The New Strategy

Believe it or not, prof bug hasn't fallen off the face of the earth and ended up in some godforsaken limbo in outer space with no means of accessing the Internet, never mind the buggy site.  On the contrary, he's been busy posting at various other web sites . . . all economic ones, and mainly libertarian ones to boot. 

Not that they have always welcomed his non-libertarian take on their posts --- among which disgruntled happened to be one called EconLog, run by two professors of economics at George Mason University.  Nothing wrong with their posts there.  The two profs are pretty bright . . . only, well to put it mildly, they're fairly narrowly specialized and it was easy for the buggy prof to bug them: meaning, more precisely, to show up the limits of their knowledge and theoretical arbiter dicta.   They obviously grew piqued.  Who could blame them?. 

Not that they banned prof bug from their web site directly.  No,no; that would contradict their libertarian values, right?  So they did it indirectly --- by the intermediary of their web manager, a fellow who insisted that prof bug not post any arguments longer than 500 words . . . a limit, alas, that hardly adds up to most of prof bug's wind-up prefatory comments. 

Buggy Purgatory

So Far, Two Lengthy Buggy Commentaries Have

. . . Appeared on this complex topic, which are found at Economist's View.  As usual, lots of data and other hard evidence are set out in these two wide-ranging buggy posts, with a third and final one to follow . . . most likely tomorrow.  Click here for the bugged-out stuff, which is found on page two of the thread's comments. 

Oh, wait!  To reach the second page, click on "Show More Comments" link at the bottom of the first page.

The Question Just Posed Is . . .

 . . . What the Buggy Prof sought to deal with, at length and with lots of data and comparative analysis --- including China eventually, for more general purposes --- in a thread found at Economist's View.  No need to say more, except that you should read the linked to article that starts the thread.  Click here.

Today's Buggy Topic Is . . .

. . . found at Economist's View, in a thread started by Prof. Thoma --- the manager of that web site --- linking to a lengthy commentary on fascism by Professor Daniel Little, a philosopher at the University of Michigan.  Prof bug has comments extensively in the past on both European fascism and its varieties that emerged after WWI and flourished in most of Europe in the 1930s and during WWI, not to forget its ongoing influences after 1945 . . . right down to the present.   Which means Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the clerical fascist regime in Iran (now under siege), and in radical Islamist circles found all over the Islamic world.

Click

. . . here for Professor Little's stimulating remarks, followed by prof bug's.

The Hocus-Pocus Is . . .

. . . found in a lengthy thread, 160+ posts, full of dogmatic left-wing pieties and the usual phantasmagoric make-believe among the radical posters who believe, amid the ongoing economic crisis, that the political and economic future of the USA clearly, really --- yes, really really, brothers and sisters!  No fooling this time! --- belongs to them at long last.  Not the distant future, mind you.  Rather, imminently . . . starting in the November 2010 Congressional elections.  ;

 Yes, pell-mell, just like that . . . the exploited, downtrodden, immiserized American working classes, their academic avant-garde showing them the way forward, are about to rise up; reject their dismal dog-eat-dog  existence in capitalist, sexist, racist, homophobic, neo-neo-post-modern imperialist AmeriKa;  sweep out the mercilessly exploitive Oligarchy-in-Control, not to forget its running-dogs in Congress and once again in the White House --- oh Obama, you cruel cruel sell-out! ; and --- as the topper, the final systematic change, then alter the American Constitution so that our political system looks like Sweden's or France's, concentrated power everywhere in the hands of the New Benevolent Rulers.  After which, brothers and sisters! pow . . . institute full-tilt Social Democracy, just like that. 

Wait Though!  Social-Democracy Just a Way-Station, a Temporary Rest for Our Benevolent New Power-Wielders and Sagacious Saviors!

