Most of the people who don't feel the pinch of a lesser economy are gov employees or those eternally dependent on the gov. And I think that number is almost half of Americans now.
Is there any information supplied by our government at any level that is believable? I don't think so. It's all about managing perception and controlling citizens.
George Orwell called this "newspeak". The WH calls this a great victory for it's economic plan. History will call it historical revisionism. Liberals will call this racism....
Kinda proud of Gallup, calling State produced figures a lie is awesome! When I show my students how unemployment is figured out, they reacted in disbelief. But it really is pathetic. Have fun!
Yes. So we take all those people who have not been able to find a job and have become so discouraged and no longer even look (but would take a job if there were one to be taken) and we just remove them from the ranks of the jobless. Now that makes perfect sense.
I just saw this article and noticed you already posted it Robbie. I hope more and more people start to take notice and realize that this administrations successes are built on lies.
I am retired and now work part-time teaching at two different community colleges. I count as being out of the labor force because of my retirement status and I also count as holding TWO jobs in the governments "fuzzy math" numbers crunching.
Interesting. That adds another wrinkle to this. No wonder the Dems got crushed in last years election. You can mess with the numbers all you want but people know if they are doing well or not.
Economics is NOT a hard science. Economics is more a study of human action and that is not Objective. And yes value is subjective! There is no objective value of anything. When I'm at home I have all the water I need so I don't value it as highly as I would when I'm in the desert. The value of water in the desert when I'm dying of thirst becomes of utmost importance and I would trade anything to obtain water at that moment. So based on supply, demand and people's current circumstances people's values for things change. Btw, Kh you attacking Robbie like that is really silly and making you look like a fool. Everyone reading this post can see that.
Besides the objections that kh has about how some Austrians look at IP, I haven't been able to get her to say just what about the Austrian approach to viewing economics is wrong - or even counter to Objectivism.
You think that Austrian economic theory is somehow founded on religion? Or that religion supports Austrian economics over other economics? That strains credulity.
Fundamental tenets of Austrian School of Economics
Fritz Machlup listed the typical views of Austrian economic thinking.
(1) Methodological Individualism: In the explanation of economic phenomena we have to go back to the actions (or inaction) of individuals; groups or "collectives" cannot act except through the actions of individual members. (2) Methodological Subjectivism: In the explanation of economic phenomena we have to go back to judgments and choices made by individuals on the basis of whatever knowledge they have or believe to have and whatever expectations they entertain regarding external developments and especially the consequences of their own intended actions. (3) Tastes and Preferences: Subjective valuations of goods and services determine the demand for them so that their prices are influenced by (actual and potential) consumers. (4) Opportunity Costs: The costs with which producers and other economic actors calculate reflect the alternative opportunities that must be foregone; as productive services are employed for one purpose, all alternative uses have to be sacrificed. (5) Marginalism: In all economic designs, the values, costs, revenues, productivity, etc., are determined by the significance of the last unit added to or subtracted from the total.(6) Time Structure of Production and Consumption: Decisions to save reflect "time preferences" regarding consumption in the immediate, distant, or indefinite future, and investments are made in view of larger outputs expected to be obtained if more time-taking production processes are undertaken. Two important tenets held by the Misesian branch of Austrian economics may also be added to the list: (7) Consumer Sovereignty: The influence consumers have on the effective demand for goods and services and, through the prices which result in free competitive markets, on the production plans of producers and investors, is not merely a hard fact but also an important objective, attainable only by complete avoidance of governmental interference with the markets and of restrictions on the freedom of sellers and buyers to follow their own judgment regarding quantities, qualities, and prices of products and services. (8) Political Individualism: Only when individuals are given full economic freedom will it be possible to secure political and moral freedom. Restrictions on economic freedom lead, sooner or later, to an extension of the coercive activities of the state into the political domain, undermining and eventually destroying the essential individual liberties which the capitalistic societies were able to attain in the nineteenth century.
What the heck does any of that have to do with religion or religious thought? I think you're just throwing out red herrings to try to piss me off.
So, you use one of many Austrians to support your claim, because he slighted AR? You don't identify any of his actual economic theory as flawed.
And for the life of me I cannot see anything in the second citation that has anything to do with anything. Did you even read it? Is it merely because it is titled "A Catholic Looks at Austrian Economics?" Is the linking of religion and an economic theory in any minor way sufficient to negate the economic theory?
You are very irrational in presenting these sources as supporting whatever the hell you think is problematic with Austrian Economic theory. I certainly hope that there are folks here observing this back and forth who go and actually read through the items that you link, as well as what I posted above as the principle themes of Austrian Economics.
I find it interesting that one of the underlying tenants of statistics is that most distributions will assume a normal (bell shaped) curve as long as the sample size is large enough. Unfortunately, that is a lie! That means most statistical projections are not believable; GIGO - garbage in garbage out. The output of any statistical model can never be more accurate than the WORST of the assumptions that were plugged into it. But, garbage is highly prized in Washington! That is why econometrics, statistical economics, is so popular with government economists.
