Daubert and Rule 702 do not allow a judge to exclude
expert evidence merely because there is conflict or
disagreement or varying opinions. As long as the
expert testimony is gebnerated by a reliable method
and based on fact, conflicts are for the jury (or
finder of fact) to decide. Expert testimony
Re Andie Nachbogebornen: "If Daubert is a defense weapon, and I suspect
it is, it is because firms like mine probably have the money to hire
better experts, .. You don't need an econ degree to do it, just some
understanding of statistics and an operative bullshit detector."
COMMENT: I know nothing
--- Peter Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is also an example of the consequences of pop
> philosophy of
> science. A crude positivism that would have no
> takers at all among
> specialists in the field rules the courtroom. But
> don't worry about
> economics. All heterodox types will be
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Economists barred from court?
it's also the incense I smoke and the little spoon I wear on my necklace...
-Original Message-
From: Max B. Sawicky
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 6/27/2003 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Economists barred from court?
In your case I sus
In your case I suspect the sandals, headband, and love beads
were a dead giveaway.
mbs
also, the voir dire process also is likely to exclude those who can judge
the value of science. When I was being considered for a civil suit jury one
time (in a case involving alleged accounting fraud), it s
Title: RE: [PEN-L] Economists barred from court?
also, the voir dire process also is likely to exclude those who can judge the value of science. When I was being considered for a civil suit jury one time (in a case involving alleged accounting fraud), it seemed that anyone with significant edu
This is also an example of the consequences of pop philosophy of
science. A crude positivism that would have no takers at all among
specialists in the field rules the courtroom. But don't worry about
economics. All heterodox types will be excluded from the hearing, and
the judge will rule that n
- Original Message -
From: Eugene Coyle
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 2:35 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:29544] Re: economists
Jim, I certainly agree with your last sentence. The function of the
neo-classical micro, and the Chicago sub-set, is exactly to serve
the purpose
>From today's Globe and Mail, a poem by Johnn Allemang.
Economics for Dummies
Too bad he drank his way through school --
He might not look like such a fool,
As business titans crash and burn
And all Geoge Bush can do is turn
The Clock back to that fateful day
When his worst foe was not Ken Lay
Jim, I certainly agree with your last sentence. The function of the
neo-classical micro, and the Chicago sub-set, is exactly to serve the purpose
of the business types. They need that story to train the press, politicians,
opinion leaders. The economists' job is to tell the story.
Here are
> "...some men rob you with a six gun...others with a fountain
pen..." Woody Guthrie on bankers. --- Original Message ---
>From: Charles Jannuzi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: 3/20/02 9:09:19 PM
>
>> > Italian guerilla group blamed for economist's murder
>
>>I condemn this bru
> > Italian guerilla group blamed for economist's murder
>I condemn this brutal and senseless act >of violence. Where are the
>investment bankers?
Well, they are busy either helping to run the government or the businesses
that will further enrich Berlusconi. Like with the Bushes, it's hard to te
There may not even be "social fixes"
Ian
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Devine
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 7:34 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:7979] economists in the news
>
>
> from SLATE's summary
Eugene Coyle wrote:
>They should have listened to Rob Schaap
Starting when?
Doug
***
From: Rob Schaap
Subject: Re: Re: U.S.Monetary Policy
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 04:14:35 -0800
Evening all,
If Gre
Six or eight months ago. Maybe longer.
Gene
Doug Henwood wrote:
> Eugene Coyle wrote:
>
> >They should have listened to Rob Schaap
>
> Starting when?
>
> Doug
Eugene Coyle wrote:
>They should have listened to Rob Schaap
Starting when?
Doug
>Perhaps Bush will have the same run of luck that Clinton did.
>Michael Perelman
Perhaps, but Bush is not likely to have the same political luck (see,
below, the news of inaugural protests), which may affect his economic
luck!
* From: "Jay Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Plans Take S
Timework Web said on 12/21/00 11:02 A
>> Perhaps Bush will have the same run of luck that Clinton did.
>
>Perhaps . . . if he hangs around in the Oval Office with his fly undone.
