Challenging Group Thinking Economists on Budget Deficits and the Dollar
Virtually the whole economics profession somehow managed to overlook the largest housing bubble in the history of the world. Remarkably, few, if any, economists were fired or even demoted for their extraordinary incompetence. Unlike dishwashers and factory workers, economists are not held accountable for their performance.
This is disturbing not only for its moral implications, but more importantly because the lack of accountability means that economists have no incentive to ever start thinking for themselves rather than just repeating the conventional wisdom in the profession. After saying silly things about the housing market for much of the last decade, the same crew is now saying equally silly things about the value of the dollar and the budget deficit.
The housing bubble deniers are now warning that large budget deficits could send the dollar plummeting. These warning stem from the same of sort of failure to understand basic economics that caused most economists to miss the housing bubble. The dollar will undoubtedly fall at some point in the not very distant future, but the reason is not the budget deficit, the reason is the trade deficit.
The logic is very simple. The value of the dollar declines against other currencies when the supply of dollars on international markets exceeds demand. The budget deficit does not directly put dollars on international markets. It simply means that the U.S. government must borrow to make up the gap between its spending and its revenue. This borrowing can be met by printing money (the Fed buys government bonds) or by borrowing in private credit markets.
Printing money will have no direct effect on the value of the dollar in international currency markets. It should help keep interest rates in the U.S. lower than they would be if the Fed didn't print money, but that doesn't mean that the dollar will necessarily fall in value. Japan's central bank printed enormous amounts of money over the last decade yet its main concern is that the yen is rising in value
If the government borrows in credit markets, then this should raise interest rates, which would more likely raise than lower the value of the dollar. The basic story is that at higher interest rates, investors will want to hold more U.S. financial assets. This will increase the demand for dollars in international currency markets, putting upward pressure on the value of the dollar. (Economists used this story in the 80s to explain how the budget deficits of that era lead to the trade deficit. Unfortunately, few economists seem to remember the conventional wisdom from 15 years ago.)
In short, the economists who claim that the large budget deficits will lead to a fall in the value of the dollar have no more of clue than when they were denying the existence of a housing bubble two or three years ago.
Of course the dollar will fall, but this would be the case even if the U.S. were running a budget surplus. The reason is that we are running a large trade deficit and have been for some time. With a trade deficit between $600 billion and $700 billion (4-5 percent of GDP), we are throwing hundreds of billions of dollars on world currency markets each year.
In the past, foreign central banks (most importantly China's) had bought up dollars in an effort to keep down the value of the currency and thereby sustain their export market in the United States. Since they have gotten a very low return on a currency (the dollar) that has been declining in value, these central banks are effectively paying people in the United States to buy their country's output.
It is unlikely that foreign central banks will continue to buy up large amounts of dollars indefinitely, since they can actually pay anyone to buy their stuff, including their own people. When foreign central banks stop subsidizing their exports to the United States, the dollar will fall to a level that will bring its trade deficit more closely into balance.
In the end, the dollar will fall, but the reason is that the dollar was too high. The decision to run a high dollar policy by Robert Rubin in the late 90s helped to create the imbalances that lay behind both the stock and housing bubble. It was a short-term policy that must inevitably be reversed.
While the conventional wisdom in the economics profession may attribute the eventual fall in the dollar to the budget deficit, economists who think for a living know that the key problem was an over-valued dollar. The country has relied on the conventional wisdom among economists long enough.















Baker, have you noticed that you're getting no comments? Could it be that you're talking about something that isn't part of most people's lives, overshadowed by events in the ME, and put in terms impenetrable to nearly everyone but professional economists?
Have no fear though, I'm bookmarking this to see how it holds up over time. Especially the economists that are wrong should be fired part.
December 28, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter,
you're consistant I'll give you that.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
December 28, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't listen to the rightwing trolls, keep up your critiques.
Sometimes things don't need commenting on, although I'll say that my investment in a foreign stock fund seems to have been a bit premature...
I thought the dollar was going to fall substantially starting a couple of years ago. It did, but not much and not for long.
I do think we also need to consider that foreigners may become less willing to buy treasuries as they are now offering a negative return if you factor in inflation. I assume that the lack of consensus in the EU is holding down demand for Euros to some extent. If Germany ever comes on board things may change. The BBC already has commentators frequently talking about the Euro becoming a second reserve currency.