And soon --- not just pow! but, boom!  boom-like!  we'll all shoot forward at superman-speed to full-blooded socialism . . . yes,, heavenly bliss on earth, the American masses saved by our radical brethren from misery and chronic downtrodden depression.  Wisdom, generosity, and endless empathy afoot throughout America and, by extension, the world.  Democracy finally real in this country, no longer a sham facade for the Oligarchy and the rich and treacherous politicians.  Wars ended or near end.  Environmental greenry everywhere.  Regulations of full benign intent in full force on a global scale.  And, needless to add --- maybe thanks to endless transfers via foreign aid --- a global redistribution of income while finally all of Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia flourish, develop wisely, fully attentive to the environment, and AmeriKan arrogance and power turn into American benevolent philanthropy everywhere.

Yowee!

All this hoked-up mumbo-jumbo and collective self-delusion, note with joy, is fully on display in a thread at Economist's View . . . the Marxist wind-machine gibber there- totally cut off from reality except as it exists in the self-deluded minds of the Magnificent Seven Post-Slingers  who monopolize about 75-80% of the posts, along with their camp-followers of all genders, ages, and shared groupthink hallucinations.

Enter the Buggy Professor

After about 130 of these startlingly daffy, cloud-chasing posts that would have done justice to scholastic philosophers of the Middle Ages obsessed with counting the correct number of angels dancing on a pin-head, prof bug --- once he finished laughing with belly-aching delight and caught his breath ---- decided to enter the ring with these world-class nit-wits and try to bring the discussion back to planet-earth and American life and society in 2010.  Specifically, by noting first just how out of touch with political trends in American life these windy, other-worldly pulpit-pounders happen to be.  Then, more specifically still, by citing at length the results of two different surveys of U.S. public opinion on an array of political matters . . . both surveys, using different questions and samples, showing that even Democrats oppose a bigger, more activist government and higher taxes by 51% to 37% (as one polls nailed the figure).

That 37% of the American public adds up --- what with self-identified  Democrats and Republicans alike getting 40% of the vote last November (20% left to Independent) --- to a mere 14.8% of the electorate.  And with, t0 boot, 74% of Americans found in one of those surveys to believe that the United States is basically a fair and decent country.

What Followed?

A deluge of attacks, all amounting to goofball personal attacks on yours truly, plus --- far more important --- a bevy of dogmatic, utterly close-minded rejection of this evidence.  Wow!  How dare the manipulated American masses --- victims of false-consciousness --- presume to know their self-interests and views of American life not in line with those of the true-believing Left!  And how shameless is the troll-bug to insult the pulpit-pounding pieties of the avant-garde intelligentsia, kindergarten-version!

All this flight from hard, down-to-earth realities, mind you,  materializing in circles of left-wing Marxists and other Socialists whose members most likely rub their eyes, their minds afire with mockery, when they read  or hear that fundamentalist religious people of all religions reject Darwinian evolution as wrong, lacking anchorage in hard evidence compared to their belief systems. 

And so prof bug, more delighted than ever --- feeling bright and bouncy --- posted two more times, full of naughty-boy roguery.  Click here for the three buggy posts.  Observe that all three are found on the 2nd page of the posted comments.  To get to that page, scroll to the bottom of the first page, click on the "continue" button, and voilà!  you'll find some revealing buggy evidence and lots of unintentionally hilarious radical twaddle of crazy-house proportions and padded-cell delusion.

In Answer to the Subject Title,

. . . Paul Krugman thinks so, unless we follow his policy advice and not only add more fiscal stimuli to the economy despite the proclaimed end of the recession in August of 2009, but keep short-term interest rates as close to zero as possible.  His argument, set out in the NY Times was linked to by Prof. Mark Thoma of Economist's View, following which  dozens of posts immediately materialized in that thread  . . . almost all of which set out the usual fast, top-skimming left-wing dogma of pulpit-pounding groupthink.

In Reply, Prof Bug Left Three Lengthy Posts,

. . . Two of which analyzed what happened in the 2nd Big-Dip Depression within the Great Depression in 1937-38.  As usual, that analysis drew on lots of data and some theoretical matters, cited the buggy sources, and ended up with a cautiously hedged endorsement of some of Krugman's worries.  It did, though, disagree with his pessimism, and especially his urgings --- now repeated in almost all his NY Times op-eds that if the Chinese don't stop their neo-mercantilism manipulation of their Yuan currency, let it appreciate noticeably in dollar terms, and reduce their huge trade-surplus with us, we should get tough somehow.

As prof bug notes, this exaggerates our leverage over the Chinese even though their $2 trillion in their reserve holdings make them a hostage in part to  American economic and financial fortunes.  The old banking adage is sound here: if you owe your bank a few thousand dollars, you're in trouble.  If you owe it billions, never mind trillions, then the (Chinese) bank is in big trouble and at your mercy.

Above All, Prof Bug Notes,

. . . How we have not just limited leverage other than diplomatic pressure with others on the Chinese to switch from export-led neo-mercantilist growth to domestic-oriented growth, but also we have to be concerned with the diplomatic, military, and political fall-out of an overly tough policy.  (Note that trade protection against China, moreover, is illegal under World Trade Organization rules, and there is nothing illegal in IMF rules if the Chinese or any other country wants to peg its currency to the US dollar . . . or for that matter, as has happened in the past at times, to let it float within a managed range in dollar terms.)

Enter the Third Post,

. . . A few humorous pokes at the left-wing dogmatists who complain about Prof bug's bugged-out sort.  Enjoy it (I hope). 

Today's Buggy Topic

It's found at Economist's View, where the buggy analysis linked to a markedly informative analysis by Alan Blinder --- a macro-economic specialist at Princeton, who was also a former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board --- of favorable auguries in the job market appeared.   His commentary unfolded in the Wall Street Journal and can be found here.

Blinder's Exemplary Writing for the General Public 

With his combined work as a theoretical economist and his experience as a monetary policy specialist with the Federal Reserve, Blinder was able in June of this year to predict on the basis of past data about recessions that the US economy's recession was about to end in a month or two . . . the prediction fully borne out by August and the strong improvement in GDP growth that occurred in the third quarter of this year.   More to the point, his current WSJ article was loaded with hard evidence in support of his newest prediction about job-growth just about to unfold.  And to top off his impressive commentary, he admitted that he could be wrong and that job-growth might be delayed . . . an admission, please note, that is rarely found elsewhere when economists, however prominent, set out their views in the press media or in their blogs. 

Enter Prof Bug's Own Comments

After he noted all these merits found in Blinder's WSJ article, he went on to poke gleeful fun at the 7 or 8 habitual left-wing posters at Economist's View who hog about 75-80% of the posts left there in several threads daily, and on almost every subject under the sun: economic problems and policies, social problems, educational performance, the betrayal of the Left by President Obama, the environment, foreign policy, security policies, and on and on . . . the utterly banal and fully predictable posts, immediately unfolding the second after Professor Thoma (the owner of the blog-site) links to some article, sets out his own analysis (usually informative and thoughtful), and opens the thread to others.   Yes,immediately; pell-mell without any time for reflection by them. 

Not that reflection would help.  How could it?

Their posts are little more than strings of assertion and re-assertion of their core ideological beliefs, taken for granted as a monopoly of truth on these complex issues and their cocksure comments reinforced by groupthink orthodoxy . . . not to forget the gatekeepers, their minds none too bright but prolifically full of  politically correct pulpit-pounding pieties that they let loose in swarms of extravagant certitude.  And instantly ready in flashing reflexes to defend by sarcastic, unqualifiedly idiotic put-downs of any posts left by dissenters from their orthodoxies . . . above all, yours truly for whom their burlesque invective is a source of immediate guffaws, often followed by huge horse-laughs.

No matter.  Their reflexive mockery is part-and-parcel of half-educated ideologues, which is found not just on the left-wing in American politics, but among the populist right-wing as well . . . now headed, it seems, by Sarah Palin and a few other clownish know-nothings.

So:

Click here for the buggy stuff, fun and all.

Today's Buggy Topic

It's found at Economist View, where prof bug's commentary on how experts manage to do less well in predicting politically charged social, economic, environmental, and international policy issues than any random sample of our citizenry . . . with the evidence set out, and the reasons why.   No need to say more.   Click here for the commentary.

Today's Buggy Topic Is Found . . .

as usual at Economist View, where as thread was started with the laudable boss-wizard of that web site, Professor Mark Thoma, by linking to a non-scholarly piece by Professor Robert Shiller, an economist at Yale --- and one of the pioneers of behavioral economics, especially in financial matters.  

Behavioral economics is aimed at challenging the theoretical postulate of rational-choice behavior that extends back over a century to neo-classical work in what we would now call microeconomics: all economic agents--- whether financial investors, business owners, the managers of financial institutions, consumers, and workers --- all follow rational behavior in seeking their self-interest in the economic realm.  The assumption allows for a big simplification that enables economists to work methodologically on the assumption that all economic actors are therefore self-interested maximizers (or optimizers).  With that assumption, all sorts of formal mathematical modeling is then made possible --- including, since 1945, game theory (or strategic interaction between two or more economic agents --- or even two or more nation-states treated as unitary agents). 

Strategic Action Meaning What Exactly?

Simply this: what one economic agent can achieve--- say, a new start-up company breaking into a fairly new industry dominated by a few giants (say again, Google, created by three Stanford students in 1995 or so, no longer just a search engine company, but the biggest challenge to Microsoft) --- will depend on what Microsoft and Intel seek to achieve.  In principle, their interactions --- given rational-maximizing assumptions of self-interest (measured in perhaps profits or market share or both) --- can be set out in at least "ordinal" or "rank-order" fashion. 

Rank-order refers, as an example, to 4000 IQ test-takers, being ranked comparatively in relation to others.  IQ tests are always normed for 100 with a standard deviation around the mean of 15 points (16 in some tests.  But you can't say that an IQ  of 170 --- way in the genius range --- is twice as intelligent as 85.  There is no zero, no way to say that 4th in rank is twice as high as 2nd in rank, and hence no way that this is strict  numerical or "interval" or "cardinal data."

Without the assumption of maximizing rational actors --- seen, say, as individual businesses in a perfectly competitive market (where there are large numbers of firms, no one firm can influence the general price of the products in that industry, and there is "free entry" and "free exit"  --- the latter referring to bankrupty) or in an oligopolistic market (a few giant firms that track one another's pricing and product innovations and quality to which game theory is applicable) --- mathematical economics of any sort (called econometrics) would be possible

Enter Psychological and Social Psychology That Cast Lots of Doubt on This Rational-Choice Postulate

The criticisms of that postulate are numerous and emerge from experimental laboratory work of how individuals and small groups behave in a controlled situation. 

 Since the early 1960s, their impressive work --- which doesn't mean it has its limitations (all spelled out in Prof Bug's post at Economist View --- has made inroads into economics, generating among other things behavioral economics that uses psychological work and does a lot of digging into economic behavioral data to come up with alternative theoretical postulates and modeling.  Robert Shiller, as we noted earlier, is one of them ---- and for that matter, though none of the habitual posters at Economist View seemed to remember it --- so was John Maynard Keynes, the great pioneer economist of macroeconomics.  Using essentially his intuitive folk knowledge of economic actors, not least financial and business investors, Keynes said in 1936 amid the Great Depression that what drives economic behavior is "Animal Spirits".  

In the boom phase of the business cycle, the spirits of investors and consumers become "irrationally exuberant" to use the phrase coined in the late 1990s stock market boom by Alan Greenspan.  In the Great Depression (recessionary phase), said Keynes, they become the opposite: extra-pessimistic depressed spirits. 

Small Wonder,

. . . as prof bug alone noted in that long thread at Economist View, that  Prof Shiller and his co-author George Akerlof (a Nobel-Prize winning eonomist at Berkeley) published a popularizing book last year entitled "Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism."

Today's Buggy Topic

It's found in a thread at the web site of the estimable Chronicle of Higher Education . . . the thread kicked off by a review of a recent French book by Emmanuel Faye on Heidegger's fervent Nazi beliefs in the 1930s and during WWII, all of which he sought to conceal or whitewash in the 31 years that he lived after 1945. 

The exchanges in the thread are of a high quality, especially since most of them were left, it seems, by philosophers . . . some defending Heidegger, others attacking him for his Nazism.  Prof bug's lengthy commentary seeks to show that the defenders of Heidegger's philosophical work --- most of the defenders acknowledging his Nazi party membership, but claiming it didn't influence his major philosophical publications --- are simply wrong.  To show this, prof bug cites all sorts of different studies and on a variety of topics relating to Heidegger and Hitler and the Nazi anti-modernist revolution that he fervently supported . . . right down to merging his traditional view of German superiority in the world as rooted in a Greek-like genius of the soil, its language, its cultural creativity with Hitlerian genocidal racism in the 1939-1942 period of WWII.

Please Note 

The buggy prof post ended up with strange spacing between the paragraphs.  The reason? 

Well, I banged out the Heidegger stuff in Word, then tried to post it at the Chronicle of Higher Education web-site, but --- as it happened --- the posting-box for comments in the thread wouldn't accept any pasting from Word . . . something I learned yesterday when I tried it.  So, after musing what to do --- the alternative of typing in 5000 words or more in the comment box something that rankled him --- prof bug used an automatic formatting program that takes Word-formatted script and re-formats it in HTML, the computer language of the Web.  And it worked, only . . . . well, for reasons that puzzle me, the huge empty spaces between paragraphs showed up in the posted buggy commentary.  Nothing, alas, to be done.

Click Here for the Thread and the Buggy Post:

Right now.

Today's Buggy Topic . . .

. . . unfolds in four lengthy posts that prof bug left in a thread at Economist's View the last three days, much to the discomfort of left-wing critics (some of them professors).  Click here for the buggy stuff and the critics.

As you'll see, the two sorts of approaches to understanding human behavior and social life happen to be linked historically to noticeably different intellectual styles that prevailed in  Europe and the USA historically, with a prof bug analysis of where democracy emerged early and stabilized itself in effective and legitimate political institutions, and where the opposite occurred.  No need to say more.  Be sure to read the illuminating introductory commentary by Professor Daniel Little that kick-started the thread.

Today's Buggy Topic

Found, as usual, at Economist's View, the topic was inspired by a thread that Professor Mark Thoma, the man who runs that web site, started with a link to a Brookings Institute study on welfare and food stamps and black families. 

The key issue for prof bug?   To what extent, can the explosive growth of out-of-wedlock births in the African-American community between 1965 and 1995 --- a high-octane surge from 25% of illegitimate births to nearly 70% in that thirty year period, an astounding change, with lots of problems in inner city communities that ensued --- be attributed to the pre-reformed welfare system?

The Background

It was President Lyndon Johnson who initiated the system with aid-to-dependent families in 1965, always with good intentions.  And very frequently with intrusive government social policies --- guided by misleading social science theories that don't fully understand the complexity of the problems that generate those policies --- that welfare stem entailed, over time, bad unintended consequences entirely beyond the predictive powers of those theories.

In turn, as research began to find out with more illuminating studies --- focused on the harmful results of single-parent families for their infants and children --- that research showed how children from such families are at risk in a variety of ways: not least, in delinquency of different sorts: some minor, some more serious, some deadly.

No Need To Say More Here

The lengthy buggy post in that thread should be easy to follow.  Just be sure to read the thread's introductory comments that kick off the subsequent posts.

Click here.