Class warfare said not to be working for Democrats
Michael Yared
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030126-28430976.htm
Stephen J. Fromm
> Class warfare said not to be working for Democrats
> http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030126-28430976.htm
Given that this appeared in _The Washington Times_, perhaps you should
have cross-posted to alt.religion.unification.
Zogby, cited in the piece, has become a shill for the Republicans.
See:
http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/2/mooney-c.html
David Lloyd-Jones
>Class warfare said not to be working for Democrats
>
>
No surprise there. So far the Republicans are the only ones running a
class war.
-dlj.
>
>
Carlos Antunes
shill?
"Stephen J. Fromm" <stephe...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:b4cc5e7c.03012...@posting.google.com...
Tim Worstall
That´s pretty good Stephen.
First denigrate the source of the information, then ignore a large
point within your rebuttal .
So Zogby does surveys that support the positions of those who pay for
them ? Wow, really ?
And he takes money from both left and right to do so ? Horrible, isn´t
it ?
And when he spends his own money on politics :
"In the last election, however, John Zogby brazenly polled for a
Democratic opponent to Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), paying out of his own
pocket because he wanted to provide a "fresh challenge" to the
Republican House whip."
Yup, that sure sounds like a Republican shill to me....a profit driven
businessman who´ll take anyone´s money as fees, and spends it on
attempting to defeat one of the ranking elected Republicans in the
country.
Keep up the analysis.
Tim Worstall
Stephen J. Fromm
> stephe...@verizon.net (Stephen J. Fromm) wrote in message news:<b4cc5e7c.03012...@posting.google.com>...
> > "Michael Yared" <mya...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<b17du0$2i5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> > > Class warfare said not to be working for Democrats
> > > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030126-28430976.htm
> >
> > Given that this appeared in _The Washington Times_, perhaps you should
> > have cross-posted to alt.religion.unification.
> >
> > Zogby, cited in the piece, has become a shill for the Republicans.
> > See:
> > http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/2/mooney-c.html
>
>
> First denigrate the source of the information, then ignore a large
> point within your rebuttal .
What's the "large point"?
Why not denigrate _The Washington Times_? Are you going to dispute
the fact that they're owned by the Moonies? And if it's irrelevant,
will you refrain from criticizing some crackpot who posts to sci.econ
using sources from crazy Marxist sects?
> So Zogby does surveys that support the positions of those who pay for
> them ? Wow, really ?
> And he takes money from both left and right to do so ? Horrible, isn愒
> it ?
The point of the article in _TAP_ is that he's used dubious polling
techniques such as priming recipients (i.e., getting responses that
depend on the order of questions, a known no-no in survey methodology)
to get numbers that his clients like.
The fact that he takes money from both left and right is irrelevant.
Didn't your mommie teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?
> And when he spends his own money on politics :
> "In the last election, however, John Zogby brazenly polled for a
> Democratic opponent to Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), paying out of his own
> pocket because he wanted to provide a "fresh challenge" to the
> Republican House whip."
>
> Yup, that sure sounds like a Republican shill to me....a profit driven
> businessman who惻l take anyone愀 money as fees, and spends it on
> attempting to defeat one of the ranking elected Republicans in the
> country.
>
> Keep up the analysis.
See abovementioned point on survey methodology. Again, just because
you claim that Zogby is an equal-opportunity whore doesn't mean he's
not a whore.
Robert Vienneau
> if it's irrelevant,
> will you refrain from criticizing some crackpot who posts to sci.econ
> using sources from crazy Marxist sects?
May I ask what this is about?
--
Try http://csf.colorado.edu/pkt/pktauthors/Vienneau.Robert/Bukharin.html
To solve Linear Programs: .../LPSolver.html
r c A game: .../Keynes.html
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
Christopher Auld
>> if it's irrelevant,
>> will you refrain from criticizing some crackpot who posts to sci.econ
>> using sources from crazy Marxist sects?
>May I ask what this is about?
Robert Vienneau is shocked, shocked! to learn that
the impression one gets by flipping through the latest
reposts of his "long essays" isn't "this is a serious
academic forum," it's "lookit the crackpot!" Will
Robert finally clue in as to why he gets laughed at so
much? Will he refrain from more creationism? Tune
in, same time, same newsgroup to find out!
