solzhesnitchin posted:Lessons posted:solzhesnitchin posted:
well from my perspective anyway, then he's essentially saying "the data that would be sufficient to prove my conclusion doesn't exist, therefore you should accept insufficient data as being sufficient to prove my conclusion"
idk... i can see why he started off by referring to how a lot of people have a problem with his whole approach.
as far as i know, nobody is explaining this crisis in terms of empirical data from the entire $70 trillion world economy. i mean, the one you posted uses entirely US data, just like kliman, and the best you're going to get is incorporation of EU data while still ignoring the majority of the global economy that takes place beyond US and european borders. i wouldn't totally dismiss this criticism but it's not something kliman or marxists are particularly guilty on.yea i concede the point. i guess im just used to seeing a certain set of issues being talked about (the "savings glut", trade deficits, deregulation etc) and his approach is very very different. i should really just try reading the book on its own terms.. im particularily enticed by seeing that theres a glowing 43 paragraph review on amazon written by mccaine
mccain is now an editor at the north star lol.
http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10229
http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10362
AmericanNazbro posted:Hey, guess what fuckos: Science isn't real, it's a cardhouse built upon a foundation of lies; What is real, is God. Only he can say what is true.
that is one weird heresy you have going on there
jools posted:you should read their latest output its p good
http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10229
http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10362
that was good nice rec
*still funny mccain is making himself important in the left blogopshere/twitterverse*
babyhueypnewton posted:solzhesnitchin posted:Lessons posted:solzhesnitchin posted:
well from my perspective anyway, then he's essentially saying "the data that would be sufficient to prove my conclusion doesn't exist, therefore you should accept insufficient data as being sufficient to prove my conclusion"
idk... i can see why he started off by referring to how a lot of people have a problem with his whole approach.
as far as i know, nobody is explaining this crisis in terms of empirical data from the entire $70 trillion world economy. i mean, the one you posted uses entirely US data, just like kliman, and the best you're going to get is incorporation of EU data while still ignoring the majority of the global economy that takes place beyond US and european borders. i wouldn't totally dismiss this criticism but it's not something kliman or marxists are particularly guilty on.yea i concede the point. i guess im just used to seeing a certain set of issues being talked about (the "savings glut", trade deficits, deregulation etc) and his approach is very very different. i should really just try reading the book on its own terms.. im particularily enticed by seeing that theres a glowing 43 paragraph review on amazon written by mccaine
mccain is now an editor at the north star lol.
McCain is still a Senator, actually, but he did write a short piece for Pravda. Ha ha ha! Because you forgot the "e"!
jools posted:you should read their latest output its p good
http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10229
http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10362
farming twitter for content i see. maybe he'll contract me to write an article about how TOm is Fat.
babyhueypnewton posted:jools posted:you should read their latest output its p good
http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10229
http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10362that was good nice rec
*still funny mccain is making himself important in the left blogopshere/twitterverse*
why is it funny? mccaine owns bones broham
swirlsofhistory posted:jools posted:swirlsofhistory do you disbelieve weather forecasts and climate science because theyre also tautologous
Meteorologists didn't discover rain after finding atmospheric pressure. Initially the presence of rain was the criterion of rain, set by convention, not the symptom of mercury falling in its barometer. Only later is atmospheric pressure taken as convention for what inclement weather is.
Yes. Yes quite
This Michael Roberts piece looks at some measures of global rates of profit
http://thenextrecession.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/roberts_michael-a_world_rate_of_profit.pdf
Edited by jools ()
blinkandwheeze posted:Very interesting points all round, everyone, but have you considered that Kliman is in fact the best economist because his personal site has a lot of devil gifs on it?
Subject:
Practicing Pluralism: The Devil Is In The Details
From:
Jerry Levy <[log in to unmask]>
(alternate thread title: "Sympathy for the Devil?")
On the homepage of one of the two editors of the
yet-to-be-published (and might-never-be-published)
journal, _Critique of Political Economy_ (COPE),
there are --
(it's true, I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried)
*TWENTY LITTLE RED DEVILS* ! ! !
In between the two rows of 10 little devils
there is the dogmatic slogan (which I alluded
to in a previous post):
"The economists have changed Marx, in various ways;
the point is to interpret him -- correctly".
(ironically, written _by_ an economist!)
