The Speed of an Economic Recovery

[Plu]

You're oversimplifying and thinking in black and white.

I have not voiced agreement or disagreement with any person or position. I'm just pointing out potential flaws in arguments and/or clarifying other people's statements.

That you use someone pointing out a potential flaw in an argument or a clarification as a "they are disagreeing with me and must therefor be agreeing with my opposition" really says enough, though.

[lumpymunk]

Read into it how you want but saying "your logic is flawed" does not equate "possible flaw in an argument" it "voices disagreement."  Basically you're not making any sense at this point.

[Plu]

Telling someone they have a (possible) problem with their argument doesn't mean you disagree  (or agree) with them...

I mean, seriously?

It just means one of their arguments might be wrong and either should be defended or dropped, that's all.

You can't seriously think that if someone makes the line of reasoning "murder is bad because grass is purple" that you can't point out that grass is not purple without being forced to disagree that murder is bad?

[LikelyToBreak]

Colanth wrote:

That's a self-contradiction. (Or it's part of "what good is it to be an American if we can't bully the rest of the world" which is part of what got us into the mess we're in.)

I should have used a different word other than "fight."  I meant it as having diplomats who didn't just give in to the desires of other countries.  Which far too often American diplomats have done and may very well be doing now.

For instance, it was negotiations with Iraq which led Saddam to believe we had no problem with him invading Kuwait.  Maybe if the diplomats fought to make him understand the US was not all right with his invading Kuwait, the whole war with Iraq could have been avoided.  Unless, you think it was planned to justify US involvement in Iraq.  In which case you are a conspiracy nut like me.

[josephpalazzo]

Telling someone they have a (possible) problem with their argument doesn't mean you disagree  (or agree) with them...

I mean, seriously?

It just means one of their arguments might be wrong and either should be defended or dropped, that's all.

You can't seriously think that if someone makes the line of reasoning "murder is bad because grass is purple" that you can't point out that grass is not purple without being forced to disagree that murder is bad?

That reminds me of that gang that went out to build rockets. After several attempts, all of them failures, they conclude that the law of gravity must be false?!?

Obviously, some people on this thread don't understand basic economic principles, and their conclusion is that Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize winner in economics, must be wrong.  #-o

[lumpymunk]

Clearly Nobel prizes in economics don't mean you're worth a damn in economics, kinda like how Nobel peace prizes don't prevent you from bombing the shit out of other countries.

Telling someone they have a (possible) problem with their argument doesn't mean you disagree  (or agree) with them...

I agree, but you didn't do that.

You said...

Colanth is saying ... which is also true.

And...

your logic doesn't work.

So.. that doesn't mean "as an impartial observer there is a possible problem with your argument" it means, you agree with him and disagree with me.  Since you gave no actual argument other than "I think your logic is flawed and his works just fine" it boils down to "I agree with the other guy" which is meaningless to me.

[josephpalazzo]

Here's the URL of a site where you can download a draft of Kuehn's paper:

//http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1591030

Again, I'll let others read through his arguments and Krugman's arguments and compare them to yours and let them decide for themselves which is more convincing.

Abstract: A series of recent reviews of the depression of 1920-21 by Austrian School and libertarian economists have argued that the downturn demonstrates the poverty of Keynesian policy recommendations. However, these writers misrepresent important characteristics of the 1920-21 downturn, understating the actions of the Federal Reserve and overestimating the relevance of the Harding administration's fiscal policy. They also engage a caricatured version of Keynesian theory and policy, which ignores Keynes's views on the efficacy of nominal wage reductions and the preconditions for monetary and fiscal intervention. This paper argues that the government's response to the 1920-21 depression was consistent with Keynesian recommendations. It offers suggestions for when Austrian School and Keynesian economics share common ground, and argues that the two schools come into conflict primarily in downturns where nominal interest rates are low and demand is depressed. Neither of these conditions held true in the 1920-21 depression.

[Colanth]

With global warming, we'd expect fewer hurricanes.  And that's what we're seeing.  But if you call last October "mild", you have to live on Jupiter.

