tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43175004641074671822024-03-13T12:48:25.824-07:00New Monetarist EconomicsRandom Observations for Students of Economicsnyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.comBlogger740125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-55345215388532749932014-12-31T00:00:00.000-08:002014-12-31T00:00:17.327-08:00The Meaning Of Heavy Haul Trucking For The Economy Of The WorldThe transport industry is crucial for the correct functioning of world
economy and heavy haul trucking has an important role in it. Heavy and
large equipment, construction materials and oversized loads are moved on
the road. In general, goods are transported from manufacturers to
markets. Different factors can be considered for maintaining the success
of a business.<br />
<br />
Even if airplanes and trucks are crucial for transports today,
railroads were used a lot for large equipment in the past. The most
trusted companies nowadays are ones that can deliver goods using roads.
In a company, there are different types of employees: those who make
schedules, supervisors of activity, or drivers.<br />
<br />
On a whole continent the amount of goods that can be transported
may be of millions of tons. The economy of the world can benefit a lot
because many firms can create jobs. There are orders all the time, as
there is a constantly requirement for equipment and goods. Even if there
are ups and downs, businesses can deal with them very well.<br />
<br />
The duty of transporters can be hard today, especially because of
the economical environment. Times may be difficult, but they are also
challenging and thrilling. Firm owners must consider factors like gas
prices change, coverage, or driver shortages. There are industries that
are completely dependent on <a href="http://3dms-adult-sites.blogspot.com/">heavy haul trucking</a> and agriculture too.<br />
<br />
Seeds, equipment and fertilizers are transports that may be used
in agriculture. The final goods can be moved with vehicles on the road
to markets, directly from farmers. The value of services is known by
company and this cam be a good reason for prices to go up. Choosing an
area where there is lack of some goods and selling there could be a
useful strategy. Both, small and big industries can rip the benefits
that heavy haul trucking firms can provide.<br />
<br />
Raw materials and fuels may be required in many industries and
these are usually transported by trucks. You can get the help of
transports between production phases, or after a product is finished.
When you need heavy haul transport services, you need to choose a
reliable company. Prior to making a selection, evaluate your needs and
take your time to do the proper research.<br />
<br />
You can make a comparison between different companies and see
their offers. There are some parameters to consider: company reputation,
price, diversity of services, future needs and experience. A firm that
could meet your future requirements can be the best choice.<br />
<br />
The majority of companies can specify their prices by giving you
some quotes. Often, a reputable company could mean a higher cost.
Experienced service providers will make less errors and can work at a
professional level. A diversity of service could mean that any types of
transports can be made. People can develop a long term relationship with
a company in the field.<br />
<br />
Many individuals can enjoy the advantages offered by heavy haul
trucking companies, as they can be used for large shipments. Employees
who work in the domain may not have an easy job, but they can make a lot
of profit. Because goods can be transported with low costs, the role of
trucks in the world economy is significant. A large diversity of goods
could be moved on the road.nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-78062589704108176142013-12-30T16:57:00.000-08:002013-12-30T16:57:00.123-08:00New Keynesian Economics <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/OGZniUXRpVQ?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
The global financial crisis has clearly illustrated that there is a
serious vacuum of ideas on what to do next as a civilization. Majority
of the public senses (on various levels) that key leaderships of many
Western states do not offer much more beyond printing more money,
socially brutal austerity, etc. Playing for time and looting are not
solid ideas and everybody knows it. This inevitably opens up society to
ideas from below which will eventually result in part of the elite
siding with these ideas to co-opt them and ride them to power.<br />
In
United States, we saw the libertarian critique meme and the reactionary
"going back to FDR policies" meme rapidly become dominant online over
the last 2 years. Collapsist and neofeudalism memes are also about to
become dominant. Collapsism in particular forces future oriented
thought. The non-Internet world is quickly following behind since it
took researchers a year or so to educate themselves about the fraud that
caused the crisis, to put their books out, and then another few months
for people to read the books. Various socially visible pundits can now
defer to books as authoritative sources in speaking up. The market for
new type of demagogy (talk radio being the old type) is nowhere near to
being saturated.<br />
This awakening resembles a sort of a popular
front in the making since people from diverse ideological backgrounds
are creating a consensus of what they are against (federal reserve
corruption, military eating most resources, financial oligarchy and its
personal lawyer/butler [US congress]). A marriage of convenience of this
sort is usually created when all other options are exhausted and it
will split into petty infighting once the current regime is changed.<br />
All
the accelerating muck racking and massive corruption exposures going on
currently will begin to create a dissident critical mass in the near
future. This is due to the gently exponential curve that is word of
mouth communication and most importantly due to some elites sensing that
popular sentiment now allows certain things to be safely discussed on a
national level. Like in a jury herd dynamic, a minority of consistent
and tireless individuals can swing the entire group whether at elite
level, the level of a bar or church, or national level. The vacuum of
workable ideas in leadership allows such informational waves to spread
and take hold rapidly. It may have taken Christianity 300 years to
become a dominant meme but with present communication technology,
informational "viruses" can do the trick in just years.<br />
<div style="overflow: hidden;">
<br />
</div>
nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-8348343701925466462013-12-29T17:00:00.000-08:002013-12-29T17:00:18.274-08:00Seinfeld Economics - Monetarism <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/X9nSHOueK0E?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
One theory of inflation is called monetarism. This theory says that
inflation is always present and that it is a monetary problem. This
theory also says that the amount of money that exists will determine the
amount of money that people spend. The idea is that the price of items
will go up only if the supply of the items is lower than the demand for
the items. The price of items will also go down if the demand for the
items is higher than the supply of the items.<br />
This theory also
says that since the amount of spending is determined by the amount of
money in circulation the demand for items can be determined by
calculating the amount of money in existence. Because of this theory,
one could assume that if the amount of money in circulation goes up so
does the amount of spending and so does the demand for consumer goods.
Using this theory, the only reason that prices would go up is if the
amount of money in circulation goes up.<br />
Another theory of
inflation is called the rational expectations theory. This theory says
that inflation has to be looked at as a long-term projection and not
just due to the here and now. Although it is a lot like monetarism the
rational expectations theory believes that the monetarism theory reacts
too quickly to what is occurring now and that what happens down the road
is more important. One reason that the rational expectations theory
wants to avoid reacting too quickly to slight changes in inflation is
that when people react too quickly they often cause drastic changes in
inflation simply by trying to avoid them.<br />
The Austrian theory of
economics says that as people will spend more money as they get more
money to spend. This is kind of a spend what you earn philosophy. The
lifestyle and spending habits of people are equal to their disposable
income. This theory is different from the others because it doesn't
believe that the production of goods will increase in order to meet an
increase in demand. This theory believes that these kinds of changes in
the economy don't happen as quickly as some of the other theories
believe they do. And this theory also believes that the distribution of
goods and money will not always seek to achieve some sort of balance.<br />
<div style="overflow: hidden;">
<br />
</div>
nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-7996507698714805072013-12-29T16:55:00.000-08:002013-12-29T16:55:40.012-08:00Business Cycles Explained: Monetarist Theory <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/SgweT-7i1hU?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-76134147975758571722013-12-29T16:49:00.001-08:002013-12-29T16:49:46.482-08:00Economics: New Keynesians versus Monetarists <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://img.youtube.com/vi/NNm5Q1__EiA/0.jpg"><param name="movie" value="http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/NNm5Q1__EiA&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/NNm5Q1__EiA&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
Will President Barrack Obama's love affair with <a href="http://3dms-adult-sites.blogspot.com/">Keynesian economics </a>bring us out of this mess?<br />
During
the 2008 Presidential campaign I was of the opinion that if McCain were
to be elected that he would be blamed, by the general public, for every
downturn in our country going forward, but if Obama were elected that
he would get a free pass or at least the benefit of the doubt for quite a
while because the general perception in America, with the help of
mainstream media, would be that all of this is fallout from the
"terrible and incompetent" Bush Administration. With this new completely
partisan stimulus bill, which will be the largest expenditure in
America's history, President Obama will sign away that free pass. He
doesn't need Republican support for this bill to pass, but he wants it
because if the boat sinks he doesn't want to be known as the one who
single handedly pulled the plug.<br />
Keynesian Economics<br />
Keynesian
economics is an economic theory coined by British economist John
Maynard Keynes. I will give a very quick and very basic description of
the general premise. Keynes believed that, during times of recession or
depression, the government should step in and "prime the pump." The
general idea is to borrow a massive amount of money and spend it. This
is what Barrack Obama meant when he said "some say this is a spending
bill; yes this is a spending bill; that's the whole point." In Keynes'
theory you have three major bodies, The Government, the People, and the
Economy. The idea is for the government to "deficit spend," the
government would borrow money and put it in the hands of the people
(ideally through social programs that would effectively increase the
size of government.) The people would then pump the money back into the
economy. Two obvious questions this raises to me is "what if the people
put it under their mattress," and "Where does the money come from?" (If
we are borrowing it from domestic sources, there is no new money being
pumped into the economy, it is just being moved around. If the Federal
reserve is just printing it, we all know what inflation will do. If we
are borrowing it from China It's all up to the imagination as to what
that means.) One of the major tenets of Keynes' theory is based on The
Phillips Curve, which shows an adverse relationship between inflation
and unemployment. If unemployment goes up, inflation goes down and vice
versa. According to Keynes' theory, the two can never co-exist. Keynes'
theories, according to many economists, were not only discredited but
dis-proven in the 1970s when The United States was faced with very high
unemployment and massive inflation. The occurrence was nicknamed
"stagflation" because of the combination of stagnant growth and
inflation.<br />
In 1982, when the economy was worse than what we are
seeing now, Ronald Reagan used the concepts of economists Arthur Laffer
and Robert Mundell's supply side economics or "trickle down economics,"
by slashing the top marginal tax rate from over 70 to under 30%. Reagan
also used Milton Friedman's Monetarism or a free market economy and also
used basic principles of Keynesian economics (the spending being
largely on defense which does not increase the size of government.)
