This is very late draft full of graphs taken off the physics spread
sheet models if anyone wants a copy to review.
It lays out in detail how to get SBSP down to 2 cents per kWh or less
and how to get the project started to self sustaining stage a modest
number of tens of billions.
If you have an
11:46:55 -0700
> Subject: Krugman endorses behavioral economics
> From: jwilliams4...@gmail.com
> To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
>
> Summary:
>
> Krugman implies that most economists either believe in the simplistic
> Keynesian theory, or the absurd efficient market theory. Neither
&g
Summary:
Krugman implies that most economists either believe in the simplistic
Keynesian theory, or the absurd efficient market theory. Neither
viewpoint was helpful in predicting the 2008 downturn. But Krugman
suggests that another theory, behavioral economics, may have useful
predictive ability
Hi. I was just reading the comments on a post at Crooked
Timber on how/if WW II ended the Great Depression:
http://crookedtimber.org/2008/12/07/the-economic-lessons-of-world-war-ii/
And found this gem:
> HH 12.07.08 at 5:26 pm
>
> The bottom line on WWII economic stimulus is that weapons in war
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of David Hobby
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 11:19 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Economics of global warming, was: Re: 9/11 conspiracies ...
>
> For example, t
Dan Minette wrote:
...
Even if those that predict doom and gloom in the near future, other
than some (probably even more exaggerated) economic discomfort, there
is very little down side to cleaning up our act.
If this is true, than why has world usage of fossil fuel gone up after a
tripling o
Heard this guy on the radio today and then found an email from my
"health policy" list. Not all the answers... but sounds like a good
start to combining prevention and healthcare which Debbie and
I both tend to focus on in any "overhaul".
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/magazine/13HEALTH.htm
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:08:54PM -0700, d.brin wrote:
> (The complete numbers are available at
> www.economist.com/economistspoll.)
I thought the results of the last question, "For whom would you rather
work? [if you had a chance to work in a policy job in Washington]" were
interesting: 81% for
Meanwhile, if we weren't to stoked up on artificial "war" panic to
pay attention to our own nation's well- being
In an informal poll of 100 economics experts, conducted by The
Economist, Mr Bush's policies win low marks. More than 70% of the 56
who responded to
In a message dated 2/10/2004 10:57:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> should be? After the abuse I put up with while you
> lacked the common civility to put in a word? Look in
> a mirror and tell me that one again. You might be a
> great Doctor, Bob, but sure as hell that
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You should be ashamed of yourself
I should be? After the abuse I put up with while you
lacked the common civility to put in a word? Look in
a mirror and tell me that one again. You might be a
great Doctor, Bob, but sure as hell that doesn't put
you in any positio
In a message dated 2/10/2004 1:32:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> If I _wanted_ to debate with fanatics, there are
> probably more interesting places to do it. After my
> last experience, though, political debate on Brin-L
> strikes me as a singular waste of my time righ
"John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
Nothing at all worth reading about my views, or about economic
policy. Don't take anything he writes as accurate without careful,
careful verification first.
Brad DeLong
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/
John, we have a strong difference in memory.
"John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
... What [Brad DeLong] doesn't tell you in this article is that a
lot of respected Economists would certainly advise *against* a
balanced budget over the last few years,
As I remember, Brad DeL
Gautam wrote:
If I _wanted_ to debate with fanatics, there are
probably more interesting places to do it. After my
last experience, though, political debate on Brin-L
strikes me as a singular waste of my time right now.
Ah, more name calling. 8^) It's interesting that while my arguments
refle
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 10:29:20PM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> I have neither the time, the interest, nor the inclination to debate
> with you at this moment.
...
> If I _wanted_ to debate with fanatics, there are probably more
> interesting places to do it.
...
> Hence the smiley...and th
--- Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's interesting how you both have used ridicule to
> divert attention from
> the argument, having avoided addressing any of the
> pertinent questions.
> Why don't you address my fears by rebutting the
> information in the pieces
> Eric posted? T
Gautam wrote:
John wrote:
Its funny, but you sound just like Republicans did
in 1992.
Or the Democrats in 1928?
JDG - Just reverse a few key terms.
,ideas and circumstances.
Or like Karl Marx, actually. Enhancing the
contradictions, isn't that what the Marxists called
it? :-) Been a long tim
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: Voodoo Economics
> 1) Why do you assume that if he saw contrary evidence,
> he would have corrected himself? There was plenty of
> contrary
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> More on point, that's a big except. "On the Jewish
> Question" would be another pretty big except. And I
> don't think that the Communist Manifesto is that
> different from what else of his work I've read, to be
> honest. Fundamentally it's Marx's rejection of
> _liberal
At 09:23 PM 2/9/2004 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>And remember, what Marx was opposed to was not necessarily any better. The
>Industrial Revolution was the cause of massive human suffering (which Marx
>believed was unfortunately necessary to create the wealth that the
proletariat
>would later l
In a message dated 2/9/2004 9:31:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> You can't take the evil of the 20th century and blame a man who died in
> 1883
> for what others would do later, even if it was in his name. Especially when
> he
> never called for it to be done.
