Continually declining prices are terrible because it prevents investment, since nominal interest rates can go below zero. People in many senses think in nominal terms. Rothbard gets many things wrong. The most important of them is that there is no capitalism without leverage. W/o private debt there is no innovation and growth. Under deflation, there is very little investment. Stable prices are the best way to go. It was a pleasure as well!
It is a check. I can tell you why. If the 3% rule were kept in place even during booms, prices would deflate during booms and inflate during recessions, smoothing the whole business cycle altogether and keeping inflation at really low levels. Of course, this disregards the whole political economy of it - it is just an economic model. It would work, if it were applied. Friedman himself supported ending the Fed. Given that won't happen, a new Volcker would probably be our best alternative.
Doubt all you wish. He only stood that a low level of inflation should be maintained, he never once stated that there should be extraneous limitations on how it was maintained other than pointing out recessions could not be broken with monetary policy. Monetarism is about growth. It's the same principle that Keynes advocated.
Inflation during the recession is the worse thing though, it drags it out and it's part of the reason the GD lasted so long... I'll stick to Rothbard. Continually declining prices sounds better long term, and it put's a leash on Military adventures for the issuing nation. Honestly, I do not see any way out of this situation. If QE stops Interest Rates kill everyone, if they keep printing the consumer gets slaughtered. Pleasure chatting with you.
Aside from the long-term 3% rule being a check on inflation on itself (smoothing the business cycles during artificial booms), floating exchange rates are another the check on inflation. There is a reason many countries are complaining about the Fed's QEs: it's been putting pressure on the dollar's artificial devaluation on XR markets. Monetarism isn't "about growth" because it sustains that long-term growth is about innovation and endowments, not policy. U definitely didn't read Friedman.
I have tremendous respect for John Allison, but these followerers of Ayn Rand are very confused about how things actually work. No one seems to be able to see reality as it is. Caring for well being of others and individual responsibility very much can go together. In fact, it is key they manifest together for the best outcome possible.
OK, Aristotle- tell us- how do "things actually work"? What is "reality as it is"? I bet my mortgage free house that you have never read a word of Rand's philosophy. Watch this playlist and learn something about Objectivism, and then please feel free to contact me directly. th-cam.com/video/Euq9oRI5Wl0/w-d-xo.html lukeasacher@aol.com Look me up here: www.imdb.com/name/nm0755103/ www.linkedin.com/pub/luke-sacher/10/212/878 facebook.com/luke.sacher Oh, by the way, this is my father's adopted father, whose name I bear: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacher_v._United_States And this is my Great Uncle- a documented traitor in the pay of the Comintern: th-cam.com/video/ds2SDTFXIgM/w-d-xo.html
Teri, if you think Ayn Rand advocated 'not caring about others' then I'm sorry to say you have not understood Ayn Rand. She repeatedly said in many interviews and wrote in many essays and novels that taking interest in fellow human beings, caring about their welfare is right and proper. She just said that it shouldn't be your PRIMARY concern and furthermore it's not an act that deserve's moral praise. If you want to care about other people because you want moral praise for doing it, then you have your own issues. If you want to care about other people because you take a personal interest in their potential as humans then fine, there is NOTHING in Objectivism (Ayn Rand's philosophy) that speaks against that. What's important to note, however, is that when socialists/leftists/mystics start preaching 'care for others' as the primary moral value, it's not long before they start telling you what rules they are going to impose upon you, what restrictions upon your freedom, what obedience they demand, what property of yours they are going to have to steal. And if you disagree? Violence will be initiated against you.
I haven't read that one. I'll have to put it on my list. I did try to read "The Prince" in college but didn't stick with it. I need to revisit that one. Anyway, hopefully the mid-term election will be an opportunity for taking back more of the house and senate. Like the last mid-term, since Obama will not be on the ticket, a significant section of the democrat party will not be interested in voting.
