commentary by Roger Erickson
This term combines archaic economics and modern systems engineering.
It recognizes that the austerity path taken to quickly gut a nation, as in the Greek Disaster, will rarely, if ever, be the same path taken during the course of recovery ... if recovery even occurs.
Austerity plus hysteresis => Austeresis.
Of course, the whole purpose of agile, adaptive, social species and advanced human cultures has been to introduce enough options to take any path we select, between any economic states we want to occupy. Note, however, the selection requirement. How about YOU getting a whole lot more selective about whom you vote for, what and how you read, and what policies you support?
So while Austeresis is a frequent, real phenomenon, it is an entirely voluntary phenomenon coincidental to mass psychosis, a condition otherwise known as persistent, pernicious orthodoxy in a changing world.
Here is a typical remark from an Austrian ideologue in reply to Bill's article, "Why would any nation want to join the Eurozone?"
ReplyDeleteTo get rid of any obligation to think or learn, just label something "keynesian reckless spending," which of course will bankrupt everyone.
----------------
The author's solution is not that the PIGS should embrace austerity, but that the Dutch and Germans should embrace reckless spending in a Keynesian orgy of excess -- and become equally bankrupt. Who will pay workers more when they will accept less? That leaves quantitative easing. Where has that ever worked? Certainly not in the U.S.
So my view is that if the Eurozone is to survive, Germany has to radically alter its approach to its own economic structure. It has to start paying its own workers more to ensure that real wages keep pace with productivity growth, which would serve to stimulate domestic domestic demand the demand for imports.
More Germans have to be given access to the resources necessary for them to enjoy lovely sunny vacations down in the Greek isles.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"out of curiosity, who are you voting for in November? And why?"
ReplyDeleteAnyone who is a member of neither political gang, even if I have to write one in.
Because I perceive political parties as the root of our current problems.
They have to go, and it won't happen overnight. We don't need parties, since they only restrict policy discourse, exactly when our number of distributed tasks requiring rapid decisions is proliferating.
Political parties are simply another aspect of Central Planning.
If you want your vote to count for something, pick some goal that actually has some meaning. Then when it comes to principle, stand like a rock. :)
Roger, Why do you keep repeating the word “agile”? If you are saying it’s a good idea for government to act quickly as and when needed, no one can quarrel with that. But that just begs the question as to what the right responses and policies are in any given situation, and that’s often where the $64k questions and problems lie. I.e. it’s not always easy to get agreement on what to do.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, Obama was able to react in an “agile” way to the rape and murder of the U.S. ambassador by Muslims in Libya because it was blindingly obvious to 99% of the population what his response needed to be: to deplore the savagery.
So what’s the relevance of the word “agile”. I don’t get it.
'what’s the relevance of the word “agile”. I don’t get it.'
ReplyDeleteWhat part of Adaptive Rate don't you get?
In common use, "agile" denotes appropriate + rapid responses to the demands of any situation. No matter how fast people execute mal-adpative responses, we don't call them agile.