28-11-2002 21:30									#121
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Saras Oh, and your profile says you're born in 1978. "if you studied economics for as long as I have " ???

Yes.

	28-11-2002 21:31									#122
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Saras Did I miss something? Doc, you say you identified misconceptions? Where?

Read through this thread and the last.

	28-11-2002 21:43									#123
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

"I don't have a copy of the article (as I said before it was a journalistic piece), but I can send you a hard copy if you really want, though it just makes the points I made in the thread. My academic work is in econometric modelling of labour markets..."

We have a couple of journals at the library, so probably a reference will do.

"...believe me I am not being up my own ass when I say I will not discuss it with you."

Who knows ? Maybe I agree with you ?

"you have a surprising amount of knowledge of facts for a non-economist but no structure, which is why you have misconceptions."

Or maybe I have a different structure for those facts ?

"should we discuss a legal issue and you said to me "Sorry, you've misunderstood that, in fact it's like this _insert legal explanation_", I would accept you have more insight"

That is only reasonable if I provide more facts than you have available. If you lack a legal text or a key court case, yes. If it relates to the interpretation and understanding of those, it is in no way a foregone conclusion that my understanding is better.

"Your inability to admit my posts on deflation/monetary targeting/NAIRU/Solow model/various monetary policy issues all provided you any insight that you had previously not considered is, quite frankly, in my opinion unbelievable."

Well let's see if Saras finds your corrections to my misconceptions...

"if you studied economics for as long as I have"

So you started before 1990 ?

	28-11-2002 21:46									#124
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DrSpike Read through this thread and the last.

You have some nerve. You walk in here thinking us you can treat us like little schoolkids, then you're bewildered we happen not to like or need that, and finally you put up some charade and think you can fool anyone with that.

And if you think that's abuse, wait until you really piss me off.

	28-11-2002 21:51									#125
	Got spare money?

And FYI, all the people you've been talking to in this topic have never seen me like this. I know that's circular logic, but might it not cross your thoughts for one second that your behaviour causes me to be this 'abusive' towards you?

	28-11-2002 22:03									#126
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Colon And FYI, all the people you've been talking to in this topic have never seen me like this. I know that's circular logic, but might it not cross your thoughts for one second that your behaviour causes me to be this 'abusive' towards you?

Lol I would be the first to admit my style can be abasive when challenged, as indeed I have admitted before. However the vast majority of my posts are civil responses to questions posed......like the time I spent providing you with an answer to your last questions.....and you came back with abuse.

I regret you feel that way........I am abrasive at times, but my intention was always to raise the level of understanding amongst some people I saw realised the importance of the sorts of issues we have discussed.

Good luck in your future economic studies, should your path take that direction.

	28-11-2002 22:14									#127
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

No, you've pretty much convinced me macro-economists are a crowd I don't want to be part of.

	28-11-2002 22:30									#128
	Inflate your Upload Space

"My academic work is in econometric modelling of labour markets...."

I loooove labour markets. So why don't you just copy and paste your publication list ? Pretty please ?

PS: Colon, checked your PMs at CG ?

	02-12-2002 20:51									#129
	Support Apolyton

"Concern about deflation in Japan still sounds silly to a guy who grew up hearing how the Japanese economy was totally export driven and domestic consumer goods were all priced through the roof. "

This circumstance seems to no longer be the case, at least anecdotally in selected industries. In the last generation of products, domestic elecronics sold at 1/2 the price of the export product. There was a lot of opportunity to pay a purchaser 5% to buy domestically and then export the product to you.

In the latest generation, the difference is less. Maybe 2/3rd the price. Then figure future dollar depreciation and we're starting to see something loosely resembling rational pricing...

On another subject, here's a good article about American labor markets and immigration. Demographers have been going nuts with the cornucopia of Census 2000 for the last year or so, and we're likely to see more detailed studies of this type...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6-2002Dec1.html

Also wrt demographics, here's a good article about the shortage of marriageable women in India due to sex selective abortions. India's future population pyramid looks excellent, but things like this could screw it all up easy...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2-2002Dec1.html

Edit: Just as soon as I start talking about dollar depreciation against the Yen, I get contradicted by the Japanese finance minister who says 150Y/$.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...p=1012571727088

But this just doesn't make any sense to me. Hopefully, the dollar will have an orderly, modest depreciation.

