Posts by brightlynx11

Andrew Booth29 said:The real issue here is that your entire premise simply doesn't hold water. States don't function optimally. Period. If they actually did, we wouldn't even be having this debate—you wouldn't need a white paper to tell you that. What you've actually gathered from your research is just a confirmation that states are objectively worse than markets when it comes to allocating capital and managing other trivialities.

...
I believe Andrew Booth29 was even discussing at some point how the state has essentially stepped in to take over the role once held by children...
...

Exactly. Children have been subsidized and effectively turned into state property. They've become a public good, and as a result—Tragedy of the commons.

This is what I actually work on: http://ime.bg/uploads/335309_Optimal...Government.pdf

You completely missed the point on "optimal." I’m not claiming the government is perfect—I'm saying there's a specific size where things actually work best. It's an empirical question: what's the sweet spot for state size to drive economic growth? Basically, how much do I need to trim the fat (or beef it up) to spark more growth? You're swinging at nothing. 🙂

Andrew Booth29 said:What I was actually trying to get at is this: if a government can honestly and efficiently deliver what its citizens actually want, then the sheer size of the state isn't the issue. Period.😁

God forbid we actually look at the data.🤣

It’s definitely an issue, though. Plenty of research shows the ideal state size sits around 17% of GDP, which is a far cry from the average in the EU-USA where the government takes up about 35-40%. My point is that shrinking the government isn't easy—it requires shifting social preferences. People aren't going to vote for a party promising to cut their benefits just because they want to preserve what they already have. Libertarians in the US could dump endless money into campaigns, but they still won't win elections or shape economic policy. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a prudential, minimal state. 🙂

Brian Wood said:Yeah, I mean, if you assume the government is going to run everything just as smoothly as a free market would, then everything is totally fine, right?
Like, if a Wartburg was cruising along as fast as an F1 car, then we wouldn't have any issues
with it only having 55 horsepower, I guess.

But seriously, why on earth would a state actually be efficient? The whole world is basically full already, and the borders are all locked down.
That pretty much means countries aren't really out there competing for people to move in. I mean, Sweden isn't even efficient, honestly.
We could maybe say it’s efficient once there were like ten different Swedens sitting right next to each other, all with
similar geography, and if there was space for ten more or even a hundred more versions of them nearby, and
people actually had the choice of which Sweden to live in, or if they wanted to just go off and start a brand new one.

True efficiency—which I guess means getting way more services for less tax, or maybe fewer services for lower taxes—just isn't
really possible in the world we live in right now. The first thing to get sacrificed in the name of efficiency would probably be those
generational solidarity pension systems. I mean, why would a productive group of people just agree to have their money taken
for pensions? They’d probably just pack up and move across the border to somewhere where that doesn't happen. If they got old and
the government tried to tax their kids to pay for those pensions, those kids would just move away too, I bet. Such a setup
would definitely lead to an efficient state where the government does way fewer things than it does today, while also having
lower taxes.

But, I guess the big prerequisite is that new states need to be able to pop up, just like how new companies can start up,
but that's just simply not how things work here.

Maybe we could eventually say that Sweden is more efficient than some other country, if we could somehow come up with
some kind of metric to compare government services across different nations; comparing taxes is easy enough,
but you can't really call a state efficient when every single department is pretty much inefficient, I suppose.

Nobody is comparing the state to the market here; we're comparing different states. 😛

Brian Wood said:Yeah, I mean, if you assume the government is going to run everything just as smoothly as a free market would, then everything is totally fine, right?
Like, if a Wartburg was cruising along as fast as an F1 car, then we wouldn't have any issues
with it only having 55 horsepower, I guess.

But seriously, why on earth would a state actually be efficient? The whole world is basically full already, and the borders are all locked down.
That pretty much means countries aren't really out there competing for people to move in. I mean, Sweden isn't even efficient, honestly.
We could maybe say it’s efficient once there were like ten different Swedens sitting right next to each other, all with
similar geography, and if there was space for ten more or even a hundred more versions of them nearby, and
people actually had the choice of which Sweden to live in, or if they wanted to just go off and start a brand new one.

True efficiency—which I guess means getting way more services for less tax, or maybe fewer services for lower taxes—just isn't
really possible in the world we live in right now. The first thing to get sacrificed in the name of efficiency would probably be those
generational solidarity pension systems. I mean, why would a productive group of people just agree to have their money taken
for pensions? They’d probably just pack up and move across the border to somewhere where that doesn't happen. If they got old and
the government tried to tax their kids to pay for those pensions, those kids would just move away too, I bet. Such a setup
would definitely lead to an efficient state where the government does way fewer things than it does today, while also having
lower taxes.

But, I guess the big prerequisite is that new states need to be able to pop up, just like how new companies can start up,
but that's just simply not how things work here.

Maybe we could eventually say that Sweden is more efficient than some other country, if we could somehow come up with
some kind of metric to compare government services across different nations; comparing taxes is easy enough,
but you can't really call a state efficient when every single department is pretty much inefficient, I suppose.

They aren't exactly closed... You can find plenty of counterexamples, like how labor moves freely within the EU. A quick Google search gives you this... http://www.workpermit.com/news/2005_...unemployed.htm

Brian Wood said:Yeah, I mean, if you assume the government is going to run everything just as smoothly as a free market would, then everything is totally fine, right?
Like, if a Wartburg was cruising along as fast as an F1 car, then we wouldn't have any issues
with it only having 55 horsepower, I guess.

But seriously, why on earth would a state actually be efficient? The whole world is basically full already, and the borders are all locked down.
That pretty much means countries aren't really out there competing for people to move in. I mean, Sweden isn't even efficient, honestly.
We could maybe say it’s efficient once there were like ten different Swedens sitting right next to each other, all with
similar geography, and if there was space for ten more or even a hundred more versions of them nearby, and
people actually had the choice of which Sweden to live in, or if they wanted to just go off and start a brand new one.

True efficiency—which I guess means getting way more services for less tax, or maybe fewer services for lower taxes—just isn't
really possible in the world we live in right now. The first thing to get sacrificed in the name of efficiency would probably be those
generational solidarity pension systems. I mean, why would a productive group of people just agree to have their money taken
for pensions? They’d probably just pack up and move across the border to somewhere where that doesn't happen. If they got old and
the government tried to tax their kids to pay for those pensions, those kids would just move away too, I bet. Such a setup
would definitely lead to an efficient state where the government does way fewer things than it does today, while also having
lower taxes.

But, I guess the big prerequisite is that new states need to be able to pop up, just like how new companies can start up,
but that's just simply not how things work here.

Maybe we could eventually say that Sweden is more efficient than some other country, if we could somehow come up with
some kind of metric to compare government services across different nations; comparing taxes is easy enough,
but you can't really call a state efficient when every single department is pretty much inefficient, I suppose.

Ugh, I don't know about that...
http://www.rree.gob.pe/portal/enlaces.nsf/3f08cf720c1dbf4805256de20052913d/66e8af8a917e7abf0525716a0077f484/$FILE/International%20Migration-Facts%20and%20Figures.pdf

Brian Wood said:Yeah, I mean, if you assume the government is going to run everything just as smoothly as a free market would, then everything is totally fine, right?
Like, if a Wartburg was cruising along as fast as an F1 car, then we wouldn't have any issues
with it only having 55 horsepower, I guess.

But seriously, why on earth would a state actually be efficient? The whole world is basically full already, and the borders are all locked down.
That pretty much means countries aren't really out there competing for people to move in. I mean, Sweden isn't even efficient, honestly.
We could maybe say it’s efficient once there were like ten different Swedens sitting right next to each other, all with
similar geography, and if there was space for ten more or even a hundred more versions of them nearby, and
people actually had the choice of which Sweden to live in, or if they wanted to just go off and start a brand new one.

True efficiency—which I guess means getting way more services for less tax, or maybe fewer services for lower taxes—just isn't
really possible in the world we live in right now. The first thing to get sacrificed in the name of efficiency would probably be those
generational solidarity pension systems. I mean, why would a productive group of people just agree to have their money taken
for pensions? They’d probably just pack up and move across the border to somewhere where that doesn't happen. If they got old and
the government tried to tax their kids to pay for those pensions, those kids would just move away too, I bet. Such a setup
would definitely lead to an efficient state where the government does way fewer things than it does today, while also having
lower taxes.

