And here we see the Greek policeman in his natural state ...

Two thoughts on that:

a. If you think economic theory is as well understood or as well supported as antibiotics or evolution theory, I've found why you come off as arrogant as you do.

I forget the second point.

 

Oh yeah. I remember now. What point precisely that is not up for debate am I arguing?

Actually, never mind. I don't care.

Sorry I missed this.

I honestly didn't realize this was how I sounded for years. I still do it from time to time. I can't help myself. I'm like a recovering addict. I made the mistake of posting to point out how silly it was to say in one breath that the problem is incredibly complex and then in that same breath say this one thing is making everything worse. It genuinely made me laugh. But I should know better than to share my amusement about the folly of self-important, star wars message board nerd sociopolitical punditry. In a way, it's therapeutic, though. Reminds me of the heady days of walls of text and wasted hours arguing.

 

Having just scanned the discussion on the last page, I have to say how strange it seems to me.

Yes, it's true you can't empirically prove things in the social sciences. But it seems silly to therefore abdicate all responsibility for trying to develop economic policy or make conclusions about the efficacy thereof. I see nothing wrong with trying to be reflective about our policies as evidence becomes available. More specific to this thread, there's quite a robust case for the effects of austerity in the Greek crisis, and trying to act as if there's not seems a bit like kicking over a chess set one move before checkmate, and then trying to claim the game was a tie because "you never know what might've happened."

There's absolutely a place for humility. But there's a valuable role for the social sciences as well. I'm not willing to throw out all these disciplines en masse, simply for the sake of clinging to some notion about what we can "know" with 100% certainty. That to me actually seems the more ideologically abstract and self-important position to take than someone advocating for or against a particular position.

Apologies if I've misread people in this debate, but that's how the last page certainly comes off to me.

 

I like the term Merkozy. Must be a terrifying sight, though.

 

Perhaps you should have read more closely. No one advocates abdicating all responsibility for anything. Personally, I am all about being reflective about our policies as evidence becomes available.

Really? Ignoring your rather insulting characterization of my position, you think there is "robust evidence" (evidence is the key word here) to indicate that austerity is accelerating the downward decline of Greece? Interesting. I would bet my next paycheck that said "evidence" would amount to "it's gotten worse since austerity was put in place". Suggesting that austerity measures are the cause of an accelerated decline would be a bit like watching the schoolyard bully punch a kid repeatedly in the face, tap him on the shoulder to get his attention, and when the pummeling continues, says "Well, clearly by tapping him on the shoulder, it's making matters worse."

There is an inherent presupposition that a) the decline had a predictable rate prior to austerity measures being put in place b) austerity measures have a measurable and identifiable forcing effect on that rate, which resulted in an increased rate of decline. Is that possible? Sure. But this is all uncharted economic territory. My point has been throughout this thread that it is arrogant in the extreme to say that you know what is going on in so complex a system as a failing economy. The number of variables involved are monumental. Right now, leaders are going into the only handbook they know--spend more money while trying to correct the unsustainable portions of the Greek economy. They're doing this in a vain attempt to restore confidence in the Greek economy, and by extension, keep the Euro value afloat. They need that because, a monetary system that depends heavily on debt to finance productive activity needs everyone involved to believe that the debt can be paid. This is not news.

All of this is nothing more than trying to avoid a massive run on the bank. All this talk of bailouts is designed to convince the masses that there is sufficient money to pay the bills with interest.

It's not zero-sum. I never said "throw out" anything. No one did. I addressed a very specific statement and laughed at it. I laughed at it because the poster rightly said that the problem is complex and then gave an over-simplistic, unsupported follow-on claim. When called on it, rather than reconsider, he doubled down on it. I have no problem with economic theory. But it's important to understand its limitations. A CBO projection is far less reliable than NASA's prediction of where a falling object from space will hit (and even NASA has the good sense to say that they're not 100% sure).

You're forgiven. I want you to k

 

On a separate, but far more important note, I am disappointed in myself (and many of you who posted in this thread) for missing the obvious submarine-related humor that could have stemmed from Jabbadaba's awesome setup liine "Souderwan is out of his depth here".

I fail.

 

I can't believe you'd sink so low, Jello.

 

1. There was (and on re-reading, still seems to be) quite a tone of disdain for people that would attempt policy discussions on the boards here. Maybe you see them primarily as an arena where people try in vain for intellectual one-upsmanship. Apologies that you had such a bad experience. But I don't think it warranted that sort of dismissiveness towards people that do find it enjoyable, just as I don't really see the point in demeaning any of the variety of interests people come to the JCC to indulge in. That's my larger point.


2. I guess I'd just disagree with one of your assertions. You don't have to understand the entirety of what's happening to successfully isolate one dynamic. To borrow from another popular thread at the moment, Hebrew ordinances on "leprosy" reflect that they accurately grasped the nature of communicable disease and the value of quarantine, even if they had no idea about the pathogens or pathophysiology involved in Hansen's disease. Likewise, the Egyptians had an admirable understanding of the Nile's flood cycles without ever really having a complete grasp of the relevant hydrology or tracking down all the source of the Nile (etc).

I don't see why it's "arrogant" for someone to believe they've isolated one impact of austerity without having necessarily solved the entirety of the financial crisis. It's just one of many examples of figuring out a small part of something on the way to putting together the big picture.

3. Modern economic methodology is a bit more complex than "post hoc ergo propter hoc." Yes, there are limitations. But when you make posts that only highlight said limitations, and seem very aggressive about calling into question whether one can ever even figure out the efficacy of a policy, I don't think you can fault me for taking away that you were arguing for "throwing out things." You didn't really have any discussion about where you did think it's use was valid or appropriate. Now that you've added those qualifiers, I don't really have this impression any longer.

 

This. If you want to argue alternative economic theory, by all means. But to essentially try to disguise wilful ignorance as intelligent debate is where I draw the line, thus my last response.

 

Greece clearly needs to get their economic house in order, the question is the time frame. The problem is the austerity pill they're being forced to swallow starts cutting immediately, when the Greek (and European) economy needs a chance to get back on its feet first. And thus the Greek contagion spreads more and more to the rest of Europe. Countries like Spain, who had lower debt levels than my German relatives when this whole thing started, are now being sucked into the abyss.

Merkozy are pretty much screwed, because they inherited a Euro system that was predestined to failure. It's arguable that countries Germany, Austria, France, the Benelux countries, the Scandinavian EU members, could form an optimal currency area. Adding Spain and Italy was certainly pushing it. But Greece was outright folly. The frustrating thing in listening to the debate here is that there's a fundamental flaw in how the debate is being conducted -- led by politics rather than economics. So essentially the same people who created in first place (or, more accurately, their descendants)a re now deciding how to combat the problem.

Like you said, Jabba, in the end, I think a Greek exit is necessary. The reforms necessary to the Euro-zone to make the Euro work are simply never going to happen. That political reality has to be accepted.

 

The disdain comes from asine moronic statments about "willful ignorance" because one points out that the arguments hinge on flawed theory--a theory, btw, that doesn't apply this never-before-experienced scenario that's playing out. Who's being willfully ignorant?

True. But that has not been done in this case, which is my point. Again. I asked for evidence. None provided. The argument hinges on the faith in an economic model with holes in it the size of of goatse man's butt.

No. It's arrogant to say that you know the impact and that anyone who disagrees with you is "willfully ignorant". It's arrogant to suggest that modern economic theory is on the same level of sound scientific footing as evolution theory. It's not only arrogant, it's incredibly stupid.

Fair enough. But in yankee's case, I was very specific in my criticism. He and Jabba chose to take the approach that because I don't agree with their assertions, it must be because I'm too stupid or uninformed to discuss this issue. Or, more recently, that I'm willfully ignorant.

We're not talking about whether the sky is blue. We're talking about whether economic models can accurately anticipate what is happening now and what will happen in the future. We're talking about whether we can honestly say with any certitude that austerity is making matters worse in Greece despite the fact that we've had less than 6 months of austerity measures being in place which is hardly a sufficient period to validate any major policy initative.

