Cafe Hayek: The Dark Art

« Even More Consumer Surplus! | Main | Blowing My Own Horn (or Kazoo)» Don Boudreaux

March 27, 2008

The Dark Art

Don Boudreaux

Today's edition of the Wall Street Journal reports on Barack Obama's economic "plan" and, on another page, summarizes remarks on the economy recently offered by Hillary Clinton.

Sen. Clinton said, as the WSJ reports, that "she fears the U.S. is slipping into a Japanese-style economic malaise that will overwhelm the Federal Reserve's considerable powers" Sounds scary. To alleviate our fears, she and Obama each offer their own "solutions" for the economy.

But how scared would you be if such fears were expressed instead by, say, your veterinarian or your proctologist? Because these specialists (and perhaps even geniuses) in their respective fields have no expertise at diagnosing the economy, you'd be well-advised to take their economic concerns with a grain of salt. And you should do the same, but doubly so, with any pronouncements on the economy offered up by Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama, and Sen. McCain. Not only do these politicians have no expertise in economics -- their specialty is winning political elections -- but as Sen. Clinton's recent sniper-fire whopper reveals, successful practitioners of the dark art of politics possess an unusual propensity to lie and dissemble.

Almost all that any politician says on any topic other than political strategy should be treated with even less respect than would be accorded a professional circus-clown's speculations about string theory.

Posted by Don Boudreaux in Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/27516292

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Dark Art:

Comments

The WSJ - in the above link - has the following line, where Obama's words are the inner quote:

"Mr. McCain's economic policies amount to 'little more than watching this crisis happen.'"

Never thought Obama would convince me to vote for McCain in such a convincing fashion.

Posted by: Python | Mar 27, 2008 12:57:27 PM

BTW, Obama is going to be interviewed by Maria Bartiromo on CNBC at 4PM EST.

Posted by: Python | Mar 27, 2008 1:20:31 PM

It's presumtive to assume these candidates are making recommendations with some lack of advice from experts.

In 1993 some 565 distinguished scholars hade endorsed Clintonomics as "our best hope for reviving the nation's economic growth." Seems they were right.

If only George Bush had listened similiarly to economic advisors insted of investors, oilmen, weapons makers and bankers for advice. It's now apparent the worse place to get advice on running the economy is from the guys working on Wall Street.

Barak Obama seems in every way a smart and pricipeled man. I have no doubt he will and is seeking the best of advice from the best of advisors.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 27, 2008 1:27:26 PM

you say words. lots of them.

Posted by: shawn | Mar 27, 2008 1:33:37 PM

What the political class wants from the economy is revenue. For this reason, I don't worry too much about what politicians "say" about the economy. Their words are only for political effect. While it bothers me that they collect every last penny that they possibly can, at least I know that their actions are limited by their interest in maintaining a productive economy.

Posted by: Randy | Mar 27, 2008 1:52:17 PM

Randy,

You should read my colleague (and EconLog's) Bryan Caplan's superb book The Myth of the Rational Voter.

Don

Posted by: Don Boudreaux | Mar 27, 2008 1:57:33 PM

Don,

I've thought about it, and your book as well, but to be honest, blogs are free :)

As for the comment above, I assume that your point is that as the voters do not behave rationally when electing their representatives my point that the political class is rational is suspect. My answer is that there is little connection between what the voters say they want and what the political class actually does. Take equality for example. A large section of the voters whine constantly about equality, and the politicians play to their whining without fail, but they don't actually do anything about it. They coddle and manipulate, but they do not respond, because to actually do anything about inequality is not in the rational best interest of the political class.

Posted by: Randy | Mar 27, 2008 2:19:44 PM

Your parallel is deeply unfair to the circus clown, who has much less incentive to talk nonsense about string theory than a politician does to talk nonsense about the economy.

Posted by: Paul Zrimsek | Mar 27, 2008 2:24:15 PM

Randy,

I disagree. Equality has consistently been improved under democratic regimes compared with republican regimes. Further, the overall economy has done as well or better and has been more stable under democratic regimes. The evidence suggest there is a difference. GDP, stocks and fesderal debts have consistently been better under democratic regimes. So it should be good for you to know there is at least a lesser of two evils at worst.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 27, 2008 2:28:33 PM

"Equality has consistently been improved..." : Muirgeo

Really? Then why are so many people still whining about it?

Posted by: Randy | Mar 27, 2008 2:44:50 PM

Duck said:

In 1993 some 565 distinguished scholars hade endorsed Clintonomics as "our best hope for reviving the nation's economic growth." Seems they were right.

You realize it's a logical fallacy to appeal to credentials. If you can prove to me based on writings how Clintonomics "was the best hope for reviving economic growth" then have at it. But it doesn't jive with the fact that GDP was already growing again by 4th quarter 1992. oops.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 27, 2008 2:49:56 PM

Duck said:

Equality has consistently been improved under democratic regimes compared with republican regimes.

Translation from duck speak to real speak:

Democratic regimes transferred the free-market won wealth of some people to other people, thus "increasing equality". Otherwise known as legalized theft.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 27, 2008 2:52:29 PM

Muirgeo,

Even in my Vicodin-induced stupor I can detect your BS. What do you think caused the good times in the 90s:

1) Clintonomics
2) computer technology coming to business in the form of the Web, high-speed networks, robust OS, etc.
3) the long-term economic improvements beginning in 1983
4) Republican-led Congress in 1994
5) NAFTA
6) Other, please explain

If you believe the majority of good times was from #1, please clearly explain which aspects of Clinton's policies lead to economic growth.

Secondly, do you think that the bubble at the end of the 90s should be attributed to Clinton or to some other player?

Posted by: Python | Mar 27, 2008 2:57:06 PM

Randy,

"...has consistently been improved under democratic regimes..."
democratic regimes..."
democratic regimes..."

How many times our we going to repeat this experiment? Laissez-faire policies leading to greater inequality, less stability and economic collapse followed by Keyensian policies returning trust, stability and improved equity. If you haven't noticed republicans have been in charge 20 of the last 28 years and we're seeing the results of return to laissez-faire as the economy collapses all around use.

Hardworking people are whining because the fruit of their labor has been stolen by the financial wizadry of wall street paper pushing assholes making pyramid schemes and calling them fancy names like derivatives. That's not free market economics it's common thievery and it's the end result of allowing unfettered greed run our markets and assuming beyond all reason that the invisible hand will slap these bad boys when they get out of line.

Faith based economy is a scary thing! Time to base it on something a little more substantial like good presidential economic advisors. They can make all the difference.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 27, 2008 3:01:12 PM

FreedomLover,

And most of the transfers (rent collection) goes straight into the pockets of the political class. The amounts actually paid to the "unequal" are just a token to keep the game running and the revenue pouring in.

Posted by: Randy | Mar 27, 2008 3:02:25 PM

Muirgeo,

After you answer my post above, please once and for all, respond to my 3 other queries to you.

Namely, how are you defining which party is "in charge"? By president. By president and both houses? By both houses alone. By president and one house? It matters.

Please define it so I can show you the facts.

Posted by: Python | Mar 27, 2008 3:05:15 PM

"How many times our we going to repeat this...?" : Muirgeo

That's up to you.

Posted by: Randy | Mar 27, 2008 3:08:48 PM

Python,

Mostly by president. But broadly speaking and considering all 3 branchs the pre-30's were ruled by the republicans, from the 30's to the 60-70's mostly democratic and mid 70's to present republican.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 27, 2008 3:17:27 PM

Muirgeo,

I am not interested in "broadly speaking". Give me your basis for "in charge" and "ruled". I am not satisfied with lumping Eisenhower with Dems, or Clinton with Republicans until you define it clearly.

