patrick.net

uomo_senza_nome says

But the problem is -- you can't centrally plan the economy. An economy is a dynamic complex system. To reduce it to static mathematical models ignores several long term unintended consequences.

Sure--but you can't just ignore it either. You try to control it as best you can. You assume (incorrectly IMO) Krugman's motives and desires. He uses models at times to help understanding, sure.

Massive fiscal policy, when used correctly, is the least painful of evils. Krugman does not ignore the evils--he understands the trade-offs and chooses the course that he feels best manages them.

My guess is that Krugman believes that unemployment is the biggest hindrance we face and our policies should be to lower it. From that viewpoint--deflation is bad.

If you are from the camp-I have a job, F*&# everyone else, then your viewpoint is obviously different. And deflation is OK for you.

Dan8267 says

Tatupu, you bullshitted about my making a Straw Man argument and then made one yourself. To save face, admit you mistake and learn from it. You're like a child that refuses to admit he broke the vase when his parents question him about it. The parents know he broke the vase and want the kid to just admit to it. There's a lesson in honesty here.

Dan--I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. I have done it several times on pat.net. In this case, I'm not wrong. You can BS about mathematical precision all you want. I didn't say no source is reliable--I said that you shouldn't dismiss all of wiki because you may have found one listing you didn't like. fyi--you still haven't answered whether you think having the ability to pay should be part of the definition of demand. Why is that?

Dan8267 says

The thing about Straw Man arguments is that they are almost always intentional deception used by people with no real defense. It's rare that someone accidently makes a Straw Man argument, and when it does happen by accident, the offender typically apologizes for misinterpreting the statement and then addresses the real argument made by person A.

So, now that I've explained why your argument was a strawman 4-5 times, do you admit your mistake? If it was an accident, no problem. If it was hyperbole, I understand. Just get over it.

tatupu70 says

you still haven't answered whether you think having the ability to pay should be part of the definition of demand. Why is that?

You are delusional. I clearly gave my exact a href="/post/1208460#comment-796673">definition of demand and it did not use the word "ability" but rather "willingness". Now willingness is influence by how much money a person has, but no I did not use the word "ability" in my definition. I would pay $100 million for a house if I had $100 quadrillion, but I don't. What matters is my willingness given the money I have.

So, are you saying my definition sucks ass? If so, make your case or shut up.

tatupu70 says

now that I've explained why your argument was a strawman 4-5 times

What color is the sky in your world?

If you think that you have even identified what the real and false arguments in the alleged Straw Man (and learn how to fucking spell it already) argument are, then you are a pathological liar. Furthermore, you made two easily identifiable Straw Man arguments yourself on this page so far and when you are called out on you transparent hypocrisy, instead of correcting yourself you continue to lie about them. The other readers on Patrick.net are stupid enough to be fooled by your lies. They can compare the definition of Straw Man argument provided as a link to the arguments you and I have made and see which ones match. It's not that hard.

By repeating lies that everyone knows are lies, you simply make yourself look worse. At this point, it is clear you didn't make an honest mistake. When you constantly repeat lies, that indicates the presence of bad intentions.

The only thing that you've proved here is that the more often a person cites Wikipedia, the dumber he is.

Dan8267 says

Geeze, I've only been calling this the Second Great Depression since 2007, five years ago.

I've been calling it The Greater Depression since 2007. Mine is more accurate.

tatupu70 says

Massive fiscal policy, when used correctly, is the least painful of evils.

This may be correct sometimes in a working economy. But "massive fiscal policies" cause massive distortion in any economy. Today American economy plainly does not work because of huge previous distortions. As it is today first of all it needs massive clean up. It needs to get rid of all pretend business it has. BTW, that means deflation. Any fiscal policy that tries to slow down the process only extends the pain and is doomed in the long run.

tatupu70 says

Nope--that's not what I'm saying. It's pretty simple--just read what I write. That's what I'm saying.

what the heck man?

Seriously.

You said macro economy. What do you mean by that word "macro economy"? Please enlighten us.

tatupu70 says

You try to control it as best you can.

Wrong. You try to control what you can and you don't control what you cannot.

Rule of law as imposed by a proper government is a form of control that we can control. Self-regulation is a myth and properly established laws regulate the way people interact to ensure there's honesty and fairness.

But how the heck can you centrally plan the whole f-ing economy? The Soviets tried they failed. The Argentinians tried, they failed.

Yes unemployment is a big problem but IT IS NOT THE ONLY PROBLEM.
Too big to fail banks are the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. Why the heck is Krugman not arguing to break up the big banks like Simon Johnson is?

Why should unemployment have the highest priority over everything else (such as massive misallocation of capital and labor due to misguided government and monetary policies)? Why aren't the policies that led to this disaster in the first place, not getting fixed yet?

These are not easy questions, but we shouldn't be afraid to ask them just because Keynesian dogma is super-pervasive.

uomo_senza_nome says

But how the heck can you centrally plan the whole f-ing economy?

I'm sorry, but I'm not following your points. Who is advocating centrally planning the whole economy? Krugman is not. I am not.

uomo_senza_nome says

Yes unemployment is a big problem but IT IS NOT THE ONLY PROBLEM.
Too big to fail banks are the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. Why the heck is Krugman not arguing to break up the big banks like Simon Johnson is?

I would argue that unemployment is a much larger problem than the TBTF banks. I agree they should be broken up--really they should never have been allowed to get TBTF in the first place, but we're here now. I would guess that the problem now is that's it's nearly impossible to break them up until they are healthy.

uomo_senza_nome says

Why should unemployment have the highest priority over everything else (such as massive misallocation of capital and labor due to misguided government and monetary policies)? Why aren't the policies that led to this disaster in the first place, not getting fixed yet?

IMO, unemployment is the largest problem, so it should have the highest priority. And misallocation of capital is NOT solely a government policy problem. The free market does this on its own quite well, thank you. The lack of regulation has been addressed. It's hard to fix the free market problems though--banks and S&Ls need to figure out how to design compensation policies so their execs act in the company's best interest rather than their own. That's not the government's job.

uomo_senza_nome says

These are not easy questions, but we shouldn't be afraid to ask them just because Keynesian dogma is super-pervasive.

I agree we should talk about them. What does Keynesian economics have to do with it?

uomo_senza_nome says

what the heck man?
Seriously.
You said macro economy. What do you mean by that word "macro economy"? Please enlighten us.

I'm saying that what's good for the macro economy in the abstract doesn't mean that it's the best policy for individuals. And I'm certain Keynes wasn't making a judgment on savers.

I don't even think he was advocating an economy with no savings--he was just saying that saving is a drain. Look at Japan. It's a concept.

Dan8267 says

By repeating lies that everyone knows are lies, you simply make yourself look worse. At this point, it is clear you didn't make an honest mistake. When you constantly repeat lies, that indicates the presence of bad intentions.
The only thing that you've proved here is that the more often a person cites Wikipedia, the dumber he is.

OK--I'm done with you. You are more interested in name calling than trying to have a discussion. You are the most guilty of what you accuse others of doing. Dogma has overtaken your thought process and you can't have a rational discussion.

You may now have the last word. And I'm sure the last insult.

Dan8267 says

It should be obvious what arguments I will make since I systematically follow good reasoning. If you cannot predict my response, you're not using logic. Naturally, the converse of this statement is not necessarily true. You can predict my responses without being logical in yours.

Comment: I believe you mean inverse rather than converse. Not a big deal, just the terminology of logic, for which you claim such expertise. And since it occurs in the same paragraph that you talk about how you "systematically follow good reasoning," I feel like it would have been more impressive had you used the correct terminology.

yes, yes, I know, I said back on ignore. I read this on a break at work, and also truth be told last time I unignored, I hadn't put it back yet. I see your shrek like pattern continues.

GameOver says

Krugman is lucky that over half this country's population is mentally-impaired and thus INCAPABLE of remembering how many times he's been WRONG due to excessive BROWN-NOSING of his Beloved Chocolate Messiah.

Actually Krugman has been fairly critical of Obama. Especially for not doing a big enough stimulus.

As for much of this thread which I haven't read in it's entirety, the critics of Krugman miss the fact that when he advocates inflation it is as the least bad solution, given the intractable mess we are already in. The austrians are critical of this, but it seems like what they advocate is total destruction of the economy and starting over. Which is what would have happened if things had taken their natural course since 2008. Even if this would have been better in the long run for some distant future middle class, so ?

When we are in a situation that doesn't have any good solutions, it's very easy to criticize the path that is taken.

marcus says

Comment: I believe you mean inverse rather than converse. Not a big deal, just the terminology of logic, for which you claim such expertise.

Definition of Inverse
Negating both the hypothesis and conclusion of a conditional statement. For example, the inverse of "If it is raining then, the grass is wet." is "If it is not raining, then the grass is not wet.".

Definition of Converse
Switching the hypothesis and conclusion of a conditional statement. For example, the converse of "If it is raining, then the grass is wet." is "If the grass is wet, then it is raining.".

Applying the definitions to my statement.

Original Statement
If you cannot predict my response, you're not using logic.

Inverse
If you can predict my response, you are using logic.

Converse
If you're not using logic, you cannot predict my response.

If the converse is false, then…
If you're not using logic, you still could predict my response.

Conclusion: I know the correct usage of the terms, Marcus. You do not. And yes, I am an expert in logic; it's what I do for a living.

You couldn't even follow the most rudimentary logic that I do for shits and giggles. Don't think that you could follow the far more complex and detail logic I do every day at work all day long.

Seriously, challenging me to a match in logic is like challenging Pavarotti to a singing match, or Babe Ruth to a baseball match, or Mozart to a symphony composition match. I'm damn good at what I do for a living. Anyone who isn't good at thinking and performing meticulous logic quickly and accurately does not last six months in a field as competitive as software development. And you can't bullshit computers. They don't work unless your code is right.

marcus says

And since it occurs in the same paragraph that you talk about how you "systematically follow good reasoning," I feel like it would have been more impressive had you used the correct terminology.

So, Marcus, now that I've shown you what the correct terminology is and that I've used it correctly, are you impressed?

Rank amateurs should not armchair quarterback.

bgamall4 says

You aren't a libertarian if you are for taxing the rich.

I'm not a Libertarian. I believe in the core philosophy of Libertarianism that adults should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they are not harming others or infringing on other people's rights. However, as I've stated before, Libertarians suffer from two deficiencies.

First, Libertarians don't believe in the concept of public property. Yet this concept is absolutely essential for dealing with the economics and environmental protection of land, the oceans, and the atmosphere. No one created any of these three things, yet we all depend on each of them to live. Hence, the only logical philosophical stance is to consider these three things (and other things as well) as public properties owned by the whole of mankind.

For example, privatizing the oceans is not a good idea as a private owner may very well be content with destroying the oceans to extract maximum short-term profit.

Second, Libertarians do not understand or accept Game Theory, the branch of mathematics that deals with conflicts of interests. As such, Libertarians such as Ron Paul tend to follow ideologies unquestioningly applying their principles regardless of the circumstances. Principles should guide goals, not actions. Goals plus environment determine actions.

That's why if I formed a party, it would be called the Rationalist Party, not the Libertarian Party. Nevertheless, the Libertarian Party is closer to my philosophies when it comes to civil rights and international affairs, which are more important than economic issues even in these times. It's easier to recover from recessions than tyrannies.

As for taxation, as I have previously proposed, the income tax should be used only as it was originally intended, as a transfer of wealth from the richest to the poorest by means of funding social services. Today, however, the income tax is regressive as shown by Mitt Romney's tax returns, and it is used for general funding which turns the Treasury into a pig's trough of special interests.

Furthermore, my opinion is that the federal income tax should be a function of the rich-poor gap. The greater the inequality, the greater the gradation and maximum rate of the tax. This will put a maximum level of inequality and force the rich, if they want to become richer, to truly rise all boats.

Dan8267 says

correct terminology

Okay. Well the way you said it was closer to negating the inverse ( "You can predict my responses without being logical in yours" ), but I will grant you that after thinking about it, I realize (and half remember) that converse and the inverse are equivalent to eachother.

Which by the way is something that you failed to mention in your response.

Dan8267 says

So, Marcus, now that I've shown you what the correct terminology is and that I've used it correctly, are you impressed?

Actually I'm glad you asked.

I find that without any exceptions the people who impress me with their reasoning NEVER say things like:

Dan8267 says

I systematically follow good reasoning

or

Dan8267 says

Don't think that you could follow the far more complex and detail logic I do every day at work all day long.

marcus says

Well the way you said it was closer to negating the inverse

No, I said it correctly.

marcus says

I realize (and half remember) that converse and the inverse are equivalent to eachother.

