This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Max Keiser And Sandeep Jaitly Explain Why Modern Economics Is "Rubbish"

Tyler Durden's picture





 

One of Zero Hedge's recurring peeves with modern economics (at its basis, the flawed premise behind modern broken capital markets) is that modern economics, as taught by every Ivy League, and other, institution, and implemented by modern acolytes of Keynes and other spin off theories, is nothing but garbage: a sham voodoo science, which attempts to attribute an empirical basis to something which is inherently irrational. It is this irrationality that alternative, and thus non-mainstream, approaches to popular economics attempt to discredit, so far with zero success, as such a coup d'etat would mean an immediate end of the "status quo"TM which is for all intents and purposes the only thing that must be maintained in order for the wealthy to retain their wealth, and get far wealthier in the future (Paulson's 3 page blank check proposal to Congress was nothing but a band aid attempt to fix the cumlination of decades of Keynesian failure). The below attached interview between Max Keiser and Sandeep Jaitly provides a 3 minute, must watch glimpse into the basis of Austrian economics, although not through the lense of von Mises, but of Austrian founder Carl Menger, who founded the Austrian school on one axiom only: "value does not exist outside mankind's consciousness." As Jaitly goes on to say, "all other forms of economics, classical, neoclassical economics, ascribe value to something else other than the human mind." And the punchline, coming from a mathematician: "all of the equations in neoclassical economics are rubbish. The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being."

h/t Mike Krieger

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:22 | Link to Comment Cassandra Syndrome
Cassandra Syndrome's picture

Hayek, Rothbard, Mises and Menger rule bitchez

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:39 | Link to Comment Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

agreed.

 

Although... I have disproven the principle of diminishing marginal returns. The more ZH posts i read, I am not noticing any diminishing marginal utility.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:49 | Link to Comment darkpool2
darkpool2's picture

Errrrr. What about the law of declining marginal productivity? The more you read (zh) the less you get done

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:24 | Link to Comment Cow
Cow's picture

+1000

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:51 | Link to Comment spiral_eyes
spiral_eyes's picture

sorry to spam, but zh people, get in this chatroom and convince lulzsec to use their considerable internet firepower to break into goldman sachs/ jpm.

 

http://irc.lc/anonops/antisec/anonyops@@@

 

thank me later.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:53 | Link to Comment Quixotic_Not
Quixotic_Not's picture

Are you so sure they aren't reall agent provocateurs working for the bankster & politeer tribes?

Well, are ya punk?

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 16:21 | Link to Comment spiral_eyes
spiral_eyes's picture

who cares? 

 

hacking the sack is hacking the sack.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 18:04 | Link to Comment UGrev
UGrev's picture

I think it's more like:
"The more I read ZH, the less I want to do".  In the actual sense of productivity towards GDP. Mainly because I realize just how much I'm being raped on a regular basis. 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 23:21 | Link to Comment pops
pops's picture

Word to your mother!

 

Sun, 06/26/2011 - 08:54 | Link to Comment FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

Who is John Galt?

Sun, 06/26/2011 - 14:20 | Link to Comment Michael
Michael's picture

I am John Galt Modified, 1, 2, 5, year sabbaticals between my last 3 jobs, for just that reason.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 18:04 | Link to Comment carbonmutant
carbonmutant's picture

Ding, Ding, Ding

We have a winner.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 20:00 | Link to Comment G-R-U-N-T
G-R-U-N-T's picture

"Errrrr. What about the law of declining marginal productivity? The more you read (zh) the less you get done"

Couldn't have said it better!!!! Abslolutely damn right!!!

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:47 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

Donate.

Where else are ya gonna go with everyone else giving away all that free almond-flavored Kool-aid?

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:55 | Link to Comment Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

Here's a donation from wiki, to all the asshat Keynesians.

 


The Austrian business cycle theory ("ABCT") attempts to explain business cycles through a set of ideas held by the heterodox Austrian School of economics. The theory views business cycles (or, as some Austrians prefer, "credit cycles") as the inevitable consequence of excessive growth inbank credit, exacerbated by inherently damaging and ineffective central bank policies, which cause interest rates to remain too low for too long, resulting in excessive credit creation, speculative economic bubbles and lowered savings.[1]

Proponents believe that a sustained period of low interest rates and excessive credit creation results in a volatile and unstable imbalance between saving and investment.[2] According to the theory, the business cycle unfolds in the following way: Low interest rates tend to stimulate borrowing from the banking system. This expansion of credit causes an expansion of the supply of money, through the money creation process in a fractional reserve banking system. It is asserted that this leads to an unsustainable credit-sourced boom during which the artificially stimulated borrowing seeks out diminishing investment opportunities. Though disputed, proponents hold that a credit-sourced boom results in widespreadmalinvestments. In the theory, a correction or "credit crunch" – commonly called a "recession" or "bust" – occurs when exponential credit creation cannot be sustained. Then the money supply suddenly and sharply contracts when markets finally "clear", causing resources to be reallocated back towards more efficient uses.

Given these perceived damaging and disruptive effects caused by what Austrian scholars believe to be volatile and unsustainable growth in credit-sourced money, many proponents (such as Murray Rothbard) advocate either heavy regulation of the banking system (strictly enforcing a policy offull reserves on the banks) or, more often, free banking.[3] The main proponents of the Austrian business cycle theory historically were Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Hayek won a Nobel Prize in economics in 1974 (shared with Gunnar Myrdal) in part for his work on this theory.[4][5]

The Austrian explanation of the business cycle varies significantly from the mainstream understanding of business cycles, and is generally rejected by mainstream economists. Economists such as Milton Friedman,[6][7] Gordon Tullock,[8] Bryan Caplan,[9] and Paul Krugman[10] have said that they regard the Austrian explanation as incorrect. Further, the Austrian school's methods of deriving theories have been criticized by mainstream economists as a priori "non-empirical" analysis[11] and differing from the practices of scientific theorizing, as widely conducted in economics.[9][12][13]

 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:01 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

Nice.