Choose one of the following:
A) President
B) President and one house
C) President and both houses
D) Both houses, regardless of President

Posted by: Python | Mar 27, 2008 3:25:18 PM

"...mid 70's to present republican." : Muirgeo

Check it out, he's trying to dump the Carter recession. LOL.

Posted by: Randy | Mar 27, 2008 3:27:06 PM

What do you think caused the good times in the 90s:

Posted by: Python

I'd say likely a bit of each contributed.
It's obvious it's easy to oversimplify what causes the economy to do better or worse.

But the broad general theme of the debate here is over planning vs non-planning.

You would think that if the "non-planners" were right the data would more consistently favor results under the republican administrations but the data seems to suggest (however impefect) the opposite.

It would be a little like me continuing to claim man made warming is happening in spite of a long term trend that showed in fact there is cooling.

I mean I'd give up my "belief" in man made warming if the temperature graphs were flipped 180 degrees from what they are. I'm thinking at some point the Laissez-faireis might want to reconsider their positions based on what the data seems to be telling us.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 27, 2008 3:30:57 PM

Don,

With Obama likely to be president, how worried should I, a college student about to enter the job market, be about the economy?

I mean, this is looking really bad.

Posted by: Kyle | Mar 27, 2008 4:09:40 PM

I wish to again recommend 'Treason' by Orsen Scott Card, for his illustration of the nature of the political class.

I ran for congress three times and followed no less than Nancy Pelosi around as we spoke to different groups and I can testify to the successfull politician's ability to adapt to the expectations of various groups.

Hey, it works.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 27, 2008 4:10:39 PM

I love the comment by Obama that financial regulations need to be 'modernized'.

What was it von Mises said? "Progress is precisely that which the rules and regulations did not foresee."

I did not know Obama read von Mises! ;)

Posted by: Marcus | Mar 27, 2008 4:16:24 PM

My god, the ducky is so stupid it's not even worth responding to. I bet he'd say that the cause of the Great Depression was too much capitalism.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 27, 2008 5:06:52 PM

Muirgeo,

Let me know your answers for my 2 questions.

A-D for "ruled by" in the post 7 above this one
1-6 for Clinton's good years in the post about 11 above this one.

I need specifics so I can show you data. This wishy-washy stuffy you answer with is hard to quantify.

Posted by: Python | Mar 27, 2008 5:18:31 PM

muirego --

You keep implying that Republicans are "non-planners". That's absurd. They're just as interventionist as Democrats. Democrats like to intervene on behalf of "workers" and Republicans like to intervene on behalf of "business". Reagan's car quotas and Bush's steel tariffs definitely exist and they're no "better" than higher taxes or higher minimum wages.

Republicans and Democrats are just bad in different ways.

Posted by: Eric | Mar 27, 2008 5:24:06 PM

Python #2, #2! Then the budget stalemate between repubs and Clinton that kept government spending down.

Posted by: Mcwop | Mar 27, 2008 5:45:38 PM

Python:

I vote for 6... End of Cold War. Downsizing the military and Pentagon contractor class freed minds and talent to move onto other things, including private sector tech from public pork tech. For example, one college friend -- one of the best and brightest -- moved from designing Abrams tanks to working on computer chips. He was one of many of undergrads I schooled with who started their engineering paths with military-related jobs in mind only to end up working at Sun, Microsoft or some startup.

I think we all the better off for it. Oh yes, a few of those people ended up with $10s of millions after started and selling businesses, so I guess they increased inequality from what it would have been had they earned a paycheck at Gen Dynamics.

Posted by: dcpi | Mar 27, 2008 6:09:06 PM

Duck keeps insinuating numerous falsehoods, such as Republican non-planning, Democratic “superiority” (moral & otherwise), and Anthropogenic Global Warming (had to get that in there).

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 27, 2008 6:14:41 PM

Here’s yet another deficit invented by the economically illiterate press (and enjoyed by muirgeo’s cognitive peers), and sure to be addressed by politicians:

"-- FXNEWS-Canadian international travel deficit hits record --
Canada's international travel deficit surpassed the
C$10-billion mark in 2007, in the wake of substantial gains in
travel spending by Canadians abroad, Statistics Canada said.
The deficit (the difference between spending by Canadians
abroad and spending by foreigners in Canada) hit a record high
of C$10.3 billion in 2007, up from the previous record high of
C$6.7 billion in 2006. Higher travel spending abroad fuelled
the burgeoning deficit. Canadians spent a record C$26.9 billion
outside the country in 2007, a 15.5 percent increase from 2006.
At the same time, foreign spending in Canada edged up 0.3
percent to C$16.6 billion. Lower spending by U.S. residents in
Canada offset most of the increase in spending by travellers
from overseas countries."

Ooooohhh, eh? What should we do abooot that? Sell more touques?

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 27, 2008 6:27:33 PM

And how do we know that Hitlary isn’t similarly lying about her economic “plan” as she was with her “sniper fire” recollection/plan?

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 27, 2008 6:30:17 PM

Python,

Let's go with A. The President And mostly 1. Clintonomics the reason for our prosperity under his administration.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 27, 2008 6:37:57 PM

whining because the fruit of their labor has been stolen by the financial wizadry of wall street paper pushing assholes making pyramid schemes and calling them fancy names like derivatives. That's not free market economics it's common thievery and it's the end result of allowing unfettered greed run our markets and assuming beyond all reason that the invisible hand will slap these bad boys when they get out of line.

Seriously, How the &^#@ did you get into college?

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 27, 2008 6:41:21 PM

And, of course, Clintonomics encompassing lower taxes from the Republican Congress. That’s what you meant to say.

[After the largest tax increase in history.]

Right.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 27, 2008 6:43:33 PM

Muirgeo,

Now that you said President as the ruling order I would like to set up some more ground rules for my statistical analysis.

Can we agree that when we look at stats we shouldn't include the entire year that the Presidents were inaugurated in because it takes some time for their leadership to get into place?

They get elected in November, inaugurated the following January, and they settle in.

So for example, the recession that Clinton inherited shouldn't be counted against his stats until he got into office enough to straighten it out. Do you agree with that?

I'll leave it up to you. Do you want go mid-year, so say Clinton's stats should start in say July 1993, or do you want to start them at January 1994?

The economic criteria that I would like to choose for my judging is going to be: Dow Jones industrial index, real GDP per capita, and unemployment.

Just to start on friendly terms, I'll let you add one criteria to the list for my analysis.

And lastly, what year would you like to begin the analysis? Obviously 1928 or 1933 would be too cherry picked, but if we go back too far, the data isn't as reliable or available. Shall we say 1920? It's up to you, just make it reasonable.

So, I'm waiting to hear from you regarding the start of the true presidential stats, which stat you would like added to the mix, and what calendar year you would like to start the analysis with. Fair enough?

Posted by: Python | Mar 27, 2008 7:56:43 PM

Economic Geniuses who constantly share their expertise on the economy like the one's on this blog couldn't see this one coming. They have about as much credibility on the matter as O'Clinton or McPain. Like Rothbard would say, banks are inherently bankrupt, a crisis just reveals it.

Posted by: Kook | Mar 27, 2008 8:06:38 PM

It's presumtive to assume these candidates are making recommendations with some lack of advice from experts.

I say that would depend on the experts. You can find all kinds of 'experts'.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 27, 2008 8:58:17 PM

Python, you have set up the economic Kobyashi Maru for duck.

While intriguing, asking duck to go here

http://bea.gov/

here:

http://www.nber.org/

here:

http://www.economagic.com/

here:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1090,30070682,1090_33076576&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

here:

http://www.econlib.org/index.html

and here:

http://www.bls.gov/

to confirm his mistaken beliefs is like asking Bill & Hillary to tell the truth.