But, I guess the big prerequisite is that new states need to be able to pop up, just like how new companies can start up,
but that's just simply not how things work here.

Maybe we could eventually say that Sweden is more efficient than some other country, if we could somehow come up with
some kind of metric to compare government services across different nations; comparing taxes is easy enough,
but you can't really call a state efficient when every single department is pretty much inefficient, I suppose.

I'm pretty sure Andrew Booth29 mentioned somewhere that the government basically stepped in to play the role children used to fill...

Brian Wood said:Yeah, I mean, if you assume the government is going to run everything just as smoothly as a free market would, then everything is totally fine, right?
Like, if a Wartburg was cruising along as fast as an F1 car, then we wouldn't have any issues
with it only having 55 horsepower, I guess.

But seriously, why on earth would a state actually be efficient? The whole world is basically full already, and the borders are all locked down.
That pretty much means countries aren't really out there competing for people to move in. I mean, Sweden isn't even efficient, honestly.
We could maybe say it’s efficient once there were like ten different Swedens sitting right next to each other, all with
similar geography, and if there was space for ten more or even a hundred more versions of them nearby, and
people actually had the choice of which Sweden to live in, or if they wanted to just go off and start a brand new one.

True efficiency—which I guess means getting way more services for less tax, or maybe fewer services for lower taxes—just isn't
really possible in the world we live in right now. The first thing to get sacrificed in the name of efficiency would probably be those
generational solidarity pension systems. I mean, why would a productive group of people just agree to have their money taken
for pensions? They’d probably just pack up and move across the border to somewhere where that doesn't happen. If they got old and
the government tried to tax their kids to pay for those pensions, those kids would just move away too, I bet. Such a setup
would definitely lead to an efficient state where the government does way fewer things than it does today, while also having
lower taxes.

But, I guess the big prerequisite is that new states need to be able to pop up, just like how new companies can start up,
but that's just simply not how things work here.

Maybe we could eventually say that Sweden is more efficient than some other country, if we could somehow come up with
some kind of metric to compare government services across different nations; comparing taxes is easy enough,
but you can't really call a state efficient when every single department is pretty much inefficient, I suppose.

That metric isn't made up; I actually use it. It’s called perform Envelopment analysis. My bad, maybe I should have said "relatively efficient." 🙂

Andrew Booth29 said:Are you seriously telling me that you need actual results—and preliminary ones at that—to conclude that if a state efficiently delivers what its citizens demand, there is no issue with the size of the state? 🤣
I suspect Keynesianism might be getting the better of you. ☕

If voters consistently pick parties that don't touch the size of the state, that's a social preference. If people want free college, healthcare, and everything else the welfare state provides, then the real challenge is figuring out how to pay for it. Look at Sweden—they have a massive state, but they make it work by being efficient and forcing market principles in other sectors to balance things out.

What choice does America actually have? Either slash spending—meaning cutting citizen benefits, slashing public sector wages, auditing procurement, etc.—or maintain current spending levels while boosting efficiency. Either way, shrinking the state doesn't guarantee you'll actually get more efficiency out of it.

Look, for twenty years, the same parties have held power in America by either maintaining or expanding social rights. It’s logical to say a large state is a social preference here. That's not some academic theory; it's just reality. Anyone in America running on a platform of cuts isn't winning an election. You'll always have one libertarian for every hundred socialists. 😁

And that brings us to the big question: how do you change social preferences?
Through incentives—and not necessarily cash ones.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ELnyoso6vI
Behavioral economics. 🙂

Libertarians in America can only take power if social preferences shift or through a revolution. Honestly, I'd bet on the second one. 😂

DISCLAIMER: My personal take is that if the state is inefficient, it's better not to crack down on the shadow economy—let people dodge taxes as much as possible if that money isn't being used for anything smart anyway. That income will eventually surface somewhere as effective demand. 😁

Jack Rodriguez85 said:Of course that’s obvious. Markets aren't split into "free" or "unfree"; it isn't a binary. It's a spectrum. On one end, you have Singapore, Hong Kong, and Australia; on the other, you have Cuba and North Korea.
The real question is which end of that scale we are aiming for. Honestly, looking at the direction things are heading in the States, I'm losing hope. 😁

The reason I'll end up depressed is that politicians will eventually succeed in convincing everyone (if they haven't already) that a lack of regulation was the culprit behind all this. Naturally, a general deficiency in economic theory and basic rational logic certainly doesn't help the cause. If you want to see how the average person views a crisis, it looks something like this:

Capitalist bankers caused the crisis because they were greedy and prioritized extra profits over the common good. The government gave them too much freedom, so we can prevent future crises if we just hand more power to the state to rein in those damn capitalist bloodsuckers. Plus, we should slap them with massive taxes since they make so much money—maybe then a few bucks might trickle down to me.

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but I highly doubt even 5% of people understand anything about the central banking system, the function of interest rates, the flaws of fiat currency, or any of it.

Perhaps it's unfair to use the USA as a local proxy for global sentiment (actually, it's incredibly unfair 😁), but around here, the most prominent "economist" is some guy rambling about nationalization whose "theory" sits somewhere between mercantilism and classical Marxism. And the government is so pervasive now that nobody even notices the state or its meddling anymore. We're in trouble, and yes, it's precisely because there is no unhindered market. It's because the market has vanished without a trace.

America is basically a welfare state. Total social safety net vibes.

Jack Rodriguez85 said:Of course that’s obvious. Markets aren't split into "free" or "unfree"; it isn't a binary. It's a spectrum. On one end, you have Singapore, Hong Kong, and Australia; on the other, you have Cuba and North Korea.
The real question is which end of that scale we are aiming for. Honestly, looking at the direction things are heading in the States, I'm losing hope. 😁

The reason I'll end up depressed is that politicians will eventually succeed in convincing everyone (if they haven't already) that a lack of regulation was the culprit behind all this. Naturally, a general deficiency in economic theory and basic rational logic certainly doesn't help the cause. If you want to see how the average person views a crisis, it looks something like this:

Capitalist bankers caused the crisis because they were greedy and prioritized extra profits over the common good. The government gave them too much freedom, so we can prevent future crises if we just hand more power to the state to rein in those damn capitalist bloodsuckers. Plus, we should slap them with massive taxes since they make so much money—maybe then a few bucks might trickle down to me.

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but I highly doubt even 5% of people understand anything about the central banking system, the function of interest rates, the flaws of fiat currency, or any of it.

Perhaps it's unfair to use the USA as a local proxy for global sentiment (actually, it's incredibly unfair 😁), but around here, the most prominent "economist" is some guy rambling about nationalization whose "theory" sits somewhere between mercantilism and classical Marxism. And the government is so pervasive now that nobody even notices the state or its meddling anymore. We're in trouble, and yes, it's precisely because there is no unhindered market. It's because the market has vanished without a trace.

Well, they kind of are. Derivatives evolved way too fast for any legislature to keep up, and you'd need global oversight to actually fix it. That's just too massive a logistical nightmare to pull off.

Jack Rodriguez85 said:Of course that’s obvious. Markets aren't split into "free" or "unfree"; it isn't a binary. It's a spectrum. On one end, you have Singapore, Hong Kong, and Australia; on the other, you have Cuba and North Korea.
The real question is which end of that scale we are aiming for. Honestly, looking at the direction things are heading in the States, I'm losing hope. 😁

The reason I'll end up depressed is that politicians will eventually succeed in convincing everyone (if they haven't already) that a lack of regulation was the culprit behind all this. Naturally, a general deficiency in economic theory and basic rational logic certainly doesn't help the cause. If you want to see how the average person views a crisis, it looks something like this:

Capitalist bankers caused the crisis because they were greedy and prioritized extra profits over the common good. The government gave them too much freedom, so we can prevent future crises if we just hand more power to the state to rein in those damn capitalist bloodsuckers. Plus, we should slap them with massive taxes since they make so much money—maybe then a few bucks might trickle down to me.

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but I highly doubt even 5% of people understand anything about the central banking system, the function of interest rates, the flaws of fiat currency, or any of it.