This is absolutely the most entertaining week in the
history of sci.econ!
--
Chris Auld
Department of Economics
University of Calgary
au...@ucalgary.ca
Tim Worstall
> t...@2xtreme.net (Tim Worstall) wrote in message news:<825e2890.03012...@posting.google.com>...
> > stephe...@verizon.net (Stephen J. Fromm) wrote in message news:<b4cc5e7c.03012...@posting.google.com>...
> > > "Michael Yared" <mya...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<b17du0$2i5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> > > > Class warfare said not to be working for Democrats
> > > > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030126-28430976.htm
> > >
> > > Given that this appeared in _The Washington Times_, perhaps you should
> > > have cross-posted to alt.religion.unification.
> > >
> > > Zogby, cited in the piece, has become a shill for the Republicans.
> > > See:
> > > http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/2/mooney-c.html
> >
> >
> > First denigrate the source of the information, then ignore a large
> > point within your rebuttal .
>
> What's the "large point"?
>
> Why not denigrate _The Washington Times_? Are you going to dispute
> the fact that they're owned by the Moonies? And if it's irrelevant,
> will you refrain from criticizing some crackpot who posts to sci.econ
> using sources from crazy Marxist sects?
>
> > So Zogby does surveys that support the positions of those who pay for
> > them ? Wow, really ?
> > it ?
>
> The point of the article in _TAP_ is that he's used dubious polling
> techniques such as priming recipients (i.e., getting responses that
> depend on the order of questions, a known no-no in survey methodology)
> to get numbers that his clients like.
>
> The fact that he takes money from both left and right is irrelevant.
> Didn't your mommie teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?
>
> > And when he spends his own money on politics :
> > "In the last election, however, John Zogby brazenly polled for a
> > Democratic opponent to Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), paying out of his own
> > pocket because he wanted to provide a "fresh challenge" to the
> > Republican House whip."
> >
> > Yup, that sure sounds like a Republican shill to me....a profit driven
> > attempting to defeat one of the ranking elected Republicans in the
> > country.
> >
> > Keep up the analysis.
>
> See abovementioned point on survey methodology. Again, just because
> you claim that Zogby is an equal-opportunity whore doesn't mean he's
> not a whore.
Errmmmm. No . The TAP article claimed Zogby was an equal opportunity
whore. Someone who performs to order for money.
This is rather different than a " Republican shill" who would
presumably be performing for ideological reasons.
It´s a character in a novel who is a whore who will only perform for
Republicans.
Tim Worstall
Robert Vienneau
(Christopher Auld) wrote:
> >stephe...@verizon.net (Stephen J. Fromm) wrote:
> >> ...crazy Marxist sects...
> ...more creationism...
Poor Chris Auld.
susupply
"Robert Vienneau" <rv...@see.sig.com>
demonstrating why the Iraqi army doesn't issue white underwear to its
soldiers,
wrote in message news:rvien-3EC674....@news.dreamscape.com...
Christopher Auld
>(Christopher Auld) wrote:
>> >stephe...@verizon.net (Stephen J. Fromm) wrote:
>
>> >> ...crazy Marxist sects...
>
>> ...more creationism...
>
>Poor Chris Auld.
A great response from the resident creationist!
Alex Huemer
news:b1a70h$m...@acs4.acs.ucalgary.ca...
> This is absolutely the most entertaining week in the
> history of sci.econ!
I agree.
At one point I criticised you for wasting your time here, but I am beginning
to appreciate the entertainment value of participation. It's one thing to
watch a bear-baiting performance, but quite another to wander down into
Bedlam itself.
Frankly, I'm jealous. I want someone to obsessively gather up my quotes
from three year old postings and paste them into a sci.econ post. It must
be very flattering to find an e-creche built in your honor, encrusted with
tattered virtual clippings of your observations, and illuminated by the
sallow flickering of "Poor Chris Auld" over and over again.
*sigh*
I wish there was a less time intensive process for provoking a kook of my
very own. Any suggestions?
Robert Vienneau
<alexande...@claremontmckenna.edu> wrote:
> I want someone to obsessively gather up my quotes
> from three year old postings and paste them into a sci.econ post. It
> must
> be very flattering to find an e-creche built in your honor, encrusted
> with
> tattered virtual clippings of your observations, and illuminated by the
> sallow flickering of "Poor Chris Auld" over and over again.
