Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
John Williams wrote: Can some complex systems be analyzed by comparison to a more simple system? Sure, there are plenty of examples, although most of them are in the physical sciences rather than the social sciences. Asimov's psychohistory made a great story, but it does not work in practice. There are precious little useful predictions coming out of economics. Do you mean predictions in the historical sense? Doug Kidding, just kidding... ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 10:41 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: Oh, come on. You espouse libertarian ideologies constantly, Mr. Keep the Government out of Everything, Please. And what ideologies do you espouse? Not arguing that way, for one. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: The analogy I used that led to your little tirade on the subject was meant to illustrate the proper use of the word predict. How is the word predict a complex system? Since I wrote no bitching or tirades, you will have to forgive me for not following what you were referring to. My point was about the burning building analogy. I did not read much of anything you wrote about the meaning of predict. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On 30 Aug 2009 at 12:22, John Williams wrote: One of a doctor's fundamental guidelines is do no harm. A responsible doctor would never operate on a patient to remove the appendix simply because the patient complains of a stomach ache. More information about the state of the patient is needed before an operation is justified. An excellent example. Doctors are expected to remove a certain percentage of healthy appendixes. I can't remember the exact percentage, but it's significant. Why? Because the effects of an acute burst appendix are so nasty. If a doctor isn't removing enough healthy ones, then he is actually not serving his patents properly. You may wish to reflect on this as regards your stance. (And no, I don't see any need to repeat the clear mistakes Japan made and have a lost decade here, thanks) AndrewC ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
John Williams wrote: So now you implicitly claim not only to be able to predict what would happen if the government did not intervene immediately after the various investment bank problems, but also what would have happened many months after that under the influence of unknown intervention efforts. Since distinguished economists have repeatedly failed to predict much simpler things on shorter time scales, I find your claim highly dubious. You probably know this, but a prediction is knowing something before it happens, not extrapolating what would have happened after the fact. In a baseball game, if an error is made on a play that would have ended an inning and a number of runs are scored afterwards, its not much of a stretch to say that if the error had not occurred, the runs wouldn't have scored. It is certainly not a prediction. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 10:50 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: I think it's disingenuous to say that we had no idea what would have happened. Many more banks would have failed, Yes, but that is not necessarily a cost. In many cases, I consider it a benefit. Haven't you argued that the failing banks and businesses are the result of cascading effects of public policy? And if so, why would you not expect further cascading effects? Isn't it common sense that major failures are likely to trigger other failures? Haven't we seen that repeatedly in our nation and others? It makes a lot of sense to me to intervene as little as possible, but you seem to be arguing that any intervention is wrong. How do you buy time to fix the system? Do you let the whole thing collapse just to make sure that your point is clear and some reform is needed? Isn't that devastately clear already? People, even liberals, can learn without enduring the worst of consequences. You sound like a doctor who advocates letting people die in the emergency room to teach everybody else a safety lesson. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: In a baseball game, if an error is made on a play that would have ended an inning and a number of runs are scored afterwards, its not much of a stretch to say that if the error had not occurred, the runs wouldn't have scored. It is certainly not a prediction. Taking a complicated situation and equating it to a simple one, and then assuming that what holds for the simple situation holds for the complex one, is likely to lead to incorrect information, flawed decisions, and overconfidence in one's ability to predict the evolution of the complicated situation. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: It makes a lot of sense to me to intervene as little as possible, but you seem to be arguing that any intervention is wrong. How do you buy time to fix the system? Do you let the whole thing collapse just to make sure that your point is clear and some reform is needed? Isn't that devastately clear already? I am arguing that intervention has costs and benefits. In this case, the costs are vast, and the benefits are largely unknown. I am also pointing out that there are millions of people in the US who can be involved in making things better, and that this can happen without any central intervention by the government. Additionally, government intervention often hampers the efforts of those who are most able to come up with solutions to problems through their unique knowledge and skills. People, even liberals, can learn without enduring the worst of consequences. You sound like a doctor who advocates letting people die in the emergency room to teach everybody else a safety lesson. You are implicitly making a prediction -- that the consequences would have been the worst if there were no immediate government intervention. I have seen no evidence of the accuracy of your predictions, in fact, I have seen evidence of the unreliability of them. So I must discount your implicit prediction. One of a doctor's fundamental guidelines is do no harm. A responsible doctor would never operate on a patient to remove the appendix simply because the patient complains of a stomach ache. More information about the state of the patient is needed before an operation is justified. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 12:22 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote You are implicitly making a prediction -- that the consequences would have been the worst if there were no immediate government intervention. I have seen no evidence of the accuracy of your predictions, in fact, I have seen evidence of the unreliability of them. So I must discount your implicit prediction. What predictions of mine have been unreliable? If you mean predicting the kind of arguments you'll make, I think I have scored 100 percent on the positive side. One of a doctor's fundamental guidelines is do no harm. A responsible doctor would never operate on a patient to remove the appendix simply because the patient complains of a stomach ache. More information about the state of the patient is needed before an operation is justified. So, you're saying that Bernanke, etc., didn't have enough information to make the decisions they made? They should have taken advantage of further diagnostic techniques? Such as? Perhaps you are familiar with the existence of exploratory surgery? I can assure you, from my own experience and expertise, that you that you chose one of the very hardest differential diagnoses that is routinely made in emergency rooms, where the consequences of a mistake can be peritonitis, which is often fatal. In other words, a good analogy for the economy, where it often can be very hard to really know what's wrong until you begin very invasive treatment, but if you want, the patient has a reasonable chance of going downhill rapidly. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
