This is John M's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following John M's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
John M
Houston, TX
Recent Activity
Eh? You still need the workers to do the work, to make the stuff, even if it's paid for from the SS trust fund. Really what's so hard to understand? Todays workers are tomorrow's retirees, and if we need more workers today, we'll need still more workers tomorrow.
1 reply
Excuse me? Who was stupid? We have right now the population-growth innumeracy (and yes, stupidity) that so infests economists. It's either confusion between total resources and per-capita resources, or simply obliviousness to the obvious: the new people will need what the current people need. Any kind of argument that calls for more people to support those who already exist, is of necessity stupid. We absolutely can't have more people than people who exist. If we require any more than one person per person to survive, we can't survive. With 20 years of retirement, 40 years of work, if we can't deal with two workers per retiree, we will head straight for disaster. If we need three workers per retiree, then we'll reach 1.5 times as many retirees, requiring 1.5 times as many more workers. Let's face it: right now, we only have a finite number of resources, and we need a certain number per person. At that, we head straight for a crash with population growth -- and even constant population will eventually reach the limit. Best case situation in the future: we rely only on rate-limited resources, and population is (approximately) constant.
1 reply
Unfortunately, Paul Krugman has been caught by the standard innumerate argument for population growth: forgetting that more workers now means more retires in the future to support. I suppose that it's for the best that he uses that argument to support immigration rather than increased fertility. However, continued population growth is absolutely unsustainable. I really wish that economists would understand the notion of a doubling-time in population growth in the same spirit that they (hopefully) understand the notion of a doubling-time with interest and inflation. Grover to Kermit: "I know how to count blocks, but I don't know how to count oranges!" Immigration (including DACA and refugees) should be supported and defended because of both basic human decency and long-term interests and influence of the US.
1 reply
The latest offense of your government was to fly a missile over Japan. This was an act of war. Your fearless leader has been reckless in both talk and act, and he doesn't give a damn about you, the people of North Korea. Whether it be peaceful such as sanctions,... Continue reading
Posted Sep 1, 2017 at Some Random Nobody
"There have been endless reports about the low-education white voters who went overwhelmingly for Trump... But he wouldn’t have made it over the top without millions of votes from well-educated Republicans who ... had no excuse for not realizing what kind of man he was. ..." The problem is that his opponent wasn't a nice friendly decent Democratic nominee, but rather someone who would continue the Fascist practices originated by Resident Bush, and continued by President Obama: prosecuting whistleblowers as spies, continued bombing of the Middle East, continued bed-companions with the Banksters. They ignored the military coup in Honduras even as they declared Venezuela a threat to hemispheric security. It's even possible that Clinton was more of a nuclear danger than Trump. A vote for Trump might resemble gnawing (or sawing) his leg off to get out of a trap and save is life.
1 reply
So what destructive language has he used? Scum-bucket sounds perfectly fine, or too mind. How about serial criminal?
1 reply
The only question is why the heck he wasn't prosecuted. For hundreds if not thousands of crimes of assault, probably murder, false imprisonment, reckless endangerment, perjury, probably numerous other crimes.
1 reply
Is Anne a bot now? She used to contribute constructively, but now... Anne. You're not our mother. Either contribute constructively or STFU.
1 reply
In 2001, the Bush Administration was heading down the drain. A Republican had gone independent, switching control of the Senate to the Democrats. Leftist loudmouths were screaming at their representatives and Senators to get a spine, and fight the Bush Administration. They were calling for going after the "Felonious Five"... Continue reading
Posted Aug 24, 2017 at Some Random Nobody
Tim Duy: Just admit that the "inflation goal" is just an upper bound. It was a goal when inflation was higher, but now that it's lower? They're not pushing it up. Admit it, Mr. Duy. If you want to make a case for lower inflation or even deflation, go ahead. Just be honest about it.
1 reply
"The Feynman Lectures on Physics" "Gravitation", by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler -- It's long past due for a 2nd edition.
Toggle Commented Jul 6, 2017 on Reading List at Economist's View
1 reply
I commented in another article, that someone admitted that the 2% inflation "target" was in fact an upper bound. (It was considered a virtue that inflation came in below target.)
1 reply
It would be nice to see several GOP senators defect on the health bill, for whatever reason. But then, can we expect three or five Democratic senators to defect, perhaps in the spirit of compromise? The Senate health bill is being crafted under the darkness of night. This is so much easier to campaign about than ploughing through the substance of the bill. It also plays well with the race-horse mentality of the media. So campaign on, "The Darkness of Night".
Toggle Commented Jun 20, 2017 on Links for 06-20-17 at Economist's View
1 reply
In other words, at the very least, be honest. Don't claim that the target inflation is 2%, where undershooting is as much of a miss as overshooting. Be explicit: 2% is the upper bound, and is really only a target to aim for when inflation is well above 2% and they're trying to lower it.
1 reply
"Yellen's policies have contributed to a surprisingly strong labor market recovery, yet also been sufficiently cautious to keep inflation below target. Some would see this as an all-around success,..." Okay, he's admitted it. The 2% target is an upper bound, not an actual target to aim for. Having skimmed some comments here, while trying to avoid the name-calling and the back-and-forth insults, I'm getting the sense that the low inflation might be a good thing for the common person. The reasoning that I've seen behind the 2% target: staying well away from deflation, and also staying well away from the zero lower bound where monetary policy is blocked. I'm not going to evaluate the deflation target. But as for the monetary policy motive, the idea appears to be that the FED would do the right thing, when Congress was paralyzed. But would the FED *really* do the right thing for the workers and the unemployed (and all the rest)?
