tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post4472330271871944090..comments2024-03-28T17:08:15.784-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Hayek and Equilibrium as a Starting Point for an Austrian Trade CycleLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-22502730307041084112011-09-29T11:26:29.462-07:002011-09-29T11:26:29.462-07:00Anonymous:
The state is not FORCING people to ta...Anonymous:<br /><br /><br /><i>The state is not FORCING people to take those jobs, after all;</i><br /><br />The state is FORCING people to pay.<br /><br />You seem to believe that money grows on trees and as long as the state has a printing press, it can abolish all economic laws and exploit nobody while everyone gains. We used to call such attitudes Utopian, but yours goes even deeper. It's Dystopian.<br /><br /><i>if they're happier waiting for private industry to deign allow them to contribute to society once more, then they're free to do so.</i><br /><br />Those who have to pay for it are not free to opt out.<br /><br /><i>If you think the government would not price those jobs accurately, then I guess this boils down to which potential inefficiency is greater; that of mis-priced infrastructure, or that of increasing poverty and missed opportunities to promote social wealth.</i><br /><br />False dichotomy. Government spending increases poverty in the long run, which passed years ago.<br /><br /><i>At the VERY least, I'm sure you'll concede that public works employment is in every way superior to unemployment insurance; unlike the latter, those receiving checks under a job guarantee system are actually contributing value to society, engaging with the community, and cultivating a healthier attitude.</i><br /><br />You can't claim public works adds value to "society" unless you observe individuals voluntarily paying for it. You can't say that it is adding value to those individuals who have to pay for "infrastructure" they don't even use (individuals pay for not only the "infrastructure" they use, but also what they don't use, and would not use or pay for if they had the choice)<br /><br /><i>As someone who spent two solid years after college throwing hundreds of resumes into the vast, unresponsive void that is the current labor market, I can attest that it does not do wonders for one's sense of self-worth.</i><br /><br />You can thank the government for screwing the economy up. The people you are sending your resumes to are themselves victims as well.<br /><br />I never understood how statists can possibly believe that the working class can be helped by attacking those who hire workers. It's like claiming that hungry people can be helped by attacking food producers.<br /><br /><i>Finally, it doesn't require mind reading to see that highways are badly damaged.</i><br /><br />It requires mind reading to know just where people value another highway, which highways to repair, what price they are willing to pay, and how much they will use them, in the absence of a market.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-25607059297561896632011-09-29T11:26:20.324-07:002011-09-29T11:26:20.324-07:00Anonymous:
"You're calling for individua...Anonymous:<br /><br /><i>"You're calling for individuals in the state to read minds when you claim that they can plan people's lives better than the people can plan their own lives in economic freedom. Hayek showed that governments lack the knowledge you Keynesians presume the government must have."</i><br /><br /><i>I've been watching this for some time and I don't think I've ever seen him recommend mind reading as a practical solution to anything.</i><br /><br />You haven't been paying attention. Mind reading is a necessary condition for Keynesianism to do what it says it can do.<br /><br /><i>I guess if he were, this argument would carry some water, but I'm thinking this might be one of those notorious "straw men."</i><br /><br />Which straw men are you talking about?<br /><br /><i>Mischievous things, coming in and changing arguments left and right.</i><br /><br />It's more like you are not able to read between the lines of people's arguments and claims.<br /><br /><i>Anyway, a state has no power to read minds, but fortunately it does not need such a power; if labor is underutilized and people are suffering, simply offering employment will enable people to "plan their own lives in economic freedom," just with one more option for what form said life might take.</i><br /><br />That requires mind reading. It requires the state to know what other people value such that they "react" in the way the state intends.<br /><br /><i>Since crowding out is not an issue (government and private spending are complements below full employment, and only substitutes BEYOND that point)</i><br /><br />False. The law of scarcity and opportunity costs do not vanish just because there is unemployment or idle resources<br /><br /><i>it's a win-win.