after the presidential debate - 8/10/08

From Brent on October 7th, 2008

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-10/07/content_10159106.htm


From Buck on October 8th, 2008

Well, this Argentina & Brazil thing doesn't seem like that big of a deal. They're still tying the exchange rate to the U.S dollar anyway. Good for them that they want to start using their own currency.

This link (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24467159-5013460,00.html) is really good. It's pretty in the middle, criticizes both sides, and pretty much expressed my feelings exactly on the economy, etc...

Also I'd like to say that I think Obama is 95% hype. What makes you think that he'll bring change or improve things? And if the answer (as with most people I believe) starts with "he says" or "he said" or some other version of him saying something, well you can guess where I'm gonna go with that...

Haha, sorry I was just brooding a bit over it, thought I'd vent.


From Brent on October 8th, 2008

Well this Argentina & Brazil thing doesn't seem like that big of a deal. They're still tying the exchange rate to the U.S dollar anyway. Good for them that they want to start using their own currency.

"Although the SML seeks to gradually eliminate the dollar from the bilateral trade, the currency will continue its presence in transactions between Brazil and Argentina, as their central banks will set the exchange rate for the real and the peso with respect to the dollar."

"The new paymnet system has more political importance than technical importance because it will strengthen ties between Argentina and Brazil, the biggest economies of the Mercosur."

"If the mechanism works out without incidents between Brazil and Argentina, it will be adopted by other countries of the Mercosur, like Paraguay and Uruguay, Brazilian authorities said."

Pretty interesting to me. I think it is a trend that might spread...

Also I'd like to say that I think Obama is 95% hype. What makes you think that he'll bring change or improve things? And if the answer (as with most people I believe) starts with "he says" or "he said" or some other version of him saying something, well you can guess where I'm gonna go with that...

Well, Obama said ... lol. Just teasing.

I don't think he'll necessarily improve things or make 'big' change, but I think he will do more for global perception of the USA than his rival. This is coming from someone who has a strong opposition to US foreign policy - particularly over the past 8 years.

If you have time, check out this lecture from Noam Chomsky (I think it is almost 2 hours but is definitely worth a watch. You can get it as a podcast from the iTunes store for free as well):

http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/buniverse/videos/view/?id=224

If you don't have time to watch that, there is a little clip here of more or less the same stuff:

http://www.bigthink.com/the-world/the-middle-east/9128

A particularly strong point I think he presents is that policy should reflect the opinions of the population. He also points out that this is not the current state of things, and that the opposite is actually true. This is one of the things I think should change, but I don't think either candidate will do that.

Even on a completely superficial level (which you know I don't prescribe to) having Obama in office would be a major boon to America in terms of global opinion. Admittedly this is a sad point that I wish were not true, but the choice between him and an old, wealthy, white, ex-military man with a not so stellar academic record (never mind him joking about making North Korea extinct, bombing Iran, and "never forgiving gooks") - I think the point I'm trying to make is obvious.

Haha, sorry I was just brooding a bit over it, thought I'd vent.

Fair enough! I too was brooding last night and decided not to be so inciteful, particularly when it is not a point I agree with, and that we should not bicker unless it has a beneficial direction.

And it is funny because I can't vote.

what's wrong with economics - 7/10/08

From Buck on October 7th, 2008

This is an article I think you'll like. It's called, "What's wrong with economics" by Robert Waldmann:

What's Wrong with Economic Theory as Presented to the Public? by Robert Waldmann: I have a very low opinion of economic theory. I think that its survival is the result of a bait and switch where the core principles (roughtly Nash equilibrium) can't be proven false, because they have no implications, and, given the fact that they have not been proven false, economists attempt to convince people of the joint implications of the core principles and further assumptions which are known to be false. Fortunately, very few people pay much attention to economic theory.

To continue the diatribe, the implications of economic theory as presented by right wing economists are the implications of models which are about 50 years old now. They depend on assumptions which no one claims are approximately valid. In particular, the traditional application to finance of economic theory, that is general equilibrium theory, (generically) gives the standard results only if markets are complete -- that is there is a contingent claim for every conceivable contingency (including say this pays 1 unit of numeraire good if it is snowing on Mars or if Robert Waldmann stubs his toe between 6:55 EST of October 3 2008 and 7 EST).

With incomplete markets, the market outcome is generically (that is except for a set of economies with measure zero) constrained Pareto inefficient (that means that there are legal restrictions on peoples positions in financial markets which make everyone better off).

Also, there is no claim based on economic theory that financial market prices reflect fundamentals. A large set of general equilibrium economies *with complete markets* have multiple equilibria. Which equilibrium occurs is not determined by fundamentals (tastes and technology). With incomplete markets payoff irrelevant signals (sunspots) can affect prices in general (I think generically).

