Monday, September 28, 2015

Measuring Our Means

 One of the most pressing questions we all have is ..... "What should we do next??"   Isn't that the question that every politician, economist........human being for that matter, is weighing in on in one way or another?  No one is really suggesting to do nothing. They may suggest not doing anything different from what we are doing (even though thats impossible) but everyone knows we will do something. The only question is what.  So how do we go about figuring this out?

We live in a world that loves data.  Data is information. Data gets compiled, analyzed, interpreted and then is used as justification for suggesting a next step.  Without the data, a choice of next step would be much more uncertain.  How would we know what to do if we have no way of knowing what will happen?  How can we know what will happen without analyzing what has happened before?

Of course obtaining this data requires tools that allow us to make measurements.  We have to quantify things or else we cant really predict the outcomes of our "what should we do now" questions. We have to know what we have in order to know where we can get to.  If I want to get to Los Angeles within 12 hours from Georgia, even the fastest car in the world won't help me.  Knowing what we have and the limits of its capacity are crucial to even beginning to suggest a next step. Another word for our capacity is our means.  What are we capable of?

I read it somewhere   e-v-e-r-y   d a y   that we have been living "beyond our means" in the past and now we are paying it back and simply must accept current conditions.  Its quite a popular refrain from many.  But how do they measure what our means were.... or are?  How do they know what we were capable of?  The only tool they have is financial.  Graphs showing debt accumulations to a point (around 2006 or 2007) and then a rapid descent are cited as a eureka moment for our macroeconomy when we finally were  shown the error of our previous ways and our now "paying the piper". Of course the unspoken premise here is that our incomes are the measure of our means.  But almost none of us determine our incomes. Our incomes are determined by others.  Do others get to say what we are capable of?

We need to realize the limits of our measurements.  Financial statements do NOT measure our means.   Prices in stock markets or any other market are not measurements of capacity.  This is easily demonstrated by the fact that if a companies stock value or a stock market as a whole falls to a price approaching zero it does not mean that that company now has no "means" for future growth.  Our measurement system is what is flawed.  It is capable of measuring a zero value.  It can give us, as they say in the medical world, false negatives.

Looking at our past accumulations in financial accounts does not give us any information about what our present means and future capacities are.  To assume it does gives too much power to numbers. Numbers which can be manipulated.

I don't buy the "beyond our means" mantra.  Not at all.  In fact I think we have consistently lived below our capacity. Most every human is not close to doing what they can and in their most optimistic moments, really want to do.

 If we are going to use the graphs to castigate the many for living beyond our means we must use the same graphs to castigate the few for living so far below their means.  Why isn't Jamie Dimon living up to his capacity?   If he would just do more the rest of us wouldn't have to go so beyond our capacity

Monday, June 15, 2015

Austerity.... a "How to" Guide

This started as a comment and I needed more space to flesh this thinking out.

"Austerity to do or not to do? "...  has sort of been the academic economists question of  the last decade (hard to believe how long its been since the crisis onset). I know everyone has heard the tightening your belts analogy amongst others.  The thinking here is that when you have taken on too much debt you need to tighten your belt and spend less..... thereby dedicating more to debt re- payments. All this sounds familiar to anyone in a household, which is everyone even if your household is only one person.  All of us know when we have taken on too much credit card or car or mortgage debt we need to stop taking on more debt and use our incomes to pay down what we already accumulated until we get a little more wiggle room in our budgets.  Sometimes our best option is to default or declare bankruptcy.  For most,  bankruptcy is not a desirable place to go.
Anything that puts an individual closer to bankruptcy is bad anything that moves him further away is good.  Some austerity policies increase the risk of household sector bankruptcy others decrease it.

In the aftermath of our most recent private debt bubble (notice how I slipped the "private" qualifier in there....... eh!) which took down some major financial institutions and wrecked balance sheets everywhere in the world, our neoliberal overlords have been admonishing us as irresponsible and reckless. They saw it all as the fault of the borrowers, never bothering to see what the other side of the contract had to do with the final terms and conditions. Putting aside the discussion of  blame for  credit relationships and there ultimate success or failure for just a moment, Id like to next examine the absurdity of some of the recommendations of our thought leaders.