</i><br /><br />No, it's a win-lose, with everyone losing relative to what could have been had in the free market.<br /><br />The winners are those who receive the stolen money and the income generating wealth. ("But borrowing is not theft!" Yes, borrowing is not, but the state must steal to pay the debt back, if not sooner, then later)<br /><br />The losers are those who are stolen from to pay for it.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-2485612346119127982011-09-23T10:05:16.606-07:002011-09-23T10:05:16.606-07:00You're calling for individuals in the state to...<i>You're calling for individuals in the state to read minds when you claim that they can plan people's lives better than the people can plan their own lives in economic freedom. Hayek showed that governments lack the knowledge you Keynesians presume the government must have.</i><br /><br />I've been watching this for some time and I don't think I've ever seen him recommend mind reading as a practical solution to anything. I guess if he were, this argument would carry some water, but I'm thinking this might be one of those notorious "straw men." Mischievous things, coming in and changing arguments left and right.<br /><br />Say, now, THERE's a service the private sector needs to hurry up and provide; straw man extermination. Like the Orkin Man, but for internet arguments.<br /><br />Anyway, a state has no power to read minds, but fortunately it does not need such a power; if labor is underutilized and people are suffering, simply offering employment will enable people to "plan their own lives in economic freedom," just with one more option for what form said life might take. Since crowding out is not an issue (government and private spending are complements below full employment, and only substitutes BEYOND that point), it's a win-win. The state is not FORCING people to take those jobs, after all; if they're happier waiting for private industry to deign allow them to contribute to society once more, then they're free to do so.<br /><br />If you think the government would not price those jobs accurately, then I guess this boils down to which potential inefficiency is greater; that of mis-priced infrastructure, or that of increasing poverty and missed opportunities to promote social wealth.<br /><br />At the VERY least, I'm sure you'll concede that public works employment is in every way superior to unemployment insurance; unlike the latter, those receiving checks under a job guarantee system are actually contributing value to society, engaging with the community, and cultivating a healthier attitude. As someone who spent two solid years after college throwing hundreds of resumes into the vast, unresponsive void that is the current labor market, I can attest that it does not do wonders for one's sense of self-worth.<br /><br />Finally, it doesn't require mind reading to see that highways are badly damaged. Just a working set of eyes. Or, in the case of the blind, a passenger seat in a car that happens to be traversing one of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-283951814558440032011-09-23T08:13:39.148-07:002011-09-23T08:13:39.148-07:00"That must make you mad when you hear liberta...<i>"That must make you mad when you hear libertarians calling for peaceful cooperation instead."</i><br /><br /><i>More mindreading, huh.</i><br /><br />No, that follows from your ad hominems against those advocating for peaceful cooperation instead of Keynesianism. No mind reading there either.<br /><br />You're calling for individuals in the state to read minds when you claim that they can plan people's lives better than the people can plan their own lives in economic freedom. Hayek showed that governments lack the knowledge you Keynesians presume the government must have.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-47549808789359580752011-09-23T08:02:55.962-07:002011-09-23T08:02:55.962-07:00"That must make you mad when you hear liberta...<i>"That must make you mad when you hear libertarians calling for peaceful cooperation instead."</i><br /><br />More mindreading, huh.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-32112228135474855172011-09-23T07:55:33.107-07:002011-09-23T07:55:33.107-07:00There is no world conspiracy needed here, any more...<i>There is no world conspiracy needed here, any more than there is no worldwide conspiracy needed to understand that homicidal maniacs are similar from country to country,</i><br /><br /><i>LOL... So now every person in goverment or (perhaps you mean) all major policy makers in government are "homicidal maniacs"? Is that correct?</i><br /><br />Straw man. It was an analogy of principle, not a characterization. <br /><br />But if you want to actually connect homicidal maniacs with government, then I will say that the worst homicidal maniacs to have ever lived, were all politicians. I don't have a list, but I am willing to bet that the top 10,000 homicidal maniacs were in government.