The conclusions of economic theory as presented by many or perhaps most economists do not follow from current economic theory, but rather from the 50 year old efforts at mathematical economic theory.

Thus the New York Times Op-ed page is not to be blamed for publishing an op-ed full of false claims about economic theory written by Mark Buchanan a physicist. I won't excerpt, read it if you want.

Bachman has no idea what he is talking about.

First he has no idea of what economists mean when we say "equilibrium". He just assumes that we mean stable steady state (which is what we used to mean 50 years ago). Now we mean Nash equilibrium or Walrasian General equilibrium which is nothing of the kind. He should check on recent developments in general equilbrium theory in the past 30 years. He will find the word "sunspot". He will find that general equilbrium theorists argue that there are "equilibria" in which market prices jump around ... based on irrelevant news that has nothing to do with tastes or technology... That is, the view of general equilibrium theorists is the exact opposite of the view Buchanan attributes to them.

He will also note that general equilibrium theorists conclude that market equilbria are generically not constrained Pareto efficient -- the theorists who showed that are Herakles Polimarchakas and John Geanokoplos (hey where did I just read that name ?).

Finally the bit about how economists don't use computer simulations is, if possible, even more wrong than the rest of the op-ed. It is like saying economists refuse to use mathematics or have no use for the theory of statistics.

I'd say that Buchanan demonstrates complete ignorance about what economic theorists have been doing in the ... past 30 to 50 years. ...

The problem is, I think, that when they talk to non economists, many economists pretend that traditional economic theory is a good approximation to reality. By "traditional" I mean 50 year old. The fact that the conclusions are the result of strong assumptions made for tractability and are known to not hold without these assumptions is irrelevant. In the case of financial market equilibrium, the assumptions are not just the core assumptions of rationality and old assumptions of perfect competition but the totally crazy assumption of complete markets....

Buchanan should have talked more to Geanakoplos before shooting his keyboard off. The Times should have checked claims about current economic theory with an economist before printing them, but I think the worse problem is that economists who are also libertarian ideologues are lying about the current state of economic theory, not only its very weak scientific standing, but the fact that, even if it were all absolutely true, their policy recommendations do not at all follow from current economic theory.

the truth is somewhere in the middle - 7/10/08

From Brent on October 7th, 2008

Yeah, I realized afterwards that it wouldn't make much sense to send each other stuff that supports the others view. So yeah I think I was just tired after working last night haha. I just don't like those sort of independent websites, conspiracy theory type places, for both sides. They're just too biased and not at all credible.

When I read anything I honestly think that you should read the left and read the right, the truth will be somewhere in the middle. I don't take anything at face value without reputable sources.

I did read the links you sent me, but don't have the time right now to find out how Obama voted. I'm attaching two things for you: one is my current background (lol), and the other a political cartoon, hopefully inciteful.

From Buck on October 7th, 2008

Haha, I think I may have to snag that Obama pic, it's awesome! And McCain looks like a giant tumor in that cartoon.

And no worries, I know you read both sides, just like I know you know I do. I guess you hadn't really read/watched that video you sent me but just a warning it's not nearly reputable enough to be as far left/as smearing of the right as it is.

Gonna have to be offline for a bit now. All this browsing/chatting while at work has killed my battery. See you tonight!

debate night - 7/10/08

From Buck on October 7th, 2008

Haha, yeah I guess you did hit a bit of a nerve. I actually didn't watch it either, but I read what it said on the side and dismissed it pretty quick. As I said, this "Keating 5" scandal is history, something that McCain was found innocent of and he personally admitted the mistakes he made. The New York Times wrote a big article a while back when he clinched the nomination trying to bring it back up, bundling it with a totally unfounded accusation of adultery... they were attacked pretty hard for the blatant biased slander and they never did a follow up story. There's a reason the media's not talking about it.

Looking into the scandal, you'll see that it doesn't so much show his probable approach to the current crisis but more how politics can get messy and sometimes people make mistakes. What will more accurately show probable approaches is what they have actually done, and even before he was running for President or the crisis blew up McCain was leading the call for more oversight. You should at least look at the last link I sent you because it's short and it shows what McCains actual (not probable) approach was. Also if you can, see if you can see which way Obama voted.

Yeah, I realized afterwards that it wouldn't make much sense to send each other stuff that supports the others view. So yeah I think I was just tired after working last night haha. I just don't like those sort of independent websites, conspiracy theory type places, for both sides. They're just too biased and not at all credible.

I actually just had the bike out cause I had work immediately after class so needed to get there fast. Took a coworker home though after. Fun drive at 1 in the morning, for sure.

See you tonight then. Should be a good debate too, townhall-style!