Loren Michael wrote:It's fun, but once people start taking their fantasies seriously and decide that they are Serious Thinkers it's a big problem, and a big waste.

Look at the drain of human effort and passion that was Occupy Wall Street.

You don't think that movement's over do you?

Scot Dutchy wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:Yesterday, a Tea Bagger member of the House of Representatives from South Carolina introduced a Bill that would eliminate all statistical reporting done by the Census Bureau, which includes a broad array of reports on unemployment, economic growth, and other indicators of how people are faring. If this Bill were to be enacted by the Congress we'd no longer know what the unemployment rate was nor know much of anything about the economic well being of the citizentry

Surely this will not pass Congress!

All we can do is hope it won't.

Is there a real chance of it happening?

Very little I'd say.

Such things are usually just extremist blather.

Loren Michael wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:People get excited and are inspired and energized and become animated by the possibility of new worlds, especially when their worlds are the blithering shits.

...and as I noted that's a marginalized few, at least in America.

This depends on how you define "marginalized few," of course and to what you relate their conditions.

But those things aside, the truth is there are literally millions of Americans who's world's can easily be characterized as being the "blithering shits." I'm not going to waste my time chasing down the stats on this, although they're not difficult at all to find, but speaking more generally there are currently some 45-50 million Americas existing below the poverty line and nearly all of them are on Food stamps; several hundred thousand Americans are homeless, several hundred thousand others are facing repossessioin of their home and 7 million have already lost their homes; unemployment in the 18-24 demographic is upwards of 30 per cent, highest in minority communities; three million Americans have been unemployed longer than three years; personal nakruptcies are running at all-time highs; the suicide rate is up; millions of American homeowners are under water on their mortgages; the middle classes lost $23 trillion in assets since the fall of 2008 (in lost pensions, degraded 401Ks, and reduced home values, tens of thousands of America's youth have had to move back in with their parents because they can't find a job, poor Americans who rely on Medicaid for their health care face draconian cuts to that program; millions of American children who benefitted fom the Head Start program no longer do because that progrm has been cut in its entirety, and so on, and on.

This simply cannot be characterized as a "marginal few."

Apologist's for the system consistently ignore or seek to deny these realities, all they want to see and hear are the roses coming up.

Loren Michael wrote:

The "perfect storm" I said was brewing and you said was not is a social tipping point, one that will be abetted by an economic tipping point, and when they occur change will happen almost at light speed.

Course, if you don't study these matters you can't take them into account, you'll be blinded to them and your tendency will be to say "No," as you did in this instance. History is replete ...

But I do study them, so I don't say "no," I say, look fucking out, dude!

Economics is largely mumbo jumbo to you. I don't think you're particularly engaged with it, and you're making social and economic prognostications about it. You'll forgive me I'm sure if I don't take your word for that one.

Easy way out, too easy, you won't address it, all you'll do is claim some kind of superior knowledge of economics. But that's just a claim, one that your commentary on economics in this forum does not support.

I've been studying economics longer than you've been alive, son.

A tipping point is like a huge snow slope on a mountainside where all is calm and peaceful and apparently stable ... until one guy steps out on the slope and BLOOIEE! the whole thing let's go in an avalanche that brings all that snow down in a crushing headlong slide to the bottom. Once unleashed, it can't be stopped. It will rush toward the bottom and keep rushing until a new equilibrium is attained or found.

Markets can collapse in this very same manner; social upheavals can occur this way.

Now, instead of arrogantly and cavalierly dismissing another's economic acumen, why don't you comment on this? Or is it too far over your head? Until you show us otherwise, I think we have to conclude that it is. So please, get off your high horse and stop casting disparagng remarks about what others know and speak to the question at hand, even if it's to admit you don't know anything about it.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:It's fun, but once people start taking their fantasies seriously and decide that they are Serious Thinkers it's a big problem, and a big waste.

Look at the drain of human effort and passion that was Occupy Wall Street.

You don't think that movement's over do you?

Yes. Maybe I'll see them in the eye of your perfect storm that's brewing.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:People get excited and are inspired and energized and become animated by the possibility of new worlds, especially when their worlds are the blithering shits.

...and as I noted that's a marginalized few, at least in America.

