Any Friedrich Hayek supporters/dissenters here?

[BTM]

I don't agree with everything the man thought or said, but he certainly gave us a lot of thought provoking content.

"Social justice is an empty phrase with no determinable content"

-F.A. Hayek, The Mirage of Social Justice

"The results of an individual's efforts are necessarily unpredictable, and the question as to whether the resulting distribution of incomes is just has no meaning"

-F.A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty

[BTM]

And for entertainment:

[Socom]

mises.org

[BTM]

Not Hayek specific, but relevant:

Murray Rothbard:

"Equality is not in the natural order of things, and the crusade to make everyone equal in every respect (except before the law) is certain to have disastrous consequences."

"At the heart of the egalitarian left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will."

[BTM]

Aristotle:

"When everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because every one will be attending to his own business."

[Javi335]

Alan Greenspan was a gratefull stomach who dedicate it only to volley words (blabla) and low the price of money

Hayek or Keyness didnt take facts like this in consideration for his equations

[BTM]

What?

Too keep going...

Keynesian vs. Austrian output models



Y=income
C=consumption
I=investment
i=interest
T=production time
APT=average production time
F=investment funds
Spg=supply of present goods
Dpg=demand of present goods

[Javi335]

Too keep going...

Keynesian vs. Austrian output models



Y=income
C=consumption
I=investment
i=interest
T=production time
APT=average production time
F=investment funds
Spg=supply of present goods
Dpg=demand of present goods

Originally Posted by BTM

What?

and there goes your economic models!

im not trollin dear BTM

i try to explain if you want and if my english allow it

[BTM]

The housing bubble and subsequent corrections in financial markets do not disprove anything...

You think I love Greenspan or something?

[Javi335]

Originally Posted by BTM

The housing bubble and subsequent corrections in financial markets do not disprove anything...

You think I love Greenspan or something?

thats not what im talking about. by the way anyone is free to like o dislike greenspan

the economics models are showed like inorganic structures, like a windows or an android system, please try to catch the essence of that examples

bubbles or debts issues, are often explained as mistakes of desregulation and all that shit. Yeah, and its true, but if you fall into a trap is not the same if you do it because you drop for yourself or you do it because someone has desing the way to made you fall there, (if it not push you directly)

and more much ¿where's the oil on the Austrian model? ¿where are the bubbles on Keyness teories? ¿where are the stock market manipulation? ¿where's the FED?

you can go again on do not disprove anything, maybe on the matrix is ok, on the real world not

on the colleges, to teach economy is gonna be much better if they put a Poker Stars chapter in one screen and in the other one the Star Wars saga instead the crap and garbage stuff undercovered on pseudo-logic, theories, equations and the rest of signatures for dolls.

but well, im afraid is not what you want to discuss on the thread, im only can suggest you dont waste your brain and your time on these economics tales, no need to answer me, just my opinion ...

[BTM]

I think I've somewhat gleaned what you're trying to say, and generally don't disagree. I posted the Keynsian vs. Austrian model to illustrate the time preference and interest rates which Keynes ignores. The FED is represented in interest rates (i), and bubbles have been indicated to be unpredictable (other than the fact they will occur) and unavoidable in speculative markets by experimental economic research.

By represented as "inorganic" structures, I believe the term I learned your looking for is many people use static representations which are impossible for an economic system which is a complex-dynamic system. It's not like (excuse the potentially crude example) adding 2 hydrogens to oxygen, where you'll get H2O or water every time. How the system reacts to the same stimulus at a different point in time is dependent on what has happened before it, along with prevailing interest rates and time preference.

Many noted Austrian economists (and I'm not a de facto Austrian or neo-classical subscriber) acknowledge that static models are far from perfect, but insist that the idea that one shouldn't seek a more accurate theory, or explanation, or model, is a form of logical error known as perfect-solution fallacy, which is the argument that since the proposed solution is not perfect, it should be rejected completely instead of acknowledging that it may not be perfect, but it is better than what we had (a pareto improvement of sorts).

[Javi335]

My main idea is; any economic model theories are that, theories.

The economic system is based on expotential money grow and finite oil. It simply cannot be. No need any maths, is the self nature of the idea wich tell that doesnt work on the long run.