Reagan led the U.S. into one of the greatest periods of economic growth
in it's history.<br />
Keynesian Economics and The New Deal.<br />
Its
funny how there can be such drastic accounts of the same occurrence. You
could conceivably line up a mile of Ph.D. Keynesian Economists that
will tell you that The New Deal brought America out of the great
depression. You could also find the same amount of Ph.D.s that will
argue that The New Deal was the beginning of an irresponsible welfare
state. Many Economists believe that the New Deal prolonged and deepened
The Great Depression and that only World War II saved America from it.<br />
I
think the answer can be found in a direct quote from FDR's own Treasury
Secretary Henry Morgenthau. "We are spending more money than we have
ever spent before, and it does not work. I want to see this country
prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get
enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after
eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as
when we started and an enormous debt, to boot." -Henry Morgenthau,
Treasury Secretary 1939.<br />
<div style="overflow: hidden;">
<br />
</div>
nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-58413164068622138282013-10-19T23:31:00.001-07:002013-10-19T23:31:24.988-07:00Walmart hires Dan Bartlett, former George W. Bush spokesman, as executive VP<strong>Walmart</strong> has announced the hiring of <strong>Dan Bartlett</strong> as executive vice president for corporate affairs.<br />
Bartlett, who's been in PR, is best known as former spokesman for <strong>President George W. Bush</strong>.
His work included pushing reporters to find out who sent Joseph Wilson
to Niger (the famous incident that ultimately led to the outing of CIA
agent Valerie Plame) and defending Bush against post-administration
charges by a former aide, Scott McClellan, that the administration had
been untruthful in the runup to the Iraq war and in the Plame matter.<br />
He did speak bluntly and accurately on at least one occasion, as told in Wikipedia:<br />
<blockquote>
At the end of 2007 Bartlett, during an interview with
Evan Smith published in the January '08 Texas Monthly, implied some
conservative bloggers, such as Hugh Hewitt, were unfiltered mouthpieces
for the GOP and Bush White House.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your
support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate
exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something
that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus
on.</blockquote>
Rush Limbaugh, Mr. Bartlett from Walmart is on the line.<br />
He'll be moving to Northwest Arkansas, where he should feel right at home.<br />
WALMART NEWS RELEASE<br />
Dan Bartlett Joins Walmart as<br />Executive Vice President of Corporate Affairs<br />
<br />BENTONVILLE, Ark., May 22, 2013 — Today Walmart announced that Dan
Bartlett, 41, will become the company’s new executive vice president of
Corporate Affairs in late June. Bartlett was most recently president
and CEO of the U.S. arm of Hill+Knowlton Strategies, a global business
advisory firm serving corporations, non-profits and associations in 52
countries.<br />
<br />Bartlett will report to Mike Duke, Walmart’s president and CEO, and
will serve as a member of the company’s executive council. His
responsibilities will include oversight of external communications,
government relations and sustainability, as well as the Walmart
Foundation, which contributed more than $1 billion in cash and in-kind
donations last year.<br />
<br />“Corporate Affairs plays a strong role in helping us meet our
business objectives at Walmart,” said Mike Duke. “The team also helps
us step up to the broader role we can play in meeting some of the
biggest social challenges in the world today — issues like fighting
hunger, job creation, sustainability, women’s economic empowerment and
the availability of healthier food.” <br />
<br />Duke added, “Dan’s personal integrity, strong professional skills
and broad understanding of world affairs make him the ideal leader to
continue moving us forward. He has had key roles in government and at a
major communications company. He has also counseled a wide range of
multinational corporate clients in areas such as growth strategy, crisis
management and public opinion. He is known for being straightforward, a
good listener and collaborative — all traits that will serve him well
at Walmart.”<br />
<br />“Growing up in a small Texas town, I've seen first-hand the
opportunity Walmart provides and the positive impact it can have on
local communities,” said Bartlett. “Now Walmart is in a unique position
to make a difference in the lives of millions of people around the
world. I am honored and excited to be part of that.” <br />
<br />At Hill+Knowlton, Bartlett helped lead the firm’s international
growth and managed its day-to-day operations. He provided strategic
counsel to the company’s largest accounts, which represent key
industries, including finance, telecommunications and defense. He has
also helped multinational companies and NGOs build and align their
sustainability, public policy and philanthropic programs.<br />
<br />Prior to this, Bartlett was a senior counselor to President George
W. Bush. In this role he was responsible for all aspects of the
president’s strategic communications planning, formulation of policy and
implementation of the president’s agenda. He also oversaw the White
House press office and the Offices of Communications, Media Affairs and
Speechwriting and Global Communications. Bartlett also played a key
role in George W. Bush’s presidential and Texas gubernatorial campaigns.
<br />
<br />Bartlett has a Bachelor of Arts in political science from the
University of Texas at Austin and is currently an adjunct professor at
the university’s Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-24800840284548305512013-10-19T23:14:00.000-07:002013-10-19T23:14:16.340-07:00The Economic Crisis and the American Dream
<div _cid="shareBylineFcbkLike" class="_c" id="fbBylineLoaded" style="display: block; visibility: visible;">
<div class="fb-like fb_edge_widget_with_comment fb_iframe_widget" data-href="http://www.zimbio.com/George+W+Bush/articles/wY8b0P2Irzq/Economic+Crisis+American+Dream" data-layout="button_count" data-send="false" data-show-faces="false" data-width="60">
<span style="height: 20px; width: 72px;"></span></div>
</div>
<div align="center">
<strong><a href="http://3dms-adult-sites.blogspot.com/"><img border="0" class="zName" height="300" src="http://frankpaulgambino59.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/president-obama.jpg?w=220&h=300" title="President Obama" width="221" /></a></strong></div>
<div align="center">
<strong>The Economic Crisis and the American Dream</strong></div>
<div align="center">
<br /></div>
<strong>I
do not know what is going on anymore. I mean the reality we have to
endure seems to be slipping in the cracks of the political intent. I
understand somewhat the intent of President Obama’s job bill, but will
it fix anything or just allow us to travel down the road of disaster at a
slower but steady pace? We are on a road towards economic destruction
and there may well be no turning back.</strong><br />
<br /><strong>Are we
about to repeat the same folly that caused the economic crisis in the
first place or will we design a system of genuine change. Is President
Obama’s administration’s intelligence level over estimated? Is he really
a very smart man or just another politician with smooth words and
style. If he is the intelligent man I came to believe he is, it is
about time he showed me something.</strong><br />
<br /><strong>President
Obama needs to return to the grassroots that created him and come to the
frontline and see real people in real time in real situations, then and
only then will he get a grasp of reality about the economic situation
Americans must endure. He talks a good game, but I am sorry I am not
feeling it.</strong><br />
<br /><strong>You have to take it to the street
Mr. President. The American dream is dead. The first law of nature
is self preservation and people are starting to do whatever is necessary
to survive. Young parents are selling their body and souls to feed
their children to people who have little more than them, meaning very
cheap on the streets. And if you go to a typical street corner 9 out of
10 of the people out there are selling drugs because they are
starving. So to eat they sell poison to their neighbors in the form of
crack, dope and ecstasy. As they themselves smoke marijuana to live
with themselves. That is reality! The American Dream is Dead!</strong><br />
<br /><strong>We
no longer believe in the American dream, when the education of
illiterate afghans supersede feeding Americans. Are the afghans
required to take drug tests or ship us heroin? The American dream is
dead Mr. President and reality is the matter of facts. As we spend more
money on the <a href="http://3dms-adult-sites.blogspot.com/">Pentagon </a>to dominate militarily around the world, Americans are starving literally. It isn’t right.</strong><br />
<br /><strong>This
jobs bill is a joke and will not be taken seriously in Washington.
