Rothbard on Mises: Depression Not Inevitable, Result of Central Banks

The data is the data. I'm just wondering what its relevance is.

 

It's just evidence that life has been improving tremendously under this Keynesian system we use. Unlike you who provides no sources other than a lot of talk and very little evidence.

You don't think any of this has to do with economic evolution and technology? How were there supposed to be massive booms and busts in the 1800s when it took a month just to travel to the next state? You don't think the ability to move capital and resources and mass produce goods at incredible quantities had anything to do with booms and busts?

You guys are nothing but one logical fallacy after the next. The banking system was a complete mess before the Fed, the financial market was a new way for money to be used in form of speculation. This stuff didn't exist early on. To believe that booms and busts would not happen with out the Fed simply because they were non-existent in our primitive days is a pure ignorant logical fallacy.

We've seen what deflation does to the economy, we know full well how it will destroy this country. Everything you said here is a perfect example of a lot of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) with no facts, data, or even a logical theory to back it up. It is nothing but a bunch of philosophers who happen to hate the Govt trying to sound economically clever with out providing any type of facts or data to back up their claims.

It's very fun to be an Austrian, since you can just say whatever you want and not ever have to back it up with out saying... "Because it will work"!

 

Yet we still use it to this day, we'll continue to use it, and we've used it for the past 70 years. I'm glad you found couple economists who disagree with 99% of the economists across the world.

Educate yourself!

 

Oh gee like non fractional reserve mandate lending an fdic bullcrap

An the only back up reserves you can have are crapola fed reserve promissary toilet paper

That's just 4 starters

 

The evidence speaks for itself. Maybe you should actually look at some of it.

http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/conf/conf19/conf19d.pdf

And show us evidence that "99% of economists across the world" are Keynesians.

 

grown ups know better

 

Ya well it wasn't always popular too believe the earth was round

Or that the earth wasn't the center of the universe either

And look how that worked out

Being right isn't always popular

And sometimes its very bad for ones life expectancy

 

What evidence? The evidence that we are the largest economy in the history of mankind using Keynesian based economics. Yea, that is some solid evidence!

America is my evidence, please show me where Thomas Sowell's economic system is being used and how it is working out!

Thanks

 

The evidence I've cited two times already. Here it is again.

http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/conf/conf19/conf19d.pdf

Try reading it.

Correlation is not causation. Basic statistics.

What a coincidence! My evidence is America, too! Check it out...

http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/conf/conf19/conf19d.pdf

By the way, it's Thomas Sargent, not Thomas Sowell.

 

So you are saying the increase in quantity of money has no correlation to an increase in GDP? Hmmmm... basic math would prove you otherwise!

I'm a modern monetary theorist, I do not deal with those old textbook economists. I deal with how our country works operationally and mathematically. I've read enough economists to understand there is an economist for every type of theory you can possibly imagine and every one of these economists can cherry pick the data they want to try to prove their theory right.

With out me having to waste my time reading another 34 pages of just 1 of a million economists out there, give me a summary in your own words on what he is saying is wrong about Keynesian economics and why.

Notice how I actually explain myself rather than just post other peoples work and expect you to read tons of crap when it would be better off if you just used your own words, if you could.

 

Ok now hear this

All persons who want too actually keep what they earn are selfish

Just outright selfish an freeloader

But pay no mind too the accuser cause rest assured

That person gives all their money away

 

The market will improve with keynesian around not because of it

It improves regardless ....JMK is just of the thought that the bubble
must. Never bust

It must be preserved an continue too grow at all cost


What ever become of the Great depression of 1946
that all the maynerd keyzzez said was inevitable

Without psychotic public works and wage controls
and high quotas

Whatever become of that infamous depression

Everyone of the maynard school boys said was gonna happen

 

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Are you dyslexic?

I said correlation is not causation. That maxim is a basic statistical precept that you should have learned in college, assuming you actually paid attention while you were there.

You're just a random troll on the internet, is what you are. Thomas Sargent is a renowned macroeconomist and monetary theorist who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his empirical research in macroeconomics.

I've provided you with some of his work. Try reading it.

http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/conf/conf19/conf19d.pdf

Old textbook economists? Oh! You mean like Keynes!

Then show us how Sargent's analysis "cherry picks the data", if you can...

Sorry, but something as complex as Keynesian theory and its application over the history of this country cannot be adequately addressed in a few posts on an internet forum. You'll actually have to stop being intellectually lazy and read the entire analysis if you want to learn why your Keynesian dogma is a demonstrable failure.

 

You have to understand economics to understand why taxation is necessary. It has nothing to do with trying to take what you earn. It's no longer necessary to fund the govt, it is more about inflation control.

 

Let me rephrase it then, are you saying there is no causation between an increase in the qty of money and an increase in GDP?

So you can't explain it?? Just as I figured, an uneducated drone trying to fight an argument with another persons work, which they can't even explain. Carry on, it's obvious your not gonna provide anything of substance to this conversation.

I'm not a Keynesian.

 

What did the Maynard school boys say was going to happen in the other 85 years in the 20th century we weren't in a depression?

 

If gold is so creppy an barbaric

Why is hording it here lately become so popular

 

Yeah wikipedia is a real top notch source for your economic theory

 

Inflation via devalution of the currency

Don't believe the austrian theory

Goto cpi calculator an figure your factor from current too 1913 an see what happens

Genius

 

show me anything in what i posted that you think isn't accurate

do you think the average american is less wealthy now, than in 1913?

 

Of course your rite

They don't place taxes on every single penny/digit one earns

Forthe purpose of providing services too the populous

They merely tax 2 control inflation

That's a real whizzbanger their got anymore

 

I am saying that just because the implementation of Keynesian policy correlated with economic growth does not necessarily mean that Keynesian policy caused the economy to grow. In other words, correlation is not causation. Maybe if your reading comprehension wasn't so abominable, you would have realized this earlier.

I can explain it, but what would be the point of regurgitating his analysis when you can just stop being a lazy troll and read it for yourself? You can read, can't you?

And let's not forget, you asked for the evidence. I simply gave it you. Your refusal to analyze the evidence which you asked for only reinforces your status as a childish troll-boy.

That's certainly true. Real Keynesians, as wrong as they are about certain things, are not nearly as ignorant about basic economics as you are.

 

show me anything i posted there, that you think isn't accurate

do you think the average american is less wealthy now, than in 1913?

 

The highlighted part above is where the problem lies. You have no real world education...just what you have RECENTLY learned in your keynesian econ classes spewed at most universities across this country.

Just look at the facts...quit idolizing certain figures and listening to what they say. Just look at the facts and do your own research. I can tell you are eager to learn.

We have tried keynesian economics now for many decades and look where we are. Our debt is unsustainable. If not for the reserve status of the dollar then it would have collapsed years ago.

 

yes, but who do you think is responsible for the national debt?