How About Krugman's Words for 9/11/11?

#127
#127
nbakerld said:
You say this as fact, but you can't substantiate it. Theory does not support it. If you are going to protect us from foreign competition, it's the same principle as protecting us from technology, or supporting minimum wage, etc. It's a way to artificially make us feel wealthier while reducing standard of living. Concentrating benefits and diffusing costs does not make us wealthier.
Click to expand...
Of course it can be substantiated, but you don't want to look or refuse to look in the right places because your theoretical world, which uses too few variables, might get upset.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#128
#128
BigPapaVol said:
Of course it can be substantiated, but you don't want to look or refuse to look in the right places because your theoretical world, which uses too few variables, might get upset.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Link?

Actually, I am certain that there are too many variables to properly substantiate your claims. You might show some correlation, but nothing is conclusive.
 
#129
#129
nbakerld said:
Link?

Actually, I am certain that there are too many variables to properly substantiate your claims. You might show some correlation, but nothing is conclusive.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the causation vs. correlation be an issue for your side of the argument as well?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#130
#130
TennTradition said:
Wouldn't the causation vs. correlation be an issue for your side of the argument as well?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Yes. There is value in data, but it's anything but conclusive. I believe that when it comes to economics, sound theory is best for decision making.
 
#131
#131
nbakerld said:
Yes. There is value in data, but it's anything but conclusive. I believe that when it comes to economics, sound theory is best for decision making.
Click to expand...

If the externalities and multitude of variables make it difficult to even understand the data, then how can we really expect the theories which cannot capture all of these factors to actually be paragons of truth (and sufficient to describe, by themselves alone, actual observations) as it seems you hold them up to be?

It's like taking the theory of global warming and saying that this means the earth must warm as long as CO2 increases. Of course that isn't true, as we have seen. There are other important variables and externalities that must be included to make relevant observations or predictions (such as sun activity, cloud cover, water vapor concentration, etc.).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#132
#132
TennTradition said:
If the externalities and multitude of variables make it difficult to even understand the data, then how can we really expect the theories which cannot capture all of these factors to actually be paragons of truth (and sufficient to describe, by themselves alone, actual observations) as it seems you hold them up to be?

It's like taking the theory of global warming and saying that this means the earth must warm as long as CO2 increases. Of course that isn't true, as we have seen. There are other important variables and externalities that must be included to make relevant observations or predictions (such as sun activity, cloud cover, water vapor concentration, etc.).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

But global warming is related to hard science. Economics is not a hard science, but they try their damndest to turn it into a lab-testing science. It's very imperfect. It has value, but basically both Keynesians and Monetarists can "prove" whatever they want with numbers. It's misleading.

Praxeology is a branch of economics. It's basically what economics was before econometrics and laboratory testing.

Praxeology is the study of human action. Praxeology rejects the empirical methods of the natural sciences, because the observation of how humans act in simple situations cannot predict how they will act in complex situations.
Click to expand...

Praxeology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
#133
#133
I was trying to at least give the theories some credit. My point is how, then, can you cling so tightly to the economic theories as actual indicators of the effect of policy decisions when there are externalities and variables the theories cannot account for? You seem to hold the theory up as "it must be this way" and pick the data that could support it with no evidence of actual causation. I understand governments must enact policy with imperfect information and trust in a general theoretical approach. But, that doesnt mean we as individuals can't appreciate that there are massive amounts of nuance rather than stating absolutes about something of which we are clearly not absolutely certain. You seem to ride the jock of economic theory fairly hard without leaving that much room for externalities.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#134
#134
TennTradition said:
I was trying to at least give the theories some credit. My point is how, then, can you cling so tightly to the economic theories as actual indicators of the effect of policy decisions when there are externalities and variables the theories cannot account for? You seem to hold the theory up as "it must be this way" and pick the data that could support it with no evidence of actual causation. I understand governments must enact policy with imperfect information and trust in a general theoretical approach. But, that doesnt mean we as individuals can't appreciate that there are massive amounts of nuance rather than stating absolutes about something of which we are clearly not absolutely certain. You seem to ride the jock of economic theory fairly hard without leaving that much room for externalities.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Maybe an example would help. I'm not sure of your usage of externalities.

BTW, the proper process for econometricians is to come up with theory, and then test it in the lab. If theory "cannot account for all the externalties and variables" as you say, neither can the data.
 
Last edited:
#137
#137
nbakerld said:
Maybe an example would help. I'm not sure of your usage of externalities.
Click to expand...

Just go back to the NAFTA discussion. One theory is that free trade will always enhance your wealth (at least, I think that was the argument earlier). The data is not clear on that at all with regard to NAFTA. What other variables matter here that aren't factored into the free trade theory? What other policies may be acting as externalities that place a forcing on the outcome? By externalities, I basically mean factors not included in the theory or model.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#138
#138
Paul Krugman said, "if Obama called for endorsing motherhood,
Republicans in the House would oppose it." I'm not sure that
"pro choice" Democrats ought to be saying things like that.

Paul Krugman said, "the public should want what I want, but
it doesn't." Now THAT'S what I'd call an honest Obama 2012
campaign slogan.
 
#139
#139
obamacare-only-money.jpg


opposingmotors.jpg
 
#140
#140
TennTradition said:
Just go back to the NAFTA discussion. One theory is that free trade will always enhance your wealth (at least, I think that was the argument earlier). The data is not clear on that at all with regard to NAFTA. What other variables matter here that aren't factored into the free trade theory? What other policies may be acting as externalities that place a forcing on the outcome? By externalities, I basically mean factors not included in the theory or model.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Yeah. I kind of figured that's what you meant, but I was confused because economically speaking, externalities are the spillover (positive or negative) results of our actions.

Praxeology is not based on observations, it's based on logic. If it were based on observations than you have to account for a wide variety of variables. What I'm saying is that Free Trade leads to more wealth, regardless of what else is going on in the market places, ceterus peribus.
 
#141
#141
nbakerld said:
Link?

Actually, I am certain that there are too many variables to properly substantiate your claims. You might show some correlation, but nothing is conclusive.
Click to expand...

there aren't too many variables to substantiate anything. You can reason through the pertinent variables to understand that the theory doesn't adequately handle free trade as a macro decision within the framework of the overall benefit for a nation. In fact, it really only well handles single markets which presumably operate independently of other markets and the true decision variable is solely production cost. You cannot possibly think that fully impounds all of the implications of pure free trade.
 
#142
#142
BigPapaVol said:
there aren't too many variables to substantiate anything. You can reason through the pertinent variables to understand that the theory doesn't adequately handle free trade as a macro decision within the framework of the overall benefit for a nation. In fact, it really only well handles single markets which presumably operate independently of other markets and the true decision variable is solely production cost. You cannot possibly think that fully impounds all of the implications of pure free trade.
Click to expand...

It just doesn't make sense that we can get wealthier by charging ourselves higher prices. If anybody can explain how that's possible, I'll be happy to give protectionist data more creedence.
 
#143
#143
nbakerld said:
It just doesn't make sense that we can get wealthier by charging ourselves higher prices. If anybody can explain how that's possible, I'll be happy to give protectionist data more creedence.
Click to expand...

It makes as much sense as assuming that we can get wealthier by giving away the labor market. You're not at all acknowledging that the likelihood is that we lose, via friction, much of the benefit of super cheap labor unless it is in massive bulk. If it's in massive bulk, we have an enormous population of people put on the bench. The costs, to our economy, of benched people is huge.
 
#144
#144
BigPapaVol said:
It makes as much sense as assuming that we can get wealthier by giving away the labor market. You're not at all acknowledging that the likelihood is that we lose, via friction, much of the benefit of super cheap labor unless it is in massive bulk. If it's in massive bulk, we have an enormous population of people put on the bench. The costs, to our economy, of benched people is huge.
Click to expand...

But we're not giving it away, we're losing it because we're not good enough. We're buying the superior product of our own free will. And in the long run American workers move into other industries where we excel.