Perhaps it's unfair to use the USA as a local proxy for global sentiment (actually, it's incredibly unfair 😁), but around here, the most prominent "economist" is some guy rambling about nationalization whose "theory" sits somewhere between mercantilism and classical Marxism. And the government is so pervasive now that nobody even notices the state or its meddling anymore. We're in trouble, and yes, it's precisely because there is no unhindered market. It's because the market has vanished without a trace.

Heh, derivatives were mostly built by physicists. In theory Black-Scholes works fine. It's not about learning how to run the model; it's knowing when the model is garbage, which happens more often than those physicists realized. They were throwing Monte-Carlo simulations at things they shouldn't have. Result? Total failure in risk assessment.

Jack Rodriguez85 said:Of course that’s obvious. Markets aren't split into "free" or "unfree"; it isn't a binary. It's a spectrum. On one end, you have Singapore, Hong Kong, and Australia; on the other, you have Cuba and North Korea.
The real question is which end of that scale we are aiming for. Honestly, looking at the direction things are heading in the States, I'm losing hope. 😁

The reason I'll end up depressed is that politicians will eventually succeed in convincing everyone (if they haven't already) that a lack of regulation was the culprit behind all this. Naturally, a general deficiency in economic theory and basic rational logic certainly doesn't help the cause. If you want to see how the average person views a crisis, it looks something like this:

Capitalist bankers caused the crisis because they were greedy and prioritized extra profits over the common good. The government gave them too much freedom, so we can prevent future crises if we just hand more power to the state to rein in those damn capitalist bloodsuckers. Plus, we should slap them with massive taxes since they make so much money—maybe then a few bucks might trickle down to me.

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but I highly doubt even 5% of people understand anything about the central banking system, the function of interest rates, the flaws of fiat currency, or any of it.

Perhaps it's unfair to use the USA as a local proxy for global sentiment (actually, it's incredibly unfair 😁), but around here, the most prominent "economist" is some guy rambling about nationalization whose "theory" sits somewhere between mercantilism and classical Marxism. And the government is so pervasive now that nobody even notices the state or its meddling anymore. We're in trouble, and yes, it's precisely because there is no unhindered market. It's because the market has vanished without a trace.

In America, people struggle with basic grammar, let alone economics. I saw a segment on a news show where they asked 100 people what an interest rate is, and only two of them knew. Yet, 40% of them were carrying debt... wtf

Jack Rodriguez85 said:Of course that’s obvious. Markets aren't split into "free" or "unfree"; it isn't a binary. It's a spectrum. On one end, you have Singapore, Hong Kong, and Australia; on the other, you have Cuba and North Korea.
The real question is which end of that scale we are aiming for. Honestly, looking at the direction things are heading in the States, I'm losing hope. 😁

The reason I'll end up depressed is that politicians will eventually succeed in convincing everyone (if they haven't already) that a lack of regulation was the culprit behind all this. Naturally, a general deficiency in economic theory and basic rational logic certainly doesn't help the cause. If you want to see how the average person views a crisis, it looks something like this:

Capitalist bankers caused the crisis because they were greedy and prioritized extra profits over the common good. The government gave them too much freedom, so we can prevent future crises if we just hand more power to the state to rein in those damn capitalist bloodsuckers. Plus, we should slap them with massive taxes since they make so much money—maybe then a few bucks might trickle down to me.

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but I highly doubt even 5% of people understand anything about the central banking system, the function of interest rates, the flaws of fiat currency, or any of it.

Perhaps it's unfair to use the USA as a local proxy for global sentiment (actually, it's incredibly unfair 😁), but around here, the most prominent "economist" is some guy rambling about nationalization whose "theory" sits somewhere between mercantilism and classical Marxism. And the government is so pervasive now that nobody even notices the state or its meddling anymore. We're in trouble, and yes, it's precisely because there is no unhindered market. It's because the market has vanished without a trace.

I'm actually grinding on a project right now with some guys from IJF focused on this exact thing: finding the sweet spot for government size, efficiency, and how much it actually drives growth. Looking at the early data, I don't think the issue is how big the state is—people vote for the size they want, so a welfare state is just a social preference. The real killer is efficiency. If people want free education, fine, the government should provide it, but they need to do it without wasting everything. The problem here is that the inputs required to produce public goods are massive compared to the pathetic outputs we get. For instance, looking at the Global Competitiveness report, it claims America has a high quality of education in science and Math, yet our PISA math scores are absolute garbage. What's the reality? This country can produce one world-class mathematician in a million, but on average, it's failing to teach its kids basic math.

Maria Thomas48 said:My philosophy on how to identify problems is right here: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...ma-do-rjesenja

An outline for getting out of this crisis by reforming money regulation: http://sites.google.com/site/financi...izlaz-iz-krize

It’s sustainable. It stays stable. It works perfectly fine within capitalism, though it wouldn't fit in a completely unregulated free market. I should probably mention the late George Washington from Mexico, who laid this out using economic formulas. His theory basically argues that when money circulation slows down because people start saving more, that shortage has to be compensated for. Anyone who knows their economics can take a look at it.

Quantity theory of money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity_theory_of_money

That isn't his theory. 🙄

Melissa Rivera5 said:So, what's the deal, guys? It feels like most of the credit flowing through the US just goes straight into credit card debt and loans for a bunch of nonsense—like buying one new car, or maybe two, that burn way more gas and cost way more than anyone actually needs. Honestly, it seems like people just buy them so the neighbor gets jealous. Who’s to blame here? I guess it's just the average person who can't pull themselves together when it comes to spending. Being smart isn't about begging for more loans or whining because the bank won't give you one; it’s more about figuring out how to land a better-paying job so you can actually afford the stuff you want.
Unfortunately, it seems like people in America today just want to live off the government and taxpayers, all while hiding behind this fake sense of morality and modesty. You know how it goes—everyone thinks if they act "moral" and "good," they should get a government paycheck, some kind of assistance, or subsidies. Meanwhile, those "greedy capitalists" who only care about money are the ones working in the private sector. I mean, who cares that the guy in the private sector has to work ten times harder just so his taxes can be stripped away to pay for some parasite funded by the state and the taxpayers? Everyone blames everyone else for everything except themselves. I hear all sorts of ideas, but never anything about how to build factories, power plants, or farm the land properly. No. We don't care about actual work; we just want to ride on someone else's back and call it being "virtuous," while calling anyone earning their own bread a "dirty capitalist." Dear American citizens, you basically get exactly what you deserve. Until you finally get off your lazy butts and start producing something, things aren't going to change. You reap what you sow. I just don't get how people expect to eat bread if they never even planted any wheat. Should Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler just magically make that bread appear? No... wait, I got it! That bread is going to be paid for by the government using taxes that keep getting hiked up.

The plan to fix the economy isn't about handing out more credit. It’s actually more like this:

1) Using Islamic banking as a model here in the US (and I'm saying this as an atheist, just so there's no confusion)
2) The Industrial Development Administration needs to urgently build factories for industry growth (timber, tech, maritime, etc.) and export
3) Farming every single acre of arable land in the US and exporting the goods
4) Building up tourism infrastructure to support year-round travel
5) Cutting down counties to a 4+1 structure and reducing municipalities significantly, then firing all the excess staff in such a slimmed-down system, along with massive layoffs in the public administration sectors
6) Opening up every single document to the public and having 100% transparency in everything every ministry does at all times (anything taxpayer money pays for shouldn't be a "trade secret")

Exactly. Interest rates in America have never hovered near zero, and they aren't about to start now. People just have broken intertemporal preferences—they couldn't care less if the rate is 7% or 8%.

Melissa Rivera5 said:So, what's the deal, guys? It feels like most of the credit flowing through the US just goes straight into credit card debt and loans for a bunch of nonsense—like buying one new car, or maybe two, that burn way more gas and cost way more than anyone actually needs. Honestly, it seems like people just buy them so the neighbor gets jealous. Who’s to blame here? I guess it's just the average person who can't pull themselves together when it comes to spending. Being smart isn't about begging for more loans or whining because the bank won't give you one; it’s more about figuring out how to land a better-paying job so you can actually afford the stuff you want.
Unfortunately, it seems like people in America today just want to live off the government and taxpayers, all while hiding behind this fake sense of morality and modesty. You know how it goes—everyone thinks if they act "moral" and "good," they should get a government paycheck, some kind of assistance, or subsidies. Meanwhile, those "greedy capitalists" who only care about money are the ones working in the private sector. I mean, who cares that the guy in the private sector has to work ten times harder just so his taxes can be stripped away to pay for some parasite funded by the state and the taxpayers? Everyone blames everyone else for everything except themselves. I hear all sorts of ideas, but never anything about how to build factories, power plants, or farm the land properly. No. We don't care about actual work; we just want to ride on someone else's back and call it being "virtuous," while calling anyone earning their own bread a "dirty capitalist." Dear American citizens, you basically get exactly what you deserve. Until you finally get off your lazy butts and start producing something, things aren't going to change. You reap what you sow. I just don't get how people expect to eat bread if they never even planted any wheat. Should Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler just magically make that bread appear? No... wait, I got it! That bread is going to be paid for by the government using taxes that keep getting hiked up.

The plan to fix the economy isn't about handing out more credit. It’s actually more like this:

1) Using Islamic banking as a model here in the US (and I'm saying this as an atheist, just so there's no confusion)
2) The Industrial Development Administration needs to urgently build factories for industry growth (timber, tech, maritime, etc.) and export
3) Farming every single acre of arable land in the US and exporting the goods
4) Building up tourism infrastructure to support year-round travel
5) Cutting down counties to a 4+1 structure and reducing municipalities significantly, then firing all the excess staff in such a slimmed-down system, along with massive layoffs in the public administration sectors
6) Opening up every single document to the public and having 100% transparency in everything every ministry does at all times (anything taxpayer money pays for shouldn't be a "trade secret")

Exactly. There’s no real tradeoff here between grinding and just dealing with the bullshit. If your cost of living spikes because of whatever, you fix it by working more, switching jobs, or picking up side hustles. Honestly, the side gigs aren't even that bad, even if they're off the books. Better to hustle under the radar than sit around the house starving.

Melissa Rivera5 said:So, what's the deal, guys? It feels like most of the credit flowing through the US just goes straight into credit card debt and loans for a bunch of nonsense—like buying one new car, or maybe two, that burn way more gas and cost way more than anyone actually needs. Honestly, it seems like people just buy them so the neighbor gets jealous. Who’s to blame here? I guess it's just the average person who can't pull themselves together when it comes to spending. Being smart isn't about begging for more loans or whining because the bank won't give you one; it’s more about figuring out how to land a better-paying job so you can actually afford the stuff you want.
Unfortunately, it seems like people in America today just want to live off the government and taxpayers, all while hiding behind this fake sense of morality and modesty. You know how it goes—everyone thinks if they act "moral" and "good," they should get a government paycheck, some kind of assistance, or subsidies. Meanwhile, those "greedy capitalists" who only care about money are the ones working in the private sector. I mean, who cares that the guy in the private sector has to work ten times harder just so his taxes can be stripped away to pay for some parasite funded by the state and the taxpayers? Everyone blames everyone else for everything except themselves. I hear all sorts of ideas, but never anything about how to build factories, power plants, or farm the land properly. No. We don't care about actual work; we just want to ride on someone else's back and call it being "virtuous," while calling anyone earning their own bread a "dirty capitalist." Dear American citizens, you basically get exactly what you deserve. Until you finally get off your lazy butts and start producing something, things aren't going to change. You reap what you sow. I just don't get how people expect to eat bread if they never even planted any wheat. Should Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler just magically make that bread appear? No... wait, I got it! That bread is going to be paid for by the government using taxes that keep getting hiked up.

The plan to fix the economy isn't about handing out more credit. It’s actually more like this:

1) Using Islamic banking as a model here in the US (and I'm saying this as an atheist, just so there's no confusion)
2) The Industrial Development Administration needs to urgently build factories for industry growth (timber, tech, maritime, etc.) and export
3) Farming every single acre of arable land in the US and exporting the goods
4) Building up tourism infrastructure to support year-round travel
5) Cutting down counties to a 4+1 structure and reducing municipalities significantly, then firing all the excess staff in such a slimmed-down system, along with massive layoffs in the public administration sectors
6) Opening up every single document to the public and having 100% transparency in everything every ministry does at all times (anything taxpayer money pays for shouldn't be a "trade secret")

Back to square one. The government failed at its most basic job: protecting property rights. Everything else falls apart after that.

Let me give you my take on this plan... 🙂

I don't know what to tell you. It's like watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone's cheering for the crash. Just pure chaos. kaže:
Islamic banking as a model here in the States—and I’m saying this as an atheist, just so we’re clear.

Funny idea, but it’s never gonna fly in the States. Most banks here are owned by massive foreign conglomerates, and there's zero real competition in the sector. Toss in the high country risk, and you're just looking at sky-high interest rates. Let's just leave the banking sector alone—it's probably the only thing running efficiently around here.

Melissa Rivera5 said:So, what's the deal, guys? It feels like most of the credit flowing through the US just goes straight into credit card debt and loans for a bunch of nonsense—like buying one new car, or maybe two, that burn way more gas and cost way more than anyone actually needs. Honestly, it seems like people just buy them so the neighbor gets jealous. Who’s to blame here? I guess it's just the average person who can't pull themselves together when it comes to spending. Being smart isn't about begging for more loans or whining because the bank won't give you one; it’s more about figuring out how to land a better-paying job so you can actually afford the stuff you want.
Unfortunately, it seems like people in America today just want to live off the government and taxpayers, all while hiding behind this fake sense of morality and modesty. You know how it goes—everyone thinks if they act "moral" and "good," they should get a government paycheck, some kind of assistance, or subsidies. Meanwhile, those "greedy capitalists" who only care about money are the ones working in the private sector. I mean, who cares that the guy in the private sector has to work ten times harder just so his taxes can be stripped away to pay for some parasite funded by the state and the taxpayers? Everyone blames everyone else for everything except themselves. I hear all sorts of ideas, but never anything about how to build factories, power plants, or farm the land properly. No. We don't care about actual work; we just want to ride on someone else's back and call it being "virtuous," while calling anyone earning their own bread a "dirty capitalist." Dear American citizens, you basically get exactly what you deserve. Until you finally get off your lazy butts and start producing something, things aren't going to change. You reap what you sow. I just don't get how people expect to eat bread if they never even planted any wheat. Should Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler just magically make that bread appear? No... wait, I got it! That bread is going to be paid for by the government using taxes that keep getting hiked up.

The plan to fix the economy isn't about handing out more credit. It’s actually more like this:

1) Using Islamic banking as a model here in the US (and I'm saying this as an atheist, just so there's no confusion)
2) The Industrial Development Administration needs to urgently build factories for industry growth (timber, tech, maritime, etc.) and export
3) Farming every single acre of arable land in the US and exporting the goods
4) Building up tourism infrastructure to support year-round travel
5) Cutting down counties to a 4+1 structure and reducing municipalities significantly, then firing all the excess staff in such a slimmed-down system, along with massive layoffs in the public administration sectors
6) Opening up every single document to the public and having 100% transparency in everything every ministry does at all times (anything taxpayer money pays for shouldn't be a "trade secret")

The real question is what the US actually has the capabilities for. If you want to manufacture high-tech gear, you need capital, specialized know-how, and top-tier engineers... You have to figure out where our strengths lie first, then see what we can actually churn out efficiently.
Check this out... it’s totally unorthodox, but the guy makes sense - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRp382ynu-Q

Melissa Rivera5 said:So, what's the deal, guys? It feels like most of the credit flowing through the US just goes straight into credit card debt and loans for a bunch of nonsense—like buying one new car, or maybe two, that burn way more gas and cost way more than anyone actually needs. Honestly, it seems like people just buy them so the neighbor gets jealous. Who’s to blame here? I guess it's just the average person who can't pull themselves together when it comes to spending. Being smart isn't about begging for more loans or whining because the bank won't give you one; it’s more about figuring out how to land a better-paying job so you can actually afford the stuff you want.
Unfortunately, it seems like people in America today just want to live off the government and taxpayers, all while hiding behind this fake sense of morality and modesty. You know how it goes—everyone thinks if they act "moral" and "good," they should get a government paycheck, some kind of assistance, or subsidies. Meanwhile, those "greedy capitalists" who only care about money are the ones working in the private sector. I mean, who cares that the guy in the private sector has to work ten times harder just so his taxes can be stripped away to pay for some parasite funded by the state and the taxpayers? Everyone blames everyone else for everything except themselves. I hear all sorts of ideas, but never anything about how to build factories, power plants, or farm the land properly. No. We don't care about actual work; we just want to ride on someone else's back and call it being "virtuous," while calling anyone earning their own bread a "dirty capitalist." Dear American citizens, you basically get exactly what you deserve. Until you finally get off your lazy butts and start producing something, things aren't going to change. You reap what you sow. I just don't get how people expect to eat bread if they never even planted any wheat. Should Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler just magically make that bread appear? No... wait, I got it! That bread is going to be paid for by the government using taxes that keep getting hiked up.