Not exactly true. Most statistics is taught using a normal distribution and the evaluation tools for a normal distribution, but those of us who use statistics as part of our jobs know how to use non-parametric tools to properly study non-normal distributions. Thus, not all statistics analysis provides fallacious info.
As for statistical models providing accuracy better than the "assumptions," that too isn't exactly correct. There are techniques to reduce the error of data - for example increasing the sample size decreases the standard error by 1 over the square root of the number of samples. A good statistical practitioner knows how to compensate for the type and quality of data.
All that aside, that doesn't mean that gov't statisticians are any good or aren't only out to support their ideological objectives by any means necessary.
The government fudges statistics! No way! haha And I agree with all the comments above. Our economy is not recovering today. The labor participation rate is at a 35 year low!
Be sure to include an economically sound definition of price gouging - when the free market bids up a price because of scarcity of supply coupled with a dramatic increase in demand (as was and is the case after EVERY major natural disaster) that is not price gouging; it is simply the market system using price as a rationing device. Most states call it price gouging because they are ignorant of basic economics.
Exactly, that's the point. And by making the profit suitable for the increased costs of transporting and/or stocking the valued supplies, they are made available when needed at an overall lower cost.
You want an everyday example go to any gas station in NE when a storm is coming. I filled up two days ago at $1.999 per gal, today the same station is $2.069. The difference is the global warming falling out of the sky today. We have had over 50" of global warming in just over a week.
That increased price will induce entrepreneurs to bring in more supplies since there will be enough profit to pay the additional cost incurred by transportation and the risk of not being able to get past storm-blocked roadways. That is the market system at work. IT is NOT a negative.
Is there a reason that you want to continue to lie about me?
And there are many more, and in my estimation much better, references on Capitalism than anything that a novelist would have presented. I prefer those who actually study economic theory.
No. Hayek, Block, Hazlitt, Menger, von Mises, etc.
I know you have a problem with Austrians as it pertains to IP, but from a strictly economic theory perspective, they have it right. AR had the moral argument, the Austrians have the "science". I already have my own basis for why it is moral, I'm interested in how it functions.
And again, why do you keep trying to tar and feather me with the socialist/progressive brush?
actually, the Austrians are anti-science. The whole basis of Hayek's argument for capitalism is that reason is limited. The whole basis of von Mises' argument is that human decisions are subjective and therefore prices are subjective. Science is not about subjectivity and it is certainly not about the "limits" of reason. oh-and here's my fav-things are not measurable in economics. wow. you get a minor point -there is not a school of economics that is based on science. and none which are consistent with natural rights, rand or the philosophical basis for science
I wouldn't call it anti-science from what I have read. I see it as a recognition of the current limitations, and counter to the pretense of big government claiming it can govern and control things it doesn't understand. (Not sure that my comments pertain to this thread though ;^)
You mis-represent things. Hayek didn't say that reason is limited, but that universal knowledge is impossible. Only if one could have knowledge of all needs, and reactions to prices could one centrally control an economy. This cannot be done, thus centralized control can never work.
I have not seen any evidence from a credible economist. While I appreciate Mr. Kelley for his philosophical understanding of Objectivism, he's no more an economist than I.
The problem that Kelley has with Hayek's description of the problems with knowledge and Socialism is that Kelley seems to think that Hayek was somehow stating that full knowledge was possible, and thus Socialism would be a moral means of running an economy. That could not be further from the truth. In fact, Hayek was stating that full knowledge can NEVER be possible, and thus Socialism must ALWAYS fail. That the conceit of those who think that they can know all and efficiently/effectively run an economy from a centralized control is inherently impossible and immoral. Only the free-market and market derived pricing are effective and moral.
robbie, the point is-people study economics and are completely irrational, off-base and ...well evil. I ask you to respond to reasoned arguments. You refuse to read them for reasons of your own. you refuse to address logical arguments. sigh. and sigh again.
What logical argument? I haven't seen a logical argument. I've told you that I read the Kelley article (actually read it quite a while ago) and reject it, and provided the reasoning as to why I find it incorrect.
WHERE did you actually take on the arguments? in argument form, not summary???? rejecting an objective reality in terms of economics is not science. let's quit dancing around here. you are religious. this argument suits you fine...
I've read Kelley's critique. I've also read Hayek directly, his acolytes and contemporaries who have expounded on the issue. I take their definition and description as true, and that Kelley merely is looking to discredit Hayek. I have my suspicions as to why, but have no proof.
I try to avoid that word as it was coined by Karl Marx as a derisive term to describe the "evil" market system. Marx is obviously smarter than the millions of people who freely exchange value for value without ANY third party intervention in the transaction. (just kidding) Marx was describing HIS utopia and expecting others to finance the associated costs of achieving it. BTW, Marx was a true freeloader - Engles supported him for most of his life as he was not interested in having a job and earning his keep. If he had taken a job, he would have been guilty of exchanging value for value; and therefore become a capitalist!