<br /><br /><i>It's like you're a living, breathing caricature of all the irrational aburdity of libertarianism sent to provide the world with humour.</i><br /><br />First straw man, now ad hominem. All because your ethical worldview is depraved and evil, and because you can't make an argument. You're just so embarrassed that your immoral and violent worldview requires the actions of immoral and violent people in order to be manifested. That must make you mad when you hear libertarians calling for peaceful cooperation instead.<br /><br />You're a caricature of internet statists who have to live vicariously through violent people in government, because you lack a grounded philosophy with which to live your own life.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-36886415397006052092011-09-23T07:40:39.420-07:002011-09-23T07:40:39.420-07:00There is no world conspiracy needed here, any more...<i>There is no world conspiracy needed here, any more than there is no worldwide conspiracy needed to understand that homicidal maniacs are similar from country to country,</i><br /><br />LOL... So now every person in goverment or (perhaps you mean) all major policy makers in government are "homicidal maniacs"? Is that correct?<br /><br />It's like you're a living, breathing caricature of all the irrational aburdity of libertarianism sent to provide the world with humour.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-27197984933282735562011-09-23T07:35:07.608-07:002011-09-23T07:35:07.608-07:00Bruning in Germany. Dollfus the Austro-fascist in ...<i>Bruning in Germany. Dollfus the Austro-fascist in Austria did. That didn't restore employment.</i><br /><br />It raised employment from where it otherwise would have been. It doesn't have to absolutely raise employment for us to know lower wage rates raises employment all else equal. It follows from the law of marginal utility.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-15757387241205577512011-09-23T07:33:24.029-07:002011-09-23T07:33:24.029-07:00"Most economists were very uncomfortable with...<i>"Most economists were very uncomfortable with that fact, what with unions and politicians running around saying higher wages are good for the economy."</i><br /><br /><i>That's rubbish. Numerous policy-makes in the 1930s did want falling real wages.</i><br /><br />Most ECONOMISTS. Learn how to read.<br /><br /><i>"they were so concerned with human life, that they were putting American citizens in prison for victimless crimes, murdering innocent people overseas in senseless wars, and all sorts of other violent actions."</i><br /><br /><i>The US was engaged in "senseless wars" in the 1930s and "all sorts of other violent actions"?</i><br /><br />Not <i>in</i> the 1930s. The same politicians <i>of</i> the 1930s. "They", not "when".<br /><br />They were not putting American citizens in prison for victimless crimes? Really?<br /><br /><i>And what "victimless crimes" are you talking about?</i><br /><br />Every single law that is not a protection against physical force to person or property. There were (and are) MANY such laws. Selling goods and services without a government license. Producing money without government permission/sanction. Buying/selling goods without a tariff. Buying/selling "illegal" goods and services. Buying/selling land without government approval. The New Deal made non-New Deal dealings illegal. Buying/selling labor without abiding by the labor laws. Holding physical gold was made illegal by executive order. There were so many victimless crimes created during the 1930s that many consider the 1930s to be when the American free market system finally died.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-35308577468897159142011-09-23T06:45:32.779-07:002011-09-23T06:45:32.779-07:00"they were so concerned with human life, that...<i>"they were so concerned with human life, that they were putting American citizens in prison for victimless crimes, murdering innocent people overseas in senseless wars, and all sorts of other violent actions."</i><br /><br />The US was engaged in "senseless wars" in the 1930s and "all sorts of other violent actions"? Where? <br /><br />And what "victimless crimes" are you talking about?<br /><br />Sure, congress was "persecuting" Americans by <br />repealing prohibition 1933 and letting people enjoy a good drink again!Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-29128136705302718922011-09-23T06:42:39.044-07:002011-09-23T06:42:39.044-07:00"they were so concerned with human life, that...<i>"they were so concerned with human life, that they were putting American citizens in prison for victimless crimes, murdering innocent people overseas in senseless wars, and all sorts of other violent actions."