December 28, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"foreigners may become less willing to buy treasuries as they are now offering a negative return if you factor in inflation"
That's silly. If US borrowing increases, Baker argues that US interests rates will go up. Of course as long as the Treasury can borrow a trillion dollars at near 0%, it probably should. The real question is: How elastic is the market in the next months? That is, what % will follow for how many $B in borrowing.
Right now things are a real mess with the Fed having something over a $T out the door to private interests. I'm concerned that this large pool of money is a kind of inflation trap waiting to be sprung.
December 28, 2008 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? As someone who dropped the only econ class she ever signed up for (not because I didn't understand it, but because it bored me), I think Dean Baker is remarkably comprehensible most of the time.
December 28, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Three sources of money: Print, borrow, tax.
Printing simply dilutes the faith and credit of the government. It's a fraud as much as counterfeiting is.
Borrowing simply steals money from the private credit markets. It's theft and costs all would-be borrowers higher interest rates.
Taxation takes money from the private sector and puts it to work ostensibly in the public interest. Yet we see economists cautioning against the recessionary effects of taxes now.
I am inclined to agree with Baker's rather overly repeated and obvious point that trade deficits send net dollars abroad -- they either hang around abroad in one form or another, or they come back here as non-trade investment. Other than that, what did I miss?
Why is a decrease in the CPI such a bugaboo? (I mean except for the fact that Keynsians don't know how to handle deflation)
December 28, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Business people irrespective of their economic philosophy can't handle deflation. If they borrowed a dollar to buy a widget,because of deflation when they sold that widget they'd only get ninety cents. And would be unable to repay the lender.
December 29, 2008 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, the problem is not that simple. The problem is over-borrowing which loads the business with excessive debt.
And taking a loss is hardly unheard of in business. A sound business can handle a string of losses without failing. That's what capital is for, in principle (not talking about stock market speculation). It buys book value and provides a cushion.
When the SEC allowed the "cushion" to shrink to something like 2.5% (40 to 1 leverage in some cases), those businesses became subject to even a tiny drop in inflationary economics.
The question before us should be: What are the merits of various possible forward paths (aka solution options) given what we are faced with? And my question/challenge was to explain how the three options for paying for a spending spree are not as bad as I pointed out.
But thanks for responding.
December 29, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"With a trade deficit between $600 billion and $700 billion (4-5 percent of GDP), we are throwing hundreds of billions of dollars on world currency markets each year.
In the past, foreign central banks (most importantly China's) had bought up dollars in an effort to keep down the value of the currency and thereby sustain their export market in the United States."
Yet total holdings of US Treasuries overseas is just $3.042 trillion.
http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
And yes I understand the irony of using the word 'just' and 'trillion' in the same sentence but the reality is that China has accumulated $652 billion in Treasuries over multiple years of trade surpluses. Or a whole bunch less than the current series of stimulus packages, something which I don't see a lot of push back on. You can believe that America and the world is held hostage by some $1.9 trillion dollars in Chinese reserve holdings (including about 70% of that in US denominated assets-thanks B. Setser!) or that we can blithely raise about that same amount in the course of a year or two to combat a serious economic downturn. But it seems difficult to me to keep both notions in ones head at the same time.
I really doubt that most people in this country would understand that years of persistant trade imbalances with China would have resulted in them having just about one year's worth of Treasuries in the bank. ("With a trade deficit between $600 billion and $700 billion", compared with an October number of $653 billion in Chinese held Treasuries). Yes that is a big number, and boy howdy up a bunch in the course of the month before (up $67 billion or more than 10%). But the notion that the Chinese are simply holding the whip hand over the US seems somewhat overblown. Yes they sell a lot more to us than they buy. But somehow those dollars seem to leak out the back door. As if maybe the Chinese are using their massive trade surplus with the US to buy oil and other commodities on the world market and are coming out only marginally ahead.
