The Dow Is A Measure Of Inflation

[Que]

What is your specific objection to RationalWiki?

Real wickipedia is not a primary source. If one wants to go there or to rational wicki to find links to study, read and inform yourself then have an actual knowledgeable discussion I see no problem with that. Knowing nothing (as you have admitted) about a subject then using a rag-tag collection of liberal contributers as a "cite" for an argument you are not prepared to articulate yourself is a non-starter with me and always will be a nonstarter with me. If you do not yourself know what you are talking about, how could you possibly know whether the article you point to there is or is not on point and correct?

As Rob said, you should not depend on changing the subject...

What is your objection to the Austrian school of economic theory? Is there a specific idea, theorem or postulate that you find does not make sense, given your broad understanding of economics? Feel free to express yourself in your own words as I did in my objection to Keynes.

 

[RobDownSouth]

What is your specific objection to RationalWiki?

It disagrees with #TehNarrative, so it must be disparaged!

#ShootTehMessenger
#PewPewPew

 

[JohnnySavage]

Mr. Savage weighs in from the crowd with an interesting observation.....

That is time bomb of a completely different color. They cannot stay near zero forever can they?

Your point is quite valid. Making the problem worse: they have been retiring the long bonds and shifting a lot of the money into the short term bonds that they can control the rates on. The short term treasury auctions are getting to be a much larger proportion of the overall debt then they have ever been.

Used to be they wanted to get as much of that into long bonds as possible both for better rates and to make planning for the debt and administering the auctions easier.

There are very few subjects that Johnny knows anything about, so when he posts something on one of those subjects a person would be well advised to pay attention.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Y'all had better hope to hell the Fed keeps interest rates low. The average maturity on the Fed's debt instruments is about 7 years. If they have to roll that debt over at higher rates our budget is in big trouble.

<query mode>
but...but...are we talking about daily, monthly, quarterly or annual interest rates? Since you didn't specify which rate, it's obvious you have no understanding of compound interest!! Whee, I WIN!
</query mode>

 

[Que]

There are very few subjects that Johnny knows anything about, so when he posts something on one of those subjects a person would be well advised to pay attention.

I read a piece once by an actual expert in some field or another. I don't recall his field of study, and it isn't important for the article he wrote. He is a full professor research in his area of interest. He finds himself arguing on the Internet with people that refuse to acknowledge any particular special expertise on his part or really that anyone is an "expert" on anything. The thinking seems to be that one's Google skills makes one the peer of anyone, in any field.

One of my Facebook friends from the small town I attended third grade. He is a full Professor of American history, his specialty is early American History with an emphasis on early documents. He writes on the subject has written a couple of national bestsellers. I see people regularly arguing with him about what Madison said. He wrote the book on it.

I find it amusing that some people find information pasted from elsewhere more interesting. That author isn't here for me to ask follow-up questions of, so I find that not at all interesting.

 

[Que]

There are very few subjects that Johnny knows anything about, so when he posts something on one of those subjects a person would be well advised to pay attention.

Query also acknowledges and admires the stylish way in which Mr. Savage refers to himself in the third person.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Real wickipedia is not a primary source. If one wants to go there or to rational wicki to find links to study, read and inform yourself then have an actual knowledgeable discussion I see no problem with that.

The wikis are good summarizers. Wikipedia has a process where contributors edit each others' work constantly, thresh out disagreements on the discussion page, and finally a consensus is reached that contains more information and corresponds more nearly to reality than when the article first was written -- a continuous process of fractal iteration towards greater accuracy and greater comprehensiveness. RationalWiki is the same except for its editorial philosophy; it's always reliable when it's not making a joke, and it's never hard to tell. And yes, it's fair to use it as a cite.

Knowing nothing (as you have admitted) about a subject . . .

I know little about the stock market; I know something, and apparently more than you do, about economics.

What is your objection to the Austrian school of economic theory?

Their stated rejection of empirical scientific methodology. They seem to think they are doing a non-empirical formal science like mathematics -- their conclusions stand or fall on the internal logical consistency of their arguments, without reference to data from any real-world economy. That makes it a pseudoscience.

This is from RationalWiki. Tell me what parts are false.

