Keynesian Economics vindicated... again

[_Analytics]

Austrian economics is the only really legitimate economics…

Contemporary academic economics is primarily concerned with the study of the mathematical theorems and models themselves (which is why they must concentrate on the modeling of "aggregate" phenomena, and not human economic behavior per se)….

Partly. The main problem with the abstractions of academic mathematical economics is that they do not - and cannot - capture anything approaching the actual dynamics of a complex market economy…

I don't disdain math, I just don't believe it has much value beyond the constructing of thought experiments in abstract terms (which is fine) it does not and cannot predict what actually happens in the real microeconomic world….

I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m guessing you’ve never used financial economics to calculate the value of a derivative, right?

In any case, I am quite curious. How do you know that mathematical economics cannot “capture anything approaching the actual dynamics of a complex market economy?” How does one go about proving that negative?

[_Droopy]

I mean, weren't you recently just bragging about being a world-class intellectual

I've never made any such inflated, bombastic claim about myself. I leave that to the likes of Graham and Kishkumen.

who purposely obscures his writing on par with the great philosophers of history, in order to make his students work for their reward of comprehending - himself?

No, I made no such claim. I said that I try to write in a pedagogical manner - not to obscure, but to not spoon feed.

As it stands, Austrians today explicitly reject RE and therefore, implicitly reject Say's law, in the only meaningful way to understand it in modern terms.

Now you're backpedaling and running for cover, as I suspected. I just posted a number of links to clear support and defense of Say's Law from primary Austrian sources, several of which are quite recent, and I could have gone on through their archives for much more.

This conversation is over, as I have no interest anymore in struggling vainly with intellectual poseurs who make intelligence insulting statements that are demonstrably fatuous while assuming that their opponents are not going to do some checking.

Demand-side theory was discredited when it was born. Production - work, investment, creative economic activity - drive the economy, not consumer spending, and we have the Great Depression, the decade of the seventies, and the present demand-side, debt, inflation, fiat money creation, and "stimulus" driven economic trough as profound - and endlessly repeated - evidence of the core truths of economics.

Mathematical economics is a great academic parlor game (like much that goes on in academia today), but its fundamental irrelevance to the dynamics and processes of the actual market economy render it substantially moot.

[_Droopy]

In any case, I am quite curious. How do you know that mathematical economics cannot “capture anything approaching the actual dynamics of a complex market economy?” How does one go about proving that negative?

http://mises.org/daily/616/

[_Kevin Graham]

In any case, I am quite curious. How do you know that mathematical economics cannot “capture anything approaching the actual dynamics of a complex market economy?” How does one go about proving that negative?

As he responds with a stupid link to his favorite website, the intellectual fraud is exposed.

Raise your hand if you saw that coming.

[Guest]

Droopy rejects math and scientific evidence to support his economic theories,

You should probably start reading posts before commenting on them. I specifically made clear that I do not reject mathematics within economics in totality.

so what does he rely upon to support them? Blind faith, or warm fuzzy feelings I suppose,

Actually: logical argument, empirical evidence, historical facts.

just as he uses to justify his devotion to Mormonism, despite the scientific evidence proving it false.

This should once and for all, if anyone is still unsure regarding Graham's pretensions to intellectual seriousness, place Kevin Graham alongside the most philosophically facile, shallow, and intellectually hobbled poseurs of the contemporary moment. The surface film Graham spends most of his intellectual time upon isn't even worth gliding across, even with the wind at one's back.

It probably isn't a coincidence that he rarely ever engages in actual debate of the issues.

I've done a great deal of that. The reason you've missed, or not recognized it when I've done it, is because you don't understand what this is.

His posts generally reiterate the same theme, attacking anyone who disagrees with his assertions - no matter how authoritative their sources are - with long winded fluff that never really gets to the point.

Pure hypocrisy.

On the other hand, he has his own personal economic priests whose credibility should never be questioned simply because they're not "leftists."

Bluster and fluff...

He has no problems dismissing world authorities in economics,

Argumentum ad populum...

but then turns around to exalt these blogging hacks who are hired by Right Wing think tanks.

And change "Right Wing" to Left Wing and change my name to his, and you have: Rank hypocritical bigotry...

They are essentially paid write opinion pieces to support the views of those funding them. Take for instance his constant use of the Heritage foundation, which is funded by numerous corporations, (including the Tobacco/Oil Industry) who benefit from their constant hit pieces against proposed legislation they feel could hinder their profits.

Pure mendacious, ranting bile...

The Atlantic reminds us that the Center for Data Analysis -- the Heritage Foundation -- has laid down a pretty rocky path in matters of economic predictions. It tends to err on the side of generosity to people like the Koch Brothers. Who, with Exxon Mobil and Phillip Morris, are generous fundersof the Heritage Foundation.

Here's a list from Sourcewatch:


Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Scaife Foundations: Sarah Mellon Scaife, Scaife Family, Carthage
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Castle Rock Foundation
JM Foundation
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc.
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
Roe Foundation
Rodney Fund
Ruth and Lovett Peters Foundation
Orville D. and Ruth A. Merillat Foundation
Bill and Berniece Grewcock Foundation
Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation
William H. Donner Foundation
Walton Family Foundation
Armstrong Foundation
John Templeton Foundation
William E. Simon Foundation

Oh, and then there's the evil capitalist running dogs Honda, Samsung, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Allstate Insurance, Mortgage Insurance Companies of America, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, ChevronTexaco, Microsoft, Alticor (Amway), Pfizer, PhRMA, and United Parcel Service.

Evil! Evil! Evil one and all! Capitalist exploiters of the toiling masses!

Oh boy, wait 'till I show you who funds the Democratic party and the leftist/Democrat "shadow party" that are the real wheels of power grinding in the darkness.

Phillip Morris? Yes, they've given some pocket change to Heritage. Funny that I've never seen a study from Heritage supporting tobacco usage, isn't it? In any case, this is an ad hominem circumstantial logical fallacy, not a sound argument.

Or his recent use of James Pethokoukis, a man whose credibility has been shot out of the water time, and time again.

So long as Graham continues, in the same breath, to say that respected intellectuals (who he has, if past experience is any guide, never heard of before) have had their credibility "shot out of the water" and at the same time to use tendentious, deeply partisan spin-mills such as the Soros funded Media Matters for America as his source, having credibility shot out of the water is the least of Graham's intellectual viability problems.

But since he is revered in Droopy's little echo chamber, that's all he needs. Very much the same way John Gee is revered among a small group of blind apologists who have shielded their minds from all outside opinion because they deem it "anti-Mormon." Droopy does the same thing with political opinions by demonizing everything else as "Leftist" without bother to explain or make an argument how that in any way makes these opinions wrong.

Rabid, flailing, impotent, bitter, self-justification rage, the very traditional forté of the classic vomit lapping dog who abandones his testimony and faith and returns to the regurgitated mass he once left behind. Sad, sad, sad.

John Gee, with an M.A. in Near Eastern Studies from Berkley and a Ph.D in Egyptology from Yale comes in again for a mindless personal attack from this intellectual nobody with no credentials in any subject whatsoever (let alone any substantive knowledge of Egyptology) and a long, long history of intellectual fluffiness and mean, personal hostility across cyberspace over many years and for all to see (not to mention his megalithic ego, volcanic narcissism, and personal obnoxiousness).

And like apologists, Droopy's blind faith in his quasi-Austrian economic ideology is grounded in repeated exercises in dishonesty. Just look at the way he supposedly cites me in his signature when he knows perfectly that statement didn't originate with me.

There is no dishonesty here at all, save in your mendacity in claiming that I'm dishonest. I didn't know you had not made that statement yourself until just now when I want back and saw that there was a link to another site. That was my mistake. I took that statement from your post without, in that case, being careful enough in checking the entire post, and I missed the blue link above. Now that its been pointed out, I will correct that error.

One question, however: do you agree with the following statement, which is a direct quote from you

There is no regulatory or tax burden.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... en#p612351

And do you believe this, which you did not say, but posted a link to as well and cut and pasted the entire propaganda piece:

But if the Fed, for example, doubled the amount of dollars in circulation in the world, all that would happen is that prices would in turn double.

He never addressed the evidence presented in those threads,

I've been addressing them for years on end. Krugman is a pampered poodle of he Democratic party and the NTY Obama personality cult, and long ago sold out any intellectual credibility he ever may have had to be popular with the hip, cool people. You're knowledge of economics is so brazenly juvenile as to make Krugman, however, look like Milton Friedman.

Dip-in-the-road: general price inflation is the debasement of the currency, and it is caused directly by the borrowing of money that does not exist and pumping it into the economy without a concomitant increase in goods and commodities, or in production.

I could attempt education on the matter with you but the futility of even attempting such with someone who cannot grasp simple, elementary, rudimentary, logically fundamental conceptual basics has proved utterly futile in the past.

just like he is ignoring everything Krugman said in this opening post.

Lots of people ignore Krugman. He's a complete intellectual sellout.

The evidence around the world strongly supports the position that the austerity fanatics on the Right have been getting it wrong.

There is no evidence of this whatsoever, and the cooked, carefully vetted charts and graphs (which you have no idea regarding their construction or the data used - and not used - to create them for the purposes for which they were created) your using from the Soros-funded shadow party propaganda brothels that you consistently run to in every debate because serious think tanks and scholars can't be found to support your bizarre, fragmented, cut-and-paste knowledge of the most subjects you pontificate upon are no more impressive than your own pretense at being smart.

Droopy can't deal with that, so he just ignores the data and continues on with his long-winded rants that do nothing but attack the messengers.

More ironic hypocrisy.