After all we owe just about 4X in Treasuries to Social Security ($2.3 trillion) than we do to the Chinese ($652 billion) and are talking about a stimulus package of $850 billion over the next two years. The notion that the Chinese can sink the US economy (which is already taking on serious water) by refusing to buy Treasuries or worse by liquidating their current portfolio seems somewhat overblown. Particularly when the current yield is right at zero in real terms. The numbers show there are plenty of other actors willing and able to step up to the plate. You could drop the entire population of Luxembourg into Shanghai and probably not even get a ripple. Yet somebody has parked $87 billion in Treasuries there. And another $220 billion in 'Carib Banking Centers'. Yet all of the reporting ends up talking about the 'Inscrutable Chinee'. Well I just don't see how the story reduces itself into that simplistic binary model: 'America buys plastic crap from China and the CCB buy's America's future'. Well kinda. Sorta. But clearly the dollar flow is not a one way street.
December 29, 2008 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"the economics profession managed to overlook the largest housing bubble in the history of the world. Economists are not held accountable for their performance." You should give yourself a little more credit. I've been checking Krugman and Kuttner and Schiller etc and they did point out the housing bubble several years ago. Understated yes. Yes, that's true. They also lit up the exchange rate problem, balance of trade issue etc. They didn't shine any light on the shadow banking system, auction based rates or derivatives, unless i missed something. So, for that I can't forgive them. Especially since my friend Dennis the CPA and Larry a financial specialist called it years ago.
You are yourself are doing the right thing and have a large stage. For that I applaud you. Do the right thing, brother. Speak the truth.
December 29, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Baker's economic critique above (I'm going to ignore his critique of economists, since I am not one, professionally; but I think that is also unfair and inaccurate) describes an important pathway as if it were a dead end.
It is true (but trivial) that budget deficits do not cause falls in the value of the dollar directly. It is also true that the trade deficit dos (or should, cetaris paribus).
But it is NOT true that one isn't related to the other, nor that the trade deficit is the only determinant of exchange rate movements.
(Of course, the concern that the dollar will fall in the short run due to budget deficits is silly anyway; the dollar will fall anyway in the absence of massive foreign support in the form of dollar purchases. But Baker's critique goes too far, and claims that there isn't an effect just because the mechanism is indirect.)
Ultimately, in the short run the value of the dollar will be whatever China wants it to be; Beijing is perfectly willing to subordinate long term wealth to short term exchange rate stability in the interest of export led economic growth. Therefore, when we have Uncle Sam borrow money, and it's used to buy Chinese goods (or pay bankers who do so, or prop up companies that do so, etc.), that affects the equilibrium price of the dollar in terms of other currencies.
The willingness of China and other countries to continue funding U.S. public borrowing is essentially a windfall to the United States. By lending in dollars while the dollar's value is inappropriately high (due to that same intervention!) they risk getting paid back in devalued dollars. So we probably should borrow money, given the interest rates flying around now. (.04% on T bills last month is frankly silly - the government should just open passbook savings accounts and clean up on the difference - and that is essentially what it's done by lending to banks).
Running budget deficits does create downward pressure on the dollar, as long as consumption of foreign goods figures, directly or indirectly, in what the borrowed money is spent on. Long term, lending by foreigners has the same effect (eventually they'll want to spend the money... in their own currency... which means selling dollars).
But in the short run, that's irrelevant.
In the long run, worrying about a depreciating dollar is like worrying about death. The dollar's current value is propped up on an ocean of Chinese and other banks' reserves. It's very nice of China to do this for us, but they probably won't feel like being charitable forever.
Also in the long run, thinking about budget deficits should be focused on the fact that we'll have to pay all that money back, and on the crowding out of private borrowing. Budget deficits aren't bad because the dollar might fall. Budget deficits are bad because it is, generally, irresponsible to sell out future generations to support ourselves in style in the present.
"Think of the children," so to speak. Every dollar Obama (or Bush) spends is stolen from them.
December 29, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The reason that overseas treasury holdings are only worth, say, five years of trade deficits is that those treasuries can be exchanged for other dollar-denominated assets, some of which the world might actually want. And they might particularly want them when they can be bought with a currency that has all the staying power of monopoly money. (Which would be good exception for the recession part and the real-estate crash part.)
But ultimately, unless we want to sell everything in the country to finance the level of the dollar, we have to start producing more things that people outside the US want (in addition to buying less stuff from outside the US). And that could be a longterm operation.
December 29, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
We should really just stop enforcing the patents, copyrights and trademarks of stuff manufactured overseas. Those monopoly privileges should be reserved for American - made products.
The threat of $20 copycat iPhone's would more than motivate Apple to build them in the US.