Yes sir. I've been reading his book, "Intellectuals & Society," and whole-heartedly agree with his assessment that the prescriptions of most of the so-called "intellectuals" in our society are not worth the paper on which they are printed. Paul Krugman is a prime example. He's hailed as a brilliant economist but he's actually a very dangerous quack.
Dear CATO and John A. Allison- 4000 views in all this time... see? No one really wants to hear the objective facts. Thank you so very much for keeping the torch of reason burning. I'm most grateful. Luke Sacher Soapbox Productions, Inc.
You need to read more. GDP is C+I+G+(x-m). That G stands for government spending. It doesn't measure anything other than currency moving, that's it. Economic Output can not be measured by dollar value without ignoring Inflation as a whole, which is what the system does very well. Algo's will not fix the problem.
Agreed. I just subscribed to his channel a few months ago and I'm never disappointed in taking time out of my day to listen to what he's got to say. Can't say that about too many people these days...
I do analysis work for International customers. No, had you read what I posted you would notice I said that I was moving to Australia to work on the Doctorate, I have the MA already. Try to keep up. How about sticking to the argument instead of making this personal?
"I have read everything he has written." I really doubt that. Unlike Friedman, Keynes didn't believe money had a great impact over the economy. Secondly, Friedman has always stated that there should be no discretion in monetary policy - exactly because one cannot properly measure variations in the business cycle. The 3% rule rationale is to be a automatic check on inflation and growth by decoupling long term trends from output gaps. Monetarism is about NOT having monetary discretion.
Being from Austria doesn't make you part of the Austrian School, which was a derogatory name given to describe the Marginalists that followed Bahm and Menger. What you are thinking of as a Rationalist is exactly correct, because Marginalist theory in it's truest form was Utilitarian. Where Hayek differed was that he disagreed with the Time Preference that Menger and Mises used. That makes him a Utilitarian, but without the Marginal approach. So essentially a Rationalist.
Friedman was not a an Austrian, and Hayek while writing many works that are Austrian in Nature was not an Austrian in the same manner as Menger, and Mises. Hayek was a Rationalist, not a Marginalist.
Yet, you still grasp to the straw that MMT is correct even though it has the same base assumptions that Keynes had. Great job, it's bad enough you thought Friedman was a Libertarian or an Austrian. Maybe David Friedman, but certainly not Milton. Even Rothbard commented plenty on this.
1. Hard to show a podcast, you have to listen to them. 3. Not having been a part of it does not exclude from being part of an orgnization that still to this day refuses to acknowledge where it's premises started from, but has no problem selling out to Central banking. Friedman is a Keynesian. Sorry if you can not handle that. Modern Monetary Theory which is Friedman's bread and butter comes from Irving Fisher and Maynard Keynes. Milton was a Keynesian.
I have read it. I have read everything he has written. He was a Keynesian through and through. Being critical of something does not negate that he merely disagreed with the timing of the monetary injections. You are supporting destroying the poor wealth, and you want to tell me that I know nothing?
give it a rest. i like LRC and mises.org, but they can't seem to let things go. cato isn't perfect (and neither are LRC or mises.org), but they do good work.
1. so, i guess that means you can't show me where they're supporting romney. 3. the first thing you did with your first comment was, in a true douche-bag-like fashion, tell cato not to speak on the free market because of something that happened >30 years ago, when, by the way, allison, the present speaker, was not even part of cato. so you equate friedman with keynes? we're done here...that kind of logic isn't even worth reading.
Friedman was the "keynesian" who challenged the most basic tenets of Keynesian theory? From the linear consumption function, to the Phillips curve, to the money irrelevance, to the rejection of discretionary policy. Please read "Essays on Positive Economics" before repeating that. If you want to criticize Friedman, you should firstly know what you are talking about. Stop reading the blogs of people who dislike him and go read his books.
