Unemployment falls below 9%

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

For obvious reasons, I did not save that swill to my youTube favorites. It will take a while to find.

While you're hunting, take notes if you stumble across the answer to this...

The value of a day's labor is a day's decent provisions. If you employ someone for a day, that is what you owe him.

This is obviously false. Some people's labor has negative value (thieves, etc.). Some have zero value (layabouts). Some have positive but small value (trainees).

None of whom you hire if you have the IQ of a turnip.

What pre-employment stigmata distinguish layabouts and thieves from the population at large?

...question, comrade.

For that reason, you have no shred of evidence that Friedman's crap works. We do have proof that FDR did no harm, because the ecconomy remained stable until 1980.

1. NOT ("evidence" = "proof").
2. You have a strange concept of "stable", comrade.

 

[BenBurch]

NM

 

[leftysergeant]

While you're hunting, take notes if you stumble across the answer to this......question, comrade.1. NOT ("evidence" = "proof").
2. You have a strange concept of "stable", comrade.

Massive bank failures and foreclosures are not a sign of stability. Think about it.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Massive bank failures and foreclosures are not a sign of stability. Think about it.

Neither are Carter-era unemployment and inflation. Think about it.

 

[leftysergeant]

Neither are Carter-era unemployment and inflation. Think about it.

Do you have data for the number of bank failures and foreclosures for that period, compared to the final years of the Shrub's interregnum?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Do you have data for the number of bank failures and foreclosures for that period, compared to the final years of the Shrub's interregnum?

Interrernum? Interregnum? Like, only Democrats legitimately hold office?

 

[BenBurch]

Interrernum? Interregnum? Like, only Democrats legitimately hold office?

It would have been nice if we had simply counted the votes.

 

[Corsair 115]

Do you have data for the number of bank failures and foreclosures for that period, compared to the final years of the Shrub's interregnum?

I can't help with bank failures during the 1970s, but I can provide the following. The FDIC web site has a page which lists all the bank failures since 2000. The numbers per year break down as follows:

2000: 2
2001: 4
2002: 11
2003: 3
2004: 4
2005: 0
2006: 0
2007: 3
2008: 25
2009: 140
2010: 157
2011: 90

To offer a contrast, here in Canada the last bank failure was in the mid-1980s. Nor did this country have a subprime mortgage disaster, teetering financial institutions requiring a massive public bailout, or a housing market which collapsed. We avoided those catastrophes entirely.

 

[lomiller]

c) I read the (short) book-length excerpt from Milton Friedman's A Monetary History of the United States,

You did huh? SO do you agree with Freedman's assessment that having the central bank print money is the best way to deal with low economic growth in a sharp economic downturn.?

(Hayek, ed.), which deals mostly with the factory system in 19th century England.

Interesting that you would lump those two together seeing as how Friedman was a frequent critic of Hayek and his fellow Austrian philosophers attempts at economics.

 

[leftysergeant]

Ecconomics is largely conjecture, hardly a real science.Friedman and Hayek were both nuts and talked in a dialect of English unknown to most people outside their particular cults.

 

[BenBurch]

Happy birthday, Lefty!

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You did huh? SO do you agree with Freedman's assessment that having the central bank print money is the best way to deal with low economic growth in a sharp economic downturn?

Where? I read quite a bit of his work, and he consistently advocated a transparent rule of steady expansion of the money supply at a rate that matched the long-term growth rate of the economy. I suppose he'd admit exceptions. Advanteges and disadvantages of different monetary schemes are a matter for experts. I have my opinion, but I'm not expert, and this is not the forum for that anyway.

Interesting that you would lump those two together seeing as how Friedman was a frequent critic of Hayek and his fellow Austrian philosophers attempts at economics.

Milton Friedman wrote a laudatory introduction to a late edition of Hayek's Road to Serfdom. Different schools of economic theory probably differ less than outsiders believe. Just as conferences on virology or plant taxonomy will feature disputes between specialists, these specialists operate on the same theoretical foundations. The Austrians have an interesting point: most measures of economic activity are proxies for unobserved terms such as preferences and motivations. The difference between Austrians and Chicago-school economists is analogous to the difference between topology and Cartesian geometry. One is metric and the other is not. They measure different things.

 

[lomiller]

Where? I read quite a bit of his work, and he consistently advocated a transparent rule of steady expansion of the money supply at a rate that matched the long-term growth rate of the economy.

Either you didn't read his work or you didn't even understand the most basic elements of it. Friedman advocated using creation base money to achieve a stead expansion of M2 money. AKA Quantitative Easing in the current discourse.

