Quote:
Originally Posted by
MJ1970 
And that's completely irrelevant.
I know what he won for.
That's obvious.
Good for you.
True enough. That said, the basics of this are hardly all that complicated and you still, apparently, fail to grasp even those.
What you have here is what's known as a confirmation bias. You found someone who has told you what
seems to make sense to you. You have found someone who has basically told you what you
want to hear.
Good for you.
Good for him.
I, frankly, don't really care.
All, the old stand by...there is no objective reality or right and wrong or logic and reason...it's all just feelings and opinions.
Which is irrelevant, because the more people that agree with him doesn't make him any more right. This is a concept which you seem to have a profound inability to grasp.
Which is at the core of Keynesian idiocy.
And there are
other Nobel prize winning economists which both you and Dr. Krugman don't agree with.
Quote:
And that's completely irrelevant.
Uh no. You mean you'd like it to be irrelevent. The fact of the matter is you could be a 16 year old in mommy's basement stealing time on dad's computer for all I know. You have no credentials here so people here need proof from a 3rd party that's a recognizable source. An expert or a recognized site that has credible information.
No one is going to just accept your word ( or mine ) as gossple at face value. You have to have something to back it up with.
Quote:
What you have here is what's known as a confirmation bias. You found someone who has told you what seems to make sense to you. You have found someone who has basically told you what you want to hear.
And you've found some one or several someone's that tell you what you want to hear ( or what you want us to accept ). In theory ( and economics is a theory ) you have a set of values that reflect your thinking. It's not the only one or it wouldn't be a theory. Since there's more than one school of accepted thought out there there's no way to resolve this theoretical impasse until some kind of after the fact outcome. It's like WMD in Iraq was a theory. Bush said he had proof. But what he had was bad information. He didn't have proof as it turns out. He didn't have pictures of bombs sticking out of Saddam's garage.
Quote:
Which is irrelevant, because the more people that agree with him doesn't make him any more right. This is a concept which you seem to have a profound inability to grasp.
Ok. So what makes your school of thinking more right? I mean both sides have as much evidence to back up their ideas. But there's no absolute judge or the argument would be over. Their wouldn't be another side. Just because you don't subscribe to that side doesn't make it go away. You believe one idea and that's fine. Their are lot's of people who don't.
It doesn't make either side right. They are theories.
Quote:
And there are other Nobel prize winning economists which both you and Dr. Krugman don't agree with.
Like I've said theory. It could be that hundreds of years from now people will laugh at both as quaint ideas.
I was just watching a program about the debate between Stephen Hawking and Leonard Suskind about the nature of black holes and the idea that matter is lost as it goes through a singularity. Hawking always maintianed for years that the math says matter is lost. Suskind always maintianed what we've been taught in school for years that matter can't be created or destroyed. It turns out matter isn't lost and Hawking had to conceed. But for a reason both hadn't considered. And it's still something they both don't completely understand. As it turns out matter that goes through a Black Hole still exsts as a sort of projection or smear on the edge of the universe. Taken apart but still all there and reconstructable.
That's the thing about theories. In the subject we're discussing that's why it's called "
Economic theory ".
You can repeat this over and over again but until someone better than you or I comes up with irrefutable proof they are still both Keynesian and Austrian theories.
I mean just look at this about the opposing ideas to the Keynesian theory :
Quote:
Monetarist criticism
One school began in the late 1940s with Milton Friedman. Instead of rejecting macro-measurements and macro-models of the economy, the monetarist school embraced the techniques of treating the entire economy as having a supply and demand equilibrium. However, because of Irving Fisher's equation of exchange, they regarded inflation as solely being due to the variations in the money supply, rather than as being a consequence of aggregate demand. They argued that the "crowding out" effects discussed above would hobble or deprive fiscal policy of its positive effect. Instead, the focus should be on monetary policy, which was considered ineffective by early Keynesians.
Monetarism had an ideological as well as a practical appeal: monetary policy does not, at least on the surface, imply as much government intervention in the economy as other measures. The monetarist critique pushed Keynesians toward a more balanced view of monetary policy, and inspired a wave of revisions to Keynesian theory.
