Injin Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Rubbish.Economics is not a science. Yes, it is. There are no laws of economics. Yes, there are. Not one. It's just like statistics. You can prove anything you like with economics. Data doesn't lie, even if the presentation can be fallacious. Every communist or totalitarian regime has had a crap economy, every freer system has had a good one. The conclusion is obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!) Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share Posted September 9, 2009 Very strange I know.It's because in the UK we have the Bank of England. The Bank of England has the power to change interest rates. Which essentially determine the cost of servicing debt. During most of 2008 interest rates were 5%. During most of 2009 they were 0.5%. This makes the debt cheaper to service. It's actually very simple. whats the current yield on Gilts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 tax avoidence is a full time job for thousands of accountants dontchaknow. Indeed. There's still nothing scientific about economics though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Actually there is much less coming straight out of the economy in tax at the moment. Hence the deficit. The £1.649bn MORE will come in subsequent years. thanks, you mean GO rather than Come In of course. still giggling over that joke with the travel agents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Yes there is - comparative advantage. Mind you, that's pretty much the only one I can think of. Until you read further down and it says "origins of the theory". "Theory" in everyday speech is not the same as "theory" in a scientific sense. The article uses the everyday definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowrentyieldmakessense(honest!) Posted September 9, 2009 Author Share Posted September 9, 2009 Every communist or totalitarian regime has had a crap economy, every freer system has had a good one. The conclusion is obvious. not to most of the voters and those who suckle off the State Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 whats the current yield on Gilts I thought they were around 3% recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest absolutezero Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Yes, it is.Yes, there are. Data doesn't lie, even if the presentation can be fallacious. Every communist or totalitarian regime has had a crap economy, every freer system has had a good one. The conclusion is obvious. Feel free to keep deluding yourself. I'm not getting into a "no it isn't, "yes it is", "no it isn't" debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R K Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Govt. debt at 'teaser' rates........lovely. We know how that ends............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tbatst2000 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Until you read further down and it says "origins of the theory"."Theory" in everyday speech is not the same as "theory" in a scientific sense. The article uses the everyday definition. Go on then, disprove it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tbatst2000 Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 I thought they were around 3% recently. Depends where in the yield curve you look: (click on the gilts/bonds tab) http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/fds/hi/...ilt/default.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 That's not inflation adjusted :angry: Consumer debt in the 70's only looks about $2000-3000. How much did an average American earn then? £2-3k p/a seem reasonable. Looks as though personal consumer debt has stayed at about a years salary (perhaps a bit more).Scary chart but its not adjusted for inflation. And where did that inflation come from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meerkat Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Feel free to keep deluding yourself.I'm not getting into a "no it isn't, "yes it is", "no it isn't" debate. I am not the most regular visitor here and this may not be a news, but it is very obvious you are sucking a tit of HMRC, aren't you? Nobody else in his sober mind would deny economics and finance are EXACT sciences. You choose the path and get where it leads to, not where you want it to lead. Just like a PC does what you make it do, not what you want it to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Data doesn't lie Got any statisitics on that one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?...! Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Nobody else in his sober mind would deny economics and finance are EXACT sciences. How about George Soros? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frozen_out Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Nobody else in his sober mind would deny economics and finance are EXACT sciences. You choose the path and get where it leads to, not where you want it to lead. Just like a PC does what you make it do, not what you want it to do. Wow. Economics is just a bizarre mix of psychology, sociology, physics and voodoo. With a bit of maths thrown in for good measure. If economics was exact we'd all be living the life of Riley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 (edited) Wow.Economics is just a bizarre mix of psychology, sociology, physics and voodoo. With a bit of maths thrown in for good measure. If economics was exact we'd all be living the life of Riley. This is the problem with economics - It's optional. That is you don't have to. So is nutrition. You don't have to use that either. You can eat as much chips and drink as much beer as you like - but guess what? The results you get from doing that are as set in stone as any hard science. You might as well say that we have no idea what nutrition is because there are fat bastards about. Edited September 9, 2009 by Injin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frozen_out Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 This is the problem with economics - It's optional. That is you don't have to. So is nutrition. You don't have to use that either. You can eat as much chips and drink as much beer as you like - but guess what? The results you get from doing that are as set in stone as any hard science. You might as well say that we have no idea what nutrition is because there are fat bastards about. If it's optional then it's not hard science. You step off a balcony on the 10th floor you fall. That's hard science. You eat shit and don't exercise, you'll be unhealthy. That's hard science. It's not optional. You can bugger about with economics till the cows come home and still not know what's going to happen. That's not hard science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 If it's optional then it's not hard science. You step off a balcony on the 10th floor you fall. That's hard science. You eat shit and don't exercise, you'll be unhealthy. That's hard science. It's not optional. Neither is economics. You make loads of something, it devalues. Make too much and it's valueless. You can bugger about with economics till the cows come home and still not know what's going to happen. That's not hard science. Yes, you can know what will happen. All fiat moneys have vanished into hyperinflation, every time they have been tried. Thousands of attempts, all crashed and burned. All states expand until they completely take over their societies, then collapse - again thousands of attempts at it and all of them end the exact same way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timm Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 (...) I could die tomorrow and the state would still fall - it's inevitable. Debt which can't be paid off leads to default, hyperinflation or bankrupcy. they've obviously picked bankrupcy (...) (...) Hyperinflation it is (...) Well, I'm glad we got that sorted out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MississippiJohnHurt Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 how have they got away with this Denninger's best yet. +1,000,000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Well, I'm glad we got that sorted out. Thanks for that - a mistake on my part. (One of many of course.) Please replace hyperinflation for bankrupcy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frozen_out Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 Neither is economics. You said it was post before last. Keep up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the wizard Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 (edited) I am not the most regular visitor here and this may not be a news, but it is very obvious you are sucking a tit of HMRC, aren't you? Nobody else in his sober mind would deny economics and finance are EXACT sciences. You choose the path and get where it leads to, not where you want it to lead. Just like a PC does what you make it do, not what you want it to do. Many economists don't think that economics is a hard science. Austrian economists, for example, reject experiment (so I understand). In my opinion, economics is a science, but most economists are not scientists. They are ideologues. One symptom of this is the existence of both economics, the right-wing social science, and sociology, the left-wing social science. If ideology were not a fundamental issue within the field, then there would only be a single subject. Also, I think that current economic theory is not anywhere near as accurate as physical or biological sciences. It fails miserably at prediction, has little experimental evidence and often does not make sense mathematically. Compare this to the accuracy of Quantum mechanics or thermodynamics What I find doubly ironic is that the people who are eager to accept current economic theory as a hard fact, are often the same people who totally reject the physics of the greenhouse effect. This is because they believe in economics as an ideology, they don't care about evidence. Edited September 9, 2009 by the wizard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 You said it was post before last. Keep up I explained my position fairly clearly I think. The effects of jumping off a cliff are set. You can choose to jump or not jump. You can't choose to not fall if you do jump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.