What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[busybody..]

like your NIGGER?

who when he extended Bush tax cuts said ITS BAD POLICY TO INCREASE TAXES IN A BAD ECONOMY and now wants to INCREASE TAXES?


but YOU

being an idle log will not say YUP, MY NIGGER IS EXACTLY WHAT I JUST BASHED

like YOUR NIGGER

saying that RAISING TAXES doesnt bring in increased REVENUES, but is now wanting to raise taxes to raise revenue

Go ahead,DISHONEST JUAN

Say it

"MY NIGGER, THAT I, an IDEAL LOG, SUPPORT, IS AN IDLE LOG AND I DONT SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT!"

say it

I;ll wait

 

[cjh]

like your NIGGER?

who when he extended Bush tax cuts said ITS BAD POLICY TO INCREASE TAXES IN A BAD ECONOMY and now wants to INCREASE TAXES?


but YOU

being an idle log will not say YUP, MY NIGGER IS EXACTLY WHAT I JUST BASHED

i think you're quite the extreme absolutist.

god knows what cliff you'd lead us over.

 

[busybody..]

i think you're quite the extreme absolutist.

god knows what cliff you'd lead us over.

isnt the point, is it?

I made valid points in response to your IDEAL LOG comment and showed how YOU are just exactly what you de-cry as is NIGGER

AM I WRONG?

 

[busybody..]

isnt the point, is it?

I made valid points in response to your IDEAL LOG comment and showed how YOU are just exactly what you de-cry as is NIGGER

AM I WRONG?

face it DISHONEST JUAN(ita)

you are THISBIT smarter and honest (notice the THISBIT)

than POON PUTZ and ASSHOLE UD

they cant ever admit the truth

neither WILL you, but YOU at realize that indeed

NIGGER is the IDEAL LOG you decry and I showed you just 2 examples......that you attacked ME and NOT publically recognized the truth, showed that me saying

THISBIT

is right on

 

[cjh]

isnt the point, is it?

I made valid points in response to your IDEAL LOG comment and showed how YOU are just exactly what you de-cry as is NIGGER

AM I WRONG?

whatever valid points you make get lost in how you make them.

tighten your belt. it's good for your country.

 

[cjh]

face it DISHONEST JUAN(ita)

you are THISBIT smarter and honest (notice the THISBIT)

than POON PUTZ and ASSHOLE UD

they cant ever admit the truth

neither WILL you, but YOU at realize that indeed

NIGGER is the IDEAL LOG you decry and I showed you just 2 examples......that you attacked ME and NOT publically recognized the truth, showed that me saying

THISBIT

is right on

pffft. let's talk white churches.

were obama an ideologue, entitlements would not be on the table at all.

 

[busybody..]

whatever valid points you make get lost in how you make them.

.

thats a NICE way of saying

"yes, BUSY, indeed you made 2 excellent and valid points...........However, since I'm an idle log, I will attack your method of writing and focus on a few inappropriate words, rather than the accuracy of what you said. After all, I'M A IDEAL LOG AS WELL"


tee hee

 

[busybody..]

were obama an ideologue, entitlements would not be on the table at all.

it isnt

he merely PROMISED to weed out waste and fraud

he might as well ask CASPER THE GHOST to become a FRAUD CZAR

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

you're obviously not comprehending what you read if you consider the chicago school of economics to be "a modern branch of the Socialists of the Chair as translated by Keynes."

either that, or you're intellectually dishonest.

go to your books and find me a quote to back up your statement.

Sorry I took so long, life has a rhythm...

In the present article I'll outline some of the main differences. Although it's true that Austrians agree with Chicago economists on many policy issues, nevertheless their approach to economic science can be quite different. It's important to occasionally explain these differences, if only to rebut the common complaint that Austrian economics is simply a religion serving to justify libertarian policy conclusions.

Before jumping in, let me give a few obvious disclaimers: I do not speak for all Austrian economists, and in this article I will be discussing modern Austrian followers in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. (On methodology in particular, the Austrians in the Rothbardian camp differ somewhat from those who look more to Friedrich Hayek and Israel Kirzner for inspiration.) It's also important to note that not every Chicago School economist thinks alike. Even so, I hope the following generalizations are representative.

Methodology

The Austrians are oddballs among professional economists for their focus on methodological issues in the first place. Indeed, Mises's magnum opus, Human Action, devotes the entire second chapter (41 pages) to "The Epistemological Problems of the Sciences of Human Action." There was no such treatment in the last Freakonomics book.

