Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What on earth are the Liberals doing?
Volkodav    11/27/2009 2:06:55 AM
Didn't they learn anything from the last election? Don't they know you have to listen to the Australian Public in general, not just the extreme right of the NSW party if they want to be returned to power anytime soon? Morons, at least Howard had the brains to listen to the people and would compromise to satisfy the majority. Until the Libs rid themselves of the toxic minority (Abbot, Tuckey, Minchin and co)they will be unelectable. I was glad to see the back of Howard but I definately don't what the decade or more of Rudd we will cop if the Libs don't clean out their house soon. As it stands now the next election will likely decimate the Libs and the one after will see them claw back, hopefully with some new blood that actually has some talent instead to the selfish (brainless)ignorance being displayed by the rightwing ideologues who are screwing the party at the moment.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6
Hugo    AGA   12/12/2009 7:05:40 AM

Well at least now you have dispensed with the fascade that you are remotely interested in a "tool box" appraoch to economics and are admitting that you don't have an open mind beyond the notions of the Austrian School.
 
 
No, and I say it again, I believe individual schools have  multiple tools, I only choose not to include in my toolbox tools which I find to be fundamentally faulty and that are, far from being useful, likely to be dangerous to my understanding of economics.  That most certainly includes each and every tool from the Keynesian school.  For example, I can take from the Austrian School alone the theory of marginal utility, Trade Cycle Theory, most importantly I can take from the Austrian school Praxeology, as outlined by von Mises, and it is this last tool that exposes the faultiness of the tools you list from the other schools.  Also importantly, I like to adhere to principles of morality which the other schools, don't even give the remotest of thought towards.
 
 
I don't have any desire to get into a lengthy discussion about the assumptions of the New Classical/New Keynsian synthesis though ... that has been done thousands of times by more qualified people than you and I and if you want to read about it you shouldn't have any trouble finding the appropriate resources. 
 
 
I can in all honesty say that there is no-one on this planet that I am aware of that I would shy away from a discussion from a debate on Austrian versus New Keynesian Synthesis.  You do know that there is a reason why their poster boy Krugman shies away from every challenge to debate.  He's only ever interested in debating the monetarists who is confident (I'm not) he can beat. 
 
 
The only point that I would make is that the overarching issue for me when it comes to the decision to stimulate or not to stimulate an economy during a downturn is the political decision about the extent to which we are prepared to forgo a proportion longer term growth (due to government debt and the muting of the lessons for businesses and individuals arising out of the recession) to ensure economic security in the short term. That isa normative rather than a positive judgement for the society in question.
 
What?  You believe stimulus is that tool is the alternative to forgoing longer term growth?  Are you aware that the depressions where the stimulus policies of the New Keynesians have been implemented have been the longest in history.  The Great Depression lasted two decades on account of Keynes' policy proposals.  The Japanese recession is also now heading towards the two decade mark.  The United States looks economically weaker by the year on account of massive monetary and fiscal stimulus.   Not all growth is good, much of it is bad, the growth in hedge funds, bubbled up by monetary expansion, led to bust.  The Post Keynesians (I refer to ydidn't like that so along came another monetary stimulus, this time one that caused a bubble in tech stocks - well we know that burst so along come the post Keynesians again and we get a bubble in the housing market, caused precisely by the policies prescribed by the Post Keynesians again.  And we know how that ended because here we are again trying to stimulate ourselves out of another post Keynesian inspired recession with yet more post Keynesian policy.  We now see a bubble forming in equities again.  I'll break the suspense for you, this will also fail.  The Austrians predicted each and every one of these economic busts - the tally for the Post Keynesians?  Zero, Nada, Zip, F@ck All if you'll parden my Portugese.   The Krugmans, the Greenspans, all of them, all of the guys who adhere to the other schools even as much as a few months before the collapses were all so far off the mark that they now look pretty stupid.  Alan Greenspan has at least had the humility (after first trying to wiggle out of responsibility with his emphasis on short term rates) to admit that he was wrong.  We won't get the same admission from Krugman because he is an arrogant prick much like his hero, Keynes, himself was.
 
So to summarize, if you are not confident in your own ability to defend the other schools - and that's not a criticism, I couldn't succesfully defend that nonsense either - please find someone who does feel confident enough and who you believe enjoys greater competence than myself.

