tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post533730185514758661..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Krugman: Save "democracy" via inflationWilliam L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-24997910210828849032011-12-16T07:16:15.558-05:002011-12-16T07:16:15.558-05:00The artificial creation of fiat money results in t...The artificial creation of fiat money results in the theft of purchasing power from those holding the existing money to those getting the new money first whether or not the event is allegedly measurable with statistics. That is the entirety of the "operational reality" of the funny money regime: transferring stolen purchasing power to someone else to whom it does not belong so that it might be immediately spent to give the economy "traction". All that theft to cure the problem that does not exist, the alleged "lack of aggregate demand".Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-80243439368218373882011-12-15T20:49:32.688-05:002011-12-15T20:49:32.688-05:00Edward your incoherent nonsensical ramblings revea...Edward your incoherent nonsensical ramblings reveal you know absoultley nothing about austrian theory. That seems to be the theme of most Keynesian apologists that come on this blog. Its getting quite old. <br /><br />Its almost laughable to consider your childish rant a "refutation" considering everything you just said has been adressed and debunked by Austrians for years including the fact that the existence of mulpite rates poses no threat to Austrian theory whatsoever. <br /><br />The rest of your dribble is just a bunch of ad hoc nonsense with some keynesian demand sided dogma throw in there. Demand does not drive employment and output. Never has and never will. Keynes never refuted says law. Nice try guy.libertarian89noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-3936446485279023412011-12-15T20:18:46.499-05:002011-12-15T20:18:46.499-05:00P.2
libertarian89
"Like Roddis said, even ...P.2<br /><br />libertarian89<br /><br /><br />"Like Roddis said, even if inflation does not result in higher prices right away, it still damages the economy by distorting the capital structure, propping up malinvestments, and impairs economic calculation, all of which makes the necessary correction that much more difficult. "<br /><br />There are two versions of ABCT, one is the soft core version, which is basically Hayek post 1971, It is ABCT, but within reason, Hayek is open about their being dangers to “secondary deflation” the other is the nonsensical hardcore oneit is the Rothbard Mises version, it is pedantic and smug, and just wont die. . It wont admit ANYTHING WHATSOEVER OF VALUE IN OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS, it will just scream STATSIM! as if thats an argument. There are so many things wrong with hardcore, unreconstructed ABCT. Many natural rates, and multiple stable equilibria. No expectations effects. If Frac reserves or the central bank lower the market rate. below the natural rate, but promises publically to raise rates later on, what then? No answer from Mises and Rothbard. Capital Structure? Capital structure is unique to every good being produced. I happen to disagree with Daniel Kuehn here, low interest rates have nothing to do with. it. More time intensive techniques? An absurdity, Yes you can produce more WITH A GIVEN SET OF TECHNIQUES up until diminishing returns. But entrepreneurs will only crank up the juice if there is demand for the products. And consumers are quite impatient, preferring products in the present all things being equal, to products in the future. Ergo, to think that the most time intensive producers will be rewarded, full stop even in a false “malinvested bubble” is pure fiction<br /><br /><br />As to Cantillon effects, they don't constitute theft, contrary to what Bob Roddis seems to think<br />Cantillon Effects don’t provide a justification for Austrian economics. they are most destructive when there is massive, accelerating price inflation, and hyperinflation. At, a average 2% rate of inflation its the equivalent of a pinprick to those who hold their savings in cash. Its just part of the overhead of cash saving. Remember, massive deflation is only good to CASH savers, it is murder on bonds and stocks.<br /> No one is forcing people to hold their savings is cash or government paper for the long term. Purchasing power can be preserved by buying real and financial capital. SO where exactly is the theft here? Why do cash savers have some kind of a divine right to a risk free return on their assets?Edwardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-58034625553756918752011-12-15T20:08:05.729-05:002011-12-15T20:08:05.729-05:00P. 1
