Re: Government regulations and complex consequences
I'm trying to catch up a bit- John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You would have us believe that on principle, people who fail to foresee a negative event are thereby disqualified from comprehending and responding to it? snip Likewise, if a doctor does not know the effects of a medicine he prescribes, I am not willingly going to follow that doctors advice. grim laugh Then you should not take *any* medicine introduced to the market in the past decade or so (unless it's for a terminal illness, in which case you have little to lose). Recently developed drugs are never fully known, which is why the FDA has post-marketing surveys (not that one should trust that body, underfunded and oft in the pocket of the pharmas), and why some are pulled from the shelves. We still can't explain all of the effects of aspirin, after all. (Although that's more due to not understanding everthing about inflammation, as the body's regulatory responses are discovered to be ever more complex with increased research.) And look at the recent pull of cold and cough preps for toddlers, after being on the shelf for decades. There is no certain or 100% safe thing in the practice of medicine - nor in life; the best one can hope for is the honest and informed inquiry/action of experts and ordinary folk alike. Debbi Angels' Fear Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Government regulations and complex consequences
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Deborah Harrell We still can't explain all of the effects of aspirin, after all. (Although that's more due to not understanding everthing about inflammation, as the body's regulatory responses are discovered to be ever more complex with increased research.) And look at the recent pull of cold and cough preps for toddlers, after being on the shelf for decades. There is no certain or 100% safe thing in the practice of medicine - nor in life; You are giving economists way too much credit. I'm not asking for 100%, or even 90%. But 50% would be nice. But economists can rarely manage 10%. Surely you would not take a drug if the doctor only had a 10% chance of predicting the major effects? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Government regulations and complex consequences
John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Deborah Harrell wrote: We still can't explain all of the effects of aspirin..snip..And look at the recent pull of cold and cough preps for toddlers, after being on the shelf for decades. There is no certain or 100% safe thing in the practice of medicine - nor in life; You are giving economists way too much credit. I'm not asking for 100%, or even 90%. But 50% would be nice. But economists can rarely manage 10%. Surely you would not take a drug if the doctor only had a 10% chance of predicting the major effects? Nope (except maybe for that terminal disease thing). wry Uhm, this does sort of lead into the need for regulation of medical and food ingestibles - otherwise you end up with 300,000 babies/toddlers exposed to a known renal toxin. There does need to be a 'reasonable' proof of non-toxicity, in addition to proof of efficacy (but one cannot ask for 100% safety either; I just want honest and competently-run drug studies). shifting gears a bit Unfortunately, we all *have* consumed a vast array of chemicals with unknown major and minor effects, courtesy of the industrial and chemical revolutions. Also, we ingest drugs and antibiotics that are dumped into our watersheds daily. Debbi who is clearly in a sour mood, induced by the fact that her car is *again* in the shop for the third time in 2 months, for the same problem! snarls ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Government regulations and complex consequences
You are giving economists way too much credit. I'm not asking for 100%, or even 90%. But 50% would be nice. But economists can rarely manage 10%. Come on yall there has never been a large group of students studying to Become economist and that subject is a lot like the doctor’s requirement To learn say organic chemistry. Its amazing how we fool our selves about our problems. People may not Understand excessive credit or they may be lost to the idea of building Wealth through saving and investments and now that the roof has caved in Everyone appear bewildered. The economic restructuring of America is the biggest since the expansion Of the railroads westward and the days of the great wildcat railroads Where the coolies and recent freed black men were used on railroad gangs and their labor Was exploited but it was a period of dynamic change and the people Knew hard work and still had some structure in their family while the Company structures were taking hold and the teapot type scandals ran rampant We were subjected to the idea that we could reach 20 miles to either side Of the railroad tracks an the became the wage slaves of the emerging Period of industrialization. The steel and oil enterprise rose and work Was abundant and men could still dream of an America with wide spaces Because many medium size independent farms still had good size populations To day the mega-global companies are monopolies and the economist realize That this concentration of capital has an adverse effect on the worker’s Ability to create a base of wealth. The mass of workers are negatively Effected because the company executive control politics and the flow Of wealth inside and outside the country. These ty---coons with their Golden parachutes are the first to argue both sides of the issue They rob the people with high prices and keep the mass of wage Slaves living near or below the poverty level and use all types of Economic tools like manipulating the interest rates, balances of trade, Dominating commodities markets and flooding the consumer markets With cheap foreign goods while over charging citizens in this for those Cheap goods which you pay for with expensive credit and so we are Bail out the large automakers---treat all these mega giants like utilities Companies and monopolies who are now necessary but the citizens money [tax] Should be infused in such failing giants but the citizens money should Provide the same kind of investment respect as any investor---i.e. Preferred Stock That preferred stock should have the same power for the people as it has For the fat cats. The world is changing and the citizen should spend some Time studying his position as a knowledgeable persons not flunkies! Morris J. Peavey, Jr. Author Ghettonomics: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ghettonomics -- Original message from John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -- On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Deborah Harrell We still can't explain all of the effects of aspirin, after all. (Although that's more due to not understanding everthing about inflammation, as the body's regulatory responses are discovered to be ever more complex with increased research.) And look at the recent pull of cold and cough preps for toddlers, after being on the shelf for decades. There is no certain or 100% safe thing in the practice of medicine - nor in life; You are giving economists way too much credit. I'm not asking for 100%, or even 90%. But 50% would be nice. But economists can rarely manage 10%. Surely you would not take a drug if the doctor only had a 10% chance of predicting the major effects? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Government regulations and complex consequences
