Friday, August 27, 2010
RE: THIS IS NOT A RECOVERY MISE EN SCENE OFFSHORING ECONOMISTS CASTAWAYS: MS' TRIDENT
Sunday, July 31, 2016
RE NYT MANKIW TRADE WITH CHINA MAKES AMERICANS BETTER OFF
Sunday, October 22, 2017
RE SOME MISLEADING GEOMETRY ON CORPORATE TAXES
Thursday, November 2, 2017
HACKING INTO GLOBALIST MYSTERY MEAT TAX CUT ECONOMICS THE MENU
Sunday, June 18, 2017
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
THE THOMAS L FRIEDMAN FALLACY
Saturday, March 25, 2017
THE ECONOMIST FALLACIES WEALTH CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE NATURE AND CONVENTION
There are so many......
Here is a good one.
People get caught in this one all the time. People like Keynes, Thurow, Piketty, Krugman, etc.
They say, on the one hand, following, say, Keynes, etc., things like 'wide income and wealth disparities between rich and poor, and concentration of wealth at the top of a national economy (whatever that means under globalization) is bad.
So they are against large wealth divergence, rail against it, say government is not doing its job, and something more should be done about it by government.
They isolate it artificially to a domestic economy level, and then blame nation state du jour officials for dropping the liberal ball by not regulating this terrible wealth aberration. It is visible, and evil, and controllable, so they argue as pundits. They also say that government can spend for social welfare programs, and act as an engine for recovery from slumps in a domestic economy, arguing that government is smart enough to do that sometimes, and it can even pick winners among choices about how the domestic economy will behave or react to a government stimulus or restraint. They argue that it is the role of government to affirmatively act as a social safety net mechanism for poorer citizens as part of its very job as a government.
Now, on the other hand, they take a sweeping view of inexorable global economic tendencies for equalization of economic opportunity, and raise the banner of bringing up all boats by free and open trade everywhere, greatest good for the greatest numbers, comparative advantage, laissez faire, things like that. They don't want governments to try to stand in the way of this benevolent and in any event inevitable natural process.
If it happens to lead to gross wealth convergence across national lines, between rich and poor countries, that is an unavoidable consequence of forces which in any event cannot be stopped or regulated properly by any government. Governments which try only get in the way of unstoppable market forces.
The Economists' Nature and Convention Fallacy: Wealth divergence is conventional, wealth convergence is natural.
One might also point out that defining wealth divergence as national, while defining wealth convergence as global, is a different, but related, Economists' Fallacy.
We can save this different economists' fallacy, and further discussion of it, for a later post.
It brings into play the conservative economists' side of the nation versus globe distinction very nicely.
Tuesday, June 11, 2019
ROBOTICS IS AN ECONOMISTS' FAUX RED HERRING KRUGMAN KNOWS THAT HE KNOWS IT IS NOT ABOUT ROBOTICS
Here was Mario Savio, in the 60s, excerpted from DK current post, re automation and Americans' special brand of racism:
"The most crucial problems facing the United States today are the problem of automation and the problem of racial injustice. Most people who will be put out of jobs by machines will not accept an end to events, this historical plateau, as the point beyond which no change occurs. Negroes will not accept an end to history here. All of us must refuse to accept history's final judgment that in America there is no place in society for people whose skins are dark. On campus students are not about to accept it as fact that the university has ceased evolving and is in its final state of perfection, that students and faculty are respectively raw material and employees, or that the university is to be autocratically run by unresponsive bureaucrats.... " MS
After Savio's remarks, a whole lot of these negroes went to jail, you could call it the end of history for negroes as a labor force.
As an aside, Krugman cares more about the welfare of a neighborhood dog than specifically an American negro. He is a globalist. He has bigger fish to fry.
When Trump asked American negroes what had the Democratic Party done for you, he meant the likes of Krugman baby. DK noted in passing that Democrats had done less than nothing for negroes. That sums it up.
Oh, I tell a lie: Democrats have done a lot more for white queers than for negroes. Charlie Crist looked in the mirror one day and exclaimed: Jeez, I'm a Democrat! As a Republican, he had been legendary as Chain Gang Charlie.
After Savio's remarks, a whole lot of these negroes went to jail, you could call it the end of history for negroes as a labor force.
As an aside, Krugman cares more about the welfare of a neighborhood dog than specifically an American negro. He is a globalist. He has bigger fish to fry.
When Trump asked American negroes what had the Democratic Party done for you, he meant the likes of Krugman baby. DK noted in passing that Democrats had done less than nothing for negroes. That sums it up.
Oh, I tell a lie: Democrats have done a lot more for white queers than for negroes. Charlie Crist looked in the mirror one day and exclaimed: Jeez, I'm a Democrat! As a Republican, he had been legendary as Chain Gang Charlie.
No comments:
Post a Comment