Strawman for externalities. Your trillion dollar case would be, uhh.. a class action, then, right?
So you have been there.
Yeah, I don’t why you would expect econometrics here…It is almost as if you are lying… Also, why do you not post responses to the actual theorists? Or just tell me where you went to school? I just want to look up the curriculum there and compare it to some other schools.
We give you examples (you cite papers, we respond in kind) but the difference is that we read and critique your papers, you don’t even read ours. Then, you come out with with propositions like “ABCT doesn’t account for x…” But, you won’t read our responses. So, that circular logic thing, well ironically the concept of “mirror” comes to mind.
haha. Cymini Sectores.
Did you go to meteorology school, then? Are you a meteorologist? It would be more accurate to say that predictions simply aren’t forward looking in every instance…
Again, you are pussy for not responding to our theory (theories)…and merely positing (worn out) assumptions about it (them).
Yes, same for extreme farting or waving your arms excessively as you walk down a crowded street. Conflicts are natural. Even your very existence may be conflicting with my ability to walk in a straight line right through you, but I always have a choice between a realm #1 (peaceful) or realm #2 (aggressive) interaction with such a predicament.
By all means you could do that, except in the current legal monopolistic system the same entity that allows polluters to pollute (government through regulation) would be the one which decides that your aggressor has done nothing illegal (“Look, they followed the regulations which their lobby pushed to be made into law! Sorry, its the law.”)
Every action (choice) carries opportunity costs. Every transaction comes with costs. How, pray tell, did you conclude that a monopolistic coercive parasite would lower your costs of transacting with others? How much does your freedom cost?
It’s alright, this debate has made as much progress as it can anyway. If the Austrian response to a recession is that full employment is not defineable, or even desireable, then we’re going to have two very entrenched positions. They’ve managed to prove that the proper response to the situation we’re in now is “it’s cool” and “8% unemployment is fine if that’s the market’s outcome”. Sure, it is internally consistent. But I’ll be danged if it’s going to convince anyone outside Mises.org that your theory is a good idea.
Keynesian central planing and central banking have accumulated massive malinvestments over (at least) the last few decades. You can’t indefinitely escape the consequences from these malinvestments by kicking the can down the road and by even more intrusive central planning/banking. The best, healthiest, and QUICKEST way to get out of this mess is to FINALLY let the market decide where prices of EVERYTHING (interest rates, houses, stocks, treasury bonds, wages, etc.) should be.
The problem with democracy is that even if whoever is in power knows about this solution (which is a stretch) he has no incentive to implement it on his watch because (1) he would be the one to blame for the inevitable pain that comes with it, and (2) his rich buddies (current asset holders) would lose a ton of wealth hence would never let him do it.
The combination of central banking + democracy is praxeologically and logically unsustainable. Throw in Keynes into he mix and you got yourself a doozy. The ONLY possible outcomes going forward are: (1) Ron Paul wins, and he slowly and carefully allows the markets to eradicate the malinvestments , (2) total and utter collapse of society as we know it.
You have no idea how deep the crap around you really is. You will wish 8% unemployment was your biggest problem.
Those are some very, very strong empirical hypothesis. Especially the “Ron Paul winning the election” one. Did you know that he lost to Fred Karger in the Puerto Rico primary? By the way, total and utter collapse wouldn’t be such a bad thing for you if it produced anarco-capitalism. But sounds like you’re taking an upside down page out of Marx’s book. Now act like I spelled hypotheses wrong and that means you win.
To a lot of unemployed people, it probably is a really big problem. If you think that society is going to collapse in ten years (or some unspecified length of time?), though, you should be stocking up on basic necessities rather than spending money on internet subscriptions.
An utter collapse wouldn’t produce anything desirable, for anyone.
How about you suggest your solution or prognosis? Giving central bankers and central planners MORE power – this time with smarter planners offering better solutions? Let Krugman straighten everything out?
Let me see if I correctly describe how this circus really works: The people demand stuff (jobs, roasted chickens falling from the sky, etc.). They democratically elect central planners who promise to give them what they want. Then the central planners ask the central bankers to create the money with which to buy the stuff the people need. Then they give the stuff to the people. No?
How could a normal (i.e. not crazy) person think something like this could EVER work over any significant period of time?
Again, I’ll ask you to substantiate these quotes. No one has said this.
Hutt has a point, for if there were to never be unemployment there could be no reallocation of resources towards more efficient ends as is desirable in a world of perpetual disequilibrium. Labor could not transition from one project to another because such a transition would require a degree of unemployment. Clearly such a statement is against your dogma and you are incapable of processing it without reacting emotionally. That, or you’re a troll which I’m believing more and more.
Nobody ever argued that there should be no unemployment. The definition of full employment used by enconomists doesn’t mean that. Anyway, if the citation I provided isn’t sufficient, you’re free to provide your own position.
If he gets elected (and there’s 0% chance he will, with cardiac arrest a few years down the road and Romney already securing the nomination), all he can do is obstruction. He can only win the budget he wants if congress is on his side.
Ron Paul becoming president would be a total freak occurence and once elected all he could do is use his veto to help out the most conservative 1/3rd of Congress.
I dunno how far down that road RP would want to go.
And even if we (republicans) managed to get a majority in the Senate and keep our majority in the House, there’s no guarantee that the Congress would pass legislation that RP would be favorable to. Sure he can veto (and pocket veto) bills but vetoes can be overriden with a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate.
Ultimately I have to agree with you, RP would basically be an obstruction.
Hutt didn’t actually say these things. The reviewer did, in a casual non-academic review summarizing the book’s contents. Not an appropriate basis for criticism since you haven’t even read it and likely won’t. Replace “full employment” with a usable definition and then we’ll talk. Hutt’s point is that 0% unemployment is harmful for the economy because it freezes the mobility of labor. Do you agree or disagree?
As in, no one in the thread actually said that?
I have to say, I was surprised by the amount of ad hominem being slung your way but I’m understanding more since, to my knowledge, you don’t place much priority on intellectually honest arguments.
That 0% unemployment is bad? Sure. That’s not exactly what’s meant by “full employment”.
Full employment is the state where no cyclical unemployment exists. It’s debateable what exactly constitutes cyclical unemployment versus structural unemployment, but the level of unemployment we have now is certainly not all structural if the business cycle has any meaning.
IS/LM presents an internally consistent model of liquidity trap, and shows how it can create prolonged cyclical unemployment. It’s possible to argue the normative differences between AE and other schools, and defend AE on those grounds. But the IS/LM model is internally consistent too. If one wants to argue that recessions endure because of time preferences, that’s semantically workable. It’s just not going to do anything for the people out of work.
Keynes defines full employment as a state wherein only voluntary employment exists.
I believe the Austrian position on ‘cyclical employment’ refers to price-floors on labor and the expansion of credit and the subsequent boom and bust. Technically it is impossible for there to be involuntary employment if there were no artificially imposed price floors.
Except for where it’s inconsistent with microeconomic law.
You should know that Austrian Economics does not ‘recommend’ outcomes, it only tells the consequences of certain actions.
What? Who says that recessions endure because of time preferences?
I see. I’m discussing IS/LM, and I’m going to use Keynesian terms and defintions, if it’s not a problem.
Where, exactly? The IS/LM does not explicity model household income or savings, only investment, (aggregate) savings, liquidity preference, and money supply.
If you’re interested in a microeconomic extension of IS/LM, I could probably find a few.
“Normative” was the wrong word, I guess. But, for one thing, describing the liquidity trap described in IS/LM as a change in time preferences sets one well apart from other economists. Which you bring up next.