a culture of ‘face’ which can and does impart positive value to crass, mass, planet-destroying consumerism in such ways that would even scandalize the average nouvelle riche, tacky-ass, SUV-driving Texan yuppie.

Gee, Retardo, tell us how you really feel about the Chinese.

Apropos of the sniffy article by the Economist Dude, I’m right and he’s wrong. Why?

Well, all that economic theory on which he’s basing his justifications of “Free Trade” (and this is in air quotes with big wavy arms, kiddies) is a load of fetid dingos kidneys. The theory is based upon some crucial assumptions: if the assumptions are false, then the whole thing falls apart (like spiders when you play with them).

And those assumptions are (drum roll):

1) That people can move freely across borders;
2) That money can’t move freely across borders.

I laugh my special, yet genteel, catty laugh at these fools who think that “economist” equals “scientist”, rather than, as is actually the case, “wanker”.

And Retardo, I think now might be the time to let the Fat Joke Scandal fade from view, don’t you? It’s dead and the corpse has been fought over until all that’s left are stinky scraps, and I for one don’t fancy that. I like my meat fresh, and still moving if possible.

So do us a favour, lovey, and draw the curtain on that thing, would you? I’d be ever so grateful.

There is nothing more dangerous for the world’s future and nothing more dangerous for future existence, for whatever country’s school children to be taught that a bunch of wackos did all they possibly could to export the most wasteful model of consumption on earth, the American model, not only to societies numbering in the billions where the scale of externalities is gigantor, but in significant part to a culture of ‘face’ which can and does impart positive value to crass, mass, planet-destroying consumerism in such ways that would even scandalize the average nouvelle riche, tacky-ass, SUV-driving Texan yuppie.

Hey man, EVERYBODY want bread and circuses…

3,000 years plus demonstrates that. Let’s not blame “America” First. It was those damn Romans. If only they had the ‘electron gun in glass’ then they wouldn’t have needed so many damn stone buildings.

Because capital can move across borders and people can’t, free trade can still work as long as governments commit to some sort of safety net for those that can’t be retrained for comparable work or for those whose retraining will extend beyond the length of unemployment insurance. Of course, most of the free trade proponents have also (and not terribly surprisingly) rigorously opposed social safety nets to mitigate the dislocations caused by free trade

Hey man, EVERYBODY want bread and circuses…

3,000 years plus demonstrates that. Let’s not blame “America� First. It was those damn Romans. If only they had the ‘electron gun in glass’ then they wouldn’t have needed so many damn stone buildings.

Indubitably once again. Mind you, the Romans did set the bar fairly high for total civilisational meltdown: over a thousand years with sheep wandering through the ruins of their cities. They had some environmental talent in that regard, true. Lead pipes are a great way of turning your ruling classes into total pinheads.

I wonder what’s responsible for ours?

I laugh my special, yet genteel, catty laugh at these fools who think that “economist� equals “scientist�, rather than, as is actually the case, “wanker�.

I have to offer a mild disagreement with you here: I know of some economists who do realize that the assumptions used to generate so much economic theory are so unrealistic as to be unachievable, and are doing research based on extending the hoary old models by “updating” the assumptions that underlie them.

In other words, those people are economists, and are by no means wankers – so the two are not necessarily synonymous. Unfortunately, these people are sullied by association with the vast majority of economists who don’t bother trying to correct the significant problems with their discipline.

Lead pipes are a great way of turning your ruling classes into total pinheads.

Apropos of little, but I recall reading something about how it wasn’t the pipes, so much. Apparently, water that is cold or at all basic will dissolve little lead. As recently as the early 20th century lead pipes were still being installed to supply houses off the main, and many of these are still in use. (Most 20th century lead exposure was from gasoline fumes and, infamously, paint, and always affects children much more than adults.) The hazard posed by such pipes would depend on a number of factors. But anyway.

How lead poisoned the Romans was through their fondness for using lead acetate salt to sweeten wine–surely an intense method of exposure, even as compared to the most voracious paint-chip eater.

/pets Qetesh and offers her dainties.

Ooo’s a brilliant, smart, and pretty lady, den? Oooo? It’s youuuuuu! Yes it is! [scratches ears]

Seriously Qetesh, I love your post! I learned something about economics from it. Thanks!

How lead poisoned the Romans was through their fondness for using lead acetate salt to sweeten wine–surely an intense method of exposure, even as compared to the most voracious paint-chip eater.

Holy cow! But surely that was a vice only the well-to-do could indulge in. The average plebe in the streets probably couldn’t even afford wine regularly.

Economists are usually ideologues pretending to be scientists. They are nothing but priests of the ruling class that whisper excuses as to why society has to be this shitty to make the elitists feel better.

Seriously, how good can people be when they think the largest “Moral hazaards” in society involve someone actually helping the poor. They are not scientists.

Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.

-John Kenneth Galbraith

“Wasn’t it just last year that the Chinese government cynically pushed the old ‘hate Japan’ stuff on their students, just because it cared not for truth in history but for a cheap PR coup against Japan?”

Well, to be fair, the Japanese really were total dicks to China.

However, that was generations past. There are plenty of perfectly valid modern reasons to hate the Japanese now, such as anime’, manga comics, and the dumbest gameshows in the world.

…scandalize even the average nouvelle riche, tacky-ass, SUV-driving Texan yuppie.

