On August 19 2009 00:27 NExUS1g wrote: Also, the Bible has not been proven wrong.
Are you familiar with the cosmology presented in the Bible?
Instead, actually, archaeological finds often support historical notes found in the Bible.
And yet there is still no evidence for the grand, united kingdom described in the Bible that supposedly stretched from the Euphrates to Egypt's border at its peak.
Instead, actually, archaeological finds often support historical notes found in the Bible.
Oh, okay. In the year 3000, you could find the remains of New York City and verify it through watching a saved copy of The Day After Tomorrow but THAT STILL DOESN'T MEAN DENNIS QUAID CAN ACT.
It's unbelievable. TL is actually getting stupider over time.
Atheism is very much about having the humility to admit we don't have all the answers. Religion is the opposite - it claims to have all the answers, with only a book as it's proof.
Let me be clear: any atheist who is intellectually honest would be open to considering evidence that proved the existence of a deity. Since there is not, nor has there ever been such evidence, then we can only conclude that there is no such thing as a deity. The existence of inexplicable phenomena is not evidence of said being, nor are 2000 year old written documents. Lack of an acceptable explanation does not mean you are to accept ANY explanation.
Furthermore, the burden of proof is on the affirmative, not the negative. If a theist wants to prove to me that God exists, then he has to do so by presenting affirmative, substantial evidence - not by demanding I prove the negative, nor by citing observations for which there is no suitable explanation.
If I were to insist to you that there are invisible pink unicorns living in my back yard, you would demand evidence. If I respond that you cannot prove they are not there, therefore they are there, you would think I'm insane. You insist Jesus lived based on the "Biblical record". I therefore insist Hobbits, Elves and Orcs exist based on the "LotR record".
I am of the position that there is no God. I am also of the position that if there WAS a God, the major religions get it wrong so badly it's inexcusable. The Christian God is obviously extremely bipolar, irrational, spiteful and petty. "Our God is a jealous God"... "Fear God"... "Have no other Gods before our God"... why would God, omnipotent and perfect, possess such pathetic human traits? The contradictions are endless.
Going further you have the premise in the three main monotheistic faiths that they are the only ones who really have it right, and everyone else will go to "hell". Not only those of the wrong religion, but those of no religion, and those who have never been exposed to the "right" religion - they're just out of luck. This obviously derives from a need to feel important.
But of course, with no evidence that a God exists, I believe there is no God.
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either. Both of their world views had a place for government, and even taxing. Yours doesn't. Linking those two schools together is a bit of a joke as well since this is a purely political discussion and you've just cited two economics schools that are not as close as you think, and are completely distinct from politics.
Politically, I don't think you're as similar to either as you seem to think. You say you've read CoL and others, but not one iota of your posts shows it unless you actually disagree with him.
First off, I've said quite a few times on this board that I am in favor of abolishing the 16th, but not creating a state that has no taxation at all. Contrary to Rothbard, I believe that a standing federal military is a construct of Government as such in the Constitution. However, I am opposed to every proposed taxation on income. I am however in favor of a Flat tax or consumer tax. No more than ~8-10%.
I also have a place for Government and have said it time and time again what their role in the market should be. Ensuring fair practices and upholding contractual obligations; voluntary contracts which are the guiding force of the free-market. That is it. No infusion of funds. No regulatory bodies.
I think you don't understand my positions whatsoever. In all my posts I am consistent; repeating these same principles which are directly inline with Hayek, Mises, and the rest. While not agreeing with everything they say; forming basis for some of my other viewpoints I am directly influenced by them. You can also see in my contemporary political philosophy that it is also directly influenced by limited Government proponents such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.
In any case, those are a general overview of my positions. Government; necessary evil. Limit as much as possible. Free-Market bulwark to Tyranny and Government intervention interferes and distorts market creating a bastardization of the idea of the market in the first place. Freedom, Liberty, Rule of law paramount. What again is not in line with the philosophies that my suppositions propose?
You know that current economic crises is blamed on insufficient regulations in financial markets and erosion of old regulatory laws. That's at least the current view of most economists including Robert Lucas... So well, if there is one role for government it is exactly to regulate the markets when there is a possibility of market failure (incomplete information, moral hazard, adverse selection).
Also I remember that you wrote somewhere that you are for abolishing FED. I am not aware of any economist who would support this claim. Central Banking is one of few developments of economics that actually works...
You do know Milton Friedman called for the abolishment of the FED? There have been many papers on the fraud and theft of Fractional Reserve Banking and manipulation of Inflation. There have also been many papers on how Inflation creates inequality in income disparity and putting that in the hands of a body like the FED is basically shoving the fox in the hen house.
Really? I would actually like to read those articles. Can you recommend one that was published in a peer-review economic journal?
On the other hand there is strong evidence that higher inflation reduced both growth and level of GDP. It is not a coincident most of developed countries keep it low (check out papers on that topic by Robert Barro). More interesting finding is that if the inflation is already low cutting it down even more is more beneficial then when cutting it when it is high (Andres & Hernando).