So we have this private credit bubble which threatens banks, households and businesses everywhere (I know banks are businesses too but they should be viewed separately at times because they have a special place in our economies) and there are drops in economic activity everywhere.  This leads to falling GDP.  At this point all focus (of our thought leaders) is simply on restoring bank balance sheets to health, to hell with household balance sheets.  They do this by massive restructuring of debt contracts so that a lot of liabilities of these institutions become liabilities of the Federal govt and its agencies, which ..... ahem..... includes our Central Bank ( a NOT private entity).  So massive private debt magically becomes.................... massive public debt!!   Next, in quite short order, we get cries about rising and unsustainable public debt, from many of the same people who orchestrated the private debt to public debt alchemy described above.  I should probably note that I am at present okay with the alchemy described above ( I was NOT then but was quite ignorant of economic matters in 2007) because I know that it, it being the transfer from private to public balance sheets,  was the right thing to do.  Its how one can stabilize banking systems when you have a currency you control.  Thats how sovereign countries are supposed to function. Its actually quite a Keynesian concept.

However, to do this and then cry about rising public debts is the classic example of the kid charged with murdering his parents pleading for the courts mercy on grounds he IS an orphan.  Of course the response to these cries of rising public debt is to cut govt spending/deficits so we can stop the rise of govt debts.  This is the austerity that is being recommended.  These cuts are in the form of reduced transfer payments and cutting public sector pay and public sector positions. All these recommendations increase the risk of bankruptcy for the household sector.  So not only do these recommendations define chutzpah, as in the case of murderous orphan, they also define ignorance; "We are dismayed by all the households who can no longer pay their mortgages and credit cards as it has caused great stress to our banking system. We will respond by doing what is necessary to relieve the banks stress but we will ask millions more Americans to get closer to bankruptcy by cutting incomes until you have become responsible enough borrowers.....  TINA!!"  This is bad austerity, stupid austerity, austerity imposed by someone seeking retribution.

Now lets look at good austerity.  We should look at differences between how the US and the Euro area have responded to these crises, and how the austerity pushes and responses have been.  Countries within the Euro are not like the US.   They didn't have individual control of their balance sheets because they share balance sheets to a degree with every other Euro user.  This sharing is reflected only in the ECB balance sheets but it is there.  But lets talk about how two countries , Greece and Iceland, have managed the crisis differently and what "austerity" means to both. Iceland left the Euro soon after the crisis.  They went back to their own currency and restarted.  This was certainly a drop from their previous standard of living, but Icelanders were not  in a position to have to listen to Germans or Americans demanding a lay off of their librarians and  a cut to pensions by 30% or whatever.  They suffered and accepted their lowered living standards (without large job losses) and learned to live with less..... temporarily in many cases but even in other cases the lower living standards were dealt with voluntarily and with a reforming of priorities, which is all healthy.
Greece on the other hand has had to listen to their task masters for seven long years.  Europe did the same thing as USA at first. Each countries branch of the ECB took on the household debts that were blowing up the private banks balance sheets (most of them German French or British banks BTW) which resulted in massive expansion of each countries public debt ratios.  Of course the response was the same as here, the same as that murderous  orphan.  "Look at what you did now you lazy Greeks!  You expanded your public balance sheets to take on bad household debt held by banks (as we told you to do)and now your public debt is sky high!!!!  Cut your public wages and spending or our investors won't hold any of your shaky debt!!"   The absurdity of it all really hurts

Greece is still being asked to cut more even though they have cut massively.  The cuts have not resulted in a better economy by any definition of the word and there is a real possibility they will follow Iceland and simply restructure in a new currency.  Only then will they be able to do good austerity.  There is no good austerity imposed on you by others.  Its never enough.  They always want more.  They want more because the first round doesn't give them the increase in their incomes they were wanting form YOUR austerity.  They are playing a zero sum game. They fear their own incomes falling so they want to take a little from a lot of people.  When those gains don't materialize, because austerity leads to less spending/incomes for many, they go back and ask for more.... and more..... and more.

Good austerity is self generated, coming from a place of reflection on wants vs needs. You do things under these conditions which make you less likely to default or go bankrupt.  Bad austerity is imposed on you by some authority deciding you need to pay for something, even if it was something you didn't do.  These things put you closer to bankruptcy.  Oddly enough putting more households closer to bankruptcy seems to be THE POINT of our current cries for austerity out of our leaders. That is why they should be fought...... by the banks as well.

Thursday, November 27, 2014

If He Could Just Throw a Football.......

Michael Brown was murdered by a racist cop.  In defense of the cops actions it was pointed out that Michael Brown was involved in a robbery where he stole a cigar worth less than 5 bucks.  This was supposed to make us understand how dangerous Michael was and urge us to sympathize with his killer.  He was obviously a thug.

