Real, meaningful, and major differences in economical views are re-emerging?

[garbon]

If you define "bust" as the world melting when the Sun expands to the point that it envelopes the Earth then yes I suspect you will be proven correct in the end.

Be in denial if you must. *shrug*




G.

You as well with your dreams of the streets running with rivers of blood. This isn't Revelations.

[Malthus]

You as well with your dreams of the streets running with rivers of blood. This isn't Revelations.

I dunno, I'll believe the End Times are upon us - if the Leafs win the Stanley Cup.

[Barrister]

You as well with your dreams of the streets running with rivers of blood. This isn't Revelations.

I dunno, I'll believe the End Times are upon us - if the Leafs win the Stanley Cup.

Well, the Winnipeg Jets are back in the NHL... 

[crazy canuck]

You as well with your dreams of the streets running with rivers of blood. This isn't Revelations.

I dunno, I'll believe the End Times are upon us - if the Leafs win the Stanley Cup.

I refer you to my earlier comment regarding the Sun enveloping the Earth...

[Ideologue]

At least you say the sun enveloping the Earth.  There isn't anyone more obnoxious than assholes who say "until the sun goes supernova."  Ignorant fucks.

Re: the OP, yes.  And I was there way before it was cool.  It's no fun to be a Kassandra.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think there is that much of a difference really.  I think there's a sense that the old model in the UK and US is more or less broken and there's not yet a replacement.  I don't think there are any coherent real, meaningful different economic views out there yet.  There are fumbling grasps towards that but we're still in a crisis.  I don't think any differences will really emerge, or debate get really going when the world's economy is still in fire fighting mode.

But I'd add that there I think the debates will take place within the context of a generally free market economy.  But I remember worrying at the start of the crisis that it would lead to protectionism on a large scale, to countries turning in on themselves, to a failure and collapse of international cooperation on the economy.

If you look at the West I think we're closer than ever.  The differences between the UK and US when Bretton Woods was being worked out, or between the US and Europe in the 70s are far wider than what we have now.  The debates were far more contentious.  The real, meaningful difference is in world power, the economy worries about sub-par growth figures from China.  How long we can continue with a system in which the IMF's money is mostly going to developed Europe being paid for, in large part, by the developing world isn't clear. 

[Neil]

At least you say the sun enveloping the Earth.  There isn't anyone more obnoxious than assholes who say "until the sun goes supernova."  Ignorant fucks.

Whether the Sun will ever envelop the Earth is a matter of some debate.  I've seen modeling for both.

[Razgovory]

If you define "bust" as the world melting when the Sun expands to the point that it envelopes the Earth then yes I suspect you will be proven correct in the end.

Be in denial if you must. *shrug*




G.

Give us a date then.  Or at least a time frame.

[Ideologue]

At least you say the sun enveloping the Earth.  There isn't anyone more obnoxious than assholes who say "until the sun goes supernova."  Ignorant fucks.

Whether the Sun will ever envelop the Earth is a matter of some debate.  I've seen modeling for both.

Well, close enough for a colloquialism.  It'll certainly sterilize it (but of course that will occur a few billion years prior as it brightens; iirc, the time limit is about two billion years for any life that relies on liquid water).  I mean the folks who think the sun will straight-up explode, instead of swell and shed its outer layers as a planetary nebula in the process of becoming a white dwarf.

[Neil]

It's going to be beautiful.

[Ideologue]

[Eddie Teach]

Not if nobody's around to see it.

[fhdz]

I don't think that there actually are real and/or meaningful differences.  There is a school of thought that represents the best of what we currently know about macroeconomics, and there is a brand of charlatanism being pushed by people who profit from that charlatanism being thought of as a legitimate economic theory.

Would you mind expanding on this?

It seems to me in a very general way that two things can be stated about economies:

1) no amount of risk management can properly account for black swans. That's why they're black swans; they're unknown unknowns, to steal Rummy's poetry. You can mitigate some things - maybe even most things - but some things are unforseeable and potentially worse than could be forseen.

2) economic strategies that work well in bullish markets may not be the same strategies that work well in bearish ones...and the strategies that seem to work acceptably in either may not work at all in a complete unforseen catastrophe. See #1. If anything, the turbulent nature of the global economy is at least itself a partial endorsement of *both* laissez-faire notions and at least somewhat Keynesian interventionism, depending on the market conditions at the time - and also depending on the muscularity of the regulations in place.

[Ideologue]

Not if nobody's around to see it.

By that point, we should all have been brute force resurrected.

[Neil]

You don't really see black swans in the economy though.  Maybe the only one I can think of in recent years is the fallout from the 9-11 attacks.