Author Topic: Austrian Economics  (Read 5258 times)

Palumboism

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3598
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #25 on: May 14, 2016, 10:16:17 AM »
 By L. Gordon Crovitz
July 22, 2012 6:21 p.m. ET

A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."

It's an urban legend that the government launched the Internet. The myth is that the Pentagon created the Internet to keep its communications lines up even in a nuclear strike. The truth is a more interesting story about how innovation happens—and about how hard it is to build successful technology companies even once the government gets out of the way.

Who Really Invented the Internet?

Palumboism

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3598
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #26 on: May 14, 2016, 10:22:19 AM »
Because your saving is someone else's income loss which when dine across a highly leveraged economy creates a financial crisis ie a minsky moment

The problem is that people are borrowing in order to spend more than they make and aren't saving enough.  The savings that's in our bank accounts is lent to companies for capital equipment to provide jobs. 

Palumboism

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3598
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #27 on: May 14, 2016, 10:39:20 AM »
How people think minimum wage works vs how it actually works.


denarii

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4240
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #28 on: May 14, 2016, 02:32:55 PM »
The problem is that people are borrowing in order to spend more than they make and aren't saving enough. 

That's what greenspan bankrolled. 

mr.turbo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4617
  • Team Freedom
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #29 on: May 14, 2016, 03:09:56 PM »
By L. Gordon Crovitz
July 22, 2012 6:21 p.m. ET

A telling moment in the presidential race came recently when Barack Obama said: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." He justified elevating bureaucrats over entrepreneurs by referring to bridges and roads, adding: "The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all companies could make money off the Internet."

It's an urban legend that the government launched the Internet. The myth is that the Pentagon created the Internet to keep its communications lines up even in a nuclear strike. The truth is a more interesting story about how innovation happens—and about how hard it is to build successful technology companies even once the government gets out of the way.

Who Really Invented the Internet?

Still going with these fairytales? The government created all aspects of the economy that are dynamic. We already reviewed GM. The model is the same everwhere. Put the koolaid down son.
"

GigantorX

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6370
  • GetBig's A-Team is the Light of Truth!
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #30 on: May 14, 2016, 06:36:34 PM »
That's what greenspan bankrolled. 

We save if you are getting 0% return on your savings/capital?

hardgainerj

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6693
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #31 on: May 14, 2016, 07:01:41 PM »
the free market only exist on paper

Palumboism

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3598
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #32 on: May 14, 2016, 07:33:45 PM »
Still going with these fairytales? The government created all aspects of the economy that are dynamic. We already reviewed GM. The model is the same everwhere. Put the koolaid down son.

Yep, I'm still going with the fairytales.  

Alfred Sloan's accomplishments at GM are impressive to this day.  From the time he started as CEO until he retired GM's market share went from 12 percent to 54 percent.  This is a perfect example of creative destruction, mainly of Ford.

mr.turbo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4617
  • Team Freedom
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #33 on: May 14, 2016, 07:47:49 PM »
Yep, I'm still going with the fairytales.  

Alfred Sloan's accomplishments at GM are impressive to this day.  From the time he started as CEO until he retired GM's market share went from 12 percent to 54 percent.  This is a perfect example of creative destruction, mainly of Ford.

dont forget the part where the government had to buy the company.  talk about creative destruction. must be nice when you're too big to fail.
"

Palumboism

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3598
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #34 on: May 15, 2016, 04:44:56 AM »
dont forget the part where the government had to buy the company.  talk about creative destruction. must be nice when you're too big to fail.

GM wasn't too big to fail, they went bankrupt.  The GM you see now is a different company.  The government could have stayed out of the whole process and they probably would have at any other time.  

In 2015 GM sold 9.8 million cars and trucks and had a profit of $9.7 billion, both records for the company.  The Austrian point of view is that profits are an indication that a company is doing good for mankind.


Hulkotron

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 28210
  • I ate an entire box of popsicles the day prior
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #35 on: May 15, 2016, 06:09:25 AM »
Joseph Schumpeter is my favorite Austrian Economist.