Although most economists in the 20th century and our time would disagree strongly, Mises insisted that economic theory itself was an a priori discipline. What he meant is that economists shouldn't ape the methods of physicists by coming up with hypotheses and subjecting them to empirical tests. On the contrary, Mises thought that the core body of economic theory could be logically deduced from the axiom of "human action," i.e., the insight or viewpoint that there are other conscious beings using their reason to achieve subjective goals. (For more on Mises's methodological views, see this and this.)

In contrast, the seminal Chicago School article on methodology is Milton Friedman's 1953 "The Methodology of Positive Economics." Far from deriving economic principles or laws that are necessarily true (as Mises suggests), Friedman instead advocates the development of models with false assumptions. These false premises are no strike against a good theory, however:

The relevant question to ask about the "assumptions" of a theory is not whether they are descriptively "realistic," for they never are, but whether they are sufficiently good approximations for the purpose in hand. And this question can be answered only by seeing whether the theory works, which means whether it yields sufficiently accurate predictions.

Although Friedman's analysis sounds perfectly reasonable, and the epitome of "scientific," Mises thought it was a seductive trap for economists. For a quick illustration of the difference in perspectives, let me relay an example from my teaching experience.

...

Another major divergence between the Austrian and Chicago Schools is their explanation for booms and their policy prescriptions for busts. The readers of this article are likely familiar with the Austrian view, so I will omit another discussion.

Chicago School economists obviously have nuanced views, but generally speaking they subscribe to the "efficient markets hypothesis." In its strongest form, the EMH denies that there could even be such a thing as the housing bubble (see here and here). Given their assumptions of rational actors and markets that quickly clear, and given that they lack a sophisticated theory of the capital structure of the economy, the Chicago School economists are forced to explain recessions as an "equilibrium" outcome due to sudden "shocks."

Historically they didn't consider the distortions caused by below-market interest rates (which of course are the key ingredient in the Austrian theory of the business cycle). However, recently more and more Chicago School critics of the Fed have been pointing out the dangers of Ben Bernanke's zero-interest rate policy.

Ironically, the policy area where the Austrians and the Chicago School differ most is in regards to money, the issue in which Milton Friedman specialized. Friedman (and coauthor Anna Schwartz) famously faulted the Federal Reserve for not printing enough new money in the early 1930s to offset the decline fueled by bank runs. In our time, some Chicago-trained economists — who justifiably point to Milton Friedman himself for vindication — blame the crisis in the fall of 2008 on Bernanke's "tight-money" policies. Naturally, these views are anathema to modern Austrians in the tradition of Murray Rothbard, who think the central bank should be abolished.

...

Finally, most modern members of the Austrian and Chicago Schools have vastly different ideas when it comes to the field known as "Law and Economics." Whether based in natural law or the traditional inheritance from the common law, Austrians tend to think that people objectively have property rights, full stop, and once we specify these rights the economic analysis can begin. In contrast, some of the more extreme applications of what could be called "the Chicago approach" would say that the assignment of property rights themselves should be determined on the grounds of economic efficiency. (In Walter Block's reductio ad absurdum, a judge decides if a man has stolen a woman's purse by asking how much each party would be willing to pay for it.)

Robert Murphy is an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, where he teaches at the Mises Academy. He runs the blog Free Advice and is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, the Study Guide to "Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market," the "Human Action" Study Guide, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, and his newest book, Lessons for the Young Economist.
http://mises.org/daily/5390/The-Chicago-School-versus-the-Austrian-School

 

[busybody..]

Remember DISHONEST JAUN(ita)

Your line of "reasoning" has been tried for 10 yrs on LIT

Those that cant refute my arguments,

Those that cant refute my slings and arrows and they find the heart of the matter

and

Show the utter vacuousness of their "viewpoint"

Always say

WHAT YOU JUST SAID........and add, RACIST, IGNORANT WOMAN HATER, GAY HATER...ETC ETC

Loser arguments

Tee (its been done) Hee

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

great. where's a quote describing the chicago school of economics in that manner.

Let me guess, after 30 minutes have passed, we start with the "I WON! I WON!,' he couldn't find a 'quote.'

Here's a quote (Mises to Hayek and his little gathering of "Chicagoans" maaquerading as "Liberarians"): You're all SOCIALISTS!

The Last Knight of Liberalism, Hülsmann - available at Mises.org (used to be a free download)


The Chicago School is a school of The Middle Way, of the Interventionalists and modelers...

 

[cjh]

thanks for your reply.

that's a world apart, though, from the statement that the chicago school embraced collectivist or keynesian economics. friedman, not keynes, is associated with chicago.

friedman and keynes were at odds on the role of the government in the market. friedman was a big fan of the free market and of deregulation generally. he worked to disprove a lot of keynes' theories. hell, the cato institute reveres him.

