On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Ken Schaefer <k...@adopenstatic.com> wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] > Subject: Re: Would this be good for IT, or what? (UNCLASSIFIED) > >>> I went to Uni and got a degree with a major in Economics. I'm reasonably >>> appraised on major theories of economics, and whilst Keynes wasn't right >>> about >>> everything, theories on aggregate demand and equilibrium are pretty >>> mainstream >>> (you'll find them in any first year economics text). >> >>Mainstream or not, the art (I won't call it a science) of economics in >>its infancy. Just because Keynesianism is taught doesn't make it so. > > However people with a better understanding of economics than you > are willing to teach some Keynesian theories as part of broader view > of economics (you'll get IS/LM, AD/AS - all the standard basic models).
And some who know history, literature and sociology better than me teach Women's Studies, Deconstruction and the supposed African origin of Greek philosophy, too. I'm sure that in intro to physics and chemistry classes you'll hear about phlostigon as well. > Your dismissal of an entire major area of the field as effectively "complete > rubbish" seems to be wilful blindness. Especially as you say that the > area isn't settled. Seems to be, but isn't. I've made economics one of my areas of studies since the mid '70s. Keynes, Galbraith and the others of that kind simply make no sense. Mises, Hayek and Rothbard do. The reason the study isn't settled is because there is advantage to professors and bureaucrats in being able to present to governments "positive" courses of action to "fix things", and rationales for new rules and ways to inflate the money supply, and raise taxes. >> For governments, it's entirely another story. Debt for a government is >> something that can be manipulated in ways that individuals and >> businesses can't, because they hold the power of the gun - literally. >> They can, and do regularly, change the rules of the game to take >> advantage their subjects/citizens. > > No one forces anyone to buy government bonds. People do buy them > because it fits their risk/reward profile *even taking into account* the fact > that governments can default, or inflate away debt or whatever. If > governments stuff investors around too many times, people simply won't invest. I was speaking of individuals assuming debt (credit cards, car loans, mortgages, etc.), not buying bonds. But, what you're saying is somewhat true. Screw the bond market enough times, and your only other alternatives are nakedly raising taxes and inflating the money supply. The American government has concentrated on the last option for a while, and now it seems to be looking towards the other two. It ain't gonna be pretty. Kurt ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
