tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post5329234192244695620..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Peter Schiff trolls Sargent and SimsNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-85364311183475572302013-11-12T23:01:10.513-05:002013-11-12T23:01:10.513-05:00Peter is more qualified than those other economist...Peter is more qualified than those other economists, which pisses him off and makes him bitter, obviously. He predicted and laid out specifically why the 2008 crash was going to happen. If he was appreciated a little more by leftist media and the keynesian school economists then perhaps he wouldn't be so ready to mock them when they continually received Nobel prizes while he got no recognition for pointing out an event that negatively changed the lives of billions. You know what it's like loosing your financial security for the future? I'm 100% sure you don't or have not realized it.<br /><br />And why are you even blogging about Peter Schiff while admittedly knowing nothing about Austrian Economics? Where are your literature reviews on nanotechnology research? What about your physical theory of the universe? Oh right, if you engaged in those discussions you would only be making them more full of bs fueled by senseless arrogance, right? What makes you surgical blog about topics? Is it the fact that you can make inferences on ones credentials and professionalism based on the pronunciation of others names? Where is your library of blogs with this kind of analysis? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-30181500916435373892013-08-03T20:10:53.467-04:002013-08-03T20:10:53.467-04:00Bob, no disrespect, but you didn't respond to ...Bob, no disrespect, but you didn't respond to the substantive points I made. First of which was, by your own admission you are guilty of precisely the same defect that you accuse "Keynesians" of, ie, "not understanding" the position of your opponents. <br /><br />Second, even if the dollar is "backed" by gold, a standard loan would still create money out of thin air. Because the issuing bank is going to credit my bank account with an electronic deposit. They aren't going to send an armored vehicle to my house and deliver a sack of gold coins.<br /><br />And you fundamentally ignored the careful arguments put forth by Greg Hill. And frankly, that last rant of yours sounds seriously paranoid. But all that aside, I wish you the best.mattskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07936264188400397646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-31126909359855058882013-08-03T12:47:59.018-04:002013-08-03T12:47:59.018-04:00Mattski: I thank you again for your thorough, fact...Mattski: I thank you again for your thorough, fact-based and thoughtful analysis.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-55468673852426765682013-08-03T11:13:49.817-04:002013-08-03T11:13:49.817-04:00Since no one has basically even HEARD the basic Au...<i>Since no one has basically even HEARD the basic Austrian analysis or HEARD OF the basic Austrian analysis thanks to perpetual avoidance and suppression by Keynesians who control the government supported education systems worldwide and who basically control all major media worldwide...</i><br /><br />I guess I just have to say, Yikes.mattskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07936264188400397646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-65933556286273567902013-08-02T22:17:28.493-04:002013-08-02T22:17:28.493-04:00Anonymous: I only pointed out that Schiff called ...Anonymous: I only pointed out that Schiff called the housing bubble in 2006 and was mocked for it. I don't feel strongly one way or the other about him. I didn't predict imminent hyper-inflation back in 2009 since I thought most of the new funny money would go into jacking up the price of worthless and/or "troubled" assets for the elite. I was right about that but never thought the American people would have tolerated it like zombies for as long the way they have.<br /><br />I'm also sick and tired of a few mistaken forecasts for high inflation in the post 2009 period being the basis for claiming all Austrians (or Austrian analysis itself) made such a forecast.<br /><br />I also figured that it was so obvious that the housing bust and bad times were caused by Keynesian and "progressive" policies that this would be seen by everyone. I certainly never predicted that such an obvious hoax and scheme for the elite to loot average people would become so popular with hip "progressives". So that's my bad prediction.