Jameis Winston is a football player at FSU.  He stole crab legs, valued by some as around 80$,  from a Publix in Tallahassee while leading the Seminoles to a possible (at the time) BCS Championship game appearance.  FSU people (from maybe the most racist state in the country) urged us to have sympathy for the kid. They decried those wanting a suspension as over reacting to a minor infraction.
The "You wanna ruin this kids life over an 80$ mistake???" cry from the FSU faithful was deafening. Winston had already been charged with a sexual assault prior to this incident, but he was a Heisman candidate bringing in millions to the good ole boys in the  Florida panhandle.

Learn to throw a tight spiral little black boys.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Years of Living Cheaply

Here is some out loud wondering

After six plus years of digging around econ blogs, posting comments and reading everyones pet theory on what is wrong with the world today its clear that everyone with an income (or without one especially) really thinks life is just too damn expensive, in monetary terms.  Taxes are too high, health care is too expensive, education is too expensive and wages are too low.  If life were cheaper we would save more of our income and could feel more secure as we had more to deal with the future uncertainties.  Make life cheaper today so I can put more aside when it gets more expensive later. We want to have more of life today..... but also have enough next year and well beyond.

We all know that as we age things will get more expensive in real terms, meaning it will be harder to do many things, we will require more help or we will just have to give up some things. So in real terms life will get more and more expensive but we want it to get cheaper and cheaper in monetary terms.  Hows that gonna work out?  We've just completely disconnected the real and the financial.

In real terms, at some point the most expensive thing of all, death, will take each of us (I know its the most expensive of all because we try so hard to avoid it). Modern econ views the world of transactions as all having two sides; every cost to someone is an income to someone else, every borrower has a lender, credits and debts, a low rate of interest helps borrower put punishes savers etc etc.  The sheets must balance!  So death being the most expensive thing of all, makes its opposite, life, relatively cheap.  Right?! Life may cost a lot but death costs us everything.

 Now, you might say that the last sentence has it backwards;  "Life isn't cheap, life is the most valued thing we have, we are spending money to preserve life not avoid death!" Okay, obviously seeing life and death as the two sides of the "existence coin" and evaluating our decisions during the life part of existence can lead to some non intuitive conclusions. Obviously everything we do during life isn't strictly a hedge against death (much is an invitation to death and the thrill of avoiding it.... and we pay handsomely for that and to watch someone else do that as well) but I think if we are to believe what economics/finance/accounting teaches us then we really do have to wonder what it means when we want our life to be less expensive to live.  The heart of economics, Ive concluded, is finding a way to properly represent the real with monetary. To find a way where when talking about money, it really does reflect the non monetary part as fully and as honestly as it can. I think my second paragraph above demonstrates how far modern econ thinking is from accurately being able to reflect the real within the monetary. I think its an unbreachable chasm.

We deal with real life.  Life, death, births, weddings, sickness, hunger, accidents...... and we all know that none of these things are free.  Everyone knows that nothing is free.  EVERYONE!  Everyone also knows that the real costs of life are almost never accurately reflected in the monetary side. In fact
Ill bet everyone has said out loud more than once that the real important things in life are priceless. Meaning that no matter how much money they made they could never buy enough of them. Our accounting system woefully misrepresents real costs.  It botches, simply because it has to be as simple as possible, the true nature of many relationships.  Putting things on opposite sides of a coin that put our world in needless tension.  One huge shortcoming of economic thinking is that it can't, and honestly doesn't even try, to properly value work or effort.  So much of the work we do, which ends up being the costs we have to pay to deal with real life, doesn't count in todays accounting methods.  This is how we can have people claim, with a straight face no less, that poor people have no skin on the game and are just moochers.  Poor people have more than their skin in the game, their life is in the game. The consequences of a bad break mean destitution for them and often their family as well. The rich politicians or talking heads making these absurd claims are the ones with no real skin in the game. They are so protected from the real consequences of life, that short a WWIII they never fear of missed meals or forgone medical care.  Maybe this is why it appears that all great periods of accumulation of extreme inequalities end with war.  Its the only thing that gets the attention of the elites because it destroys their real wealth, equalizing them somewhat more with the common man.

How can we even try to make the most valuable thing we have cheaper and cheaper?  And what is the end result of cheaper and cheaper living? According to microeconomics when something is cheaper you get more demand for it.  Its like we are in this bizarro world where we can't get our real world to align with our financial world.  It looks like finance pushes us to oppo- worlds where we have to try and devalue the real things that matter in order for our monetary world to afford them.  We cant let the things we really care about  reflect their cost or we would be broke before age 40, almost all of us.  

