The Keynesian Nightmare Continues...

[BigPapaVol]

i was an economics major at one of the most liberal schools in the country and I assure you this garbage wasn't taught as fact there. except when laura tyson came for a guest lecture. . .

she has bought the rich guy at the expense of the poor hook, line and sinker. I was actually lucky enough to sit through a lecture from her and threw up, but she is damn well convinced.

I simply asked her how any economy that encourages large swaths of frictional expense can be self perpetuating. She tried to explain frictional folks as having a role and deserving, but it was garbage. She knew it and we knew it. In the end, she's saying we the lubricators just have to provide more lubricant.

 

[MG1968]

i was an economics major at one of the most liberal schools in the country and I assure you this garbage wasn't taught as fact there. except when laura tyson came for a guest lecture. . .

are you familiar with Dr. John Parnell? He teaches economics at UNC Pembroke. He's a regular guest on one of my favorite talk radio shows. Brilliant guy.

here's his blog site

 

[droski]

Nope, but i'm well out of academia.

 

[KB5252]

You, my friend, need an economic dictionary.

A zero sum game is when one person's success comes at the expense of another. Like poker. My win comes at your loss. Capitalism is by definition the opposite of a zero sum game. When I win, it's because others win by freely engaging with me. For instance, if I buy a gallon of gasoline, Chevron and I both win. Chevron gets $3 which they valued more than the gallon of gasoline, and I got a gallon of gasoline that I valued more than my $3.

The same goes for employment. When I take a job, no matter how awful conditions may be, I am choosing to work their because the wage > my time + working conditions + best alternative job.

Zero sum only comes into play when government force is involved. For instance, Uncle Sam takes from my wages to pay for someone's social security benefit. I lose, they win.

A cartel by definition is suppliers colluding to set prices of goods and services. Unions are cartels who supply labor, and they set the price accordingly. You may say labor unions are different than OPEC, but no matter what you say they are still cartels.

I have stayed out of this discussion because economics is not something I know much about but this post has summed up everything in a very common sense and factual manner.

You would be great at explaining economic and market ideas theories and principles to young people. When BPV goes off on a tangent I'm usually lost after the first sentence or two.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I have stayed out of this discussion because economics is not something I know much about but this post has summed up everything in a very common sense and factual manner.

You would be great at explaining economic and market ideas theories and principles to young people. When BPV goes off on a tangent I'm usually lost after the first sentence or two.

that's my issue. I rarely go back and read, which is a really bad idea when I write on here almost 100% stream of consciousness and expect people to follow my train of thought.

My bad.

 

[utgibbs]

come on. Some people are wealthy, BECAUSE others are poor. No viable alternative explanation. Hell, Laura Tyson says it all the time, so it must be true.

It's true.

What I can't find for an image is the amount of foreign tribute (read, wealth funneled from elsewhere, thus impoverishing others). I can give a citation.

 

[droski]

she has bought the rich guy at the expense of the poor hook, line and sinker. I was actually lucky enough to sit through a lecture from her and threw up, but she is damn well convinced.

I simply asked her how any economy that encourages large swaths of frictional expense can be self perpetuating. She tried to explain frictional folks as having a role and deserving, but it was garbage. She knew it and we knew it. In the end, she's saying we the lubricators just have to provide more lubricant.

i saw here right after she resigned from clinton's economic council when she took over haas and i was truly blown away that these were the type of people a supposed pro business democrat was getting his key advice from. i had never really experienced such partisanship from an economics prof before. really makes you wonder if clinton wouldn't have been obama #2 if given the chance.

 

[KB5252]

that's my issue. I rarely go back and read, which is a really bad idea when I write on here almost 100% stream of consciousness and expect people to follow my train of thought.

My bad.

Not your bad at all. You are having a debate with other posters on a topic which you are obviously knowledgeable. When you lack everything but basic knowledge on a particular topic it is best that you stay out of the discussion (which is exactly what I've done). I've learned some things but don't have the understanding required to comment or add to the discussion.

Bottom line is if I want to engage in discussions on this topic I need to have much more than just a rudimentary understanding. The onus is on me.

 

[droski]

It's true.

if a very small group is taking from a much larger group shouldnt' median wages be dropping consistantly rather than rising? you do know the difference between average and median right?

 

[utgibbs]

You, my friend, need an economic dictionary.

A zero sum game is when one person's success comes at the expense of another. Like poker. My win comes at your loss. Capitalism is by definition the opposite of a zero sum game. When I win, it's because others win by freely engaging with me. For instance, if I buy a gallon of gasoline, Chevron and I both win. Chevron gets $3 which they valued more than the gallon of gasoline, and I got a gallon of gasoline that I valued more than my $3.

The same goes for employment. When I take a job, no matter how awful conditions may be, I am choosing to work their because the wage > my time + working conditions + best alternative job.

