Breitbart: In 1975, Jerry Brown complained, that the federal government wanted to “dump Vietnamese on” California. “We can’t be looking 5,000 miles away and at the same time neglecting people who live here,” Newsweek reported at the time. According to The Washington Post, Larry Engelmann's Tears Before the Rain: An Oral History of the Fall of South Vietnam, writes that Julia Vadala Taft, who led the interagency task force for refugee resettlement, remembered Brown’s opposition.
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Jerry Brown has always been a Jim Crow Democrat
What happened that got economists backwards?
Time, the same thing that got physicists backwards, time and divisibility. There is no such thing as time which requires infinite divisibility. Almost everything is container ergodic, the container size in economics, the unit sphere in physics, is the stationary item.
Economists have seasonal adjustment, true, but otherwise almost the entire system, like physics is minimal redundancy networks. In the proton it is the spiral stepping constructed from Nulls, and managed by unit spheres. In economics is is the streets and checkout counters. In both cases it is finite bandwidth and follows the equations for finite entropy systems.
Consider this abstract from economics:
Performing expectations requires near complete knowledge of the past, and that is an infinite bandwidth system. He has gotten himself into the time domain, and he does not have locality. This is literally impossible, especially in economics. So he produces a work of fiction simply to maintain some fiction from some English dandy of 90 years ago.
Economists have seasonal adjustment, true, but otherwise almost the entire system, like physics is minimal redundancy networks. In the proton it is the spiral stepping constructed from Nulls, and managed by unit spheres. In economics is is the streets and checkout counters. In both cases it is finite bandwidth and follows the equations for finite entropy systems.
Consider this abstract from economics:
In this paper I employ Imre Lakatos's methodology of scientific research programs to scrutinize the idea that stagflation in the 1970s falsified the Keynesian research program. I point out that Keynesian models were able to account for stagflation once they included inflation expectations, so the essential tenets of the Keynesian research program are consistent with the would-be anomaly of stagflation. Furthermore, Keynesian economics exhibited both theoretical and empirical progress by evolving in a way that rendered stagflation a logical consequence of Keynesian assumptions. The transition to new classical economics did not yield such progress. Also, as Keynesian economics tends to adopt novel findings and research methods, new classical economics does not have excess theoretical or empirical content relative to the Keynesian research program. In summary, I find that the falsification of the Keynesian program is unwarranted.
Performing expectations requires near complete knowledge of the past, and that is an infinite bandwidth system. He has gotten himself into the time domain, and he does not have locality. This is literally impossible, especially in economics. So he produces a work of fiction simply to maintain some fiction from some English dandy of 90 years ago.
Krugman, continuous statistical fraud
And it [BIS] praised the ECB for what we now know was a terrible decision to raise rates.So, that was three years ago, and Europe in particular is struggling with dangerously low inflation. Has the BIS changed its prescriptions? No, it’s just changed the reason for demanding the same thing.
As we can see, in near perfect alignment, the ECB raised rates in 2010, and inflation rose right along. Then the ECB lowered rates and inflation dropped right along.
Why do Keynesians commit this fraus again and again? Because they do not understand the pricing mechanism and they got it backwards from reading that idiot John Keynes and his comic book. Now they are stuck with the idiocy and have no clue so they just continually commit the fraud.
What really happened?
Rates and prices rose together and the European government could not pay their bills because they are bankrupt. Paul and the Keynesians are simply stuck in a stupidity and too embarrased to correct the problem.
But, does a change of words make Paul truthful? Sure, as I oointed out, the southern teir of countries is bankrupt. The question is, why should college kids ever want to take an economics class at Princeton, where Paul teaches; or Berkeley, where the Romor teaches; or at Harvard, where Larry Summers teaches. You can learn the same problem, government are stupid and go bankrupts, at many other colleges and still keep up and down aligned with the rest of the world.
You cannot have a United States that includes California
MURRIETA (CBSLA.com/AP) — A dramatic scene in Murrieta that saw American flag-waving protesters prevent Homeland Security buses carrying undocumented migrant children and families from reaching a suburban processing center is likely to be repeated in the coming days, a city official said Wednesday.