This depends on how you define "marginalized few," of course and to what you relate their conditions.

[...]

This simply cannot be characterized as a "marginal few."

This is fun. I spotted the difference. Nice, honest work there.

Loren Michael wrote:Economics is largely mumbo jumbo to you. I don't think you're particularly engaged with it, and you're making social and economic prognostications about it. You'll forgive me I'm sure if I don't take your word for that one.

Easy way out, too easy, you won't address it, all you'll do is claim some kind of superior knowledge of economics. But that's just a claim, one that your commentary on economics in this forum does not support.

Absent some evidence, you're little more than a guy making outlandish claims. That you're a guy who doesn't understand the field the claims are in regards to is both telling and amusing. This observation doesn't depend on any of my credentials or knowledge about the field in question.

Loren Michael wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:People get excited and are inspired and energized and become animated by the possibility of new worlds, especially when their worlds are the blithering shits.

...and as I noted that's a marginalized few, at least in America.

This depends on how you define "marginalized few," of course and to what you relate their conditions.

[...]

This simply cannot be characterized as a "marginal few."

This is fun. I spotted the difference. Nice, honest work there.

Loren Michael wrote:Economics is largely mumbo jumbo to you. I don't think you're particularly engaged with it, and you're making social and economic prognostications about it. You'll forgive me I'm sure if I don't take your word for that one.

Easy way out, too easy, you won't address it, all you'll do is claim some kind of superior knowledge of economics. But that's just a claim, one that your commentary on economics in this forum does not support.

Absent some evidence, you're little more than a guy making outlandish claims. That you're a guy who doesn't understand the field the claims are in regards to is both telling and amusing. This observation doesn't depend on any of my credentials or knowledge about the field in question.

Outlandish claims? Do you live in America?

So you are the GREAT economist? You dont have even be a book keeper to understand that America is fucked so many different ways. It has no government. No leader and no planning.

The major corperations have taken over. THe great 1% is claiming more and more of the national wealth. More and more people are slipping into poverty. There is no investment in infrastructure. The country is literally going to collapse.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

...and as I noted that's a marginalized few, at least in America.

This depends on how you define "marginalized few," of course and to what you relate their conditions.

[...]

This simply cannot be characterized as a "marginal few."

This is fun. I spotted the difference. Nice, honest work there.

Loren Michael wrote:Economics is largely mumbo jumbo to you. I don't think you're particularly engaged with it, and you're making social and economic prognostications about it. You'll forgive me I'm sure if I don't take your word for that one.

Easy way out, too easy, you won't address it, all you'll do is claim some kind of superior knowledge of economics. But that's just a claim, one that your commentary on economics in this forum does not support.

Absent some evidence, you're little more than a guy making outlandish claims. That you're a guy who doesn't understand the field the claims are in regards to is both telling and amusing. This observation doesn't depend on any of my credentials or knowledge about the field in question.

Outlandish claims? Do you live in America?

So you are the GREAT economist? You dont have even be a book keeper to understand that America is fucked so many different ways. It has no government. No leader and no planning.

The major corperations have taken over. THe great 1% is claiming more and more of the national wealth. More and more people are slipping into poverty. There is no investment in infrastructure. The country is literally going to collapse.

The only purpose economic forecasts have is that they make astrology respectable, as someone once said.

The economy is recovering now, things are getting better now. Things may head deep south in the future, but it'd be silly to assume that collapse will be the likely outcome of future tension. Future could usher in the votes for politicians in favor of broad reforms. Or not. I don't know, and neither do you.

I do have enough sense to bet on the status quo though, I should say. That's historically a reliable bet, particularly in America.

Loren Michael wrote:The economy is recovering now, things are getting better now. Things may head deep south in the future, but it'd be silly to assume that collapse will be the likely outcome of future tension. Future could usher in the votes for politicians in favor of broad reforms. Or not. I don't know, and neither do you.

The eternal optimist?

The recovery is hardly anything. A few more part time jobs? You think that is enough?

Sorry America's government and society needs a massive overhaul. Without a government no country can function.

Scot Dutchy wrote:The recovery is hardly anything. A few more part time jobs? You think that is enough?

Enough for what?