Here's a copy of Human Action.

Thu, 06/30/2011 - 15:08 | Link to Comment JanaUsoFine
JanaUsoFine's picture

WaterWings,  Thanks for the link.  My brother has asked me to read this book.  I followed your link, downloaded it from Mises and I'm glad I did.  Thanks brother.  

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:01 | Link to Comment Goldtoothchimp09
Goldtoothchimp09's picture

LOL -- yeah, how'd that "scientific theorizing" work out!  LOL

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:09 | Link to Comment Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

Yeah. The first 3 paragraphs read like a newspaper, and wiki ends it with the Krugman holocaust denier perspective.  Scientific theorizing my ass.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 16:34 | Link to Comment Goldtoothchimp09
Goldtoothchimp09's picture

I was an Economics major -- There is one thing i can tell you for certain.

95% of all econ majors are uber dorks.  They take whatever the professor teaches as absolute gospel.  Said another way -- it's an area dominated by UBER-TOOLS that universally lack humanity!!

 

To quote Greenspan - "The was a flaw in my worldview" --- translated into human -- "I am an egg headed theorizing idiot"!!

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 22:23 | Link to Comment cowdiddly
cowdiddly's picture

Yep and as far as economics being a science. Then why does Greenspan comment on the tech bubble as "Irrational exuberance" kinda sounds like human emotion huh?  facking micromanaging string pushers bringing punch bowls after everyone is already passed out drunk. Ummm, unless your a banksta crony.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 20:39 | Link to Comment Goldtoothchimp09
Goldtoothchimp09's picture

If you were an economics major and my comment irritated you....guess what .... You are a Dork and you know NOTHING.

You were indoctrinated into a sphere of UBER DORKDOM!  Your so-called profession has royally Fucked this world up beyond all recognition.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 20:55 | Link to Comment Rynak
Rynak's picture

Here's a more simple explanation: If the way you do things doesn't work, then someone else sponsering you does not fix the broken way you do things... it just allows you to ignore the defects longer, and accumulate more loss.

(There are cases, where borrowing money can be useful. They're cases where the only thing in the way of your success, are certain investments, which you cannot afford yet. However, stuff like this does not happen to an entire economy, and even if it would, this should not result in a tanking economy - just in one that does not run at full potential)

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:33 | Link to Comment Quixotic_Not
Quixotic_Not's picture

The differential equations describe nothing. Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being.

Free market capitalism has been subverted and captured by Ivy League licensed criminals, and is nothing more than an algorithm-based version of three-card monte.

The reality is this: Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the bankster & politeer tribes servicing the global elite.

Systematically looting the wealth of nations is not a new paradigm -- Same shit, different century!

Tribal warlords are only as rich & powerful as the thugs they employ...

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:57 | Link to Comment Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

"Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being."

This is why people in the financial media always say things like "Perception is reality;" people like dumbass Bob PissANTi.

They know that if they convince enough people that all is well they can survive just a little longer looting the laypeople.

I don't think it's about Peak Oil or Peak Resources or anything but Peak Reality.  I believe Ron Paul descirbes this as when people are hungry there is no greater reality.  44+ Million US citizens on SNAP (food stamps) and how long will that last?  44+ million potentially starving people.  That's a lot of Poptarts.  And as commodities have risen so will the cost of this program...

 

Here is a chart as a reminder:

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/broke-and-hungry-this-chart-says-i...

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 16:18 | Link to Comment Quixotic_Not
Quixotic_Not's picture

And the looting will continue until morale improves:

Basel Reaches Deal on TBTF Capital Requirements...


Global regulators said banks deemed too big to fail must hold as much as 2.5 percentage points in additional capital as part of efforts to prevent another financial crisis.
The additional capital surcharge will range from 1 percentage point to 2.5 percentage points, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision said in a statement today. The extra fee must be met by banks building up their core reserves, and not by issuing so-called contingent capital instruments such as CoCo bonds, the committee said.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-25/basel-committee-reaches-deal-on...

The enshrinement of TBTF at the level of International policy legally marks the final end to any notion of phree society and markets.

No longer is there talk about removing or avoiding TBTF status - It has now legally become a permanent fixture.

New World Order Indeed...

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:49 | Link to Comment Republi-Ken
Republi-Ken's picture

Yeah...Howabout The Laffer Curve?

What A Fucking Joke!

Free Lunch Tax Cuts Never Paid For As Magic Pixie Dust BullShit.

Or As David Stockman Says: "Republicans Bankrupted America"

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 18:17 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

"Free Lunch Tax Cut" ?  You mean, as in spending isn't reduced to offset them?

Refer:  Libs

It's my money, not Pelousy's!

And cetainly, not yours, ya taker.

Sun, 06/26/2011 - 10:25 | Link to Comment Urban Redneck
Urban Redneck's picture

The Laffer curve has nothing to do with free lunch tax cuts, unless the bulk of your economic understanding comes from the media (MSM or Ferris Bueller's Day Off).  Ceteris paribus (which is the first flaw of the economic pseudo-science, and upon which all other flaws compound) the Laffer curve does have to do with revenue optimization by manipulation of tax rates.  If you think either a 1% or a 99% effective tax rate could ever yield more tax revenue than a 35%, 50%, or 65% effective tax rate, then your problems are more substantial than just a lack of economic comprehension. 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 20:30 | Link to Comment Cassandra Syndrome
Cassandra Syndrome's picture

Humans act because they are restless. We are put into a state of restlessness from the tripe that the MSM pollute the masses with. We visit this site because it updates regularly, roughly on an hourly basis, and from within these new articles our marginal utility increases as we trade off the new junk of the MSM against the new articles here.

