-
Can someone please explain to me how the currently rising oil prices are the result of the feds actions and not turmoil in the middle east?
-
Yup. That would be what most people think of when they say "free-market economics". Its sad really...
-
Yes, I know hes a protectionist. I just thought his comments on Central bankng were hilarious, especially since he claims that free-market economists "worship" central banking. I also love his intellectual property thoughts, he seems absolutley oblivious to the fact that many libertarians are against IP laws.
-
I found this article from a korean economist by the name of Ha-Joon Chang. Chang is a big critic of "neo-liberal" capitalism. He likes to talk about how protectionsm is awesome and how free-markets dont work. I was about to dismiss him as just another noam chomsky type, then I read the latter parts of his article and I had to laugh. First
-
Does anyone know where I can find a good Austrian explanation for the Asian financial crisis? Thank you.
-
[quote]It was aided by and made worse by inflows through the capital account, but the investment decisions that drove the bubble were made largely by the Australian banks - this was an internal factor. [/quote] You don't seem to understand ABCT. The foregin capital flows are where the banks got the money. Yes, the banks themselves made the "mal
-
No, the internal asset bubble was caused by foreign capitali flows I.e. "external" factors. Secondly, a world wide depression occured in 1893 that started in the unted states (on the back of the free-silver movement, something which the people on this forum have yet to bring up...) that also contributed to the severity of the recession. [quote
-
[quote]You couldn't be more wrong. The 1891-1894 depression in Austrlia was a catastrophe:[/quote] A 3 year recession is still short. It may not have been "sweet" but persistently high unemployment is not something that is unknown to the modern economy either. The receesion was still less severe than the great depression and recovered
-
Kuehn's argument that recessions were far shorter in the post war and inter war periods i find to be a little disengenuous. First, I find an error in his focus on "averages". The average recession might have been shorter in the post-war period but the fact of the matter is, most of the major economic events have occured under the federal
-
Does anyone have a chart that recors the history of unemployment in the united states? One that will show me the rate of unemployment for every year. I am especially interested to see what the rate of unemployment was in the 19th century.