Ever been to a party with some your family ...P. 1<br /><br />Ever been to a party with some your family to a couple of new acquaintances, and everything seems to be going well. <br />Then, out of nowhere, the family cuckoo starts ranting and raving and accusing the host of all sorts of wrongdoings that they haven't done, and you cringe, because the dolt is family, yet he's so embarrassing?<br /><br />That's how I, a neo-Friedmanite libertarian, feel about my family crazies, the Austrian libertarians,<br /><br />"Krugman believes that governments should take more power, inflate the currency, borrow heavily (thus, creating new financial bubbles in sovereign debt that cannot ever be repaid with future tax revenues), confiscate more income from wealthy people, and engage in Crony Capitalist measures like funding "alternative energy."<br /><br />In a nutshell, everything that Krugman demands the European and U.S. governments do will worsen this depression. Everything. From his scheme of having central banks purchase sovereign debt in the primary markets (which are no markets at all) to government bailing out failing firms and giving huge subsidies to "green" industries, Krugman is calling for putting malinvestments on steroids, in the belief that flooding the economies of the world with even more paper money will save us."<br /><br /><br />Anderson, you really haven't adressed his issue in depth at all. Leaving aside the Keynesian nonsense about subsidizing alternative energy, Krugman at least in relation to Europe, has been calling on the ECB and only the ECB to act.<br /><br />You also didn't address the gist of his whole article, aside from the passing on line ("political lunatics in the 1930s) The gist of it is the fact that hard money leads to nightmarish dictators seizing power. he mentioned hungary, and I will mention Chancellor Bruning, whose hard money policies in 1930-1932 directly led to Hitler seizing power. It was not, as conservative myth implicates, the weimar republic hyperinflation, which happened in 1923Edwardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-52089688267581205902011-12-15T16:06:56.052-05:002011-12-15T16:06:56.052-05:00"I think Blair posted from David Frum to high..."I think Blair posted from David Frum to highlight how Austrian predictions have persistently been wrong. "<br /><br />this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.<br />i dont think you will find too many of us "low brow" austrians agreeing with frum or his former boss.burkll13https://www.blogger.com/profile/00458192777661669534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-56652698848972997252011-12-15T13:28:07.660-05:002011-12-15T13:28:07.660-05:00Who even cares about whether commodity prices have...Who even cares about whether commodity prices have "subsided" in the second half of 2011. Saying "he called it" does not vindicate Krugman in any way shape or form. They are still up year over year. Look at the trend. <br /><br />Notice how all non austrians just try to smear and discredit us by saying "hey, wheres the inflation?" instead of addressing key concepts which are at the core of Austrian theory. They dont because they can't.<br /><br /><br />Malinvestments like housing are being propped up by Fed easing. We are also in a higher education bubble which I would consider a malinvestment as well. <br /><br />However, most malinvestments only reveal themselves during the bust, where it is clear to see resources were channeled into lines of production that are no longer sustainable in light of consumer preferences. Just because you can't identify every single one now, does not mean they dont exist. <br /><br /><br />Malinvestments are the cause of our problems and they do matter. Fed easing only props up existing ones like housing while new ones form, many of which, can't be seen or truly identifed until the bust.libertarian89noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-91229285395852952492011-12-15T04:34:10.555-05:002011-12-15T04:34:10.555-05:00@ Roddis -
Predictable response that I anticipate...@ Roddis -<br /><br />Predictable response that I anticipated when I wrote,<br /><br />" I am sure that I will get a response here that government intervention has somehow skewed economic calculation or that inflation is hidden elsewhere."<br /><br />Show me collapsing malinvestments and the creation of new malinvestments and how that is masking the true impact of stimulus and quantitative easing. Your statement is entirely vacuous of any real meaning or application to our immediate problems.morse79noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-7751151695499379782011-12-15T04:29:31.388-05:002011-12-15T04:29:31.388-05:00Ummmm... some people have very selective memories....Ummmm... some people have very selective memories. Go back on this blog to discussions of how the rise in food prices was clear evidence that quantitative easing, even in the midst of deflationary pressures, was leading to inflation. Cantilon effects anyone? <br /><br />This is a blog called "Krugman" in wonderland, in which Austrians misstate what Krugman has actually said to draw conclusions about any one who espouses a different economic and moral perspective. Ironic then that the criticism here is that I have drawn wrongful conclusions