Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

How do the Austrians refute the stimulus money thoeries

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 19 Replies | 7 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
115 Posts
Points 5,265
inquisitiveteenager posted on Fri, Jun 19 2009 1:07 AM

 

If the governemnt taxes from one group to give to another, I understand this is not stimulus.

If the government did print a little money and gave it to everybody, you  cannot deny it would not kick start the economy.

If they did it every so often, people would spend a little more.

I am really keen on learning the Austrian theories and if this Keynesian theory is fallacious, please point them

out.

  • | Post Points: 140

All Replies

Not Ranked
11 Posts
Points 265

I understand that they are not actually offering anything as this money has been created out of fresh air but they create an illusion that they have. In the long run this process is purely inflationary but it could it not be argued that in the short run that it will produce some form of increase in economic activity because if the government had not of created this money then surely the motor firm would not of produced these extra cars.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
7,105 Posts
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

yes, the creation of and spending of fiduciary media will be a form of increase in economic activity if one is measuring quantities of media exchanged and calling this economic activity, but it is a destructive and counter productive economic activity.

 

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
471 Posts
Points 9,105

Well, this won't be for Austrians, but Kevin Murphy of the University of Chicago showed a lot of good math to suggest that the multiplier effect of government spending is actually negative so that for every $100 spent, $80 would be lost.

existence is elsewhere

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,651 Posts
Points 51,325
Moderator

sammc699:
But when people consume more this is an increase in demand and will meen that firms will produce more doesn't it?

No. An increase in demand does not necessarily mean that their will be an increase in production. An increase in consumption means that firms will have less money with which to repair, buy, and produce capital goods. This is because an increase in consumption necessarily means a decrease in saving, leading to a an increase in interest rates. Higher interest rates means that firms cannot purchase repair/purchase/produce large amounts of capital goods because they simply cannot obtain the funding to do so.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
2,028 Posts
Points 51,580
limitgov replied on Sat, Jun 20 2009 10:29 PM

inquisitiveteenager:

 

If the governemnt taxes from one group to give to another, I understand this is not stimulus.

If the government did print a little money and gave it to everybody, you  cannot deny it would not kick start the economy.

If they did it every so often, people would spend a little more.

I am really keen on learning the Austrian theories and if this Keynesian theory is fallacious, please point them

out.

We are done having to defend common sense....

the tables are turning....

you have to defend forced counterfieting by the federal government....thats stealing.....

defend that....

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 2 (20 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS