Current account deficit of the US in 2005

[KrazyHorse]

Physicists know everything.

Learn this and you will never go wrong.

[chequita guevara]

Kevin Philips says we're ****ed. So far, this guy has been batting 100% with his predictions since he was working for the Nixon Presidency. Hence my desire to move my savings into non-US currency.

[DanS]

I'm sure there were lots of fine economics folks in the Nixon administration, but by and large Nixon's presidency was dogmeat with regard to the economy. Hardly something to crow about.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Physicists know everything.

Learn this and you will never go wrong.

You can't get away as easily talking out of your ass in physics.

[KrazyHorse]

Some people do manage it, though.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Economists are often full of ****.

"If you lined all the economist up end to end, they'd all point in different directions." ... Harry S Truman

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


"If you lined all the economist up end to end, they'd all point in different directions." ... Harry S Truman

I hadn't heard that one before.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
National Saving is defined as S = Y - C - G. its a definition, and im not going to derive it now (but its very easy)

Defined as yes. That doesn't necessarily mean that an increase in G increases savings. I'll go along if you say ceterus parabus, because then Y is constant. But Y isn't constant, so there's no reason for discussion.

uh huh. Im not using the Keynsian cross (the IS-LM model) im using the long run classical model. which is totally different from the keynsian cross

I'm not talking about the IS-LM model. I'm talking about the very simple idea that savings is primarily dependent on income not interest rates. It's hard to believe for you I know, but that idea was too difficult for the classisist to comprehend. Any use of that idea by neo-classisists is bastardization.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
it is simplified fron reality

Yeah, no ****! The CAD and govt spending increased together. If you think that makes a principle you're nuts.

Just a little advice. Try to make sense out of what you read instead of just accepting it as fact just because the person has qualifications. A lot of economists have qualifications but the're just very stupid.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Just a little advice. Try to make sense out of what you read instead of just accepting it as fact just because the person has qualifications. A lot of economists have qualifications but the're just very stupid.

that takes some balls to say, seeing how you live in fresno, and this guy went to princeton, has a PhD from MIT, was hired by the federal bank in boston, worked for the CBO, works in research at NBER, has written a textbook that has been revised five times, and now is a professor at harvard.

What a discussion this has been. First, we got a guy looking up Y C and G on google. Then we've got a physicist saying that he knows it all. Now that he's relinquishes his title as chief bonehead, it seems that we have a heir to the throne.

First you say:

The model that LoA is using is the same model that Keynesians created.

I respond with:

uh huh. Im not using the Keynsian cross (the IS-LM model) im using the long run classical model. which is totally different from the keynsian cross

then you respond with:

I'm talking about the very simple idea that savings is primarily dependent on income not interest rates. It's hard to believe for you I know, but that idea was too difficult for the classisist to comprehend.

which has nothing to do with the fact that IM NOT USING THE KEYNSIAN model. and since the classical model has accurately predicted what happens when G increases, I think we'll use the classical one in this case. you wanna say its wrong? go ahead, but the fact that its being used in this textbook AFTER 5 EDITIONS clearly shows that youre on the wrong side on this one.

but you know what, its all water under the bridge, because in ten years, youll still be in fresno, which last I checked, isnt exactly a mecca for finance or economics, krazy horse will still think that he knows it better than the people paid to do it, to his detriment, and ill be the last one laughing, because i will actually be involved in the field.

and one more thing, I missed this piece of gold on the way down.

KH has his 101 straight, which isn't something you can say of a lot of people.

you taking a shot at me? say it straight up or not at all. no need to slip one in the back door.

[Kidlicious]

Ok, you're right because you're superior to us. Whatever.

[Kidlicious]

I doubt if people are going to buy your "I'm superior so I'm right argument." So why don't you tell us how you figure that the classisists argued that savings is determined by fiscal policy and not the interest rates. I seem to remember a S=I model with interest rate on the vertical axis. We can go to the Keynesian literature if you like to see how Keynes debunked that model. Are you saying that he didn't? Who did then?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
And, while I might agree (not owning one myself), I can tell you with absolute certainty that, the vast majority of American consumers being right savvy about the tradeoffs

You and I don't know the same Americans then.

[KrazyHorse]

Bump for submarine man

[Kidlicious]