As the only price of visiting here is our subscription to our ISP, the trade off with another commodity is merely time preferenced and our higher preference ordinal system is merely based on new material being that much more satisfying than the new crap the MSM produce. Therefore our marginal utility for new articles here can never reduce unless there is nothing novel being presented here. The marginal utility for the same article reduces, but the propensity for our marginal utility can never reduce if Tyler keeps up the good work, especially when it is free and they substitution of other free articles elsewhere seldom effects our preference levels.

Sun, 06/26/2011 - 14:02 | Link to Comment DrunkenMonkey
DrunkenMonkey's picture

Now that's what I call analysis. Go to the top of the class.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 22:41 | Link to Comment Double down
Double down's picture

Who the hell junked you?!  What you said was was really kind.

 

 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:48 | Link to Comment Republi-Ken
Republi-Ken's picture

YEAH...Howabout The Laffer Curve?

What A Fucking Joke!

Free Lunch Tax Cuts Never Paid For As Magic Pixie Dust BullShit.

 Or As David Stockman Says: "Republicans Bankrupted America"

Sun, 06/26/2011 - 15:56 | Link to Comment Agent 440
Agent 440's picture

Hear him!

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:20 | Link to Comment European American
European American's picture

"Knowledge is structured in Consciousness and Knowledge is different in different states of Consciousness"

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:57 | Link to Comment Quixotic_Not
Quixotic_Not's picture

Spoken like a mongrel educated beyond his intellectual ability...

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 18:20 | Link to Comment ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

Would you pass the bong already!?!?

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:21 | Link to Comment Horatio Beanblower
Horatio Beanblower's picture

“Economics must not be relegated to classrooms and statistical offices and must not be left to esoteric circles. It is the philosophy of human life and action and concerns everybody and everything. It is the pith of civilization and of man’s human existence” – Ludwig von Mises

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:50 | Link to Comment baby_BLYTHE
baby_BLYTHE's picture

Someone ought to staple this one to the chairsatan's forehead

"There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved."-Ludwig Von Mises

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:07 | Link to Comment Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

IMO fuckhead Keynesians like the Chairsatan fully understand the Austrian school.  He wears a Keynesian mask to disguise his (and his handlers) intent of ushering in the total collapse of our currency system.  By selling the cheap credit, throw money at the problem solution to the mindless sheeple, it will end up maximizing the endgame profit for the Rotschild banking cartel.

 

I'm sure Bernank is a PM bull, not that he'd ever admit that.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 20:44 | Link to Comment Goldtoothchimp09
Goldtoothchimp09's picture

Baby Blythe - do you aspire to be the next Blythe Masters?  I hope not.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 23:19 | Link to Comment baby_BLYTHE
baby_BLYTHE's picture

haha, no.

I have been called Blythe since I was about 14 years old for my love of hardcore punk and heavy metal music.

I have no aspirations to work on Wallstreet, an investment bank nor a Hedge Fund.

Sun, 06/26/2011 - 16:45 | Link to Comment Goldtoothchimp09
Goldtoothchimp09's picture

Cool - didn't think so.  You're pretty sharp for a young gal !!

Sun, 06/26/2011 - 04:58 | Link to Comment Dan Alter
Dan Alter's picture

True, it is the mother logic of science. The science of economics problem is that economics is premised on the statment that we are "own profit maximizers", then states that profit is 'subjective' = "I don't know how to objectively measure profit".

There is such an objective measure of value and each of you use it unconsciously. Every life form uses the same objective measure the same way under all sets of circumstances each of us could be in. It is your time alive in your life form = 24 hours a day. One unit of time alive per unit time as measured by the speed of light. Notice we just got plugged into e = m^.

The question is, "How do we all try to use our time alive to get what we need to stay alive?". As little as possible. We are all unconscious own time cost minimizers because when we take to long to get what we need to stay alive = dead life form. Since we all use the same measure the same way it must serve as an Objective Measure of the General Welfare.

This means that in a conscious civilized society an exchange saves both sides of the exchange time. Should we decide to do this all together consciously then our political and economic problems will be solved.

 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:21 | Link to Comment bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

I thought philosophy, sociology, and psychology were studies of the human being. 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:37 | Link to Comment Oppressed In Ca...
Oppressed In California's picture

Here's a one sentence summary of sociology as currenly taught in our indoctrination camps colleges:  "Poverty sucks and America is evil."

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:32 | Link to Comment Mr. Anonymous
Mr. Anonymous's picture

Aren't you late for your 12 o'clock Glenn Beck viewing? 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 18:51 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

The hourly ODummer viewing is better?

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:49 | Link to Comment Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Philosophy is the love of learning, sociology is the study of societies, and psychology is the study of the mind. Political economy is the study of the human being.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:36 | Link to Comment Insiderman
Insiderman's picture

I would say that economics is more like the study of how humans order the resources in their world.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 16:04 | Link to Comment bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

The study of economics is very much mathematical as it's sole purpose is to quantify the distribution and consumption of goods/services/labor. 

Goods/services/labor are all quantifiable but are hard to accurately predict over long periods. It's hard to predict the unemployment rate for 2015....

You also have to consider that there are different types of economies; as economies of scale, returns to scale, and sovereign economies. Are we talking micro/macro etc? It's not a study of the human being as that would be a very precise discipline, economics, is more of a practice such as medicine, as it constantly evolves and we learn more about it's mechanisms over time. 

