On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 3:08:14 AM UTC-5, mike wrote:
On 12/29/2014 8:10 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
thread getting too long...snip

The Japanese had no reputation for quality at the end of WWII.

Thanks to W. Edwards Deming, they woke up fast, and set a new quality
standard for the world. The Chinese are still mostly bottom-feeding in
international markets.

And you expect this to remain the same for forty years?

I just can't project that far ahead.

It's not rocket science.

The problem is... it is not anything less, either.

It's simple math.
The first order approximation to ANYTHING is to assume
the current trend continues at the same slope.
If you don't like the trend, saying you can't predict is not
helpful.
The correct course of action is to decide where you want to
be in 40 years and take affirmative action NOW to point the
trend in the direction you want.

New York Times Economist Paul Krugman wrote this in September 2, 2009 about the 2008 economic crisis:

"Few economists saw our current crisis coming, but this predictive failure was the least of the field's problems. More important was the profession's blindness to the very possibility of catastrophic failures in a market economy. During the golden years, financial economists came to believe that markets were inherently stable -- indeed, that stocks and other assets were always priced just right. There was nothing in the prevailing models suggesting the possibility of the kind of collapse that happened last year. Meanwhile, macroeconomists were divided in their views.

-- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/ma...anted=all&_r=0

Merry Christmas to all and to all a zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Same to ya, but I had a rotten Christmas. Too much trouble with the gf.
;(

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:34:06 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/29/2014 9:56 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 10:31:50 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:20:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:11:44 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 02:04:18 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/28/2014 5:29 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 15:08:49 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/28/2014 1:18 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 22:26:29 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/27/2014 9:44 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 02:08:54 -0800, "Howard Beal"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
Much snipped



I think you guys are 'way too pessimistic about the American economy,
and 'way too optimistic about the Chinese.

This is a long story, but the Chinese have been too slow to adopt
international standards of quality -- sewing a straight line on a
Louis Vuitton handbag is not a measure of manufacturing quality. And
now they're facing much higher transportation costs and a steep rise
in wages, with the Lewis Turning Point looming ahead. Like the
Japanese before them, they're losing their edge on cost, but without
the Japanese reputation for quality.

I talked with a Chinese representative of their tool-and-die industry
in Atlanta last month. I asked them if they could make decent D2 steel
yet. "Just barely," he said. Which puts them at a competitive parity
with the West...in about 1950.

The long-term goal for China is to be globally competitive at
competitive, not cut-rate, prices. They're hoping to accomplish
market-share inroads before their costs rise too much. So far, they're
not doing very well at that, in automobiles, industrial equipment, and
so on. There are factories in China turning out good products but
they're almost always run by Western companies, who are putting up
with horrible productivity in order to gain the labor-cost savings.
That will go away. Now their goal is to ride it out as the Chinese
domestic consumer market expands. Their economy *must* become more
consumption-based, or they're going to lose much of their export
market as their costs increase.

Meantime, US manufacturing has settled into a low but sustainable
percentage of our GDP. It's projected to grow in dollars, and slightly
in percentage of GDP, in coming years. The rest of our economy is
perking along mostly on services, and the labor-multiplier effect of
manufacturing is sufficient to sustain pretty good growth.

Our economy is doing well. It's employment that's at risk, largely
because of steady improvents in our productivity -- read "automation."
This will become a bigger social problem and we will have to address
it. But the solution will be much happier than you guys are imagining.
There is nothing in the economic dynamics that suggest we're going to
become a third-world country.

Do you remember Japan after WW II?

I wasn't born until 1948. But I remember when Japanese products were
junk.


The Japanese did exactly what the Chinese are doing now, albeit on a
smaller scale, they leaped into foreign trade with what they could
manufacture and the words "Made in Japan" was a synonym for "Junk!".
Now look at them. The first Nikon FP camera was made in 1948 and by
the Korean war Nikon and Canon had become the preferred camera of most
news correspondents and Leica and Contax were headed down the slippery
slope.

In about four years. After 1950, and Deming, Japanese industry focused
on quality and it paid off in just a few years:

"Deming is best known for his work in Japan after WWII, particularly
his work with the leaders of Japanese industry. That work began in
August 1950 at the Hakone Convention Center in Tokyo when Deming
delivered a seminal speech on what he called Statistical Product
Quality Administration. Many in Japan credit Deming as the inspiration
for what has become known as the Japanese post-war economic miracle of
1950 to 1960, when Japan rose from the ashes of war to become the
second most powerful economy in the world in less than a decade,
founded on the ideas Deming taught:"

Japan became interntaionally recognized for quality in just over a
decade. China is still known for junk, after three decades or so.

Granted there are differences between Japan and China but at least in
certain industries, perhaps in many, there is a very definite intent
on improving.

We'll see how successful they are. Fourteen years ago, executives at
VW's China factory said they'd be ready to export to Western countries
within five years.

'Still waiting.


A friend does fiberglass work on yachts and a Wholesaler in Bangkok
recently sent him some fiberglass cloth samples in an effort to
convince him to buy from them. It was really rough stuff with the
weave very uneven and a lot of knots where a strand had been spliced.
He sent the stuff back and included a sample of the Australian (I
believe) cloth that he uses. The Wholesaler called home to discuss the
matter and in the conversation the Wholesaler said that he had sent
the cloth back to the Chinese factory and they were very interested in
my friend's comments and would strive to do better and would send
improved samples at a later date.

Here there are many single cylinder, water cooled, diesel engines used
- they even "home build" built a small truck with them called a "Etan"
which originally was powered with Japanese made "Kubota" engine, see:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/percyv...7629962147807/
For an action shot see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AmeF4jV8gw
Today, they are nearly all powered with either a Chinese copy of the
Kubota, or a Chinese made Kubota as Kubota has established factories
in China in order to remain competitive.

I suspect that question is how much longer can the U.S. maintain its
current levels of income as more and more jobs move overseas. The
current unemployment rate in the U.S. is, I believe, 5.8% and it is
being bragged about. Thailand, on the other hand is 0.7.

We could go on forever with anecdotes, John, and I could point you to
some analyses by specialty labor and trade consultants, but you could
find them if you want. Let me just say that the number of US jobs
"lost" to offshoring is wildly exaggerated for a number of reasons.

But the most importnat figures are these:

Total private (non-government) US employment, before the effects of
the recession were felt, Nov. 2008: 113,636,000. As of Nov. 2014:
118,868,000.
Can you put that ratio in context with other metrics over 6 years?
Population? GNP? Income distribution? Cost of living vs wage growth?
How many highly paid manufacturing jobs got replaced by "do you want
fries with that?"
Job availability for young workers entering the work force for the first
time and those forced out by cheaper/new workers?
How many of the newly employed were forced to do that because one
income could no longer support the family?
Welfare rolls/costs?
And in relation to government employment that all the rest of us pay
for with taxes?

A favorite trick of statisticians is to pick two points in time
that maximize the peak in goodness for whatever they're promoting
while avoiding the hockey-sticks on either end of that period.
That gets compared to some other metric over a slightly different time
period
that either avoids or includes those hockey-sticks as required to
support the thesis. Results of one action often show up as delayed
responses in later time periods.
So, it's not too hard to claim whatever you want and support it with
facts...as long as you're vague enough. You're not unemployed
if you've given up looking for work or your benefits have run out
and you're no longer counted.

If I were young or had descendents, I'd be very worried the future.

I'd like to hear some good news, but I'm jaded.

It sounds like the real problem is that you'd rather speculate than
look the numbers up.

Most of what you're asking is readily available. Just look.

--
Ed Huntress


Even counting losses due to fast-climbing productivity improvements,
and counting the recovery from the recession, our net job gains are
not bad. Offshoring has hit some specific job categories and
industries pretty hard, but the US has one hell of a resilient
economy. Overall, the effect of offshoring is estimated to reduce our
employment growth by around 10% to 12%. It's a very hard thing to
measure accurately.

As for those "trucks" you linked to, they tell a story in themselves
-- and it's not a story that US truck manufacturers are going to worry
about. d8-)

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 00:07:41 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/29/2014 8:10 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
thread getting too long...snip

The Japanese had no reputation for quality at the end of WWII.

Thanks to W. Edwards Deming, they woke up fast, and set a new quality
standard for the world. The Chinese are still mostly bottom-feeding in
international markets.


And you expect this to remain the same for forty years?

I just can't project that far ahead.

It's not rocket science. It's simple math.
The first order approximation to ANYTHING is to assume
the current trend continues at the same slope.
If you don't like the trend, saying you can't predict is not
helpful.

Decide first which trend you're going to follow. Ir it's changes in
GDP growth rates, in 40 years Americans will all be rich and the
Chinese won't have a pot to pee in.

'Not likely. It is not simple math. It's immensely complex.



