Iceland overthrows government, banks; media suppresses news

[Craig234]

I really wish you would pick up a book and read a little bit about Austrian economics and other similarly libertarian ideas before acting like you have any clue about them.

Ideologues seem to always think criticism is just not reading enough about the dogma.

Can't possibly be valid. If you could recognize that, you wouldn't be an ideologue.

 

[fskimospy]

What he's saying is, economics being an inherently soft science, you can't make realistic theories and predictions because human beings are not always rational. You can assume many constraints, and then come up with a testable theory, but constraints are seldom realistic.

I know exactly what he's saying, it's why so few people take Austrian economists seriously. They reject evidence.

 

[Jhhnn]

What he's saying is, economics being an inherently soft science, you can't make realistic theories and predictions because human beings are not always rational. You can assume many constraints, and then come up with a testable theory, but constraints are seldom realistic.

Heh. Austrians can't, because their own POV prevents that. It's airtight ontology.

Other viewpoints can and have predicted our current situation with reasonable accuracy, even if the originator didn't quite believe it himself. It's called a liquidity trap-

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ty-of-another-liquidity-trap-brad-delong.html

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/this-age-of-hicks/

Hicks' formulations describe the current situation perfectly, despite some rather desperate squirming & obfuscation by Austrians.

 

[Nebor]

I know exactly what he's saying, it's why so few people take Austrian economists seriously. They reject evidence.

And I think he was saying that's why no one takes any economists very seriously. I was broadly describing the entire field, not just Austrian economics.

I was an econ undergrad and my MBA focus was in managerial economics. Half the experiments ended in, "Well.... we didn't see that coming." People are wildly unpredictable. Pretty much what happens with all the "expert" economists that work for the .gov too.

 

[momeNt]

Heh. Austrians can't, because their own POV prevents that. It's airtight ontology.

Other viewpoints can and have predicted our current situation with reasonable accuracy, even if the originator didn't quite believe it himself. It's called a liquidity trap-

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...ty-of-another-liquidity-trap-brad-delong.html

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/this-age-of-hicks/

Hicks' formulations describe the current situation perfectly, despite some rather desperate squirming & obfuscation by Austrians.

This is actually pretty hilarious. Keynesians devise a system that can recover from recessions through various central planning stimuli. They subsequently have models and explain why it doesn't always work (liquidity trap). This then "validates" their understanding of economics.


Here is a quote from an Op-Ed on the NY Times that you probably skipped because Krugman wasn't writing for them yet...

In so many words, Mr. Greenspan promised that the Fed would make money cheaper and more plentiful than it would otherwise be. He would override the market's judgment with his own. Nobody in earshot quoted the words of the German central banker Hjalmar Schacht, who protested in 1927: "Don't give me a low rate. Give me a true rate, and then I shall know how to put my house in order." Someone should have. Interest rates are the traffic lights of a market economy. To investors, they signal when to go and when to stop. Under the Fed's bubble recovery program, every interest-rate light turned green.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/10/opinion/10grant.html?pagewanted=1

Liquidity trap as it can be called in Keynesian economics is what happens when the market can't handle the shocks that the stimuli seek to provide. Kind of like beating a dead horse

Austrians would say let the horse die, it'll decompose and life will go on without it, a Keynesian would devise even more aggressive fiscal policy in the event that their conventional monetary policy did not work, construct elaborate motorized mechanisms to allow the horses leg to move and strong perfumes so those seeking to ride the horse will be unaware that it is dead and decomposing, and call it a recovery!

 

[Jhhnn]

I never offered that Greenspan's dropping of interest rates to near zero in the early years of the Bush Admin was good policy, and neither did Keynsians. Greenspan never was a Keynsian, but rather a monetarist.

Keynsians today offer that low rates will not have the desired effect because of the liquidity trap phenomenon, and some have argued that ever since the crash of 2008. What's needed is direct efforts to create jobs, therefore demand, and the private sector simply is not doing that, nor do they have any reason to do so because of low demand. catch-22. If govt borrowing is out of the question to do so, then taxes at the top need to be raised for the purpose- it's not like that money is going anywhere otherwise.

