Trickle down economics busted, Repubs nix report

[Metsfanmax]

Why are you leaving out theory, economic laws, models? Those are also what "economics is about."

No. In the same way that physics is not "about" Newton's laws of gravity or Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism, economics is not "about" human-constructed models. All of the theories, economic laws and models are ways of classifying and understanding the economic data. Without the data, economics becomes philosophy. That is what I mean.

How does that mean "you can't do economics without having a model to understand it."

What do you mean by 'do economics'?

You directly said that economics is entirely composed of constructions to understand reality. That precludes any of the work that real economists actually do simply to even understand what's going on; construction of models to understand why it is going on is an important part of what many economists do on a day-to-day basis, but your quote implies that economists cannot get work done if they are not contributing to one of those constructions. This is false.

Without a model, how does the economist interpret data?

Sure, there is a difference between economic models and econometric models, but economic models are 'translated' into econometric models.

Earlier, you were stating "You can collect data, establish trends, and make predictions without subscribing to any particular economic model."

How does one even know what trends to make without models--or even without translating an economic model into an econometric model?

How can the economist made predictions without subscribing to any particular economic model?

Math. It's a beautiful thing. You should try it some day.

You have it backwards. Economic models are not 'translated' into econometric models; econometric models are used to inform economic models.

[Funkyterrance]

Tgd, nice post.

I've got a quick couple questions though:
If a rich person is left to invest or spend their money what are the odds that they will spend/invest the money in a way that will most likely support the US economy? Now how about the government? I think knowing the answers to these questions would help from a "common sense" standpoint.

[BigBallinStalin]

Why are you leaving out theory, economic laws, models? Those are also what "economics is about."

No. In the same way that physics is not "about" Newton's laws of gravity or Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism, economics is not "about" human-constructed models. All of the theories, economic laws and models are ways of classifying and understanding the economic data. Without the data, economics becomes philosophy. That is what I mean.

So, you define economics as devoid of theory, laws, and models?

How does that mean "you can't do economics without having a model to understand it."

What do you mean by 'do economics'?

You directly said that economics is entirely composed of constructions to understand reality. That precludes any of the work that real economists actually do simply to even understand what's going on; construction of models to understand why it is going on is an important part of what many economists do on a day-to-day basis, but your quote implies that economists cannot get work done if they are not contributing to one of those constructions. This is false.

It doesn't. They need models in order to construct reality. You can't 'do economics' without having some economic analytical tools to work with. Otherwise, you'll just stare at the word "GDP" and not know what it resembles nor how it relates to anything.

Anyway, what do you mean by 'do economics'?
(because your ambiguity seems to lend yourself to contradiction)

Without a model, how does the economist interpret data?

Sure, there is a difference between economic models and econometric models, but economic models are 'translated' into econometric models.

Earlier, you were stating "You can collect data, establish trends, and make predictions without subscribing to any particular economic model."

How does one even know what trends to make without models--or even without translating an economic model into an econometric model?

How can the economist made predictions without subscribing to any particular economic model?

Math. It's a beautiful thing. You should try it some day.

How does "math" alone lead one to conclude that the data suggests that X1 and X2 influence Y?

How does "math" alone lead one to pick which variables will be used to explain a relationship?

How does "Math" alone allow one to know what trends to make without models--or even without translating an economic model into an econometric model?

How does math determine how the economist can make predictions without subscribing to any particular economic model?

You have it backwards. Economic models are not 'translated' into econometric models; econometric models are used to inform economic models.

Did you know that economics came before econometrics? What do you think econometricians used in order to analyze data? (Economic models, which are translated into econometric models).

Yes, econometricians can inform economists who use economic models, but it isn't one-way.

[thegreekdog]

Tgd, nice post.

I've got a quick couple questions though:
If a rich person is left to invest or spend their money what are the odds that they will spend/invest the money in a way that will most likely support the US economy? Now how about the government? I think knowing the answers to these questions would help from a "common sense" standpoint.

Good questions that I don't know the answer to.

[Metsfanmax]

So, you define economics as devoid of theory, laws, and models?

No. I define economics as being the empirical study of data related to consumption and production as goods and services. Making an economic model is just one of many ways to interpret and understand that data.

It doesn't. They need models in order to construct reality. You can't 'do economics' without having some economic analytical tools to work with. Otherwise, you'll just stare at the word "GDP" and not know what it resembles nor how it relates to anything.

