-
such as by Mises Inconveniently for him Mises died over 50 years ago, believe it or not, that's hampered his ability to stay up to date with the latest tools in economics. Math is just a set of tools, as Lam pointed out, it's a language. Over time more complicated and rigorous tools are developed, math advances, perhaps it is still inadequate
-
I posted some entirely reasonable comments on Kinsella's blog, for whatever reason (presumably keeping in line with not letting democrats speak) he decided to censor me and delete multiple replies. So I'll report a few comments that I have here. Another controversy erupted in 2004 when, during a money and banking class lecture, Professor Hoppe
-
Scientism relies on a " category error " (the nature of man vs. atoms as acting and non-acting things). The problem is that these mythical "mainstream economists" that believe all sorts of crazy things, like "atoms as acting and non-acting things" don't actually exist. Look, I'm willing to guess that you've
-
Seriously, he's right.
-
That's fair enough, I'm sorry I didn't manage to persuade you. You seemed overly defensive and distrusting from the go, although I daresay some remarks of mine may not have helped. Either way, I hope you change your mind about my posting, although that all too rarely happens.
-
The relevant portion of the graph should be that between 2007 and 2010, which shows a substantial and disprorportionate increase in the quantity of money in circulation. this is an example of a very poor post I don't see the problem with my post, the source cited by the OP clearly wasn't using the same definition of "inflation" as
-
That chart shows what exactly? Define your terms right and you're never wrong.
-
I'd say AE pretty much predicts those things. Not for a second, in fact, just the opposite is true. Austrian economics has largely been about the implications of spontaneous order theory, explaining how social outcomes arise that weren't guided by anybody, but seem if they were guided by an "invisible hand". Your explanation is just
-
Individuals are going to die. They are going to lose their possessions. If they take out insurance against the asteroid for their lives and homes, they transfer liability into the hands of a small group of people, who all have the monetary incentive (on top of life-death) to save the earth. They also now have the means readily at their disposal. You
-
No Giles, it was an excuse. That's why you used it. No, it was an explanation. If I sincerely felt sorry for "ignoring" said posts, then it would be an excuse. I'm not going to bicker with you over this though, if you wish to presume to know my actions better than I do, or consider so dishonest as to lie over something this petty there's