19 May 09
Originally posted by PalynkaHow about we both SHOW are cards rather than claim them by debating by using more detailed economic points. There are other people with backgrounds in economics on this forum that can check our work.
Yes, I do. But that's not why I asked, I don't think one's opinions are necessarily more or less valid because of one's studies. Can you please answer the question?
Shall we start by applying to our ideological positions concepts from international economics, money & banking, development economics, political economy, economic philosophies, currencies, econometrics, mathematics for economists, microeconomic analysis, international money & finance, business & financial economics?
19 May 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusThat's what I've been doing all along.
How about we both SHOW are cards rather than claim them by debating by using more detailed economic points. There are other people with backgrounds in economics on this forum that can check our work.
Shall we start by applying to our ideological positions concepts from international economics, money & banking, development economics, political economy ...[text shortened]... onomists, microeconomic analysis, international money & finance, business & financial economics?
Take the endogenous growth model of Aghion and Howitt (the standard modern framework along with the variety model), in this case both growth and the level of GDP can be improved through government intervention.
Let's see if you know anything. A few questions:
1. What is the static inefficiency in this model?
2. What is the dynamic inefficiency?
3. What is the action the government can take to correct the problem in 1?
3. What is the action the government can take to correct the problem in 2?
I'm sitting down, so take your time.
19 May 09
Originally posted by PalynkaI hope and assume you are right. I read The Economist every week, pretty much cover to cover. It's a political magazine not a technical magazine. I especially enjoy the obituaries although, a while back, it failed to lay Milton Friedman to rest objectively.
The thing is that people think most economists agree with the FT or the Economist. From my experience, the vast majority of economists who pursue graduate studies ditch them or read them critically. Even worse for CNBC, Bloomberg or similar.
19 May 09
Originally posted by PalynkaThey attempt to demonstrate that competition can be bad for innovations because of such factors as that each new innovation is a basis from which to reach additional new innovations which steal rents from the original innovator and make the investment less valuable.
That's what I've been doing all along.
Take the endogenous growth model of Aghion and Howitt (the standard modern framework along with the variety model), in this case both growth and the level of GDP can be improved through government intervention.
Let's see if you know anything. A few questions:
1. What is the static inefficiency in this model?
...[text shortened]... the government can take to correct the problem in 2?
I'm sitting down, so take your time.
Market leaders have an incentive to not invest in R&D, as they do not have the same incentive as a "social planner" to consider the net gain of each continual innovation, per their model. However, their model is not exactly anything more than a basis by which to frame the issue of property rights. If you're reading this as anything too broad, you should consider additional perspectives.
Example:
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache😛ZdCbptKWZEJ:www.econ.brown.edu/fac/Peter_Howitt/publication/EcDynNews.pdf+aghion+howitt+problem+model+static+efficiency&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
although an increase in the intensity of competition will tend to reduce the absolute level of profits realized by a successful innovator, it will tend to reduce the profits of an unsuccessful innovator by even more. Therefore competition can have a positive overall effect on the rate of innovation because firms will try to innovate inorder to escape competition.
and
Laura Valkonen: deregulation affects product market competition and thereby productivity. Productivity grows when firms ameliorate their performance, which they will be unwilling to do in the absence of competition. It obliges firms to renounce high rents and cut costs, which increases static efficiency. However, static efficiency boosts productivity only temporarily. Long-term gains are derived from dynamic efficiency, which competition promotes in two ways. First, it increases incentives to innovate, and secondly, it accelerates creative destruction. Since regulations impede the free entry of rivals, they ensure firms a quiet life. Deregulation has therefore great potential to boost productivity growth.
19 May 09
Originally posted by eljefejesus"On the contrary, it's because someone knows something about it that we can't talk about physics. It's the things that nobody knows about that we can discuss. We can talk about the weather; we can talk about social problems; we can talk about psychology; we can talk about international finance... so it's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about! " - Richard Feynman
How about we both SHOW are cards rather than claim them by debating by using more detailed economic points. There are other people with backgrounds in economics on this forum that can check our work.
