Which has what to do with his methodological contributions?
Which impacts Mises’ interpretation of Kant and overall position, how? (FYI, Heidegger was not a rationalist)
Both thinkers have been improved upon.
And yet again, what does this have to do with rationalism? BTW, the Austrians have gone a lot farther than ‘rhetoric’ (which, peculiarly, you associate with rationalism - why?)
Oh, sure, there’s no problem with that.
Beside, if the fed can digitally increase the money supply of my bank account it would be very nice of them, I’m a bit bankrupt these days.
finally, i can’t think of any austrian who predicts a return of the great depression, in the sense of a deflationary crisis.
-then you haven’t read any Frank Shostak. Also, in AGD, Rothbard argues exactly this point - that the Fed did try to keep the money supply from falling but since the pool of funding was depleted, banks wouldn’t lend and consumers wouldn’t borrow.
It is true that it is based in logical positivism, but given that this is the primary influence on positivism as applied in neoclassical economics (especially based on essays by Friedman etc, which the authors cite in the book itself), it is a pertinent feature. I mixed up which was a subset of which though.
I don’t know if anyone has answered this later down the thread but when people say ‘the Fed is printing money’ they know full well that they aren’t physically printing money. That’s the Treasury’s job. What do they call that, a euphemism? Sounds a lot better than ‘the Fed is a bunch of immoral counterfeiters’, no?
I also wouldn’t be a responsible netizen if I didn’t correct the grammar in your title;
Nathyn, you got the Austrian Business Cycle wrong, you got Friedman vs. Rothbard wrong, in fact, pretty much every economic issue you’ve posted on you’ve gotten wrong.
The Fed’s recieves interest on the money it prints for the Federal Government. That interest goes to the stock holders of the Federal, who are…oh wait, the stockholders names are secret.
How did I know that a thread with this title would be made by you?
With regards to the first point, I believe that a rise in productivity and economic development combined with monetary imperialism ( allowing us to export inflation) is what kept inflation down.
The debt fell by roughly a trillion$ correct? Why does economic growth and a fall in debt not make sense from an Austrian perspective? Define the austrian perspective in this case.
Price targeting was a fundamental part of the economic scene during the late 1920’s too.
The money supply needn’t increase, decrease, or exist at the same level to fluctuate perfectly. Any increase in the supply, ceteris paribus, will automatically adjust the price level of money downards, yes, however we do not live with all things remaining equal and an increase in the supply of money does not affect prices uniformly, nor does it affect prices to the quantity by which the supply of money has been increased. Moreover, if the supply increases simultaneously as the demand for goods increases/decreases then the results are further skewed. Given the complexity of the money system, one can see the impossibility of attempting to “stabilize prices” without some sort of demand-schedule, changing machine to alter the demand-schedule of all people everywhere.
Fundamental lessons in basic economics teach students that markets clear. They clear when demand rises, they clear when supply descends, they even clear when demand for cash rises as demand for eggs fall and supply of egg substitutes rise. IMAGINE THAT!
A new science concerning price equilibrium… What shall we call this study of the economy? Marketology?
Btw. Nathyn, what college are you currently attending? I really want to see who your professors are, just so I can warn anyone that may coincidentally be thinking of going there.
my point is this - the great depression was the last genuine deflationary crisis in the world. try and find one instance of rothbard disputing this. there was contraction of the money supply in this episode - the gold standard ensured that there were limits to the countermeasures central banks could take.
nowhere did i say there couldn’t be grave economic crises, just that they’d be met with decisive inflationary action from the fed, and therefore wouldn’t accompanied by prolonged contraction in money supply. take japan, post-bubble. banks didn’t want to lend, customers to borrow. sure, flat to negative cpi growth ensued, but look at money supply at you’ll see it’s no deflation.
and yes, i’ve read and continue to read shostak, but i think you’ll find his “pool of real funding” is something different from money supply. in fact, i find this term of his rather opaque, and to my knowledge he is the only austrian to use it. he doesn’t predict deflation, however. only that slowing money supply (“ams”) can set off recession.
in the fiat money system, banks with damaged balance sheets can be bailed out via a positive yield curve. same thing happened in usa after fdr abolished the gold standard. the banks emerged from the thirties in good health. rothbard’s america’s greal depression only covers the crisis years 1929-32, ie. the deflation years.
so i’m assuming if inflation were a stable 2000% year after year, you would argue that is an economic success story? even better, if inflation started at 2000% per year and slowly dropped this would presumably be even better? the only difference between inflation of 2000%pa and 3%pa is the length of time required for distortions in the economic structure to become apparent (at least to the public). in countries like zimbabwe, the effects are so gross as to be visible almost on a real-time basis.
my challenge to you remains: show me any price index going back to the end of the gold standard (which we’ll take as fdr’s edict in 1933) which is flat or downward-sloping. pick any country, any broad price index. please don’t cite the exception that proves the rule - computer hardware, jet travel or telecomunications, because we all understand how the productivity gains in these industries have been so great that they outweigh the countervailing rising-price pressures. hence nominal price drops are possible.
when you’re trying to discredit someone like rothbard, or indeed the austrian school en masse, you’ll have to come up with something meatier than just the odd “generic assumption”, which i take to mean an educated guess. if i wanted to draw the link between marx and chomsky in a rigorous manner, i’d have to quote both, and argue specific points. off the cuff statements - marx supporting the democrats over the republicans (were he alive) - are little better than cliches.
to apologists for central banking, you’re in good company. here’s a couple of jewels:
“5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.”
Communist Manifesto #5,
Karl Marx & Fred. Engels
“Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens… while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some… who are (then) the object of hatred.”
The Bureau of Printing and Engraving, within the U.S. government, actually runs the printing presses and does the actual printing of Federal Reserve Notes which, although not dollars in and of themselves (according to the U.S. Treasury), are “denominated” in dollars…an important distinction. They are sold to the Federal Reserve at about 4 cents per note, regardless of denomination. The actual issuance of the notes takes place in the now familar fashion used by Benochio and the Fed. (I’m not talking about the “checkbook” method of money creation used by the Fed.) Earlier in our economic history, the dollar was a “thing”, defined by a composition of certain units of measure related to metallic specie. Now it is only a unit of measurement.
For anyone who believes that the Fed, or any central banking structure, is good for the long term health of the economy, perhaps you might try taking your wealth and investing in instruments that are denominated in U.S. dollars. How about U.S. Treasuries and other public debt instruments. I understand that the Chinese have about $1.43 Trillion of them that they are looking to unload, although the list of interested buyers is suffering its own decline these days. You may find some good buys there. The Chinese have made public their irritation toward the policy of Benochio and The Fed to continue to inflate more and more and to dissolve the value of the dollar-denominated debt which they currently hold. I would suggest going to Alan Greenspan to make him an offer on some of his dollar-denominated investments. Unfortunately, as of earlier this year, Mr. Greenspan announced that he has already moved his personal investments out of dollar-denominated assets. You could go with the Euro which, for the time being, is generally rising in value against the U.S. dollar…until the european central banking system decides to undertake policies similar to the Fed. I can’t say, when or even if, such a thing will happen. However, history does have a rather unfortunate characteristic of repeating itself.
'already happening. check out euroland monetary growth. plot the euro against gold/oil/crb and see phenomenon is not confined to the usa. admitedly the dollar is currently the skunk on the road, but sooner or later the other central banks will respond in kind. 'hope greenspan is in gold, the irony would be delicious.
As it is the holiday season, I will hold out a hope for Mr. Greenspan that his assets have long since been converted into a form that has some manner of protection from Benochio and Company as well as their counterparts across the pond. [;)]
It is depressing to see a monetary system, which proved itself as the best model of stabilty and value-storage for over 4000 years, replaced by a system of fiduciary currencies that are nothing more than a sorry invention of politics.