Mayor Pro-Tem Harry Ramos told KNX 1070′s Dick Helton that the standoff Tuesday – which included several protesters holding U.S. flags and signs reading “stop illegal immigration,” and “illegals out!” – may occur every 72 hours as a new busloads of immigrants are processed through Border Patrol.
The Democratic Party will never coexist with California. California has corrupted the party and its economists . Democratic voters have been stupified with talking points and no hint of understanding democracy.
Support for Obama is now down below 40%, the worst ratings of any post war president. Obama has been swindled at every turn by corrupt California politicians, Pelosi had declared the border null and void, and California Senators are two 183 year old affirmative action seniles.
After the next census, which is now six years away, California will simply be a mass of angry corruption and ignorance. There is not going to be a Democratic Party, simply the Californians and 49 other states trying to figure out what to do with the morass out here. Obama, the delusional, gave John Perez the keys to Obamacare; you will never get an accurate accounting, you have already bankrupted the program. Jerry is going to lose the budget battle and the mess out here will be bankruptcy cubed.
All the Democrats can show for a candidate is a dingbat Hillary Clinton, Dems will lose the election, both the midterms and the presidential. Republicans are going to cut off the goodies to California anyway. Its a mess out here, a hopeless mess.
A Better Idea
I have a better idea, lets regionalize. Give the regions a chance to escape before the catastrophe of California descends upon them. Let the Great Lakes form their own government, let California merge with Central America and become the Pacific, Texas heads the Southwest, and so on. In DC, Republican or Democrat, there are no founding fathers, there is no hope DC will sort it out. We are dealing with ignorant hacks in both parties. We have a very badly educated population out here, New York, and many other places. Best to let them split.
I mean, think a moment. Who in their right mind is going to want the 50 states with California included? In 2020, we will have yet another pair of 150 year old, idiot Senators and some 65 representatives. Government in DC will never work, give it up, both parties, do not waste your time.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
Rampant statistical fraud in economics
Simon Wren Lewis:
In mid-2010 the Swedish central bank started raising interest rates (from 0.25% to 2%), despite forecasts that inflation would stay below target and with unemployment well above its natural rate. They did this explicitly because they were worried about the build up of household debt and a possible housing bubble. Inflation began to fall, and since 2013 it has been at or below zero.This is weird, I think, so I think about it, this is weird, maybe I should find out why. I find this:
Chart - CPI inflation Sweden 2010 (yearly basis)
What! Inflation does the exact opposite of what he says.
Inflation rose and rose about 2%. When you put back in the data Simon clipped out, you find a price adjustment, then a return to the usual decline that most of Europe suffers. So my point is, why bother being a teacher or an economist if your goal is to commit statistical fraud. Then we find later that Krugman does the same thing, clip out the data that proves them wrong, and tie back in the data that proves them right. Romer and Romer ditto.
Like in Romer and Romer. They identify spots where the central banker let rates rise, we get this big inflation hump, and eventually the rates and prices go back to meandering. Yet on their regression series none of this shows up! Where did it go? Oh yes, they removed it as part of their study.
I mean, why bother, this is the internet, you are going to be data checked.
Error checking my posts
Just a warning, I generally post the general form of something without good error checking myself, like I juat made another correction to the post on maximally efficient economic networks. Regular readers know the process, ultimately the great mathematicians at Wiki get it right.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
Pelosi's declaration of the new confederacy and Delongs global world money order
They seem out of sync. Pelosi goes to the border, declares the border defunct; thus establishing the new confederacy, Southwest America. Delong, I guess, is going along with the new world order of money mainly because Californians are too stupid to have their own money. Meanwhile Jerry Brown is instituting a series of racist Jim Crow laws in education, and John Perez uses the Obamacare money to organize his socialist committee.
What about Texas? Well that's the weird part. Texas would go along if the Southwest had their own money. Pelosi's Ace Card is her ability to declare Obamacare null and void in the new nation. Central America would go with a nullification of Obamacare, since they see no benefit. Will Texas and California make the trade? Which side is Delong on anyway?
I am actually sort of neutral, DC will go bankrupt with John Perez stealing the Obamacare money anyway, and who wants to use the money of a bankrupt DC? But the trio of conspirators seem to be in a bit of flux, their plot does not match on all boundaries, and it seems Delong is not all that happy about independence.
Obama is weird. He knew about the secessionist plot from the beginning, yet he is still making attempts to fix Obamacare. Most of the errors in Obamacare enrollees are from John Perez's army of defense committees. How is Obama going to enforce Obamacare when he deliberately allows the money to be used for secessionist purposes?
The plotters and secessionists will have to get a bit better organized.
What about Texas? Well that's the weird part. Texas would go along if the Southwest had their own money. Pelosi's Ace Card is her ability to declare Obamacare null and void in the new nation. Central America would go with a nullification of Obamacare, since they see no benefit. Will Texas and California make the trade? Which side is Delong on anyway?
I am actually sort of neutral, DC will go bankrupt with John Perez stealing the Obamacare money anyway, and who wants to use the money of a bankrupt DC? But the trio of conspirators seem to be in a bit of flux, their plot does not match on all boundaries, and it seems Delong is not all that happy about independence.
Obama is weird. He knew about the secessionist plot from the beginning, yet he is still making attempts to fix Obamacare. Most of the errors in Obamacare enrollees are from John Perez's army of defense committees. How is Obama going to enforce Obamacare when he deliberately allows the money to be used for secessionist purposes?
The plotters and secessionists will have to get a bit better organized.
Keynes and the variable 'potential output' in economics
Potential output is mainly an accounting fiction used to adjust the national accounting identity. It exists because economists have no clue about the cost and mechanism of re-pricing. So absent any sound knowledge of repricing costs, economists use the recessions as market points to readjust their potential output variable.
I can make an argument that it is more efficient top defer re-pricing costs until the synchronous period of adjustment, on presidential election cycles. But Keynes can't, he had no knowledge or education in the concept of spectral analysis. So he named 'animal spirits' and Freidman called it the 'pricing puzzle'. And essentially they simply compute potential output as a recursive Markov variable. That is fine, both of them admitted the uncertainty of their models.
Krugman and the rest never admit the uncertainty, they simply make up some story, then claim supporting evidence, most of which is rigged evidence derived from the prior assumption. The expectation function these Keynesians use is simply fiction with no proof of soundness. Keynesians use the function to dump any process they cannot explain.
Then these Keynesians are clueless about the cost of money to the federal government. A simply calculation of outstanding debt and interest payments reveal that DC pays about 2.5% per year for money, as of a couple of years ago. I quit doing the calculation when printing became normal. But if we assume DC can print the money, then the absolute floor of the interest rate will be 1%, because that is the cost of running the central bank. Without the Fed economists doing the accounting at the central bank, the paper is worthless, so 1% is an absolute minimum. Yet Larry Summers comes up with Zero, based on no actual facts.
Kling (PSST) and Stiglitz (Screening) have some strong clues about a better model, and Jim Hamilton a strong clue about repricing scarce resources. The Krugman trade theory helps. Then there is Roger Farmer's work. It is mainly trying to estimate the total number of possibilities in the economy, then finding separable grouping to organize that estimate. Otherwise known are the entropy estimation, what I call the finite log estimation in an integer base. The quantity theory of money is totally screwed as of this moment, but it really should be the same form as the Plank's curve with money velocity replacing temperature; both being a band limit on spectrum, at maximum entropy.
Getting at a better model:
The better model is the minimal redundant, finite economic network, then add inefficiencies, all of which is outlined in Wiki. That is where young economists want to go, dump the dark ages and move on.
I can make an argument that it is more efficient top defer re-pricing costs until the synchronous period of adjustment, on presidential election cycles. But Keynes can't, he had no knowledge or education in the concept of spectral analysis. So he named 'animal spirits' and Freidman called it the 'pricing puzzle'. And essentially they simply compute potential output as a recursive Markov variable. That is fine, both of them admitted the uncertainty of their models.
Krugman and the rest never admit the uncertainty, they simply make up some story, then claim supporting evidence, most of which is rigged evidence derived from the prior assumption. The expectation function these Keynesians use is simply fiction with no proof of soundness. Keynesians use the function to dump any process they cannot explain.
Then these Keynesians are clueless about the cost of money to the federal government. A simply calculation of outstanding debt and interest payments reveal that DC pays about 2.5% per year for money, as of a couple of years ago. I quit doing the calculation when printing became normal. But if we assume DC can print the money, then the absolute floor of the interest rate will be 1%, because that is the cost of running the central bank. Without the Fed economists doing the accounting at the central bank, the paper is worthless, so 1% is an absolute minimum. Yet Larry Summers comes up with Zero, based on no actual facts.
Kling (PSST) and Stiglitz (Screening) have some strong clues about a better model, and Jim Hamilton a strong clue about repricing scarce resources. The Krugman trade theory helps. Then there is Roger Farmer's work. It is mainly trying to estimate the total number of possibilities in the economy, then finding separable grouping to organize that estimate. Otherwise known are the entropy estimation, what I call the finite log estimation in an integer base. The quantity theory of money is totally screwed as of this moment, but it really should be the same form as the Plank's curve with money velocity replacing temperature; both being a band limit on spectrum, at maximum entropy.
Getting at a better model:
The better model is the minimal redundant, finite economic network, then add inefficiencies, all of which is outlined in Wiki. That is where young economists want to go, dump the dark ages and move on.
Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker and the Great Recession
The blue line, with those peaks at the start and the end of the recession are the producer price index, mainly oil prices from imported oil. The two economists have never explained how a housing boom,bust from 2003 to 2006 could have caused those two oil spikes, one up and one down. I will explain it for them the best I can.
The Jared and Dean network multiplier
Taking their position, the best I can come up with is that OPEC invested in house mortgages. So, these OPEC bankers were watching their housing investments which looked like they were in serious trouble in 2006. You can see the drop in the green line, consumer inflation, which must be the housing crash.
Then as the default scare began to be realized, the OPEC investors must have gotten pissed and deliberately spiked the price of oil until Bernanke made good on the house defaults. Then when Bernanke made good, the OPEC oil cartel then gave Ben a gift of very cheap oil, thus marking the beginning and end of the Great Recession.
Is this story plausible? Well, actually, Saudi oil exports to the USA nose dived in 2009, and the amount was restored by non-OPEC members. They are the only oil producer who did this. Says Wiki:
On March 5, 2008, OPEC accused the United States of economic "mismanagement" that was pushing oil prices to record highs, rebuffing calls to boost output and laying blame at the George W. Bush administration.[26]
Philly:
"Crude-oil prices are being strongly influenced by the weakness in the U.S. dollar, rising inflation, and significant flow of funds into the commodities market."
Wiki Again:
In May 2008, NPR explained in their Peabody Award winning program "The Giant Pool of Money" that a vast inflow of savings from developing nations flowed into the mortgage market, driving the U.S. housing bubble. This pool of fixed income savings increased from around $35 trillion in 2000 to about $70 trillion by 2008. NPR explained this money came from various sources, "[b]ut the main headline is that all sorts of poor countries became kind of rich, making things like TVs and selling us oil. China, India, Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia made a lot of money and banked it."[So, does this make sense?
No. The timing is off. At the peak the Saudis were still exporting, and increasing exports to the USA, until July 2008. After the peak, after the oil price collapse is when they slowed down. I see no other story here, that is the best. I do not think Jared and Dean have it right.
A fun chart
Now, through out this, the central banker was earning about 5% income from dominating the short term bank lending market. You can see that because the central banker exited the market and rate jumped to 20%. So the banker must have been earning money, removing it from the market, at 5% and at about twice the amount the market should support.
How did Milton Friedman ever decide that a monopoly banker taking such a huge haul from the market was inflationary? Was it because the banker was handing the cash to government? And how did Romer and Romer ever decide that having the monopoly banker dominate the short term lending market was an equilibrium?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)