The correct course of action is to decide where you want to
be in 40 years and take affirmative action NOW to point the
trend in the direction you want. Any correction is better
than none. Watch the result. If conditions change, or you picked
wrong, just reassess the situation and adjust the vector.
You must anticipate your competition will to whatever they think
necessary to readjust the trend back to their preferred direction.
The wind will change direction. You must keep a firm hand on the
tiller.

In a sea of independent democratic (and non democratic) societies, or on
a smaller
scale, the US congress, you can't get agreement on anything.
Can't get a majority vote on positive change, but you can sure
get enough votes to kill any and all proposals. There ain't
no leadership with cojones plus a willingness to admit they were
wrong and the authority correct the course continuously in real time
without continued infighting for control of the tiller.

Another result of multiple societies competing for dominance
is that
any change by one results in a knee-jerk cascade of changes
to the forces on the vector. The system is rather sensitive
to small changes in initial conditions. There are a bunch of
societies wanting to control the vector to their advantage.

I've heard it said that if you're behind a wreck on the racetrack,
head for the crash. You don't know where the cars will head,
but you can be pretty sure they won't be where they are now
and you might get out alive. Some action, any reasoned action,
is statistically better than none.

If it were me, I'd put Snow White in charge of the economy.
She's got at least seven people she can trust.
That alone puts her miles ahead of anybody else you could name.
Learning all about economics from scratch is far easier than
getting seven economists to agree.

I'd also assign Santa Claus to her team.
He's very good at nosing around to see who's naughty and who's nice.
He's also got high-volume manufacturing and distribution experience
well tuned to understand and respond to demand down to the individual.
And a propaganda machine second to none. Few even
realize there's a birthday in the mix.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 19:38:53 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 00:56:51 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 10:31:50 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:20:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:11:44 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 02:04:18 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/28/2014 5:29 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 15:08:49 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/28/2014 1:18 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 22:26:29 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/27/2014 9:44 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 02:08:54 -0800, "Howard Beal"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
Much snipped



I think you guys are 'way too pessimistic about the American economy,
and 'way too optimistic about the Chinese.

This is a long story, but the Chinese have been too slow to adopt
international standards of quality -- sewing a straight line on a
Louis Vuitton handbag is not a measure of manufacturing quality. And
now they're facing much higher transportation costs and a steep rise
in wages, with the Lewis Turning Point looming ahead. Like the
Japanese before them, they're losing their edge on cost, but without
the Japanese reputation for quality.

I talked with a Chinese representative of their tool-and-die industry
in Atlanta last month. I asked them if they could make decent D2 steel
yet. "Just barely," he said. Which puts them at a competitive parity
with the West...in about 1950.

The long-term goal for China is to be globally competitive at
competitive, not cut-rate, prices. They're hoping to accomplish
market-share inroads before their costs rise too much. So far, they're
not doing very well at that, in automobiles, industrial equipment, and
so on. There are factories in China turning out good products but
they're almost always run by Western companies, who are putting up
with horrible productivity in order to gain the labor-cost savings.
That will go away. Now their goal is to ride it out as the Chinese
domestic consumer market expands. Their economy *must* become more
consumption-based, or they're going to lose much of their export
market as their costs increase.

Meantime, US manufacturing has settled into a low but sustainable
percentage of our GDP. It's projected to grow in dollars, and slightly
in percentage of GDP, in coming years. The rest of our economy is
perking along mostly on services, and the labor-multiplier effect of
manufacturing is sufficient to sustain pretty good growth.

Our economy is doing well. It's employment that's at risk, largely
because of steady improvents in our productivity -- read "automation."
This will become a bigger social problem and we will have to address
it. But the solution will be much happier than you guys are imagining.
There is nothing in the economic dynamics that suggest we're going to
become a third-world country.

Do you remember Japan after WW II?

I wasn't born until 1948. But I remember when Japanese products were
junk.


The Japanese did exactly what the Chinese are doing now, albeit on a
smaller scale, they leaped into foreign trade with what they could
manufacture and the words "Made in Japan" was a synonym for "Junk!".
Now look at them. The first Nikon FP camera was made in 1948 and by
the Korean war Nikon and Canon had become the preferred camera of most
news correspondents and Leica and Contax were headed down the slippery
slope.

In about four years. After 1950, and Deming, Japanese industry focused
on quality and it paid off in just a few years:

"Deming is best known for his work in Japan after WWII, particularly
his work with the leaders of Japanese industry. That work began in
August 1950 at the Hakone Convention Center in Tokyo when Deming
delivered a seminal speech on what he called Statistical Product
Quality Administration. Many in Japan credit Deming as the inspiration
for what has become known as the Japanese post-war economic miracle of
1950 to 1960, when Japan rose from the ashes of war to become the
second most powerful economy in the world in less than a decade,
founded on the ideas Deming taught:"


True. The Japanese have a long history, right back the "Black ships"
and before, of acquiring foreign technology.

Japan became interntaionally recognized for quality in just over a
decade. China is still known for junk, after three decades or so.


But a lot of junk. Far more then Japan ever produced. Harbor Freight
is a 2 billion dollar business and Walmart probably more, to say
nothing of all the other countries.

Japan's GDP grew from 102,607 (Millions of dollars) in 1945 to 375,090
in 1960, a growth of 360%. China's GDP grew from 225.3 Billion Rmb in
1970 to 1985 (15 year period) to 896.4. a growth of 398%.

That's a lot of junk. g


A large volume, low cost, product is not unique to China, after all
the largest employer (except for the U.S. government) does exactly
that.

You're comparing retail with manufacturing.


Granted there are differences between Japan and China but at least in
certain industries, perhaps in many, there is a very definite intent
on improving.

We'll see how successful they are. Fourteen years ago, executives at
VW's China factory said they'd be ready to export to Western countries
within five years.

'Still waiting.

In reality, who cares?

The Chinese care. They're getting antsy about not being able to sell
cars to advanced Western countries.


I don't have up-to-date figures but in 2005 Chinese White Goods
exports to the EU alone was worth 4,185 billion dollars. In 2005 China
produced 31 million refrigerators, 30 million washing machines and 75
million air-conditioning units, for export. Again, I don't have
comparative figures but in 2012 VW's world wide earnings were 254
billion.

Whether VW-China is a success or not may not be a significant detail.


A friend does fiberglass work on yachts and a Wholesaler in Bangkok
recently sent him some fiberglass cloth samples in an effort to
convince him to buy from them. It was really rough stuff with the
weave very uneven and a lot of knots where a strand had been spliced.
He sent the stuff back and included a sample of the Australian (I
believe) cloth that he uses. The Wholesaler called home to discuss the
matter and in the conversation the Wholesaler said that he had sent
the cloth back to the Chinese factory and they were very interested in
my friend's comments and would strive to do better and would send
improved samples at a later date.

Here there are many single cylinder, water cooled, diesel engines used
- they even "home build" built a small truck with them called a "Etan"
which originally was powered with Japanese made "Kubota" engine, see:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/percyv...7629962147807/
For an action shot see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AmeF4jV8gw
Today, they are nearly all powered with either a Chinese copy of the
Kubota, or a Chinese made Kubota as Kubota has established factories
in China in order to remain competitive.

I suspect that question is how much longer can the U.S. maintain its
current levels of income as more and more jobs move overseas. The
current unemployment rate in the U.S. is, I believe, 5.8% and it is
being bragged about. Thailand, on the other hand is 0.7.

We could go on forever with anecdotes, John, and I could point you to
some analyses by specialty labor and trade consultants, but you could
find them if you want. Let me just say that the number of US jobs
"lost" to offshoring is wildly exaggerated for a number of reasons.

But the most importnat figures are these:

Total private (non-government) US employment, before the effects of
the recession were felt, Nov. 2008: 113,636,000. As of Nov. 2014:
118,868,000.

And the Economist's current estimate is that China's economy will
exceed the U.S.'s by 2021 but their graph shows the Chinese economy to
continue to grow at an accelerated rate while the U.S. lags behind. A
previous estimate made by the Economist (2011) showed China exceeding
the U.S. in 2018 so their updated forecast (2014) seems to be well
within the limits of most estimates.

Econometric forecasts for China are running into the same syndrome as
similar projections that were made for Japan, in the 1980s. Some
weaknesses appeared in Japan's economy that weren't in the econometric
models. Then the economists scrambled to figure out what had happened.
All projections were scrapped. Now the big question is whether Japan
will escape the "liquidity trap" and be able to stimulate their
economy again -- ever.

If you follow the economic projections carefully, you'll see the
possible beginnings of a parallel situation. China's current slowdown
was NOT predicted. Now the economists are falling all over themselves
to figure out what's going on.

Stay tuned. They're approacing the Lewis Turning Point while they
still have huge numbers of peasants in the countryside, wanting in on
the action.


