[Lemmy]

weaselways wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

You don't know what you're talking about.

Please explain, why you think I'm talking through my hat.

I already did, you just weren't listening.

[fifeboy]

Curtman wrote:

I found this article to be a good read while we're on the subject of Bob.

U.S. contrasted 'forceful' Rae, 'meek' Ignatieff: WikiLeaks

Quote:

Their relations "remain clearly tense, with Rae arriving late and then immediately dominating the conversation, while Ignatieff sat back almost meekly," says a cable marked "confidential."

"Rae was by far the more forceful and eloquent of the two and showed little deference to his party chief, without at any time displaying any rudeness or personal animosity.

"He came across as better read and more substantive than Ignatieff, who stuck mostly to pleasantries and generalities."

...

Behind closed doors, Rae commented that the Liberal caucus felt "considerable reluctance to face the voters of the summer, but had been disinclined to try to overrule the relatively new leader," according to a June 16, 2009, cable. That summer, Ignatieff was threatening to force an election over employment insurance benefits.

Ignatieff, Rae is quoted as saying, had made up his own mind on his brinkmanship approach without much, if any, consultation.

"Michael is an intellectual who is also a politician," the cable quotes Rae as saying. "He does his own reading, makes his own analysis, and then comes to his own decision."

...

Among the facts under consideration, a Dec. 8, 2008 cable says, was that "Ignatieff's selection would likely be the death knell of the Liberal/NDP coalition, whereas Rae's selection would keep this option alive."

Thanks for that Curt.

[fifeboy]

Lemmy wrote:

weaselways wrote:

Lemmy wrote:

You don't know what you're talking about.

Please explain, why you think I'm talking through my hat.

I already did, you just weren't listening.

Goodness Lemmy, you are beginning to sound like my grade 6 teacher.

[Lemmy]

I feel like a middleschool teacher some days, bro.

[Zipperfish]

Lemmy wrote:

The short answer, Zip, is that uncertainty about future prices forces all economic agents to hedge against that. If unions anticipate increased prices, they demand increased wages and a vicious cycle of expectation-driven inflation augments all other upward pressure on prices. So, if the government can remove that one particular uncertainty from the system, what was previously assumed to be the "best case" scenario on inflation rates could be beaten. This is done by tight monetary policy. Driving up interest rates and restricting the money supply discourages consumer spending and business investment. Prices are held in check as a consequence. Crow's experiment was a resounding success and is, absolutely, Canada's great contribution to the world of economics. It is now the standard policy that underlies all Western central banks' monetary policy.

Ah, I think I understand. Thanks for the explanation. Not so much "removing uncertainty" from the system but removing uncertainty from a particular variable to evaluate the consequence. In this case, holding inflation steady had unexpected results with respect to unemployment.

Well, with but a vague notion of economic policy myself, it will be interesting to see if there is an analog with natural systems, in which case you'd expect good and predictable short-term results, insterspresed with less frequent but more severe perturbation.