Monday, July 4, 2011

Krugman's Keynesian Cash Con

In the Keynesian system, spending IS demand, and the more spending, the more demand, and the more demand, the more production to meet the demand. There is a nice logic to the system, which is why it has a widespread appeal.

Economics, however, looks under the surface to deal not only with issues of causality, but also to take apart that which seems to be true and to ferret out those things which others taking a superfluous view have missed. For example, the typical "man on the street" believes that the value of, say, gasoline is derived from the value of crude oil and the various aspects of cost of production.

Thus, when the U.S. Government slapped price controls on domestic crude oil in the name of making it less expensive to create gasoline, the typical politician, journalist, and Keynesian economist, as well as the "man on the street," believed that was supposed to be the case. It was as though the Marginalist Revolution of 1871 and the development of Neoclassical Economics had not happened, that Alfred Marshall's "Derived Demand" of the factors as well as Carl Menger's important insights never existed.

I say this for two reasons. First, much of what Krugman writes is in the line of the discredited "Cost of Production" Theory of Value. Here is a guy who along with other "liberal" economists during the California electricity crisis of a decade ago (brought about by price controls levied by California authorities) declared that the way to "solve" the problem was...more price controls. (He even said that price controls would increase the supply of electricity, which even for Krugman is an amazing thing in its repudiation of Neoclassical value theory.)

Second, in recent commentary, Krugman has turned to the situation of so-called "corporate cash" in which banks and corporations are making paper profits, but holding onto large sums of money. Now, I have no problem with the numbers he is using, and I have no doubt that banks are not loaning out a lot of their excess reserves (and Krugman hardly is the only one saying this, given Robert Higgs has written similar things and his perspective of this crisis is 180 degrees opposite of what Krugman is saying).

People can agree on basic data, but the interpretation not only of why banks and corporations are not loaning and investing long-term but also of the reason that we don't have more inflation is where the debates exist. Krugman, not surprisingly, takes the Keynesian view:
So here’s what you should answer to anyone defending big giveaways to corporations: Lack of corporate cash is not the problem facing America. Big business already has the money it needs to expand; what it lacks is a reason to expand with consumers still on the ropes and the government slashing spending.

What our economy needs is direct job creation by the government and mortgage-debt relief for stressed consumers. What it very much does not need is a transfer of billions of dollars to corporations that have no intention of hiring anyone except more lobbyists.
Elsewhere, he writes:
In fact, that idle cash has become a major conservative talking point, with right-wingers claiming that businesses are failing to invest because of political uncertainty. That’s almost surely false: the evidence strongly says that the real reason businesses are sitting on cash is lack of consumer demand. In any case, if corporations already have plenty of cash they’re not using, why would giving them a tax break that adds to this pile of cash do anything to accelerate recovery?
In other words, all that needs to happen is for the government to accelerate spending, either by taking some burdens off consumers or for the government to seize and spend the money itself. That is why Krugman has reversed his view that he told other economists and me in 2004 that 70 percent tax rates "were insane," and now is endorsing higher income and corporate taxes in order for government to confiscate money and spend it.

What I find interesting is his utter dismissal of Higgs' contention that "regime uncertainty" has anything to do with corporate investment. Even if government is to confiscate most corporate profits in the future with high taxes, not to mention the imposition of more regulations, in Krugman's view, the band in "Animal House" will continue to try to march through the wall. As long as there might be "spending" in the future, corporations automatically will engage in capital investment. That is nonsense.

Furthermore, as Higgs pointed out, if banks start making loans wily-nily from their huge monetary base, we WILL see a big rise of inflation. For Krugman, inflation is good; it will "stimulate demand" and repudiate debt, and magically remove us from what he calls a "liquidity trap." Higgs, on the other hand, who is a far wiser person than Krugman ever will be, has much better insights. Uncertainty really does matter, and while Keynesians refuse to read Higgs, the man is right.

Krugman writes that we are forgetting the "lessons of 2008" as though his view were self-explanatory. He refuses to acknowledge that the housing bubble occurred because government guarantees and the infamous "Greenspan/Bernanke Put" in which the Fed promised to backstop whatever foolishness the banks engendered was a major reason that banks and other lenders ran over the cliff.

To Krugman, profits and losses mean nothing, and prices and interest rates don't send any meaningful economic signals. The regulator under the Democratic administration is All-Knowing and All-Wise, while the regulator (usually the same person) under the Republican administration is a devotee of Ayn Rand.

So, Krugman actually wants us to believe that if government confiscates large amounts of corporate cash and spends them on politically-based projects, that corporations automatically will start investing for the future. Apparently, one of those projects must be that proverbial bridge in Brooklyn that Krugman is trying to sell us.

117 comments:

Dave Staszak said...

The word "confiscate" bothers me. How high is our tax burden compared to historical averages and to other modern societies? Am I wrong to think that the federal government is getting less now as a % of GDP then at any time since the 50's? And that only one industiralized country (Japan) has lower rates than we do? It seems to me that we need to raise taxes now only because they were cut in the early Bush year's and then we started spending in respose to 9/11 with out raising taxes to pay for this. Isn't it reasonalbe to pay for current expenses like wars and not pass these burdens down to our children or cut SS, Mcr etc.

Jim said...

David Staszak,

Yes, our government is getting a very low tax to GDP ratio. However, low tax rates are not to blame. The Federal Government actually took in 18.5% of GDP in 2007, well above the historic average. Yet, the Bush Tax Cuts were fully in place by 2007. The reason the tax to GDP ratio is so low, is the recession.


It is also true that spending now takes upover 25% of GDP, far above historic averages. Part of this is due to the recession, but it also partially permanent (Obamacare, Increased Domestic Spending, Entitlement Obligations).

As for other nations having higher taxation than us, you are right. However, this does not mean that we should follow the same path. France, for example, has had very high taxation, and they have also had very slow economic growth. This is true of many nations around the world.

Meanwhile, countries with low taxation, like Singapore and Hong Kong, have enjoyed rapid GDP growth.

You also seem to think that by raising taxes, we can avoid cuts to Medicare and Social Security.

This is very wrong. To be able to manage these two programs, we would have to have massive tax hikes. These tax hikes would surely bring us above the laffer curve rate that maximizes revenue, we would then have much less revenue than we expect. This means that these program's massive expenses cannot be covered by tax hikes alone.

Anonymous said...

Please, get your National Accounting straight. Demand = Equal to items being sold. Sold to the government, or households, of exported, or to other businesses. Without demand - no production (and vice versa, of course). It's absolutely ridiculous to equate Keynesianism with govenrment spending - it's just taking the National Accounts serious. And yes, in a monetary economy where productivity in increasing in unpredictable ways, things can go wrong. After 1880, the investment rate gradually increased (from about 6 to about 20/25% of GDP)- to fall back to 6% of GDP in 1930. Even when consumer demand increased again, thanks to Roosevelt who inspired the USA so much, companies did not have to invest, as all the new stuff which was installed in the twenties caused productivity to keep on increasing (in fact: increasing at its fastest rate ever) - and unemployment stayed high because of this productivity surprise. markets just were not fast enough to adapt to this - a massive social change was needed. Fortunately, social security increased confidence and caused a shift in the consumption function which enabled even more demand, after 1945 (as to Higgs: low unemployment in 1946 was mainly caused by a massive reduction in average hours, a market phenomenon, by the way).

The situation today is different, but a somewhat comparable role is played by massive debt.

P.S. - Sweden is the European country with the highest tax rate. It has a government surplus, rapidly falling unemployment and production which increases at a very fast rate - as devaluation increased foreign demand.

Anonymous said...

"Furthermore, as Higgs pointed out, if banks start making loans wily-nily from their huge monetary base, we WILL see a big rise of inflation. For Krugman, inflation is good; it will "stimulate demand" and repudiate debt, and magically remove us from what he calls a "liquidity trap." Higgs, on the other hand, who is a far wiser person than Krugman ever will be, has much better insights. Uncertainty really does matter, and while Keynesians refuse to read Higgs, the man is right."

Someobody explain this to Ron Paul. He recently endorsed keeping the reserves in the system permanently. When you are going to make a post on that?

Anonymous said...

>>The word "confiscate" bothers me. How high is our tax burden compared to historical averages and to other modern societies? Am I wrong to think that the federal government is getting less now as a % of GDP then at any time since the 50's?

Like a broken record keynesians love to claim that the US has low taxes. Do you truly believe that there is such thing as a free lunch? Forget income tax rates or whatever calculation you used to come to this conclusion. All that matters is how much government actually spends. Be it through currency debasement, penalties, or taxes we the people ultimately pay for every penny of government spending.

Major_Freedom said...

Someobody explain this to Ron Paul. He recently endorsed keeping the reserves in the system permanently. When you are going to make a post on that?

How does an endorsment of raising reserves to 100% constitute a display of not understanding what Higgs argued?

Jim said...

Sweden is hardly a comparable example. They have a small racially homogenous population, and they have historically been much more collectivist than us.

One country that breaks the trend does not prove a point...

montanna said...

They supply you with what they call a guaranteed payday loans. They are genuinely existence savers in terms of residing about the streets or residing inside your residence.

Bob Roddis said...

It remains an unfathomable truth that non-Austrians cannot be bothered to familiarize themselves with even basic Austrian concepts. And yet they come here to comment on this blog and expose their purposeful ignorance of the Austrian School to the world. So here we go again.

1. There is no such thing as “demand” and certainly no such thing as “aggregate demand” except as a suspect statistical category. In each transaction or exchange, each party brings a good or service to the transaction to be exchanged for another good or service. Each party “demands” and “supplies” something. If there is an alleged lack of “demand”, it usually means that people are now a lot poorer than they previously thought they were due to their sudden realization of the malinvestments that were induced by Keynesian money dilution which distorted the price structure and impaired economic calculation. Those people need to stop spending and start saving and they need to liquidate their bad investments.

2. Ron Paul really doesn’t want reserves to be kept “in the system permanently”. He wants the system abolished. I want that too and the perpetrators tried and punished for treason and other crimes against humanity.

Anonymous said...

The Krugman Keynesian Klan proves once again their disdain for the elderly and disabled. Inflation hits them worst as their fixed income pensions and entitlements cannot catch up to inflation.

American Patriot said...

Isn't is amazing how Keynesians see reality differently? To them, demand drives economic activity, thus their disdain towards supply side policies. Yet, even the failure of a trillion dollar stimulus + three years of record breaking federal spending + QE2 - all of which are Keynesian dream come true - is no indication but the insufficiency of spending at current levels.

Thus Krugman's warped logic that corporations aren't investing for other reasons than confidence.

Does the good professor not read news? Does he not keep up with the NFIB and Chamber of Commerce member as well as CEO sentiments?
Funny, because I could have sworn (sarcasm) that the news is awash with them!
Here is the latest from today:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/4/employers-skeptical-of-obama-vow-of-less-red-tape/

The reason such lefties do not see reality the same way rest of us do is because they have no understanding of how an entrepreneur thinks. Oh sure, there are plenty of Democrat big business leaders (see Google for one) but they are not the giants that they are because of their political views but rather despite of them. If you have a great idea and the motivation, even the most ardent Marxist could become a billionaire. As an added factor, all these big guys stand to benefit from more government involvement because they are crony capitaists extraordinaire (again see Google, GE, etc. as examples). But, I digress.

If businesses think that regulatory and fiscal environment is punitive (as the article I linked to indicates as well), they will not invest. In turn, the persisting high unemployment will further demoralize consumers and the vicious cycle will continue. There is only one way to break the cycle: meaningful regulatory reform + supply side tax cuts (not temporary breaks but permanent CUTS!)

Under this administration, neither will happen (thank god) and the situation will bring a Republican Administration as well as Senate come 2012. We can only hope that it will not be one of RINO breed but a honest to goodness conservative.

Anonymous said...

American Patriot,

You are really confused. Republicans are just as Keynesian as Democrats. They will gladly tax you and spend it with abandon. Yes, they will give lip service to "cutting taxes", but in the end they have campaign contributors who always must be paid off.