Rob, we're having some talk of medical school in Austin. I haven't seen new construction on that, though. If there is new construction, I could be totally clueless right now, though. No new hospital construction *now* that I know of in Austin. They put up 2 in Round Rock east of IH-35 -- a Scott White near the outlet mall (my directions there to anyone coming from my direction include turn left just after you pass the hospital entrance on the right) and a Seton east of there. (And there was supposed to be massive road improvement right around the Seton one, but that particular bond package was voted down for some reason or another.) And there's likely something happening in other areas outside of Austin, but again, I'm out of the loop, big-time, for anything that's not close to Pflugerville. (Those Round Rock hospitals are pushing it, but between the outlet mall and knowing someone who was on bedrest during a pregnancy in that area, I drive around there often enough to have some clue as to just how many cows are being displaced.) Julia ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: What predictions of mine have been unreliable? Real estate investment. So, you're saying that Bernanke, etc., didn't have enough information to make the decisions they made? They should have taken advantage of further diagnostic techniques? Such as? All of them. But most of all, time to observe and study the situation. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
John Williams wrote: Taking a complicated situation and equating it to a simple one, and then assuming that what holds for the simple situation holds for the complex one, is likely to lead to incorrect information, flawed decisions, and overconfidence in one's ability to predict the evolution of the complicated situation. Is the complicated situation the misuse of the word predict? That's what the analogy was intended to illustrate. Beyond that, an analogy is intended to be a simplified version of the subject in order that the reader better understand what the writer is trying to convey. Thus if I say The building is shaped like an inverted cone. the reader gets an immediate picture of what I am trying to convey. I'm not trying to say that the cone is the same as the building, only that they have similarities in shape. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: I'm not trying to say that the cone is the same as the building, only that they have similarities in shape. In which case, the analogy is useless for drawing conclusions, unless you first list every similarity and difference to the actual situation. In which case, why not discuss the actual situation instead of absurd burning building or sports analogies? As for meaning of the word predict, I'm not interested in a discussion. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
Original Message: - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:14:11 -0700 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader Taking a complicated situation and equating it to a simple one, and then assuming that what holds for the simple situation holds for the complex one, is likely to lead to incorrect information, flawed decisions, and overconfidence in one's ability to predict the evolution of the complicated situation. You are very very quite about yourself, but your posts indicate someone who has never had to properly simplify a complex situation in order to succeed. I don't think I've corresponded with anyone who writes as though they believe that Murphy's laws never apply to complex systems, and that humans can do nothing but make things worse. Your posts make the antagoist of Earth a look protechnical. :-) Dan M. mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
I origionally just hit reply to while multitaking and the returned it just to John. I'm sorry that it didn't go to the list, but I'm using my portable which does not have my main sorter. BTW, the below is not intended as a flame, but an accurate statement of what the posts indicate to me. I have never ever heard anyone who I know had sucessfully adressed very complex issues say or write what John writes about complex issues. It is possible that I have read such a disbelief in Murphy's laws in the last 15 or so years on line, but I don't recall. You are very very quite about yourself, but your posts indicate someone who has never had to properly simplify a complex situation in order to succeed. I don't think I've corresponded with anyone who writes as though they believe that Murphy's laws never apply to complex systems, and that humans can do nothing but make things worse. Your posts make the antagoist of Earth a look protechnical. :-) It's funny that some of his posts have brin-l as the main return and some don't. Finally, I'm sorry if folks, like John, are offended that I spare time writing to this list in between real work. Dan M. myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
Dan wrote: I origionally just hit reply to while multitaking and the returned it just to John. I'm sorry that it didn't go to the list, but I'm using my portable which does not have my main sorter. BTW, the below is not intended as a flame, but an accurate statement of what the posts indicate to me. I have never ever heard anyone who I know had sucessfully adressed very complex issues say or write what John writes about complex issues. It is possible that I have read such a disbelief in Murphy's laws in the last 15 or so years on line, but I don't recall. You are very very quite about yourself, but your posts indicate someone who has never had to properly simplify a complex situation in order to succeed. I don't think I've corresponded with anyone who writes as though they believe that Murphy's laws never apply to complex systems, and that humans can do nothing but make things worse. Your posts make the antagoist of Earth a look protechnical. :-) It's funny that some of his posts have brin-l as the main return and some don't. Finally, I'm sorry if folks, like John, are offended that I spare time writing to this list in between real work. I'm offended that you don't proof your posts! Quite for quiet (I think), antigoist for antagonist (I think) and spare for spend (I think). I guess I should just be happy that you didn't truncate half a paragraph!! I kid you, I'm not offended in the least. And I know what you meant. 8^) Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
