Friday, March 29, 2013

The Inevitable Convergence of Credentialism, Creationism and all Pseudo-Logic

Commentary by Roger Erickson

In an article behind a paywall at the WSJ lies an interesting article - blatantly.

IMF Cites Hidden Price of Energy Subsidies  Wall Street Journal - Mar 28, 2013

In that article, one "David Meyer Wessel" ... a "well known economics journalist [and Economics Editor,] with The Wall Street Journal and a Pulitzer prize winner and author," adds the following, grossly errant presumptions.

"Problem one: Governments from the U.S. to Egypt to Japan are running big, unsustainable budget deficits. Problem two: Global governments are finding it tough to agree on an efficient, fair way to head off climate change."


So it's not just us! The whole world is, in fact, running out of fiat. Must we faithfully accept - like sycophants absorbing Creationist literature - what is quite obviously a logical fallacy? Must we accept illogic as nevertheless "true," simply because a Pulitzer Prize winning credentialist tells us it is?

Who ya gonna believe. Logic, or Credentialist Emperors devoid of even a stitch of logic?  How long do we wait before some kid accidentally blurts out that the Credentials have no logic?

Maybe all those logical fallicists at Lake Wobegone will be the ones to call the fiat debts, once we have nothing "left" in virtual banking reserves?

Weepin' Buddha on a Decline! We needn't bother even bringing in the Mad Hatter to advise on policy. The words used in policy pronouncements don't even have to mean precisely what lobbyists want them to mean. Why, they needn't represent any coherent meaning whatsoever!

The immediate "Problem One" here is that the Economics Editor of the WSJ seems to know exactly squat about the most basic fiat currency operations and banking operations.

This is amazing. You know your country is screwed when the most exalted experts fall into the lunacy of spewing data rendered meaningless by total lack of context.

In response, Econ Prof. Brad Lewis of Union College replied by email:
"The summary sentence, of course, should be, 'from New York to Cairo to Japan, governments are enabling their private sectors to save more with safe net financial assets, after a long period of over-leveraging.' Somehow my [1st year econ] students can understand that. Why can't journalists?"

Indeed, Brad. Indeed.  And why not economics editors too?

We may as well all get busy asking repeatedly. More informed journalists are apparently gonna' be a long time coming, so we need a growing chorus of people either asking those questions, or voting with their feet, and interacting proportionally more with the people in this world who already can and do understand basic fiat currency operations.


Anonymous said...

Check this out:

This might interest you Tom. It's to do with economics and maths, ergodicity/non-ergodicity, financial stabilty, and inequality.

Fascinating stuff, not that I really understood much of it!

Unknown said...

Journalists eon't understand it because their interests lie in not understanding. The know their bread is buttered by people with specific economic ideas (people they idolize, because money = good). So how can those people be wrong?

Matt Franko said...

"the people in this world who already can and do understand basic fiat currency operations"


There are only about 1,000 of us I would say.... Out of 7 billion humans.


Roger Erickson said...

Just when I was picking my jaw up off the floor, this article came in

BoJ governor Haruhiko Kuroda warns Japan debt ‘not sustainable’

Since the time of John Law, there has been a steady and significant stream people who understood the "nature of coin, credit and circulation."

Is that fraction just being overwhelmed by blind-faith believers?

Roger Erickson said...

Re Gresham College's efforts, John Law didn't need that much math, and Warren Mosler sums it well when he says: [paraphrased, can't immediately find the original quote]

"We can send people to the moon and cram unbelievable electronics into cell phones ... but we can't understand something as simple as a spreadsheet called our fiat currency system?"

Tom Hickey said...

There are only about 1,000 of us I would say

And even that might be generous. There are many people who sound like they get it, until.....

Matt Franko said...


Back in Law's day, they were on metallic standards. They may have understood that system ie 'get the metals', but they had NO VIEW AT ALL OF STATE CURRENCIES, none.

See Hamilton's Federalist 12 eg.

Knowledge of state currency systems, which the ancient Greeks termed 'nomisma', requires a view of Authority, which the ancient Greeks termed, 'exousia'.

Jesus measured one's 'faith' by one's ability to recognize this 'exousia' or 'authority'.

These people, who you accuse of having 'blind faith', have NO FAITH AT ALL.

They simply cannot see that we humans have been set under this authority to operate our monetary system via lawful fiat like we (those of us 'in paradigm') can.

WE are the ones who have been given 'faith'.

OURS is the view towards the truth of the mathematics and economic justice via this Authority.

WE have the 'faith', they have almost no faith at all.