And dumpy still thinks The Economist is "famously far left"

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Yes, the economic policies espoused by The Economist requires government intervention in the market. They'll argue in favor of regulation or deregulation based strictly on whether or not they believe it to be "more efficient."

that's how everyone beyond the far left and the far right economists tend to evaluate policies, marginal analysis.


Friedman/U of Chicago haven't argued for zero regulations but have argued for fewer regulations because they believe particular regulations are not the optimal solution.

You can take Friedman's seminal paper on the causes of the Great Depression as an example, he criticized the Fed not for intervening in the market but for failing to properly intervene in the market and his solution was to propose a rule-based system that would take the place of the Fed and set the interest rate based on a variety of macroeconomic indicators.

Does that sound like deregulation to you or just a different sort of regulation, specifically a regulation Friedman (and others) believed would be more efficient and remove human error/bias from the equation?

no man is an island, dooby

there is no such thing as being an individualist when you rely on others for goods/services
when you argue for a completely unregulated market, you are essentially asking for bubble/burst accompanied with vertical and horizontal monopolization. We have already seen the results of these kinds of philosophies 100 years ago here in the united states.

Originally Posted by TseTse

But wouldnt you say the AEA is more academic whereas NBER is more "applied" types?

not really, NBER researchers tend to be a subset of AEA members. Most NBER researchers are also professors at various universities

There are around 18,000 members of the AEA (down from 20k in 2003) but probably only about 1-2k researchers at NBER, the majority of which are members of the AEA

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

That's what the Chicago economists suggest. Again, I am rather detached from them. My position is that there needs to be a separation between government and economy because that's the right thing to do, the only moral solution.

I accept this argument. If you're making these claims on moral/ideological grounds then there really is no arguing with you since everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I don't agree with your opinion, but hey that's diversity.

I thought you were making the oft-repeated argument that government regulation always leads to a less efficient economy which is completely retarded.

obama's policy only looks good in percentage form\graphs...

Start applying the real numbers and you take hundreds of thousands of dollars from the top and give something like 10 bucks a week to the bottom, sometimes less.

Originally Posted by Kizzak

not really, NBER researchers tend to be a subset of AEA members. Most NBER researchers are also professors at various universities

There are around 18,000 members of the AEA (down from 20k in 2003) but probably only about 1-2k researchers at NBER, the majority of which are members of the AEA

I'm saying NBER seems to be more "applied" oriented and thus less theory.

Originally Posted by Kizzak

that's how everyone beyond the far left and the far right economists tend to evaluate policies, marginal analysis.


Friedman/U of Chicago haven't argued for zero regulations but have argued for fewer regulations because they believe particular regulations are not the optimal solution.

You can take Friedman's seminal paper on the causes of the Great Depression as an example, he criticized the Fed not for intervening in the market but for failing to properly intervene in the market and his solution was to propose a rule-based system that would take the place of the Fed and set the interest rate based on a variety of macroeconomic indicators.

Does that sound like deregulation to you or just a different sort of regulation, specifically a regulation Friedman (and others) believed would be more efficient and remove human error/bias from the equation?

I assure you that he's not familiar with Friedman.

Originally Posted by Kizzak

that's how everyone beyond the far left and the far right economists tend to evaluate policies, marginal analysis.


Friedman/U of Chicago haven't argued for zero regulations but have argued for fewer regulations because they believe particular regulations are not the optimal solution.

You can take Friedman's seminal paper on the causes of the Great Depression as an example, he criticized the Fed not for intervening in the market but for failing to properly intervene in the market and his solution was to propose a rule-based system that would take the place of the Fed and set the interest rate based on a variety of macroeconomic indicators.

Does that sound like deregulation to you or just a different sort of regulation, specifically a regulation Friedman (and others) believed would be more efficient and remove human error/bias from the equation?

Yes, and I said on page 2 (or 3) that Chicago economists are neoclassical.

Wanna try again?

-slightly related: I like how Neocon Francis Fukuyama is changing his tune: Fukuyama: The End of America Inc | Newsweek Business | Newsweek.com takes a blow to American empire that we won't recover from, I guess.

That aside just to say that as soon as more Republicans change their tune (albeit because they have to, like church people conceding at long last that the earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around) ****ing guillotine bait like triple and wild fire will come around also. Their model of parroting whatever their prophets tell them to say guarantees it.

Originally Posted by TseTse

I assure you that he's not familiar with Friedman.

I'm very much familiar with Friedman. In fact, Kizzak mentioned Friedman's piece on the Great Depression. That was good, though I prefer a few others:

America's Great Depression, by Murray Rothbard: http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=0945466056

Causes of the Economic Crisis, by Ludwig Von Mises: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/73692789

Prices and Production, by Friedrich A von Hayek: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/721813

The Great Depression, by Lord Robbins: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/164629347


The schools of thought espoused in there range from Chicago to Austrian, from Keynes to Mises, from neoclassical to rational. Like I said, I don't agree wholly with either schools, but I prefer Austria over Chicago.