regarding all Austrians based on my pointed criticism of this blog. <br /><br />So I will restate. William Anderson and Bob Roddis have argued that the rise in food prices in 2011 was derivative of "fed funny money" while Paul Kruman has argued that they are temporary. Both arguments are driven by different models or expectations about what drives the economy. The empirical reality is that inflation pressures in commodities has subsided, precisely as Krugman predicted.morse79noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-31585800382442165792011-12-15T02:10:00.223-05:002011-12-15T02:10:00.223-05:00Again, just because some warned about potential hi...Again, just because some warned about potential high price inflation in the future, does not mean all Austrians said it would happpen. You can't lump as all into one category to discredit us. That's simply nonsense. <br /><br />We have had plenty of inflation since 2008 courtesy of the Fed. Now how that inflation impacts the price levels varies on a wide range of factors. Like Roddis said, even if inflation does not result in higher prices right away, it still damages the economy by distorting the capital structure, propping up malinvestments, and impairs economic calculation, all of which makes the necessary correction that much more difficult. <br /><br /><br />Inflation is trending higher over the past year near 4% while unemployment has stayed high (near or at 9%). I thought prices can't rise in an enviornment with "idle resources." Oh wait, they are.<br /><br />Not to mention you hear all these folks constantly complaining that "hey my paycheck can't buy as much as it used too" Of course it cant, why not? Its because real wages are being destroyed by the Fed and have been for quite some time now. <br /><br />Prices probably have to rise in order for the problem of "my paycheck not going far enough" right?libertarian89noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-37180888288553244662011-12-14T18:42:06.365-05:002011-12-14T18:42:06.365-05:00I have been an Austrian since 1973 and have not pr...I have been an Austrian since 1973 and have not predicted that hyper-inflation is just around the corner. Since 2008, I've believed that there would be some price inflation which would be tempered with various simultaneous collapsing asset prices due to liquidation of malinvestment. Price inflation is a secondary result of money dilution. The primary result is the distortion of the price, investment and capital structure leading to malinvestments due to the impairment of economic calculation. I also predicted that super-low interest rates would lead to perpetual depression/recession. So I've been right twice.<br /><br />I think that ultimately we probably will have hyper-inflation because the government has promised to provide $100 trillion worth of adult diaper changing services without any source of funding or real savings.<br /><br />And no, no non-Austrian actually "gets" economic calculation. If you think you do, prove it.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-5558179732963630832011-12-14T18:32:51.171-05:002011-12-14T18:32:51.171-05:00Austrians did not say "massive inflation is a...<i>Austrians did not say "massive inflation is around the corner." Thats simply false.</i><br /><br />Bollucks:<br /><br />Peter Schiff and Marc Faber on The Glenn Beck Show<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-LavV8ucvE<br /><br />Marc Faber - 100% Sure We Will Have Hyperinflation <br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r9o3jmyoaA<br /><br />Marc Faber, Peter Schiff and Ron Paul Say Prepare for Hyperinflation <br /><br />http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article16603.htmlLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-45108551995435246172011-12-14T18:28:02.863-05:002011-12-14T18:28:02.863-05:00*keynesian medicine(stimulus)*keynesian medicine(stimulus)libertarian89noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-86183969204797914722011-12-14T18:25:44.271-05:002011-12-14T18:25:44.271-05:00Austrians did not say "massive inflation is a...Austrians did not say "massive inflation is around the corner." Thats simply false. Some were warning that inflation may happen in the future (not tommorow or even a year from now) if the Fed keeps easing. And even if they did, just because one said it does not mean all did. <br /><br />Some Austrians were even in the deflation camp and claimed we were facing the "threat" of massive deflation. See Mish Shedlock. <br /><br /><br />And some Austrians were predicted stagflation, which we have in a way, with the CPI trending higher over the past year as unemployment stays persistantly high. <br /><br />So please dont lump all us into one category and say "well, because we mistakenly thought that you guys said there would be massive inflation tommorow (even though no one said that really) then because it hasn't happend, you're all wrong!"<br /><br /><br />Krugman is an utter fool and has been wrong this whole time. He claims the stimulus diddn't work because it wasn't "big" enough, as if more of something that diddnt work will just all of a sudden "work" just because you do "more" of it. What nonsense.<br /><br />In other words, the patient (the economy) is still sick after we (stimulus) gave them the keynesian medicine and all Krugman and his ilk can do is call for a higher dosage. Pathetic.libertarian89noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-63390638428097479672011-12-14T18:02:33.510-05:002011-12-14T18:02:33.510-05:00@Roddis,