Mine as well.

_aj_

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17640
  • The Return of the OG
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #36 on: May 15, 2016, 06:13:23 AM »
Mine as well.

Schmoepeter is the bomb.

Palumboism

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3598
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #37 on: May 15, 2016, 06:40:59 AM »
Mine as well.

“I set out to become the greatest lover in Vienna, the greatest horseman in Austria, and the greatest economist in the world. Alas, for the illusions of youth: as a horseman, I was never really first-rate.”   :D

Joseph Schumpeter   

mr.turbo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4617
  • Team Freedom
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #38 on: May 15, 2016, 07:40:35 AM »
GM wasn't too big to fail, they went bankrupt.  The GM you see now is a different company.  The government could have stayed out of the whole process and they probably would have at any other time.  

In 2015 GM sold 9.8 million cars and trucks and had a profit of $9.7 billion, both records for the company.  The Austrian point of view is that profits are an indication that a company is doing good for mankind.



So the government spends 80billion on the US auto industry but GM is not too big to fail. What was the purpose of the auto industry bailout?

 ???

"

markofan

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 580
  • Getbig!
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #39 on: May 15, 2016, 09:03:46 AM »
So the government spends 80billion on the US auto industry but GM is not too big to fail. What was the purpose of the auto industry bailout?

 ???



Purpose of the auto industry bailout was to insure union votes to the democratic party.

Griffith

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8784
  • .......
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #40 on: May 15, 2016, 10:48:57 AM »
japan has been at zero interest rates for around 3 decades iirc. but it has/is working. the alternative would be a 30s style great depression.

the 'crash' destroyed investment and consumer confidence, even with near zero interest rates investment is still weak and money is not really moving. if interest rates were higher there would be even greater incentive to hold onto money.

printing money is supposed to devalue a currency, but even with all the new money that's been printed in the states and europe it hasn't managed to spike any sustainable inflation. deflation is still the big threat, so it would be suicide to raise interest rates.

Yet, the Fed has been indicating that they plan to increase interest rates.

mr.turbo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4617
  • Team Freedom
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #41 on: May 15, 2016, 10:58:56 AM »
Purpose of the auto industry bailout was to insure union votes to the democratic party.

80 billion for the union votes!!?
"

_aj_

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17640
  • The Return of the OG
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #42 on: May 15, 2016, 11:02:41 AM »
80 billion for the union votes!!?

The amount doesn't matter when it's other people's money.

Conker

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3189
  • looks like you went for the overcooked potato look
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #43 on: May 15, 2016, 12:03:27 PM »
Yet, the Fed has been indicating that they plan to increase interest rates.

i'm pretty sure they did raise the base rate a few months back by a 1/4 percent but that still only puts it at 0.5%, which is the same as base rate has been in UK for nearly a decade.

bank of england has also been "indicating" they are going to raise interest rates for past 6 or 7 years but it's still not happened. raising interest rates by any significant margin when there is no real inflation would be a disaster.

Palumboism

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3598
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #44 on: May 15, 2016, 12:09:11 PM »
80 billion for the union votes!!?

If you take the entire Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout into account, taxpayers spent a total of $79.7 billion on the auto bailout, received only $63.1 billion back, for a total loss of $16.6 billion.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2015/02/04/its-official-the-auto-bailout-cost-taxpayers-166-billion-n1952771

Keep in mind the government didn't need to sell it's share of GM when it did and could have actually made money on the bailout, but Obama wanted to get re-elected.

mr.turbo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4617
  • Team Freedom
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #45 on: May 15, 2016, 01:26:39 PM »
If you take the entire Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout into account, taxpayers spent a total of $79.7 billion on the auto bailout, received only $63.1 billion back, for a total loss of $16.6 billion.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2015/02/04/its-official-the-auto-bailout-cost-taxpayers-166-billion-n1952771

Keep in mind the government didn't need to sell it's share of GM when it did and could have actually made money on the bailout, but Obama wanted to get re-elected.