</i><br /><br />The US was engaged in "senseless wars" in the 1930s and "all sorts of other violent actions"? Where?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-8954878201440316752011-09-23T06:39:05.174-07:002011-09-23T06:39:05.174-07:00"Most economists were very uncomfortable with...<i>"Most economists were very uncomfortable with that fact, what with unions and politicians running around saying higher wages are good for the economy."</i><br /><br />That's rubbish. Numerous policy-makes in the 1930s <i>did</i> want falling real wages. <br /><br />Bruning in Germany. Dollfus the Austro-fascist in Austria did. That didn't restore employment.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-72372889338225047512011-09-23T06:35:39.473-07:002011-09-23T06:35:39.473-07:00Keynes did not recommend something new that govern...<i>Keynes did not recommend something new that governments weren't already doing at the time. He just gave a seeming explanation of its alleged economic benefits on non-government actors, which is why governments around the world enthusiastically embraced Keynes. Finally they had an intellectual justification for their rotten political violence.</i><br /><br /><i>Oh, I see. Keynesian policies were only adopted because these wicked governments wanted "intellectual justification for their rotten political violence". You just "know" that, do you? By telepathy, perhaps?</i><br /><br />Hahaha, you have no argument. Yes, I do know that, because I know the nature of the state, you don't.<br /><br /><i>You can no doubt read the minds of thousands of dead politicians and policy-makers from the 1930s, and you just "know" it was because they were simply looking for "intellectual justification for their rotten political violence".</i><br /><br />I don't need to read minds. I can observe their actions.<br /><br /><i>Meanwhile, in the real world, where we can use empirical evidence, we have the memoirs, public and private writings and thoughts of<br />politicians and policy-makers from the 1930s.</i><br /><br />Meanwhile, politicians lie, cheat, and did I say they lie?<br /><br /><i>We find instead that many of them tell us how they actually felt horror seeing their fellow human beings suffering hunger, homelessness and unemployment, or feeling that there was massive waste in depressed economies, with idle plant and idle labour.</i><br /><br />Hahahaha, yes, they were so concerned with human life, that they were putting American citizens in prison for victimless crimes, murdering innocent people overseas in senseless wars, and all sorts of other violent actions. But we're supposed to ignore all that because some bureaucrat wrote in his memoirs that he cares about people.<br /><br />Hilter and Stalin also wrote that they care about people. By your logic, we should ignore the evidence of violent actions, and instead go by what they write and say in public.<br /><br /><i>It must all have been one massive global conspiracy of thousands of politicians to deceive us, huh??</i><br /><br />Straw man. There is no world conspiracy needed here, any more than there is no worldwide conspiracy needed to understand that homicidal maniacs are similar from country to country, despite having never met each other.<br /><br /><i>You live in a fantasy world of pure invention.</i><br /><br />Sorry, I am an atheist. YOU live in a fantasy world where governments, entities that have killed more innocent people, tortured more innocent people, imprisoned more innocent people, than any other human institution ever created, are somehow "concerned" with human welfare, instead of the truth, which is that they are self-interested and concerned with their own welfare, which is maintained through legalized violence.<br /><br />No wonder you're a statist. You actually believe in the myth that the state are like benevolent parents, who only want to look out for what's best for people, without knowing them, without ever having met them, without getting their permission first.<br /><br />Ironically, the notion that the state knows what's best for others, without asking them, is based on the very concept of mind reading that you accuse me of doing by my observing of the government's actions. Keynesian economics is BASED on believing the government can read individual's minds, and you have the gall to tell me I'm trying to read people's minds? That's hilarious!Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-89515035420187614402011-09-23T06:09:19.575-07:002011-09-23T06:09:19.575-07:00Keynes did not recommend something new that govern...<i>Keynes did not recommend something new that governments weren't already doing at the time. He just gave a seeming explanation of its alleged economic benefits on non-government actors, which is why governments around the world enthusiastically embraced Keynes. Finally they had an intellectual justification for their rotten political violence.