Sorry America's government and society needs a massive overhaul. Without a government no country can function.

Dysfunctional government =/= no government, and the need for a massive overhaul =/= sufficient cause for a massive overhaul.

Loren Michael wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
This depends on how you define "marginalized few," of course and to what you relate their conditions.

[...]

This simply cannot be characterized as a "marginal few."

This is fun. I spotted the difference. Nice, honest work there.

YOU spotted "the difference" but you're not going to say what it is?

Comes off like a dodge to me, someone who doesn't want to face the realities and who chooses to obfuscate instead.

What exactly is the difference?

Why do you insist on talking gibberish?

Every time you find yourself backed into a corner over some garbage comment you've posted you resort to this kind of nonsensical retort. Well guess what, the smarter more well informed among us will be left to wonder what you're on about and consider your posts to be worthless.

Loren Michael wrote:

Easy way out, too easy, you won't address it, all you'll do is claim some kind of superior knowledge of economics. But that's just a claim, one that your commentary on economics in this forum does not support.

Absent some evidence, you're little more than a guy making outlandish claims. That you're a guy who doesn't understand the field the claims are in regards to is both telling and amusing. This observation doesn't depend on any of my credentials or knowledge about the field in question.

It doesn't? How do you make these "observations" if you have no particular experise in economics? Are you the magic man or something?

The paragraph I included that described the current state of things faced by many Americans would, I dare say, be declared reasobaly accurate by nearly anyone, yet you dismiss it with some comment about "the difference" while failing to elaborate what you meant by it.

And you wish to be taken seriously here?

Loren Michael wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Outlandish claims? Do you live in America?

So you are the GREAT economist? You don't have even be a book keeper to understand that America is fucked so many different ways. It has no government. No leader and no planning.

The major corporations have taken over. THe great 1% is claiming more and more of the national wealth. More and more people are slipping into poverty. There is no investment in infrastructure. The country is literally going to collapse.

The only purpose economic forecasts have is that they make astrology respectable, as someone once said.

The economy is recovering now, things are getting better now. Things may head deep south in the future, but it'd be silly to assume that collapse will be the likely outcome of future tension. Future could usher in the votes for politicians in favor of broad reforms. Or not. I don't know, and neither do you.

When you board a flight to Los Angeles you assume it's going to arrive there safe and sound, make a good landing, and you'll deplane in one piece, a happy camper.

This is because you can predict with a very high assurance that the outcome will be as you want it to be.

Keyword here is predict.

Now it appears you're claiming that we absolutely cannot predict social or economic behavior with anything but very low confidence, if that.

Tell us how a country can make progress in improving the lot of its people and the quality of its biosphere under those conditions.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
This depends on how you define "marginalized few," of course and to what you relate their conditions.

[...]

This simply cannot be characterized as a "marginal few."

This is fun. I spotted the difference. Nice, honest work there.

YOU spotted "the difference" but you're not going to say what it is?

I'm going to assume you're smart enough to know the difference between marginal and marginalized.

Loren Michael wrote:

Easy way out, too easy, you won't address it, all you'll do is claim some kind of superior knowledge of economics. But that's just a claim, one that your commentary on economics in this forum does not support.

Absent some evidence, you're little more than a guy making outlandish claims. That you're a guy who doesn't understand the field the claims are in regards to is both telling and amusing. This observation doesn't depend on any of my credentials or knowledge about the field in question.

It doesn't? How do you make these "observations" if you have no particular experise in economics?

I'm not claiming that I have no expertise in economics. My claim is that anyone can observe that you (1) haven't presented evidence, (2) are making outlandish claims, and (3) are a guy who doesn't understand the field you're making predictions about.

This depends on how you define "marginalized few," of course and to what you relate their conditions.

[...]

This simply cannot be characterized as a "marginal few."

YOU spotted "the difference" but you're not going to say what it is?

If you don't know the difference FM I'd be embarrassed to admit it. Marginal and marginalized are very different words.

marginalized past participle, past tense of mar·gin·al·ize
Verb
Treat (a person, group, or concept) as insignificant or peripheral: "they marginalize those who disagree"; "marginalized groups".

mar·gin·al
/ˈmärjənl/
Adjective
Of, relating to, or situated at the edge or margin of something

I'm with LM on your polemics....as that's all they are....no case, no argument, no evidence.

