Occupy Wall Street vs the Tea Party

[NotNow]

With what "economic expertise" do you call Friedman these names?   Stop shivering and read... a "reader comment" is hardly an informative or even accurate rebuttal.  Since you made the accusations, please elaborate.

[NotNow]

Can you justify your accusations or not?

Do you think that the commenter's statements were true?

[buckethead]

"Economics is extremely useful as a means of employment for economists".

John Kenneth Galbraith [economist]

So whether you worship at the alter of Freidman or Keynes, you are still exercising  belief system as opposed to a scientific method.

It reminds me of a song: {AWESOMENESS}
http://www.youtube.com/v/IOMwu6OoGo4

"Keats and Yates are on your side, while Wilde is on mine."

Poets might actually be more qualified to comment on societal behavior patterns than economists!

[buckethead]

No, This Is The Most Dangerous Economist In The World
Simon Black, Sovereign Man   


Simon Black is an international investor, entrepreneur, permanent traveler, and self-described free man


The most dangerous woman in America

Christina Romer is the most dangerous woman in America right now. As an economics professor at the University of Berkeley, she’s charged with educating the next generation of productive citizens. She also formerly chaired the Council of Economic Advisors under President Obama.
One would think that a person with that level of influence would have a bit of sense. One would think. Yet Romer rarely fails to disappoint.
In a recent New York Times editorial entitled, “Dear Ben: It’s Time for Your Volcker Moment,” Romer publicly tries to goad Ben Bernanke into doing MORE to fight the great contraction.
It’s not enough that Mr. Bernanke has expanded the money supply by an amount never before seen in the history of the world. It’s not enough that he’s nearly exhausted every policy tool at his disposal. It’s not enough that global confidence in the dollar is fading rapidly.
Romer wants Bernanke to take things to the next level.
In her editorial, Romer draws comparisons to past economic difficulties and expresses admiration for those who employed extreme tactics to deal with them. She praises for FDR for abandoning the gold standard and allowing the dollar to depreciate.
She also erroneously recounts economic history, suggesting that Roosevelt’s actions led to “the most impressive [economic] swing the country has ever seen from horrible contraction to rapid growth.”
Swing? That’s a bit revisionist. The Great Depression languished for years. And years. Perhaps if we’re speaking in terms of a geological timeline in which millions of years are a drop in the bucket, the recovery could be characterized as a rapid ‘swing’.
Furthermore, to credit any economic ‘recovery’ on a policy of currency debasement is simply idiotic. The path to prosperity is not paved in paper currency, but rather hard work, productivity, efficient capital allocation, savings, and technological innovation.
Roosevelt cannot be credited with supporting any of these economic foundations.  Yet Romer holds him up as an example of grabbing the bull by the horns and making the tough choices that led to an unequivocal recovery.
In Romer’s world, paper is wealth. And hey, why should she believe anything else? She’s been in academia and politics for her entire life. She’s never actually had to DO anything and has been free to live inside a consequence-free Keynesian bubble throughout her entire career.
The scary thing, though, is that this woman has VIP access to the halls of power in Washington DC. She advises the decision makers who set policies affecting hundreds of millions… even billions of people. And she has no clue how the world actually works. This is incredibly destructive for the rest of us.
When I was in the African wild about six-weeks ago, I witnessed a skirmish between a couple of kuduâ€" this is a type of antelope with long, spiraled horns.  They’re exceptionally aggressive.
When kudu fight each other (which happens a lot), they lock horns. Once this happens, the pair is stuck… forever entwined and defenseless until they both starve to death or get eaten by predators.
Needless to say, the kudu are rapidly dying off; nature has a way of weeding out self-destructive species.
What’s happening right now in the western world is an economic version of natural selection; self-destructive economies are imploding, while countries with thoughtful, healthy balance sheets are rising.
The nice thing is that WE can CHOOSE whether we associate with the destructive ones, or diversify internationally to the healthy ones. And the more people like Christina Romer praise currency devaluation and capital controls, the more obvious international diversification becomes to anyone paying attention.


Read more: http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/the-most-dangerous-woman-in-america/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-most-dangerous-woman-in-america#ixzz1dD93Nmi8

Apologies to Faye.

[FayeforCure]

Can you justify your accusations or not?

Do you think that the commenter's statements were true?

Though directed at Stephen, I will say yes, the commenter accurately describes the failings of Milton Friedman's economic theories. And the commenter does so in a very concise summary of where and how Milton Friedman's theories were tested in real life situations over a very long time frame.

Enough said.

As buckethead says, economic theories describe human behavior in the aggregate.

Milton Friedman's theories of self-interest are destructive in a civilized society.

