Economics

[4588686]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1302134384' post='2226536']
Except for the fact that the Keynesians (mainstream economics) and the Chicago School (mainstream economics) completely failed to predict the crash of '08 and dozens of other market (and interventionist) phenomena. And they [i]kept[/i] [i]it up. [/i]Austrians called it like they had a crystal ball. Cf. Peter Schiff.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Actually non-Austrian economists predicted the crash. Nouriel Roubini was one. Other did as well including, I believe, an economist other than Krugman who writes for the Times. You didn't have to be an Austrian to predict the crash. In fact men of different schools, Roubini, Taleb, Soros and others predicted that the housing market was a bubble and that once it popped we were going to be in a world of economic hurt.

That one Austrian economists, taking your word for it, predicted the crash as well hardly vindicates the Austrian school as a whole. It doesn't negate their general problem in making sound economic predictions or the methodological problems with the school.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1302138864' post='2226551']
Actually non-Austrian economists predicted the crash. Nouriel Roubini was one. Other did as well including, I believe, an economist other than Krugman who writes for the Times. You didn't have to be an Austrian to predict the crash. In fact men of different schools, Roubini, Taleb, Soros and others predicted that the housing market was a bubble and that once it popped we were going to be in a world of economic hurt.

That one Austrian economists, taking your word for it, predicted the crash as well hardly vindicates the Austrian school as a whole. It doesn't negate their general problem in making sound economic predictions or the methodological problems with the school.
[/quote]

There are a few other Austrians who predicted it. Not "that one." Here's a short list of 12 Austrian economists who predicted the bubble and bust, which does not include Gerald Celente and Ron Paul. And I do consider them economists. http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_09_1_1_thornton.pdf

~Sternhauser

[4588686]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1302141176' post='2226562']
There are a few other Austrians who predicted it. Not "that one." Here's a short list of 12 Austrian economists who predicted the bubble and bust, which does not include Gerald Celente and Ron Paul. And I do consider them economists. [url="http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_09_1_1_thornton.pdf"]http://www.independe..._1_thornton.pdf[/url]

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

And what is the argument that goes with this? I said I'd take you at your word that an Austrian economist using an Austrian epistemology could have predicted the crash. Very well. Non Austrian economists using an non-Austrian epistomology were capeable of the same thing. Looking at LD's sources it would seem that non-Austrians were able to not only predict this crash but use an epistemology capeable of greater predictive power in general. If every single Austrian in the world predicted this particular crash that in itself wouldn't vindicate the school as a whole (Even o broken watch is right twice a day). You still need empirical vindication of the larger tenents of the school and account for its general defeciency in predicting economic occurances.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1302138864' post='2226551']
Actually non-Austrian economists predicted the crash. Nouriel Roubini was one. Other did as well including, I believe, an economist other than Krugman who writes for the Times. You didn't have to be an Austrian to predict the crash. In fact men of different schools, Roubini, Taleb, Soros and others predicted that the housing market was a bubble and that once it popped we were going to be in a world of economic hurt.

That one Austrian economists, taking your word for it, predicted the crash as well hardly vindicates the Austrian school as a whole. It doesn't negate their general problem in making sound economic predictions or the methodological problems with the school.
[/quote]
"This cannot continue forever." isn't much of a prediction. Krugman thinks if only the government had printed enough money, we wouldn't have had this problem. He now believes that if the government spends enough money, it will stimulate growth. Never mind that the 'money' has to come from somewhere--just spend it!

Guessing that a bubble will burst is like guessing that cost of living will increase. The problem is no one seems able to deal with the causes or propose any that don't involve the magical green fairy of printing pieces of paper. The engineers squeeze the economy balloon in one place and then poo themselves when the part they aren't squeezing gets bigger. They cannot plan the economy at all and they've proven it. "Hey, if we keep going forward, we will eventually hit something!" Wow. Thanks.

[dairygirl4u2c]

of course the solutions are to regulation the markets, but fat chance of that happening, thanks to all those crazy far right wingers. to be fair though, i'm sure there's plenty of blame to go around for everyone on the details of how to save it, even if people accepted regulation or whatever. as usual, the real probalem is just our stracuture as government, we've established something that's meant to cause butts to head. now when we need government, its ineffectual nature will allow us to be driven to the ground.

Edited April 8, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[Nihil Obstat]

The reason the economy tanked is the Federal Reserve, not 'deregulation'.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1302227593' post='2226801']
of course the solutions are to regulation the markets, but fat chance of that happening, thanks to all those crazy far right wingers. to be fair though, i'm sure there's plenty of blame to go around for everyone on the details of how to save it, even if people accepted regulation or whatever. as usual, the real probalem is just our stracuture as government, we've established something that's meant to cause butts to head. now when we need government, its ineffectual nature will allow us to be driven to the ground.
[/quote]
The problem is that markets are regulated to the point of monopoly. Healthcare is a great example of this: we make laws against personnel who have trained less than 8 years treating people, then we're surprised when prices go up. Let's say I've got a mole I want removed and I go to the doctor, the doctor takes a look, then freezes it off with nitrogen. Why did he have to have 8+ years of training to do a 2 minute no-anesthesia operation? Was that really worth $1000+ to me? I understand that they *want* to check to see if it's a skin disease, but what if I don't care? I should be able to go to a clinic downtown, pay $50 and have a half dozen of the darn things removed in a matter of 20 minutes. No special training necessary, except to safely handle liquid nitrogen. Anyone of reasonable intelligence could handle that procedure with about an hour of training.

Another example: apparently there was a drug (Makena) that cost about $20 per weekly injection to prevent pre-term labor. It's been around for 40 years. This year, it was finally FDA approved, giving one company (who didn't even research the drug) monopolistic production (also known as a patent), which took the price from $20 to $600+ per week. Now tell me how this is a failure to regulate? It was $20 before regulation (and no less safe than it is now), but now that the government came in to 'protect people' everyone except the drug manufacturer is suffering.

There's this great thing called the internet that allows people to do their own research to find out if there would be harmful drug interactions, store data, and generally make life easier for everyone. This *should* make some of these government granted monopolies unnecessary. If we simply allowed people to choose how to spend their own money, a lot of these silly costs wouldn't exist.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1302228349' post='2226804']
The reason the economy tanked is the Federal Reserve, not 'deregulation'.
[/quote]
[img]http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/106/887/original/backpain-1292835351.jpg?1300412448[/img]

[un.privileged]

I'm an Austrian so far in its methodology (praxeology), however I do not submit to the Austrian conclusion, that idolize a certain market system where those who supply capital ought to exclusively own and control the production. I believe in a truly free market, self-employment would be more common and more liberating than the wage labor contact, as in this current State Capitalist system, the State highly limits the workers bargaining power and the freedom to be self-employed. However, Keynesianism and Milton Friedman economics (Utilitarian so-called "free market") are obviously recipes for disaster. Any system that supports central banking is a disaster.

[un.privileged]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1302115568' post='2226441']
Doc dump!

"Austrian Economics is a fringe academic view which is greatly preferred by many libertarians on ideological grounds. However, it has even less predictive power than mainstream economics, and has many commonsense problems..."

[url="http://world.std.com/%7Emhuben/austrian.html"]Austrian Economics[/url]

[url="http://world.std.com/%7Emhuben/critcfm.html"]Criticisms of Neoliberalism, Capitalism, and Free Markets[/url]
[/quote]
To be fair, what is commonly known as "Neoliberalism" has nothing to do with a genuine free market. Neoliberalism is global corporate mercantilism in practice, it is exactly the practice of what Adam Smith criticize in his Wealth of Nations.

Edited April 10, 2011 by un.privileged