http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/20/prerecession-jobless-rate_n_652700.html
Remember a few months ago, when everyone was saying how our economy would recover soon? And the Austrian economists were warning that the "economic recovery" all of the economists were preaching about was mostly bunk? And then, when the airwaves were filled with stories of a "double dip" recession; the true economic condition came as a complete surprise to everyone except the Austrians. It seems that even the Keynesians are admitting the economy won't recover entirely for over 10 years. I feel vindicated, but I'm not happy about it.
Anyone have evidence that the Austrians were right and the Keynesians were wrong from the MSM? My Keynesian friend tells me that the Keynesians predicted this all along.
ViennaSausage - Do a search for Peter Schiff in youtube. There must be at least 100 different videos to choose from.
It seems that even the Keynesians are admitting the economy won't recover entirely for over 10 years. I feel vindicated, but I'm not happy about it.
Let's not be unfair. People like Paul Krugman were skeptical about recovery, as well, even if for entirely different reasons.
I will feel fully vindicated when these people acknowledge that Keynesian economics and the Fed are to blame, and start offering Austrian solutions to the problem. Until then, we will get more of the same, deepening the economic depression while claiming the free market is at fault.
The Huffington Post article you posted based its claim on the “progressive Center for Economic and Policy Research” which I consider a poor source for economic analysis since progressives misunderstand the economy. Even if unemployment fell to zero tomorrow due to government programs, that would not end the recession.
Viception: Government jobs are unprofitable because they consume more than they produce. If this was false, profit-seekers would have funded them already. The government can not know if it does anything profitably because it does not operate by profit and loss that tells it if it is using its resources well. If government raises taxes, borrows money, or inflates the currency, to spend money, it offsets private spending which is more efficient because people spend their own money more carefully than they spend other people’s money. If government taxes to spend, it transfers money from one person to another. If it borrows to spend, the lender has less money to spend. If it prints money to spend, the money loses value. Viewing government jobs is easy. Unseen are the jobs that could have been created and the loans that could have been made by the private sector.
Krugman is a example of correlation does not imply causation.
@ViennaSausage Keynesians for weeks have been all about the double dippers are nut jobs were okay, every single little number that comes above forecast they are always acting like that is great, a crap number being better then a crappier number is still crap, Keynesians are morons.
Can they prove that? I doubt it.
I am amazed at all of the "told you so" books written after the fact by former market bulls. They are only reactiing to what they see. Take Harry Dent for example. Look at his books and the dates they were written. He holds himself as a guy who knew all along but the titles and dates alone show that he is clueless.
"La cuestión es siempre la misma: que el gobierno o el mercado. No hay tercera solución." -Ludwig von Mises
True. The real reason is them being in charge. Their reason is the GD took that long.