So how does $430 billion from the gov to prop up whole industries fit into the fairytale?

GM is making a profit and so are the banks. You said this means they are doing good things!!! Right??
"

Palumboism

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3598
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #46 on: May 15, 2016, 04:35:47 PM »
So how does $430 billion from the gov to prop up whole industries fit into the fairytale?

GM is making a profit and so are the banks. You said this means they are doing good things!!! Right??


The Austrian point of view is the Government should have done nothing and they should have done nothing sooner.  Meaning staying on the gold standard, no Federal reserve, no Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

Also, the government doesn't need to get involved with monopolies.  As long is there's no restriction from a competitor entering the business, there is competition, even if the company has a monopoly.  For example, if United, American, Delta, and Southwest all wanted to merge, Austrians believe the government should allow this.

mr.turbo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4617
  • Team Freedom
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #47 on: May 15, 2016, 04:41:40 PM »
The Austrian point of view is the Government should have done nothing and they should have done nothing sooner.  Meaning staying on the gold standard, no Federal reserve, no Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  

Also, the government doesn't need to get involved with monopolies.  As long is there's no restriction from a competitor entering the business, there is competition, even if the company has a monopoly.  For example, if United, American, Delta, and Southwest all wanted to merge, Austrians believe the government should allow this.

this excludes the "golden age of capitalism" post war period of explosive growth (government driven of course!).  

Plenty of Ford Model-T's needed for the war effort! Who bought those? The free market?

seems like the Austrians want to throw the baby out with the bath water!

 
"

Tapeworm

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 29112
  • Hold Fast
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #48 on: May 15, 2016, 05:39:08 PM »
I can tell you the ass really fell out of the kangaroo hide game.  Wrecked 'em.

Palumboism

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3598
Re: Austrian Economics
« Reply #49 on: May 20, 2016, 05:39:56 PM »
Bloomberg
China May Never Get Rich
[snip]
Weighing these factors, DeLong comes to a stark conclusion -- China has only five years of rapid growth left. Since China's per capita GDP is now only about a quarter of the U.S. level, five years of 7 percent growth -- with the U.S. growing at 2 percent -- would leave China at less than a third of America's standard of living by the time it slows down.

That almost certainly seems too conservative. We need to take into account the effects of economic agglomeration. Agglomeration means that companies invest where there are large markets, and workers move to where they have job opportunities. This snowball effect, once started, is hard to stop. China's poor property rights will probably hold it back -- as will its large size and resource limitations -- but 30 percent of U.S. per-capita GDP is overly pessimistic. I'd look for China to do at least as well as Malaysia, which now is at about 45 percent of U.S. GDP.

That would mean China has more than a decade of 7 percent growth left, once it recovers from its recession.

That said, there are already signs that China's institutions are beginning to hold it back. In the wake of the country's dramatic stock market crash and the slow deflation of its real estate bubble, zombie companies are starting to appear across the landscape. Zombie is the term for companies that are not really profitable, but that survive on a continuous stream of cheap loans from banks that can't afford to let the companies fail. Banks do this because if the companies fail, the banks fail, and the banks are both systemically important and politically well-connected. The government provides the final link in the chain, by bailing out banks, by keeping interest rates low, and by providing subsidies to some of the zombies.

This kind of trap ensnared the Japanese economy after its own bubble burst in the early 1990s. It took more than a decade before the administration of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi finally forced the big banks to cut most of their zombies loose.

But when Japan was attacked by zombies, it was at a much higher level of income (relative to the U.S.) than China enjoys today. In other words, China is hitting Japan-type institutional problems at a much earlier development level than Japan.

That is an early indicator that DeLong and other economists are probably right about China. The system of political-party-based property rights is better than nothing, but it isn't going to make China rich. China is still so poor that it isn't done growing for a while, but when it stops, it's probably not going to be a rich country.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-09-04/china-may-never-get-rich