1 reply
Beware of all or nothing thinking. Was the "major legislation" a strong protection, or a weak protection? Ie. was it really major legislation? How about Obama going after and prosecuting the crimes? How about Obama breaking up too-big-to-fail banks? Or simply doing anything significant about them? While we were talking, were they shrinking or growing? A New York regulator who was determined to go after the New York banksters was lured into a Federal position created for him. What kind of staff and resources did he get? The people who went after the S&L fraud got a thousand or so agents, and other resources. How many agents did he get? Unfortunately, I can't remember or find his name. I don't think it was "Eric Schneiderman".
Toggle Commented May 18, 2017 on Darwin Visits Wall Street at Economist's View
1 reply
> “It takes a theory to beat a theory,” Lo quips. Thank goodness it's a quip. I've heard that claim before, and anyone who takes it seriously is an idiot. What kind of theory beats the theory of conventional Astrology? I have heard of a theorem from classical economics, the No-Trade Theorem. That is, nobody would buy or sell simply because they think the price will go up or down. Someone selling would require someone else buying, which would mean that two perfectly informed, perfectly rational, actors came to opposite conclusions. Under classical economics, gamblers don't exist. Of course, it never rules out selling stock to purchase something else, such as a house or college education. He would have to sell at slightly below the equilibrium price, to get a buyer. This might lead the rational actor to the conclusion that the equilibrium price will go down -- so everyone would want to sell, and then... Then, of course, we have the various rational actors who know how to make money, and who devise new ways of making money. They might not be totally rational, or perhaps totally informed: they may be unaware of the large tails of a probability distribution, and correlations in those tails. Alternatively, they may be perfectly rational and acting in ways that harm others. They may be ignorant or aware of the harm done. Perfect information means they know perfectly well. Perfectly informed and perfectly rational mean, of course, that nobody could be duped. It also means that there can't be any educational institutions -- or for that matter, education.
Toggle Commented May 18, 2017 on Darwin Visits Wall Street at Economist's View
1 reply
I think it would be possible, and even desirable, for the government to run without borrowing. But it appears literally impossible to persuade many that it can be done. The only way one can do it is by either trying it and showing that it works, or by explaining -- and when you're explaining, you're losing. And one can't try it until one understands it. If only Obama hadn't been so damnably willing to give away the store at the start of his negotiating position, perhaps he might have been more effective in fighting the Republicans when it counted. He might even have minted the trillion-dollar coins, demolishing the debt limit once and for all.
1 reply
I agree, we prefer vile and incompetent over vile and effective. But unfortunately, at some point, incompetent may actually do something -- and the rest of us will suffer for it. Or the incompetent may let vile underlings go their own way -- again, millions will suffer. I flip back and forth on this question, but I think that overall, Trump as President is marginally better than Hilary Clinton as President. As (who? West?) put it first, the question is who the more effective evil is.
1 reply
Sigh... One can increase productivity by reducing the number of workers. Supply vs. demand: demand for work is explicitly inversely proportional to productivity, consequently we should expect increased productivity to push down wages. If production increased with productivity, then labor demand would remain unchanged and wages would go inversely with the pool of labor. Ie. inversely with population. Why the heck would anyone believe that (for example) increased speed would imply increased time? Or that increased density would imply increased volume?
1 reply
Oh really?
1 reply
Reply with insults. Who is the ignorant one, or the stupid one? We don't know what this character is supposed to be thinking, so we don't know which. Of course, I was assuming that the readers knew perfectly well the sabotage -- minimal debates, scheduling them during football, giving questions ahead of time to Clinton, barring Sanders supporters. How about the long lines in poor black precincts in Arizona? (With no attempt to redress the problem by the DNC.)
1 reply
"But future historians may well record that American democracy died in May 2017." I would really hope that historians, with longer memories, would record that American democracy died in December 2000.
1 reply
“Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the F.B.I. and still does to this day,” he said, adding that “the vast majority of F.B.I. employees enjoyed a deep and positive connection to Director Comey.” Interesting. I think back a quarter century earlier. Someone would have said something similar in the LAPD: "Chief Daryl Gates enjoys broad support within the rank-and-file police officers of the LAPD." As for Russia "hacking" or "influencing" or "subverting" the Presidential election, I can recall only one act they were accused of: releasing emails showing that the DNC and Democratic Party leadership sabotaged the primary to ensure Clinton's nomination. We know they did, and Russian involvement in releasing the emails has been debunked. I also recall FBI lower officials having tried to persuade Comey not to comment on the email-server investigation just before the election. Comey appears to have been rewarded as a traitor deserves, for "hacking" and "subverting" the election as the FBI director.
1 reply
If the Illinois law banning recording of police action hadn't been ruled unconstitutional, the passengers who recorded the acts on their cell phones would have been committing a felony. People, please challenge all Illinois legislators who voted for that law, and work to defeat them. This should be expanded to... Continue reading
Posted Apr 29, 2017 at Some Random Nobody