complex in 8 pages without skipping steps
and explanations. You make this look like it is a journal article
but it is unpublishable. Learn to write and I will comment."
And:
"To be published you have to explain things better. If you don't
believe send one of these PDFs to a professor at one of the
schools that recognizes Post-Keynesian thoughts. See their
comments. They will say the same. You substance may or may
not be correct. I can not comment because it is too poorly
explained and poorly written. You throw down a bunch of equations
with little explanation of what you are doing or why it is
proper then jump to conclusions. Read some journal articles
so you can begin to understand how to write."
And, of course, that article has now been published.
> >> [ Continued incorrect charactization of Card and Kruger's ]
> >> [ meta-analysis - deleted. ]
>
> > As I recall, this meta-analysis was not about constructing
> > a longer time series.
>
> Curious that posting about Card and Kruger is a dead link now.
> Yesterday, it showed you saying something about how the meta-analysis
> had not been refuted and how the time series analysis showed that the
> effect went to zero in longer time series.
Nope.
> I remember that in the paper
> you remember that in your posting now the posting is curiously gone and
> a deadlink is all that exists.
Not everybody can understand computers. Naturally John doesn't
understand.
http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/05/on-david-card-and-minimum-wages.html
> But never fear the link is broken but the post is still in your
> archives. "Their results had two major components: a meta-analysis (Card
> and Krueger 1995) and statistical analysis of data gathered in a natural
> experiment (Card and Krueger 1994). In their meta-analysis, they
> quantitatively examine over 30 time series studies of the minimum wage.
> They find that as more data becomes available, the statistical
> significance of the employment effect of minimum wages declines." The
> more data become available means time series getting longer.
If I recall correctly, nope.
> [Already refuted sputtering - deleted. ]
Robert Cohen
caveat lecter: put rubber on before coming...into contact with:
an economist is also an imperfect mortal human being
an imperfect mortal human being may tell lies
therefore, if all of e's are imhbs, then e's may be sobs just like
everybody else
though singling-out the dismal social scientists as prostitutes is...
certainly an attractive prejudice
professorchaos
> On Aug 30, 2:48 pm, professorchaos <professorch...@houston.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> [Incoherent and incorrect speculation - deleted. ]
>
> http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/09/does-studying-mainstream-economics.html
>
>>> I did not say the paper "shows economist [sic] acting immorally." Nor
>>> did I say otherwise.
>
>> Really then why the title does studying economics make a bad person?
>
> The title of that post does not say, state, or assert that
> "studying economics make a bad person [sic]"
>
It certainly implied that even if the text of the post had ABSOLUTELY 0
TO DO WITH THE TITLE. This is even more reinforced by you posting the
link when Roy argued that a study showed economics students to be the
most amoral beating out law students. So do enlighten us as to what you
meant by titling the post "Does studying economics make you a bad
person?" The text of the post has little to do with the question. Dodge
and weave all you want you tagged yourself in the beginning.
>> [ Incoherent and incorrect speculation revealing an ignorance ]
>> [ of blog conventions - deleted. ]
>
As if ignorance of blog conversation were a bad thing. I have marketable
skills and a social life. I really don't have time for blogs. I only
have time for this because I have been on vacation and I am a little
under the weather. I don't sit around all day with chips and hot sauce
playing halo, talking to my MMORPG friends, writing blogs, and reading
blogs like a 14 year old. I live in the real world and do research I am
paid for. I don't dabble in research in between playing Everquest and
World of Warcraft.
professorchaos
This pertains to what? I was correct the commenter was making stylist
remarks and not remarks on the content. I suppose you took the person's
advice and explained your model and wrote more than 8 pages before
publishing. Manchester school journal is far from tier 1 or tier 2
journals but I would assume they have some standards. So the commenter
was reading a different paper or you expanded beyond 8 pages and
explained things better. I have never seen an 8 page journal article
that makes about 5 pages once it is in journal font. So unless it was a
reply you obviously did take some of the comments to heart and beefed up
the paper before publication.
>>>> [ Continued incorrect charactization of Card and Kruger's ]
>>>> [ meta-analysis - deleted. ]
Just because you do not understand what time is series is and that
adding more data means look at longer time periods does not mean it was
incorrect. As I said before the meta-analysis did not control for shifts
in labor demand, which is a problem when labor demands are increasing as
they were over the periods. So therefore, we can not rule out that the
change in employment became insignificant over time simply because labor
demand expanded and made the price floor non binding.
Can you explain what a non binding price floor means? Do you understand
how an increase in demand can make a price floor non binding?
>> I remember that in the paper
>> you remember that in your posting now the posting is curiously gone and
>> a deadlink is all that exists.
>
> Not everybody can understand computers. Naturally John doesn't
> understand.
>
Blogspot returning a 404 page has when you click on a link has nothing
to do with my understanding of computers. It is rather curious that link
did not work but the text was found in the archives.
>> But never fear the link is broken but the post is still in your
>> archives. "Their results had two major components: a meta-analysis (Card
>> and Krueger 1995) and statistical analysis of data gathered in a natural
>> experiment (Card and Krueger 1994). In their meta-analysis, they
>> quantitatively examine over 30 time series studies of the minimum wage.
>> They find that as more data becomes available, the statistical
>> significance of the employment effect of minimum wages declines." The
>> more data become available means time series getting longer.
>
> If I recall correctly, nope.
>
Can you use proper English? I would love to see this journal article if
it was accepted with a lot of nopes and yeahs in it. Maybe a few oh
yeahs too? You are quite the writer.
You do not recall directly. The time series data has a real problem for
controlling increasing labor demands. This is something you dance around
and try to change the subject on every time I mention it. Regardless of
how much you want to say you didn't say X or Card and Kruger didn't use
longer time periods in their time series, it doesn't change that fact.
If labor demands are increasing then looking at time series studies of
employment and checking for structural breaks is going to fall victim to
the ceteris paribus fallacy. When more data becomes available it means
the time series is getting longer. Do you know what a time series is?
Your comments see to indicate you can't define econometrics so I will
assume you do not.
Furthermore, time series tests also fall victim to the fact that short
time series are most likely to be a unit root. The shorter the series
the less likely it is stationary. If it is not stationary the results
become more unreliable. This is a huge issue in panel data. It is
something that touch upon in the works of Arellano and Bond and Blundell
and Bond in devious dynamic data panel methods. This has been a huge
issue in PPP and in the last Southern Economic journal there is a paper
showing how the previous ideas of how data would be needed to show GDP
is stationary is likely right. Now that more data is available (more
years of observation) the GDP time series are testing as stationary
rather than unit root as previously found.
The meta-analysis is really meaningless because it does not rule that
increases in labor demand are not the driving force offsetting a
decrease employment due to a price floor.
The Trucker
I am of the opinion that your understanding of the word "moral" is simply
incorrect. Morality is a "shared" concept, not an individual one. The
word derives from the Latin "moralis" which means "of manner and custom".
It would seem that it is a societal norm as opposed to a personal opinion.
Different cultures have different "morals" while different people simply
have different opinions.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org
Rob.Vi...@itt.com
wrote:
> [ snip ]
I affirm that every word John writes, including "the" and "and", is
a lie.
Mark-T
> > .... a real psychologist doing real research
> > would have to define amoral and be able to measure it.
>
I just had to see that in print again.
Mark