Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (50845)	6/2/2009 11:45:30 PM
From: bull_dozer	Respond to of 217540

Welcome back !

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (50845)	6/3/2009 12:42:48 AM
From: Kona	Respond to of 217540

Hoping that your reappearance is some sort of omen <g>

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (50845)	6/3/2009 1:28:07 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 217540

"Laissez-faire capitalism has its flaws." What! And only now I hear about that, after being subject to 22 years of The Economist saying the free market? After 60 years of IMF and World Bank tellings us to embrace free market policies?

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (50845)	6/3/2009 10:25:42 AM
From: kimberley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217540

It's so good to see you back!! Best, Kim

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (50845)	6/7/2009 4:59:38 AM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217540

'laissez faire' capitalism because "mathematical modelling of the evolving market is extremely difficult (or "undecideable") and (the Austrian School) advocates a laissez faire approach to the economy. Austrian School economists advocate the enforcement of voluntary contractual agreements between economic agents, but otherwise caution against the imposition of coercive force (especially coercion by government fiat) on commercial transactions.

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (50845)	6/7/2009 5:14:15 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 217540

highly mathematical method is inherently wrong “As a scholarly discipline, economics has always suffered from physics envy —today more than ever. But history amply demonstrates that the only thing financial economics has in common with physics is that both have to leave by the law of what goes up must come down. Economics pretension of pure science. Businessweek International, Nov. 12, 1990. "...the purpose of neoclassical economics is "to demonstrate the social optimality if the real world were to resemble the model", not "to explain the real world as observed empirically". Neoclassical economics is unreal because it relies on mathematic models. "Neoclassical economics is also often seen as relying too heavily on complex mathematical models, such as those used in general equilibrium theory, without enough regard to whether these actually describe the real economy. Many see an attempt to model a system as complex as a modern economy by a mathematical model as unrealistic and doomed to failure. Famous answer to this criticism is Milton Friedman's claim that theories should be judged by their ability to predict events rather than by the realistically of their assumptions. Mathematical models also include those in game theory, linear programming, and econometrics. Critics of neoclassical economics are divided in those who think that highly mathematical method is inherently wrong and those who think that mathematical method is potentially good even if contemporary methods have problems. “But the amazing Japanese economy poses another challenge to received economic doctrine. Stated briefly and far too boldly, the Japanese have succeeded by doing everything wrong (according to standard economic theory). That should make economic theorists squirm. Studying the Japanese economy has led me to a tentative conclusion:that market capitalism, Japanese style, departs so much from conventional Western economic thought that it deserves to be considered a different system. As a top official of Japan’s fabled MITI once put: “We did the opposite of what American economists said. We violated all the normal concepts.” Businessweek International, Oct. 8, 1990