It is unclear from the homepage what relation the slogan
has to the twenty Red Devils.
The Red Demons, complete with two horns and a devilish
beard each, do the following:
a) they smile at the viewer, then
b) they wink with their right eyes, then
c) they turn *vicious* and show their *teeth* ! ! !
[The Demon theme also re-appears on his Blog page: instead
of the 'o' in 'Blog' there is a solitary Red Devil. Curiously,
only three paragraphs later there is a lengthy quote from
Hitler's _Mein Kampf_! While he "abhors ... Hitlerian
sentiments" he fails to take note of the irony of quoting
Hitler disapprovingly after just displaying the Devil symbol.]
When did Marxists who (allegedly) advocate pluralism,
find *sympathy for the devil*? Since when has The Devil been
*self-selected* as a symbol by Marxists? Is this how he
understands "Marxist-Humanism"?
There are a multitude of questions that could additionally
be asked about this tactless and perverse graphic (well, isn't it
perverse for a Marxian to identify with graphics of demons?),
but one should stand out in your minds:
*does this demonstrate the necessary JUDGMENT of someone
who is capable of being editor of a journal which is to be
"steadfastly committed to pluralism"? *
*****************************************
There is another slogan from the same web page which
-- in its own bizarre way -- speaks to the ability of the Editor
to be "steadfastly committed to pluralism":
Directly above the heads of the top row of devils' horns is
the slogan --
(showing once again that truth is stranger than fiction)
"I Ain't Gonna Work On Piero's Farm No More".
Piero is, of course, the late Piero Sraffa.
The rest of the slogan is a modified version of the song title:
"I ain't gonna work on Maggie's farm no more"
originally written in 1965 by Bob Dylan.
Well, how bizarre is that?
To begin with, the author of the slogan never worked on
"Piero's Farm". Indeed, the author was never (as far as I
know) a Sraffian.
Secondly, "Maggie's Farm" was a *PLANTATION* and
the singer of the song was a *SERVANT* (possibly a *slave*:
in the original lyric there is the line "They sing while you slave ....").
How *INSULTING* is that for surplus approach theorists?
I.e. the slogan could be interpreted as meaning that the
temporal-single-system interpretation (TSSI) advocate has now
refused to work as a servant on the Surplus Approach Plantation!
And *THIS* is from someone who (ad nauseum) claims to be a
proponent of pluralism! Is *THIS* the way to attract submissions
of articles to _COPE_ from surplus approach and other radical
theorists who are not advocates of the TSSI?
For *genuine* pluralism!
Jerry
An Open Letter1
By Kenneth Rogoff,
Economic Counsellor and Director of Research,
International Monetary Fund
To Joseph Stiglitz,
Author of Globalization and Its Discontents
(New York: W.W. Norton & Company, June 2002)
Washington D.C., July 2, 2002
Dear Joe:
Like you, I came to my position in Washington from the cloisters of a tenured position at a top-ranking American University. Like you, I came because I care. Unlike you, I am humbled by the World Bank and IMF staff I meet each day. I meet people who are deeply committed to bringing growth to the developing world and to alleviating poverty. I meet superb professionals who regularly work 80-hour weeks, who endure long separations from their families. Fund staff have been shot at in Bosnia, slaved for weeks without heat in the brutal Tajikistan winter, and have contracted deadly tropical diseases in Africa. These people are bright, energetic, and imaginative. Their dedication humbles me, but in your speeches, in your book, you feel free to carelessly slander them.2
Joe, you may not remember this, but in the late 1980s, I once enjoyed the privilege of being in the office next to yours for a semester. We young economists all looked up to you in awe. One of my favorite stories from that era is a lunch with you and our former colleague, Carl Shapiro, at which the two of you started discussing whether Paul Volcker merited your vote for a tenured appointment at Princeton. At one point, you turned to me and said, "Ken, you used to work for Volcker at the Fed. Tell me, is he really smart?" I responded something to the effect of "Well, he was arguably the greatest Federal Reserve Chairman of the twentieth century" To which you replied, "But is he smart like us?" I wasn't sure how to take it, since you were looking across at Carl, not me, when you said it.
...
Joe, as an academic, you are a towering genius. Like your fellow Nobel Prize winner, John Nash, you have a "beautiful mind." As a policymaker, however, you were just a bit less impressive.