Can you have the study economics without a mathematical principle? The answer would be categorically no. 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 16:04 | Link to Comment Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

The study of Keynsian economics...and yes, THAT is not precise. Of course, here we are discussing Austrian economics and that is based on human action and almost zero mathematics.

Nice response Bob. Spot on description.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 16:13 | Link to Comment bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

I added that last sentance right before you responded, I applogize for that. 

I don't subscribce to the notion that you can have a study of economics without mathematics being the principle metric. Without the ability to quantify you wander into the vagrancies of sociology. 

Even in the Austrian school mathematics is a principle. 

I think we are talking about the same thing with a dissagreement over the ideology of the whole shebang. The Austrian school definately takes more into account the human element but without math, it's sociology. 

If we were operating under the Austrain school of economics instead of the Keynsian model, how would you calculate GDP?

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 16:35 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

You've inadvertently hit upon the problem.  The only people who NEED to calculate GDP are the very ones who need a number to plug into their equations.   GDP can be, and is, manipulated to "fix" the formulas.   No GDP is needed -- just look around and see how people are doing.  It's NOT about numbers.

We don't need no steenkin' GDP.   Everything does not need measuring.  We need people making real stuff instead of crunching numbers.  The rest will take care of itself.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 16:40 | Link to Comment bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

Right, right....

So how do you measure success and failure without numbers than? How would you know if what is being done is working/not-working? 

I am a disciple of the Austrian school, however, it is impossible to have economics (of any color) without math. 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 17:00 | Link to Comment Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

That type of measurement is best found through accounting, yes? Accounting is not economic theory. 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 17:28 | Link to Comment bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

Accounting is part of economics (of any color) 

You can't have an economy without accounting. 

Thus mathematics is a principle of economics. 

This is moot at this point, the discussion has become circular. 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 18:18 | Link to Comment ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

No.

Anything humans do is about humans.

Humans are infinitely fallible, and fungible.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 18:40 | Link to Comment bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

I agree. 

Anything humans do is also measurable. 

Sun, 06/26/2011 - 09:21 | Link to Comment FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

Is a game in which the score isn't kept a game?  Of course if the score keepers can manipulate the numbers to suit their bias, is the score relevant?  How can points be earned, if they can be created by keystrokes or presses?

I would argue that the current game of debasing fiat currency (points) is over, but only a few have heard the game ending horn.  Although there are many whom would still trade paper or electronic credits for silver and gold?

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 18:19 | Link to Comment Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Accounting has nothing to do with economics. Look at the degree requirements. All that is required for an economy is exchange. Mathmatics is a tool used by most economists- not a principle- big difference.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 20:08 | Link to Comment sasebo
sasebo's picture

Accounting measures simple numbers, that's it.

Keynesian economics mathematical models measure meaningless bullshit.

Example - the subprime crash. How many Keynesian mathematical models predicted it? About zero?

How many Austrians? All of them. The Austrian school theory of the Credit Cycle predicted it. Read it.

"The Austrian business cycle theory ("ABCT") attempts to explain business cycles through a set of ideas held by the heterodox Austrian School of economics. The theory views business cycles (or, as some Austrians prefer, "credit cycles") as the inevitable consequence of excessive growth inbank credit, exacerbated by inherently damaging and ineffective central bank policies, which cause interest rates to remain too low for too long, resulting in excessive credit creation, speculative economic bubbles and lowered savings.[1]

Proponents believe that a sustained period of low interest rates and excessive credit creation results in a volatile and unstable imbalance between saving and investment.[2] According to the theory, the business cycle unfolds in the following way: Low interest rates tend to stimulate borrowing from the banking system. This expansion of credit causes an expansion of the supply of money, through the money creation process in a fractional reserve banking system. It is asserted that this leads to an unsustainable credit-sourced boom during which the artificially stimulated borrowing seeks out diminishing investment opportunities. Though disputed, proponents hold that a credit-sourced boom results in widespreadmalinvestments. In the theory, a correction or "credit crunch" – commonly called a "recession" or "bust" – occurs when exponential credit creation cannot be sustained. Then the money supply suddenly and sharply contracts when markets finally "clear", causing resources to be reallocated back towards more efficient uses."

"artifically stimulated borrowing seeks out diminishing investment opportunities." 

Sound familiar? HOUSING? SECURITIZATION? 

 

 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 20:50 | Link to Comment bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

How are you measuring a business cycle? 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 22:03 | Link to Comment Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

When I began to study accounting some years back I told my professor that I looked at accounting from a philosophical standpoint but unfortunately was weak in math skills.

At this he beamed and explained that the bane of his life was people who took up accounting because they were quick with figures. They never understand anything.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 17:11 | Link to Comment goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

I am not opposed to the use of mathematics as an empirical yardstick. X number of people employed, x number of goods produced, x number of goods exported vs imported. The problem is not mathematics, but the flawed notion that modeling, mathematics and theory can provide magical results that are different than last time you tried the same shit. Economies can not be centrally managed in any theory, model or scenario. Economics requires the observer to not only look at the immediate effects of a policy in a limited group of people, but at long term effect in all of the economy. Since this is about as impossible as calculating planetary temperatures in 50 years, the central management of any economy is, at best, a fool's errand destined for failure or, at worst, a purposeful distortion of reality in order to hide the theft of wealth.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 17:35 | Link to Comment bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

Management of an economy would definately boil down to economic theory, however, economics (much like astrophysics) is principled in mathematics.

That's all I'm sayin'

Sun, 06/26/2011 - 02:54 | Link to Comment laughing_swordfish
laughing_swordfish's picture

 

 

 

The Economists' Conundrum:

"It appears to have worked in practice, but would it have worked in theory?"