</i><br /><br />Oh, I see. Keynesian policies were only adopted because these wicked governments wanted "intellectual justification for their rotten political violence". You just "know" that, do you? By telepathy, perhaps? <br /><br />You can no doubt read the minds of thousands of dead politicians and policy-makers from the 1930s, and you just "know" it was because they were simply looking for "intellectual justification for their rotten political violence".<br /><br />Meanwhile, in the real world, where we can use empirical evidence, we have the memoirs, public and private writings and thoughts of<br />politicians and policy-makers from the 1930s.<br /><br />We find instead that many of them tell us how they actually felt horror seeing their fellow human beings suffering hunger, homelessness and unemployment, or feeling that there was massive waste in depressed economies, with idle plant and idle labour.<br /><br />It must all have been one massive global conspiracy of thousands of politicians to deceive us, huh??<br /><br />You live in a fantasy world of pure invention.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-60879174892267156232011-09-23T05:43:25.304-07:002011-09-23T05:43:25.304-07:00"Both Britain and the US were deficit spendin...<i>"Both Britain and the US were deficit spending and inflating."</i><br /><br /><i>Just because there is a deficit does not mean any fiscal stimulus is being imparted.</i><br /><br />Red herring. I didn't say anything about "fiscal stimulus". I said fiscal deficits. I said by the time of Keynes, governments were already deficit spending and they were already inflating. I said that Keynes just provided a series of excuses that allegedly justifies such deficits and inflation as allegedly economically beneficial.<br /><br />Keynes did not recommend something new that governments weren't already doing at the time. He just gave a seeming explanation of its alleged economic benefits on non-government actors, which is why governments around the world enthusiastically embraced Keynes. Finally they had an intellectual justification for their rotten political violence. <br /><br />Economists were also relieved, because at the time, there was a rather large vacuum in sound economic thought after the classicals were abandoned. Since the labor theory of value was bupkus, and because classical economics utilized it, unfortunately what happened was that economists at the time just before Keynes totally rejected the entire classical school and all the good things about it that were still valid. One of them was the truth that falling wage rates is the cure for unemployment. Most economists were very uncomfortable with that fact, what with unions and politicians running around saying higher wages are good for the economy.<br /><br />Since Keynes said wages don't have to fall, economists like I said were relieved. No longer did they have to go against the tide. They could join in and say higher wages is not a problem if the government can spend and inflate more. The rest is history.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-79380416217858924452011-09-23T05:34:14.235-07:002011-09-23T05:34:14.235-07:00"Whatever you say, it's according to you....<i>"Whatever you say, it's according to you. Whatever I say, it's according to me."</i><br /><br /><i>In other words, your personal rambling interpretation of ABCT (with multiple rates) has no support in actual Austrian specialist literature?</i><br /><br />It doesn't need "support" in that particular way in order for it to be true. That's fallacy of authority. You might as well say relativity theory was wrong until someone published their own paper on it.<br /><br /><i>"If disequilibrium does not mean chaos,"</i><br /><br /><i>Of course it does not mean "choas."</i><br /><br />If disequilibrium does not mean chaos, <b>then that is equivalent to saying that disequilibrium is just another equilibrium tendency.</b><br /><br /><i>At the simplest level it just means that not all product markets are in equilibrium.</i><br /><br />Equilibrium theory does not argue that all product markets are in equilibrium. Equilibrium theory says that products markets TEND TOWARD, BUT NEVER REACH, equilibrium.<br /><br />Haven't you grasped the essence of equilibrium theory yet? Both Hayek and Mises held that equilibrium is never reached in the market, but that the market tends toward it.<br /><br />You keep spewing this straw man that equilibrium theory presumes equilibrium is an actual characteristic of the market and is reached. It is not reached. It is NEVER reached. It is where the market TENDS TOWARDS, BUT NEVER REACHES.<br /><br /><i>The labour market for example, might be out of equilibrium for long periods of time.</i><br /><br />Is that an empirical statement or a theoretical statement?<br /><br />In equilibrium theory, the labor market is ALWAYS "out of equilibrium." The labor market, in a free unhampered labor market, TENDS TOWARDS, BUT NEVER REACHES, equilibrium.