tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post3383251758514131369..comments2024-03-27T05:23:48.855-04:00Comments on Krugman-in-Wonderland: Krugman's Voodoo Economics: Tax, Spend, and Inflate Ourselves Into ProsperityWilliam L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802990642236807359noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-51829351695096508702024-03-09T23:32:35.251-05:002024-03-09T23:32:35.251-05:00I am glad to see this site share valued informatio...I am glad to see this site share valued information Nice one!edwardsrailcar.comhttps://edwardsrailcar.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-10581880626243872452024-03-09T23:32:03.512-05:002024-03-09T23:32:03.512-05:00The style is so unique.
The style is so unique. <br />slotplayground.comhttps://www.slotplayground.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-21237211315381729892024-03-09T23:31:26.707-05:002024-03-09T23:31:26.707-05:00I need to thank you for this excellent article!! I need to thank you for this excellent article!! 19guide03.comhttps://www.19guide03.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-70167547011409337722024-03-09T23:30:24.561-05:002024-03-09T23:30:24.561-05:00Thanks Again. Outstanding.Thanks Again. Outstanding.sportstotomen.comhttps://www.sportstotomen.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-38506090609615346662024-03-09T23:29:44.918-05:002024-03-09T23:29:44.918-05:00Hi this really is informative article That’s quite...Hi this really is informative article That’s quite enjoyable. gostopsite.comhttps://www.gostopsite.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-53124506107486348262024-03-09T23:29:04.039-05:002024-03-09T23:29:04.039-05:00I am always searching online for posts that can he...I am always searching online for posts that can help me. watching forward to another great blog. 파워볼사이트https://www.outlookindia.com/outlook-spotlight/2024-powerball-site-recommended-ranking-safe-powerball-real-time-game-site-top15-news-334143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-87311328475908443352011-01-02T23:47:11.690-05:002011-01-02T23:47:11.690-05:00That last comment was mine. My last name was omit...That last comment was mine. My last name was omitted due to this weird laptop keyboard.<br /><br />We obviously need more government regulation of these weird laptop keyboards to prevent accidents like that.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-67975178742511485822011-01-02T23:44:29.393-05:002011-01-02T23:44:29.393-05:00Dr. Tibor Machan explains Krugman’s Trashy Debatin...Dr. Tibor Machan explains Krugman’s Trashy Debating Style:<br /><br /><em>One thing does clearly stand out in his approach to making a case for more and more government involvement in the economy. This is that he relies extensively on name calling, on besmirching those with whom he disagrees. In a recent column he went so far as to dismiss all those who hold views opposed to his as zombies! Yes, zombies. That means that people, some very distinguished scholars, who are convinced that a public policy of laissez-faire when it comes to a country’s economic affairs is best are all mindless. They do not merely think mistakenly but cannot think at all.<br /><br />When a critic of a position needs to resort to this kind of technique with which to attract readers of his missives to his own outlook, it suggests that the intellectual merits of that position are truly hopeless. And that is precisely so. Statism in economics has for a long time been proven and shown to be utterly unsupportable, be this the Draconian sort one found in Soviet Russia and finds in North Korea or the less drastic kind that has just produced the worldwide financial meltdown, namely the more or less interventionist welfare state.</em><br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/26jv7plBobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-84568621327865242732011-01-02T19:54:58.762-05:002011-01-02T19:54:58.762-05:00David:
I agree that the central bank is more of a...David:<br /><br />I agree that the central bank is more of a manipulator. They don't have the power to criminalize the wrong rate of interest you might charge your friends for a loan. <br /><br />Yet.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-47904751631853584902011-01-02T14:12:24.770-05:002011-01-02T14:12:24.770-05:00Lord Keynes got owned...againLord Keynes got owned...againAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-51057362575638131082011-01-02T14:04:54.497-05:002011-01-02T14:04:54.497-05:00Bob,
Thank you for the follow-up. Would it be fa...Bob, <br /><br />Thank you for the follow-up. Would it be fair or more accurate to say that the central bank, rather than engaging in a price control, actual engages in a price manipulation. Do they really have the same level of control that a bureaucrat has in setting the price? I would contend that they are more like manipulators of the price, pushing the rate down as much as possible, but unable to actually control it.<br /><br />Of course, I guess you could counter that the bureaucrat really doesn't have the control he thinks he has either, since shortages and black market exchanges will force him to abandon his phony control in due time.<br /><br />But that's just splitting hairs. The point is that they are all a bunch of delusional morons, a conclusion I'm sure you'd agree with. :)Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-74013826624460101792011-01-02T12:03:33.598-05:002011-01-02T12:03:33.598-05:00David:
On page 211, DiLorenzo quotes nominally fr...David:<br /><br />On page 211, DiLorenzo quotes nominally free market guy William Simon (the first energy czar) saying that the centralized oil and gas allocation system was a complete disaster, with shortages and lines everywhere while there might be lots of gas 10 miles away. Quite the Soviet system.<br /><br />While we are thinking about the horrors of price controls (which went hand-in-hand with the oil and gas allocations), let's not forget that the most horrific price control of all is the central bank's control of the rate of interest, with typical results. And accompanied by the typical response of the statists to blame the invariable problems create therefrom on "the free market".Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-81769363404986731422011-01-02T11:15:24.686-05:002011-01-02T11:15:24.686-05:00Does anyone have a copy of How Capitalism Saved Am...Does anyone have a copy of <i>How Capitalism Saved America</i> handy? I remember an excellent section in there on the oil crisis. DiLorenzo is in top form there. I remember that he had quotes from the top scum at the DOE that basically said, "Yeah, looking back on it, everything we did was really stupid and just made the problem worse."<br /><br />If you can find that quote, I'd really appreciate it. It's quite vicious.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-83221193014265319152011-01-02T09:18:15.129-05:002011-01-02T09:18:15.129-05:00End of Bretton Woods
On August 15, 1971, the Unite...<em>End of Bretton Woods<br />On August 15, 1971, the United States pulled out of the Bretton Woods Accord taking the US off the Gold Exchange Standard (whereby only the value of the US dollar had been pegged to the price of gold and all other currencies were pegged to the US dollar), allowing the dollar to "float". Shortly thereafter, Britain followed, floating the pound sterling. The industrialized nations followed suit with their respective currencies. In anticipation of the fluctuation of currencies as they stabilized against each other, the industrialized nations also increased their reserves (printing money) in amounts far greater than ever before. The result was a depreciation of the value of the US dollar, as well as the other currencies of the world. Because oil was priced in dollars, this meant that oil producers were receiving less real income for the same price. The OPEC cartel issued a joint communique stating that forthwith they would price a barrel of oil against gold.<br /><br />This led to the "Oil Shock" of the mid-seventies. In the years after 1971, OPEC was slow to readjust prices to reflect this depreciation. From 1947-1967 the price of oil in U.S. dollars had risen by less than two percent per year. Until the Oil Shock, the price remained fairly stable versus other currencies and commodities, but suddenly became extremely volatile thereafter. OPEC ministers had not developed the institutional mechanisms to update prices rapidly enough to keep up with changing market conditions, so their real incomes lagged for several years. The substantial price increases of 1973-74 largely caught up their incomes to Bretton Woods levels in terms of other commodities such as gold.</em><br /><br />I’d agree that immediate trigger of price increase was the Yom Kipper war. <br /><br />The US then enacted all of the insane wacky controls to deal with “the problem”:<br /><br /><em>State governments requested citizens not put up Christmas lights, with Oregon banning Christmas as well as commercial lighting altogether.[12] Politicians called for a national gas rationing program.[24] Nixon requested gasoline stations to voluntarily not sell gasoline on Saturday nights or Sundays; 90% of owners complied, which resulted in lines on weekdays. Etc…..</em><br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis<br /><br />If we had been using gold and silver as money and weren’t an foreign interventionist military Keynesian Empire, none of this would have happened.<br /><br />Further, if it had, the market could have easily corrected itself. By paying more for oil, consumers would have had to cut back on other things, lowering the prices of those things. There would have been no “wage/price” spiral. My 1971 Buick got 10 mpg. The market would have forced changes in energy conservation without regulation. Plus, the cartel probably would not have held up against an unregulated oil market.<br /><br />To the extent economic anecdotes inform our understanding of economics, the 1970s remain almost a laboratory experiment on the complete idiocy of Keynesian and other statist economic controls.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-81309829223505560932011-01-02T02:12:00.517-05:002011-01-02T02:12:00.517-05:00LK,
