Re: Edward Prescott, Idiot

From: sinister (sinister_at_nospam.invalid)
Date: 10/28/04 

Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:25:45 GMT

"Igor" <jjweatherby@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:TO%fd.10534$186.2581@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> sinister wrote:
>
>> "Igor" <jjweatherby@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:pvRfd.3090$EI6.1446@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>>
>>>sinister wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Robert Vienneau" <rvien@see.sig.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:rvien-C00412.05244227102004@news.dreamscape.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"It's easy to get over $200,000 in income with two wage earners in a
>>>>>household."
>>>>> -- Edward Prescott
>>>>><http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/business/articles/1019Prescott1
>>>>>9.html>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Did you see the thread I started, "Fine work by our new Nobelist"?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I did and it was it obvious you never read the paper you were attacking.
>>>You were asking question clearly answered in the paper.
>>
>>
>> Roy showed in his argument with you---in which you were utterly
>> destroyed---that the paper is incoherent.
>>
>
> It is incoherent to Roy because he thinks resources are only land and
> labor. To any trained economist the paper is very coherent. If you

No, like anyone familiar with the classical liberals, Roy knows there are
three factor of production: land, labor, and capital.

> really think Roy made sense then you really seriously are biased against
> any mainstream economic theory, like Rob, or you just do not understand
> what is being said.

Nope. It's just that Roy---and I---are biased against the idea that the
proper way to value a firm is to add up its resource value or whatever name
Prescott has given to this concept.

>
>
>> And why should we take any of your posts seriously, given that you once
>> wrote, "There is a limit interest compounds exponentially while GDP grows
>> in a linear fashion." ?? (Link at
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1955457383d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=4xGcd.16172%24Rf4.14720%40fe2.texas.rr.com&rnum=2
>> )
>>
>>
>
> Because this is true. GDP growths are mean reverting meaning they are
> close to be constant in the long run. The misunderstanding is that
> economist would never do time series analysis without taking logs. That is
> why it is trend stationary. I forget sometimes that people do not know
> that. The statement is true. I even showed the formulas that back up the
> point that there are limits to deficits.

Either
(a) you're an idiot when it comes to economics, as GDP growth is exponential
(i.e., geometric), or
(b) you're an idiot when it comes to language.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Gold mental exercise sentence of the day
    ... political words such as capital, labor, land, capitalism, socialism, ... The labor itself, however, ... concept of ownership so as to properly discuss economics. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Georgism: quasi-religious cult
    ... In economics, the resource that encompasses the natural resources used ... In classical economics, the three factors of production are land, ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Murray Rothbard on Georgism: complete document
    ... Rothbard was opposed to taxes including land tax. ... out the true nature of economics i.e. it has a significant political ... given it legal title to rob others of the fruit of their labor. ... The Single Tax: Economic and Moral Implications ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Edward Prescott, Idiot
    ... >>Only if you do not understand the concept and really believe that labor ... >>and land are the only resources. ... >>same cost as apple pies because labor is paid is the same and they are ... >>made on the same land then anything seems idiotic. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Eminent Domain Abuse
    ... >> increases land value pays no more tax when the land value is taxed. ... >> bear on labor. ... destroying resources, when you can just _give_up_the_land_ for free, ...
    (sci.econ)