Going through some of these videos which came out when i was in junior high and now being in college and this guy Murphy is so damn intelligent its a shame these videos didnt get more views
Yes, it seems like he should have been referring to newtonian physics etc. However I'm guessing he meant that euclidean geometry is not perfect when aplied to non-euclidean space - e.g spherical surfaces or hyperbolic space etc. However, his talk was still great to hear despite this tiny slip-up. :)
If, in reality, there is a gradual misallocation of capital, instead of an overnight gnome catastrophe, what triggers the sudden drop in productivity? In the gnome example it's clear that people wake up and see what's wrong, but what triggers a misallocation-based recession in real life?
People learning that reality does not match their current highly exaggerated beliefs. One event can reveal some approximation of the truth to a large number of people and then quickly the market reacts as people try to pull out of their now-known-to-be-bad investments. A massive pullout then causes second-order effects because there's no more demand for the various risky investments and rather quickly things get to a state where the market tries to correct itself and undo malvestment. Generally this is made worse by government interventions that delay necessary corrections by hiding malinvestment through indiscriminate federal spending, bailouts, etc. Plus there's the fear reaction: people see a market drop and pull their money out just to be safe.
Thx for the reaction and the clear explanation. By now my investigations into ABCT had already provided me with this answer, but it's still nice to get a confirmation BobWidlefish
Lex van den eersten Your welcome. :) Even ignoring ABCT, just look at how amazingly fast the futures market (e.g. for oil prices) reacts to news that might impact the supply or demand of oil in the future. Imagine what would happen if a staggeringly large oil field (of proven quantity/quality) was discovered that was easy (cheap) to extract using existing technology. Almost instantaneously the future price of oil would start to decline -- as soon as the news came out (i.e. years before any of the newly discovered oil was physically extracted). And shortly thereafter once the news was vetted and internalized by all the relevant parties the price of oil 1 year in the future (or similar) would approach a lower equilibrium price. This lower future price of oil would drive oil producers in the present to ramp up production from existing oil fields so as to maximize the money they can make at existing prices. This increased production in the present would begin to lower prices itself. So you can imagine a new oil discovery of sufficient magnitude to very rapidly change not just the distant future price of oil when that new oil is extracted, but also changing the present price of oil as producers and consumers react to this information. A very similar line of thinking applies to many things: news about the future state of the world can very quickly spread throughout the world and be internalized by the relevant actors and impact pricing and production in the present. This applies regardless of ABCT.
Murphy was mistaken when he conceded that Euclidean geometry was proven only approximately true by modern physics. Euclidean geometry is math, and remains true. It's Newtonian physics, not Euclidean geometry, that is only approximately true.
I've understood even Euclidean geometry is true only given certain presumptions. For example one can't even prove that two straight lines will never meet before assuming they are on 2 dimensional plane. And there is other assumptions in other axioms in there. And this is what it means to be only apporximately true. Something is true only sometimes in certain circumstance.
But the world, according to modern physics, is not strictly Euclidean in its geometry. It approximates Euclidean geometry on conventional scales, but it is not actually Euclidean in nature.
Hahaha, defense against the dark arts. I'd personally love Seinfeld references, but Murphy's right in that people in my age group (18-25) aren't all avid Seinfeld watchers (although everyone should know what it is). Younger than that, they might not even know what it is.
Seriously, the only way to get market solutions is to free up the economy by removing the government from the equation. Everyone is poor now and asking them to starve to buy more expensive cars and pay more for energy just so you can settle your personal vendetta against big oil is kind of selfish. If you want people to stop using gasoline, then find a cheaper form of energy and they will stop on their own.
Yes, there are some "great" analogies. For example, I shouldn't have to pay for electricity. The power company supplies me with electrons, but I give them all back. That's just Ohm's law. So I shouldn't have to pay for "borrowing" them, right? But they do have less energy when I return them... Similarly, fiscal spending comes from the people, but we eventually get it back. The money is paid to a union worker, he pays union dues, the union gives part of that to the Democrat Party, and they put it in the bank, available to the private sector .... 😀
Debates with Keynesians has to be made on experimental grounds. Sadly that is not a fertile ground for the progress of theory, so most Austrians don't invest in it, just so they could debate the people that are wrong. But it would be the most productive way, just like most of Murphy's argument clearly show, all being experimental. I still have hope Austrian School can have a deep experimental setting, but after Hayek's debacle to socialist democracy, noone wants to stomach it.