Just because you can afford crack does not make it a good buy. This is
crack economics. This is spending money simply to support a habit.
All it does is support a habit the government has called aimlessly
spending and it is not a good idea, because it does not deal with any of
the real issues that must be addressed.</strong><br />
<br /><strong>People
are afraid to invest their money because there is no foreseeable return
on a new investment and those in business are simply trying not to lose
it all and be forced to go out of business. We need an incentive for
investment at the small business level and not big corporate America. I
could create 10 jobs with under $50G.</strong><br />
<br /><strong>There is no investment capital for the <a href="http://3dms-adult-sites.blogspot.com/">small businesses</a>.
We at the NCNCHINC like many organizations are stalled due to no
investment capital. We have a building worth $125 that we cannot open
due to a $10G roof, we have a restaurant we are welling to turn into a
soup kitchen to feed the poor who are only getting poorer and cannot do
it because we can not pass code inspections. We cannot operate our
businesses because of investment capital, because the banks are also
holding on to their money. So people who could invest are not because
out of fear of losing their investment capital as well as the banks and
this package does nothing to address these fears.</strong><br />
<br /><strong>Fear
has replaced the dream of America! America does not need continued
unemployment, we need jobs. We do not need to just build infrastructure
we need jobs. What good is a new paved road and renovated schools when
you cannot afford gas to drive your car or repairs to keep it on the
road, while the mother of the children in schools gets sick from AIDS trying to make ends meet? This is a joke and it is not funny at all!</strong><br />
<br /><strong>The American Mentality needs an overhaul. We legalize same sax marriage to prove what? And in the name of <a href="http://3dms-adult-sites.blogspot.com/">Hollywood </a>fixated love? We are a sick nation about to fall. We have oppressive
drug laws for what, to punish? Don’t tell me it is about the security
of American Society, because it is another Hollywood lie. Mr. President
we are dying due to our sick mindset as a nation.</strong><br />
<br /><strong>Unemployment
benefits cannot fix this, it will only prolong the agony. While you
give me $200 you give a singer, baseball player and actor billions to
fool us into believing in a lie called the American dream? Children
do not want to go to school they want to be baseball players and
entertainers not because of reality but because it is the dream, they
were sold and that is your problem. They want to be drug dealers
because they heard of Frank Lucas
and saw American Gangster in the movies. As Hollywood glorifies
sicknesses and you allow it. It is so bad now that even the news is
nothing more than entertainment and half lies and you wonder why this
nation is about to be destroyed?</strong><br />
<br /><strong>Mr. President and the United States
Congress, please address the real issues, which will require many bills
being passed from regulating Hollywood for the security of our nation,
to putting money in the hands of small businesses to creating new laws
and ordinances to allow businesses to operate. And please stop playing
games.</strong>nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-15857730135289119592013-10-03T08:57:00.000-07:002013-10-03T08:57:29.492-07:00Ecuador Celebrates Best Dark Chocolate in the World Pacari Chocolate was started as a small, family owned company in
2000 by Santiago Peralta and Carla Barboto. The couple set out to build
a business that was based on socially and environmentally sustainable
principals to ensure that their products would support the well-being of
the land and community they were a part of. They also sought to keep
their core ingredient, the native Arriba Nacional cacao, from nature to
consumption, as pure as possible and in so doing created the first
single-origin, organic chocolate made entirely in Ecuador. (http://3dms-adult-sites.blogspot.com/) <br />
Pacari now exports to 19 countries around the world and has been
recognized by the leading dark chocolate authority, SeventyPercent.com
as being one of the world's best dark chocolates.<br />
Throughout their journey, Pacari has kept focus on their mission
statement and commitment to their ecosystem. From growers to producers,
the founders and the company at large are involved in every step of
production, ensuring the healthy, ecologically conscious and consistent
delivery of quality, organic products to their worldwide buyers.<br />
Pacari Chocolate is a representation of the excellence achieved by
many small and medium sized Ecuadorian companies. The growth in
globally successful Ecuadorian exporters is in part a result of the
outstanding efforts of the Government of Ecuador under President Rafael
Correa’s Popular and Solidarity Economy, which has encouraged
independent and mirco producers to band together as associations (called
AEPYS or Actores de la Economia Popular y Solidaria). The collective
or AEPYS, operating as a unified group, is able to meet and fulfill the
market demand on a consistent basis, while maintaining the highest
quality. AEPYS exist in all industries, with an emphasis on food,
textile and agricultural products.<br />
According to the National Assembly of Ecuador (Asamblea Nacional del
Ecuador) in 2010, 48.9% of total employment was generated by enterprises
with 1 to 10 employees; these micro and small enterprises generated
67.1% of total employment. Revenues from small business accounted for
27.7% of the gross domestic product. <br />
"Pacari Chocolate is one of many outstanding, globally successful
companies from Ecuador, " says Dick Vega, Trade Commissioner for Ecuador
in Los Angeles, "at the Trade Commission of Ecuador in Los Angeles, our
doors are always open. We invite companies and individuals to meet
with us and explore the opportunities of doing business and investing in
Ecuador. We are committed to helping find the right partners who will
provide the best possible products and their successful, consistent
delivery to market."<br />
[Translation]["Pacari es una de las muchas destacadas empresas que se
han colocado en el mercado internacional exitosamente." dice Dick Vega,
Jefe Comercial de Ecuador en Los Angeles. " La oficina comercial del
Ecuador mantiene las puertas abiertas a empresas y personas para que se
reúnan con nosotros y exploren nuevas oportunidades para hacer negocios
con Ecuador. Nuestro principal compromiso es ofrecer los mejores
productos y su ingreso exitoso y constante de acuerdo al mercado."]<br />
For interested parties, the Trade Commission of Ecuador in Los
Angeles will be hosting Pacari Chocolate and several other outstanding
Ecuadorian exporters this coming October. For an opportunity to meet
with the Trade Commission, Exhibitors or to attend the product showcase,
contact: ecuadortradelax(at)mmrree(dot)gov(dot)ec or
Ecuador(at)ppmg(dot)info<br />
For media inquiries contact: Popular Press Media Group (PPMG), +1-310-860-7774, media(at)ppmg(dot)infonyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-26132579637422121012013-09-26T07:34:00.003-07:002013-09-26T07:34:33.644-07:00Seth Ackerman And Mike Beggs On The Intellectual And Moral Bankruptcy Of Mainstream Economics<div class="post-header">
</div>
Seth Ackerman and Mike Beggs have an interesting article in <i>Jacobin</i>. They note:Marginalist economics arose as a reaction against the analysis of class conflict in classical economics.<br />
<ul>
<li>Greg Mankiw's defense of the 1% is deeply muddled.</li>
<li>The Arrow-Debreu model's use as a benchmark reflects a "broken" "belief system".</li>
<li>Marx and Keynes developed different, but perhaps compatible views of political economy.</li>
<li>Post Keynesians developed anti-neoclassical elements in Keynes'
theory and revived the surplus-based approach to political economy.I'll quote the last two paragraphs here:"But in the long run, radicals need something more from their economics.