 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 17:45 | Link to Comment geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

This is a curious position, especially given that so many things that are clearly bad for human beings are clearly good for the numerical GDP figure. Cancer and pollution are two obvious examples, but there are countless others. Simply being able to assign a number to something does not make it a truth, and the GDP figure belongs in that category of meaningless quantification.

As far as I can tell, all these numbers are little more than a special case of mistaking the map for the territory, the name for the thing named. What Kant called the Ding an sich (the thing in itself) defies quantification, and all attempts to quantify territory are doomed to failure to the extent that we take them to be eternal verities. It seems fairly obvious that modern economics falls into this category.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 17:56 | Link to Comment bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

I appreciate the metaphysical tinge you added to the discussion. It's stuff like that, that always makes me think. 

On a micro scale; if I create 2 widgets for ($x), and I sell 2 widgets for ($x+[-]x) we can calculate my GDP. It's math and it's undeniable.  

I think the idea train we are on is...the method of taxing/regulating the aforementioned example. The bottom line is that numbers never lie; people lie and can manipulate the numbers, but at the end of the day the guy whom does his due diligence will find the truth. 

How do you think Jim Chanos figured out the Enron scandal? It's all in the math. 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 18:24 | Link to Comment geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

Ah, but the widgets you created for $x, is that the real cost? Or does that discount externalities? If so, don't those externalities have a cost, whether they are borne by you or by someone else? The fact that so many externalities are socialized, whereas profits (revenue-cost) are privatized, leads to a structural imbalance that distorts the numbers, and in many cases completely invalidates the analysis.

Numbers are just numbers, and I agree they don't lie. That's the job of humans.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 18:49 | Link to Comment bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

I don't think lung cancer is attributed to smoking (seriously) 

Can you prove me otherwise? 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 20:08 | Link to Comment geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

I can't "prove" anything, but as far as I can tell, mainstream medicine has posited an unpersuasive causal connection between smoking and cancer. My personal suspicion is that it is the residues of drying using fossil fuels, and also the (FF-based) additives that are the real cause. Oh, and most tobacco fields historically used arsenical-based pesticides, and they get uptaked into the plant year after year after year.

But this is a side issue.

The real issue is that the numbers that are used in economic analyses aren't really representing the "true cost," they are representing a particular point of view where costs not immediately apparent are assumed to be zero. In that regard, chemicals added to tobacco are a good example of a delayed effect, where the producer does not have to personally pay the costs associated with their practices, which would seem to support my original contention that questioned whether producer costs reflected true costs. Do you disagree with that perspective?

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 20:41 | Link to Comment bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

What I know is cancer was described as long ago as 460 BC. 

In terms of current occurences of cancer there is no link to smoking. Of course you can take people whom smoke and have lung cancer and say...well geez these people smoke & have lung cancer so obviously there is a correlation. However, can you prove that had those same people not smoked also been diagnosed with lung cancer? How would your prescribe lung cancer in an individual that had never smoked a single cig in their entire life? 

So the real issue is perception. Is something a correlation or is it an illusory perception? It ultimately on sociologial level is defined by whatever the majority deems "real"....however what is "real" is not always what is "true" and vice-versa.

 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 20:44 | Link to Comment geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

Well, there is radon, a naturally occurring element that probably does cause lung cancer.

But I will note that you didn't answer my question.

And just in case you forgot: Do producer costs reflect true costs?

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 20:58 | Link to Comment bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

Yes, producer costs reflect true costs.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 21:00 | Link to Comment geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

LOL. I figured you'd say that...

OK, I'm going to go do something productive now... bye

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 21:09 | Link to Comment bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

LOL. I knew you would say that. 

I'm going to do something productive....bye

Sun, 06/26/2011 - 06:48 | Link to Comment foofoojin
foofoojin's picture

Who died and made you god of what is "true"?

I'm been wanting to do some dredging for 4 years now. the "true cost" is that small time dredger remove mercury from the water. and uplift the sediment that suppost to be washed away every year from flood season.  recreate the crevases in the river that the salmon need to lay there eggs in. We are turning our rivers into fake rivers  faster because someone didn't understand the "true cost" and labeled dredging as hidden cost instead of hiden benifit.

 

Tue, 06/28/2011 - 03:47 | Link to Comment geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

My point, which obviously escaped you, is that production has costs, yet the costs are to a great extent, not borne by the producer. There are costs that are externalized onto the people that live nearby (mountaintop removal is a good example), are shifted onto future generations in a form of intertemporal market failure, often result in a tragedy of the commons, and then there are the costs related to government subsidies that encourage activities that benefit a few at the cost of the many. I was trying to get Dabolina to acknowledge that costs are improperly accounted for under the current system, and you are evidently equally oblivious to the fact that many producers would not be able to make a profit, were it not for all these unaccounted for costs, therefore my insistence on examining the true cost, which would take into account externalities, costs to future generations, tragedy of the commons, and other failures of market capitalism. And spare me the ad homs. They don't strengthen your argument.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 16:56 | Link to Comment Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Well said Rocky. Unfortunately, there are people in the world who cannot function in that manner. It is a crippling handicap. Security becomes dependent on theories and formulas to provide an explanation of the world around them. Regardless of whether they are correct or not.

GDP is a ridiculous metric. How can you include all government expenditures? I understand that taxes would have been spent in other ways and represent a part of the production of the country, but why would you include debt not paid by taxes? 

Is the military and intelligence gathering really a useful multiplier? They should be division as it is capital wasted with no real product.

The list is forever, death/birth adjustments, military in the employment figures, CPI. 

Bob, I agree the Austrians use mathematics, but they are not the primary means used to account for human behavior. That is what praxeology is all about. The problem with mathematics is it is dependent on a model of equilibrium that is static to generate formulas and value is never static. 

Which is why economics can never be predictive in the short run. 