Even counting losses due to fast-climbing productivity improvements,
and counting the recovery from the recession, our net job gains are
not bad. Offshoring has hit some specific job categories and
industries pretty hard, but the US has one hell of a resilient
economy. Overall, the effect of offshoring is estimated to reduce our
employment growth by around 10% to 12%. It's a very hard thing to
measure accurately.

Difficult to analyze but jobs alone may not be the important factor.
If Macdonald's hires more counter persons certainly the unemployment
number goes down but I'm not sure that is a significant fact when
looking at the overall economy.

Bottom-line answers to this come from tracking GDP per capita and then
doing a quintile analysis from IRS data. People have done it. The
result is that middle incomes are dead flat and have been for almost
three decades. Uppermost incomes are roaring ahead.

That's a big problem, but it's not because they're all working at
McDonald's. You can use the analysis tools at the Federal Reserve, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis
websites to get answers to these questions.


As for those "trucks" you linked to, they tell a story in themselves
-- and it's not a story that US truck manufacturers are going to worry
about. d8-)

Well, the link wasn't supposed to impress you with the vehicles, it
was to demonstrate the varied use of Chinese made engines in 3rd world
countries :-)

I"m glad they found a market. There are a lot of water buffaloes that
are going to be out of work. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 7:38:58 AM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 00:56:51 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 10:31:50 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:20:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:11:44 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 02:04:18 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/28/2014 5:29 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 15:08:49 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/28/2014 1:18 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 22:26:29 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/27/2014 9:44 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 02:08:54 -0800, "Howard Beal"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
Much snipped



I think you guys are 'way too pessimistic about the American economy,
and 'way too optimistic about the Chinese.

This is a long story, but the Chinese have been too slow to adopt
international standards of quality -- sewing a straight line on a
Louis Vuitton handbag is not a measure of manufacturing quality. And
now they're facing much higher transportation costs and a steep rise
in wages, with the Lewis Turning Point looming ahead. Like the
Japanese before them, they're losing their edge on cost, but without
the Japanese reputation for quality.

I talked with a Chinese representative of their tool-and-die industry
in Atlanta last month. I asked them if they could make decent D2 steel
yet. "Just barely," he said. Which puts them at a competitive parity
with the West...in about 1950.

The long-term goal for China is to be globally competitive at
competitive, not cut-rate, prices. They're hoping to accomplish
market-share inroads before their costs rise too much. So far, they're
not doing very well at that, in automobiles, industrial equipment, and
so on. There are factories in China turning out good products but
they're almost always run by Western companies, who are putting up
with horrible productivity in order to gain the labor-cost savings.
That will go away. Now their goal is to ride it out as the Chinese
domestic consumer market expands. Their economy *must* become more
consumption-based, or they're going to lose much of their export
market as their costs increase.

Meantime, US manufacturing has settled into a low but sustainable
percentage of our GDP. It's projected to grow in dollars, and slightly
in percentage of GDP, in coming years. The rest of our economy is
perking along mostly on services, and the labor-multiplier effect of
manufacturing is sufficient to sustain pretty good growth.

Our economy is doing well. It's employment that's at risk, largely
because of steady improvents in our productivity -- read "automation."
This will become a bigger social problem and we will have to address
it. But the solution will be much happier than you guys are imagining.
There is nothing in the economic dynamics that suggest we're going to
become a third-world country.

Do you remember Japan after WW II?

I wasn't born until 1948. But I remember when Japanese products were
junk.


The Japanese did exactly what the Chinese are doing now, albeit on a
smaller scale, they leaped into foreign trade with what they could
manufacture and the words "Made in Japan" was a synonym for "Junk!".
Now look at them. The first Nikon FP camera was made in 1948 and by
the Korean war Nikon and Canon had become the preferred camera of most
news correspondents and Leica and Contax were headed down the slippery
slope.

In about four years. After 1950, and Deming, Japanese industry focused
on quality and it paid off in just a few years:

"Deming is best known for his work in Japan after WWII, particularly
his work with the leaders of Japanese industry. That work began in
August 1950 at the Hakone Convention Center in Tokyo when Deming
delivered a seminal speech on what he called Statistical Product
Quality Administration. Many in Japan credit Deming as the inspiration
for what has become known as the Japanese post-war economic miracle of
1950 to 1960, when Japan rose from the ashes of war to become the
second most powerful economy in the world in less than a decade,
founded on the ideas Deming taught:"


True. The Japanese have a long history, right back the "Black ships"
and before, of acquiring foreign technology.

Right. They've had democracy since 1925 and that made foreign investment/trade from the west easier. That results in economic maturity output sooner.

Japan became interntaionally recognized for quality in just over a
decade. China is still known for junk, after three decades or so.

But a lot of junk. Far more then Japan ever produced.

Taiwan (known as the Republic of China - as opposed to the mainland's People's Republic of China) has had democracy around 1949 and since then. So Taiwan's economy is further along quality-wise than mainland China.

In a democracy, foreign investment is more comfortable for both sides (as opposed to mainland China where there is more restriction).

Restriction strangles foreign investment and trade and that results in less overall quality.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 08:13:10 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

snip
In a democracy, foreign investment is more comfortable for both sides (as opposed to mainland China where there is more restriction).
/snip

As long as the "democracy" is "our [US] kind" of democracy.

Populist governments that put the needs of the majority of
*THEIR* citizens first, rather then the welfare/profit of
the supranational corporations, need not apply...



--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 02:04:18 -0800, mike
wrote:

snip
It's not anybody's fault.
It's an economic reality that can't be fixed.
Bend over and kiss your sweet ass goodbye.
/snip

And here is the problem in a nutshell...

To paraphrase Ben Franklin, and I am sure many others:
If we do tomorrow what we did today,
We will get tomorrow what we got today.

We will indeed have increasing problems of systemic
unemployment, increasing alianization, and a perminent
underclass under the current socioeconomic regeime.

Most fortunately, the current economic and political system
[these are highly convoluated] of the United States has
*NOT* been decreed by god, or is it the result of immutable
laws of physics, and indeed it has mutated into its present
form only within the last one or two generations.
"Globalization" [or more exactly the rise of the sovereign
supranational corporation] was formally created only in
1994/5 by the ratification of the NAFTA
http://tinyurl.com/yq9zge and WTO http://tinyurl.com/4bvk7n
treaties, soon to be expanded by the TPP.
http://tinyurl.com/okzgu3b http://tinyurl.com/lnh97my

One example of the people attempting to gain control of
their socioeconomy are the Spanish.

http://tinyurl.com/nuw2ajz
" MADRID (Reuters) - The sudden rise of a new
anti-establishment party has transformed Spanish politics a
year before a general election, forcing the center-right
government to veer away from austerity and the left-leaning
opposition to scramble for new leaders.

In just a year since its founding, the party "Podemos" - We
Can - has overturned the two party system in place since
Spain embraced democracy in the 1970s. It is now polling
around even with the ruling People's Party (PP) and main
opposition Socialists, and has even led in some polls."


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On 12/30/2014 6:41 AM, wrote:

"Few economists saw our current crisis coming,

Understanding economy may not matter. Might be as simple as the
aftermath of some terrorist act.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Same to ya, but I had a rotten Christmas. Too much trouble with the gf.
;(

It's been said that, if you can make a fist, a gf is superfluous.
If you can't make a fist, that's probably the least of the things you
can't make and the gf is still superfluous.
High five...other hand please.
;-)

On 12/30/2014 6:56 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:


It sounds like the real problem is that you'd rather speculate than
look the numbers up.

Most of what you're asking is readily available. Just look.

I'm far too lazy to do that. Just which set of numbers should one use?
I merely asked that the person presenting the numbers put them in context
that HE used so we can look at a coherent set of assumptions and data.

Random sound bites that support your opinion are not very helpful
out of context.

On 12/30/2014 7:03 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

I just can't project that far ahead.

It's not rocket science. It's simple math.
The first order approximation to ANYTHING is to assume
the current trend continues at the same slope.
If you don't like the trend, saying you can't predict is not
helpful.

Decide first which trend you're going to follow. Ir it's changes in
GDP growth rates, in 40 years Americans will all be rich and the
Chinese won't have a pot to pee in.

'Not likely. It is not simple math. It's immensely complex.
I'm gonna disagree. The math is simple.
The hard part is deciding which crystal ball to use for the inputs.

Picking a metric and the five top things that affect that metric
and taking action is far superior to arguing about how difficult it is
and doing nothing.
You can fix an error in your actions.
You can't fix inaction.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:21:30 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/30/2014 6:56 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:


It sounds like the real problem is that you'd rather speculate than
look the numbers up.

Most of what you're asking is readily available. Just look.

I'm far too lazy to do that.

Then you will never know, because you'll never be satisfied with
someone else's numbers.

Just which set of numbers should one use?

It depends on what you want to know. Be specific, and I'll try to
help. My first articles on this subject were published almost 40 years
ago, so I'm familiar with what's available.