The commenter is right on target with this statement:

Friedman's ideas were basically recycled Laize Faire, the economic regime pushed by imperial Britain in the late 1800's, and associated with a lavishly wealthy aristocratic class, a relatively small middle class and the great mass of people in having a hard time financially or in abject poverty. With Friedman's policies still so powerful in the media and in the political establishment things are still going in that direction back from our peak GENERAL prosperity in the 1960's and early 1970's. Friedman did have one huge "success" though that explains his high stature in the corporate media and amoung politicians, he made very wealhy people MUCH wealthier. That's undeniable.

Friedman's theories being increasingly implemented ie deregulation, caused the financial melt-down, the housing crisis, our economic recession..............and the huge income inequality reminiscent of the 1920s.

[FayeforCure]

No, This Is The Most Dangerous Economist In The World
Simon Black, Sovereign Man   


Simon Black is an international investor, entrepreneur, permanent traveler, and self-described free man


The most dangerous woman in America

Christina Romer is the most dangerous woman in America right now. As an economics professor at the University of Berkeley, she’s charged with educating the next generation of productive citizens. She also formerly chaired the Council of Economic Advisors under President Obama.
Read more: http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/the-most-dangerous-woman-in-america/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-most-dangerous-woman-in-america#ixzz1dD93Nmi8

Apologies to Faye.

No apologies needed...........our country suffers from a lack of insight and it's due to this:

Women and minorities are under-represented in the economics profession. This may be because they are too often not encouraged to pursue theoretical, mathematical or scientific fields of study

Current solutions therefore lack input from the insights and skill sets of these underrepresented groups, input that could make policies more effective. Women and minorities do not necessarily experience the world or approach problems with the same paradigm often used by white males, and they are often concerned with issues that do not get on the agenda because they are underrepresented. ........

Regardless of how many undergraduate women get bachelor's degrees in economics, only 6 percent of tenured professors of economics are women, according to a report of the American Economics Association Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3556

So when an accomplished woman says what needs to be said, sovereign man will object.

[buckethead]

I believe the disagreement had more to do with the substance of opposing dogma rather than gender.

I could be deluding myself since, after all, I am male.

[BridgeTroll]

I believe the disagreement had more to do with the substance of opposing dogma rather than gender.

I could be deluding myself since, after all, I am male.

That may qualify you for a special blue parking spot...

[FayeforCure]

I believe the disagreement had more to do with the substance of opposing dogma rather than gender.

I could be deluding myself since, after all, I am male.

The hit piece doesn't really address substance  at all.

For example it ridicules her mentioning Roosevelt's policies leading to:
"the most impressive [economic] swing the country has ever seen"

She never called it a "rapid" swing, yet she is ridiculed for it:

"Perhaps if we’re speaking in terms of a geological timeline in which millions of years are a drop in the bucket, the recovery could be characterized as a rapid ‘swing’"

You call that substance?

[finehoe]

[NotNow]

Aside from that "Kleptocracy" board, which is great, this is the only quote so far worth repeating in this thread:

"Furthermore, to credit any economic ‘recovery’ on a policy of currency debasement is simply idiotic. The path to prosperity is not paved in paper currency, but rather hard work, productivity, efficient capital allocation, savings, and technological innovation."

[FayeforCure]

Aside from that "Kleptocracy" board, which is great, this is the only quote so far worth repeating in this thread:

"Furthermore, to credit any economic ‘recovery’ on a policy of currency debasement is simply idiotic. The path to prosperity is not paved in paper currency, but rather hard work, productivity, efficient capital allocation, savings, and technological innovation."

Really?

I don't see the finance industry mentioned at all in the quote.


CHART OF THE DAY:

Why The Financial Industry Still Has WAY More To Shrink

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-03-19/wall_street/30061543_1#ixzz1dFGWzyOO

Joe Weisenthal and Kamelia Angelova|March 19, 2010|



Former Fed chief Alan Greenspan recently delivered a mea culpa of sorts in the form of a 60-page Brookings Institute paper about the financial crisis.

Among the charts he includes to explain the crisis is one that we've seen before, but never ceases to jar us.



It's the share of GDP* that come from finance and insurance, and though the number has begun to crest, we're still WAY above any reasonable historical norm. The bottom line is that the financial bubble still has a lot of bursting left to do (though if Bernanke and Geithner have anything to say about it, it may take awhile).


Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-03-19/wall_street/30061543_1#ixzz1dFGNZjDv

So where does gambling with other people's money fit in?

[NotNow]

What about the financial industry?  Are you proposing using the power of government to destroy an industry because you say so? 

I'll say it again...if there are criminal charges against specific individuals, then state them.  If you are claiming a class action civil lawsuit, then where is it?  Why is the government bailing out these companies?  Why aren't we demanding that the government stop right now?