 

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       12/12/2009 8:06:04 AM
No, and I say it again, I believe individual schools have  multiple tools, I only choose not to include in my toolbox tools which I find to be fundamentally faulty and that are, far from being useful, likely to be dangerous to my understanding of economics.  That most certainly includes each and every tool from the Keynesian school.  For example, I can take from the Austrian School alone the theory of marginal utility, Trade Cycle Theory, most importantly I can take from the Austrian school Praxeology, as outlined by von Mises, and it is this last tool that exposes the faultiness of the tools you list from the other schools.  Also importantly, I like to adhere to principles of morality which the other schools, don't even give the remotest of thought towards.
I have yet to read a post from you giving due credit to any theory from any other school so my comment stands.
 
I can in all honesty say that there is no-one on this planet that I am aware of that I would shy away from a discussion from a debate on Austrian versus New Keynesian Synthesis.  You do know that there is a reason why their poster boy Krugman shies away from every challenge to debate.  He's only ever interested in debating the monetarists who is confident (I'm not) he can beat. 
 
Your post is a little bit garbled but I think that what you are saying is that you don't think people will debate Austrians because they can't beat them. I would suggest that it is more to do with the fact that people (like me) can't be bothered debating somebody who is completely convinced that he is right and is really only interested in browbeating others with his views.
 
What?  You believe stimulus is that tool is the alternative to forgoing longer term growth?  Are you aware that the depressions where the stimulus policies of the New Keynesians have been implemented have been the longest in history.  The Great Depression lasted two decades on account of Keynes' policy proposals.  The Japanese recession is also now heading towards the two decade mark.  The United States looks economically weaker by the year on account of massive monetary and fiscal stimulus.   Not all growth is good, much of it is bad, the growth in hedge funds, bubbled up by monetary expansion, led to bust.  The Post Keynesians (I refer to ydidn't like that so along came another monetary stimulus, this time one that caused a bubble in tech stocks - well we know that burst so along come the post Keynesians again and we get a bubble in the housing market, caused precisely by the policies prescribed by the Post Keynesians again.  And we know how that ended because here we are again trying to stimulate ourselves out of another post Keynesian inspired recession with yet more post Keynesian policy.  We now see a bubble forming in equities again.  I'll break the suspense for you, this will also fail.  The Austrians predicted each and every one of these economic busts - the tally for the Post Keynesians?  Zero, Nada, Zip, F@ck All if you'll parden my Portugese.   The Krugmans, the Greenspans, all of them, all of the guys who adhere to the other schools even as much as a few months before the collapses were all so far off the mark that they now look pretty stupid.  Alan Greenspan has at least had the humility (after first trying to wiggle out of responsibility with his emphasis on short term rates) to admit that he was wrong.  We won't get the same admission from Krugman because he is an arrogant prick much like his hero, Keynes, himself was.
 So to summarize, if you are not confident in your own ability to defend the other schools - and that's not a criticism, I couldn't succesfully defend that nonsense either - please find someone who does feel confident enough and who you believe enjoys greater competence than myself.
 
Actually it has more to do with the fact that I can't be bothered going to all the trouble of putting together a long post, supported by evidence because with you it is a waste of time, you are completely closed minded. In any case I'm not the one picking the argument and if you want to debate this matter with somebody else then go and find them yourself, I'm not here to fetch and carry for you. . 

My point however is - so what? - what does it do for me without knowing where taxation revenue is going to decline?  The idea that price affects volume sold is thousands of years old.  Only so that I can argue against further taxation?  My argument is against taxation itself.
You can estimate where taxation&n
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo    AGA   12/12/2009 11:01:12 AM



I have yet to read a post from you giving due credit to any theory from any other school so my comment stands.
 
 
Well then go back and read them because you will find that I credited Schumpeter who was not an Austrian.

The this, I'd be happy to credit Ricardo, Smith, etc, etc, but those guys don't really belong to a particular school unless you want to speak of the classicalists.  Austrians naturally acknowledge their contributions but at the same time consider themselves to be the heirs to laizzes-faire theory.  New Classicalists naturally also subscribe to those theories but then they can't take credit for them legitimately either.  That is why Austrians refer to proto-Austrians like Bastiat, because the school wasn't founded until the turn of last century with Mises and others.  Hence naturally non-Austrians have made contributions.  Krugman also deserves his prize for trade theory but that can hardly be presribed to any one of the schools. 
 


Your post is a little bit garbled but I think that what you are saying is that you don't think people will debate Austrians because they can't beat them. I would suggest that it is more to do with the fact that people (like me) can't be bothered debating somebody who is completely convinced that he is right and is really only interested in browbeating others with his views.
 