Here's a recent one that will give you an idea of what we have to
wrestle with:

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/fabs...vember2014/#/3

I merely asked that the person presenting the numbers put them in context
that HE used so we can look at a coherent set of assumptions and data.

There is never enough "context" to satisfy those who sit back and wait
for others to present the data.

Random sound bites that support your opinion are not very helpful
out of context.

They are not random, and I present different ones every week or so.
Stick around, and you'll see quite a spread of data.

But I have to repeat myself often because some people keep forgetting.
g

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:28:11 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/30/2014 7:03 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

I just can't project that far ahead.

It's not rocket science. It's simple math.
The first order approximation to ANYTHING is to assume
the current trend continues at the same slope.
If you don't like the trend, saying you can't predict is not
helpful.

Decide first which trend you're going to follow. Ir it's changes in
GDP growth rates, in 40 years Americans will all be rich and the
Chinese won't have a pot to pee in.

'Not likely. It is not simple math. It's immensely complex.
I'm gonna disagree. The math is simple.
The hard part is deciding which crystal ball to use for the inputs.

Picking a metric and the five top things that affect that metric
and taking action is far superior to arguing about how difficult it is
and doing nothing.

You're kidding yourself. Finding the things that "affect" the metric
is part of how they build models. It involves a lot of statistical
testing and regression analysis.

The relationships have limits and the relationships are usually
calculus functions.

From there, the statistics often are complex.

You can fix an error in your actions.

When? When the event occurs? The event is 40 years in the future.

You can't fix inaction.

Go ahead and try it. See what you project for China's economy and the
US economy 40 years from now. It's simple, right?

BTW, my son is just climbing down a ladder after re-roofing our
kitchen extension. Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his
latest predictive econometric model on his company's cloud-networked
SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in
economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top
consulting firm. I should let him talk to you, but I ate up his spare
time today by getting him to nail a square of shingles so I could
repair the furnace, which kept blowing out its pilot light, and then
watch TV. g

--
Ed Huntress

On 12/30/2014 11:55 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:28:11 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/30/2014 7:03 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

I just can't project that far ahead.

It's not rocket science. It's simple math.
The first order approximation to ANYTHING is to assume
the current trend continues at the same slope.
If you don't like the trend, saying you can't predict is not
helpful.

Decide first which trend you're going to follow. Ir it's changes in
GDP growth rates, in 40 years Americans will all be rich and the
Chinese won't have a pot to pee in.

'Not likely. It is not simple math. It's immensely complex.
I'm gonna disagree. The math is simple.
The hard part is deciding which crystal ball to use for the inputs.

Picking a metric and the five top things that affect that metric
and taking action is far superior to arguing about how difficult it is
and doing nothing.

You're kidding yourself. Finding the things that "affect" the metric
is part of how they build models. It involves a lot of statistical
testing and regression analysis.

The relationships have limits and the relationships are usually
calculus functions.

Calculus functions are simple functions. People who know how to
solve complex math are easy to find. The hard part is finding people
who can decide what math is appropriate and what numbers to plug in...
AND HAVE THE LEADERSHIP ABILITY OR CLOUT to take action based on
the result.

From there, the statistics often are complex.
Sure, they are...but the more inputs you consider, the more
likely you'll encounter inaction.
Start with the big factors and DO SOMETHING.
Refine it as you go.

You can fix an error in your actions.

When? When the event occurs? The event is 40 years in the future.
When the trajectory deviates from where you've decided it should go.

You can't just jump in your sailboat, tie down the tiller and have
someone wake you up when you get there.
You gotta have your hand on it at least some/most of the time.
You gotta watch the weather.
You gotta stay out of the way of the big ships.
But, you can just get in your boat and start sailing if you've
covered the big stuff in your plan. Work the rest out as conditions change.
You can't predict everything.
But you can sit on the dock fretting over the details and get nowhere.

You can't fix inaction.

Go ahead and try it. See what you project for China's economy and the
US economy 40 years from now. It's simple, right?

The purpose of action is to CAUSE a result.
China's economy is only a factor in ways that affect my objectives.
I seek a high level of satisfaction with the US standard of living
now and in the future. Ideally, that can be done in concert with
success in China by whatever metric they value.
If we can't to that, I'd be willing to sacrifice China. I'm selfish.

BTW, my son is just climbing down a ladder after re-roofing our
kitchen extension. Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his
latest predictive econometric model on his company's cloud-networked
SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in
economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top
consulting firm. I should let him talk to you,

I'm not even a little bit interested in hearing why we're in this pickle
or why it's a hard problem.
It'd be far better to have him talk to someone who can actually
make a difference.
I'm rather pessimistic. There'll be riots in the streets
before I'm seriously affected. I expect to be dead, or living in China,
long before that happens. ;-)

But I do enjoy a spirited discussion.

but I ate up his spare
time today by getting him to nail a square of shingles so I could
repair the furnace, which kept blowing out its pilot light, and then
watch TV. g

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 14:55:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip
You're kidding yourself. Finding the things that "affect" the metric
is part of how they build models. It involves a lot of statistical
testing and regression analysis.
/snip

Old methodology called EvOp [Evolutionary Operations].

http://tinyurl.com/nffwfkz


You do not have to understand the process. Change a
variable, for example interest rates, and see what happens.
If the output moves in the "right" direction make more of
the change. If the output moves in the "wrong" direction
reverse the change.

Accurate record keeping is critical.

It is criminal that we allow the "leadership" to sabotage
the economy everytime things start to improve for the
average citizen. Things are getting better? Time for a war
or recession.


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 15:54:02 -0600, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 14:55:45 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

snip
You're kidding yourself. Finding the things that "affect" the metric
is part of how they build models. It involves a lot of statistical
testing and regression analysis.
/snip

Old methodology called EvOp [Evolutionary Operations].

http://tinyurl.com/nffwfkz


You do not have to understand the process. Change a
variable, for example interest rates, and see what happens.
If the output moves in the "right" direction make more of
the change. If the output moves in the "wrong" direction
reverse the change.

Accurate record keeping is critical.

That'sw great! And on whom, or on what economy, do you conduct the
experiments? And how do you make everything else stand still, so that
you know what you're measuring?

In the kind of predictive modeling we've been talking about, without
an extensive program of regression analysis, you can't separate one
cause from another.


It is criminal that we allow the "leadership" to sabotage
the economy everytime things start to improve for the
average citizen. Things are getting better? Time for a war
or recession.

I doubt if any of them have much to do with it. In an economy like
ours, there are too many variables, too few unequivocal
cause-and-effect relationships, and too many confounding behaviors of
masses of people. Oh, and here are too many ideology-driven theories,
most of which assume that humans are uniform, rational robots. But
each theory assumes that we robots have different goals and desires.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:19:01 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/30/2014 11:55 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:28:11 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/30/2014 7:03 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:

I just can't project that far ahead.

It's not rocket science. It's simple math.
The first order approximation to ANYTHING is to assume
the current trend continues at the same slope.
If you don't like the trend, saying you can't predict is not
helpful.

Decide first which trend you're going to follow. Ir it's changes in
GDP growth rates, in 40 years Americans will all be rich and the
Chinese won't have a pot to pee in.

'Not likely. It is not simple math. It's immensely complex.
I'm gonna disagree. The math is simple.
The hard part is deciding which crystal ball to use for the inputs.

Picking a metric and the five top things that affect that metric
and taking action is far superior to arguing about how difficult it is
and doing nothing.

You're kidding yourself. Finding the things that "affect" the metric
is part of how they build models. It involves a lot of statistical
testing and regression analysis.

The relationships have limits and the relationships are usually
calculus functions.

Calculus functions are simple functions. People who know how to
solve complex math are easy to find. The hard part is finding people
who can decide what math is appropriate and what numbers to plug in...
AND HAVE THE LEADERSHIP ABILITY OR CLOUT to take action based on
the result.

Where do you get these ideas?


From there, the statistics often are complex.
Sure, they are...but the more inputs you consider, the more
likely you'll encounter inaction.
Start with the big factors and DO SOMETHING.
Refine it as you go.

You can fix an error in your actions.

When? When the event occurs? The event is 40 years in the future.
When the trajectory deviates from where you've decided it should go.

How do you know how to make it go where you want it to go?


You can't just jump in your sailboat, tie down the tiller and have
someone wake you up when you get there.
You gotta have your hand on it at least some/most of the time.
You gotta watch the weather.
You gotta stay out of the way of the big ships.
But, you can just get in your boat and start sailing if you've
covered the big stuff in your plan. Work the rest out as conditions change.
You can't predict everything.
But you can sit on the dock fretting over the details and get nowhere.

I thought you said we could predict where different economies would be
40 years from now. What happened to that idea?


You can't fix inaction.

Go ahead and try it. See what you project for China's economy and the
US economy 40 years from now. It's simple, right?

The purpose of action is to CAUSE a result.
China's economy is only a factor in ways that affect my objectives.
I seek a high level of satisfaction with the US standard of living
now and in the future. Ideally, that can be done in concert with
success in China by whatever metric they value.
If we can't to that, I'd be willing to sacrifice China. I'm selfish.

BTW, my son is just climbing down a ladder after re-roofing our
kitchen extension. Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his
latest predictive econometric model on his company's cloud-networked
SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in
economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top
consulting firm. I should let him talk to you,

I'm not even a little bit interested in hearing why we're in this pickle
or why it's a hard problem.
It'd be far better to have him talk to someone who can actually
make a difference.

What do you think analysts who work for big consulting firms do? On
his last job, his time was billed out at over $125,000/month
($500,000/month for a four-person team). Do you think that nothing is
being done with the results?

I'm rather pessimistic. There'll be riots in the streets
before I'm seriously affected. I expect to be dead, or living in China,
long before that happens. ;-)

But I do enjoy a spirited discussion.

but I ate up his spare
time today by getting him to nail a square of shingles so I could
repair the furnace, which kept blowing out its pilot light, and then
watch TV. g

mike writes:

On 12/29/2014 8:10 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

[lost attribution] wrote:

And you expect this to remain the same for forty years?

I just can't project that far ahead.


It's not rocket science. It's simple math.

Math, yes, but I don't think it's *simple* math.

The first order approximation to ANYTHING is to assume the current
trend continues at the same slope.

Yeah, and *that* is simple math.

If you don't like the trend, saying you can't predict is not
helpful.

But such an admission is at least confronting the truth.

The correct course of action is to decide where you want to
be in 40 years and take affirmative action NOW to point the
trend in the direction you want. Any correction is better
than none. Watch the result.

Which, lacking totalitarian authority over more or less everything, is
probably the best you can do.

The non-simple math is that of the complexity catastrophe. There are
N variables in the equation, N a *very* large number. A change in
any one variable at time t influences the value of P other variables
at time t+1, 0 = P = [medium-sized number]. The result is a system
that is inherently unpredictable, possibly at all scales.

The extremist right-wing morons think that if you remove all controls
from such a system, everything will work out for the best for
everybody due to the magical ability of "the market" to to produce an
analytic solution to the equation.

The extremist left-wing morons think that the only solution is to
impose total, hierarchical control from the top down and then
everything will work out for the best for everybody due to the magical
ability of Marxist teleology to bring us to a perfect world.

Both of them can, each with a few differing initial assumptions, prove
their case with a simple model based on, say a US colonial village,
17th c. international trade or industrial capitalism in 1850. Neither
of them deals with with the complexity (in the above technical sense)
of society, economy and finance today.

If conditions change, or you picked wrong, just reassess the
situation and adjust the vector. You must anticipate your
competition will to whatever they think necessary to readjust the
trend back to their preferred direction. The wind will change
direction. You must keep a firm hand on the tiller.

Good model, prior to complexity. Not so much now.

Another result of multiple societies competing for dominance is that
any change by one results in a knee-jerk cascade of changes to the
forces on the vector. The system is rather sensitive to small
changes in initial conditions. There are a bunch of societies
wanting to control the vector to their advantage.

Right. And "initial conditions" is now, time t. See above re. time
t+1.

I've heard it said that if you're behind a wreck on the racetrack,
head for the crash. You don't know where the cars will head,
but you can be pretty sure they won't be where they are now
and you might get out alive.

Just so, but no complexity. A first approximation assuming simple
ballistics is pretty good. All components of the wreck are moving a
100 mph. They're going to go somewhere else ant nearly 100 mph in the
next second.

Some action, any reasoned action, is statistically better than none.

Not proven, especially when the complexity catastrophe is relevant.
In some models, random choices appear to be as good, statistically, as
any calculatedly "optimal" one.


If it were me, I'd put Snow White in charge of the economy. She's
got at least seven people she can trust. That alone puts her miles
ahead of anybody else you could name. Learning all about economics
from scratch is far easier than getting seven economists to agree.

Yes, I like that. It's a third magical alternative to the essentially
religious or magical dogmata of the capitalists and Marxists.


--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

Ed Huntress writes:

BTW, my son is just climbing down a ladder after re-roofing our
kitchen extension.

Dang. I wish I were still limber enough to do that safely.

Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his
latest predictive econometric model on his company's cloud-networked
SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in
economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top
consulting firm.

Ask him what relevance, if any, Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order
might have to to his research and analyses. And report back here
with his answer.


--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

On 30 Dec 2014 19:14:05 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:


Ed Huntress writes:

BTW, my son is just climbing down a ladder after re-roofing our
kitchen extension.

Dang. I wish I were still limber enough to do that safely.

Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his
latest predictive econometric model on his company's cloud-networked
SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in
economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top
consulting firm.

Ask him what relevance, if any, Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order
might have to to his research and analyses. And report back here
with his answer.

His reaction: "Stuart who?" g

He doesn't know about Kauffman.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 10:46:06 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 19:38:53 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 00:56:51 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 10:31:50 +0700, John B. Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 12:20:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 07:11:44 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 02:04:18 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/28/2014 5:29 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 15:08:49 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/28/2014 1:18 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 22:26:29 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/27/2014 9:44 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2014 02:08:54 -0800, "Howard Beal"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
Much snipped
Much more snipped

"Deming is best known for his work in Japan after WWII, particularly
his work with the leaders of Japanese industry. That work began in
August 1950 at the Hakone Convention Center in Tokyo when Deming
delivered a seminal speech on what he called Statistical Product
Quality Administration. Many in Japan credit Deming as the inspiration
for what has become known as the Japanese post-war economic miracle of
1950 to 1960, when Japan rose from the ashes of war to become the
second most powerful economy in the world in less than a decade,
founded on the ideas Deming taught:"


True. The Japanese have a long history, right back the "Black ships"
and before, of acquiring foreign technology.

Japan became interntaionally recognized for quality in just over a
decade. China is still known for junk, after three decades or so.


But a lot of junk. Far more then Japan ever produced. Harbor Freight
is a 2 billion dollar business and Walmart probably more, to say
nothing of all the other countries.

Japan's GDP grew from 102,607 (Millions of dollars) in 1945 to 375,090
in 1960, a growth of 360%. China's GDP grew from 225.3 Billion Rmb in
1970 to 1985 (15 year period) to 896.4. a growth of 398%.

That's a lot of junk. g


A large volume, low cost, product is not unique to China, after all
the largest employer (except for the U.S. government) does exactly
that.

You're comparing retail with manufacturing.

I'm not sure that is a logical statement. After all why does one
"manufacture" if not to sell it? Whether it is wholesale or retail is
really immaterial. Certainly cost of materials is a significant item
in most project calculations.

Chrysler's problem was that they weren't selling cars but were still
making them :-)


Granted there are differences between Japan and China but at least in
certain industries, perhaps in many, there is a very definite intent
on improving.

We'll see how successful they are. Fourteen years ago, executives at
VW's China factory said they'd be ready to export to Western countries
within five years.

'Still waiting.

In reality, who cares?

The Chinese care. They're getting antsy about not being able to sell
cars to advanced Western countries.

Of course they care. It is another sales product. One doesn't want to
overlook any opportunity.


I don't have up-to-date figures but in 2005 Chinese White Goods
exports to the EU alone was worth 4,185 billion dollars. In 2005 China
produced 31 million refrigerators, 30 million washing machines and 75
million air-conditioning units, for export. Again, I don't have
comparative figures but in 2012 VW's world wide earnings were 254
billion.

Whether VW-China is a success or not may not be a significant detail.


A friend does fiberglass work on yachts and a Wholesaler in Bangkok
recently sent him some fiberglass cloth samples in an effort to
convince him to buy from them. It was really rough stuff with the
weave very uneven and a lot of knots where a strand had been spliced.
He sent the stuff back and included a sample of the Australian (I
believe) cloth that he uses. The Wholesaler called home to discuss the
matter and in the conversation the Wholesaler said that he had sent
the cloth back to the Chinese factory and they were very interested in
my friend's comments and would strive to do better and would send
improved samples at a later date.

Here there are many single cylinder, water cooled, diesel engines used
- they even "home build" built a small truck with them called a "Etan"
which originally was powered with Japanese made "Kubota" engine, see:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/percyv...7629962147807/
For an action shot see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AmeF4jV8gw
Today, they are nearly all powered with either a Chinese copy of the
Kubota, or a Chinese made Kubota as Kubota has established factories
in China in order to remain competitive.

I suspect that question is how much longer can the U.S. maintain its
current levels of income as more and more jobs move overseas. The
current unemployment rate in the U.S. is, I believe, 5.8% and it is
being bragged about. Thailand, on the other hand is 0.7.