As if the fat jokes wern’t enough, now you’re going to get in trouble with all 4 of the non-average non-riche, non-tacky-ass Prius driving Texans.

The reason why DeLong snottily dismissed Jeff Faux’s remark was because it was worth no more than snottily dismissing. Jeff Faux’s cartoon scenario of “commisars-turned capitalists riding around shanghai in a different rolls every day” was cartoonishly reactionary. In that scenario it’s worth pointing out that the actual numbers of “comissars turned capitalists” is really not that big, and yes if one were to redistribute all that wealth to the general Chinese population it wouldn’t amount to much.

But that’s making mountains out of molehills. Brad DeLong’s third reply “simple arithmetic” is the real winner, and the one that really cuts against the reactionaries and economic jingoists like Jeff Faux. For more enlightening commentary on this issue (China/NAFTA?Trade Liberalism) than from Faux I would recommend James Galbraith’s most recent piece in The Nation

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20070305&s=galbraith

And Brad Seter’s most recent blog entry responding to this issue.

http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/setser/180636/

Little history here….

America’s leap into economic world power status in the late 19th century happened during a period of high tariffs on manufactured goods. Indeed, political scientist Richard Franklin Bensel argues that the tariff is what made it possible for the U.S. to both industrialize and maintain a functioning, if imperfect, democracy.

(Bensel also argues that American industrialization, was a very mixed blessing, benefiting the Northeast at the direct expense of the West, the Plains, and the South.)

Lead pipes are a great way of turning your ruling classes into total pinheads.

I wonder what’s responsible for ours?

Corrupt institutions providing sinecures to propagandists, eg.: Hoover, Heritage, AEI, and the economics departments at Dartmouth, Stanford, Chicago. And that is just scratching the surface.

Wasn’t it just last year that the Chinese government cynically pushed the old ‘hate Japan’ stuff on their students, just because it cared not for truth in history but for a cheap PR coup against Japan?

Actually, I think the controversy was over what the Japanese government was teaching children about history. Japanese textbooks glossed over WWII and the atrocities towards the Chinese. Sorry, but the ChiComms are right in this case.

Don’t worry, Prince Pickles would never anything bad.

tukkinghorn, mustn’t forget andover and exeter, where the initial winnowing takes place, leaving only the finest pinheads. ready to assume their rightful place on our backs

In that scenario it’s worth pointing out that the actual numbers of “comissars turned capitalists� is really not that big, and yes if one were to redistribute all that wealth to the general Chinese population it wouldn’t amount to much.
—

Of course. How stupid of me. Somebody has to be filthy rich while somebody else starves to death. I keep forgetting about that because I’m not a realist.

I have rewied Lesley’s statement on other posts and have come to the conlussion that I weas right, and this person is not a troll. s/he (Lesley is a gender nuetral name in most places) is clearly anti-war, anti-neocon and anti-republican. S/he has commented on several posts recently, only on this one (and it’s related post) has s/he done anything that could be considered an attempt to start trouble. Usually, s/he posts only a single comment in any given thread. This behaviour is indicitive of a “lurker” (which I usually am myself). This is not the behavior of a troll, who is someone who is attempting to disrupt convsersation and destroy meaningful debate. As Lesley has made few attempts other than this one to assert themself in conversations, I do not see how Lindsey could be a troll unless you think being a troll means simply being dismissive of people who don’t agree with you or who hold more extreme positions than you do. simply saying “Yes, Lindsey is a troll” is not a valid argument. Can you reference other comment threads or sites where s/he is engaging in trolling behavior?

The above post has been made in the wrong comment thread. If possible, I would like to request that it be deleted. In any case, I will post it in the proper thread and would not like this to be considered spam.

“This is not the behavior of a troll, who is someone who is attempting to disrupt convsersation and destroy meaningful debate.”

Which is what Lesley did in this case.

“Can you reference other comment threads or sites where s/he is engaging in trolling behavior?”

How many fires can I set without being called an arsonist?

umm…. i was trying to come up with a retort, but you’re spot on the tortilla there meester mencken.

neoliberal policies have produced the swell of migrants that are currently flippin your burgers in all those chain restaurants here in the you ess of ey.. it is untenable to bring the mexican poor to the consumption level of the elites without trashing the country even further. the land is being poisoned, the air has been for years, there’s overfishing, overexploiting of minerals, disappearance of oil wells, gmo crops are battling and winning millenium long regional biotechnology (or what else is mesoamerica’s selecting and interbreeding maize varieties?), the country is being flooded with guns, the drug cartels are delegitimizing the state and it’s hegemony over violence, setting the stage for narcoguerillas a la colombia, and fucking “friends” is being broadcast in 2 different national public access channels EVERY FUCKING DAY (i don’t even want to know how many times it’s broadcast over sky or cable), so mexicans in urban southern mexico and indigenous villages are naming their kids joey and phoebe and chandler. and where the fuck is scott baio? why isn’t he on anymore? who is in charge of our days and our nights? ahora quien podra defendernos?

anyway, don’t tell anyone, but the clock runs out in 2012. or so our vanquished and/or racially incorporated predecessors claim. 5th sun, restarting the calendar, rebirth by fire kinda shit. so just take in on stride, get a taco and a mezcal, and dance dance dance to the radio…

by the way, if i didn’t know better, i’d accuse you of being an anarco-syndicalist sympathizer, an adherent to the sexta and blonde zapaturista, or a at least a closet flores-magonista. but, c’mon, you own a computer! and a revolutionary with a computer is like a dostoevsky hero with a bank account. yes i stole that, what?