 
Well given that I have multiple degrees in economics, have taught economics at a good university, am aware of the variety of different schools of thought, the fact that you named Schumpeter as an Austrian - I would suggest to you that the real reason that you do not wish to debate me is that you are so significantly outgunned that it is better to shy from discussion altogether.  I have responded to each of your posts.  I have asked you what you consider valuable from the other schools.  You have listed some theory and I have replied with why I don't value the specific points you raised.  I have directly responded to your posts, you on the other hand have provided no direct response to my counters.
 
 
 
It is utter intellectually dishonest to suggest that I am so compeletely convinced that I am right and am unwilling to bend - when I have provided direct responses to your positions outlining clearly my disagreement with their usefulness.  I don't believe there is any worthwhile economic theory you have listed with the exception of Schumpeter which I have honestly acknowledged.  So do not pretend that I am so fixed in my thinking that I am unwilling to debate when I have clearly given reasons why I disagree with you.
 
 

Actually it has more to do with the fact that I can't be bothered going to all the trouble of putting together a long post, supported by evidence because with you it is a waste of time, you are completely closed minded. In any case I'm not the one picking the argument and if you want to debate this matter with somebody else then go and find them yourself, I'm not here to fetch and carry for you. . 
 
This is what I think.  I think you have a superficial understanding of economics.  I think you are thinking, "gee, because people like Keynes and Friedman (on monetary policy) are so well respected they must necessarily understand economics better than Hugo.  Therefore, I'm sticking with those guys even though I cannot defend them.  So, instead, I am going to declare this a waste of time,  and discontinue this discussion.  I'll label Hugo stubborn and ignorant and that will get me off the hook." 
 
You believe you"re right, you just don't really know why and you are too lazy to genuinely find out - because it turns out that it is you who is stubborn and is fully convinced that I am wrong not I.  I actually encounter intelligent persons such as yourself all  the time, the discussion on an increase in supply of money I only had recently at a Christmas party.  It often ends, as it has here, with someone convinced that they are correct whilst at the same time disengaging from debate because they have reached a dead-end in what they understand and what they do not.  On account of them being intelligent, and I know you are, they just shy away, taking the course of not having to think because it is simply either.  Have you read Keyne
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Hugo   12/12/2009 7:37:52 PM
For a guy who purports to know a lot about economics, you don't seem to have much of a grasp of the concept of opportunity cost. Heres how it relates to this discussion:
 
1. StrategyPage is a recreational pursuit for me and I have other things that I like to do as well.
2. Therefore, if I am going to spend a lot of time and effort on a debate, it has to be a conversation that I am interested in.
3. I find that conversations with you about economics become boring very rapidly.
4. Therefore it isn't worth me realising the opportunity cost of engaging in this conversation.
 
Feel free to think that my actual reason is intellectual cowardice if you like and feel free to feel superior as a consequence. Others here know how tenacious (some would say too tenacious) I am in seeking evidence and arguing a point when the conversation interests me, so I don't have anything to prove to you.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       12/12/2009 11:17:42 PM
1. StrategyPage is a recreational pursuit for me and I have other things that I like to do as well.
 
Too true.
 
With a Facebook addicted teenage daughter, a pregnant wife and a boistous toddler son, I am lucky to have time, let alone a computer to get onto some days.  A fair few of my longer posts have been lost due to my sons discovery of the power button on the laptop.  Wait for mum to call dad and then dart in before he gets back, great fun......
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo       12/13/2009 1:10:33 PM

For a guy who purports to know a lot about economics, you don't seem to have much of a grasp of the concept of opportunity cost. Heres how it relates to this discussion:

 
I'm quite sure I do understand the concept but I think I see where this is going..
 

1. StrategyPage is a recreational pursuit for me and I have other things that I like to do as well.
 
I don't doubt it..

2. Therefore, if I am going to spend a lot of time and effort on a debate, it has to be a conversation that I am interested in.
 
That's fine, but then do not accuse me of being stubborn and close minded.

3. I find that conversations with you about economics become boring very rapidly.
 
That's disappointing but understandable given the circumstances.  I find economics very interesting but it's hardly a national pastime for most.  I'll try to remember in future that you find my input boring and will hesitate before responding to your postings.

4. Therefore it isn't worth me realising the opportunity cost of engaging in this conversation.

That's fine but I would encourage you in future not to engage combatively in discussions you are not willing to conclude.  Further, I would suggest that the time it wrote this post, you could have answered some of my questions making me question your understanding of opportunity cost.
 