<br /><br />If your claim above is empirical, then if you claim that a free labor market "might be out of equilibrium for long periods of time" then certainly you must have empirical evidence of a free unhampered market in labor to which you refer that was "out of equilibrium for long periods of time."<br /><br />And what is "long period of time" anyway? 1 month? 1 year? 2 years? 10 years? Why is the period you choose a "long period of time" but say half that time is not?<br /><br /><i>Maybe in a given time you might find that quantity x of commodity y supplied in a market just happens to match the demand for it. Maybe a few markets are like that in that time period. Perhaps you can find empirical evidence of it. But that isn't Walrasian general equilibrium.</i><br /><br />Austrians don't presume that Walrasian equilibrium is ever reached, and Austrians devote more of their intellectual efforts on the market process, not on states of equilibrium. Equilibrium for Austrians is used as a mental tool only, not as a model of actual market economies.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-31409169912054166792011-09-23T05:29:15.362-07:002011-09-23T05:29:15.362-07:00"Both Britain and the US were deficit spendin...<i>"Both Britain and the US were deficit spending and inflating."</i><br /><br />Just because there is a deficit does not mean any fiscal stimulus is being imparted. Ireland had and still has now one of the worst budget deficits in Europe, but that is because their tax revenue has collapsed. They have actually cut government spending.<br /><br />The same thing happened in the UK during the depression. In 1931 taxes were raised and spending was cut by 70 million pounds. That didn't stop the depression.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-88481630738586538202011-09-23T05:14:53.752-07:002011-09-23T05:14:53.752-07:00"If disequilibrium does not mean chaos,"...<i>"If disequilibrium does not mean chaos,"</i><br /><br />Of course it does not mean "choas."<br /><br />At the simplest level it just means that not all product markets are in equilibrium. The labour market for example, might be out of equilibrium for long periods of time.<br /><br />Maybe in a given time you might find that quantity x of commodity y supplied in a market just happens to match the demand for it. Maybe a few markets are like that in that time period. Perhaps you can find empirical evidence of it. But that isn't Walrasian general equilibrium.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-13233707706910797072011-09-23T05:05:55.388-07:002011-09-23T05:05:55.388-07:00"Whatever you say, it's according to you....<i>"Whatever you say, it's according to you. Whatever I say, it's according to me."</i><br /><br />In other words, your personal rambling interpretation of ABCT (with multiple rates) has no support in actual Austrian specialist literature?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-73680747791379459202011-09-23T04:33:43.088-07:002011-09-23T04:33:43.088-07:00"That is whole basis of Hayek's
theory.
...<i>"That is whole basis of Hayek's<br />theory.</i><br /><br /><i>Yes, but it is not necessary to ABCT that there be one bank rate, or one natural interest rate."</i><br /><br /><i>According to whom?</i><br /><br />Whatever you say, it's according to you. Whatever I say, it's according to me. To ask "according to whom?" is like saying "according to who do you accept what you accept?"<br /><br /><i>While Murphy denies the existence of a unique natural rate, he has yet to produce any work showing how ABCT actually works with its non-existence.</i><br /><br />Nobody has produced any work showing how ABCT is invalidated by the introduction of multiple natural interest rates.<br /><br /><i>"Yes, but it is not necessary to ABCT that there be one bank rate, or one natural interest rate. "</i><br /><br /><i>I repeat: Oh, really?:</i><br /><br />Yes, really.<br /><br /><i>Care to tell which actual Austrian says that? Not counting internet Rothbardians.</i><br /><br />Yes, say something, not counting internet Keynesians.<br /><br />Anonymous:<br /><br /><i>No, it is not a false and invalid theory. Time preference is literally undeniable. It is built into the nature of action and human choice.</i><br /><br /><i>Here we go again with the austrian cult nonsense. When backed into a corner, the answer is always "it's that way because I said so!" Where's the evidence?</i><br /><br />Here we go again. Claim time preference theory is false, then explain it as "because I said so!"<br /><br />Anonymous:<br /><br /><i>I don't get how the Austrians can claim that businessmen, investors and entrepreneurs can do just fine in the absence of government intervention or central bank manipulation of interest rates, yet when these institutions step in all of a sudden these very same businessmen, investors and entrepreneurs are seen as idiots who easily get misled into malinvestments.