Tories axe academic freedom

[KrazyHorse]

And bear in mind that if there is no counterfactual where a crash doesn't happen, your work is still useless.

I seldom bother with explaining you my POV in detail because you'd rather put words in my mouth that I didn't stay

a) You're an idiot. I simply demonstrated that a runup (and crash) of asset prices cannot POSSIBLY be taken as your presumption of net social gain or loss, because winners and loser LARGELY cancel each other. And the fact that you DID presume this initially is there for all to see.

b) This doesn't mean that the net is exactly 0. Simply that the net is far lower than a retarded summation would give you

c) I'm inclined to believe that the net is positive. The world doesn't need smart people to cause crashes. Idiots have been doing that since time immemorial. On the other hand, innovative products and modeling have made credit cheaper over time.

In sum, you're a useless **** with no real ability. Nothing but a blowhard who's never thought deeply about a problem in his life. That's why you argue in absolutes.

[Victor Galis]

Lucky/competent investors lending the US money at 0.3%?

If I'm not mistaken, it costs more than that to insure against the default of said loans.

He wore you down with his horrible argument until you made a mistake then he jumped all over it like it's a big deal. For some reason he convinces himself of his superiority that way.

It's not that hard. I'm not very detail-oriented, when I'm mostly posting in the morning between breakfast and rushing off to work, at lunch, or at night while watching TV. This is not at all my best work, and I did make some serious definition mistakes. That being said, KH is awesome at picking up on a small mistake and jumping on it, while totally losing sight of the point. I've lost debate rounds before making that mistake.

Although KH is ignoring me, I can't exactly let his own ill-thought out answers stand:

a) You're an idiot. I simply demonstrated that a runup (and crash) of asset prices cannot POSSIBLY be taken as your presumption of net social gain or loss, because winners and loser LARGELY cancel each other. And the fact that you DID presume this initially is there for all to see.

But there's misallocation of resources during both the runup and the crash, and those don't necessarily cancel out. For example, over-funding R&D then underfunding it, even if on average it's funded just right just means you waste a bunch of money then try to get a bloated research department that must learn how to do stuff on the cheap overnight. Those don't cancel out.

c) I'm inclined to believe that the net is positive. The world doesn't need smart people to cause crashes. Idiots have been doing that since time immemorial. On the other hand, innovative products and modeling have made credit cheaper over time.

If credit is cheaper, it might mean:

a) People have become more tolerant of risk.
b) There is more supply of savings relative to demand for investment (maybe!)
c) Transaction costs are lower than ever (I doubt that this is true to a significant degree).
d) Risk is lower now than ever before.
e) People are idiots and believe (d) is true when it's not.

Guess which options I believe to be true.

Unless transaction costs have fallen significantly or innovative financial products have reduced risk () cheaper credit is either not due to financial innovation or not a good thing (if e is true).

[Kuciwalker]

But there's misallocation of resources during both the runup and the crash, and those don't necessarily cancel out. For example, over-funding R&D then underfunding it, even if on average it's funded just right just means you waste a bunch of money then try to get a bloated research department that must learn how to do stuff on the cheap overnight. Those don't cancel out.

Duh? What's your point? No one here has claimed that a crash represented zero lost resources.

[Victor Galis]

Duh? What's your point? No one here has claimed that a crash represented zero lost resources.

KH claimed that the the inflation and deflation of bubbles came close to cancelling each-other out. That's not at all true.