 

[cjh]

Let me guess, after 30 minutes have passed, we start with the "I WON! I WON!,' he couldn't find a 'quote.'

Here's a quote (Mises to Hayek and his little gathering of "Chicagoans" maaquerading as "Liberarians"): You're all SOCIALISTS!

The Last Knight of Liberalism, Hülsmann - available at Mises.org (used to be a free download)


The Chicago School is a school of The Middle Way, of the Interventionalists and modelers...

i guess.

here is what the cato institute says about friedman in explaining "the milton friedman prize for advancing liberty."

Prominent free-market economist Milton Friedman, recipient of the 1976 Nobel Prize for Economic Science, passed away on November 16, 2006 at the age of 94. Friedman was widely regarded as the leader of the Chicago School of monetary economics, which stresses the importance of the quantity of money as an instrument of government policy and as a determinant of business cycles and inflation. In addition to his scientific work, Friedman also wrote extensively on public policy, always with primary emphasis on the preservation and extension of individual freedom. Friedman's ideas on economic freedom hugely influenced both the Reagan administration and the Thatcher government in the early 1980s, revolutionized establishment economic thinking across the globe, and have been employed extensively by emerging economies for decades.

http://www.cato.org/special/friedman/index.html

who knew reagan and thatcher were influenced by socialists?

 

[koalabear]

Obama has been negotiating all along, saying for weeks that Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and defense are all on the table. Republicans are the ones saying they'll never budge on their stance, remember? Have they been saying all this time they're willing to give a little and raise taxes? Or wait, Republicans dont negotiate because they have "principals".

Meanwhile, you're spinning the piss out of the story since you know full well that the "gang of six" plan is part of the reason for the uptick (and higher than expected profits). If anything the street is relieved that there may be a few Republicans who are willing to raise taxes.

Stocks slip on housing, debt deal.........

 

[busybody..]

Greg Mankiw points to this Charlie Rose interview with Larry Summers, which includes this very good quote (starting around 21:50):

Never forget, never forget, and I think it’s very important for Democrats especially to remember this, that if Hitler had not come along, Franklin Roosevelt would have left office in 1941 with an unemployment rate in excess of 15 percent and an economic recovery strategy that had basically failed.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

like your NIGGER?

being an idle log will not say YUP, MY NIGGER IS EXACTLY WHAT I JUST BASHED

By KENYANS

You know, those BACKWARD TURD WORLD COLORED FOLKS IN HO'S BIIRF PLACE!

like YOUR NIGGER

"MY NIGGER, THAT I, an IDEAL LOG, SUPPORT, IS AN IDLE LOG AND I DONT SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT!"

YOU are just exactly what you de-cry as is NIGGER

NIGGER is the IDEAL LOG you decry

http://michaelbendovid.typepad.com/.a/6a00e0097e2f408833010536f63373970b-320wi

http://www.theblogmocracy.com/wp-content/uploads/holocaust-2.jpg

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/holocaust00_1.jpg

LOL RACISM IS JUST SOOOOO COOL TO USE ESPECIALLY ONLINE WHERE LITTLE DICK IMPOTENT PIECES OF SHIT WHO USED TO BE PERSECUTED FOR BEING JEWISH CAN BE KING FOR A DAY LOL

 

[NeverEndingMe]

omg how did you get plans and pictures from the obama play book? is this what obama has in his plans for the middle class?

why does obama hate America?

http://michaelbendovid.typepad.com/.a/6a00e0097e2f408833010536f63373970b-320wi

http://www.theblogmocracy.com/wp-content/uploads/holocaust-2.jpg

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/holocaust00_1.jpg

LOL RACISM IS JUST SOOOOO COOL TO USE ESPECIALLY ONLINE WHERE LITTLE DICK IMPOTENT PIECES OF SHIT WHO USED TO BE PERSECUTED FOR BEING JEWISH CAN BE KING FOR A DAY LOL

 

[busybody..]

Time to go into full PROTECT THE NIGGER MODE

I know

lets CALL HERITAGE

(fill in the blank)


A new report out yesterday from The Heritage Foundation shows private sector job creation dropped dramatically almost immediately after President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) into law.


From the recession’s low point in January 2009 until April 2010, when Obamacare went into effect, the private sector created about 67,600 jobs a month. After the president signed PPACA into law, that number slowed to a meager 6,400 jobs a month — a more than 90 percent decrease or less than one-tenth the previous rate.