The price we seem to be paying for finance is not just monetary, it leads to devaluing everything else.
The costs of finance are the most crippling costs in our society because the lens finance sees things through leads to a necessary cheapening of our real world.  When the goal is to make everything cheap we lose perspective of what matters.

Friday, August 8, 2014

I'll Definitely Need a Shower

Continuing on my non economics posts I do something I never thought Id do;  read an Ann Coulter column and find MUCH to agree with!  I try to avoid reading Ann since she rarely does real analysis. She simply peruses a situation, finds the inevitable easy target of her ire, snarkily points out  to us how this situation was only caused because the world inhabited by the subject has become too liberal and thus was completely avoidable with the right ideology.  You are encouraged to have zero empathy for the left wing poisoned rube, just contempt or at best exasperation.  "That idiot should have known!!" is the unstated opinion.  Throw in a little godless "evil" and you have the Ann Coulter recipe for a critique column.

I decided to read her because while at work last night (I can blame it on the fatigue we health care workers feel from time to time near the end of a long call) a coworker brought up Ebola and suggested to all that we read Anns take on the issue.  Knowing how this guy rolls and Anns modus operandi I initially thought "Yeah right! That will be the LAST person I read on this"  but my curiosity got the best of me.  I read the column this morning.

I can honestly say that Ann and I were very close to having similar views on a couple things.  That either makes her more intelligent than I thought ........ or myself much dumber, likely the latter. I think the focus of her criticism is valid, I just think she blames the wrong things for it.

I want to reprint her column and interject my comments where I think she goes off the rails. My comments will be in bold;


"I wonder how the Ebola doctor feels now that his humanitarian trip has cost a Christian charity much more than any services he rendered. 

What was the point?

Whatever good Dr. Kent Brantly did in Liberia has now been overwhelmed by the more than $2 million already paid by the Christian charities Samaritan's Purse and SIM USA just to fly him and his nurse home in separate Gulfstream jets, specially equipped with medical tents, and to care for them at one of America's premier hospitals. (This trip may be the first real-world demonstration of the economics of Obamacare.) 

So you start off by trying to make the guy feel guilty for doing something his "faith" is telling him is the right thing to do.  Thing is its not just HIS faith. The overwhelming majority of people think that physicians going to third world countries in efforts to improve living conditions with very simple acts (we aren't talking about doing complicated heart or brain surgery) is one of THE most selfless and honorable things to do.  The ONLY way you can reduce it to some absurdity is by bringing in some financial cost element, which was incomplete btw because you made no attempt to put a number to what his efforts may have been worth.  Of course there is no way to value the work those people do which is why we don't have private funding of it, they can't figure their "profit margins".  So just rattle off a number with 6 zeros after it and declare it an automatic loss. And a mention of Obamacare within the first 100 words!!  Good job Brownie!  Hook em early and and get the cheap laughs Ann!

There's little danger of an Ebola plague breaking loose from the treatment of these two Americans at the Emory University Hospital. But why do we have to deal with this at all?

Why did Dr. Brantly have to go to Africa? The very first "risk factor" listed by the Mayo Clinic for Ebola -- an incurable disease with a 90 percent fatality rate -- is: "Travel to Africa."

Can't anyone serve Christ in America anymore? 

These are actually all valid points.  Thank you for at least not buying into the hysteria of an Ebola plague outbreak.  As a member of a Baptist church that does international missions (as well as local) I think we send way too many rosy cheeked and pollyannaish people off to these foreign lands with little clue how much danger we are sending them to.  As someone who has been to a couple places and been around a missional church I have a different take as to the source of this trend though.  

Within Southern Baptist faith you have the SBC (conservative) and CBF (less conservative).
 The churches have money (and our tax laws really encourage church goers to give.... not bad in and of itself) and like to spend it on big things like trips to Africa, India, Romania.....
The youth get all amped up and its a working vacation/summer trip complete with T shirts and local missions are secondary, they do not have the wow factor.  The SBC has a huge international presence and much of its work is in simply trying to find converts.  The international poor are less savvy than the American poor so they can be rounded up, have huge revivals where many get converted and the trip is a success.  Its hard to do that here, because 1) many of our needy are already part of a church and don't want to hear your conversion speech or 2) they were part of a church and now reject religion (especially from privileged white kids) for good reason

No -- because we're doing just fine. America, the most powerful, influential nation on Earth, is merely in a pitched battle for its soul. 

About 15,000 people are murdered in the U.S. every year. More than 38,000 die of drug overdoses, half of them from prescription drugs. More than 40 percent of babies are born out of wedlock. Despite the runaway success of "midnight basketball," a healthy chunk of those children go on to murder other children, rape grandmothers, bury little girls alive -- and then eat a sandwich. A power-mad president has thrown approximately 10 percent of all Americans off their health insurance -- the rest of you to come! All our elite cultural institutions laugh at virginity and celebrate promiscuity. 

So no, there's nothing for a Christian to do here. 

Wrong!  There is plenty to do.... they just don't want to do it since its not as sexy and being a true ambassador for Christ is really hard work.  You don't get the converts every day.  You don't get to chalk up a win every time you go to meet some recently homeless person where they are, instead of where you would like them to be.  See, modern conservative Christians are capitalists in mindset and its killing Christs work. They make the investments in Africa, Asia East Europe where there aren't many Christians and can offer a little something for two weeks to these people, get them to say "Yes, I take Jesus Christ as my lord and savior" and leave, feeling like they got big returns on their investment.  Here, they go to a place where the needy are and they might get slapped if they try and get them to recite something as they get their favor,  so they don't make the investment.  The only return they seek is a pledge by a desperate person.  Of course American poor aren't as desperate as those other places (which really chaps the ass of Coulterites) thanks to many of our New Deal and Great Society programs.

If Dr. Brantly had practiced at Cedars-Sinai hospital in Los Angeles and turned one single Hollywood power-broker to Christ, he would have done more good for the entire world than anything he could accomplish in a century spent in Liberia. Ebola kills only the body; the virus of spiritual bankruptcy and moral decadence spread by so many Hollywood movies infects the world.

If he had provided health care for the uninsured editors, writers, videographers and pundits in Gotham and managed to open one set of eyes, he would have done more good than marinating himself in medieval diseases of the Third World. 

Ahhhh, so its the rich that need conversion!!   On this I would heartily agree Ann but remember who is the party of the rich. Its not just Hollywood that needs saving, banks, energy company CEOs and health insurance behemoths could use a dose of Christ as well.   I wonder why you don't include any of them?
And.... Im curious Ann,  what good is converting a power broker form Hollywood to Christ? Is it so they will produce more movies like "God is Not Dead" that use the absolute worst traits of various atheists and roll them into one villain "professor" at a liberal university.
BTW, what is a medieval disease and why is it less worthy of study than some modern one like human induced MRSA or VRE?
Of course, if Brantly had evangelized in New York City or Los Angeles, The New York Times would get upset and accuse him of anti-Semitism, until he swore -- as the pope did -- that you don't have to be a Christian to go to heaven. Evangelize in Liberia, and the Times' Nicholas Kristof will be totally impressed. 

Which explains why American Christians go on "mission trips" to disease-ridden cesspools. They're tired of fighting the culture war in the U.S., tired of being called homophobes, racists, sexists and bigots. So they slink off to Third World countries, away from American culture to do good works, forgetting that the first rule of life on a riverbank is that any good that one attempts downstream is quickly overtaken by what happens upstream. 

Actually Ann your "explanation" is pretty pathetic. How can conservative Christians be tired of fighting a culture war THEY invented!? Its not the left that makes these issues a ballot initiative. If your tired of being called racist, homophobic, bigoted and sexist maybe you could clue your guys into trying to actually talk about something other than how to deport millions of immigrants, how to keep women from using contraception, that gay is a communicable disease and the "unAmericanism" of the president.  We all know the code Ann.... just saying unAmerican doesn't change what is driving you nuts..... taking orders from a black guy!

America is the most consequential nation on Earth, and in desperate need of God at the moment. If America falls, it will be a thousand years of darkness for the entire planet. 

Not only that, but it's our country. Your country is like your family. We're supposed to take care of our own first. The same Bible that commands us to "go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel" also says: "For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, 'You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.'" 

To your last sentence Ill just add ... "Only if they admit to Christ as their lord and savior"

Right there in Texas, near where Dr. Brantly left his wife and children to fly to Liberia and get Ebola, is one of the poorest counties in the nation, Zavala County -- where he wouldn't have risked making his wife a widow and his children fatherless. 

