Consumers Don't Cause Recessions

By -
I explain over at Mises.org. Incidentally, this is an article of medium length, but I really tried to bury the notion that we just need to boost "spending" to fix recessions. Free market geeks should thoroughly enjoy.

Comments

  1. gcallah7:31 AM

    "It is truly shocking to learn that Krugman not only tells his students the exact opposite—namely that private virtue leads to public vice, and that saving makes the community poorer—"

    But he doesn't say that... he says it can make the community poorer.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah7:56 AM

    OK, I"m pretty sure Krugman would say, "You ignored inventories."

    You can get this piece for free by signing up with these folks. (This is the reply, but it's a good summary of the paper.) It claims to demonstrate inventory build-ups far beyond the size of the economic downturn. And consumers certainly can get their Ford from the dealer's lot right away!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob Murphy3:20 PM

    OK Gene, first you knock tax cuts, and now you endorse pump-priming. If only I had access to a warhammer...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bob Murphy8:09 PM

    Seriously though, your point about will vs. can is fair enough. I still think Krugman is wrong for saying it's possible that saving = depression, but fine, I put words in his mouth.

    Are you really saying the inventory issue reverses the argument, or are you just pointing out it is a loose end I should have handled in a footnote?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous12:40 AM

    In life, we will face a lot of choices for us to choose. At times, we do not know how to choose, this is a hard thing for people to make a decision. Take aoc gold for example. That is an easy choice for you to make. If you do not know how to do now, please turn to make conan gold, then you will find surprise on aoc money. You will find that it is easy to make age of conan gold. If you do not know how to buy cheap aoc gold, I can help you.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more