December 29, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least financially, things have got to radically change or everyone regardless of party affiliation will lose.
Our current financial system was for the most part born from the misguided concepts of John Maynard Keynes who believd in inflationisim. In fact it was Keynes who coined the statement "inflate or die". The problem with inflating a countries currency is that eventually it becomes worthless and we're already there. Just as the Roman empire fell, so will the American empire, if we continue on the path of inflation. Rome spread its armies to thin. When the republic came into being, Romes coins were solid gold and silver. By the time the empire had fallen, Romes coins were copper slugs covered with little gold or silver. Sound familiar? Just look at a US quarter or fifty cent piece. You guessed it. A copper slug covered with little silver and more nickel.
Obama needs to undue what the Clinton administration had begun and put an end to sending our manufacturing jobs off shore in a quid pro quo so that foreign countries will inturn continue to purchase our debt in the form of Treasury bills. This is in fact what NAFTA was all about. The US has to begin creating things that the rest of the world wants as a service society won't cut it any longer.
Secondly, after nearly 100 years of existence, it is long past the time to shutter the Federal Reserve which is nothing other than a private banking cartel charging interest to the US taxpayer for loans to keep the game going. At the very least, if Obama truely believes in transparency in government, then the first order of business would be to create a law which compels the Federal Reserve to reveal how they are spending US tax payer dollars. Bloomberg hasn't had much luck with its FOIA request in that regard.
Honestly, I can't even begin to imagine why the Fed has lasted as long as it has other than the fact that those we elect to do the peoples business could care less how our tax dollars are being spent as long as they keep their very comfortable positions of power and isn't this what the entire mess is about?
It is long past the time that we adhere to the principles that our founders laid out for us in the Constitution. That document never called for a central bank but a US Treasry that produced real money backed by real assets such as gold and silver. Not some promisory note that today isn't worth the paper it is printed on. To do otherwise as Keynes had said, " in the end, we're all dead anyway".
December 31, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why the Academicians Have Usually Failed in Economics
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
December 19, 2008
There is rising consternation stirring within the international press, in leading circles of governments from the U.S.A., in western and central Europe, in Russia, in China, and from around the world generally. Reluctantly, it now dawns upon these circles, that virtually nothing which is essentially crucial has occurred in those patterns in the world's economy generally, which I had not forecast in my international webcast of July 25th, 2007.
Among the powers of evil which still appear to control some of the governing powers in the world, there is now a creeping sense that if it were possible they might destroy the prophet, but, then, be destroyed, themselves, by the prophecy.
What I had forecast, on July 25, 2007, was a general breakdown-crisis, which I had warned, was to unfold by about the close of that July. Three days after that webcast, the actual breakdown of the world's present monetary system began exactly as I had warned it would. Since then, the tocsin of a spreading, global tragedy of the nations of this planet, were heard here, then there, and then beyond, louder and louder, with a growing resonance, a resonance taking the planet as whole into its grip.
From that moment on, the ongoing, global, general, physical breakdown-crisis of the entire world's present monetary-financial system, has never ceased to worsen. It grows uglier and uglier, wider, deeper and deeper, and, for those who had deemed themselves the reigning powers of our planet, seemingly more hopeless, than what it had been a bare moment before.
There has been nothing like this, as I had repeatedly forewarned, since the U.S.A.'s 2000 Presidential primary campaign. There has been nothing comparable to this in the history of European civilization since the outbreak of medieval Europe's mid-Fourteenth-Century collapse of the House of Bardi into a Europe-wide "new dark age." It comes on as a planetary tragedy. As I had repeatedly forewarned since that time, what has been oncoming, is a general breakdown-crisis of the presently doomed financial-monetary system of every part of this planet as a whole.
One senses an approaching moment, like that silence heard by those either in the life-boats, or swimming in the chilling Atlantic ocean waters, in that moment when the S.S. Titanic had vanished under the waves.
So, since July 25, 2007, almost as soon as leading circles in any nation's government, in the Americas, Europe, Asia, and elsewhere, attempted to deny the possibility of a condition against which I had warned, exactly that kind of sign of an oncoming general, planetary breakdown-crisis had erupted. Essentially, not only have events around the world proceeded according to the pattern which I detailed in that webcast, but each such development had erupted seemingly moments after fresh, emphatic denials, by leading governments in the world, and others, denials that such a development as I had forecast had been possible.