{hint duck: these are all economic resources for you to utilize}

Ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 27, 2008 9:24:36 PM

Mesa,

I've been sitting at home all day, souped on meds, with nothing better to do then have some fun with the quacker. To his credit, he has tried to communicate with his Forbes magazine link regarding a similar analysis. Of course, their analysis is flawed and shallow, and I intend to add a few twists here and there.

Posted by: Python | Mar 27, 2008 9:29:33 PM

Apparently, duck has done much the same, minus the meds.

Or not….

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 27, 2008 9:34:11 PM

Fun.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 27, 2008 9:37:25 PM

More fun.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 27, 2008 9:39:50 PM

My apologies for frontrunning, Python.

I do hope you get better, Python, and vicodin is a very good avenue thereto.

Scotch also works.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 28, 2008 12:59:11 AM

Lest we forget who we deal with in muirduck.
We are up to 12 now. Remember, you need nothing but his words to understand how dysfunctional he is.

MUIR(STU)PIDITY OF THE (muir) DUCK

1. “The rising income discrepancy is what prevents people from obtaining affordable housing.”
Posted by: muirgeo Nov 2007
or
2. “If you are advocating a free market system say for schools you need to show one that works.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 10, 2008 7:24:41 PM
or:
3. "Suffice it to say individualism where ever it surfaces is ultimately self-destructive.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 15, 2008 11:29:41 AM"
or
4. “Planning and tinkering will definitely have a place in creating a strong competitive market. The invisible hand......YOU'RE FIRED!!!... well or at least demoted.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 17, 2008 9:13:45 AM
or
5. “Natural cycles will often effect(sic) conditions on a short term basis but will not effect the larger man made trends.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 10:15:41 AM

6. “I honestly believe the principles I support would increase our liberty not decrease it.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 6:57:16 PM
or
7. “5,000 year old vegetation has been found in multiple areas around the world in the paths of recently receding glaciers.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 18, 2008 7:00:43 PM
or
8. “First , the idea of climates "natural course" is invalid. There's no magic here climate responds to things we understand pretty well.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 9:02:34 AM
or
9. "When some one says the climate is warming because it is following its natural course they need to be more specific. That's all I'm saying. Is it warming from the Sun, El Nino.... what? And provide evidence."
Vidyohs... your ego so controls you. You should learn how to tame it. You'll be a happier person.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 20, 2008 10:28:10 AM"
or
10.”I compete with other doctors for my patients and market forces are somewhat in effect. A government single payor(sic) system could actually increase consumer choice and market competition.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 21, 2008 9:10:06 PM
or
11. “ If I was(SIC) to summarize my position it would be that I believe we need more democracy not less ( ie. a government represents the needs of its people more then(SIC) of its economic institutions).
I believe in competitive markets but understand they work best with good regulation.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 26, 2008 12:56:01 PM
or
12. “Seriously, the only historical reference I can think of was back in the days of the feudal system. Then the markets were completely unencumbered. Property rights were strictly observed and all property was held by a minority of wealthy people with everyone else an indentured servant.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 26, 2008 2:48:31 PM

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 28, 2008 9:25:34 AM

Poorly worded but a true statement none the less

Yes you proved that one wrong with your reference to the Kansas school system of 1850... of course now they want to teach creationism there.

Egoism should be substituted for individualism

I make me laugh...

#5
You make me laugh....

Is an absolute fact (in context) but you putting it on your list makes me laugh.

Do you honestly NOT believe the same thing about your beliefs?

Factual evidentiary statement... I even have a picture to help you understand what you can't with words.

Poorly worded. Maybe qualifies for a murpidity but it's a fact that there is no "natural state" of climate. Indeed it's always changing.

Actually explains #8. And you really should learn to recognize your ego. Doing so puts you at a higher level of self-awareness and could break you out of the 5th grader mentality rut you are stuck in.

#10 & 11

Consistent with the better stated proclamations of the worlds greatest scholars and philosophers. I stand by them and my poor English.

#12

Are you trying to claim the Kings who owned all the land did not earn their wealth and land? Are you claiming the Kings should be denied their right to property? On what basis? Do you really think left unimpeded the trend of multinational corporate ownership and rule would be any different then that of Kings.... I stand by this as well.

You cataloging murpidities without really ever offering your own well founded rebuttal is less then impressive. But what can one expect from a 5th grader.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 28, 2008 1:30:17 PM

One more try with the exposed 5,000 year old vegetation.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 28, 2008 1:32:34 PM

...own well founded rebuttal is less then impressive. But what can one expect from a 5th grader. - Muirdiot

The complete inability to EVER punctuate sentences correctly. The inability distinguish between "then and "than". The inability to distinguish between possessive and plural. Of course the complete absence of logic is also a a factor - but not of fifth graders. This is true of complete morons and muirdiots.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 28, 2008 1:42:53 PM

So, Muirgeo, we're not even allowed to have an ego anymore? Dude, you are beyond fascist. You're a hardcore totalitarian fascist.

Posted by: Randy | Mar 28, 2008 2:08:48 PM

Thank you for number 13.

13. “Poorly worded. Maybe qualifies for a murpidity but it's a fact that there is no "natural state" of climate. Indeed it's always changing.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 28, 2008 1:30:17 PM

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 28, 2008 2:25:08 PM

muirduck,

My cataloging your muirpidities is my response, a fact that you can not grasp.

Contained in each is either an obvious extreme muipidity, an impossibility, or muirpid contradictions of your own muirpidity.

I don't have to say anything or write anything, you rebutt yourself in each of them or you reveal supreme muripidity in each. Either way, you do it to yourself, I am just trying to show you your path to salvation, muirduck, and that is just read and try to learn, but do not touch the keyboard you make a fool of yourself each time you do.

Look at number 13. until it finally downs on you what you said and how utterly muirdpid it is. Once you get that, go back and revisit each of the others daily until you see what the rest of us see. You might get a clue that way.

muirpidity on levels that are totally mind boggling.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 28, 2008 2:33:16 PM

"One more try with the exposed 5,000 year old vegetation.
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 28, 2008 1:32:34 PM"

Well gee, now there was a convincing picture, at least I am convinced that it was a picture and not a painting.

Yes there is a glacier in the background. How long a melting glacier took to move from the focus of the picture to its location when the photo was snapped is up in the air, at 2" per day that would still be probably a few months. Time enough for algae or moss to grow, not that I am claiming the focus is moss or algae, just mentioning the feasibility of doing so.

Some of the stuff that is the focus of the picture appears to be over a stone and not just around it.

It has no color to speak of and no detail due to smallness of the photo. It tells me that there is something that is a focus of the photo, after that I only have muirduck's word that it is "green" vegetation (didn't look green).

And, I'd still like to know exactly what you think it proves?

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 28, 2008 2:44:01 PM

Ok I looked at these three URLs that BAKKAB sent me:

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/quelcoro.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031107055850.htm

http://www.amnh.org/sciencebulletins/earth/f/glaciers.20050331

And, my question to you muirduck and to BAKKAB is the same. What exactly does this mean to you, what evidence or proof that any global warming is anything other than a natural part of today's life?

Basically the second URL is a reprint of the first, and the Third contains much of the same info but with a contradictaory piece of vegetation thrown in for good measure. And it all proves what?

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 28, 2008 3:29:50 PM

This is true of complete morons and idiots.

Posted by: Methinks

Not at all Methinks, Einstein and Darwin both had learning disabilities but could hardly be called idiots. Darwin's writings are filled with grammar, spelling and punctuation errors. Adam Smith likewise a genius was socially awkward and obtuse.

