patrick.net

I have no more experience or knowledge about economics than the classes I had in college, and I do remember that Keynes was the source of most of our education on the subject. It's good to read so many posts by people who are so well read and can offer different viewpoints. I really do check in on the blog to read other opinions and learn about the economy. How lucky for me that this site attracts so many who can intelligently discuss some fairly esoteric theories.

Randy H

I inadvertantly deleted one of your posts. It was the one where you reprinted what the troll wrote, and as I was scrolling through I mistook it for one of his posts and didn't realize it was yours until I hit delete. Sorry.

This is interesting:

http://tinyurl.com/an4f2

So we have Evolution and Intelligent Design. Why do they want to stop children from learning an alternative theory?

Better yet, subject both theories to Darwinism and we shall have a winner: Intelligent Evolution perhaps?

So I think the current PC craze of diversity is nonsense and I have heard it SO many times repeated by supposedly intelligent people, yet I have never heard their logical reasons.

You are probably right. Diversity for the sake of diversity is perhaps questionable.

On the other hand, what do you think about "economic-driven diversity" mentioned by Randy?

I’m not only a libertarian, I’m also a polygamist.

Huh?

Peter P

You know, in a way that has always bugged me too. Why do we only have to teach one theory? Why can't we simply say "some people believe____ and others believe_____?"

The polygamist reference is a joke Peter, remember you asked him if he was married?

This is one of those academic phrases that I have to try to imagine what it means.

I take it as: diversity as a result of free market interactions. This is to be contrasted with diversity being a policy goal.

Randy, please correct me if I have mistaken.

Peter P - I agree. Other than evolution, all I see is creation. I love evolution. I love the retinal cells being backwards. I love all of it. Darwin and evolution is why I got into biology. But why block the other thought? You don't need to bring a bible in. Of course, I think it would be a short lesson.

Me, I'd give about 12 months on evolution, diversity, genes, physiology, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, and all that jazz. Then, on the last day, I'd say, oh yeah kids, by the way, we can neve know for sure if all of this stuff just sprang out of nothing or if a creator set it up. So be good to your neighbor just in case.

Stanman - I'm not really a polygamist. That's mostly because the government would jail me and my wife would flog me. Other than those two things, I have no problem with it.

SactoQt -
We should still get together for a drink. No woman, other than my wife, who ever fell for me didn't hate me first.

Well, I'll say this about Mormons . . .

I've met about a dozen or so, and they've all been wonderful, warm, hardworking family people. I don't want to tar them all with that same brush. I'm sure some of them are real bastards. But, just what I've noticed.

SactoQt -
We should still get together for a drink. No woman, other than my wife, who ever fell for me didn’t hate me first.

Lol
The love/hate thing huh? Maybe one of these days we'll actually get around to having that blog party Peter P keeps talking about. Peter, you must be so happy to have met Jack and Kurt. Actually, I'm jealous.

Perhaps evolution is the God's tool in His intelligent design. We now have more unprovable theories...

Peter P -
Let me know if you throw the blog party.

I'll fly in from Ct.

I swear I will.

I'll even take a shower and comb my hair.

If we ever do the blog party, we should play a game where everyone shows up and nobody tells anybody who they are. At the end of the night, we have to guess each person's alter ego.

I probably shouldn't mention this but...........
My husband has a co-worker who's a devout Mormon, she also happens to be the original "40 year old virgin" (actually she's something like 42 now) I'm guessing the polygamy thing didn't appeal to her.

Peter, you must be so happy to have met Jack and Kurt. Actually, I’m jealous.

I am sure we will meet someday. Granite Bay is not that far.

“the original 40 year old virgin”

I'll pass on opening that bottle of wine . . . that's way too much pressure.

I can just see it . . .

"I saved myself for 20 some odd years for THAT?"

Peter P -
Let me know if you throw the blog party.

I’ll fly in from Ct.

Great! I would love to meet you.

I am sure we will meet someday. Granite Bay is not that far.

True, but it does feel like a different world sometimes. Hopefully we can do a get together sometime.

Well this thread took a long time to read. Lot's of fun stuff. And to think I found this blog just looking for ideas/data on irrational real estate prices. Phew, so much more, huh?
Thanks everyone, keep it up (wish I could add more myself)!

Getting sleepy. Good nite all.

Nite Peter, think I'll turn in myself.

It's 4:30, I'm not tired, I want to insulate my attic with Cocoon(TM), I have 4 weeks of work on my desk waiting for me that I am trying to work up the inspiration to attack, oh yeah, and

"I'd like to save the world, but I don't know where to start."

Jesus Stan, you post prompted two quick turn ins.

I'm gonna start calling you "threadkiller"

Don't invite this guy to the blarty.

:)

Stan,
I've seen a documentary on the slaughter of the people migrating to California.
How/why did you learn "their whole deal much better than they...?"

I like the concept of private accounts. I don't know why there was such "outrage" over this...perhaps there really wasn't outrage as opposed to, perhaps, ambivalence...which is not good either when looking for support for such a drastic change to such a large program. My understanding was that participation would be somewhat voluntary. One less cookie jar to dip into, I suppose, it what explains a lot of the (political) opposition.
I like your stated idea of gradual ramp up.

Stanman wrote . . .

I don’t know why there was such “outrage” over this…perhaps there really wasn’t outrage as opposed to, perhaps, ambivalence

What can you say to that? I feel bad for people who think the Government is a better guardian of their money then are they.

Unintentional bold, but I like it.

