This is reason's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following reason's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
reason
Recent Activity
Timeless is relative (in the long run we are all dead, and in the very long run the earth first is hellishly hot then freezing cold).
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 06-19-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
So you are agreeing the incentives must be wrong. (And I sort of wonder what vibrations have to do with a parked car.)
Toggle Commented yesterday on Links for 06-21-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
"I can understand how in an economy where so many people become more an more excluded, deprived even of the very currency needed to make an economy go, that they would seek, even need alternate........ve currency" This is just wrong headed. The blockchain is effectively an anti-counterfeit device not an inclusion device. It is not to do with the nature of the currency itself that explains why people have insufficient of it to be included. But as I have said before the usefulness of the currency as a means of exchange and its value as a store of value (or as a medium of speculation) are in conflict. A little bit of inflation is a good thing for a means of exchange, because it counteracts hoarding which is the bane of any monetary system. Nothing in the blockchain does anything about either hoarding or inequality. The blockchain currency bitcoin seems designed to encourage hoarding, so I suspect it won't go far as a means of exchange, but it has proven a practical alternative to gold and diamonds for criminals.
Toggle Commented 2 days ago on Links for 06-21-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Think of another possibility (a sliding solar on the roof of an electric car - so it could provide windscreen shade when parked and have extra collecting area as well). Ok, ok it is summer and 34 degrees C here today, so solar energy is everywhere.
Toggle Commented 2 days ago on Links for 06-21-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
One thing that certainly annoys me about this, is that to me the incentives must be wrong. I see the german railway building solar banks on perfectly good land (which could for instance grow trees), and the railways rolling past large numbers of houses with south-facing roofs and no solar panels. I see electric cars being built without solar panels on the roof, parked in the sun. I sort of wonder - something is wrong here, why? I read in the scientific American that people are thinking of locating solar panels to provide shade to irrigation canals. Or we could use solar panels to provide weather protection to bike lanes (shade + rain + snow protection). There are so many two-fers out there - why are we missing all these opportunities?
Toggle Commented 2 days ago on Links for 06-21-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
"In a way, non-equilibrium models are not compatible with assuming a functioning market economy/society, as they seem to lead to the inescapable solution that things are determined by messy politics." Let's back up a bit to this statement - it is incorrect. A functioning market economy/society does not require equilibrium or necessarily messy politics. It is quite possible that rule based responses to measured reality are sufficient to keep things functioning (I keep using the analogy that the economy flies like a plane, it doesn't float like a boat. If you know where you are in which way you are going, you can control it.) Your mistake is in thinking that something that doesn't have an attractor state is totally unpredictable, even in the short term. It isn't. Think of the weather - or the flow of a river to use a different analogy.
Toggle Commented 2 days ago on Links for 06-19-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
No not at all. They just say that the current state depends on the previous state in an indeterminate way.
Toggle Commented 4 days ago on Links for 06-19-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
By the way to be fair to original article - he ends thus: "Four score years since Hayek explained how challenging the notion of intertemporal equilibrium really is and the difficulties inherent in explaining any empirical tendency toward intertemporal equilibrium, modern macroeconomics has succeeded in assuming all those difficulties out of existence. Many macroeconomists feel rather proud of what modern macroeconomics has achieved. I am not quite as impressed as they are." i.e. To put that simpler, modern macro-economics successfully models the economy with everything that is possibly of interest taken out.
Toggle Commented 4 days ago on Links for 06-19-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
I think I come at this from another direction as the previous author (but in this - if perhaps in little else - we agree).
Toggle Commented 4 days ago on Links for 06-19-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
I see I posted in parallel making the same point.
Toggle Commented 4 days ago on Links for 06-19-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Uneasy money and rational expectations: "In this very restricted sense, I believe rational expectations is a very important property that any model ought to have. It simply says that a model ought to have the property that if one assumes that the agents in a model expect the equilibrium predicted by the model, then, given those expectations, the solution of the model will turn out to be the equilibrium of the model. This property is a consistency and coherence property that any model, regardless of its substantive predictions, ought to have. If a model lacks this property, there is something wrong with the model." And what if your model has no equilibrium solution?
Toggle Commented 4 days ago on Links for 06-19-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
"Private demand has been substantially met and now consists mostly of frivolous wants." Saying this at a time where there is still widespread poverty is tone deaf. It may be true that it is more urgent now to meet the demand for public goods than providing extra private goods for the already rich (who are only a fraction of the total population). But the increase in rent is not due to "surplus income" but a lack of competition in some markets (in some cases precisely due to poor intellectual property laws) and a lack of supply in others (for instance lack of supply of good places to live).