The plan to fix the economy isn't about handing out more credit. It’s actually more like this:

1) Using Islamic banking as a model here in the US (and I'm saying this as an atheist, just so there's no confusion)
2) The Industrial Development Administration needs to urgently build factories for industry growth (timber, tech, maritime, etc.) and export
3) Farming every single acre of arable land in the US and exporting the goods
4) Building up tourism infrastructure to support year-round travel
5) Cutting down counties to a 4+1 structure and reducing municipalities significantly, then firing all the excess staff in such a slimmed-down system, along with massive layoffs in the public administration sectors
6) Opening up every single document to the public and having 100% transparency in everything every ministry does at all times (anything taxpayer money pays for shouldn't be a "trade secret")

Again, what kind of markets are we talking about? Is there even a profit margin there? Do we even have the 🙂capabilities
?

Melissa Rivera5 said:So, what's the deal, guys? It feels like most of the credit flowing through the US just goes straight into credit card debt and loans for a bunch of nonsense—like buying one new car, or maybe two, that burn way more gas and cost way more than anyone actually needs. Honestly, it seems like people just buy them so the neighbor gets jealous. Who’s to blame here? I guess it's just the average person who can't pull themselves together when it comes to spending. Being smart isn't about begging for more loans or whining because the bank won't give you one; it’s more about figuring out how to land a better-paying job so you can actually afford the stuff you want.
Unfortunately, it seems like people in America today just want to live off the government and taxpayers, all while hiding behind this fake sense of morality and modesty. You know how it goes—everyone thinks if they act "moral" and "good," they should get a government paycheck, some kind of assistance, or subsidies. Meanwhile, those "greedy capitalists" who only care about money are the ones working in the private sector. I mean, who cares that the guy in the private sector has to work ten times harder just so his taxes can be stripped away to pay for some parasite funded by the state and the taxpayers? Everyone blames everyone else for everything except themselves. I hear all sorts of ideas, but never anything about how to build factories, power plants, or farm the land properly. No. We don't care about actual work; we just want to ride on someone else's back and call it being "virtuous," while calling anyone earning their own bread a "dirty capitalist." Dear American citizens, you basically get exactly what you deserve. Until you finally get off your lazy butts and start producing something, things aren't going to change. You reap what you sow. I just don't get how people expect to eat bread if they never even planted any wheat. Should Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler just magically make that bread appear? No... wait, I got it! That bread is going to be paid for by the government using taxes that keep getting hiked up.

The plan to fix the economy isn't about handing out more credit. It’s actually more like this:

1) Using Islamic banking as a model here in the US (and I'm saying this as an atheist, just so there's no confusion)
2) The Industrial Development Administration needs to urgently build factories for industry growth (timber, tech, maritime, etc.) and export
3) Farming every single acre of arable land in the US and exporting the goods
4) Building up tourism infrastructure to support year-round travel
5) Cutting down counties to a 4+1 structure and reducing municipalities significantly, then firing all the excess staff in such a slimmed-down system, along with massive layoffs in the public administration sectors
6) Opening up every single document to the public and having 100% transparency in everything every ministry does at all times (anything taxpayer money pays for shouldn't be a "trade secret")

America isn't going to become a developed powerhouse just off tourism. Name one global superpower that's also one of the most advanced nations on earth solely because they're good at hosting vacationers. 😉

Melissa Rivera5 said:So, what's the deal, guys? It feels like most of the credit flowing through the US just goes straight into credit card debt and loans for a bunch of nonsense—like buying one new car, or maybe two, that burn way more gas and cost way more than anyone actually needs. Honestly, it seems like people just buy them so the neighbor gets jealous. Who’s to blame here? I guess it's just the average person who can't pull themselves together when it comes to spending. Being smart isn't about begging for more loans or whining because the bank won't give you one; it’s more about figuring out how to land a better-paying job so you can actually afford the stuff you want.
Unfortunately, it seems like people in America today just want to live off the government and taxpayers, all while hiding behind this fake sense of morality and modesty. You know how it goes—everyone thinks if they act "moral" and "good," they should get a government paycheck, some kind of assistance, or subsidies. Meanwhile, those "greedy capitalists" who only care about money are the ones working in the private sector. I mean, who cares that the guy in the private sector has to work ten times harder just so his taxes can be stripped away to pay for some parasite funded by the state and the taxpayers? Everyone blames everyone else for everything except themselves. I hear all sorts of ideas, but never anything about how to build factories, power plants, or farm the land properly. No. We don't care about actual work; we just want to ride on someone else's back and call it being "virtuous," while calling anyone earning their own bread a "dirty capitalist." Dear American citizens, you basically get exactly what you deserve. Until you finally get off your lazy butts and start producing something, things aren't going to change. You reap what you sow. I just don't get how people expect to eat bread if they never even planted any wheat. Should Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler just magically make that bread appear? No... wait, I got it! That bread is going to be paid for by the government using taxes that keep getting hiked up.

The plan to fix the economy isn't about handing out more credit. It’s actually more like this:

1) Using Islamic banking as a model here in the US (and I'm saying this as an atheist, just so there's no confusion)
2) The Industrial Development Administration needs to urgently build factories for industry growth (timber, tech, maritime, etc.) and export
3) Farming every single acre of arable land in the US and exporting the goods
4) Building up tourism infrastructure to support year-round travel
5) Cutting down counties to a 4+1 structure and reducing municipalities significantly, then firing all the excess staff in such a slimmed-down system, along with massive layoffs in the public administration sectors
6) Opening up every single document to the public and having 100% transparency in everything every ministry does at all times (anything taxpayer money pays for shouldn't be a "trade secret")

Heh, yeah right. That's never happening. 🙂
Plenty of studies show the issue isn't that the government is too big, it's just incredibly inefficient. You can fire people all day, but nobody's promising the system will actually run better afterward.

I don't know what to tell you. It's like watching a slow-motion car crash on the I-95. Some people just love the chaos. kaže:
Full transparency. Every single document needs to be public. I want total visibility into what every government agency is doing at any given second. If taxpayers are footing the bill, there’s no such thing as a "business secret." Period.

This is a solid move. Think about it: make every contract under a certain threshold public knowledge. If someone else can provide that same service or product to the government at a lower price, they get the deal. Back when we were booming, working with the feds was the way to go. But during a recession? It turns into a total nightmare because the government becomes the biggest drain on liquidity in the country.

Look, I don't want to be just another critic, so here’s my two cents from an economist's perspective. This country doesn't just need economic reform—we need a total cultural overhaul. I don't necessarily agree with that columnist over at The Washington Post, but he hit the nail on the head when he mentioned that America needs some serious nation-building. We have to stop acting like vassals to outside powers. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be part of global institutions, but it means our leaders and individuals actually need to own their actions and face the music when they screw up.

Take those people who went all-in on Swiss franc loans... if they actually understood basic economics, they’d realize nobody is coming to save them from currency risk. Sure, the interest rates looked better, but that's only because the exchange rate was working against them. Interest rate parity exists for a reason. 🙂

Listen, I don't know if you guys caught that segment on 60 Minutes a few months back. They went out and asked people on the street what their interest rates were, and most of them—people who literally have massive mortgages—didn't have a clue. As long as the population stays uneducated and just doesn't give a damn, the status quo isn't going anywhere.

Bradley Walker88 said:Basically, use them only to confirm what you already know. If they don't back you up, scrap them. 😁

There’s a bigger issue here. It isn't just about technical math proficiency. You have to decide what actually warrants being formalized into math and what doesn't. Economics needs more philosophy and epistemology, not more calculus. It's no coincidence Hayek focused so much on epistemology; he saw exactly where the field got stuck.