<br /><br />Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-85453725813202530992013-08-02T20:35:24.524-04:002013-08-02T20:35:24.524-04:00@Bob Roddis i don´t agree with you on almost anyth...@Bob Roddis i don´t agree with you on almost anything when it comes to economics or politics.But i don´t have anything against you at all on the personal level.I honestly believe you are a decent person in private life and probarly a nice guy.I guess you are honest in your believes in libertarianism,idealistic and in my view unrealistic in extreme.<br />But i respect your views,you believe in what you think is right,and that not for your personal gains.But i think you do your own cause a great deal of harm defend such a guy as Peter Schiff a person i heard so many libertarian friends hate more then a Joe Stalin or Keynes or what ever is worst to a Austrian Libertarian.They hate for the reason that they think he is useing the Austrian school cred just to peddle his stuff whatever it is,and discredite the Austrian school.They hate the guy more than anybody else,and their sick and tired to be compared with Peter Schiff,they told me,and i hear it all the time.They serouisly want that the mises istitute and the other whatever Austrian organisations distance tem self from that charlatan they told me.I can´t understand why a guy like defend such Snake Oil Salesman,that just use your cred.I don´t care a bit but i just wonder why?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-74764530721843134682013-08-02T11:46:26.499-04:002013-08-02T11:46:26.499-04:00Daniel Kuehn: However, this is the first time sinc...Daniel Kuehn: <i>However, this is the first time since the Great Depression that Hayek’s business cycle theory (as opposed to his broader philosophical perspectives) has registered at all in the public imagination, raising the obvious question: is there anything to the theory?</i><br /><br />http://danielpkuehn.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/abct-article-for-critical-review.pdf<br /><br />BTW, I lean towards Rothbard and have numerous problems with Hayek myself. That does not change the fact that Keynesians know nothing about basic AUSTRIAN (vs Hayekian, which they don't know either) concepts and analysis. Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-87576441494085472852013-08-02T10:18:49.959-04:002013-08-02T10:18:49.959-04:00Guess there isn't much of a market for them is...<i>Guess there isn't much of a market for them is there?</i><br /><br />Since no one has basically even HEARD the basic Austrian analysis or HEARD OF the basic Austrian analysis thanks to perpetual avoidance and suppression by Keynesians who control the government supported education systems worldwide and who basically control all major media worldwide, it's amazing to me the amount trouble we're still able to cause. Even though Hayek won the Nobel Prize for his work on the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, it has always been beyond the pale for Keynesians to bother to learn what that theory is. Keynes and Hayek had been going at it for years, but "The General Theory" meticulously avoids any mention or discussion of Austrian analysis or concepts. There's a reason for that. Keynes would have lost the argument and Keynes did not want the world to even know about the opposition to his hoax.<br /><br />There have been no "counter-arguments" other than white knuckle fear constantly expressed by Keynesians that they are probably wrong and the cause of our problems which is expressed by their suppression, marginalization and distortion of their most vigorous opponents. As you have done up and down these comments.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-68155917543033133162013-08-02T06:00:17.380-04:002013-08-02T06:00:17.380-04:00There probably are not enough Austrian advisors at...<i>There probably are not enough Austrian advisors at this point to make a difference.</i><br /><br />Guess there isn't much of a market for them is there?<br /><br />(Bob, the evidence on this thread is overwhelming that you deal with counter-arguments by ignoring them.)mattskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07936264188400397646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-51468007209736762802013-08-01T17:42:55.575-04:002013-08-01T17:42:55.575-04:00Now, it seems to follow from this view that firms ...<i>Now, it seems to follow from this view that firms with Austrian economic advisors, who can foresee bubbles, recognize mispriced assets, etc., will outperform firms with non-Austrian advisors. Is this what you see happening?</i><br /><br />There probably are not enough Austrian advisors at this point to make a difference. I suppose in the future if there are enough such advisors, your question would be a good test of the analysis.<br /><br />There is also the problem that if someone has a lot of nerve and skill, an investor can make a lot of money riding the boom while knowing exactly when to get out of the market. Just knowing Austrian theory in general is no guarantee that someone can pick the right time to get out before the bust ensues. Or that they would necessarily know which lines of production are the most susceptible to a collapse. And/or when.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-33434048493765178972013-08-01T17:19:18.282-04:002013-08-01T17:19:18.282-04:00Mr. Roddis,