Bet what you want, the day comes when oil do not more exits, and the transition is gonna be the chaos, the absolute chaos. And maybe this crisis has much to see with, the begin probably

We all know oil is finite, we all know is what really moves the economy and the world ... well, the war of wars is gonna be the only solution. Fuck the gradual steps for a new energys, oil till the end or for a fews

And then in the schools, if someone survive, god knows what the fuck teachers explain about it ... you know what i mean, maybe the zombies or the reptilians fault ... or keyness

But hey, watch Inside Job, is the answer guys (sarcasm)

[BTM]

Oil is a major source of energy but hardly the only source of energy. The diminishing quantity (increasing scarcity) of oil is reflected in increasing prices for it. Right now, given the infrastructure, fossil fuels are utilized because they are still cost effective. Assuming no major changes in technology (ie, ways to manufacture crude), the finite supply of oil ending, it's not going to be a simple "oops, we're out of oil now! what do we do?"

Prices will continue to rise to reflect the growing scarcity of the resource. At some point, other forms of energy will be comparatively more cost effective, and profit maximizing consumers will move away from oil. It's not a sudden thing, as oil becomes more cost prohibitive, alternative energy becomes more cost effective, and the transition out of oil and into alternative energy begins.

[Javi335]

Originally Posted by BTM

the finite supply of oil ending, it's not going to be a simple "oops, we're out of oil now! what do we do?"

neither is gonna be a "hey world, we are running out of oil, prepare for a WWIII"

no, of course, there's oil for 80 years ... sure

and you know, the oil as a energy is only a part of the problem with it

when you create a structure based on oil, and youre getting without it ... what you gotta do is destroy that structure. I said destroy.

Nah men, they know the dollar worths what it worths and they are what they are because the oil. Industries (the real economy) and financial markets (the sci fiction economy) are they instruments rounded around that

i know those motherfuckers going to survive and take the control again, like they always does ... but they need time and that time now is the oil and his supply.

[driersheets]

uh ahahahahhhah

[BTM]

Industry in the sense that you mean it doesn't operate without credit and financial markets. By nature some markets are more speculative than others, but they are interdependent.

[Javi335]

Originally Posted by BTM

Industry in the sense that you mean it doesn't operate without credit and financial markets. By nature some markets are more speculative than others, but they are interdependent.

nobody goes to war for general motors or microsoft. now that you mention, is curious how is impossible, even for the biggest companys to get auto financed ... failure of the system? hehehe

banks rule all, so finally the economy depends of individual privates choices. The rest, is absolutely secondary just as presidents are puppets and politic is pure shit to take you looking the other way

another thing, is it a coincidence China's raise, Irak, Afganistan, Libia and Iran matters, and the the crisis?

my last appear on this thread, because i feel like i turn it into another one, sorry buddy

[BTM]

Originally Posted by Javi335

banks rule all, so finally the economy depends of individual privates choices. The rest, is absolutely secondary just as presidents are puppets and politic is pure shit to take you looking the other way

The thing about credit markets, as mismanaged as they have been in recent years, is that they are not only essential, but market making. The Fed interjects by setting interest rate, and a major contributor to the subprime mortgage crisis was gov't participation in the market through fannie mae and freddie mac, while unable to act as pure monopolist enterprises their subsidy was quite clear... as The SEC has brought civil fraud charges against six former top executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying they misled investors about risky subprime loans the mortgage giants held when the housing bubble burst. Additionally, according to an NPR report a year or so ago (and I don't usually like agreeing with NPR), regulatory obligations were not carried out by the SEC, rather privately contracted organizations acting as the SEC, supposedly enforcing SEC regulations. Incentives here clash, as the regulatory bodies seek a raison d'etre, their enforcement gets lax; likewise the more lax the enforcement, the more employable they are as "regulatory firms" for banks. Both sides had incentives to cheat.

another thing, is it a coincidence China's raise, Irak, Afganistan, Libia and Iran matters, and the the crisis?

