Jens Christensen may express the hubris of very talented people, who believe that Someone must be tuned into the economy. The analysis is high-quality and great in the context of its accounting, the missed sleight-of-hand being the evaluated relationship between Investors and real market forces. Remember these guys are the Ones who fell in love with Credit Default Swaps. The longer one studies the Street, the more one determines that Shamans must come from the Indian tribes, and only focus on Nature; everyone else must expect to lose Cash every once in a while. Inflation or Deflation will never be determined by prescient scholars, as it is a complex summation of widely disparate transactions absorbed in mass; I get mixed math results adding a finite set of Numbers usually, and sometimes have to accept the best in breed. Do not expect a great level of Insight from such Studies, though they are important for studying the history of events.
Here is a piece from John Quiggin which might further my earlier point. The relationship between human economic activity and climate change has not be actively rated, though everyone knows there is some relationship not particularly helpful. I would like to know the tonnage of Carbon particulate spewed into the air by humanity every year. I would like to know How this amount relates to recent volcanic activity and carbon production. What I am trying to get at here is the real potential damage humanity might be inflicting upon the environment, and How much of that Damage will be which We can curb. John simply critiques the approach of the Austrians and Libertarians to the scientific data, while I condemn the real collection process of that data accumulation. It is really sad, as John makes some real points in his argument, which are defeated by the undefined quality of the scientific data.
I present this debate for my Readers, so they can more clearly understand my logic this morning; now, if I only had such additional Crib-Notes. Four different eminent economists have four different takes on the economy, all basically utilizing the same data. We are all agreed about how much has been spent on Stimulus, but the evaluative content on that expenditure has multiple interpretations depending on one’s own emphasis. Here are a few ideas the Reader might want to explore: 1) Stimulus dependent upon active Business organization does not hire labor at the same rate as Start-Ups; 2) Start-Ups need financial backing which requires collateral, and the money is necessary to generate the legal Costs necessary to apply for Government contracts; 3) scaled-down existent Business organization cannot often acquire laid-off labor; 4) only Government can afford and sustain the formation Costs of creating a new labor pool for any endeavor under Recessionary conditions. What I am trying to get at is the fact that without Government’s willingness to organize their own Manpower needs, Government must endure quite slow Stimulation of the economy. One has to ask if Government Stimulus activity is faster or slower than Private recovery efforts; or, if Government Stimulus is always too much too late, and fails to solve any problem; though it does incite high levels of Inflation. lgl