I'm no genius but when your default debate mode is personal attacks, name calling and grammatical concerns it says something of just who might be lacking substance with regards to the actual issue at hand.

By the way there have been post when you actually do address an issue coherantly and with you own understanding and expertise on the subject. Those I do read and appreciate. How about trying to address my passionate ignorance with your own expertise insted of childish responses.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 28, 2008 3:35:53 PM

Randy,

Everyone has an ego. There's no avoiding it. But reconizing that it is ego that compeles you to label me a facist is the first step towards self-awareness. The key is to recognize your ego and not let it control all you do.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 28, 2008 3:40:09 PM

Here you go vidyohs. This is Lonnie Thompson's site that explains his research findings.

"The plant had to have remained covered and protected for most of that time, which means that the ice cap most likely has not deteriorated to its current size for any length of time in more than 50,000 years."

And here.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 28, 2008 3:55:49 PM

Muirgeo,

Yes, it is ego that compels me to attack fascists. The ego is responsible for self defense and fascists are a threat. And by the way, you label yourself, I'm just cross referencing the ideas you express to the definition.

Posted by: Randy | Mar 28, 2008 4:06:18 PM

Muirgeo,

I'm still here waiting for responses. Appreciate your answers by the weekend, so I can set my schedule up around you.

Talk to you in a bit.

Posted by: Python | Mar 28, 2008 4:06:46 PM

Yes, Muirdiot, but neither Einstein nor Smith had problems with basic logic which is usually not out of reach for a two year old but is completely incomprehensible to you.

Incidentally, dumbass, the as the author of this:

people are whining because the fruit of their labor has been stolen by the financial wizadry of wall street paper pushing assholes making pyramid schemes and calling them fancy names like derivatives.

Loses the moral authority to write this:

your default debate mode is personal attacks, name calling and grammatical concerns it says something of just who might be lacking substance with regards to the actual issue at hand.

Again, basic logic which is clearly beyond you.

How about trying to address my passionate ignorance with your own expertise insted of childish responses.

I tried that for about 8 months and found it a complete waste of time. Your ignorance is impenetrable and your reasoning skills non-existent. Your occasional moral indignation is shallow. In short, you are a moron who insists on polluting every thread and drawing well-meaning people into idiotic discussions by demanding explanations you never even try to understand - not that you could if you did.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 28, 2008 4:33:35 PM

Ok, muirduck,

reread my post:
Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 28, 2008 3:29:50 PM

just a tad upthread. You will note that I have said that I looked at the three URLs that have the story, and the question remains: "What does it mean to you and what does it prove about global warming (if any) being caused by man?

It doesn't prove shit, yet can be interpreted to mean what you want it to mean.

When I was a wee one in school I learned of the Mammouth that was found in the frozen tundra of Russia, and was taught the theory of the sudden onslaught of extreme cold, probably an ice storm, that caught the beastie in the open, froze, and kept it frozen for all those thousands of years.

So what? Things have been frozen, buried, covered, and discovered thousands of years later. You're (I think you're lucid enough to agree) most likely to agree that man had nothing to do with what caused the plants for be frozen and covered, yet you are positive that you had something to do with them being uncovered. 5,000 years for some plants, in the excess of 50,000 years for another in another location, so what?

Antarctic ice is melting a tad on its perimeter and thickening in its middle. What does it mean? Some glaciers are receding and others are growing, what does it mean?

Oh yeah, this is what it means:

13. “Poorly worded. Maybe qualifies for a murpidity but it's a fact that there is no "natural state" of climate. Indeed it's always changing.”
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 28, 2008 1:30:17 PM

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 28, 2008 4:36:09 PM

Incidentally, Muirdiot, I'm not a paper-pushing Wall street asshole. I'm a paper-pushing Wall Street bitch and I'll thank you to remember that we are not all assholes - some of us are bitches and some of us are BSD's.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 28, 2008 4:36:19 PM

"Loses the moral authority to write this" = "you lose the moral authority to write this:"

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 28, 2008 4:37:34 PM

BTW Sam Grove,

Try your Pesto Schmear in a new way.

I have an excellent little toaster oven with a rotisserie in it. It is all I use to toast and to bake most meals for my wife and I.

Get some nice Talapia fillets, wash them in cold water and pat them dry. Put them in a toaster pan on foil sprayed with olive oil cooking spray.

Coarsely chop salad shrimp, portabello mushroom, and green onion and saute together over high heat for about four minutes.

Then schmear each fillet liberally with your Pesto and dribble liberal portions of sauted mix on top of that.

Put in your oven and bake at 475 for 6 minutes or until fish flakes.

Delicious fish. I use a variety of homemade toppings on my fish and pesto sauce w/baby shrimp is one of my favorites.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 28, 2008 5:32:34 PM

To make my last fit as appropriate on an economics blog, I suggest using inexpensive ingredients.

How's that?

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 28, 2008 5:33:45 PM

Python,

You're making this more complicated then it to needs to be. Just present your data.

But if you insist as I'm sure you will I'd argue there are short and long term effect from presidential actions. I think the period should start with their first day in office understanding fiscal overlap. The president is elected 3 months prior to taking office and simply the mood and public confidence of a new leader can effect the economy.

But if you want go with the first fiscal year/budget they approve that's fine or even start after their first 6 months.

Start in either 1920 or 1940.

An additional economic criteria might be GDP adjusted for federal debt obligations or median income.

Quite honestly the biggest impression to me is the broad sweep of the pre-Great Depression Era and the current Reagan Era both ending in relative economic collapse compared to the relative consistent stable post FDR growth.

Unless you like massive economic shifts I think the Laissez-faire periods take a beating relative to the "planned era".

It would be nice to have a true "free-market" economy with which to use as a control but so far Sam or anyone else has only been able to point to the Frontier American West. That in itself is telling of the free market fantasized utopias. They just don't exist except in Imagination-land and likely for good reason. As soon as you come down from your Vicodin you'll see I'm right.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 28, 2008 5:59:12 PM

Incidentally, dumbass, the as the author of this:

"people are whining because the fruit of their labor has been stolen by the financial wizardry of wall street paper pushing assholes making pyramid schemes and calling them fancy names like derivatives."

Loses the moral authority to write this:

methinks

WHAT? What I wrote wasn't a personal attack. Why did that seem personal to you for some reason? I'm not talking about you because I sure you don't make a living pushing worthless paper...right?

But it is my opinion that there are Wall Street jerks who really are just sucking out the productivity of the real economy. Do you think this statement this false? And company's like Enron are not isolated example's. They screwed my state Royally. Having significant effects on our schools, our investments, our politics and our energy bills/policy.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 28, 2008 6:11:12 PM

I think the Laissez-faire periods take a beating relative to the "planned era".

That in itself is telling of the free market fantasized utopias. They just don't exist except in Imagination-land

As soon as you come down from your Vicodin you'll see I'm right.

I have to agree. As soon as Python stops popping Vicodin and starts smoking crack and shooting up heroin, Muirdiot will suddenly start making sense to him.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 28, 2008 6:18:20 PM

Please tell us when these laissez faire periods occurred.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 28, 2008 6:49:25 PM

muirduck,

No, your state screwed itself royally because your compatriots are in the majority and all of you are stupid.

Do you think this statement this false? And company's like Enron are not isolated example's. They screwed my state Royally. Having significant effects on our schools, our investments, our politics and our energy bills/policy.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 28, 2008 6:11:12 PM

It takes muirpidity on a massive scale to believe that deregulating half the market while leaving the other half regulated is going to work as anything other than a disaster, which is exactly what you guys brought on yourselves.