John Williams wrote: In which case, the analogy is useless for drawing conclusions, unless you first list every similarity and difference to the actual situation. In which case, why not discuss the actual situation instead of absurd burning building or sports analogies? As for meaning of the word predict, I'm not interested in a discussion. How ironic is it that someone who claims to be such a libertarian is so adamant about restricting my rhetorical style! Its kind of like a prostitute lecturing people about chastity. Oops, there I go again... Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 5:58 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: You are very very quite about yourself, but your posts indicate someone who has never had to properly simplify a complex situation in order to succeed. I don't think I've corresponded with anyone who writes as though they believe that Murphy's laws never apply to complex systems, and that humans can do nothing but make things worse. Your posts make the antagoist of Earth a look protechnical. :-) I couldn't agree more... and I must admit that's partly because I see myself as one who is good a simplifying complex problems to solve them. In the words of my last boss (which are memorialized in a recommendation on LinkedIn), [Nick] can analyze and decompose highly complex problems and synthesize solutions. And I'm pretty sure that was a compliment. ;-) Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: How ironic is it that someone who claims to be such a libertarian is so adamant about restricting my rhetorical style! When did I claim to be a libertarian? And why exactly am I obligated to discuss something with you that I do not want to? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
John Williams wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: How ironic is it that someone who claims to be such a libertarian is so adamant about restricting my rhetorical style! When did I claim to be a libertarian? Perhaps you did not, I apologize if I mis-characterized you but you certainly espouse their ideals. And why exactly am I obligated to discuss something with you that I do not want to? You are most definitely not obligated to talk about anything at all. I was talking about your bitching about my use of analogy. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 8:36 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: How ironic is it that someone who claims to be such a libertarian is so adamant about restricting my rhetorical style! When did I claim to be a libertarian? Oh, come on. You espouse libertarian ideologies constantly, Mr. Keep the Government out of Everything, Please. Catch 60 Minutes tonight, talking about how deregulation in financial markets in 2000 essentially legalized betting on financial instruments, which had been illegal for most of the 20th century? That's what opened the doors to credit default swaps and other credit derivatives... the modern equivalent of Wall Street's bucket shops, which I hadn't known about until I heard this. What was a felony suddenly became legal, at the behest of Wall Street, and it was justified by the very arguments you make here - government regulation, intervention is bad, leave the market alone, they're all grown-ups and the market will fix any problems that come up. And look what happened instead - wild betting on mortgages, so confusing and byzantine that nobody knows what any of it really is worth. And this is a good? This federal deregulation actually stopped the states from enforcing anti-gambling and anti-bucket shop laws, passed after the crash of '07, in the financial markets. You'd think that would have been a strong clue that this would go badly. Now we know. Yet some still insist that we should not regulate these things. Oy. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett nick.arn...@gmail.com To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 10:56 PM Subject: Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 8:36 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: How ironic is it that someone who claims to be such a libertarian is so adamant about restricting my rhetorical style! When did I claim to be a libertarian? Oh, come on. You espouse libertarian ideologies constantly, Mr. Keep the Government out of Everything, Please. Catch 60 Minutes tonight, talking about how deregulation in financial markets in 2000 essentially legalized betting on financial instruments, which had been illegal for most of the 20th century? That's what opened the doors to credit default swaps and other credit derivatives... the modern equivalent of Wall Street's bucket shops, which I hadn't known about until I heard this. What was a felony suddenly became legal, at the behest of Wall Street, and it was justified by the very arguments you make here - government regulation, intervention is bad, leave the market alone, they're all grown-ups and the market will fix any problems that come up. And look what happened instead - wild betting on mortgages, so confusing and byzantine that nobody knows what any of it really is worth. And this is a good? This federal deregulation actually stopped the states from enforcing anti-gambling and anti-bucket shop laws, passed after the crash of '07, in the financial markets. You'd think that would have been a strong clue that this would go badly. Now we know. Yet some still insist that we should not regulate these things. Oy. I find it humorous that those who believe in an invisible hand might ridicule the belief in an invisible pink unicorn. xponent A Smorgasbord Of Delicious Ironies Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: You are most definitely not obligated to talk about anything at all. I was talking about your bitching about my use of analogy. It was not bitching, there was a point I was trying to make: taking a complicated system like the US economy, and comparing it to something far less complex, and then drawing conclusions from the simple comparison leads to incorrect information, and overconfident predictions. Can some complex systems be analyzed by comparison to a more simple system? Sure, there are plenty of examples, although most of them are in the physical sciences rather than the social sciences. Asimov's psychohistory made a great story, but it does not work in practice. There are precious little useful predictions coming out of economics. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
