tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post5659959792697711217..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Austrian Business Cycle Theory Confirmed by the BISbionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-63351796834563620222016-01-13T16:08:51.600-08:002016-01-13T16:08:51.600-08:00Bob,
Nope. The only remotely informed engagement...Bob,<br /><br />Nope. The only remotely informed engagements I've found so far are from LK, over at http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/?m=1<br /><br />And obviously he doesn't actually understand that which he pretty well memorizes. I keep reading him thinking one day he will grasp the ideas he so quickly dismisses. Of course I revel in the back-and-forths between him and either you or Major.Freedom.P Szarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09298180391605451618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-27745142749664025792016-01-09T07:48:02.955-08:002016-01-09T07:48:02.955-08:00In 1974, Hayek won the Nobel Prize. I thought we w...In 1974, Hayek won the Nobel Prize. I thought we were on a roll. Hayek even appeared on “Meet the Press” and I was quick on the draw in pulling out my student cassette recorder and setting it near the TV speaker. What is so complicated about these explanations?<br /><br /><i>The unemployment of which you speak, which is the initial cause, is due to labor being temporarily directed into places or activities or industries where they cannot be maintained without further inflation. Therefore you can only cure that by achieving a new redistribution of labor between employments. Adaptation to a condition in which aggregate demand need not progressively increase to maintain that employment.<br /><br />********<br /><br />[T]he present difficulty is not due to a deficiency of aggregate demand. It is due to the fact that without continued inflation, you cannot maintain the people in the new employments in which they have been drawn by the inflation of the past."</i><br /><br />https://mises.org/library/hayek-meets-press-1975<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYoMZzhWEW8<br /><br />Has anyone EVER seen an informed engagement or response to these simple concepts by our opponents?<br />Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-69780143403722916732016-01-08T13:43:05.975-08:002016-01-08T13:43:05.975-08:00Thank you for this post, Bob.Thank you for this post, Bob.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-42368341378834360932016-01-08T10:39:04.817-08:002016-01-08T10:39:04.817-08:00In 1974 at age 23, I bought a little “Bramble Mini...In 1974 at age 23, I bought a little “Bramble Mini Book” by Rothbard called “The Essential Von Mises”. Chapter 3 was very short and entitled “Mises on the Business Cycle” which I did not think was particularly difficult for people to understand:<br /><br /><i>From these three important but scattered theories, Mises constructed his great theory of the business cycle. Into the smoothly functioning and harmonious market economy comes the expansion of bank credit and bank money, encouraged and promoted by the government and its central bank. As the banks expand the supply of money (notes or deposits) and lend the new money to business, they push the rate of interest below the “natural” or time-preference rate, i.e., the free-market rate which reflects the voluntary proportions of consumption and investment by the public. As the interest rate is artificially lowered, the businesses take the new money and expand the structure of production, adding to capital investment, especially in the “remote” processes of production: in lengthy projects, machinery, industrial raw materials, and so on. The new money is used to bid up wages and other costs and to transfer resources into these earlier or “higher” orders of investment. Then, when the workers and other producers receive the new money, their time preferences having remained unchanged, they spend it in the old proportions. But this means that the public will not be saving enough to purchase the new high-order investments, and a collapse of those businesses and investments becomes inevitable. The recession or depression is then seen as an inevitable re-adjustment of the production system, by which the market liquidates the unsound “over-investments” of the inflationary boom and returns to the consumption/investment proportion preferred by the consumers. <br /><br />Mises thus for the first time integrated the explanation of the business cycle with general “micro-economic” analysis. The inflationary expansion of money by the governmentally-run banking system creates over-investment in the capital goods industries and underinvestment in consumer goods, and the “recession” or “depression” is the necessary process by which the market liquidates the distortions of the boom and returns to the free-market system of production organized to serve the consumers. Recovery arrives when this adjustment process is completed. <br /><br />The policy conclusions implied by the Misesian theory are the diametric opposite of the current fashion, whether “Keynesian” or “post-Keynesian.” If the government and its banking system are inflating credit, the Misesian prescription is (a) to stop inflating posthaste, and (b) not to interfere with the recession-adjustment, not prop up wage rates, prices, consumption or unsound investments, so as to allow the necessary liquidating process to do its work as quickly and smoothly as possible. The prescription is precisely the same if the economy is already in a recession. </i><br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/j6x9e2j<br /><br />Other than the rare usual suspects who are apparently genetically predestined to understand this simple Austrian stuff, no one else ever cares to even think about it. And no one does. Why is that always the case? Is there anything we can do about it? <br /><br />Is it a good or a bad thing that our opponents are afraid to directly engage us? I submit that if they were not afraid of us, they would calmly and fairly state our position and then refute us. Their bizarre reaction to us is proof that they fear us so much that they do not want to even think about what we are saying. I suspect that the problem begins with people being emotionally invested in seeing their political views as helping humanity and seeing themselves as good people. They are not prepared to respond to our position which holds that their political views and policies are not helping humanity at all but are, in fact, the cause of most of humanity’s most horrific problems. <br />Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-61531796640072455342016-01-07T16:49:31.430-08:002016-01-07T16:49:31.430-08:00Odd, because BIS is "... wholly owned by BIS ...Odd, because BIS is "... wholly owned by BIS members (central banks) but still operates in the private market as a counterparty, asset manager and lender for central banks and international financial institutions." (Wikipedia). Hard to imagine during semi-annual meetings at BIS of central bank heads, that their support staff berates them for running on a false premise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com