Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well, since the reality of the austerity programs have become known, the Austrian School of Economics and Austrian economists in general have become about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl. Except with the neocons who are simply too stupid to catch on.Stephanie will straighten this out. Where is that rw genius on all matters economics?
How often do you hear the "right-wing" discussing Ludwig von Mises, Carl Menger, or Murray Rothbard, honestly?
far too often, but not here @ usmb
yet many right wing positions are premised on the -- ahem -- theories of the achtung! -- Austrian School
Well, since the reality of the austerity programs have become known,
I would be glad to, me boy. But you need to pay me. $50 and I will tell you. Otherwise you will need to google it yourself.Well, since the reality of the austerity programs have become known,
can you tell us where you think there was austerity? Isn't thinking fun?
Now I know you have been spending your time in the bat shit crazy con web sites,
I can not prove where you spend your time, nor can you prove where I spend my time. I can not, for instance, prove that you spend your time in massage parlors. But I hear......Now I know you have been spending your time in the bat shit crazy con web sites,
if you have evidence of this I will pay you $10,000. Bet or run away again with your liberal tail between your legs as a simple liar.
Oh boy...
OK, let me think about your post for a while to formulate the proper response. But once again, you're basing Mises premise off fiat money and monetary controls as they are in today's world. That was one of Mises, Rothbards, etc main points regarding Austrian view. That these authority mechanisms lead to disruption of capital markets. It becomes impossible to implicate Mises theories on economics under todays fiat systems.
I pointed out how his assumptions about free trade and comparative advantage were flawed, regardless if we were on a fixed exchange rate or floating exchange rate or using tally sticks. There's more problems with von Mises and Praxeology, I can get into detail if need be. The flawed and erroneous Austrian theory about inflation comes to mind, but that's been done to death.
Markets don't self-regulate, nor to they magically reach equilibrium. History - and reality - tells us a different story.
Define "oppressive interventions into markets"?
72 was the beginning of a floating reserve currency and the results since have been absolutely disasterous. As many point out. I'll try to see if I can unravel the pretzel you've created around portions of Mises theories while simultaneous ignoring others and then pointing to current fiat disasters as why Mises is outdated. I woudnt say outdated, I'd say not popular. Not popular in government (for obvious reasons), who is the entity creating the disasterous controls for their own benefits.
We're much better of under a fiat system than the gold standard, unless you prefer panics and depressions every decade. Our fiat system is far superior, we can manage inflation and deflation in a way better fashion. If we followed the Austrian approach, we would have a deflationary crash and burn, coupled with a massive culling of our population. Purging malinvestments they call it, lol. And for what? The worship of some mythical free market which doesn't exist in the first place. The name of the game is political economy in today's world.
fiat system better? Impossible since it puts the economy in hands of a tiny few. This is anti American. In past neither worked well because macro economics was misunderstood. Today both can work well but gold is safer and more American. Bernanke says he manages fiat system as if it was a gold system so that at least provides some comfort as to overall direction and objectives.
It's definitely helpful to remember that the Austrian school contributed very little to the understanding of economics.Two caveats that I think y'all are ignoring involve:The core conceit of economic central planers....The belief that because a lot -or even a majority- of people have done something in the past they'll do it again, despite the context of the times and the fact that humans are quirky, capricious and sometimes tempestuous.....The notion that you really can in fact push a rope.
Your argument is that social sciences do not exist. Since you seem not bothered that this is a counterfactual, then it logically follows that all of those hard-headed business types that spend good hard money on consumer research, political polling, and,yes, economic forecasting are wasting their money on a delusion.
I find it hard to believe that you truly feel that no human behavior is sufficiently predictable in an aggregate behavior to make it useful to apply statistical modeling.
The ongoing task of assembling data that is disproving causality in regards to say the Great Depression.
If you take the Shiller-Case analysis of housing which demonstrated at least some causality from the 1923-6 housing bubble and add in the 1930-9 drought that caused the Dustbowl the whole policy witch-hunt that followed looks absurd. Economic policy does not cause climatic black swans.
The 1930-9 drought and cumulative damage from the 1921-40 farming crash severely damaged banks over two-thirds or more of the country prior to the 1931 banking panic.
The growing evidence that technology changes the expression of behaviors including reproductive behaviors.
The various housing bubbles that followed the invention of the latex condom in 1920, 1943 mass production of penicillin and hormonal birth control in 1960 all had major effects on real estate markets in the US.
Of the six nations that permit more or less unregulated Assisted Reproductive Technology: the US, India, Georgia, Russia, the Ukraine and more recently Thailand; have also had major effects.
Therefore I tend to see W. Brian Arthur's extension of the works of the Austrian school's Schumpeter being rather important.
It's definitely helpful to remember that the Austrian school contributed very little to the understanding of economics.Two caveats that I think y'all are ignoring involve:Your argument is that social sciences do not exist. Since you seem not bothered that this is a counterfactual, then it logically follows that all of those hard-headed business types that spend good hard money on consumer research, political polling, and,yes, economic forecasting are wasting their money on a delusion.
I find it hard to believe that you truly feel that no human behavior is sufficiently predictable in an aggregate behavior to make it useful to apply statistical modeling.
The ongoing task of assembling data that is disproving causality in regards to say the Great Depression.
If you take the Shiller-Case analysis of housing which demonstrated at least some causality from the 1923-6 housing bubble and add in the 1930-9 drought that caused the Dustbowl the whole policy witch-hunt that followed looks absurd. Economic policy does not cause climatic black swans.
The 1930-9 drought and cumulative damage from the 1921-40 farming crash severely damaged banks over two-thirds or more of the country prior to the 1931 banking panic.
The growing evidence that technology changes the expression of behaviors including reproductive behaviors.
The various housing bubbles that followed the invention of the latex condom in 1920, 1943 mass production of penicillin and hormonal birth control in 1960 all had major effects on real estate markets in the US.
Of the six nations that permit more or less unregulated Assisted Reproductive Technology: the US, India, Georgia, Russia, the Ukraine and more recently Thailand; have also had major effects.
Therefore I tend to see W. Brian Arthur's extension of the works of the Austrian school's Schumpeter being rather important.
It's sort of like learning how to speak Klingon. Sure, it impresses a few drunk friends, but is basically worthless.
It's definitely helpful to remember that the Austrian school contributed very little to the understanding of economics.Two caveats that I think y'all are ignoring involve:
The ongoing task of assembling data that is disproving causality in regards to say the Great Depression.
If you take the Shiller-Case analysis of housing which demonstrated at least some causality from the 1923-6 housing bubble and add in the 1930-9 drought that caused the Dustbowl the whole policy witch-hunt that followed looks absurd. Economic policy does not cause climatic black swans.
The 1930-9 drought and cumulative damage from the 1921-40 farming crash severely damaged banks over two-thirds or more of the country prior to the 1931 banking panic.
The growing evidence that technology changes the expression of behaviors including reproductive behaviors.
The various housing bubbles that followed the invention of the latex condom in 1920, 1943 mass production of penicillin and hormonal birth control in 1960 all had major effects on real estate markets in the US.
Of the six nations that permit more or less unregulated Assisted Reproductive Technology: the US, India, Georgia, Russia, the Ukraine and more recently Thailand; have also had major effects.
Therefore I tend to see W. Brian Arthur's extension of the works of the Austrian school's Schumpeter being rather important.
It's sort of like learning how to speak Klingon. Sure, it impresses a few drunk friends, but is basically worthless.
It's definitely helpful to remember that the Austrian school contributed very little to the understanding of economics.
of course that's utter BS. They kept free market thinking alive until Friedman perfected it!
Had it not been for Austria/Friedman we'd all be Keynesian libcommies now interfering in the free economy until we had a soviet standard of living.
How do you know when an economic theory is dead??? Find one that ed supports. like the Austrian school of economics. Ed and two or three other nut cases. And, you have found a dead school of economics that is about as popular as a turd in a punch bowl with the vast majority of economists, and a joke in general.It's definitely helpful to remember that the Austrian school contributed very little to the understanding of economics.
It's sort of like learning how to speak Klingon. Sure, it impresses a few drunk friends, but is basically worthless.
It's definitely helpful to remember that the Austrian school contributed very little to the understanding of economics.
of course that's utter BS. They kept free market thinking alive until Friedman perfected it!
Had it not been for Austria/Friedman we'd all be Keynesian libcommies now interfering in the free economy until we had a soviet standard of living.
Austrian School cultists reject Friedman's Monetarist thinking. I am certain that a) you don't have any clue what Austrian School believes in b) you don't have any clue how Monetarist a Theory works c) and have no clue how Keynesian policies saved capitalism.
Austrian School cultists reject Friedman's Monetarist thinking.
Friedman didn't really care much for Austrianism.
As I have mentioned, Ed lies a lot. For instance, in this post, ed makes up a quote and credits me with saying it. Very, very dishonest, ed. But then, you never had any credibility. Dipshit.Austrian School cultists reject Friedman's Monetarist thinking.
ah but the Austrians and Friedman were united in Mont Pelerin Society and together were the greatest advocates of capitalism in human history. Differences over business cycle and monetarism were merely differences within the capitalist family. Isn't learning fun?
And since the great failures of austerity in europe, friedman has run from austrianism like a sprinter.Milton Friedman spoke openly against Austrianism. He thought Austrianism did economic harm.
And since the great failures of austerity in europe, friedman has run from austrianism like a sprinter.Milton Friedman spoke openly against Austrianism. He thought Austrianism did economic harm.
Yup, November. But only to most of us. To the far right, he is still winning awards. He would be only be a couple years over 100.And since the great failures of austerity in europe, friedman has run from austrianism like a sprinter.Milton Friedman spoke openly against Austrianism. He thought Austrianism did economic harm.
?
You know he's been dead since '06, right?
And since the great failures of austerity in europe, friedman has run from austrianism like a sprinter.Milton Friedman spoke openly against Austrianism. He thought Austrianism did economic harm.
And since the great failures of austerity in europe, friedman has run from austrianism like a sprinter.Milton Friedman spoke openly against Austrianism. He thought Austrianism did economic harm.
