Gold Standard

[jcdf]

Right I've finished now, I'll deal with a few other things in the lecture before expanding

Ok just like people on this thread his example of using the printing press is using that printing press to buy consumer goods. Nobody does that anymore and nobody thinks that that is a good idea. He does not deal with the consequences of using the printing press as a reallocative tool for funding capital goods.

He mentions in the first half of the lecture that 'variations have an effect on the real economy.' cantion(sp?) effects he calls them. However he later says that deflation does not entail any economic problem. Surely if it does.

anticipations

He says if there was an unforeseen mass bankruptcy that is not a problem because only the owners change, bankruptcy is not bad he suggests. That is a classic case of thinking economically but not logically. This would have massive implications for workers, consumer sentiment, investor sentiment and as a result of those things for the economy, He seems to see crisis in the current system as a genuine crisis but any crisis in his system is just something that will be recovered from. He doesn't mention the world unemployment once in relation to an unforeseen mass bankruptcy.

He says deflation is only a political problem because it only changes the owners and the governments. I'll keep it short and simple: changing the owners and government changes the economy.

He says hoarding does not reduce growth, if we follow on from that logically then investing does not increase growth. That shows how ridiculous that suggestion is

He calls deflation a process of creative destruction. Those two words should never be used together in this way they can justify anything if you let them. "Creative destruction" happens because of mankind's ability to bounce back, almost anything can be called creative destruction because mankind can bounce back from almost anything.
After listening to that lecture I am more then ever against the Austrian school of thought.


Also what the fúck is with the propaganda at the start, it has no place in an academic lecture! It is disgusting and if Austrian economics was the only true economics then it wouldn't be necessary.

I agree with you Seos. The Austrian economics that is being advertised by 20000miles is not the be all and end all it is suggested. I am opposed to the Gold system. Re investment in the economy is dependent on money gradually losing it's value. If it held it's value many people would just place it under the mattress instead of depositing it in banks or other financial investments.
I think that something can be learnt from the Austrian school of thought. International bankers should have been more cautious and conservative with respect to whom they gave loans to and what they bought into. They should have demanded an explanation of what precisely the toxic financial packages consisted of. This way the American toxic debt would not have spread aboard.

[Seos]

Sure they do. Whenever a government needs to pay either their employees they can simply resort to "creating" the money electronically.

They could but they don't, for current expenditure they use taxes. If they run into deficit then they create money, if that deficit is significant they have a choice between cutting capital spending (along with current which gets cut anyway) or creating money.

Cantillon effects. People who get newly created money get to spend it first before prices rise, while those poor people at the bottom get the money last when prices have already risen. So the beneficiaries under today's regime is a redistribution from the poor, to those favoured by the government (eg contractors). Those who benefit in a deflationary scenario are those who purchase money. in short, it isn't arbitrary.

True that's why we have things like unions and an increasing minimum wage and social welfare to make up to the poor. The poor who are in debt also benefit. So the poor overall are not the ones who lose out.

Yes, it changes the economy by making it more in line with consumer preferences, and transfers capital to those who can manage it properly.

These aren't lose making firms that he is referring to they are just ones who took out finance. He suggests the only thing that changes is the ownership, it is not about the bad management or not meeting consumer preferences.

The most important thing he notes is that hoarding is simply a perjorative for saving. An increase in the demand for money to get an increased PP of money just changes the relative prices for goods.

Also where can investment come from if not from savings?

I assumed hoarding was in the gold standard situation of hoarding gold.

That's too bad. At least you tried, and you can now proudly say you know more about AE than Paul Krugman.

Haha, I fundamentally disagree with following any school anyway. I'm sure you guys got something right somewhere... by accident of course.
EDIT: And I'm not going to stop learning about you... if only so I know my enemy.

There is only one physics, chemistry and evolution. Darwinianism and Lemarckian evolution can't both be right. Neither can there be more than one economics.

No good physicist or chemist or evolutionary scientist would ever say that they know they are right! The whole basis of scientific progress is that they know they have got something wrong all the time!
Claiming you're right is just admitting you can't think of anything new. (hmm I like that I'll have to use it again sometime.)

[20000miles]

No good physicist or chemist or evolutionary scientist would ever say that they know they are right! The whole basis of scientific progress is that they know they have got something wrong all the time!
Claiming you're right is just admitting you can't think of anything new. (hmm I like that I'll have to use it again sometime.)

How can you be wrong when your conclusions follow from premises that are apodictically true?

[Seos]

How can you be wrong when your conclusions follow from premises that are apodictically true?

Nothing is apodictically true, except I think therefore I am.

[20000miles]

Nothing is apodictically true, except I think therefore I am.

Professor von Mises would disagree.

[Seos]

Professor von Mises would disagree.

Where does he start from?

[20000miles]

Where does he start from?

By stating "humans act" and this action is purposeful. It's an axiom, however if you attept to refute it means you are acting and hence this happens: Performative contradiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leading to this: http://www.happyworker.com/files/pos...sign-brain.jpg

I think it's called synthetic a priorism. As such economics is a science like logic or mathematics. ILF knows more about the praxeological method than I do though.

[Seos]

By stating "humans act" and this action is purposeful. It's an axiom, however if you attept to refute it means you are acting and hence this happens: Performative contradiction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leading to this: http://www.happyworker.com/files/pos...sign-brain.jpg

I think it's called synthetic a priorism. As such economics is a science like logic or mathematics. ILF knows more about the praxeological method than I do though.

Ah but I might only think that I am acting. My acting could just be an illusion. So the only thing I can know is that I think and if I think then there must be an "I" doing the thinking. But I don't know that I act I only know that I think that I act.

[20000miles]

Ah but I might only think that I am acting. My acting could just be an illusion. So the only thing I can know is that I think and if I think then there must be an "I" doing the thinking. But I don't know that I act I only know that I think that I act.

[Seos]

So do you agree that it's not apodictically true that you act? Or I should say do you think that you agree that it's not apodictically true that you act?