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 12:35 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: It is interesting that an expert can write a few paragraphs about how utterly surprised he was about what was happening, and then a little later come up with a solution. But that is typical of advocates of government interference. Playing god is seductive. You would have us believe that on principle, people who fail to foresee a negative event are thereby disqualified from comprehending and responding to it? Kind of a low view of humanity, isn't that? Just about everybody I know is capable of responding well to to unforeseen events. That's almost the definition of intelligence. Even more to the point, experts in a field are far more likely to be able to respond intelligently to events they failed to foresee. That's what makes them experts rather than technicians. Obviously, expertise does not assure that their response will be perfect, but given the choice between an intelligent expert and a non-expert, common sense says that the expert's ideas are less likely to be wrong. The fact that we must remain wary of the exceptions and the traps of expertise doesn't mean that expertise itself is a bad thing, which seems to be where you would lead us. In my experience, when all the experts are shown to be wrong, the experts have just gained significant new expertise. Your next step would be to fire them? When punishment for being wrong becomes policy, you have an environment that stifles learning and creativity... and the experts will be wrong even more often. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Government regulations and complex consequences
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You would have us believe that on principle, people who fail to foresee a negative event are thereby disqualified from comprehending and responding to it? Believe what you like. I think it is obvious that if someone cannot predict even the short-term consequences of government action, then it is not a good idea to follow their prescriptions for more government action. Likewise, if a doctor does not know the effects of a medicine he prescribes, I am not willingly going to follow that doctors advice. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Government regulations and complex consequences
It seems the experts have difficulty understanding the current complex state of government regulations. http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/11/update_on_fdic.html Update on FDIC guarantee fees from Econbrowser by James Hamilton On Saturday I noted that details of the FDIC guarantees of fed funds implemented on October 14 could introduce a substantial wedge between the fed funds target and the effective fed funds rate. Rebecca Wilder argues that this could not be affecting the current effective fed funds rate due to details of the opt out provision. Here I provide some further discussion of this point. I believe that Rebecca Wilder is correct that I was misinterpreting the FDIC October 16 technical briefing ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Government regulations and complex consequences
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/11/the_new_improve.html James Hamilton writes: ...That means a couple of things for Fed watchers. First, fed funds futures contracts, which are based on the average effective rate rather than the target over a given month, are primarily an indicator of how these institutional factors play out-- how much the effective rate differs from the target-- and signal little or nothing about future prospects for the target. Second, the target itself has become largely irrelevant as an instrument of monetary policy, and discussions of will the Fed cut further and the zero interest rate lower bound are off the mark. There's surely no benefit whatever to trying to achieve an even lower value for the effective fed funds rate. On the contrary, what we would really like to see at the moment is an increase in the short-term T-bill rate and traded fed funds rate, the current low rates being symptomatic of a greatly depressed economy, high risk premia, and prospect for deflation ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Government regulations and complex consequences
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 2:16 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Government regulations and complex consequences http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/11/the_new_improve.html James Hamilton writes: ... On the contrary, what we would really like to see at the moment is an increase in the short-term T-bill rate and traded fed funds rate, the current low rates being symptomatic of a greatly depressed economy, high risk premia, and prospect for deflation Out of curiosity, do you agree with what you've quoted, or think it is utter nonsense? If the former, have you changed your mind about the validity of measurements in a complex economy? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Government regulations and complex consequences
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Out of curiosity, do you agree with what you've quoted, or think it is utter nonsense? Do I think that the government should try to act in the way James Hamilton says? No. I think it is rather obvious that the consequences of previous actions are unpredictable. It is interesting that an expert can write a few paragraphs about how utterly surprised he was about what was happening, and then a little later come up with a solution. But that is typical of advocates of government interference. Playing god is seductive. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