American Patriot said...

Anonymous:

That is why I said in my last paragraph "hope that it will not be one of RINO breed but a honest to goodness conservative".

I am nearly as disgusted with big government establishmentarian Republicans (likes of Romney).
I hold much better hope for Bachman or Perry (if he joins the race).
That said, until our political system is reformed (by taking all money out of politics, getting rid of perks for politicians, and imposing term limits), nothing is assured to work. Still, I'll gamble on Republicans over any Democrat any day!

Bob Roddis said...

FYI, Perry used to be an Algore democrat:

Perry supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries and was chairman of the Gore campaign in Texas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Perry

Bachmann used to be an IRS prosecutor.

I hold no hope for either.

American Patriot said...

Bob,

I am aware that Perry worked with the Gore campaign and that Michele was an IRS prosecutor.

In the case of Perry, that was almost a quarter century ago and politicians evolve. Plus, being a Gore campaigner in those days was not what it would be today.
In his current policies, he is just fine other than maybe his immigration policy, which I'd like to hear more about.

As for Michele, being a former IRS prosecutor does not necessarily mean you are a big, intrusive government proponent.

You need to get up to speed with these guys' more recent political views and track records.
I realize that you are looking for the ideal candidate but unless we select the most limited constitutional government conservative, we will all go down with the ship.

Bob Roddis said...

The great Robert Wenzel explains Perry:

Depending how it is calculated, the debt of the state of Texas could be considered as high as $269 billion, which on a per citizen basis is $10,644 and is higher than even the $9,931 per citizen debt in the state of California.

In 2000, when Perry first became governor, total spending by the state of Texas was $49 billion. At the end of 2010, it was $90 billion.

I can just imagine what this guy would do at the federal level with Ben Bernanke around to backup his spending.


http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/06/first-look-rick-perry.html

Lew Rockwell shows that Bachmann has pledged allegiance and our future to a foreign theocratic socialist state:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/the-theocon-religion/

Bob Roddis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
American Patriot said...

Bob, I hate to say this but in libertarian fantasy world, you may be able to hold out for the equivalent of second coming of Jesus when it comes to politicians but in the real world, you have got to choose the better of two (or more) evils. I am not saying Perry or Bachmann are the greatest politicians but they all have their faults. It is do or die time. Who do you propose we support? Let me guess, Ron Paul so we can live in an isolated fantasy world where there are no vital interests for America outside our borders and no societal restraints that safeguard the civil society (which as a lawyer you should have a good comprehension of)?
Look, I am all for as small a government as anyone else, but defending our constitution demands conservative (or classical liberal) approach - not a libertarian approach that undermines a civil society due to its lack of moral convictions.

BTW, Michele is a religious person but not a fanatic by any means. You really need to get to know her better before passing judgment so fast. But of course, to someone like Lew Rockwell, if you have any moral convictions, you are probably for a theocracy.
I, for one, am a spiritual agnostic but religious people do not bother me at all. It is the left that paints them as fanatics who will control everyone else's lives, which obviously is ridiculous.

Also, Texas's debt is 81 billion - not 269 billion, and though half of it came under his administration, it consists of pensions and mostly transportation bond issues which citizens dictate.
Furthermore, article 8, section 49a(b) of Texas Constitution requires a balanced budget (just what we need in the U.S.)

Yes, he was a former Democrat, but so was Reagan (and no, I am not saying he will be another Reagan, but he would beat Romney hands down)
My preference between the two would be Michele Bachmann.

David B said...

AmericanPatriot,

To begin with, never announce you are an idiot with your Blogger Name. Being a Patriot is the dumbest thing you can say about yourself. You should be embarrased to stoop to such collectivisim.

Bob, I hate to say this but in libertarian fantasy world, you may be able to hold out for the equivalent of second coming of Jesus when it comes to politicians but in the real world, you have got to choose the better of two (or more) evils.

No I don't have to choose and you admit to choosing evil. That's dispecable and you should be ashamed of yourself. Don't be such a coward. Don't wrap yourself in a meaningless flag. Stand up and be a man. Say "You are all evil and I will not support you."

I am not saying Perry or Bachmann are the greatest politicians but they all have their faults.

Right, you are saying that you are an enabler and a coward that is terrified of what may happen in the "other party" wins. Who cares? They're all crooks. Just say it, loser. Stand up for yourself.

It is do or die time.

Yeah, just like every other meaningless election. Whoopdedoo. Since the governemnt can only make our lives worse, why do I care who wins their stupid election.

I vote for die (for the government that is, and of course we are all speaking figuratively. I would be happy if they all simply resigned and entered the private, voluntary workforce.)

Who do you propose we support?

How about merchants, businesses, workers, and consumers? Why don't we try supporting those who want to engage in voluntary exchange? Do I have to support one murderous incompetent versus another? How stupid is that?

Let me guess, Ron Paul so we can live in an isolated fantasy world where there are no vital interests for America outside our borders and no societal restraints that safeguard the civil society (which as a lawyer you should have a good comprehension of)?

Blah blah blah. Go back to RedState.com, Trotskyite collectivist. I have no national interests. I can work and trade with other people. I can pay for things I need. Only a socialist needs to bomb others to protect their national interest. Do you know what "national interest" even means? It's code for things our government steals from foreign peoples. We have to protect it through force because our government didn't to pay for it. Which is why they are in government, because they prefer involuntary exchange to voluntary cooperation.

Look, I am all for as small a government as anyone else,

No you're not. You're a closet collectivist (only unknown to you. We see right through your act.)

but defending our constitution demands conservative (or classical liberal) approach

I didn't sign the constitution. It has no bearing on me. I didn't agree to live by it. Appearantly nobody in your government gives two sh*ts about it either, Patriot.

- not a libertarian approach that undermines a civil society due to its lack of moral convictions.

Yeah, you're so moral, collectivist. You support bombing, torture, murder, wealth confiscation, and involuntary exchange.

How freaking noble of you, ROFL.

Go kiss the flag, loser.

Derrick said...

David B just pwnd the shit out of AP.

Derrick said...

AP is a perfect example of why I have little to no hope for the upcoming election.

The average "conservative" hates liberals and democrats, yet votes for candidates that enact the exact same policies. And they never even realize it. You try and point it out to them and they go straight into denial.

You talk about Bush's spending and you get "yea, but...(something about Obama worse). Talk about Bush's health care programs "yea, but..."

It's like they've spent so much of their life hating the other side that their brain is incapable of recognizing their incredible inconsistency.

They support what they hate. Realizing this would crash the fragile little world they have constructed for themselves.

Ignorance is bliss.

Bob Roddis said...

1. We should learn the lesson that republican candidates will always sell out their free market principles in a nano-second but that the popularized narrative for their regime will be decades and decades of hearing that the problems caused thereby were caused by laissez faire, the slashing of spending and tax cuts for the rich.

2. I think we are better off with the ghastly, monstrous and horrible Obama than with the ghastly, monstrous and horrible McCain. Under McCain, the same problems would be blamed upon laissez faire, the slashing of spending and tax cuts for the rich. In fact, the left is setting us up for the same narrative to explain Obama:

http://tinyurl.com/3nxdhh8

3. Lew Rockwell is Catholic. As is Tom Woods. Bob Murphy is born-again.

4. The idea that Rothbardians are not concerned with “personal morality” is preposterous. It’s similar to the ignorant leftist smear that we’re only concerned with maximizing “commercial transactions” or that we believe in atomized living. I have been amazed since 1974 that pious and religious people of all stripes do not rush to libertarianism because they could form their own religious schools and communities free of the public schools and could thereby exclude all persons from their lives who do not measure up to their view of piety. Their children could be completely free of the vile and sexualized popular culture. BUT NO! Such an option allegedly amounts to amoral anomie or something.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods83.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard168.html

5. Further, I fail to see how sending our kids to foreign countries in order to spread the plague of yet another Clintonista regime while losing their legs, genitals and entrails is in my interest, their interest or “America’s” interest.

6. Listen to Scott Horton and Sheldon Richman discuss Afghanistan:

http://antiwar.com/radio/2011/07/05/sheldon-richman-11/

7. Murray Rothbard explains Reaganomics:

http://mises.org/daily/1544

American Patriot said...

Derrick,

you sound like the libertarian version of a useful idiot.

I am not a Republican. I am a conservative because I believe in a civil society, not one where anarchy reigns supreme like your utopian society.

There is something called constitutional republicanism - which is in tune with classical liberalism - but you are too dumb to know.

For all I care, you, Bob, and David B. can live in your Rothbardsvilles - better yet move to a shack in Idaho and survive of the land.
I, for one, will fight for this country as envisioned by our fathers. Though I admit we've come a long way (the wrong way) since then, there is no alternative other than taking back our country from those whom you do not distinguish from likes of our founders.

I'd rather be a patriot anyday than a pathetic dreamer longing for utopia that will never be.

American Patriot said...

David B.,

somehow my reply to you got deleted. I will try to summarize my points:

Your association of patriots with collectivists show that you are nothing but a pathetic anarch libertarian longing for a utopian society. I would expect likes of you living in a cabin somewhere in remote Idaho.

You understand absolutely zero about our founding. You ought to read some Burke, Levin, or even this post in my blog I wrote as a response to a progressive:

http://defendourconstitution.blogspot.com/2011/04/deconstruction-of-four-questions-of_27.html

I would discuss critical concepts like civil society here but your inability to distinguish between Obama and say Bachmann or Perry tells me all I need to know about you. An intellectual midget.

You have a lot to learn about constitutional republicanism or classical liberalism if you think we are collectivists. LOL

American Patriot said...

Bob,

just one thing (as I probably said what I need to in my previous posts).

You guys sound borderline anarco libertarians. You claim that legalizing everything from drugs to you name it, is consistent with a civil society? Or are you one of those who is selectively "libertarian"?

If you are serious, I'd be interested in reading your rationalization. Derrick and David B. do not seem to care much for civil socity. Do you think it is essential or do you live by the law of the jungle as well?

burkll13 said...

I would expect likes of you living in a cabin somewhere in remote Idaho.

how would supporting unencumbered commerce through a society based on property rights be equivalent to living off the land in idaho? makes no sense whatsoever. it also makes no sense to continue drug prohibition, if your interests are a civil society. prohibition is responsible for most of the violence in this country, whereas in markets that are not prohibited, there is no violence. when was the last time you saw a coke rep. duking it out with a pepsi rep? (nascar dont count) take that further, jim beam and jack daniels coexist peacefully next to each other in most grocery stores. its only in an insecure mind, can you overlook the scourge of prohibition.

Bob Roddis said...

Do you think it is essential or do you live by the law of the jungle as well?,

I believe in the prohibition of the initiation of force as THE POLITICAL ISSUE. With violence and theft prohibited, there cannot be a "law of the jungle".

As the Rothbard article I linked to above explains, what you do with your freedom IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE unless you violate someone's rights.

A "civil society" as you put it is something that most people would want to create and do create in a voluntary manner. I would agree that most libertarians (especially the Libertarian Party) is completely tone deaf to such issues. Despite my urgings, they never seemed to get excited about the fact that private businesses could drug test and discriminate against dopers, for example. A pious drug-free and doper-free neighborhood or town is a "good" that can be supplied on the free market by free, voluntary actors. It is the "progressives" that make possible the lawsuits against those who would wish to live in such areas or the school taxes that would bankrupt them.

The worst enemy of civil society is the "progressives". The Rothbardian system terminates any control by "progressives" of civil society as well as that of Keynesians, fascists, and commies of various stripes.

American Patriot said...

Thanks Bob for a reasonable reply.

We are all small government proponents here but when ignorant ones who could not make a coherent argument about why civil society is essential to a free society accuse us conservative/classical liberals of collectivism, I can't help but be amazed at their ignorance. They are no better than progressives.

To summarize my main objection to libertarianism, a civil society must be a moral society. Without right and wrong, a society degenerates as did the great Roman empire. These social mores sometime conflict with what hard core libertarians would like to see done away with. That's all.

American Patriot said...

burkll13,

that was my frustration speaking. What I meant was equating classical liberalism of Burke to collectivism tells me that these people have no idea what Burkean conservatism is.

I have no problems with free trade/commerce and a very small government providing national security, and essential services like a small, basic safety net. It is all part of what composes a civil society.

The problem is that government gets out of hand and there are many RINOs who would love nothing better than a huge nanny state.
But, that does not mean that there are no Republicans who re still small, constitutional government proponents. You cannot paint with such a broad brush that anyone who doesn't just about promote anarco libertarianism is a collectivist.
That is not only absurd but shows intellectual bankruptcy.

Lord Keynes said...

The prize for ignorance:

"There is no such thing as “demand” and certainly no such thing as “aggregate demand” except as a suspect statistical category. "
Bob Roddis@July 5, 2011 8:44 AM

Meanwhile, even Anderson says:

"Demand drives production, and even Austrians, with their emphasis upon the valuation of the factors of production being imputed by consumers placing value on the "final product," would admit to that."

And demand is the basis of Say's law:

(1) Say’s Identity
According to Baumol (1977: 146), this
"is the assertion that no one ever wants to hold money for any significant amount of time, so that, as a result, every offer (supply) of a quantity of goods automatically constitutes a demand for a bundle of some other items of equal market value.

(2) Say’s Equality
Again, according to Baumol (1977: 146), Say’s Equality

"admits the possibility of (brief) periods of disequilibrium during which the total demand for goods may fall short of the total supply, but maintains that there exist reliable equilibrating forces that must soon bring the two together."

Baumol, W. J. 1977. “Say’s (at Least) Eight Laws, or What Say and James Mill May Really Have Meant,” Economica n.s. 44.174: 145–161.

Bob Roddis: you are ignorant of basic Austrian concepts.

Anonymous said...

LK, what a strange comment to make, do you really think Bob was implying that the word demand does not appear in literature about economic theory?

Reading his comment I can't help but imagine Krugman pacing around in his office, scratching his head and repeatedly asking himself, "where has the demand gone?" As if people simply, suddenly stopped wanting stuff.

Bob is standing there, and responds:
"[ummm... maybe because] people are now a lot poorer than they previously thought they were due to their sudden realization of the malinvestments that were induced by Keynesian money dilution which distorted the price structure and impaired economic calculation"

Lord Keynes said...

"lot poorer than they previously thought they were due to their sudden realization of the malinvestments that were induced by Keynesian money dilution which distorted the price structure and impaired economic calculation"

There was no sudden "realization of the malinvestments that were induced by Keynesian money dilution": there was a financial crisis, asset bubble collapse, debt deflation induced recession.

People are lot poorer because of unemployment, excessive private debt and deleveraging, not the because of the fantasy Austrian trade cycle theory (ABCT), where credit goes to producers.

Hayek's ABCT says NOTHING about asset bubbles or consumer credit.

Bob Roddis said...

I understand the concept of "demand" in economics. It may very well be a helpful analytical tool here and there if one is discussing the “demand” for finished consumer goods. My point has always been that the actions of real live humans in the real live world consist of exchanges with each side “supplying“ something and “demanding“ something. The Keynesians are in love with their models and jargon which their tiny brains think trump the reality of the mean cruel real world. They purposefully ignore the real world of ignorant acting man acting in a world of limited knowledge and the nature of and necessity of economic calculation. It is logically impossible to begin with the real world of acting man and logically progress to their model. So their heads explode when you try to calmly lead them on that path.

Like all Keynesians, LK simply cannot address these basic concepts and instead must rely upon pathetic hair-splitting like whether Hayek misspoke 70 years ago about whether there is one or many natural rates of interest.

As I have maintained since 1975, Keynesianism is a dream of elitists who insist upon inflicting their nasty brutal vision upon average people whom they consider to be too stupid to run their own lives. It is mutually exclusive with freedom-loving Austrians who insist that average people must be allowed to go about their business so that the pricing process may obtain in order to guide people’s lives and be a guide for prosperity.

Check out this exchange:

http://tinyurl.com/3d3dfjf

Anonymous said...

Intellectually dishonest LK,

Here is Anderson’s complete quote:

“I note this because I can anticipate the objection: Demand drives production, and even Austrians, with their emphasis upon the valuation of the factors of production being imputed by consumers placing value on the "final product," would admit to that. However, when Keynesians and Austrians speak of "demand," they are speaking in two different languages.”

Bob Roddis said...

There was no sudden "realization of the malinvestments that were induced by Keynesian money dilution": there was a financial crisis [induced by funny money dilution], asset bubble collapse [reality sets in], debt deflation induced recession [reality really sets in].

People are lot poorer because of unemployment [the result of investing in unsustainable lines of production which only appeared (or were) profitable due to money dilution], excessive private debt [created by money dilution] and deleveraging [reality sets in], not the because of the fantasy Austrian trade cycle theory (ABCT), where credit goes to producers.

Hayek's ABCT says NOTHING about asset bubbles or consumer credit.


Since LK refuses to comprehend basic Austrian concepts, he is unable to apply them to changing circumstances. The basic concepts are ignorant acting man and the essential nature and role of the pricing process. Funny money dilution will tend to distort that process. It is really not that difficult to apply these principles to events not specifically foreseen by Hayek. What was the primary reason people bought houses? EVERYONE knows the reason. It was intended as an inflation hedge by a populace taught in government schools that inflation is a mysterious natural phenomenon and who cannot wrap their brains around the fact that it results purely from Keynesian central bank money dilution. The problem was that there was really no one at the end of the line with $800,000 worth of stuff to trade for what should have been a $100,000 house. LK denies this explanation. Just cuz.

This is LK’s perpetual M.O. He does this because has nothing substantive to offer. Another big win for the Austrians.

Lord Keynes said...

"there was a financial crisis [induced by funny money dilution],"

Garbage. It wasn't induced by "funny money dilution": it was reckless lending by banks, and defaulting subprime borrowers, causing the CDOs and MBSs to collapse in value. That did not necessarily require fiat money, precisely as can be seen in the 1880s in Australia when a huge asset bubble occurred, due to capital inflows.

"It is really not that difficult to apply these principles to events not specifically foreseen by Hayek. "

Yeah, like proponents of the geocentric theory of the universe adding epicycle after epicycle to their ludicrous theory, desparately flogging the dead horse to make it run.

"Another big win for the Austrians"

LOL... Only in your small cultish fringe world. Meanwhile, in the real world, it is the Keynesian Hyman Minsky's theories that are increasingly seen as the relevent theory for explaining the collapse in 2008.

Lord Keynes said...

"Here is Anderson’s complete quote ... etc

And that quote from Anderson establishes

(1) that demand IS a meaningful concept; and

(2) that demand drives production.

If Anderson were remotely honest he would also admit the aggregate demand is also required for Say's law to work: if he doesn't belive that, and contineus to defend Say's law, then he is just another foolish Austrian hack, like Bob Roddis.

João Marcus said...

LOL... Only in your small cultish fringe world. Meanwhile, in the real world, it is the Keynesian Hyman Minsky's theories that are increasingly seen as the relevent theory for explaining the collapse in 2008.

So, the Minsky's theories are seen as relevant theories that explain the collapse in 2008. And yet the US economy is not recovering. Good to know!

(1) that demand IS a meaningful concept;

Nobody says the demand is not a meaningful concept. Austrians just refuse to calculate demand based on magical formulas and Keynesian free-money magic powder.

Anonymous said...

LK,

Maybe that is your problem; you failed reading comprehension in grade school. It would explain a lot.

Here is the part in Anderson’s quote you missed: “…I can anticipate the objection: Demand drives…”

David B said...

Your association of patriots with collectivists show that you are nothing but a pathetic anarch libertarian longing for a utopian society. I would expect likes of you living in a cabin somewhere in remote Idaho.

Why do I care what you think? What do you do for a living? (Hint: I don't care, so don't answer). And why do you care where I live?

Liberty has nothing to do with Utopia. In fact, it's the opposite. We don't make any promises about what society will look like. Utopia is a socialist concept. So it is much closer to the nationalist patriotism that you promote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(book)

Follow that link, collectivist. Learn where your nationalist socialist utopia comes from.

You understand absolutely zero about our founding. You ought to read some Burke, Levin, or even this post in my blog I wrote as a response to a progressive:

LOL, I'll get right to your little blog. I'm sure it's wonderful.

Mark Levin understands the founders? Wow. Boy did you get me there!

Appeals to authority don't impress me.

I would discuss critical concepts like civil society here but your inability to distinguish between Obama and say Bachmann or Perry tells me all I need to know about you. An intellectual midget.

Zing! Good one! Have you made an argument yet? At least you're slightly amusing. Otherwise, I would be very bored right now.

You have a lot to learn about constitutional republicanism or classical liberalism if you think we are collectivists. LOL

Yet, you list nothing for me to learn. Damn, that's too bad. I'm a sponge Patriot. Feed me. Teach me the ways of Hyper Nationalist Socialism. Show me how you RedState folks know all about the proper way to run a society!

Oh goodness, what would we ever do without you. You're our savior, our hero! You're going to plan our lives and fight off our enemies!

HAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHH

Lord Keynes said...

"So, the Minsky's theories are seen as relevant theories that explain the collapse in 2008. And yet the US economy is not recovering. Good to know"

Fool. Minsky's theories tell you EXACTLY why the economy is still mired in high unemployment and a tepid recovery:

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2011/06/steve-keen-on-debt-deflation-and-double.html

David B said...

LK,

it was reckless lending by banks, and defaulting subprime borrowers, causing the CDOs and MBSs to collapse in value.

Where do banks get the money to engage in reckless lending?

If banks are completely responsible for reckless lending, why did Keynesians recommend bailing them out?

Lord Keynes said...

"Utopia is a socialist concept. So it is much closer to the nationalist patriotism that you promote."

Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism is easily one of the most stupid and obvious utopian fanasties ever imagined: a world with no fractional reserve banking, no fiduciary media, no government, an enforceable private law code, private protection agencies that don't degenerate into private turf wars.

Lord Keynes said...

"Where do banks get the money to engage in reckless lending?"

You don't need fiat money, central banks or even fractional reserve banking for banks to lend recklessly.

Commodity money can flood in through your capital account, allowing foreigners to get caught up in a country's speculative asset bubbles.

"If banks are completely responsible for reckless lending, why did Keynesians recommend bailing them out? "

Depends what Keynesians you're talking about.

You mean the Keynesians who vehemently opposed the Bush bailouts and demanded that the insolvent banks be audited, their managements fired, their bad assets and non-performing loans purged or severely restructured?? - all in accordance with the law and regulatory practice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHc5NaaZvrc

American Patriot said...

It is a utopia you long for since under your vision there would be no civil society, thus no constitutional republic. Kind of like in medieval times. Yes, you could do whatever, but so can you in the jungle or in a remote mountain cabin. Get the point of my comment about living in a cabin yet? I still doubt you do.

My point with Levin or Burke was to educate you about our founding principles but you apparently couldn't care less. As I said, whether you admit it or not, you are an anarcho libertarian.

Small, constitutional government living by a free market/society doctrine is the only viable system that maximizes individual liberties while maintaining some resemblence of a civil (and modern) society that can compete globally.

Your comments are too juvenile to respond any further.

David B said...

LK,

You really don't want to go there with me again do you? Your density is highly amusing.

Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism is easily one of the most stupid and obvious utopian fanasties ever imagined:

Wow, what a great argument! I have seen the light. Thank you so much!

a world with no fractional reserve banking,

Oh yes, I forgot. I owe my life to the wonderful concept of FRB! Thank goodness. Hallelujah! I have been saved!

no fiduciary media,

Oh no! Fire and brimstone!

no government

Dear God, who would tell me what to do and how to do it? I would be so lost!

an enforceable private law code,

So enforceable in fact that America leads the world in prison population! I didn't realize how a good a job they are doing!

private protection agencies that don't degenerate into private turf wars.