NAFTA made available cheaper food which lessens the % of our income we have to dedicate to food. This is especially beneficial to the poor. With trade restrictions, everybody pays higher prices, and a few people reap the benefits (those whose jobs were protected). If there were no protectionism, those people lose their jobs, creating a short run speed bump...then they move into industries that are more useful to us...thus increasing wealth even further.
 
#145
#145
nbakerld said:
Yeah. I kind of figured that's what you meant, but I was confused because economically speaking, externalities are the spillover (positive or negative) results of our actions.

Praxeology is not based on observations, it's based on logic. If it were based on observations than you have to account for a wide variety of variables. What I'm saying is that Free Trade leads to more wealth, regardless of what else is going on in the market places, ceterus peribus.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I shouldn't have used externality in this context in this discussion.
 
#146
#146
nbakerld said:
But we're not giving it away, we're losing it because we're not good enough. We're buying the superior product of our own free will. And in the long run American workers move into other industries where we excel.

NAFTA made available cheaper food which lessens the % of our income we have to dedicate to food. This is especially beneficial to the poor. With trade restrictions, everybody pays higher prices, and a few people reap the benefits (those whose jobs were protected). If there were no protectionism, those people lose their jobs, creating a short run speed bump...then they move into industries that are more useful to us...thus increasing wealth even further.
Click to expand...

I'm shocked that you can't see the enormous assumptions underlying this analysis and the variables that it ignores.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#147
#147
TennTradition said:
How effective do you think we would have been in spotting OBL's courier and following him to OBL via humint if OBL were living in an unfriendly Afghanistan where we had no operational freedom?

In addition, the CIA targeters were moved to FOBs like Khost for a reason. Proximity to targets and working relationships with special forces on the ground. Putting pressure on the enemy and securing staging areas as well as the requisite operational freedom were all parts of taking the fight to Afghanistan.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Absent data to make evaluations with, 'how effective think' would be pure conjecture. Wouldn't it?
 
#148
#148
BigPapaVol said:
I'm shocked that you can't see the enormous assumptions underlying this analysis and the variables that it ignores.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Isn't any analysis, by definition, forced to rely on assumptions and ignore variables? I mean, a real world system can only be completely modeled by a model as complex as the original system. In other words, there can be no reduction of complexity without determining which variables to ignore and which ones to include. Right?
 
#149
#149
RespectTradition said:
Absent data to make evaluations with, 'how effective think' would be pure conjecture. Wouldn't it?
Click to expand...


If you aren't aware, at least go some degree, of how the intelligence was obtained, who obtained it, and the usefulness of that intelligence, then it would likely be conjecture. With a general understanding of that information, it is not. I would think you would at least have enough pieces of that information to understand how having OBL on the run into Pakistan and our ability to operate there combined with the intelligence gained from multiple sources about Al Qaeda communication systems (intelligence that was gathered from persons apprehended when taking Afghanistan or on operations launched from FOBs set up in Afghanistan) made the strike against OBL possible.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#150
#150
TennTradition said:
If you aren't aware, at least go some degree, of how the intelligence was obtained, who obtained it, and the usefulness of that intelligence, then it would likely be conjecture. With a general understanding of that information, it is not. I would think you would at least have enough pieces of that information to understand how having OBL on the run into Pakistan and our ability to operate there combined with the intelligence gained from multiple sources about Al Qaeda communication systems (intelligence that was gathered from persons apprehended when taking Afghanistan or on operations launched from FOBs set up in Afghanistan) made the strike against OBL possible.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I guess I just have more faith in our ability to develop intelligence about where someone is. Elint is very effective. I have never been offered any evidence by our government that this approach was the only way or even the best way. All we have are assertations. Like Obama talking about all the jobs we would have lost without the stimulus. You can't prove a negative. I do know this. One man's life is not worth the number of Americans dead or the number of others we have killed, nor is his life worth the monetary cost. Therefore, I reject the invasion of Afghanistan as the correct approach, up and until I am presented with evidence that no other approach could have worked.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top