Jonathan Ball wrote:

Look: less is more.

Right is Wrong.
War is Peace.


And slavery is freedom...

You still don't get it. I am not offering anything
that is remotely comparable to the examples of turning
truth on its head in '1984'.

Gosh Jonathan, what is the subject line again? Why yes, it's all
about turning truth on its head.

But I guess it's your density to live as a legend in your own mind.

--
Charles Scripter * Use this address to reply: cescript at progworks dot net
When encryption is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir rapelcgvba.
Note: my responses may be slow due to ISP/newsgroup issues

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:65762 rec.gardens:259682 misc.survivalism:502596 misc.rural:115990 rec.backcountry:172721

Charles Scripter wrote:

Jonathan Ball wrote:


Look: less is more.

Right is Wrong.
War is Peace.


And slavery is freedom...


You still don't get it. I am not offering anything
that is remotely comparable to the examples of turning
truth on its head in '1984'.


Gosh Jonathan, what is the subject line again? Why yes, it's all
about turning truth on its head.

Yes. "Right is wrong" and "war is peace" are examples
of that. "Less is more" is not; "less is more" is an
observation that, in some things, written expression
being one of them, saying less (but saying it well)
leads to a more powerful expression of thought.

Being a pigheaded fool, you refuse to acknowledge the
difference. I think you actually see the difference,
but because you are a pigheaded fool, you can't allow
yourself to acknowledge it. You have such a bloated
ego, the pain of acknowledging your error would be too
much to bear.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 04:28:13 GMT, "Don"
wrote:


Who's talking about *populace*?
I said, MY children.
If you want to pay for my kids education, come on over and bring your
checkbook, as he is homeschooled.

I thought it was obvious from a societal standpoint that "my" children
meant "not your" children. Without going into too much nitpicking
over exceptions, society benefits from an educated populace. If you
decide to teach your children at home, you just declined the education
you were entitled to. Whether that "free" education is worth the cost
varies depending on the public schools in question and your own
priorities.
Assuming I live a nice, long life, your kids are
going to be helping to bail me out of the problems caused by mistakes
made by our parents and ourselves.

Nope.
My kid won't pay for your problems, that is YOUR responsibility.
Again, I thought it obvious we were talking about society. I said OUR
parents and OURselves, you might notice. MY problems are separate
from SOCIETY'S problems. And I did not suggest you kid should write a
check to solve them; I expect at least some of today's children to
become tomaorrow's scientists and politicians. Apparently, you
children are being raised to believe they are only in it for
themselves, so maybe this assumption does not apply.

I'm willing to pay so that they
have enough information to do a good job of it.

That is the root of socialism, did you learn anything at all in school?
Joseph McCarthy is dead. scaremongering is a waste of time. As we've
seen many times in this thread, self-sufficiency in the pure sense is
not realistic; we must rely on each other to meet our collective
needs, and if that's socialism, then socialism is reality.

k
For more info about the International Society of Arboriculture, please visit http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.asp.
For consumer info about tree care, visit http://www.treesaregood.com/

"Babberney" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 04:28:13 GMT, "Don"
wrote:


Who's talking about *populace*?
I said, MY children.
If you want to pay for my kids education, come on over and bring your
checkbook, as he is homeschooled.

I thought it was obvious from a societal standpoint that "my" children
meant "not your" children. Without going into too much nitpicking
over exceptions, society benefits from an educated populace. If you
decide to teach your children at home, you just declined the education
you were entitled to. Whether that "free" education is worth the cost
varies depending on the public schools in question and your own
priorities.
Assuming I live a nice, long life, your kids are
going to be helping to bail me out of the problems caused by mistakes
made by our parents and ourselves.

Nope.
My kid won't pay for your problems, that is YOUR responsibility.
Again, I thought it obvious we were talking about society. I said OUR
parents and OURselves, you might notice. MY problems are separate
from SOCIETY'S problems. And I did not suggest you kid should write a
check to solve them; I expect at least some of today's children to
become tomaorrow's scientists and politicians. Apparently, you
children are being raised to believe they are only in it for
themselves, so maybe this assumption does not apply.

I'm willing to pay so that they
have enough information to do a good job of it.

That is the root of socialism, did you learn anything at all in school?
Joseph McCarthy is dead. scaremongering is a waste of time. As we've
seen many times in this thread, self-sufficiency in the pure sense is
not realistic; we must rely on each other to meet our collective
needs, and if that's socialism, then socialism is reality.

I have no problem at all contracting with YOU and others to gain what I
need.
What I have a problem with is people like YOU that believe there should be
an expensive middle man in DC.
Yes, that is socialism.
All for one, one for all.

Economics is a subset of psychology - psychology applied to
matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying
and selling, that sort of thing.

That's not even in the ball park! Have you ever read an economics
text?

Yes, I have. I had to read one to help my ex-wife pass an
econ class. She didn't understand it, but I did.

You may *think* you did, but you didn't.

The closest economics comes to being "psychological" (and it's about
as "close " as the North Pole is to the South Pole) is in making the
assumption that people always behave "rationally." I.e., that
entrepreneurs maximize profit by equating marginal cost with marginal
revenue and that consumers "equate at the margin" so that the last
penny spent on every good and service provides the same amount of
"utility" (want-satisfaction).

You just described applied psychology

No, I didn't. Psychologists *study* human behavior. Economic theory
is based on an *assumption* about behavior, an extremely naive one,
and proceeds from there, with no study of behavior to investigate that
assumption.

I don't recall any economist claiming that people always behave rationally.

See above.

Your point being...???

My point is, your original post is incorrect, as well as what you said
here. (BTW, "being" is not a verb.)

Are you sure that book you read with your wife wasn't about HOME
economics?

vince norris

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:44:02 -0500, vincent p. norris
wrote:

Economics is a subset of psychology - psychology applied to
matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying
and selling, that sort of thing.

That's not even in the ball park! Have you ever read an economics
text?

Yes, I have. I had to read one to help my ex-wife pass an
econ class. She didn't understand it, but I did.

You may *think* you did, but you didn't.

Do you have any idea of how easy that argument is to turn
around? "I understand economics, but you only think you
do." Not exactly overwhelming.

The closest economics comes to being "psychological" (and it's about
as "close " as the North Pole is to the South Pole) is in making the
assumption that people always behave "rationally." I.e., that
entrepreneurs maximize profit by equating marginal cost with marginal
revenue and that consumers "equate at the margin" so that the last
penny spent on every good and service provides the same amount of
"utility" (want-satisfaction).

You just described applied psychology

No, I didn't. Psychologists *study* human behavior. Economic theory
is based on an *assumption* about behavior, an extremely naive one,
and proceeds from there, with no study of behavior to investigate that
assumption.

Economists certainly do study human reactions to the
economic variables - tax rates, interest rates, monetary
creation, regulations, etc. You seem to think there is a
single "economic theory" - shared by everyone from Paul
Samuelson to Arthur Laffer. Not so. They do not agree
about economic behavior resulting from economic policies and
conditions. And they do study it - that's what all their
graphs and projections are about - not rocks on the other
side of the moon - economic behavior.

I don't recall any economist claiming that people always behave rationally.

See above.

Your point being...???

My point is, your original post is incorrect, as well as what you said
here. (BTW, "being" is not a verb.)

I stand by my original and follow-up posts. Are you an
English teacher, grading usenet posts for grammar? If so,
you really have your work cut out for you.

Are you sure that book you read with your wife wasn't about HOME
economics?

tsk, tsk...

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:13:56 -1000, Maren Purves
wrote:


paghat wrote:

In article , Greylock
wrote:


Good science is apolitical.


If one may define economics as political,

as a physicist I have a hard time defining economics (at least the areas
you go on to describe) as science ...


Economics is a subset of psychology

Uh...no. Not even close.

Economics is the study of choice under constraint. The
field doesn't care in the least WHY consumer preference
is what it is; preferences are taken as a given.
Psychologists may wish to understand human preferences;
economists don't.

An economics professor I once had told us of an alleged
contest, maybe back in the 1940s or 1950s, to define
economics in 30 words or fewer. I still remember the
definition he gave us, over 30 years ago:

Economics is the branch of learning that deals
with the social organization and process by which
the scarce means of production are directed towards
the satisfaction of human wants.

- psychology applied to
matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying
and selling, that sort of thing. If psychology is a science
(a highly questionable If), then so is economics.

Economics is, without question, the most rigorous of
all the social sciences. Nothing else comes close.
Political science has gotten a lot better than it once
was, but that was because economics "invaded" the field
and began applying numerical analysis to issues
poli-sci simply couldn't explain, e.g. why people vote
(poli-sci couldn't come close to explaining it.)
Psychology and esp. sociology are thoroughly
unscientific: there are too many political ends to be
served.

To the extent that advances in economic theory come
from peer reviewed articles, and because economics is
far and away the most mathematized of all the social
sciences, it is probably scientific enough.

vincent p. norris wrote:

Economics is a subset of psychology - psychology applied to
matters of money, assets, liabilities, production, buying
and selling, that sort of thing.


That's not even in the ball park! Have you ever read an economics
text?

The closest economics comes to being "psychological" (and it's about
as "close " as the North Pole is to the South Pole) is in making the
assumption that people always behave "rationally." I.e., that
entrepreneurs maximize profit by equating marginal cost with marginal
revenue and that consumers "equate at the margin" so that the last
penny spent on every good and service provides the same amount of
"utility" (want-satisfaction).

As many economists have long pointed out, those are
safe assumptions. The theory that is derived from the
assumptions accurately predicts how consumers and firms
behave.

All the conclusions of neo-classical price theory can
be derived without introducing "utility" at all. A
professor at UCLA named Armen Alchian, among others,
showed that decades ago. That is, you don't need a
three dimensional map, with goods X and Y on their
respective axes, and utility on a Z axis; you can get
downward sloping demand curves - the fundamental
finding of price theory concerning demand - with only X
and Y axes.


What could be further form the truth than that?

Consumers and firms behave "as if" they knowingly
equate at the margins.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:33:31 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:13:56 -1000, Maren Purves
wrote:


paghat wrote:

In article , Greylock
wrote:


Good science is apolitical.


If one may define economics as political,

as a physicist I have a hard time defining economics (at least the areas
you go on to describe) as science ...


Economics is a subset of psychology

Uh...no. Not even close.

Oh, not close - correct.

Economics is the study of choice under constraint.

And that isn't psychology? Since when???

The
field doesn't care in the least WHY consumer preference
is what it is; preferences are taken as a given.

That people HAVE preferences, or what those preferences are?
Of course people have preferences, but they aren't
universal. "Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks."

Psychologists may wish to understand human preferences;
economists don't.

Oh, sure they do. Or else why do "liberal" econmomists and
libertarian economists not agree about the effects of high
tax rates?

An economics professor I once had told us of an alleged
contest, maybe back in the 1940s or 1950s, to define
economics in 30 words or fewer. I still remember the
definition he gave us, over 30 years ago:

Economics is the branch of learning that deals
with the social organization and process by which
the scarce means of production are directed towards
the satisfaction of human wants.

economics (èk´e-nòm´îks, ê´ke-) noun
Abbr. econ.
1. (used with a sing. verb). The social science that deals
with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods
and services and with the theory and management of economies
or economic systems.
2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb). Economic matters,
especially relevant financial considerations: "Economics are
slowly killing the family farm" (Christian Science Monitor).

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. All
rights reserved.

psychology (sì-kòl´e-jê) noun
plural psychologies
Abbr. psych., psychol.
1. The science that deals with mental processes and
behavior.
2. The emotional and behavioral characteristics of an
individual, a group, or an activity: the psychology of war.
3. Subtle tactical action or argument used to manipulate or
influence another: He used poor psychology on his employer
when trying to make the point.
4. Philosophy. The branch of metaphysics that studies the
soul, the mind, and the relationship of life and mind to the
functions of the body.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. All
rights reserved.

I stand by my original assertion. Economics is OBVIOUSLY a
subset of psychology. Economists are people who apply
psychology to "production, distribution, and consumption of
goods and services."

(rest snipped)

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:33:31 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:13:56 -1000, Maren Purves
wrote:



paghat wrote:


In article , Greylock
wrote:



Good science is apolitical.


If one may define economics as political,

as a physicist I have a hard time defining economics (at least the areas
you go on to describe) as science ...


Economics is a subset of psychology

Uh...no. Not even close.


Oh, not close - correct.


Economics is the study of choice under constraint.


And that isn't psychology?

No. Not in the least.

Since when???

Since Adam Smith and Jean Baptiste Say first began
thinking about it.



The
field doesn't care in the least WHY consumer preference
is what it is; preferences are taken as a given.


That people HAVE preferences, or what those preferences are?
Of course people have preferences, but they aren't
universal. "Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks."


Psychologists may wish to understand human preferences;
economists don't.


Oh, sure they do.

No, they don't.

Or else why do "liberal" econmomists and
libertarian economists not agree about the effects of high
tax rates?

They do.



An economics professor I once had told us of an alleged
contest, maybe back in the 1940s or 1950s, to define
economics in 30 words or fewer. I still remember the
definition he gave us, over 30 years ago:

Economics is the branch of learning that deals
with the social organization and process by which
the scarce means of production are directed towards
the satisfaction of human wants.


economics (èk´e-nòm´îks, ê´ke-) noun
Abbr. econ.
1. (used with a sing. verb). The social science that deals
with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods
and services and with the theory and management of economies
or economic systems.
2. (used with a sing. or pl. verb). Economic matters,
especially relevant financial considerations: "Economics are
slowly killing the family farm" (Christian Science Monitor).

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. All
rights reserved.

psychology (sì-kòl´e-jê) noun
plural psychologies
Abbr. psych., psychol.
1. The science that deals with mental processes and
behavior.

Right: nothing to do with production, distribution or
consumption.

2. The emotional and behavioral characteristics of an
individual, a group, or an activity: the psychology of war.
3. Subtle tactical action or argument used to manipulate or
influence another: He used poor psychology on his employer
when trying to make the point.
4. Philosophy. The branch of metaphysics that studies the
soul, the mind, and the relationship of life and mind to the
functions of the body.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation. All
rights reserved.

I stand by my original assertion.

You stand by an error.

Economics is OBVIOUSLY a
subset of psychology.

No, plainly it is not.

Economists are people who apply
psychology to "production, distribution, and consumption of
goods and services."

No, I'm sorry, you're wrong. See what I said earlier:
consumer preferences are accepted as a given; they
are not within the purview of economics, not in any way.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:49:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

(massive snippage)

Economics is the study of choice under constraint.

And that isn't psychology?

No. Not in the least.

You don't think psychology deals with "the study of choice
under constraint"? Then you are lost to reason.

(rest of useless arguments, snipped)

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:49:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

(massive snippage)


Economics is the study of choice under constraint.

And that isn't psychology?

No. Not in the least.


You don't think psychology deals with "the study of choice
under constraint"?

No, I *know* it doesn't.

Then you are lost to reason.

(rest of useless arguments, snipped)

You mean, you dumb ass, that you have snipped out stuff
you don't - CAN'T - understand.

Economists don't care IN THE LEAST what consumers or
the managers of firms *think*; they care about how they
BEHAVE, where the behavior is observable without having
to communicate with the actors. Economists don't care
in the least *how* the actors arrive at their
decisions; there is an assumption of rationality. The
actual study of rationality is left to the
philosophers, psychologists and other poets.

It's pretty interesting that you merely keep repeating
your assertion with neither support, nor expertise in
either of the fields you are blabbering about. I have
a graduate degree in economics: I know what I'm
talking about.

Repeat after me, dumb ass: economics does not study
*how* consumers and firms think in making choice under
constraint; it makes an axiomatic assumption of
rationality, then looks at how the constraints
determine the choices available. It posits a theory
about what an *assumed* rational actor will do, looks
at the choices made, and checks to see if they conform
to the theory (they largely do). Psychologists may
study the actors' states of mind; economists don't care.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:12:07 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:49:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

(massive snippage)


Economics is the study of choice under constraint.

And that isn't psychology?

No. Not in the least.


You don't think psychology deals with "the study of choice
under constraint"?

No, I *know* it doesn't.

Then you are lost to reason.

(rest of useless arguments, snipped)

You mean, you dumb ass, that you have snipped out stuff
you don't - CAN'T - understand.

Oh, I understand what you wrote. You are wrong and I didn't
bother to reply.

Economists don't care IN THE LEAST what consumers or
the managers of firms *think*; they care about how they
BEHAVE, where the behavior is observable without having
to communicate with the actors. Economists don't care
in the least *how* the actors arrive at their
decisions; there is an assumption of rationality. The
actual study of rationality is left to the
philosophers, psychologists and other poets.

You are incorrect. Economists most certainly do care what
economic actors think and how they arrive at their
decisions. That's why they argue about the effects of
differing tax rates, interest rates, monetary policy, etc.
Those effects are just another way of saying - how do people
react to economic considerations. That is psychology, even
if you don't think so.

It's pretty interesting that you merely keep repeating
your assertion with neither support, nor expertise in
either of the fields you are blabbering about. I have
a graduate degree in economics: I know what I'm
talking about.

So if I could find a well-known economist who doesn't agree
with you, you are right and he is wrong?

(BTW, argument from authority is not particularly
convincing.)

Repeat after me, dumb ass:

There you go again...

economics does not study
*how* consumers and firms think in making choice under
constraint;

Some economists certainly do study that. Perhaps your
professors have you convinced that they don't, but I doubt
they spent much time on that question in class.

it makes an axiomatic assumption of rationality,
then looks at how the constraints
determine the choices available.

Once again you are incorrect. The restraints don't
determine the choices people make, because people don't
react uniformly to any given set of restraints. PEOPLE
determine how they will react to restraints. Since PEOPLE
are reacting, the study of their reactions is a subset of
psychology.

It posits a theory
about what an *assumed* rational actor will do, looks
at the choices made, and checks to see if they conform
to the theory (they largely do). Psychologists may
study the actors' states of mind; economists don't care.

Yes, they do. Why do you suppose they say that economic
conditions are so dependent on "sentiment"? "Consumer
confidence"? Why do you suppose there are such things as
bubble markets? Real estate booms? "Irrational
exuberance," as certain Fed Chairman described it? Is Alan
Greenspan an economist?

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:12:07 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:


Robert Sturgeon wrote:


On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 06:49:40 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

(massive snippage)



Economics is the study of choice under constraint.

And that isn't psychology?

No. Not in the least.


You don't think psychology deals with "the study of choice
under constraint"?

No, I *know* it doesn't.


Then you are lost to reason.

(rest of useless arguments, snipped)

You mean, you dumb ass, that you have snipped out stuff
you don't - CAN'T - understand.


Oh, I understand what you wrote. You are wrong and I didn't
bother to reply.

No, you didn't understand it. You very plainly are not
qualified to understand it. You are wrong: economics
is not a branch of, nor is it derived from, psychology.
It does not study the minds of consumers or decision
makers of firms in any way.



Economists don't care IN THE LEAST what consumers or
the managers of firms *think*; they care about how they
BEHAVE, where the behavior is observable without having
to communicate with the actors. Economists don't care
in the least *how* the actors arrive at their
decisions; there is an assumption of rationality. The
actual study of rationality is left to the
philosophers, psychologists and other poets.


You are incorrect.

No, I am correct. You are incorrect. You have not
studied economics. I have.

Economists most certainly do care what
economic actors think and how they arrive at their
decisions.

No, they don't. They make certain assumptions
regarding rationality, but other than that, they treat
the thinking of consumers and firm managers as a black
box. They do not study psychology.

That's why they argue about the effects of
differing tax rates, interest rates, monetary policy, etc.

That's not what they argue about, economics-illiterate one.

Those effects are just another way of saying - how do people
react to economic considerations. That is psychology, even
if you don't think so.


It's pretty interesting that you merely keep repeating
your assertion with neither support, nor expertise in
either of the fields you are blabbering about. I have
a graduate degree in economics: I know what I'm
talking about.


So if I could find a well-known economist who doesn't agree
with you, you are right and he is wrong?

Find one.


(BTW, argument from authority is not particularly
convincing.)

You demonstrate that you do not understand the study of
logic and logical fallacies, either, with a stupid
statement like that. The fallacy of argumentum ad
verecundiam only applies when the "authority" cited is
not an authority it the relevant field. In my case,
with a degree in economics and Ph.D. level studies in
economics at UCLA, I am very much an authority,
relative to you.



Repeat after me, dumb ass:


There you go again...

Yes. You've richly earned it.



economics does not study
*how* consumers and firms think in making choice under
constraint;


Some economists certainly do study that.

No, they don't.

Perhaps your
professors have you convinced that they don't, but I doubt
they spent much time on that question in class.

They spent just enough time in class to explain that
economics does not study psychology at all. You, on
the other hand, have not even sat in an economics class
at all. You claim, unconvincingly, to having read ONE
economics textbook to help your wife pass a class. I
have read a couple of dozen economics textbooks, and
have studied economics at a graduate level. I know
what I'm talking about; you do not.



it makes an axiomatic assumption of rationality,
then looks at how the constraints
determine the choices available.


Once again you are incorrect.

No, once again I am correct, and once again you reveal
you are an arrogant ass.

The restraints don't
determine the choices people make,

Now you REALLY demonstrate your colossal ignorance.
Constraints - not restraints, you moron - most
certainly do determine the choices people make.

because people don't
react uniformly to any given set of restraints.

Generally, they do. There is one major constraint that
is assumed in the theory of demand, the budget
constraint. You don't even know what it is.


It posits a theory
about what an *assumed* rational actor will do, looks
at the choices made, and checks to see if they conform
to the theory (they largely do). Psychologists may
study the actors' states of mind; economists don't care.


Yes, they do.

No, they don't. You simply are wrong, and in no
plausible position to argue. You are arguing from
utter ignorance, compounded now by pigheadedness.

Why do you suppose they say

Who says?

that economic
conditions are so dependent on "sentiment"? "Consumer
confidence"? Why do you suppose there are such things as
bubble markets? Real estate booms? "Irrational
exuberance," as certain Fed Chairman described it? Is Alan
Greenspan an economist?

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

And an ignorant ass.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 02:49:55 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

(snippage of the rantings of an "expert" with letters after
his name, but no common sense at all)

Why do you suppose they say

Who says?

that economic
conditions are so dependent on "sentiment"? "Consumer
confidence"? Why do you suppose there are such things as
bubble markets? Real estate booms? "Irrational
exuberance," as certain Fed Chairman described it? Is Alan
Greenspan an economist?

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.

And an ignorant ass.

I see you don't have an answer to Mr. Greenspan's well-known
concern about irrational exuberance. Why not? It couldn't
be because "irrational exuberance" describes investor
psychology in a bubble market, and you don't think "real"
economists consider investor psychology - right? So
Greenspan isn't a "real" economist, right? You are, by dint
of your UCLA diploma, but he isn't? You might consider
asking for a refund of your tuition.

--
Robert Sturgeon,
proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy
and the evil gun culture.