Known knowns, unknown unknowns, unknown knowns, ...and all that jazz... 😁

Yep, that’s called confirmation bias for curated facts. Throw that in a journal and suddenly it’s "academic" instead of just a barroom argument. Then again, all economics is basically just a glorified fancy barroom argument. 😁

Bradley Walker88 said:Basically, use them only to confirm what you already know. If they don't back you up, scrap them. 😁

There’s a bigger issue here. It isn't just about technical math proficiency. You have to decide what actually warrants being formalized into math and what doesn't. Economics needs more philosophy and epistemology, not more calculus. It's no coincidence Hayek focused so much on epistemology; he saw exactly where the field got stuck.

Known knowns, unknown unknowns, unknown knowns, ...and all that jazz... 😁

Spot on. That’s why econ students need to grind through economic logic and philosophy alongside the math.

Solid book on the subject, great starting point.

Bradley Walker88 said:Economists rely too much on their models 😁

Luck isn't part of the equation when you're trying to force math where it doesn't belong. I had a friend in management at a major US bank—brilliant guy, arguably the best physicist in the country—who walked away from the industry during the 2007/08 crash after seeing how things actually worked. His parting shot? He told me, "I prefer the Austrian school."

He’d probably lose his mind if he knew I was sharing bits of our private correspondence, but here are a few snippets to illustrate my point.

"...what I like about them (referring to the Austrians) is that they don't overdo the math and statistics. Personally, I find the heavy math approach useful because it creates a hierarchy. It's easy to install someone in a high position just because they can handle complex formulas. They can basically tell you, 'Here is Equation 113a; the vector gradient is anti-correlated with the eigenvalues of the risk matrix BI-I, which justifies the bailout—now deal with it.' But if we're being honest, I agree with them: you can't solve everything with equations. I've read endless papers in physics, math, biology, and even economics—I've even authored a few myself—and I've seen a massive overreliance on models and stats..."

"...saying 'no equations' doesn't mean zero math, but people often try to introduce formalisms that have no chance of working. They build models based on assumptions that kill 50% of reality, and then the results end up being incredibly sensitive to those flaws. Having sat in on numerous board meetings and watched senior management in action, I don't have to guess how things work. I was there doing the work."

....That’s why I prefer the Austrian approach over these self-important modelers; I could outwork any of them. Look at physics: you get actual, useful results there. But you can't do that in this field because a model has to be perfect to be taken seriously. Well, no pain, no gain. I attended a couple of economics conferences recently and met a modeler from the Federal Reserve. He had this inflation model for the US, complete with some charts and graphs. After his presentation, I asked him about the predictive statistics. He looked at me and said, "Oh, we don't look at it that way; we were just fitting it to past data." So, they basically built a model with five or six parameters, slapped it onto historical data, and called it a paper. I could churn out twelve of those a month. In physics, that wouldn't even qualify as a paper. In this field, they'd sell it as a breakthrough.

So physicists are basically the scapegoats for everything wrong with economics. 😁
Ever since Debre, they’ve stormed into the field and tried to math everything into submission. They lean on these massive assumptions just because actual data is hard to come by. Take Black-Scholes—it relies heavily on a normal probability density function, even though we all know the real-world data being modeled is anything but normally distributed. Look at Lehman Brothers; they went under because a Monte Carlo simulation missed the mark.

By the way, there's a huge difference between models meant for forecasting and those meant to explain relationships. People still misuse them just to churn out papers, even when the results make zero sense intuitively...

Professor Planck, of Berlin, the famous originator of the Quantum Theory, once remarked to me that in early life he had thought of studying economics, but had found it too difficult! Planck could easily master The whole corpus of mathematical Economics in a few Days. He did not mean that! But The amalgam of logic and intuition and The wide knowledge of facts, most of which are not precise, which is required for economic interpretation in its highest form is, quite truly, overwhelmingly difficult for those whose gift mainly consists in the power to imagine and pursue to their furthest points the implications and prior conditions of comparatively simple facts which are known with a high degree of precision.

Bottom line: it's a complex system. And as for forecasting... that's a nightmare even when humans aren't part of the equation. Imagine trying to calculate exactly where and when a single leaf will hit the ground in autumn. 😉
Don't throw the models out entirely, but you have to understand them. No matter how much math you know, you need enough common sense to say "WTF" when MATLAB spits out something totally insane.

"Quote:"

I can't do anything with just a username. Give me some actual text to work with. says: Neumann, Debreu, Nash, Li—all those formalists and their meta-axioms? Total waste of time. Like quantum physics, they didn't bring anyone any luck. Even integrals and areas under curves were just rigged to fit whatever theory they were pushing.

Back when economics was first becoming a science, data was hard to come by. It was basically just a bunch of educated guesses.

"Quote:"

Elizabeth Harris11 said:Whether it's Neumann, Debreu, or Nash—these formalists and their meta-axioms haven't exactly brought anyone much luck. Even integrals and the area under a curve were basically "rigged" to fit whatever specific theory was being pushed at the time.

It’s so easy these days to point fingers at Keynes. Ten or fifteen years ago, nobody even cared about him—he was largely dismissed as a communist theorist and wasn't really a favorite in the West, except during times of crisis.

Nowadays, no one questions how risk was measured across financial instruments, from basic loans to complex derivatives. People used quantitative methods ranging from simple DCF models to complicated IRB approaches, and today, no one stops to ask if those were actually built on real-world assumptions or just more meta-axioms.

Instead, everyone is all too happy to swallow conspiracy theories about evil central bankers—with the Federal Reserve leading the charge—who have supposedly made it their mission to enslave the entire world.

Nobody's out here attacking Keynes. To me, he's one of the heavyweights to ever do it. Pretty sure most actual economists give him his flowers too. In modern economic circles, we’re talking about people like— So, you want to talk about New Keynesianism? It’s basically just the modern way people try to fix the economy using sticky prices and stuff. Think of it like trying to steer a massive semi-truck through downtown Chicago—you turn the wheel, but the truck takes a second to actually react. It's all about why markets don't always snap back to normal instantly.

"Quote:"

Elizabeth Harris11 said:Whether it's Neumann, Debreu, or Nash—these formalists and their meta-axioms haven't exactly brought anyone much luck. Even integrals and the area under a curve were basically "rigged" to fit whatever specific theory was being pushed at the time.

It’s so easy these days to point fingers at Keynes. Ten or fifteen years ago, nobody even cared about him—he was largely dismissed as a communist theorist and wasn't really a favorite in the West, except during times of crisis.

Nowadays, no one questions how risk was measured across financial instruments, from basic loans to complex derivatives. People used quantitative methods ranging from simple DCF models to complicated IRB approaches, and today, no one stops to ask if those were actually built on real-world assumptions or just more meta-axioms.

Instead, everyone is all too happy to swallow conspiracy theories about evil central bankers—with the Federal Reserve leading the charge—who have supposedly made it their mission to enslave the entire world.

People are asking questions, sure. But these people actually know the model inside out—they're digging into the curves, the settings, and how the whole prediction engine works. They're the only ones with the right to talk trash.

Elizabeth Harris11 said:Whether it's Neumann, Debreu, or Nash—these formalists and their meta-axioms haven't exactly brought anyone much luck. Even integrals and the area under a curve were basically "rigged" to fit whatever specific theory was being pushed at the time.

It’s so easy these days to point fingers at Keynes. Ten or fifteen years ago, nobody even cared about him—he was largely dismissed as a communist theorist and wasn't really a favorite in the West, except during times of crisis.

Nowadays, no one questions how risk was measured across financial instruments, from basic loans to complex derivatives. People used quantitative methods ranging from simple DCF models to complicated IRB approaches, and today, no one stops to ask if those were actually built on real-world assumptions or just more meta-axioms.

Instead, everyone is all too happy to swallow conspiracy theories about evil central bankers—with the Federal Reserve leading the charge—who have supposedly made it their mission to enslave the entire world.

Nobody's saying a damn thing. The Federal Reserve did exactly what you'd expect—trying to stave off a recession with low rates right after 9/11. It was never a question of if the crash was coming, just when.

Orty, nobody's actually scared. People just don't feel like messing around with reporters who love twisting words out of context. Some of them can't even talk to the press because of where they work.

Look, I'm not saying Keynes is bad. Far from it. He’s massive for economic science, one way or another. But honestly, looking at this, I see too many students clinging to Keynes because they can't handle the quantitative stuff. It's pure hypocrisy to trash-talk Black-Scholes when you don't even know what an integral is, let alone Itov's lemma. Respect to my colleagues in economic history and the history of thought—that stuff matters too. But there’s zero point in someone specializing in the history of RATEX trying to weigh in on growth theory or monetary economics.
It's like a cardiac surgeon trying to perform brain surgery.

Gregory Nelson6 said:Let’s set aside the comparisons to the aggression against America-Canada-Herzegovina and the Sano memorandum (the "even those old grandpas over there didn't hold any real power" argument), and just assume for a second that Zvonimir Baletić and Đuro Medić really aren't "important."

But here's the thing: if nobody stands up to challenge their ideas, their students will eventually end up occupying those very "positions" you claim they don't have access to.

What are we looking at here? Just another instance of American silence? That typical "better not to get involved, better not to offend anyone" mentality?

Where are the academically trained citizens in America who publicly and critically question Keynesian theoretical assumptions, if they aren't outright rejecting them? If they truly don't exist, then we are in serious trouble.

They exist, they just publish abroad and stay out of the public eye. Maybe only Velimir Sonja has the patience for media outbursts here and there.
Most of them are younger economists, killer at quantitative stuff. I know plenty of them personally, and honestly, they couldn't care less about being media personalities.

Next time, before you swallow the garbage being spewed by local news outlets (or just lazy hacks rewriting foreign reports), maybe try reading the full report yourself.

http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/Issues...x-oct-2010.pdf

Our broader analysis comparing both effective income tax and social security rates on USD100,000 and USD300,000 of gross income emphasizes the point that other taxes and the impact of deductions clearly need to be considered. Effective rates were derived by taking total taxes over gross income prior to any deductions (which may include social security) to allow for better comparison as deductions can vary greatly across countries. While Sweden is clearly at the higher end of each scenario, it does not actually have the top rate. Using a USD100,000 basis for example, America, Canada and Greece All have higher combined effective rates ranging from approximately 45 to 52 percent. The primary difference here is social security.Whether social security is a true tax may be debated but in terms of cost, it can be material and should not be forgotten. We have, therefore, again included a review of both the employee and employer contributions for completeness. Social security components can vary significantly including by country, employer and employee type. For ease of comparison across countries, we have therefore again restricted the review to recognized core contribution requirements for employees earning gross income of USD100,000 and USD300,000. The results show France has the highest combined rate at approximately 60 percent under either scenario followed by Belgium at 48 percent.

Also, who knows if that number even applies to the Republic of America. $100k a year is roughly $103 gross annually, leaving you with $330 net per year. That’s about $111 a month. You can't draw any real conclusions about how the tax is distributed if your analysis only looks at the top 8.5% and ignores everyone else, especially since according to the U.S. Census Bureau, that top 8.5% of workers makes $2667 net or more. So yeah... 🙄

Maria Thomas48 said:Well, I was naive enough to think that too. That logic works for a standard loan, but it doesn't apply to inflationary debt. I mentioned this earlier, so just go back and read it.

In short. My starting point is the assumption that you're trying to maintain purchasing power by taking out a loan. You can't actually pay the loan back because you need that money to maintain your purchasing power. It’s not entirely accurate in a real-world system, though, because as we drive more expensive cars, we need more money in circulation since they aren't built to last as long. Economists can probably analyze that better than I can. I just made the simplest assumption that you're holding onto the status quo and keeping your real purchasing power exactly the same.

I plugged this into an Excel sheet and soon realized that debt tends toward the sum of inflation and interest over time.

There isn't some complex mathematical derivation here; it's easy to work out. Just look at the spreadsheet. I know it looks like a disaster for everyone, but we have to face the facts and say: This is the truth.

The Federal Reserve didn't give me any answers on this topic at all. They don't seem to care about the consequences of inflation.

Based on the Federal Reserve's own charter and laws, the only new money entering the system is credit. Period. Which means we feed inflation through credit. I just calculated what happens next.

Best,

You keep actual purchasing power steady through salary negotiations that factor in inflation. People don't just go into debt to stay even—that assumption is flat-out wrong. Go look into some recent breakthroughs in behavioral economics— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics

Purchasing power is basically real wages divided by the aggregate price level. Taking out a loan is just an intertemporal shift. From a purchasing power standpoint, it's neutral because paying back that debt eats into your future disposable income.

Bottom line—http://www.getobjects.com/Components/Finance/TVM/concepts.html
Go study Time Value of Money concepts used in finance management.

Maria Thomas48 said:Well, I was naive enough to think that too. That logic works for a standard loan, but it doesn't apply to inflationary debt. I mentioned this earlier, so just go back and read it.

In short. My starting point is the assumption that you're trying to maintain purchasing power by taking out a loan. You can't actually pay the loan back because you need that money to maintain your purchasing power. It’s not entirely accurate in a real-world system, though, because as we drive more expensive cars, we need more money in circulation since they aren't built to last as long. Economists can probably analyze that better than I can. I just made the simplest assumption that you're holding onto the status quo and keeping your real purchasing power exactly the same.

I plugged this into an Excel sheet and soon realized that debt tends toward the sum of inflation and interest over time.

There isn't some complex mathematical derivation here; it's easy to work out. Just look at the spreadsheet. I know it looks like a disaster for everyone, but we have to face the facts and say: This is the truth.

The Federal Reserve didn't give me any answers on this topic at all. They don't seem to care about the consequences of inflation.

Based on the Federal Reserve's own charter and laws, the only new money entering the system is credit. Period. Which means we feed inflation through credit. I just calculated what happens next.

Best,

That assumes velocity of money is constant. It isn't.

Maria Thomas48 said:Well, I was naive enough to think that too. That logic works for a standard loan, but it doesn't apply to inflationary debt. I mentioned this earlier, so just go back and read it.

In short. My starting point is the assumption that you're trying to maintain purchasing power by taking out a loan. You can't actually pay the loan back because you need that money to maintain your purchasing power. It’s not entirely accurate in a real-world system, though, because as we drive more expensive cars, we need more money in circulation since they aren't built to last as long. Economists can probably analyze that better than I can. I just made the simplest assumption that you're holding onto the status quo and keeping your real purchasing power exactly the same.

I plugged this into an Excel sheet and soon realized that debt tends toward the sum of inflation and interest over time.

There isn't some complex mathematical derivation here; it's easy to work out. Just look at the spreadsheet. I know it looks like a disaster for everyone, but we have to face the facts and say: This is the truth.

The Federal Reserve didn't give me any answers on this topic at all. They don't seem to care about the consequences of inflation.

Based on the Federal Reserve's own charter and laws, the only new money entering the system is credit. Period. Which means we feed inflation through credit. I just calculated what happens next.

Best,

Yeah, we can. 🙂

Maria Thomas48 said:Well, I was naive enough to think that too. That logic works for a standard loan, but it doesn't apply to inflationary debt. I mentioned this earlier, so just go back and read it.

In short. My starting point is the assumption that you're trying to maintain purchasing power by taking out a loan. You can't actually pay the loan back because you need that money to maintain your purchasing power. It’s not entirely accurate in a real-world system, though, because as we drive more expensive cars, we need more money in circulation since they aren't built to last as long. Economists can probably analyze that better than I can. I just made the simplest assumption that you're holding onto the status quo and keeping your real purchasing power exactly the same.

I plugged this into an Excel sheet and soon realized that debt tends toward the sum of inflation and interest over time.

There isn't some complex mathematical derivation here; it's easy to work out. Just look at the spreadsheet. I know it looks like a disaster for everyone, but we have to face the facts and say: This is the truth.

The Federal Reserve didn't give me any answers on this topic at all. They don't seem to care about the consequences of inflation.

Based on the Federal Reserve's own charter and laws, the only new money entering the system is credit. Period. Which means we feed inflation through credit. I just calculated what happens next.

Best,

Real purchasing power depends on a whole bunch of other stuff—wages, productivity, etc. Your premise is stupid. Bad premise = bad model.

Maria Thomas48 said:Well, I was naive enough to think that too. That logic works for a standard loan, but it doesn't apply to inflationary debt. I mentioned this earlier, so just go back and read it.