Are you implying that it was the power of the penis rather than the
office? Or a complimentary effect? Now you've g
Michael Perelman wrote:
> Perhaps Bush will have the same run of luck that Clinton did.
Perhaps . . . if he hangs around in the Oval Office with his fly undone.
Tom Walker
Sandwichman and Deconsultant
Bowen Island
(604) 947-2213
Ian, the results of the Romer study should not be surprising. After all, the
Fed is a major actor in determining the outcome of the economy. I would expect
that the steel industry would do better in predicting future short run
investments in steel than the Fed would because the steel industry ha
At 09:48 AM 12/21/00 -0800, you wrote:
>I think that the excessive belief in the new economy gave the Fed the
>confidence to allow unemployment
>to fall below the supposedly NAIRU limits.
I believe instead that the Fed is groping in the dark. They don't know what
the NAIRU is (or whether it exi
I think that the excessive belief in the new economy gave the Fed the confidence to
allow unemployment
to fall below the supposedly NAIRU limits. I believe it also gave the Fed fear that
the economy had
much more vigor than it did when they laid a series of interest rate hikes over and
beyond
Christina & David Romer wrote:
>"Specifically, we ask whether, given commercial forecasts of inflation,
>the Federal Reserve forecasts are useful in predicting inflation. To
>analyze this question, we examine regressions of inflation on commercial
>and Federal Reserve forecasts. We find that th
today's (12/21/00) Wall St. Journal says that economists and corporate
chiefs alike have been surprised by the "sudden" world wide slowdown in
the economy.
They should have listened to Rob Schaap
Gene Coyle
**
"Specifically, we ask whether, given commercial forecasts
We, at Buffalo State College would be delighted to hire two (2)
"seriously left of center economists" so PLEASE SEND CANDIDATES OUR WAY
ASAP
The following add will be in the Dec. JOE
Job Openings for Economists
BUFFALO STATE COLLEGE (State University of New York)
Buffalo, New York
C0 Econome
For me, the important question here is the ability of left/heterodox economics to
reproduce
itself. I do not worship the major departments, but they are instrumental to the
creation
of future generations of economists.
Peter
Anthony DCosta wrote:
> Depending how you are defining "left", we h
thony DCosta
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11/8/00 12:24 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:4103] Re: economists
Depending how you are defining "left", we hired two political economists
this past year. Of course ours is not a "major economics" school, we
are
an interdisciplinary liberal stu
Doug,
You would probably have to go back to the 1970s.
I am thinking of Yale's hiring of David Levine. But
then he did not get tenure. Don't know of any since
him at a "major department," although that may depend
on how you define "major."
There are a handful of Ph.D. granting econ d
Depending how you are defining "left", we hired two political economists
this past year. Of course ours is not a "major economics" school, we are
an interdisciplinary liberal studies program. The job announcement
attracted a large pool of "left" leaning economists for sure.
NN: . . .
My point on debt paydown was more honest curiousity about the economy equity
calculations of debt retirement, since Max has continued to verbally shudder
at its every mention. Given that Republicans voted for an $800 billion tax
cut last year and did not vote on any equivalent social pr
Or when faced with counterattack, pointing out how a rich society can easily
pay for these programmes. Perhaps even constructing an alternative budget.
Rod
The Progressive Caucus is doing an alternative budget.
I'll let you know what they come up with.
mbs
> But if you oppose debt reduction in general, the pool ball in likely
> to bounce off the side and land in the tax cut pocket...
>
> On the other hand, once Gephardt sits in the speaker's chair, I'll
> join you: public investment has been sytematically starved for two
> decades...
>
> Brad DeLong
>. . .
>I also don't buy the argument that we should swallow
>debt reduction to ward off Republican tax cuts. I mean
>this is the lowest form of lesser-ot-two-evilism. Who the
>hell is going to speak frankly if people like us don't?
> Ellen
But if you oppose debt
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken Hanly
>
> I meant this as an ad hominem argument. If I understand
> Nathan's views on Bradley's health care program they go
> roughly like this: Universal health care would be a perfect
> health ca
> It seems to be that what leftists should be doing in continually pointing out
> the fact that many people's basic needs are not being met. Keep hammering on
> education, health, housing, etc. This in spite of the political possibilities
> that Max points out.
