Confusing the current economic crisis engineered by neo-liberalism and trade isn't cunning. Note that you fellows are struggling to refer to any! Your argument, for example, is on a par with mercantilist argument (rejected since Smith and Ricardo)
I already knew you couldn't refer to an empirical study in support of your 'reality'. No need to confirm it
I can present articles but they will not be good enough. The only organizations that you hold faith in are the puppet organizations that make money off of telling their masters what they want to hear. If I show you the numbers you say you want a study. I can read numbers and a chart I do not need it interpreted for me. What you ask is for something that you can easily dismiss because that is what you do. If it does not fit you models it is wrong. I see the models in action and they are harmful. http://www.economist.com/node/21532339 An yes I have an email sub and I do keep up. And the article is from neutral to siding with you. But do you deny this?
Please give authors, year, title, journal and page numbers. Cheers! The China Syndrome paper is an improvement, but it achieves little for the thread. We know that trade with labour abundant countries can hinder worker outcome. This doesn't reflect trade. This reflects a form of Anglo-Saxon capitalism that is less capable of shifting resources towards higher human capital (be it a means to eliminate structural unemployment/underemployment or change in the skills mix through upskilling). You fellows whine at the wrong issue and those benefiting from economic rents created through underpayment (nice vocab for exploitation) are awfully busy patting you on the head
You don't understand one thing. It is what we want and how we want to live. It is being taken away and ticking people off. The power is ultimately the people and though I disagree with many about the solutions I do see the problems they see. You can float every theory you want but sociology and anthropology are the wings of social science that need be applied here with a hint of psychology; not economics. Forget the econ science and just observe the human factors and you can see why we have a problem.
Economics studies people and how they react in the market. You literally describe exactly what economics is, and then say we should NOT use economics to come to a solution.
You are so petty that you pull one line to reply to. What was I talking about? I have taken plenty of stinking social science and used it in management. I am telling you econ can not trump the aspirations of human beings. We do not need you. Again I want to point out I am not in agreement with the tactics of the OWS movement and I am not one of them. Dollar votes people dollar votes. Sorry I realized I could be mistaken for a walker.
But that part is not being applied; human reactions were not even considered and I know what econ is.
I'm not an economist, nor do I find your comments of any use. Economics is the premier social science because it encompasses them all. Rather than acknowledging reality, you've gone for rant. Fair enough, if that helps you through your bounded rationality...
Not really. I find the conversation stimulating. Sure I will rant for reaction but other than that I am not bothered by it. I got mine. Really there are two sides to this and I just feel mine explains it better than yours alone. I differ from many of the radicals out there though because though I may agree with them about the problems I blame the American populous for those problems. Hell the guys that OWS blames simply took advantage of the greed and stupidity of the American public.
There isn't two sides. There are multiple political economic schools of thought and then there is the non-economic whinge. Disregard of, for example, the neoclassical orthodoxy gives no excuse for tantrum foot stamping
Sure got you going. And as I said main street trumps anything you got. I (darn near everyone) see the problems. I accept that what I learned in economics was completely correct; human reactions are the flaw in economics.
Only economic content gets me going on here. The rest is fluff Bobbins. You confuse Econ 101 with the discipline which, by definition, includes behavioural economics
After I got done with Econ 212 I gave up on it as it was all fluff and non functional BS. Only in a perfect world can Econ. theory really work. It is great at explaining what did happen and it is an awesome tool for predicting what can and should happen but the worse case scenarios get ignored way too much. It all sounds good and looks good but I can not deny what I see.
So you're foot stamping because you don't understand the discipline? How tedious. Try some night classes and then try and type with knowledge
I understand it just fine I just see what that line of thinking can do when not balanced with common sense.
Then why does it not work? I guess this mess is what was predicted? Economists should have known this; wait they had a good suspicion about what would happen. http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/20041007/default.htm Also the number of economists who see things like I (many; perhaps most) do is growing. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_06/b4070032762393.htm So you see why I say trash the psyco babble Econ that is practiced on a broken model is just nonsense. If it worked for the working man it would be great. It does not work you can only show me numbers about how it works and how it has worked but the who it has actually benefited long term you will not admit. Only the "TOP" got off with big returns. And the economists who said this was good? OOPS well we will get it right next time. Line them up and shoot them. Cannon fodder is all they are good for. Now care to tell me why they did not take a conservative approach to this? I mean you said they could predict these things. Some did predict it and they were ignored for the easily predictable short term gains.
It? There's no simplicity with the discipline, as shown by the conflicting (which aids vibrancy in analysis) schools of thought. You're not making any sense as you're making comment based on ignorance of economic comment. Its therefore bland rant
Not a rant and the "it" is the current economic model and I think you knew that. And now that is this a side step, a back step or a blatant dodge. I made a reply showing even the Fed knew there were potential issues and then I give some information about other economists agreeing with my stance and all you can say is it is a blatant rant. HMMMM? "Scotty raise the shields and get us out of here at maximum warp; we are out gunned" is what I hear from you. EDIT: Thought I would add this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/economics-vs-fakeonomics_b_720327.html
Economics, when boiled down, is simply human reactions to the market. You can't consider economics without considering people's reaction....that's what drives the market after all.
Economic theory doesn't always work because it's impossible to consider the millions of different variables and externalities. It's just like Finance. In theory the stock market should be perfectly efficient with everyone having the same information and acting on it properly. In reality, it's impossible for everyone to have the same access to information/expertise. When you combine systematic risk into the equation there's a lot of unknowns. People also forget the market is a zero sum game.
I do not disagree. There was a risk that most people were ignorant of. There were warnings that this may happen and they were ignored. The future is uncertain as it always has been but I do not need an econ lesson about what is a failed model. Hey it may still work but it needs a helluva lot of tweaking before the serfs completely rebel. This country was not founded in such a way that the people should be treated as cattle but Reiver seems to think people are not worth the effort. The people have all the power and we need not forget it.
I was in defensive mode; sorry for the harsh reply. Econ. IMHO is the most flawed of the social sciences not because of theory but because of many of the people applying it.