So, now, in the oncoming, January 20 inauguration of a new U.S. Presidency, the crisis accelerates, building up like a rising, terrible storm. Yet, for a moment, there is an awful stillness, while this legendary Titanic is sinking into the deep, where it would lie under all the waters of the world.
Yet, ironically, at the same time, still today, even after the clear accumulation of proof of the accuracy of my July 25, 2007 warning, leading opinion often responds with a curious kind of effort at stubborn denial. In a moment when the virtual Titanic of today is already sinking. Yet, as absurd as it is for them to say, leading press and governmental circles attempt, again, to deny what is happening, by reassuring one another, that I am not a certified product of the economics department of virtually any university.
I can proudly confirm their view that I refuse to associate myself with anything as provably silly as that which passes for academic qualifications in economics among the usual academics of today. Meanwhile, they, each time, hearing their own voices on this subject, appear to be much more frightened, this time, by hearing the reverberations of their own attempted denials, than when they had uttered them a moment or so before.
Suddenly, in these moments, the threats to me from my would-be critics, appear as less ominous than tragically silly. This is a coming moment in my world, not a triumphant moment, but a moment like that experienced by a Noah floating on a vast, silent sea. So, the ominous, oncoming global tragedy, has now overtaken the world—for those who are willing to hear, and act accordingly.
I am no wizard. There is no uncanny miracle involved in my repeated, uniquely exceptional record of successes as a long-range forecaster. There is only science. As I had already emphasized back during the last four months of 1971, what had been taught as economics in most of the known universities, even then, was simply the result of the increasing rates of incompetence in what has been usually taught as economics at leading universities, since Harry S Truman was inaugurated as President.
Look back to the time and place at which the presently unfolding tragedy actually began.
My Experience
The tragedy began in that moment that the right-wing Wall Street choice for Vice-President, Harry S Truman, would seize the opportunity of President Franklin Roosevelt's death, to sabotage Roosevelt's Hamiltonian, post-war intentions. What Truman would introduce, instead of Secretary Hamilton's American System of political economy, is the intrinsic incompetence of sometime pro-Nazi economist John Maynard Keynes.[1] The widely practiced methods of statistical forecasting today, are the worst existing on this account up to the present date. Otherwise, generally, the incompetence of my academic rivals' failure as forecasters, lies presently in the way in which they define the subject itself. They have employed a method of forecasting which might be compared to the zeal of a passenger searching to upgrade his stateroom assignment on a sinking ship.[2]
This downward trend in quality of thinking about economies, a downwardness against which I have warned, as a forecaster, over the interval of two generations past, has been the principal source of the failure of the leading academic economists, and also leaders of corporate finance more or less world-wide, today. This has been a trend to be seen more clearly, more ominously, since the ousters of the last great post-World War II leaders of Europe's post-war resurrection, such as President Charles de Gaulle and Chancellor Konrad Adenauer.
This subject of widespread academic incompetence in the teaching of economics has been a recurring issue of my memorable, 1971 and later debates with spokesmen for leading academic economists. It came up yet once more, in a press conference which I held at Strasbourg this past Wednesday, (Dec. 17, 2008) In a press report on that subject, by Corriere della Sera during the same and the following day, notably, Corriere wrote: "LaRouche goes back to the XVIII century and to the [first] Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton," as, in fact, did U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Corriere was correct on precisely this point.
Looking back toward the fateful inauguration of President Harry Truman, we must recognize that the U.S. government's fiscal year 1967-1968, is notable as the point in the history of the post-President Franklin Roosevelt U.S. economy, at which the U.S. economy reached a net down-turn in physical, as distinct from merely monetary output per capita and per square kilometer, a downturn which has not merely persisted, but accelerated, from that time to the present day. An earlier, but less severe decline had been characteristic of the post-Franklin Roosevelt U.S.A., a decline in rate of growth caused by the policies under Presidents Harry S Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, as reflected in what I had forecast, in Summer-Autumn 1956, as an oncoming deep recession to hit approximately February 1957.
