On the credibility of Austrian economics

[gwynedd1]

Re: On the credibility of Austrian economics

No delete?

[gwynedd1]

Re: On the credibility of Austrian economics

What is this? Sorry but Reagan Economics is NOT Austrian economics.

When will people learn?

There are 4 schools that are thrown around, 1 being Keynesian, 2 being Austrian, 3 being Chicago School, 4 being MMT or Modern Monetary Theory.

Most economists belong to the Keynesian or Chicago school. Chicago school is Milton Friedman and while his influence is Hayek the school is not the same as Austrian.

Now I trust everyone will go read each school.

I am not sure what school nakedcapitalism is coming from but I do know that PragCap and the guy who runs it Cullen Roche are MMT guys. MMT guys are the ones who say deficits dont matter and that the Fed does not print money.

Paul Krugman is from the Keynesian school.

So which one of these guys represents Austrian? Not one of them.

But I do know someone who has his economic roots in Austrian economics and has built on those theories and he is the writer of this website.

Why are you guys here if you are here to bash Austrian economics when EJ has his roots in Austrian economics? Now EJ has built on his roots and framed modern economics around the Austrian school or at least that is what I gleam from his writings. He takes many schools of economic thought into his analysis but his roots are Austrian I presume.

Please take your liberal left-wing analysis and prism of view out of the articles you present.

I happen to be a Georgist in general principle. However more of the market based type where some land rent remains to retain private property but basically land bubble proof with high land value taxes.

[gwynedd1]

Re: On the credibility of Austrian economics

It doesnt seem like you have a clue about what is going on.

Those were not Libertarians, everyone in government on both the right and the left advocate government expansion and deficit spending. That is what the Fed Reserve is all about. It was created, then taxes were created to legitamize the currency and power of the Fed. Then gold was systematically taken away from the system so that BOTH parties could deficit spend into oblivion on the back of the Fed Reserve to in RICH everyone politically connected to big business and big government.


Havent you been reading what EJ writes? Or has your prism of left-wing liberalism so blinded you that you, like most liberals, cannot take your own side in an argument?

Hayek even wrote a paper called "why i am not a conservative" You would do well to read what Hayek wrote as well as the father of modern Austrian economics Carl Menger.

Hayek was a classical liberal who on many fundamental issues is diametrically opposed to both conservatives and modern liberals on most subjects.

If you are agaisnt gold then you are agaisnt liberty and the common man that you supposedly represent as a "left wing liberal". Read Alan Greenspan's paper Gold and Economic Freedom before he became a corrupt Fed Chairman.
http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm

The funny thing is these people are tricking you into thinking that Austrian economics and Libertarianism is what has caused all these problems. Just because someone says they are a libertarian who is in office or an advisor to the president doesnt mean it is true. Just look at their record and policies!!!!

Both parties deficit spent into oblivion and both parties are Keynesians and don't let anyone tell you differently. That goes for the Fed as well, the Fed is the physical incarnation of radical Keynesian economics.

I have to disagree with you there. I have seen very little Keynesian economics lately. They certainly have not spent for economic revival. Their bailout is a purely monetarist act(used to cover fraud ) and in my opinion, a complete facade. Still that fall under monetarism.

The complete failure to digest the the third input of land and mineral assets during the oil embargo in the 70s discredited a justifiable Keynesian concept when it applies. In a liquidity trap, that's all there is. Why they couldn't figure out that if you had half the amount of farmland, that printing more money would not get full employment for farmers makes me think economists are one narrow minded bunch married to their theory. Resource shortages have the same effects as a monopolist's economic rent on capital and labor. The resource becomes the bottleneck of course before labor does. Now it seems as if the money supply is to be the bottleneck. Keynsian economics would actually work in this situation.

I'd also have to mention again that gold standard Austrian economics is not my cup of tea at all. It grants a monopoly to a single mineral resource. I don't like monopolies, not the Fed or the gold industry. Hayek for his part was for free banking I believe.

[Sutter Cane]

Re: On the credibility of Austrian economics

Sloppy post done late at night after having read too much frustrating and enraging stuff. My bad.