What happens when an idiot with a pocketfull of money walks into the shop of an intelligent man?

Yeah, that's right. The money stays in the shop and the idiot walks out with what he thinks was a bargain.

It's a testiment to the natural order of things when you understand that sharp Texans took idiot Californians to the cleaners because of their own muirpidity.

Love it!

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 28, 2008 6:58:10 PM

BTW Sam,

That topping suggestion for your Pesto Schmear above, also works extremely well to dress up a boneless/skinless chicken breast.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 28, 2008 6:59:50 PM

...wall street paper pushing assholes...

What I wrote wasn't a personal attack.

I'd tell you to think about it for a minute but I won't ask you to do anything that you're not capable of. I'm not that mean.

But it is my opinion that there are Wall Street jerks who really are just sucking out the productivity of the real economy.

That's because you're too much of a dumbass to figure out what "Wall Street jerks" do before you start spouting incoherent BS.

And company's like Enron are not isolated example's.

Enron was not a Wall Street company. You'd know that if you took a second to actually learn something. But, you know that I think you've provided ample evidence that learning is an impossible task for you.

Since you have no idea what the #@$%& "Wall Street Jerks" and "assholes" do, what the #@%$ kind of evidence could you possibly provide for this statement?:

They screwed my state Royally. Having significant effects on our schools, our investments, our politics and our energy bills/policy.

Right....

Your state is California. Home of the largest municipal bankruptcy in the history of the United States because idiots in government who usually can't find their parking spaces without assistance decided that they were going to have a go at trading derivatives. Looks like California politicians can screw up the state with no help from anyone.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 28, 2008 7:01:32 PM

I don't think the cream cheese is needed for your suggestions.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 28, 2008 7:02:25 PM

Please tell us when these laissez faire periods occurred.

Posted by: Sam

According to Muirdiot, they didn't. Free-markets are imaginary - in his words, "in imagination-land". But during these periods, they proved to be untenable. It's all perfectly logical in Muirpidville.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 28, 2008 7:05:18 PM

muirduck,

No, your state screwed itself royally because your compatriots are in the majority and all of you are stupid.

Posted by: vidyohs

Don't worry bout us. we're doing OK in spite of the texas thieves.

TEXAS...WE'RE # 1 Good job!

Good job!

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 28, 2008 7:52:18 PM

Sam,

Who knows until you try it? I do a pine nut, blue cheese, and cilantro "schmear" for fish and salads that is also delicious.

Big beef steak tomatos sliced half inch thick and laid on a bed of lettuce with radishes, onions, and mushrooms around the tomatos and then schmear the tomatos with the blue cheese/pine nut/cilantro mix. Great salad. (substitute chopped black olives for the pine nuts for a different flavor yet same texture)

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 28, 2008 7:56:05 PM

"muirpidville"

I like it.

BTW, harking back to the discussion on a previous blog about Don's claim that we should gladly expose our defense to the "free market" and outsource contracts to willy nilly. I'd like to point out that the situation we'd be putting ourselves in is exactly like the situation California put themselves in when the deregulated half of their energy market and just couldn't go all the way and deregulate the market entirely.

California put their energy provision in the hands of people that owed them nothing and liked nothing better than to make obscene profits off them. I'd have done the same if I had ENRON, drain California dry and then shut it down.

When push came to shove California got what it deserved for not building power plants, letting existing power plants be curtailed or shut down, and refusing to go to any alternate source like nukie power. Californians wanted their power cheap, they didn't want the mess of generating it, and they thought everyone else should just subsidize them.

Now we have people who want our defense cheap, without the mess of manufacturing locally, and everyone else should just fall into line and make sure we get what we want.

To me it seems as if the same kind of thinking that got California screwed is now residing in our government.....as if this is a surprise, eh, chillun's?

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 28, 2008 8:05:29 PM

muirduck,

Thanks for #14.

"Don't worry bout us. we're doing OK in spite of the texas thieves.
TEXAS...WE'RE # 1 Good job!
Good job!"
Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 28, 2008 7:52:18 PM

So, WTF are you whining about? LOL!

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 28, 2008 8:10:13 PM

Naw, on reconsideration, that wasn't worthy of being #14, it needed more context to be understood as the muirpidity it is.

I really enjoy preserving your muirpidities that are just stands-alone, which you supply at ample regularity.

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 28, 2008 8:12:15 PM

muirduck - et. al.,

Do you see what is scary about the rankings you posted?

WTF is the District of Columbia doing being ranked at #36?

What in the name of God does D,C, produce other than massive bullshit?

Posted by: vidyohs | Mar 28, 2008 8:15:11 PM

What in the name of God does D,C, produce other than massive bullshit?

Hot air
Debt

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 28, 2008 8:25:17 PM

California deregulated wholesale prices for electricity but maintained control of the retail price. AND, perpetually badgers people about conserving energy.

There was a big to do about five-six years ago about building a 600 MW generating plant in south San Jose. Lot's of hyperbole and charges against the construction. The major opposed it as well. Then, in the summer, there were rolling blackouts throughout the state. Pressure came down from above and the major changed his tune. The power plant has been operating quite nicely since then.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 28, 2008 8:33:15 PM

Don't worry bout us. we're doing OK in spite of the texas thieves.

Oh, awesome. So, when you say it was Wall Street Jerks and Assholes "who screwed my state Royally. Having significant effects on our schools, our investments, our politics and our energy bills/policy." You mean the State of Texas has been robbing you. And the other statistics are just to prove that your state can kick the other state's ass. Despite being royally screwed by those effing Texans, though, you're totally not royally screwed. Cool.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 28, 2008 8:59:47 PM

muirgeo,

I'm new to the comments section of this blog so I've not had the same experiences the other commenters that you've had, but I would like to offer some observations if I may.

I'd be careful about lecturing anyone here about egos. You obviously don't agree with Hayekian economics/philosophy or libertarianism in general and yet you insist on antagonizing those that do. Might it be your ego "controlling you"?

As for free-market economics vs planned economies, Dr. Robert Lawson at www.divisionoflabour.com has an economic freedom index that he updates every year. The countries with the most successful economies tend to be those with greater freedom. More specifically, you can look at the Soviet Union, Cuba, and North Korea as shining examples of the success (or failure) of planned economies. As for free markets I see no better example than Hong Kong. It was under British rule for a long while, and the Brits pretty much left them alone. Look at pictures of Hong Kong in 1940 and compare it with those of today. In 1940 Hong Kong was a rock off the coast of China. They have no natural resources and nothing of intrinsic value. And yet, in half century (less if you look at the numbers closely enough) it went from a rock with a few people on it to having an economy that rivaled those of most nations many times its size. I would propose that much of this success is due to their being left alone.

I don't believe that anyone here is arguing that free markets are perfect, just that they're better than the alternative. Market failure is not, in my opinion, sufficient justification for government intervention.

Furthermore, you seem to suggest that the political party in power is the reason for the state of the economy. I'm not sure where to begin dissecting this. I promise you that not one person on this blog, or in government, can tell you all of the factors that go into making one mundane #2 pencil. Given this, how can you reasonably expect a government to control, or even regulate, the economy?

As for Wall Street "financial wizardry," I'd hardly call derivatives magic. While I have not studied them myself, I know men and women who have. Just because you don't know it or haven't studied it doesn't make it fraud or trickery. Just because I don't understand nuclear physics doesn't mean that it's not real.

With respect, your arguments are severely flawed.

Posted by: mnm | Mar 28, 2008 9:03:51 PM

What in the name of God does D,C, produce other than massive bullshit?

Crack.

