Readers may wish to Google "richard koo on quantitative easing" for a laugh.
2011 - Richard Koo on why quantative easing has failed - http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-koo-quantitative-easing-2011-4?op=1
So we are to believe this fellow invented the term 10 years before the US, didn't use it for 10 years in Japan, promoted the plan to the FED, adopted the term after the FED picked it up, re-wrote everything to claim that Japan had been using it before the FED, now claims it has failed because those darn private sector folks are paying down their debt (rather than going bankrupt?) Those BUMS!
With all due respect, Japan is in no shape to tell the US how to manage a deflationary crisis!
Game Set Match
I wanted to mention because it is relevant to the topic as debt is money and debt to world GDP is important to our discussion.
So, since it agrees with your view, it's not fiction now? 
I like how you think.
For what its worth, I quoted you verbatim that you claim the Fed is denying what they are doing. If you are saying that I'm supporting the Fed or QE, please quote me or stop putting words in my mouth (I'll be gentlemanly and assume for now that you are just prone to misinterpreting, not lying outright).
I like how you think.For what its worth, I quoted you verbatim that you claim the Fed is denying what they are doing. If you are saying that I'm supporting the Fed or QE, please quote me or stop putting words in my mouth (I'll be gentlemanly and assume for now that you are just prone to misinterpreting, not lying outright).
Some more fiction from economists:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-19/why-economist-qe-refuses-work
(This is, why to an economist, QE refuses to work)
If all the economists in the world were laid end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-19/why-economist-qe-refuses-work
(This is, why to an economist, QE refuses to work)
If all the economists in the world were laid end to end, they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.
it's not that funny. In academia, mathmaticians look at economists the same way you and I look at psychologists.
Neither profession is considered a science since they both deal with human behavior.
When they have their annual convention, all the physicists, mathmaticians and even biologists get to sit at the big table. They make the psychologists and economists sit at the little table over in the corner.
Interesting that the most valued people in almost any large organization (and many smaller ones) are those that have top flight negotiating skills. The top of the heap were those that are tasked with negotiating arms reduction treaties involving nuclear states. The numbers guys are frequently important but sometimes as staff not principals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Gottemoeller
Again, those in the hard sciences mistake precise calculations for skill. It is dealing with what is imprecise that requires skill of the highest order. The best poker player I ever met said to me once: "Once you get to no-limit all the numbers become secondary."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Gottemoeller
Again, those in the hard sciences mistake precise calculations for skill. It is dealing with what is imprecise that requires skill of the highest order. The best poker player I ever met said to me once: "Once you get to no-limit all the numbers become secondary."
M
morganist
I think that is true to a certain extent. However I would argue that things have been managed poorly for a long time and think that the reason may be the wrong people are getting the jobs.
I think it is more a matter of persuasion. One thing I notice in macroeconomics is there is a lot of bad policy because good economists know something will not work and are honest. The bad economist will either not care and lie to get the contract or not know. Either way you end up with bad policy because the person who is giving the contract is expecting something that cannot happen. They have bought snake oil.
I think perhaps the best way to look at it is are the people who have the money and make the decisions on who manages operations really qualified to do so. This is one of the flaws of a centralised system. The money is taken from people and given to people not from merit but from being elected. The person making the decisions on money distribution have no real concept on how things should be run or who runs it they just give the money to who they like or who tells them what they want to hear.
This is not necessarily the failing of the intelligent people but the failing of the system as a whole. If someone does not earn the position and business themselves how will they be able to operate it properly. As long as funds are confiscated from people and given to elected decision makers this will always be a problem.
M
morganist
I think that the sellers are not being honest and this is creating problems. If you start a business yourself you do not have to sell it to get funding. This is the problem if people have to sell the idea to the government to get funding they will have to negotiate on the truth, which will mean the cheats and con men will get the funding.