No they are not. The converse of a statement S and the inverse of the statement S are not equivalent. They are different statements.

Statement: If you are a dog, then you are an animal. (True)
Inverse: If you are not a dog, then you are not an animal. (False)
Converse: If you are an animal, then you are a dog. (False)
Contrapositive: If you are not an animal, then you are not a dog. (True).

Perhaps you are incorrectly remembering these rules. I hear memory is the first thing to go when you get old. If a statement is true, the contrapositive is also logically true. Likewise, when the converse is true, the inverse is also logically true.

Once you grasp elementary zero-order predicate logic, we'll start on first-order predicate logic and how it applies in relational database systems.

marcus says

I find that without any exceptions the people who impress me with their reasing NEVER say things like:

That is because you never hang out with software developers. I'm far more capable and humble than most. I don't think you'd be able to make it in the software business culture if you find me hard to deal with. You should see the people I work with. They tolerate fools far less graciously than I do. And I hear Silicon Valley is even worse.

In comparison, I've treated you with kiddie gloves.

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Tony Manero says

The cure is CANNIBAL ANARCHY!

True, that would lower the unemployment rate.

Dan8267 says

The converse of a statement S and the inverse of the statement S are not equivalent.

Fail

A statement P --> Q is logically equivalent to
its contrapositive ~Q --> ~P
(not Q implies not P)

(check this with any simple example if you don't know this, although you certainly should. e.g. let P be all electricity in your apartment or house is out and let Q be your wired lights don't work

The inverse ~P --> ~Q (of P -->Q) is in fact the contrapositive
of Q --> P ( the converse
of the original P -->Q )

I didn't read the rest of your bs above except this.

Dan8267 says

That is because you never hang out with software developers. I'm far more capable and humble than most. I don't think you'd be able to make it in the software business culture if you find me hard to deal with. You should see the people I work with. They tolerate fools far less graciously than I do. And I hear Silicon Valley is even worse.

Your adding insult to injury to yourself here.

I worked for a software company before, and I dissagree.

marcus says

Fail

A statement P --> Q is logically equivalent to
its contrapositive ~Q --> ~P
(not Q implies not P)

(check this with any simple example if you don't know this, although you certainly should. e.g. let P be all electricity in your apartment or house is out and let Q be your wired lights don't work

The inverse ~P --> ~Q (of P -->Q) is in fact the contrapositive
of Q --> P ( the converse
of the original P -->Q )

I didn't read the rest of your bs above except this.

And that's the problem. Had you actually read my post before replying to it, you would have read my statements:

If a statement is true, the contrapositive is also logically true. Likewise, when the converse is true, the inverse is also logically true.

As well as the examples that show the converse and inverse are different statements. That's why there are two terms, not one.

Marcus, why are you such a grumpy old man? You should be happy to learn something from us young whippersnappers! You remind me of the two critics on the Muppet Show, particularly the one on the right.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/14njUwJUg1I

Oh wait, they didn't have t.v. or electricity when you were young. Did they?

You once told me as part of your description of how awesome you are that you can admit when you're wrong.

Dan8267 says

As well as the examples that show the converse and inverse are different statements

?????

The inverse and the converse are logically equivalent and have exactly the same logical meaning.

Dan8267 says

If a statement is true, the contrapositive is also logically true. Likewise, when the converse is true, the inverse is also logically true.

Marcus, you really need to read all the words in a posting before getting your panties in a bunch. I stated the correct laws even before you bitched about your misinterpretation of my words. Merely copying and pasting something you don't understand from the Web isn't good enough to prove your smart.

Okay, you said something that is correct. Bravo.

That doesn't mean this isn't wrong

Dan8267 says

No they are not. The converse of a statement S and the inverse of the statement S are not equivalent.

It's okay though. I know you well enough by now to know that you won't admit you were wrong.

Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

If a statement is true, the contrapositive is also logically true. Likewise, when the converse is true, the inverse is also logically true.

It's more than that a statement and it's contrapositive have the same truth value. They literally say what is logically the same thing.

tatupu70 says

I don't even think he was advocating an economy with no savings--he was just saying that saving is a drain. Look at Japan. It's a concept.

So you're saying Japan's deflation is totally bad. That's your demonstration of Keynes' point on savings correct? Please at least agree on this so that we can move forward.

Japan's deflation also means that they can buy stuff from foreigners for cheap because their Yen is overvalued compared to other currencies. So it's not all bad that they've had deflation

Of course if you're an export oriented economy (classic example being Germany), a strong currency can totally f--k you up with today's currency system.

What we need is a system where the medium of exchange is completely separate and not tied to the wealth reserve (store of value).

In such a system, savers are never discouraged and are never cheated upon and more importantly -- are never FORCED/COERCED TO TAKE RISK, purely because that is "in the best interests of everyone". In this case, the "everyone" is pretty much the debtor class.

I don't like Krugman but it is correct that this is a depression, since the cause of it was not so much the normal business cycle, but the popping of an asset bubble (house prices).
The popping of a leveraged asset has led to depressions, like the tsunami following an earthquake.
In this case, the increased leverage risk assumed by the banks multiplied the losses from the asset bubble popping, with disastrous effects.
The reason Bernake is putting so much liquidity into the system by buying over $2 trillion of bonds is because he is a student of depressions, and he sees the similarity to our situation. Of course he will never utter the word depression to describe our present pickle. He would be foolish to.
If we don't have a repeat of 12 years of FDR following Hoover, we should be OK.
The reaction of politicians to an economic emergency is usually what determines how severe and how long the depression lasts. So far the bad moves by Obama and Pelosi have lengthened this one by several years.

clambo says

So far the bad moves by Obama and Pelosi have lengthened this one by several years.

Hasn't BB discredited these bs claims of yours in other threads.

marcus says

Okay, you said something that is correct. Bravo.

That doesn't mean this isn't wrong

Marcus, only you could use a Straw Man argument against a priori logic.

The word "equivalent" is not synonymous with the phrase "logically equivalent".

Two statements are equivalent if they say the same thing. Two statements are logically equivalent if each implies the other. Learn some fucking English.

Example: Two equivalent statements
Statement 1: The ball is red and blue.
Statement 2: The ball is blue and red.

Example: Two logically equivalent statements
Statement 3: If you are a dog, then you are an animal.
Statement 4: If you are not an animal, then you are not a dog.

In mathematical terms S3 <==> S4, but S3 is not equal to S4.

Just because you don't understand the standard nomenclature, doesn't make the rest of us wrong. Every mathematician in the world would have understood what I said. I can only conclude that you deliberately misinterpret things to confuse and mislead people.

Dan8267 says

Two statements are equivalent if they say the same thing. Two statements are logically equivalent if each implies the other. Learn some fucking English.

Well at least we won't say you didn't have a chance to man up and admit you were wrong.

I admitted I was wrong to say that you should have said inverse instead of converse. I was wrong because they are in fact logically equivalent.

Dan8267 says

The word "equivalent" is not synonymous with the phrase "logically equivalent".

Priceless. Classic Dan.

Not because you might learn anything from me Dan, but instead, just as the mean old man rubbing it in:

Dan8267 says

Every mathematician in the world would have understood what I said.

False. To mathematicians equivalence often has meanings other than equality, depending on context.

For example equivalence can refer to equivalence classes (or equivalence relation):

28 is congruent to 3 (mod 5)

Referring to two conditional statements, because of the context, every
English speaking Mathematician in the world mathematician would know that I was referring to logical equivalence (which I elaborated long before you used this pathetic attempt to wiggle your way out of being wrong).

And they would have known you were wrong and would have no clue that you thought equivalence of logical statements should mean what, some kind of syntactic equality ?

They especially would have known it because they would know that the inverse and the converse of a conditional statement are equivalent logical statements (yes - logically equivalent).

Dan, it's not too late to man up.

Why don't you just say something like, "Okay I was wrong, but I was wrong, because in my need to always be right, it didn't occur to me that equivalence of two conditional expressions (that aren't the same statement) must mean logical equivalence,... my bad."

Marc us, are you really so mother-fucking stupid that you actually think I didn't realize that a converse of a statement is true if and only if the inverse is true when I said

If a statement is true, the contrapositive is also logically true. Likewise, when the converse is true, the inverse is also logically true.