Praxeology

Murray Rothbard's Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics (read here!) describes praxeology as an application of deductive reasoning, applied to a set of "unquestionable" axioms. Of course, any implications derived from these axioms are only as good as the analysis that derived them, and the axiom that they were derived from. This is where praxeology gets into trouble, as they reject less mushy formal analysis in favor of more weasely verbal analysis. Let's look at the axiom that Rothbard refers to as the foundation of praxeological deduction as an example, the "fundamental axiom of action." Almost immediately, the axiom wades into trouble. It states that:

"individual human beings act."

The first part of that assertion is simple enough to grasp, but what does it mean to act? One possible definition of act says it is to "perform an action." This seems to be as far as most Austrian school thinker take this. However, as an air conditioner, vacuum cleaner and TV all perform actions, it would seem this axiom places human beings in the rather large set of things that act. It would be pretty embarrassing then, to derive any economic conclusions from the fact that people are part of the set of things that act, as the conclusions deriving from being a member of the set of things that act would apply to other members of that set as well. Fortunately, Rothbard is kind enough to clarify his definition:

"...that is human beings take conscious action towards chosen goals."

Note that one under-defined concept has now been replaced with two; conscious action and chosen goals. Let us ignore the validity of this assertion, and try to figure out just what chosen goals are. The word choice would seem to imply some form of conscious action was taken in forming these goals, so is the real statement of this axiom "human beings take conscious action towards a consciously acted upon set of goals?" Perhaps Rothbard meant to differentiate between "choosing" and "acting," but that is never clearly expressed. In either case, it would seem that the definition of goal needs some work to be truly useful. Sound logic relies on clarity of definition, as many arguments are sensitive to subtle changes in meaning, and vague statements hide contradictions.

This approach of verbal deduction also leads to a rather noticeable (ab)use of false analogies and intuition pumps.

<snip>

Even they admit they just pulled this stuff out of their asses

The Austrians seem to follow the maxim "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." If you couldn't wade through all their econo-speak and arbitrary redefinitions of commonly used terms, however, they literally do the work for you and come straight out and say they just made everything up. Ludwig von Mises himself wrote of his theory:

"Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience... They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts.[22]"

F.A. Hayek wrote that any theories in the social sciences can "never be verified or falsified by reference to facts."[23]

In other words, it's economic theology. An entire (albeit minor) school of economics has published book after book and paper upon paper just to say all problems can be boiled down to "gubmint did it" and all solutions can be described as "free market always wins." Despite this, their influence (on the internets, at least) seems to be growing, at least since 2008 and the proliferation of "Peter Schiff was right!!11!!" videos.[24] Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom also got the Glenn Beck bump when it was mentioned on his show.[25]

Look, this is not a trivial failure. It is part of a conflict between rationalist (as distinct from rational) thinking and empirical thinking that goes back centuries, to the division between the Continental Enlightenment (rationalist) and the British Enlightenment (empirical). Empiricists endeavor to study the world and try to learn from it, reach new conclusions cautiously, and constantly revise their models in light of new data. Rationalists endeavor to reason logically from first principles, all inside their heads, and come up with a complete and perfect system, as in the traditions of ancient Greek philosophy and medieval theology. The British Utilitarians were empiricists. The Jacobins were rationalists. Karl Marx and Ayn Rand were both rationalists (they just assumed different first principles to start with).

Scientists are empiricists.

And, in case you haven't noticed, the experience of the past two centuries shows that empiricism always gets the better of rationalism, and always yields better results.

The relative merits of Romanticism v. Enlightenment might still be debatable in this day and age -- might -- but Team Enlightenment's intramural Rationalism v. Empiricism event is settled game, set and match.

 

[Que]

Like I said...YOU know nothing other than what you can pull from there. Thanks for confirming that.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Like I said...YOU know nothing other than what you can pull from there. Thanks for confirming that.

That answers nothing, and you lose. Game, set, and match.

 

[Que]

The chart I left in the political blurts will be extolled by the usual innumeracy-challenged suspect as proof of a wonderful recovery. PE ratios at an all time high!

No inflation here, no sir!

 

[KingOrfeo]

The chart I left in the political blurts will be extolled by the usual innumeracy-challenged suspect as proof of a wonderful recovery. PE ratios at an all time high!

No inflation here, no sir!

