I love this lecture. 39:30 is the only part where it doesn't seem to reflect reality. Wages are sticky. That is the reality even in aggregate. This is never addressed (but I don't think many schools of economics model sticky wages well). I guess I'll do some searching to find other models.
And to set you straight on one thing, among the plethora of logical fallacies you hold, the Austrian School is NOT about setting policy or agenda...or anything else to do with ‘what should the State do’. The Austrians hold strict to logic, reason, and empiricism to lay out cogent and meaningful theory as to ‘what happens and why’, particularly with artificial intervention and manipulation into free, mixed, and controlled markets. (cont)
The issue of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory revolves around the notion of malinvestment. Overinvestment is a different thing. This has been highlighted by Garrison several times. But Dale Halling, you are in good company. Milton Friedman's famous empirical tests are a good illustration of the problems relating to empirically examine the ideas of Hayek and von Mises. I experienced similar difficulties when I tried to empirically investigate some of the major assertions from Prices and Production during my master semester...
It's not entirely an issue of malinvestment. Malinvestment is merely a result of the deviation between the social time preference rate and the market interest rate, resulting of fractional reserve banking or inflationist policies. If you have an issue mapping the data to a theory, you likely do not have an appropriate theory in place, or are applying the incorrect time-frame of the theory to the data you have. This is a common problem in econometrics.
Argentina and Chile were at times the new prince-lings and hope of free market capitalism until autocratic rulers could not resist the wave of socialist intoxication and Keynesian utopian theory, particularly about monetary policy, which destroyed their economies repeatedly through hyperinflation and monetary collapse. (cont)
And as I said, the CS derailed pretty much everything with their flawed monetary theory. And Hayek did not surpass his master, Von Mises, in recognition amongst the establishment order because of his superior economic thought but because of his critical compromise of Austrian theory in many areas of interest to growth of the State.
This presentation makes me think that Austrian Economics defenders believe that depressions only exist because of government intervention. But that's not the case is it?
They weren't joined at the hip. MP was an association of neo and classical liberals. Serious rifts soon developed. Just as with Cato and Rothbard. We wouldn't expect you to research anything beyond the first paragraph in a wikipedia article though. Anyone who thinks Austrian = Chicago school can't have performed ANY economic studies. It is one thing to disagree with a POV, but to spew easily disproven statements....... educate yourself, it's pathetic.
Really, can't figure out how I missed anything. Frederick Von Hayek and Milton Friedman founded the Mount Pelerin Society in 1947 and were pretty much joined at the hip. The Chicago School believed in the same "logic, reason and empiricism" that the Austrians did.
Actually you're the one that's wrong, along with the rest of the apologists for the Austrian and Chicago school reigns of terror. Keynesianism did work; it developed a thriving middle class in this nation and the first targets of the Austrians and Chicagoans were effectively working economies in the "Southern Cone" that were working rather well. They just didn't fir the "purist" modes that the Austrians wanted. Now we have Austrian economics and it has totally failed.
Chris Dutch- If Keynesian "economics" were right, and the Austrians were wrong, then there would be no boom bust cycles caused by artificial credit expansion, as this lecture logically and graphically points out. I know you are too much of an idiot to see it let alone understand it, but that doesn`t change the facts. Please refrain from littering the comment section here with your ranting idiocy. You are clearly trying to punch above your weight class here, and are failing miserably.
Watch this multiple times, you will build the picture more completely every time you do. It’s a truly amazing talk.
I love this lecture. 39:30 is the only part where it doesn't seem to reflect reality. Wages are sticky. That is the reality even in aggregate. This is never addressed (but I don't think many schools of economics model sticky wages well). I guess I'll do some searching to find other models.
Wow! Great arguments Chris! Highly rational reasoning you got going on there.
And to set you straight on one thing, among the plethora of logical fallacies you hold, the Austrian School is NOT about setting policy or agenda...or anything else to do with ‘what should the State do’. The Austrians hold strict to logic, reason, and empiricism to lay out cogent and meaningful theory as to ‘what happens and why’, particularly with artificial intervention and manipulation into free, mixed, and controlled markets. (cont)
The issue of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory revolves around the notion of malinvestment. Overinvestment is a different thing. This has been highlighted by Garrison several times. But Dale Halling, you are in good company. Milton Friedman's famous empirical tests are a good illustration of the problems relating to empirically examine the ideas of Hayek and von Mises. I experienced similar difficulties when I tried to empirically investigate some of the major assertions from Prices and Production during my master semester...
It's not entirely an issue of malinvestment. Malinvestment is merely a result of the deviation between the social time preference rate and the market interest rate, resulting of fractional reserve banking or inflationist policies. If you have an issue mapping the data to a theory, you likely do not have an appropriate theory in place, or are applying the incorrect time-frame of the theory to the data you have. This is a common problem in econometrics.
Argentina and Chile were at times the new prince-lings and hope of free market capitalism until autocratic rulers could not resist the wave of socialist intoxication and Keynesian utopian theory, particularly about monetary policy, which destroyed their economies repeatedly through hyperinflation and monetary collapse. (cont)
And as I said, the CS derailed pretty much everything with their flawed monetary theory. And Hayek did not surpass his master, Von Mises, in recognition amongst the establishment order because of his superior economic thought but because of his critical compromise of Austrian theory in many areas of interest to growth of the State.
That translates as well as well Austrian economics works.
No problem. Glad to see this wasn't such a challenge for you.
This presentation makes me think that Austrian Economics defenders believe that depressions only exist because of government intervention. But that's not the case is it?
***** with the bust comes the boom. or is it not?
***** what you mean no? you don't agree with the business cycle theory?
***** like what?
***** that's not how discussions work.
***** So why are exchanging comments on youtube if not to discuss a particular subject?
Oh my god... i get it...
They weren't joined at the hip. MP was an association of neo and classical liberals. Serious rifts soon developed. Just as with Cato and Rothbard. We wouldn't expect you to research anything beyond the first paragraph in a wikipedia article though. Anyone who thinks Austrian = Chicago school can't have performed ANY economic studies. It is one thing to disagree with a POV, but to spew easily disproven statements....... educate yourself, it's pathetic.
How would this guy explain the recessions of the 19th century? You can't blame the Kaynesians then.
Different name. Same logic. The reason is always fractional-reserve banking.
Really, can't figure out how I missed anything. Frederick Von Hayek and Milton Friedman founded the Mount Pelerin Society in 1947 and were pretty much joined at the hip. The Chicago School believed in the same "logic, reason and empiricism" that the Austrians did.
Thank you. Now go home and get your shinebox.
Actually you're the one that's wrong, along with the rest of the apologists for the Austrian and Chicago school reigns of terror. Keynesianism did work; it developed a thriving middle class in this nation and the first targets of the Austrians and Chicagoans were effectively working economies in the "Southern Cone" that were working rather well. They just didn't fir the "purist" modes that the Austrians wanted. Now we have Austrian economics and it has totally failed.
Chris Dutch- If Keynesian "economics" were right, and the Austrians were wrong, then there would be no boom bust cycles caused by artificial credit expansion, as this lecture logically and graphically points out. I know you are too much of an idiot to see it let alone understand it, but that doesn`t change the facts. Please refrain from littering the comment section here with your ranting idiocy. You are clearly trying to punch above your weight class here, and are failing miserably.