3 ms·

Rice was an example that was palatable to both my lazy fingers and I hoped to those who may not have appreciated a jargon filled response. It does not detract

Rice was an example that was palatable to both my lazy fingers and I hoped to those who may not have appreciated a jargon filled response. It does not detract from the clearly presented general case which you are more than encouraged to investigate, I have done my part in spelling it out for you. > but for massive government invervention, such as what you are proposing I am not proposing anything, I am merely describing. The issue at hand is not readily solved by the markets, which in this situation a) are in a state of risk aversion and b) possess very bad quality information that is difficult to reason about. This is classic market failure that is documented in places better than my mind - go forth and google. If you are so used to receiving that response that you describe it as "typical" then I would suggest that you are either quite the revolutionary thinker, or that you are, in fact, typically wrong. Which do you think it is?

javert 13y ago
> Rice was an example that was palatable to both my lazy fingers and I hoped to those who may not have appreciated a jargon filled response. It does not detract from the clearly presented general case which you are more than encouraged to investigate I am also using rice as a stand-in for the general case. > I am not proposing anything, I am merely describing. That's a meaningless distinction. Academic communists who supported Stalinism also claimed innocence when Stalinism resulted in the deaths of millions. I am not accusing you of anything on that scale, but I am saying that ideas have consequences. You are responsible for the consequences of the ideas you support and promulgate. > This is classic market failure Right, and I don't think markets are inherently failure-prone. If I drive my car into a light pole, is that a classic automobile failure? So I dispute the very terminology here. Case in point: The 2008 mortgage crisis was caused by a massively distorted market for mortgages and easy credit. The first was created by Barney Frank with Freddie and Fannie, the second by the Fed. Future generations will remember this as a "market failure" and use it to justify the existence of future incarnations of Freddie, Fannie and the Fed. > I would suggest that you are either quite the revolutionary thinker, or that you are, in fact, typically wrong. There is a third possibility, which is that lots and lots of people think like me.
- clienthunter 13y ago
  > I am also using rice as a stand-in for the general case. The existence of futures, commoditised goods, integrated markets and all the rest have clearly not eliminated shocks of the type I describe. What's your point? > You are responsible for the consequences of the ideas you support and promulgate. Again, you appear to be having issues with the concept of description. What I explained is how things actually work, why they need solved, and how they are currently solved by intervention. There is no argument here. I could very easily describe your arguments, and why they're flawed, and in no way would that amount to my supporting or promulgating them. > I dispute the very terminology here Dispute the terminology all you like, it's just a name for the what I described, it has no bearing on the concepts which you have failed to address cogently at all. > There is a third possibility, which is that lots and lots of people think like me. I think you mean that lots and lots of people think like me, and I would ordinarily dispute that too.
  - javert 13y ago
    Are you being paid to astroturf?
    - pathy 13y ago
      He probably isn't. Are you? Your posts mostly consists of rambling that the established economics definitions of efficiency, market failure and so forth are wrong. You call an entire profession slippery and dishonest. You are clearly pushing your agenda, in a fashion that IS intellectually dishonest. Try having a conversation where you actually use the jargon of the subject matter. Market failure means one thing when you are discussion economics, don't try to invent your own definition. That is dishonest and poor argumentation technique.
      - javert 13y ago
        > You call an entire profession slippery and dishonest Academic economics isn't a profession. > You call an entire profession slippery and dishonest. I didn't call all economists slippery and dishonest. So, this is a bizarre and blatantly false accusation. I don't even think all economists who accept the jargon and go with it are dishonest. It would be hard to do anything else. But I think certain jargon is inherently biased. Somebody originated that jargon. > in a fashion that IS intellectually dishonest How so? I think it's pretty fair to criticize my point of view, but I don't think you can support the accusation that I'm intentionally misleading people. That's a pretty high bar to reach. I'm not going around intentionally inventing confusing terminology. Re: astroturfing, I regret bringing that up. But the guy I was talking to didn't seem to be interested in discussing the issues, he seemed to be playing language games to "win" an argument. But that is just my perception, I'm not even sure I'm right about that.

javert 13y ago

> Rice was an example that was palatable to both my lazy fingers and I hoped to those who may not have appreciated a jargon filled response. It does not detract from the clearly presented general case which you are more than encouraged to investigate I am also using rice as a stand-in for the general case. > I am not proposing anything, I am merely describing. That's a meaningless distinction. Academic communists who supported Stalinism also claimed innocence when Stalinism resulted in the deaths of millions. I am not accusing you of anything on that scale, but I am saying that ideas have consequences. You are responsible for the consequences of the ideas you support and promulgate. > This is classic market failure Right, and I don't think markets are inherently failure-prone. If I drive my car into a light pole, is that a classic automobile failure? So I dispute the very terminology here. Case in point: The 2008 mortgage crisis was caused by a massively distorted market for mortgages and easy credit. The first was created by Barney Frank with Freddie and Fannie, the second by the Fed. Future generations will remember this as a "market failure" and use it to justify the existence of future incarnations of Freddie, Fannie and the Fed. > I would suggest that you are either quite the revolutionary thinker, or that you are, in fact, typically wrong. There is a third possibility, which is that lots and lots of people think like me.

clienthunter 13y ago
> I am also using rice as a stand-in for the general case. The existence of futures, commoditised goods, integrated markets and all the rest have clearly not eliminated shocks of the type I describe. What's your point? > You are responsible for the consequences of the ideas you support and promulgate. Again, you appear to be having issues with the concept of description. What I explained is how things actually work, why they need solved, and how they are currently solved by intervention. There is no argument here. I could very easily describe your arguments, and why they're flawed, and in no way would that amount to my supporting or promulgating them. > I dispute the very terminology here Dispute the terminology all you like, it's just a name for the what I described, it has no bearing on the concepts which you have failed to address cogently at all. > There is a third possibility, which is that lots and lots of people think like me. I think you mean that lots and lots of people think like me, and I would ordinarily dispute that too.
- javert 13y ago
  Are you being paid to astroturf?
  - pathy 13y ago
    He probably isn't. Are you? Your posts mostly consists of rambling that the established economics definitions of efficiency, market failure and so forth are wrong. You call an entire profession slippery and dishonest. You are clearly pushing your agenda, in a fashion that IS intellectually dishonest. Try having a conversation where you actually use the jargon of the subject matter. Market failure means one thing when you are discussion economics, don't try to invent your own definition. That is dishonest and poor argumentation technique.
    - javert 13y ago
      > You call an entire profession slippery and dishonest Academic economics isn't a profession. > You call an entire profession slippery and dishonest. I didn't call all economists slippery and dishonest. So, this is a bizarre and blatantly false accusation. I don't even think all economists who accept the jargon and go with it are dishonest. It would be hard to do anything else. But I think certain jargon is inherently biased. Somebody originated that jargon. > in a fashion that IS intellectually dishonest How so? I think it's pretty fair to criticize my point of view, but I don't think you can support the accusation that I'm intentionally misleading people. That's a pretty high bar to reach. I'm not going around intentionally inventing confusing terminology. Re: astroturfing, I regret bringing that up. But the guy I was talking to didn't seem to be interested in discussing the issues, he seemed to be playing language games to "win" an argument. But that is just my perception, I'm not even sure I'm right about that.