In short. My starting point is the assumption that you're trying to maintain purchasing power by taking out a loan. You can't actually pay the loan back because you need that money to maintain your purchasing power. It’s not entirely accurate in a real-world system, though, because as we drive more expensive cars, we need more money in circulation since they aren't built to last as long. Economists can probably analyze that better than I can. I just made the simplest assumption that you're holding onto the status quo and keeping your real purchasing power exactly the same.

I plugged this into an Excel sheet and soon realized that debt tends toward the sum of inflation and interest over time.

There isn't some complex mathematical derivation here; it's easy to work out. Just look at the spreadsheet. I know it looks like a disaster for everyone, but we have to face the facts and say: This is the truth.

The Federal Reserve didn't give me any answers on this topic at all. They don't seem to care about the consequences of inflation.

Based on the Federal Reserve's own charter and laws, the only new money entering the system is credit. Period. Which means we feed inflation through credit. I just calculated what happens next.

Best,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_equation

*tap tap*

Maria Thomas48 said:Well, I was naive enough to think that too. That logic works for a standard loan, but it doesn't apply to inflationary debt. I mentioned this earlier, so just go back and read it.

In short. My starting point is the assumption that you're trying to maintain purchasing power by taking out a loan. You can't actually pay the loan back because you need that money to maintain your purchasing power. It’s not entirely accurate in a real-world system, though, because as we drive more expensive cars, we need more money in circulation since they aren't built to last as long. Economists can probably analyze that better than I can. I just made the simplest assumption that you're holding onto the status quo and keeping your real purchasing power exactly the same.

I plugged this into an Excel sheet and soon realized that debt tends toward the sum of inflation and interest over time.

There isn't some complex mathematical derivation here; it's easy to work out. Just look at the spreadsheet. I know it looks like a disaster for everyone, but we have to face the facts and say: This is the truth.

The Federal Reserve didn't give me any answers on this topic at all. They don't seem to care about the consequences of inflation.

Based on the Federal Reserve's own charter and laws, the only new money entering the system is credit. Period. Which means we feed inflation through credit. I just calculated what happens next.

Best,

*sigh*
Inflation isn't always just about money supply. Maybe try reading Samuelson before you start trying to "discover" major economic theories in an Excel sheet.

Maria Thomas48 said:Well, I was naive enough to think that too. That logic works for a standard loan, but it doesn't apply to inflationary debt. I mentioned this earlier, so just go back and read it.

In short. My starting point is the assumption that you're trying to maintain purchasing power by taking out a loan. You can't actually pay the loan back because you need that money to maintain your purchasing power. It’s not entirely accurate in a real-world system, though, because as we drive more expensive cars, we need more money in circulation since they aren't built to last as long. Economists can probably analyze that better than I can. I just made the simplest assumption that you're holding onto the status quo and keeping your real purchasing power exactly the same.

I plugged this into an Excel sheet and soon realized that debt tends toward the sum of inflation and interest over time.

There isn't some complex mathematical derivation here; it's easy to work out. Just look at the spreadsheet. I know it looks like a disaster for everyone, but we have to face the facts and say: This is the truth.

The Federal Reserve didn't give me any answers on this topic at all. They don't seem to care about the consequences of inflation.

Based on the Federal Reserve's own charter and laws, the only new money entering the system is credit. Period. Which means we feed inflation through credit. I just calculated what happens next.

Best,

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...10/spn1003.pdf

Check this out. Read it and maybe the world will finally make sense to you. 🙂

Jeffrey Johnson2 said:Look, sorry, but back when I was at my business school, we did a ton of Case Studies, all kinds of problems and term papers that forced us to actually dig into market trends and run deep dives on how specific companies operated.

The only real headache was how disconnected those firms were from the university—it made grabbing hard data nearly impossible—but the top-tier students always found a way to scrape something together and turn out some seriously interesting work. Besides, you can't just teach everything that way; take Law, for example. Like, who's to blame if you studied from some garbage study guide and ended up not knowing what a promissory note even looks like?

I don't know, maybe it depends on the major, but at least don't generalize like that.

Try actually reading what I wrote. 🙂
Of course I didn't see a sample promissory note when the William Gorenac textbook—yeah, I actually used books, wow, look at me—doesn't include an actual visual example of one. It lists the requirements for a note, sure, but nothing else. Not a single contract template in sight. This was freshman year. So yeah, obviously I memorized the components, but I’m pretty sure nobody ever asked me to actually apply that knowledge in the real world.

Jeffrey Johnson2 said:Look, sorry, but back when I was at my business school, we did a ton of Case Studies, all kinds of problems and term papers that forced us to actually dig into market trends and run deep dives on how specific companies operated.

The only real headache was how disconnected those firms were from the university—it made grabbing hard data nearly impossible—but the top-tier students always found a way to scrape something together and turn out some seriously interesting work. Besides, you can't just teach everything that way; take Law, for example. Like, who's to blame if you studied from some garbage study guide and ended up not knowing what a promissory note even looks like?

I don't know, maybe it depends on the major, but at least don't generalize like that.

Obviously it depends on the major. I’m Macroeconomics, which means this is actual Economics, not just Business—it's science. Seriously, I sat through a ton of classes alongside Business majors, many of which were totally useless and taught me zero practical skills. But hey, I had to memorize five different versions of management roles by five different authors just to pass the exam. It’s like studying German grammar instead of social science. My point is—people learn way better through interaction. I know this because now that I run interactive workshops as a TA, I see much higher passing rates on midterms. One requirement even forces students to design their own ten-question test to grade their peers. So, trust me, I know what I'm talking about when it comes to learning. 🙂

And for the record, my major wasn't the kind where you could just skim some cheat sheet; you actually had to think using mountains of literature. I wouldn't be halfway through a PhD right now if I had just relied on summaries. If students actually studied instead of just sucking knowledge out of thin air from study guides, maybe test scores wouldn't be so pathetic. Honestly, the way you talked to me really rubbed me the wrong way, especially since the post you jumped on was pretty harmless. Let's put it this way: I don't remember the requirements for a promissory note anymore, and nobody’s ever going to ask me about it. But I do know dynamic optimization and survival analysis. Can you say the same for yourself? 🙂

No hard feelings, man, but don't talk down to me like I'm a kid, okay? Thanks 🙂

I think you guys are lowballing video games. Some of them are pure reflex training, while others actually demand a decent IQ and some quick thinking.
Take Tetris, for example—that’s probably the only way to actually build spatial intelligence. And don't even get me started on strategy games or RPGs. Even FPS titles require serious brainpower.

In my book, fighting on forums is a much worse way to spend time—being an internet warrior is basically the ultimate waste of life.

Reading books is great, sure, but it gets tedious. People learn way better through interaction, and that’s exactly where our American education system falls short.

Like, my absolute worst exam in college was Business Law. That whole subject was just endless, mindless memorization of sentences. I can't remember ever putting in that much effort for something that gave me such zero payoff.

It would have been so much better if I'd actually learned the material and had at least one practical part to the exam—like being handed a contract or a promissory note filled with errors in form or content and having to spot and fix them.
A Case Study is a massive tool for learning, and the American school system seriously needs to figure out how to use it. That’s supposed to be the whole point of the Bologna Process—linking theory to practice.
The EU hasn't really changed how subjects are taught, because the old-school faculty wouldn't or couldn't change the ways they've been lecturing for fifty years. All they did was compress courses into single semesters, cut their own hours, and pile even more pressure on the students. Look at Principles of Economics—it's such a mess you can't tell who's running the show. The material is completely disorganized because everyone blindly follows Samuelson, which is a solid book, but not for American students.

What's the result? You finish four years of college grinding through exams, only to hit real-world testing and realize your brain is a total blank slate. If you aren't using knowledge, you're going to lose it—especially if you just crammed the night before an exam just to scrape by with a C. It never sticks.

I honestly don't get you people. 😁

I'm halfway through my PhD in Economics, and during breaks from reading textbooks on dynamic optimization, I play Jedi Academy. What's the big deal? The games aren't even that bad—it's just how I blow off steam. 😛

Most people are just plain idiots, on average. 🙂

Just stick to 5mg before you hit the hay. Honestly, 5mg used to turn me into a total zombie.

Lol, just threw up my cheese. 😁

I honestly don't know what else to eat. Everything makes me nauseous except for some dry toast and maybe some baby crackers. 😁