Is the Occupy Wall Street movement getting you at all optimistic about
change? What are you getting from the crowds as you walk by? Or can you
even wedge in beside the action to really know? What are others saying?
N.
On 10/11/2011 8:59 PM, Ray Harrell wrote:
The Nobel is not a peace prize. It was made up by the fraternity.
Those stories are just the old forestry method of Europe. "Let it
be." Not a garden but a Trickster in a forest garden gone to
seed. They left the Garden and never made peace with the wild.
The Gardeners are still here in North and South America. They know
the story the Europeans have forgotten. They say that the little
brothers fell in love with human novelty and forgot how to work the
forest for the good of all the web of life. Today they work the
market in the same manner. "Let it be" and follow the Hero
individual in order to become the Master of their fate and the Captain
of their souls. They forget that place in the soul all made of
tunes, of tunes of long ago. For it all to work the extraordinary
must become ordinary, but that will never happen as long as the few
place such value on it and refuse to share. They still believe in
heroes.
Ah Romance!
REH
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *D and N
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2011 10:43 PM
*To:* RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
*Subject:* Re: [Futurework] Most Mainstream economists
Yes, exactly. "Rational expectations", for example, can't possibly
qualify as a theory, being no more than a short string of general,
round the water cooler observations, but its very name carries
expectations of its own. Their connections within the grand fraud of
financial recovery (while still retaining their patina of scholastic
pursuit), have made a Nobel possible; all part of the same club that
allowed Wall Street crooks to keep their bonuses and suffer no
consequences.
N.
On 10/11/2011 5:15 PM, Ray Harrell wrote:
They are just faking it Natalia. They don't know what they are doing
and if anyone should listen to them and fail they will just say: "You
made that choice to follow my lead, I have no responsibility for you
whatsoever." Or as Britney Spears said: "Oops! I've done it
again."
REH
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *D and N
*Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2011 6:01 PM
*To:* Keith Hudson; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
*Subject:* Re: [Futurework] Most Mainstream economists
Saw this today, shaking my head:
Natalia
Two Americans win Nobel for economics
McClatchy News Service October 11, 2011
Read more:
http://www.timescolonist.com/business/Americans+Nobel+economics/5531107/story.html#ixzz1aVqwZKOF
Thomas J. Sargent of New York University and Christopher A. Sims of
Princeton University were praised for analytic methods that have had a
significant influence on economists and policymakers.
*Their techniques have been used to study the impact of fiscal
stimulus programs, such as the controversial Recovery Act of 2009.
Their work also has provided the underpinnings of efforts by the U.S.
Federal Reserve and other central banks to study and manage inflation
expectations and monetary policy.*
*But the work of Sargent and other proponents of the "rational
expectations" theory also has been criticized as partly responsible
for the current financial crisis.*
*Rational expectations is linked to the idea that markets work
efficiently, even as Sargent and others have sought to refine the
theory by accounting for various uncertainties.*
In announcing the prize, the last of the Nobel awards this year, the
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said Monday that the pioneering work
of Sims and Sargent in the 1970s and 1980s had helped policymakers
understand how shocks and policy shifts affect the economy in both the
short and long runs.
Sargent and Sims, both 68, conducted their research independently,
although they spent the early part of their academic careers together
at the University of Minnesota. They will share the $1.5-million prize.
Because economics experiments are difficult to perform in the real
world, the Nobel committee said, "the laureates' foremost contribution
has been to show that causal macroeconomic relationships can indeed be
analyzed using historical data, even in cases with twoway relationships."
In the past, consumers were often seen as passive players, responding
after policies were adopted. But Sargent and Sims integrated people's
expectations, creating a more dynamic framework of looking at the
economy and where it may be going.
For example, if businesses expect interest rates to rise in the
future, they are apt to behave differently than if they think otherwise.
Sargent's and Sims' work has had particular relevance to monetary policy.
Sargent has focused mainly on studying the economic effects of
longer-term policy shifts, such as stringent government budgets that
are now prevalent in Western nations.
A native of Pasadena, Calif., who did his undergraduate work at the
University of California, Berkeley, Sargent acknowledged that the
models based on his research aren't perfect, saying, "some are quite
good, some need improvement."
Sargent and Sims both received their doctoral degrees from Harvard in
1968.
Sims, who was born in Washington, D.C., said the methods he and
Sargent used and developed "are central for finding our way out of
this [economic] mess."
© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist
Read more:
http://www.timescolonist.com/business/Americans+Nobel+economics/5531107/story.html#ixzz1aVqp4oxG
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/10/10/126627/nobel-economics-prize-won-by-two.html
On 10/11/2011 10:58 AM, Keith Hudson wrote:
At 16:20 11/10/2011, REH wrote:
From the article.
"Like most mainstream economists, Alpert, Hockett and Roubini roll their
eyes at the calls for immediate government deficit reduction, which led to
the creation of the supercommittee. Reducing government spending in the
short term will only make things worse."
Except on this list
(KH) Which I suppose means me among one or two others. On the
contrary, Prof Thomas Sargent of New York University, whose work has
been tried and tested for over 60 years and was given the Nobel Prize
for it only a few days ago has said this:
"I had [recently] read an Obama administration's Council of Economic
Advisers document e-mailed to me by my friend John Taylor. I agreed
with John that the CEA calculations were surprisingly naive for 2009.
They were not informed by what we learned after 1945. . . .In early
2009, President Obama's economic advisers seem to have understated the
substantial professional uncertainty and disagreement about the wisdom
of implementing a large fiscal stimulus. In early 2009, I recall
President Obama as having said that while there was ample disagreement
among economists about the appropriate monetary policy and regulatory
responses to the financial crisis, there was widespread agreement in
favor of a big fiscal stimulus among the vast majority of informed
economists. His advisers surely knew that was not an accurate
description of the full range of professional opinion. President Obama
should have been told that there are respectable reasons for doubting
that fiscal stimulus packages promote prosperity, and that there are
serious economic researchers who remain unconvinced."
KSH
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2011/10/
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
