tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post6599577774786571322..comments2024-03-29T02:19:19.866-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Lars P. Syll — What’s the use of economics?mike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-25307641919454480722018-07-21T04:23:14.284-04:002018-07-21T04:23:14.284-04:00Tom Hickey
Economics is the true theory about how...Tom Hickey<br /><br />Economics is the true theory about how the economic system works, with truth well-defined as material/formal consistency. Instead of filibustering about the right methodology it would be more effective to practically apply it and to report what new insights you have achieved. As J. S. Mill said: “Doubtless, the most effectual mode of showing how the sciences of Ethics and Politics may be constructed, would be to construct them . . . “<br /><br />Instead of doing serious scientific work, you are promoting already falsified theories and scientifically incompetent economists.<br /><br />A philosopher is supposed to contribute to the growth of scientific knowledge. As a soapbox philosopher (= Sophist in Plato’s terms) you are only heightening the already outsized heap of proto-scientific BS.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-HandtkeAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-2103336403857746162018-07-20T12:27:14.489-04:002018-07-20T12:27:14.489-04:00Bill Black gives himself away when he refers to th...Bill Black gives himself away when he refers to the banks as "our banks" and, while concerned about how owners and management rob banks, has never expressed, to my knowledge, any concern about how banks, even when legally and "prudently" run, themselves rob and destroy, via government privilege, the rest of society.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-36539754085844487912018-07-20T12:01:45.847-04:002018-07-20T12:01:45.847-04:00Bill Black is a financial forensics expert, so his...Bill Black is a financial forensics expert, so his legal and operational analysis has extremely high relevance for analyzing operational crises from that perspective, as well as examining regulatory failure, potential issues owing to arrangements and behaviors, etc. <br /><br />His opinions regarding political matters are his personal views. He has no special expertise there. Nor does he have an inside track as far as I know.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-85973709867268354262018-07-20T11:53:02.039-04:002018-07-20T11:53:02.039-04:00Matt Franko
Questions for Matt Franko and other c...Matt Franko<br /><br />Questions for Matt Franko and other certified cargo cult scientist.<br /><br />From the axiomatically correct Profit Law for the open economy with government and profit distribution follows the AXEC balances equation (i) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)−(Q−Yd)=0#1 which compares directly to the MMT balances equation (ii) (I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M)=0.#2<br /><br />(a) Which of the equations satisfies the scientific criteria of material and formal consistency?<br /><br />(b) Why do economists/mathematicians with a university training not know the correct answer?#3<br /><br />(c) How could it happen that academics propagate a provably false balances equation in their seminars and in public?<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-Handtke<br /><br />#1 Wikimedia, Profit Law and Balances Equation<br />https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AXEC143.png<br /><br />#2 Down with idiocy!<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2017/12/down-with-idiocy.html<br /><br />#3 Truth by definition? The Profit Theory is axiomatically false for 200+ years<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/07/truth-by-definition-profit-theory-is.htmlAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-84983168040460734032018-07-20T11:18:17.097-04:002018-07-20T11:18:17.097-04:00Tom, looks like your boy there is a Rossophobe or...Tom, looks like your boy there is a Rossophobe or maybe needs some information on the dialectic method:<br /><br />http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2018/07/the-three-impossible-things-trumps-base-must-believe-before-breakfast.htmlMatt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-83104013758513410662018-07-20T11:11:50.080-04:002018-07-20T11:11:50.080-04:00To follow up on that, imputation of a single cause...To follow up on that, imputation of a single cause or even a single root cause appears to be simplistic. A lot of factors came together at a critical point to generate the crisis.<br /><br />Only in very simple situations is there a single causal factor. Even in science and engineering, many functions have multiple independent variables, for example. Identifying the appropriate variables is part of the craft of doing science and engineering.<br /><br />Oversimplifying and overgeneralization are two big reasons from analytical failure.<br /><br />Preference for a single cause is a cognitive bias.<br /><br />Operational analysis using methods like RCA is necessary to avoid it.<br /><br />The first step is discovery but putting everything relevant into the mix before performing analysis on it.<br /><br />Divergent thinking before convergent thinking.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-35604235519051617202018-07-20T11:05:28.610-04:002018-07-20T11:05:28.610-04:00there has been under-performance yes (CB asset pur...<i>there has been under-performance yes (CB asset purchases limiting bank risk assets) but no systemic issues... </i> Franko<br /><br />There's no doubt that systemic risk for the private credit cartel AS A WHOLE can be entirely eliminated via enough government privilege* so that the systematic looting of the poorer by the richer can continue - until it can't and Divine Judgement ensues.<br /><br />Read the Old Testament, Franko, for what God thinks about oppression of the poor and what He has done about it in the past.<br /><br /><br />*e.g. <a href="http://moslereconomics-kg5winhhtut.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/pdfs/Proposals.pdf" rel="nofollow">Warren Mosler: Proposals for the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and the Banking System</a>Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-46646804459737864822018-07-20T11:02:10.318-04:002018-07-20T11:02:10.318-04:00There was a constellation of causal factors and at...There was a constellation of causal factors and attendant conditions that came to together to produce a systemic crisis.<br /><br />There is a hierarchy of causes from root causes at the foundation to the attendant conditions.<br /><br />I am not aware of any of the institutions involved that conducted an RCA.<br /><br />Being political, neither did Congress.<br /><br />Neither did the regulators or the central banks.<br /><br />At least, if anyone did they did not reveal in publicly and kept any changes make private.<br /><br />I conclude nothing was done analytically or by way of addressing the issues other than superficially for cosmetic purposes.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-58372037017312444432018-07-20T10:56:48.229-04:002018-07-20T10:56:48.229-04:00Tom his whole “control fraud!” schtick is textbook...<i>Tom his whole “control fraud!” schtick is textbook art process where you come up with the theory FIRST and THEN look for situation to back fit it...</i> <br /><br />I'm waiting for you to debate Bill Black on that.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-71548862163821030402018-07-20T10:43:19.499-04:002018-07-20T10:43:19.499-04:00The Western liberal tradition is about replacing t...The Western liberal tradition is about replacing theology and philosophy with science as the arbiter of knowledge, with science being based on the assumption of naturalism instead of supernaturalism. The residual is belief and opinion.<br /><br />Naturalism holds that everything about the universe that can be known scientifically is based on applying reason to observation in formal quantitative models that depend measurement. <br /><br />This knowledge is express in scientific theories that provide causal explanations of natural events. When theory is well-established by experiments, the result of which are reputable, the causes discovered are called "laws of nature."<br /><br />The sciences have a lot of other implications and produce byproduct through their application as technology, but the purpose of science is knowledge discovery. For example, engineering is not a scientific discipline. Engineering is a set of methods applicable to different subject matter to yield desired output based on applying scientific method along with technical methods and instruments.<br /><br />The residual after the application of scientific inquiry to natural phenomena and events is human constructs, and these are to be dealt with using operational analysis. This is not part of science, since it doesn't involve causal explanation based on laws of nature discoverable through scientific method. <br /><br />Nevertheless rigorous methodology can be developed to deal with this large and important area, for example, legal theory and the study of law. There is a legal theory based on natural law, but very few people today think that natural law in this sense is equitable with the laws of nature that are the result of scientific discovery. Many more view the natural law theory as the residue of medieval thought, where the concept was a key aspect of rationalizing theology.<br /><br />Methods, training, notations, and the like are used in scientific method, operational analysis and other disciplines that involve rigor. <br /><br />Scientific method, training, are not scientific disciplines, nor is logic or math. These are methods and instruments that are used in scientific disciplines, protocol-scientific disciplines, quasi-scientific disciplines and also pseudoscience, which narrative or speculation dressed up to look like a scientific endeavor. They are used in other disciplines as well, without this application constituting a scientific discipline as a consequence, since key criteria in the definition of "scientific discipline" are not met.<br /><br />This is discussed and argued in philosophy of science, philosophy of logic, and philosophy of math, for example. There is a sizable body of literature in each of these fields, and abundant controversy, too.<br /><br />What I stated in summary above is therefore an attempt to summarize the general attitude rather than deal with the details of the controversies. There are those that argue, for example, that science should include supernaturalism in addition to naturalism, but that is a minority view.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-70981434408142370162018-07-20T10:32:35.422-04:002018-07-20T10:32:35.422-04:00Tom his whole “control fraud!” schtick is textbook...Tom his whole “control fraud!” schtick is textbook art process where you come up with the theory FIRST and THEN look for situation to back fit it...Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-41812824452185717292018-07-20T10:18:38.381-04:002018-07-20T10:18:38.381-04:00Egmont your comments wrt “science” have no value i...Egmont your comments wrt “science” have no value if you are not trained in science...Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-17316622474197864132018-07-20T10:11:04.445-04:002018-07-20T10:11:04.445-04:00Simple fraud Tom... hang the perps on a cross and ...<i>Simple fraud Tom... hang the perps on a cross and move on...<br /><br />there has been no systemic issues now going on 10 years... <br /><br />there has been under-performance yes (CB asset purchases limiting bank risk assets) but no systemic issues...</i> <br /><br />That's not what Bill Black has documented.<br /><br />Maybe you could debate him on this.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-79426243880480652752018-07-20T10:09:56.659-04:002018-07-20T10:09:56.659-04:00That’s like saying aviation isn’t technical becaus...<i> That’s like saying aviation isn’t technical because it is legally governed by the FAA..</i> <br /><br />Poor comparison.<br /><br />Aviation is partly regulated legally but also partly based on the laws of nature used in aeronautical engineering.<br /><br />This is not the cause with either the monetary system, which is a human construct established in custom an law, and, a fortiori, accounting as the constructed procedure fo keeping records in a unit of account. There are no laws of nature that apply.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-349015715306139562018-07-20T09:52:51.066-04:002018-07-20T09:52:51.066-04:00Matt Franko
What’s the use of economists?
It wou...Matt Franko<br /><br />What’s the use of economists?<br /><br />It would certainly be a good thing if economists could increase scientific knowledge about how the monetary economy works. They have done nothing of the sort in the last 200+ years.<br /><br />Does Tom Hickey’s and Matt Franko’s blather about methodology and the curriculum at Wharton and elsewhere contribute to anything that is of interest to anybody?<br /><br />No, not at all, as far as scientific knowledge is concerned. But to filibuster about God, his wife, his poor qualification, and the rest of the world is a tried and tested method to distract from the point at issue. The point at issue is that MMTers are failed/fake scientists and that MMT is (i) proto-scientific garbage, and (ii), a political fraud.<br /><br />While economists are useless for science, even the dumbest moron is useful as a sand sack in political warfare.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-HandtkeAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-62494412956824106922018-07-20T08:42:41.570-04:002018-07-20T08:42:41.570-04:00Egmont what discipline were you trained in and how...Egmont what discipline were you trained in and how? <br /><br />What are your technical qualifications?<br /><br />Or did you roll out of the womb already thinking of your illustrious Accounting equation by random chance mutation?<br />Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-69811030543283811872018-07-20T08:05:54.078-04:002018-07-20T08:05:54.078-04:00Andrew Anderson
You say: “I’d first ask what’s th...Andrew Anderson<br /><br />You say: “I’d first ask what’s the use of the Fundamental Accounting Equation, Assets=Equity+Liabilities, with Liabilities that are largely a sham?”<br /><br />The Fundamental Accounting Equation Assets=Equity+Liabilities is methodological garbage that proves only one thing: economists are too stupid for the elementary logic/mathematics that underlies macroeconomic accounting. The formally correct equation reads Equity≡Assets−Liabilities.#1<br /><br />For 200+ years, economists do not understand what science is all about and what the subject matter of economics is. This includes Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, Walrasianism, Keynesianism, Marxianism, Austrianism, MMTers, Lars Syll, Tom Hickey, Matt Franko and you.<br /><br />Egmont Kakarot-Handtke<br /><br />#1 Wikipedia and the promotion of economists’ idiotism (II)<br />https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/07/wikipedia-and-promotion-of-economists.htmlAXEC / E.K-Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10402274109039114416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-67214707200743642732018-07-20T06:32:14.780-04:002018-07-20T06:32:14.780-04:00"LOL there hasn’t been any trouble with them ..."LOL there hasn’t been any trouble with them since 2009 or so... going on 10 years... <br /><br />Like Wells Fargo?"<br /><br />Simple fraud Tom... hang the perps on a cross and move on...<br /><br />there has been no systemic issues now going on 10 years... <br /><br />there has been under-performance yes (CB asset purchases limiting bank risk assets) but no systemic issues...Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-24549968648193349952018-07-20T06:14:01.544-04:002018-07-20T06:14:01.544-04:00“The unit of account is established by law, as wel...“The unit of account is established by law, as well as accounting procedure and standards. Not scientific.“<br /><br />That’s like saying aviation isn’t technical because it is legally governed by the FAA... Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-91440649336003098762018-07-20T05:11:52.482-04:002018-07-20T05:11:52.482-04:00LOL there hasn’t been any trouble with them since ...<i>LOL there hasn’t been any trouble with them since 2009 or so... going on 10 years...<br /><br />In fact they are kicking ass and are over capitalized by couple 100 billion and quarterly profits are up over 30%.... </i> Franko<br /><br /><i><b>perennial</b> meaning: 1. lasting a long time, <b>or happening repeatedly</b> or all the time: 2. a plant that lives for more than two years. </i> from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/perennial [bold added]<br /><br />Not that the damage the banks do is limited to themselves nor does not occur even while the banks prosper*.<br /><br /><i>“As a partridge that hatches eggs which it has not laid, so is he who makes a fortune, but unjustly; in the midst of his days it will forsake him, and in the end he will be a fool.”</i> Jeremiah 17:11<br /><br />Jeremiah 17:11 sounds like a reoccurring story with the banks and bankers to those who know a little history ...<br /><br />*e.g. the automation of the public's jobs away with what is, in essence due to government privilege, the public's credit but for private gain.Andrew Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14296407661618321637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-70514859225624301092018-07-19T21:59:26.482-04:002018-07-19T21:59:26.482-04:00The unit of account is established by law, as well...The unit of account is established by law, as well as accounting procedure and standards. Not scientific.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-49613063982335104032018-07-19T21:56:19.694-04:002018-07-19T21:56:19.694-04:00They’re like measurement systems imo Tom... They’re like measurement systems imo Tom... Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-69404284355110123432018-07-19T21:31:36.458-04:002018-07-19T21:31:36.458-04:00Aristotle said that noumisa was man-made. Actuall...Aristotle said that noumisa was man-made. Actually, noumisma falls under custom and law, which contemporary lawyers assert, especially those that understand MMT. <br /><br />Noumisa is not generated naturally but by institutional arrangements that are relative to the zone in which a form of noumisma is used.<br /><br />Conversely theoretical science is about causal explanation of the natural world, and applied science, such as engineering and medicine, is use of this theoretical knowledge practically to achieve results by harnessing causes.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-41286312855878581122018-07-19T21:00:38.449-04:002018-07-19T21:00:38.449-04:00Well I wouldn’t put correct knowledge of numismati...Well I wouldn’t put correct knowledge of numismatic system operations in the category of “policy science”... it’s technical... it’s ideally taught via a pure science methodology...Matt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-16192595663701505032018-07-19T20:43:35.016-04:002018-07-19T20:43:35.016-04:00Now it may be and often is true that people are se...Now it may be and often is true that people are selected to for jobs for which they have not been adequately trained even though they are trained rigorously in their field. Asking a lawyer to do the work of an engineer isn't likely to turn out well and vice versa.<br /><br />The is a an issue in a liberal democracy where political selection is based on popularity rather than competence. <br /><br />Conversely, China 's traditional system (Mandarinism) is based on meritocracy. T his is A big reason that China is pulling ahead. This system is curiously similar to Western militaries and corporations but not politics and therefore not government either, except at the level of the civil service.<br /><br />The reason that Western nations work with the governments they have is pretty much owing to the bureaucracy that is presided over by political appointees but functions seamlessly across administrations, owing to the continuity and expertise of the civil service.<br /><br />Western countries do have top schools that train policy types rigorously. But there is as yet no policy science, although it is so labeled. But it is clear from the outcome that it is more craft than science, like business.<br /><br />Very often "successful" people are just lucky, in that they can't repeat their successful record with any regularity.<br /><br />Engineers don't get lucky building bridges that don't collapse.Tom Hickeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08454222098667643650noreply@blogger.com