What are you talking about? There have been plenty of solutions offered that were far better than anything Milton Friedman had. Even the solutions Friedman offered were not his own. Insults? Then you critique my usage of the Jolly Roger. Ok I see what is going on here, you seem to think I have some emotional attachment to this discussion. You're sorely mistaken. Read my last post, your premises are incorrect. Your metrics are faulty, and your conclusions reflect as such.
I cannot believe him, because he's a businessman & financier, & Cato is rightist. Big gov is great & needs to control greedy people & companies. I am unable to process new info & concepts that do not fit my narrative & view, especially from sources that I automatically deem as bias, so I shut them out by closing my mind. I also suffer from cognitive dissonance & hypocritical syndrome. And I want others' stuff via coercive gov means. FNC suks too, because I'm told so. AAAhhh! JK Haheehaw!(:-)>
That's great. I received my Master's from ASU last year. My Ph.D. program is out of the University of Sydney. Are you done trying to live through your degree and ready to make an actual argument now?
John Allison a.k.a. Midas Mulligan... I cant thing of a better complement
Rothbard had a spat with the former president, Ed Crane. John Allison is more than qualified to speak about the free-market. He is a true believer.
Continually declining prices are terrible because it prevents investment, since nominal interest rates can go below zero. People in many senses think in nominal terms. Rothbard gets many things wrong. The most important of them is that there is no capitalism without leverage. W/o private debt there is no innovation and growth. Under deflation, there is very little investment. Stable prices are the best way to go. It was a pleasure as well!
Respect, this man knows whats up.
Amen! :)
It is a check. I can tell you why. If the 3% rule were kept in place even during booms, prices would deflate during booms and inflate during recessions, smoothing the whole business cycle altogether and keeping inflation at really low levels. Of course, this disregards the whole political economy of it - it is just an economic model. It would work, if it were applied. Friedman himself supported ending the Fed. Given that won't happen, a new Volcker would probably be our best alternative.
Doubt all you wish.
He only stood that a low level of inflation should be maintained, he never once stated that there should be extraneous limitations on how it was maintained other than pointing out recessions could not be broken with monetary policy.
Monetarism is about growth. It's the same principle that Keynes advocated.
Unfunded liabilities are a complete joke. They are funded. they are funded by people have not been born yet.
Inflation during the recession is the worse thing though, it drags it out and it's part of the reason the GD lasted so long... I'll stick to Rothbard. Continually declining prices sounds better long term, and it put's a leash on Military adventures for the issuing nation.
Honestly, I do not see any way out of this situation. If QE stops Interest Rates kill everyone, if they keep printing the consumer gets slaughtered. Pleasure chatting with you.
Aside from the long-term 3% rule being a check on inflation on itself (smoothing the business cycles during artificial booms), floating exchange rates are another the check on inflation. There is a reason many countries are complaining about the Fed's QEs: it's been putting pressure on the dollar's artificial devaluation on XR markets. Monetarism isn't "about growth" because it sustains that long-term growth is about innovation and endowments, not policy. U definitely didn't read Friedman.
You know I thought about actually replying, but then I realized I would rather be in bed sleeping.
I have tremendous respect for John Allison, but these followerers of Ayn Rand are very confused about how things actually work. No one seems to be able to see reality as it is. Caring for well being of others and individual responsibility very much can go together. In fact, it is key they manifest together for the best outcome possible.
OK, Aristotle- tell us- how do "things actually work"? What is "reality as it is"?
I bet my mortgage free house that you have never read a word of Rand's philosophy.