Well crap. Me too, I guess. Disregard. Abort. Eat a giant sandwich.

“dance dance dance to the radio…”

Warsaw rules with a mighty sword.

sorry, i meant “the state and its hegemony over violence” . you know, without the apostrophe. as in only the state has the right to exert violence. as in cops beating you up in public and shit. lo que sea, vato, no mames ya….

Economists are usually ideologues pretending to be scientists. They are nothing but priests of the ruling class that whisper excuses as to why society has to be this shitty to make the elitists feel better.

Often, yeah. But not always. For example, Krugman’s not. So are dozens of others who are doing worthwhile research that may actually end up helping people.

Unfortunately, these are not the economists who tend to achieve recognition and notoriety in the US. I wonder why that could be . . .

I wasn’t paying all that much attention during the “fat joke=ultimate moral crime”. Did i miss someone saying that “fat people are the last minority that can be made fun of without recrimmination”? Because that’s one of my favorites.

you can cite krugman, and his predecessor doug henwood (whose left business observer was a pretty amazing magazine in its day) all you want, but in the main economists make indefensible claims in the face of accumulating evidence (e.g. the costs of energy have no basis in fact unless you don’t mind us all being in a sweltering desert in 40 years) and to get them to change is borderline impossible. it’s a social science with a hidden bias, the worst of all possible worlds, especially since its practitioners claim objective status for their work.

yes, the mexican liberalization worked very well mr. delong et al, just ask any mexican. they are nice and easy to find there in berkeley, having left their successful neo-liberal jobs in jalisco to come flip burgers for you.

Like Hysterical Woman @ 17:31, the Chinese were incensed that a new WWII museum opened in Japan which totally whitewashed the Japanese invasion: it called the Japanese the “liberators” of mainland China, conveniently erased all information about NanJing, and denied that any more than around 1,000 “civilian” Chinese were killed due to Japanese occupation. I have no dog in this fight at all, just thought I’d point out that the Chinese were responding to a pretty specific provocation by the Japanese in 2006.

Often, yeah. But not always. For example, Krugman’s not. So are dozens of others who are doing worthwhile research that may actually end up helping people.

I believe Krugman’s also a free-trader who’s willing to notice an emperor without clothes.

I’m not saying that the Japanese aren’t dicks for their revisionism. What I am saying is that the Chicoms don’t care about that. They wanted to scare Japan and how they did that was to stir the students up. Remember, this is the Chicoms, who’d normally run over protesting students with tanks. When Chinese students can raise hell in the streets organically and naturally, then I’ll take seriously any protests over there re: Japan.

Goat, you still didn’t provide any comment threads. I’ve looked through several, and as I said, Lesley usually posts a single comment that is generally in agreement with the over-all theme of the comment thread. As I said, you should back up your accusations if you’re going to make them. Marcotte called me a troll once because I had the temerity to mention actual science in one of her “Human sexuality has nothing to do with biology” posts. So I know what it’s like to be falsely labeled a troll so that the poster or one of their lackey’s can stifle debate. It’s unpleasant and it isn’t called out anywhere near as often as it should be. So like I said, provide some examples of these “fires” that didn’t come from the amp-criticized posts.

Often, yeah. But not always. For example, Krugman’s not.

I beg to differ. He’s done a lot of wonderful work since 2000 regarding our Dear Leader. But before Bush showed up, he was essentially the thinking man’s Tom Friedman, shilling for “free” trade and globalization at all costs.

See, for example, his April, 2000, dismissal of critics of the World Bank’s handling of Mozambique. If it walks like an ideologue and talks like an ideologue…

Also, the Japanese are very belligerent about their participation in WW2. The Chinese are truly very upset about the fact that Japan refuses to admit ever perpetrating war crimes. The claims to the contrary are exactly like the claims made by Neocons and AIPAC that arab governments only use the palestine issue to deflect from their own problems. While both are true to a point, pretending the underlying anger isn’t real isn’t going to help resolve the situation. Indeed, by not taking your opponents views as being honestly held, you make it far more likely that you or they will escalate the situation.

I fault DeLong because he makes little to no effort to explain his beliefs to an educated layman. I have degrees in math/physics/computer science/business (don’t ask me why) and have had a year of econ and finance classes. But I rarely understand more than DeLong’s words themselves, much less what he actually saying.

I fault DeLong because in the 4-6 years I think I’ve been reading him he has never even acknowledged fair trade. His dichotomy is free trade or mercantilism.

I fault DeLong because he never discusses the assumptions that his belief in free trade is based on.

He’s an interesting guy, but a stolid bureaucrat through and through.

Mextremist, are you a M.O.T.O fan?

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=2380319

“Who cares about the starving people that you see in the street each day? I wanna’ dance, dance, dance, dance, dance to the radio!”

Meanwhile, in Right Blogistan, Marie Jon’ isn’t pulling any punches:

These political ideologues deliberately refuse to make the connection with Iraq and the War on Terror. When they spew their negative defeatism, there is a noticeable spike of terror attacks in Iraq. The violence brought about by loose lips makes our troops’ job much more difficult. The Democrats do not care what havoc they wreak when they pass resolutions of traitorous political psychobabble. They do not care that they embolden our enemies.