So yeah. Perhaps I am willfully ignorant. But if you (yankee, Jabbadaba, or you personally) can sit where you're typing and convince yourself that you have all the necessary data to conclusively say that austerity measures are absolutely making matters worse in Greece, then you are arrogant in the extreme.

Done now.

 

Nice to see the ignorance continues. For the record (and those who actually believe you can use your brain and understand complex things), let me know when this returns to a discussion of Greece and the imminent implosion of the Euro zone.

Toodles.

 

Hahahahahahaah!

 

How about you try to actually discuss things without sounding arrogant and insulting?

Souderwan is right, there is no proof. While certain things are considered more likely to be right, it has not been entirely established whether that is actually the case, and that's all that Souderwan is saying. Instead of trying to comprehend the arguments made, you only return with childish insults, that's one heck of a discussion. Not once have you actually replied to what was said, it was always "lalala, I can't hear your, your are stupid, lalala, ignorant, bla bla bla".

It's one thing to question someone's arguments, it's something entirely different to insult him just because he disagrees with you. Heck, it's not like you were told you are 100% wrong, on the contrary, you were just asked not to state things which aren't a fact as facts, that is all.

I'm certainly not a fan of certain measures taken, but I really can't stand people who act like they know it all and start to insult others for no reason whatsoever.
It is incredibly short-sighted to look at things from just one point of view. You have to look at all the consequences, not just at consequences which apply to a small area. The world has been wrong way too often when it comes to finance to think that there is anything guaranteed in the business, even with things that appear to be very likely to be the best way, like anti-cyclical spending.


The EU certainly isn't trying what they are trying because they just love all those Greeks to lose their money and be out of jobs. You can't just throw money into a bottom-less pit and hope for a miraculous recovery. Not even Germany has enough money to get Greece back track, on the contrary, it needs all the money itself. None of the paths look all that enticing. If Greece goes down the EU is hurt big time, hence the attempts to save them, however meaningless they may turn out to end up. If the big nations have to cover the troubled ones, you take out the last bit of strength there is. Force Germany, France, etc. to shoulder the problems and the EU is done as a big market. There won't be anyone left to help out when the next problem arises. You try to throw money around to get everything started again and debt goes through the roof, and debt already is the biggest problem. If there was any money left they would have tried this. Not to mention that you are back to the same problem again. If the big nations invest, to act as lead for the rest, they put even more distance between themselves and the troubled nations. If they invest in the other nations, they weaken themselves while increasing their debt, which again, leads to no one being strong enough to save anyone in the future.

All of that would hardly matter if the market-system that exists today wouldn't be such a complete joke, but that's a different matter.

 

I'm amazed that the defensive mindset of the Greek national side when they won the European Championship in 2004 wasn't reflected in their Government's economy policies of the subsequent six or seven years.

 

I don't have a problem with any of that. You've accurately expressed the domestic political pressures bearing down on the EU politicians who are working to address the crisis.

But what does any of that have to do with the very simple question of the economic effect that austerity measures are having on the Greek economy (and on the broader European economy)? Simple example: a public worker in Greece hasn't received a paycheck in a month. What is the predictable effect that that will have on his/her spending? Now multiply that problem 50,000 times. What is the effect on domestic consumer spending in Greece? How does it affect the people whose jobs depend on that spending? The effect on unemployment, on consumer spending, on the countries that export products to Greece, is all entirely predictable, not really open to debate, except at the margins. Debate that top part, the part Oissan wrote, fine. That's a different issue.

 

I just applied for a visa.

So you're saying most Germans are racist towards Mediterraneans?

 

That's not possible. "Mediterranean" is not a race.

 

[image=http://agnosticpastor.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/wizard-ofe-oz.jpg]

 

Technical question.

How are you counting six months? I recall austerity budgets dating back to the beginning of 2010. On top of which, there've been roughly half a dozen different, progressively more severe austerity packages passed, by my count.

 

Technical answer: I was wrong.

Does this mean that we have sufficient data and that evidence I was talking about will materialize shortly?