trickle up poverty

As he said in an earlier post, Reiver is an SME (small and medium enterprise) Consultant, meaning he makes a living by giving advice on economic issues.

There are two ways to make a living doing this, to be clear an accurate, or to be confusing, obscure, and intimidating. The latter is easier in economics, because no one is accurate very often.

Now, of course the consultant will say he is very accurate, that is the beauty of being obscure. They can use references, with several different meaning, then pick those references that "prove" that the client misunderstood his advice, not that he was wrong.

Another element of this strategy is to attack anyone that request clarification. That works for consultants because they know that any manager senior enough to hire them has to rely on underlings to validate the consultant. Those underlings can be intimidated by a consultant who is supposed to be more experience, all the consultant needs to do is as the manager who the idiot is.

 

Yeah I guess that explains it. I like to mess with him because he has a full grasp of what a book told him and knows how to push things without actually seeing that he is just wrong where the proof hits the putting. He refuses to look into anything and I consider him a troll. I have fun with his type

 

I can't be sure that describes Reiver, but it is consistent with his on-line behavior.

I am amused that some consider him an economic expert.

I am further amused that, no matter how moronic he considers his foe of the moment, he keeps replying.

 

That is a troll Looking to get more bites and rile someone up.

He is a tad different though because he seems educated and could add a great bit if he would contribute more than what he does. I mean if he actually understands what he talks about he could explain his views and show on a chart or graph or with raw data why he feels the way he does. It may help him make some sort of case other than the I said so crap.

 

With all he doesn't do, what makes you think he is educated?

 

Indeed I have my doubts.

We uses a number of common cathchphrases from basic macro theory, such as tech innovation. This stuff is decades old.

Then he tells us that developing nations suffer somewhat from the developed nations economies of scale - failing to realise that the developing world is where the factories that use these economies of scale are going.

 

Try and get it right! We'd refer to economies of scale within a dynamic context (summed up, for example, with the notion of the learning curve), referring therefore to a distinction between static and dynamic comparative advantage. This allows us to understand market failure, such as an over-reliance on primary sector product (and explaining results such as the World Bank's finding that trade actually reduces well-being in Sub-Saharan Africa)

 

Perhaps you guys are right. Not so much educated but perhaps well read on theory. He may not have a clue what he is talking about as far as application but he can tell you what principal applies to something even if he has not realized that it may not be applicable to the exact situation.

I have never seen him present a chart, graph or data. All he does is call people stupid and dismiss everything they present. If someone calls him out he throws fluff and retreats. "Raise the shields and get off a volley of photon torpedoes; Scotty get us out of here, maximum warp!!!!"

I will stick with some sort of disorder that impedes social skills. Some sort of ASD perhaps.

 

Basic error. The use of raw data, given the complexities associated with economic relations, would only encourage spurious conclusion. Econometric analysis is paramount.

 

Bang. I was waiting for that. If all you can do is spout theory without data of successful application of the economic theory you speak about what use are you? You troll these threads and ask what? Nothing at all really. You input names and theories that may or may not be applicable to the current situation and what?

You are not intelligent enough to formulate an answer so in your attempt to sound intelligent you say that is not what i wanted or that is not proof. You can spout theory but cant proof it.

You are a troll; guess what? I am a troll hunter. I want to stop the misleading lies spread by your type.

You have nothing, you present nothing so therefore you are nothing.

 

Glad to see you were expecting to be corrected.

Basic error again. Theory is required to ensure data mining is avoided. Its through econometric analysis that the validity of that theory is tested. We've seen that, for example, with your silly misunderstanding of comparative advantage and the ability to test for Heckscher-Ohlin predictions

The rest of your post was rant. Try and focus

 

I challange you yo take current economic data and apply some of your theories and give your outlook.

I want data and a graph or chart.

The proof is in the putting and I think you are full of hot air.

You presented names and theories that were pretty much rendered moot by the current situation. I pointed out your flaw and nothing.

You lose.

 

You don't realise that I constantly refer to the empirical evidence, as shown by the earlier reference to the American Economic Review paper. Now don't get me wrong, we can't always refer to econometric analysis. For example, to understand trade relations we'd have to refer to aspects such as economic history (e.g. Chang's kicking away the ladder, providing details of how economic development and protectionism have been very much linked)

Catch up dear chap!

 

Whos we?

You didnt make any reference to static or dynamic comparative advantage. Nor you refer to any specific countries with their different kinds of product reliance.

And none of these buzz words your throwing around get us any nearer to the point of the OP. So given that you know that fine well the logical conclusion is that really your actually a freshman economics student (dont worry I was one myself long ago) keen to try out his latest reading.

By the way what in your opinion is the real leading edge of economic theoretical research these days?

 

Those that understand comparative advantage

Reference to economies of scale, by definition, leads to a distinction between static and dynamic comparative advantage. Whilst we can continue to reject mercantilist thinking (except in the case of the Keynesian defence), economies of scale ensures forms of failure where we cannot assume the market will deliver the efficient outcome. We of course see that with the empirical evidence, as demonstrated by the reference to the World Bank analysis that shows trade (through resource depletion and pollution costs) can actually reduce a country's well-being.

You merely misrepresented my argument.