When you board a flight to Los Angeles you assume it's going to arrive there safe and sound, make a good landing, and you'll deplane in one piece, a happy camper.

This is because you can predict with a very high assurance that the outcome will be as you want it to be.

Keyword here is predict.

Now it appears you're claiming that we absolutely cannot predict social or economic behavior with anything but very low confidence, if that.

Tell us how a country can make progress in improving the lot of its people and the quality of its biosphere under those conditions.

This is a very poor analogy to an aircraft flight and if you could chart a policy course that has the same 5 nines degree of confidence in economic outcomes of policy as in the aircraft getting there I'd be the first to congratulate you on the Nobel prize.

You can't, no one can despite wishful thinking.
We may have broad brushes on climate but just about hopeless on regional outcomes and nothing past a few days on weather.

Tests of macroeconomic predictions

In the late 1980s the Brookings institute compared 12 leading macroeconomic models available at the time. They compared the models' predictions for how the economy would respond to specific economic shocks (allowing the models to control for all the variability in the real world; this was a test of model vs. model, not a test against the actual outcome). Although the models simplified the world and started from a stable, known common parameters the various models gave significantly different answers. For instance, in calculating the impact of a monetary loosening on output some models estimated a 3% change in GDP after one year, and one gave almost no change, with the rest spread between.[12]

Partly as a result of such experiments, modern central bankers no longer have as much confidence that it is possible to 'fine-tune' the economy as they had in the 1960s and early 1970s. Modern policy makers tend to use a less activist approach, explicitly because they lack confidence that their models will actually predict where the economy is going, or the effect of any shock upon it. The new, more humble, approach sees danger in dramatic policy changes based on model predictions, because of several practical and theoretical limitations in current macroeconomic models; in addition to the theoretical pitfalls, (listed above) some problems specific to aggregate modelling are:

In the aftermath of the 2007–2009 global economic meltdown, the profession's attachment to unrealistic models is increasingly being questioned and criticized. After a weeklong workshop, one group of economists released a paper highly critical of their own profession's unethical use of unrealistic models. Their Abstract offers an indictment of fundamental practices:
"The economics profession appears to have been unaware of the long build-up to the current worldwide financial crisis and to have significantly underestimated its dimensions once it started to unfold. In our view, this lack of understanding is due to a misallocation of research efforts in economics. We trace the deeper roots of this failure to the profession’s focus on models that, by design, disregard key elements driving outcomes in real-world markets. The economics profession has failed in communicating the limitations, weaknesses, and even dangers of its preferred models to the public. This state of affairs makes clear the need for a major reorientation of focus in the research economists undertake, as well as for the establishment of an ethical code that would ask economists to understand and communicate the limitations and potential misuses of their models." [10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_model

and you still think this guy has a crystal ball no one else has???.....

Loren Michael wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:The major corperations have taken over. THe great 1% is claiming more and more of the national wealth. More and more people are slipping into poverty. There is no investment in infrastructure. The country is literally going to collapse.

The only purpose economic forecasts have is that they make astrology respectable, as someone once said.

The economy is recovering now, things are getting better now. Things may head deep south in the future, but it'd be silly to assume that collapse will be the likely outcome of future tension. Future could usher in the votes for politicians in favor of broad reforms. Or not. I don't know, and neither do you.

According to The Pew Research Center, recovery is pretty much limited to the fortunate "seven percent".

Mike_L wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:The major corperations have taken over. THe great 1% is claiming more and more of the national wealth. More and more people are slipping into poverty. There is no investment in infrastructure. The country is literally going to collapse.

The only purpose economic forecasts have is that they make astrology respectable, as someone once said.

The economy is recovering now, things are getting better now. Things may head deep south in the future, but it'd be silly to assume that collapse will be the likely outcome of future tension. Future could usher in the votes for politicians in favor of broad reforms. Or not. I don't know, and neither do you.

According to The Pew Research Center, recovery is pretty much limited to the fortunate "seven percent".

Don't confuse LM with facts, judging by his commentary, he seems quite unable to fathom them.