The Feisty New Greek Finance Minister Used to be a Video Game Economist


via Twitter

Over at The Week my friend Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry has a nice, short write-up of the new Greek finance minister, Yanis Varoufakis, who has recently been making waves for his pugnacious, distinctly non-political style.

Reuters recently labeled him an "unlikely heartthrob" and a television news anchor in Germany (Varoufakis' chief political and economic antagonist) described him as "a man full of charisma…someone you could imagine starring in a film like Die Hard 6."

Gobry argues that he's so fascinating in large part because he's not a traditional bureaucrat. 

Varoufakis is also interesting because he's not a politician. He's not even an activist. He's just an economics professor. Worse: He's a blogger.

Varoufakis was an economics professor at the University of Athens, until his acid and intelligent commentary on the Greek crisis gave him global notoriety (at least among people who follow economic writing). As his Twitter bio (still unchanged since being named minister) puts it, he was "quietly writing obscure academic texts for years, until thrust onto the public scene by Europe's inane handling of an inevitable crisis." (And, let's face it, writing brilliant posts until one is plucked into a key decision-making job is every blogger's dream. Cough.)

Even after being named finance minister, Varoufakis still doesn't mind picking fights on the internet and lambasting journalists as idiots — not typical finance minister behavior (at least in public).

Varoufakis is a Marxist game theory specialist with economics Ph.D, which also makes him somewhat unusual in the political realm. Gobry argues that his preferred solution to the Greek debt crisis—a major renegotiation of the nation's debt with Germany—is one that Milton Friedman would have agreed with.

Sadly, Friedman isn't around to weigh in on the particulars of this economic debate, but I can vouch for the fact that Varoufakis is extremely clever and interesting. I spoke with him last year about his stint working as the in-house economist for the video game company Valve (maker of the Portal and Half Life games, as well as the Steam online game platform), and he turned out to be a fascinating interview subject

One bit that sticks out to me came in a segment discussing his longstanding bias against economic models:

Varoufakis: …Let me put it very brutally and very bluntly: Our best economic models-from the Federal Reserve or the U.S. Treasury or the International Monetary Fund or the Organization for Economic Development-are really not worth the trouble of putting together. Because they are presuming a kind of equilibrium stability and convergence toward equilibrium, because it makes our models look better. It is not something that is replicated in the real world.

reason: You once wrote that because of its heavy reliance on statistics and on this sort of simple modeling, economics can resemble "computerized astrology." That's pretty harsh. Could you talk a little bit more about that judgment and whether you think that studying economics in a virtual world-where you're not just looking at a model, you're looking at real behaviors and real interactions amongst thousands or millions of people-offers a way out of an economics stuck in a model-bound world?

Varoufakis: If we think of ourselves as empiricists who judge the value of the theory on the basis of how well it predicts, then we should have ditched economic models years ago. Never have our models managed with data to predict the major turning points, ever, in the history of capitalism. So if we were honest, we should simply accept that and rethink our approach.

But actually, I think they're even worse. We can't even predict the past very well using our models. Economic models are failing to model the past in a way that can explain the past. So what we end up doing with our economic models is retrofitting the data and our own prejudices about how the economy works.

This is why I'm saying that this profession of mine is not really anywhere near astronomy. It's much closer to mathematized superstition, organized superstition, which has a priesthood to replicate on the basis of how well we learn the rituals.

Video games, he argued in the interview, offer a potential solution to this problem by allowing economists to conduct controlled experiments on macroeconomies, and obtain perfect real-time data in the process. That's obviously a ways off, however. And in the meantime, he'll have to work on solving Greece's debt woes without the benefit of video game simulations. 

NEXT: Justice Ginsburg 'Wasn't 100 Percent Sober' at Obama's State of the Union Address

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Must be Friday. Posts about how the Greek dude is going to be in Tiger Beat next week. How special!

    /Teen Hearthrob

    1. “Oooh, he can occupy my commanding heights!”

      /Prog fan grrrrl

  2. Being a “Marxist Economist” is exactly the same thing as being a “Faith Based Doctor”. You have the title and you probably say some of the words but you are not in any sense what you claim to be.

    1. I disagree. It’s more like being a pathologist. That is, your interest in the subject is how to kill it.

      1. Yeah. Its like getting a medical degree going to work in a bioweapns lab.

      2. Er…”how it was killed”, yes?

    2. Is he a ‘Marxist Economist’? I took ‘Marxist Game Theorist’ to be something fundamentally different.

      1. Game theory is a branch of economics. Game theorists are economists.

        1. No. Game theory is a branch of mathematics with applications to economics. Some practitioners are economists, some are mathematicians.

    3. A self-described ‘libertarian Marxist’- “In truth, Karl Marx was responsible for framing my perspective of the world we live in, from my childhood to this day. It is not something that I volunteer to talk about in ‘polite society’ much these days because the very mention of the M-word switches audiences off.”

      I would like to know how that’s not a contradiction.

      His perspective on models confirms my personal bias so I’m not writing him off yet.

      1. Someone could believe that Marx had useful insights about how the present system works, but that his conclusions about what should be done in response to those insights was wrong.

        1. useful insight: “This job sucks, and my boss is an asshole.”

          wrong conclusion: “I know! Let’s all work for the state and allow the state to have power of life and death over us!”

        2. See Noam Chomsky.

          He analyzes the situation correctly more often than incorrectly.

          But his solution is almost always more concentration of power into better Top Men, so they can stop the old Top Men from being poopyheads.

  3. Video games, he argued in the interview, offer a potential solution to this problem by allowing economists to conduct controlled experiments on macroeconomies, and obtain perfect real-time data in the process.

    Because 130 years of real life experimentation and utter failure of planned economies apparently isn’t enough data. Video games will finally show us how to put the right people in charge!!

    1. Video games taught me that I can always just hit the reset button.

      1. I think Civilization is the greatest civic education tools of the last forty years. That game teaches you the reality of life. If you don’t build an economy, you don’t have the money to do anything else. If you don’t give people freedom and some say in how things are run, they won’t work very hard and the place will fall apart. And none of the other civilizations give a shit about how nice of a guy you are or how reasonable you are or how you want to live in peace. If they see you as weak, they will come and take over your country.

        The game teaches everything the schools don’t.

        1. Which version is your favorite?

          I still play the original on occasion. Never got into Civ II, and didn’t get a chance to try any of the subsequent versions.

          1. I stopped at about Civ III. I liked it a lot. My problem was I got married and lost my ability to spend entire weekends in front of my computer playing it. My father is a widower and retired and still plays it a lot. He says the current version is really good, though very difficult.

            For me, I always liked the first one the best. It was simpler and easier to play and thus more relaxing.

            1. It was always annoying when a phalanx would occasionally take our your battleship, though. I like that the later ones gave your units health bars rather than just a probability of victory.

              1. Yeah, that always drove me nuts too. You are sending out tanks and some primitive with a spear man behind a wall takes out your tank.

                Such are the artificiality of game play I guess.

                1. I’d always save before attacking the spearman, so I could reload and undo that little quirk in the game.

                  You want to take out my battleship with a trireme? Sure, maybe you caught us napping and sunk the ship with sabotage. I can buy that. But no way is a spearman swimming 20 miles out to sea and doing the same thing.

                  Even with tanks and planes I can buy that maybe the tank runs out of gas and ammo or accidentally drives off a cliff. Maybe the plane has a mechanical malfunction and crashes. Fine. A primitive land unit killing a warship is the only thing I couldn’t tolerate.

            2. Civ V is excellent.

              1. I have sunk tons of time into Civ V, especially after the Brave New World expansion. Fantastic game. Haven’t played Beyond Earth yet but I heard it’s good.

                1. If you’ve played Civ V, you have played Beyond Earth.

                2. Haven’t played Beyond Earth yet but I heard it’s good.

                  No…no it isn’t! Well, game mechanics-wise it’s the same as CIV 5, which isn’t so bad…but the lore compared to the original Alpha Centauri is just shit. The wonders are non-distinct and their benefits are confusing. Also, it is really difficult to achieve a cultural or conquest victory due to AI choices and overall game design.

                  1. The lore for Alpha Centauri is good partly because large parts of it were shamelessly plagiarized from Frank Herbert and Bill Ransom’s Destination: Void series. I’m somewhat saddened that for all the lauding that game gets that only a handful of people realize this.

              2. Civ V is definitely excellent now with the two expansions and all the bugs worked out.

                1. I really need to get the expansions.

                  Last I checked my steam account I’d put somewhere around 800 hours playing Civ 5 (it was almost 900 hours but some of those were my sons playing on my account) but almost all of it were playing the base game without any of the expansions

              3. Civ V is a departure from what made the other games great. You never feel like you are building a real civilization- just a couple city states. It’s an OK game, and the graphics are great, but I have never had the “Just one more turn” syndrome with it.

                CIV IV imho became the ultimate Civilization once they got done with all of the expansions.

                I disagree that Civ was a great instructor of real life- especially if you lean libertarian. All of the forms of government were useful in different ways even the evil ones. Environmentalism is elevated to a full on political choice for some reason giving it greater status than so many other movements that generally center governments. Civ 2 promulgated global warming. It also promotes the idea of mercantilist style trade where you look at what your “people need” and then using command decisions get them. In the new Civ, “resources” are there just to keep people happy. There is no production other than what you order produced, etc etc.

                Again, I love playing, but there are liberal command-economy assumptions built into the foundation of the game. And that is probably necessary for making the game fun. Who would like a game where you win by letting the NPCs alone so they can work for themselves?

                1. Who would like a game where you win by letting the NPCs alone so they can work for themselves?

                  Was’t that Majesty? You’d entice NPCs to go explore and/or fight things by placing rewards on them, but otherwise they just sort of wandered around.

                2. The “stacks of doom” ruined Civ IV for me. Also, inflation and global warming ruined the endgame. It became impossible to defend yourself eventually. I liked Civ V much better.

                3. Actually I think it would be an awesome game.

                  You set the goals for your people and the laws and policies they live by but they still go off and do their own thing for the most part. Hell you could even build libertarian assumptions into a game like that. You want more control over how resources are allocated in society, ok you can do that but you will pay for it with more corruption and significantly reduced productivity. You want to maximize productivity? Sure thing but you’re going to have a hard time directing and controlling exactly what your country produces and you’ll have a good chunk of your economy going into “consumer goods” that make people happy but don’t give you the game player much benefit beyond that.

                4. I have a half-written design document somewhere around here for something like that…working title was Wasteland Tycoon.

                  But with my business plus the startup I’m involved in, I have literally zero extra time.

                  Too bad, I even downloaded Unity just because of it.

  4. Is it just me or does this guy look like Voldemort?


      1. Voldemort. Voldemort. Voldemort!

        Do I need to be in font of a mirror, or something?

        1. Dude – you’re dead already. You just don’t know it yet…

    2. Reuters recently labeled him an “unlikely heartthrob”

      “Command me!”

      He does have that heroin chic look doesn’t he.

  5. This is why I’m saying that this profession of mine is not really anywhere near astronomy. It’s much closer to mathematized superstition, organized superstition, which has a priesthood to replicate on the basis of how well we learn the rituals.

    Sadly, he thinks he is talking about economics while in fact he is describing the field of econometrics. Sadly, most econometricians are laboring under the delusion that they are economists, particularly because they attended schools were they signed up to major in economics and were instead taught econometrics.

    1. Yes. I have an economics degree and took a full year of econometrics as a senior. It was the real stuff with differential equations and all. Nothing I learned in those classes every translated to the real world. It was just a fun, fantasy math class. My basic and advanced micro and labor economics classes in contrast changed the entire way I looked at the world and influence my thinking to this day.

    2. I think he’s fairly describing macro-economics. And he’s spot-on that macro-economic models are essentially useless in predicting the economy going forward, or in explaining past events. Economists have had a lot more success in making predictions in micro-economics.

    3. Econometricians, they’re ever so pious
      But are they doing real science or confirming their bias?

    4. No, he’s talking about Macroeconomics.

  6. You know who else was an unlikely heartthrob?

    1. A drunk Ruth Bader Ginsberg?

    2. Dakota Johnson?

    3. Susan Boyle?

    4. Charles Manson?

  7. Plus, he looks more like an action hero than an economics professor or a politician.

    Smart, good-looking, unusual, pugnacious, voluble, with an ace up his sleeve, and at the center of one of the most important dramas in the planet right now. Eat your heart out, Dos Equis guy.

    Your friend has a serious case of the tingles. Checking byline… oh, right, it’s Suderman.

    1. Suderman felt a thrill up his leg.

  8. “Unlikely heartthrob”? Why, just because he’s follically challenged? Baldists!

  9. You once wrote that because of its heavy reliance on statistics and on this sort of simple modeling, economics can resemble “computerized astrology.”

    It’s pretty sad when a Marxist correctly calls you out, Keynesians and Monetarists.

    1. Yeah. The entire Marxist philosophy is built on the idea that there is somehow a way to get a free lunch. Yet, even a Marxist is able to understand that Keynesian and Monetarist economics is built on the same idea.

      You would think, however, it would occur to this guy that if the Keynesian equations are fantasy, that it therefore might not be possible to centrally manage an economy.

      1. I get the impression, correct me if I’m wrong, that Marxism assumes that production methods have solved the problem of scarcity, and that the role of government is to make sure everything is distributed fairly.

        “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”

        ? Thomas Sowell

        1. Yes. There will always be scarcity because status will cause people to invent scarcity even where none exists. If we all have watches that cost nothing and keep accurate time, I want mine to be different than yours, even if that means making it inferior to show I have more than you. We all have cars that are cheap and run forever, I want one that is faster or I want an old one no one can find anymore to show I have more. It is human nature and will never end.

          We will never see the end of scarcity.

          1. Hence the reason I drive a less reliable BMW than a oh, a Honda Accord.

            (the BMW is a lot more fun to drive, even though it is measurably slower than a newer V6 Accord). Something, something road feel and handling you get with a balanced RWD platform.

            1. The new Accords are that quick? Wow. I wish the Japanese would do better at styling. They make wonderful cars. I just find them so boring. Toyota Land Cruisers Highlanders and Four Runners are about the only Japanese cars I have ever wanted to own. I know Accords and Camrys are bullet proof, but they completely lack any emotional appeal for me. If I had some ridiculous commute, I might buy one just to see exactly how many miles it would take to kill one of them. As boring as they are, one that I had put 400,000 miles on would be kind of interesting.

              1. I’ve got over 250K on both my Subarus. Don’t think I’ll reach 300 though.

                1. That is a lot of miles sarcasmic. And they might, it depends on what goes wrong with them. Unless the transmission or an internal part of the engine goes, it will probably be worth fixing.

                  My wife’s Civic only made it to 130 before the transmission went and it was $6K to fix a car worth $2K. That surprised me. I expected a well cared for Honda to make it to at least 200K.

                  1. I’ve got a long list of things that need to be fixed. Wife’s car has a head gasket leak, and a pinhole leak in the radiator. I’m just topping off the fluids every weekend. That and a wheel bearing is making an awful racket. My car misfires in the morning after precipitation, so I think it’s an ignition coil or spark plug wires. Easy enough to fix once the weather warms up. That and the power steering is leaking. Can’t afford to fix them; can’t afford to replace them. Sucks.

                    1. If you have a torque wrench, the head gasket is not an expensive part and very easy to fix. You just take off the valve cover and undo the timing belt (which is a good chance to replace it), then undo the bolts on the head. Once that is off, take the old gasket off and make sure both surfaces are clean. Then you put the new gasket on and reattach the head. The only trick is that each bolt has to be torqued to the right specification and the bolts have to be tightened in the right order, information that is easy to find on the internet. Then put the valve covers and the timing belt back on and that is really it. I have never understood why auto shops charge so much to do them.

                      It is very much a job you can do yourself. If you don’t feel confident about resetting the timing, just do everything but that and take it to a shop and have them do it, which will be a lot cheaper than changing the head gasket.

                    2. I appreciate what you’re saying, but I’m really not that much of a mechanic. For me doing brake pads myself is an accomplishment. No way am I tearing apart an engine.

                  2. Shortly after I bough my car, the front diff went. It’s housed in the transmission. Found a used part and got it fixed for fifteen hundred.

          2. Not just that. Until we’re immortal, we’ll always have the scarcity of time.

        2. That’s not far from the truth, and it explains a lot. They say that mass production methods solved the “problem of production”, and what they usually mean by that is that there is enough stuff for everyone.

          Unfortunately, they are wrong. Society did not acheive the ultimate standard of living in 1850.

  10. He is also an Australian who claims to be a libertarian Marxist:

    “In truth, Karl Marx was responsible for framing my perspective of the world we live in, from my childhood to this day. It is not something that I volunteer to talk about in ‘polite society’ much these days because the very mention of the M-word switches audiences off.”

    1. In truth Karl Marx shaped my view of the world to. Never trust Germans with facial hair, or was that someone else?

      1. What if it’s just a little bit of facial hair?

        1. You know who else had “just a little bit” of facial hair….

          (Ima spot you “every Italian mother”)

        2. No, not even Angela Merkel.

  11. Gobry argues that his preferred solution to the Greek debt crisis?a major renegotiation of the nation’s debt with Germany?is one that Milton Friedman would have agreed with.

    I doubt Friedman would have endorsed throwing good money after bad. My guess is that he would have favored a Greek exit from the euro and massive domestic structural reform. But, as a Marxist economist, I doubt Varoufakis is going to have much appetite for that.

    That said, Varoufakis’s take on the weakness of a lot of econometric models isn’t far off.

    1. Well, if you co carryin’ pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.

      You know – it’s gonna be alright…

    2. Yes, macroeconomics isn’t far from astrology, but it’s ironic to hear a Marxist accuse others of being charlatans.

      What does Marxism predict, and how accurate have those been.

      1. “I predict that this new Five Year Plan will lead to success!”

        1. When the revolution comes …. I’ll be dead.

        2. I predict that the strong wind of fish farming will blow across this land!

          No, no, wait, that wasn’t a Marxist economist, that was the head of gender studies at Fill-in-the-Blank State U…

    3. Yes. Monnetarism just says you can reduce the shocks of the business cycle by managing the money supply. It never stood for the idea that you could create prosperity by printing money.

      Part of the problem with both Keynesian and Montetarism is that its followers have distorted the theories into something they were never meant to be. Keynes never said that the way to prosperity was through endless government spending. All he ever said was government spending in a time of recession can the economy from spiraling the way it did in the early 30s. The idea was to spend in bad times and get the hell out of the way and stop spending in good times, just like monetarism now means “print money so no one ever has to take a loss”.

      Whatever you think of Friedman and Keynes, they didn’t intend and never would have supported what their theories have become.

      1. Both of them should have paid better attention to public choice theory. Give politicians a theoretical justification for spending more money and aggregating more power, and they’re going to take it while ignoring any of the qualifications or nuances of your theory.

      2. Monnetarism just says you can reduce the shocks of the business cycle by managing the money supply.

        I’d say even that is a bit of an overstatement. I’d say the most succinct statement of monetarism is that the major driver of recessions and inflation is disequilibrium between the money supply and real activity. If anything, that argues precisely against running the printing press.

        1. It absolutely does Bill. It, does however, endorse the idea of a gradually increasing money supply being a good thing. Monetarism correctly pointed out that hard currency will inevitably produce a currency shortage as the economy grows and the money supply remains constant and this will restrict trade and economic growth. It never said you could get rich or avoid the business cycle by printing money. All it really said was that you have to manage the money supply to match economic activity.

          1. I think the problem, rather, is that monetarism enables endless tinkering, because it presumes/suggests that an equilibrium is attainable. This is the real public choice flaw of Keynesianism as well. Keynes may have said to only run deficits during the downturn, but it was all based on the idea of there being idle resources in the economy that can be put to use through government spending. So even if the economy is doing OK, a Keynesian could draw a graph to show that the economy is not really at full employment, and so more spending is needed.

            I don’t know if monetarists fall into the trap as severely, but the foundation is there them to bicker about what must be done with the money supply, with little or no empirical grounding.

  12. See? Commie blogger is a good career path.

  13. But actually, I think they’re even worse. We can’t even predict the past very well using our models. Economic models are failing to model the past in a way that can explain the past. So what we end up doing with our economic models is retrofitting the data and our own prejudices about how the economy works.

    Same could be said of climate models.

    1. The actual warming is only barely outside the lower 95% confidence line. Good enough, right?

  14. Eh, game economies can be a useful learning tool, but the reality is that the problems with gaming economies are completely different than the real world. No real world government actually prints the wages of everyone in the entire nation.

    1. Game economies don’t have to deal with the finiteness of resources.

      1. Nor with heretofore unimagined disruptive innovations that dramatically alter the economic landscape.

      2. Sure they do, if such a thing is programmed in. But that’s not fun.

        1. Sure they do, if such a thing is programmed in. But that’s not fun.

          Horseshit. Once the game is beat, the next step is to demonstrate uber-dominance by collecting the rarest/most powerful item in the game dropped by one in a billion enemies.

          What’s the point in playing (games or life) if you can’t laud unimaginably rare treasures over the noobs?

          *huffs and wipes monocle*

          1. Well, if game economies were socialist they would just clone more copies and hand one out to everyone. Cause it’s not fair for just one player to have it.

            1. Paging Anita Sarkeesian, Anita Sarkeesian your assistance is requested at the nearest red phone…

        2. I can’t recall the exact details, but EVE had a whole thing going on years ago where GoonSwarm (I think…) was basically in complete control of a finite in-game resource.

        3. The Ultima series often had finite resources. I loved those games.

      3. Or million’s of people making a trillion choices .

        1. MMORPG economies operate on pretty large scales. The auction house in WoW, with all the websites and add-ons that have been built up around it is pretty fascinating.

          1. Yep, especially when you try to change prices. There are so many buyers and seller no one guy can realistically make a difference.

    2. I’m kind of interested what an economist working with EVE Online would think about this, since EVE’s economy is primarily driven by players interacting rather than a command economy driven by developers looking for balance.

  15. Varoufakis is a Marxist game theory

    The only way to win is not to play.

    1. +1 tic-tac-toe

  16. IDK, he says Marxism influenced his thought but stops short of calling himself a Marxist and seems aware that he’s not an economist. Would I hand him the keys to the kingdom? Hell No. Would I hand him the keys to Greece? Sure. He says the M-word a lot, but the rest of what he says doesn’t seem like the usual out-of-hand nuttiness that comes out of Marxists’ mouths.

    Maybe I’m a sucker falling for a video game flavor of Marxism, but I don’t see a lot of anti-capitalism or wealth distributing (acumen-levelling certainly) happening in Valve games. And considering the layers-deep level of derp happening in the EU wrt Greece, I’m more than willing to let the man work.

    1. Whatever you think of him, which for me at least isn’t much, he doesn’t seem to be foaming at the mouth mad. That alone probably makes him the best choice available.

  17. Yes well as a Greek that would be his preferred solution becuase it would not be him that would be paying the bill. I mean my solution to my car payment is a major renegotiation with the bank that leaves me in possession of the car and them getting a lot less money back than they originally loaned me to buy the thing.

    The problem he’s got is that Germany has no incentive to actually take a bigger hair cut on that debt than they already are but even worse, the Greek people have shown by their behavior that even if Germany just forgave the debt in another decade the Greek government would be right back in the same situation because they have not yet been made to realize that what they call “austerity” the rest of the world calls “living within your means”

    You simply cannot have both a ridiculously generous welfare state and a lazy unproductive citizenry. The reason why Social Democracy mostly works in the Northern European states is that for whatever reason those cultures value work and productivity on a personal level far more than the Greek culture does and as a result the Northern Euro states actually produce enough wealth to at least mostly afford their welfare systems. Greece never has and never will and is constantly on the look out for someone else to foot the bill for their lazy free spending ways.

    1. So in the end massively restructuring the Greek debt might make some sense becuase the reality is they can never really repay it the problem is doing so is literally the equivalent to loaning a junkie a couple hundred “just to make rent”, you know that money is just going to go into the next hit and not actually pay bills

      1. IMO, it’s even more complicated than just a loan to a junkie. The junkie has kids who might want to work and neighbors…

        There are plenty of people (myself among them) who aren’t exactly convinced that the EU isn’t or wasn’t a part of the disease, effectively a dealer loaning cash to his own junkie.

        The junkie goes out and finds a Marxist who’s going to rob from the dealer and get the junkie clean? Good for him.

    2. It is not as much work ethic as a complete breakdown of their government. The Greeks work more than you think. They just don’t pay taxes. Their regulatory and tax system are so corrupt that most of the economy has gone underground.

      Even if they could fix the welfare state, they would still be screwed because they have created such a corrupt and inefficient regulatory and tax system that the economy won’t recover or produce tax revenue.

    3. There seems to be something about temperate island climates that makes people not want to work.

  18. I’m glad Billy Zane is finally in a job that isn’t a complete joke…oh wait…

  19. because of its heavy reliance on statistics and on this sort of simple modeling, economics can resemble “computerized astrology.”

    This is pretty much why I resisted the powerful temptation to divert from the MBA program into straight economics.

  20. If he is a Marxist, I don’t know where he gets off talking about empiricism…

  21. ‘Marxist’ and ‘economist’ are mutually exclusive categories.

  22. Caden. I just agree… Patrick`s st0rry is astonishing, last tuesday I got a top of the range Land Rover Defender sincee geting a check for $6814 this last 4 weeks and in excess of 10k last month. it’s certainly the coolest job Ive had. I actually started……………


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.