Later, there had been a partial, even promising resurgence of the economy under President John F. Kennedy, a resurgence which ended with the assassination of that President, and the consequent, fraudulent decision to send the U.S.A. to a war in the region of Indo-China. However, although the long, useless, wasting warfare in Indo-China, did contribute significantly to the ruin of the U.S. economy, it was not the actual cause of that collapse of the U.S. economy which has continued up to the present point of a global, general, chain-reaction mode of physical breakdown-crisis which brings the world as a whole to the brink of a threatened, prolonged, planet-wide "new dark age" now.
During most of my adult lifetime's experience since what is called World War II, there has been a dwindling, now tiny fraction of professed economists who have been competent; but, in each such latter case, the competence was gained despite, not because of the teaching of that subject for which graduates in economics from leading universities of the post-Franklin Roosevelt decades had been awarded their professional titles.
This crisis is not a U.S. failure, but a global one, despite those exceptional, known, or little known figures who have been of relevance for understanding the unfolding character of our presently looming global tragedy. For example, the incompetence which the Soviet and other Marxists have shared with their academic and political rivals in Europe and the Americas, is a direct outcome of the influence on scientific thinking of the foolish followers of the Seventeenth Century's Rene Descartes, and the Eighteenth Century's radical reductionists David Hume, Abraham de Moivre, Jean le Rond D'Alembert, and Leonhard Euler, et al. This was the characteristic incompetence of such followers of the British East India Company's Haileybury school as the plagiarist of A.R.J. Turgot, Adam Smith, as of Smith's avowed follower Karl Marx, or as the standpoint of Immanuel Kant who dared not publish his famous Critiques until the great Moses Mendelssohn was, from Kant's standpoint, safely dead.[3]
The world did not fail us. The examples of competent heroes, variously prominent or little recognized, are evidence of the contrary, willful sources of our presently looming threat of a planetary tragedy.
Economics As Science
What might have been taught as a competent approach to the subject of economy, would be essentially a branch of physical science, specifically the viewpoint of physical science from the vantage-point of the discoveries of Gottfried Leibniz and Bernhard Riemann, or, a refined view of that work of Leibniz and Riemann provided by considering the discovery of the concepts of Biosphere and Noösphere by Academician V.I. Vernadsky.
To wit: There is nothing mysterious in this bit of irony. The only science of economy which has existed in any part of modern European civilization, is that which was introduced by Gottfried Leibniz, which was an explicitly anti-Cartesian science of the dynamics of physical economy (rather than monetarist varieties of economy). Thus, simply said, the incompetence prevailing among most of the nations' so-called "economics experts" today, is a product of that on which they, and misguided governments, have premised their stated academic claims to competence in this field.
Despite the numerous, important, and even great achievements within the work of physical science generally, these individual achievements have become, more and more, notable exceptions to the more general trend launched by the replacement of such leaders of France's Ecole Polytechnique as Gaspard Monge and Lazare Carnot, by the British-appointed charlatans Laplace and Cauchy. Despite the circles of Alexander von Humboldt, Carl F. Gauss, Lejeune Dirichlet, Bernhard Riemann, Max Planck, and Albert Einstein, the Twentieth Century's science emerged as dominated, as a current trend, by a succession of hoaxsters typified by, first, the mechanistic nonsense of Ernst Mach and, soon after that, the psychotic numerology of the evil Bertrand Russell and such among his typical dupes as Professor Norbert Wiener, John von Neumann, and the Russellite Cambridge school of systems analysis.[4]
The marker of this long trend in corruption of the teaching of Anglophile "science" has been that cult of the practitioner of black magic, Isaac Newton (who, probably, to his credit, actually discovered nothing), but who has been credited with the discovery of the mathematical expression for gravitation which was known, on published record, and in massive detail, by Johannes Kepler from whom Newton's boosters pilfered that mathematical formulation.
Competent instruction in economics will reappear in universities and kindred institutions, only if, or when what passes currently for competence in such institutions, today, has been suitably replaced.
I explain the nature of the widespread incompetence of the economic departments of universities and kindred institutions. My emphasis is upon economics; but, it can not be competently overlooked, especially after considering the wreckage of the world's economy now, that competent economics is a branch of physical science, not the childish witchcraft of mere monetary and related statistics.
Let us therefore resolve to learn this lesson before it comes too late to rescue the planet from the present lurch at the brink of a planetary new dark age.
For the complete 64,000 plus character text go to
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/12/26/why-academicians-have-usually-failed-economics.html
January 1, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink