@Fireinthedawn they did NOT deny that you can extrapolate meaningful data from economic analysis, but that a theory should not derive entirely from that data. the main difference can be taken from friedman's "the methodology of positive economics" and hayek's nobel lecture. thus, we derive a theory from logic, then compare that theory to the data.
@Rundstedt1 2)Even under a system where fractional reserve banking is abolished, there could still be asset bubbles or severe malinvestments. E.g.,foreign money could flood into a country via the capital account and cause asset bubbles,when they collapse,would lead to debt deflationary spirals-presence of secondary financial asset markets and secondary real asset markets allows the diversion of income money streams from aggregate supply from the purchasing of final goods and services
@Rundstedt1 1)The belief that under anarcho-capitalism there would be no recessions is a sheer delusion: capitalists cannot escape Knightian uncertainty: there is no way to ensure that their capital goods investments will yield a profit and mesh with consumers' consumption decisions. Both Knightian uncertainty and subjective expectations destroy any reliable, long term stability of investment.
The blind one here was you, somehow lack of regulation and the deregualtion that has been happening since Reagan becomes 'over-regulation'. Then you try and say when the market causes a meltdown it's not the markets fault. Typically Libertarian, you require flawlessness as the only valid standard to judge government: the 'free-market,' being imaginary, cannot be fairly be judged to have flaws. Libertarianism is based on an a priori fantasy that has always resulted in crisis and crash
@Rundstedt1 it is obvious that your set in your ways and really can't even begin to question those beliefs. Once again you still can't see the irony of how you see the fed setting rates as a free market, but you obviously have it figured out. Regulation eventually becomes over regulation but you will always see it as not enough and continue to chase your tale down a hole. Then when it blows up it is the markets fault. Hard to look in the mirror for me but impossible for you. No reply needed
@Fireinthedawn you obviously didn't actually read any of my critiques
rsingh1492 3 days ago
@Fireinthedawn ??? the point was that data would not replace reason/logic.
rsingh1492 3 days ago
@Fireinthedawn they did NOT deny that you can extrapolate meaningful data from economic analysis, but that a theory should not derive entirely from that data. the main difference can be taken from friedman's "the methodology of positive economics" and hayek's nobel lecture. thus, we derive a theory from logic, then compare that theory to the data.
rsingh1492 3 days ago
@acepl78 definitely, the CPI takes out volatile changes in prices which are often the most relevant (ie. food, oil, college tuition, etc.).
rsingh1492 3 days ago
@Rundstedt1 2)Even under a system where fractional reserve banking is abolished, there could still be asset bubbles or severe malinvestments. E.g.,foreign money could flood into a country via the capital account and cause asset bubbles,when they collapse,would lead to debt deflationary spirals-presence of secondary financial asset markets and secondary real asset markets allows the diversion of income money streams from aggregate supply from the purchasing of final goods and services
zsylvana 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1 1)The belief that under anarcho-capitalism there would be no recessions is a sheer delusion: capitalists cannot escape Knightian uncertainty: there is no way to ensure that their capital goods investments will yield a profit and mesh with consumers' consumption decisions. Both Knightian uncertainty and subjective expectations destroy any reliable, long term stability of investment.
zsylvana 1 week ago
@cskipper65
The blind one here was you, somehow lack of regulation and the deregualtion that has been happening since Reagan becomes 'over-regulation'. Then you try and say when the market causes a meltdown it's not the markets fault. Typically Libertarian, you require flawlessness as the only valid standard to judge government: the 'free-market,' being imaginary, cannot be fairly be judged to have flaws. Libertarianism is based on an a priori fantasy that has always resulted in crisis and crash
Rundstedt1 1 week ago
@Rundstedt1 it is obvious that your set in your ways and really can't even begin to question those beliefs. Once again you still can't see the irony of how you see the fed setting rates as a free market, but you obviously have it figured out. Regulation eventually becomes over regulation but you will always see it as not enough and continue to chase your tale down a hole. Then when it blows up it is the markets fault. Hard to look in the mirror for me but impossible for you. No reply needed
cskipper65 1 week ago