ROFL, yeah there are no turf wars among public protection agencies! (Like for example, when a Border Patrol agent gets killed by a gun given to a drug dealer by an ATF agent at the behest of the DOJ. That NEVER happens.
http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/Reports/ATF_Report.pdf

Oh thank goodness for my overlords! They give me the utopia I was looking for all along!

HAHAHAHAHAHA

If anyone who is not a statist troll is curious, Rothbard addressed the Utopian myth decades ago. See #5 in this post http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard12.html

Utopia has always been the province of socialists. The origin of government issued paper money is in their utopian fantasies. It's part of the history of socialism, and rather than denying it, LK should proudly embrace it.

David B said...

AP,

It is a utopia you long for since under your vision there would be no civil society, thus no constitutional republic.

My vision? I don't have a vision. I don't tell you how you should live. You are free to act as you please as long as you don't violate my liberty. That is the foundation of a civil society. Property rights and the respect for liberty. The state cares nothing for property rights. It would prefer that you had none.


Kind of like in medieval times. Yes, you could do whatever, but so can you in the jungle or in a remote mountain cabin. Get the point of my comment about living in a cabin yet? I still doubt you do.

Yes, I get your point. It's really dumb and has nothing to do with liberty. Do you think that liberty is only possible in a log cabin? Am I supposed to find such a critique compelling?

My point with Levin or Burke was to educate you about our founding principles but you apparently couldn't care less.

You're darn right I couldn't care less. I read the Federalist Papers and I have a pocket Constitution. I don't need Levin or Burke's interpretation. I can read it for myself.

I've also read Lysander Spooner and I agree that even if the Constitution promoted a workable system of government (which it does not), it has no authority over me anyway. It is not contractual. Do you get the point of that comment yet?

As I said, whether you admit it or not, you are an anarcho libertarian.

I am proud of it. Unlike you, collectivist, I know exactly what I am.

Small, constitutional government living by a free market/society doctrine is the only viable system that maximizes individual liberties while maintaining some resemblence of a civil (and modern) society that can compete globally.

And that's what Bachmann and Perry promote? Are you naive or just very very young? I hope you're not a grown man believing in such nonsense.

Your comments are too juvenile to respond any further.

Bye.

zackA89 said...

LK, isn’t the buildup in “excessive private debt” and the subsequent “debt deflation” attributed to the fact that interest rates were so low and credit was so cheap because of artificially low interest rates on behalf of the Greenspan Fed?

I don’t see that buildup in “excessive private debt” happening unless credit is made cheap with artificially low interest rates to begin with.

Complaining about debt deleveraging is like complaining about having a hangover the next morning without realizing you got drunk the night before. The real problem was the previous inflationary boom fueled by cheap credit, artificially low interest rate, Fannie and Freddie, and government backstops to begin with, the aftermath, the debt deflation, is just the inevitable consequence of the government/fed intervention.

Keynesians stimulus is akin to giving the drunk more alcohol in the morning, which ultimately postpones the recovery and delays the day of reckoning. The stimulus is the problem, not the cure. Basically, doing more of what got us into this mess to begin with in the form of stimulus will just make matters worse, by distorting the price system and thereby fatally impairing economic calculation.


If you were calling for no bailouts, and the liquidation of failed firms, good for you. The capital and labor tied up in those malinvestments needs to be liquidated and reallocated toward more profitable sectors of the economy in line with consumer preferences.

Entrepreneurs will engage in economic calculation and use the price system to guide resources to more economically desirable ends. More stimulus and funny money dilution necessary distorts that very important process that needs to occur in order to have a genuine and sustainable recovery.

David B said...

LK,

Oh dear, you've gone and dodged the discussion again. Why do you do this? Just be an honest person and it would be so much easier to live. You bring this on yourself.

Where do banks get the money to engage in reckless lending?"

You don't need fiat money, central banks or even fractional reserve banking for banks to lend recklessly.

I didn't ask you if they needed it. I asked you where they got it. Why don't you answer the question?

Commodity money can flood in through your capital account, allowing foreigners to get caught up in a country's speculative asset bubbles.

Perhaps, but that has nothing to do with the question I asked. Are we on a commodity standard? Answer the question I asked. Where did the banks get the money.

"If banks are completely responsible for reckless lending, why did Keynesians recommend bailing them out? "

Depends what Keynesians you're talking about.

You mean the Keynesians who vehemently opposed the Bush bailouts and demanded that the insolvent banks be audited, their managements fired, their bad assets and non-performing loans purged or severely restructured?? - all in accordance with the law and regulatory practice.


I thought the Federal Reserve had FULL regulatory power over the banks when the crisis happened. Why didn't the Federal Reserve audit the insolvent banks? What does the Bush/Obama bailout (I specifically remember the Moral Leader of our Time on Bush's lap cheering for the bailout before doing his own version) have to do with the regulatory framework? Was there something in those bailouts that prevented the Federal Reserve from doing its job?

Do you deny that the Federal Reserve had FULL regulatory power over these "reckless banks" regardless of Bush/Obama bailout packages?

Lord Keynes said...

"LK, isn’t the buildup in “excessive private debt” and the subsequent “debt deflation” attributed to the fact that interest rates were so low and credit was so cheap because of artificially low interest rates on behalf of the Greenspan Fed? "

Plenty of countries had low interest rates and cheap money in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, but there were no massive asset bubbles and national or worldwide financial collapse in those years. You subscribe to the sheer superstition of ABCT:

(1) there is no such thing as a unique natural rate of interest in a growing economy and

(2) the credit went to consumers, not producers, as required by ABCT:

To the extent that the new money is loaned to consumers rather than businesses, the cycle effects discussed in this section do not occur. (Rothbard 2004 [1962]: 995–996).

The fundamental cause of the 1990s and 2000s bubbles was flawed and dysfunctional neoliberal financial regulation, inspired by the idiocy of rational expectations and the efficient markets hypothesis, which emerged from monetarism and the New Classical economics.

David B said...

LK,

You are still speaking with a forked tongue. How can you contradict yourself a mere three comments later?

The fundamental cause of the 1990s and 2000s bubbles was flawed and dysfunctional neoliberal financial regulation, inspired by the idiocy of rational expectations and the efficient markets hypothesis, which emerged from monetarism and the New Classical economics.

That's not what said above. You said:

": it was reckless lending by banks, and defaulting subprime borrowers, causing the CDOs and MBSs to collapse in value"

So which one is it LK? Is it the fault of reckless lending or the wrong kind of regulation?

Do you deny that the Federal Reserve had FULL regulatory power over the banks?

Where did the banks get the money?

I am looking forward to the time when you do not dodge the discussion at hand, when you become an honest person.

Lord Keynes said...

"You are still speaking with a forked tongue. How can you contradict yourself a mere three comments later?"...

Total garbage:

"The fundamental cause of the 1990s and 2000s bubbles was flawed and dysfunctional neoliberal financial regulation,"

Got it?? The bubbles?

"there was a financial crisis [induced by funny money dilution],"

Garbage. It wasn't induced by "funny money dilution": it was reckless lending by banks, and defaulting subprime borrowers, causing the CDOs and MBSs to collapse in value.


The financial crisis is explained here, not the bubbles.
Clear to you, idiot?

Lord Keynes said...

Answers:

Do you deny that the Federal Reserve had FULL regulatory power over the banks?

They had regulatory powers, but did NOT exercise the type of regulation they used to, before the 1980s, when they maintained lending standards and minimised debt-fuelled asset bubbles.

Instead we had the ex-Ayn Rand acolyte Greenspan spining his tales about the new economy.

Where did the banks get the money?

(1) from money already in M3

(2) from foreign capital inflows via America's cpaital account

(3) from reserve creation by the Fed

(4) from FRB.

As I said, ALL these sources of money/money creation existed in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, but there were no massive asset bubbles and national or worldwide financial collapse in those years.
Effective financial regulation is what made the difference.

David B said...

LK,

I love how angry you get when you are busted. It's cute.

So the bubble was caused by dysfunctional regulation? But the bust was caused by something else? By reckless banks?

So the bust had nothing to do with the bubble? They are unrelated?

ROFL, you really have it going today, Socialist!

Where did the banks get the money to engage in reckless lending?

Do you deny the Federal Reserve had FULL regulatory power?

Don't dodge the discussion. Don't get angry, as cute as it is. Just be honest. That's all I ask.

David B said...

LK,

Oh this gets better and better.

They had regulatory powers, but did NOT exercise the type of regulation they used to, before the 1980s, when they maintained lending standards and minimised debt-fuelled asset bubbles.

Whose idea was this? Let me guess, it was Ayn Rand's fault wasn't it?

Instead we had the ex-Ayn Rand acolyte Greenspan spining his tales about the new economy.

LOL, and the Socialist playbook is run to perfection. ROFL, yeah Ayn Rand was all about paper money issued by a central bank. That's what she wanted. Blame her.

Where did the banks get the money?

(1) from money already in M3

(2) from foreign capital inflows via America's cpaital account

(3) from reserve creation by the Fed

(4) from FRB.


Finally, you admit that the money is created out of thin air. M3 comes from thin air. Foreign capital account come from the thin air of foreign central banks. #3 is your beloved Paper Money Machine. #4 is from the banks paper money machine.

I'm glad you finally diagnosed the problem.

As I said, ALL these sources of money/money creation existed in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, but there were no massive asset bubbles and national or worldwide financial collapse in those years.

So you are saying that there was NOTHING in existence from 1940-1970 that could have prevented asset bubbles from forming besides "effective regulation." Then suddenly, like a great conspiracy, "effective regulation" was removed by an Ex-Randian who skulked off with it in the middle of the night.

You are quite the conspiracy theorist!

Effective financial regulation is what made the difference

ROFL, the utopian promise of Effective Financial Regulation from the Socialist. And the playbook is complete.

So let's summarize. The boom is caused by a lack of regulation. Regulation was in place, but ineffective. The bust is caused by reckless lending, from money given to the bankers by the people who were supposed to regulate them.

And your solution is more regulation.

And I am supposed to be impressed with this? This is intellectualism?

Thank god you're here, LK. What would we do without you?

Lord Keynes said...

"Do you deny the Federal Reserve had FULL regulatory power?"

Answer: they certianly did NOT have the full regulatory powers they had from 1945-1980s, owing to:

Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (1980)

Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act (1982)

These were major contributors to the Savings and Loan crisis.

Further neoliberal acts that attacked Roosevelt’s system:

Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act (1994)

Financial Services Modernization Act of (1999), also called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

Commodity Futures Modernization Act (2000).

The SEC’s Voluntary Regulation Regime for Investment Banks (2004)

See here:

http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2009/11/financial-deregulation-and-origin-of.html

If you let banks engage in "voluntary regulation" the results are predictable.

"So the bust had nothing to do with the bubble? They are unrelated?"

Nope, idiot, closely related.

Like the mounting number of Austrians here, you're as useless, ignorant, prone to logical fallacies and wrong as them all.

Let's throw your rubbish back in your face:

"ROFL, you really have it going today, Austrian dumba**!"

zackA89 said...

The fact that when interest rates are artificially suppressed below what they otherwise would have been absent the credit expansion/monetary stimulus, that the price system is distorted and economic calculation is impaired which results in malinvestment is not refuted by the fact that you deny a natural rate exists. Super low rates still do damage to the economy. Disrupting the price system and impairing economic calculation is still problematic anyway you look at it.

Especially when you have a government that is encouraging home buying by relaxing lending standards to make home ownership more affordable to people who otherwise would not have been in the market for a home under the statist guise that “everyone should be entitled to an affordable home.”

You couple the monetary stimulus, artificially low rates, Fannie and Freddie, with the fact the government was pushing home ownership to people who otherwise would not have been in the market for a home, and yes, we got a housing bubble. The subsequent bust was the result of the bursting of the housing bubble when reality set in and the credit necessary to finance began to slow down, and people began to realize that the rise in housing prices was not sustainable.

We had plenty of regulation before the crisis, during the crisis, and even more after the crisis. No amount of regulation would have stopped the housing bubble from being inflated and the subsequent burst resulting from it. Bush expanded the SEC by thousands of workers. If anything, we did not enforce the regulation we already had in place which by no means should be a call for more regulation, but rather, a reminder on how incompetent government is to begin with. If we couldn’t enforce the regulations we already had in place, why do you want even more regulation?

