5 ms·

Wow. You complain about me being "arrogant" and "ignorant" and then you make entirely false statements about my own background (a subject of which you know abs

Wow. You complain about me being "arrogant" and "ignorant" and then you make entirely false statements about my own background (a subject of which you know absolutely nothing). You then complain about the quality of this forum, and then are the first person in two years of commenting on Hacker News that has ever attacked me ad hominem. I suspect that you are reasonable person that is just especially frustrated by the generally low quality of internet commentary about economics ( I too no longer visit reddit, but that doesn't mean the people there are wrong about everything). But if that kind of language is common with you, I do hope that you leave Hacker News. I have had also had a long and deep fascination with economics and public policy. I've read dozens of books on finance and economics, from the original classics to more modern research. I've read hundreds of articles, I used to browse through social science libraries and download NBER papers for fun. I've had long and productive discussions with academic economists, people who work in finance and people who have worked in central banking. I don't claim to be omniscient about economics. But I have formed judgments, I state them plainly, and I welcome debate and hearing new arguments. I do not disagree with Keynesians or other mainstream folks because I am ignorant of their arguments. I disagree because I have evaluated them very carefully, read everything I could on the subject, and found their theories unconvincing. I would be happy to debate or back up either of the two claims I made ( "The CPI is not a good measure of inflation" and "The mainstream economists led the economy off a cliff"). If you want to read comments where I elaborate more, you can read a few I made elsewhere: http://www.newmogul.com/item?id=15334 http://www.newmogul.com/item?id=15334 or http://www.newmogul.com/item?id=12274 http://www.newmogul.com/item?id=12274 I would actually really like to debate them with a worthy opponent. I too find good economic debate very hard to find on the web.