"If you understand Austrian anal...Mr. Roddis,<br /><br />"If you understand Austrian analysis, you know that. Mr. Hill states, "[T]hen it’s silly to criticize the Fed for what NO ONE could foresee…"<br /><br />Austrians could foresee. The Fed, Keynesians, monetarists and the various inflationist schools REFUSE TO SEE." <br /><br />I'm afraid you missed the point. Let me pose a question that might prompt you to think a little more critically about your point of view. I think you'll agree that firms with a better understanding of their markets than their rivals' understanding will increase their market share while the latter firms will lose market share. Now, it seems to follow from this view that firms with Austrian economic advisors, who can foresee bubbles, recognize mispriced assets, etc., will outperform firms with non-Austrian advisors. Is this what you see happening? <br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11677815746117897839noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-52461717908666975452013-08-01T16:52:49.864-04:002013-08-01T16:52:49.864-04:00from my perspective you are simply horrified by th...<i>from my perspective you are simply horrified by the nature of money.</i><br /><br />Such a deep and thoughtful analysis.Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-68645895081526310742013-08-01T14:33:42.985-04:002013-08-01T14:33:42.985-04:00It's clear you don't understand it.
You ...<i> It's clear you don't understand it. </i><br /><br />You have already admitted you don't understand why people disagree with you, so we're on even ground at least as far as you are concerned, right?<br /><br />Actually, I don't understand why a loan in dollars that are backed by gold doesn't create currency out of thin air also. Unless my loan takes the form of gold coins which I must physically return to the lender, then it seems to me the loan itself constitutes money created from nothing.<br /><br />But, from my perspective you are simply horrified by the nature of money. Money is a social convention. You may walk around in a state of perpetual horror but that doesn't have any effect on the nature of money.mattskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07936264188400397646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-5237091683665773562013-08-01T13:18:53.914-04:002013-08-01T13:18:53.914-04:00Regarding Schiff and Mish….
Predicting when a bus...Regarding Schiff and Mish….<br /><br />Predicting when a bust is going to begin is always hard and the determination is empirically based. Predicting what is going to happen after a bust begins is also hard. If the authorities are not going to allow an effective repricing of everything quickly and insist upon squirting new fiat money into the system, the new fiat money is generally going to raise the price of those assets and lines of production that receive the new fiat money first. Mish assumed a big collapse in assets prices would inhibit CPI inflation. Schiff assumed that new money would be going to consumers. I assumed that the new money would go to prop up the prices of assets owned by the elite and super-low rates would cause perpetual bad times. I was right. <br />Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-51606345399709476152013-08-01T12:47:16.893-04:002013-08-01T12:47:16.893-04:00Two late thoughts:
1) Luck -- here's a link m...Two late thoughts:<br /><br />1) Luck -- here's a link making the rounds about the role of luck, noticed it on Economist's View. http://blog.philbirnbaum.com/2013/07/luck-careers-and-income-inequality.html<br /><br />2) Schiff and the like -- if people are paying substantial costs for their beliefs (losing money, going to jail), it seems plausible that they do actually believe what they're saying.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-36917083494056209512013-08-01T09:24:32.105-04:002013-08-01T09:24:32.105-04:00Mattski:
Did you read the link [Hill] posted?
