tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post1014475989175691399..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Krugman changes his tune (in time to shill for Obama)William L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger142125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-23738439678695136792017-01-25T20:02:53.373-05:002017-01-25T20:02:53.373-05:00You may be qualified for a new solar energy rebate...<b>You may be qualified</b> for a new solar energy <b>rebate</b> program. <br /><b><a href="http://green.syntaxlinks.com/r/BestSolarEnergySystem" rel="nofollow">Discover</a></b> if you qualify now!Bloggerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07287821785570247118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-76211650184391076012012-02-18T09:38:36.908-05:002012-02-18T09:38:36.908-05:00" Saying "multiplier=meaningless concept..." Saying "multiplier=meaningless concept" is not an answer but an evasion."<br /><br />No. It is not an evasion but the best answer that one can give. It would be no different from the answer to the question "how does red smell?". Your question is only as meaningful as that.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-17895943012305437282012-02-17T06:42:49.596-05:002012-02-17T06:42:49.596-05:00Still waiting for an Austrian economist to make a ...Still waiting for an Austrian economist to make a prediction about the value for the multiplier (as operationally defined by Ramey's method of data collection and data reduction). If, for example, the answer is "the result will be a random number" please say so explicitly. Saying "multiplier=meaningless concept" is not an answer but an evasion. I would have thought the Austrian answer would be "it will be negative", but please enlighten me.macromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04142304372187307154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-53723027553509277652012-02-04T23:41:54.599-05:002012-02-04T23:41:54.599-05:00Sorry, I mean Valerie Ramey's work. Hear her s...Sorry, I mean Valerie Ramey's work. Hear her speak of it on econtalk with Russ Roberts. I think Russ doesn't t entirely like the results she gets but Roberts has enough academic integrity (maybe it's just politeness) to not say "meaningless concept".macromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04142304372187307154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-68769029852623907942012-02-04T22:25:43.914-05:002012-02-04T22:25:43.914-05:00Anderson, can you confirm that AE economics can ma...Anderson, can you confirm that AE economics can make no empricial prediction about the multiplier. Note I mean, read Romer 's methodology, method of data collection and analysis, and predict before looking at the results that the answer Romer gets will be positive or negative, or a meaningless random number or something else. I would like to hear if from someone with academic training.macromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04142304372187307154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-75642905609035099502012-02-04T20:09:43.153-05:002012-02-04T20:09:43.153-05:00"The Lincoln example was for our readers so t..."The Lincoln example was for our readers so they could see how far afield your views really are."<br /><br />Ha! Ha! Ha! As though the libertarian position on Abe wasn't known before. He was a Statist and an enemy of liberty. What do I care if my views are "far afield"? What makes you think "popularity" is the yardstick of a view? It is not surprising for Statist buffoons to think like that given all the other goop they swallow hook, line and sinker but to expect a libertarian to fall for that nonsense only shows you for the buffoon you are.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-18550749978638096402012-02-04T18:09:19.266-05:002012-02-04T18:09:19.266-05:00"A simple prediction like : the answer will b..."A simple prediction like : the answer will be negative, or positive, or greater than 1 would be a start."<br /><br />No. Austrians do much better than that. They say and demonstrate that the entire multiplier thingy is a load of nonsense.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-75525656918743012332012-02-04T13:01:31.639-05:002012-02-04T13:01:31.639-05:00Can AE predict something about the Keynesian multi...Can AE predict something about the Keynesian multiplier. If one were told in advance how someone is going to attempt to estimate it, what data they would collect and how they would treat the data to estimate the multiplier, can AE make any prediction in advance(I say in advance but in fact work like that has been going on for some time) <br /><br />A simple prediction like : the answer will be negative, or positive, or greater than 1 would be a start.macromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04142304372187307154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-44719407513241086522012-02-04T12:33:10.768-05:002012-02-04T12:33:10.768-05:00Bala: No wonder that all you Statist buffoons admi...