Last edited by DanS on 02-12-2002 at 21:38

	02-12-2002 21:05									#130
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

And yes, I haven't seen these kinds of fireworks since the MBT threads.

	02-12-2002 22:18									#131
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Sorry to bombard the thread with articles, but...

The following is a call by Japan to "reflate" the global economy.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...p=1012571727092

I don't agree with it at all (except the Japan part), but don't really have an overriding, educated context.

The only point I would raise is that Japan can't rely on the US (buy more) or China (raise export prices) to pull its coals out of the fire. The US economy is enjoying cheap goods from China, thank you very much, and if Japan can't compete in their target markets, they need to find more profitable target markets.

I saw a GE DVD/VCR combo for $75 in the weekend circulars, for instance--I was floored. This combo probably contained no Japanese parts. Probably some American intellectual property for Malaysian or Taiwanese fabbed integrated circuits. Maybe a couple of South Korean parts, such as memory. Assembled in Chinese factories owned by Taiwanese businessmen. We couldn't beat Japan long ago and now China on some things, so we joined them...

I agree that Japan should peg a high inflation figure and do whatever it takes to hit it, but why the US and Europe?

Last edited by DanS on 02-12-2002 at 22:30

	02-12-2002 23:30									#132
	Tired of ads?

This article is a case-in-point of why I dislike the Economist. The article about what Sten/Colon are discussing wrt to two-tiered pricing is based in part on the ridiculous assertion that "[u]nder Bill Clinton and the younger George Bush, America has drifted further from its commitment to global free trade, and is thus less able to criticise others."

http://www.economist.com/world/asia...tory_id=1469455

What a load of crap. Why does the Economist sometimes spout stuff that obviously isn't so? Not a week ago, the US concluded a Free Trade Agreement with Singapore and advocated removal of all tarrifs on manufactured goods globally by 2015. Clinton put through NAFTA and also worked hard on free trade, even though he didn't have fast-track negotiating authority from the congress.

Last edited by DanS on 02-12-2002 at 23:37

	02-12-2002 23:44									#133
	Get a bigger avatar today!

DanS,

A world where the US (or anyone else for that matter) has lots bilateral deals is less likely to create more trade than if it negociated multilaterally.

A lot of bilateral deals just divert trade - whereas multilateral deals almost always create trade.


The tarrifs on manufactured goods are already very low - and anyway tarrifs are not the US's 'chosen weapon' when it comes to trade protection, now if the US was advocating a reduction in 'anti-dumping' actions....

	02-12-2002 23:47									#134
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

ef: You would agree with me that the Economist is talking out of its ass with that comment, right?

"now if the US was advocating a reduction in 'anti-dumping' actions"

How many anti-dumping actions has the US taken recently?

"A lot of bilateral deals just divert trade - whereas multilateral deals almost always create trade."

There seems to be a logjam at the global level. Some multilateral deals will help with that logjam. IOW, these are tactical moves.

	04-12-2002 17:47									#135
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I don’t like the first FT comment at all, it has too many misconceptions and platitudes.

“The entry of emerging market economies - such as China and other east Asian nations - into the global trading system is a powerful additional deflationary force. Their combined supply capacity has been exerting downward pressure on the prices of goods in industrialised economies.”

This ignores that those countries demand is entering the global trading as well as their supply. China is a market as well as a competitor, as other Asian countries already have been discovering. The problem is not China’s supply capacity on itself but that they have an overcapacity relative to their domestic demand. I think this problem will diminish as China is restructuring it’s state industries.

“This is particularly true when the financial sector has been damaged, as in Japan. In order to cope with economic stagnation, there has been aggressive fiscal expansion since the early 1990s. Several years after the collapse of the bubble, the Bank of Japan belatedly shifted to easy monetary policy. Then it gradually guided the short-term money market rate below the discount rate, but without much success in stopping price deflation, let alone reviving economic activity.”

I’m really unconvinced that the BOJ is to blame, even if it did react to slowly you can only say that with benefit of hindsight. Japan’s economy was going down slower than US’ lately so it only seems logical they reacted more slowly.
The real blame IMHO lies at the intertwining of interests between the commercial banks, the LDP and industry. It’s remarkable how Japan’s most successful companies stand outside of this Gordian knot. (eg: Sony, Toyota)

“Actual inflation may be 1-2 percentage points below what the indices show. A central bank should maintain a buffer zone to reduce the risk of inflation entering negative territory. Inflation targets should therefore be set at a level that minimises the risk of deflation. For the European Central Bank the target could be 2-3 per cent a year. The BoJ's target should be higher.”

Firstly, actual inflation may also be 1-2% above what the indexes show, due liberal use of deflators (taking into account quality improvements) while not taking into account of quality diminishments (particularly an issue in the service sectors). Mrs Baum mentioned this in the commentary I posted about above.

Secondly, ECB’s inflation target in effect has been 2-3%. It hasn’t increased rates even though HICP has been above 2% for a very long time already. Core inflation has even been on a slightly more upward trend than a downward one.
As a reminder, wage growth is still very healthy in both the EU and the US, and where wages go service prices tend to follow. (that service inflation is strong in both economies indicates this)

In principle M3 growth target in the Eurozone is 4.5%, but the actual growth has always been higher than that and currently it’s even standing at 7%. On what the criticism of an overly tight ECB is based is a mystery to me.

“If Beijing considers the second option more costly than the first, it should join the advanced countries in their efforts towards reflation. It is China's responsibility, and its interest as the largest emerging market economy, to contribute to global stability jointly with the US, Europe and Japan.

The writers are vice-minister and deputy vice-minister for international affairs at the Japanese ministry of finance”

Yeah, if I were a Japanese politician I’d really love to see my regional rival cut in its production capacity as well.

[edit] I'm talking about the second FT article Dan posted.

Last edited by Colon on 04-12-2002 at 17:56

	05-12-2002 03:41									#136
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by DanS ef: You would agree with me that the Economist is talking out of its ass with that comment, right?

Sorry, but I would have to agree with it, see below:

quote: Originally posted by DanS How many anti-dumping actions has the US taken recently?

Well that depends on what you mean by recently - but in the last 10-15 years the number as quadrupled.

quote: Originally posted by DanS There seems to be a logjam at the global level. Some multilateral deals will help with that logjam. IOW, these are tactical moves.

Now that's just daft 'justification' - what you are saying is that the US is 'tactically' doing things that will reduce trade liberalization globally (trade diversion in bilateral deals) because it cannot make any progress in multilateral trade liberalization.
That's like deciding to add weight to a car because it's not going fast enough.

	06-12-2002 21:05									#137
	Full PM-box? Change here!

"Well that depends on what you mean by recently - but in the last 10-15 years the number as quadrupled."

I would like to see the breakdown. Also consider the flip side of the coin--this might just be a reflection of the unfair trade tactics of others.

"Now that's just daft 'justification' - what you are saying is that the US is 'tactically' doing things that will reduce trade liberalization globally (trade diversion in bilateral deals) because it cannot make any progress in multilateral trade liberalization.
That's like deciding to add weight to a car because it's not going fast enough."

Your simile doesn't hold. It doesn't add "weight", but reduces it. By following your simile, even regional trade deals (NAFTA, AFTA) would add weight, because it's not global.

Whether or not it reduces weight sufficiently is a fair question, of course. And that's where it's value as a tactic comes to the fore. Else, why would we sign these deals, if it didn't benefit us one way or another?

Or am I missing something here?

On another subject, how about those productivity numbers, eh? Highest rate since Q1 '73. It's tough to believe them.

Attachment: prs84006091_89610_1039190195482.gif
This has been downloaded 31 time(s).

Last edited by DanS on 06-12-2002 at 21:37

	06-12-2002 21:44									#138
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by DanS I would like to see the breakdown. Also consider the flip side of the coin--this might just be a reflection of the unfair trade tactics of others.

It is important to realise that the case for free trade does not depend on others' actions. It is in US interests to remove tariffs whether or not the EU or Japan do (and vice versa). Of course it doesn't get sold like that in reality, but that is how it is. The only reason tariffs are very resilient is that the benefits of free trade are spread out over all consumers, whereas the 'benefits' of protection are concentrated in the hands of a select few industries, who are very vocal and influential.

The main reason WTO (and multilateral trade agreements) helps is that it enables govts to have a reason to stand up to the vested interests.

I think both El Freako and Dan are right, because the US approach has been very mixed, with fast track being agreed, and the call for tariffs to be lowered recently existing alongside stupid caving in on aid for farmers and the steel industry.

	06-12-2002 21:46									#139
	Increase Your PM Length

pchang: Nice to see you around. You still working for Stockpoint? I noticed that they are now branded Pinnacor.

"It’s remarkable how Japan’s most successful companies stand outside of this Gordian knot. (eg: Sony, Toyota)"

Colon: I wouldn't include Sony in that list, even though they are a quality company. They just don't make any money. Little revenue growth.

Last edited by DanS on 06-12-2002 at 21:57

	06-12-2002 22:16									#140
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Spike: Thanks for the reminder on what's important here. It would be useful, although a little daunting, to take a look at the tarrif levels under Clinton and G.W. Bush versus their predecessors.

	06-12-2002 22:51									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

DanS,

Re the productivity data, three points.

One, it's interesting to note how the US's definition of productivity flatters the US rate - calculating productivity using the method used in the EU shows a 3.4% gain on the year to Q3 2002 compared to the 5.8% reported by the BLS.

Second this figure is helped by falling hours of work -1.8% over the year, the long-term trend (1990-2000) is of static working hours.

Thirdly what the hell is happening to the labour force in the US? - it shows growth of only 0.3% over the year (and that follows two years of below trend growth as well).

A combination of falling hours and activity rates is just what happened to Europe in the 1980's.

	06-12-2002 23:01									#142
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

"Thirdly what the hell is happening to the labour force in the US? - it shows growth of only 0.3% over the year (and that follows two years of below trend growth as well)."

Lord knows. Maybe everybody is buying a bunker and hunkering down for the end of days.

"One, it's interesting to note how the US's definition of productivity flatters the US rate"

If true, wouldn't that also impact the numbers in the past as well? No matter what the numbers are, we haven't seen these kind of numbers in 30 years.

"Second this figure is helped by falling hours of work -1.8% over the year, the long-term trend (1990-2000) is of static working hours."

I don't know what to make of it. Temporary, I would guess. Labor unit costs are plummeting as well, although at a slower rate than earlier in the year.

	06-12-2002 23:15									#143
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Hershell finally got the crash he was waiting for, courtesy of the Federal Reserve...

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet...BN/breakingnews

Last edited by DanS on 06-12-2002 at 23:20

	06-12-2002 23:51									#144
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by DanS If true, wouldn't that also impact the numbers in the past as well? No matter what the numbers are, we haven't seen these kind of numbers in 30 years.

Well looking at the data (which I am still compiling as I post - im back to 1977 now ) the current 3.4% annual rise was last beaten in Q1 1984 when the rise was 3.9%, so 18 years not 30.

	07-12-2002 01:21									#145
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Here is a spreadsheet of GDP per worker (the standard EU measure of productivity) for the US, quarterly data 1948-2002 (with forecasts for Q4 assuming no change in employment in December and 2% annualized growth in Q4).

Attachment: us productivity.zip
This has been downloaded 3 time(s).

Last edited by el freako on 07-12-2002 at 01:50

	07-12-2002 02:13									#146
	Full PM-box? Change here!

What's the justification for using GDP/worker rather than GDP/hour worked?

	07-12-2002 02:21									#147
	Suffering from ads?

Why would EU use either measure? Attributing all productivity gains to labor overstates labor productivity. Why not use multifactor? Or has this already been beaten to death on one of these threads?

	07-12-2002 02:23									#148
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by DanS Colon: I wouldn't include Sony in that list, even though they are a quality company. They just don't make any money. Little revenue growth.

I think you're taking a very narrow view there. It's true sales growth has been slow of the late, and that the past two bookyears net profits were thin. However profits have been rebounding in the current bookyear and Sony has been performing better than its Japanese competitors. (with exception of Canon, which isn't a typical Japanese firm either)

quote: If true, wouldn't that also impact the numbers in the past as well? No matter what the numbers are, we haven't seen these kind of numbers in 30 years.

There has been the 'invention' of hedonic deflators.

But what's the point you're trying to make wrt productivity growth anyway?

	07-12-2002 02:29									#149
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

"But what's the point you're trying to make wrt productivity growth anyway?"

It's high.

	07-12-2002 02:36									#150
	Remove this text

So? Why should I care?