He said the following of Japan when it was suffering from it's "lost decade" back in the 90's

The Bank of Japan can buy government bonds on the open market…" he wrote in 1998. "Most of the proceeds will end up in commercial banks, adding to their reserves and enabling them to expand…loans and open-market purchases. But whether they do so or not, the money supply will increase…. Higher money supply growth would have the same effect as always. After a year or so, the economy will expand more rapidly; output will grow, and after another delay, inflation will increase moderately."

Milton Friedman wrote a laudatory introduction to a late edition of Hayek's Road to Serfdom. Different schools of economic theory probably differ less than outsiders believe. Just as conferences on virology or plant taxonomy will feature disputes between specialists, these specialists operate on the same theoretical foundations. The Austrians have an interesting point: most measures of economic activity are proxies for unobserved terms such as preferences and motivations. The difference between Austrians and Chicago-school economists is analogous to the difference between topology and Cartesian geometry. One is metric and the other is not. They measure different things.

Milton Friedman

I think the Austrian business-cycle theory has done the world a great deal of harm. If you go back to the 1930s, which is a key point, here you had the Austrians sitting in London, Hayek and Lionel Robbins, and saying you just have to let the bottom drop out of the world. You’ve just got to let it cure itself. You can’t do anything about it. You will only make it worse. You have Rothbard saying it was a great mistake not to let the whole banking system collapse. I think by encouraging that kind of do-nothing policy both in Britain and the United States, they did harm.”

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Either you didn't read his work¹ or you didn't even understand the most basic elements of it. Friedman advocated using creation base money² to achieve a stead expansion of M2 money. AKA Quantitative Easing in the current discourse.³

1. Capitalism and Freedom, Dollars and Deficits, Essays in Positive Economics, Free to Choose. Enough?
2. What is "creation base money"?
2. "Steady" at a rate equal to the long-term growth rate of the US economy is 3% per year. Not "quantitative easing". See Anna Schwartz's Wall Street Journal opinion piece to the effect that Bernanke misunderstood Friedman/Schwartz Monetary History... In general, Friedman opposed discretionary monetary policy.

 

[lomiller]

1. Capitalism and Freedom, Dollars and Deficits, Essays in Positive Economics, Free to Choose. Enough?
2. What is "creation base money"?

creation of base money

I find it difficult to believe that you read all those books but are still so unfamiliar with the concept of base money that you had to ask that question.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

creation of base money

I find it difficult to believe that you read all those books¹ but are still so unfamiliar with the concept of base money² that you had to ask that question.

1. Add Money Mischief, which I already mentioned, and shorter essays, such as the 1955 article, "The Role of Government in Education". I remember discussions of M1, M2, etc. but no "base money" (it's been a while). Where does this occur?
2. I never heard of "creation base money" (your words).

 

[lomiller]

2. I never heard of "creation base money" (your words).

And I gave your the correction but you still haven't bothered to truly and do anything bu derail, confirming my conclusion you have no idea what base money is.

Seeing as you don't know what base money vs M2 money is, or how they are created, there is no point in disusing Friedman with you. You simply do not have the requisite knowledge to understand any of his contributions to economics.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And I gave your the correction but you still haven't bothered to truly and do anything bu derail, confirming my conclusion you have no idea what base money is.

I do not recall seeing the term "base money" or "creation base money" in any Friedman work.Like I said, It's been years since I read anything of his, with the exception of "money Mischief" and his foreward and afterword to Liberty and Learning: Milton Friedman's Voucher Idea At 50.

Seeing as you don't know what base money vs M2 money is, or how they are created, there is no point in disusing Friedman with you. You simply do not have the requisite knowledge to understand any of his contributions to economics.

Seeing as how you don't know what "nern" means, I expect that further conversation is useless (well, I just made that word up, but you get the idea). Lomiller may invent terms, if s/he defines them. When s/he finds the term "base money" in a work of Milton Friedman and provide title, edition year, and page number I will abandon my belief that s/he is backing and filling and pulling non-existent rank.
Title =___?
edition = ___?
page number = ___?

 

[BenBurch]

MK - educate yourself; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetary_base

 

[lomiller]

I do not recall seeing the term "base money"

As I though. You have no idea what Base Money and M2 money are. As I said previously, without understanding this any reading of Friedman’s work is utterly pointless because you will remain utterly clueless of what he’s saying.

or "creation base money"

You have answered multiple posts where I have pointed out that should read “creation of base money”. Yet, you continue to ignore them. Do you think the omission of the word “of” in the post somehow justifies you knowing nothing about what base money is and how it pertains to Friedman’s work?