Wow. I'm disappointed in the economist. That is a seriously flawed study and to publish it in that way is a very partisan move. It's sad to see journalism slide into the ****ter over an Omaba infatuation.

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Yes, and I said on page 2 (or 3) that Chicago economists are neoclassical.

Wanna try again?

didn't read the second or third page, I saw something you said where you suggested that chicago economists always are for less regulations and I was correcting that.

the vast majority of economists are neoclassical, so what you are doing is taking a philosophical divide between the austrian school and just about everyone else and call that a left versus right leaning economic outlook, essentially creating your own arbitrary partisan divide at which point sure I guess you could call it a left-leaning publication. But then 95% of people and publications would be left leaning.

By the same token, the far left (socialist economists) could do the same thing and call 95% of people and publications right-leaning.


Based on the average american voter's economic values, I'd call it a right leaning publication
Based on the median economist's ideal economic policies, I'd say it is fairly centrist

Originally Posted by fartiusstinkius

I accept this argument. If you're making these claims on moral/ideological grounds then there really is no arguing with you since everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I don't agree with your opinion, but hey that's diversity.

I thought you were making the oft-repeated argument that government regulation always leads to a less efficient economy which is completely retarded.

No, I am against it on moral principle, and I will gladly defend that position to the best of my ability against anyone who (incorrectly) thinks I'm wrong.


Hypothetically, if I could prove to a Keynesian that murder is an "efficient" means of population control or that America's peculiar institution was an "efficient" means of reducing the costs of farming prior to the industrial revolution, would the Keynesian advocate murder or slavery in those contexts? I would like to think that your average Keynesian would disagree with legislating either of those, efficiency and statistics be damned.

Originally Posted by Kizzak

didn't read the second or third page, I saw something you said where you suggested that chicago economists always are for less regulations and I was correcting that.

the vast majority of economists are neoclassical, so what you are doing is taking a philosophical divide between the austrian school and just about everyone else and call that a left versus right leaning economic outlook, essentially creating your own arbitrary partisan divide at which point sure I guess you could call it a left-leaning publication. But then 95% of people and publications would be left leaning.

By the same token, the far left (socialist economists) could do the same thing and call 95% of people and publications right-leaning.

Correct. Like I also said on page 2 or 3, the mainstream itself is left-leaning.

Originally Posted by Kizzak

that's how everyone beyond the far left and the far right economists tend to evaluate policies, marginal analysis.


Friedman/U of Chicago haven't argued for zero regulations but have argued for fewer regulations because they believe particular regulations are not the optimal solution.

You can take Friedman's seminal paper on the causes of the Great Depression as an example, he criticized the Fed not for intervening in the market but for failing to properly intervene in the market and his solution was to propose a rule-based system that would take the place of the Fed and set the interest rate based on a variety of macroeconomic indicators.

Does that sound like deregulation to you or just a different sort of regulation, specifically a regulation Friedman (and others) believed would be more efficient and remove human error/bias from the equation?

This is quite true as Friedman wasn't an Austrian, he did his own thing. He believed in monetarism something the Austrian school is totally opposed to. He believed in minimal regulation, also something the Austrians do not.

The Economist and even Friedman are left-wing, guys.

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I'm very much familiar with Friedman. In fact, Kizzak mentioned Friedman's piece on the Great Depression. That was good, though I prefer a few others:

America's Great Depression, by Murray Rothbard: America's great depression [WorldCat.org]

Causes of the Economic Crisis, by Ludwig Von Mises: The causes of the economic crisis : and other essays before and after the Great Depression [WorldCat.org]

Prices and Production, by Friedrich A von Hayek: Prices and production, [WorldCat.org]

The Great Depression, by Lord Robbins: The great depression [WorldCat.org]


The schools of thought espoused in there range from Chicago to Austrian, from Keynes to Mises, from neoclassical to rational. Like I said, I don't agree wholly with either schools, but I prefer Austria over Chicago.

Seriously, stop lying.

You dont even know about The Economist and you're gonna pretend you're familiar with Friendman's economic and policy ideas?

Just stop, man...

Originally Posted by TseTse

I'm saying NBER seems to be more "applied" oriented and thus less theory.

You missed the point, the majority of NBER researchers are professors at universities so they would be what you are referring to theory.

Additionally, the difference between NBER research and university research is virtually nothing as the NBER research concentration areas are:

developing new statistical measurements, estimating quantitative models of economic behavior, assessing the effects of public policies on the U.S. economy, and projecting the effects of alternative policy proposals.

Your goal of finding 'applied' economists would be much more geared towards industry economists, generally a different subset than NBER economists

Originally Posted by Kizzak

so what you are doing is taking a philosophical divide between the austrian school and just about everyone else and call that a left

Exactly.

If they aren't entirely lunatic laissez faire fringe retards, they are left... in Dumpy's mind.

Personally, I don't understand why any of you would sackride economists that have predicted 14 of the last 6 recessions (). They're wrong more often than not. They're like weather men, but with even less credibility/accountability.