Also inflation is basically a tax on money holding. How then you can support it if you do not support government intervention in the economy?
Here is a speech by Murry Rothbard about the Federal Reserve, it is a hour long and very informative.
Lew Rockwell President of the Mises Institute:
Misc things to watch:
Start with part one and work your way to part four.
Well, from all of those links posted above none of them is really scientific. They all involve private opinions. I was asking for a economic journal article where I can see either a model that supports those ideas or an emipirical analysis that points towards those conclusions. I haven't seen either that.
Also, as much as I respect Milton Friedman, his opinion on the role of government is quite controversial and is not the only one out there. And again, I would like to see it supported by some research not by his political views.
Milton Friedman is famous from promoting very limited government but it isn't what made him famous in academic circle and got him a noble prize. He received it for "his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy", that is proposing Permanent Income Hypothesis, analyzing Great Depression (the importance of monetary policy is fighting crisis), as well as his break through research in the unemployment-inflation connections. None of them had anything to do with his views expressed in that interview.
What is even more interesting to me that there is such an agreement among economists to keep inflation low and you haven't really provided me with any link that says it is harmful to the society. And that's the main task of Central Bank these days.
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either. Both of their world views had a place for government, and even taxing. Yours doesn't. Linking those two schools together is a bit of a joke as well since this is a purely political discussion and you've just cited two economics schools that are not as close as you think, and are completely distinct from politics.
Politically, I don't think you're as similar to either as you seem to think. You say you've read CoL and others, but not one iota of your posts shows it unless you actually disagree with him.
First off, I've said quite a few times on this board that I am in favor of abolishing the 16th, but not creating a state that has no taxation at all. Contrary to Rothbard, I believe that a standing federal military is a construct of Government as such in the Constitution. However, I am opposed to every proposed taxation on income. I am however in favor of a Flat tax or consumer tax. No more than ~8-10%.
I also have a place for Government and have said it time and time again what their role in the market should be. Ensuring fair practices and upholding contractual obligations; voluntary contracts which are the guiding force of the free-market. That is it. No infusion of funds. No regulatory bodies.
I think you don't understand my positions whatsoever. In all my posts I am consistent; repeating these same principles which are directly inline with Hayek, Mises, and the rest. While not agreeing with everything they say; forming basis for some of my other viewpoints I am directly influenced by them. You can also see in my contemporary political philosophy that it is also directly influenced by limited Government proponents such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.
In any case, those are a general overview of my positions. Government; necessary evil. Limit as much as possible. Free-Market bulwark to Tyranny and Government intervention interferes and distorts market creating a bastardization of the idea of the market in the first place. Freedom, Liberty, Rule of law paramount. What again is not in line with the philosophies that my suppositions propose?
You know that current economic crises is blamed on insufficient regulations in financial markets and erosion of old regulatory laws. That's at least the current view of most economists including Robert Lucas... So well, if there is one role for government it is exactly to regulate the markets when there is a possibility of market failure (incomplete information, moral hazard, adverse selection).
Also I remember that you wrote somewhere that you are for abolishing FED. I am not aware of any economist who would support this claim. Central Banking is one of few developments of economics that actually works...
You do know Milton Friedman called for the abolishment of the FED? There have been many papers on the fraud and theft of Fractional Reserve Banking and manipulation of Inflation. There have also been many papers on how Inflation creates inequality in income disparity and putting that in the hands of a body like the FED is basically shoving the fox in the hen house.
Really? I would actually like to read those articles. Can you recommend one that was published in a peer-review economic journal?
On the other hand there is strong evidence that higher inflation reduced both growth and level of GDP. It is not a coincident most of developed countries keep it low (check out papers on that topic by Robert Barro). More interesting finding is that if the inflation is already low cutting it down even more is more beneficial then when cutting it when it is high (Andres & Hernando).
Also inflation is basically a tax on money holding. How then you can support it if you do not support government intervention in the economy?
Start with part one and work your way to part four.
Well, from all of those links posted above none of them is really scientific. They all involve private opinions. I was asking for a economic journal article where I can see either a model that supports those ideas or an emipirical analysis that points towards those conclusions. I haven't seen either that.
Also, as much as I respect Milton Friedman, his opinion on the role of government is quite controversial and is not the only one out there. And again, I would like to see it supported by some research not by his political views.
Milton Friedman is famous from promoting very limited government but it isn't what made him famous in academic circle and got him a noble prize. He received it for "his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy", that is proposing Permanent Income Hypothesis, analyzing Great Depression (the importance of monetary policy is fighting crisis), as well as his break through research in the unemployment-inflation connections. None of them had anything to do with his views expressed in that interview.
What is even more interesting to me that there is such an agreement among economists to keep inflation low and you haven't really provided me with any link that says it is harmful to the society. And that's the main task of Central Bank these days.