The problem that Kelley has with Hayek's description of the problems with knowledge and Socialism is that Kelley seems to think that Hayek was somehow stating that full knowledge was possible, and thus Socialism would be a moral means of running an economy. That could not be further from the truth. In fact, Hayek was stating that full knowledge can NEVER be possible, and thus Socialism must ALWAYS fail. That the conceit of those who think that they can know all and efficiently/effectively run an economy from a centralized control is inherently impossible and immoral. Only the free-market and market derived pricing are effective and moral.
What else is there? Kelley does not make any direct economic theory arguments.
The WH calls this a great victory for it's economic plan.
History will call it historical revisionism.
Liberals will call this racism....
When I show my students how unemployment is figured out, they reacted in disbelief. But it really is pathetic.
Have fun!
Besides the objections that kh has about how some Austrians look at IP, I haven't been able to get her to say just what about the Austrian approach to viewing economics is wrong - or even counter to Objectivism.
Fundamental tenets of Austrian School of Economics
Fritz Machlup listed the typical views of Austrian economic thinking.
(1) Methodological Individualism: In the explanation of economic phenomena we have to go back to the actions (or inaction) of individuals; groups or "collectives" cannot act except through the actions of individual members.
(2) Methodological Subjectivism: In the explanation of economic phenomena we have to go back to judgments and choices made by individuals on the basis of whatever knowledge they have or believe to have and whatever expectations they entertain regarding external developments and especially the consequences of their own intended actions.
(3) Tastes and Preferences: Subjective valuations of goods and services determine the demand for them so that their prices are influenced by (actual and potential) consumers.
(4) Opportunity Costs: The costs with which producers and other economic actors calculate reflect the alternative opportunities that must be foregone; as productive services are employed for one purpose, all alternative uses have to be sacrificed.
(5) Marginalism: In all economic designs, the values, costs, revenues, productivity, etc., are determined by the significance of the last unit added to or subtracted from the total.(6) Time Structure of Production and Consumption: Decisions to save reflect "time preferences" regarding consumption in the immediate, distant, or indefinite future, and investments are made in view of larger outputs expected to be obtained if more time-taking production processes are undertaken.
Two important tenets held by the Misesian branch of Austrian economics may also be added to the list:
(7) Consumer Sovereignty: The influence consumers have on the effective demand for goods and services and, through the prices which result in free competitive markets, on the production plans of producers and investors, is not merely a hard fact but also an important objective, attainable only by complete avoidance of governmental interference with the markets and of restrictions on the freedom of sellers and buyers to follow their own judgment regarding quantities, qualities, and prices of products and services.
(8) Political Individualism: Only when individuals are given full economic freedom will it be possible to secure political and moral freedom. Restrictions on economic freedom lead, sooner or later, to an extension of the coercive activities of the state into the political domain, undermining and eventually destroying the essential individual liberties which the capitalistic societies were able to attain in the nineteenth century.
What the heck does any of that have to do with religion or religious thought? I think you're just throwing out red herrings to try to piss me off.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/03/chris...
I just give you, the religionist value and you give me ???
And for the life of me I cannot see anything in the second citation that has anything to do with anything. Did you even read it? Is it merely because it is titled "A Catholic Looks at Austrian Economics?" Is the linking of religion and an economic theory in any minor way sufficient to negate the economic theory?
You are very irrational in presenting these sources as supporting whatever the hell you think is problematic with Austrian Economic theory. I certainly hope that there are folks here observing this back and forth who go and actually read through the items that you link, as well as what I posted above as the principle themes of Austrian Economics.
There are Lies,
There are Damn Lies,
and then there are Statistics.
There are few better ways to lie and have it believed than through statistics.
As for statistical models providing accuracy better than the "assumptions," that too isn't exactly correct. There are techniques to reduce the error of data - for example increasing the sample size decreases the standard error by 1 over the square root of the number of samples. A good statistical practitioner knows how to compensate for the type and quality of data.
All that aside, that doesn't mean that gov't statisticians are any good or aren't only out to support their ideological objectives by any means necessary.
And there are many more, and in my estimation much better, references on Capitalism than anything that a novelist would have presented. I prefer those who actually study economic theory.
yes, I would much rather study that "novelist"
I know you have a problem with Austrians as it pertains to IP, but from a strictly economic theory perspective, they have it right. AR had the moral argument, the Austrians have the "science". I already have my own basis for why it is moral, I'm interested in how it functions.
And again, why do you keep trying to tar and feather me with the socialist/progressive brush?
(Not sure that my comments pertain to this thread though ;^)
The problem that Kelley has with Hayek's description of the problems with knowledge and Socialism is that Kelley seems to think that Hayek was somehow stating that full knowledge was possible, and thus Socialism would be a moral means of running an economy. That could not be further from the truth. In fact, Hayek was stating that full knowledge can NEVER be possible, and thus Socialism must ALWAYS fail. That the conceit of those who think that they can know all and efficiently/effectively run an economy from a centralized control is inherently impossible and immoral. Only the free-market and market derived pricing are effective and moral.
What else is there? Kelley does not make any direct economic theory arguments.