Tautology, Epistemology and Grace On RWER Blog 12/16/2018

P:  A simple multiple regression with total private debt, the first derivative of private debt(credit), and the second derivative of private debt(credit impulse), is well over R squared of 93% over at least the past three decades. This is large but not spurious. By far the largest contribution is that of credit.

NR: May I humbly suggest that you have just uttered a tautology. Hardly a rarity anywhere. But you have inadvertently chosen statistical “newspeak” as a mode of expression.Please consult George Orwell’s 1984. Try thinking about it a bit.

GOOGLE: {1}Norman L. Roth {2} Norman L. Roth, Technological Time {3} Norman L. Roth, Economics of Work. I also suggest you introduce yourself to a subject called ‘Epistemology’ .

It could prove very practical in your case .Also, Lars Syll is quite well versed in that subject as well as in the limits of Statistical methodology, and the temptations to fallacy contained therein. May I also suggest that you try John Maynard Keynes; A TREATISE on PROBABILITY,1921. Not to mention Frank Knight’s contribution written about the same time.

Me: Tautologies are a hint, as knowledge can only be perceived by a knower….no matter to whom or to what one attributes such.

Also, telos and technos being another duality to derive an aspect of the natural philosophical concept and/or experience of grace/consciousness, in this case process, you should be affirming what I post here.

“…..why do you kick against the goads?”

P:  My point was, Paul Krugman still teaches Loanable Funds, the predicate assumption of which is that private debt does not affect any important macroeconomic outputs. This despite the fact that total private debt and its derivatives account for something like 98% of the variance in unemployment plus simple trigger criteria based on total private debt predicts financial crisis reliably. The claim that no model reliably produces a high correlation that is not spurious is false. Macroeconomics simply made one wrong turn; ignoring private debt per loanable funds.
Steve Keen and Michael Hudson are leading the way on this too. I’m glad to learn someone is bothering to read my posts here. I was starting to wonder. Thank you.

Me: Yes, their insights (Keen’s and Hudson’s) are valid re-discoveries of the fact that modern technologically advanced economies are INHERENTLY cost inflationary primarily due to the ever increasing depreciation costs of its technology, its own fixed capital and the removal of money from one cycle of production to another via re-investment or retained earnings.

Douglas and his followers made the mistake of falling into the spell of DSGE by only trying to “fill the gap” instead of inverting individual monetary scarcity into abundance with the paradigm changing policies of Wisdomics-Gracenomics. Keen wants
a one-off “modern debt jubilee” which also still has the stench of DSGE hanging around it despite his vehement critique of it, and Hudson’s financial parasitism correctly identifies which paradigm must be changed but doesn’t have a comprehensive policy plan to accomplish it. Finally, they’re all so addicted to abstraction that they seemingly can’t come into present time to spot the triple power point for policy of retail sale.

DT:  Another Copernican revolution is needed to get the meaning right way up again.

Me:  Although they’ll fight it to the death also, (paradigms must not become conscious you know) the banks can countenance a citizen’s income so long as it doesn’t transform the scarcity ratio of total actually available individual incomes to total costs and so total prices. That’s one of the reasons a discount/rebate monetary policy at retail sale is so essential because it inverts the scarcity ratio reality via price.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s