I think Blair posted from David Frum to ...@Roddis,<br /><br />I think Blair posted from David Frum to highlight how Austrian predictions have persistently been wrong. <br /><br />You also need to start engaging with the argument instead of your high-school bully tactics (we won, game over man!). We get economic calculation, we just don't think it is that big of an insight or a useful one. <br /><br />@ Scott <br /><br />Krugman's predictions are very different from Austrian ones. Most importantly, Austrians end Neo-Classical economists have been adamant that hyper-inflation is around the corner given the massive stimulus and quantitative easing.<br /><br />I remember discussion on here with prof. Anderson and Bob Roddis about their disdain for core inflation measures and talk of Cantillon Effects. Well, guess what happened to food prices? http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/<br /><br />It is just amazing to me that we have Krugman on the one side making predictions that have played out and another side that just makes excuses for why their predictions have failed. I am sure that I will get a response here that government intervention has somehow skewed economic calculation or that inflation is hidden elsewhere.mores79noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-46077888941948118122011-12-14T17:55:47.429-05:002011-12-14T17:55:47.429-05:00@Scott D
Your right, it is not a great study but ...@Scott D<br /><br />Your right, it is not a great study but not for the reasons you list. The fact they use an election prediction as a measure is not problematic, not is it the only type of prediction. Even if a liberal is more likely to predict that a liberal will win an election, the study shows that they are more often right. <br /><br />Coding ideology is not problematic either if they have inter-coder reliability (meaning more than one person comes to the same conclusion). Are you really going to say that Bob Herbert is not more liberal than George Will. <br /><br />The issue with the study is the sample size and the types of predictions people are making. Your right, if it is clear that democrats are going to seep the house more democratic pundits are going to predict that. Also, some predictions are fairly easy to make so should they be equally considered as hard predictions.morse79noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-57116100419542682812011-12-14T17:32:42.637-05:002011-12-14T17:32:42.637-05:00Blair,
Since you took a few moments out of your d...Blair,<br /><br />Since you took a few moments out of your day to characterize me as "low-brow" for not agreeing with the study you cited: Do you deny that the methodology is fundamentally flawed? I mean, really, taking predictions about the presidential candidate and being surprised that advocates for the party of the winning candidate predicted correctly? It's a huge enough bias for me to dismiss the whole thing outright. If you are a rational person, I would at least expect you to rebut my argument if you are plant to continue using that study as evidence to prove a point.<br /><br />But let's talk about Krugman's economic predictions. Here are four predictions from his blog concerning the recession that he recently commented on, congratulating himself for getting them right:<br /><br />1. The slump would be very prolonged, with an extended period of jobless recovery.<br /><br />2. As long as we were in the liquidity trap, interest rates would stay low despite large budget deficits.<br /><br />3. Also, as long as we were in a liquidity trap, large increases in the monetary base would — as in the case of Japan — matter not at all for inflation or nominal GDP.<br /><br />4. Sustained high unemployment would keep wages and core inflation low, and quite likely push us toward Japan-style deflation.<br /><br />These predictions are all of the "things are going to get worse before they get better" variety. While I give Krugman credit for not jumping on the bandwagon many in the media took, proclaiming a painful but short recession, all it takes is an understanding of the depth of the problems created by the housing bubble to realize that we were in for the long haul. Self-contradicting ideology and flawed economic analysis wouldn't necessarily lead someone to wrong conclusions where that was concerned.