<b>Bala</b>: <i>No wonder that all you Statist buffoons admire him. </i><br /><br />Statists like primitive tribes from the Caucasus. <br /><br /><b>Bala</b>: <i>Argument by appeal to authority. </i><br /><br />Actually we pointed to a particular example. The Lincoln example was for our readers so they could see how far afield your views really are.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-48113564722304619632012-02-04T10:53:07.627-05:002012-02-04T10:53:07.627-05:00Ha! Ha! Ha! Argument by appeal to authority. Linco...Ha! Ha! Ha! Argument by appeal to authority. Lincoln was a Statist who had no qualms about robbing and killing people. He was the one who introduced the big Statist tool of robbery called the Income Tax in the US, wasn't he? No wonder that all you Statist buffoons admire him.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-36377775247518580372012-02-04T10:35:42.444-05:002012-02-04T10:35:42.444-05:00Bala: So you just want to repeat a false statement...<b>Bala</b>: <i>So you just want to repeat a false statement a million times till you are convinced it is true. </i><br /><br />No. Actually we pointed to a particular example, the United States of America, where a person of no particular note was elected President (that's the primary executive office), and this year, the electorate will decide whether or not that person shall remain President. It's an imperfect system, but certainly it demonstrates that there is no stark dividing line per your definition.<br /><br />Another problem with your definition is the term "against", which implies more than is appropriate when the government has the people's consent.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-42339801316927988602012-02-04T10:29:22.873-05:002012-02-04T10:29:22.873-05:00Leo Tolstoy:
“Once while travelling in the Cauca...Leo Tolstoy: <br /><br />“Once while travelling in the Caucasus I happened to be the guest of a Caucasian chief of the Circassians, who, living far away from civilized life in the mountains, had but a fragmentary and childish comprehension of the world and its history. The fingers of civilization had never reached him nor his tribe, and all life beyond his native valleys was a dark mystery. Being a Mussulman he was naturally opposed to all ideas of progress and education.<br /><br />“I was received with the usual Oriental hospitality and after our meal was asked by my host to tell him something of my life. Yielding to his request I began to tell him of my profession, of the development of our industries and inventions and of the schools. He listened to everything with indifference, but when I began to tell about the great statesmen and the great generals of the world he seemed at once to become very much interested.<br /><br />“‘Wait a moment,’ he interrupted, after I had talked a few minutes. ‘I want all my neighbors and my sons to listen to you. I will call them immediately.’<br /><br />“He soon returned with a score of wild looking riders and asked me politely to continue. It was indeed a solemn moment when those sons of the wilderness sat around me on the floor and gazed at me as if hungering for knowledge. I spoke at first of our Czars and of their victories; then I spoke of the foreign rulers and of some of the greatest military leaders. My talk seemed to impress them deeply. The story of Napoleon was so interesting to them that I had to tell them every detail, as, for instance, how his hands looked, how tall he was, who made his guns and pistols and the color of his horse. It was very difficult to satisfy them and to meet their point of view, but I did my best. When I declared that I had finished my talk, my host, a gray-bearded, tall rider, rose, lifted his hand and said very gravely:<br /><br />“‘But you have not told us a syllable about the greatest general and greatest ruler of the world. We want to know something about him. He was a hero. He spoke with a voice of thunder; he laughed like the sunrise and his deeds were strong as the rock and as sweet as the fragrance of roses. The angels appeared to his mother and predicted that the son whom she would conceive would become the greatest the stars had ever seen. He was so great that he even forgave the crimes of his greatest enemies and shook brotherly hands with those who had plotted against his life. His name was Lincoln and the country in which he lived is called America, which is so far away that if a youth should journey to reach it he would be an old man when he arrived. Tell us of that man.’Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-17440220288384809732012-02-04T10:26:42.129-05:002012-02-04T10:26:42.129-05:00"No, because the strict dichotomy entailed in..."No, because the strict dichotomy entailed in your definition doesn't exist in democratic states as the people have a say concerning the exercise of power. The people are sovereign. "<br /><br />So you just want to repeat a false statement a million times till you are convinced it is true. Keep doing it.<br /><br />"You're funny."<br /><br />You're worse. You're insane.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-31002380474998879992012-02-04T10:19:59.437-05:002012-02-04T10:19:59.437-05:00Bala: Do you finally accept my definition because ...<b>Bala</b>: <i>Do you finally accept my definition because you have been unable to show an error in it? </i><br /><br />No, because the strict dichotomy entailed in your definition doesn't exist in democratic states as the people have a say concerning the exercise of power. The people are sovereign. <br /><br /><b>Zachriel</b>: <i>That would be Abraham Lincoln </i><br /><br /><b>Bala</b>: <i>Yup! That confirms what I said. </i><br /><br />You're funny.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-54966769583905503982012-02-04T09:57:54.126-05:002012-02-04T09:57:54.126-05:00"That would be Abraham Lincoln"
Yup! Th..."That would be Abraham Lincoln"<br /><br />Yup! That confirms what I said.<br /><br />"As an example, the U.S. is having national elections this year. They may very well change their leadership. "<br /><br />Once again, this only confirms what I said - that elections only decide which individuals will hold the legal monopoly over the legal use of force.<br /><br />So, as of now, every objection of your has been shown to be nonsensical. Do you finally accept my definition because you have been unable to show an error in it?Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-2977911921146726702012-02-04T09:46:01.087-05:002012-02-04T09:46:01.087-05:00Bala: As I said earlier, he who has the last word ...<b>Bala</b>: <i>As I said earlier, he who has the last word is the one who has sovereignty. </i><br /><br />As an example, the U.S. is having national elections this year. They may very well change their leadership. <br /><br /><b>Bala</b>: <i>Hence, the statement "people are sovereign in a democracy because it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people" can be made only by a propagandist or an unthinking, brainwashed minion of the State. </i><br /><br />That would be Abraham Lincoln.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-43499063539042303802012-02-03T20:31:07.793-05:002012-02-03T20:31:07.793-05:00"but to claim that the people have no say wha..."but to claim that the people have no say whatsoever is false."<br /><br />And to claim that the people have the last word is certainly the most idiotic statement that can be made. Hence, the statement "people are sovereign in a democracy because it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people" can be made only by a propagandist or an unthinking, brainwashed minion of the State. It is conpletely untrue.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-72242011548115590582012-02-03T20:18:54.801-05:002012-02-03T20:18:54.801-05:00"In a democracy, the people have sovereignty&..."In a democracy, the people have sovereignty"<br /><br />As I said earlier, he who has the last word is the one who has sovereignty. The individuals who constitute the State have the last word. If in spite of this you wish to repeat the above slogan ad nauseum in the hope that repetition of a false statement a 1000 times will make it true, go ahead and make a fool of yourself.<br /><br />So, now that I have shown this "objection" to be nonsense as well, do you have any further objection to my definition?Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-30858141552495582662012-02-03T10:49:35.376-05:002012-02-03T10:49:35.376-05:00Bala: In any case, "sovereignty" refers ...<b>Bala</b>: <i>In any case, "sovereignty" refers who has the last word. People do not. </i><br /><br />In a democracy, the people have sovereignty, that is "government of the people, by the people, for the people". It's not a perfect form of government, and there certainly is conflict between the apparatus of government and the people, but to claim that the people have no say whatsoever is false.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-3745843490193733982012-02-03T09:48:52.701-05:002012-02-03T09:48:52.701-05:00"Yes. In a democratic system, the people are ..."Yes. In a democratic system, the people are sovereign. You may have heard of a practice called "elections". "<br /><br />Thanks for the education, but then elections are a means of identifying the individuals who will constitute government. We are talking of the State. In any case, "sovereignty" refers who has the last word. People do not. Government and the State do. Hence, claiming that people are sovereign is bowdlerising the term "sovereignty".