No apologies, please. I love Ames' writing style (angry, bitter, and profane), and I'm glad to see he is being featured on Naked Capitalism. Good blog but it needs some entertainment value sometimes.

[gwynedd1]

Re: On the credibility of Austrian economics

Sloppy post done late at night after having read too much frustrating and enraging stuff. My bad.

As I've said before it was originally Austrian influenced readings that brought me to itulip. To my mind they were useful in the diagnosis phase, specifically regarding credit / debt bubbles. But apart from saying what not to do I've never found they have much useful to say once their original warnings are ignored.

As far as I can recollect EJ has said that Austrian economics has value, but mostly as a stage you pass through.... I wouldn't describe his economics as Austrian particularly.

I very much agree with this. Austrian is preventative medicine. Now is not the time to go Austrian. When your government just gave away 13 trillion, market forces are not going to correct it. Now had we allowed the banks to fail, that is an Austrian concept I can believe in. I guess what I am saying is I am not for banker side socialism and citizen side Austrian.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: On the credibility of Austrian economics

This economic insanity was known as supply-side economics

According to Wikipedia:

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economics are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation.

1) There is nothing about this description that implies deficit spending.

2) To be against supply side would seem to mean: greater barriers to production are good, higher taxes are good, more regulation is good.

One could certainly argue with "capital gains" being taxed at lower rates than income, but that hardly makes the concept "insanity".

[jiimbergin]

Re: On the credibility of Austrian economics

According to Wikipedia:


1) There is nothing about this description that implies deficit spending.

2) To be against supply side would seem to mean: greater barriers to production are good, higher taxes are good, more regulation is good.

One could certainly argue with "capital gains" being taxed at lower rates than income, but that hardly makes the concept "insanity".

I agree, supply side economics by itself is fine until involves large decifit spending and poor enforcement of needed regulation.

[DSpencer]

Re: On the credibility of Austrian economics

As I've said before it was originally Austrian influenced readings that brought me to itulip. To my mind they were useful in the diagnosis phase, specifically regarding credit / debt bubbles. But apart from saying what not to do I've never found they have much useful to say once their original warnings are ignored.

I'm pretty in line with the Austrians views, but I think that is a fair assessment. I think this is partly due to the complexities of each unique situation. I think of itulip as more of an applied science specific for our current situation. This is what makes it seem very practical and appealing to me.

As far as I can recollect EJ has said that Austrian economics has value, but mostly as a stage you pass through.... I wouldn't describe his economics as Austrian particularly.

If I recall correctly, he said that he draws from many different schools of economic thought including Austrian. I believe there were some specific aspects he mentioned as being missing or flawed in the Austrian school, but I can't remember well enough to warrant guessing.

[Starving Steve]

Re: On the credibility of Austrian economics

I have to disagree with you there. I have seen very little Keynesian economics lately. They certainly have not spent for economic revival. Their bailout is a purely monetarist act(used to cover fraud ) and in my opinion, a complete facade. Still that fall under monetarism.

The complete failure to digest the the third input of land and mineral assets during the oil embargo in the 70s discredited a justifiable Keynesian concept when it applies. In a liquidity trap, that's all there is. Why they couldn't figure out that if you had half the amount of farmland, that printing more money would not get full employment for farmers makes me think economists are one narrow minded bunch married to their theory. Resource shortages have the same effects as a monopolist's economic rent on capital and labor. The resource becomes the bottleneck of course before labor does. Now it seems as if the money supply is to be the bottleneck. Keynsian economics would actually work in this situation.

I'd also have to mention again that gold standard Austrian economics is not my cup of tea at all. It grants a monopoly to a single mineral resource. I don't like monopolies, not the Fed or the gold industry. Hayek for his part was for free banking I believe.

Pick-up a kilo bar of pure gold or maybe thirty-five old U.S. $20 gold pieces, and you will immediately think differently about the gold standard. You can feel real money in your hand. You can look at it, not imagine it from some economics textbook nor from some abstract central bank accounting entry.

[DSpencer]

Re: On the credibility of Austrian economics

The boo-ing of the First Lady of America for her presence at the NASCAR races in Florida, just yesterday or Sunday, turns my stomach. Every American should be ashamed.

Why? Because the wife of our corrupt President wasn't treated like royalty or a popular celebrity? Our President is a joke, just like the last one. He's dishonest. He's owned by special interests. The majority of Americans do not approve of the job he is doing.

So why should his wife show up to make celebrity style appearances and expect to be cheered? She wasn't just booed for her presence, she took part in the opening tradition of every NASCAR race.

I don't want to be too extreme about this but...These people are our enemy. They take our money and give it to banks and the companies of campaign donors. When they can't get enough they take on debt on our behalf, essentially pledging our future income and that of our children.

And lastly....It's a freaking NASCAR event! This isn't Obama's core group of supporters to say the least. When he talks about bitter people clinging to guns and religion, he probably pictures someone in a NASCAR hat.

If anything, Americans should be ashamed that we usually do treat politicians and celebrities like royalty.

/rant

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: On the credibility of Austrian economics

Spencer I agree with you. Although Steve can say that he hates the democrat party and blames them for the EPA etc he seems to be in their camp because 90% of his rants are agaisnt republicans, christians or white southerners.

Why is it a disgrace that she was booed at a Nascar event? Who cares? That is much better than being idolized in glossy magazines for his so called "style"

This act by the media to say that Michelle Obama is pretty and stylish seems disingenious. She is niether pretty nor stylish. Naomi Campbell is a pretty black woman, Michele Obama is quite unattractive.

It is all bias media for the simply fact that she is black.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: On the credibility of Austrian economics

All they need to do is enforce the laws that were already on the books, we dont need more regulation. More regulation is just what the government wants so they can control more information/money flow so that they can profit from it.

This is how most people think;

I have a friend who is in sales. He claims to me that the sales people get paid way too much money and would do the same amount of work for half the sales commission. He says that once he gets to a management position (by virtue of being one of the top salesman) he is going to change the sales structure so that people get paid half of what they would have received when he was in sales.

He clearly sees the advantage he gets but wants to take it away from anyone else. This is how I think Warren Buffett thinks and many people in government think. Buffett now wants to change all the tax rules that favored him for 99% of his career so that no one can get to his lofty position.

[gwynedd1]

Re: On the credibility of Austrian economics

I agree, supply side economics by itself is fine until involves large decifit spending and poor enforcement of needed regulation.

Yeah except when the wealthy go rent seeking which does the exact opposite. Then the whole thing expands until you recognize that's no moon, its a space station.

[gwynedd1]

Re: On the credibility of Austrian economics

Pick-up a kilo bar of pure gold or maybe thirty-five old U.S. $20 gold pieces, and you will immediately think differently about the gold standard. You can feel real money in your hand. You can look at it, not imagine it from some economics textbook nor from some abstract central bank accounting entry.

Quickly realize what happens when someone else has all those gold bars and hordes them. I have gold as an investment. I may even accept an international gold standard that has supply and movement carefully watched by everyone. However we are going to need to compensate for the shift in wealth. since just having a gold bar up your kiester should not entitle you to a vast territory.

[lektrode]

Re: On the credibility of Austrian economics

...If anything, Americans should be ashamed that we usually do treat politicians and celebrities like royalty.

/rant

+1
but to give mr steve _some_ credit, he does get some of one part correct:

...
So the bottom-line is the Constitution creates immediate gridlock in the federal govn't, and the gridlock allows for two-year terms of corruption and theft in the House and six-year terms of such in the Senate. Sad to say that the American people, more often than not, are completely divorced ( isolated ) from the corrupt happenings in Washington, and the American people have given-up on the Congress and the entire system of governance in Washington.

and the gridlock in DC is due to the political class' - on both sides of the aisle - insistence on drowning our problems in 'someone elses money' typically to buy the votes of the 'dependant class' ie: everybody who suckles at the .gov teat.

while they let the oligarchs sell The Rest of US down the river as economic slaves.

meanwhile, the lamestream media keeps us distracted (see kim kardashian's divorce) while they obfuscate The Truth
(see newt grinwitch...)

its just too bad that _most_ of the OWS crowd has been fed a pile of BS and we see how well _thats_ being received, by the mostly-silent/center-right MAJORITY of the public.

and hey! altho i'm still a backer of OWS, they being hijacked by the left is my/the problem.