Rand was a libertarian moral philosopher. Nothing to do with Greenspans actions at the Fed.
If you’re trying to use that as an indictment against the Austrian school, you completely miss the mark because everything Greenspan did while he was at the fed was completely the opposite of the Austrians would have suggested.

Regarldess of what he read prior to his time at the Fed, his actions at the Fed spoke volumes, and they had nothing to do with the Austrians school whatsoever.

The “free market” had nothing to do with inflating the housing bubble therefore had nothing to do with the collapse in 2008. It was caused, prolonged, and exacerbated by government and fed intervention.

Lord Keynes said...

"Then suddenly, like a great conspiracy, "effective regulation" was removed by an Ex-Randian who skulked off with it in the middle of the night."?

Nope, idiot, not suddenly, over a number of years, under the influence of the New Consensus neoclassical economics, which emerged from monetarism and New Classical fairy tales, through these acts and bills:

Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (1980)

Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act (1982)

Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act (1994)

Financial Services Modernization Act of (1999), also called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

Commodity Futures Modernization Act (2000).

The SEC’s Voluntary Regulation Regime for Investment Banks (2004)

David B said...

LK,

This is fun. You haven't finished the Socialist playbook yet. Let's see what you have for me.

"Do you deny the Federal Reserve had FULL regulatory power?"

Answer: they certianly did NOT have the full regulatory powers they had from 1945-1980s, owing to:

Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (1980)

Government legislation.

Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act (1982)

Government legislation.

These were major contributors to the Savings and Loan crisis.

Of course, the government created the Savings and Loan industry, husbanded it, and then changed the rules so they could engage in riskier lending. Now, consulting the Socialist playbook, this should be about the time you blame the free market....

Further neoliberal acts that attacked Roosevelt’s system:

There's that agitprop term again: neoliberal. Is that supposed to be authoritative or intimidating? Roosevelt's system? System of what? Even Keynes openly stated the FDR had no interest or knowledge of economics. What system could he have possibly created besides one of coercion and control?

Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act (1994)

Government legislation

Financial Services Modernization Act of (1999), also called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

Government legislation

Commodity Futures Modernization Act (2000).

Government legislation

The SEC’s Voluntary Regulation Regime for Investment Banks (2004)

Government legislation

So here you have about a half dozen or so examples of INVOLUNTARY COERCIVE legislation enacted that you cite as evidence for the problem. Now let me guess.... it's the free market's fault:

If you let banks engage in "voluntary regulation" the results are predictable.

And the Socialist playbook is complete! You are special!

"So the bust had nothing to do with the bubble? They are unrelated?"

Nope, idiot, closely related.

So cute when you're angry.

Like the mounting number of Austrians here, you're as useless, ignorant, prone to logical fallacies and wrong as them all.

What you have proven is that government intervention was a contributing factor in the bank's failure. Thank you very much for listing all of those interventions.

Now, if you were an honest person, you would say that asking the government to do more is probably not a good idea. But instead....

Let's throw your rubbish back in your face:

"ROFL, you really have it going today, Austrian dumba**!"


Bravo!

Lord Keynes said...

"We had plenty of regulation before the crisis, during the crisis, and even more after the crisis. No amount of regulation would have stopped the housing bubble from being inflated and the subsequent burst resulting from it. Bush expanded the SEC by thousands of workers."

= idiotic red herrings.

Yes, we had plenty of regulation before the crisis, during the crisis, but it was dysfuctional and ineffective.

You could cut the number of regulations, streamline it, but STILL have an effective system.

"Rand was a libertarian moral philosopher. Nothing to do with Greenspans actions at the Fed. "
You are right.
Thart is why I said "ex-Ayn Rand acolyte".

Greenspan was a subscriber to all the B.S. of the New Consensus neoclassical economics.

"Regarldess of what he read prior to his time at the Fed, his actions at the Fed spoke volumes, and they had nothing to do with the Austrians school whatsoever."

A total straw man: no one here claimed that Fed policies were "Austrian" in the 1990s or 2000s.

Lord Keynes said...

"Now, if you were an honest person, you would say that asking the government to do more is probably not a good idea."

Wrong. An intellectually honest person would demand a return to the effective Keynesian system we had before the 1980s, with proper financial regulation.

The era of classic Keynesianism was the "golden age of capitalism", with very high real GDP growth, low unemployment and high productivity growth. In fact the highest average annual GDP grwth rate seen in modern history:

1700-1820 - 0.2%
1820-1913 - 1.2%
1919-1940 - 1.9%
1950-1973 - 4.9%
1973-1981 - 1.3%
1973-1990 - 2.5%

João Marcus said...

Ah, the good old GDP growth as a measure of prosperity. Keynesians never cease to amaze me. They see the world as a bunch of magic numbers. Capital structure? Bullshit. All I know is that my magical number, GDP, indicates what I want it do indicate.

David B said...

LK,

Now should be about the time where the Socialist claims that Keynesians had it all right from 1940-1970.

Wrong. An intellectually honest person would demand a return to the effective Keynesian system we had before the 1980s, with proper financial regulation.

Bingo!

Wait, are these the same Keynesians that said the economy would be ruined if government spending was slashed after WWII? When in fact, it prospered? Do we need to consult our list of failed Keynesian predictions again?

The era of classic Keynesianism was the "golden age of capitalism",

Now that is a special assertion. We had 100 years of price stability from 1800-1900 with unparalleled growth in the standard of living.

Keynesians gave us stagflation and the end of the gold standard. American declared bankruptcy in 1971. You do remember that, right?

with very high real GDP growth, low unemployment and high productivity growth. In fact the highest average annual GDP grwth rate seen in modern history

GDP? You believe that GDP measures prosperity? C'mon, I really really want to take you seriously.

GDP is the final sale price of all goods. Hence, if that sale price rises due to.... oh... i don't know... money creation, so will GDP.

Do you really expect us to believe that the economy grew at a faster rate from 1973-1981 than it did from 1820-1913, because your crude equations tell you that?

LK, this is a teachable moment. You have uncovered an obvious error in your econometrics. The numbers tell you something that is patently insane. Yet you parrot them here as they are authority (Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy, btw.)

If you think that the 1970s was a golden age of capitalism and the 1800s were the dark ages with little to no progress, you have no common sense.

Cmon, LK. Join the crowd with common sense. You can't seriously believe what you are writing.

Bob Roddis said...

Neither the "progressives" nor the "patriots" ever answer the $6 million question:

If people are too stupid to run their own lives on a voluntary basis but where the initiation of force is prohibited, how are they possibly smart enough to vote for their [choose one or both]:

a) Keynesian overseer; and/or

b) personal morality overseer?

Bob Roddis said...

Both the "progressives" and the "patriots" believe in an infantile form of the "Mary Poppins Theory of Government", apparently believing that government officials and their SWAT teams have miraculous powers of omniscience and benevolence. "Mary Poppins as government" just wiggles her nose and the toys in the nursery all magically jump back into their toy box.

The problem is that the “government” is not God or Mary Poppins, but just another gang of ignorant acting humans of probably lower moral character than average folks operating without the insights of the pricing process. That’s what this “debate” ultimately comes down to. I’ve been waiting 38 years for the statists to address this. They won’t.

Anonymous said...

David B.

Why so angry man, the government is your friend, they are not the bad guys here. Big banks and capitalism is to blame for a current finicial problems in this great nation.

If you were a true American and Patriot like AP and LK you would understand this, but really to me you come off as a government hating anarchist. Really if dislike this country so much and you see evil in everything the government does maybe you should move some where else.

Anon

David B said...

LK,

Before we move on, there is still some untouched topics from our conversation. I thought we might expand on them more fully.

You pointed out that a stateless society might involve private "turf wars."

In response, I posted a very REAL turf war between the DOJ and veterans of America's pointless Drug War that lead to the deaths of many innocent people and even a few agents. These deaths were caused by something called Operation Fast and Furious. (I'm not joking. That's what it was called.)

Do you think this kind of behavior is unique, or is this the status quo for officials of the coercive state?

If this is not unique behavior, then who are these people that are suppposed to enact Effective Regulatory Utopia so that we can all live in permanent Keynesian Prosperity and ever increasing GDP? Why are they never around when the crisis happens?

I think it's clear that you agree that the free market is NOT to blame for the financial crisis, since you listed several government legislative measures as the problem. So will this be a different set of politicians and bureaucrats enacting the next round of legislation and regulation? What is so different about this crew that was missing in the last crew?

Now, I gotta be careful, becaue you are easily angered, but I just want to see what is going on up in that Socialist cranium of yours.

David B said...

Anon,

Why so angry man, the government is your friend, they are not the bad guys here. Big banks and capitalism is to blame for a current finicial problems in this great nation.

If you were a true American and Patriot like AP and LK you would understand this, but really to me you come off as a government hating anarchist. Really if dislike this country so much and you see evil in everything the government does maybe you should move some where else.


At first I thought you were being sarcastic and I got a chuckle out of it. But I'm not sure. If you are being sarcastic, very well done.

If not, my response is that the coercive state is not the reason for America's prosperity, and therefore is not the reason anyone should love America.

There are many great things about America that make it worthwhile despite the parasitic class.

If anyone should move out of the country, it should be the parasites.

Bob Roddis said...

Back in the 70's, morons who said things like "America, love it or leave it" were considered to be morons.

Anonymous said...

I was not being sarcastic, I was dead serious.

And oppisite day ends in 5, 4, 3, 2.....

Anon

zackA89 said...

@anon

Capitalism is not the problem but the fact that government and fed intervention fatally distorted the capitalist system is the problem. Basically, intervention, regulation, stimulus, and statism in general are the problem. With all the regulations, government spending, and monetary stimulus, one could hardly call the state of affairs prior to, during, or after the financial crisis the “free market.”We had crony capitalism. That is not capitalism.

LK, I figured you were insinuated that because Greenspan was an “Ayn Rand devotee,” that what he did at the Fed is somehow is an indictment against libertarians, or the Austrian School? In no way shape or form is it, in fact if anything, his actions and the problems they caused are an indictment against central planning, statism, and Keynesianism in general. The problem is that Greenspan departed from his former libertarians views, that is, if he even had any to begin with.

Statists of all stripes will continue to argue that real live human beings in government can somehow posses the necessary information to plan, manipulate, control, and regulate our economy and or society into prosperity and harmony. They have never had, nor will they ever have, such information. Like everyone else, they suffer from the knowledge problem. Unfortunately, they are not even aware of it.

Not that Im a big fan of Reagan, but ill quote him here:

“The more the plans fail, the more the planners will plan”

The more the plans fail which they always do, have and will, the more the statists will blame the nonexistent “free market,” as a justification for more intervention. It’s just a vicious circle. It’s not that the plans were not planned well enough, or that the right planners were not planning, it’s the very act of planning itself which is at the heart of our problems.

David B said...

zack,

If I may offer a slight semantic disagreement, I don't believe that what Keynesians/Statists actually do can be called Planning. I know they call it that, but doesn't Planning involve voluntary cooperation to see it through.

What I mean is, who makes Plans for other people, then expects them to follow through involuntarily?

So I would argue that it is not a knowledge problem (Hayekian) but rather the fact that these planners are completely delusional. In fact, I think a sense of being bigger than you really are is a prerequisite to be in government.

You would have to be delusional to believe you can plan everyone's lives and believe that they will voluntarily go along with your plan.

Bob Roddis said...

You would have to be delusional to believe you can plan everyone's lives and believe that they will voluntarily go along with your plan.

I agree. But the statists think they would have the magical powers of Mary Poppins if only they could get their little hands on the levers of power over the rabble.

Watch as they do not respond to this challenge. They never do and never will.

Bob Roddis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
zackA89 said...

Sure David. I will give you that.