Y...Mattski:<br /><br /><i>Did you read the link [Hill] posted?</i><br /><br />Yes. In his post, Mr. Hill stated:<br /><br /><i>Here’s the inconsistency: if a credit bubble can only be discerned after the fact, then it’s silly to criticize the Fed for what no one could foresee; and if a credit bubble can be discerned in its early stages, then market participants will take actions, e.g., reducing credit-financed expenditures, which will burst the bubble in its early stages. Therefore, Austrian economists should either be more circumspect in their critique of the Fed, or they should retool their model of the business cycle.</i><br /><br />Mr. Hill does not appear to understand that these problems all begin with the mis-pricing of assets, goods and services because they are being artificially bid up with fiat money loans created out of thin air or Fed purchases made with money created out of thin air. If you understand Austrian analysis, you know that. If you don't, you don't. One should be constantly horrified by the process of perpetual mis-pricing most everything. <br /><br />The main purpose of "monetary policy" is basically to prevent and distort the pricing process. If you understand Austrian analysis, you know that. Mr. Hill states, "[T]hen it’s silly to criticize the Fed for what NO ONE could foresee…"<br /><br />Austrians could foresee. The Fed, Keynesians, monetarists and the various inflationist schools REFUSE TO SEE. <br /><br />That is not an "inconsistency" in our theory. Further, it supports my view that no Keynesians UNDERSTAND OR ARE FAMILIAR with the concept of the distortion of the pricing process by fiat money. It's clear you don't understand it. <br />Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-18481764505181970352013-08-01T08:48:30.469-04:002013-08-01T08:48:30.469-04:00QE is, nevertheless, creating money that was not p...QE is, nevertheless, creating money that was not previously in existence. And they are doing so at the rate of $85 billion per month. Keep in mind that this is in addition to a FED funds rate that has been held well below the inflation rate for going on five years now. This in itself is inflationary.<br /><br />You wrote: "Now, if the central bank is swapping one kind of money for another kind, how does that change to size of the money supply?" By creating money that did not previously exist and using it as the swapping money, that's how. I thought we already established this. It would be different if the FED was simply cashing out the short term treasuries already on its balance sheet and using the proceeds to purchase longer term bonds, which is precisely what the FED was doing in Operation Twist. This was not, in and of itself, inflationary.<br /><br />The FED had to end Operation Twist because it ran out of short term treasuries to sell. So they had to return to the printing press. They need to keep buying long term bonds. If they stop completely, the housing market will once again collapse, and the large financial institutions will go down with them, which will take the stock market down too. The FED has to continue printing in order to keep buying the bonds. <br /><br />The FED should just let the market collapse. But as we saw in 2008, the political leaders do not have the stomach for that. They need to keep propping up the market with new money, thereby preventing the housing and stock market collapse that would otherwise ensue.<br /><br />This can go on for some time, but not forever. Eventually the inflation will start to show up in consumer goods, and when it does, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the FED to stop by making changes in monetary policy.<br /><br />Neilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01380636832924052375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-31608585775080920532013-08-01T06:52:01.778-04:002013-08-01T06:52:01.778-04:00I'm not so sure about the war part, or that he...I'm not so sure about the war part, or that he sees it that way, but it seems to me that as long as there are people willing to entrust him with almost $300 million, on which he charges fees that give him and his brother a couple million a year, why on earth would he say he had ever been wrong about anything?Procopiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17554355440319405363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-79205479429251722142013-08-01T01:13:43.865-04:002013-08-01T01:13:43.865-04:00It is inexplicable to me that people cannot see th...<i>It is inexplicable to me that people cannot see the entire fiat system as creating phony and unsustainable prices and investments.</i><br /><br />So you don't understand why everyone doesn't agree with you. Then why do you accuse "Keynesians" of not understanding Austrian analysis? You admit you are equally guilty! <br /><br />Except there is ample evidence that many, many people have looked earnestly at what you call Austrian economics and made good faith efforts to understand it. Greg Hill is living proof. Did you read the link he posted? mattskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07936264188400397646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-20101884975951560252013-07-31T23:42:00.193-04:002013-07-31T23:42:00.193-04:001. I’ve been accusing Keynesians, monetarists, so...1. I’ve been accusing Keynesians, monetarists, socialists and commies of having no familiarity with Austrian concepts and analysis since 1973. <br /><br />http://mises.org/media/2773<br /><br />I always assumed that a proper response to such a challenge would take the form of:<br /><br />“You are wrong. I am familiar with and understand Austrian concepts and analysis. For example:<br />Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”<br /><br />This never happens. Instead, the response generally takes the form of:<br /><br />“Fringe fringe fringe! Neo-confederate! Racist racist racist! Austrians can’t do math!” <br /> <br />Such responses suggest to me that the accused has no familiarity with Austrian concepts and analysis. I then wonder why Keynesians have such a hysterical and vicious reaction to something that they clearly do not understand at all.