Now this does not preclude making t
I meant this as an ad hominem argument. If I understand
Nathan's views on Bradley's health care program they go
roughly like this: Universal health care would be a perfect
health care policy but is completely unattainable at present
in the US. Bradley's health care program at least gives
insurance
Max Sawicky wrote:
> One has to keep in mind that our oh-so-low unemployment
> rate does not include people who have been entering the
> workforce in the present tight labor market. So there is
> a case for fiscal/monetary policy trying to find the 'bottom,'
> so to speak. We are seeing wage a
Ken writes:
> To mirror one of your
>favorite argument forms: if it is necessary to
>pay off some rich bondholders to
>finance progressive social programs, pensions,
>and middle class savings then so be
>it. Better this than seeking for some perfect policy.
>
This is what I truly don't get.
Nathan writes:
>
>Except that's a $30 billion per year upwards transfer by your numbers --
>and I
>am genuinely interested the mathematics of why the whole $230 billion is
>not an
>upwards transfer?
The answer to this is complicated. A lot of federal interest
goes to the Fed, which deducts its o
Are most government bonds held by the rich? Wouldn't a substantial percentage be
held by the middle class and workers and in pension funds? To mirror one of your
favorite argument forms: if it is necessary to pay off some rich bondholders to
finance progressive social programs, pensions, and middl
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ellen Frank
> So we spend $3.6 trillion in tax revenue to retire debt which
> costs $230 billion to service, of which 13% or $30 billion may
> be a net transfer to rich bondholders. Or, to put it an
First of all, while it is true that federal interest flows
disproportionately to the wealthy, it is also true that,
under the progressive federal tax system, the wealthy
pay a disproportionately high share of income taxes.
Years ago, Tom Michl estimated the net upward trasfer
due to federal
. . .
I also don't buy the argument that we should swallow
debt reduction to ward off Republican tax cuts. I mean
this is the lowest form of lesser-ot-two-evilism. Who the
hell is going to speak frankly if people like us don't?
Ellen
Nathan writes:
>
Max, obviou
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
>
> The Repugs are in general retreat on economic
> policy, crushed by the neo-liberal debt reduction
> juggernaut. In a related vein, I've spoken to some Progressive
> Caucus types, and
Does the U.S. really need an expansive fiscal policy right now?
Unemployment the lowest in decades, real wages rising... Seems to me
we should be talking more about qualitative budget issues - what
money should be spent on (health insurance, child care, enviro
reconstruction, a civilized minimum i
Max Sawicky wrote:
>Good argument for a third party, tho unfortunately
>neither the Labor Party, New Party, nor Greens seem
>to have grasped the importance.
Does the U.S. really need an expansive fiscal policy right now?
Unemployment the lowest in decades, real wages rising... Seems to me
we s
The Repugs are in general retreat on economic
policy, crushed by the neo-liberal debt reduction
juggernaut. The min wage is one of the few
sops to labor that is kosher by centrist neo-lib
standards. Anxious to forestall loss of the House,
many House GOP reps will vote for a min wage increase
(as
Wotjek writes:
>
> It thus
>follows, that such individuals' self-interest is to protect the interest
>of
>their paying clients i.e. constituents whose best interst is maximizing
>private wealth my minimizing taxes (the prisoner's dilemma applies here).
>
>Moreover, it is the elected officials
>>ABSTRACT:
>> There is a secret paradox at the heart of social contract
>> theories. Such theories assume that, because personal security
>> and private property are at risk in a state of nature, subjects
>> will agree to grant Leviathan [the state] a monopoly of violence. But what
>> is to
At 08:51 PM 8/24/99 -0400, Doug Henwood quoted:
>ABSTRACT:
> There is a secret paradox at the heart of social contract
> theories. Such theories assume that, because personal security
> and private property are at risk in a state of nature, subjects
> will agree to grant Leviathan a monopoly o
What is happening? How can a major paper quote Baker, Schlessinger, and
Galbraith at the same time? Where are the rest of the bank economists? The
article quotes only one? Who speaks for Wall Street?
