From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: What is Econ? (was Re: Running out of oil  -
Date: 5 Oct 92 05:42:58 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Oct4.160857.17661@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.091952.8065@gallant.apple.com> ems@gallant.apple.com (Mike Smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep16.030723.1396@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>>In article <30643@goofy.Apple.COM> ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) writes:
>>
>>>>The reason for inflation is that we print more money.  That is all.
>>>>You increase the money supply, you get inflation.  IFF the rate of
>>>>increase in money supply matches the real increase in productivity
>>>>are you 'in balance'.  (i.e. money supply growth of about 1.5%).
>>>
>>>      This is a rather extreme monitarist viewpoint. See below.
>>
>>One persons 'extreme monitarist viewpoint' is anothers 'classical
>>monitarist viewpoint'... 

>>Wishfull thinking and over simplification.  The folks Keating hurt
>>were not the same ones he benefited.  The folks paying for the bailout
>>were neither.
>
>     Who did Keating hurt except shareholders and us?  

All the inocents that his S&L sold bonds to under color of insurance
that wasn't there.  I didn't buy any.  Shareholders benefited from 
the sale.  

>     Shareholders
>     for the most part are the same people he helped.

If you believe this, you are sadly out of touch with the demographics
of shareholders vs depositers in S&Ls.

>     Absolutely.  The point was that there are limits to monitarism.
>     You noted no such limits in your previous commentary.

Didn't need to, and don't need to now, since there have been none
demonstrated.  That you missed that point is your problem.
>
>     As far as the 'real' price of oil goes, what the heck is that?

Real as opposed to nominal.  That you don't recognize the normal and
standard terminology for inflation adjusted vs non-adjusted prices is
further testmony to how far out of your depth you are.

>     I seem to remember the well-head price in Saudi is about $1.50.
>     Is that the 'real' price?  Or are you worried about some other
>     'real' price?

This would be a funny two sentences if they wern't such a glaring
admission of confusion.

>>>    Oh.  Economics is the study of understanding 'what the power elite
>>>    is up to'?  I must have missed that.
>>
>>While the original paragraph is laden with cynicism (and maybe even 
>>a touch of sarchasm ... ;-) it is sadly rather true for some parts
>>of the field of Econ.  Tends not to be the case for things like 
>>micro-econ.  Tends to be rather completely the case for Political 
>>Economy.  The rest grades out in between.  Given that almost all
>>the money and productive assest are, by definition, owned by the
>>rich (and, thus,  powerful), I'd expect the study of money 
>>and productive assest to be concerned with the rich and powerful ...
>
>     But 'political economics' *is* the study of what the 'power
>     elite' is up to.  The rest of Economics does not necessarily
>     seem to be.

Gad, he can't even keep a single position two postings in a row.  First
he says he 'missed that' then he says ~"well part sure is but part 
doesn't have to be".  

>>>     Is economics an advocacy profession?  
>>
>>I'm not sure what you mean by 'advocacy profession'.  Guessing that
>>it means 'a profession based on advocacy of positions rather than 
>>scientific physical experiment' I'd have to answer:  Often, yes.
>
>     'Represent the average Joe' = advocacy.

Facinating definition... I wish it had some use or value ...
     
>>FAR too narrow a view!  Economics deals with all kinds of governments
>>from all over the world with far more than just 2 parties!  Part of
>>what makes it a fun field is watching the folks from opposing political
>>systems trot out thier competing economists!  (Again:  Remember that 
>>there are economists from the MARXIST as well as the MONITARIST schools!).
>
>     This does not strengthen your point, he said dryly.

MY point is that economists tend to work for large organizations that
have agendas, AND that the most visible to the general public (i.e. the
ones that have TV press conference impacts) don't have a free hand in
what they say.  Hardly radical or difficult to observe.  

What ever points you are concerned about, which seem to be orthogonal
to anything I've posted, you can run as dry as you want about.  With
any luck, you'll completely run dry and blow away soon ...

>     You have implied, at least in a national context, that 'government'
>     is able to control the voice of economists.  Ha.

I have implied that economists who work for government keep their 
public speech in line with the desires of their employer.  This
is most often contained in the documents signed at the time of
employment and the organizational behaviour manuals that are
issued to managers.  Take a look at who is authorized to talk
to the press or issue publications and who approves, in both
government and large corporations.  It isn't free speech time ...
If you doubt this, try calling a press conference while working
for such an entity ...

>>Large numbers of ecomists work for government agencies, departments,
>>research facilities, ...  If you step too far out of line, you lose
>>either your funding or maybe even your job.  Don't get me wrong, I'm
>>not saying that there is some great organized conspiracy to 
>>explicitly control ALL economists the world over.  I'm just stating 
>>the (rather obvious) fact of life than an Economist for the AEC is
>>going to put the best positive spin on nuclear economics that his 
>>EMPLOYER can get for his money.  If he is a rabid nuke hater, he 
>>won't likely be promoted to department head!  (BTW, you could make
>>the same statment for someone in the Dept. of Solar Power ... if
>>we had one ..)

>     You seem to see national
>     government as one non-competing entity when, in fact, it
>     competes with itself all over the place (and all over the world).

Wrong.  I see ALL governments as acting in their own self interest
and as directing thier employees to work to that end, especially in
public speach.  I see this as constraining the candor that economists
can express in public forums.  I have not said that all economists
will speak with one voice (if fact, I've said the opposite).  I have
said that to a layman trying to figure out what is going on, watching
the various sides trot out their economist presenting their side can
make it look like economics is terribly confusing,and that allowing
for organizational bias in the presentations can bring a greater
degree of understanding and clarity.  This should not be a big
surprise to anyone.

>>(BTW, my primary news box died and I havn't got my kill files over
>>on this new one yet ... but it is only a temporary thing..)
>
>     In which case, I would have thought that you would have had the
>     courtesy to not reply while you were performing the onerous and
>     burdensome task of transferring *all* of the kill files to your
>     new machine.  How do you do it these days, mule train?

Well, you caught me on this one.  Truth is, I only have one kill file
and it only has entries in it for one person, you.  Sorry to have
mislead folks by my use of the plural 'files'.  I didn't really
think about it till near the middle of my reply when I noticed who
the article was from.  (I don't think much about kill files and had
not given it any particular priority.  But thanks to this reminder
of why I'd gotten ONE kill file in the first place, I'll make it 
a priority to re-install it.)

>     You'll want to hurry, though.  You might be irreparably injured
>     by exposure to other viewpoints.

No need to worry, exposure to other viewpoints is something I treasure.
Fortunately the existance of my ONE kill file has not reduced my 
exposure to other viewpoints while dramatically reducing the amount
of spew I've had to dredge through.  It has been a wonderful improvement
in my life that I've only now come to fully appreciate.  I get to 
keep all the exposure to all the content rich postings while not having
to deal with a well identified set of content empty dredge effluent.


-- 

E. Michael Smith  ...!sun!apple!ems

'If you can dream it, you can do it'  Walt Disney

This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything. (Including but
not limited to: typos, spelling, diction, logic, and nuclear war)