We could go on forever with anecdotes, John, and I could point you to
some analyses by specialty labor and trade consultants, but you could
find them if you want. Let me just say that the number of US jobs
"lost" to offshoring is wildly exaggerated for a number of reasons.

But the most importnat figures are these:

Total private (non-government) US employment, before the effects of
the recession were felt, Nov. 2008: 113,636,000. As of Nov. 2014:
118,868,000.

And the Economist's current estimate is that China's economy will
exceed the U.S.'s by 2021 but their graph shows the Chinese economy to
continue to grow at an accelerated rate while the U.S. lags behind. A
previous estimate made by the Economist (2011) showed China exceeding
the U.S. in 2018 so their updated forecast (2014) seems to be well
within the limits of most estimates.

Econometric forecasts for China are running into the same syndrome as
similar projections that were made for Japan, in the 1980s. Some
weaknesses appeared in Japan's economy that weren't in the econometric
models. Then the economists scrambled to figure out what had happened.
All projections were scrapped. Now the big question is whether Japan
will escape the "liquidity trap" and be able to stimulate their
economy again -- ever.


If you follow the economic projections carefully, you'll see the
possible beginnings of a parallel situation. China's current slowdown
was NOT predicted. Now the economists are falling all over themselves
to figure out what's going on.

Stay tuned. They're approacing the Lewis Turning Point while they
still have huge numbers of peasants in the countryside, wanting in on
the action.

I'm not sure that is of importance at the moment. The Lewis Turning
Point simply explains that at some point in a country/society's
development the numbers of available labor will determine the cost of
labor.

At the moment the legal minimum labor cost in Shanghai is 17 Rbm an
hour, or US$ 2.75. The U.S. federally mandated minimum seems to be
7.25 an hour (it does vary from state to state) and I read here that
many are arguing that it should be $12.00 an hour.

So... If wages in China double they will, in U.S. terms be $5.50 an
hour and it is doubtful that wages will be doubled in China in one
fell swoop. They rose by an average of 12.6% from 2008 - 2012.

During the same period it is likely that short of a financial disaster
the U.S. wage will increase - I see that the President advocates a 34%
increase.

So, we have an instance of a country that has a very low cost of
living and an equally low wage competing with a country that has a
very high cost of living and wage.

Given the globalization of manufacturing and trade logic would
indicate that jobs will immigrate to the lower cost countries and
unless the U.S. takes some extremely drastic action it is almost a
foregone conclusion that either jobs will decrease or possibly higher
paid jobs in industry will decrease while lower paid jobs in the
service sector will increase - Macdonald's always needs floor
sweepers.

From
http://www.statista.com/statistics/1...us-since-1990/
employed rates dropped from 62.8% in 1990 to 58.6% in 2013.
In China during the same period employment increased.



Even counting losses due to fast-climbing productivity improvements,
and counting the recovery from the recession, our net job gains are
not bad. Offshoring has hit some specific job categories and
industries pretty hard, but the US has one hell of a resilient
economy. Overall, the effect of offshoring is estimated to reduce our
employment growth by around 10% to 12%. It's a very hard thing to
measure accurately.

Difficult to analyze but jobs alone may not be the important factor.
If Macdonald's hires more counter persons certainly the unemployment
number goes down but I'm not sure that is a significant fact when
looking at the overall economy.

Bottom-line answers to this come from tracking GDP per capita and then
doing a quintile analysis from IRS data. People have done it. The
result is that middle incomes are dead flat and have been for almost
three decades. Uppermost incomes are roaring ahead.

That's a big problem, but it's not because they're all working at
McDonald's. You can use the analysis tools at the Federal Reserve, the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis
websites to get answers to these questions.


Yup. From 1988 China's exports grew from just over 100 billion to a
2013 value of 4.16 Trillion and as of 2013 were 40% greater then the
U.S.


As for those "trucks" you linked to, they tell a story in themselves
-- and it's not a story that US truck manufacturers are going to worry
about. d8-)

Well, the link wasn't supposed to impress you with the vehicles, it
was to demonstrate the varied use of Chinese made engines in 3rd world
countries :-)

I"m glad they found a market. There are a lot of water buffaloes that
are going to be out of work. d8-)

But not wasted. A younger brother of my wife's butchers something like
50 a day and he tells me that supplies are diminishing rapidly .
These days a good buffalo is hard to find :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

Ed Huntress writes:

On 30 Dec 2014 19:14:05 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:

Ed Huntress writes:

Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his
latest predictive econometric model on his company's cloud-networked
SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in
economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top
consulting firm.

Ask him what relevance, if any, Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order
might have to to his research and analyses. And report back here
with his answer.

His reaction: "Stuart who?" g

He doesn't know about Kauffman.

Dang. Well, no shame in that. Kauffman isn't an economist. :-)

Just ask him if complexity catastrophe or complexity theory or
anything along those lines enters into his econometric models.

I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently baffling
impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact
(alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that
defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part of
the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

On 12/29/2014 1:49 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
pyotr filipivich wrote in
:

"David R. Birch" on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 09:53:54 -0600
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 12/29/2014 9:35 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
"David R. Birch" on Sun, 28 Dec 2014 22:46:28 -0600

And the substances coming out of them are little different from the
substances coming out of me after I've eaten them.

And you know this - how?

Simple observation.

Yech. Back in the **** can with you.

And if you could refrain from quoting him, he'd stay there for the rest of us too.

It seems someone has plonked me!

I wonder what made me plonkable. It's hard to say, since liberals think
I'm too conservative and conservatives think I'm too liberal.

Which tells me I must be doing something right, since I'm neither
conservative nor liberal.

OTOH, I do lots of metalworking, so at least I'm not like JohnBoy.

David

On 12/29/2014 4:14 PM, wrote:

We are not going to become a third world country, but we are going to
be in the same league as China, Japan, and Korea. Which is a step
down from where we were at the end of WWII.

Dan

At the end of WWII, the US was the only major industrial country in the
Northern hemisphere that hadn't had its industrial infrastructure
devastated. Europe and and Japan had to rebuild from scratch, with all
new stuff which we helped pay for.

OTOH, the US infrastructure was mostly pre-WWII but only prospered
because we had no real competition.

For a while...

David

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 1:49:12 AM UTC-8, David R. Bitch wrote:
On 12/29/2014 1:49 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
pyotr filipivich wrote in
:

"David R. Birch" on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 09:53:54 -0600
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 12/29/2014 9:35 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
"David R. Birch" on Sun, 28 Dec 2014 22:46:28 -0600

And the substances coming out of them are little different from the
substances coming out of me after I've eaten them.

And you know this - how?

Simple observation.

Yech. Back in the **** can with you.

And if you could refrain from quoting him, he'd stay there for the rest of us too.

It seems someone has plonked me!

I wonder what made me plonkable. It's hard to say, since liberals think
I'm too conservative and conservatives think I'm too liberal.

Which tells me I must be doing something right, since I'm neither
conservative nor liberal.

OTOH, I do lots of metalworking, so at least I'm not like JohnBoy.

David

Maybe the reason is more people are realizing just how stupid David R. Bitch truly is.

This idiot should never be allowed to be anywhere near SolidWorks.

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 1:49:12 AM UTC-8, David R. Bitch wrote:
On 12/29/2014 1:49 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
pyotr filipivich wrote in
:

"David R. Birch" on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 09:53:54 -0600
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 12/29/2014 9:35 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
"David R. Birch" on Sun, 28 Dec 2014 22:46:28 -0600

And the substances coming out of them are little different from the
substances coming out of me after I've eaten them.

And you know this - how?

Simple observation.

Yech. Back in the **** can with you.

And if you could refrain from quoting him, he'd stay there for the rest of us too.

It seems someone has plonked me!

I wonder what made me plonkable. It's hard to say, since liberals think
I'm too conservative and conservatives think I'm too liberal.

Which tells me I must be doing something right, since I'm neither
conservative nor liberal.

OTOH, I do lots of metalworking, so at least I'm not like JohnBoy.

David


David R. Bitch claims he does lots of metalworking. He works for a very low tech shop that any serious machinist that I know of would be bored out of his mind working for:

http://www.thelasershop.com/capabilities.html

Notice the only CNC milling machine they have is a Fadal 4020. They don't even have a 4th axis rotary table for it.

This is David R. Bitch's LinkedIn profile. It's as pathetic as they come:

http://tinyurl.com/jvjnw73

No modern, high-tech, CNC machining job shop that I know of would hire a retarded monkey like David R. Bitch. This idiot isn't a machinist. At best he's a sheet metal guy who is not very good and has been shoved into low level office work.

"Mike Spencer" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress writes:

On 30 Dec 2014 19:14:05 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:

Ed Huntress writes:

Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his
latest predictive econometric model on his company's
cloud-networked
SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in
economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top
consulting firm.

