Essential Economics for Politicians

Please tell us more about how Libertarian policy is what we need...

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-kansas-economy-20161031-story.html

"Kansas is still bleeding, thanks to tea party economics"

"Who’s to blame for this? The state’s voters are. While they already were feeling the pain, they reelected Brownback to a second term in 2014, at which point things got worse. Why? Maybe the electorate revels in the state’s role as a “laboratory for supply side nostrums,” as economist Menzie Chinn of the University of Wisconsin called it recently. Some of those who voted for Brownback deserve what they’re getting. But they’re imposing the disaster on a lot of innocent people."
 
Please tell us more about how Libertarian policy is what we need...

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-kansas-economy-20161031-story.html

"Kansas is still bleeding, thanks to tea party economics"

"Who’s to blame for this? The state’s voters are. While they already were feeling the pain, they reelected Brownback to a second term in 2014, at which point things got worse. Why? Maybe the electorate revels in the state’s role as a “laboratory for supply side nostrums,” as economist Menzie Chinn of the University of Wisconsin called it recently. Some of those who voted for Brownback deserve what they’re getting. But they’re imposing the disaster on a lot of innocent people."

Libertarian policy? You mean because people spend their money better then the government can?

Kansas: An Unsung Hero For Economic Growth

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinq...unsung-hero-for-economic-growth/#3272806a5992
 
You mean because people spend their money better then the government can?

This statement in isolation, is not true. Free market solutions are usually preferable, but not always. Prisons would be a good example of where market based solutions are a very bad idea. Finding the right balance between municipal services that need to be paid for with taxes and market solutions is best, imo. What taxation level is best is up for debate and I think is not a set number, but varies incredibly based on many different factors.
 
This statement in isolation, is not true. Free market solutions are usually preferable, but not always. Prisons would be a good example of where market based solutions are a very bad idea. Finding the right balance between municipal services that need to be paid for with taxes and market solutions is best, imo. What taxation level is best is up for debate and I think is not a set number, but varies incredibly based on many different factors.
Didn't you mean in isolation my statement is true? Our government has no problem implementing private prisons in the aggregate. That's how we got ACA. You seem to agree that one size fits all policies yield less then favorable results.
 
On pages 642-643 of Will Durant’s remarkable book Caesar and Christ(1944) he discusses Diocletian‘s economic policies. (Diocletian reigned from 282 to 305 A.D.)

In years of peace Diocletian, with his aides, faced the problems of economic decay. To overcome depression and prevent revolution he substituted a managed economy for the law of supply and demand…. To ensure the supply of necessaries for the cities and the armies, he brought many branches of industry under complete state control, beginning with the import of grain; he persuaded the shipowners, merchants, and crews engaged in this trade to accept such control in return for government guarantee of security in employment and returns…. In 301 Diocletian and his colleagues [joint rulers of an administratively divided empire] issued an Edictum de pretiis, dictating maximum legal prices or wages for all important articles or services in the Empire…. The Edict was until our time the most famous example of an attempt to replace economic laws by governmental decrees. Its failure was rapid and complete.
 
CHART: Here's How 175 Various Items Affect The Rate Of Inflation

http://www.businessinsider.com/breakdown-of-consumer-price-index-basket-2014-1

Somehow we always interpret "inflation" as price change (symptom) as opposed to the cause, an increase in money supply.
Money supply is not the only cause of inflation. A low level of inflation actually helps cushion the impact of a recession.

You believe that the Fed is responsible for the bust and boom cycles because it manipulates money supply that causes inflation. That belief is not supported empirically. In the 100 years before the Fed was created, there were 44 recessions. In the 100+ years since, there were 22. The boom and bust cycle is inherent in a free market. A free market is not entirely rational.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wez
So itʻs your understanding that the 2008 crisis was cushioned by low inflation?
To be honest with you, I'm very tempted to give you links, but you're already very well read. Plus, I definitely don't want to start a links war with you. :)
 
To be honest with you, I'm very tempted to give you links, but you're already very well read. Plus, I definitely don't want to start a links war with you. :)

I'm not sure Izzy reads much of the stuff he copies. He is rarely able to discuss any of the content in a manner that would lead me to believe he understands it.
 
You believe that the Fed is responsible for the bust and boom cycles because it manipulates money supply that causes inflation.
An increase in money supply (inflation of money supply) causes a decrease in the price of borrowing money (interest). A decrease in the cost of money (interest rates) causes an increase in home prices because more people have access to more money to buy/sell homes. You don't need links to understand the economic forces of supply and demand.
 
Back
Top