The Austrian School of Economics is one huge "peer reviewed" journal and backed up by the history of the past 50 years. Breton Woods in 71, and the current situation we find ourselves in today coupled with the knowledge of how the Great Depression occured.
You have to listen intentively on how the fiat monetary system works and the role the FED plays. Manipulation of interest rates and devaluation of currency to finance debt which results in inflationary spikes which create an income inequality because those at the forefront of the money supply benefit while those at the back end reap the consequences of inflation with a devalued dollar which means a reduced buying power. The Boom-Bust theory proposed by the Austrian School in the orthodox of Economists and by history has basically been proven. I can't hand feed you every source because most aren't available online. I would just urge independant study and analysis into the situation and what the Austrian School proposes.
For one there are many items to view at www.mises.org
On August 18 2009 23:22 EchOne wrote: Aegraen you might want to clarify further on why monopolies are self defeating. You assert that they will fail to competition when there are no Government barriers to entry, but this is unconvincing since you haven't addressed the multitude of barriers to entry that are inherent to a market, nor have you addressed monopolies' deadweight loss problems.
The only barrier to market entry (Without Government involvement) is start up costs. This isn't even much of a problem due to how investments work. How do you think every single company as ever started up?
A Monopoly is not inherently a bad thing. Predatory pricing is cowed by the mainstream as bad, and hurts the people. This is false. Having goods and services cheaper allows more people to purchase which is a good thing. People then go on to say well, once all their competition is wiped out they'll simply raise prices and extort from people. Once they raise prices however, it allows competitors to come in undercut and make profit and have a successful business.
I seriously want you to look and try to find any historical data that shows where a company comes in, destroys competition by predatory pricing and then jacks the price back up and actually survives in any longevity. If you can find even one example I'll cede my point. However, I am backed by such giants as Friedman, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and the like and there have been no historical documents of this ever suceeding. I'm eager to hear your reply and which company succeeded in doing so.
In addition to start up costs, advertising strength, resource control, intellectual property, economies of scale, customer loyalty, high sunk costs, R&D strength, the network effect, and other effects serve to deter entry into a monopolized market. Answering non-governmental barriers to entry with the supposition that entrepreneurs can somehow magic together mountains of venture capital is naive.
Investors always consider risk since it is an incontrovertible resource in their livelihoods, and barriers to entry that are exacerbated by monopoly don't create favorable risk environments for them. You think small competitors can suddenly depose an incumbent via price undercutting? That and many other weapons are still options for a monopoly, and are more dangerous in stronger arms.
I did not address Predatory pricing and you did not address deadweight loss. I have no contention with Predatory pricing's occasional benefits to consumers. I hope you don't oppose the assertion that monopolies are overall inefficient and anti-competitive.
I refuse to find a counter-example tailored to your mold. To clarify: history is an uninformative case study since monopolies that have escaped with price gouging have been slain not by competition but by government intervention. I could speculate that such and such monopoly was historically unrivaled and would've lasted "any longevity" if not for government intervention (take Kwark's mention of AT&T) but that is hardly scholarly. A qualification of "longevity" is also vague. AT&T remained dominant for almost a century, but is that sufficient longevity for a counter claim?
Obviously markets change and monopolies that once were natural monopolies may fall from such grace in the face of technological progress. The phenomenon does not indicate monopolies' self-destruction, rather their mortality in the flow of time. Monopolies may be no different than other competitors in this respect (no company lasts forever) but since we can't tell the future, monopolies' negative effects essentially persist indeterminably. Friedman himself acknowledged in Capitalism and Freedom that countering technical (natural) monopolies is an important government function.
The men you cite certainly are giants of economics, but I'd recommend you forego lines that mention them for the sake of mentioning them, as they add no substance to your posts. "I adhere to the SKT1 School of TvZ, backed by giants such as Boxer, Canata, and Fantasy," does little to explain exactly why and where bunker rushes are used.
EDIT: Apologies for necro'ing this derail.
I am not well versed enough to describe in such minutable detail all the intricacies involved. I am not an Econimist myself merely a proponent and advocate of one such system however well read I am. I have looked at the history provided and the theories expounded upon and correlation of Government involvement and intervention. Clear dileneations are made through the observation of this history and the theories proposed, both conflicting with orthodox views. Because there has never been a true Laissez-Faire economic system we can only truely theorize based on observation of the closest systems. All in which correlate to the efficacy of the Austrian School. Progressives in the early 20th century adopted Keynesian theories as the mainstream thought. Clearly history has taught us what a flop it was, from the Great Depression, to Japanese woes in the 90s, to today and the bail-outs. Those are just a small sample of the inconsistency between history and theory, one in which shows why it does not work, and why Austrian Economics do work. A more in-depth read and look on the specifics and more articulate than myself read this which addresses Cartels and Monopolies.
It answers every question you have. Once you have read it I am apt to hear your reply and thoughts. I truely wish more people would be exposed to Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and the like.
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either. Both of their world views had a place for government, and even taxing. Yours doesn't. Linking those two schools together is a bit of a joke as well since this is a purely political discussion and you've just cited two economics schools that are not as close as you think, and are completely distinct from politics.
Politically, I don't think you're as similar to either as you seem to think. You say you've read CoL and others, but not one iota of your posts shows it unless you actually disagree with him.
First off, I've said quite a few times on this board that I am in favor of abolishing the 16th, but not creating a state that has no taxation at all. Contrary to Rothbard, I believe that a standing federal military is a construct of Government as such in the Constitution. However, I am opposed to every proposed taxation on income. I am however in favor of a Flat tax or consumer tax. No more than ~8-10%.
I also have a place for Government and have said it time and time again what their role in the market should be. Ensuring fair practices and upholding contractual obligations; voluntary contracts which are the guiding force of the free-market. That is it. No infusion of funds. No regulatory bodies.
I think you don't understand my positions whatsoever. In all my posts I am consistent; repeating these same principles which are directly inline with Hayek, Mises, and the rest. While not agreeing with everything they say; forming basis for some of my other viewpoints I am directly influenced by them. You can also see in my contemporary political philosophy that it is also directly influenced by limited Government proponents such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.
In any case, those are a general overview of my positions. Government; necessary evil. Limit as much as possible. Free-Market bulwark to Tyranny and Government intervention interferes and distorts market creating a bastardization of the idea of the market in the first place. Freedom, Liberty, Rule of law paramount. What again is not in line with the philosophies that my suppositions propose?
You know that current economic crises is blamed on insufficient regulations in financial markets and erosion of old regulatory laws. That's at least the current view of most economists including Robert Lucas... So well, if there is one role for government it is exactly to regulate the markets when there is a possibility of market failure (incomplete information, moral hazard, adverse selection).
Also I remember that you wrote somewhere that you are for abolishing FED. I am not aware of any economist who would support this claim. Central Banking is one of few developments of economics that actually works...
You do know Milton Friedman called for the abolishment of the FED? There have been many papers on the fraud and theft of Fractional Reserve Banking and manipulation of Inflation. There have also been many papers on how Inflation creates inequality in income disparity and putting that in the hands of a body like the FED is basically shoving the fox in the hen house.
Really? I would actually like to read those articles. Can you recommend one that was published in a peer-review economic journal?
On the other hand there is strong evidence that higher inflation reduced both growth and level of GDP. It is not a coincident most of developed countries keep it low (check out papers on that topic by Robert Barro). More interesting finding is that if the inflation is already low cutting it down even more is more beneficial then when cutting it when it is high (Andres & Hernando).
Also inflation is basically a tax on money holding. How then you can support it if you do not support government intervention in the economy?
Start with part one and work your way to part four.
Well, from all of those links posted above none of them is really scientific. They all involve private opinions. I was asking for a economic journal article where I can see either a model that supports those ideas or an emipirical analysis that points towards those conclusions. I haven't seen either that.
Also, as much as I respect Milton Friedman, his opinion on the role of government is quite controversial and is not the only one out there. And again, I would like to see it supported by some research not by his political views.
Milton Friedman is famous from promoting very limited government but it isn't what made him famous in academic circle and got him a noble prize. He received it for "his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy", that is proposing Permanent Income Hypothesis, analyzing Great Depression (the importance of monetary policy is fighting crisis), as well as his break through research in the unemployment-inflation connections. None of them had anything to do with his views expressed in that interview.
What is even more interesting to me that there is such an agreement among economists to keep inflation low and you haven't really provided me with any link that says it is harmful to the society. And that's the main task of Central Bank these days.
The Austrian School of Economics is one huge "peer reviewed" journal and backed up by the history of the past 50 years. Breton Woods in 71, and the current situation we find ourselves in today coupled with the knowledge of how the Great Depression occured.
You have to listen intentively on how the fiat monetary system works and the role the FED plays. Manipulation of interest rates and devaluation of currency to finance debt which results in inflationary spikes which create an income inequality because those at the forefront of the money supply benefit while those at the back end reap the consequences of inflation with a devalued dollar which means a reduced buying power. The Boom-Bust theory proposed by the Austrian School in the orthodox of Economists and by history has basically been proven. I can't hand feed you every source because most aren't available online. I would just urge independant study and analysis into the situation and what the Austrian School proposes.
For one there are many items to view at www.mises.org
Read some Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard they all have an array of books.
What do you mean it is proven? Almost nothing in economics is proven. Some things are just extremely likely the other are not. And Austrian School is dead. Noone labels themselves these days as a member of it. At least not any respectable economist.
Just one more thing: "The Austrian business cycle theory is generally dismissed by mainstream economics. Economists like Milton Friedman,Gordon Tullock,Bryan Caplan, and Paul Krugman have stated that they regard the theory as incorrect." That's from wikipedia but you may check their research papers on the topic.
For the business cycle thoery I would recommend to start with sth more modern than Hayek, start with famous, actually noble prize winning paper, by Kydland and Prescott, 1982. That's the first paper on modern business cycle theory. Obviously in the last 25 years economics did a huuuuuge leap forward (much bigger than in previous 50 years) so the paper is largely outdated but it is still must read for any economists.
How can you not provide me a link with a paper, even a working paper which supports your views? You know that one can access electronically all the articles published in any economic peer reviewed journal in last 50 years and in some cases even in last 100 years. And I have access to all electronic sources available online, including all of the peer-review journals. That's really nice as I don't need then to go through what Robert Lucas once termed as "pictures and talks". Also, if it is not published it doesn't matter... That's how academia works...
Your views are you private views which you combined by mixing them with OUTDATED Austrian School of Economics and they have nothing to do with the reality. And then you bunch them together with Milton Friedman who was extremely far from Austrian School.
On August 17 2009 22:30 Aegraen wrote: I feel lonely as an ardent Austrian/Chicagoan Libertarian on these boards. Damn heavy European base.
I say this all in jest of course; merely pointing out that it's me vs the rush of the wall of water.
I should get some of my other more articulate friends (If thats hard to imagine ~.^) to come over and help me out a bit.
In any event; let's just agree to disagree and you can always move away from Texas if you want so no one is forcing you to do anything. This is a great thing about STATES. If you don't like it move! You can't do that when the Federal Government imposes.
Your views are nothing like Friedman or Hayek at all. Your views come straight from Beck, and he's never read either. Both of their world views had a place for government, and even taxing. Yours doesn't. Linking those two schools together is a bit of a joke as well since this is a purely political discussion and you've just cited two economics schools that are not as close as you think, and are completely distinct from politics.
Politically, I don't think you're as similar to either as you seem to think. You say you've read CoL and others, but not one iota of your posts shows it unless you actually disagree with him.
First off, I've said quite a few times on this board that I am in favor of abolishing the 16th, but not creating a state that has no taxation at all. Contrary to Rothbard, I believe that a standing federal military is a construct of Government as such in the Constitution. However, I am opposed to every proposed taxation on income. I am however in favor of a Flat tax or consumer tax. No more than ~8-10%.
I also have a place for Government and have said it time and time again what their role in the market should be. Ensuring fair practices and upholding contractual obligations; voluntary contracts which are the guiding force of the free-market. That is it. No infusion of funds. No regulatory bodies.
I think you don't understand my positions whatsoever. In all my posts I am consistent; repeating these same principles which are directly inline with Hayek, Mises, and the rest. While not agreeing with everything they say; forming basis for some of my other viewpoints I am directly influenced by them. You can also see in my contemporary political philosophy that it is also directly influenced by limited Government proponents such as Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry.
In any case, those are a general overview of my positions. Government; necessary evil. Limit as much as possible. Free-Market bulwark to Tyranny and Government intervention interferes and distorts market creating a bastardization of the idea of the market in the first place. Freedom, Liberty, Rule of law paramount. What again is not in line with the philosophies that my suppositions propose?
You know that current economic crises is blamed on insufficient regulations in financial markets and erosion of old regulatory laws. That's at least the current view of most economists including Robert Lucas... So well, if there is one role for government it is exactly to regulate the markets when there is a possibility of market failure (incomplete information, moral hazard, adverse selection).
Also I remember that you wrote somewhere that you are for abolishing FED. I am not aware of any economist who would support this claim. Central Banking is one of few developments of economics that actually works...
You do know Milton Friedman called for the abolishment of the FED? There have been many papers on the fraud and theft of Fractional Reserve Banking and manipulation of Inflation. There have also been many papers on how Inflation creates inequality in income disparity and putting that in the hands of a body like the FED is basically shoving the fox in the hen house.
Really? I would actually like to read those articles. Can you recommend one that was published in a peer-review economic journal?
On the other hand there is strong evidence that higher inflation reduced both growth and level of GDP. It is not a coincident most of developed countries keep it low (check out papers on that topic by Robert Barro). More interesting finding is that if the inflation is already low cutting it down even more is more beneficial then when cutting it when it is high (Andres & Hernando).
Also inflation is basically a tax on money holding. How then you can support it if you do not support government intervention in the economy?
Start with part one and work your way to part four.
Well, from all of those links posted above none of them is really scientific. They all involve private opinions. I was asking for a economic journal article where I can see either a model that supports those ideas or an emipirical analysis that points towards those conclusions. I haven't seen either that.
Also, as much as I respect Milton Friedman, his opinion on the role of government is quite controversial and is not the only one out there. And again, I would like to see it supported by some research not by his political views.
Milton Friedman is famous from promoting very limited government but it isn't what made him famous in academic circle and got him a noble prize. He received it for "his achievements in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory and for his demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy", that is proposing Permanent Income Hypothesis, analyzing Great Depression (the importance of monetary policy is fighting crisis), as well as his break through research in the unemployment-inflation connections. None of them had anything to do with his views expressed in that interview.
What is even more interesting to me that there is such an agreement among economists to keep inflation low and you haven't really provided me with any link that says it is harmful to the society. And that's the main task of Central Bank these days.
The Austrian School of Economics is one huge "peer reviewed" journal and backed up by the history of the past 50 years. Breton Woods in 71, and the current situation we find ourselves in today coupled with the knowledge of how the Great Depression occured.
You have to listen intentively on how the fiat monetary system works and the role the FED plays. Manipulation of interest rates and devaluation of currency to finance debt which results in inflationary spikes which create an income inequality because those at the forefront of the money supply benefit while those at the back end reap the consequences of inflation with a devalued dollar which means a reduced buying power. The Boom-Bust theory proposed by the Austrian School in the orthodox of Economists and by history has basically been proven. I can't hand feed you every source because most aren't available online. I would just urge independant study and analysis into the situation and what the Austrian School proposes.
For one there are many items to view at www.mises.org
Read some Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard they all have an array of books.
What do you mean it is proven? Almost nothing in economics is proven. Some things are just extremely likely the other are not. And Austrian School is dead. Noone labels themselves these days as a member of it. At least not any respectable economist.
Just one more thing: "The Austrian business cycle theory is generally dismissed by mainstream economics. Economists like Milton Friedman,Gordon Tullock,Bryan Caplan, and Paul Krugman have stated that they regard the theory as incorrect." That's from wikipedia but you may check their research papers on the topic.
For the business cycle thoery I would recommend to start with sth more modern than Hayek, start with famous, actually noble prize winning paper, by Kydland and Prescott, 1982. That's the first paper on modern business cycle theory. Obviously in the last 25 years economics did a huuuuuge leap forward (much bigger than in previous 50 years) so the paper is largely outdated but it is still must read for any economists.
How can you not provide me a link with a paper, even a working paper which supports your views? You know that one can access electronically all the articles published in any economic peer reviewed journal in last 50 years and in some cases even in last 100 years. And I have access to all electronic sources available online, including all of the peer-review journals. That's really nice as I don't need then to go through what Robert Lucas once termed as "pictures and talks". Also, if it is not published it doesn't matter... That's how academia works...
Your views are you private views which you combined by mixing them with OUTDATED Austrian School of Economics and they have nothing to do with the reality. And then you bunch them together with Milton Friedman who was extremely far from Austrian School.
Look man, he's trying REAL HARD to look smart. Do NOT burst his bubble.
Let us first take what would seem to be the worst possible case of such action: the actual destruction of part of a product by a cartel. This is done to take advantage of an inelastic demand curve and to raise the price to gain a greater monetary income for the whole group. We can visualize, for example, the case of a coffee cartel burning great quantities of coffee.
In the first place, such actions will surely occur very seldom.
This is direly false. In fact, so direly false that it deserves a special mention: Nearly EVERY pecuniary usage of intellectual property rights, marks, or copyrights provides a profit by SPECIFICALLY and EXPRESSLY limiting or destroying works or access to works in general so as to increase the value of the distributer's set of licenses.
The fact that these holders of rights, especially those holding patent or distribution rights are (in most cases by definition) monopolistic holders makes this statement transperantly false. The reason why these actions occur in a seldom manner is not because they are advantageous, but rather because 1) there is the fear of institutional intervention and 2) because there have been very few complete monopolies throughout history with respect to commodities.
On August 18 2009 23:22 EchOne wrote: Aegraen you might want to clarify further on why monopolies are self defeating. You assert that they will fail to competition when there are no Government barriers to entry, but this is unconvincing since you haven't addressed the multitude of barriers to entry that are inherent to a market, nor have you addressed monopolies' deadweight loss problems.
The only barrier to market entry (Without Government involvement) is start up costs. This isn't even much of a problem due to how investments work. How do you think every single company as ever started up?
A Monopoly is not inherently a bad thing. Predatory pricing is cowed by the mainstream as bad, and hurts the people. This is false. Having goods and services cheaper allows more people to purchase which is a good thing. People then go on to say well, once all their competition is wiped out they'll simply raise prices and extort from people. Once they raise prices however, it allows competitors to come in undercut and make profit and have a successful business.
I seriously want you to look and try to find any historical data that shows where a company comes in, destroys competition by predatory pricing and then jacks the price back up and actually survives in any longevity. If you can find even one example I'll cede my point. However, I am backed by such giants as Friedman, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and the like and there have been no historical documents of this ever suceeding. I'm eager to hear your reply and which company succeeded in doing so.
In addition to start up costs, advertising strength, resource control, intellectual property, economies of scale, customer loyalty, high sunk costs, R&D strength, the network effect, and other effects serve to deter entry into a monopolized market. Answering non-governmental barriers to entry with the supposition that entrepreneurs can somehow magic together mountains of venture capital is naive.
Investors always consider risk since it is an incontrovertible resource in their livelihoods, and barriers to entry that are exacerbated by monopoly don't create favorable risk environments for them. You think small competitors can suddenly depose an incumbent via price undercutting? That and many other weapons are still options for a monopoly, and are more dangerous in stronger arms.
I did not address Predatory pricing and you did not address deadweight loss. I have no contention with Predatory pricing's occasional benefits to consumers. I hope you don't oppose the assertion that monopolies are overall inefficient and anti-competitive.
I refuse to find a counter-example tailored to your mold. To clarify: history is an uninformative case study since monopolies that have escaped with price gouging have been slain not by competition but by government intervention. I could speculate that such and such monopoly was historically unrivaled and would've lasted "any longevity" if not for government intervention (take Kwark's mention of AT&T) but that is hardly scholarly. A qualification of "longevity" is also vague. AT&T remained dominant for almost a century, but is that sufficient longevity for a counter claim?
Obviously markets change and monopolies that once were natural monopolies may fall from such grace in the face of technological progress. The phenomenon does not indicate monopolies' self-destruction, rather their mortality in the flow of time. Monopolies may be no different than other competitors in this respect (no company lasts forever) but since we can't tell the future, monopolies' negative effects essentially persist indeterminably. Friedman himself acknowledged in Capitalism and Freedom that countering technical (natural) monopolies is an important government function.
The men you cite certainly are giants of economics, but I'd recommend you forego lines that mention them for the sake of mentioning them, as they add no substance to your posts. "I adhere to the SKT1 School of TvZ, backed by giants such as Boxer, Canata, and Fantasy," does little to explain exactly why and where bunker rushes are used.
EDIT: Apologies for necro'ing this derail.
I am not well versed enough to describe in such minutable detail all the intricacies involved. I am not an Econimist myself merely a proponent and advocate of one such system however well read I am. I have looked at the history provided and the theories expounded upon and correlation of Government involvement and intervention. Clear dileneations are made through the observation of this history and the theories proposed, both conflicting with orthodox views. Because there has never been a true Laissez-Faire economic system we can only truely theorize based on observation of the closest systems. All in which correlate to the efficacy of the Austrian School. Progressives in the early 20th century adopted Keynesian theories as the mainstream thought. Clearly history has taught us what a flop it was, from the Great Depression, to Japanese woes in the 90s, to today and the bail-outs. Those are just a small sample of the inconsistency between history and theory, one in which shows why it does not work, and why Austrian Economics do work. A more in-depth read and look on the specifics and more articulate than myself read this which addresses Cartels and Monopolies.
It answers every question you have. Once you have read it I am apt to hear your reply and thoughts. I truely wish more people would be exposed to Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and the like.
So I am economist though I am not specializing in monetary policy. I don't want also to take on the debate on monoply as it would take long time to explain current stand of economists on it. Monopoly is inefficient, that's a fact. However, it might be beneficial in certain cicumstances. That's why we have both patent laws and antitrust organizations.
There is one thing that has to be noted out of your argument is so false that it screams to anyone with a bit of knowledge of economics!
So I will take on it right now: 1. Keynes ideas and Keynesian economics were developed only after Great Derpession and they did not become dominant till the end of WWII. What killed Keynesian ecnomics was the period of stagflation, sth that Keynesian economists at that time could not explain. Also bear in mind that Keynes's was actually insipred by what he witnesed in late 20s.
2. Japan economy hit a liquidity trap. Sth actually that Keynes described in late 30s but what was dismissed later by monetrists with Milton Friedman as the main figure as merely a theoretical possiblity. Check out Paul Krugman, Bradford DeLong and others on that topic. It seemed that actually in that situation one should go back to Keynes original writings. What exactly should be done in that situation is unresolved puzzle.
3. Keynesian theory as it was developed in 30s does not exists any more in academia and it wasn't used since at least mid 70s. Current crises has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.
On August 19 2009 01:43 Liquid`NonY wrote: nexus1g: Yeah, I understand the different "levels" of belief/knowledge with regard to god. I just thought this particular statement was a bit strong:
By stating, "There is no god," you immediately put yourself in a realm of fantasy more so than someone professing believe in a deity.
I don't read it as having an implied "According to us" (with 'us' being you and everyone taking your position). I read it as a bit condescending, like if only they knew the good reasons to doubt the veracity of their knowledge about god's non-existence, then they'd take your position. So I thought it would be appropriate to mention that there are good epistemological arguments for being a strong atheist.
If you were simply describing your position, I apologize!
Ah, my mistake.
But, yes, I suppose it is condescending. I'd be interested to hear your side of the argument on that. From my personal PoV it seems if you definitively say X is fact due to lack of evidence, you are contradicting yourself. Can you really have a fact without evidence?
as i pointed out there are levels of likelihood. The only reason people believe in god is because most people start out with the assumption that there is some sort of god or being. If you started out with a blank slate and no opinion on god (IE not saying God doesnt exist, but simply not having an opinion one way or another) it would be much more difficult to convince someone of the possibility of a god (much like my pizzas flying through the center of the earth)
and the tone was very condescending.....its not as if I havent thought of the agnostics viewpoint and I walk around saying there is NO GOD HAHAHAHAHA. Agnotic atheist....... psh now we're splitting hairs and arguing semantics .
3. Keynesian theory as it was developed in 30s does not exists any more in academia and it wasn't used since at least mid 70s. Current crises has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.
Don't do this to his argument. It's much easier on him to just assume spending = Keynesian, not spending = Austrian.
Instead, actually, archaeological finds often support historical notes found in the Bible.
And yet there is still no evidence for the grand, united kingdom described in the Bible that supposedly stretched from the Euphrates to Egypt's border at its peak.
Quote some cosmology for me.
There's no evidence... There's no contradiction. Lack of evidence is not proof, it is lack of evidence; aka the unknown.
Louder has very good points, and the bible has been wrong on several accounts... and I agree with his statements..
One of my friends works with very religious people..baptists and he barely has to work because they work around power lines and hes not religious so they don't want him to work around power lines in case he dies and goes to "hell" and if the baptist dies he'll go to heaven so it's all good..
On August 19 2009 00:27 NExUS1g wrote: Also, the Bible has not been proven wrong.
Are you familiar with the cosmology presented in the Bible?
Instead, actually, archaeological finds often support historical notes found in the Bible.
And yet there is still no evidence for the grand, united kingdom described in the Bible that supposedly stretched from the Euphrates to Egypt's border at its peak.
Quote some cosmology for me.
There's no evidence... There's no contradiction. Lack of evidence is not proof, it is lack of evidence; aka the unknown.
Again, you can't prove the negative. Without proof of the affirmative, it is assumed that the affirmative is false. This is how logic works.
I have not this thread in its entirety, but just wanted to say this: not teaching the historic and cultural impact of Christianity is retarded. And this coming from an atheist. I cannot see how one can put together a meaningful high-school curriculum without including the bible, since a lot of texts, poems, movies etc. makes absolutely 0 sense without at least a basic knowledge about Christianity. (Fall from grace, Cain & Abel, Sermon on the Mount just to mention a few)
Atheism is very much about having the humility to admit we don't have all the answers. Religion is the opposite - it claims to have all the answers, with only a book as it's proof.
An awareness of the limitations of human knowledge is deeply ingrained into the Christian worldview. It is democratic liberalism, not Christian theology, which has destroyed humility among Christian nations.
And if that's your definition of atheism, then very few people in the world are true atheists. All atheists believe in a set of truisms by which they live. The principle difference between the two is how they came in possession of those truisms.
As for the proposed law:
1) It's voluntary 2) It's constitutional 3) It's harmless 4) It does not matter how you waste the money; the education of children is largely a factor of upbringing and not public investment.
Are you familiar with the cosmology presented in the Bible?
3. Keynesian theory as it was developed in 30s does not exists any more in academia and it wasn't used since at least mid 70s. Current crises has nothing to do with Keynesian economics.
Don't do this to his argument. It's much easier on him to just assume spending = Keynesian, not spending = Austrian.
The concepts of Keynesian economics are absolutely used today. What liberals call it is irrelevant.
Atheism is very much about having the humility to admit we don't have all the answers. Religion is the opposite - it claims to have all the answers, with only a book as it's proof.
An awareness of the limitations of human knowledge is deeply ingrained into the Christian worldview. It is democratic liberalism, not Christian theology, which has destroyed humility among Christian nations.
And if that's your definition of atheism, then very few people in the world are true atheists. All atheists believe in a set of truisms by which they live. The principle difference between the two is how they came in possession of those truisms.
As for the proposed law:
1) It's voluntary 2) It's constitutional 3) It's harmless 4) It does not matter how you waste the money; the education of children is largely a factor of upbringing and not public investment.
This is completely false. The limits of human knowledge are all filled in with Christianity with one answer: God. That's not accepting a limit to your knowledge, that's just providing a complete cop out answer. "Oh I know God does it - don't know how he just does." You clearly know nothing about atheism.
Atheism is very much about having the humility to admit we don't have all the answers. Religion is the opposite - it claims to have all the answers, with only a book as it's proof.
An awareness of the limitations of human knowledge is deeply ingrained into the Christian worldview. It is democratic liberalism, not Christian theology, which has destroyed humility among Christian nations.
And if that's your definition of atheism, then very few people in the world are true atheists. All atheists believe in a set of truisms by which they live. The principle difference between the two is how they came in possession of those truisms.
As for the proposed law:
1) It's voluntary 2) It's constitutional 3) It's harmless 4) It does not matter how you waste the money; the education of children is largely a factor of upbringing and not public investment.
This is completely false. The limits of human knowledge are all filled in with Christianity with one answer: God. That's not accepting a limit to your knowledge, that's just providing a complete cop out answer. "Oh I know God does it - don't know how he just does." You clearly know nothing about atheism.
Well, allow me to invert the grammar of your assertion. If God is the answer, we might say as a connotative equivalent: "Oh I know there's an answer- don't know what, there just is."
EPT
