Stream

Join this community to post or comment

Sayed Hossain

Discussion  - 
 
Dear sir and madam, Would like to share panel co-integration model using EVIEWS below. Thank you, Sayed Hossain from Hossain Academy at www.sayedhossain.com
1
Add a comment...

Mark Efreet

Discussion  - 
 
To even follow the logic of this article requires an extraordinary amount of economic illiteracy.
 
Why is it people still think Republicans are all about cutting the deficit, spending less and smaller government? Folks really need to understand that the GOP has been co-opted by greedy oligarchs who blatantly manipulate religious radicals in order to maintain their control and rob taxpayers blind.
50 comments on original post
9
3
Steve Jacobs's profile photoMark Efreet's profile photoJoi S's profile photoJoshua Schmidlkofer's profile photo
5 comments
 
Indeedio. Time to quit drinking the Keynesian Kool-Aid. It's never succeeded and only serves as a means to corrupt. 

Many people say our country's problems started with FDR. He definitely took things in the wrong direction and LBJ made things even worse.

I place a lot of blame at the feet of Woodrow Wilson and the creation of the Federal Reserve. Their constant meddling is why we're in such a bad spot nowadays and unless we reduce or eliminate their power, we're screwed.
Add a comment...
 
Economy and politics has to be guided by an new paradigm:

Infinitism: a civilization can develop an ability for unlimited survival.

An association to support infinitism was founded March 2nd in Austria.

We are now fund raising for the first big action:
A keynote at the 3rd WEIS - World Emerging Industries Summit in China April 20 to 22.

http://www.pege.org/2015/2015-03-08_e.html
1
Add a comment...

Rajeev Upadhyay

Discussion  - 
 
 
Everyone would agree with the argument of the government that land is needed for development of nation but why to undermine rights of someone to achieve the goal of development? Would it be in category of development when thousands of people would be jobless, homeless and identity-less? For a farmer, land is very important. I would not compare it with mother but it is important for them as it has emotions value rather than just an economic commodity. Government need to tread carefully as it would have long term consequence for Indian society that in the process of complete change.
http://theinspiredinsight.blogspot.in/2015/02/the-present-form-of-land-acquisition.html
The Present Form of Land Acquisition Bill Will Setup Wrong Economic Discourse
View original post
1
Add a comment...

bostonkid9096

Discussion  - 
 
When it comes to spending it's business not government spending that truly stimulates the economy. Business spending unlike government spending is an investment because it goes toward increasing the production of goods that will eventually be sold to consumers. But government spending is simply consumer spending for the benefit of the income, and for the impulse and values, of government’s politicians and bureaucrats.

Government spending just like taxation siphons social resources away from productive consumers who earn the money they receive, and away from their private consumption and saving, and toward consumption of expenditures put in place by unproductive politicians. Currently there is too little saving and investment in the United States. The problem is not that individuals and families are somehow failing their responsibilities by consuming too much and saving too little, as you might guess. The problem is not the American public, but in our government.

All government spending and taxation diminishes saving and consumption for the genuine producers, for the benefit of a burden of consumption spending by non-producers. What is really needed is a drastic reduction of all government taxation and spending, state, local, and federal, across the board. The lifting of that enormous tax burden would bring about great increases in the standard of living of all productive Americans, in the short-run as well as in the future.

Furthermore, what we have learned from the huge increases in spending which were proposed by Obama, of course, made our deficits even worse and did little to bring about real economic growth all along. Apart from this, no tax increase in modern times has ever helped close the deficit. Neither will the government spending “stimulus” aid the economy, nor government “investment” alleviate the long-term stagnation caused by puny saving and investment.

The American economy has a twofold problem: short-run, where we are either still in a recession or in a very fragile and timid recovery; and long-run, where we are suffering stagnation caused by low saving and investment. The cure for the latter is more saving and investment; but, contrary to Keynesian medicine, the cure for the former is precisely the same.

The recession of 2008 was the inevitable result of bank credit expansion fueled by artificially low interest rates and the adjustment process of that recession can only be speed up by two kinds of government policy: (a) not interfering in the healthy process of the free market with bailouts or with “economic stimulus packages”; and (b) drastically cutting the government’s own budget as well as its taxation.

Tax cuts rather than tax increases are best both for getting out of recessions and for long-run growth; and don't forget the most important point and that is government spending also cripples the economy, both in the short and long-run, for government spending is wasteful upon productive private enterprise. The greater the burden on the private economy, the lower the genuine saving and investment for recovery and long-term growth.
14
2
stevende1950's profile photoAllan P's profile photoDaryl Worley's profile photoMauro Capannolo's profile photo
2 comments
Allan P
+
1
2
1
 
I'd buy a copy of that were it an actual book...
Add a comment...
 
