SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

January 13th, 2012, 8:56 am

The Worst Economic Recovery Since The Great Depression
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

January 13th, 2012, 9:01 am

 
User avatar
CrashedMint
Posts: 2591
Joined: January 25th, 2008, 9:12 pm

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

January 13th, 2012, 11:22 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperIt might be argued that without Obama it could have been even worse. Who knows?
 
User avatar
EBal
Posts: 431
Joined: May 20th, 2005, 1:30 pm

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

January 13th, 2012, 12:26 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperThe Worst Economic Recovery Since The Great DepressionI think we deserve to read essays of somewhat better quality.
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

January 13th, 2012, 1:17 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: CrashedMintQuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperIt might be argued that without Obama it could have been even worse. Who knows?I thought you knew !Pelosi- Without Obama's Stimulus Unemployment Would Now Be 15% If you follow the Austrian school of economics, you will know that Obama has been making the same intervenionist mistakes as were made in the Hoover/FDR new deal.If it hadn't been for WW2, FDR would never have got the US out of the great depression
 
 
User avatar
farmer
Posts: 13462
Joined: December 16th, 2002, 7:09 am

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

January 13th, 2012, 3:51 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: CrashedMintIt might be argued that without Obama it could have been even worse. Who knows?That is the defense of every left-wing policy. Will there ever be an outcome better than promised for which this argument doesn't have to be offered?Left-wing people try to eliminate any scientific control groups with a single global government. But where actual comparisons of policies are possible, they select any example that suits their preconception, rather than looking at the examples objectively to test their preconception. This is natural and rational behavior, nobody expects left-wing politicians to commit suicide. But in some cases they actual believe the nonsense which they cherry-pick their examples to support. Is there a left-wing person who would ever believe that gun control leads to increased gun crime?QuoteThere is no possible reply to these heads-I-win-and-tails-you-lose assertions, except to note that they would justify any policy on any subject anywhere, regardless of its empirically observed consequences.I could kill someone, and it might be argued that if I hadn't run up with a gun he would have stumbled in front of a moving bus and died even sooner. He might have shot himself. Somebody else might have shot him, somebody who we didn't even know was there. Who knows??? Never mind that I promised he would live to be 100...QuoteIn short, no matter what happens, the vision of the anointed always succeeds, if not by the original criteria, then by criteria extemporized later - and if not by empirical criteria, then by criteria sufficiently subjective to escape even the possibility of refutation.Why would left-wing people want an idiot President who is only a success if you suspend reality, and then suspend reality to pretend he is a success? Because they hate wealth and love abortion.
Last edited by farmer on January 12th, 2012, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
gardener3
Posts: 1496
Joined: April 5th, 2004, 3:25 pm

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

January 13th, 2012, 4:28 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperIf you follow the Austrian school of economics, you will know that Obama has been making the same intervenionist mistakes as were made in the Hoover/FDR new deal.If it hadn't been for WW2, FDR would never have got the US out of the great depressionAnd how did WW2 end the depression? Through massive government spending and intervention? If you actually follow Austrian economics, you would not think that WW2 ended the great depression. Ludwig von Mises: "War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings."
 
User avatar
CrashedMint
Posts: 2591
Joined: January 25th, 2008, 9:12 pm

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

January 13th, 2012, 4:30 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerQuoteOriginally posted by: CrashedMintIt might be argued that without Obama it could have been even worse. Who knows?That is the defense of every left-wing policy. Will there ever be an outcome better than promised for which this argument doesn't have to be offered?because it's a valid argument: I can't know with certainty that Obama had a relatively positive effect on the economy, and you can't know with certainty that Obama had a negative effect on economy. We have only one "run" of the last years and it's with Obama steering while the tea party tries to burn the ship, just to show him. Do I think Obama did everything right? Of course not, but to simply shout that it's all Obamas fault is really too simple.
 
User avatar
Polter
Posts: 2526
Joined: April 29th, 2008, 4:55 pm

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

January 13th, 2012, 7:08 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: farmerQuoteOriginally posted by: CrashedMintIt might be argued that without Obama it could have been even worse. Who knows?That is the defense of every left-wing policy. Will there ever be an outcome better than promised for which this argument doesn't have to be offered?Oh, don't you know that, it's about building up productive capacity for the future! ;-)
 
User avatar
zerdna
Posts: 3856
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

January 14th, 2012, 2:38 am

QuoteAnd how did WW2 end the depression? Through massive government spending and intervention? If you actually follow Austrian economics, you would not think that WW2 ended the great depression. Ludwig von Mises: "War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings."Arguing with crash mint is like beating babies, i'll let others do that. The above I'll argue with. I hear this sermon often from the followers of the cult of Krugmanianity. People somehow think that nothing ever happens in the world except printing more money (good), or not enough money (bad). It's not ever looking into how money/efforts would be spent, it's just demanding that some government carpet bombs everyone with money, after which the world will magically transform into a better place, just like the myth of WW2 curing depression because of government investing in Drezden carpet bombing. How about WW2 changed the world? War pushed people to do things they never did before. Women didn't work before it, they started during the war all over the world and kept on. That's almost doubling of the labor force. New technologies came about or were developed -- computers, airlines, electronics, rockets, advances in radio technology, nuclear power, highways, new industrial infrastructure. People changed in other ways -- they started to make babies more. Post WW2 years is famous baby boom in the US -- in 1946 more than twenty times more babies were born than in 1943. Marriage age dropped and marriage rate skyrocketed. Change of demographics then changed future economics. All of these were effects of the war, but not of the kind that would be simply caused by arbitrary indiscriminate government spending.
Last edited by zerdna on January 13th, 2012, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

January 14th, 2012, 2:38 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaQuoteAnd how did WW2 end the depression? Through massive government spending and intervention? If you actually follow Austrian economics, you would not think that WW2 ended the great depression. Ludwig von Mises: "War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings."Arguing with crash mint is like beating babies, i'll let others do that. The above I'll argue with. I hear this sermon often from the followers of the cult of Krugmanianity. People somehow think that nothing ever happens in the world except printing more money (good), or not enough money (bad). It's not ever looking into how money/efforts would be spent, it's just demanding that some government carpet bombs everyone with money, after which the world will magically transform into a better place, just like the myth of WW2 curing depression because of government investing in Drezden carpet bombing. How about WW2 changed the world? War pushed people to do things they never did before. Women didn't work before it, they started during the war all over the world and kept on. That's almost doubling of the labor force. New technologies came about or were developed -- computers, airlines, electronics, rockets, advances in radio technology, nuclear power, highways, new industrial infrastructure. People changed in other ways -- they started to make babies more. Post WW2 years is famous baby boom in the US -- in 1946 more than twenty times more babies were born than in 1943. Marriage age dropped and marriage rate skyrocketed. Change of demographics then changed future economics. All of these were effects of the war, but not of the kind that would be simply caused by arbitrary indiscriminate government spending.Well said! I was going to write a post about WW2 creating a strong motivator for productive behaviour (in contrast to social spending which often creates disincentives for productive behaviour) but find that you've already said most of what I was going to write.
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 60253
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

January 14th, 2012, 4:05 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaQuoteAnd how did WW2 end the depression? Through massive government spending and intervention? If you actually follow Austrian economics, you would not think that WW2 ended the great depression. Ludwig von Mises: "War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings."Arguing with crash mint is like beating babies, i'll let others do that. The above I'll argue with. I hear this sermon often from the followers of the cult of Krugmanianity. People somehow think that nothing ever happens in the world except printing more money (good), or not enough money (bad). It's not ever looking into how money/efforts would be spent, it's just demanding that some government carpet bombs everyone with money, after which the world will magically transform into a better place, just like the myth of WW2 curing depression because of government investing in Drezden carpet bombing. How about WW2 changed the world? War pushed people to do things they never did before. Women didn't work before it, they started during the war all over the world and kept on. That's almost doubling of the labor force. New technologies came about or were developed -- computers, airlines, electronics, rockets, advances in radio technology, nuclear power, highways, new industrial infrastructure. People changed in other ways -- they started to make babies more. Post WW2 years is famous baby boom in the US -- in 1946 more than twenty times more babies were born than in 1943. Marriage age dropped and marriage rate skyrocketed. Change of demographics then changed future economics. All of these were effects of the war, but not of the kind that would be simply caused by arbitrary indiscriminate government spending.Well said! I was going to write a post about WW2 creating a strong motivator for productive behaviour (in contrast to social spending which often creates disincentives for productive behaviour) but find that you've already said most of what I was going to write. Weird view of life.The only problem is that 50 million people were not able to reap the fruits.What did WWI deliver?
 
User avatar
Fermion
Posts: 4486
Joined: November 14th, 2002, 8:50 pm

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

January 14th, 2012, 4:06 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaQuoteAnd how did WW2 end the depression? Through massive government spending and intervention? If you actually follow Austrian economics, you would not think that WW2 ended the great depression. Ludwig von Mises: "War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings."Arguing with crash mint is like beating babies, i'll let others do that. The above I'll argue with. I hear this sermon often from the followers of the cult of Krugmanianity. People somehow think that nothing ever happens in the world except printing more money (good), or not enough money (bad). It's not ever looking into how money/efforts would be spent, it's just demanding that some government carpet bombs everyone with money, after which the world will magically transform into a better place, just like the myth of WW2 curing depression because of government investing in Drezden carpet bombing. How about WW2 changed the world? War pushed people to do things they never did before. Women didn't work before it, they started during the war all over the world and kept on. That's almost doubling of the labor force. New technologies came about or were developed -- computers, airlines, electronics, rockets, advances in radio technology, nuclear power, highways, new industrial infrastructure. People changed in other ways -- they started to make babies more. Post WW2 years is famous baby boom in the US -- in 1946 more than twenty times more babies were born than in 1943. Marriage age dropped and marriage rate skyrocketed. Change of demographics then changed future economics. All of these were effects of the war, but not of the kind that would be simply caused by arbitrary indiscriminate government spending.That's a straightforward straw man argument that is irrelevant to the topic. Neither Gardner (nor anyone else here) suggested "carpet-bombing" with money. It doesn't require much intelligence to distinguish that from investment in infrastructure that encourages new technology, stimulates employment and encourages people to make babies. The only question at issue here is whether or not private capital will provide that investment alone or whether government has to help (and in what way). But I guess that is too difficult an idea for a simpleton to grasp.
Last edited by Fermion on January 13th, 2012, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
gardener3
Posts: 1496
Joined: April 5th, 2004, 3:25 pm

Obama to be nominated for nobel laureate in economics ?

January 14th, 2012, 5:40 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaQuoteAnd how did WW2 end the depression? Through massive government spending and intervention? If you actually follow Austrian economics, you would not think that WW2 ended the great depression. Ludwig von Mises: "War prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague brings."Arguing with crash mint is like beating babies, i'll let others do that. The above I'll argue with. I hear this sermon often from the followers of the cult of Krugmanianity. People somehow think that nothing ever happens in the world except printing more money (good), or not enough money (bad). It's not ever looking into how money/efforts would be spent, it's just demanding that some government carpet bombs everyone with money, after which the world will magically transform into a better place, just like the myth of WW2 curing depression because of government investing in Drezden carpet bombing. How about WW2 changed the world? War pushed people to do things they never did before. Women didn't work before it, they started during the war all over the world and kept on. That's almost doubling of the labor force. New technologies came about or were developed -- computers, airlines, electronics, rockets, advances in radio technology, nuclear power, highways, new industrial infrastructure. People changed in other ways -- they started to make babies more. Post WW2 years is famous baby boom in the US -- in 1946 more than twenty times more babies were born than in 1943. Marriage age dropped and marriage rate skyrocketed. Change of demographics then changed future economics. All of these were effects of the war, but not of the kind that would be simply caused by arbitrary indiscriminate government spending.There is a difference between short term cyclical variation and long term growth. Things that you mention relate to long term growth. They won't explain why with the same productive capacity a country goes from 5% to 25% unemployment, or will be able to recover from a depression. We can't for instance fuck our way out of the current recession by producing more babies. Short-term, it was government spending that ended the depression by putting idle capacity to use. But I'd agree with austrians that this has in no way led to prosperity or welfare improvements. It's just bad accounting. Putting half your young capable workforce into military to fight and die is a sure way to reduce unemployment, but no one would argue that this is welfare improving. Population growth drops during wartime. Replacing male workers with unskilled inexperienced female workers will surely lead to significant drops in productivity in the short term. Sure, there are innovations in technology during wartime, but if you look at total factor productivity growth, it's almost always lower when countries are at war. This notion that during war we became more prosperous is non-sense. The long term growth impact of the war is harder to assess since we don't observe the counter-factual. But when you do comparisons you have to 1) compare to the alternative (e.g. no war) 2) the impact of the war on population growth, tech innovations, female participation on the MARGIN (e.g. what % of the increase in female participation after 1945 is due to WW2 vs. increase in clerical jobs, wider use of contraception, etc.), 3) compare to the costs of WW2 (e.g. expected production and innovations from millions who have died, massive destruction of property and productive resources, psychological, social and political impact of the war on productive capacity, etc.). So, if you look at the marginal impact of the war on tech innovations, female participation in the workforce, etc. and compare to alternatives as well as the costs, there is no way that WW2 resulted in net economic growth in the short-term or the long-term.
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On