How fucking daft are you?

The fact is you are trying to use nomenclature to argue I don't know the laws of logic that I explicitly stated before all your bitching began. That is a retarded argument.

And don't even start on Group Theory with me. I could kick your ass in Group Theory, Ring Theory, and any other part of Abstract Algebra as I've actually studied these subjects.

And as for predicate logic, don't even talk to me until you can write code like this.

Talk is cheap. All that matters is what you can accomplish.

I've done all of the following. How many have you done?

1. Written open-source code that is used by people on every continent and almost every country.
2. Designed and built a working computer right down to the level of digital logic gates.
3. Built a robot with a neural network capable of learning and obeying commands.
4. Implemented video encoders and decoders.
5. Wrote code that transmits pages of the Wall Street Journal over Dow Jones' corporate satellites.
6. Wrote chess playing AIs.
7. Built ecommerce systems under various architectures.
8. Wrote code for law enforcement that tracks down pedophiles using the information embedded in digital images and displaying the address where the picture was taken on Google Earth.
9. Created 3D rendering engines and applications with 3D interfaces.
10. Wrote various distributed processing systems including audio encoder load balancers and ray tracers.

And that's just to name a few things I've done over the course of my career. You, Marcus, could not do any of those things. Every single one of those things above requires far greater mastery of logic than you could even imagine.

You want to impress me with how good you are at logic? Implement an encoder for MPEG-4. I doubt you'd even be able to figure out how to calculate motion vectors. As they say in Texas, you are all hat and no cattle.

I think someone is overcompensating for a small johnson...

tatupu70 says

I think someone is overcompensating for a small johnson...

I drive a Volvo. 'Nuff said.

Dan8267 says

tatupu70 says

I think someone is overcompensating for a small johnson...

I drive a Volvo. 'Nuff said.

OK--good point.

Dan8267 says

No they are not. The converse of a statement S and the inverse of the statement S are not equivalent.

then later...

Dan8267 says

The word "equivalent" is not synonymous with the phrase "logically equivalent"

I've had time to reflect on this, and I've decided you're right. Any Logician, Mathematician or software architect who was worth their salt, like you, would have interpreted my statement that the inverse and the converse (both conditional statements) "are equivalent,"as

meaning that I was saying they are syntactically equal rather than semantically equivalent.

You're definitely right. I'm sorry you had to go through the trouble of busting out some code again, and listing your accomplishments before I could finally get it through my thick skull that you're right.

( I'm now yelling at myself silently inside my mind..."you idiot !!")

Wow, I actually quite surprised at your change. I had written you off as incapable of abandoning your personal dislike of me and acting rationally. I am glad to be wrong about that, and I appreciate the effort involved in rethinking your position. It gives me hope that if you can correct your behavior, then perhaps there is even hope for Shrek, liv4ever, percat, and others.

In any case, I'm glad that you understand that I wasn't trying to pull one over you, and I hope we can now begin more cordial and sincere discussions of controversial issues. I cannot promise that I won't piss you off again, but I can promise you that everything I say on this site is the honest truth as best as I know it.

Dan8267 says

I had written you off as incapable of abandoning your personal dislike of me and acting rationally.

I know. Before I thought that my personal dislike of you was in fact acting rationally, in the extreme. But I've come to realize that either because of the way others have treated you, and maybe the way they treat you now, when you come to this forum, it's a place for you to liberate your inner asshole, and enjoy a certain degree of intellectual dishonesty that is your true nature.

OF course the other possibility is that you are just a make believe character who writes on this forum. Because I find many of your traits (that I won't list here) to be extremely inconsistent with the personality traits of a good programmer.

Then again, what do I know, I'm just an idiot who has lied to you about having a masters degree in Math, and who couldn't hold a candle to you in any domain.

Please picture me walking away from you backwards, bowing every few steps I take.

marcus says

I know. Before I thought that my personal dislike of you was in fact acting rationally, in the extreme. But I've come to realize that either because of the way others have treated you, and maybe the way they treat you now, when you come to this forum, it's a place for you to liberate your inner asshole, and enjoy a certain degree of intellectual dishonesty that is your true nature.

Well, that didn't last long. I guess I was wrong about being wrong about Marcus being beyond hope or redemption. That will teach me to have any hope in the human species.