 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 17:41 | Link to Comment bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

It depends on what type of math we are talking about. 

Are we talking about arithmetic or quantum mechanics? I ask because quantum mechanics is very much open to argument yet is principled in math. 

I guess this is the most dumbed down video I could use to elucidate my point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 17:54 | Link to Comment Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Haven't heard of any economists using quantum mechanics. By the way, I think the physicists need to look for an alternative solution. 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 18:11 | Link to Comment bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

Most "economists" are paid for sell-side WS shills. 

Some physicists do work for WS....

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 20:44 | Link to Comment Goldtoothchimp09
Goldtoothchimp09's picture

Why would you want to calculate GDP.  It's a meaningless statistic.  I buy a rock from you for $10.  You buy it back for $11.  $21 of GDP whooo hooo.  before GDP was GNP.  changed the stat to better serve the politics of the day.  All meaningless b.s.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 22:24 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Yup.   And the gov't borrows the $10 from folks who'd just as soon see us implode, gives it to the military, they blow it up in some far away land.   That really helped me and you get food on the table.   And I won't settle for the crap about the munitions being made here in the good ole US of A.  See Bastiat.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 18:44 | Link to Comment double 007
double 007's picture

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:26 | Link to Comment Silver Bug
Silver Bug's picture

Economist are the shamans and priest of the modern age. People will look back in the future and think we were insane for blindly following their nonsense. Max is spot of once again. Keep up the good work.

 

http://silverliberationarmy.blogspot.com/

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:20 | Link to Comment wisefool
wisefool's picture

I also agree with the shaman/priest comparisons. "When we are right you get to live in opulence." Opulence soothes the conscious over other types of hedonistic indiscretions.

"When we are wrong, you still get to live in opulence, we'll tax the taxes from the people who don't show up to the temple."

 

EDIT: And the good thing thing about the indgegences and taxation of old, is that atleast they paid for impresives architecture. Now we got McMansions.

Sun, 06/26/2011 - 09:28 | Link to Comment FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

"And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually" Jimi

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:34 | Link to Comment doomandbloom
doomandbloom's picture

its plain obvious to me as well...then why is it not obvious to them?

 

Is it just a love of power? why are they not seeing the obvious? see.... this is where i delve into conspiracy theories..

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:45 | Link to Comment Imminent Crucible
Imminent Crucible's picture

It is not obvious to the banksters because their wealth and power are predicated on Keynesian theory. To abandon Keynes would mean the end of their legal counterfeiting schemes and their status in the world.

I doubt they actually believe any of it, or indeed have any actual beliefs in the accepted sense of the word. It's just the scarecrow they present to the masses to keep the crows out of the plutocratic cornfields.  You need not obey them, and you should not.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:18 | Link to Comment dcb
dcb's picture

that is correct. in fact it was why the flawed scheme was adopted in my view.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 16:20 | Link to Comment Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

+1913

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 18:31 | Link to Comment nuinut
nuinut's picture

Disagree. Their wealth and power are predicated upon the use of debt as money; Keynesian theory was adopted simply to enable the continuation of this debt as money system.

The bottom line is that VALUE is money, in accord with what Tyler stated back at the top of the thread:

...Austrian founder Carl Menger, who founded the Austrian school on one axiom only: "value does not exist outside mankind's consciousness." As Jaitly goes on to say, "all other forms of economics, classical, neoclassical economics, ascribe value to something else other than the human mind." 

Jaitly has put in a nutshell why modern economics is rubbish... It's the Value, Stupid.

In order to be exchanged equitably (the raison 'd etre of a monetary system), value, being subjective, requires the collective to establish an objective reference point for value.

 

And this is the function of gold.

http://flowofvalue.blogspot.com/

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 22:38 | Link to Comment Double down
Double down's picture

Well put

Gold as money is an historical condition that cannot be "chosen" away without establishing its eminence in the first place.  It is the unit of measure of value and we will need it again before the end.

Sun, 06/26/2011 - 09:39 | Link to Comment FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

Value is in the eye of the beholder.  To the thirsty man, a gallon of water trumps an ounce of gold.  Gold has a function in the civil world of exchange.  Shinny, scarce and portable holder of value, but when the SHTF beans and bullets before bullion.  Fortunately we rarely get to the place where gold has no value, however, we are often reminded through out history that paper and ink have little marginal utility.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 16:03 | Link to Comment Temporalist
Temporalist's picture

Blinding hubris may be the reason.  Thinking that man and central planning can control the forces of nature.  As Marc Faber and Jim Grant like to say "unintended consenquences."

Also they may often believe that they have good intentions...but most know where that leads.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:35 | Link to Comment Tunga
Tunga's picture

The theory that all economic theory is just bunkum is of course; just a theory.

 

It does seem to explain things rather nicely though.  

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:59 | Link to Comment WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

Gary North has already addressed this topic:

Why Economists Love the Federal Reserve

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north962.html

---

Got a joke for you: What do you call an economist that tells the truth?

Unemployed.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:34 | Link to Comment rosiescenario
rosiescenario's picture

....well, there is what we think we know, what we know we do not know, and Black Swans....which are always the major drivers of big change.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:38 | Link to Comment Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

Simple, brilliant and powerful!

 

Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:48 | Link to Comment JollyRoger
JollyRoger's picture

Modern monetary policy attempts to outwit human nature, but natural market forces will always trump their vain attempts in the end

http://silvercointrader.com/2011/06/fear-not-honest-money-will-prevail/

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:47 | Link to Comment Printfaster
Printfaster's picture

I am almost feeling prescient, having described my econ 1 class using the same words:

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/bill-gross-college-worthless#comment-13...

Never mind.