</i><br /><br />Businessmen, investors and entrepreneurs cannot be smart about that which they cannot observe (market interest rates) and thus acquire knowledge over. They also cannot read the minds of central bankers who cavalierly inflate more rapidly and then more slowly, who themselves don't even know what the money supply and spending stream will be in response to their actions.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-85407676630280046872011-09-23T04:33:28.178-07:002011-09-23T04:33:28.178-07:00(1) disequilibrium does not mean chaos. That is no...<i>(1) disequilibrium does not mean chaos. That is nonsense.</i><br /><br />If disequilibrium does not mean chaos, then that is equivalent to saying that disequilibrium is just another equilibrium tendency.<br /><br /><i>(2) "He did not blame the government because his purpose was to JUSTIFY what the government was already doing, which is deficit spending and inflation"</i><br /><br /><i>Keynesian stimulus was not even tried in Britain, Keynes's home. So you must be referring to the US.</i><br /><br />Both Britain and the US were deficit spending and inflating.<br /><br /><br /><i>"Ah well, if you say "radical subjectivist", then sure. There's definitely a number of Lachmannian economists today, and they all hang out at the coordination problem blog."</i><br /><br /><i>Since Lachmman was the founder of the radical subjectivist movement in Austrian economics, either one you reveal (1) gross ignorance or (2) you're deliberating playing "dumb" to try and evade the fact that you were obviously wrong in saying no Austrian are Lachmannians today.</i><br /><br />You fool. By your crap logic, since Menger was the founder of Austrian economics, every Austrian today should be called a "follower of Menger."<br /><br />There is a big difference between being a founder and being someone who currently has "followers."<br /><br />Just like calling oneself "Post-Keynesian" is different from calling oneself "follower of Kalecki" or "follower of Robinson" so too is there a difference between "radical subjectivist" and "follower of Lachmann."<br /><br />You're either being dishonest in order to salvage irreconcilable claims, or you're just ignorant.<br /><br /><i>cite me one Austrian economist in a book or article who does not rely on a unique natural rate/equilibrium rate in an exposition of ABCT.</i><br /><br />Cite me one economist who has shown that the introduction of multiple natural interest rates invalidates ABCT's core theory of inter-temporal coordination and economic calculation.<br /><br /><i>Your peculiar exposition of ABCT is one you're just made up.</i><br /><br />No, it's been true since the introduction of assuming multiple natural interest rates, which means 70 or 80 years.<br /><br /><i>Show me where Garrison or Skousen etc. says there can be multiple natural rates.</i><br /><br />Rhetorical question.Petenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-34559767722784016962011-09-22T17:59:06.776-07:002011-09-22T17:59:06.776-07:00I don't get how the Austrians can claim that b...I don't get how the Austrians can claim that businessmen, investors and entrepreneurs can do just fine in the absence of government intervention or central bank manipulation of interest rates, yet when these institutions step in all of a sudden these very same businessmen, investors and entrepreneurs are seen as idiots who easily get misled into malinvestments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-57427266435463843512011-09-22T15:34:36.161-07:002011-09-22T15:34:36.161-07:00No, it is not a false and invalid theory. Time pre...<i>No, it is not a false and invalid theory. Time preference is literally undeniable. It is built into the nature of action and human choice.</i><br /><br />Here we go again with the austrian cult nonsense. When backed into a corner, the answer is always "it's that way because I said so!" Where's the evidence?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-41469078878467905342011-09-22T11:48:28.603-07:002011-09-22T11:48:28.603-07:00"Yes, but it is not necessary to ABCT that th...<i>"Yes, but it is not necessary to ABCT that there be one bank rate, or one natural interest rate. "</i><br /><br />I repeat: Oh, really?:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/09/abct-without-unique-natural-rate-of.html<br /><br />Care to tell which actual Austrian says that? Not counting internet Rothbardians.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-72421269163981922552011-09-22T11:47:02.898-07:002011-09-22T11:47:02.898-07:00Anonymous,
Thanks for the additional info!
It...Anonymous,<br /><br />Thanks for the additional info! <br />It's good to see more Lachmannian Austrians :).Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.com