Damn that was a fine stage

In article ,
keynes' old slave wrote:

Nixon was telling the truth, whether by action or word. The problem is
the ideology itself is a lie.

From http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Keynesianism.htm

" In seven short years, under massive Keynesian spending, the U.S. went
from the greatest depression it has ever known to the greatest economic
boom it has ever known. The success of Keynesian economics was so
resounding that almost all capitalist governments around the world adopted
its policies. And the result seems to be nothing less than the extinction
of the economic depression! Before World War II, eight U.S. recessions
worsened into depressions (as happened in 1807, 1837, 1873, 1882, 1893,
1920, 1933, and 1937). Since World War II, under Keynesian policies, there
have been nine recessions (1945-46, 1949, 1954, 1956, 1960-61, 1970,
1973-75, 1980-83, 1990-92 ), and not one has turned into a depression."

Friedman's Monetarism theory turned out to be a huge disaster. See the
economy of Great britain from '79 to '86, when the Bank of England was
working on the Monetarism plan.

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Howard Kveck wrote:

In article ,
keynes' old slave wrote:

Nixon was telling the truth, whether by action or word. The problem is
the ideology itself is a lie.

From http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Keynesianism.htm

"In seven short years, under massive Keynesian spending, the U.S. went
from the greatest depression it has ever known to the greatest economic
boom it has ever known. The success of Keynesian economics was so
resounding that almost all capitalist governments around the world adopted
its policies. And the result seems to be nothing less than the extinction
of the economic depression! Before World War II, eight U.S. recessions
worsened into depressions (as happened in 1807, 1837, 1873, 1882, 1893,
1920, 1933, and 1937). Since World War II, under Keynesian policies, there
have been nine recessions (1945-46, 1949, 1954, 1956, 1960-61, 1970,
1973-75, 1980-83, 1990-92 ), and not one has turned into a depression."

I would argue that correcting a government/banking failure
(business boom/bust "cycles"), with government spending and
currency inflation is at best a bass ackwards way of dealing
with the "problem." At worst it is corrupt, centralizes power
and simply provokes the cozying up of special and corporate
interests to government. Both leftists and rightests adore
these relationships, each with their own reasons. As a somewhat
cruel joke, libertarians are often accused of being "pro-business"
despite consistant, scathing, and deep criticism of exactly
those corrupt relationships. And that started with Adam Smith's
demolishing of merchantilist doctrine over 200 years ago. How
can one repeat something for 200 years and still not have it
understood?


http://www.mises.org/tradcycl/econdepr.asp (Rothbard)
http://www.mises.org/tradcycl/avoidinf.asp (Hayek)

As ever, Rothbard seethes, and Hayek is of the politest sort.

A Tullock rebuttal of Rothbard:
http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae2_1_4.pdf

I think the rebuttal is quite weak (without help from
Garrison below).

rebuttal of rebuttal:
http://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/c3modmac.htm

the huppi link
And of course, if *some* government takeover of the economy is good,
then more must be even better. Right? You just elect the "good people"
and they'll properly restrain themselves. Right? And what if the "bad
people" get elected? Wouldn't it be better to rely more on a general
Rule of Law and limiting central power than simply getting the "right
people" elected?

I could never say there are no transient causes that make a good case
for intervention in a wide manner of instances. However, the difficulty
is always that submission to transient causes opens the door to the
fuzzy line of: where do you stop? A recent example is the Patriot Act.
History is replete with examples of transient causes and so-called
transient compensation, that turned out to be permanent. Thus we see a
general drift from foundational principles. A drift so distant that
citizens sometimes lose sight of the singular most (and perhaps only)
important heritage beqeathed to them: liberty. I resist intervention
not because I deny the very real transient needs, but because as a
trade-off for liberty it would rarely seem worth it (as a matter of
_government_ intervention).

http://www.libertyhaven.com/theoreti...ysteries.shtml
http://www.independent.org/publicati...cle.asp?id=317


Friedman's Monetarism theory turned out to be a huge disaster. See the
economy of Great britain from '79 to '86, when the Bank of England was
working on the Monetarism plan.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul253.html
Greenspan comment at the very end:
"I think you will find, as I have indicated to you before,
that most effective central banks in this fiat money period
tend to be successful largely because we tend to replicate
which would probably have occurred under a commodity standard
in general.

I have stated in the past that I have always thought that fiat
currencies by their nature are inflationary. I was taken back
by observing the fact that, from the early 1990s forward, Japan
demonstrated that fact not to be a broad universal principle.
And what I have begun to realize is that, because we tend to
replicate a good deal of what a commodity standard would do,
we are not getting the long-term inflationary consequences of
fiat money. I will tell you, I am surprised by that fact. But
it is, as best I can judge, a fact."

I think you should read that very carefully. What is keynesian
about replicating a commodity standard? The main argument, as far
as I can tell, from those who would seek a specie backed currency
is "_enforced discipline_" (via the backing). Greenspan is
effecting this with his fiat currency. (I think I'm saying that
as far as Greenspan is concerned, I'm nearly emancipated.)


Also note that the Garrison link has content for Austrianism, New
Classicism, Monetarism, and Keynesianism with regard to monetary
theory/policy.

In article ,
keynes' old slave wrote:

Howard Kveck wrote:

In article ,
keynes' old slave wrote:

Nixon was telling the truth, whether by action or word. The problem is
the ideology itself is a lie.

From http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Keynesianism.htm

"In seven short years, under massive Keynesian spending, the U.S. went
from the greatest depression it has ever known to the greatest economic
boom it has ever known. The success of Keynesian economics was so
resounding that almost all capitalist governments around the world adopted
its policies. And the result seems to be nothing less than the extinction
of the economic depression! Before World War II, eight U.S. recessions
worsened into depressions (as happened in 1807, 1837, 1873, 1882, 1893,
1920, 1933, and 1937). Since World War II, under Keynesian policies, there
have been nine recessions (1945-46, 1949, 1954, 1956, 1960-61, 1970,
1973-75, 1980-83, 1990-92 ), and not one has turned into a depression."

I would argue that correcting a government/banking failure
(business boom/bust "cycles"), with government spending and
currency inflation is at best a bass ackwards way of dealing
with the "problem." At worst it is corrupt, centralizes power
and simply provokes the cozying up of special and corporate
interests to government.

Ok, Greg, I will admit that my interest in econ is just in passing
(i..e. it isn't a serious topic that I spend a lotof time looking into),
but I will say that even if it does seem a bass ackwards way of dealing
with the "problem", perhaps you could say, "Can't argue with success."

Both leftists and rightests adore these relationships, each with
their own reasons. As a somewhat cruel joke, libertarians are often
accused of being "pro-business" despite consistant, scathing, and
deep criticism of exactly those corrupt relationships.

I think one of the main reasons libertarians are accused of that is
because some (many, perhaps?) are adamantly and vocally in favor of
removing all regulation of business by the govt. The problem is that I
don't think we can really count on business to "do the right thing" and
self-regulate, in terms of environmental, labor and safety (to name a few)
areas. Businesses (especially now) are more concerned with bottom line.

Thanks for the links, by the way.

--
tanx,
Howard

Butter is love.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?