Watch this playlist and learn something about Objectivism, and then please feel free to contact me directly.
th-cam.com/video/Euq9oRI5Wl0/w-d-xo.html
lukeasacher@aol.com
Look me up here:
www.imdb.com/name/nm0755103/
www.linkedin.com/pub/luke-sacher/10/212/878
facebook.com/luke.sacher
Oh, by the way, this is my father's adopted father, whose name I bear:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacher_v._United_States
And this is my Great Uncle- a documented traitor in the pay of the Comintern:
th-cam.com/video/ds2SDTFXIgM/w-d-xo.html
Teri, if you think Ayn Rand advocated 'not caring about others' then I'm sorry to say you have not understood Ayn Rand. She repeatedly said in many interviews and wrote in many essays and novels that taking interest in fellow human beings, caring about their welfare is right and proper. She just said that it shouldn't be your PRIMARY concern and furthermore it's not an act that deserve's moral praise. If you want to care about other people because you want moral praise for doing it, then you have your own issues. If you want to care about other people because you take a personal interest in their potential as humans then fine, there is NOTHING in Objectivism (Ayn Rand's philosophy) that speaks against that.
What's important to note, however, is that when socialists/leftists/mystics start preaching 'care for others' as the primary moral value, it's not long before they start telling you what rules they are going to impose upon you, what restrictions upon your freedom, what obedience they demand, what property of yours they are going to have to steal. And if you disagree? Violence will be initiated against you.
*****
Well said, Ian. Thanks!
I haven't read that one. I'll have to put it on my list. I did try to read "The Prince" in college but didn't stick with it. I need to revisit that one. Anyway, hopefully the mid-term election will be an opportunity for taking back more of the house and senate. Like the last mid-term, since Obama will not be on the ticket, a significant section of the democrat party will not be interested in voting.
How can social security go broke, if they never spend more than the payroll tax?
I really do not think the Cato Institute should be speaking on the Free-Market after what they did to Mises and Rothbard.
Yes sir. I've been reading his book, "Intellectuals & Society," and whole-heartedly agree with his assessment that the prescriptions of most of the so-called "intellectuals" in our society are not worth the paper on which they are printed. Paul Krugman is a prime example. He's hailed as a brilliant economist but he's actually a very dangerous quack.
Dear CATO and John A. Allison- 4000 views in all this time... see? No one really wants to hear the objective facts. Thank you so very much for keeping the torch of reason burning. I'm most grateful.
Luke Sacher
Soapbox Productions, Inc.
You need to read more. GDP is C+I+G+(x-m). That G stands for government spending. It doesn't measure anything other than currency moving, that's it. Economic Output can not be measured by dollar value without ignoring Inflation as a whole, which is what the system does very well.
Algo's will not fix the problem.
Agreed. I just subscribed to his channel a few months ago and I'm never disappointed in taking time out of my day to listen to what he's got to say. Can't say that about too many people these days...
The solution is obvious, get the government out of the way and dissolve the Federal Reserve. This is the Austrian argument from the very onset.
I do analysis work for International customers. No, had you read what I posted you would notice I said that I was moving to Australia to work on the Doctorate, I have the MA already. Try to keep up. How about sticking to the argument instead of making this personal?
"I have read everything he has written." I really doubt that. Unlike Friedman, Keynes didn't believe money had a great impact over the economy. Secondly, Friedman has always stated that there should be no discretion in monetary policy - exactly because one cannot properly measure variations in the business cycle. The 3% rule rationale is to be a automatic check on inflation and growth by decoupling long term trends from output gaps. Monetarism is about NOT having monetary discretion.
Serfs weren't assets though. In serfdom, it's a matter of owning the land, not the people themselves.
Being from Austria doesn't make you part of the Austrian School, which was a derogatory name given to describe the Marginalists that followed Bahm and Menger.
What you are thinking of as a Rationalist is exactly correct, because Marginalist theory in it's truest form was Utilitarian. Where Hayek differed was that he disagreed with the Time Preference that Menger and Mises used. That makes him a Utilitarian, but without the Marginal approach. So essentially a Rationalist.
Yes they had to be purchased from the other tribes (fellow countrymen) who initially captured them and sold them into slavery.
What a beautiful dissection of the financial crisis.
unlike the demagoguery which is seems to be so prevelant.
