Austrian economics
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO... perfect
More name calling.
Both Hayek and Mises have been mostly vindicated in their arguments about the calculation and knowledge problems of centrally planned economies.
Ron Paul and Peter Schiff both accurately called the housing bubble in detail. Krugman was in denial until very near the end.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/ron-paul-on-the-housing-bubble-july-2002/
Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.
However, despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles,the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall,homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
I'm not well versed in economics beyond the areas I specialize in (guns and manufacturing mostly), but I wanted some input for you guys who do know far more than me. Would this image be relatively accurate if one was trying to summerize these economic schools into single bullet points?
I would say so.
Citation for the predictions?
Last edited:
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Thanks. I know that obviously macro-economics is far more complicated than the way it's presented there.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
I'm not well versed in economics beyond the areas I specialize in (guns and manufacturing mostly), but I wanted some input for you guys who do know far more than me. Would this image be relatively accurate if one was trying to summerize these economic schools into single bullet points?
that is a fairly accurate, albeit simplistic, explanation for them.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
yes, thanks to Clinton's repeal of Glass Steagall with the support of BOTH parties, the firewalls came down between what used to be investment banks vs. retail banks.
As for Freddy and Fanny, no, they did not write the loans, but they BOUGHT them once the mortgage lenders wrote them. This created a demand for more of the same.
Ron Paul on GLB 1999
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 900, GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT
------------
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
[Page: E2297]
Madam Speaker, today we are considering a bill aimed at modernizing the financial services industry through deregulation. It is a worthy goal which I support. However, this bill falls short of that goal. The negative aspects of this bill outweigh the benefits. Many have already argued for the need to update our financial laws. I would just add that I agree on the need for reform but oppose this approach.
With the economy more fragile than is popularly recognized, we should move cautiously as we initiate reforms. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan (in a 1997 speech in Frankfurt, Germany and other times), Kurt Richebacher, Frank Veneroso and others, have questioned the statistical accuracy of the economy's vaunted productivity gains.
Federal Reserve Governor Edward Gramlich today joined many others who are concerned about the strength of the economy when he warned that the low U.S. savings rate was a cause for concern. Coupled with the likely decline in foreign investment in the United States, he said that the economy will require some potentially `painful' adjustments--some combination of higher exports, higher interest rates, lower investment, and/or lower dollar values.
Such a scenario would put added pressure on the financial bubble. The growth in money and credit has outpaced both savings and economic growth. These inflationary pressures have been concentrated in asset prices, not consumer price inflation--keeping monetary policy too easy. This increase in asset prices has fueled domestic borrowing and spending.
Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. In addition to loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to the problem. The fourfold increases in their balance sheets from 1997 to 1998 boosted new home borrowings to more than $1.5 trillion in 1998, two-thirds of which were refinances which put an extra $15,000 in the pockets of consumers on average--and reduce risk for individual institutions while increasing risk for the system as a whole.
The rapidity and severity of changes in economic conditions can affect prospects for individual institutions more greatly than that of the overall economy. The Long Term Capital Management hedge fund is a prime example. New companies start and others fail every day. What is troubling with the hedge fund bailout was the governmental response and the increase in moral hazard.
This increased indication of the government's eagerness to bail out highly-leveraged, risky and largely unregulated financial institutions bodes ill for the post S. 900 future as far as limiting taxpayer liability is concerned. LTCM isn't even registered in the United States but the Cayman Islands!
Government regulations present the greatest threat to privacy and consumers' loss of control over their own personal information. In the private sector, individuals protect their financial privacy as an integral part of the market process by providing information they regard as private only to entities they trust will maintain a degree of privacy of which they approve. Individuals avoid privacy violators by `opting out' and doing business only with such privacy-respecting companies.
The better alternative is to repeal privacy busting government regulations. The same approach applies to Glass-Steagall and S. 900. Why not just repeal the offending regulation? In the banking committee, I offered an amendment to do just that. My main reasons for voting against this bill are the expansion of the taxpayer liability and the introduction of even more regulations. The entire multi-hundred page S. 900 that reregulates rather than deregulates the financial sector could be replaced with a simple one-page bill.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 900, GRAMM-LEACH-BLILEY ACT
------------
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
[Page: E2297]
Madam Speaker, today we are considering a bill aimed at modernizing the financial services industry through deregulation. It is a worthy goal which I support. However, this bill falls short of that goal. The negative aspects of this bill outweigh the benefits. Many have already argued for the need to update our financial laws. I would just add that I agree on the need for reform but oppose this approach.
With the economy more fragile than is popularly recognized, we should move cautiously as we initiate reforms. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan (in a 1997 speech in Frankfurt, Germany and other times), Kurt Richebacher, Frank Veneroso and others, have questioned the statistical accuracy of the economy's vaunted productivity gains.
Federal Reserve Governor Edward Gramlich today joined many others who are concerned about the strength of the economy when he warned that the low U.S. savings rate was a cause for concern. Coupled with the likely decline in foreign investment in the United States, he said that the economy will require some potentially `painful' adjustments--some combination of higher exports, higher interest rates, lower investment, and/or lower dollar values.
Such a scenario would put added pressure on the financial bubble. The growth in money and credit has outpaced both savings and economic growth. These inflationary pressures have been concentrated in asset prices, not consumer price inflation--keeping monetary policy too easy. This increase in asset prices has fueled domestic borrowing and spending.
Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. In addition to loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to the problem. The fourfold increases in their balance sheets from 1997 to 1998 boosted new home borrowings to more than $1.5 trillion in 1998, two-thirds of which were refinances which put an extra $15,000 in the pockets of consumers on average--and reduce risk for individual institutions while increasing risk for the system as a whole.
The rapidity and severity of changes in economic conditions can affect prospects for individual institutions more greatly than that of the overall economy. The Long Term Capital Management hedge fund is a prime example. New companies start and others fail every day. What is troubling with the hedge fund bailout was the governmental response and the increase in moral hazard.
This increased indication of the government's eagerness to bail out highly-leveraged, risky and largely unregulated financial institutions bodes ill for the post S. 900 future as far as limiting taxpayer liability is concerned. LTCM isn't even registered in the United States but the Cayman Islands!
Government regulations present the greatest threat to privacy and consumers' loss of control over their own personal information. In the private sector, individuals protect their financial privacy as an integral part of the market process by providing information they regard as private only to entities they trust will maintain a degree of privacy of which they approve. Individuals avoid privacy violators by `opting out' and doing business only with such privacy-respecting companies.
The better alternative is to repeal privacy busting government regulations. The same approach applies to Glass-Steagall and S. 900. Why not just repeal the offending regulation? In the banking committee, I offered an amendment to do just that. My main reasons for voting against this bill are the expansion of the taxpayer liability and the introduction of even more regulations. The entire multi-hundred page S. 900 that reregulates rather than deregulates the financial sector could be replaced with a simple one-page bill.
evince
Truthmatters
then why did the republicans refuse to implement the full bill?
did Clinton write the fucking bill?
Nope its titled GRAMM LEACH BLIELY huh
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Again you fucking moron... the parts they didn't implement were EXCEPTIONS... once the EXCEPTIONS took place, the banks were LESS regulated because they had the EXCEPTIONS to the rule then in place.
No, he signed it. Which is precisely what I stated.
desh, apparently you are going to go off into another tailspin with some partisan mud slinging about GLB and completely ignore the point, which was not about who was to blame but the accuracy of predictions made by Austrians. You are nothing more than a partisan hack, just like Krugman who is about the closest thing to an economist you have read and even then only his articles.