For those with economic knowledge

[Alcon]

This woman ran as an independent for U.S. Senate.  Her writing style is...esoteric to say the least, and my economic knowledge is non-existent, so could someone answer a few questions for me?

Robin Adair for Senate

1. What exactly is her economic philosophy, in layman's terms?
2. Does her writing make any sense?
3. Is her writing as...odd as it seems without economic knowledge?

I would appreciate it.  All Greek to me...

[John Dibble]

I don't know, but that 'How an economy dies" chart was hilarious.

But what I got from it is that investment is a good thing and we shouldn't siphon from it, or something, I dunno - it was a bunch of gibberish to me too. I think she just sucks at explaining. I think she might be some sort of retarded libertarian-leaner.

[TeePee4Prez]

In some very odd way she's kind of a Keynesian, but there were other things that were nonsensical to me despite the fact I majored in Accounting.

[Gustaf]

Well, she's obviously crazy. Her idea seems to be that regulations and laws harm the economy because it prevents people from spending their money the way they want to, and that this creates ever-growing imbalances in the economy. That in itself isn't too off the mark...the things is she probably draws conclusions that are way too far-reaching. She also seems to think that state spending decreases consumption and increases investments, which I don't think is necessarily true.

But I honestly thinks she knows less about economics than I do, which isn't much to begin with...

[Gabu]

After recovering from the shock of seeing her creepily scary mug suddenly appear on the screen...

As far as I can tell, she has invented the concept of this magical government-created "sub-economy" which she claims is where the government takes money out of circulation somehow and keeps doing this more and more for no reason other than that they're stupid, and then when there isn't enough money in circulation to go around, the economy collapses.

So I believe that her position is that the government should just pour more and more and more money into the economy because if there is a lot of money in existence everyone will have money and be happy.

I haven't taken much economics, but I can say that she obviously knows laughably little for how much she's writing.  One of the things that you have to know about money is that what matters is not the absolute amount of money that you have; it's the ratio of the amount of money you have to the total amount of money in circulation.  If there's less money in circulation, the value of money still in circulation goes up.  Similarly, if there's more money in circulation, the value of money in circulation goes down.

The fatal flaw in her argument seems to be assuming that money has a fixed value, which then leads her to the obvious (false) conclusion that more money in circulation means more wealth and a better economy.

[TeePee4Prez]

After recovering from the shock of seeing her creepily scary mug suddenly appear on the screen...

As far as I can tell, she has invented the concept of this magical government-created "sub-economy" which she claims is where the government takes money out of circulation somehow and keeps doing this more and more for no reason other than that they're stupid, and then when there isn't enough money in circulation to go around, the economy collapses.

So I believe that her position is that the government should just pour more and more and more money into the economy because if there is a lot of money in existence everyone will have money and be happy.

I haven't taken much economics, but I can say that she obviously knows laughably little for how much she's writing.  One of the things that you have to know about money is that what matters is not the absolute amount of money that you have; it's the ratio of the amount of money you have to the total amount of money in circulation.  If there's less money in circulation, the value of money still in circulation goes up.  Similarly, if there's more money in circulation, the value of money in circulation goes down.

The fatal flaw in her argument seems to be assuming that money has a fixed value, which then leads her to the obvious (false) conclusion that more money in circulation means more wealth and a better economy.

Her argument would also create inflation due to an increase in money supply.  Again, I'm no economic expert either, but she needs to make more sense.

[Alcon]

All right.  She is a fringe candidate according to most sources, but based on her education (which isn't a degree mill or anything), I was expecting...more.  Oh well.

[Bacon King]

I'm betting that her plan was to use as much economic 'technobabble' as she could, thus sounding smart and getting a few ignorants to vote for her. Apparently, it worked for 10 thousand people.

[Gabu]

Her argument would also create inflation due to an increase in money supply.  Again, I'm no economic expert either, but she needs to make more sense.

Yes, as I said in the sentence that goes "Similarly, if there's more money in circulation, the value of money in circulation goes down."

She clearly has no clue what the heck she's talking about, and attempts to cover for this by using big words and drawing ridiculously confusing diagrams that make no sense.

[Citizen James]

I'm betting that her plan was to use as much economic 'technobabble' as she could, thus sounding smart and getting a few ignorants to vote for her. Apparently, it worked for 10 thousand people.

Well, she keeps refering to Feynman diagrams, and Feynman diagrams (named for the famed, and somewhat esotericly humorous physisist Richard Feynman) are used to describe the interaction of subatomic particles. (paging Muon2...).

One type of subatomic particle is a quark.  Quark is the name of a ferengi who supposedly traveled to Earth in the mid 20th century.  Clearly she is aware that our economy is now being run by extraterestrials seeking gold pressed latinum and is simply having difficulty explaining herself.

That or she's a nut with an impressive sounding vocabulary.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm betting that her plan was to use as much economic 'technobabble' as she could, thus sounding smart and getting a few ignorants to vote for her. Apparently, it worked for 10 thousand people.

Well, she keeps refering to Feynman diagrams, and Feynman diagrams (named for the famed, and somewhat esotericly humorous physisist Richard Feynman) are used to describe the interaction of subatomic particles. (paging Muon2...).

One type of subatomic particle is a quark.  Quark is the name of a ferengi who supposedly traveled to Earth in the mid 20th century.  Clearly she is aware that our economy is now being run by extraterestrials seeking gold pressed latinum and is simply having difficulty explaining herself.

That or she's a nut with an impressive sounding vocabulary.

Oh, there are lots of these crackpots. She could have done a better job. She could say that the "The status of the earth's economy depends on how it is measured, since it is a cat state. Markets are periodic, but we if we locate the graviton, they can have a non-wave nature as well. The top quark controls the market. The strength a market comes from how large the singularity is, unless it's a black hole. Uninformed investors are called bosons. The market's success is best measured with a gauge theory, such as Quantum Field Theory. The Feynman re-normalizations will give the correct Bose-Einestein condensation of the rate of return. "

Of course you have to spread these out, too much in one place and it'll be too obvious that you're a crackpot.

[J. J.]

I have a minorin econ, and was most interested in micro-economics.

I'd say a very distored view of monetarism.  She's basically looking at the "crowding out" of private activity in favor of government and some institutional acctivity.  It is an exceptionally libertarian (small "L") view.

It actually had me laughing.

[minionofmidas]

So I believe that her position is that the government should just pour more and more and more money into the economy because if there is a lot of money in existence everyone will have money and be happy.

Actually... that's pretty much exactly how the monster economic boom of the 50s and 60s was created. Not that this fitted anybody's theories. And of course, latter decades have, to a certain extent, had to foot the bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One of the things that you have to know about money is that noone really knows how to fairly measure the amount of money in circulation, or agree on what to include and what not to include.

Haven't read the link yet.