[PassedOut]

phil_20686, on 2011-August-18, 06:04, said:

In short what we have is another example of the fact that apparently simple statistics can be very misleading in something as complicated as economics.

I think that this complexity creates both frustration and fascination. Economic forecasts are like weather forecasts and -- in business anyway -- we look at them that way. A cold front might be on the way, but no one can promise an exact temperature for your city. Summer will be warmer than winter, but no one can promise how much.

[blackshoe]

Economics as normal is a conspiracy to defraud the average worker and enrich the rich.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-18, 11:29, said:

Economics as normal is a conspiracy to defraud the average worker and enrich the rich.

Back when I taught college econ, defrauding "the average worker" was covered in week eight of the syllabus.
And, of course, we were trying to enrich the Jews (however, we didn't let the rubes in on that)

Seriously, Ed... You're starting to wander well off into cloud cuckoo land.

FWIW, I think that its worthwhile distinquishing between "Economics" as a formal discipline and whatever it is that you've been reading.

The concept of profit maximization is almost axiomatic within economics.
Just about everyone is assumed to be trying to screw over someone else.
I'd argue that this is just an axiom within economics, but a pretty fair reflection of reality.

I certainly agree that the concentration of power in the hands of the rich is a major cause form concern.

I'm part of the East Coast liberal establishment.
I believe that a strong central government is both necessary and desirable.

And, while I admit to the concept of regulatory capture.
I also recognize that life isn't perfect and the pendulum is going to swing back and forth.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2011-August-18, 12:41, said:

I certainly agree that the concentration of power in the hands of the rich is a major cause form concern.

I'm part of the East Coast liberal establishment. I believe that a strong central government is both necessary and desirable.

do you not see a dichotomy between those two statements? it seems to me that the stronger the central gov't is, the more the concentration of power will flow toward the rich

[phil_20686]

luke warm, on 2011-August-18, 13:26, said:

do you not see a dichotomy between those two statements? it seems to me that the stronger the central gov't is, the more the concentration of power will flow toward the rich

No, because you do not have to vote for rich people.

[helene_t]

phil_20686, on 2011-August-18, 14:01, said:

No, because you do not have to vote for rich people.

True, but you have to be rich to buy the advertisement time to make people vote for you

[luke warm]

phil_20686, on 2011-August-18, 14:01, said:

No, because you do not have to vote for rich people.

do you really believe that?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2011-August-18, 13:26, said:

it seems to me that the stronger the central gov't is, the more the concentration of power will flow toward the rich

It would help to understand your position if you'd elaborate on your reasoning some. If you are saying that a strong central government will always act to destroy labor unions, for example, I don't see why that must always be the case. Nor do I see that Teddy Roosevelt's "trust busting" moves would have been more successful with a weaker federal government.

[blackshoe]

Whether you vote for rich people or not, with a strong central government, the rich will always be "the rich and powerful".

Unions serve a useful purpose, but like all such things, they accumulate power, and then they become corrupt. Not in the sense of "these are bad people", but in the sense that they use their accumulated power to accumulate more power, and for purposes far beyond collective bargaining.

The NLRB is going after Boeing. Why? Because, according to the NLRB, although Boeing already has two (union) F-35 plants in Washington state, they built a third non-union one in South Carolina specifically as an act of illegal "union busting". There's your 'strong central government' at work.

[mike777]

Keep in mind in many ways we dont have a "strong" central government compared to many other countries.

We have checks and balances with 3 equal branches of a central government and we have 50 states that act as a check and balance against the central govt. We have a quasi/ind Federal Reserve System.

On top of that the "out of power" party can still act as a check and balance.

Remember how hard it is to pass anything even when one party controls the govt.
---


Many say it results in a disfunctional govt unable to get "big" things done.

--


I just think that is how we are built, to do things in an incremental/compromise manner.

[awm]

luke warm, on 2011-August-18, 13:26, said:

do you not see a dichotomy between those two statements? it seems to me that the stronger the central gov't is, the more the concentration of power will flow toward the rich

This seems backwards to me. Back in the 1920s the US had a much weaker central government. Power and wealth were incredibly concentrated in the hands of a few. Today, the US has a stronger central government than it once did, but still quite a bit weaker than the socialist regimes of Europe. Again, power and wealth are much more concentrated here in the US than in Europe.

When someone accumulates huge amounts of wealth, what is to stop that person from doing whatever they like, basically screwing over other people with impunity? The only way for "regular people" to stand up to this sort of power is to band together.. and that's precisely what government (and, for that matter, unions) are: a forum for large numbers of "regular people" to enforce their rights when a wealthy and powerful few would prefer to screw them over.

Of course there are cases where the government can be corrupted, basically "captured" by corporations or groups with disproportionate wealth or time or motivation. However, all that does is get government "out of the way" so those same groups can screw people over just the way they would without government. Better to reduce the corruption through a combination of more oversight/transparency and legal remedies for the worst abuses than to just give up and let the few have their way at the expense of the many.

[mike777]

Side note but I was really disgusted by the cowardice shown in the rep debate on the question of ten to one budget cuts and they all said Hell no!

I understand they are all running to the right in the primary and running to the center in the general election but the pandering went too far for me.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-18, 17:14, said:

The NLRB is going after Boeing. Why? Because, according to the NLRB, although Boeing already has two (union) F-35 plants in Washington state, they built a third non-union one in South Carolina specifically as an act of illegal "union busting". There's your 'strong central government' at work.

NPR's On Point had a decent enough program on this yesterday
http://onpoint.wbur....2011/08/18/nlrb

The reason that the NLRB is taking action against Boeing is that Boeing's own management was stupid enough to go on the record and make statements like the following

Quote

But again, the overriding factor was not the business climate and it was not the wages we're paying people today. It was that we can't afford to have a work stoppage every three years. We can't afford to continue the rate of escalation of wages as we have in the past. You know, those are the overriding factors. And my bias was to stay here but we could not get those two issues done despite the best efforts of the Union and the best efforts of the company.

Like it or not, it is illegal to retaliate against workers for striking and there is strong evidence suggesting that this is what Boeing is doing

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2011-August-18, 16:19, said:

It would help to understand your position if you'd elaborate on your reasoning some.

i'm saying that, with few exceptions, only those with some amount of wealth can afford to run for office (where, once in, they become even more wealthy)... that means power rests, for the most part, in the hands of those who can afford to wield it... i don't see how a more centralized gov't would result in less power flowing to the rich

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2011-August-18, 19:52, said:

Side note but I was really disgusted by the cowardice shown in the rep debate on the question of ten to one budget cuts and they all said Hell no!

I understand they are all running to the right in the primary and running to the center in the general election but the pandering went too far for me.

This isn't simply political posturing, unfortunately. These dogmatists actually believe their own nonsense, and they proved it was more than political posturing during the recent standoff over the debt ceiling.

When this group decries taxes, what they mean is "government money". This must be the case as not all taxes are equal. Regressive taxes like the FICA take the most money out of the hands of those who consume 98-100% of their wages, and the money is supposed to be returned in later life. Capital gains taxes, on the other hand, tend to affect those whose consumption is unaffected by increased taxes, and that money goes into the general budget. FICA and general budgetetary are not supposed to be comingled funds.

Lower taxes (or higher for that matter) by themselves is not the answer - it just happens to be the current "evil" that can be sold to the masses with minimal effort.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-August-19, 03:56, said:

i'm saying that, with few exceptions, only those with some amount of wealth can afford to run for office (where, once in, they become even more wealthy)... that means power rests, for the most part, in the hands of those who can afford to wield it... i don't see how a more centralized gov't would result in less power flowing to the rich

This completely ignores the role of those damn government bureaucrats who are rarely drawn from the ranks of the idle rich...

(And also explains why said bureaucrats get demonized so much)

[Winstonm]

Quote

Thus, I do not think one can really do economics without some idealology.

Phil,

This IMO is the problem with economics and the reason so many economists were denying the U.S. would go into recession even after the U.S. had already entered a recession.

IMO the most effective means to determine reality is to analyze data and form an opinion based on that data - ideologists, however, tend to look at the same data and try to pick out pieces that justify their models while downplaying or discrediting data that does not fit.

If the data does not fit the ideological model, shouldn't the model be questioned first?

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2011-August-19, 06:13, said:

This completely ignores the role of those damn government bureaucrats who are rarely drawn from the ranks of the idle rich...

(And also explains why said bureaucrats get demonized so much)

i suppose one could make the argument that it's actually the bureaucrats who are "in power"... it wasn't the one i was making

[kenberg]

Real world data, it seems to me, has to be selected and has to be interpreted.

Example:
I was speaking with someone who reads job applications and interviews prospective employees. Apparently the number of applications from people who clearly lack the skills for the job has grown considerably. Why?

Explanation 1: People are really desperate for jobs and will apply anywhere.

Explanation 2: To keep receiving unemployment benefits you must apply for a job. You can see where applying for a job that you know that you will not get might be just what is needed.

Quite possibly one could test these matters to see what is going on. For example, if it turns out that many people find their next job just around the time that unemployment benefits run out, that could plausibly regarded as evidence that their intention was to get their new job offer later rather than sooner. Plausible, but not conclusive.


Data speaks, but like oracles from Delphi, not always clearly.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-August-19, 06:53, said:

i suppose one could make the argument that it's actually the bureaucrats who are "in power"... it wasn't the one i was making

I know what point you were making
I was pointing out why you are wrong

It's probably worth noting that civil service reform was one of the most significant reforms enacted during the original progressive era.