[edit] New classical macroeconomics criticism
See also: Lucas critique
Another influential school of thought was based on the Lucas critique of Keynesian economics. This called for greater consistency with microeconomic theory and rationality, and particularly emphasized the idea of rational expectations. Lucas and others argued that Keynesian economics required remarkably foolish and short-sighted behavior from people, which totally contradicted the economic understanding of their behavior at a micro level. New classical economics introduced a set of macroeconomic theories which were based on optimising microeconomic behavior. These models have been developed into the Real Business Cycle Theory, which argues that business cycle fluctuations can to a large extent be accounted for by real (in contrast to nominal) shocks.
[edit] Austrian School criticism
Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek criticized Keynesian economic policies for what he called their fundamentally collectivist approach, arguing that such theories encourage centralized planning, which leads to malinvestment of capital, which is the cause of business cycles[19]. Hayek also argued that Keynes' study of the aggregate relations in an economy is fallacious, as recessions are caused by micro-economic factors. Hayek claimed that what starts as temporary governmental fixes usually become permanent and expanding government programs, which stifle the private sector and civil society.
Other Austrian school economists have also attacked Keynesian economics. Henry Hazlitt criticized, paragraph by paragraph, Keynes' General Theory.[20] Murray Rothbard accuses Keynesianism of having "its roots deep in medieval and mercantilist thought."[21]
[edit] Methodological disagreement and different results that emerge
Beginning in the late 1950s neoclassical macroeconomists began to disagree with the methodology employed by Keynes and his successors. Keynesians emphasized the dependence of consumption on disposable income and, also, of investment on current profits and current cash flow. In addition Keynesians posited a Phillips curve that tied nominal wage inflation to unemployment rate. To buttress these theories Keynesians typically traced the logical foundations of their model (using introspection) and buttressed their assumptions with statistical evidence.[22] Neoclassical theorists demanded that macroeconomics be grounded on the same foundations as microeconomic theory, profit-maximizing firms and utility maximizing consumers.[22]
The result of this shift in methodology produced several important divergences from Keynesian Macroeconomics:[22]
1.Independence of Consumption and current Income (life-cycle permanent income hypothesis)
2.Irrelevance of Current Profits to Investment (Modigliani-Miller theorem)
3.Long run independence of inflation and unemployment (natural rate of unemployment)
4.The inability of monetary policy to stabilize output (rational expectations)
5.Irrelevance of Taxes and Budget Deficits to Consumption (Ricardian Equivalence)
[edit] Keynesian responses to the critics
The heart of the 'new Keynesian' view rests on microeconomic models that indicate that nominal wages and prices are "sticky," i.e., do not change easily or quickly with changes in supply and demand, so that quantity adjustment prevails. According to economist Paul Krugman, "while I regard the evidence for such stickiness as overwhelming, the assumption of at least temporarily rigid nominal prices is one of those things that works beautifully in practice but very badly in theory."[23] This integration is further spurred by the work of other economists which questions rational decision-making in a perfect information environment as a necessity for micro-economic theory. Imperfect decision making such as that investigated by Joseph Stiglitz underlines the importance of management of risk in the economy.
Over time, many macroeconomists have returned to the IS-LM model and the Phillips curve as a first approximation of how an economy works. New versions of the Phillips curve, such as the "Triangle Model", allow for stagflation, since the curve can shift due to supply shocks or changes in built-in inflation. In the 1990s, the original ideas of "full employment" had been modified by the NAIRU doctrine, sometimes called the "natural rate of unemployment." NAIRU advocates suggest restraint in combating unemployment, in case accelerating inflation should result. However, it is unclear exactly what the value of the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
But at the end of the day they are still just theories.
I know that you've probably already heard all of this but you need to take it to heart that here there are no absolutes. Until they become something other than theories.
Also you could be an expert at economics with great credentials. However here it means Jack. And there's a reason forums are designed this way.
1. So we can't use personal information against each other in our arguments ( although some still try ).
2. We're all equal here and have to argue with facts and logic and not our credentials. If it were otherwise there would only be a few that would always be right because of who they were.
Also at the end of the day this is a thread about an oil spill. We really should get back on topic.
\