If you're right (not saying you are, but ...LK,<br /><br />If you're right (not saying you are, but let's play along), then the oil shocks were caused by government intervention. Kudos to you for finding the origin of market failures.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-62487222950266842952011-01-02T00:13:06.592-05:002011-01-02T00:13:06.592-05:00The "oil shocks" were induced by the dil...<i>The "oil shocks" were induced by the diluted funny money supply.</i><br /><br />This is most idiotic statement yet.<br /><br />The first oil shock was induced by US support for Israel's Yom Kippur war.<br /><br />The second by the fall of the shah and the resulting loss of Iranian oil output.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-45898115769908680542011-01-01T23:09:18.108-05:002011-01-01T23:09:18.108-05:00Ah yes, 1973. Having become an Austrian in Januar...Ah yes, 1973. Having become an Austrian in January, 1973, I was able to watch the madness with new insight.<br /><br />Newsweek couldn't figure out that wage and price controls cause shortages. It had a cover claiming we were running out of everything:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/24dhoxj<br /><br />Those controls along with Tricky Dick forcing us onto a pure diluted funny money system were something to behold.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-83730361822889400162011-01-01T21:35:32.583-05:002011-01-01T21:35:32.583-05:00Lord Keynes said
"The fundamental cause of ...Lord Keynes said <br /><br />"The fundamental cause of double-digit stagflation was (1) two oil shocks, and (2) wage-price spirals, owing to the higher labour union power back then"<br /><br />You must have been one of those children left behind. What you are referring to are the wage-price controls by Nixon, which would have been a government intervention. <br /><br />Your lack of knowledge in history is laughable.<br /><br />P.S. - Keynes didn't acknowledge the real possibility of Stagflation. Keynesians were forced to after being destroyed by monetarists. You should read up on your own theories before posting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-72674649616165035552011-01-01T21:24:35.305-05:002011-01-01T21:24:35.305-05:00Lord Keynes admits to exogenous factors causing ec...Lord Keynes admits to exogenous factors causing economics slowdown? <br /><br />What laughable irony. You should try reading General Theory again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-31910069528087587112011-01-01T20:33:33.698-05:002011-01-01T20:33:33.698-05:00"Wage/price spirals" cannot exist withou..."Wage/price spirals" cannot exist without diluting the funny money supply. Unions have COLA allowances (which should be called diluted funny money allowances) so they can try to keep up with inflation, which, of course, is caused by diluted funny money.<br /><br />The "oil shocks" were induced by the diluted funny money supply.<br /><br />Keynesianism is the cause of most of the evil in the world.<br /><br />A new year. Same old Keynesian BS, doubletalk and obfuscation.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-32572860406696482812011-01-01T20:21:05.960-05:002011-01-01T20:21:05.960-05:00Those of us where were adults in 1980 can remember...<i>Those of us where were adults in 1980 can remember the outright stagflation that accompanied the government's economic policies, when inflation was in double-digits, unemployment was rising, and we saw no way out. Yet, Krugman wants to bring back those days via the resurrection of the old regulatory regimes and bursts of government spending and inflation.</i><br /><br />The fundamental cause of double-digit stagflation was (1) two oil shocks, and (2) wage-price spirals, owing to the higher labour union power back then.<br /><br />Your knowledge of history is laughably defective.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-7166478969788076342011-01-01T06:01:22.564-05:002011-01-01T06:01:22.564-05:00"Rich nations provide the best investments, w..."Rich nations provide the best investments, which in turn make rich nations richer and so on. All prosperity in the West is a result of 2,500 years of capital accumulation. End of story."<br /><br />I predict that story will change rather dramatically within the next decade.<br /><br />2500 years ago, Greece was the pinnacle of civilization. The Macedonian phalanx (backed up by Alexander the Great's leadership and deft light cavalry charges) was the unstoppable war machine of its day. Where is Greece now? A corrupt backwater, up to their eyeballs in debt and social unrest, getting bailed out by China. Why isn't Athens the great capital of Europe now?<br /><br />If not Athens, then why not Rome? Rome was the pioneer of mass production, professional soldiers, eclectic acquisition of technology, brilliant logistics, massive infrastructure investment, and an excellent central administration system. Why is Rome not the capital of Europe, or the world?<br /><br />Besides, how do you explain the modern day power of the US military and trade empire? There hasn't been anywhere near 2500 years of capital accumulation in the USA -- maybe a few hundred years worth. Sure the US got a bit of a boost with both capital and labor fleeing from WWII, let's consider that event worth an extra hundred years of normal capital accumulation... still a long way short of the centuries that Europe had to get ahead.Telhttp://lnx-bsp.net/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-24688473064566769352011-01-01T05:47:12.564-05:002011-01-01T05:47:12.564-05:00Murray Rothbard eviscerates Reagan again and again...Murray Rothbard eviscerates Reagan again and again here:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/25wnoyo<br /><br />I fail to see what Reagan has to do with Austrian economics or libertarian policy.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-37308319453256729402011-01-01T02:45:18.804-05:002011-01-01T02:45:18.804-05:00Another Anonymous makes a mistake typical of most ...Another Anonymous makes a mistake typical of most interpretations of the postwar era.<br /><br />Reagan and Thatcher did not do a single thing to remove postwar social democracy. Social spending tripled under Margaret Thatcher, who kept universal medical care and several nationalised industries intact. The biggest privatizations occured before she came to power, by a Labour government out of circumstances they could not help. In the United States, Reagan multiplied all government spending, be it military, administrative, or social, created new regulatory agencies like OHSA, reduced TAX RATES while inflation brought people with same real incomes into higher tax brackets. There was no deregulation, but only replacement of old regulators with new ones, and that was merely a continuation of what Labour and Democrats did.<br /><br />Postwar prosperity was a continuation of 1900-1920s prosperity, which was a continuation of 1830-1860s prosperity and so on. Western industrial nations do well no matter what, and their long run progress has always been upwards. Rich nations provide the best investments, which in turn make rich nations richer and so on. All prosperity in the West is a result of 2,500 years of capital accumulation. End of story.<br /><br />The most honest, equitable society was pre-democracy Britain, where the entire country was run by a tiny honest civil service that never embezzled or took a single bribe or lied to the public, where the Conservative government improved safety conditions for coal miners and allowed more decent living for the working class. Lord Salisbury, the last of the anti-democracy front, was right when he said that democracy allows debtors to outvote creditors because they outnumber them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6276561747841568697.post-17679399451039341122011-01-01T02:45:00.189-05:002011-01-01T02:45:00.189-05:00Another Anonymous makes a mistake typical of most ...Another Anonymous makes a mistake typical of most interpretations of the postwar era.<br /><br />Reagan and Thatcher did not do a single thing to remove postwar social democracy. Social spending tripled under Margaret Thatcher, who kept universal medical care and several nationalised industries intact. The biggest privatizations occured before she came to power, by a Labour government out of circumstances they could not help. In the United States, Reagan multiplied all government spending, be it military, administrative, or social, created new regulatory agencies like OHSA, reduced TAX RATES while inflation brought people with same real incomes into higher tax brackets. There was no deregulation, but only replacement of old regulators with new ones, and that was merely a continuation of what Labour and Democrats did.<br /><br />Postwar prosperity was a continuation of 1900-1920s prosperity, which was a continuation of 1830-1860s prosperity and so on. Western industrial nations do well no matter what, and their long run progress has always been upwards. Rich nations provide the best investments, which in turn make rich nations richer and so on. All prosperity in the West is a result of 2,500 years of capital accumulation. End of story.<br /><br />The most honest, equitable society was pre-democracy Britain, where the entire country was run by a tiny honest civil service that never embezzled or took a single bribe or lied to the public, where the Conservative government improved safety conditions for coal miners and allowed more decent living for the working class. Lord Salisbury, the last of the anti-democracy front, was right when he said that democracy allows debtors to outvote creditors because they outnumber them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com