Inflation has been dropping since 2012.

 

[mikey2much]

this post and all of the post above it are bullshit

The investors all realize it is illusionary gains, but the point of equities is to keep pace with inflation, manufactured or not. They hope to grab a safe chair in cash when the music stops.

The subtle creep of inflation in the things consumers actually spend their money on versus the stacked CPI, together with the flat to deflationary direction of wages portends some very painful things. The administration apologists keep singing the praises, undeterred.

More Americans are jobless now than ever before, and they point to less people applying for the first time for unemployment as if that is a meaningful number. They point to weeds in the sidewalk cracks of a dystopian economy and announce that the State is having a bumper crop.

Everything in query's post is true, there are more americans out of work than ever before, because there are more americans and because we have been letting the republicans steer us down a path that leads to ruin for the working man.

The republicans opened up china under Nixon, changed the banking laws and regulations under Reagan and Bush. NAFTA was passed under Clinton. He worked with the republicans and against his own party to bring about the closing of factories all across america. Ross Perot was correct when he famously said,"that giant sucking sound you hear is american jobs being sucked overseas." He was right and Clinton was wrong to make it possible.

On the other hand Clinton used this and the dotcom boom to fuel a recovery from the reagan recession. NAFTA looked like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread while we exported everything it took to put our factories in china and other cheap labor countries. This was when Caterpillar was a hot stock, and why Bush had a surplus when he took office.

But I have to say, you show a great deal of cheek to blame the grass growing up through the neglected infrastructure on the democrats. If it seems like a bumper crop to you, that is because it is well watered by liberal tears over the last few years as we watched you guys on the right snip and cut string after string in the social safety net and the basic infrastructure of america.

 

[RjThoughts]

Everything in query's post is true, there are more americans out of work than ever before, because there are more americans and because we have been letting the republicans steer us down a path that leads to ruin for the working man.

The republicans opened up china under Nixon, changed the banking laws and regulations under Reagan and Bush. NAFTA was passed under Clinton. He worked with the republicans and against his own party to bring about the closing of factories all across america. Ross Perot was correct when he famously said,"that giant sucking sound you hear is american jobs being sucked overseas." He was right and Clinton was wrong to make it possible.

On the other hand Clinton used this and the dotcom boom to fuel a recovery from the reagan recession. NAFTA looked like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread while we exported everything it took to put our factories in china and other cheap labor countries. This was when Caterpillar was a hot stock, and why Bush had a surplus when he took office.

But I have to say, you show a great deal of cheek to blame the grass growing up through the neglected infrastructure on the democrats. If it seems like a bumper crop to you, that is because it is well watered by liberal tears over the last few years as we watched you guys on the right snip and cut string after string in the social safety net and the basic infrastructure of america.

GOP-led Congress wants to increase defense spending but won't give shit to infrastructure or education. I swear, they LOVE cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

 

[Que]

GOP-led Congress wants to increase defense spending but won't give shit to infrastructure or education. I swear, they LOVE cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

What "infrastructure' can you possibly think of that could not have been covered by almost a trillion dollars in "stimulus" spending? Instead that was used for nothing but propping up public sector unions. Give them a dollar, they will demand two and spend three.

"Education." What a LAUGH. The places that spend the most have the worst results. You cannot educate dumb kids with uninvolved parents for any amount of money. A bright kid with uninvolved parents? Maybe. A dumb kid with concerned, involved parents? Marginally. We are subsidizing and breeding the stupid. That is not education's fault and that is not going to be fixed by spending more money on education the vast majority of which goes to people that do not actually interact with children.

Why is it that people need to be "educated?" How about, "employable." 50% of all CURRENT college graduates cannot find employment that requires a college degree, yet the answer is MORE people with worthless college degrees in useless fields designed primarily to make it possible for people that should never have been pathed towards higher education to get a degree. More college degrees are bullshit than actual education.

Sitting your ass in a series of chairs for 4 years and regurgitating nonsense spoon-fed to you by a "professor" who got his so called education in exactly the same way is not education.

There is no bit of knowledge that is only available in such an environment. Teach children to read and to love doing so and you will have a far better educated class of citizenry than any amount of classroom hours could ever imbue. Anything you want or need to know is in a book and/or available on-line.