Links 12 June 2018

Global Macro / Markets / Investing:






  1. How did the Economist manage to change itself from a serious Economics Magazine into a useless rag totally devoid of rationality in economic argument and totally ignorant of the impact of economic factors on the industrial and social structure of a nation?
    One doesn’t expect any better of the Deep State controlled FT

    • How does he NYT get away with kindergarten plainly false lying BS about the US Trade Deficit? Then it is put up here as some sort of guiding economic opinion??? Strewth!

    • Financial Times’ Janan Ganesh is brilliant and truthful.

      Here he is in Oct 2015 saying plainly, “mass immigration is a problem for the average voter and David Cameron’s negotiations with the EU are not going to result in immigration cuts”:


      The Economist published articles on apprenticeships in Germany and how England is trying to copy that system but it is/was being rorted because stacking supermarket shelves in Tesco is/was also called “apprenticeships”.

      • Jacob I am commenting on the articles in Links.I guess if serves my oint to a great extent. They can comment on social issues but the grasp of Macro issues gets worse all the time and now approaches zilch. They cannot even perceiuve there is a macro issue at stake.

    • No such thing as the deep state flawse, anymore that one can clearly see the discord in G summit outcomes. You know not that long ago when some thought these were globalist organizations of takeover. And remember the US has to run deficits as reserve unless you forget Bills and Rubin’s surplus baked in the next recession. But then again not all country’s can be net savers at the same time or importers – exporters.

      Then again what do you think happens as all the ex colonial nations economies become mature at the same time and there is no more room to grow. Only thing to do now is recycle assets and swap them around which seems to only leads to more consolidation except for certain protected sectors nationally.

      BTW don’t know about your issues with the Economist, been neoliberal for a long time, same goes for the FT that Jacob favors.

      • Skippy
        I don’t bother replying to your posts anymore as you never seem to be able to get past the comment level of the local village idiot.
        I just wanted to point out again that it is obvious you never actual my comments – you just sort of skim with the idea that you can just impose something of your own stupidity as a reply. That is starkly demonstrated here, as usual, when you refer to me as neoliberal.

      • The neoliberal bit is when you eschew free market dogma flawse or resort to theoclassical outbursts.

        The very idea that a neoliberal publication like the economist, during the neoliberal period, is now not a serious economic outlet is quite hilarious. Compounded by then invoking the “Deep State” as some undefined but all powerful group thwarting the application of “rational” economics as – you – see it.

        I have clearly stated that I affiliate with post Keynesian in refuting AET and Neoclassical and with that MMT from a direct observation perspective and not one of ideological or any other bias preference. Then get cranky when the proselytizing does not work on me…. duh….

      • BTW flawse Kaldor debunked loanable funds fallacy, a pet idea of monetarists. You did pep up in the past when I mentioned him.

  2. Stephen Morris

    From this morning’s “Letters Fairfax Won’t Publish File”

    11 June 2018

    The real problem with contemporary Economics is the narrow and increasingly irrelevant definition of it used by so many practitioners (“Economists: male, upper class, out of touch”, The Age, 11 June 2011).

    Contrary to widespread belief, Economics is no longer primarily about “allocating limited resources”. Nobel laureates like John Nash (Game Theory), James Buchanan (Constitutional Political Economy) and even Richard Thaler (behavioural economics) fall outside that narrow definition.

    The limited resources definition of Economics belongs to Homo Economicus, not Homo Sapiens. There is considerable evidence that beyond a minimal level of penury, real human beings are more interested in relative status than absolute material well-being. With increasing prosperity they become increasingly interested in “positional goods”, those which have perceived value not because of their absolute qualities but because of how they place people relative to their peers. These have the characteristics of “arms races”: they can never be won, not even with infinite resources devoted to arms.

    The limited resources definition rests upon a Fallacy of Composition. Increasing the resources available to any one individual may improve their relative position, but throwing more resources at everyone cannot improve the relative position of everyone.

    A change of emphasis would have enormous practical importance.

    For example, resources thrown at education are not necessarily aimed at increasing absolute measures of knowledge or capability, but at combatants fighting to gain access to limited prestigious qualifications or membership of restricted social, professional and commercial networks which in turn give them the ability to exploit market power or political power over others.

    For example, resources thrown at ever more, ever larger, ever more garish advertising billboards are an arms race for the essentially limited attention of the human beings at whom they are targeted.

    Economics is really about the formation, aggregation and implementation of preferences.

    Understanding that would restore the relevance of the discipline in a world where robotics and AI are making resources ever more abundant.

    Stephen Morris

    • Morris are you aware that Nash back tracked on Game Theory in the application your advocating post being diagnosed with schizophrenia – right. That would seem to invalidate any agenda or advocacy that uses it as a corner stone in giving it validity, wouldn’t you think. And once that information was on offer sticking to a past position deemed untenable denote some issues with methodology.

      • Because maybe self interest had nothing to do with it or your projection of what you think is, thing is you don’t know.

  3. “In the Trump Administration, Science Is Unwelcome. So Is Advice. – NY Times”
    The NYT is such an open minded open independent deep thinking organisation!!!!!!!!! (/sarc)