<br /><br />"Hence, there is no distinct boundary between the people of the state and the rest of the people as suggested by your definition."<br /><br />The boundary is real but who am I to stop you from deluding yourself?<br /><br />" Compare yours to Weber's definition."<br /><br />Weber's definition is a bad one because it fails to account for the relationship between the State and the subjects.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-72883201549105305952012-02-03T09:12:36.652-05:002012-02-03T09:12:36.652-05:00Bala: That "dichotomy" is a real feature...<b>Bala</b>: <i>That "dichotomy" is a real feature of the State. There are people who wield the monopoly and there are people subject to the monopoly. Are you disputing this? </i><br /><br />Yes. In a democratic system, the people are sovereign. You may have heard of a practice called "elections". <br /><br /><b>Bala</b>: <i>The standard delusion of the Statist buffoon. The State is sovereign and the people may only decide which individuals may hold the monopoly over the legal use of force. </i><br /><br />Hence, there is no distinct boundary between the people of the state and the rest of the people as suggested by your definition. (Even in a monarchy, such a distinction is not always clear, as the king often has to rely upon support outside his immediate circle.) Compare yours to Weber's definition.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-21215598661723764562012-02-03T08:20:36.695-05:002012-02-03T08:20:36.695-05:00"The primary difference between your definiti..."The primary difference between your definition and Weber's is that you draw a dichotomy between the individuals that comprise the state and those subservient to the state."<br /><br />That "dichotomy" is a real feature of the State. There are people who wield the monopoly and there are people subject to the monopoly. Are you disputing this?<br /><br />"In a democratic society, the people are sovereign."<br /><br />The standard delusion of the Statist buffoon. The State is sovereign and the people may only decide which individuals may hold the monopoly over the legal use of force.<br /><br />" Under your definition, a democracy is not a state"<br /><br />The "State" refers to the machinery that wields the monopoly while "democracy" refers to the manner in which those that hold the monopoly over the legal use of force may be identified. It has no bearing on he concept "State". My definition permits States of every kind from democratic to dictatorial. So stop fooling yourself and wasting my time.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-9477366307992500372012-02-03T08:08:27.459-05:002012-02-03T08:08:27.459-05:00Bala: Given that I have shown your objection to be...<b>Bala</b>: <i>Given that I have shown your objection to be nonsense, do you still have an objection to my definition? </i><br /><br />Sorry. It took days just to get your definition. We had asked for clarification, which you provided, along with your usual tirade. <br /><br />The latest question we raised is legitimate, and we provided a similar definition from a noted scholar. Instead of considering this definition, and how it might differ from your own, you grunted and waved your hands, again. <br /><br />The primary difference between your definition and Weber's is that you draw a dichotomy between the individuals that comprise the state and those subservient to the state. In a democratic society, the people are sovereign. Under your definition, a democracy is not a state, but that doesn't comport with the usual meaning of the term.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-82404600537946384672012-02-03T07:54:30.785-05:002012-02-03T07:54:30.785-05:00"You might want to consider Max Weber's d..."You might want to consider Max Weber's definition, "a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory." "<br /><br />You are wasting my time. Given that I have shown your objection to be nonsense, do you still have an objection to my definition?Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-74465945689880538702012-02-03T07:33:36.352-05:002012-02-03T07:33:36.352-05:00Bala: The State - The machinery, consisting of par...<b>Bala</b>: <i>The State - The machinery, consisting of particular individuals, that wields and enforces the legal monopoly over the legal use of force against other individuals in a geographical area and funds it's operations through compulsory taxation of the individuals in its territory of influence. </i><br /><br /><b>Bala</b>: <i>Do you have any real objection to my definition. </i><br /><br />You might want to consider Max Weber's definition, "a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory."<br /><br />Can you spot the differences?Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.com