23 Mar 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainThey mentioned Caesar and claimed that he had a monopoly on minting coins (he didn't) and then bizarrely claimed that after he died the Roman Empire went into decline even though it reached its largest extent long after Caesar's death in 117 AD, and lasted until 1453 AD.
Then let's talk about the historical inaccuracies you claim exist. That is a start.
The Federal Reserve System is a 100% privately owned institution. That is a fact.
By all means, get the debate started. That is what we are all here for.
The Fed cannot be regarded as a purely private instutition since the government wields considerable influence in appointing board members. You don't see the government appointing Apple's CEO, do you?
23 Mar 13
Originally posted by normbenignSome; he's a minor figure who added nothing of significance to economic theory. Austrian economic theory has been consigned to the dust heap of history except by right wingers who just can't accept the failings of laissez faire theory. Stiglitz has shown that markets cannot function in the perfect manner claimed by these primitive theories due to vast disparities in information and other inherent problems.
I have read Locke. Have you read Mises?
Wiki has this quote from Mises:
It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history.
Do you agree with Mises that Fascism "saved European civilization" and this "merit" will "live on eternally in history"?
23 Mar 13
Middle part of an earlier post, originally posted by no1marauder on p.5Do you really mean this statement? I assume it's irony, since if you do I can give some quite clear examples of pre-capitalist growth, for example the expansion of stone quarrying and tool making under Homo Habilis.
Yes there was NO economic growth before capitalism.
24 Mar 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou don't read well.
They mentioned Caesar and claimed that he had a monopoly on minting coins (he didn't) and then bizarrely claimed that after he died the Roman Empire went into decline even though it reached its largest extent long after Caesar's death in 117 AD, and lasted until 1453 AD.
The Fed cannot be regarded as a purely private instutition since the government ...[text shortened]... ce in appointing board members. You don't see the government appointing Apple's CEO, do you?
The FRS is a 100% privately owned institution. This is a fact. Key word "owned".
My statement is 100% accurate.
24 Mar 13
Originally posted by no1marauderWhen some economists claim that Austrian School Economics does not match up with the empirical data it is because the data is flawed. Of course Austrian School will appear incorrect, because governments lie about the data. Here is an example in recent history how the inflation rate is manipulated.
Some; he's a minor figure who added nothing of significance to economic theory. Austrian economic theory has been consigned to the dust heap of history except by right wingers who just can't accept the failings of laissez faire theory. Stiglitz has shown that markets cannot function in the perfect manner claimed by these primitive theories due to vast di ...[text shortened]... cism "saved European civilization" and this "merit" will "live on eternally in history"?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/19/1172060/-Understating-the-CPI-101-or-Starving-Grandma#
If you adjust the stock market to inflation by calculating before the Boskin/Greenspan adjustment to CPI it would have to be a lot higher to reach a true record high.
People who are invested in TIPS are losing money to the real inflation rate.
Treasury bonds are not worth buying.
Gold was a better investment than all 3 of the above.
Social Security checks have less buying power each year.
GDP is not accurate either.
Austrian school economics may add up well without these manipulations for all we know. Perhaps Peter Schiff and Ron Paul will be vindicated in the end.
24 Mar 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainMaybe the Earth really is flat, too.
When some economists claim that Austrian School Economics does not match up with the empirical data it is because the data is flawed. Of course Austrian School will appear incorrect, because governments lie about the data. Here is an example in recent history how the inflation rate is manipulated.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/19/1172060/-Und ...[text shortened]... manipulations for all we know. Perhaps Peter Schiff and Ron Paul will be vindicated in the end.
24 Mar 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainLOL! Yeah, I will try that in my next paper. "If there is any discrepancy between my theory and empirical data, it's because the empirical data is flawed."
When some economists claim that Austrian School Economics does not match up with the empirical data it is because the data is flawed.
24 Mar 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou clearly did not read the link. Either that or you have a poor understanding of economics.
LOL! Yeah, I will try that in my next paper. "If there is any discrepancy between my theory and empirical data, it's because the empirical data is flawed."
24 Mar 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe official inflation rate in 2012 according to US government statistics was 2.1%. Let's say the "real" figure was 4% (or whatever you think it is). How does that support Austrian economics exactly?
You clearly did not read the link. Either that or you have a poor understanding of economics.
24 Mar 13
Originally posted by normbenignI found this passage in the "Austrian School" wiki article interesting:
I have read Locke. Have you read Mises?
Mises argued against the use of probabilities in economic models. Instead, his praxeological method is based on deductive arguments from what are considered undeniable, self-evident axioms, or irrefutable facts, about human existence. According to Mises, deductive economic thought experiment, if performed correctly, can yield conclusions that follow irrefutably from the underlying assumptions and could not be discovered by empirical observation or statistical inference.
This seems to be the method you adopt on pretty much every subject; you start with undeniable (to your mind) axioms and try to impose them on reality. When reality varies from what your axioms tell you should exist, you dismiss all empirical evidence and adopt your "hold your breath until you turn blue" strategy, insisting that A must lead to B even if it doesn't.
As Spock would say "Fascinating".
24 Mar 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIf the inflation rate is wrong so is GDP, for example. You can't manipulate one thing without it affecting others.
The official inflation rate in 2012 according to US government statistics was 2.1%. Let's say the "real" figure was 4% (or whatever you think it is). How does that support Austrian economics exactly?
You can't prove Austrian Economics wrong if the data you are using is wrong to begin with. That is just common sense.
24 Mar 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainA theory that a priori discards empirical evidence, as Austrian School economics does, can be immediately placed in the category of pseudoscience. Empirical science should rely on empirical evidence.
If the inflation rate is wrong so is GDP, for example. You can't manipulate one thing without it affecting others.
You can't prove Austrian Economics wrong if the data you are using is wrong to begin with. That is just common sense.
24 Mar 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou have discarded all of the evidence I have provided you that the CPI is flawed. Shameful for somebody who claims to be a man of science. If the CPI is flawed so is the "so called" empirical evidence.
A theory that a priori discards empirical evidence, as Austrian School economics does, can be immediately placed in the category of pseudoscience. Empirical science should rely on empirical evidence.
You are clearly not interested in examining anything. I'll bet you didn't even read the link I provided. It is no mystery why you have accomplished little in the field of physics. You lack all the critical thinking skills that all great physicists have. You should read "The Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolin. You could learn something from him.
24 Mar 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainYour blog article doesn't really show that the CPI is "flawed"; it just argues that because there have been changes in its methodology that this "proves" some sort of government conspiracy. Actually it does nothing of the kind; there has been a longstanding debate in economics about the methodology of the CPI which is based on an unchanging basket of goods even though we know what consumers buy varies over time. There is a different measure of price inflation called the GNP deflator which is based on overall spending in the economy. You can use that if you want, but disappointingly for conspiracy theorists there isn't much difference in results over time between it and any version of the CPI.
You have discarded all of the evidence I have provided you that the CPI is flawed. Shameful for somebody who claims to be a man of science. If the CPI is flawed so is the "so called" empirical evidence.
You are clearly not interested in examining anything. I'll bet you didn't even read the link I provided. It is no mystery why you have accomplished l ...[text shortened]... should read "The Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolin. You could learn something from him.