For a small-bite consumption of economics look at the blog of Dr Paul
Krugman
professor of finance at Princeton and Nobel Prize winner. He writes a
blog and
opinion column at the NYT (free access).
Read his blog and columns for a month and you will find topical
discussions on economics.
Over that time you will pick up information about larger economic issues
and theory that based
on my undergrad and grad training I can say "oh yea, that rings a bell".
Its called Conscience of a Liberal.
BLOG: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
Opinion:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html
He has also written a textbook on economics available at Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Paul-Krugman/dp/0716771586/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284158683&sr=1-1
<http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Paul-Krugman/dp/0716771586/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284158683&sr=1-1>
Yes, people will claim, rightly so, that Dr Krugman has a liberal bias.
But he presents his opinion
and backs it up with data that can be verified or refuted. You can not
say that about most of the
conservative politicians who rant about what economic policies need to
be implemented - even
when their *notions* are contrary to established economic cause-n-effect.
When he says tax cuts or supply-side economics, which benefit the very
wealthy, are failed or
will not benefit the current economic malaise, he doesn't claim hurt for
the middle or lower economic
classes. He provides data showing the policy promoted by conservatives
will **not** meet the goal
the conservatives are claiming to achieve. He shows the
spending/saving/etc patterns of certain groups
and why giving them *stimulus* funds will or will not stimulate the
economy.
If someone finds an equivalent "conservative" economist blog I will add
that to the mix to compare.
Actually, Dr Krugman references such conservative sites (usually
politicians or pundits) who
blather claiming they espouse economic policy. Dr K rationally refutes
their comments - with
facts and diagrams from independent data sources.
I took macro econ as an undergrad and a class on the Federal Banking
System in grad school (MBA).
I have been an investment analyst for 26 years (commercial mortgage
loans). So from an
econ-theory standpoint I consider myself an "informed consumer" of
economic policy
discussions, but by no means claim any expertise in economics.
Stephen Thompson (lurker)
MBA Finance
MS Software Engineering
On 9/10/2010 5:04 PM, Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote:
Hi Glen ,
It looks in some ways that inflation is a polite way to avoid fight or
flight and that used to be the jurisdiction of governments. It is not
clear how governments can fiddle much anymore as lowering the bank
lending rate rarely results in lowering consumer debt rates. That has
been one argument for governments taking over the banking sector, no
doubt the other is that it would be like giving the fox the keys to
the henhouse.
I have argued often with people that believe gold is some kind of
fixed commodity, it is not. The higher the price goes the more holes
people dig looking for the stuff when the value declines people just
stop digging. Gold suffers as much as any commodity; people just
believe the stuff is rare sort of like the fallacious energy shortage.
There is no such thing , the truth is that there is only a shortage of
dirt cheap energy. I try and avoid these debates since most of the
participants seem to have a belief system that entitles them to make
outrageous claims that are beyond testing, much like religion.
So far we have tried any number of economic models with typical
failures every 1 or two generations. I suppose any system based on
belief without question is bound to collapse when the priests and
disciples fade away.
Sometimes I suspect money is a loosely correlated concept to the
degree of trust people have for each other. That global trust is
falling apart as we speak and the economics will follow. There does
not seem to be any way a single government can reestablish basic trust
on a global scale. In the 13^th century people were freaking out about
counterfeiters. Dante reserved a special place in the Inferno for such
miscreants because he felt strongly that they were undermining God's
Order. Some of these counterfeiters were basically making less than
pure gold coins by small margins. The question that was never answered
was whether the States themselves were issuing less than full measure
and simply looking for scapegoats. Back then anyone with a smattering
of chemistry could be burned at the stake. Inflation is just a less
obvious way of devaluing currency.
I doubt it is a zero sum game since there are many examples of people
just walking away from the table and starting new systems, the trick
is to convince everyone that it is the only game in town.
**Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky**
**Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)**
**120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.**
**Winnipeg, Manitoba**
**CANADA R2J 3R2**
**(204) 2548321 Phone/Fax**
*vbur...@shaw.ca* <mailto:vbur...@shaw.ca>
-----Original Message-----
*From:* friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]
*On Behalf Of *ERIC P. CHARLES
*Sent:* September 10, 2010 12:43 PM
*To:* friam
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] national debt and zero-sum games
Vladimyr, Glen,
Agreed!
Even in the cases where there is not forfeit or fight, however, the
situation is not as bad as it seems. First, the notion that this
particular nation will even be "out of debt" seems unlikely, at least
unlikely in the next 50 to 100 years. Second, one of the major reasons
for the government to manage inflation is because inflation devalues
debt. So, on top of the other concerns brought up, it is misleading to
say that we are passing the debt onto our children because, 1) the
nation will continuously float debt, which in some sense means that
the current debt will never really be paid off, 2) by the time my
children are paying off parts of the current debt, the effective value
of the debt will be much less.
The president of Penn State was shocked when a recent survey of
entering freshmen showed that the vast majority expected to become
millionaires. To me, the statistics seemed very realistic... with the
added caveat that being a millionaire might not be very impressive at
that point.
Eric
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 01:05 PM, *"Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky"
<vbur...@shaw.ca>* wrote:
Glen,
I share your misgivings about the current discussions regarding
money,
Before the second world war there was an Austrian or Austro-Hungarian
school
of economics that had substantially different ideas than is currently
in
fashion. My understanding is that Brettton Woods ? agreement ,after the
war,
ended the old school and started the one we now think is
"Normal"
The name that sticks out is Von Mises. I have a copy somewhere but
it was
thicker than my own PhD thesis and never had the courage to crack it
open.
It is a little late in my life for such a dramatic shift of
intellectual
pursuit..
Reading Herodotus I am convinced children
rarely pay off the debts of their
forefathers and would rather emigrate or
fight. Trying to extract ancient
debts from the unwilling is a nasty affair
that costs more than it returns.
Solon's approach to declare bankruptcy
for Athens is said to have saved the
city and heralded in a new era of
Prosperity.
If money does not last forever then it seems debt is just as
short lived.
Maybe others have more details or ideas to add to the
discussions. Debt
crisis have been downplayed by historians I suspect
because they did not
fully understand the economics or principles.
Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky
Ph.D.(Civil Eng.),
M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.),
M.Sc.(Biology)
120-1053 Beaverhill
Blvd.
Winnipeg, Manitoba
CANADA R2J 3R2
(204) 2548321
Phone/Fax
vbur...@shaw.ca
-----Original
Message-----
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com
[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent:
September 10, 2010 11:42 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group
Subject: [FRIAM] national debt and zero-sum games
I keep
hearing people claim that any debt the US builds/acquires will
have to be
paid (or defaulted on) by "our children and their
children".
This
oversimplification has always _seemed_ fundamentally wrong to me
... more
wrong than just being an oversimplification.
It doesn't seem to me like
the economy is a zero-sum game. Money isn't
subject to any conservation
laws that I"m aware of. Granted, there are
economic drivers that are
conserved; but money isn't one of them. So,
what literature do I need to
start reading that will help me a)
understand what is and isn't conserved
about debt and b) clarify this
point to those who insist on making the
oversimplified argument? I'm
not convinced one way or the other; I just
want to find a bit of clarity
around this soundbite. In particular, it
strikes me that on a personal
scale (time and distance), money is mostly
conserved. E.g. I pile up
credit card debt or buy a house and that debt
sticks with me. I either
have to pay it off or default (or die). But is
that true at all
scales?
I've spent some time looking at generic
books and popular magazine
articles on economics. But they lack the clarity
I need (or perhaps I'm
too thick to understand them). And the sources for
Game Theory I've
seen are too idealistic to get any real traction for an
argument.
Thanks.
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095,
http://agent-based-modeling.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