Just thought I’d point out that Rome is still burning, Nero…

mikey

“So like I said, provide some examples of these “firesâ€? that didn’t come from the amp-criticized posts.”

Answer the question how many fires do I get to start before I’m called an arsonist? (‘Sure, but you fuck one goat…’) Lesley was belligerent and derailed the entire discussion towards “Fatties: Lazy or Really lazy?” Lesley was trolling by definition, being needlessly inflammatory in order to elicit emotional responses. An asshole with whom you agree is still an asshole.

Next S,N! post: “Why macs are not really computers.”
That should round you out with zero friends left.

And there are many definitions of “asshole.”

Great idea, Some Guy. Maybe we could entice Ann Barlow into returning with just the right one. She was more fun than a barrel of fun.

Maybe “Fat hos on crack”?

‘And there are many definitions of “asshole.â€?‘

I know. I’ve got a six inch barbell through my left cheek.

Apropos of the discussion of economists, I will offer the world’s first and only stand up economist

Watch the “Mankiw’s Principles of Economics, Translated” clip.

“Remember, this is the Chicoms, who’d normally run over protesting students with tanks. ”

C’mon HTML, that’s a sweeping generalization worthy of a RW board site. No one argues that it didn’t happen or that it didn’t set back political liberalization in China. But I’ve been traveling there since the early 90’s and I can tell you that, at least in Guangdong Province, it’s capitalism on steroids. I’ve yet to meet anyone who promotes doctrinaire communism. People my age living there remember the 60’s quite well and they have no inclination to ever go back and revisit that awful time. Actually, the factories in GD province seem to be where capitalism and communism meet and have made a powerful business model. No way would Americans want to work in this environment, but, then again, we aren’t coming from recent Chinese history, either.

Capital goes where capital grows…or so one of my Eco101 professors told me. And it is growing like hell in China. The outcome may not be particularly good for the Chinese or the world, but it beats starving on a commune.

Instead of lamenting the loss of manufacturing jobs in our post-industrial society here, we should have been planning to reinvent our economy which I think Gore and the Democrats would have been doing these past 8 years. With our $400BB surplus and an eye towards global warming, Gore and the Democrats could have re-primed the economic engines here by decentralizing our energy sector…..weaning us off ME oil and providing incentives to develop renewable and alternative energy systems that would provide meaningful jobs – retooling our workforce to rebuild our infrastructure and convert our energy grids to self sufficent solar/wind energies on a micro-scale. That was the road not taken in 2000. It’s not China’s fault that they are now successful in supplying products to our consumer based economy. It’s the lack of vision that we have suffered with by having Big Oil dictate our economic/security interests since the Selection of 2000.

HTML- You should go to China. Travel broadens ones horizons.

Thank you maddie for that link!

The outcome may not be particularly good for the Chinese or the world, but it beats starving on a commune.

Yeah, nowadays the rural population of China can starve under a capitalist totalitarian regime.

Yeah, nowadays the rural population of China can starve under a capitalist totalitarian regime.

Why can’t they move to the city and starve there?

“Yeah, nowadays the rural population of China can starve under a capitalist totalitarian regime.”

No question, there are 2 China’s. Rising expectations are creating big tensions between the Have-Somes and the Have-None’s. How the government deals with this issue will dictate what kind of state China is 10-20 years from now.

Obviously, you’ve made even more enemies than you’re aware of, as you’ve been unfairly left off this list:

http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2007/03/its-potty-mouthed-world-and-im-sitting.html

Truly, you have been shunned.

Fucking shit!

FUCK that shit!

briefly, regarding the last post. piny is a fatty, no?

for an explanation of the difference between a good commie and a bad commie, see thisinstructive post over at obsidian wings.
voice of moderation indeed.
please to enjoy the festy treatment of timid commenters in the thread too

fuck. fine.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/02/hugo_chavez_dem.html

shit

Qetesh, you’re a moron, sorry. on your “assumptions” of free trade:

1) That people can move freely across borders;
2) That money can’t move freely across borders.

You point to them as though every economist on earth somehow missed these superduper important points in the most basic theory that virtually all of them agree on, and with two seconds’ thought you’ve completely demolished it. well, no. These and countless other “assumptions” youll find throughout all economic literature (and every other hard or social science) are just to control for factors to better identify what exactly is taking place, in this case, gains from trade. you know, how ‘scientists’ do. youve managed to entirely misread chart #1 in any international econ. textbook, let alone the difficult stuff.

mr todd.

you are a fucking moron.

that is unless by “science” , you mean “priests of modern economic status quo”

just saying

“science” should read “economist”
sorry
but not to you todd

what does that even mean. economics is a social science. they make hypotheses and gather data and test it and draw conclusions and get a lot wrong and get a lot right. sorry if thats heresy, jesus.

check out “confessions of an economic hitman” by john perkins for an example of how economics is used as a tool to structure economies and governments to the coincidental sole benefit of the patrons of those “scientists in economics”

i thought this was widely understood

yes, i’ve seen him on democracy now awhile back, but i dont even understand what you mean. youre not even using the word ‘economics’ properly, and you call me a fucking moron? as if it was possible to use ‘physics’ or ‘sociology’ to take over the world. i’d totally do it. economic means? sure, why not. but thats not even remotely what im talking about now is it.