The statists want to impose their plans on society through coercion. Entrepreneurs and business people plans are voluntary and tend to be consistent with real consumer demand unlike government plans. The reason government’s plans are not consistent with consumer demand is primarily because they are not subject to market forces like profit and loss and because the government obtains its revenue through coercion.

Basically, it’s the statists who want to impose their plans on society through the use of state backed force, because for whatever reason, they think their convictions are “right”, or “moral.”

Whether it’s the social agenda that neo cons think is necessary for this “civil society” AP talks about, or its government spending on infrastructure or “green” technology that a lot of progressives and Keynesians support, if force is required to extract the revenue necessary to finance these things, then it is involuntary government planning.

That better?

Bob I agree. Both progressives and some modern day “conservatives” argue that the previous set of plans failed because the right people were not planning. Libertarians argue that the very act of involuntary government planning itself is the problem, regardless of who is in charge of imposing the plans on the masses through force.

Anonymous said...

People need government to tell them what to do and what they can not do. People as a whole are to stupid to make rational decisions for themselves.

Without the government looking out for us how we the people going to determine how American guns are getting into Mexico? How we the people going to know whether its ok to smoke marijuana? How are we the people going to know whether its ok for them devil gays to get married or not? How are we the people going to determine what we accept in exchange for goods and services?

Can you answer any of those? You see we need the government because we as a people are to stupid to think on our own!

Anon

David B said...

Zack,

I know I was nit picking. Thanks for the excellent response.

American Patriot said...

The level of ignorance that some here are mired in is mind blowing.

If you call constitutional conservatism a form of statism, then you are for anarchy in the purest form of the word.
That is, if a small constitutional government that adheres strictly to a free market system (and somehow avoids crony capitalism from rearing its ugly head)is still objectionable to some, what pie-in-the-sky system are you promoting - other than total anarchy.
How do you propose we conduct ourselves in this global economy without even the smallest government imaginable? How are we supposed to defend ourselves? Or conduct foreign policy (oh yeah I forget, we should be isolationists, right?)
There isn't much to be said to those who think that even founding fathers were statists (no one said that but reading between the lines, that is the inescapable conclusion)

Government is a necessary evil, the question is how much? Collectivists want it in all aspect of their lives, us constitutional conservatives want it at the minimum necessary level with safe guards built in to the system, and some of you want none of it, it seems.

Here is a solution for those of you intellectually lazy libertarians (step by step process):

1. Reform politics (get all money out of it, limit terms, and get rid of perks of any kind so that corruption is severely limited) This way, the only incentive to go in to politics is to serve the country for a brief period.

2. Reform the tax code (go to a low flat tax for all with no deductions and no subsidies)

3. Pass a balanced budget amendment with no gimmicks

3. Reform regulations - meaning scrap all that does not pass a strict test of vital importance (probably more than half the 60K plus pages of regulations)

4. Make it impossible for presidents to make law through executive orders. Only congress can pass laws.

...and that is just a start.

Government does not have to be tyrannical. (Otherwise the founders would not have opted for a constitutional republic.)
It is just that over time, if the citizenry is not vigilant, it gets corrupted. That is why the Tea Party movement started - to get the government back to the first principles.

Anonymous said...

AP,

You really disappointment, I thought you were a sensible person, but then you start spouting pretty much the same non-sense that Ron Paul spouted in his anarchist hand book "Revolution". If you just added end the Fed to your list I would completely believe your just another one of Ron Pauls crazy minions.

Anon

American Patriot said...

What?
I am not the one saying get rid of even the most sensibly sized government.

I am just promoting a constitutionally (in its original meaning) consistent government. If you ask what that is, read the Federalist Papers.

David B said...

AmericanPatriot,

I suspect that what is mind blowing is your sudden realization that ideologically you are closer to the Progressive Left than you are to Libertarianism. That probably is shocking, but it is true nonetheless.

For starters, you're not for Constitutional conservatism. You are a copycat conservative. Ron Paul is the only Republican that has been consistently principled in his defense of the Constitution. Yet, what was your opinion of Dr. Paul? He lives in a fantasy land?

Really... and where do you think the term "constitutional conservative" comes from? Do you think mainstream Republicans called themselves that? Or is that copied from Ron Paul?

You see, I've already done this dance with Republicans like you for years. In 2008, you were a McCain supporter. You laughed at the Constitution. In 2004, you were a GWB supporter and the assualt on liberty was necessary because Iraq had WMD blah blah blah.

Now, in 2012, you will be a Constitutional conservative. Yeah, right.

It's not that constitutional government is objectionable, it's that you don't support it. You're a phony. Anarcho-capitalists would, in general, be ecstatic if we returned to the Constitution, or even better the Articles of Confederation. But it's not going to happen under Rick freaking Perry's watch. Are you joking with that crap?

I am promoting the pie-in-the-sky system of total anarchy. The classical definition of anarchy is a lack of coercion. The modern day definition is violent destruction of property. Do you know that state intellectuals changed the definition to make it less appealing? They did this so that you would reject the idea before you even knew what it is. It worked. You were hoodwinked.

How do you propose we conduct ourselves in this global economy without even the smallest government imaginable?

This is actually a re-wording of the common Progressive argument that the economy is too complex to be left to the whims of the market. Do you see how far Left you are?

Foreign policy is the way that states interact with each other. States by definition are monopolies on the use of force within a geographic area. By definition, states acquire revenue through coercion, whereas the rest of acquire it voluntarily. Therefore, foreign policy is merely an extension of the state's coercive power - an attempt to increase revenue through plunder overseas when it has exhausted methods of plunder at home.

I'm happy to live without foreign policy.

TO BE CONTINUED

David B. said...

CONTINUED

There isn't much to be said to those who think that even founding fathers were statists (no one said that but reading between the lines, that is the inescapable conclusion)

Some of them absolutely were statists. Some were not. I don't think you'll find any disagreement even among the most hardcore statist academics that Alexander Hamilton was a statist, for example.

Government is the administration of the affairs of the state. Without the state, you have self-government. Up until the distance crushing technology of the airplane and railroad where stolen by the state, millions of people around the world lived under self-government, without a coercive state and managed just fine. In most cases, their standards of living far exceeded their state-bound neighors.

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Not-Being-Governed-Anarchist/dp/0300169175/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1310076223&sr=8-1

Hobbes' view is famous, but it is wrong. The State made life nasty, short, and brutish.

Collectivists want it in all aspect of their lives, us constitutional conservatives want it at the minimum necessary level with safe guards built in to the system, and some of you want none of it, it seems.

You sound like Ron Paul. Except that what really happened is the Republicans have co-opted his domestic platform and you bought this hook, line and sinker. Which explains why you don't understand us.

1. Reform politics (get all money out of it, limit terms, and get rid of perks of any kind so that corruption is severely limited) This way, the only incentive to go in to politics is to serve the country for a brief period.

How many times have I heard this nonsense? Do you think this is a new idea? Whatever, sounds great. Sign me up.

2. Reform the tax code (go to a low flat tax for all with no deductions and no subsidies)

A flat tax of 0% is great. No subsidies? How Ron Paul of you!

3. Pass a balanced budget amendment with no gimmicks

Sounds great. Another thing Ron Paul has said for years. Way to copy his ideas while you mock him.

3. Reform regulations - meaning scrap all that does not pass a strict test of vital importance (probably more than half the 60K plus pages of regulations)

Did you notice that was exactly what the Keynesian Socialist LK was saying?

4. Make it impossible for presidents to make law through executive orders. Only congress can pass laws.

Another Ron Paul position.

...and that is just a start.

Well, here's the rest from Ron Paul, written in 2008, the last time we went through this and the phony conservatives mocked him.

Look how close his policies are to yours:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul647.html

Now, other than the foreign policy, it's remarkably similar to yours.

So here's the big question. How does the government, which is totally corrupt and despotic in all of its domestic dealings, turn into hyper efficient angels when it comes to foreign dealings?

Answer: it doesn't. But they have flags and songs and you eat it up.

Bob Roddis said...

Murray Rothbard explains the "progressive" coextensive nature of domestic and foreign interventionism in his paper “World War I as Fulfillment: Power and the Intellectuals”:

I regard progressivism as basically a movement on behalf of Big Government in all walks of the economy and society, in a fusion or coalition between various groups of big businessmen, led by the House of Morgan, and rising groups of technocratic and statist intellectuals. In this fusion, the values and interests of both groups would be pursued through government.

Big business would be able to use the government to cartelize the economy, restrict competition, and regulate production and prices, and also to be able to wield a militaristic and imperialist foreign policy to force open markets abroad and apply the sword of the State to protect foreign investments. Intellectuals would be able to use the government to restrict entry into their professions and to assume jobs in Big Government to apologize for, and to help plan and staff, government operations. Both groups also believed that, in this fusion, the Big State could be used to harmonize and interpret the "national interest" and thereby provide a "middle way" between the extremes of "dog-eat-dog" laissez faire and the bitter conflicts of proletarian Marxism.

Also animating both groups of progressives was a postmillennial pietist Protestantism that had conquered "Yankee" areas of northern Protestantism by the 1830s and had impelled the pietists to use local, state, and finally federal governments to stamp out "sin," to make America and eventually the world holy, and thereby to bring about the Kingdom of God on earth.


http://mises.org/daily/2543

American Patriot said...

David,

Ron Paul is a crackpot when it comes to some of his views. He doesn't even have the courage of his convictions to run as a libertarian, whom he is (that being said he has many good ideas as well, as many main stream libertarian ideals are similar to conservative ideals). His son on the other hand is a conservative.
There is a difference between constitutional conservatism (Paul Ryan and Sen. DeMint types) and libertarianism dominated by pacifists like you who understand nothing about the world and our role in it. No isolationist nation becomes great (and I am not writing this to justify Iraq invasion, which I am still not sure of its wisdom)

Rick Perry is an (barely) acceptable substitute for me. My preference would be Ryan, DeMint, who are not running, or Bachmann from the current crop.

You think you got me figured, how pathetically wrong. You have no idea whatsoever. You think libertarians dominate the Tea Party? LOL is all I can exclaim!

As far as founding fathers go, even Hamilton (the most progressive of the bunch - especially compared to likes of Madison and Jefferson) could not be compared to statists of today. And he was just one of 206, who were overwhelmingly for limited government.

Look, I criticize the state as much as the next guy but you have got to have a limited one at least or else how would you protect yourself or conduct international trade/affairs/etc.!
You do not have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Lord Keynes said...

David B @July 7, 2011 2:44 PM

> with very high real GDP > growth, low unemployment and
> high productivity growth. In
> fact the highest average annual
> GDP grwth rate seen in modern
> history


"GDP is the final sale price of
all goods. Hence, if that sale price rises due to.... oh... i don't know... money creation, so will GDP."


You reveal yourself as the idiot you are: note my words: "high real GDP growth".

Real GDP IS in constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, fool.

Also, the sheer stupidity of your assertions:

Your assertion 1:
You believe that GDP measures prosperity? C'mon, I really really want to take you seriously.

Oh really??

Your assertion 2:
We had 100 years of price stability from 1800-1900 with unparalleled growth in the standard of living.

And how do you measure "growth in the standard of living" accept by real GDP per capita, idiot?

How the **&* would you know that the 1800-1900 period had growth without accepting GDP figures?

Anonymous said...

AP,

I am curious, what of Ron Pauls ideas do you find so crack pot? Have you actual read any of Ron Pauls books? If you have not you should defiantly read "Revolution" which basically his political platform.

His domestic policy is almost exactly what you support, beside the whole ending the Fed idea (Read End the Fed and you will understand).

So that basically leaves his foreign policy that you find to be a "Crack Pot" idea. My response to this would be best summed up by MC Frontalot:

“In the interest of peace” is how a liar wages war
then clamors for more.
I wish we had elections every day,
wave the ballot in the air like a sign when I say
that democracy delivered by the bomb and the gun
is terror elsewhere on the world I’m from.”

I really do hope that this debate has lead to you doing some serious research on Ron Paul and discover what he really represents not just what the talking heads say about him.

Anon Out

Sam said...

"And how do you measure "growth in the standard of living" accept by real GDP per capita, idiot?"