 

[Craig234]

I never offered that Greenspan's dropping of interest rates to near zero in the early years of the Bush Admin was good policy, and neither did Keynsians. Greenspan never was a Keynsian, but rather a monetarist.

Keynsians today offer that low rates will not have the desired effect because of the liquidity trap phenomenon, and some have argued that ever since the crash of 2008. What's needed is direct efforts to create jobs, therefore demand, and the private sector simply is not doing that, nor do they have any reason to do so because of low demand. catch-22. If govt borrowing is out of the question to do so, then taxes at the top need to be raised for the purpose- it's not like that money is going anywhere otherwise.

The bottom line is that money is what's not real, but a system for assigning ownership of what's real, while actual goods and services are what's real.

Putting people to work with imaginary/manufactured money creates real goods and services, that can then be distributed.

If done to excess, it's inflationary; history shows, which so many seem ignorant of, that the benefits generally are much bigger than any harm of inflation in a recovery.

This is why people who actually have a clue like Paul Krugman make the politically unpopular statement 'the stimulus is much too small' - big debt or not.

He understands, which the right doesn't, that austerity will make it HARDER to pay it.

If there were a business losing money, one approach might be 'pay for improvements, hire more salespeople, increase the marketing budget'.

That might increase sales and raise money to pay off the debts.

A second approach would be austerity. "Reduce the hours we're open, we can't afford so many. Cut the cleaning expenses, we can't afford them. Reduce the marketing budget, we can't afford ads. Cut salaries, we can't afford them. Sell off parts of the business to raise money."

Then, when the business loss the income of what it sold, the customers who avoid the store because it isn't clean, who don't come because of less marketing, the loss of productivity as good employees leave after salary reductions, they look at the debt and say 'now it's even harder to pay'.

That's a bit like the country, except the business can go out of business, the country can't. What the country can do is become a much poorer country from bad policies.

And when the rich kill the goose that laid the golden egg by demanding their incomes go up more than then economy - much less the hundreds of percent they've been going up - by taking ALL economic growth after inflation for decades - they're making our country poorer and hurting it eventually. Growth has continued to be decent - all of which they've taken - but that's not going to last. It would if the growth were distributed more in the country. It's not.

Save234

 

[RavenLunatic]

The bailouts were not necessary. Then again I feel a country should have complete control over it's currency also. As for restructuring it is not like Iceland changed it's name. Pay back the loans and next time keep better watch. It is not like you are paying for the person's lunch that just ate at your table. It is more like picking up the tab for their past voting mistakes. lmao! I don't like that corporations are not held liable. I think that litigation was pushed through by corporations. I think that every institute as well as individual should be held accountable for their actions or inactivity. In the long run loans are a costly quick fix. Save up the money and budget. If you can't do either you have bigger problems. You need a life skills coach or personal financial trainer. Trust I am a U.S. citizen and I hate our system. In turn I hate the inactive sheep that allow what is going on. That is just my opinions though. No facts just common sense.

 

[Atreus21]

The bailouts were not necessary. Then again I feel a country should have complete control over it's currency also. As for restructuring it is not like Iceland changed it's name. Pay back the loans and next time keep better watch. It is not like you are paying for the person's lunch that just ate at your table. It is more like picking up the tab for their past voting mistakes. lmao! I don't like that corporations are not held liable. I think that litigation was pushed through by corporations. I think that every institute as well as individual should be held accountable for their actions or inactivity. In the long run loans are a costly quick fix. Save up the money and budget. If you can't do either you have bigger problems. You need a life skills coach or personal financial trainer. Trust I am a U.S. citizen and I hate our system. In turn I hate the inactive sheep that allow what is going on. That is just my opinions though. No facts just common sense.

Nice.

 

[thraashman]

Hmmm, just a slight necro here.

 

[werepossum]

Hmmm, just a slight necro here.

Without even a Segway.

I feel violated . . .

 

[DucatiMonster696]

This guy/gal makes their 1st post in P&N and to top it off they necro a thread. LOLOLOLOL