What’s with the “fucking moron” shit? No class, no style, no wit, no funny.

Go funny or go home, cobags!

Mr Todd, I’ll bite.

First up, those underlying principles are necessary for the benefits of ‘free’ trade. Sorry, but them’s the facts. Read your Adam Smith a little more carefully.

Another underlying principle of most economic theory is that of perfect information. In order for competition to work as advertised (and there’s another box of wasps, right there), the actors need perfect information. Clearly they don’t, so clearly our economic theories about competition don’t match the real world (as we’ve seen, but as many economists ignore).

Thirdly, you say that economists use those assumptions “just to control for factors to better identify what exactly is taking place, in this case, gains from trade.” Sorry again, but no. Again. Sure, in the world of theory, economic theory works fine, but in the real world, it’s deeply flawed, because of inherent reliance on those assumptions. There’s bugger-all testing and conclusion-drawing going on.

As an example of my point, consider the fact that ‘free trade’ is still being touted as the solution for every poor nation’s ills, when the evidence that it just creates a dog’s breakfast has been available for 20 or 30 years. Don’t believe me? Look at World Bank and IMF ‘interventions’ over that period. Every country that has followed their prescription, based on their economic theory, has crashed and burned. The better they followed the prescription, the worse they failed.

Now I’d say that doing the same thing repeatedly but expecting different results is stupid, right? But not for the IMF/WB: their response, in the best traditions of what you laud as ‘science’, is to say ‘But you’re not doing it hard enough’. That’s like me saying that, if you stand here and wish really hard for gold ducats to fall out of the sky, they really will, and if they don’t, you’re just not wishing hard enough.

The simple, and easily observable, facts are that the ‘free trade’ prescription is not effective at getting countries out of poverty, nor is it free trade, for reasons including those I’ve mentioned. When the East Asian meltdown hit (due in large part to those same principles of ‘free trade’), the entire region was hammered. The countries that suffered least and recovered fastest were those, like South Korea, who ignored the ‘free trade’ mantra and did what every other country had done: protect its infant industries until they were strong enough to face brutal competition.

Really, this isn’t rocket science. It isn’t even the taxomony of cactucidae. All it would require from economists is looking at the events and learning from them. Every nation in the world that’s developed world-class industries has done so using methods totally unlike the ‘free trade’ being touted as the cure for all economic ills.

And that’s not even getting on to the topic, alluded to by judeanpeoplesfront, of how our entire global structure is predicated on adulation of economic values above all else, which is something on which I could rant at some length.

If you seek some elucidatory reading, try Stiglitz, particularly Globalization and its Discontents. And please, please, please, don’t try to tell me that economics is a science. It’s true that some economists are appropriately rigorous, but the discipline as a whole is appallingly sloppy.

HTML Mencken said,
March 1, 2007 at 23:26

“Fucking shit!”

That’s just nasty…you cock eating rectal wart.

We’ll get you on the list, even if we have to fuck every…..nevermind.

MCH, interesting wee fact about the lead salts. “Eeeeuuuwwww” is all I can say.

One other factor in the Roman’s demise was their habit of inbreeding: the noble houses wouldn’t breed (well, at least officially) with commoners, and so they married each other. Continuously. For centuries. That makes a very small and very stagnant gene pool.

When they got to breeding with their own cousins, sisters, and horses, I think it was pretty clear the rot had set in.

Chan, why thank you [arches back and accepts ear petting graciously]. It’s always nice to have devoted followers, because of course cats can’t exist without them.

And spencer, yes, I did, in my haste, cast aspersions on some otherwise guiltless economists, those few who think clearly about their subject, in my haste to condemn the multitudes who merely parrot doctrine.

Goat Boy, with your ‘dance, dance, dance to the radio’: I’m desperately hoping, but not overly hopeful, that you’re referring to that early Ian Curtis song. Are you? I’d give you a big kitty kiss if you are…

Yeah, nowadays the rural population of China can starve under a capitalist totalitarian regime.

Why can’t they move to the city and starve there?

Righteous Bubba, they can and they do! And if they’re lucky, they can be lured into the country on pretext of taking a job, and then be kidnapped by Northern Chinese or North Koreans who are completely desperate for wives! Waytago, capitalism! Waytago, one child policy!

Retardo, as others have pointed out, China these days is very very different from what most in the West imagine. Fascinating place, fascinating culture.

mextremist brought it up, I merely appreciated it. And aren’t all Ian Curtis songs early Ian Curtis songs?

Ahh, economics: Where else can one get paid to show the effects of trillions of weakly-interacting objects using simple algebra?

hey goatboy

look up one post to the hon mr todds use of moron and the need to pad our fuck count

thanks,
cobag

And aren’t all Ian Curtis songs early Ian Curtis songs?

Yes, very true. And classics, every damn’ one of them.

Hey, judeanpeoplesfront, what’s this about padding our fuck count? Who’s counting? For that matter, who’s fucking? And why wasn’t I told?

I fault DeLong….

…and DeLong won.

Where else can one get paid to show the effects of trillions of weakly-interacting objects using simple algebra?

In rocket science.

Though the rocket scientists themselves seem to prefer the term “thermodynamics” to “rocket science,” for some reason.

Let’s see, then there’s materials science, chemical engineering, polling and demographics, meteorology, data mining, epidemiology, actuarial work…

As if on cue, here’s Grampaw making the ‘economics is too like a hard science!’ argument which is so flattering to economists.