Hurray for taxes!
1
1
Slim in Dividend's profile photo
Add a comment...
 
http://youtu.be/eSrhVAgU54Y Check out my daily Success Monologue.
1
Eric Smith's profile photoTodd Reinhardt's profile photo
2 comments
 
This program (The Success Monologue)  in particular talks about the approach to business of those who hate the principles that underpin Austrian economics.  It is an object lesson in that sense.  The program, in general, supports these principles, encourages freedom, fiscal responsibility and sound economic practices that are harmonious with the theories and perspectives of the Austrian School of Economics.
Add a comment...
1
Add a comment...
2 comments

Solidus.Center

Discussion  - 
 
On a special broadcast on Kinetic HiFi radio, Seth Mason, Founder and Executive Director of Solidus.Center, discussed with Solidus.Center board members and Senior Mises Institute Fellows Mark Thornton and Walter Block the history of the Fed, how the Fed harms the average American, and how the monetary system would function if the Fed were abolished.
Mises Fellows discuss the history of the Fed, how the Fed harms the average American, and how the monetary system would function if the Fed were abolished.
1
Add a comment...

Sayed Hossain

Discussion  - 
 
Dear sir and madam, You are welcome to visit Hossain Academy at www.sayedhossain.com to see hundreds of videos on econometrics modelling using various software such as EVIEWS, STATA and R. Thank you, Sayed Hossain from Hossain Academy at www.sayedhossain.com
1
Add a comment...

Junius Maltby

Discussion  - 
1
Add a comment...

Paul Atwood

Discussion  - 
 
The Quantity Theory of Money that an increase in supply should result in a decrease in its purchasing power (inflation) is being seriously questioned behind the curtain. The simplistic idea is star...
4
1
Jovan Komazec's profile photo
Add a comment...
12 comments

Mark Efreet

Discussion  - 
 
 
We should abandone anti-discrimination laws in regards to employment. Every employer should be allowed to hire or not hire any individual for any reason because the alternative is irrational and here are some arguments why.

But first, ground rules.

1. You cannot use segregation as an argument because segregation was enforced by the government. My argument is that anti-discrimination laws are irrational therefore I would hold the same position in regards to pro-discrimination laws.

2. The absence of a law is not a law. Removing anti-discrimination laws cannot be considered a pro-discrimination law.

3. You cannot use any instances of murder, assault, rape, or verbal abuse because these things are already illegal separate from the equal opportunity employment act.

Definitions
Market = All human activity including decisions you yourself make on a daily basis.

Anti-discrimination laws = see the equal opportunity employment act.

Arguments

1. If the market has a preference towards multi-culturalism and diversity then employers who exhibits those traits will have a market advantage. The fact that the majority of Americans vote in favor of anti-discrimination laws shows us that market demand is there, but imposing those laws would effectively eliminate any market advantage non-bigoted employers would otherwise have.

2. Clothing retail is in the business of selling persona. Telling Abercrombie that they can't take persona into consideration is equivalent to telling a welding company that they can't hire welders based on how well they weld. We might as well tell Hooters to only hire hairy fat men. Bon apatite. (Sp?)

3. If an employer puts petty prejudice above financial gain in his hiring or promoting practices, he is reducing his exposure to the talent pool. The more profit driven, and therefore open minded, an employer is the greater market advantage is because of his greater exposure to the talent pool. If talent is evenly distributed among race then diversity will be automatic, but if it is not there is no law that can effectively change that because that would be predicated on the actions of individuals.

4. Anti-discrimination laws are unenforceable because we cannot ever know all the reasons why someone may be hire or not hired. If we enforce these laws on bigots we also impose these laws on non-bigots therefore giving market advantage to those who are willing to break laws rather than those who abide by laws. This creates a reversal of the laws intentions because bigoted employers would thus break the law and in turn have a wider exposure to the talent pool giving the bigots market advantage.
54 comments on original post
4
Mark Efreet's profile photoSifu Mode's profile photo
4 comments
 
+Allan P 
How so?
Add a comment...

bostonkid9096

Discussion  - 
 
Government bureaucrats and their allies amongst our current influential opinion-molders have made a practice of spreading misinformation about the free market. They have accused the market of instability and economic injustice and have misrepresented it as the root cause of evils. Their motives are obvious. If people can be made to believe that the unregulated market is inherently faulty, then the bureaucrats and economic policy makers will be called in to remedy the economic stage. In this way, power and influence will flow to the bureaucrats ... and bureaucrats thrive on power.

The free-market system, which the bureaucrats and politicians blame for almost everything, is nothing more than individuals trading with each other in a market free from interference. Because of the tremendous benefits of trade under a division of labor, there will always be markets. A market is a network of voluntary economic exchanges; it includes all willing exchanges which do not involve the use of coercion against anyone.

In spite of the fact that the free market is completely self-regulating, and that government intervention is the cause rather than the cure of market imbalance, many still fear a totally unregulated market. They contend that a free market would promote the economic exploitation of helpless individuals by powerful interest groups. Most of the pre-conceived notions people receive from the "opinion molders" about a free market system can all be dispelled from a closer examination.