Oh, come on. You espouse libertarian ideologies constantly, Mr. Keep the Government out of Everything, Please. And what ideologies do you espouse? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:30 PM, xponentrobxponent...@comcast.net wrote: I find it humorous that those who believe in an invisible hand might ridicule the belief in an invisible pink unicorn. Not sure what invisible pink unicorns have to do with this thread. But as for hands, there are hundreds of millions of them in the US. Few of them invisible. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
John wrote: I think I understood your point. Mine was that economists are not really experts in any useful knowledge. They cannot predict the course of the economy any better than non-economists. Also, I dispute your claim that the vast majority of economist are in favor of throwing money at the situation. Here are hundreds of economists who disagree with that approach: Apparently you not only misunderstand my point, you've lost track of the argument. I said the vast majority of economists said that there was a huge problem I'm pretty sure there was nothing in there about throwing money at the problem. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: Apparently you not only misunderstand my point, you've lost track of the argument. I said the vast majority of economists said that there was a huge problem I'm pretty sure there was nothing in there about throwing money at the problem. Okay, Doug, let's assume I've lost track of your argument. Please set me straight. So, your argument goes, a vast majority of economists said that there was a huge problem. And? Is there more to what you are saying? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
John wrote: And? Is there more to what you are saying? In your initial post in this thread, particularly in the last paragraph, you seemed to be belittling the idea that we are in the midst of a major economic crisis. That's what I was responding to. Perhaps I was mistaken. In any case, I would agree that while most economists probably felt that some type of bailout was advisable, saying that the vast majority of them did would be an overstatement. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: In your initial post in this thread, particularly in the last paragraph, you seemed to be belittling the idea that we are in the midst of a major economic crisis. That's what I was responding to. Perhaps I was mistaken. I'm not sure how to rate the severity of an economic crisis on any absolute scale, since the complexity of a large economy such as the US defies any such simple metrics. So I did not mean say that there was not (or was) a bad situation. My point was rather that Bernanke, and others like him, were invested in making the situation seem dire AND that unless there were swift and large government intervention, that the consequences would be inconceivable. After painting that picture, and intervening, Bernanke et al. then began proclaiming how their intervention had prevented such a calamity. All with no real proof -- in fact, the success of the whole scheme depends on there being no possible way to disprove their alleged genius and heroics -- but just scare tactics and bluster. So, it was a one-two punch. Make the situation sound unimaginably bad, and then persuade people that he saved them from disaster. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
John wrote: So, it was a one-two punch. Make the situation sound unimaginably bad, and then persuade people that he saved them from disaster. Or you could make it sound like the situation was overblown and convince people that they were just trying to make heroes of themselves. I find it extremely difficult to believe that his primary motivation in all this is to make himself look good. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: Or you could make it sound like the situation was overblown and convince people that they were just trying to make heroes of themselves. The point is, because of his actions, we do not know and cannot know. Considering the vast amounts of other people's money that he has spent and the great moral hazard that he has created, the responsible thing to have done would have been to have carefully studied the situation, looking at what would actually happen, while simultaneously preparing contingency plans it case intervention was deemed necessary after careful study. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
John wrote: The point is, because of his actions, we do not know and cannot know. Considering the vast amounts of other people's money that he has spent and the great moral hazard that he has created, the responsible thing to have done would have been to have carefully studied the situation, looking at what would actually happen, while simultaneously preparing contingency plans it case intervention was deemed necessary after careful study. I have to go back to the burning building analogy. If you sit there and study the situation for a while, in all likelihood the window of opportunity to actually prevent the disaster will pass before you determine what it is you think might work. In any case, since you have no faith in economists, who would you have study the situation? Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: I have to go back to the burning building analogy. Which, as I already explained, is a useless analogy and not worth further comment. In any case, since you have no faith in economists, who would you have study the situation? Everyone who wishes to. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
John wrote: I wrote: I have to go back to the burning building analogy. Which, as I already explained, is a useless analogy and not worth further comment. Because it renders your whole speculative argument moot? Your so called explanation was: It would also be silly to think the US economy is even in the same ballpark of being understood as a burning building. So we are to assume on your say so that economic emergencies do not exist? In any case, since you have no faith in economists, who would you have study the situation? Everyone who wishes to. Now there is a useless answer. How is this everyone who wishes to supposed to do anything about the situation if and when they figure out what to do? Are they a committee? The Everyone Who Wishes To committee? Would we give them a commission and an annual budget? Yikes. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On 8/29/2009 6:17:25 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: My point was rather that Bernanke, and others like him, were invested in making the situation seem dire AND that unless there were swift and large government intervention, that the consequences would be inconceivable. After painting that picture, and intervening, Bernanke et al. then began proclaiming how their intervention had prevented such a calamity. All with no real proof -- in fact, the success of the whole scheme depends on there being no possible way to disprove their alleged genius and heroics -- but just scare tactics and bluster. Or on the other hand, they did do a good job of it and people of your political stripe are invested in pretending that they did nothing of any worth. xponent Backbiters Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: Because it renders your whole speculative argument moot? No, because it is a useless analogy. Why not talk about the actual situation instead? Your so called explanation was: No, that was a summation, not my explanation. So we are to assume on your say so that economic emergencies do not exist? Why would you do that? Now there is a useless answer. How is this everyone who wishes to supposed to do anything about the situation if and when they figure out what to do? We were not talking about doing anything, as you pointed out to me before. We were talking about the extent of the problem. You seem to be worried about damage that might have happened if the government had not intervened without allowing enough time for the situation to play out and be well understood. I do not deny that it is possible that there could be some cost from not intervening swiftly. But my point is that we do not know what that cost is, because it was never observed, and predictions of economists in these sorts of situations are unreliable. In contrast, we know very well the vast costs of the government intervention. Many hundreds of billions of dollars spent, trillions of dollars pledged, and a huge moral hazard that will make such problems more likely to occur in the future. So we have a vast cost, and we have no idea what the benefits were that were bought with that cost. I, for one, demand more proof that my money is being used wisely. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
Or on the other hand, they did do a good job of it and people of your political stripe are invested in pretending that they did nothing of any worth. Immense government debt, rapidly increasing with no end in sight, high unemployment, and the many of the large financial companies that caused the problems still operating because the government bailed them out. That does not look like a good job to me. Obviously the politicians will argue that unemployment would have been higher if they had not intervened, but there is no way to prove that either way. It could have been lower if they had not intervened. No one can know. But two things can be known. Many of the companies at fault would now be bankrupt if the government had not intervened. And the government would have spent a lot less and be on the hook for hugely less if there had been no intervention. The future would look a lot brighter now if government debt were a lot lower and companies that are known to invest recklessly and take taxpayer dollars when they screw up were no longer operating. If Bernanke had achieved that future outlook, then it would be a good job. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On 8/29/2009 8:23:09 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: Or on the other hand, they did do a good job of it and people of your political stripe are invested in pretending that they did nothing of any worth. Immense government debt, rapidly increasing with no end in sight, high unemployment, and the many of the large financial companies that caused the problems still operating because the government bailed them out. That does not look like a good job to me. Obviously the politicians will argue that unemployment would have been higher if they had not intervened, but there is no way to prove that either way. It could have been lower if they had not intervened. No one can know. Utter bullshit, and I'm calling you on it. If GM and Chrysler had gone out of business there would have been a wave of unemployment like we have never seen in our lifetime. There would have been no one to pick up all those unemployed in the short to medium term. If Goldman and several other of the troubled financials had gone under, there would have been such a hole in the overnight paper market that the entire economy would have locked up AGAIN, like it did last September only this time it would have been for a significant length of time rather than just 4 hours. But two things can be known. Many of the companies at fault would now be bankrupt if the government had not intervened. And the government would have spent a lot less and be on the hook for hugely less if there had been no intervention. Bankrupt like Lehman Bros.? The future would look a lot brighter now if government debt were a lot lower and companies that are known to invest recklessly and take taxpayer dollars when they screw up were no longer operating. If Bernanke had achieved that future outlook, then it would be a good job. John.you filter the facts too selectively. AFAIC, Bernanke did just good enough to skirt serious consequences in the short term. How this turns out over the next few years remains to be seen. We still have inflationary pressures to worry about and that is serious business. I don't have any particular skills in economics or finance, but I was warning about this crisis coming over 2 years ago. I just listen to financial news for about an hour before work, but it seemed clear that bad times were coming. I see another crisis coming. Here in Houston, in the Texas Medical Center, they are building bio-medical research facilities, and hospitals, and all over this region they are building hospitals and clinics like there is no tomorrow. The clinics are costing just a few millions each, but the hospitals and research buildings are each hundreds of million dollar facilities. There is billions being spent here in just one city/region and concentrated in a short time period. It seems like overkill and a significant portion is government funded (UTHS, UTMB, M D Anderson, Texas Childrens, The Heart Center, St Lukes and several others) From the building where I work I can see a dozen cranes and at home I can see (from my front door) at least 3 hospitals being built. I forsee a major contraction after these facilities open, attracting talent from all over the nation, then stranding these folks when the cash dries up. I really wonder what is going on. Is anyone else seeing medical related construction on this scale in their area? xponent Disaster Lurks Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: If GM and Chrysler had gone out of business there would have been a wave of unemployment like we have never seen in our lifetime. There would have been no one to pick up all those unemployed in the short to medium term. Or not. The system is much too complex to make these kind of off-the-cuff predictions. Most people are not even aware of the numbers involved. When the monthly employment net change numbers come out, and there is a change of +200K or -120K or whatever, the actual number of people who were hired in a new job or lost a job are much higher, in the millions. Compare gross jobs gained or lost in a quarter (often around 10million) to the number of people employed by GM or Chrysler. Then look at gross jobs for a year. People change jobs in the millions all the time. A complex economy like the US has a large churn rate, and it is nearly impossible to predict exactly what jobs will be created and destroyed even 1 year ahead. If Goldman and several other of the troubled financials had gone under, there would have been such a hole in the overnight paper market that the entire economy would have locked up AGAIN, like it did last September only this time it would have been for a significant length of time rather than just 4 hours. Or not. There millions of knowledgeable and skilled people in this country. Likely most of them would have found ways to keep going with things important to them. Many solutions would have been tried, and the bad ones would tend to fail while the good ones pick up steam. Eventually, you end up with a better system through this sort of creative destruction. Unless the politicians bail out their cronies and keep patching the old system up until it fails again. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On 8/29/2009 10:10:54 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 7:39 PM, Rceebergerrceeber...@comcast.net wrote: If GM and Chrysler had gone out of business there would have been a wave of unemployment like we have never seen in our lifetime. There would have been no one to pick up all those unemployed in the short to medium term. Or not. The system is much too complex to make these kind of off-the-cuff predictions. Most people are not even aware of the numbers involved. When the monthly employment net change numbers come out, and there is a change of +200K or -120K or whatever, the actual number of people who were hired in a new job or lost a job are much higher, in the millions. Compare gross jobs gained or lost in a quarter (often around 10million) to the number of people employed by GM or Chrysler. Then look at gross jobs for a year. People change jobs in the millions all the time. A complex economy like the US has a large churn rate, and it is nearly impossible to predict exactly what jobs will be created and destroyed even 1 year ahead. You are so blinded by your political philosophy that you cannot even see what a ridiculous statement you just made. Either that, or you are completely ignorant or the realities of manufacturing. xponent Complete Lack Of Fluidity Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
John wrote: You seem to be worried about damage that might have happened if the government had not intervened without allowing enough time for the situation to play out and be well understood. I do not deny that it is possible that there could be some cost from not intervening swiftly. But my point is that we do not know what that cost is, because it was never observed, and predictions of economists in these sorts of situations are unreliable. In contrast, we know very well the vast costs of the government intervention. Many hundreds of billions of dollars spent, trillions of dollars pledged, and a huge moral hazard that will make such problems more likely to occur in the future. So we have a vast cost, and we have no idea what the benefits were that were bought with that cost. I, for one, demand more proof that my money is being used wisely. I think it's disingenuous to say that we had no idea what would have happened. Many more banks would have failed, and the stock market would have crashed much harder than it did. And we do have a precedent for that kind of hard crash in the great depression. I don't really care if banks or even car companys fail if the damage was limited to those institutions, but the people that are really going to suffer are those that loose their 401K or other retirement savings, or their house, or their job or all of it. As it is there was a huge amount of damage done to these people's future. Had they allowed these institutions to fail, I'm absolutely certain that the economic situation would be far worse. The thing is, I think that at some point it becomes a crisis of confidence more than a purely economic crisis and once you reach that point I think you can count on a prolonged depression. I'm not absolutely sure that we aren't beyond the tipping point now. So while I'm not sure that the initial bailout and the follow up stimulus package were the perfect solutions, I'm pretty confident that had we waited for the Everyone Who Wishes To committee to come back with their well crafted solution, it would have been far too late to be effective. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
Rob wrote: Is anyone else seeing medical related construction on this scale in their area? Not here. They've actually closed a few hospitals around here even though the population continues to increase. I guess Kaiser has built a few hospitals, but nothing on the scale you're talking about. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: I think it's disingenuous to say that we had no idea what would have happened. Many more banks would have failed, Yes, but that is not necessarily a cost. In many cases, I consider it a benefit. and the stock market would have crashed much harder than it did. Or not. Certainly you are not claiming to be able to predict the stock market reliably? And we do have a precedent for that kind of hard crash in the great depression. Actually, the stock markets after 1929 dropped rapidly, had a recovery, then dropped less rapidly for quite a while. The initial drop in 1929 and 2008-2009 reached similar lows from the peak. It is yet to be seen if there is another drop now like there was in the 1930's. http://dshort.com/charts/bears/road-to-recovery-large.gif But there are so many differences between the economy in the 1930's and today that it is not reasonable to think that we can predict today based on the past. And as long as we are looking at long-ago recessions, consider the 1920-21 recession. There was minimal government intervention, and yet the economy recovered smartly on its own. I don't really care if banks or even car companys fail if the damage was limited to those institutions, but the people that are really going to suffer are those that loose their 401K or other retirement savings, or their house, or their job or all of it. As it is there was a huge amount of damage done to these people's future. Had they allowed these institutions to fail, I'm absolutely certain that the economic situation would be far worse. Without a demonstrated record of accurate predictions, such a statement much be discounted. But even if true, then why not give money to those people you are concerned about? Why prop up badly run businesses? The thing is, I think that at some point it becomes a crisis of confidence more than a purely economic crisis and once you reach that point I think you can count on a prolonged depression. I think people are a lot more resilient than you give them credit for. There are a lot of knowledgeable, innovative, industrious people that will find ways to accomplish those things that are important to them, if they are allowed to. It is a lot harder to do so when the government creates extreme uncertainty as to the rules under which everyone must operate now and in the future. So while I'm not sure that the initial bailout and the follow up stimulus package were the perfect solutions, I'm pretty confident that had we waited for the Everyone Who Wishes To committee to come back with their well crafted solution, it would have been far too late to be effective. So now you implicitly claim not only to be able to predict what would happen if the government did not intervene immediately after the various investment bank problems, but also what would have happened many months after that under the influence of unknown intervention efforts. Since distinguished economists have repeatedly failed to predict much simpler things on shorter time scales, I find your claim highly dubious. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: Who would you have us listen to then? Each to his own. Maybe firefighters, upon arriving at a structure fire should observe scientifically to see if things were really burning as quickly as they seemed. That would be silly. We have many scientific experiments for what happens when a building is on fire. That is well known. It would also be silly to think the US economy is even in the same ballpark of being understood as a burning building. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 8:14 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: If he was the only one saying that there was a problem you might have a point, but as the vast majority of economists said that there was a huge problem Economists are no better at predicting the future than anyone else. How many economists do you know that got rich investing? The vast majority of economists do no better than average at investing. That's like asking how many coal miners got rich by fishing. The real question would be how many people get rich by investing based on economic theory, a much harder question to answer. As for Bernanke, he's in a position where his predictions can be somewhat self-fulfilling. What I think you are really arguing is that correlation clearly doesn't imply causation when it comes to economic predictions by influential people. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:57 AM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: Who would you have us listen to then? Each to his own. Maybe firefighters, upon arriving at a structure fire should observe scientifically to see if things were really burning as quickly as they seemed. That would be silly. We have many scientific experiments for what happens when a building is on fire. That is well known. Only in the general sense. Predicting the behavior of a particular fire is extraordinarily difficult. I have dead friends as a result of the unpredictability of firefighting. Like the economy, any significant fire is a chaotic system that is virtually impossible to scientifically assess in real time and can change very rapidly and thus very difficult to predict. It would also be silly to think the US economy is even in the same ballpark of being understood as a burning building. It seems rather apt in some respects. Like economists faced with the decision of whether to intervene directly or not, firefighters have to decide whether or not the possible benefits of making entry outweigh the risks. They have to decide whether or not to divert resources that may be needed for another fire. And despite all of the science that's been done, the main thing you want to have when you're fighting a significant fire is experienced people leading you. Sounds a lot like the dismal science to me. Nick ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: As for Bernanke, he's in a position where his predictions can be somewhat self-fulfilling. I don't know about that, but the fact is, most of his predictions were wrong. So far, he has missed all the important calls. But people seem to have short memories. As I said, if you predict a recovery every year, eventually you will be right. What I did not mention, is that many people will only remember the last prediction, especially if that is the one that Bernanke uses to proclaim his triumph in a speech. What I think you are really arguing is that correlation clearly doesn't imply causation when it comes to economic predictions by influential people. No, not really. I am arguing what I wrote, which is that economists are no better than the average person at predicting the future of a large economy. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote: Only in the general sense. Which is what was under discussion. If a significant part of a building is on fire (i.e., not just a fireplace or whatever), it is not likely that anyone able to explore the building will miss the fact that the building is on fire, and people could predict with good accuracy whether that fire is likely to go out without intervention. It is absurd to compare a burning building to the US economy. On one hand, you have the economy where even someone as distinguished as Ben Bernanke has repeatedly failed to predict fundamental concepts such as whether a disaster was imminent or whether smooth sailing was ahead. On the other hand, you have a burning building, where firefighters (and most anyone who is able to look around the building, for that matter) knows that the building is burning and has some idea of what will happen if there is no intervention. With the burning building, it is extremely unlikely that a horde of people will individually, or as a group, study the situation, form plans each using their own specialized knowledge of the situation, and proceed to solve the problem of the burning building, a little bit at a time. But in a large economy like in the US, this is exactly what has been happening every day, for decades. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
- Original Message - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 11:10 AM Subject: Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader With the burning building, it is extremely unlikely that a horde of people will individually, or as a group, study the situation, form plans each using their own specialized knowledge of the situation, and proceed to solve the problem of the burning building, a little bit at a time. Sounds a lot like what firemen do for a living. H.maybe exactly what firemen do for a living. But in a large economy like in the US, this is exactly what has been happening every day, for decades. Economic predictions have a way of changing conditions so that the prediction never occurs or is minimalized. xponent Hurricane Warnings Maru rob ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 2:56 PM, xponentrobxponent...@comcast.net wrote: - Original Message - From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com With the burning building, it is extremely unlikely that a horde of people will individually, or as a group, study the situation, form plans each using their own specialized knowledge of the situation, and proceed to solve the problem of the burning building, a little bit at a time. Sounds a lot like what firemen do for a living. Maybe (I don't think so, but no matter). More importantly, I think the thread of thought has been lost here. The point is, would non-fireman do that if the firemen decided to wait and observe, as Doug suggested? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
