TIL: economics has a lot of "great" events.



For those of you that don't know, the Great Moderation was a period from around 1984 to 2007 during which macroeconomic volatility (the business cycle) was practically tamed. There are about three mainstream explanations, and one more heterodox explanation. Since I'm biased, I'll outline all four and then let you choose.

The first is simply luck, which essentially says that any shocks to the economy were simply less severe by chance.

The second is the structure of the economy, which states the nature of the economy (improved technology, shift to service-based employment) was better at absorbing any shocks which did occur.

These two explanations have been largely been discarded, however, and there remains just a single mainstream one which is truly considered viable (by economists) any more. The Taylor Principle, which is that as inflation expectations rose, the Fed raised interest rates more than expectations. For instance, if inflation expectations rise to 1pc above the goal, the Fed would raise the nominal interest rate to >1pc, thus raising the real interest rate. This is essentially how Volcker broke inflation in the 1970s. This works, essentially, by impeding the velocity of money and slowing the creation of money which occurs in the banking system.

The last, less mainstream explanation, is that the Federal Reserve - towards the end of Volcker's tenure and during Greenspan's - was targeting nominal income, which is just the total spending in the economy, or aggregate demand. The idea is that with nominal income stabilised, demand shocks (where nominal income/total spending falls sharply) didn't occur and thus recessions (like that in 1991) were a lot milder. This seems to be supported by this quote by Greenspan: "I’m basically arguing that we are really in a sense using [unintelligible] a nominal GDP goal of which the money supply relationships are technical mechanisms to achieve that."

So, based on those explanations, which do you think?

I live, apparently, in a moderately rough area (for England) and as I get older I can certainly see why my friends say that.

After being stabbed a couple of years ago, and my subsequent dealings with the police, I don't have a lot of confidence in them. While you should always, on some level, be ready to defend yourself if necessary, I don't have any confidence in the police to handle an incident properly after in occurs, or get to me in enough time to ensure my protection.

So, whenever I walk to the local shop (which is literally just down the road) when it's dark, I always walk with my house key between my two middle fingers.

From the Independent.

Terror organisation al-Shabaab have claimed an attack that killed 28 people on a bus in Northern Kenya.

Around 100 gunmen, who are believed to have travelled over the border in Mandera county from Somalia, took the bus off the road before separating the passengers.

It is believed they asked travellers to recite passages from the Koran, shooting dead those who were unable to prove they were practising Muslims.

A statement on a website linked to the extremist organisation said the attack was carried out in retaliation for security raids on mosques in the coastal city of Mombassa earlier this week.

Kenya's Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government claimed on their official account earlier today: "Attackers camp has been destroyed by KDF using helicopters and jets, many killed, operations continue."

The bus was travelling to the Kenyan capital Nairobi when it was stopped in the northern county that borders Somalia.

Around 60 people were on the bus at the time of the attack, and it is thought that among the dead are Kenyan public servants – including four police officers - who were heading to the capital for the Christmas holiday.

Remind me again how scripture doesn't motivate these people.

Or is this something the administrative team is discreetly doing?

This is an interesting question, because I find it surprising (given my former biases) how many intelligent people can espouse fairly conservative positions, even if they don't, necessarily, identify with the label (think how Kinder is a Libertarian despite supporting the militarisation of the police and opposing free trade (no, that's not a dig)).

I consider myself above-average, and I consider myself a Conservative as well as a conservative. I wouldn't want to presume that I'm among the most intelligent users, so I'll throw that out there and let you guys decide. If anybody wants to challenge my own categorisation as a "conservative", either, then I'm happy to welcome that.

Mr. P is a lapsed Tory, and I certainly think he's naturally conservative in a similar way to me, although I'd hesitate to call him ideologically conservative. Turkey is certainly one of the most intelligent, and from what I've seen he seems to be about as conservative as I am (again, feel free to dispute this).

There are three examples of, at least, moderately intelligent users who are all comparably conservative to varying degrees. Of course, we have intelligent users who're also dirty pinko liberal commies - like Icy, Commissar and Max.

So, let me round up with some questions:
- What do you think the distribution is of political/economic beliefs among the most intelligent users is?
- Do you believe the intelligent user's area of interest has a significant impact on their resultant beliefs?

Mostly because I'm bored. Also because I hold some - at least here - potentially controversial opinions, and it seems like throwing it out to the crowd is a good way to get some discussion going.

This thread is deliberately broad. Ask me anything about politics, economics, society, philosophy, foreign policy, whatever strikes your fancy.

Some of my friends think it bad that I find this really funny, because it's apparently racist.

Where is the line drawn? Discrimination, or merely prejudice? Is this video genuinely prejudiced?

I don't think it's racist, just comedy.

There are Alexander Hamilton's Federalists, or Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans?

The Federalists:Often supported the idea of creating a mercantile nation deeply involved in world trade, as well as turning the U.S. into a manufacturing powerhouse. Although, the trade didn't come without a degree of protectionism, and Hamilton favoured using tariffs to spur manufacturing growth. The Federalists also argued for the creation of a national debt, as well as a national bank. They also imposed an excise tax on whiskey.

Federalists generally supported a strong federal government capable of building infrastructure and maintaining this development, taking an "implied powers" approach to the Constitution which allowed elasticity. They were suspicious of mob rule, which has often led to criticisms of elitism.

The Federalists also supported greater ties to Great Britain, and desired to establish a strong navy and army.

The Democratic-Republicans: Supported the idea of a localist, agrarian economy un-involved with international trade. They also believed in small-scale local government to compliment the economic structure and strongly preserve civil liberties, and avoid the problems associated with large, centralised government.

They took a line of Strict Construction in regards to the Constitution, and criticised the Federalists ambitions to establish a national debt and bank as impermissible.

The DRs supported closer ties to the French.

I'd have been a Federalist, I think.

A lot of you will probably be wondering exactly what I mean, considering how open I've been in the past. Most of you will probably be aware that I am, on some level, psychologically disordered. The extent to which you think that's true, and the extent to which you think I am indeed disordered, is your prerogative and I'm not here to convince you of anything.

However, for those interested, and myself, I'm here to be completely open about my potential disorders (I say potential because, despite consulting professionals and getting broadly the same response, personality disorders cannot be legally diagnosed under the age of 18). There are a couple of reasons for this, primarily because it's for my own understanding as much as anyone else's - think of it as a sort of compendium. Plus, I enjoy talking about myself.

So, below, I'm going to split it into two categories (emotional, and behavioural) and deal with the three disorders which bear the most relevance to my personality (antisocial, psychopathic and borderline) to varying degrees.

Emotional
This is easily the most complicated aspect, and I understand relatively little about even myself. This is where borderline personality disorder has the most relevance to me, although I'm not claiming to have such a disorder, merely tendencies, as I lack very important symptoms.

One symptom, instability of affect, involves the rapid cycling of moodsessentially all over the place. My mood can change, quite literally, within seconds and for no apparent reason. Although, normally, it will be due to frustration with another person. Accordingly, I also engage in what's known as "idealisation and devaluation" which, according to my understand, means to exaggerate the good and the bad in people depending on the situation. The best example is probably my grandma, who I find to be the most likable in my family. I can, quite easily, become frustrated (such as her hurrying me to finish my tea) and feel intensely rageful, to the point of swearing under my breath and wanting to cause harm to her.

Also in accordance with BPD (although not necessarily because of it) I lack an identity, or have a very diffuse one. I have no definite sense of self, and often have trouble trying to determine exactly what it is I value, who I am, and where I fit into the world. It can cause a hollow, or empty feeling when it comes to the forefront of my attention.

Moving away from BPD, I have the ability to be superficially charming. I, fairly consistently, perform well in things like interviews and when convincing people that I'm genuine about something, or convincing them of whatever else. Despite being emotionally unstable, I'm also shallow and don't feel emotions to their "fullest", which is often known as blunted affect or emotional flatness.

While my anxiety varies from situation to situation, it's never excessive and I feel incredibly un-anxious in situations where I'm in control. Accordingly, I have very little fear (with the exception of heights). Interestingly, however, I've found that while I have quite a sufficient startle response, I don't feel fearful when I'm startled. Whether that's just misunderstanding on my part, I don't know.

Behavioural
Due to having very little empathy for other people, I have pretty much no remorse for anything I've done which could be considered immoral. I'm fairly sure I could be called a pathological liar, and can act in considerably manipulative ways. Especially when angry, I can have the intense desire to bully people either verbally or physically.

I am fairly impulsive. With one memorable example being crashing a utility vehicle into a tree at my old job, because I was driving around, quickly, in the dark without my lights on. I think, fundamentally, it comes down to me lacking a sense of scale. I'm fairly terrible at gauging the relative value of things, which causes me to act impulsively, be unproductive and undisciplined and spend money frivolously.

Conclusion
It's probably a bit ramble-y, but that's all I can really think of at the moment. I'll probably edit it as more comes to mind. Again, I decided to do this for both myself and anybody at all interested in psychology, or just interested in me in general (and let's not lie, who isn't?).

TL;DR: I've underlined the most important bits, and this is a semi-AMA for people who want to ask me shit after reading it, or not. Y'know, whatever. Peace.

I'll be waiting, Cameron.

LET'S LIGHT IT UP, LET'S LIGHT IT UP TILL OUR HEARTS CATCH FIRE

T4R.

From Bloomberg; a bit old, really.

Bank of Japan Governor Haruhiko Kuroda led a divided board to expand what was already an unprecedentedly large monetary-stimulus program, boosting stocks and sending the yen tumbling.

Kuroda, 70, and four of his eight fellow board members voted to raise the BOJ’s annual target for enlarging the monetary base to 80 trillion yen ($724 billion), up from 60 to 70 trillion yen, the central bank said. An increase was foreseen by just three of 32 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News. The BOJ also cut its forecasts for inflation and growth in Japan, the world’s third-biggest economy.

Facing projections for failure to reach the BOJ’s 2 percent inflation target in about two years, and with the pressure from a higher sales tax, enlarging the stimulus at some point had been anticipated by analysts for months. Kuroda opted not to telegraph his intentions in recent weeks, leaving today’s move a surprise -- sending the Nikkei (NKY) 225 Stock Average to the highest level since 2007.

“It was great timing for Kuroda,” said Takeshi Minami, Tokyo-based chief economist at Norinchukin Research Institute, one of two who correctly forecast today’s easing. Minami noted that it follows the Federal Reserve’s ending of quantitative easing, helping highlight the differing paths for the U.S. and Japan, which has the heaviest debt burden of any country. The yen sank 2.1 percent against the dollar to 111.55 as of 6:02 p.m. in Tokyo.

Today’s decision comes almost 19 months after Kuroda unleashed his initial asset-purchase plan, with the intention of doubling the monetary base. That move similarly drove up stocks and undercut the yen. Since then, a more competitive exchange rate has triggered higher corporate earnings, and asset-price gains have expanded Japanese households’ net worth.

Keynesian economics would have you believe that quantitative easing would have no effect during a liquidity trap, and just sit in excess reserves. However, with the announcement of monetary easing in such a situation, we see asset prices rise.

Go monetarism.

From the Independent.

David Cameron wants Jihadi John, the Isis terrorist who has beheaded two British and two American hostages, to "face justice" for his crimes rather than be killed.

The Isis (also known as Islamic State) militant, who is British, was reportedly wounded in a US-led air strikes carried out last Saturday. It is believed he was taken to hospital after the attack in Western Iraq.

Asked at the end of the G20 Leaders Summit in Brisbane whether he hoped Jihadi John, who is the masked executioner in the beheading videos filmed by the Islamic state as warnings to the West might actually be dead, Mr Cameron said: "I want Jihadi John to face justice for the appalling acts carried out in Syria.”

However, he added that the air strike was a warning to would-be British terrorists of their likely ultimate fate if they join Islamic State: "If people travel to Syria or Iraq in order to conduct terror operations against British people, British citizens, then they are putting themselves in harm's way."

It's a shame he didn't die. May as well make a spectacle of him if we catch him alive, though.

So let's do it like they do on the discovery channel