Oh fucking please...
The Alarmism has been nothing but "more hurricanes" and "more tornadoes" and "more severe weather" for the last fucking decade.  You are NOT allowed to just flip your position and expect to get away with it.

Almost all the models agrewe that we'll have fewer, but more violent, storms.  What the alarmists (who don't understand the science) say is of interest only to those who don't understand the science.

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ipcc2007.asp

There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater. Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones. (Emphasis mine.)

Now you're going to claim the opposite?  HA!  

It would seem that they said more severe, nothing about more of them.  In 6 years we've seen a downtrend in the numbers.  (Science isn't static - using a 6 year old report - which is based on even older data - isn't going to prove your point.)

[lumpymunk]

The 6 year old reference was used to show what the dogma has been for the last decade

You can underline one line and ignore the rest if you want, I already believe you're dishonest anyway.

...also, the current "tropical storm" isn't very intense.
- Weak hurricane season
- Weak tropical storm

Either way you're wrong.

[Colanth]

Colanth wrote:

That's a self-contradiction. (Or it's part of "what good is it to be an American if we can't bully the rest of the world" which is part of what got us into the mess we're in.)

I should have used a different word other than "fight."  I meant it as having diplomats who didn't just give in to the desires of other countries.

But insist that they give in to ours - which is the same argument.

Otherwise you're not making any point.

Either we force them to lower their tariffs on our exports while we raise our tariffs on their imports (being a bully) or we don't, and your argument disappears.  But unilateral protectionism against a country you have no control over doesn't work.

For instance, it was negotiations with Iraq which led Saddam to believe we had no problem with him invading Kuwait.

Telling him, point blank, that we wouldn't interfere if he did kind of had something to do with it too.  The fact that Glaspie fell all over herself to deny it when it didn't work the way Bush had wanted it to rang very hollow.

Maybe if the diplomats fought to make him understand the US was not all right with his invading Kuwait, the whole war with Iraq could have been avoided.  Unless, you think it was planned to justify US involvement in Iraq.  In which case you are a conspiracy nut like me.

Yep.  We just weren't aware, back then, how badly the government could lie to us.

[Colanth]

The line I underlined is the one that refutes your assertion of what I said, and that's all that's needed to show that your argument is a straw man.  You can keep refuting points I never made, but you haven't refuted any that I did make.  That would imply a paucity of argument on your part.

[LikelyToBreak]

LikelyToBreak wrote:
Colanth wrote:
Quote:
That's a self-contradiction. (Or it's part of "what good is it to be an American if we can't bully the rest of the world" which is part of what got us into the mess we're in.)
I should have used a different word other than "fight." I meant it as having diplomats who didn't just give in to the desires of other countries.
But insist that they give in to ours - which is the same argument.

Otherwise you're not making any point.

Either we force them to lower their tariffs on our exports while we raise our tariffs on their imports (being a bully) or we don't, and your argument disappears. But unilateral protectionism against a country you have no control over doesn't work.

Hold on, how is saying "didn't just give in" saying the same as "insist that they give in?"  Good negotiations means creating a win/win situation.  

When Japan, the foreign country I know the most about, says "Lower your tariffs or we'll give Japanese inspections to all imports from America."  Then the American diplomats "Okay."  That is not negotiating in the interests of the America people.  It is giving in, so we do look like bullies.   While the Japanese diplomats were amazed how little the American diplomats cared for their fellow citizens.  The Japanese knew they had more to lose than to gain going into the negotiations, then they got what they thought would be their opening bid.  I only learned about this, because I just happened to drink with a MITI minister while in Japan.  He told me they actually felt bad for the American people, but it was their job to take care of the Japanese, so what else could they do but accept what was an overly generous offer.  

All because the diplomats didn't want to be called bullies.  :-&   Sorry, but I call bullshit.

It is not being a bully to not let yourself be a doormat.

Now I know in other countries the US uses strong arm diplomacy.  It doesn't make any sense, unless you consider how the money is flowing.  Then it makes plenty of sense.  

I'm glad you at least learned, as I did, that the government can and does lie its' ass off to the people.  The press who are supposed to call them on lies, more often than not just spin the news for the politicians.  When we were young, reporters hated letting a politician spin their story.  Now it is just the way it is, and nobody worries about it.

[entropy]

I think that in an academic sense this debate (the one introduced in the OP) is in an earlier phase. If this were a physics debate, this would be the point where two groups with different hypotheses in answer to the same question would be trying to understand the parameters of what the other side is saying and beginning to form counterarguments. If this was a question of difference in physics hypotheses we would be moving into a discussion about trying to agree about what kinds of experiments would be the right kinds of tests of the competing hypotheses. Once that was agreed upon, then the issue would mostly hang on the results of the experiments (or everyone would just have to wait until such experiments could be done).

I'm not willing to clearly jump to one side in this economic debate because I think the debate is in a preliminary stage. There's a lot of very careful academic thinking that has yet to take place. I will admit to having a predisposition to agree with Krugman on this but not because I think that more government is the goal we should shoot for. I'm pragmatic about economics. To me, economic systems are just means that can be used to achieve other goals I want to see accomplished. I think a lot of libertarian oriented people value libertarian economic principles as an ends in themselves. It is, of course, their right to do so, but it means that I and they are approaching economic issues in fundamentally different ways. I suspect that much of the motivation for even academic libertarian economists is much more driven by evaluating economic results by the standard of libertarian principles and Krugman is more pragmatic about it and seeing economic systems as just a way of achieving other goals (e,g., reducing human suffering). Because of that, I'm more predisposed to trust Krugman's analysis. But he could be wrong and I'm open to the possibility that the libertarian economists are right - as long as it is clear that they aren't only right in the sense that the policies they advocate are better because they are consistent with libertarian principles. I think the academic process probably needs to work for longer, though, before there is some solid sign that one side or the other has the better hypothesis.

Another reason I am inclined to agree with Krugman is because I have a hunch that the libertarians are wrong because they are not correctly accounting for the psychological factors of macro-economics (those psychological factors being a prime reason that economic hypotheses are generally much trickier to test than physics hypotheses). In recessions, and especially in deep recessions/depressions, the psychology of the demand side of the economy is especially "sticky". I think that libertarian economists may be too optimistic about how quickly demand would bounce back after imposing the market solutions they favor when there is the need for a really large amount of deleveraging. I say that only by way of explanation for my predisposition; that is not a position I can argue for with any meaningful cogency.

[josephpalazzo]

In recessions, the psychology of the demand side of the economy is especially "sticky". I think that libertarian economists may be too optimistic about how quickly demand would bounce back after imposing the market solutions they favor when there is the need for a really large amount of deleveraging. I say that only by way of explanation for my predisposition; that is not a position I can argue for with any meaningful cogency.

It's been the case for Japan that the economy didn't bounce as some had anticipated. After their recession in the late 1980's, the economy stabilized but with a very large unemployment rate. You can see that too to some extent in several countries in the Middle East and South East Asia. This is one case that Keynesian economic has an advantage in so far as it recommends that the government, being the biggest player in the economy, picks up the lag in demand. You don't want a high unemployment to linger for several decades as those who are going to enter the labor market in those intervening years, especially the young  ones, will face tremendous hardship, let alone develop a very pessimistic outlook on the future. This psychological impact can last for a lifetime. The negative side is that governments will incur deficits and a debt to be paid over for years. But which is worse, a lost generation, or all of us lose slightly by paying that debt + interest over a long period of time?

[lumpymunk]

The line I underlined is the one that refutes your assertion of what I said, and that's all that's needed to show that your argument is a straw man.  You can keep refuting points I never made, but you haven't refuted any that I did make.  That would imply a paucity of argument on your part.

Except cherry picking doesn't refute anything for those of us with brains.

 :rollin:

http://reason.com/archives/2013/10/04/c ... ate-models