Shall we start by applying to our ideological positions concepts from international economics, money & banking, development economics, political economy ...[text shortened]... onomists, microeconomic analysis, international money & finance, business & financial economics?
19 May 09
2 edits
Originally posted by eljefejesusNow, now, don't be shy. So you found a dumbed down summary of their research agenda. Good for you. Let me repeat:
They attempt to demonstrate that competition can be bad for innovations because of such factors as that each new innovation is a basis from which to reach additional new innovations which steal rents from the original innovator and make the investment less valuable.
Market leaders have an incentive to not invest in R&D, as they do not have the same firms a quiet life. Deregulation has therefore great potential to boost productivity growth.
In their baseline model:
1. What is the static inefficiency in this model?
2. What is the dynamic inefficiency?
3. What is the action the government can take to correct the problem in 1?
3. What is the action the government can take to correct the problem in 2?
And their baseline model is not just about property rights, in fact, in their baseline model they assume perpetual patents. The model is a framework to study growth that is flexible enough to admit several extensions to study specific problems, namely the ones regarding intellectual property rights where they relax the perpetual patent assumption. Both inefficiencies that are important for the model are crucial, even in such extensions.
Now answer the questions. You wanted to show the cards, I'm calling your bluff right here, right now.
19 May 09
Originally posted by Palynka"I'm calling your bluff right here, right now."
Now, now, don't be shy. So you found a dumbed down summary of their research agenda. Good for you. Let me repeat:
In their baseline model:
1. What is the static inefficiency in this model?
2. What is the dynamic inefficiency?
3. What is the action the government can take to correct the problem in 1?
3. What is the action the government can take to cor ...[text shortened]... wer the questions. You wanted to show the cards, I'm calling your bluff right here, right now.
Will you be slapping him across the face with a trout? Youuuuu silly savage!
GRANNY.
20 May 09
Originally posted by PalynkaPalynka, you are out of control, if you will read my challenge, it was to apply concepts in our debate, not to ask each other homework questions dragged out of the ivory tower.
Now, now, don't be shy. So you found a dumbed down summary of their research agenda. Good for you. Let me repeat:
In their baseline model:
1. What is the static inefficiency in this model?
2. What is the dynamic inefficiency?
3. What is the action the government can take to correct the problem in 1?
3. What is the action the government can take to cor ...[text shortened]... wer the questions. You wanted to show the cards, I'm calling your bluff right here, right now.
20 May 09
Originally posted by PalynkaI've answered with my perspective with citations and relate it to the debate and you keep begging to stick to the homework.
Now, now, don't be shy. So you found a dumbed down summary of their research agenda. Good for you. Let me repeat:
In their baseline model:
1. What is the static inefficiency in this model?
2. What is the dynamic inefficiency?
3. What is the action the government can take to correct the problem in 1?
3. What is the action the government can take to cor ...[text shortened]... wer the questions. You wanted to show the cards, I'm calling your bluff right here, right now.
Perhaps you can answer in my style the question I have for you. What were the causes of the 95 peso crisis in mexico including the factors that made the economy vulnerable? What reforms were taken and what were the factors contributing to the successful economic rebound?
Most importantly, please relate this to the debate at hand and explain how one of the socialists that you're such an apologist for, Hugo Chavez, is taking his country's economy towards vulnerability and why you defend it???
20 May 09
Originally posted by rwingetthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%932009_Icelandic_financial_crisis
The Scandinavian economies seem to be doing perfectly well. Especially Norway, as the title post points out. That level of "socialism", as paradoxical as it may sound, makes for a more healthy and sustainable brand of capitalism. Without it the market tends toward chaos and turbulence, which lead inexorably to greater and greater inequalities in wealth. A f ...[text shortened]... the wealthy elite. Capitalism may survive, but Friedman and his henchmen are dead and buried.
20 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAll they need to do is elect Bush and Obama and they will be on equal footing with the states. Heck, after having practiced destroying the US, I'm sure it would take them half the time in destroying Norway. LOL.
Thought this would be of some interest to our costive socialists and blue-eyed freemarketeers ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14frugal.html?em