Ask Lew Rockwell or Ron Paul. Let's just say the Cato Institute is not exactly an organization worth supporting.
Friedman was not a an Austrian, and Hayek while writing many works that are Austrian in Nature was not an Austrian in the same manner as Menger, and Mises. Hayek was a Rationalist, not a Marginalist.
Yet, you still grasp to the straw that MMT is correct even though it has the same base assumptions that Keynes had. Great job, it's bad enough you thought Friedman was a Libertarian or an Austrian. Maybe David Friedman, but certainly not Milton. Even Rothbard commented plenty on this.
Great talk. My favorite.
Too bad there isn't a bell that rings every time these people utter a lie...
1. Hard to show a podcast, you have to listen to them.
3. Not having been a part of it does not exclude from being part of an orgnization that still to this day refuses to acknowledge where it's premises started from, but has no problem selling out to Central banking.
Friedman is a Keynesian. Sorry if you can not handle that. Modern Monetary Theory which is Friedman's bread and butter comes from Irving Fisher and Maynard Keynes. Milton was a Keynesian.
I have read it.
I have read everything he has written. He was a Keynesian through and through. Being critical of something does not negate that he merely disagreed with the timing of the monetary injections. You are supporting destroying the poor wealth, and you want to tell me that I know nothing?
What do they have to do with what I MYSELF HAVE SAID HERE? They do not do good work, if they had they wouldn't be supporting Romney.
Thanks for the Atlas Shrugged refresher.
Inspiring!
give it a rest. i like LRC and mises.org, but they can't seem to let things go. cato isn't perfect (and neither are LRC or mises.org), but they do good work.
I think Rothbard was correct in saying that Debt Repudiation would be the best avenue.
David Boaz doesn't look interested or enthused to be there.
1. so, i guess that means you can't show me where they're supporting romney.
3. the first thing you did with your first comment was, in a true douche-bag-like fashion, tell cato not to speak on the free market because of something that happened >30 years ago, when, by the way, allison, the present speaker, was not even part of cato.
so you equate friedman with keynes? we're done here...that kind of logic isn't even worth reading.
Thank you, nice talk.
Revolution....... unless you can think of another fix?
great stuff, this man has some of the basic truths figured out,
Friedman was the "keynesian" who challenged the most basic tenets of Keynesian theory? From the linear consumption function, to the Phillips curve, to the money irrelevance, to the rejection of discretionary policy. Please read "Essays on Positive Economics" before repeating that. If you want to criticize Friedman, you should firstly know what you are talking about. Stop reading the blogs of people who dislike him and go read his books.
What are you talking about? There have been plenty of solutions offered that were far better than anything Milton Friedman had. Even the solutions Friedman offered were not his own.
Insults? Then you critique my usage of the Jolly Roger. Ok I see what is going on here, you seem to think I have some emotional attachment to this discussion. You're sorely mistaken. Read my last post, your premises are incorrect. Your metrics are faulty, and your conclusions reflect as such.
Who the fuck is this guy, he is probably the most incredible speaker on liberty I've ever heard next to Tom Woods.
Absolutely wonderful speech..
Yeah! :)
Actually, slaves were a durable good that had an initial investment cost and continuing operating expenses. Definitely not free.
The federal reserve is private
Yet it answers to the government, so how private is it really?
I cannot believe him, because he's a businessman & financier, & Cato is rightist.
Big gov is great & needs to control greedy people & companies.
I am unable to process new info & concepts that do not fit my narrative & view, especially from sources that I automatically deem as bias, so I shut them out by closing my mind. I also suffer from cognitive dissonance & hypocritical syndrome. And I want others' stuff via coercive gov means. FNC suks too, because I'm told so.
AAAhhh! JK Haheehaw!(:-)>
That's great. I received my Master's from ASU last year. My Ph.D. program is out of the University of Sydney. Are you done trying to live through your degree and ready to make an actual argument now?