Spending $50 dollars on itunes songs instead of $50 dollars on eight tracks would constitue a standard of living increase with out a corrisponding increase in real GDP.

João Marcus said...

And how do you measure "growth in the standard of living" accept by real GDP per capita, idiot?

Ah, Keynesians. You see, when someone says "standard of living", you automagically think of GDP. I guess you would be really confused if you tried to study History. "How the hell will I know how people lived in the 1213 century if there was noway to calculate GDP? I want my magical formulas, you idiots!".

burkll13 said...

"He doesn't even have the courage of his convictions to run as a libertarian"

"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals" - Ronald Reagan

Ron has always been a republican. he idolized "Mr. Republican", Sen. Robert Taft. short from using the libertarian party as a platform in 88, he really has nothing to do with them. accusing him of not having courage of his convictions is intellectually dishonest. All he has done in his long political career is stand by his convictions. you cant say the same for ANY of the other candidates, from any party.

you yourself cannot ridicule him for it seeing as you call yourself a conservative, and yet made it very clear you are NOT a republican. its clear that you understand there is a difference between an organized "Party" and the philosophies that drive it, and yet you have refused to acknowledge that difference when it comes to him.

i also have an issue with your use of the word "isolationist". Ron is not an Isolationist. its one of his many mainstream mis characterizations. He is a non-interventionist. Thats entirely different, and more in-line with our small government founding fathers.
Isolationism is the man living off the land in idaho
non interventionist is more like the entrepreneur facilitating commerce peacefully (ie, not forcefully)

"If goods don’t cross borders, troops will."
~Frederic Bastiat

David B. said...

Oh Lord Keynes, my Socialist friend, you continue to Appeal to Authority despite the evidence of their folly laid right before you eyes.

You reveal yourself as the idiot you are: note my words: "high real GDP growth".

Still angry? Oh my dear, sweet Socialist cutie-pie. Do your nostrils flare when you read my replies, my little etatist troll?

Real GDP IS in constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, fool.

Ohhhhh.. ROFL, so when you take one meaningless econometric and adjust it with another meaningless econometric that makes it “scientific.” That’s science, right?

And it is yet another Appeal to Authority, a logical fallacy I have pointed out over and over. You do understand that, right?

When you reference econometrics as evidence, it is an Appeal to Authority.

Here we have GDP, which is what.. four aggregates added together and voila: science! - combined with the CPI, which assumes objective utility and a standard shopping cart for all consumers, and I am supposed to be impressed…. nay, overwhelmed, when you multiply them together.

Science, right? More like barbarism.

Again, my Socialist companion, this is a learning opportunity for you. Your econometrics reveal an absurdity: that the 1970s saw higher growth rates than the 1800s. This is on its face so preposterous that a thinking man would pause to consider his premise.

I remember you mentioning your atheism. You claim to be a thinking man. Tell me, Socialist, how is that you replaced God in Heaven with God in Washington? How did you go from Christian to Etatist?

It seems to me that a thinking man would see that you merely replaced one religion with another.

I also notice that you have dodged every other question we have posed to you.

But we are in agreement that government policy caused the crisis, right? You proved that above when you listed the government interventions that caused the crisis. I just want you to confirm this.
Lord Keynes, do you deny that government policy caused the crisis?

David B said...

AmericanPatriot,

And now I shall turn my attention to our resident Chicken Hawk. I think it's funny that you are a copycat conservative. I like how you mimic Ron Paul's domestic positions without even knowing where they came from. Your response was so weak, after my thorough destruction of every statement you typed, that I'm not sure it's worth my time to write another rebuttal.

So I will instead just make fun of you, Chicken Hawk.

See I know that you were never in the military, because you call yourself American Patriot. Only people that have never served would have a Handle that stupid. It's like the people that blindly mutter "support the troops." The real troops know those people are phonies that would never fight in a real war.

You know what's even funnier, my Chicken Hawk friend? Ron Paul raises more money from active duty military than all Republicans combined. I bet you didn't know that, Chicken Hawk, did you?

Well, until you go over to the ME and do some patrols, I'm going to take my foreign policy advice from the people that actually fight. They put their money in Ron Paul's campaign coffers. They don't give to your neocon and theocon idols.

Ron may be a crackpot, but at least he served in the military he wants to bring home, he's not a chicken hawk like you.

Lord Keynes said...

"this is a learning opportunity for you. Your econometrics reveal an absurdity: that the 1970s saw higher growth rates than the 1800s."

Real GDP, which is the measure serious eocnomists use shows no such thing, you complete idiot.

"I also notice that you have dodged every other question we have posed to you."

False. I have answered every one of your questions. It is you who dodge the questions:

(1) And how do you measure "growth in the standard of living" in the 19th century?

(2) How do you even know that the 1800-1900 period had significant growth?

Real wages?
1945-1973 was a superior period of real wage growth. Per capita GDP?
If so, your commnets above are revealed as garbage.

Keep ignoring these quetsions: they show you as the intellectually bankrupt idiot you are.

"But we are in agreement that government policy caused the crisis, right?

Nope. Poorly regulated financial institutions and their behaviour caused the crisis.

You proved that above when you listed the government interventions that caused the crisis.

= idiocy. They were deregulatory bills significantly decreasing the power of government agencies and giving private financial institutions a great deal of freedom to make reckless loans.

Your idiocy is easy demonstrate: under the view you seriously argue above, you could also say that ALL the benefits and effects of liberalised trade in 19th century Britain were not caused by private traders or businesses at all: no, it was all just caused by the government bills that reduced tariffs in 1846.

In short, the level of your argument:

"Still angry? Oh sweet Austrian dumb***. Do your nostrils flare when you read my replies, my little libertarian troll?"

Lord Keynes said...

Correction:

Real GDP, which is the measure serious economists use does NOT show fake growth due to inflation, you complete idiot.

And yes: real GDP growth was still higher on average in 1970s, than in the 1800s: deal with it.

Bala said...

LK,

You are as hilarious as they get. It is many months since I demolished your precious concept of GDP as a nonsense indicator simple because it measures spending and that spending is not an indicator of prosperity. Further, only idiots will add C and I and take that to be a meaningful economic indicator.

I guess that makes you an idiot of the lowest order.

Bob Roddis said...

It seems to me (as predicted) the statists always dodge my $6 million question:

http://tinyurl.com/4xa9vz9

For what it's worth, I'll bet the standard of living was better in 1974 than in 1874. I recall a gay libertarian friend in 1974 who had a quadrophonic turntable and system and explained it all as one of the joys of the free market. It was.

American Patriot said...

First of all, I should not refer to Ron Paul as a crackpot since that is a highly subjective label.

The reason why he is objectionable to me is his foreign policy views as well as some of his positions like legalizing non-recreational drugs. I’ll explain.

As I said in a post earlier, certain moral standards must be maintained, not because I object to, say, legalizing drugs, but the society in general can degrade pretty fast when everything becomes "normalized".

Case in point: What is the harm in obscene lyrics in rap songs? Or full frontal nudity with soft core sex acts on public airways? Or being able to buy narcotics legally? All are personal choices that we should be able to make freely, right? I'd agree with that sentiment, but look at the cultural degradation we have suffered as the music industry, Hollywood, etc. have made more and more of what used to be considered a taboo "normal" in their handiwork. Commercial transactions are by their very nature public, with an inevitable impact on the larger community. Do you like the cultural landscape of today where rappers, Lady Gaga types, etc. influence your children's outlook? You may say, as a parent you should control what your children watch or do, but that is impossible unless you keep your children in a bubble. Cultural decay, along with public education, have accomplished subverting the youth (who become tomorrow's leaders).

That is called Cultural Marxism that Antonio Gramsci and his ilk coined. Some of Ron Paul's views play right in to the hands of these cultural Marxists, like it or not. That in turn leads to the destruction of civil society and threatens/weakens our constitutional republic further.

TO BE CONTINUED……

David B said...

Lord Keynes,

Let's start with the best part:

"Still angry? Oh sweet Austrian dumb***. Do your nostrils flare when you read my replies, my little libertarian troll?"

When children mimic their daddies, it always is a special moment. I am flatter that you think of me as your daddy. Now, let's see if you can learn to walk, my child.

Real GDP, which is the measure serious economists...

Another Appeal to Authority. But LK, I am your daddy now, so there is no need for you to continue to appeal to other authorities. Just appeal to me and I'll make it all better.

Besides, what makes them serious? Do they not like jokes? Are their dress shirts extra starched?

Any person, serious or not, that concluded the 1970s were a time of growth exceeding the 1800s would also conclude that his econometrics are bogus.

= idiocy. They were deregulatory bills significantly decreasing the power of government agencies and giving private financial institutions a great deal of freedom to make reckless loans

Couple things on this. First, you have already admitted that the Federal Reserve had FULL regulatory power over every loan the banks made, and since none of these laws repealed that authority, you have to fall back on the whimsical, conspiratorial notion that Greenspan skulked away the Effective Regulations in the middle of the night.

Besides that, if it were true that we somehow became a free market laissez faire paradise during the last 20 years, it would also be true that the size of the federal government shrank and that many thousands of laws were repealed.

Is any of this the case, my son?

Bob Roddis said...

1. The purpose of US foreign policy is to provide [inflict] the wonders and joys of US Clintonista domestic policy to/upon the rest of the world and help make the third world more like Detroit. Thanks for everything, you warmongers.

2. Unless they are completely insane, one must conclude that the drug warriors love the gang-bangers because they are their enablers. Thanks for everything, you drug warriors.

Mexico's drug gangs are increasingly developing ties to mafias around the world, from Japan to India, Russia, and Western Europe.

Mexico's drug gangs have exploded into a frenzy of violence in recent years. Less visible, but just as significant, is their increased power in the international drug market, and connections to foreign criminal organizations.


http://insightcrime.org/insight-latest-news/item/1112-mexico-gangs-spread-tentacles-abroad

American Patriot said...

To David b:

You have no idea of the distinction between constitutional conservatism and anarcho libertarianism (which Ron Paul is NOT but comes close on some of his stances). Paul's beliefs on the most part DO mimic mine but it is his social and foreign policy stances that rubs us the wrong way (thus the reason he garners no support to speak of whenever he runs for president as opposed to Tea Party candidates like Bachmann) Read my recent two posts and you may learn something for a change.

Oh, and by the way, I did serve in the military. Your statement that "only people that have never served in military would have a handle so stupid" only shows what a pathetic pacifist former hippy you must be. There a tons of former military bloggers out there and they use the term Patriot proudly. It is too bad that the active duty personnel have to put their lives on the line to protect likes of you.

Chicken hawk, huh.... look who is talking.

Anonymous said...

I'm ex-military, and I think your handle is self-serving and moronic.

Matt P.

American Patriot said...

Bob,

Are you seriously suggesting that:

1) sole purpose of our foreign policy is to spread Clintonista policies?

Try spreading liberty to tyrannical regimes so that they hopefully cease to be factories for our enemies. Obviously not very effective in a less than third world country like Afghanistan (which, unlike Obama, I never liked as a war theater) but that should never be the reason we avoid all together intervening in critical situations. Like Chamberlain with Hitler's Germany, you guys would allow a country like Iran to one day start a major war in the M.E. that would spread like a wildfire, wouldn't you?!

2) War against drugs is just an excuse for bigger government?

I've got news for you. Trafficking of drugs started all this, not the war against an imaginary evil. Wake up.

You really don't see the connection between certain behaviors/actions and their ill effects on the moral fiber (and thus eventual well being) of the society, do you?

Like progressives, some of you libertarians cannot think more than one step ahead, can you? Critical thinking requires such exercise but hey, if it feels good or sounds good, to hell with the eventual outcome, right?

Sam said...

I'm sure glad our military is protecting the U.S. borders from a North Korean invasion.

Bob Roddis said...

I know the distinction between the US Constitution and anarcho-capitalism.

However, if the goverment can ban drugs, it can also ban Big Macs and whiskey. It means the end of property rights. Our foreign policy is never about defending us against military enemies. It is always about spreading the "progressive" Clintonista agenda AND subsidizing the military-industrial complex. And perhaps monopolizing some oil and other resource markets.

It's not a coincidence that the "patriots" and the "progressives" always line up together against freedom, liberty, property, privacy and prosperity.

David B said...

AmericanChickenHawk,

A few notes, because I want this one to be brief.

A chicken hawk is a person that sends other people to fight their wars. I don't advocate sending any troops overseas to fight monsters, real or imaginary. You, on the other hand....

I don't care about your military service.

Finally,

Is it moral to impose your morality on others by force, at the point of a gun?

If so, how is that moral? How does that improve society?

America already has the largest prison population/person in the world.

How much more of your imposed-morality can we really take?

Anonymous said...

AP,

Once again you are making a case that Federal Government is needed to enforce a moral society, I take issue with this point.

First, who determines what is moral and what is not moral? Do your versions of morality reflect my views or LKs view or even David Bs view of morality?

Second, why would the Federal Government be in charge of what my local community considers moral? If I live in community that votes to legalize pot, why do we need to have anyone else interfere with that? If my local community votes that it’s OK for homosexuals to marry, whose business is that outside of my local community? Why do we need to have a national moral code? Why can that not be left up to the local communities? If you leave moral decisions up to your local community the members of that community can effect change based on their morals. Please take the time to read the “Politically incorrect History of the United States” and you will see the original colonies did not want their moral decisions affect by anyone outside of their individual communities. This was the basis of the original “Articles of Confederation” and later the “Constitution” you claim to support.

Third, I as a parent am responsible for my children, what I allow them to be exposed to and what I teach them is completely up to me and my family? I do not need the governments help in this! Your right I can not control what my children are exposed to. However, I have found as a parent I can teach them a moral code and what I consider acceptable behavior and they tend to make good moral decisions. I do not expect my kids to have the exact set of beliefs that I do, but I believe if you take the time to actual talk to your children and teach them they are perfectly capable of making their own moral decisions.

Once again, have you actually read Ron Pauls writings or are you just going off what the talking heads on TV and interwebs say?

Anon Out

David B said...

AmericanNationalist,

The War on Drugs may not be an "Excuse" for bigger governemnt, but it certainly, undoubtedly has led to bigger government.

It's only natural that people prosecuting the war on drugs have a vested interest in keeping the war going. I don't speak here of the boots-on-the-ground, who are always eager to end the fight. I'm talking about the bureaucrats in the DOJ and its tentacle agencies.

An end to threats leads to an end to occupation for those who are responsible for fighting those threats.

This is obvious and uncontestable.

It is also obvious that prohibition never works. It did not work for alcohol and it does not work for any other drugs. Prohibition makes the dealer a hero, not a criminal. He provides a product that consumers demand.

We agree that:

1. There will always be drugs
2. There will always be people addicted to drugs
3. There will always be a way to get drugs
4. A dealer that finds a way to bring drugs to the market lowers the cost of drugs
5. A lower cost of drugs is better for the drug addict than a higher costs, see again point #2
6. When Drug Warriors stop drug shipments, they raise the price of drugs, making it worse for the drug addict, see again point #2

Therefore, the Drug Dealer is a hero and the Drug Warrior is evil.

I hope you see the light, but I highly doubt it.

By some magic fairy dust, you believe that your morality can be imposed on others. This is only different from the Socialist Central Planning vision by an idiosyncratic detail. Socialists want to impose their vision to change all human nature. You want to impose it to change a part of human nature you disagree with. The devil is in the details.

Bob Roddis said...

Beyond both the substantive and procedural nature of the essential requirement of private property and the non-initiation of force, the major differences between the Rothbardian system and the democratic systems are procedural.

For example, for all the alleged horror stories that allegedly might occur under the Rothbardian system, there is nothing to stop a constitutional government from amending its constitution with the proper super-majority and (after properly jumping through all the hoops) electing to disembowel and barbeque the losing 20%, for example.

And I will repeat for the 4,000th time, the problems of drug use by others are easily solvable by the market and private property. It is the government's drug prohibition, public schools and laws against discrimination that have caused the horrific problems that we all must endure because of what is an otherwise fairly minor problem of life.

Anonymous said...

AP,

Once again:

“In the interest of peace” is how a liar wages war
then clamors for more.
I wish we had elections every day,
wave the ballot in the air like a sign when I say
that democracy delivered by the bomb and the gun
is terror elsewhere on the world I’m from!

How is the United States foreign policy done anything to protect us? How has the United States having troops in 146 countries done anything but created more hate for the United States?

I have lived in the Middle East for about 9 years now and I can tell you for a fact, our actions in the Middle East has not done anything but make more and more people hates us. This oppressive régimes that “Breed our enemies” have us as a target because of our presence in the Middle East. You add that with our blind support of all of Israel’s actions and you just put a bulls eye on our heads. You should probably read “Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism” and you would have a better understanding of how our current foreign policy has failed.

As for you comments on the “War on Drugs”, please I urge you to read “Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition”.

Anon Out

American Patriot said...

Bob,

it does not have to be all or nothing. How about this as a rule of thumb:

If an action results in a commercial transaction, thus spreading consequences throughout the society, that action must not harm the well being or the moral fiber of the society.

True, eating too many Big Macs or drinking too much Whisky can cause harm, but in the case of Big Mac it is strictly personal harm and in the case of whiskey, there are DUI laws (or are you against DUI laws also?)
There is a HUGE difference between the type of harm Big Macs and hard drugs can bring about.

As for foreign policy, your veiws are rightly cynical because, like everything else, foreign policy can be corrupted for different purposes. But, my point is that the main purpose should be the safeguarding of U.S. national interests as they pertain to our liberties. I am not for securing M.E. oil because I think that we should be drilling ourselves. We are potentially self sufficient as far as fossil fuel reserves go.

The ridiculousness of patriots lining up against liberty is beyond words. It just shows your misunderstanding of what our founding documents collectively say. You do not have to have anarcho libertarianism to safeguard individual liberties.
To think otherwise is way too simplistic.

American Patriot said...

David b:

just as I said, it is too bad that our troops have to endanger themselves for likes of you.

In your book, there are no monsters. I'd love to see the 'scared shitless' look on your face when Ahmedinajad detonates a nuke over your city. Think it is impossible? Think again...(and read the news)

Just as I thought, your words show that you are the 'crazy' type libertarian to whom all should be legal and people can duke it out on the streets if the consequences of your philosophy ends up harming them.

Some civilization. Not even the Romans, two millenia ago, had such nonsense.

American Patriot said...

Anon and Bob,

hopefully this is my last post on this.

I agree with the basis of most of your statement, HOWEVER, just because we cannot eliminate drug use or stop Ahmedinejad's of this world does not mean we need to give up all together.

I personally agree 100% with the tenth amendment. Nowhere, however, it states that morals are relative. Usually moral relativitism is reserved for progressives, but on some of these issues libertarians take the cake.

I agree that states should decided whether certain things should be legal, but not those that, through interstate commerce, would impact other states that may have different views.

Here is my solution, and I am serious about this:

USA has outlived its usefulness as one nation. Progressivism and liberalism/constitutional conservatism cannot co-exist peacefully, without imposing on each other.
As such, all 50 states should go their own way (or can join other like minded states). This way, if you are a progressive, you can move to New York, California, or another such country. A libertarian would probably feel at home in Vermont and a constitutional conservative in Utah, Texas, or another country like them.

Each country can also re-write the constitution to their liking and no one has to be subjected to wholesale policies they disagree with.

It is not nirvana but sounds good?

David B said...

American Patriot,

just as I said, it is too bad that our troops have to endanger themselves for likes of you.

Funny. I don't recall asking them to endager their lives for me. Am I supposed to be grateful that they bomb brown people in far away lands? I couldn't care less.

If I were to murder someone, then tell you that I killed him for you, should you be grateful? Even if you didn't ask for my help?

I didn't ask for their protection and I don't want it. So the troops can kiss my backside.

It is obvious to all that the American military serves the interests of the power elite. I've already explained to you the term "national interests" is a socialist construct. See Ludwig Von Mises' "Omnipotent Government" to fully understand socialist foreign policy and how eerily similar it is to yours.

In your book, there are no monsters.

Wrong. There are plenty of monsters, but many of them serve in the American government. Empowering one group of parasites to take out another is not a solution. It merely creates a more powerful monster at home.

I'd love to see the 'scared shitless' look on your face when Ahmedinajad detonates a nuke over your city. Think it is impossible?

LMFAO, are you serious, fear monger? America has about 10,000 nuclear weapons. Who should be scared here? The Iranians should be scared of America. Who has actually used nukes? Hmmm? Who has pre-emptively invaded the other country's neighbors? Did Iran invade Mexico? No? Did America invade Iraq? Hmmmmm...

Which nation is more war like, America or Iran? How many countries has Iran attacked this century? How many has America attacked?

ROFL, yeah I'm really scared of the big bad Iranians.

Just as I thought...

You haven't thought for yourself once. You've said nothing I couldn't get from Michael Savage or Sean Hannity. You're a fear monger and probably racist against brown people. You obviously think they are subhuman, not worthy of a court of law or a trial. How many Arab and South Asian babies would you like to see killed? Is 10,000 enough? How about 1,000,000?

But that Ahmadinejad.... watch out... he's gonna get ya!

(Note that his rise to power occured because of America's overthrow of a democratically elected ruler in Iran and the imposition of the Shah in the 1953. Any student of history already knows this.)

Repeat: how is it moral to impose your morality on us at the point of a gun?

João Marcus said...

Real GDP, which is the measure serious economists...

Well, considering that "serious economists" have been doing lots of crap and getting away with it...

= idiocy. They were deregulatory bills significantly decreasing the power of government agencies and giving private financial institutions a great deal of freedom to make reckless loans

This is just you trying to create your own parallel universe. You see, financial institutions that would have to deal with their own money wouldn't have freedom to make reckless loans. Reckless loans are possible because there is a Keynesian pipe-dreamer like you pulling the strings and giving banks the opportunity to get free money and anti-bankrupcy magic powder when things go wrong.

Bob Roddis said...

PROCEDURALLY, private property and contractual prohibitions are more UTILITARIAN than government prohibitions regarding drug users and the problems they cause. Therefore, the anti-Rothbardian must be in favor of the gang-bangers and their culture which would not exist in a Rothbardian system. So who's immoral now?

Further, Iran and most of these muslim countries perhaps would not have failed to progress socially if the British and the US hadn't taken them over as colonies (Iraq being a creation of Churchill and his mustard gas) or CIA satraps (the evil Shah to save the ass of BP etc...).

Thus, it is the interventionists and the drug warriors who are promoting immorality and the Rothbardians who promote peace, freedom, prosperity and virtuous living.

Mule Rider said...

"I've got news for you. Trafficking of drugs started all this, not the war against an imaginary evil. Wake up."

And I've got news for you; looks like you're having a chicken/egg/first moment and a little confused.

If the buying and selling of recreational drugs wasn't first considered illegal, then there wouldn't be "trafficking" in which to wage a drug war against.

Wake up.

ekeyra said...

Patriot,

Where do you hang out? I want to come over and smoke some methamphetamines with your kids. Maybe let them listen to some degrading rap music. Maybe a few tracks from "White man is the devil vol2: citizen caine" by slaine.

Anonymous said...

Lord Kash-Bottles says:
"And how do you measure "growth in the standard of living" accept by real GDP per capita, idiot?"

Improvements in the following areas from 1800 to 1900:
Infant mortality, average life expectancy, leisure time, number of homes with time saving appliances, homes with indoor plumbing, number of homes with telephones, miles of telegraph line, railroad traffic at lower costs, number of steam-powered vessels, sanitation, medicine and dentistry (despite Fishbein and his ilk later crippling both industries), access to books, food, and music, use of electric power (Edison's DC until Tesla's AC)...

To Lord Dig-a-Ditch, a billion frn's worth of battleships is no different than a billion frn's worth of agricultural station. He must have been vaccinated with a copy of Asimov's Foundation Trilogy.