John Williams wrote: Maybe (I don't think so, but no matter). More importantly, I think the thread of thought has been lost here. The point is, would non-fireman do that if the firemen decided to wait and observe, as Doug suggested? My point was that we look to our experts in a crisis. If our experts lay out a course of action for us and we demure, its on our heads weather it be a burnt building or a burnt economy. You'e stated that the vast majority of economists do no better than average at investing. First, can you substantiate that statement? Second, what does that really have to do with the financial crisis? John wrote earlier: Each to his own. OK, I pick Warren Buffet, second richest man in the world who termed the present crisis as an economic pearl harbor. Doug OK, how about Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: My point was that we look to our experts in a crisis. If our experts lay out a course of action for us and we demure, its on our heads weather it be a burnt building or a burnt economy. I think I understood your point. Mine was that economists are not really experts in any useful knowledge. They cannot predict the course of the economy any better than non-economists. Also, I dispute your claim that the vast majority of economist are in favor of throwing money at the situation. Here are hundreds of economists who disagree with that approach: http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/alternate_version.html Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance You've stated that the vast majority of economists do no better than average at investing. First, can you substantiate that statement? I don't have references at hand, but I have read several surveys of economists and how they had their money invested, and the majority of them had money market funds, bonds or bond funds, and index funds. Virtually none of them had much money invested in specific companies or even sectors, the type of thing you would do if you were good at predicting the future of the economy. Furthermore, few distinguished investors are economists. One of the few I can think of is Robert C. Merton, who was on the board of directors of Long Term Capital Management, and I guess you know how that turned out. Second, what does that really have to do with the financial crisis? If one cannot predict how financial systems will evolve, then one cannot credibly say that if we do this, then it will make things better. OK, I pick Warren Buffet, second richest man in the world who termed the present crisis as an economic pearl harbor. Warren Buffett (and Berkshire shareholders) benefited financially from the bailout of Goldman (and indirectly, AIG), so it would be against Buffett's own financial interests, and probably against his sense of duty to his shareholders, for him to speak out against the bailout. Also, Buffett does not have much faith in academics and the idealized techniques used by economists: “Naturally the disservice done students and gullible investment professionals who have swallowed EMS (Efficient Market Theory) has been an extraordinary service to us and other followers of Graham. From a selfish standpoint, we should probably endow chairs to ensure the perpetual teaching of EMT.” --Warren Buffett ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 7:52 PM, John Williamsjwilliams4...@gmail.com wrote: If he predicts a recovery every year, he may get lucky and be right sometime! Well, if he didn't permanently injure his hand patting himself on the back in his speech last Friday...Hey, look at me, I prevented another Great Depression! Reminds me of television's _Lost_ -- entering the numbers into the computer, you can always say you were preventing the destruction of the world by your actions, as long as you scare people enough about what could happen that they don't ask for credible proof that it actually would happen without your actions. If he was the only one saying that there was a problem you might have a point, but as the vast majority of economists said that there was a huge problem, it just sounds like sour grapes. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: If he was the only one saying that there was a problem you might have a point, but as the vast majority of economists said that there was a huge problem Economists are no better at predicting the future than anyone else. How many economists do you know that got rich investing? The vast majority of economists do no better than average at investing. Of course economists like to persuade others that they can predict the future better than non-economists, and then to claim that they can fix things when they go wrong. That makes them look good, feel good, like they are vitally needed and are helping people. More importantly, they get more prestigious jobs by persuading others that they have the magic touch. If economists were so capable of making things better, then the reasonable and scientific thing to do would have been to not act immediately, to observe scientifically, to see if things were really going as bad as some claimed. If they had done that, then there would be evidence whether their predictions of doom were true, and then the politicians and economists could spring into action and fix things. The problem is, if they did that, people would realize that economists' predictions are no better than a coin-flip. Why risk their reputation on that? ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader
John Williams wrote: Economists are no better at predicting the future than anyone else. How many economists do you know that got rich investing? The vast majority of economists do no better than average at investing. Of course economists like to persuade others that they can predict the future better than non-economists, and then to claim that they can fix things when they go wrong. That makes them look good, feel good, like they are vitally needed and are helping people. More importantly, they get more prestigious jobs by persuading others that they have the magic touch. Who would you have us listen to then? If economists were so capable of making things better, then the reasonable and scientific thing to do would have been to not act immediately, to observe scientifically, to see if things were really going as bad as some claimed. If they had done that, then there would be evidence whether their predictions of doom were true, and then the politicians and economists could spring into action and fix things. The problem is, if they did that, people would realize that economists' predictions are no better than a coin-flip. Why risk their reputation on that? Maybe firefighters, upon arriving at a structure fire should observe scientifically to see if things were really burning as quickly as they seemed. Then again, maybe not. Doug ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