Valid economic comment and the OP are incompatible.

Shame you didn't take more creative writing classes. I'd have hoped for a better class of personal attack.

It would be silly to suggest that there is a single 'leading edge', given the multiple disciplines in a clearly interdisciplinary subject area. In terms of trade analysis there isn't much of note. Since new trade theory its been more about testing theory (as we've seen with the empirical investigation into Heckscher-Ohlin). In terms of what I've found useful, I'd refer to the improvements in our understanding of monopsony in labour markets.

 

You would make a great politician. You give a non answer; answer to everything.

Yes or no. Can you chart anything out with the current data and prove any of your BS. It is simple yes or no. Oh; if yes I can supply a data set.

 

Hmmm, does it lead to that distinction? If you were giving a lecture in university would everyone know you immediately were talking of such by merely mentioning econs of scale?

Indeed the market cannot be relied upon. But all youve said is that there are drawbacks to free trade. In what sense is that anything new? Theres hardly a soul in economics or business that could possbily find that surprising. But even one could argue, those countries that deplete their resources and increase pollution still earn alot of capital - so where does that leave you?

Ok then, tell us. How do we in the west retain or increase our wages and life style while also allowing the rest of the world to develop? Thats the OP subject in the format youll surely be happier with.

Aw come on. Its a pretty good try. Since youve proven to be so capable of personalising discussion and rude behaviour shouldnt you be appreciating this effort to get under your skin? Why havent you thanked me?

A leading edge would be the one most likely to best funudamentally change oru understanding in a way that would benefit most people - but you knew that so again youre just being awkward.

But ok, whyve you found monopsony most useful? This should be of some use to the OP subject.

 

The missus is an economics lecturer and, by referring to economies of scale, she'd instantly be shifting her class to an analysis to 'new trade theory'. While we have other aspects of dynamic comparative advantage (see, for example, production life-cycle analysis), economies of scale is the most important for appreciating 'unfair trade' and how the Washington Consensus has damaged economic development (and therefore maintained absolute poverty)

There's nothing new about the approach. Chang's Kicking Away the Ladder, for example, documents how protectionism has been used to enable development in mature economies now demanding a blanket liberalisation approach. This makes your misrepresentation of the argument even more tut-worthy

For the US the focus has to be about eliminating the low skilled equilibrium. That isn't an easy task and will refer to numerous aspects, from the need for more generous welfare payments (which have been found to encourage risk taking behaviour and therefore entrepreneurship) to the replacement of low minimum wages with living wages that encourage a shift of resources away from the use of low paid labour. Trade isn't the problem. Indeed, trade is a vital aspect of eliminating market failures in mature economies (from new trade analysis into monopolistic competition to an appreciation of the innovation process)

It lacked finesse and any attempt at hitting home.

Its only through an understanding of the labour market that we can truly appreciate economic outcome. Monopsony, given the various sources and the different conclusions delivered, has been crucial in fine-tuning our understanding of efficiency

 

I believe your empirical evidence (not just yours but what you present) is without due regard for the current system. I mean by God it should work. All of the information leads us to believe it will work and if the people would cooperate it would work.

When I say there is a flaw in the theory I am speaking of resistance to change. If we had not pushed some of the things we did we could have lower wages and prices. We would be better able to compete but in fact economists and business led us down this road. Americans will resist being forced to change (humans in general resist forced change) when they feel it is not in their best interest. The free world was doing just fine before the current trends and people may have had less but they were happier.

I remember a time before cell phones and pagers. I remember not having a leash for the company to call and I was happy. I remember a time before home computers and email and I was happier.

All of this change is too much for many people and it is biting back. Getting an education and the like to be ready for tomorrows economy does not fly with most people, they cant succeed in college; now they can. We have lowered standards and even have options for pass or fail classes in college. Bull Crap!!! I have had to go back to school (injury not displacement) and what I see graduating scares me.

The entire thing needs scrapped and redone. Some people just want to work and go home to their family. Did anyone ask the people what they wanted? No they did not and that is the problem. People in general are some level of stupid when it comes to what the government and business actually does and who funds this. Hell most would never guess that their money (401k) helped make it possible to send their own job off shore.

 

Given you haven't read it you have no means to critique it. Basic literature review methods for you. You've constructed an argument that is essentially based on deliberately harvesting a skewed knowledge base, where you make blanket claims without any understanding of economic relations

 

Funny I do not see it that way. When you look at the current US financial situation (considering employment, budget deficit, trade deficit, economic outlook and social unrest) what is your opinion. Not some theory by someone else but your opinion.

Use whatever reference you need but lay it out in your words. I want you to cite sources and provide links. I mean you do have the information to prove out all of your fluff do you not?

Back yourself up.

My bet is you cant and will come up with some more crap so I can pick on your ignorance some more.

 

Reiver Choke on this while you are at it. It is not only about productivity which you willfully ignore.

http://www.epi.org/page/-/pdf/scotttestimony-chinesestateownedenterprises.pdf

This is who the report was made to: http://www.uscc.gov/

 

One uses data within empirical specification. That's quite distinct from what the fellow was asking for

 

I see you avoided me. Revier = Fail. You have proven yourself impotent.