<br /><br />2. Mr. Hill: I submit that the basic Austrian concept is the concept of economic calculation. Under socialism, economic calculation is virtually impossible because free exchange and thus unadulterated prices have been abolished. Poverty ensues. <br /><br />In a related fashion, fiat money loans induce distorted prices which impair economic calculation. A house that originally cost $50,000 is artificially bid up to $250,000 solely from fiat money loans created out of nothing. At some point it will become evident that there will not be buyers with $250,000 worth of goods and services to exchange for that house. At that point, the house (and most everything else) will need to be repriced by the market (but the Keynesian response is to move heaven and earth to prevent the necessary repricing). As such, I don’t view the recent housing bubble and bust to be a “classic” Austrian business cycle because economic miscalculation can arise in a multiplicity of situations. Nevertheless, it was the result of economic miscalculation caused by fiat money loans. <br /><br />It is inexplicable to me that people cannot see the entire fiat system as creating phony and unsustainable prices and investments. But they don’t. If they did, they would get rid of the system. I fail to see how that phenomenon refutes Austrian analysis. <br /><br />I don’t particularly care for the term the “natural rate” of interest. Society requires unadulterated market interest rates which a central bank can never replicate. Interest rates are nothing but prices. As Hayek explained in a different context in 1975:<br /><br /><i>The primary cause of the appearance of extensive unemployment, however, is a deviation of the actual structure of prices and wages from its equilibrium structure. Remember, please: that is the crucial concept. The point I want to make is that this equilibrium structure of prices is something which we cannot know beforehand because the only way to discover it is to give the market free play; by definition, therefore, the divergence of actual prices from the equilibrium structure is something that can never be statistically measured.</i><br /><br />Similarly, one cannot know what the “natural” rates of interest will be until the market for interest rates is given free play.<br /><br />Bob Roddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17263804608074597937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-10902254792742569382013-07-31T23:02:41.126-04:002013-07-31T23:02:41.126-04:00Over 3% in fees, loads over 4% and 8% on pms.
T...Over 3% in fees, loads over 4% and 8% on pms. <br /><br />The brother basically looks stuff up and sends him articles that he can spin. $350K newsfeed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-13911192121821436802013-07-31T22:55:07.028-04:002013-07-31T22:55:07.028-04:00It is all part of his sales pitch. His whole life...It is all part of his sales pitch. His whole life rotates around generating a commission, fee, sale, spread by spreading doom, fear and worry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-88961961978416511902013-07-31T22:52:21.090-04:002013-07-31T22:52:21.090-04:00Mish bashed Schiff for precious metals and mining ...Mish bashed Schiff for precious metals and mining stock investing for years and years. Now Mish is investing precious metals and mining stocks. Ring - goes the bell.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-29205473383234599612013-07-31T21:50:27.043-04:002013-07-31T21:50:27.043-04:00I've heard the "You’ve lost. We’ve won. I...I've heard the "You’ve lost. We’ve won. It’s over." meme a lot from Young Earth Creationists too. They keep declaring victory every few years just to remind everyone unless it gets forgotten in the constant deluge of empirically confirmed evolutionary hypotheses in biology, genomics, and geology. <br /><br />I would think the dearth of real research being done by self-proclaimed Austrians would be enough to rest the subject among anyone with enough education to understand the importance of such research. But then again, Praxeology claims that empiricism cannot tell us anything useful that isn't already told by deductions from the Action Axiom. So why bother with dirty stuff like data or mathematical models? <br /><br />Austrian "economics" is pseudo-science because, whatever else it might claim, it's methodology is totally bunk.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05932496549711542374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-27735982252245094722013-07-31T21:46:08.672-04:002013-07-31T21:46:08.672-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05932496549711542374noreply@blogger.com