Economic analytical tools are not dependent on having models of reality. If you think that, you have never heard of statistics.

Anyway, what do you mean by 'do economics'?
(because your ambiguity seems to lend yourself to contradiction)

I meant operationally whatever it is that economists actually do. Not being an economist myself, I don't know all the steps involved in doing economic analysis, so I'm just being quite general and saying that economists can make progress on understanding the nature of the economy without coming up with a model to explain how X, Y and Z factors are "driving" that economy.

How does "math" alone lead one to conclude that the data suggests that X1 and X2 influence Y?

How does "math" alone lead one to pick which variables will be used to explain a relationship?

How does "Math" alone allow one to know what trends to make without models--or even without translating an economic model into an econometric model?

How does math determine how the economist can make predictions without subscribing to any particular economic model?

I'm not your math professor. If you don't understand how to use math and statistics to interpret economic data, go take a class, don't ask me.

Did you know that economics came before econometrics? What do you think econometricians used in order to analyze data? (Economic models, which are translated into econometric models).

Yes, econometricians can inform economists who use economic models, but it isn't one-way.

Econometrics: I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[Funkyterrance]

Tgd, nice post.

I've got a quick couple questions though:
If a rich person is left to invest or spend their money what are the odds that they will spend/invest the money in a way that will most likely support the US economy? Now how about the government? I think knowing the answers to these questions would help from a "common sense" standpoint.

Good questions that I don't know the answer to.

In a way, it was a trick question...
A private investor does not always choose what's in the best interest for the US, the government usually does or at least intends to.

[thegreekdog]

Tgd, nice post.

I've got a quick couple questions though:
If a rich person is left to invest or spend their money what are the odds that they will spend/invest the money in a way that will most likely support the US economy? Now how about the government? I think knowing the answers to these questions would help from a "common sense" standpoint.

Good questions that I don't know the answer to.

In a way, it was a trick question...
A private investor does not always choose what's in the best interest for the US, the government usually does or at least intends to.

I'm assuming you're referring to foreign investment. My understanding is that foreign investment helps the US economy, which presumably is in the best interest of the US. Also, I believe the US government is a big investor in foreign countries.

Finally, I present - http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21118.pdf

[Symmetry]

Tgd, nice post.

I've got a quick couple questions though:
If a rich person is left to invest or spend their money what are the odds that they will spend/invest the money in a way that will most likely support the US economy? Now how about the government? I think knowing the answers to these questions would help from a "common sense" standpoint.

Good questions that I don't know the answer to.

In a way, it was a trick question...
A private investor does not always choose what's in the best interest for the US, the government usually does or at least intends to.

I'm assuming you're referring to foreign investment. My understanding is that foreign investment helps the US economy, which presumably is in the best interest of the US.

Not if the foreign investment is investment in foreign economies, right? Romney style with the tax havens and such.

[Funkyterrance]

Yes I was referring to those forms of investing that don't help the US economy one bit. They do exist. The government does partake in foreign investment but for the ultimate goal of improving our economy.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, you define economics as devoid of theory, laws, and models?

No.I define economics as being the empirical study of data related to consumption and production as goods and services. Making an economic model is just one of many ways to interpret and understand that data.

But earlier you said, "I meant that there are economic facts (e.g. GDP, employment rate, taxation level, etc.) that simply exist. That is what economics is about." But now you reject that economics is devoid of theory, laws, and models, so economics is about more than just economic facts and that 'they simply exist'; otherwise, you're contradicting yourself. And earlier you said, "in economics there is only reality." But clearly, this is not true. The way the economist views reality is through a certain lens which is shaped by the theory, laws, and models which he brings to the workshop. Without them, he's just staring at data and not understanding how it relates to anything--or at the very least, he would have a layman's understanding of it. At that point, he's not an economist--but he could be an accountant, a (non-econometric) statistician, a mathematician, a math student, or whatever.


Making an economic model is just one of many ways to interpret and understand that data.

If you use statistics to study economic data, then you hopefully use economic models (if you do, you probably aren't aware of it). You should read the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_model
Because I can't help you here.

It doesn't. They need models in order to construct reality. You can't 'do economics' without having some economic analytical tools to work with. Otherwise, you'll just stare at the word "GDP" and not know what it resembles nor how it relates to anything.

Economic analytical tools are not dependent on having models of reality. If you think that, you have never heard of statistics.

Again, you miss the point because you forget what you previously said:

"your quote implies that economists cannot get work done if they are not contributing to one of those constructions."
"You directly said that economics is entirely composed of constructions to understand reality. That precludes any of the work that real economists actually do simply to even understand what's going on"

Nor were you answering the previous questions, so I give up with you on this one. You keep forgetting what the topic is (as has been shown previously), so I may as well talk to wall about this one.



There is a difference between statistics and econometrics, but you seem to blend the two. That's okay, but we can't advance this conversation if you don't understand this distinction.

How did you say it? 'I'm not your professor, etc.'?

Here's a reading list:

Peter Kennedy. A Guide to Econometrics, 6th ed.
Stephen Schmidt. Econometrics. 2005

This one is awesome:

David Hendry. Econometrics: Alchemy or Science? - Essays in Econometric Methodology

Anyway, what do you mean by 'do economics'?
(because your ambiguity seems to lend yourself to contradiction)

I meant operationally whatever it is that economists actually do. Not being an economist myself, I don't know all the steps involved in doing economic analysis, so I'm just being quite general and saying that economists can make progress on understanding the nature of the economy without coming up with a model to explain how X, Y and Z factors are "driving" that economy.

Thanks. Now this all makes sense.

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

-Murray N. Rothbard

How does "math" alone lead one to conclude that the data suggests that X1 and X2 influence Y?

How does "math" alone lead one to pick which variables will be used to explain a relationship?

How does "Math" alone allow one to know what trends to make without models--or even without translating an economic model into an econometric model?

How does math determine how the economist can make predictions without subscribing to any particular economic model?

I'm not your math professor. If you don't understand how to use math and statistics to interpret economic data, go take a class, don't ask me.

It's okay to admit that you can't answer these questions. The truth is that math cannot itself address these questions, so you're wrong on this too. One needs economic theory, laws, and models to fit alongside the observations. Otherwise, you would not know which predictions to make, you wouldn't be able to start with a model that frames the question about the relationship among variables, etc.

It is obvious that math alone cannot answer these questions. I'm beginning to think that if you actually do statistics related to economics, then you're simply unaware of the models, laws, and theories of economics as you work.

Did you know that economics came before econometrics? What do you think econometricians used in order to analyze data? (Economic models, which are translated into econometric models).

Yes, econometricians can inform economists who use economic models, but it isn't one-way.

Econometrics: I don't think that word means what you think it means.

It is okay to admit that what you said, "You have it backwards. Economic models are not 'translated' into econometric models; econometric models are used to inform economic models," was wrong. It can't be one-way since economics precedes econometrics. How do you think econometrics started? With only math? If so, then it's only statistics. In fact, this economic model and econometric model process is endogenous, but if you admit that it is, then you'll be contradicting yourself.

Anyway, instead of carrying on about the other issues, I can't reason with you if you presume to know that which you do not. Other people don't do this because they're open to acknowledging the boundaries of their knowledge. Instead they ask questions and seek to understand. With you, this is not the case.

Good luck out there.

[BigBallinStalin]

Tgd, nice post.

I've got a quick couple questions though:
If a rich person is left to invest or spend their money what are the odds that they will spend/invest the money in a way that will most likely support the US economy? Now how about the government? I think knowing the answers to these questions would help from a "common sense" standpoint.

Good questions that I don't know the answer to.

In a way, it was a trick question...
A private investor does not always choose what's in the best interest for the US, the government usually does or at least intends to.

I'm assuming you're referring to foreign investment. My understanding is that foreign investment helps the US economy, which presumably is in the best interest of the US. Also, I believe the US government is a big investor in foreign countries.

Finally, I present - http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21118.pdf

Did they summary tickle your fancy? It tickled my fancy--more so than a saxi-tickle attack.

[Funkyterrance]

Tgd, nice post.

I've got a quick couple questions though:
If a rich person is left to invest or spend their money what are the odds that they will spend/invest the money in a way that will most likely support the US economy? Now how about the government? I think knowing the answers to these questions would help from a "common sense" standpoint.

Good questions that I don't know the answer to.

In a way, it was a trick question...
A private investor does not always choose what's in the best interest for the US, the government usually does or at least intends to.

I'm assuming you're referring to foreign investment. My understanding is that foreign investment helps the US economy, which presumably is in the best interest of the US. Also, I believe the US government is a big investor in foreign countries.

Finally, I present - http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21118.pdf

Did they summary tickle your fancy? It tickled my fancy--more so than a saxi-tickle attack.

The article is convincing and I have a more complete picture now, thanks to TGD.
I just have more faith in the government being the one handling the investing since the government can't evade itself.

[Metsfanmax]

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

-Murray N. Rothbard

I don't have an opinion on economic subjects (as I made quite clear in my posts), precisely for the reason that I do not study it rigorously. Note how I didn't express a preference for one economic model or another, because I do not consider myself learned enough in the subject to have a preference (of course, the quote here is true of any discipline; it is hardly unique to economics that people should shut their mouths if they do not know what they are talking about).

What I do have, though, is an opinion on what constitutes good science and good research (and enough experience in both for my opinion to be qualified). On the other hand, you seem to have a superficial knowledge of what economists do on a day to day basis, without really understanding how the research process works, or how to analyze data free from the bias of one model or another. I do not blame you for this, because it takes actual practice. But you should be aware of that bias when you discuss economic subjects.

In other words, you shouldn't need to be an economist to read an economic paper and understand whether the research and methods were done properly or not. What economists are useful for is in using that data to create a narrative that ties together certain economic principles; nevertheless, the data always wins because economics is, at heart, an empirical science. I don't need to be an economist to know that.

[Funkyterrance]

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

-Murray N. Rothbard

I don't have an opinion on economic subjects (as I made quite clear in my posts), precisely for the reason that I do not study it rigorously. Note how I didn't express a preference for one economic model or another, because I do not consider myself learned enough in the subject to have a preference (of course, the quote here is true of any discipline; it is hardly unique to economics that people should shut their mouths if they do not know what they are talking about).

What I do have, though, is an opinion on what constitutes good science and good research (and enough experience in both for my opinion to be qualified). On the other hand, you seem to have a superficial knowledge of what economists do on a day to day basis, without really understanding how the research process works, or how to analyze data free from the bias of one model or another. I do not blame you for this, because it takes actual practice. But you should be aware of that bias when you discuss economic subjects.

In other words, you shouldn't need to be an economist to read an economic paper and understand whether the research and methods were done properly or not. What economists are useful for is in using that data to create a narrative that ties together certain economic principles; nevertheless, the data always wins because economics is, at heart, an empirical science. I don't need to be an economist to know that.

I think people can participate in a conversation lacking in-depth knowledge without being "loud and vociferous" so I am unsure about the whole "shutting your mouth" part. Otherwise, your post rings of the truth.

[BigBallinStalin]

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

-Murray N. Rothbard

I don't have an opinion on economic subjects (as I made quite clear in my posts), precisely for the reason that I do not study it rigorously. Note how I didn't express a preference for one economic model or another, because I do not consider myself learned enough in the subject to have a preference (of course, the quote here is true of any discipline; it is hardly unique to economics that people should shut their mouths if they do not know what they are talking about).

That makes no sense because clearly you've been inserting your opinions about economics and economic subjects throughout this discussion. You're contradicting yourself.

What I do have, though, is an opinion on what constitutes good science and good research (and enough experience in both for my opinion to be qualified). On the other hand, you seem to have a superficial knowledge of what economists do on a day to day basis, without really understanding how the research process works, or how to analyze data free from the bias of one model or another. I do not blame you for this, because it takes actual practice. But you should be aware of that bias when you discuss economic subjects.

In other words, you shouldn't need to be an economist to read an economic paper and understand whether the research and methods were done properly or not. What economists are useful for is in using that data to create a narrative that ties together certain economic principles; nevertheless, the data always wins because economics is, at heart, an empirical science. I don't need to be an economist to know that.

That's not what I'm contending, and I've already repeated myself about interpreting data, but you're not really going to address the holes in your arguments, so whatever, Mets. Thanks for trying.

[BigBallinStalin]

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

-Murray N. Rothbard

I don't have an opinion on economic subjects (as I made quite clear in my posts), precisely for the reason that I do not study it rigorously. Note how I didn't express a preference for one economic model or another, because I do not consider myself learned enough in the subject to have a preference (of course, the quote here is true of any discipline; it is hardly unique to economics that people should shut their mouths if they do not know what they are talking about).

What I do have, though, is an opinion on what constitutes good science and good research (and enough experience in both for my opinion to be qualified). On the other hand, you seem to have a superficial knowledge of what economists do on a day to day basis, without really understanding how the research process works, or how to analyze data free from the bias of one model or another. I do not blame you for this, because it takes actual practice. But you should be aware of that bias when you discuss economic subjects.

In other words, you shouldn't need to be an economist to read an economic paper and understand whether the research and methods were done properly or not. What economists are useful for is in using that data to create a narrative that ties together certain economic principles; nevertheless, the data always wins because economics is, at heart, an empirical science. I don't need to be an economist to know that.

I think people can participate in a conversation lacking in-depth knowledge without being "loud and vociferous" so I am unsure about the whole "shutting your mouth" part. Otherwise, your post rings of the truth.

I agree, but that's not what the quote says. "It is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." He's not saying you can't participate; it's simply irresponsible "to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." That does not mean 'you can't participate if you lack the requisite knowledge.' It fits Mets aptly because he keeps going off about economics, and throughout the discussion it becomes clearer that he doesn't know what economics is. He may know what statistics and astrophysics is, and that's nice, but he can't substitute that knowledge for knowledge of economics--no matter how 'loud and vociferious' he is in his attempts to do so. It's hilarious. "I don't have an opinion on economic subjects" but "economics is about x and not y," and [insert more opinions about economic subjects].


Hopefully, people can participate in a conversation without asserting their opinions in a state of ignorance. But if they keep presuming they have the answers without providing them or simply by repeating what they previously said or by ignoring the parts which they can't answer (e.g. Mets "math" answer), then there's unfortunately no point in talking to them.

[Symmetry]

“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”

-Murray N. Rothbard

I don't have an opinion on economic subjects (as I made quite clear in my posts), precisely for the reason that I do not study it rigorously. Note how I didn't express a preference for one economic model or another, because I do not consider myself learned enough in the subject to have a preference (of course, the quote here is true of any discipline; it is hardly unique to economics that people should shut their mouths if they do not know what they are talking about).

What I do have, though, is an opinion on what constitutes good science and good research (and enough experience in both for my opinion to be qualified). On the other hand, you seem to have a superficial knowledge of what economists do on a day to day basis, without really understanding how the research process works, or how to analyze data free from the bias of one model or another. I do not blame you for this, because it takes actual practice. But you should be aware of that bias when you discuss economic subjects.

In other words, you shouldn't need to be an economist to read an economic paper and understand whether the research and methods were done properly or not. What economists are useful for is in using that data to create a narrative that ties together certain economic principles; nevertheless, the data always wins because economics is, at heart, an empirical science. I don't need to be an economist to know that.

I think people can participate in a conversation lacking in-depth knowledge without being "loud and vociferous" so I am unsure about the whole "shutting your mouth" part. Otherwise, your post rings of the truth.

I agree, but that's not what the quote says. "It is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." He's not saying you can't participate; it's simply irresponsible "to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." That does not mean 'you can't participate if you lack the requisite knowledge.' It fits Mets aptly because he keeps going off about economics, and throughout the discussion it becomes clearer that he doesn't know what economics is. He may know what statistics and astrophysics is, and that's nice, but he can't substitute that knowledge for knowledge of economics--no matter how 'loud and vociferious' he is in his attempts to do so. It's hilarious. "I don't have an opinion on economic subjects" but "economics is about x and not y," and [insert more opinions about economic subjects].


Hopefully, people can participate in a conversation without asserting their opinions in a state of ignorance. But if they keep presuming they have the answers without providing them or simply by repeating what they previously said or by ignoring the parts which they can't answer (e.g. Mets "math" answer), then there's unfortunately no point in talking to them.

You do at least appreciate that this stuff should not be suppressed then?

[Metsfanmax]

I agree, but that's not what the quote says. "It is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." He's not saying you can't participate; it's simply irresponsible "to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." That does not mean 'you can't participate if you lack the requisite knowledge.' It fits Mets aptly because he keeps going off about economics, and throughout the discussion it becomes clearer that he doesn't know what economics is. He may know what statistics and astrophysics is, and that's nice, but he can't substitute that knowledge for knowledge of economics--no matter how 'loud and vociferious' he is in his attempts to do so. It's hilarious. "I don't have an opinion on economic subjects" but "economics is about x and not y," and [insert more opinions about economic subjects].

I don't need to have an opinion on particular economic models or other things that economists study to know what economics is about, and indeed that's the only assertion about economics I have made. And I have not done it "loudly" or "vociferously," I have simply explained that economics is an empirical science and therefore the principal point of economics is to understand empirical data. Again, one does not need to be an economist to know this. It is not contradictory to say that I have no opinion on economic subjects but that I do have an opinion on what economics is, and I am confident in this description because it is really common sense.

The assertions about how you can use statistics to analyze data have absolutely nothing to do with economics in particular, and so while I am not willing to comment on particular economic models, I feel more qualified to comment on those methods due to my mathematical training. Sure, utilizing economics to place the results of that analysis in a larger economic narrative requires skills that I do not have, but that doesn't make me unqualified to comment on the analysis part.

[Metsfanmax]

I think people can participate in a conversation lacking in-depth knowledge without being "loud and vociferous" so I am unsure about the whole "shutting your mouth" part. Otherwise, your post rings of the truth.

This is quite true, but the method of "participation" has to be limited to, for example, what I am advocating, which is analysis of the methods the scientists use to generate their conclusions. For example, I don't have to be an economist to call out someone who claims that you can only understand economic data by constructing a model to explain reality. That's scientific common sense, and has nothing to do with economics in particular.

But even this can be a problem, because you have to have the proper training to even be able to analyze their methods. This is a serious problem with the global warming debate; people who are unqualified to even understand the methods used to analyze data think they have an opinion on the matter. That is a circumstance in which people really are just better off shutting up and letting the professionals do their job.

Contribute only if your analytical preparation allows you to meaningful interpret at least some part of the process, and stick to only that part.

[thegreekdog]

Tgd, nice post.

I've got a quick couple questions though:
If a rich person is left to invest or spend their money what are the odds that they will spend/invest the money in a way that will most likely support the US economy? Now how about the government? I think knowing the answers to these questions would help from a "common sense" standpoint.

Good questions that I don't know the answer to.

In a way, it was a trick question...
A private investor does not always choose what's in the best interest for the US, the government usually does or at least intends to.

I'm assuming you're referring to foreign investment. My understanding is that foreign investment helps the US economy, which presumably is in the best interest of the US. Also, I believe the US government is a big investor in foreign countries.

Finally, I present - http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21118.pdf

Did they summary tickle your fancy? It tickled my fancy--more so than a saxi-tickle attack.

The article is convincing and I have a more complete picture now, thanks to TGD.
I just have more faith in the government being the one handling the investing since the government can't evade itself.

The article tends to show that the hoopla regarding foreign investment and tax havens is... well... hoopla.

[HapSmo19]

I just have more faith in the government being the one handling the investing since the government can't evade itself.

Hmmm...3-1/2 years since a federal budget was passed, 11 trillion in spending and 4.5 trillion in new debt($13,000) for every US citizen.
Where do I sign up for this amazing investment opportunity?!!!

[patches70]

I just have more faith in the government being the one handling the investing since the government can't evade itself.

Hmmm...3-1/2 years since a federal budget was passed, 11 trillion in spending and 4.5 trillion in new debt($13,000) for every US citizen.
Where do I sign up for this amazing investment opportunity?!!!

You are already signed up, you don't have a choice. You provide the capital required for the investment, get none of the profits and will be called on to deliver more capital if the investments have a negative return (AKA Bailout).

Welcome to the Shaft Club! The Shaft Club, where you get shafted by the Central Planners and are told it's for the good of the many. You aren't one of the many, but that's OK, you're doing your part for The State.

[Funkyterrance]

The article tends to show that the hoopla regarding foreign investment and tax havens is... well... hoopla.

I didn't get that from the article. I got that foreign investment does not necessarily mean an overall loss for the nation. I don't think it showed that any foreign investment equals a gain for the nation. It seems to be disproving a common misconception, not much else. Do I need to re-read it?

[Funkyterrance]

I just have more faith in the government being the one handling the investing since the government can't evade itself.

Hmmm...3-1/2 years since a federal budget was passed, 11 trillion in spending and 4.5 trillion in new debt($13,000) for every US citizen.
Where do I sign up for this amazing investment opportunity?!!!

I've got to ask, do you consider yourself some floating, hovering island over the US or can you accept the fact that you are a citizen? You speak of the government as if you take no part in it. Whose fault is it that we are in the shape we are in?

[thegreekdog]

The article tends to show that the hoopla regarding foreign investment and tax havens is... well... hoopla.

I didn't get that from the article. I got that foreign investment does not necessarily mean an overall loss for the nation. I don't think it showed that any foreign investment equals a gain for the nation. It seems to be disproving a common misconception, not much else. Do I need to re-read it?

How is what you typed different than what I typed?