>
>
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The dialectic was; the historical dialect was Marx.
> I don't need to remind
> you that he was a young Hegelian. :-) My philosophy
> professor did think
> that the advance was worth noting. He was also
> fairly impressed with the
> subtly of theory/pra
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Actually, there wasn't all that much evidence. He
> did not foresee the rise of
> the labor union movement. He honestly believed that
> capitalism could NOT
> reform even if it wanted to, that the logic of the
> market would lead capitalism to
> destroy itself.
I
> I'm not sure about that. In many many ways his ideas are both wrong and
> dangerous. His focusing on classes and the inevitability of class
> struggle, his inability to see the possibility of moderation and compromise
> all are firm foundations for the evil done in his name.
>
At the time, the
> 1) Why do you assume that if he saw contrary evidence,
> he would have corrected himself? There was plenty of
> contrary evidence available in 1883, and it didn't
> seem to stop him.
>
Actually, there wasn't all that much evidence. He did not foresee the rise of
the labor union movement. He ho
- Original Message -
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: Voodoo Economics
> --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
--- William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And on the M's let's mention Machiavelli and Malthus
> too! Those dumbass
> dead guys sure made a lot of mistakes! If it hadn't
> been for them I'm
> sure we'd be a lot more advanced now . It's great
> that our modern
> intellectuals don't make
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At what point do we get to say that he was full of
> it
> > and move on, really?
>
> I'm not sure about that. In many many ways his
> ideas are both wrong and
> dangerous. His focusing on classes and the
> inevitability of class
> struggle, his inab
- Original Message -
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: Voodoo Economics
>
> 1) Why do you assume that if he saw contrary evidence,
> he
On 10 Feb 2004, at 12:03 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Remember, it's very difficult to assume what Marx himself would have
had to
say about anything that happened in the 20th century, since he died in
1883. He
believed he was creating a scientific approach to analyzing history,
based on
the evid
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Remember, it's very difficult to assume what Marx
> himself would have had to
> say about anything that happened in the 20th
> century, since he died in 1883. He
> believed he was creating a scientific approach to
> analyzing history, based on
> the evidence he'd s
> Or like Karl Marx, actually. Enhancing the
> contradictions, isn't that what the Marxists called
> it? :-) Been a long time since I read any Marxist
> philosophy, and I will admit I didn't pay that much
> attention when I was supposed to be studying it...
>
Well, _some_ Marxists seemed to be
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
> --- "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 10:34 PM 2/8/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
> > >I'm almost of two minds when it comes to the
> > election this year. While I
> > >know we need to get rid of BushCo, I'm pretty
> > certain that if they get
> > >re
--- "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 10:34 PM 2/8/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
> >I'm almost of two minds when it comes to the
> election this year. While I
> >know we need to get rid of BushCo, I'm pretty
> certain that if they get
> >re-elected, they'll screw everything up
At 10:34 PM 2/8/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:
>I'm almost of two minds when it comes to the election this year. While I
>know we need to get rid of BushCo, I'm pretty certain that if they get
>re-elected, they'll screw everything up so badly that the Republican party
>may go away forever or
Erik wrote:
However, America must bear much of the blame for its failure to do
anything to curb household and government borrowing and so boost
saving. Its easy monetary and fiscal policies are now beginning to look
reckless. The dollar's slide has rightly shifted some of the burden of
economic a
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=2404984
Let the dollar drop
Feb 5th 2004
>From The Economist print edition
Excerpt:
Normally, when a government's budget deficit swells so fast (to
4.6% of GDP this year, from a surplus of 2.4% of GDP in 2000) and its
currency is fa
An election-year farce
Feb 5th 2004 | WASHINGTON, DC
>From The Economist print edition
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2410569
excerpt:
If this all looks too good to be true, it is. For once, the
administration has not fiddled the books by relying on unrealistically
t; hope that President Bush is re-elected is because it would prove to be
the
> ultimate natural experiment for what has come to be called
"supply-side"
> economics.The next four years look very likely to bring nominal
> Republican control of Congress and solid economic growth.
At 04:16 PM 2/8/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>> See http://tinyurl.com/2vn5n for a recent discussion by Brad
>> DeLong on the budget deficits.
>
>I read that, and the difference between Brad's and John's position on this
>topic illustrates why economics is not a sc
Erik Reuter wrote:
>Does 845 miles qualify as "a few hundred"?
>
It qualifies as next-door here. We have a
relatively small number of
power stations, usually around energy sources such
as coal mines, that
are thousands of miles apart and often thousands
of miles from the
consumers.