As the report states, correlation cannot prove causation — but the change in course is statistically measurable and testing reveals a structural break between April and May of 2010. Moreover, small-business owners have said Obamacare is a deterrent to hiring. Take Scott Womack, the owner of 12 IHOP restaurants in Indiana and Ohio, as just one example. Before Obamacare became law, he had development plans in Ohio. Now, he’s worried he won’t be able to carry out his original plans unless Obamacare is repealed. Those restaurants he planned to open would provide jobs not only for his future employees, but also for everyone involved in the construction of the restaurant buildings themselves.

As the Heritage report explains, Obamacare discourages hiring in three important ways:

•Businesses with fewer than 50 workers have a strong incentive to maintain this size, which allows them to avoid the mandate to provide government-approved health coverage or face a penalty;


•Businesses with more than 50 workers will see their costs for health coverage rise—they must purchase more expensive government-approved insurance or pay a penalty; and


•Employers face considerable uncertainty about what constitutes qualifying health coverage and what it will cost. They also do not know what the health care market or their health care costs will look like in four years. This makes planning for the future difficult.


Democrats once touted that Obamacare would create jobs, but the data underscore the reality that that’s not true for the private sector. The only jobs Obamacare created were within the new agencies and layers of bureaucracy the law added to the federal government.


The Heritage report recommends repeal — and comes as a welcome reminder that the health care law can’t be ignored as the president and Congress attempt to address the debt and deficit or as the nation attempts to right the still-struggling economy. Nor can it be ignored in the upcoming presidential election. Likely U.S. voters have said jobs and the economy are their No. 1 issue. That means the repeal of Obamacare should be a top priority, too.
One of the first acts of the new House at the beginning of this year was to pass a repeal bill, but, of course, that bill was blocked in the Senate and definitely didn’t receive the president’s signature. Still, repeal is possible — but it will require the election of a president who will sign a repeal bill in 2012.


That puts all the GOP presidential contenders in perspective. Even Mitt Romney, the architect of Obamneycare (Tim Pawlenty’s one pitch-perfect zing), has said he’d support repeal — and, whatever skeptics might say, he’s surely more likely to sign his name to repeal than Obama is. When the GOP does pick its candidate, voters concerned about Obamacare’s impact on jobs and the economy surely can get behind whoever the candidate is.


Otherwise, the country faces more of the same. Another Heritage report out recently showed jobs recovery will take far longer than most expect under any circumstances. According to that report, unemployment wouldn’t return to its natural rate of 5.2 percent until 2014 even if the economy immediately started adding jobs at the rate it did during the tech bubble, which was about 265,000 jobs a month. At a more realistic rate of 176,000 jobs a month, the unemployment rate wouldn’t drop to 5.2 percent until about 2018.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Time to go into full PROTECT THE NIGGER MODE

http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/camp_children1.jpg

TIME SURE FLIES FAST WHEN YOU'RE HAVING FUN LOL

 

[cebalrai]

i guess.

here is what the cato institute says about friedman in explaining "the milton friedman prize for advancing liberty."



http://www.cato.org/special/friedman/index.html

who knew reagan and thatcher were influenced by socialists?

The fact is, during the Bush + Republican years a large number of Keynsian policies were enacted. At that time Keynsianism was great! But once a Dem is in power Keynsianism was suddenly never a good idea.

 

[MeeMie]

Lesson #1 in Broadcasting:
Never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to...


MSNBC's Contessa Brewer, you may remember just yesterday said the attack on Rupert Murdoch at a hearing encapsulated what the British were feeling.

Today, Contessa "educated" a conservative Representative that without the bailout, the country would be in "a depression."

Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) said he disagreed which prompted the MSNBC host to ask the GOP Congressman:
"Do You Have A Degree In Economics?

Rep. Brooks responded:
"Yes ma'am, I do. Highest honors,"

According to his Congressional profile:
"Mo graduated from Duke University in three years with a double major in political science and economics, with highest honors in economics."



She should have done her homework a little better.

 

[cebalrai]

Kevin D. Williamson
NRO

The debt ceiling they will raise, fundamental reform will not come; the Democrats will play the party of no cuts and begin the endless parade of the hapless victims of Republican cruelty...

Oh goodie, a debt deal will certainly be reached soon and we'll get to point you back to this post and call you on another failed prediction.

 

[cebalrai]

Many of the smarter ones have come to realize the fallacy of Keynes premise that it's ok to borrow to expand the economy because "we only owe it to ourselves." The whole problem today is that it's becoming glaringly apparent that we don't just "owe it to ourselves."

If you want to learn more about economics pick up something by Murray Rothbard, Hans F. Sennholz, Mises, or Hayek.

Again, how come Keynsian theory was golden for Bush and the Republicans?

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]