Monday, July 2, 2012

Some spirits of darkness sow economic confusion

Still, analysts said the ISM report increased the odds the Federal Reserve will step in with a third round of bond buying - known as quantitative easing, or QE3 - to prop up the economy [implying that it cannot stand on its own].
Excluding distressed sales, prices fared even better, gaining 2.3 percent in May and 2.7 percent from a year ago. Homeowners in danger of foreclosure, or in "distress," often sell their homes at a significantly reduced price. [I.e. excluding prices that went down, prices went up.]
from Manufacturing shrinks, first time in nearly three years

Articles such as this one aren't meant to convey information, but to spread confusion and give the impression that economics is too mysterious for mere mortals to comprehend, so that we'll just accept their assertions that merely injecting money into the economy, without spending the money more effectively, will produce sustained economic growth, despite all the evidence that it doesn't. 

This is not to say that anyone can be an economist, because determining the most effective use of resources at any given time (which is a key aspect of economics) does require a solid comprehension of how economies function. Still, real economists (as opposed to the econonic demolition experts who have been dismantling the economy for decades) should be able to explain their recommendations to interested laymen in terms of "most bang for the buck," although they typically explain them to businessmen and bankers. Successful inventors and entrepreneurs also require an awarness of how their creations would fit into the economy. That's how a truly free market operates, but as can be seen in the case of the war on nuclear power, the British empire stifles many great ideas with lies and brute force, and this largely explains why our economy needs to be propped up with inflationary infusions of credit.

Instead, this article implies that we can continue to do things the way we've been doing them, by simply stimulating the economy as it is, and somehow get better results, which is a definition of insanity.

The comments-section following the article appears to be nothing but a collection of lies and snide, inane remarks intended to spead confusion and discord.  In other words, it's more of what's contained in the article, but without the veneer of knowledge and objectivity.