From: Russell Coker
Now could you please ask the ANZ people to remove that .sig.
Have you ever worked in a large corporation?
I don't think that there's anything criminal in Austrian Economics, it merely fails to predict the economy and is advocated by people who don't even understand other people.
I have studied Austrian economics as well as the other types. The Austrians don't seem any more silly than the others (though that is not saying much). If you judge experts by a) ability to make predictions that turn out to be right b) ability to explain things that otherwise make no sense c) ability to design things that work d) ability to fix problems, the economics discipline as a whole is an epic fail.
Tim Josling wrote:
> .......................snip
>
> I have studied Austrian economics as well as the other types. The
> Austrians don't seem any more silly than the others (though that is
> not saying much).
>
>
> If you judge experts by
> a) ability to make predictions that turn out to be right
> b) ability to explain things that otherwise make no sense
> c) ability to design things that work
> d) ability to fix problems,
> the economics discipline as a whole is an epic fail
Tim I quite agree;
but would you agree the fundamental problem is a failure to accept,
the necessary constraints of objective falsifiability.
Two of which would be :
- abandonment of value judgements
-operational definitions of terms;
regards Rohan McLeod
On Fri, January 17, 2014 1:26 pm, Tim Josling wrote:
If you judge experts by a) ability to make predictions that turn out to be right b) ability to explain things that otherwise make no sense c) ability to design things that work d) ability to fix problems, the economics discipline as a whole is an epic fail.
Whilst this is an empirical question that would require a great deal of analysis a heuristic approach would initially suggest that there's a tendency to remember the failures of economic predictions rather than the successes, and that economic forecasting can become self-fulfilling through policy decisions. In contrast I don't see much argument against a core economic principles, for example, that if the supply of a good is restricted the price goes up, or if the price is increased the demand is reduced. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Lev Lafayette wrote:
On Fri, January 17, 2014 1:26 pm, Tim Josling wrote:
If you judge experts by a) ability to make predictions that turn out to be right b) ability to explain things that otherwise make no sense c) ability to design things that work d) ability to fix problems, the economics discipline as a whole is an epic fail. ........snip
In contrast I don't see much argument against a core economic principles, for example, that if the supply of a good is restricted the price goes up, or if the price is increased the demand is reduced.
Me nether; problem is following Adam Smith, I think this was generalised to the notion that 'a competitive free-market' was 'the' panacea for all social economic problems; certainly by the dries. Mind you the expectation that in a competitive free-market of rational consumers and rational producer/ retailers; I wouldn't expect it to be too hard, to demonstrate mathematically that price will follow demand. Perhaps I should add the rider, that in my view all trade can be viewed as barter; money being merely a ' synthetic commodity' which is optimised for trade as: light, compact, durable, difficult to duplicate and in limited supply. Which view explains simply, why printing money causes inflation; ..........unless you happen to be the US government ! regards Rohan McLeod
On Fri, January 17, 2014 3:05 pm, Rohan McLeod wrote:
Me nether; problem is following Adam Smith, I think this was generalised to the notion that 'a competitive free-market' was 'the' panacea for all social economic problems; certainly by the dries. Mind you the expectation that in a competitive free-market of rational consumers and rational producer/ retailers; I wouldn't expect it to be too hard, to demonstrate mathematically that price will follow demand.
I suspect that you actually haven't read "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations". You seem to attribute claims to Adam Smith as if he was some sort of bogey-man which, from my recollection, he didn't make at all. If you *have* actually read the relevant text, please point out to me where he actually says that a competitive free market is the panacea for all social and economic problems? -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On 17/01/14 13:26, Tim Josling wrote:
From: Russell Coker
Now could you please ask the ANZ people to remove that .sig.
Have you ever worked in a large corporation?
My large corporate employer is far larger than yours and doesn't require this sort of idiocy. The *only* cases I'm aware of where this sort of thing is even close to required is a statement of business identity in some European countries.
On 17/01/2014 10:19 PM, Julien Goodwin wrote:
On 17/01/14 13:26, Tim Josling wrote:
From: Russell Coker
Now could you please ask the ANZ people to remove that .sig.
No, quite simply my view is that he SHOULD not be posting with his ANZ email address or through ANZ's systems; unless of course he is directly addressing something to do with his employer or otherwise reasonably representing them.
Have you ever worked in a large corporation?
Larger organizations are usually the worst when it comes to those useless and extremely annoying disclaimers.
My large corporate employer is far larger than yours and doesn't require this sort of idiocy.
The *only* cases I'm aware of where this sort of thing is even close to required is a statement of business identity in some European countries.
I wish there was an end to general disclaimers on ALL emails, they are useless and usually take up far too much of a simple message. I seriously doubt they have any reasonable legal standing in particular -- it's like bad spam over and over and over again. Cheers A.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Julien Goodwin <luv-lists@studio442.com.au
wrote:
On 17/01/14 13:26, Tim Josling wrote:
From: Russell Coker
Now could you please ask the ANZ people to remove that .sig.
Have you ever worked in a large corporation?
My large corporate employer is far larger than yours and doesn't require this sort of idiocy.
The *only* cases I'm aware of where this sort of thing is even close to required is a statement of business identity in some European countries.
This is interesting, seeing I do not have a corporate employer. My point was that in a large corporation, it is generally an unproductive activity or a waste of time for plebs to petition corporate / head office for a change in policies such as these. Given that it may be the original post quoted above was more about saying "I don't work for a stupid corporation, unlike you" ie yet another tedious status display. Also I studied law for a few years and given the complexities of these things, I try to avoid being a bush lawyer.
On 18/01/14 21:07, Tim Josling wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Julien Goodwin <luv-lists@studio442.com.au <mailto:luv-lists@studio442.com.au>> wrote:
On 17/01/14 13:26, Tim Josling wrote: > From: Russell Coker > >> Now could you please ask the ANZ people to remove that .sig. > > Have you ever worked in a large corporation?
My large corporate employer is far larger than yours and doesn't require this sort of idiocy.
The *only* cases I'm aware of where this sort of thing is even close to required is a statement of business identity in some European countries.
This is interesting, seeing I do not have a corporate employer.
My point was that in a large corporation, it is generally an unproductive activity or a waste of time for plebs to petition corporate / head office for a change in policies such as these.
Given that it may be the original post quoted above was more about saying "I don't work for a stupid corporation, unlike you" ie yet another tedious status display.
Excellent point Tim. I think it's useful to examine the "meta-communication" in lists such as these rather then taking words at their face-value.
participants (7)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
David Zuccaro -
Julien Goodwin -
Lev Lafayette -
Rohan McLeod -
Tim Josling -
Trent W. Buck