We, meaning the USA, have seen the emergence of China for a long time. There have in fact been a few contractions in US GDP during the time period acknowledging China's comparative labor advantage. A long ass time, in fact, to the point where we were sending over CIA agent/economists since the 50s. While officially a communist government, when this function of the economy broke down in the late 70s, China has become 90x more productive, largely differentiating on price point. China has been growing as a single nation in congruence with all G7 nations in aggregate, which is remarkable, it's GDP/capita places it mid pack in IMF ratings. This differentiation by price point (comparative advantage) is an indication of western economic thought implemented in a fashion where both countries "win," but the USA being the larger country in the sense of market making, most instances in which it is purported China is taking advantage of the USA, is actually the opposite, especially with attention paid to the Chinese Renminbi ties to the USD, and "dumping" which is a complaint completely beyond me, who would be against foreign trade partners subsidizing their exports to the US making their goods impossibly cheap to us being a bad thing is beyond me completely. There is the argument of anti-competitive behavior, which is validated until one accounts for the reason that the product in question is imported rather than produced domestically is due to a prevailing comparative advantage in the first place, one realizes that export subsidies simply provide us with would be cheap goods for even cheaper.

[Javi335]

The support of the United States Federal Reserve of America (and to a lesser extent Britain, although 9% of GDP depends on the business of the City and its tax sewers (Gibraltar without going further) is the capital market. Most trade is denominated in dollars, and 100% of the oil (I would ask Saddam Hussein when he decided to sell oil in euros), which is why America can be what it is, with constant and growing deficit foreign trade since 1975, financed by exporting capital, due to the near monopoly of the dollar.

U.S.F.E.DA buys manufactured goods in exchange for its currency accept, therefore if the dollar loses value in the global market, USA does not hold, for how funds that trade deficit and fiscal? Printing ¿even more dollars?

Ask yourselves how it is possible that the United States, wich does not export anything (compared with other nations much smaller) spent on arms spending 41.5% of the world total. From somewhere the money has to come out, and isnt from their factories.

USFED of America- especially since he left the gold standard - is exclusively a military empire. It has bases in 160 out of 190 countries worldwide. Somebody tell me, they paid us, Spain, for put the shield missile here. I laugh and answer ... luck if we aint paid for have it.

For example: the strategic alliance of Japan with the U.S. exists only because the U.S.FED imposed its criteria as a victorious power in World War 2, the Americans won the war and Japan had to sign an agreement restricting their national sovereignty, so did Germany. The most powerfull nations in terms of industry.



How do I pay? So easy: it is to accept the dollars we pay them to make, or more precisely: through inflation, U.S. inflation raised for financing. Or even auto-buying his own debt. Wonderfull.

Hahahaha, those je ... i mean, those dudes are smart guys ... i hate them as much a i admire.

[Javi335]

btw ... do u like rancid?

[txz4]

Originally Posted by driersheets

uh ahahahahhhah

thank god im not the only one thinking this...

This reminds me of the "fed reserve zeitgeist vid" thread that i posted on. The misunderstanding of how the Fed works is mind boggling. That tied with the over emphasis being placed on the feds influence on the money supply vs the reason for its influence, specifically the reasonings for influencing the money supply. if there is any question of the Feds positive influence on the economy, look at Greece, would it be wrong to assume that Greece MAY have mitigated some of these negative effects through true expansionary policy, were they able to of course (thanks EU). Im absolutely not making light of the Greek spending problem as it IS the reason for the season there, only postulating that it could have been less bad.

as far as the oil goes, BTM is 100% correct, when you speak about solar power etc you dont say its to expensive, you say its not competitive. Its semi viable but just like wind mills its useless in the current environment hence why they are having to be subsidized (cough cough sylndra). As BTM states oil prices will follow market value as with less oil comes higher production costs coupled with higher investment required. Along with the risk that goes along with increasingly difficult production necessitates higher returns received by investors thus leading to increased price. Javi, you speak as if the oil is simply sitting on the surface easy to access and only a slave to the fact that its finite. when one takes into account the difficulties of production the price will very spread costs throughout a longer time, thus NOT leading to a sudden, "shit were running out" moment like you said.

[Javi335]

Originally Posted by txz4

Javi, you speak as if the oil is simply sitting on the surface easy to access and only a slave to the fact that its finite. when one takes into account the difficulties of production the price will very spread costs throughout a longer time, thus NOT leading to a sudden, "shit were running out" moment like you said.

its no shit we running out, is shit china is taken the oil and they gonna replace the yuan instead the dollar as a currency to buy it.

another example; is perfectly ok all the cars move whit electric energy. i dont know how but its a huge ammount of oil everyday wasted on that. why they dont want to leave electric car became cheap?

to rule you need to control, to control the necessary raws

the world never be a perfect place, i know it, but i mind about it and belive it could be better. im dreaming i know it too