Yes he is conflating Newtonian physics and Galilean relativity to Euclidean Geometry because the latter is the ultimate foundation of the former, from most theoretical approaches and so it is an acceptable small lapse of complete ultimate theoretical rigour. He is mostly talking about experimental epistemology, from the point of view of positivism, which Keynesianism is extremely an extreme caricature, mostly not able to adress the issues raised by Critical Rationalism from Hayek and Popper.
As opposed to the billions being made by the fossil fuel industry? I know you won't listen, but I was a skeptic and the weight of the evidence was too overwhelming. I also think that if the market, which is largely people on the right would wake up this problem, it could easily substitute fossil fuels and possibly do it for less money.
10C=18F. A global increase of 18F is extinction for the human race and most of the biosphere. Another thing Dr Murphy isn't taking into consideration is that the carbon we emit today, will effect the biosphere for up to 1000 years or even more. He doesn't seem to understand that equilibrium between the CO2 emitted and the new normal takes decades and last for Milena. So the decisions we made today will be felt for a very, very long time (in human terms)
Regarding the Friedman vs Murphy debate, I was hoping that Friedman would defend HIS methodology and make HIS approach seem legitimate to Austrians. Instead, he went on the offensive and quibbled stuff that IMO was irrelevant to the praxæological method. And I thought his attitude was a bit nasty. If anybody disagrees with Austrians as to where they think a priori ends and a posteriori begins, that's okay. Fine. But please criticize Austrian METHODOLOGY.
Poorly worded. I meant that if people on the right who are largely for market solutions to problems would accept the science, we could get market based solutions and not solutions that are largely imposed by the government and won't work anyway.
Going through some of these videos which came out when i was in junior high and now being in college and this guy Murphy is so damn intelligent its a shame these videos didnt get more views
Agreed, have you shared any austrian economics or libertarian videos w your friends in college? Hows it received? No worries, cheers
Bob is awesome!
my right ear liked this
Dominic Veit glad someone else ran into this issue I thought my earbuds were dying
31:33 So according to Mosler, positive interest rates are 'subsidies to big banks,' but providing limitless unsecured liquidity is not?
incase the uploader did not notice, there is a huge right channel bias on the sound, nothing comming in from the left side
Of all the changes youtube likes to make to the site, adding a "switch to mono" option in the player never gets put in.
It's because when murphy speaks, he's always "right".
I choose to believe magic gnomes are the true originators of Keynesian economics.
You guys should put up the links of the mentioned debates on the description.
I thought something was wrong with my wire, but it's the sound track
Yes, it seems like he should have been referring to newtonian physics etc. However I'm guessing he meant that euclidean geometry is not perfect when aplied to non-euclidean space - e.g spherical surfaces or hyperbolic space etc. However, his talk was still great to hear despite this tiny slip-up. :)
Wow the carbon cost debate sounds interesting. Is it on youtube? I know theres people that would be interested to hear more about that!
If, in reality, there is a gradual misallocation of capital, instead of an overnight gnome catastrophe, what triggers the sudden drop in productivity? In the gnome example it's clear that people wake up and see what's wrong, but what triggers a misallocation-based recession in real life?
People learning that reality does not match their current highly exaggerated beliefs. One event can reveal some approximation of the truth to a large number of people and then quickly the market reacts as people try to pull out of their now-known-to-be-bad investments. A massive pullout then causes second-order effects because there's no more demand for the various risky investments and rather quickly things get to a state where the market tries to correct itself and undo malvestment. Generally this is made worse by government interventions that delay necessary corrections by hiding malinvestment through indiscriminate federal spending, bailouts, etc. Plus there's the fear reaction: people see a market drop and pull their money out just to be safe.
Thx for the reaction and the clear explanation. By now my investigations into ABCT had already provided me with this answer, but it's still nice to get a confirmation BobWidlefish
Lex van den eersten Your welcome. :) Even ignoring ABCT, just look at how amazingly fast the futures market (e.g. for oil prices) reacts to news that might impact the supply or demand of oil in the future. Imagine what would happen if a staggeringly large oil field (of proven quantity/quality) was discovered that was easy (cheap) to extract using existing technology. Almost instantaneously the future price of oil would start to decline -- as soon as the news came out (i.e. years before any of the newly discovered oil was physically extracted). And shortly thereafter once the news was vetted and internalized by all the relevant parties the price of oil 1 year in the future (or similar) would approach a lower equilibrium price. This lower future price of oil would drive oil producers in the present to ramp up production from existing oil fields so as to maximize the money they can make at existing prices. This increased production in the present would begin to lower prices itself. So you can imagine a new oil discovery of sufficient magnitude to very rapidly change not just the distant future price of oil when that new oil is extracted, but also changing the present price of oil as producers and consumers react to this information.