And the pimps, euphemistically referred to as "mayors" who love it

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 28, 2008 9:08:12 PM

Well said, mnm.

Welcome to the blog.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 28, 2008 9:08:54 PM

DC also produces gun control laws that don’t work, and are unconstitutional.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 28, 2008 9:10:05 PM

mnm,

I have to agree with Mesa (as I almost always do). Lovely post and welcome.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 28, 2008 9:32:42 PM

Why thank you Methinks. Back at ya.

Mnm, Methinks and I have both studied (and probably traded) derivatives, and they’re nothing special.

Ok, maybe double-reverse-no-touch-lookback options are a little weird, but they’re variations on a theme.

By the way Methinks, I have that Hull book, too. Required at Wash U B-School (where I learned from Prof Roberts), Professor Ghofu Zhou’s class.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 28, 2008 9:40:31 PM

well shucks Mesa, Methinks, you two are going to make me blush.

Posted by: mnm | Mar 28, 2008 9:44:07 PM

double-reverse-no-touch-lookback options

Just a little more math to price is all (gulp).

Hull was required at UVA. Doug Kosta taught the math of derivative securities class back then. He's since joined SIG and heads their quant group. Math pays.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 28, 2008 9:59:50 PM

Yep.

I worked on the floor of the Merc for a while in currency options, and yes, many of those traders were inveterate gamblers. I was a local, so we provided liquidity while attempting to take profitable positions based on market direction.

I saw Victor Niederhoffer blow up during the 1997 Asian Contagion (Refco shut him down, he got caught short puts – Refco is now defunct).

The guys on the desk next to me were SIG.

Nice kids (I was a kid back then too).

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 28, 2008 10:08:13 PM

Muirgeo,

How is it considered complicated to strive for definitions of the measurable inputs?

It seems odd that when I ask you very black and white questions you hedge at every opportunity. We won't be using any terms like planned or laissez-faire okay?

I will start the analysis 6 months into the inauguration, beginning in 1920, using the measures that I mentioned.

It might take me a few daze (sic) to finish this as I have other things in life that are nearly as entertaining as conversing with you.

Posted by: Python | Mar 28, 2008 10:25:09 PM

BTW, Some food for thought from the laissez-faire Bushies.

Posted by: Python | Mar 28, 2008 10:26:53 PM

Nice, Python.

Remember, Hank Paulson comes from Goldman Sachs, which is the Wall Street HQ of the Democratic Party (Jon Corzine, Bob Rubin, et al.)

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 28, 2008 10:38:27 PM

I love SIG. It's a huge company now. Poker has always been a part of their training program. I've never met a trader who isn't a gambler but the good ones know when it's a negative expectancy bet and when it isn't.

After his latest blow-up, Victor Niederhoffer's explained that it wasn't his fault (of course). They cut his leverage. The fact that his leverage was always callable by his broker apparently never occurred to him. oops. He then went on to say that despite his blow-ups, he made over $100 million for people over his career (that bit was totally his fault, of course). Great. But, somehow, I think his risk-adjusted return is probably very low. He's shockingly smart (a genius, really). He's a very interesting and very nice man with a wide range of interests and many insights and I could listen to him talk about different topics for hours, but when he starts talking about trading I physically can't restrain myself from rolling my eyes. He's always looking for patterns in randomness. He's always talking about spurious correlations he thinks give him edge. From what I gather, his strategy is basically long SPUs and all the "correlations" are just excuses to be long SPUs.

My husband is an options trader and finally convinced me to trade because I really hated my equity research job. I run my own company now. We're basically off-floor market makers. Nobody's on the floor anymore.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 28, 2008 10:47:29 PM

Remember, Hank Paulson comes from Goldman Sachs, which is the Wall Street HQ of the Democratic Party

True. But that wasn't Paulson's reputation at Goldman. I don't know what happened to him since he went to Treasury.

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 28, 2008 10:50:38 PM

Actually, Paulson worked for Nixon:

Paulson was Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense at The Pentagon from 1970 to 1972.[7] He then worked for the administration of U.S. President Richard Nixon, serving as assistant to John Ehrlichman from 1972 to 1973.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Paulson

Paulson's three immediate predecessors as CEO of Goldman Sachs — Jon Corzine, Stephen Friedman, and Robert Rubin — each left the company to serve in government: Corzine as a U.S. Senator (later Governor of New Jersey), Friedman as chairman of the National Economic Council (later chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board), and Rubin as both chairman of the NEC and later Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton.[13]

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 28, 2008 10:57:13 PM

Methinks, perhaps we should open a capital markets firm.

At the very least, l'd be very interested in your take on things. I’m sell-side, but primarily custodian. Hit me with an email (yes that’s an actual address I post). I’m always curious about what other folks in the industry are thinking, particularly now.

Muirgeo, your emails will be automatically discarded.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 28, 2008 11:02:57 PM

"He's always looking for patterns in randomness. He's always talking about spurious correlations he thinks give him edge."

And this contributes positively to society how? Get mad at me and call me names for that or explain honestly how the endeavors of money changers add to the productivity of society.

I think that's a fair question. As I understand for every $10 dollars of "things made" $90 are trade back and forth. Can you honestly tell me that a significant portion of money being made via banks, finance and Wall Street doesn't simply amount to "skimming cream". Honestly now cause here I'm sitting in the hopsital waiting for the next train wreck to arrive and just hoping staffing is good and thinking that society or the market doesn't always put it's resources in the best places.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 28, 2008 11:25:42 PM

It creates liquidity so investors (farmers, portfolio insurers, many others) can hedge themselves from risk.

Next question?

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 28, 2008 11:33:59 PM

And hospitals use this, too.

It’s called asset management. Medical foundations, educational endowments, charitable trusts all use portfolio insurance of one kind or another.

And bullshit you’re in the hospital right now.

I guarantee I scored higher on the MCAT than you did.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 28, 2008 11:48:34 PM

Quick:

What is ICES?

ABC?

Palpation?

Auscultation?

Chop chop…..

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 12:04:05 AM

Am I the only one who despises the 'slippery slope' argument such as the one mmm implies? "Laissez-faire are better than command economy". Conclusion? There's no 'third way'. The 'third way' is merely a transition period to command economy therefore you can make any law interfering with the free market. How about 'there can't be laws, period'? Anyone who have the right to make laws will favour himself and make the transition towards a totalitarian society therefore there can be no laws as people can't be trusted to make sound laws.

P.S. Mesa, I think the best challenge to 'gun controls are unconstitutional is for the NRA to earn their keep and use their resources to strike down those laws if they are really 'unconstitutional'. When I keep reading the 2nd Amendment all I can see is something similar to the Swiss model - people are trained to be militia fighters in the event of invasion (whether by foreigners or the Federal government) which are well regulated and the people keep their weaponry on their person rather than at a armoury (presumably to stop the States from being as dangerous as the Federal government). I don't see any part where people have the individual right to own guns for whatever reason. After all, do most Americans get a medal for shooting a burglar or, like most Australian before the 1997 gun laws, get arrested and appear before court trying to prove it was genuine self-defence (I mean what's the point of having the right to own guns if you can't use them?).

Posted by: Gil | Mar 29, 2008 12:08:03 AM

Actually the 2nd Amendment is right to arm bears. }>:P

Posted by: Gil | Mar 29, 2008 12:08:53 AM

Honestly now cause here I'm sitting in the hopsital waiting for the next train wreck to arrive and just hoping staffing is good and thinking that society or the market doesn't always put it's resources in the best places.
muirgeo

This might sound offensive, but who are you to decide what resources are best used where and for what? With respect doctor, that's condescending. The market is simply the summation of people making their own decisions. We can argue all day long about whether or not those are good decisions, but the fact still remains that to tell people what they can and can't do with their property is condescending bull.

These resources are allocated the way the are because those directly affected by their movement (i.e. the sellers and the buyers) have decided that is how their property is best utilized. You wouldn't like it if I stepped in and told you what shoes you ought to wear, how you ought to dress, or how you ought to spend your money, and I promise you that others aren't going to like it when you do it to them.

You might think I'm being trite, but what you advocate isn't "progressive," it's fascism.

Posted by: mnm | Mar 29, 2008 12:10:21 AM

Actually Gil, it’s unconstitutional.

Judging from your “defence” spelling, I’m guessing you’re either Aussie or British, where there is little opposition to gun laws (except in the outback in Oz – when I was down under a couple of years ago, there was an epidemic of carjackings at knifepoint in Sydney).

The NRA shouldn’t even be necessary.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 12:13:45 AM

"He's always looking for patterns in randomness. He's always talking about spurious correlations he thinks give him edge."

It creates liquidity so investors (farmers, portfolio insurers, many others) can hedge themselves from risk.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy

Man I am stupid. I'm gonna read those same two lines 100 times and try to figure out just what the hell they mean when put together. Liquidity....randomness....hospitals........farmers...hedges..insures..risk...patterns...spurious...wth!

Crap this is gonna go on all night and best I'll come up with is, You sure he ain't skimmin?

"Next question?"

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy

This WAS my next question and you didn't answer it.

Can you honestly tell me that a significant portion of money being made via banks, finance and Wall Street doesn't simply amount to "skimming cream"?

One more... Why do you even reply to me? There are some people here who don't interest me in the least and have nothing intriguing to say so I never reply to them. So I assume you're replying for some reason more then you simply like name calling and degrading people. Are my views completely with out merit? I think a lot of Americans feel like I do. Am I actually asking some questions that might be relevant and you've never asked them yourself or actually thought about them.

Parents second guess my recommendations to vaccinate their kids and I don't get upset with them or take it personal I sit down and explain it so they understand the facts and my reasoning.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 29, 2008 12:22:32 AM

Gil

Gil, that's thoughtful commentary, but I strongly disagree with your premise. You're comparing apples and oranges. What you describe as the rule of law (men making laws) is in fact NOT the rule of law. It is however the rule of man, and you're right, it does indeed lead to tyranny. That's why respecting the Constitution is so important. I could digress into a book length essay on political philosophy here, but I don't think it's the proper place. Suffice it to say, I believe that government should be designed to do only a handful of things: 1) national defense, 2) protection of life and liberty. And of those, I wouldn't give them very much power. Please don't confuse my arguments with vulgar anarchism. They are anything but.

Posted by: mnm | Mar 29, 2008 12:24:44 AM

Listen up, Dr. moron:

You have zero reasoning. You are an idiot, and I would not hesitate to say that to your face in front of your patients.

I answered your question, and you fail to answer all of ours. That constitutes malpractice, doctor. You are a fraud.

I would very much like to find out whose lives you are currently endangering. I, unlike you, carry substantial malpractice insurance and bonding.

You are a major risk.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 12:27:52 AM

Quick:

What is ICES?

ABC?

Palpation?

Auscultation?

Chop chop…..

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy

Well the chop chop is what I just did when I placed 0.5cc 1% Lidocaine bilaterally in a dorsal penile nerve block just before I dissected away the prepuce penile adhesions followed by a dorsal longitudinal incision of the prepuce and placement of a 1.3 cm PlastiBell over the glans of the penis of a lil feller who wanted his circumcision done tonight.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 29, 2008 12:29:48 AM

As for the second amendment it reads as follows: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The men who wrote the Constitution had just finished fighting a war against a tyrannical state militia. They knew that there might be a time when they'd have to do it again. Notice that is says "the right of the people." That's the PEOPLE as opposed to the MILITIA (caps for emphasis only, not yelling). Firearms are the means by which we protect ourselves from tyrannical governments...including, dare I say it, our own.
Aside: I just posted a comment on the violent over throw of government, and it's completely protected speech. I love my country.

Posted by: mnm | Mar 29, 2008 12:35:12 AM

So you went to a briss?

Doctor, my ass….

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 12:36:45 AM

Listen up, Dr. moron:

"You have zero reasoning. You are an idiot, and I would not hesitate to say that to your face in front of your patients."

So I guess that means we not ever gonna get together for a beer? What you took the MCAT's and didn't get in? Now your pushing paper for a living and you're mad at me because I'm a doctor? Is that what this is all about? You are one angry person Mesa. Between you and methinks my impression of money changers isn't any better then Jesus H's.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 29, 2008 12:43:13 AM

Dude, muirgeo, the more we learn about you, the less we think of you.

Ever seen a penile implant procedure?

I have.

[insert [insert] joke here]

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 12:43:59 AM

You are a risk, in my ex-professional medical opinion (NYS # 147745)

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 12:46:53 AM

No really. Why do you hate me so much? We're just having a conversation and I get the impression you're putting your fist through the walls over their. You're gonna get an angulated fracture of the 5th metacarpal head if you're not careful. Your BP must be off the charts and you probably could use some lisinopril. Have you had a bad month or what? I'm really worried about you. Have you ever thought about anger management? Do you have a therapist to talk to? Put away your pride and your ego and seek some help.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 29, 2008 12:53:05 AM

It's not a slippery slope, it's a rigged slope.

It's all about incentives and human behavior.

I get a bit tired filling in all the details for people who aren't willing to put some of their own effort into comprehension.

I suggest some people read 'We The Living'.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 29, 2008 12:53:29 AM

Mesa,

Let me know if I can help. I might be able to call some of that butterfly medicine in for you. But right now I have a tachypnic IUGR baby with a distended abdomen I need to go see. Fortunatly no grunting or flaring and mom was GBS negative so that's good. Hang in their my angry buddy.... we'll talk later.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 29, 2008 12:57:28 AM

So, tell me about your mother, geo….

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 12:58:56 AM

Ever seen a penile implant procedure?

I have.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy

How much did that run ya?

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 29, 2008 12:59:12 AM

Good, gastric distension is usually due to teething in 18-36 month olds (I have one).

Good luck there.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 1:01:16 AM

Note to readers:

IUGR is restrictive infant development, not the mother’s or baby’s distended abdomen, as muirgeo’s post above suggests.

Doctors do not always have the luxury of explaining medical terminology, nor do most care to. It’s a club.

This doctor should refrain from doing so here in future.

This doctor is a risk.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 1:16:58 AM

I don't care if he's a brilliant doctor, he suffers from progressive vision syndrome.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 29, 2008 1:20:28 AM

He’s not a very good doctor, as he cannot explain any of his economic positions, and therefore cannot explain his diagnoses.

He also believes in global warming, which is scientifically false.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 1:33:49 AM

...he suffers from progressive vision syndrome.

Posted by: Sam Grove

At least I have lots of company!

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 29, 2008 1:44:43 AM

Progressivism: Fascism masked with good intentions.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Mar 29, 2008 1:47:20 AM

If you are a doctor awaiting staff, george, then why don’t you go hire them?

Oh, because you can’t? Because the state won’t let you? Or because you are too lazy to lobby the legislature on your behalf?

Or is it an AMA requirement that you toe the line? Just like affirmative action?

Most of the traditional (effective) medical community is getting set to retire, especially if Hillary takes over. The other 3d will slowly bleed medical malpractice lawsuits.

That’s why I got out.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 1:50:43 AM

At least I have lots of company!
Posted by: muirgeo

Why yes, you will.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 1:59:25 AM

...medical malpractice lawsuits.