<br /><br />The thing is, Austrian economics ALSO predicts the first three, but for different reasons and using different terminology. Krugman admits that the fourth wasn't exactly correct, and here, many Austrians diverge on opinions about inflation vs. deflation. The difference is that Krugman is calling for MORE intervention, MORE spending, that the bailouts and stimulus are NOT ENOUGH. Austrians want government to get the hell out of the way and let the economy heal itself.<br /><br />Also, please learn the difference between the meaning of the words "conservative" and "libertarian". Conservatives are defined by their not-liberalness (hence the 1-9 scale of partisanship used in the study you cited). Libertarians are defined by their beliefs in maximum freedom and minimal harm. Sometimes this means agreement with liberal views, sometimes with conservative. Often, it rejects them both.Scott Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-33618621821084572462011-12-14T16:42:37.014-05:002011-12-14T16:42:37.014-05:00"So now we have another deep thinker, Blair. ...<i>"So now we have another deep thinker, Blair. Krugman called for the housing bubble to be created. Austrians predicted it and the bust.<br /><br />http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block168.html "</i><br /><br />Except, they mostly didn't "predict" it. <br /><br />Most of the alleged "predictions" on Walter Block's LewRockwell article, in the crucial period 199-2003, are just B.S., as I have carefully shown here in this review:<br /><br /><a href="http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/12/austrians-predicted-housing-bubble-but.html" rel="nofollow">http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/12/austrians-predicted-housing-bubble-but.html</a><br /><br />The best you've got is a Ron Paul <i>identification</i> (not prediction) of the emerging housing bubble in late 2001, with a number of other <i>false predictions</i>, but followed only a few months later by the Keynesian Dean Baker also calling a housing bubble and serious crisis when it burst.<br /><br />Lots of economists from 2002-2004 - Marxists, maverick neoclassicals, New Keynesians, Post Keynesians, Georgists - also called the housing bubble and predicted a severe economic crisis.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-68982000213983353872011-12-14T16:38:20.952-05:002011-12-14T16:38:20.952-05:00From the guy who blames us for the WSJ editorial p...From the guy who blames us for the WSJ editorial page, "Human Action" is "low brow".<br /><br />http://mises.org/Books/humanaction.pdf<br /><br />Very sad.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-78125555050272005802011-12-14T16:34:55.973-05:002011-12-14T16:34:55.973-05:00Blair said: "Since apparently University stud...Blair said: "Since apparently University studies aren't sufficiently low-brow"<br /><br />University studies? Please! That "study" reads like a freshman term paper. There is no way it is published in any peer-reviewed journal (and if it has been, then shame on that journal).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-12263589005991829312011-12-14T15:51:40.591-05:002011-12-14T15:51:40.591-05:001. Would someone please explain to me what the WS...1. Would someone please explain to me what the WSJ editorial page or warmonger Neo-Can David Frum have to do with Austrian Economics?<br /><br />2. It appears that Mr. Wray has finally discovered Cantillon Effects.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-86623547942015939172011-12-14T15:29:09.420-05:002011-12-14T15:29:09.420-05:00Roddis,
Predicting the bubble, and saying it woul...Roddis,<br /><br />Predicting the bubble, and saying it would be necessary to prevent the Tech-Sector crash, is not the same as Creating, or Advocating.<br /><br />Inmates et al,<br /><br />Since apparently University studies aren't sufficiently low-brow, here's Bush's speech writer:<br /><br /><br />couple of months back, Republican commentator David Frum made a startling observation on his site:<br /><br />Imagine, if you will, someone who read only the Wall Street Journal editorial page between 2000 and 2011, and someone in the same period who read only the collected columns of Paul Krugman. Which reader would have been better informed about the realities of the current economic crisis? The answer, I think, should give us pause. Can it be that our enemies were right?<br /><br /><br /><br />Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-23/news/30312639_1_paul-krugman-spending-cuts-government-spending#ixzz1gXilUdbKBlairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07703324421469347550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-43257777655458791532011-12-14T15:14:44.485-05:002011-12-14T15:14:44.485-05:00Major_Freedom:
Let me start off with saying you m...Major_Freedom:<br /><br />Let me start off with saying you make a good argument, but we neverthless disagree to some extent. When you take a step back and examine, do you not see the complete, black and white, contrast in how people philosophize? My progressive friends on the most part are brilliant in their fields. Many are very logical in how they approach science or whatever their fields are, but none make any sense when economics/politics is discussed. Odd, right?<br /><br />Do you honestly not see the diametrically opposed perceptions of the two ideological opposites? You think this has to do with education? Then how did some clasically liberal thinkers come out of the Soviet Union despite all the brain washing? Maybe I can be of help:<br /><br />http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/weird/Scientists-May-Have-IDd-Liberal-Gene-105917218.html<br /><br />As the story from over a year ago cited, scientists from Harvard and UCSD identified what gene is responsible for a person developing progressive views and what triggered it. I thought this to be the case for the better part of the past decade but as a non-scientist, couldn't do the research. Well, others did.<br /><br />You say that the logical structure of the two brains is equivalent. I say no way. If an otherwise smart person (there are many smart progressives) sticks to their views when presented with the logic and empirical evidence to back it up, they are either dishonest or incapable to process the evidence in a manner sufficient to overcome their convictions. Since not all progressives can be dishonest, the latter must be true.American Patriothttp://defendourconstitution.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-44810778387148462842011-12-14T14:45:46.923-05:002011-12-14T14:45:46.923-05:00Hey Roddis, apparently fed induced funny money inj...Hey Roddis, apparently fed induced funny money injections have no affect on the purchasing power of the dollar. If anything, these massive funny money injections make our dollars worth more. Here's the proof. We'eve been refuted. <br /><br />http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/2011/12/fed-prints-29-trillion-dollar-goes-up.html<br /><br /><br />I guess he told us diddnt he. Time for everyone to get on board with MMT. You getting on board, Bob? How about MF?libertarian89noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-6585685358856606362011-12-14T14:14:09.901-05:002011-12-14T14:14:09.901-05:00Blair,
The methodology of that study is shockingl...Blair,<br /><br />The methodology of that study is shockingly awful. They took predictions from 2008, an election year, including who would win the presidency and who would win majorities in the house and senate. That right there should raise some red flags, but I'll continue.<br /><br />Most of the attributes of the predictor that were measured were falsifiable, verifiable facts such as gender, degree, law school, etc. Then, out of left field, they throw in "partisanship scale", a totally subjective factor that the paper writers themselves devised. There is red flag number 2.<br /><br />Now, ask yourself this question: If you are a liberal, are you going to publicly predict that a conservative candidate is going to win an election race? Now reverse the question. Now, consider the 2008 election, in which candidates in the Democratic party swept all the elections. Wouldn't predictions based upon the future actions of the people from the party you support also be more accurate, since you would view their possible actions in a more moderate and favorable light?<br /><br />The clincher for me is where these supposed "academics", after presenting their results, actually explicitly say that the best way to make predictions is to be a liberal, that the only other factor with any degree of correlation was a law degree (and this made someone less accurate...whatever).<br /><br />All in all, a very poorly constructed, very biased study.Scott Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-60411784826595113212011-12-14T11:39:09.015-05:002011-12-14T11:39:09.015-05:00LK, the deep thinker:
I raised the issue of the R...LK, the deep thinker:<br /><br /><em>I raised the issue of the Right Marxists or “Keynesian Marxists” in the last post. There is an interesting debate here between the Post Keynesian Thomas I. Palley and the Marxists John Bellamy Foster and Robert W. McChesney on the origins and causes of the financial crisis of 2008</em><br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/88h7la9<br /><br />Oh yes, the debate is sure "interesting". After our Stalin and the Finns lesson, it's always refreshing to learn that there are still Marxists floating around and they haven't yet been arrested for hate speech.<br /><br />Read both articles because they are simply amazing. As always, not a breath about the obvious problems of economic calculation induced by funny money, or that a funny money regime is anything other than "modern capitalism". <br /><br />Just like when the Canadian government builds the St. Lawrence Seaway destroying the fishery of the Great Lakes, the cause, according to the "progressives" is "modern capitalism". <br /><br />Stupid and dishonest is no way to go through life guys.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.com