The above chart was posted at another forum by a fiat and socialism zealot. It came from a blog. It was in an article in the blog titled, Another Strike Against a Gold Standard. How do you interpret the chart?
"The best way to bail out the economy is with liberty, not with federal reserve notes." - pairunoyd
"The vision of the Austrian must be greater than the blindness of the sheeple." - pairunoyd
Cause and effect are missing...
LOL, I almost got beer on my screen!
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Fri. 12/06/22 18:31 EDT.post #179Assuming "industrial production" is measured in terms of money, then one question is: Are the money numbers corrected for inflation, or not? If not, then how are we to know if actual production is increasing, or just the money numbers (reflecting continuously devaluing money), or a combination of the two?Also, Germany originally went off the gold standard in 1914 (source), so I'd like to see a chart of the German IPI (Industrial Production Index, and also Index of Industrial Production) from say, 1914 to 1920. If forsaking the gold standard engenders greater industrial production (as the amended chart from The origins and nature of the Great Slump, revisited by Barry J Eichengreen seems to indicate) then a chart of the German IPI from 1914 to 1920 would be increasing reading from left to right. Is this actually the case?
After 1920 during the German hyper-inflation, I don't think such a chart, measured in rapidly devaluing dollars Deutsche Marks Papiermarks, would tell us anything about the rate at which industrial production was changing.
Edit:Also, the amendment "The Earlier You Abandon the Gold Standard and Start Your New Deal, the Better..." suggests that "increased industrial production" is somehow "better"...but, is this true? "Better" in what sense, and for whom? Was the increased industrial (war) production of World War II "better" for the civilians who had to suffer rationing, shortages, decreased selection, inferior quality goods, etc.?
very good stuff MMMark.
Fri. 12/06/22 19:14 EDT.post #180Thank you!
Edit:I know Cam Hui's blog entry is 21 months old, but feel free to post a link back to this thread in the comments section.
Maybe he can "get schooled by (our) Austrian perspective."
If the data of the previous two decades were also included on that chart, all the post gold standard data of the Western nations on that chart would look quite poor.
I think Bob Murphy tackled this one in a Mises Daily. Can you find it, JJ?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Fri. 12/06/22 23:02 EDT.post #181Is this the one, Dave?
I highly recommend that article. I just read it, and I can assure you it throughly debunks the graph.
Is this the one, Dave?
Is this the one, Dave?
JJ just got REPLACED!
Sat. 12/06/23 10:35 EDT.post #182eichengreen murphy site:mises.org/daily and "Bob's your uncle."
pairunoyd:How do you interpret the chart?
The same way I interpret this one.
Wheylous:JJ just got REPLACED!
Nah, just got some more back up
In a similar note, Krugman recently tried to claim increased national debt causes economic growth by a tactic known as "strangling the data":
"He supports his claim by looking at 5 countries and showing that the countries with higher debt levels grew faster over the last 3 months. Thousands of Krugman zombies must have been elated to finally see hard evidence that the 1% aren't any smarter or harder working: All you have to do is take on a lot of credit card debt."
"But an economic Jedi -- an undergraduate from the University of Illinois -- uncovered the subtle flaw in Krugman's logic: The earth has more than 5 countries, and the world wasn't created 3 months ago. The student used a graph posted on his Facebook page to show that if you look at the 21 largest countries over the past year, you see a strong, clear relationship: Economies with higher debt grow less. (By the way, the IMF agrees with the undergrad.)"