 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:51 | Link to Comment the grateful un...
the grateful unemployed's picture

GHW Bush created the term voodoo economics. he was our last one term President. Greenspan complained about him. Conclusion: Economists are Witchdoctors (don't mess them).

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:59 | Link to Comment Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Bush was just a caretaker until they had Clinton groomed. He normally busies himself with much more important matters.

Sun, 06/26/2011 - 07:37 | Link to Comment Moe Howard
Moe Howard's picture

Correct-o-mondo sir.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 16:27 | Link to Comment Michael Victory
Michael Victory's picture

 

Keiser is solid.

Who was it last week that said his reporting jeopardizes his life?

Thanks Max.

A fan of Jonny Stewart also, different & entertaining.

In case you missed it Jon was interviewed by Fox last week about his comment(s), “Fox has the most consistently misinformed media viewers”

Full Bit - Stewart vs. Chris Wallace on Fox

 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:56 | Link to Comment tradewithdave
tradewithdave's picture

Economic's cornerstone is scarcity. The universe is not scarce and therein lies the deception. On the other hand per Poincare it is a recurring feedback loop so consider what you feed to it as your just desserts when they recur.

Dave Harrison
www.tradewithdave.com

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:05 | Link to Comment tradewithdave
tradewithdave's picture

Before someone else points out the obvious I realize this means that the 2nd 'law" of thermodynamics would then be relegated to the status of statistical probability. Ask Perelman why, not me.. I suspect Mr Jaitly realizes this also.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 17:04 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The Second law is statistical.... the state function converges very hard and very fast when you deal with ~10^23 particles at a time (a fluctuation involving 10^12  of them doesn't change anything)

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 19:43 | Link to Comment Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

Actually it is not statistical per se because in a microcanonical ensemble consisting of one particle the wavefunction will expand to uniformly fill the possible phase space.   It is really a statement of time evolution of a wave function in a clased system.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 20:34 | Link to Comment Johrny Bravo
Johrny Bravo's picture

Except on Tuesdays...

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 23:31 | Link to Comment Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

Look who it is......

Jonny-$300 gold-Bravo

Sun, 06/26/2011 - 00:23 | Link to Comment Hulk
Hulk's picture

you have been hamied!

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 21:31 | Link to Comment Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

It's been a while and I am refering to partition functions in classical statistical mechanics, you know, e to the minus kay tee, stuff like that

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 14:55 | Link to Comment wisefool
wisefool's picture

Timmy was on CNBC yesterday with leisman hanging out in a New Hamphire Pizza Joint.

para: "This is a place were recovery is possible. They did not participate as greatly in the housing bubble, therefore they are WIN." /para

So basically, the people and places who rejected the economists' ideas, and suffered out the tax penalties/incentives are the places where the recovery is going to occur, and then we'll redistribute thier wealth to the people who did drink the koolaid and give them $50,000 worth of principal write downs.

So now that our economists are telling us to do like new hampshire, should we go against the current orders and participate in a new bubble and/or go galt, so 3 years from now timmay can say "these people did the opposite of what we told them and once again they are heart of the recovery."

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 19:35 | Link to Comment Tunga
Tunga's picture

Ah, Saturday hiding in the shade of  the Zero hedge. Tunga was just... wait a second... we've just been handed this notice... it seems totally off topic but it's addressed as "A secret message to The Secretary". Hmm. Which secretary? Well on the slim chance that this is relevant here is said message; http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lv/542/542-5.htm

 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 19:38 | Link to Comment Tunga
Tunga's picture

"If any person or persons so summoned to testify shall refuse or neglect to attend, upon petition the court in and for the county in which such arbitrators are sitting may compel the attendance of such person or persons before said arbitrator or arbitrators, or punish said person or persons for contempt in the same manner now provided in RSA 516." excerpted from New Hampshire Law bitches.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:02 | Link to Comment slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

do you think we should short the consumer confidence index?
how strongly do you feel about your answer?

thank you for playing.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 19:17 | Link to Comment Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 look no FURTHER than next thursday! Don't waste your time with a budding barrister!

 

             Yen

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:05 | Link to Comment Arrowflinger
Arrowflinger's picture

Economics is not about mathematics, it is about the human being."

I have a problem with this statement for it is mathematics which dooms the Keynesian equation. Money from nothing is like division by zero. Null.

The math of the baby boom demographic renders it absurd.

The math of fractional ownership rendered securitization absurd.

Next to God stands MATH.

Math is going to kick their asses......and sadly, ours with them.

 

 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 18:38 | Link to Comment Quixotic_Not
Quixotic_Not's picture

Fiat currency is the friend of the despot, bankster and the thief - The scheme as played by the FED is nothing but an artifice to defraud.

Money for nuthin', chicks for free...

Ag & Au is the friend of the patriot, business owner and laborer - PMs are immutable objects that grant a permanent store of wealth.

Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience. ~ John Locke 1690

Is anyone starting to get a clue out there?

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 22:20 | Link to Comment Double down
Double down's picture

I agree.  He should have stated what he meant differently.  Human beings and their decisions can easily be mathematically described.  I just would not dare to take that principle very far.  What legitimizes the application of mathematics to human economic decision making is in the end the utility of the results. 

It is just that utilty is blind as it does not care about causes and contexts.  Change the latter two and models break. 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:12 | Link to Comment Raymond Reason
Raymond Reason's picture

So...its like trying to explain why your marraige failed with a math equation.  The real reason is often quite simple. 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:23 | Link to Comment slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

xlnt! -1!

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:22 | Link to Comment ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

 

Every deluded populace seeking affirmation for its juvenile narcissism needs enablers - especially powerful ones with intricate formulas, theoroms, catch-phrases, jingoisms, and soothing mumbo-jumbo to aid perception in avoiding reality - so that all may whip and drive the horses foaming at the mouth, the carriage wheels spinning, and the passengers laughing, bouncing, and fornicating inside - to the precipice of doom.