Feel free to think that my actual reason is intellectual cowardice if you like and feel free to feel superior as a consequence. Others here know how tenacious (some would say too tenacious) I am in seeking evidence and arguing a point when the conversation interests me, so I don't have anything to prove to you.

 
I don't know if it is genuinely cowardice.  I suspect laziness is more likely.  I certainly don't feel superior, but I do feel considerably more knowledgable on the subject matter at hand and I think that's reasonable given the progression of our discussion.  You certainly don't have anything to prove to me.
 
Since you have spoken of opportunity cost, and questioned my understanding of it, I'd like to put forward the following question,
 

 If you won a free ticket to watch Arsenal play tonight (you can't scalp the ticket).  Chelsea are playing at the same time and is your next best alternative.  A ticket to see Chelsea cost 70 pound but you're ordinarily willing to pay 90 pound to go see them play.  Given this information, what is your opportunity cost of watching Arsenal play tonight?
 
To reduce your opportunity cost of answering this question, I've made it easier by providing the following four possible solutions.
 
A. 0 Pound
B. 20 Pounds
C. 70 Pounds
D. 90 Pounds
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Hugo   12/14/2009 3:55:18 AM
20 pounds, the value of the next best alternative (90 pounds) minus the avoided cost of purchasing that alternative (70 pounds).
 
As for the rest of your post and behaviour on this thread, I think that you have been extremely bad mannered and arrogent. We were discussing a related topic (toolbox economics )and you demanded that I get in to a long debate that I was not interested in having with you (justifying the nuts and bolts of Keynesian economics) . When I politely refused you accused me of cowardice then laziness. For somebody who places so much emphasis on individual rights, you sure are intrusive in attempting to intellectually bully me in order to dictate the way that I choose to enjoy this site. I both find it to be pathetic and don't appreciate it, and I won't be responding to any more of your posts until I see evidence that you have learned to respect the personal decisions of others.  
 
Quote    Reply

Hugo       12/14/2009 7:50:01 AM

20 pounds, the value of the next best alternative (90 pounds) minus the avoided cost of purchasing that alternative (70 pounds).

 

As for the rest of your post and behaviour on this thread, I think that you have been extremely bad mannered and arrogent. We were discussing a related topic (toolbox economics )and you demanded that I get in to a long debate that I was not interested in having with you (justifying the nuts and bolts of Keynesian economics) . When I politely refused you accused me of cowardice then laziness. For somebody who places so much emphasis on individual rights, you sure are intrusive in attempting to intellectually bully me in order to dictate the way that I choose to enjoy this site. I both find it to be pathetic and don't appreciate it, and I won't be responding to any more of your posts until I see evidence that you have learned to respect the personal decisions of others.  


I apologize for coming across as arrogant.  It's not always easy to be subtle and mannered using type.  I did want you to defend the theories you find useful but I think that's a reasonable request.  I haven't actually dicated anything or made any attempt to bully even if it has come across that way.  Sometimes I reread my posts and realize how insensitive they read but I don't have a talent for being as constructive in writing as I'd like.  I can assure you I take no pleasure in being (or believing myself to be) correct and thus showing someone else to be wrong.
 
Congratulations on answering the question correctly.  I didn't post it in the hope of trapping you.  I asked it because the same question was posed to economics academic staff in the United States and only a small minority of them actually answered the question correctly.  I wanted to show by this that even qualified professionals seem to have a difficult time with some concepts that are, on the surface, easy to understand.  So I do not think it is a stretch to believe that far more complicated issues, such as business cycles, recessions etc, are also misunderstood by many if not most.  And for this reason I remain skeptical of the mainstream theories that some, such as yourself, find useful.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Hugo   12/15/2009 4:04:13 AM
Thanks for the apology and don't worry about it mate, I've gone over the top here enough times that I'm not going to hold a grudge over a small indiscretion by you. Given your history of being a gentleman in the way that you post I was pretty much expecting that response once I had pointed out what was bothering me, and you didn't disapoint.
 
As for the scepticism that you have based on that survey of economic academics, may I suggest that it may be wise to be more sceptical of academics in general rather than of mainstream economic theory. I have studied three different disciplines (Nursing, Journalism and Economics) and while the academics in each play an important role in generating ideas and solving complex theoretical problems, many of them have their heads in the clouds and forget the basics, and consequently generate a lot of chaff through which you have to sort to get to the wheat.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics