EPTRepublican nominations - Page 23
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
| ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
| ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On August 17 2011 13:13 cfoy3 wrote: http://thenewamerican.com/economy/economics-mainmenu-44/3323-austrian-economics-rising Plenty of Keynesians of various stripes predicted the housing bubble using a different methodology. Edit: point here being random predictions by people doesn't validate their economic theories | ||
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
| ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On the other hand, increasing expending during recession and reducing it during economical growth is a theoretically good idea, specially when you are Great Britain fighting a war. Governments will always just increase expending though, and we have yet to find a political system that allows something like that to happen. I would agree with Keynes as theoretically government expending in a ciclical way as he proposed COULD be the same as a non-interventionist government in terms of expending and taxation on the long term, however given this is not feasible at all I will sit with the side of non interventionism which is very efficient. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On August 17 2011 13:37 cfoy3 wrote: The point is that while perhaps some keynasans did predict the finacial collapse, they rest on the assumption that the government will act on that prediction and make tough decisions. Austria takes the power from them so they do not have to act to make corrections they will automatically happen. It is far better in practice to have many smaller brush fires than to forcefully put them out until you can not anyway and you have a raging bon fire. We need a recession. We need one badly. What corrections? | ||
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
| ||
|
RJGooner
United States2076 Posts
On August 17 2011 14:01 cfoy3 wrote: Raise interest rates, let banks and ineffiecient bussiness fail. Put the fear back into the market place rather than create moral hazards. The central banks create recessions by overlending credit and inflating bubbles. No politicians wants to let the good times end, so they forcefully continue to prop them up. we need to let them fail and take the bitter medicine. Maybe in a few years we will be back. I don't think raising interest rates would be a very good idea at this time, maybe when we get back on track we can start raising those interest rates. | ||
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
| ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
On August 17 2011 12:35 Spicy Pepper wrote: Economics is not a science like Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. If anything it's in the Dark Ages relatively. How do you run a statistically & scientifically viable trial of a national government plan? There are no models that can account for all the variables and unintended consequences of actions of this scale. aka econometrics have issues | ||
|
matjlav
Germany2435 Posts
Unfortunately, an Obama win will be the lesser of two evils. I really wish that we could have another Democrat candidate; namely, someone who is willing to raise taxes. Right now the dumb masses have gotten on such a kick of "all taxes are evil" that it seems that no politician on the right or left feel safe even suggesting a tax increase when our country is drowning in debt. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On August 17 2011 14:01 cfoy3 wrote: The central banks create recessions by overlending credit and inflating bubbles. Problem 1, this is false. To the extent that it is true, proper regulation prevents it. Asset bubbles existed before central banks did, they have as long as there has been fractional reserve (and could happen without it due to external credit flows...), which dates back to the Roman Republic, at least (at one point the Roman government had to pass a law saying banks had a certain amount of time to pay back money they were lent to prevent bank runs. The Roman Republic arguably had a land value bubble that burst in 86 BC - Barlow 1980; also Lovano 2002: 70–73)). This is why Murray Rothbard wanted fractional reserve banking to be illegal, a hilarious contradiction to his anarcho-capitalism. Joseph Shumpeter (Austrian) praised fractional reserve banking for the same reason other Austrians condemn it: “In this sense, therefore, we define the kernel of the credit phenomenon in the following manner: credit is essentially the creation of purchasing power for the purpose of transferring it to the entrepreneur, but not simply the transfer of existing purchasing power. The creation of purchasing power characterises, in principle, the method by which development is carried out in a system with private property and division of labour. By credit, entrepreneurs are given access to the social stream of goods before they have acquired the normal claim to it." (Schumpeter 1983 [1934]: 107). Central banks are absolutely not necessary for asset bubbles to happen and they frequently happened before central banks. Proper regulation can prevent FRB's power from turning to asset bubbles and gambling instead of loaning to entrepreneurs. Ending FRB would put us back in the dark ages (figuratively speaking) and contradict the free market ethos. | ||
|
Perihelion
82 Posts
| ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
Daltrain
Australia15 Posts
| ||
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
| ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On August 17 2011 14:42 cfoy3 wrote: @Romantic Yes but federal reserves intensify it by taking the fear out of the market place. You say properly regulate it, however too often what should be the proper regulation is ignored because of politics or because we only what "proper" is in hindsight. I think fractional reserve banking is evil and I think a return to the gold standard is neccessary to prevent it from happening. It rests on a algebraic inequality you can not pay back prinicipal plus interest with just prinicipal. We need to reinstill fear and risk in banks so that they will not lend unscruplusly to people who have no hope of paying it back. Asset bubbles and FRB existed while on a gold standard. Fear and risk didn't prevent asset bubbles; FDR's regulations did. | ||
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
| ||
|
liepzig
Singapore45 Posts
And thanks for the Iranian video, it was highly enlightening. I'm Christian myself, but having lived in America for the past few years, I've become afraid of the Evangelical movement. These people think that they know better than everyone else, and they want everyone else in the world to be like them. If you put someone like that in the White House, expect many more Iraqs and Afghanistans. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On August 17 2011 16:39 liepzig wrote: Ron Paul is the only viable candidate. Everyone else is either insane, dishonest, or just downright sleazy (*cough* Rick Perry). Also, I have a degree in Economics, have published in an international economics journal, and am about to start my Masters degree, so it's not like I don't know what I'm talking about. His ideas are a tad extreme, but at least they are grounded in sound economic logic. Everyone else simply believes that God and Am-uur-ican Exceptionalism will pull the country out of this mess. And thanks for the Iranian video, it was highly enlightening. I'm Christian myself, but having lived in America for the past few years, I've become afraid of the Evangelical movement. These people think that they know better than everyone else, and they want everyone else in the world to be like them. If you put someone like that in the White House, expect many more Iraqs and Afghanistans. Sound logic? It's about as fanatical and idealistic as it gets. Rules are bad m'kay? If we let companies do whatever the hell they want, everything works out for the best. If they make their profits by forming cartels, raising prices and thus lowering the overall wealth of the average citizen...well that's just a small price to pay for freedom. To keep companies competitive there need to be rules. If there are no oversights then the big companies can dominate the market and remove fair competition. | ||
| ||