Test

Test

Test

Test

Test

Test

test

test

. . .
Final test

Stanman,

I'm far from a social liberal, but label me as you will. The proofs--which are just economic proofs, admitedly, not preeminant facts--are all nicely summarized in Mankiw, Macroeconomics. This includes Keynes, Friedman, and opposing theories as well. It includes labor efficiency, labor mobility, and immigration/emmigration theories.

My arguments are indeed in the labor-mobility camp. First, I never said anything about New Hampshire, lol. There is an important difference between nations, at least economically--and we're talking about immigration insofar as it serves free market forces. Intramigration within a country is requisite, at least according to many theories. This is the great strength of the US, and a weakness of the emerging EU.

My point about immigration and diversity was that one risks creating adverse effects when they try to use policy to "pick the winners". Immigration should be regulated and controlled, _but_ equal. We must be careful about picking those we want from those we don't and make sure that we only use truly objective criteria for such selection. Skin color, religion, geographic origin, etc. are dangerous criteria. One need only look at the contributions to science and technology and the last names of many of those people will reveal their origin was not within the European/Christian region of the world. Nonetheless, their contributions accrue to the US economy and further power our growth and prosperity. And, many of them came here as children of labor-class parents, so even socioeconomic selection can be difficult.

Finally, such diverse immigration has been one of the great catylsts driving the American economic engine for the past 200 years. I'm open to well reasoned contra-proofs to this statement; I've yet to see one.

Yustas,

THe plans I've read all have a minimum mandatory investment percentage in risk-free assets, primary T-bills/bonds. Many here know more about the details on the plans. If those became wortheless, then all bets are off. Actually I have a problem because I think fixed percentages are troublesome; I'd rather see some basic portfolio theory applied--or at least an option for more sophisticated investors to choose appropriate asset mixes. Regardless, any of these plans will outperform the current system of insanity.

“Hey Randy H, please point out my inconsistencies as you see them!”

So here is one I didn't argue about last night. We were debating unmarried pregnancy rates in Sweden and the US, both of which are about 50%. You claimed that we have to eliminate US teenage pregnancy from this because it makes a more direct comparison on a socio-economic basis, which is true enough.

But, we were arguing about the causality or correlation between this variable given the underlying economic system. If we elminate anthything from either data set then there is a risk that we inadvertantly break a causual link. That is, their system produces their results, and ours produces its results, which itself may be a product of the economic systems (or may not), but you cannot be sure you haven't skewed the aggregate statistic when you make arbitrary "adjustments". Again, I, like you, believe that unmarried pregnancies are bad in the US--I think that nuclear families work better for a number of reasons here. But we cannot make comparative analyses on this basis...at least not very easily. Sometimes with these things "only time will tell", and yours and my inclinations may be proven true, but proving we're right about this now is hazardous.

from what I heard, currently SS tax money are not invested at all,

This is not true. The current SS funds are invested, just not by the individuals paying in but by the government. The government borrows against the SS funds to invest in government spending projects, then uses later proceds to pay recipients. From an National Income Accounting perspective, this is pure investment activity. Those in favor of private accounts contend that individuals can invest more efficiently than the government.

I'll not argue the merits of the original system, where what you stated was true. I could argue that such a system (SS lockbox, or whatever), won't work today because the economic dynamics have changed quite a bit. I also don't argue that sometimes the government can't invest at a greater return than individuals can achieve, but these tend to be massive infrastructure spending projects which should be funded by general fund taxation. Things like highways, University systems, space projects, basic scientific research, etc. But SS funds generally get pissed away on things that should be left to the private sector, or should never occur at all (like subsidies for tobacco farmers).

Young should provide at least minimal support for the old today.

We are living in the midst of the greatest systemic transfer of wealth from young to old that has ever occurred in US society. Maybe this is ok, but you are then relying on some very optimisitic projections about future GDP growth, dramatically increasing birth rates (which generally comes from poorer class immigrants), and neverending super-productivty growth. Any of these things (or others I'm not smart enough to invoke) prove to be false and the scheme will simply break down.

What keeps me up at night is that such large scale mismangement of the economy typically ends with a big war, or the decline of the society, or both.

Randy H, please disabuse me if I'm wrong here.

The SS money coming in goes to one of two place . . .

1. To pay current SS expenses.
2. The rest goes into the general fund. The "SS fund," or whatever it is called, has IOUs in it from the government.

Because the U.S. Feds are running at a 200+ billion dollar deficit each year, it is improper to say the SS $ in the general fund are being invested. They are being spent on highway bills and energy bills and welfare.

What's incorrect?

Can this technology be adopted for home — if you miss two mortgage payment, you can not enter home just kidding

Or it will turn on A/C in the winter and heat in the summer. Toilet will also refuse to flush.

Because the U.S. Feds are running at a 200+ billion dollar deficit each year, it is improper to say the SS $ in the general fund are being invested. They are being spent on highway bills and energy bills and welfare.

If the SS funds which entered the general fund were carefully earmarked and spent on only high-return infrastructure spending, then I'd have no problem--in theory. But, instead the funds are mixed and not accounted for as such (at least in my reading of the situation). Even if the SS funds are invested in positive NPV projects, I still contend that this should be raised through general taxation, not SS, because the infrastructure projects benefit everyone, not just workers. Worse, use of SS funds reduces the opportunity costs for tax-generated funds which creates an incentive for the government to spend those unwisely. In other words, the current system distorts the true cost of capital for our tax and SS dollars.

Again, I'm not the expert on this (or much else), just relying on my first-principles to guide me here. I'd be delighted for a real SS expert to enlighten me (not that that's not you, I just like to see the real accounting before I trust what people/policy makers say).

...and just because we're running a deficit doesn't mean the dollars aren't being invested. it just means the investment dollars are leveraged.