Because it is, you know. Which is why you disagree with their dogma — oops, sorry, I mean their findings borne of disinterested inquiry — at your extreme peril.

Qetesh, thanks for the reply, sorry i called you a moron, i’ve been pissy today, clearly you’re not one.

still i must disagree with most of this. i’m not saying econ is a hard science like its biology or something, but it is a social science, inherently difficult to measure and almost always inexact. im under no illusions about this. its why i’m constantly finding two economists who study the same thing and reach two completely different conclusions usually using the same damn information. so of course its a bit sloppy, but necessarily so, like anthropolgy or sociology.

the 2 assumptions you pointed out arent preconditions for free trade to work, i dont know where youre getting that, theyre just assumptions in that extremely basic model. free trade just says countries can increase overall output, in theory making each country better off overall but not necessarily, if a country specializes in what its good at and trades for what its not. of course is not perfect or even applicable in many cases today since its the most basic of basic trade models there is. but every damn economist knows this already, you dont get a doctorate by being retarded, do you think they havent upgraded in 200 years? same with the information thing, Stiglitz is famous for his work on assymetric information and market failure, but you act like most economists are unaware of this? well which ones?

your take on the IMF and world bank is off too, though im very familiar with it, its the standard stiglitz/chomskyish one, which i used to find very persuasive myself. yes they required free market conditions but most governments didnt even bother following them, and still the IMF/WB kept lending anyway, Pakistan being the most notorious example. you can certainly criticize the two for giving in to political pressure from the US and others to lend to dictators who everyone knew would squander the money, but that has nothing to do with ‘free trade’ as such.

The biggest problem with IMF monitoring in my view with regard to the asian crisis, aside from being convinced of its own superiority, was their encouraging of liberalization while saying nothing about these countries’ banking sectors and exchange rate pegs. this was the real source of the asian meltdown. i know, ive heard it a million times, the countries that ignored IMF advice weathered the storm better and recovered faster. well, not really, and that point is pretty irrelevant to the cause. Thailand and S Korea and indonesia had exchange rate pegs to the $ which encouraged lots of foreign investment, since the peg gave the illusion of stability. the big problem was that so much of this was in dollars which meant that when the Thai central bank eventually ran out of reserves to defend the currency (since it was caught lying about how much fx reserves they had), well it tanked and the value of that dollar debt in baht absolutely exploded. financial meltdown, etc, the same thing happened w/ SKs central bank. if you want to fault the IMF for something its for not catching this, since they didnt even start lending to them til after the crisis anyway, but what would you have said if the IMF was breathing down their necks to reform their banking sector and to lay off exchange rate pegs? something about sovereignty im betting. anyway, Malaysia resisted the meltdown better not because it didnt follow IMF prescriptions but because its banking sector was in better shape than others. everyone cites its capital controls but they were very short lived and the worst of the damage was done before implementation. having stronger banks made the difference for it, ditto China. and S Korea recovered faster because it was the most vigorous by far at fixing its banking sector.

i dont feel like typing anymore but yes, ive read the Stiglitz book, in fact there’s a list of all the books ive read on my myspace blog, youll see its quite a variety. but i’d recommend these: why globalization works by Martin Wolf from the FT, and the elusive quest for growth by Bill Easterly at CGD. theyre infinitely smarter and explain all the points you raised far better than i could.

HTML, well mr todd goes ahead and PROVES ol’ grampaw’s point! did you catch the chomskyish diss? solid!

why, look how many words it takes to understand the economics,

and readin too
Qetesh, up a bit from the egregious moron post, we learned that SN! isn’t even filthy enough to make the top ten

now, there is perfectly acceptable thread going on above with ball dangling in pastries. and i expect i’ll find a more useful discussion of economic modalities there

First up, those underlying principles are necessary for the benefits of ‘free’ trade. Sorry, but them’s the facts. Read your Adam Smith a little more carefully.

Actually “them’s” not the facts. This is the first time I’ve ever heard that those were the underlying principles for the benefits of liberalized trade. There of course have been critiques of the assumptions of immobility of all factors of production between nations in a classical trade model . I’ve never come across one stating one should be mobile while the other shouldn’t. Perhaps you should be reading your Adam Smith a little more carefully. Or your Ricardo for that matter.

As for that critique, the 200+ years and Development of Trade economics show the benefits of open trade even when these assumptions are relaxed.

Another underlying principle of most economic theory is that of perfect information. In order for competition to work as advertised (and there’s another box of wasps, right there), the actors need perfect information. Clearly they don’t, so clearly our economic theories about competition don’t match the real world (as we’ve seen, but as many economists ignore).

The correction is that many models used in economics are based on assumptions like “perfect Competition” of which perfect information is a prerequisite. Most work in contemporary mainstream economics is not based on “perfect information” and to the contrary, it would be far more accurate statement that most economics, indeed most models are based explicitly on imperfect information I.E. “Asymmetrical Information” , “Adverse Selection”, “Moral Hazard”, all standard concepts in economic thinking.

Thirdly, you say that economists use those assumptions “just to control for factors to better identify what exactly is taking place, in this case, gains from trade.� Sorry again, but no. Again. Sure, in the world of theory, economic theory works fine, but in the real world, it’s deeply flawed, because of inherent reliance on those assumptions. There’s bugger-all testing and conclusion-drawing going on.

Actually, yes. And that’s precisely why such models are employed regardless of their assumptions I.E. the old “All Models are wrong, some models are useful.” This is hardly even a point of contention among leftist or other types of heterodox economists.

As for “bugger-all test & conclusion drawing” this just simply isn’t true. Very little of the study of Trade economics is based around theory beyond it’s predicted expectations crossed with real world data.

The simple, and easily observable, facts are that the ‘free trade’ prescription is not effective at getting countries out of poverty, nor is it free trade, for reasons including those I’ve mentioned. When the East Asian meltdown hit (due in large part to those same principles of ‘free trade’), the entire region was hammered. The countries that suffered least and recovered fastest were those, like South Korea, who ignored the ‘free trade’ mantra and did what every other country had done: protect its infant industries until they were strong enough to face brutal competition.

You are incredibly ignorant. First of all, the Asian financial meltdown was just that, a financial meltdown. It was a financial pheomena and to a much lesser degree a fiscal phenomena. “Free Trade” or any other type of trade for that matter had nothing to do with it. Secondly, contrary to your assertion, it was precisely South Korea that was hardeast hit by the crisis, with countries like Taiwan coming away with the least scratches. Not that it even matters; for whatever the reasons South Korea got rocked so hard, and Taiwan mostly unscathed, it had nothing to do with their respective trade policies (which weren’t & aren’t especially different)

If you seek some elucidatory reading, try Stiglitz, particularly Globalization and its Discontents. And please, please, please, don’t try to tell me that economics is a science. It’s true that some economists are appropriately rigorous, but the discipline as a whole is appallingly sloppy.

Are you referring to Joseph “Developed countries should discontinue subsidies & open their markets to the developing world without reciprocity” Stiglitz? The guy arguing for a gradual phase out of trade barriers in the developing world over a period of decades and their complete removal in the developed word? Very un-neoliberal to be sure, but not a very compelling example in a case against liberalized trade.

And that’s the compounding factor. I’ve already established that your cartoon strawman characterization of most economists to be pretty misguised, but even many leftish, heterodox economists & self-proclaimed opponents of neoliberalism; guys like Joseph Stiglitz, Barkley Rosser, Daniel Davies, James K. Galbraith, Brad Setser, Felix Salmon; all staunch critics of the Bretton Woods system and people who flatly oppose the planks of neoliberal orthodoxy like capital liberalization & floating exchange rates, all still supporters & proponents of Open Trade.

well, MY cartoonish strawman characterizations of economists are unburdoned by fact, and they seem to be as defensive and dogmatic as pastor swank

yea what that dude said. ill end up reading my intl econ text all night because of this. damnit!

‘economics is too like a hard science!’

Er, when did polling, demographics, and data mining become “hard science?” And how “hard” is meteorology, for that matter?

I see others are doing a rather thorough job making the sorts of arguments I usually make in threads like this. All I can add to what’s already been said is that people exchange goods and services, that that exchange can be quantified and studied, and that anyone who dismisses such study a priori in defense of their beliefs belongs in the bin with the creationists. Please do use alternative economic models in your arguments, if you understand them well enough to do so, but for the love of Pete, don’t reject empirical study as if it were your enemy.

Retardo:

I see you haven’t replied to my first comment, or to any of the other participants here who have objected to that venomous little stereotype in your post. I actually think it’s more serious than this tiresome “is economics real” debate, and I think you could retract that appalling characterization of Chinese culture without compromising the larger point you’re trying to make.

Oh, Jesus. We just went through this with fat jokes. I’m not derogating all Chinese, and you fucking know it. But do you admit,or not that ‘face’ exists? That a component of ‘face’ is crass materialism analogous to yuppieism in America?

I mean, you know good and well that this is just a convenient PC stick to avoid the real issue raised, which is the neoliberal complicity in the planet-destroying export of Western consumerism to societies and cultures whose own materialistic proclivities in turn make the new hybrid cultures even more dangerous than the originals vis-a-vis the environment.

You sorry lying ignorant bastards like to play the ‘concerned for starving Chinese’ card, but really the issue is that you think it’s *grand* for a billion people who did not previously drive or consume much in the way of plastics and petrochemicals to adopt the lifestyles of suburban Americans. You’re humanitarians! Meanwhile, goodbye planet!

For like the millionth time, man, fuck off. You’re the Worst Troll Evar. You make me *wish* for Dr. BLT!

Ah, yes, the classic “I don’t have to consider your point if I call you a troll” gambit. Nice, Retardo.

Of course I admit “face” exists. What I object to is the odious argument that the Chinese in the iron grip of “face” can’t help driving themselves over a consumerist cliff.

This is exactly, perfectly analogous to the argument that Arabs are doomed to a future of violence due to their culture of “honor.” Does that aspect of their culture exist? Sure. But does it work the way the fearmongering alarmist says it works? And is the fearmongering alarmist not encouraging a racist view of their culture?

Take twenty minutes to cool off, Retardo. Remember you’re a grown-up. Then be a man, admit you used an offensive argument, retract it, and go on with the point you set out to make. I’ll certainly think better of you if you do that than if you continue to spit and bluster and refuse to even consider the ramifications of what you’ve put on the table.

You make me *wish* for [real name redacted]

Shut up. He’s stuck nicely in another thread.

You’re welcome.

Mr Todd, thanks for your polite rejoinder. I’ll address some points, if I may.

its why i’m constantly finding two economists who study the same thing and reach two completely different conclusions usually using the same damn information.

Indeed. The same holds with most ‘social sciences’, actually: a fair number of the practitioners know only enough statistics to allow them to make prats of themselves. Talk to a statistician one day about psychologists, you’ll get an earful.

but every damn economist knows this already, you dont get a doctorate by being retarded, do you think they havent upgraded in 200 years?

Well, judging by the arguments presented in the press, apparently not. I could list half a dozen claims of economic ‘fact’ that are demonstrably false in the real world, but still generally accepted.

By the way, I’m not talking about research or academia: I’m referring to working economists. Those who advise governments and so forth. The economic theory that’s used to run the world is what I’m complaining about. I’ve known several very nice academic economists in my time, quite sensible people, albeit a little unworldly, as academics often are.

yes they required free market conditions but most governments didnt even bother following them, and still the IMF/WB kept lending anyway, Pakistan being the most notorious example.

How about Argentina?

well it tanked and the value of that dollar debt in baht absolutely exploded.

The value of the baht was one factor, but the absence of proper currency controls was another: if investors can hot-swap cash into and out of a country, then when there’s a small uncertainty they’re panicked, turning a small, and possibly manageable, crisis, into a major one. Currency trading is one of the most dangerous practices around today, at least in part because most governments still consider capital to be the 18th century sort of capital: land, tangible assets, gold (or gold-backed scrip). But capital now is no more than an agreed value, agreed by a bunch of people who get spooked like sheep. The amount of notional value in the global economy is many multiples of the amount of actual value, and this fact is going to sink in when we get an even bigger bubble.

Sorry. My rant du jour.

Viz Malaysia’s recovery, they definitely took steps that weren’t according to doctrine, particularly the capital controls. For Thailand, I’d not have necessarily said the answer was to lay off the exchange rate peg, but I’d have definitely argued for capital controls and a sensible, and slow, easing of the finance sector.

In general, my view is that capital controls, or some similarly effective mechanism like the Tobin tax, should be in place worldwide. Free movement of capital is just too dangerous. I mean, if one small shopping centre bank can almost bring down the entire US banking system (see the Penn Square Bank in the, oooh, late 70s? Early 80s?), and the Thai banking crisis turned into major financial disaster for a whole swath of Asia, imagine what we could do today. But that’s just my view.

Yikes, way too long. Must stop and eat crunchy foods.

You are incredibly ignorant. First of all, the Asian financial meltdown was just that, a financial meltdown. It was a financial pheomena and to a much lesser degree a fiscal phenomena.

Why, how sweet of you. Yes, in my haste I conflated financial crises with trade crisis. Mea culpa, I apologise unreservedly and all that.

I’ve already established that your cartoon strawman characterization of most economists to be pretty misguised, but even many leftish, heterodox economists & self-proclaimed opponents of neoliberalism; guys like Joseph Stiglitz, Barkley Rosser, Daniel Davies, James K. Galbraith, Brad Setser, Felix Salmon; all staunch critics of the Bretton Woods system and people who flatly oppose the planks of neoliberal orthodoxy like capital liberalization & floating exchange rates, all still supporters & proponents of Open Trade.

judeanpeoplesfront, did you follow this sentence? I’m reminded of the old Rolf Harris song, The Court Of King Caractacus. Know it? I may sing it for you, since I’m in particularly fine voice this eve.

And drrrrrr, or whatever your name is: what was your point, exactly? Were you arguing for, or against, something? If so, why not use logic? It’s free, it’s easy, and it’s ever so popular.

In the meantime, judeanpeoplesfront and I will be taking our cartoonish strawmen for a walk down by the beach. A bientot.

Lead pipes are a great way of turning your ruling classes into total pinheads.

I wonder what’s responsible for ours?

Back in the pre-internet days (I’m old), I remember an interesting graph charting SAT scores against the amount of leaded gasoline sold each year. According to the statisticians, it wasn’t so much the inverse ratio (scary as that was, even to the untrained eye) as the perfection of the 16-year gap between each increase in airborne lead and the ensuing SAT decline. Of course there are fewer lead-polluting personal vehicles in the US these days, but the airborne particulates ended up in the soil, and is still being absorbed by the crops we eat today. And we’re amassing more data every year on how toxins in amounts considered infintesimal can cause “soft” neurological damage to the fetus. So there’s some question as to whether we should be making fun of the Romans, at least for their taste in party drinks…

Qetesh, im sorry, you’re wrong on so much of that i can’t go through it all again. if you dont know or understand the details of these instances its impossible to argue with you. if you want a walk-through of the Asian crisis or the argentine one, there’s a really good step-by-step account in frederic mishkin’s book on globalization. still youll find lots of mainstream economists who arent convinced of the supposed benefits of financial liberalization like Mishkin is, see Bhagwati or dani Rodrik or the other dudes DRR cited, most of which i havent read.

all this of course isn’t even relevant to whether free trade is beneficial, which we started this all off with. this relates to DRR’s point, which is that you’re arguing over basic trade theories that aren’t even debated even by left-of-center economists, like Stiglitz, because their value has been seen over and over again through emperical evidence. otherwise they wouldnt bother using them or support free trade.

Good site. Thank you.

Very good site. Thank you!