But serving the needy in some deadbeat town in Texas wouldn't have been "heroic." We wouldn't hear all the superlatives about Dr. Brantly's "unusual drive to help the less fortunate" or his membership in the "Gold Humanism Honor Society." Leaving his family behind in Texas to help the poor 6,000 miles away -- that's the ticket. 

You are right, I made a similar point earlier.  Glad we can agree.

Today's Christians are aces at sacrifice, amazing at serving others, but strangely timid for people who have been given eternal life. They need to buck up, serve their own country, and remind themselves every day of Christ's words: "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you." 

There may be no reason for panic about the Ebola doctor, but there is reason for annoyance at Christian narcissism. 

I have to finish with a disagreement and agreement   They are not aces at sacrifice.  Most American Christians are sacrificing nothing. They are hands down THE wealthiest demographic on the planet.... and I am part of them.  We think we are sacrificing when we pay our taxes and bitch about the guy in the trailer "having some skin in the game".  His entire body is in the game. We put a toe or an elbow and claim we have given up everything

But yes we should very annoyed at Christian narcissism........ look in the mirror Ann and you'll find some.

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Something Besides Economics?

Having been preoccupied with economics and monetary matters for the better part of four years now, I am going to post on something I actually intended to say a lot about when I first imagined my blog....... religion.   My interest in religion is mostly in how bad a job most religion does in actually helping people with their big questions in life.

Religion has become just another sports team for people to blindly support and defend. Few actually think about what any of their "sacred" texts say and how they may have been edited over the years to say what they say.  The assumptions of all religions are that their baseline facts are the right ones to start with, not the other guys'.  Religions all operate with a "model" in mind and their recommendations follow from there.  As I finish these first two paragraphs I am struck by how I could just as easily substitute the word  economics or economists for religion and not have to change any other words. Its all a belief system and Ive grown weary of economists and HOW they go about defending their belief systems. They are not seeking truth, they just want to win. Many Pastors and Priests are the same way.

In an Alternet article,,  the author makes a very interesting statement;

"I don't have a sacred text, or beliefs that I wish to place beyond challenge or mockery. None of my positions are beyond argument. I will change them, if persuaded. My dislike of dogma and my respect (as opposed to "respect") for rational debate doesn't make me weak. Indeed, I hold that the very contingency of my positions are at the core of their ethical force. If you can't point to a line in a book, or the dictates of a religious hierarchy to justify your opinions, then you have to own them yourself. You are fully responsible, and that is, in its own way, as radical and disruptive as submitting to the will of the divine."

The part about owning your own statements and not hiding them behind some line in a text word of some dead "authority" is an important one I think. I hear too many "Christians" say and do reprehensible things and then try and dismiss themselves from responsibility by saying "Its not me saying this, its Revelations 2:16 5-9"  As if to add, "... just take it up with that dead author if you don't like it."

I cannot call myself atheist, I am more of a comfortable agnostic.  I have no wish to be certain one way or the other. I know there will be no proof either way in my lifetime.... or ever.  "Proof" comes from humans....... fallible humans, so we will never prove or disprove a God.  I like having these questions to ask, I just despise the way most people want to actually discuss their answers.  I will be happy moving in many directions on this issue as my life unfolds.   When I see most of the staged debates between atheists and Christians however, I do find myself siding with the atheists most of the time.  I just think too many Christians, humans for that matter, are really uncomfortable with uncertainty and end making all kinds of ridiculous systems to convince themselves there is something that they can be certain about that isn't death or taxes.

I know and have met some of the best people around at my church or surrounding church activities. There are many religiously motivated authors or speakers I get great joy in reading or hearing.  Religion has motivated many people to do outstanding things but as an institution I think religion is a negative force.  It is not uniting people it is reinforcing divisions.  

Wow, I guess I did end up talking about economics after all.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Sycophants and Henchmen

Classifying economists is becoming quite a challenge these days. Austrians, classicals, neo classicals, keynesians, new keynesians, monetarists, post keynesians, market monetarists and now new monetarists.  I have two classifications. Sycophant or Henchmen

When I read an oped by an economist these days they usually are trying to make the non economist believe one of two things.
One;  they want you to believe that the people who are on top of the world calling the shots and determining much of your economic fate, are hardworking smart guys who know what is best and have studied these things like finance and the economics and if you just don't tax them too much or make them follow too many rules, they'll make the world you inhabit with them a more livable place and you'll be happier. These are the sycophants

Two; they want you to believe that "There is no alternative"  this is how its going to be while they are in charge so get used to it. These are the henchmen.

Either  belief you come away with is fine with the guys running the economy.