Varney unknown here. What economics has to face up to is it is barely informed by science at all - though it's full of unwarranted abstractions and complex maths, I'd guess we are broadly similar in politics and could produce a lot of apparent support from the literature - but this is hardly science or even the philosophy we pass over the cracker barrel.
New Scientist had it recently that 'it should be possible within a decade to have functioning models of the global economy to which policy-makers could look for sound insights' (6 June, p 35), but this was just what was said when models of the economy first began to appear from the 50's on - he claims conflating understanding, prediction and management. The only sense in which the statement is true is that it might reduce policy-makers to irrelevance, but they are not likely to draw that conclusion themselves. Paul Ormerod and Craig Mounfield have used the physics tool of random matrix theory to show that much of the economic variability we observe contains noise and not true information - a paper shows how tough.the reasoning is http://arxiv.org/pdf/nlin/0610048.pdf - just glancing at it makes the eyes water. The analysis of such data is not capable of generating robust forecasts, let alone the kinds of policy levers which enable us to predict their effects. More complex or complicated models will not remove this fact. I do think we could get some machine models running - the real problem is making access to them total - that is it's a power issue not one of maths. One reason why modern economics is such a "dismal science" is that it has failed to question its underlying assumptions. I suspect scientists can work out why financial dealings in money and property are more profitable than the capital and labour that supply goods and services. Why do we allow speculative buying and selling to make the share market as changeable as the weather, rather than sticking to its original purpose of facilitating investment? Psychologists such as Stephen Lea and Peter Cooper are challenging assumptions about human behaviour by describing how our "disastrous heuristics" have contributed to the present financial crisis. George Akerlof and Robert Shiller's 'Animal Spirits: How human psychology drives the economy, and why it matters for global capitalism' may help scientists to model a more stable economy, rather than accept what markets have become and try to tinker with them - but the power questions are deeper. WW2 left a lot of people with military experience and I suspect many of the concessions we got - full employment and decent wages for a while, union representation and so on - came because we were a threat to the ruling class. We've let this drop one way or another and are back on the road to serfdom. Most scientists are liberal and left- leaning -http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php? az=view_all&address=102x3963921 - a Pew poll. We work with facts we keep under review and mostly let all others see to see so we can all think about them. Economics doesn't even begin that process. I've found more than 100 'explanations' of how much we bailed out the banks by - but can't even find figures I could rely on to make an argument that would satisfy my scientific rules of thumb. The story I believe (but under review) is that the financial system is a giant Ponzi scheme that sucks money and resource control under a control fraud illusion similar to those some parasites use to get their hosts to act in certain ways. We could establish an open accounting system largely embodied in machine (as we've done with many artisan skills), but this runs into the non-democratic foreign policy areas through which imperial powers attract tribute (which obfuscating economics and banking serves). The whole idea being open about this equates to science at the time of instruments of torture and stating the earth goes round the sun being an act of auto da fe. I could teach you in minutes (if you don't know already) how to read balance, profit and loss and cash flow sheets of honest small business. After this, it all goes criminal - big companies, banks and governments all lie - yet pointing this out would lead to libel charges, not a change to honesty. The books we really need are those in the secret compartment of the relevant Al Capone's desk. Everyone is at it Nom - if I get £500,000 grant as a university researcher from, say ESRC, I bid for more money from some EU fund, but never intend to do more work - I use the ESRC money to do the research and claim the same work as work in the EU project. One covers this in certain ways by collaborating with EU colleagues. The university will charge overheads (60% if hey can get away with it - 25% might be reasonable) to both projects - and I will have to buy equipment through their centrally approved suppliers charged at double what I can get them for down the road - with the university central accounts getting a '40% discount' at the end of year from these suppliers. That's only the half of it in the world of match funded research. When I go to colleagues I'm asking