Zero sum only comes into play when government force is involved. For instance, Uncle Sam takes from my wages to pay for someone's social security benefit. I lose, they win.

A cartel by definition is suppliers colluding to set prices of goods and services. Unions are cartels who supply labor, and they set the price accordingly. You may say labor unions are different than OPEC, but no matter what you say they are still cartels.

I hate to give you a Lee Corso, but not so fast my friend.

What you are describing is a market exchange. It has nothing to do with Capitalism. If I go to Cuba and buy a cigar, the exact same mutually beneficial exchange takes place (well, I don't smoke, but you should understand the point).

But any trading (speculation, if you prefer) is certainly a zero-sum game. You cannot have stock / currency / future winners without losers. That's just fact.

 

[droski]

You cannot have stock / currency / future winners without losers. That's just fact.

who loses when the stock market goes up? the number of people long is far greater than the number of people short.

 

[n_huffhines]

I hate to give you a Lee Corso, but not so fast my friend.

What you are describing is a market exchange. It has nothing to do with Capitalism. If I go to Cuba and buy a cigar, the exact same mutually beneficial exchange takes place (well, I don't smoke, but you should understand the point).

But any trading (speculation, if you prefer) is certainly a zero-sum game. You cannot have stock / currency / future winners without losers. That's just fact.

Market exchange IS capitalism. Free enterprise, capitalism, the free market, whatever you want to call it, it's contingent on free exchange in the market place. You can find elements of free exchange in any economy. I don't even really consider America a free market economy. We actually rank below Canada in economic freedom now (which explains our economic woes, I'd say). Ouch.

Trade is exchange, but that's beside the point. If I buy a house for $200K now from you and in a year it's worth $300K, you didn't lose. It was worth it to sell at $200K, otherwise you wouldn't have sold. Conversely, the housing bubble crashed and the house loses $50K of value, that sucks for me, but it wasn't a zero sum game. My expectation is what I paid for. My expectation turned out to be wrong, but it was a risk I was willing to take. The fact that there are "losers" doesn't mean it's a zero-sum game. It just means there are risks in investing or starting your own business.

 

[sjt18]

gibbs... there will be winners and losers regardless of the system. The capitalist/free market approach simply results in more winners than losers. Your approach assures that a majority will lose and only the politcally favored elite will do better than they otherwise would have. Perhaps it makes you feel better when everyone that you can see loses together?

IMHO, the only appeal to what you propose is that it satisfies the base urges of jealousy, envy, and coveting.

 

[sjt18]

please consider it. If gibbs is an example of the tripe that's currently being fed into college students, folks like you are desperately needed.

One of my best friends from HS was a conservative Republican who went to UNC. UNC prides itself on being the most liberal school in the south. I used to tease him alot but he had an interesting comment.

He said that the students were subjected to very liberal instruction by liberal professors... but by the age of 30 most realized it was a bunch of bunk that didn't work in the real world.

But then there are the true believers who somehow avoid running up against the realities of the world as it is. They never learn that the theories of those who taught because they couldn't "do" simply do not work in practice.

 

[n_huffhines]

gibbs... there will be winners and losers regardless of the system. The capitalist/free market approach simply results in more winners than losers. Your approach assures that a majority will lose and only the politcally favored elite will do better than they otherwise would have. Perhaps it makes you feel better when everyone that you can see loses together?

Yeah, and as I was trying to explain...losers ≠ zero sum game, which is counter to his original point. A loser in a zero sum game is somebody who has their $ taken from them. A loser in capitalism is somebody with whom people choose not to exchange. There's a HUGE difference.

 

[BeecherVol]

Yeah, and as I was trying to explain...losers ≠ zero sum game, which is counter to his original point. A loser in a zero sum game is somebody who has their $ taken from them. A loser in capitalism is somebody with whom people choose not to exchange. There's a HUGE difference.

So basically the difference is,

1. You can have it stolen from you by the government.

or

2. You can lose/gain it do to bad/good management on your part.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

How dare any one you question gibbs and a Fulmer government run utopia....

 

[CSpindizzy]

I got it!!!! Fulmer is a Keynesian coach!!! Explains EVERYTHING!

 

[sjt18]

Yeah, and as I was trying to explain...losers ≠ zero sum game, which is counter to his original point. A loser in a zero sum game is somebody who has their $ taken from them. A loser in capitalism is somebody with whom people choose not to exchange. There's a HUGE difference.

Capitalism is not a zero sum game though. The very fact of increasing wealth precludes it from being that. Some commodities markets are nearly zero sum games but still the increase in demand due to population precludes that.

Do you or anyone know gibbs background? He still posts like the limits of his experience are defined by the covers of someone's theoretical book or the walls of a lecture hall.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I thought gibbs was cash vallian........ the guy who told us his family wouldn't be here without gov't programs saving them.