That’s why I got out.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy

Oh ...OK.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 29, 2008 2:17:15 AM

Ok.

Cool?

Moron?

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 2:18:31 AM

muirgeo asks 'Why do you hate me so much?'

We hate you because you don't listen to us. Everyone here is telling you that your understanding of economics is poor, and that you have much to learn. So, we correct you, and yet you keep making the same mistakes. Write less, and listen more, and maybe someday we won't hate you quite so much.

Posted by: Russ Nelson | Mar 29, 2008 2:32:01 AM

My vicodin must be wearing off because Muirgeo seems even less of a person that I would want to meet than normal. Earlier he almost seemed okay.

Let me go pop one more before I bid y'all good night.

Posted by: Python | Mar 29, 2008 2:50:32 AM

Mesa,

I asked you this question:

Can you honestly tell me that a significant portion of money being made via banks, finance and Wall Street doesn't simply amount to "skimming cream"?

and you chose not to answer it. Fortunately I found some one of known great intellect and an economist as well who addressed my concerns.

"Many of the greatest economic evils of our time are the fruits of risk, uncertainty, and ignorance. It is because particular individuals, fortunate in situation or in abilities, are able to take advantage of uncertainty and ignorance, and also because for the same reason big business is often a lottery, that great inequalities of wealth come about; and these same factors are also the cause of the unemployment of labour, or the disappointment of reasonable business expectations, and of the impairment of efficiency and production."
John Maynard Keynes 1926 (prescient he was..very prescient)

WOW! I thought so. I mean I had a sneaking suspicion about that. No wonder Mesa didn't want to reply. I think it's neat to know that I sometimes think like the great thinkers of our times. I know you all might not think much of Keyens here but it's hard to deny he was a great mind and all I'm trying to say here is he makes some pretty good points. So if Keyens is stupid and illogical I'd argue I'm in good company. But I'd also argue that he's probably not that stupid and likely much smarter then any of us here. I don't feel so all alone...even on the Cafe Hayek board.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 29, 2008 3:19:44 AM

The thing about Keynes was that that I disagree with is what he called "...particuliar individuals..." I think I was calling paper pushing Wall Street asshole rip off artists. I bet he wishes now he would have thought to use my terminology....but maybe not....he was obviously more in control of his ego then me.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 29, 2008 3:23:53 AM

"Mesa,
I asked you this question:
Can you honestly tell me that a significant portion of money being made via banks, finance and Wall Street doesn't simply amount to "skimming cream"?
and you chose not to answer it."
Posted by: muirgeo

"It creates liquidity so investors (farmers, portfolio insurers, many others) can hedge themselves from risk.
Next question?"
Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 28, 2008 11:33:59 PM

Keynes was a paedophile.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 3:40:52 AM

"he was obviously more in control of his ego then me." - Murthaduck

I wouldn't say Keynes was stupid and illogical, just wrong. On the other hand...

But cheer up, Keynes was wrong on economics almost as often as you are, and he's famous. Maybe you'll end up quacking your way to fame, too.

Still waiting to hear if you're willing to help pay for my wife's gun.

Posted by: brotio | Mar 29, 2008 3:41:35 AM

You’re a shitty doctor.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 3:43:16 AM

And you can’t read.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 3:53:26 AM

And you apparently endorse paedophiles.

Odd, for an obstetrician, no?

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 4:00:03 AM

". . . the right of the people." That's the PEOPLE as opposed to the MILITIA (caps for emphasis only, not yelling)."

Huh? Last time I looked the 2nd Amendment says:

'A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'

* A well-regulated miltia = not some free-for-all for mens to have guns.

* security of a free state = isn't that as 'one of fifty entities that make up the U.S.A. and a get a star on the U.S. flag'? I thought this had to with State rights versus Federal rights.

* keep and bear arms = private individual armouries which should theoretically contain a variety of modern weaponry in time of conflict. Hence why the fuss over 'gun control' but not 'nuclear weapons control'? A nuke has greater deterrent potential than a gun so I argue State militias being prohibited from acquiring nukes by the Federal government would be unconstitutional.

So I still don't get the transition from a Swiss-style of well-trained citizen militia army to 'I get to own guns without abandon to fend anyone and everyone'. Even the Penn & Teller take on guns made the strange transition: it was made by people who wanted to be able to defend themselves against the new government if it goes bad -to- a talk that people should have the right to guns because there are criminals out there -to- the right to defend themselves against the government. The notion of 'you have the right to defend against criminals and therefore need guns' I believed is covered by whatever the local law provides - the defence against the federal government of foreign invaders is more to what the 2nd Amendment pertains to.

Posted by: Gil | Mar 29, 2008 4:00:39 AM

Gil, I don’t have time to discuss this now.

You are incorrect, backed by multiple US court rulings.

Here

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Mar 29, 2008 4:11:50 AM

Gil,

There is no such thing as a 'State right' or a 'Federal right'. Only people have rights - governments have powers. The United States and their federal government have powers that the people have delegated to them.

Since you have spent a little time reading the United States Constitution, please notice that any time the document refers to responsibilities of the states or of the Federal government, they speak of 'delegation of power'. For example, the Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Every time our Constitution speaks of rights, it is referring to individual rights. The intent of the framers is documented in many of their writings, and the Federalist Papers are a great source for finding out what was in their minds. I'm sure you can find them online.

No constitution grants rights. The United States Constitution merely acknowledges that rights exists irrespective of government.

Good luck if you choose to continue your research.

Posted by: brotio | Mar 29, 2008 5:01:13 AM

brotio:

When one is uneducated like Ducky, government can start to have all kinds of "rights".

Posted by: FreedomLover | Mar 29, 2008 5:48:40 AM

Still waiting to hear if you're willing to help pay for my wife's gun.

Posted by: brotio

yeah sure what's she want? A LadySmith? Browning? Glock? Colt? Whatever it takes to shut you up. When's her birthday and what's her favorite color?

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 29, 2008 6:09:46 AM

"Are my views completely with out merit? I think a lot of Americans feel like I do." : Muirgeo

Yes and true. The masses always believe as you do. Greed and envy are natural functions of the primitive part of the brain, and without the reasoned oversight of the human part of the brain such beliefs will always predominate. The result is violence and tyranny, because the primitive brain, while capable of greed and envy, is incapable of maintaining social order.

"Progressivism: Fascism masked with good intentions." : Sam Grove

Not bad. But those who were unashamed of the word had good intentions too. The eventual totalitarianism and militarism are just the natural consequences of the beliefs. Back Muirgeo into a corner and watch him turn to both.

Posted by: Randy | Mar 29, 2008 6:59:31 AM

Yeah sure Randy but I got TJ on my side.

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 29, 2008 9:22:23 AM

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
- Woodrow Wilson

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 29, 2008 9:28:08 AM

Muirgeo,

The contest between liberty and tyranny is never ending and liberty can only be maintained by people who believe in liberty. When the state seizes the name of "the people", and individuals who have lost their faith in themselves allow it, liberty is lost. You want to blame those who take advantage of your weakness. I blame your weakness.

Posted by: Randy | Mar 29, 2008 9:44:20 AM

Randy,

You seem like the one who is hopeless and content to live amongst the system. I want to change it.

Posted by: muirgeo | Mar 29, 2008 10:18:23 AM

You seem like the one who is hopeless and content to live amongst the system. I want to change it.
muirgeo

No you don't. What you argue for it more of the same. More control, more regulation ect. What Randy and others are argue for is more freedom.

Back to Gil. I su

Cafe Hayek

where orders emerge

Links

Econtalk

Blogroll

Categories

March 27, 2008

The Dark Art

TrackBack

Comments