them to work for nothing most of the time. If this is going on in our universities, imagine what the crooks who run banks are doing or where Mafia outfits bid for EU funding to build roads. Alongside research I often did a full teaching programme (12 to 18 hours/week - but it really takes a lot more - 30 hours +). That would probably be a third of the teaching 150 students would get in a year (fees 50 times £9K = £450000). Even in university administration there is no financial honesty. A scientific economics would account in a very different way from what we see the mainstream doing today. This is the bones of why I don't think economics can tell us about - er - economics. If you earn 5% on investments with inflation at 10% you pay tax as though there was no inflation - which encourages you to seek higher returns - but money is also being lent into bubbles (like housing) to increase returns by inflating assets prices (so sitting on your arse in property 'earns' you more than wages) - you remortgage again likely to inflate property prices - banks encourage this and like all Ponzi schemes (Alan Bond in Australia is a good example) there appear to be big returns until the bubble is pricked - alongside this wages have been decimated - removing new money for the Ponzi - in the meantime the banksters have pocketed a lot of cash whilst nothing was really being created - ergo they have stolen large amounts of cash via 24 hour profit and loss that lets them take cash fees on the basis of profits long into the future than won't exist after the crash. In the bubble returns from the Ponzi are far greater than investment in production, social capital and so on. I suspect TARP, QE and the rest are no more than new Ponzi cash being leveraged to keep the bubble afloat. Much being accounted as assets will turn out to be little more than 'natural imigongo' - imigongo is cow shit turned into art - without the artists' work it's just cow shit. I think TARP, QE and various other dodges have just provided cash to bank accounting - it's leveraged there, probably for special vehicle investments into Ponzi bubble - the the meantime the new money printing will lead to inflation while our wages are declining (frozen in inflation is a decline) ... it would take pages even at this level to complete. And that is before we try and formulate a viable alternative - all such I know of neglect foreign policy honesty or lack of. Try and find out what the 230% (about) GDP UK financial sector debt actually is Nom. It could be anything from successful investment in lending to a complex fraud from which the assets have been hollowed out to leave the country paying for a 'special purpose imigongo' derivative asset claimed to be a gold mine. We have discovered a bacteria that extracts gold. I seem to remember there's a lot in the sea. The UK would have done better to invest in bringing that species into commercial operation than the big bang TINA banksters! On Feb 3, 5:58 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote: > We really only have two main parties Nom - Labour and Conservative. > The Greens, UKIP and BNP are largely irrelevant because we don't have > PR and the Liberal Democrats don't usually play much of a role but > poll about 8 - 15 %. They are currently part of a coalition with the > Tories. I guess most of us feel all this has proved is that people > who seemed decent when not really in the contest are total shits once > in government. > I agree your economic summary. On those of us not rich, I'd point to > the fact that the bottom 50% had 14% of liquid assets around 1980 and > that's down to 1% - if we don't scrap the financial system this won't > improve. The problem has been allowing global arbitrage on wages and > job conditions. > > On Feb 2, 5:44 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > filibuster for the Senate... house has Republican majority....just to set > > the record straight.... writing lapse... > > > On Friday, February 1, 2013 1:05:36 PM UTC-5, nominal9 wrote: > > > > Parliamentary govt. has its pros and cons.....What I like is your > > > multitude of political parties, as compared to the U.S...... here there > > > are > > > two with maybe a handful of registered "independents" at the U.S. federal > > > level... one thing about a multitude of parties is that it tends to > > > isolate > > > the radical fringes... and cooperation at the middle seems facilitated > > > (what do you think?).... here, the right-wing Republicans (by filibuster) > > > have been stymieing legislation in the U.S. House for the whole period of > > > the Obama administration..... > > > Palin is pretty much on the outs... she even lost her TV contract with Fox > > > News media... I do not wish her ill, but I think her political days are > > > over. > > > You know... speaking of Fox (Rupert Murdoch owned, I think you know), > > > there's one economics news personality named "Stuart Varney"... British > > > fellow... did he do much in England?... he's quite the "tool" over > > > here.... > > > makes me chuckle with the propaganda and inanities he puts out.... but his > > > English accent and delivery re quite "convincing"... there are quite a few > > > British TV personalities, especially on cable TV channels.... the > > > accent.... it's worth (must be) 50% toward getting hired on, here , I'd > > > say > > > HAR. > > > Economy is on everyone's mind... as it should be.... Unemployment rate > > > this month ticked up one decimal point to 7.9%. But today the Stock > > > Market > > > index (Dow) is hovering around 14000, hasn't been there since 2007. So, > > > here at least.... the fat cats are getting fatter (they were fed plenty > > > by > > > the Govt bailouts) but the rest of the peons are struggling.....Capitalist > > > economic growth model theories would seem to suggest that those without > > > are > > > pretty much out of the recovery, for a generation at least.... What does > > > your expertise suggest, Archytas? > > > Britain, I hear, has not seen any appreciable recovery in the > > > "markets".... am I correct in this? > > > >http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/01/25/1494541/austerity-pushes-... > > > >http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/31/us-funds-poll-britain-idUSB... > > > Austerity... is that the cause?..... or is it something systemic or > > > institutional with the banks and banksters (as you call them).... are they > > > still hemorrhaging money?.... or hoarding it?.... which could cause the > > > same effect? > > > I'm the novice.... how do you see it? > > > > On Friday, February 1, 2013 8:23:59 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > >> We have an outfit called UKIP (UK Independence Party) under-cutting > > >> the Tory vote - they have a couple of EU MPs - odd with a policy of > > >> exit from EU but down to proportional representation for that body. > > >> They don't get enough votes to get anyone in Westminster - but > > >> probably take 15% natural Tory support. We have our own Nazis - the > > >> BNP - sometimes taking 9%. Hence the Tory referendum ploy. Mass > > >> politics here is a dumb as in the US - though we haven't thrown up > > >> anything as bad as that basketball player shagger from your frozen > > >> North yet. Our closest is Nick Griffin (BNP leader) - he'd be a real > > >> problem if as pretty as Palin - but looks like a squit-eyed pig after > > >> failed botox applications. > > > >> We should be in the EU - tough much of it is farcical. The Parliament > > >> sits in Brussels and Strasbourg (for a month) and various Mafia steal > > >> funding - the whole shebang ain't democratic - and we need a modern, > > >> electronic Parliament and a federal structure. > > > >> On Jan 29, 6:59 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > I'm not up on European (and British) politics....at your level. It > > >> appears > > >> > to me that "big" ventures require "big" wallets, both at the private or > > >> the > > >> > public levels. Smaller or less developed countries and economies just > > >> > cannot do the "big-ticket" items... the big factories or the big > > >> research > > >> > ventures....I cannot see an "isolationist" Britain "going it alone" in > > >> this > > >> > day and age. In this sense, the Tories' vision is anachronistic, to say > > >> the > > >> > least, (it appears to me) it cannot "work"... > > > >> > The key issue is immigration in this fantasy and > > >> > stopping the Eastern and Southern Europeans 'taking our houses and > > >> > jobs'. / Archytas > > > >> > Ah yes.....Racism and bigotry is "always" the Right-wingers' preferred > > >> > "ally"..... > > > >> > On Monday, January 28, 2013 8:09:56 AM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > > >> > > Sadly some think the EU is important. The ruse has given the Tories > > >> a > > >> > > lead in the polls as most Brits think of the EU as a bureaucratic > > >> > > monster. I'd have thrown in with the US as the next five states long > > >> > > ago - but we are in decline and have little clue why. US/EU > > >> > > membership isn't really important - we should have moved more global > > >> > > in politics and less so in production and cheap energy grabbing long > > >> > > ago. The structural problems in our economies can't be addressed > > >> > > sensibly at the moment because of the money focus. With no focus on > > >> > > reality we look to the pool of ignorance to maintain government - the > > >> > > EU is irrelevant to anything other than maintaining the Tories on the > > >> > > basis of an isolationist UK - presumably as the offshore hub on money > > >> > > dodging EU taxation. The key issue is immigration in this fantasy > > >> and > > >> > > stopping the Eastern and Southern Europeans 'taking our houses and > > >> > > jobs'. > > > >> > > On Jan 25, 3:59 pm, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > > >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21158318 > > > >> > > > Sounds to me that it "might" be time for Britain to show some > > >> > > "Righteous > > >> > > > Indignation" and "break" Cameron and the Tories' government..... > > >> HAR... > > >> > > > Instead? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