What biased reporting! I don't think that this reporter will be on the job
long. He/She mig
Anders writes:
> Doug said that mainstream economists would explain the failure of IBM,
> etc. by saying that in the new international economy, they didn't make it
> because they'd gotten "fat and lazy." I guess what I'm trying to ask is,
> how do smart neoclassicals explain how + when large
Doug points out, fairly enough, that Marx the dialectician dealt both
with abstractions and the nitty-gritty details of capitalism. But so,
for what it's worth, does mainstream economics in its "applied"
fields such as Industrial Organization, which Evan somehow thinks
are marginalized. Thus t
At 10:34 AM 1/14/95 -0800, R. Anders Schneiderman wrote:
>Doug said that mainstream economists would explain the failure of IBM,
>etc. by saying that in the new international economy, they didn't make it
>because they'd gotten "fat and lazy." I guess what I'm trying to ask is,
>how do smart neocl
At 8:32 AM 1/13/95 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Evan Jones writes:
>> ... The character, fate of GM, IBM
>> or any other real-life business entity, big or small, is of
>> absolutely no consequence to neoclassical economics. This herculean
>> detachment is what gives NC economics its eleganc
Doug said that mainstream economists would explain the failure of IBM,
etc. by saying that in the new international economy, they didn't make it
because they'd gotten "fat and lazy." I guess what I'm trying to ask is,
how do smart neoclassicals explain how + when large corps get "fat +
lazy"
On Fri, 13 Jan 1995 08:33:04 -0800 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Evan Jones writes:
>> ... The character, fate of GM, IBM
>> or any other real-life business entity, big or small, is of
>> absolutely no consequence to neoclassical economics. This herculean
>> detachment is what gives NC economics it
Evan Jones writes:
> ... The character, fate of GM, IBM
> or any other real-life business entity, big or small, is of
> absolutely no consequence to neoclassical economics. This herculean
> detachment is what gives NC economics its elegance and its longevity.
It strikes me that one could sa
One more question: how do mainstream economists explain the failures of
IBM, GM, etc. in the late 70s and 80s?
Anders Schneiderman
Center for Community Economic Research
University of California at Berkeley
13th Jan
Is this some kind of trick question? The character, fate of GM, IBM
or any o
At 6:08 PM 1/11/95 -0800, R. Anders Schneiderman wrote:
>One more question: how do mainstream economists explain the failures of
>IBM, GM, etc. in the late 70s and 80s?
Technology changed. Markets got more competitive and internationalized. IBM
and GM grew fat and overstaffed and were outdone b
>The discussion over economists and rationality reminded me of something
>I've been wanting to ask the economists on the list. Is the study of
>complexity/chaos making any headway in mainstream economics these days?
Read _The Economy as a Complex System_, a proceedings volume from the Santa
Fe
Now I am getting multiple copies of messages. Could you please correct>
Thank you.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Elaine--Following is a forwarded message. It must have been sent to
me by mistake. Gil
--- Forwarded Message Follows ---
Date sent: Wed, 06 Apr 1994 14:08:26 -0700
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sally Lerner)
Subject:Re: Economists for a California Single-Payer Plan
Elaine - Go get 'em! I've been really busy, but with classes over will
have a bit more time to keep in touch. More soon. Sally (These penners
sure natter on about some silly things - hope you can get them to focus.)
>Beware of the problems in the Clinton plan re Single payer.
>While orga
Beware of the problems in the Clinton plan re Single payer.
While organized labor and other groups are quite keen to
assure that single payer will be possible under the
Clinton plan (that is, states can opt to introduce their
own state wide single payer program) the last time I
read the Clinton pl
Nathan: since firing off my query I have now read the various
responses to your original posting and understand, more or less, what
a single-payer plan is. No need to reply to my last message! Hugo.
I'm not in California, but I would like to know what a 'single-payer
initiative' is.Yrs, Hugo Radice [EMAIL PROTECTED]
67 matches
Mail list logo