 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 16:05 | Link to Comment traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

+1

Sun, 06/26/2011 - 10:04 | Link to Comment FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

The dance band on the Titanic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5le92UmPmU

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:21 | Link to Comment PulauHantu29
PulauHantu29's picture

No matter what economic model you use, without strong anti-fraud provisions (meaning lots of jailtime) nothing will work...a la Wall Street past, present and future.

How many subprime pimps have gone to prison?

Zero.

read Michael Lewis's book, The big Short,..it's a thriller but will disgust you in the extreme when you realize NOT  ONE of these guys has gone to jail:

http://www.amazon.com/Big-Short-Inside-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393072231

of course, check your local library first.

 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:27 | Link to Comment agrotera
agrotera's picture

Thank you Max, for highlighting the truth!!!!!

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:27 | Link to Comment Franken_Stein
Franken_Stein's picture

 

Hi Tyler,

 

I'm sorry, the link to the 1955 Bilderberg document was broken.

 

This one is working:

http://bilderberg2011.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/bilderberg-meetings...

 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:29 | Link to Comment gwar5
gwar5's picture

I think Keynesianism was chosen the same way the USD was chosen at Bretton Woods. Because they could.

It didn't matter if Keynes made sense. It only mattered that his economics of deficit spending and government control of the economy were the core of Keynesianism. That's all TPTB needed to hear to promote Keynesian triumphalism and run with it.

Also explains trolls like Krugman.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 18:51 | Link to Comment mynhair
mynhair's picture

You forgot:  "and the proles cheered".

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:27 | Link to Comment PulauHantu29
PulauHantu29's picture

Thank you. It is always good to hear Max and his guests.

 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:37 | Link to Comment svendthrift
svendthrift's picture

For great economic analysis turn to Ezra Pound:

http://www.archive.org/details/AnIntroductionToTheEconomicNatureOfTheUni...

As James O'Meara put it:

http://jamesjomeara.blogspot.com/2011/06/this-is-exactly-how-nazi-german...

Ah, Democracy! Blessed fruit of our WWII sacrifices! Here, we can vote for whomever we want! Robert [Borrow and Spend] Reich, Alan [Debt and Austerity] Greenspan, or Ron [Ayn Rand and the Gold Standard] Paul. Vote for the (...) Economic Plan of your choice, but vote!

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:32 | Link to Comment Temporalist
Sat, 06/25/2011 - 16:13 | Link to Comment Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

Great videos.  Thanks.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 21:54 | Link to Comment Sambo
Sambo's picture

Celente: "When the ponzi scheme collapses, they take you to war."

I am afraid, he is right. These evil bastards will cause the deaths of a billion people soon. I see dark days ahead for humanity.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:43 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Is the so-called free market also a politically defined myth?

http://my.firedoglake.com/iflizwerequeen/2011/06/08/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-free-market/

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 18:08 | Link to Comment goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

Thanks for the link, I am going to order the book. Of course, based on your comment, you should too. There is such a thing as the Free Market. Of course, just like a 16 year old Mexican virgin or the dinosaurs, it can not be found anywhere in the world.

edit: Never mind. Read the synopsis. The author is just another Marxist trying to blame Free Market capitalism for the errors of Marxism. It is like trying to blame you obesity and heart attack on healthy living.

Statements such as: "Companies should not be run based on the interest of their owners" kind of give away his Marxist tendencies. If a company is not to be run based on the interest of its owners, who gives anyone the right to run a company to the benefit of "the common good"? Who gives him the right to decide how a company should be run? Why spend your capital in ownership of a company if it is to be run against your interests?

 Sorry, Charlie, no dice.

There is no country in the world where Free Market Capitalism is practiced today. The closest could be Hong Kong, but not all the way there.

 

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:45 | Link to Comment Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

The best way to get out of a hole is to first stop digging.  Continuing to dig the whole deeper and deeper does not get you any closer to the top only creates a new lower bottom.

The Fed knows that as soon as Interest Rates go up it will be like a backhoe digging the hole deeper and deeper, instead of a shovel.  So, what happens when the Debt exceeds the ability to pay it back?  I think we all know.  Eventually, the Debt (the hole) will be so deep that it will be impossible to get out of.  In fact what will happen without support (the Fed) is that the hole will collapse on itself.

Simple logic like digging a hole in the ground.  Dig too deep and the ground swallows you up and you live no more to dig deeper.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 16:07 | Link to Comment slewie the pi-rat
slewie the pi-rat's picture

fear not!   the Tresury & FED are shovel ready!   oh,...wait...

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 16:10 | Link to Comment Waterfallsparkles
Waterfallsparkles's picture

Now, that is funny.

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 17:30 | Link to Comment goldsaver
goldsaver's picture

I have a theory about QE3. The Fed will announce that they will buy ALL US debt at 0% interest (minus their fee, of course) from all bond holders. This will migrate the US external debt to the Fed. Paper currency to pay for paper currency. At the end we will end up with Sovereign Money that is not based on any external debts. Of course, this will mean that they will have to print so much currency that a barrel of oil will be $500 FRNs, but they will be free to ignore the debt permanently. Monopoly money B!tch@z!!

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:50 | Link to Comment Two Towers AU AG
Two Towers AU AG's picture

Is this the time.. I should say... Silverrrrrr Biatchhhhh

Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:59 | Link to Comment Quixotic_Not
Sat, 06/25/2011 - 15:56 | Link to Comment speconomist
speconomist's picture

That clip extracted from originalhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41dSuyRrj6w which is ~20 week old.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!