Ask him what relevance, if any, Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order
might have to to his research and analyses. And report back here
with his answer.

His reaction: "Stuart who?" g

He doesn't know about Kauffman.

Dang. Well, no shame in that. Kauffman isn't an economist. :-)

Just ask him if complexity catastrophe or complexity theory or
anything along those lines enters into his econometric models.

I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently baffling
impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact
(alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that
defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part of
the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

How can the models account for the actions of financiers who are
smarter than the model makers?

On 12/31/2014 3:42 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Mike Spencer" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress writes:

On 30 Dec 2014 19:14:05 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:

Ed Huntress writes:

Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his
latest predictive econometric model on his company's
cloud-networked
SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in
economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top
consulting firm.

Ask him what relevance, if any, Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order
might have to to his research and analyses. And report back here
with his answer.

His reaction: "Stuart who?" g

He doesn't know about Kauffman.

Dang. Well, no shame in that. Kauffman isn't an economist. :-)

Just ask him if complexity catastrophe or complexity theory or
anything along those lines enters into his econometric models.

I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently baffling
impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact
(alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that
defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part of
the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

How can the models account for the actions of financiers who are
smarter than the model makers?


Interesting point.
Model makers attempt to quantify the effects of things like supply
and demand.
Financiers are more concerned with manipulating the system for personal
gain. Manipulation may not follow statistical models. It may, in fact,
exploit vulnerable points in the model to systematically game the system.
My computer being five milliseconds faster than yours and
repeatedly beating
you to the punch is probably not in the model.

But that may not have a direct effect on jobs going overseas.

"mike" wrote in message
...
On 12/31/2014 3:42 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Mike Spencer" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress writes:

On 30 Dec 2014 19:14:05 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:

Ed Huntress writes:

Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his
latest predictive econometric model on his company's
cloud-networked
SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in
economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top
consulting firm.

Ask him what relevance, if any, Stuart Kauffman's Origins of
Order
might have to to his research and analyses. And report back
here
with his answer.

His reaction: "Stuart who?" g

He doesn't know about Kauffman.

Dang. Well, no shame in that. Kauffman isn't an economist. :-)

Just ask him if complexity catastrophe or complexity theory or
anything along those lines enters into his econometric models.

I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently
baffling
impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact
(alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that
defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part
of
the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

How can the models account for the actions of financiers who are
smarter than the model makers?


Interesting point.
Model makers attempt to quantify the effects of things like supply
and demand.
Financiers are more concerned with manipulating the system for
personal
gain. Manipulation may not follow statistical models. It may, in
fact,
exploit vulnerable points in the model to systematically game the
system.
My computer being five milliseconds faster than yours and
repeatedly beating
you to the punch is probably not in the model.

But that may not have a direct effect on jobs going overseas.

I've repeatedly heard that it won't be economically practical to
manufacture the widget I've just prototyped in the US, because the
pain of wringing adequate quality from China is less than the pain of
US regulations and unions. Sometimes that's based on direct experience
with the previous model, built here with some imported parts.

On 12/31/2014 5:13 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"mike" wrote in message
...
On 12/31/2014 3:42 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Mike Spencer" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress writes:

On 30 Dec 2014 19:14:05 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:

Ed Huntress writes:

Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his
latest predictive econometric model on his company's
cloud-networked
SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in
economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top
consulting firm.

Ask him what relevance, if any, Stuart Kauffman's Origins of
Order
might have to to his research and analyses. And report back
here
with his answer.

His reaction: "Stuart who?" g

He doesn't know about Kauffman.

Dang. Well, no shame in that. Kauffman isn't an economist. :-)

Just ask him if complexity catastrophe or complexity theory or
anything along those lines enters into his econometric models.

I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently
baffling
impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact
(alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that
defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part
of
the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

How can the models account for the actions of financiers who are
smarter than the model makers?


Interesting point.
Model makers attempt to quantify the effects of things like supply
and demand.
Financiers are more concerned with manipulating the system for
personal
gain. Manipulation may not follow statistical models. It may, in
fact,
exploit vulnerable points in the model to systematically game the
system.
My computer being five milliseconds faster than yours and
repeatedly beating
you to the punch is probably not in the model.

But that may not have a direct effect on jobs going overseas.

I've repeatedly heard that it won't be economically practical to
manufacture the widget I've just prototyped in the US, because the
pain of wringing adequate quality from China is less than the pain of
US regulations and unions. Sometimes that's based on direct experience
with the previous model, built here with some imported parts.


I don't doubt that at all. To fix it, we have to either tax imports
or work for wages competitive with the rest of the world.
Fat chance of getting the unions to cut salary demands.
Taxing imports enough to do any good will create immediate
retaliation that may bring the whole international trade Jenga Tower
crashing down. I think we're in for a long, slow, gridlocked spiral
down. I pray that it takes at least 30 years and I won't see the end.

Much of the regulation comes from our litigious society and the need
to create a cause out of everything.
One kid gets killed in a car accident and suddenly we have
"Billy's Law" that greatly increases the safety requirements
for car seats. Nobody worries about how that interacts with
"Betsy's Law" or "Little Johnny's Law" or all the other regulations
on the books.
30,000 people a year are killed in auto accidents.
If we worried about that, we'd have to outlaw autos.
But, at least we won't have a repeat of Billy's tragic death.

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 6:41:50 AM UTC-5, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Mike Spencer" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress writes:

On 30 Dec 2014 19:14:05 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:

Ed Huntress writes:

Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his
latest predictive econometric model on his company's
cloud-networked
SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in
economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top
consulting firm.

Ask him what relevance, if any, Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order
might have to to his research and analyses. And report back here
with his answer.

His reaction: "Stuart who?" g

He doesn't know about Kauffman.

Dang. Well, no shame in that. Kauffman isn't an economist. :-)

Just ask him if complexity catastrophe or complexity theory or
anything along those lines enters into his econometric models.

I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently baffling
impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact
(alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that
defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part of
the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it.

How can the models account for the actions of
financiers who are smarter than the model makers ?

There are numbers in those models. Meanwhile, smartness doesn't have reliable numbers.

On Wednesday, December 31, 2014 9:22:33 AM UTC-5, mike wrote:

Fat chance of getting the unions to cut salary
demands.

Long time labor-friendly business leaders should normally be the most well-connected especially when there is a democrat White House. A talk with them couldn't hurt for verification.

Taxing imports enough to do any good will create immediate
retaliation that may bring the whole international trade Jenga Tower
crashing down.

But still, you are guessing though. To make sure, you should be talking to people a lot smarter than you and I who've both advised and consulted on that specific issue for many years.

I think we're in for a long, slow, gridlocked spiral
down. I pray that it takes at least 30 years and I won't see the end.

You've got to know for certain.

Much of the regulation comes from our litigious society and the need
to create a cause out of everything.

That will never change, so work starting from that point is needed.

On 31 Dec 2014 00:57:14 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:


Ed Huntress writes:

On 30 Dec 2014 19:14:05 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:

Ed Huntress writes:

Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his
latest predictive econometric model on his company's cloud-networked
SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in
economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top
consulting firm.

Ask him what relevance, if any, Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order
might have to to his research and analyses. And report back here
with his answer.

His reaction: "Stuart who?" g

He doesn't know about Kauffman.

Dang. Well, no shame in that. Kauffman isn't an economist. :-)

Just ask him if complexity catastrophe or complexity theory or
anything along those lines enters into his econometric models.

Not his, which are mostly business applications, but he says there is
a lot of academic research in applying complexity theory to
econometric models. He touched on it in grad school but he doesn't use
it.

Equilibrium models are the basis for business applications, and Real
Analysis is the highest-level math that's ordinarily called for.
Sometimes they're trying to find converging series' when building
models:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_analysis

It's too exotic for me. I never got that far in math.


I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently baffling
impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact
(alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that
defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part of
the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it.

Well, they never could, perfectly. What they're seeking is models that
*work* to a useful or acceptable degree.

It's like statistical sampling, in which you're looking for
plus-and-minus values at a certain level of confidence. Or
engineering: you may never know when an aircraft wing will fail from
fatigue, but you can produce a good enough answer to keep your plane
from crashing.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 04:49:01 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/31/2014 3:42 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Mike Spencer" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress writes:

On 30 Dec 2014 19:14:05 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:

Ed Huntress writes:

Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his
latest predictive econometric model on his company's
cloud-networked
SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in
economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top
consulting firm.

Ask him what relevance, if any, Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order
might have to to his research and analyses. And report back here
with his answer.

His reaction: "Stuart who?" g

He doesn't know about Kauffman.

Dang. Well, no shame in that. Kauffman isn't an economist. :-)

Just ask him if complexity catastrophe or complexity theory or
anything along those lines enters into his econometric models.

