tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post4166902263093981023..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: A "War on Demand" or a War on Reason?William L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-77163054746630614572011-02-01T18:51:15.426-05:002011-02-01T18:51:15.426-05:00"I repeat: provide one Austrian economist or ..."I repeat: provide one Austrian economist or any economist at all who denies the meaningful nature of aggregate demand and then tries to argue that Say's law works."<br /><br />Please provide one Austrian economist who agrees that aggregate demand defined as AD = C + I + G + X - M is meaningful.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-5238359007814543232011-01-31T12:22:41.167-05:002011-01-31T12:22:41.167-05:00"Except in the loose sense of saying "de..."Except in the loose sense of saying "demand for a number of goods has moved up or down", aggregate demand makes no sense"<br /><br />This is exactly the sense economists use aggregate demand. And they MUST use a loose concept to describe and understand business cycle and long-term economic growth.<br /><br />"I can understand why the concept "demand" is meaningful because I can see what aspect of reality it stands for" <br /><br />Which reality? Goods from different firms are different things.<br /><br />"a vague lumping together of things that cannot be added together"<br /><br />This is also valid for most markets' demand curves!<br /><br /><br />"There you go claiming that demand drives production"<br /><br />Here again, there you go without reading what I wrote. I am not telling how to apply disequilibrium analysis, but what disequilibrium analysis is.<br /><br />The soource of change is unimportant, the process is waht we need to investigate.<br /><br />It's not voodoo, it is not Kensian, it's economics.<br /><br />And you are making a disservice to all real Austrian economists of the present and the past.<br /><br />But, ok for a Bala, there is a Lord Keynes. You need a good cop and a bad cop in order to manipulate the masses.<br /><br />This blog is an intellectual misery, a desert of ideology and violence.<br /><br />Bye, bye.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-22002047890934533112011-01-31T11:49:32.215-05:002011-01-31T11:49:32.215-05:00Fundamental in the voodoo that you call Keynesian ...<i>Fundamental in the voodoo that you call Keynesian economics. </i><br /><br />Actually, all these concepts are fundamental in Say's law, supply-side economics, monetarism, New Classical economics, New Keynesian economics etc. Even Austrian economics doesn't escape from the need for them, since Austrians adhere to Say's law.<br /><br />Perhaps you will now proclaim that everyone else is wrong, and that you are right - maybe you are so brilliant that you are the only person on earth who understands economics! <br /><br /><i>Those who cannot see the difference between consumption and investment and insist on adding them together based on their monetary value cannot claim the title "economist" for themselves.</i><br /><br />The difference is perfectly clear - and the aggregation of values meaningful, just as the meaningful nature of aggregate demand is the precondition for Say's law to work - an issue that you ignore again and again, because it completely refutes your rubbish.<br /><br />I repeat: provide one Austrian economist or any economist at all who denies the meaningful nature of aggregate demand and then tries to argue that Say's law works.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-37564913529415249462011-01-31T11:40:09.585-05:002011-01-31T11:40:09.585-05:00I meant "your nonsense" in the last line...I meant "your nonsense" in the last line.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-36901727123993989652011-01-31T11:39:14.641-05:002011-01-31T11:39:14.641-05:00"Utter oxymoron:"
And you are an utter ..."Utter oxymoron:"<br /><br />And you are an utter moron.<br /><br />"Since the national accounts provide basic methods for measuring economic activity in a nation, the infomation they provide is fundamental in much of economic theory."<br /><br />Fundamental in the voodoo that you call Keynesian economics. Those who cannot see the difference between consumption and investment and insist on adding them together based on their monetary value cannot claim the title "economist" for themselves. They are just voodoo artists.<br /><br />And claiming legitimacy by arguing by numbers ("much of economic theory") does not make you nonsense any more meaningful.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-86642390474316990982011-01-31T11:35:06.084-05:002011-01-31T11:35:06.084-05:00Utter oxymoron:
1:
I am not saying that either fi...Utter oxymoron:<br /><br />1:<br /><i>I am not saying that either financial accounts or national accounts are not legitimate.</i><br /><br />2:<br /><i>I am just saying that they have no place in economic theory.</i><br /><br />Since the national accounts provide basic methods for measuring economic activity in a nation, the infomation they provide is fundamental in much of economic theory.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-73101282980837277242011-01-31T11:29:02.123-05:002011-01-31T11:29:02.123-05:00Oh!! I am not saying that either financial account...Oh!! I am not saying that either financial accounts or national accounts are not legitimate. I am just saying that they have no place in economic theory. I am just saying that the treatment of the same set of numbers can be very different in economics as against financial and national income accounting. What can be meaningfully added in the latter may not sometimes be meaningfully added in the former. This is one such case. Get that, economic historian?Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-77443342905672238602011-01-31T11:25:08.366-05:002011-01-31T11:25:08.366-05:00Once again.... total confusion between financial a...<i>Once again.... total confusion between financial accounting and economics. But then how is an economic historian to know the difference? </i><br /><br />The difference is perfectly clear, idiot.<br /><br />And GDP and the trade balance are national accounts.<br /><br />If financial accounts are legitimate, so are national accounts.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-61150103258375948892011-01-31T11:14:08.030-05:002011-01-31T11:14:08.030-05:00"Again, if the value of purchased consumer go..."Again, if the value of purchased consumer goods and purchased capital goods cannot be meaningfully added, then you cannot even calculate the value of a nation's exports, which consist of (1) consumer goods and (2) capital goods exported."<br /><br />Once again.... total confusion between financial accounting and economics. But then how is an economic historian to know the difference?Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-74922435291325727922011-01-31T11:12:48.664-05:002011-01-31T11:12:48.664-05:00"None of this refutes the aggregation of the ..."None of this refutes the aggregation of the money value of total purchases in I and C, when the things bought are considered as commodities."<br /><br />It says that only idiots and Keynesians will add them. Others who know how to think will treat them as different numbers that cannot be added together.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-61015421411358368892011-01-31T11:11:50.496-05:002011-01-31T11:11:50.496-05:00Again, if the value of purchased consumer goods an...Again, if the value of purchased consumer goods and purchased capital goods cannot be meaningfully added, then you cannot even calculate the value of a nation's exports, which consist of (1) consumer goods and (2) capital goods exported.<br /><br />Your argument is worthless.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-16353415036233211772011-01-31T11:06:24.529-05:002011-01-31T11:06:24.529-05:00If I buy a machine that lasts 10 years, I show it ...<i>If I buy a machine that lasts 10 years, I show it as an asset on my balance sheet.</i><br /><br />Capital goods can be both commodities and assets. <br /><br />None of this refutes the aggregation of the money value of total purchases in I and C, when the things bought are considered as commodities.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-8242934445424816022011-01-31T11:02:52.133-05:002011-01-31T11:02:52.133-05:00"And durable consumption goods can be consume..."And durable consumption goods can be consumed over different time periods as well!!"<br /><br />And durable consumption goods are an addition to the capital structure, you dunce. Remember our discussion of housing?Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-9029789573315808662011-01-31T11:00:41.297-05:002011-01-31T11:00:41.297-05:00"The belief that the value of purchased consu..."The belief that the value of purchased consumer goods and purchsed capital goods cannot be meaningfully added is nonsense."<br /><br />If I were to buy paper and consume it in a period, I show it as an expense on my P&L statement. If I buy a machine that lasts 10 years, I show it as an asset on my balance sheet. If I buy it at the beginning of the year, I consider 10% of the value as an expense for the current year and 90% as an asset. Get that you bird-brain?Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-7229508679697433292011-01-31T10:59:46.235-05:002011-01-31T10:59:46.235-05:00I am saying consumption goods are consumed in a gi...<i>I am saying consumption goods are consumed in a given period while investment goods are consumed over many periods.</i><br /><br />And durable consumption goods can be consumed over different time periods as well!!Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-5740537895318041822011-01-31T10:58:36.555-05:002011-01-31T10:58:36.555-05:00"The belief that the value of purchased consu..."The belief that the value of purchased consumer goods and purchsed capital goods cannot be meaningfully added is nonsense."<br /><br />You noodlebrain!! They can be added from a financial accounting perspective but not from an economic perspective.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-18583597886734708812011-01-31T10:57:04.602-05:002011-01-31T10:57:04.602-05:00"If that were so, then a firm producing both ..."If that were so, then a firm producing both consumer goods and capital goods could never calculate the value of its sales throughout the year!"