Probably nothing can correct your ignorance of price theory.
But you might want to discover how to use a basic tool for assisting
you in research over the net. I refer to <www.google.com>.
Christopher Auld
>Probably nothing can correct your ignorance of price theory.
Look, Alex, you now have your very own kook! Congrats.
Alex Huemer
> Robert Vienneau <rv...@see.sig.com> wrote:
>
> >Probably nothing can correct your ignorance of price theory.
>
> Look, Alex, you now have your very own kook! Congrats.
Thank you! I'll treasure him always...
What do I feed him? Is Econometrica too rich for his diet? REStat? I want
to keep him agitated without risking befuddlement.
--
Alex Huemer
Lowe Institute of Political Economy
alexande...@claremontmckenna.edu
Robert Vienneau
stephe...@verizon.net (Stephen J. Fromm) wrote:
> [snip]
I recently posted three examples in three separate posts. I think
I'll help Stephen out by explaining some of what's behind these
examples.
First, somebody serious might want to explore whether they are
internally consistent and correct. (If this imagined serious
person wanted to assert they were incorrect, he would say where.)
Second, somebody serious might want to determine whether any
assumptions are made in these examples on, say, technology
or the firms' objective function that are not made in mainstream
economics, as represented in intermediate microeconomics
textbooks, for example. As a matter of fact, no assumptions are
made in the examples that are not made in mainstream economics.
(Once again, somebody serious who disagrees would specify what
assumptions. He would also say why he thinks those assumptions
made in the example, but not in textbooks, drive the
relevant example.)
These two points raise a third point. If you look in intermediate
textbooks, you will find supposed mathematical proofs that firms
will necessarily want to adopt, say, more labor-intensive methods
at lower wages. It follows from the first two points that either
these proofs are wrong or they rely on additional special case
assumptions. Somebody serious about economics would think such
proofs should either be discarded or the assumptions, including
the special-case assumptions, should be stated explicitly.
Whether a model applies in any given "real-world" situation is
an empirical question. But the above three points are NOT about
any empirical question. They are about the internal logic of
neoclassical microeconomics. So anybody who thinks the validity
of the above three points depends on finding empirical results
has clearly made a mistake in addition. Nevertheless, I have
previously pointed out in this forum where to find empirical
evidence related to my examples. I have given specific
references.
One could raise additional questions from the examples. For
example, common models in advanced mainstream microeconomics
show prices that vary with time. Two examples are the Arrow-Debreu
model of intertemporal equilibrium and the model of sequences
of temporary equilibria J. R. Hicks put forth in Value and
Capital. One might refer to such models as (some) models of
dynamics. How are the effects highlighted in my example
manifested, if they are, in such models? This is a question of
contemporary research in economic theory. Somebody serious about
this question will want to read Michael Mandler, Bertram Schefold,
and P. Garegnani, at least.
To reiterate, here are some simple questions:
o Are my examples correct on their own terms?
o Are any assumptions made in these examples that are not made
in mainstream economics? If so, what are those assumptions?
o How do the mathematical proofs in intermediate microeconomics
texts nevertheless purport to show the effects illustrated by
these examples to be logically impossible? What additional
special-case assumptions do these proofs make, if any?
o How are the effects in these examples manifested in economic
dynamic models, such as sequences of temporary equilibria?
What is your reaction to the recent literature exploring this
question?
Here's how you can tell somebody does not take seriously those
aspects of price theory highlighted by my examples - if they go
on about Marxism instead. Or if they go on about problems in
aggregation in macroeconomic models, while never connecting their
rants to the examples. (I would hope some non-Marxists permit
themselves to learn how to add correctly.)
After all, my point with these examples is about mainstream
economics. As Paul Samuelson, Edwin Burmeister, and Frank Hahn,
for example, have said.
What would a sane Marxist sect be?
Robert Vienneau
<alexande...@claremontmckenna.edu> wrote:
> ...Econometrica...REStat...
Your profession slipped up a quarter of a century ago:
Anwar Shaikh, "Laws of Production and Laws of Algebra: The Humbug
Production Function". REStat, V. 56, Issue 1 (Feb. 1974). pp. 115-120.
Don't let it happen again.