In any event, it would be nice if he had the intellectual fortitude to actually deal with these refutations instead of just pretending he is so far advanced that he can't be bothered.

They've been dealt with and refuted ad nauseum by me, others on these boards, and numerous free market economists out in the real intellectually serious world for years. Fascists/socialists like yourself, however, have no love lost for individual liberty and free market economic relations, and there are still, I hope, enough of us out here to reject your road to serfdom (the one you think you'll be on top of and unaffected by when it comes).

Comparing the Carter recession with the Bush recession is nothing short of dishonest, but then Droopy never had a problem using dishonesty to drive his agendas.

[/quote]

You are dealing with categories and concepts of which you have literally no understanding or educational background (quite clearly). Google, cut, paste, regurgitate, repeat. Google, cut, paste, regurgitate, repeat. Economics: Google, cut, paste, regurgitate, repeat. Book of Abraham: become sycophant of anti-Mormon intellectuals who support your prejudices, cut, copy, paste, regurgitate, repeat.

There is nothing dishonest in comparing past recessions to this one. Countless economists are doing in all over the place (people who, unlike you, understand what they're talking about).

Kevin, you may have left the Church, and no longer believe in God, but this is only relative. Leftist ideology is now your religion, the state is your god, and Barack Obama (mmm mmm mmm) the prophet of your god.

In the name of all that's holy, get some therapy.

[_Kevin Graham]

Thanks Droops!

You proved my point about how predictable you are.

[_Droopy]

Thanks Droops!

You proved my point about how predictable you are.

Translation: tail tucked, and legs pumping.

[_Kevin Graham]

Droopy, you deal with nothing. Ever. All you do is find new colorful ways to demean and denigrate every expert who disagrees with your ignorance. That's it. Oh, and a continuous "you didn't understand me" theme that gets old, even for those who tend to live on this forum.

The fact is Krugman provided direct evidence from surrounding economies that prove the austerity measures you and your ilk have constantly pushed for, do nothing but hinder recoveries. I've constantly refuted your assertions about the great Reagan tax cuts boosting economic growth. All you do is load up a response with pages of colorful rhetoric which amounts to nothing more than "You're wrong I'm right" assertions, never evidence proving your points. And posting stupid charts from Heritage doesn't mean you accept scientific evidence. It just means you're a blind sheep of the well funded Right Wing propaganda machine. That's your legacy, so congratulations.

"Baaaaaaaaaaaa"

Incidentally, I guess you probably think Heritage was right to defend the tobacco industry when it was manipulating data to prove nicotine isn't addictive. For you, motive and agenda play no role in any of these so-called "studies." The fact that Heritage defends the oil industry while accepting millions in funding from it, says nothing about bias. No, not at all. All you need to know is that they say the things you like to hear, very much like FARMS and FAIR. This is just another religion for you. Refutations based on actual evidence mean nothing because you have an uncanny ability to rationalize away any facts that get in the way of your religious devotion to these outdated or disproved ideologies.

I'm sure you think that's something to be proud of.

[_Kevin Graham]

Oh, and keep falsely claiming your signature remark originated with me. No one here expects you to exercise a little integrity. Because you'd have to have it first.

[_Droopy]

Incidentally, I guess you probably think Heritage was right to defend the tobacco industry when it was manipulating data to prove nicotine isn't addictive.

I wonder why you didn't provide a source for that claim?

The fact that Heritage defends the oil industry while accepting millions in funding from it, says nothing about bias.

1. It says necessarily nothing of the kind (to someone versed in basic critical thinking).

2. It is irrelevant whether it does or not, unless you have specific documentary evidence or facts. There is no position on controversial issues that does not imply and, indeed, presuppose bias. Heritage believes in and supports the American petroleum and energy sector (and free-market, democratic capitalism generally), the wealth the create and the real jobs they generate, as to I. They accept funding from the corporations who share the same desire to defend themselves from the vicious anti-business and anti-capitalist mentality of the Obama administration, successive Democratic administrations, the Democrat party, the American Left generally, the EPA, and the neo-primitivist/crypto-communist environmental movement. They share limited political and philosophical goals, the corporations fund studies and research to support their position (if it does) and Heritage wants to study the free market effects and dynamics of the petroleum industry and...uh...so what?

This is exactly what goes on on the Left as well.

Further, the fact that an interested party funds a think tank in no way implies that that specific money went to fund research directly related to the interests of the funder. This is a common ad hominem circumstantial fallacy when dealing with the think tank world (as if Soros' millions don't come with ideological strings attached). Individuals and stockholders in major corporations also have other, personal political and ideological interests they'd like to see researched and published.

No, not at all. All you need to know is that they say the things you like to hear, very much like FARMS and FAIR. This is just another religion for you. Refutations based on actual evidence mean nothing because you have an uncanny ability to rationalize away any facts that get in the way of your religious devotion to these outdated or disproved ideologies.

Please...what rhetorical flatulence. Don't you ever stop?