<br /><br />You retarded monkey!! Financial accounting and economics are different areas of study. It takes a Keynesian trying to prop up a failed argument to try to mix them up.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-84660278978509986402011-01-31T10:55:25.723-05:002011-01-31T10:55:25.723-05:00The belief that the value of purchased consumer go...The belief that the value of purchased consumer goods and purchsed capital goods cannot be meaningfully added is nonsense.<br /><br />If that were so, then a firm producing <i>both</i> consumer goods <i>and</i> capital goods could never calculate the value of its sales throughout the year!<br /><br />Again, your claim is pure and complete garbage.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-13654774897519201022011-01-31T10:52:29.667-05:002011-01-31T10:52:29.667-05:00"And you are denying that capital godos are n..."And you are denying that capital godos are not consumed?"<br /><br />You retarded monkey!! I am saying consumption goods are consumed in a given period while investment goods are consumed over many periods. Adding the consumption spending and investment spending of a period does not give any meaningful idea of that same period because only a portion of the investment good spending is consumed in that period. The rest is an addition to the capital structure.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-35798900777929646742011-01-31T10:49:16.214-05:002011-01-31T10:49:16.214-05:00The latter are additions to the production structu...<i>The latter are additions to the production structure while the former are CONSUMED.</i><br /><br />And you are denying that capital godos are not consumed?<br /><br />Shall we go straight to the Austrian economist Friedrich Von Wieser?:<br /><br /><a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=bdjnMiKYx9EC&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=%22capital+goods+are+consumed%22%22&source=bl&ots=leaQeC8Ct_&sig=aTxkMCeMtRr7zgZ-9XRf9_xj0ow&hl=en&ei=idhGTe3PNoiovQPkjsiSAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22capital%20goods%20are%20consumed%22%22&f=false" rel="nofollow">“The periods of time, over which capital goods are consumed in the course of this productive service, differ greatly”</a><br /><br />Just as the periods of time over which consumer goods are consumed??Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-1643138869790474882011-01-31T10:47:54.440-05:002011-01-31T10:47:54.440-05:00Put another way, just because two things are measu...Put another way, just because two things are measured in the same units, they cannot be added. Your height and my height may both be measured in metres, but they are not additive, you dimwitted porpoise.<br /><br />p.s. Once again, you started it.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-25669931658779175202011-01-31T10:45:18.558-05:002011-01-31T10:45:18.558-05:00"Just because the use of them is different do..."Just because the use of them is different does not mean that the they cannot be regarded as meaningful elements in the set of different types of spending in the econony - C, I, G, E-I - from total factor payments."<br /><br />It means that one is consumption and the other is NOT consumption but a postponement of consumption to a future period. Does your well-rotted Keynesian brain get that?Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-6249883902889803422011-01-31T10:43:38.722-05:002011-01-31T10:43:38.722-05:00When I spend Rs. 1500 on a shirt and Rs. 4500 on a...When I spend Rs. 1500 on a shirt and Rs. 4500 on a pair of shoes, I am buying just that combination, not an aggregated mass of "things" worth Rs. 6000. It does take a retarded monkey that considers itself a true-blue Keynesian to add them.Balanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-27433353140033772122011-01-31T10:42:09.002-05:002011-01-31T10:42:09.002-05:00The purpose of consumption goods spending is consu...<i>The purpose of consumption goods spending is consumption. The purpose of investment goods spending is production of other goods that are consumed down the line but not by the producer.</i><br /><br />Yeah, of course.<br />And the production throughout the economy is divided into consumer goods and capital goods.<br /><br />Just because the use of them is different does not mean that the they cannot be regarded as meaningful elements in the set of different types of spending in the econony - C, I, G, E-I - from total factor payments.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-10411797834737737192011-01-31T10:39:24.306-05:002011-01-31T10:39:24.306-05:00"It is a number, that is the sum of the money..."It is a number, that is the sum of the money value of all those goods."<br /><br />You retarded monkey!! It is not a number but a collection of numbers that cannot be added in the brain-dead way you are adding them. 3 of them are consumption goods and 2 are production goods. The latter are additions to the production structure while the former are CONSUMED. Do you get it you deaf adder?Balanoreply@blogger.com