Drjyyc
>assumptions are made in these examples on, say, technology
>or the firms' objective function that are not made in mainstream
>economics, as represented in intermediate microeconomics
>textbooks, for example. As a matter of fact, no assumptions are
>made in the examples that are not made in mainstream economics.
>(Once again, somebody serious who disagrees would specify what
>assumptions. He would also say why he thinks those assumptions
>made in the example, but not in textbooks, drive the
>relevant example.)
Since when are "vertical integration" and joint production of goods
assumptions made in a typical intermediate textbook when deriving labour
demand? If you really *wanted* to be honest, you would explicitly outline how
your assumptions differ from those made (explicitly or implicitly) in
"mainstream textbook treatments" and discuss why these assumptions lead to
apparently contradictory conclusions. My guess is that you aren't capable...
Robert Vienneau
drj...@aol.com (Drjyyc) wrote:
> >Second, somebody serious might want to determine whether any
> >assumptions are made in these examples on, say, technology
> >or the firms' objective function that are not made in mainstream
> >economics, as represented in intermediate microeconomics
> >textbooks, for example. As a matter of fact, no assumptions are
> >made in the examples that are not made in mainstream economics.
> >(Once again, somebody serious who disagrees would specify what
> >assumptions. He would also say why he thinks those assumptions
> >made in the example, but not in textbooks, drive the
> >relevant example.)
> Since when are "vertical integration" and joint production of goods
> assumptions made in a typical intermediate textbook when deriving labour
> demand?
Your rhetorical question incorporates a mistake. None of the
three examples I posted has joint production of goods. In fact,
the simplifying, but non-critical, assumption of no joint production
is illustrated by the examples.
Suppose one had a supposed mathematical derivation showing
that, given A, B, and C, profit-maximizing firms will want
to adopt a more labor-intensive technique at a lower wage.
(Think about the location of the point of tangency to
an isoquant of a line with slope specified by relative factor
prices.)
Counterexamples to such derivations can have more assumptions.
For example, I typically have at most two processes to
produce a commodity. That's OK for my point. If the derivation
were valid, one would not be able to construct a counter-example
with assumptions A, B, C, D, and so on.
I have pointed out that vertical integration of the firm is
not critical for my point. I focus on situations in
which all firms are in equilibrium. (You may perhaps recall
that introductory textbooks focus on equilibria.)
Of course, the consumption side is not modelled in the
examples. That is, I don't say anything one way or the other
about utility-maximization. So a complete neoclassical equilibrium
of the economy is not presented in the examples.
> If you really *wanted* to be honest, you would explicitly
> outline how
> your assumptions differ from those made (explicitly or implicitly) in
> "mainstream textbook treatments" and discuss why these assumptions lead
> to
> apparently contradictory conclusions. My guess is that you aren't
> capable...
Your second and third statements show you have not learned anything
about how to conduct an intelligent discussion. One does not begin
a discussion by accusing somebody of being dishonest and incapable.
And your comments are of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
variety. They presume that the assumptions illustrated by
my examples "differ from those made (explicitly or implicitly) in
'mainstream textbook treatments'". This is called begging the
question. It is a fallacy.
Now, if the mainstream textbooks assume that all manufactured
commodities are consumer goods produced instantaneously from only
non-produced resources, my examples would be ruled out. This would be
an assumption IN ADDITION to the generic ones that I make.
(The generic assumptions do not include assumptions of specific
numeric values, like 2.) This additional assumption would make the
mainstream textbooks a special case. And, since this special case
assumption would not have economies that make and use capital goods
within its scope, the textbook models would be uninteresting.
Do the mainstream textbooks clearly state they don't apply to
economies in which capital goods are made and used? Don't they imply
the opposite? Are they correct?
But have it your way. Correct addition is a dishonest Marxist
plot. And my ability to produce and analyze examples which
you cannot compare and contrast with intermediate textbook
treatments shows me incapable.
Stephen J. Fromm
It's not so clear. One of the sections of the piece is labeled
"Moving Right," which contains sentences like "Yet 1996 helped
establish John Zogby as a favorite pollster with the political right,"
and "To see how Zogby earned his cachet with conservatives, consider
the context of the 1996 elections," "It's no wonder that many today
still think he's a Republican pollster."
He's probably not equal-opportunity, if only because the right has lot
more cash to burn on things like this.