Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I would be obliged if you don't make up my positions for me.

And I would be much obliged if you would refrain from tossing around red herrings. Such as the chronology of bailouts in a discussion of the chronology of attacks.

You take countries with large CA deficits: Spain, Portugal, Greece and then mix them together with other countries: France, Italy, Belgium there the CA deficit is quite small. And you just hand wave Ireland away.

If this were a debt crisis, Germany and France would have been attacked more or less at the same time - the two have roughly equal levels of debt to GDP, and if anything France has outperformed Germany in the growth department over the past two decades.

They weren't, so it isn't.

This is called deriving a testable hypothesis from your theory. When your testable hypothesis does not hold up to empirical scrutiny, the hypothesis is deemed to have been falsified. A large enough number of falsified hypotheses derived from a given theory casts doubt on the validity of the theory.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Sep 7th, 2011 at 09:25:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And Ireland hasn't falsified your theory?
by IM on Wed Sep 7th, 2011 at 09:28:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In a word, no.

My claim is that the €-Mark is experiencing a currency crisis due to the BuBa being unwilling to pay to defend its currency policy. Your claim is that the €-Mark is experiencing no such crisis.

To disprove my claim, you have to demonstrate that debt is the dominant causative factor in every case (formally speaking - informally, you only have to demonstrate that it is so in the overwhelming majority of cases). To disprove your claim, I only have to demonstrate that current accounts are the dominant factor in a single case (again, if we stand on formalism - for practical purposes, I have to demonstrate that the test case is of at least moderate significance).

The former is a significantly more daunting proposition than the latter.

Or, to put it in slightly less formal terms, I am claiming that a suspect murdered his wife. You are claiming that the suspect did not murder anybody, and as proof of this you note that he did not murder his neighbour, who is known to have committed suicide.

I hope you can see why this is not a viable defense strategy.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Sep 7th, 2011 at 03:37:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, no. I don't . You have put a hypothesis and now you are not able to defend it. I have pointed out that CA deficits don't matter in some cases and all you have as an answer is to decree abritary rules.
by IM on Wed Sep 7th, 2011 at 06:39:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
sigh

You are not even looking at my hypothesis, which is that this is a currency crisis, not a debt crisis. You are playing silly gotcha games based on nothing but your total ignorance of elementary econometrics.

I did dare to assume that since you were arguing a point on economics, you possessed at least rudimentary schooling in, y'know, actual economics. But this is not in evidence anywhere in your argument - you argue more like a lawyer or a theologian than a scientist (or even an economist).

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Sep 8th, 2011 at 02:48:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Appeal to authority? I really try to argue with you, but all  I get back is insults and shouts" Look I am an economist."

Pounding on the table.

by IM on Thu Sep 8th, 2011 at 04:08:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Furthermore, if what you say is right, countries should have been attacked in order of their CA deficits. Didn't happen, so it isn't a current account crisis.
by IM on Wed Sep 7th, 2011 at 09:30:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Furthermore, if what you say is right, countries should have been attacked in order of their CA deficits.

Um, no. That does not follow. At all. CA deficits are far from the only determinant in vulnerability to Soros attacks, whereas debt levels relative to asset levels are (almost definitionally) the overwhelmingly dominant component in vulnerability to bankruptcy.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Sep 7th, 2011 at 03:36:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"CA deficits are far from the only determinant in vulnerability"

Shifting the goal posts again? You claimed CA deficits are the start and end of this crisis.

by IM on Wed Sep 7th, 2011 at 06:41:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I said that this was a currency crisis.

Currency crises are caused by structural CA imbalances (note: Imbalances include CA surpluses - the surplus country is as responsible for the imbalance as the deficit country).

They are triggered by all sorts of things, and there is a substantial component of black magic in divining when a vulnerability to a currency run will translate into an actual run (though in this case it was real easy: Just sort the structural CA deficit countries in ascending order of political power).

Really, the distinction between fundamental and proximate cause is not a novel concept or arbitrary imposition. It has been a recognised concept in every school of epistemology (except perhaps the radical social constructivists) since Aristotle. And I did dare to presume - wrongly, apparently - that you had paid attention to epistemology at some point in the last three or four thousand years.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Sep 8th, 2011 at 02:42:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
LOL

Nice straw man.

Economics is politics by other means

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 7th, 2011 at 04:14:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Such as the chronology of bailouts in a discussion of the chronology of attacks."

Because there is obviously no connection.

by IM on Wed Sep 7th, 2011 at 09:33:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course not: Dexia and Fortis were among the first Eurozone banks to be bailed out but France, the Netherlands and Belgium will be among the last countries to be attacked.

Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 7th, 2011 at 09:37:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We are talking about bailouts of countries. At least I hope we do.
by IM on Wed Sep 7th, 2011 at 09:41:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You keep bringing up NAMA...

Economics is politics by other means
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 7th, 2011 at 09:42:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, JakeS did.

 I said Ireland was bailed out in 2010, he said NAMA late 2009, I said that I meant states, not banks. And then said he meant "attacks" and that the Eurozone bailouts are red herring. And then I pointed out that attacks and bail outs go together like a horse and carriage.

And then you brought up the rescued banks by Belgium/Netherlands/France.

I hope everything is clear.

by IM on Wed Sep 7th, 2011 at 09:49:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I noted that I had correctly predicted the sequence of attacks. Specifically, I wrote:

We even called the order in which they would come for Eurozone countries after Greece: Portugal, Spain, Italy, France, with Belgium either just before or just after Italy, depending on how much being white and speaking decent English counts for.

You then tried to play gotcha by noting that Ireland's creditors were not bailed out until 2010, and therefore Ireland should have been included in any prediction made in 2009.

Which is completely irrelevant, since the bailouts of Ireland's creditors were Act 3 of the Irish Assisted Suicide, and Act 2 - which was the first one that involved international economic hit men - took place in 2009 (Act 1 was in 2008-9, but as you correctly note that part involved only Irish economic hit men, not foreign ones).

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Sep 7th, 2011 at 04:15:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You didn't mention Ireland at all probably because it didn't fit your model. As far as being white an d decent english speaking it isn't fitting your secondary model either. That you take refuge in a weasel word like attacks is telling.
by IM on Wed Sep 7th, 2011 at 06:46:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For the last goddamn time: I didn't mention Ireland because Ireland was already under attack when I made my prediction about which countries would come under attack and in which order the attacks would happen.

I may be a sad existence, but I'm not sad enough to brag about being able to predict events that are already part of the public record. That you seem to think that this is a failure is less telling of any failure of mine than it is of your insistence on extrapolating wildly from a single data point to reach a conclusion that goes against the overwhelming weight of the remaining data.

That's called "cherry picking," and it's a denialist tactic.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Sep 8th, 2011 at 02:52:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A bailout of a country involves guaranteeing non-usurious interest rates on new issues during the 18-24 months it takes for the hysterical children to calm down after a sovereign default.

A bailout of the bondholders involves having other countries roll over the bonds so the current bondholders get their money back.

I will leave it to the reader to decide which of the two descriptions is the more apt for what the ECBuBa, EFSF, et al have been doing

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Sep 7th, 2011 at 03:49:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series