Class conflict is at the heart of the capitalist economy and the
capitalist state, yet neoclassical economics will not acknowledge the
fact. How, then, should we think about economics as a discipline and the
question of inequality as its subject? At an individual level, there
are truly great economists working in the mainstream — some harboring
deeply humane instincts, and some even with good politics. As a body of
knowledge, economics yields a flood of invaluable empirical data and a
trove of sophisticated tools for thinking through discrete analytical
questions.But as a vision of capitalist society, mainstream economics is simply
hollow at its core — and the hollow place has been filled up with a
distorted bourgeois ideology that does nothing but impede our
understanding of the social world." </li>
</ul>
nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-58225205438191552802013-09-26T07:03:00.000-07:002013-09-26T07:03:28.533-07:00On The Ideological Function Of Certain Ideas Of Friedman And Barro<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1"><tbody>
<tr><td align="center"><a href="http://3dms-adult-sites.blogspot.com/"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C4JMzTnw9zQ/Ujsd7UBPUVI/AAAAAAAAAV4/Icm30vQJxoI/s320/DynamicKeynes.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td align="center"><b>A Simple Keynes-Like Model</b></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>1.0 Introduction</b><br />
I want to comment on an ideology that would lead to an acceptance of: <br />
<ul>
<li>Milton Friedman's Permanent Income Hypothesis (PIH)</li>
<li>Robert Barro's so-called theory of Ricardian Equivalence</li>
</ul>
My claim is that Friedman and Barro were each responding, in their own way, to the (policy implications suggested by) Keynes' General Theory. So first, I outline, very superficially, some ideas related to the General Theory. I then briefly describe how Friedman and Barro each tried to downplay these ideas, before finally concluding. <br />
I have a number of inspirations for this post, including Robert Waldmann's assertion that the denial of the PIH is consistent with the data; Brad DeLong noting Simon Wren-Lewis and Chris Dillow commenting on the incompetence of, say, Robert Lucas; and Josh Mason pointing out the nonsense that is taught in graduate macroenonomics about the government budget constraint and interest rates. <br />
<b>2.0 Governments Can End Depressions</b><br />
The figure above illustrates some basic elements of Keynes' theory. This specification of a discrete-time, dynamic system includes an accounting identity for a closed economy, namely, that national income in any time period is the sum of consumption spending, investment, and government spending. And it includes a behavioral relation, namely, a dynamic formulation of a consumption function. In this system, consumption is the sum of autonomous consumption and a term proportional to national income in the previous period. One should assume that the parameter <i>b</i> lies between zero and one. <br />
A policy consequence follows: government can lift the economy out of a depression by spending more. Government spending increases national income immediately. Through the consumption function, it has a positive feedback on next period's income, as well. <br />
<b>3.0 The Permanent Income Hypothesis</b><br />
Suppose you are hostile to this policy conclusion and, like the current Republican party in the USA, dislike your fellow countrymen. How might you suggest a theoretical revision to the system structure to mitigate the influence of current government spending? One possibility is to suggest more terms enter the consumption function. With the proper manipulation, current government spending will have a smaller impact, since current income will have a smaller impact on consumption. <br />
So, suppose the consumption function does not contain a term multiplying <i>b</i> by income lagged one period. Instead, assume <i>b</i> multiplies an unobserved and (directly) unobservable state variable which, in turn, is an aggregate of current income lagged multiple periods (<i>Y</i><sub><i>t</i> - 1</sub>, <i>Y</i><sub><i>t</i> - 2</sub>, ..., <i>Y</i><sub><i>t</i> - <i>n</i></sub>). Call this state variable "permanent income", and assume the aggregation is a matter of forming expectations about this variable based on a number of past values of income. <br />
This accomplishes the goal. Current government spending can directly affect current income. But to have the same size impact as before on future income, it would have to be maintained through many lags. The policy impact of increased government spending is attenuated in this model, as compared to the dynamic system illustrated in the figure. <b>4.0 "Ricardian" Equivalence</b><br />
One can go further with unobserved state variables. Suppose that households consume based less on recent income, but, once again, on expected values of future income. And suppose that consumers operate under the mainstream economist's mistaken theory of a government budget constraint. So consumers expect increased income today, if it results from increased government spending, to be accompanied by some combination of future decreased government spending and increased taxes. So the same current upward shock to the system causes an expectation of a future downward shock. <br />
This is the theory of Ricardian equivalence. And, like the PIH, it suggests that Keynesian effects are not as dependable as otherwise would be the case. <br />
<b>5.0 Conclusion</b><br />
The above story portrays economics as driven by results favorable to the biases and perceived self-interests of the extremely affluent. One would hope that academic economics is not entirely like this. nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-77882222352838469272013-09-25T12:57:00.000-07:002013-09-26T06:50:48.334-07:00S. Abu Turab Rizvi, Not Steve Keen<P>Notice the point about the need in neoclassical theory to assume that preferences satisfy Gorman's assumptions of identical and homothetic (non-varying with income) preferences: </P><BLOCKQUOTE><P>"Extensions of the basic arbitrariness results to configurations of preferences and endowments which are in no way 'pathological', and are in fact more and more restrictive, indicate the robustness of S[onnenschein-]M[antel-]D[ebreu] theory. </P><P>For instance, an assumption which is often made to improve the chances of meaningful aggregation is that of homothetic preferences, which yields linear Engel curves and so no complicated income effects at the level of the individual. However, with only a slight strengthening of the requirements of Debreu's theorem, Mantel (1976) showed that the assumption of homotheticity does not remove the arbitrariness of A[ggregate] E[xcess] D[emand functions]. </P><P>Moreover, the possibility that consumers have to be very different, or that unusual endowment effects need to take place, in order for SMD-type results to hold was refuted by Kirman and Koch (1986): even supposing consumers to have identical preferences and collinear endowments does not remove the arbitrariness of the AEDs. Of course, if preferences are <I>simultaneously</I> identical and homothetic, AED is a proportional magnification of individual excess demand (Gorman, 1953; Nataf, 1953) and the whole economy behaves as if it were an individual (obeying the Weak Axiom of Revealed Preference in the aggregate), but this is an extremely special situation. The Mantel and Kirman-Koch theorems effectively countered the criticism of SMD theory raised by Deaton by showing that the primitives can be arrayed in ways which on the face of it are very congenial towards generating well-behaved results, yet the arbitrariness property of AEDs remains." -- S. Abu Turab Rizvi, "The Microfoundations Project in General Equilibrium Theory", <I>Cambridge Journal of Economics</I>, V. 18 (1994): p. 362. </P></BLOCKQUOTE><P>In short, neoclassical economists have proved (by contradiction, in some sense) that neoclassical microeconomics is not even wrong and that methodological individualism has failed. </P>nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-87507056475039475702013-09-21T00:03:00.001-07:002013-09-21T00:03:35.511-07:00CAIXA ECONÔMICA <h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 22px; font-weight: normal; margin: 0.75em 0px 0px; position: relative;">
CAIXA ECONÔMICA ADIA O SORTEIO DAS CHAVES DO RESIDENCIAL TERRA DO SOL</h3>
<div class="post-header" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Droid Sans'; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">
<div class="post-header-line-1">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-2783180986867625884" itemprop="description articleBody" style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Droid Sans'; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 540px;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3dms-adult-sites.blogspot.com/"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XvRBmIGmW5U/UeCki8_bvOI/AAAAAAAACRw/wL0cVckXCkE/s1600/LogoMinhaCasaMinhaVida.jpg" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.0980392) 1px 1px 5px; border: 1px solid rgb(228, 228, 228); box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.0980392) 1px 1px 5px; padding: 5px; position: relative;" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="color: #222222;">
<span style="line-height: 21px;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">A Superintendência da Caixa Federal informou na tarde desta sexta-feira que o sorteio das chaves das 1.440 Unidades Habitacionais do Residencial Terra do Sol I, II, III que seria realizado na próxima segunda-feira dia 15 foi adiado para o dia 22 do mês em curso. a solenidade terá inicio às 14 horas e será realizada no estádio Correião. Os mutuários devem comparecer munidos de seus respectivos. </span></span></div>
</div>
nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-55553897258664724622013-09-20T23:57:00.001-07:002013-09-20T23:57:50.003-07:00Who writes Science and Technology at the Economist?<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">A lot of journalists come to the AAAS meeting every year. And when I am faced with a lot of other journalists, I get asked a lot of the same questions about The Economist. I thought I'd answer a few of them. </span><br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">
<b>Who writes what in the Science section?</b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">
Such a question is understandable. The issue of who writes what is opaque, because we write anonymously. (More about this subject is in <a href="http://www.economist.com/help/DisplayHelp.cfm?folder=663377#About_The_Economist" id="vrrt" style="color: #888888; text-decoration: none;" title="this document">this document</a>.) But just because we write without bylines does not mean we are secretive about what we write, or who writes about what.<br />You can always ask to be put in touch with the author of an article by calling the office, or you can use the <a href="http://www.economist.com/mediadirectory/" id="o0w6" style="color: #888888; text-decoration: none;" title="Media Directory">Media Directory</a> to find out who writes about what. There is even a web form which you can use to contact individual writers.<br />If you were to sift through this online directory, you could easily work out who does what so this is breaking no confidences. But before I go further, may I please ask that if you work for one of those dreadful media disks, please don't put our names on without asking first. For those uninitiated into the world of public relations, there are a number of companies that compile the names and contact details of every journalist on the planet, along with the things they are supposed to be interested in.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">
The end result is that anyone who buys the disk can send mass mail outs of their inane press releases to journalists. Its essentially a form of high-grade spam. It may be that for every hundred people who use such disks there is one legitimate person who just wants to get in touch with something appropriate, but the signal-to-noise ratio is so high with these disks that I always ask to be removed.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Who writes the Science and Technology at the Economist?</span><br />Geoffrey Carr, is the science editor, when he isn't editing he has particular interests in human evolution, genomics, biotechnology, AIDS, malaria and evolution.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">
Paul Markillie writes about technology, and writes about cars in our wonderful consumer magazine<a href="http://www.moreintelligentlife.com/" style="color: #888888; text-decoration: none;">Intelligent Life</a>, and stands in for Geoff when he is away.<br />Tim Cross, science and technology correspondent<br /><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">Jan Piotrowski, science and technology correspondent</span><br /><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">Charlotte Howard, our healthcare correspondent, covers medicine as well as the pharma industry for the business section)</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">
James Astill, our energy and environment editor, covers climate change and other environment stories, and our online column green.view<br /><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">Tom Standage, business affairs editor and editor of Technology Quarterly supplement</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">
<span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">In addition to the writers mentioned we have a network of freelancers, correspondents and stringers around the world who contribute.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">
Similarly, science and technology section writers may write for other sections of the paper, such as Business (Robert Guest), International (Bruce Clark), or United States (Chris Lockwood).</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">
<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Do you hire freelancers?</span><br />Some. But we don't pay well. For Science you should offer us things that are not in the main journals, and if there is a press release you should add value to this in some way with a new angle or piece of information that has not been used or picked up on. You should keep an eye on the kind of things that we write about if you want to pitch successfully.<br />Please don't email me pitches, I only edit from time-to-time and I prefer not to regularly receive pitches about things that I may decide to write on. Pitches should go to the science editor.</div>
nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-1730306687709859252013-09-20T23:55:00.001-07:002013-09-20T23:55:59.784-07:00The Economist<h3 class="post-title entry-title" itemprop="name" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 22px; font-weight: normal; margin: 0.75em 0px 0px; position: relative;">
The Economist explains itself...</h3>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title" style="background-color: #fff3db; color: #1b0431; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', sans-serif; font-size: 18px; font-weight: normal; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div class="post-header" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 1.6; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em;">
<div class="post-header-line-1">
</div>
</div>
<div class="post-body entry-content" id="post-body-7262321924216403395" itemprop="description articleBody" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; position: relative; width: 570px;">
<div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3dms-adult-sites.blogspot.com/"><img border="0" height="280" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aH-E9puzr0w/UioDg07f4VI/AAAAAAAAAnk/YLKe3avKxAk/s400/ecovol_1.jpg" style="-webkit-box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.0980392) 1px 1px 5px; border: 1px solid rgb(238, 238, 238); box-shadow: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.0980392) 1px 1px 5px; padding: 5px; position: relative;" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />I'm most frequently asked about The Economist: <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-1" style="color: #888888; text-decoration: none;">Why are your writers anonymous</a>? <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself" style="color: #888888; text-decoration: none;">Why does the Economist call itself a newspaper and not a magazine</a>? <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-0" style="color: #888888; text-decoration: none;">Is the Economist right or left wing</a>? As we are celebrating our 170th birthday, a number of our writers have decided to answer some of these questions in our popular explainer blog. Other explainers include: <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-2" style="color: #888888; text-decoration: none;">how do we decide what to cover</a>? And: <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-itself-3" style="color: #888888; text-decoration: none;">why do we choose unusual names for our columnists</a>?<br /><br />It may be that we have good reasons for calling ourselves a newspaper but almost always, when I ring up people for the first time, I will say I am from the Economist magazine. It makes no sense to announce yourself as writing for the 'Economist newspaper' and initiate a bizarre conversation along the lines of:<br /><br />"Oh, I read the magazine but I didn't know there was a newspaper as well".<br />"Well actually it is the same publication but we call it a newspaper..."<br />"Oh, why is that....?"<br /><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4;">Cue long explanation which generally I find makes me sound like a prig for pointing out to loyal readers that they have been assuming they've had a magazine subscription for the last 20 years. No thanks. So I'm probably breaching some internal protocol, except I know a former deputy editor who had exactly the same problem and had solved it the same way, but I always say I'm from the Economist magazine. Even though its a newspaper.</span><br /><br />Great. Glad we've cleared that up then.</div>
</div>
</h3>
nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-12637055845793646452013-09-19T03:34:00.000-07:002013-09-20T23:27:49.808-07:00I talk with Larry Kudlow<object id="cnbcplayer" height="380" width="400" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0" > <param name="type" value="application/x-shockwave-flash"/> <param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"/> <param name="quality" value="best"/> <param name="scale" value="noscale" /> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"/> <param name="bgcolor" value="#000000"/> <param name="salign" value="lt"/> <param name="flashVars" value="startTime=000"/> <param name="flashVars" value="endTime=000"/> <param name="movie" value="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/3000200296/code/cnbcplayershare" /> <embed name="cnbcplayer" PLUGINSPAGE="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#000000" height="380" width="400" quality="best" wmode="transparent" scale="noscale" salign="lt" src="http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/3000200296/code/cnbcplayershare" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" /></object>nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-34689219428290766482013-09-17T12:33:00.000-07:002013-09-26T06:50:48.351-07:00Seth Ackerman And Mike Beggs On The Intellectual And Moral Bankruptcy Of Mainstream Economics<P>Seth Ackerman and Mike Beggs have an interesting <A HREF="http://jacobinmag.com/2013/09/dont-mention-the-war/">article</A> in <I>Jacobin</I>. They note: </P><UL><LI>Marginalist economics arose as a reaction against the analysis of class conflict in classical economics.</LI><LI>Greg Mankiw's defense of the 1% is deeply muddled.</LI><LI>The Arrow-Debreu model's use as a benchmark reflects a "broken" "belief system".</LI><LI>Marx and Keynes developed different, but perhaps compatible views of political economy.</LI><LI>Post Keynesians developed anti-neoclassical elements in Keynes' theory and revived the surplus-based approach to political economy.</LI></UL><P>I'll quote the last two paragraphs here: </P><BLOCKQUOTE><P>"But in the long run, radicals need something more from their economics. Class conflict is at the heart of the capitalist economy and the capitalist state, yet neoclassical economics will not acknowledge the fact. How, then, should we think about economics as a discipline and the question of inequality as its subject? At an individual level, there are truly great economists working in the mainstream — some harboring deeply humane instincts, and some even with good politics. As a body of knowledge, economics yields a flood of invaluable empirical data and a trove of sophisticated tools for thinking through discrete analytical questions. </P><P>But as a vision of capitalist society, mainstream economics is simply hollow at its core — and the hollow place has been filled up with a distorted bourgeois ideology that does nothing but impede our understanding of the social world." -- <A HREF="http://jacobinmag.com/2013/09/dont-mention-the-war/">Seth Ackerman & Mike Beggs</A></P></BLOCKQUOTE>nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-84188525534405388822013-09-17T07:30:00.000-07:002013-09-20T23:27:49.819-07:00Crowd-sourcing an AwardVoting is open for the <em>Economist Educators Best in Class Teaching Award</em>, but only for this week. If you teach economics, you may want to review the finalists and vote. <a href="http://solutions.cengage.com/Economics/Best-in-Class-Award/">Click here to learn more</a>.nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-78490204401921621032013-09-16T05:22:00.000-07:002013-09-26T06:50:48.359-07:00International Trade References<P>If I amend my paper, I might want to say something about: </P><UL><LI>Bajona, Claustre and Timothy J. Kehoe (2006). Demographics in Dynamic Heckscher-Olin Models: Overlapping Generations Versus Infinitely Lived Consumers, Staff Report 377, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.</LI><UL><LI>My model does not consider transition from autarky to a stationary with-trade equilibrium; this paper does in a model with a somewhat different structure.</LI><LI>This paper models dynamics by analyzing intertemporal equilibrium paths. The worth of such analysis is <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/General-Equilibrium-Capital-Macroeconomics-Controversies/dp/1843768291">questionable</A> since in any disequilibrium approach to such paths, the initial quantities of capital goods, taken as data in the model, vary. Any time to approach equilibrium is too long.</LI><LI>It is clear on the distinction between international trade in financial capital ("bonds" in the model) and international trade in capital goods (intermediate goods in the model).</LI><LI>The model could be improved by considering the ambiguity of a given endowment of capital in models with multiple capital goods. Does the given quantity of capital consist of a vector of intermediate goods, as in intertemporal equilibrium, or a numeraire quantity, as in the traditional and textbook HOS model?</LI><LI>The model could also be improved by recognizing the impossibility, in general, of <A HREF="http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2012/06/labor-intensities-in-producing-capital.html">classifying</A> commodities as "labor-intensive" and "capital-intensive". Is this issue orthogonal to the issue of factor-intensity reversals in models of international trade?</LI></UL><LI>Bhagawti, J. (1971). The Generalized Theory of Distortions and Welfare, in <I>The Generalized Theory of Distortions and Welfare</I>. Considers how the theory of comparative advantage does not justify laissez faire in international trade, given price distortions. Bhagwati was clearly ignorant of the fact that a positive interest rate and the existence of capital goods destroys the case for laissez faire. So he makes arguably incorrect statements: "...for a perfectly competitive system with no monopoly power in trade, ...the economic system will operate with technical efficieny (i..e., on the 'best' production possibility curve..."></LI><LI>Brewer, Anthony (1985). Trade with Fixed Real Wages and Mobile Capital, <I>Journal of International Economics</I>, V. 18, Iss. 1-2: pp. 177-186. Contains some neat (counter) examples, either with labor being used to directly produce consumer goods or with a circular structure of production. In other words, the structure of my example is distinct.</LI><LI>Dixit, A. and V. Norman (1980). <I>Theory of International Trade</I>, Cambridge Economic Handbooks. This supposedly demonstrates that, without a fixed interest rate distortion, free trade dominates autarky. Do I care about theorems that have no practical application in economics? On the other hand, if they explicitly mention capital and interest rates, I suppose I should reference this.</LI><LI>Lipsey, R. G. and Kelvin Lancaster (1956-1957). The General Theory of Second Best, <I>Review of Economic Studies</I>, V. 24, No. 1: pp. 11-32. They use international trade and tariffs as one of their examples. I do not know that they use the phrase "price distortion", or point out that the mere existence of capital goods with a positive interest rate constitutes a price distortion.</LI><LI>Parrinello, Sergio (2000). The "Institutional Factor" in the Theory of International Trade: New vs. Old Trade Theories. Comments on Krugman's new trade theory.</LI><LI>Prasch, Robert E. (1996) Reassessing the Theory of Comparative Advantage, <I>Review of Political Economy</I>, V. 8, Iss. 1. Is this article fairly summarized as being a criticism of the realism of assumptions?</LI></UL><P>Do I want to say something about surveys of economists showing their overwhelming support for "free trade"? Do I want to say something about how comparative advantage is an empirical failure in providing a straight-forward explanation of patterns of trade? That is, do I want to say something about the Leontief paradox? Do I need to reference additional textbooks on trade, e.g., Krugman, Obstfeld, and Melitz? </P><P>Do I need to even close my numeric example with utility maximization? I have found some economists struggle with the very concept of an open model. Certainly closing the model in a neoclassical manner makes my case quite strongly. I want to ensure that I am claiming merely to produce a simple numeric example, to simplify accepted ideas in the research literature that contradict textbook teaching. </P>nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-73151892984339989752013-09-16T05:06:00.001-07:002013-09-16T05:06:59.914-07:00Thatcher's legacy economicMargaret Thatcher's <a href="http://3dms-adult-sites.blogspot.com/">economic</a> legacy was prompted by the 1976 Labour
government's capitulation to the IMF – but she took it much further.<br />
It
is ironic that Margaret Thatcher’s funeral is to take place at St.
Paul’s in the City of London. The world around Wren’s great monument is
beginning to unravel as a result of the liberalisation forces she helped
unleash. Banks are bankrupt, thousands of jobs lost, and the City’s
hard-won reputation for honour and fair play is now in tatters.<br />
The most fundamental economic action of the Thatcher era was to
intensify the liberalisation of the financial sector. This was dictated
by the City and endorsed by early monetarist economists.<br />
The 1970s inflation was caused originally by this liberalisation and
expansion of credit, at domestic and international level: too much money
chasing too few goods and services. The Lawson boom of the late 1980s
in the wake of attempted government retrenchment came as the money
supply again became unhinged. Since the start of the liberalisation of
finance at the end of the 1960s, the world economy has been on a
roller-coaster, driven by repeated cycles of financial excess,
inflations, economic failure and retrenchment. The almost unanimously
celebrated 1992-2007 boom was an illusion made possible only by a debt
inflation of a more severe kind than that of the 1930s.<br />
As the debate over her legacy rages, economists are loud and united
in the claim that Thatcher "fixed" the economy. Economists like
Professor van Reenan of the LSE make vague assertions about improvements
to the supply side, or to competitiveness. These hark back to arguments
deployed by the original monetarists – Samuel Brittan of the FT; Brian
Griffiths now of Goldman Sachs and an adviser to the Archbishop of
Canterbury; and Peter Jay, ex-economics editor of the BBC. They were
arguments used to justify liberalisation, and these policies caused the
economy to deteriorate in every conceivable way. <br />
An examination of the post-war economic experiences of Britain was included in a 2010 PRIME report, "The Economic Consequences of Mr Osborne".
1976 is a key date: the point at which the Labour Government allegedly
yielded "Keynesianism" to the IMF’s "reforms" that preceded and
anticipated Thatcher’s policies.<br />
The most obvious economic headlines pre- and post-1976 are:<br />
<ul>
<li>
Unemployment averaged 2.3 per cent a year before reform and after 1976 rose to average 7.7 per cent a year;</li>
<li>
GDP growth was 2.7 per cent a year before reform and 2.2 per cent a year afterwards; and</li>
<li>
Income distribution narrowed almost every year before reform. </li>
</ul>
And then the real transformation occurred. "The scale of the rise in
inequality over the '80s was unparalleled both historically and compared
with most other developed countries" according to the IFS in a 2011 report.<br />
It is also a myth that the Golden Age that preceded liberalisation
was burdened by an overreliance on the state, or the public sector.<br />
Before Thatcher came to power, the UK had a thriving manufacturing
sector. In 1970, 33 per cent of the economy was accounted for by
manufacturing. Today that proportion is 10 per cent. Before Thatcher,
the owners of firms felt confident to invest: in real terms, capital
investment grew by 4.6 per cent a year before her reforms and only 2.6
per cent afterwards.<br />
Economic activity extended beyond the state and traditional
manufacturing; there was a golden age of theatre, of design and of
course of popular music. Britain could afford healthcare and education
for all; secondary and higher education was free; a safety net protected
the few that had no work, and a working pension system looked after the
old.<br />
Contrary to the economic profession’s consensus, since reform, the size of government has grown as a share of the economy:<br />
<ul>
<li>
The broadest measure of the size of government, general government
expenditure as a share of GDP, grew from 37 per cent to 41 per cent,
post Thatcher.</li>
<li>
In terms of the public finances, public debt measured as a share of
GDP fell by an average of 5 percentage points a year in the period
before Thatcherism. It rose by 1.3 percentage points per year in the
period afterwards. </li>
</ul>
This growth is of course not the positive result of more government
spending on goods and services or of government investment. Rather, it
represents the costs of the failure of reform. As the economy
deteriorated, the cost of welfare and interest payments rocketed.<br />
In all this debate economists forget what the economy is for. It is
not for the rich, or just about "growth" or "competitiveness". Rather,
it provides an outlet for human creativity, and meets humankind’s deep
desire to work. It creates frameworks that nurture and protect the
young, the vulnerable and the old; that ease the adversities and enhance
the pleasures of life for all those that live within it.<br />
On these terms the reforms promoted by the economics profession and
implemented by Thatcher have failed the people of Britain
– catastrophically. nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-64888493486008201392013-09-15T16:05:00.000-07:002013-09-15T22:31:22.138-07:00Summers KaputHere is <a href="http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/business/larry-summers-withdrawal-letter/586/">the letter from Summers to the President,</a> withdrawing his name. We certainly can't say that Summers is incapable of doing the right thing at the right time. I'm sure there are some sighs of relief in the Federal Reserve System. I would think Janet Yellen's appointment is all but assured, but the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/larry-summers-withdraws-name-from-fed-consideration/2013/09/15/7565c888-1e44-11e3-94a2-6c66b668ea55_story.html">Washington Post</a> doesn't think so.nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-3056314536279254672013-09-13T08:46:00.000-07:002013-09-15T22:31:22.149-07:00Sluggish Growth: What's Going On?As we're approaching the 5th anniversary of the Lehman collapse, and everyone seems to want to write about the fallout from the financial crisis, now seems a good time to take stock of the macroeconomic consequences of that event. The first chart shows the log of U.S. real GDP, and the linear trend that best fits the whole post-1947 time series.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8u2MX-hI4rg/UjDYJK1FxZI/AAAAAAAAAfQ/YrxAaDNND-s/s1600/gdp1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8u2MX-hI4rg/UjDYJK1FxZI/AAAAAAAAAfQ/YrxAaDNND-s/s400/gdp1.png" /></a></div>That's quite stunning. In terms of our standard measure of aggregate economic activity, the U.S. economy did not "recover" from the previous recession in the usual sense. Real GDP is far below the post-World War II trend, and is growing at a rate less than the average growth rate over the period 1947-2013. If you have read Reinhart and Rogoff's book, maybe this doesn't surprise you. Reinhart and Rogoff tell us that recoveries from financial crises tend to take a long time - financial crisis shocks have very persistent effects. So, if we think that Reinhart and Rogoff know what a financial crisis is, and all those previous crises really have something in common with our experience in 2008-09, then that gives us something to go on. Maybe what we're seeing in the above chart is related to financial factors.<br /><br />But what exactly are the financial shocks associated with a financial crisis, and how do those shocks propagate themselves? Unfortunately, Reinhart and Rogoff aren't going to tell us much about that. What's going on? I think most economists recognize that policy played some role in causing the financial crisis - if only through poor regulation - but does our current sluggish growth path represent some dramatic failure of economic policy post-crisis? Are policymakers such dummies that they have failed to implement obvious solutions? Is there some unusual market failure at work that we have failed to understand? Or is what we're seeing actually the best possible outcome we could have hoped for, given what happened in 2008-09?<br /><br />Old-Keynesian IS-LM AD-AS macroeconomists, who still exist, much to the surprise of many of us, think they have an answer. However, I've found the arguments based on that paradigm turn into a <a href="http://newmonetarism.blogspot.com/2013/08/apk-on-warpath.html">web of contradictions,</a> so there's not much point in taking those arguments seriously. As George Bernard Shaw said<blockquote>Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.</blockquote>New Keynesians, on the other hand, are serious people. They have models, which incorporate bits and pieces of well-accepted economic theory, and they fit those models to data. The New Keynesian story about the recent recession is that there is a shorthand for a financial crisis shock - it's a preference shock. Consumers became much more patient during the financial crisis, and that patience has persisted. Unfortunately, given that type of shock, conventional monetary policy cannot correct the ensuing sticky price problem, because of the zero lower bound on the nominal interest rate. With no movement in anticipated inflation, the adjustment that has to occur is a reduction in consumption and output.<br /><br />But prices will adjust over time of their own accord, and the sticky-price inefficiency (relative prices out of whack) will go away. The question is, how quickly does this happen? Is this a case of "in the long run, we're all dead," or what? Well, considerable effort has gone into studying price adjustment at the micro level, of late, so we know something about this. The best summary of evidence, to my knowledge, is in Klenow and Malin's <a href="http://klenow.com/Klenow_Malin_HME.pdf">chapter from the recent edition of the Handbook of Monetary Economics.</a> Klenow/Malin conclude, among other things, that the average length of time between price changes is about one year. That's a longer period than what Bils/Klenow reports, which was a period of four months. The difference seems to be due to the fact that Klenow/Malin choose to exclude price changes from sales, for example. Toothpaste could be priced at $2.00, go on sale for a week at $1.50, then go back to $2.00, and Klenow/Malin would not count that as a price change. So they seem to be bending over backward to make prices look more sticky. But even if all prices change once every year, if we suppose that there was one financial-crisis shock that occurred in the fall of 2008, then five years later we won't have much residual inefficiency due to price stickiness. Further, Klenow/Malin report that prices are more flexible for goods that are cyclically sensitive, i.e. sectors of the economy for which employment and output are more variable relative to trend. Since those are the sectors where the friction would have to matter in delivering the large drop in output we're seeing in the first chart, it's hard to see why a New Keynesian sticky price mechanism is explaining what we're seeing.<br /><br />Further, what we should be seeing, according to New Keynesian models, is real GDP returning to the post-war trend, and a gradual increase in the inflation rate as that happens, as we should be climbing the New Keynesian Phillips curve. But that's not what's happening. People at the Fed and elsewhere are using New Keynesian models as forecasting tools - that's in part why they've been over-optimistic. In a New Keynesian model, a shock hits, and there is some direct effect from the shock (what the frictionless model delivers) and the indirect effect from the sticky price friction. Ultimately the indirect effect dies out, and the economy returns to it's TFP-growth-driven trend. Whether the nominal interest rate is at the zero lower bound will make a difference, as away from the zero lower bound monetary policy can give quicker adjustment of relative prices. But sellers are not going to change their prices any more or less quickly because the nominal interest rate is zero than otherwise, everything else held constant.<br /><br />There's an additional puzzle associated with that idea. The next chart shows my crudely constructed measure of TFP (total factor productivity), using annual capital stock data (available only up to 2011), and household-survey employment. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AH03SydQRE4/UjDk83ScqKI/AAAAAAAAAfg/9RFCpIdbxv0/s1600/solow.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AH03SydQRE4/UjDk83ScqKI/AAAAAAAAAfg/9RFCpIdbxv0/s400/solow.png" /></a></div>There's no particular problem with TFP growth. Indeed, TFP grew at a relatively high rate in 2010 and 2011. The average rate of growth from 2000-2011 is about 0.9%, which is lower than the post-WWII average of about 1.2%, but that's not bad, given the effects of two recessions over that period. Thus, the U.S. economy is very productive, but the quantity of labor input is really low, as we all know.<br /><br />Speaking of employment, it's useful to look at what is happening across sectors of the U.S. economy. The next chart shows some selected components of employment, for the period 2000-2013. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zWrlcCMNoNE/UjEM0XcrzOI/AAAAAAAAAfw/dJ0jcZEpMEw/s1600/employment.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zWrlcCMNoNE/UjEM0XcrzOI/AAAAAAAAAfw/dJ0jcZEpMEw/s400/employment.png" /></a></div>I've normalized each time series to 100 at the first observation. The key message here is dispersion - employment growth has differed markedly across sectors over this period. Employment in durables and nondurables manufacturing fell by about 30% over the thirteen-year period while, at the other end of the spectrum, employment in education and health care grew by almost 40%, and in leisure and hospitality by more than 20%. Construction, which was an employment-growth sector until 2006, suffered the largest employment decline during the recession. Thus, some of the dispersion in employment growth is the result of the recession (construction), but a good part is the result of secular changes in the composition of employment. This is important, as we want to understand more about these long-run changes in sectoral activity - what is due to technology, what is demand shifts, what might be due to the financial factors at work during the recession.<br /><br />I've written before about <a href="http://newmonetarism.blogspot.com/2011/05/sticky-prices-and-keynesian-narrative.html">how it is difficult to square the experience we've had with sectoral shifts with sticky price theory.</a> Relative stickiness in prices has implications for secotoral employment over the business cycle, but those implications are not consistent with the above picture.<br /><br />What about wage stickiness? That's certainly important in the Keynesian narrative, though New Keynesians tend to think more about sticky prices. Suppose, for the sake of argument that a particular worker's wage had been stuck at its pre-financial crisis nominal level until now. How much would that worker's wage have declined in real terms by mid-2013? The answer depends on when the worker's wage became stuck. If it was in January 2007, the decline would be 12% (using pce inflation); if in December 2007, 9%; and if when Lehman went down, 6%. That's large in any case, and that's with zero adjustment over 5 or 6 years. You think wage stickiness matters over that length of time, or that wage stickiness somehow explains the drop in employment we saw in the construction sector? I don't think so.<br /><br />Another useful exercise is to look at the time series for the components of GDP since pre-recession times. The next chart shows these, leaving out net exports. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dQ8OiRls4E8/UjESn_WjwbI/AAAAAAAAAgA/6jFZec4IAEc/s1600/gdpcomponents.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dQ8OiRls4E8/UjESn_WjwbI/AAAAAAAAAgA/6jFZec4IAEc/s400/gdpcomponents.png" /></a></div>Then, compare that to what we see for the 1981-82 recession. In the next chart, I've made the sample period the same length as in the first chart, and the first observation is the same number of quarters before the beginning of the recession, the way the NBER dates it. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FkgWP-Rjxas/UjEVOOjd5GI/AAAAAAAAAgM/WZ1_7GV8hyA/s1600/81-82.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FkgWP-Rjxas/UjEVOOjd5GI/AAAAAAAAAgM/WZ1_7GV8hyA/s400/81-82.png" /></a></div>First, focus on government expenditure. At the turning point in the recession, that's actually higher, relatively, in the recent recession than in 1981-82. You can see the effects of the stimulus and, if you believe in stabilization policy, the timing is really good - government expenditure is high at the turning point, and until mid-2010, before declining. That decline is interesting, as you might think - if you listen to people who argue that the multiplier is really large - that this would have been a disaster. But I don't see the multiplier at work when I stare at that chart. Consumption just keeps growing at a steady rate, though that rate is lower than what we usually see coming out of a recession - for example, look at what happened in the 1981-82 recession.<br /><br />Probably the most important feature of the data in the two charts is the difference in the behavior of investment. In 1981-82, investment declines by about 12% from the first observation, then rebounds significantly, to the extent that it grew more than consumption and output by mid-1983. In the last recession, investment declined by more than 30% from the beginning of 2007 to mid-2009, and in second quarter 2013 was still about 5% lower than in first quarter 2007. Thus, if there is something we should be focusing on, it's not multipliers and consumption, but why investment is so low. That low level of investment, over a five year period, has now had a significant cumulative effect on the capital stock. Thus, we've got OK growth in TFP, but growth in factor inputs is low. That's the key story, from a growth accounting point of view.<br /><br />So, what to make of this?<br /><br />1. There are many frictions to think about. (i) There are financial frictions. Limited commitment and private information, coupled with a low supply of safe assets, can lead to the misallocation of capital and labor in the economy, for example. (ii) There are distortions caused by inefficient taxation and subsidies - for example in the housing sector. (iii) There is inefficient regulation at work, particularly in the financial sector, as we know well. (iv) Heterogeneity and private information in the labor market creates matching frictions, which can be exacerbated by sectoral shifts, and by financial frictions. With all that to think about, why focus on sticky wages and prices? Some people want to take the persistent level decline in GDP, and the persistently low GDP growth rate, as indications that sticky wages and prices are really important, when they should be thinking the opposite. As sluggishness persists, this casts further doubt on sticky wage and price frictions as being the source of the problem. People who cling to those sticky ideas, particularly the Old Keynesians, are either being lazy, or are simply unimaginative.<br /><br />2. What should policy be doing? This is not a problem for monetary policy. The real effects of Fed actions, outside of crisis periods, are small and transitory at best. Whether by accident or design, the Fed has been doing a good job of controlling inflation, and should focus on that. If there are remedies to the poor real-side performance of the U.S. economy, those are fiscal remedies. There are plenty of things to think about: (i) further financial reform; (ii) housing and mortgage market reform - get rid of housing subsidies, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, for example; (iii) health care: Congress should stop fussing about Obamacare - which is imperfect, but nevertheless an improvement - and do something useful for a change; (iv) education: If you believe the cross-country test results, the quality of American education in K-12 is declining, and we know there are huge disparities in access to good education. Some work points to a big payoff from early childhood education; (v) the problems in the north side of St. Louis, and in many other American cities, look very similar to those in the poor countries of the world. The problems may seem intractable, but we should be putting more effort and resources into solving them.nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-55348450823203757432013-09-13T07:39:00.000-07:002013-09-20T23:27:49.827-07:00David Landes<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/us/david-s-landes-historian-and-author-is-dead-at-89.html?smid=pl-share">Here is the <em>NY Times</em> obituary of the great Harvard economic historian</a>.nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-9391481821346178202013-09-12T14:32:00.000-07:002013-09-20T23:27:49.836-07:00Ec 10 is still number one<a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/image/2013/9/12/cs50-statistics-enrollment-graph/">But just barely</a>.nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-56850530417040661662013-09-12T03:59:00.000-07:002013-09-20T23:27:49.844-07:00Who predicted the sluggish economy?<a href="http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2013/09/which-economists-predicted-the-sluggishness-of-the-economic-recovery.html">Robert P. Murphy looks back</a>.nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4317500464107467182.post-29691755413342382492013-09-11T06:34:00.000-07:002013-09-26T06:50:48.367-07:00Wynne Godley On Front Business Page Of New York Times<P>The <I>New York Times</I>, even outside of their editorial pages, seems to think their readership should know about the non-mainstream economists I generally like: </P><UL><LI>11 September 2013 profile of <A HREF="www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/business/economy/economists-embracing-ideas-of-wynne-godley-late-colleague-who-predicted-recession.html">Wynne Godley</A>.</LI><LI>18 July 2013 <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/19/business/economy/when-bernanke-got-it-wrong.html">article</A> on Steve Keen and how his work builds on Hyman Minsky.</LI><LI>5 July 2013 <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/business/economy/warren-mosler-a-deficit-lover-with-a-following.html">profile of</A> <A HREF="http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2013/07/warren-mosler-on-front-business-page-of.html">Warren Mosler</A>.</LI><LI>4 March 2009 <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/books/05deba.html">article</A> on the difficulties heterodox economists face in academia.</LI><LI>23 April 2008 profile of <A HREF="http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2008/04/soros-on-historical-time.html">George Soros</A>.</LI><LI>11 July 2007 <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/education/11economics.html">article</A> on <A HREF="http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2007/07/newsflash-new-york-times-not-last-word.html">heterodox economics</A>.</LI></UL><P>I predict that this profile of Godley will get a more positive response from Post Keynesians and advocates of <A HREF="http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/search/label/Endogenous%20Money">endogenous money</a> than their profile of Warren Mosler did. One caveat: I think Godley was more about using his stock-flow consistent modeling to identify unsustainable trends, than to quantitatively predict the course of, say, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) over the next <I>n</I> quarters. (He also accepted the conclusions of the Cambridge Capital Controversy.) </P><P><B>Update:</B> I should have noticed that the <A HREF="http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2012/06/what-is-schlefer-talking-about-here.html">Jonathan Schlefer</A> is the author of the article on Godley. L. Randall Wray <A HREF="http://multiplier-effect.org/?p=9315">comments</A>. </P>nyakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12516395857028919599noreply@blogger.com0