 

[n_huffhines]

Capitalism is not a zero sum game though. The very fact of increasing wealth precludes it from being that. Some commodities markets are nearly zero sum games but still the increase in demand due to population precludes that.

Do you or anyone know gibbs background? He still posts like the limits of his experience are defined by the covers of someone's theoretical book or the walls of a lecture hall.

That's a great point that I failed to make cause I was so focused on his notion of "losers".

 

[BigPapaVol]

I hate to give you a Lee Corso, but not so fast my friend.

What you are describing is a market exchange. It has nothing to do with Capitalism. If I go to Cuba and buy a cigar, the exact same mutually beneficial exchange takes place (well, I don't smoke, but you should understand the point).

But any trading (speculation, if you prefer) is certainly a zero-sum game. You cannot have stock / currency / future winners without losers. That's just fact.

Not it isn't. You don't know jack about derivatives and trading. Both sides of many derivative contracts benefit. Both sides were benefiting in credit default swaps. Hell, pure interest swaps happen all the time to match payouts and risk profiles. You might brush up on your facts, especially regarding your zero sum analysis in an economy without a fixed money supply.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[gsvol]

she has bought the rich guy at the expense of the poor hook, line and sinker. I was actually lucky enough to sit through a lecture from her and threw up, but she is damn well convinced.

I simply asked her how any economy that encourages large swaths of frictional expense can be self perpetuating. She tried to explain frictional folks as having a role and deserving, but it was garbage. She knew it and we knew it. In the end, she's saying we the lubricators just have to provide more lubricant.

[/IMG]

i saw here right after she resigned from clinton's economic council when she took over haas and i was truly blown away that these were the type of people a supposed pro business democrat was getting his key advice from. i had never really experienced such partisanship from an economics prof before. really makes you wonder if clinton wouldn't have been obama #2 if given the chance.

Are you just now figuring that out??

Who paid for Clinton's trip to Moscow and lodging in a posh hotel back when he was a student at Oxford??

When Clinton had a democrat congress he hiked taxes more than any president in American history.

I don't see how capitalism is a zero-sum game. Everyone has an opportunity to create wealth through the creation of goods or services... Who is losing when things are being created?

We're all losing when more government jobs that don't produce anything are created and those performing those jobs for the most part hinder the rest who are actually producing some product or service.

Great point. India banned sewing machines (sadly led by Ghandi) and it ensured that their economy remained stagnant. The best minds in India come here. Thanks Ghandi.

You seem to have a very good handle on economics and have turned this thread into something interesting rather than the boring thing it was.

As for Ghandi I grew up thinking quite highly of him but after studying more about him I find for the most part he was a sorry piece of crap in my opinion.

The myth and the man are two quite different things, just like Che Guevara and Nelson Mandela for instances.

Ghandi was a real coward when it came to dealing with the muslims and caused great harm to his fellow countrymen by not standing up to them.

 

[utgibbs]

Market exchange IS capitalism. Free enterprise, capitalism, the free market, whatever you want to call it, it's contingent on free exchange in the market place. You can find elements of free exchange in any economy. I don't even really consider America a free market economy. We actually rank below Canada in economic freedom now (which explains our economic woes, I'd say). Ouch.

Trade is exchange, but that's beside the point. If I buy a house for $200K now from you and in a year it's worth $300K, you didn't lose. It was worth it to sell at $200K, otherwise you wouldn't have sold. Conversely, the housing bubble crashed and the house loses $50K of value, that sucks for me, but it wasn't a zero sum game. My expectation is what I paid for. My expectation turned out to be wrong, but it was a risk I was willing to take. The fact that there are "losers" doesn't mean it's a zero-sum game. It just means there are risks in investing or starting your own business.

No. You can argue that more of these beneficial exchanges take place under capitalism than any other system, but it has nothing to do with Capitalism.

Again, same thing happens in Cuba. You can argue it doesn't happen as much as it would under a Capitalist system, but it does happen.

It seems clear from the data that a lot more of these mutually beneficial exchanges were taking place during the Keynes years. Note real wages and home ownership....

 

[utgibbs]

Not it isn't. You don't know jack about derivatives and trading. Both sides of many derivative contracts benefit. Both sides were benefiting in credit default swaps. Hell, pure interest swaps happen all the time to match payouts and risk profiles. You might brush up on your facts, especially regarding your zero sum analysis in an economy without a fixed money supply.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Hence they're "toxic" assets. :crazy:

I can see you haven't done a lot of IPOs regarding zero-sum analysis. In addition, just take a look at the data; why can't real wages grow along with elite economic power grow? Why? It's not a zero-sum game!

You are saying this can happen. It didn't. Elite economic power fell during a period of real wage growth and real wealth distribution? Why?

Why?

Why?

I haven't even busted the foreign tribute data on yo azz yet.