Toggle Commented 7 days ago on Links for 06-15-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
paine, I very much disagree with this. I think jobs will follow people - as long as the people have some money. Giving the people money and stopping them being fleeced is the main task of the government.
Toggle Commented 7 days ago on Links for 06-15-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
Matthew Yglesias puts the boot in: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/16/15807806/trump-breaking-health-promises
1 reply
To be honest, I'm get sick of the stupidity coming from trolls. Honestly, aren't there any good trolls around? Someone who can actually make a coherent argument?
1 reply
Is this your way to support the GOP plan to make it much worse? GOP, beware of who your friends are!
1 reply
George Monbiot writes yet another good column: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/15/grenfell-tower-red-tape-safety-deregulation
Toggle Commented 7 days ago on Links for 06-15-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
???? What planet are you on? (P.S. Zero sum does NOT mean equilibrium and besides economies are NOT zero sum - if I'm not working and he's not working we are both losing.)
Toggle Commented Jun 14, 2017 on Links for 06-12-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
"I wonder if it has ever occurred to the Democrat party brass that once the great Russian/Trump treason snipe-hunt comes up empty they may face consequences." If that was likely why is Trump so terrified of the enquiry? It doesn't add up. By the way your whole thesis is completely crazy. Clinton has almost nothing to do with it. Have you been drinking?
Toggle Commented Jun 13, 2017 on Links for 06-12-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
I read this: https://uneasymoney.com/2017/06/11/hayek-and-temporary-equilibrium/ and while I found it well written, I wonder why he bothered. His last paragraph to me summarises why this is pointless "The temporary-equilibrium method, it seems to me, might have been a path that Hayek could have successfully taken in pursuing the goal he had set for himself early in his career: to reconcile equilibrium-analysis with a theory of business cycles. Why he ultimately chose not to take this path is a question that, for now at least, I will leave to others to try to answer." It just avoids the obvious question doesn't it. Why do you need equilibrium analysis in the first place? It would be much better to start with a disequilibrium analysis and let equilibrium be a special case, wouldn't it? Sorry to keep hammering on this, but so many people seem to have a blind spot about this. We NEED a disequilibrium economics. Equilibrium is a straight jacket we need to break out of.
Toggle Commented Jun 13, 2017 on Links for 06-12-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
2 party system. Look at what has just happened in France. It couldn't happen in the US, but it should. A genuine centrist sailed into the wide open space in the middle.
Toggle Commented Jun 12, 2017 on Links for 06-09-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
I hate the title "is inequality hurting our economies". What they seem really to be arguing that inequality may be hurting growth BUT 1. I don't think the term "hurting our economies" is meaningful, economies do not have feelings. The economy is a tool - does it make sense to say for instance "oh dear - poverty is interfering with hammers". 2. Economies can perform poorly in other ways than not growing (for instance via creating inequality itself). 3. Even given that, a well functioning economy is not an end in itself. Even things that hurt the functioning of the economy may be justifiable. 4. The economy is only a part of larger necessary system for human survival and thriving.
Toggle Commented Jun 9, 2017 on Links for 06-08-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
I'll repeat my criticisms of this from the last thread: I don't like this whole line of argument from Dean Baker. 1. It has no effective short term policy implications (i.e. there are no policies that would help ordinary workers in the short term implied by this observation). 2. This is only a positive position to people who have potential market incomes. It does nothing at all for people who are for various reasons not in a position to earn a market income (for instance the sick, carers, people in structurally disadvantaged locations. 3. Government has and can have a positive impact on the world, indeed it must. Not arguing against an anti-government position is doing nobody any favours. A better line of argument would be to argue that well done redistribution does not cost resources. i.e. It does not increase the "size of government" in terms of resources used, and this is what is really important. Pretending otherwise is just helping the rich to get richer and the poor, poorer.
Toggle Commented Jun 9, 2017 on Links for 06-08-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
None the less the US obsession with Iran is truly absurd.
Toggle Commented Jun 9, 2017 on Links for 06-08-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
I don't like this whole line of argument from Dean Baker. 1. It has no effective short term policy implications (i.e. there are no policies that would help ordinary workers in the short term implied by this observation). 2. This is only a positive position to people who have potential market incomes. It does nothing at all for people who are for various reasons not in a position to earn a market income (for instance the sick, carers, people in structurally disadvantaged locations. 3. Government has and can have a positive impact on the world, indeed it must. Not arguing against an anti-government position is doing nobody any favours.
Toggle Commented Jun 8, 2017 on Links for 06-07-17 at Economist's View
1 reply