kdw2 17y ago
1) Yes, you are arrogant and ignorant. Both. Subject matter experts (on any subject) don't need a resume to tell the difference between an expert who doesn't fully agree with them, and a non-expert who mistakes themselves for an expert. 2) If you want to complain about people being mean to them, you shouldn't return fire with the same complaints. That just makes you a hypocrite as well. 3) I did not complain about the quality of the forum. I complained that there is no point sharing it with an ignorant, arrogant fool like you. 4) It is not an "ad hominem" attack when I am mean to you. "ad hominem" attacks are when you say "2+2 does not equal 4 because bokonist is arrogant." I never did any such thing. 5) Yes, I'm frustrated that people like you mistake themselves for economists... and even when challenged are too arrogant to realize how little you know. 6) If you check my albeit brief posting history, you'll find precisely zero other examples of such language. Because to date you're the only idiot who has shown up and made a blanket statement that "redditors are right" about economics... then followed it with nonsensical rants about how the federal reserve is responsible for all systemic risk, and how they failed at a regulatory job that was not assigned to them, and a few other utterly non-sequitorial arguments that had no basis, at all, in fact or history. > I've read dozens of books on finance and economics, from the original classics to more modern research. 6) I greatly doubt "dozens of books", but I wouldn't be surprised if you've read a couple books and some articles that generally all agree with your preconceived ideas and your austrian leanings. After all, you're clearly a person who think that he can point to the sky and understand economics, which is typical for armchair austrians... whereas actual economists and intelligent people generally prefer econometric data. > I do not disagree with Keynesians 7) There is no such thing as a Keynesian. You might as well describe a physicist as a Newtonist. Some of his theories were completely incorrect. Some were somewhat correct. Most all of them have been quantified to approximate levels at this point. > I would be happy to debate or back up either of the two claims I made 8) I'd remind you that you also claimed that: - The federal reserve failed to be an effective arbiter of systemic risk. (something which was not even remotely in its mission statement.) - The federal reserve failed to be an effective lead regulator of financial institutions. (something which was, again, not it's job.) - It's a bad thing that the Federal Reserve acts as a "lender of last resort". (a truly odd implication there, as central banks across the globe serve that function.) - That mainstream economists weren't aware of the Greenspan Put. (Despite the fact that there have been numerous articles over the years quantifying the greenspan put's effect on equity markets.) As for your other claims..... - The mainstream economists led the economy off a cliff. That's just nonsense. Most economists have nothing to do with the economy. Flat nothing. You might as well blame mainstream physicists for nuclear war. It's true at that level, but not at any useful level. It's purely ignorant nonsense to make that sort of sweeping claim... and it's amazingly arrogant of you to stand by such obvious and pure nonsense. - The CPI is not a good measure of inflation. I'm going to let you in on a secret: it's not the only measure of inflation that has been used, and the methodology is published specifically so that you can examine it. Non-hedonically adjusted metrics have been studied at length and are generally be be more flawed than the hedonically adjusted metrics. This doesn't mean that CPI is perfect, simply that it is a consistent, well-known metric with well-defined mechanisms for it's adjustments. That said, it's ludicrously arrogant and nonsensical to simply claim it's pure fabrications, when anybody with anything resembling a knowledge of the mechanisms would know that a great deal of effort goes into figuring out what methods of comparison are useful and accurate, and which are flawed. > I too find good economic debate very hard to find on the web. This is hilarious coming from you, given that my dog has a more thorough understanding of economics than you. This meaning that his knowledge is zero, whereas yours is negative. Good day, sir. While you have convinced yourself that you are an economist, you are not one. To you, economics is a religion, and as such there is no point in arguing with you... you point at the sky, not at the ground. In short, there is literally no possible way to have a reasoned discussion with you. And with that, I'm truly gone. I truly and honestly hope that at some point in time you'll pull your head out of your ass for long enough to realize the difference in the level of effort required to become a true expert in a field, and the level of effort required to simply become dangerous.
bokonist 17y ago
There is no such thing as a Keynesian. Some economists suggest that "we re-embrace Keynes" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html ). We call these people "Keynesians" for shorthand. I greatly doubt "dozens of books", but I wouldn't be surprised if you've read a couple books and some articles that generally all agree with your preconceived ideas and your austrian leanings. That is false. I read books from all sides, and the results of my reading greatly changed my views. After all, you're clearly a person who think that he can point to the sky and understand economics, which is typical for armchair austrians... whereas actual economists and intelligent people generally prefer econometric data. I have no problem with data. Because I respect data and math, I care a lot about when it is used properly and when it is not. In particular, regressions are almost always abused in econometrics, because there are far too many variables to control for, all the variables are imprecisely defined, and there is no easy to way to check the author's assumptions for a sensitivity analysis. The federal reserve failed to be an effective arbiter of systemic risk. (something which was not even remotely in its mission statement.) Dear God, if you call me ignorant you should at least read their mission statement before making a claim like that: http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm Mission: - "supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers" - "maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets" That's just nonsense. Most economists have nothing to do with the economy. A great number of prominent economists work in official positions ( CEA, FED, the various agencies and bureaus). These economists play very major roles in regulating the economy. Non-hedonically adjusted metrics have been studied at length and are generally be be more flawed than the hedonically adjusted metrics. I never said straight up hedonically adjusted numbers are better. You have to use the right number for the job. For the purposes of monetary policy or investing, I would look mainly at national income statistics, asset prices, credit growth, and broad money supply growth. Maybe the Fed wasn't watching these, or maybe were and just ignored them. But all four measures were showing huge warnings as early as 2004, and had they been paid attention to, a lot of bad things could have been avoided. That said, it's ludicrously arrogant and nonsensical to simply claim it's pure fabrications, Calling it a "pure fabrication" is inaccurate, and a word I did not use. The CPI is the result of lots of honest hard working people, who long hours trying to boil down the economy into one number using the most accurate methodology they can. But the economists calculating the CPI do exist in a political world, and there is a selection effect for a methodology that has more generous assumptions. But when you pile a ton of subjective assumptions together and then apply a bunch of math, the result is subjective. There are multiple semi-plausible ways to do hedonics and there is no right answer. How can you objectively measure how much percent better a 2004 Toyota is than a 1998 Toyota? The CPI does indeed have a consistent, thought out methodology. Unfortunately, it's actually in part measuring the Toyota new model roll out strategy. The Toyota model roll out strategy has nothing to do with monetary economics or investment strategy. To you, economics is a religion, and as such there is no point in arguing with you... you point at the sky, not at the ground. Well, I have changed my mind on many issues. I am very responsive to good arguments. In fact, I used to have exactly your position on CPI, with exactly the arguments you made. But I studied the issue further and was convinced otherwise. I truly and honestly hope that at some point in time you'll pull your head out of your ass for long enough to realize the difference in the level of effort required to become a true expert in a field, and the level of effort required to simply become dangerous. So what would you advocate I do if I wanted to become an expert? What defines an expert?

kdw2 17y ago

1) Yes, you are arrogant and ignorant. Both. Subject matter experts (on any subject) don't need a resume to tell the difference between an expert who doesn't fully agree with them, and a non-expert who mistakes themselves for an expert. 2) If you want to complain about people being mean to them, you shouldn't return fire with the same complaints. That just makes you a hypocrite as well. 3) I did not complain about the quality of the forum. I complained that there is no point sharing it with an ignorant, arrogant fool like you. 4) It is not an "ad hominem" attack when I am mean to you. "ad hominem" attacks are when you say "2+2 does not equal 4 because bokonist is arrogant." I never did any such thing. 5) Yes, I'm frustrated that people like you mistake themselves for economists... and even when challenged are too arrogant to realize how little you know. 6) If you check my albeit brief posting history, you'll find precisely zero other examples of such language. Because to date you're the only idiot who has shown up and made a blanket statement that "redditors are right" about economics... then followed it with nonsensical rants about how the federal reserve is responsible for all systemic risk, and how they failed at a regulatory job that was not assigned to them, and a few other utterly non-sequitorial arguments that had no basis, at all, in fact or history. > I've read dozens of books on finance and economics, from the original classics to more modern research. 6) I greatly doubt "dozens of books", but I wouldn't be surprised if you've read a couple books and some articles that generally all agree with your preconceived ideas and your austrian leanings. After all, you're clearly a person who think that he can point to the sky and understand economics, which is typical for armchair austrians... whereas actual economists and intelligent people generally prefer econometric data. > I do not disagree with Keynesians 7) There is no such thing as a Keynesian. You might as well describe a physicist as a Newtonist. Some of his theories were completely incorrect. Some were somewhat correct. Most all of them have been quantified to approximate levels at this point. > I would be happy to debate or back up either of the two claims I made 8) I'd remind you that you also claimed that: - The federal reserve failed to be an effective arbiter of systemic risk. (something which was not even remotely in its mission statement.) - The federal reserve failed to be an effective lead regulator of financial institutions. (something which was, again, not it's job.) - It's a bad thing that the Federal Reserve acts as a "lender of last resort". (a truly odd implication there, as central banks across the globe serve that function.) - That mainstream economists weren't aware of the Greenspan Put. (Despite the fact that there have been numerous articles over the years quantifying the greenspan put's effect on equity markets.) As for your other claims..... - The mainstream economists led the economy off a cliff. That's just nonsense. Most economists have nothing to do with the economy. Flat nothing. You might as well blame mainstream physicists for nuclear war. It's true at that level, but not at any useful level. It's purely ignorant nonsense to make that sort of sweeping claim... and it's amazingly arrogant of you to stand by such obvious and pure nonsense. - The CPI is not a good measure of inflation. I'm going to let you in on a secret: it's not the only measure of inflation that has been used, and the methodology is published specifically so that you can examine it. Non-hedonically adjusted metrics have been studied at length and are generally be be more flawed than the hedonically adjusted metrics. This doesn't mean that CPI is perfect, simply that it is a consistent, well-known metric with well-defined mechanisms for it's adjustments. That said, it's ludicrously arrogant and nonsensical to simply claim it's pure fabrications, when anybody with anything resembling a knowledge of the mechanisms would know that a great deal of effort goes into figuring out what methods of comparison are useful and accurate, and which are flawed. > I too find good economic debate very hard to find on the web. This is hilarious coming from you, given that my dog has a more thorough understanding of economics than you. This meaning that his knowledge is zero, whereas yours is negative. Good day, sir. While you have convinced yourself that you are an economist, you are not one. To you, economics is a religion, and as such there is no point in arguing with you... you point at the sky, not at the ground. In short, there is literally no possible way to have a reasoned discussion with you. And with that, I'm truly gone. I truly and honestly hope that at some point in time you'll pull your head out of your ass for long enough to realize the difference in the level of effort required to become a true expert in a field, and the level of effort required to simply become dangerous.

bokonist 17y ago

There is no such thing as a Keynesian. Some economists suggest that "we re-embrace Keynes" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html ). We call these people "Keynesians" for shorthand. I greatly doubt "dozens of books", but I wouldn't be surprised if you've read a couple books and some articles that generally all agree with your preconceived ideas and your austrian leanings. That is false. I read books from all sides, and the results of my reading greatly changed my views. After all, you're clearly a person who think that he can point to the sky and understand economics, which is typical for armchair austrians... whereas actual economists and intelligent people generally prefer econometric data. I have no problem with data. Because I respect data and math, I care a lot about when it is used properly and when it is not. In particular, regressions are almost always abused in econometrics, because there are far too many variables to control for, all the variables are imprecisely defined, and there is no easy to way to check the author's assumptions for a sensitivity analysis. The federal reserve failed to be an effective arbiter of systemic risk. (something which was not even remotely in its mission statement.) Dear God, if you call me ignorant you should at least read their mission statement before making a claim like that: http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm http://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/mission.htm Mission: - "supervising and regulating banking institutions to ensure the safety and soundness of the nation's banking and financial system and to protect the credit rights of consumers" - "maintaining the stability of the financial system and containing systemic risk that may arise in financial markets" That's just nonsense. Most economists have nothing to do with the economy. A great number of prominent economists work in official positions ( CEA, FED, the various agencies and bureaus). These economists play very major roles in regulating the economy. Non-hedonically adjusted metrics have been studied at length and are generally be be more flawed than the hedonically adjusted metrics. I never said straight up hedonically adjusted numbers are better. You have to use the right number for the job. For the purposes of monetary policy or investing, I would look mainly at national income statistics, asset prices, credit growth, and broad money supply growth. Maybe the Fed wasn't watching these, or maybe were and just ignored them. But all four measures were showing huge warnings as early as 2004, and had they been paid attention to, a lot of bad things could have been avoided. That said, it's ludicrously arrogant and nonsensical to simply claim it's pure fabrications, Calling it a "pure fabrication" is inaccurate, and a word I did not use. The CPI is the result of lots of honest hard working people, who long hours trying to boil down the economy into one number using the most accurate methodology they can. But the economists calculating the CPI do exist in a political world, and there is a selection effect for a methodology that has more generous assumptions. But when you pile a ton of subjective assumptions together and then apply a bunch of math, the result is subjective. There are multiple semi-plausible ways to do hedonics and there is no right answer. How can you objectively measure how much percent better a 2004 Toyota is than a 1998 Toyota? The CPI does indeed have a consistent, thought out methodology. Unfortunately, it's actually in part measuring the Toyota new model roll out strategy. The Toyota model roll out strategy has nothing to do with monetary economics or investment strategy. To you, economics is a religion, and as such there is no point in arguing with you... you point at the sky, not at the ground. Well, I have changed my mind on many issues. I am very responsive to good arguments. In fact, I used to have exactly your position on CPI, with exactly the arguments you made. But I studied the issue further and was convinced otherwise. I truly and honestly hope that at some point in time you'll pull your head out of your ass for long enough to realize the difference in the level of effort required to become a true expert in a field, and the level of effort required to simply become dangerous. So what would you advocate I do if I wanted to become an expert? What defines an expert?