A very similar line of thinking applies to many things: news about the future state of the world can very quickly spread throughout the world and be internalized by the relevant actors and impact pricing and production in the present. This applies regardless of ABCT.
this is true....misesmedia needs to get their shit together
Murphy was mistaken when he conceded that Euclidean geometry was proven only approximately true by modern physics. Euclidean geometry is math, and remains true. It's Newtonian physics, not Euclidean geometry, that is only approximately true.
I've understood even Euclidean geometry is true only given certain presumptions. For example one can't even prove that two straight lines will never meet before assuming they are on 2 dimensional plane. And there is other assumptions in other axioms in there. And this is what it means to be only apporximately true. Something is true only sometimes in certain circumstance.
He meant the argument was cool and might interest people.
But the world, according to modern physics, is not strictly Euclidean in its geometry. It approximates Euclidean geometry on conventional scales, but it is not actually Euclidean in nature.
0:45 Tough times to live-when Seinfeld references are getting too old and you're a George Costanza lookalike!
great
Its like trying to empirically prove Boolean logic. Its true because its true.
Hahaha, defense against the dark arts. I'd personally love Seinfeld references, but Murphy's right in that people in my age group (18-25) aren't all avid Seinfeld watchers (although everyone should know what it is). Younger than that, they might not even know what it is.
Seriously, the only way to get market solutions is to free up the economy by removing the government from the equation. Everyone is poor now and asking them to starve to buy more expensive cars and pay more for energy just so you can settle your personal vendetta against big oil is kind of selfish. If you want people to stop using gasoline, then find a cheaper form of energy and they will stop on their own.
Yes, there are some "great" analogies. For example, I shouldn't have to pay for electricity. The power company supplies me with electrons, but I give them all back. That's just Ohm's law. So I shouldn't have to pay for "borrowing" them, right? But they do have less energy when I return them... Similarly, fiscal spending comes from the people, but we eventually get it back. The money is paid to a union worker, he pays union dues, the union gives part of that to the Democrat Party, and they put it in the bank, available to the private sector .... 😀
Debates with Keynesians has to be made on experimental grounds. Sadly that is not a fertile ground for the progress of theory, so most Austrians don't invest in it, just so they could debate the people that are wrong. But it would be the most productive way, just like most of Murphy's argument clearly show, all being experimental.
I still have hope Austrian School can have a deep experimental setting, but after Hayek's debacle to socialist democracy, noone wants to stomach it.
Yes he is conflating Newtonian physics and Galilean relativity to Euclidean Geometry because the latter is the ultimate foundation of the former, from most theoretical approaches and so it is an acceptable small lapse of complete ultimate theoretical rigour.
He is mostly talking about experimental epistemology, from the point of view of positivism, which Keynesianism is extremely an extreme caricature, mostly not able to adress the issues raised by Critical Rationalism from Hayek and Popper.
mmt troll?
As opposed to the billions being made by the fossil fuel industry? I know you won't listen, but I was a skeptic and the weight of the evidence was too overwhelming. I also think that if the market, which is largely people on the right would wake up this problem, it could easily substitute fossil fuels and possibly do it for less money.
10C=18F. A global increase of 18F is extinction for the human race and most of the biosphere. Another thing Dr Murphy isn't taking into consideration is that the carbon we emit today, will effect the biosphere for up to 1000 years or even more. He doesn't seem to understand that equilibrium between the CO2 emitted and the new normal takes decades and last for Milena. So the decisions we made today will be felt for a very, very long time (in human terms)
LOL @ 31:03
Regarding the Friedman vs Murphy debate, I was hoping that Friedman would defend HIS methodology and make HIS approach seem legitimate to Austrians. Instead, he went on the offensive and quibbled stuff that IMO was irrelevant to the praxæological method. And I thought his attitude was a bit nasty.
If anybody disagrees with Austrians as to where they think a priori ends and a posteriori begins, that's okay. Fine. But please criticize Austrian METHODOLOGY.
it wasn't a debate, it was a congressional hearing, very boring actually
Poorly worded. I meant that if people on the right who are largely for market solutions to problems would accept the science, we could get market based solutions and not solutions that are largely imposed by the government and won't work anyway.
No you're not right.
That's not it :P