We have also
At 10:55 PM 8/15/2003 -0500, you wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: Physics vs Economics (Was: major power outage in the Ea
- Original Message -
From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: Physics vs Economics (Was: major power outage in the East)
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 11:21:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 11:21:08PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >From an Op-Ed article in today's NY Times:
>
> "the idea of creating large national markets to buy and sell electricity
> makes more sense as economic theory than as physics, because it consumes power to
> transmit power. 'It'
cists know, anyway?
It's a good thing George W. Bush knows nothing about science and rejects it,
since otherwise he and his economics would be in real trouble. But, since he
doesn't believe in it, it can't possible have any effect on him.:::snort:::
Tom Beck
www.prydonians.or
Jan Coffey wrote:
So get on board with the majority in forign policy and focus on the facts of
a history we have with econmoics.
Who will do this?
Hmmm, why get on board a sinking ship?
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm
Doug
___
http://www.mc
--- Kevin Tarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>
> >>5) Keynsian theory has fallen out of favor, being relegated to a possible
> >>response to serious recession or depression. My Econ 101 back in the
> late
> >>1980s and popular reporting on
5) Keynsian theory has fallen out of favor, being relegated to a possible
response to serious recession or depression. My Econ 101 back in the late
1980s and popular reporting on economics over more than the last twenty years
emphasize the importance of Hayak-Freedman neo-liberal economic
han you believe...
5) Keynsian theory has fallen out of favor, being relegated to a possible
response to serious recession or depression. My Econ 101 back in the late
1980s and popular reporting on economics over more than the last twenty years
emphasize the importance of Hayak-Freedman neo-liberal eco
--- Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, periods leaning more to trickle down have increased the gap between
> rich and poor more than have the trickle up leaning periods.
>
There you go. That is exactly what needs to be expressed and isn't. At least
not as loud as it should. Instead e
udo-growth produced by post-war reconstruction.
4) The IMF is *always* hostile to trickle-up policies, subsidies, price
controls and entitlement programs.
5) Keynsian theory has fallen out of favor, being relegated to a possible
response to serious recession or depression. My Econ 101 back in
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 03:15:47AM -0700, Trent Shipley wrote:
> The real problem with "share the wealth, trickle up" programs, besides
> the fact that it might be immoral to tax the rich, is that they slow
> growth.
Do you have any data to support this? Because the data I've seen shows
exactly t
On Sunday 2003-07-20 18:54, Kevin Tarr wrote:
> From: Trent Shipley
>
> >In the US a huge problem with all 'trickle up' policies is that they
> > require legislative intervention. Laizie Faire (sp?) economic systems
> > stabilize with huge income and wealth disparities. In the US a
> > combinatio
At 11:32 PM 7/20/2003 -0400, you wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:54:24PM -0400, Kevin Tarr wrote:
> What I'm trying to come around to: "trickle up" for good or evil has
> been in place seventy years,
In different degrees. The democrats tend to tilt it towards more
progressive taxation, and the R
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:54:24PM -0400, Kevin Tarr wrote:
> What I'm trying to come around to: "trickle up" for good or evil has
> been in place seventy years,
In different degrees. The democrats tend to tilt it towards more
progressive taxation, and the Republicans toward less progressive
taxa
On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 09:36:11PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
> Hence, the government gets `more bang for the buck' by giving money to
> the poor than the rich.
Yes, and if you look at GDP growth, it is greater with trickle up than
trickle down.
> The counter argument is that a person with
From: Trent Shipley
In the US a huge problem with all 'trickle up' policies is that they require
legislative intervention. Laizie Faire (sp?) economic systems stabilize with
huge income and wealth disparities. In the US a combination of social
atomization (probably a result of immigration--Ameri
On Sunday 2003-07-20 14:36, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
> trickle down: more money to the rich
>
>
> The argument for giving more money to the rich than to the poor is
> that the rich save more. (That is to say, they save a higher portion of
> additional income;
trickle down: more money to the rich
The argument for giving more money to the rich than to the poor is
that the rich save more. (That is to say, they save a higher portion of
additional income; in jargon, their marginal propensity to save is higher.)
After b
I know that Gautam, at least, enjoyed my article "The economics of space
transportation" and thought that some of you might be interested in the
second part of my series on the economics of space. This one is called
"The economics of interface transportation" and covers the l
JGD wrote:
Fantasy Economics
Why economists are obsessed with online role-playing games.
By Robert Shapiro
Updated Tuesday, February 4, 2003, at 11:26 AM PT
The most popular article in the leading economics Web archive doesn't
concern tax policy, international trade, or the theory of the
Fantasy Economics
Why economists are obsessed with online role-playing games.
By Robert Shapiro
Updated Tuesday, February 4, 2003, at 11:26 AM PT
The most popular article in the leading economics Web archive doesn't
concern tax policy, international trade, or the theory of the firm. It&#x
63 matches
Mail list logo