I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently baffling
impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact
(alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that
defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part of
the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

How can the models account for the actions of financiers who are
smarter than the model makers?


Interesting point.
Model makers attempt to quantify the effects of things like supply
and demand.
Financiers are more concerned with manipulating the system for personal
gain. Manipulation may not follow statistical models. It may, in fact,
exploit vulnerable points in the model to systematically game the system.
My computer being five milliseconds faster than yours and
repeatedly beating
you to the punch is probably not in the model.

But that may not have a direct effect on jobs going overseas.

Most financiers are not involved in manipulating, but rather in
predicting where markets are going.

--
Ed Huntress

On 31 Dec 2014 00:57:14 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:


Ed Huntress writes:

On 30 Dec 2014 19:14:05 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:

Ed Huntress writes:

Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his
latest predictive econometric model on his company's cloud-networked
SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in
economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top
consulting firm.

Ask him what relevance, if any, Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order
might have to to his research and analyses. And report back here
with his answer.

His reaction: "Stuart who?" g

He doesn't know about Kauffman.

Dang. Well, no shame in that. Kauffman isn't an economist. :-)

Just ask him if complexity catastrophe or complexity theory or
anything along those lines enters into his econometric models.

I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently baffling
impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact
(alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that
defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part of
the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it.

Kinda like global warming computer models, eh?

--
Poverty is easy. It's Charity and Chastity that are hard.
--anon

On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:42:42 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Mike Spencer" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress writes:

On 30 Dec 2014 19:14:05 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:

Ed Huntress writes:

Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his
latest predictive econometric model on his company's
cloud-networked
SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in
economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top
consulting firm.

Ask him what relevance, if any, Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order
might have to to his research and analyses. And report back here
with his answer.

His reaction: "Stuart who?" g

He doesn't know about Kauffman.

Dang. Well, no shame in that. Kauffman isn't an economist. :-)

Just ask him if complexity catastrophe or complexity theory or
anything along those lines enters into his econometric models.

I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently baffling
impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact
(alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that
defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part of
the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it.

How can the models account for the actions of financiers who are
smarter than the model makers?

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd665.htm speaks of new banking
laws which allow global banks to invest in derivatives, just like
those we saw in 2008/9. Fun, wot?

"It's Official: "The Worldwide Bail-ins Are Coming. "On November 16,
leaders of the G20 Group of Nations – the 20 largest economies – made
an important decision. The world's megabanks now have official
permission to pledge depositor accounts as collateral to make
leveraged derivative bets. And if they lose a bet, the counterparty to
the contract has first dibs on your money."

The next big thing will be to allow banks to invest in gambling in
Vegas, I suppose. "Perfectly safe." they say...

--
Poverty is easy. It's Charity and Chastity that are hard.
--anon

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On 31 Dec 2014 00:57:14 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:


Ed Huntress writes:

On 30 Dec 2014 19:14:05 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:

Ed Huntress writes:

Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his
latest predictive econometric model on his company's
cloud-networked
SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in
economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top
consulting firm.

Ask him what relevance, if any, Stuart Kauffman's Origins of
Order
might have to to his research and analyses. And report back here
with his answer.

His reaction: "Stuart who?" g

He doesn't know about Kauffman.

Dang. Well, no shame in that. Kauffman isn't an economist. :-)

Just ask him if complexity catastrophe or complexity theory or
anything along those lines enters into his econometric models.

I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently baffling
impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact
(alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that
defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part of
the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it.

Kinda like global warming computer models, eh?

Both are kinda like chemistry before 1800, when the best minds
continually struggled to update their observation-based theories to
fit embarrassing new discoveries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Expe...ed_by_Friction

-jsw

On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:15:38 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/30/2014 6:41 AM, wrote:

"Few economists saw our current crisis coming,

Understanding economy may not matter. Might be as simple as the
aftermath of some terrorist act.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Same to ya, but I had a rotten Christmas. Too much trouble with the gf.
;(

It's been said that, if you can make a fist, a gf is superfluous.
If you can't make a fist, that's probably the least of the things you
can't make and the gf is still superfluous.
High five...other hand please.
;-)

He needs to maintain his open hand in order to repeatedly slap himself
on the forehead at his own stupidity, mike. As to the other hand, who
knows where that thumb has been...

Now let's stop giving these jerks airtime, OK?

--
Poverty is easy. It's Charity and Chastity that are hard.
--anon

Jim Wilkins wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:

Kinda like global warming computer models, eh?

Both are kinda like chemistry before 1800, when the best minds
continually struggled to update their observation-based theories to
fit embarrassing new discoveries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Expe...ed_by_Friction


http://freecarbonoffsets.com


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 06:21:59 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/31/2014 5:13 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"mike" wrote in message
...
On 12/31/2014 3:42 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Mike Spencer" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress writes:

On 30 Dec 2014 19:14:05 -0400, Mike Spencer
wrote:

Ed Huntress writes:

Now he has to spend the rest of the day running his
latest predictive econometric model on his company's
cloud-networked
SPSS system. He has a master's degree in math and a degree in
economics, and does econometric research and analysis for a top
consulting firm.

Ask him what relevance, if any, Stuart Kauffman's Origins of
Order
might have to to his research and analyses. And report back
here
with his answer.

His reaction: "Stuart who?" g

He doesn't know about Kauffman.

Dang. Well, no shame in that. Kauffman isn't an economist. :-)

Just ask him if complexity catastrophe or complexity theory or
anything along those lines enters into his econometric models.

I'm no math wizard but it strikes me much of the apparently
baffling
impenetrability of economics and finance derives from the fact
(alleged, by me :-) that we've reached a level of complexity that
defeats statistics or model that don't account for it. And part
of
the problem is that "models" probably *can't* account for it.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

How can the models account for the actions of financiers who are
smarter than the model makers?


Interesting point.
Model makers attempt to quantify the effects of things like supply
and demand.
Financiers are more concerned with manipulating the system for
personal
gain. Manipulation may not follow statistical models. It may, in
fact,
exploit vulnerable points in the model to systematically game the
system.
My computer being five milliseconds faster than yours and
repeatedly beating
you to the punch is probably not in the model.

But that may not have a direct effect on jobs going overseas.

I've repeatedly heard that it won't be economically practical to
manufacture the widget I've just prototyped in the US, because the
pain of wringing adequate quality from China is less than the pain of
US regulations and unions. Sometimes that's based on direct experience
with the previous model, built here with some imported parts.


I don't doubt that at all. To fix it, we have to either tax imports
or work for wages competitive with the rest of the world.
Fat chance of getting the unions to cut salary demands.

So do you want to live i na country where wages are $2.40/hr.?

Some people (like Hamei, our former NG participant) like living there.
We talk about it once or twice per year, and I realize I would not.

We will neither tax imports nor work for $2.40 per hour. What will
happen is that the labor costs and transportation costs, plus numerous
other problems in dealing with China, will bring their delivered costs
up to approximate parity.

Taxing imports enough to do any good will create immediate
retaliation that may bring the whole international trade Jenga Tower
crashing down. I think we're in for a long, slow, gridlocked spiral
down. I pray that it takes at least 30 years and I won't see the end.

Pessimist. g


Much of the regulation comes from our litigious society and the need
to create a cause out of everything.
One kid gets killed in a car accident and suddenly we have
"Billy's Law" that greatly increases the safety requirements
for car seats. Nobody worries about how that interacts with
"Betsy's Law" or "Little Johnny's Law" or all the other regulations
on the books.
30,000 people a year are killed in auto accidents.
If we worried about that, we'd have to outlaw autos.
But, at least we won't have a repeat of Billy's tragic death.

The per-vehicle-mile death rate in the US is less than one-third of
what it was in the 1970s. There are a lot of people who should be glad
that we "worried about that."

It's always a little surprising to me to hear people talk about how
bad things are today, without thinking about how much better they are,
in most ways, than they've ever been before.

--
Ed Huntress

On 12/31/2014 9:24 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 11:15:38 -0800, mike wrote:

On 12/30/2014 6:41 AM, wrote:

"Few economists saw our current crisis coming,

Understanding economy may not matter. Might be as simple as the
aftermath of some terrorist act.

Merry Christmas to all and to all a zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Same to ya, but I had a rotten Christmas. Too much trouble with the gf.
;(

It's been said that, if you can make a fist, a gf is superfluous.
If you can't make a fist, that's probably the least of the things you
can't make and the gf is still superfluous.
High five...other hand please.
;-)

He needs to maintain his open hand in order to repeatedly slap himself
on the forehead at his own stupidity, mike. As to the other hand, who
knows where that thumb has been...

Now let's stop giving these jerks airtime, OK?

--
Poverty is easy. It's Charity and Chastity that are hard.
--anon

I'm rather enjoying the speculation.
Sure beats all the drive-by namecalling that happens in most threads.
Kinda like yours 4 lines up.