When market freedom is advocated, one thought which springs to many minds is the fear of unchecked corporations running amuck, trampling the rights of “the little fellow” and ruthlessly driving any would-be competitors to the wall. It is widely held that without strict government control such enterprises would proliferate and virtually enslave the economy.

In a free market system businesses can’t gain ends by initiating force against anyone its customers, competitors, or employees because it has no legal power to compel people to deal with it and to protect itself from the consequences of its coercive actions. The initiation of force would frighten away business associates and alarm customers into seeking substitute products, doing without altogether, or, in the case of entrepreneurs, setting up a competing business to attract other dissatisfied customers. So the initiation of force by a corrupt business, far from helping it to attain its ends, would give it a quick push onto the short, downhill road to bankruptcy.

Because the free enterprise system does not initiate force, a business can only attain its status by excellence in satisfying consumer wants and by the economy of its product and/or service. Furthermore, once a business achieves a monopoly position in a given area of the economy, it can only hold it by continuing to give excellent service at economical prices. If the managers of that business become careless and raise their prices above market level, some other entrepreneur will see that he can undersell them and still make tremendous profits and will immediately move to enter their field. Then their potential competition will have become actual competition.

In a free society, where large companies were not plundered of what bureaucrats like to think of as their “excess profits” via heavy taxation, any business which raised its prices above market level or became careless about the quality of its service would be virtually creating its own competition, competition too strong for it to drive out. As is always the rule in an unhampered market, the illness would create its own cure the market is self-regulating.

In a free market a business cannot prevent competition from entering it's territory because it cannot use coercion against would be competitors, and thus it can never have that “exclusive control... that makes possible the fixing of prices.” Nor can such a a business monopoly be said to be free of competition, even while it has exclusive control of its market its product must still compete for the consumer’s money with every other good and service.

No firm which operated in a free-market context could afford the initiation of force for fear of driving away its customers and business associates. Thus, the only way that a business can sustain itself as a coercive monopoly is through government intervention in the form of special grants of privilege. Only government, which is itself a coercive monopoly, has the power to force individuals to deal with a firm with which they would rather not have anything to do.

The fear of ruthless, uncontrolled corporations is a valid one, but it applies only to coercive monopolies. Coercive monopolies are an extension of government, not a product of the free market. Without governmental grants of special privilege, there could be no coercive monopolies. Economic exploitation by big business, cartels, and “Too Big to Fail” is a non-existent dragon. In a well-developed market which is free of government interference, any advantage gained from such exploitation will send out signals calling in competition which will end the exploitation. In a free market, the individual always has alternatives to choose from, and only physical force can compel him to choose against his will. But the initiation of force is not a market function and cannot be profitably employed by firms operating in an unregulated market.

Force, in fact, is penalized by the free market, as is fraud. Business depends on customers, and customers are driven away by the exploitation of force and fraud. The penalizing of force and fraud is an inherent part of the self-regulating mechanism of the free market. The market, if not hampered by government regulation, always moves toward a situation of stability and maximum consumer satisfaction that is, toward equilibrium. Government intervention, far from improving society, can only cause disruptions, distortions, and losses, and move society toward chaos. The market is self-regulating force is not required to make it function properly. In fact, the imposition of initiated force is the only thing which can prevent the market from functioning to the maximum possible satisfaction of all.

If people aren’t free to trade in any non-coercive way which then-interests dictate, they aren’t free at all. People who aren’t free are, to some degree, slaves. Without freedom of the market, no other “freedom” is meaningful. For this reason, the conflict between freedom and slavery focuses on the free market and its only effective opponent government.
3
Cheesy Mac's profile photoPhil Tubb's profile photo
84 comments
 
+Cheesy Mac, hmmm... and you talk about me ignoring the point or being intentionally obtuse.

The notion is the government would forbid the grocery stores from selling more than, say, 1/3 of the shelf space to one vendor. Worst case, Coke buys 1/3, Pepsi buys 1/3, and no one acceptable to the store wants the other third. Then either the government screws the grocery stores over by still not letting them sell more to Coke or Pepsi (likely) and they lose out on slotting fees they could have gotten, or it lets them sell more space to Coke or Pepsi since there's no other acceptable buyers.

Non-worst case, Coke buys 1/3, Pepsi buys 1/3, the grocery store keeps some for its store brand like they do now, and the rest gets bought by would-be newcomers that the store deems suitable. If the newcomers' soda is any good, customers buy it. If it's crappy, customers won't buy it and the newcomer either sells their space to someone else or at least doesn't renew it next time the contract comes up.

In no case does the grocery store have to carry any soda it doesn't want to carry, nor does anyone else have to buy or sell any soda products they don't want to buy or sell. Your question "How is being forced to carry crappy soda by the state..." never arises.

Of course, these scenarios assume that Coke and Pepsi are just paying the "going rate", not some higher rate in order to be granted nearly half the space. If they're paying a premium, clearly such government interference would cost the grocery stores the difference between normal and premium slotting fees.

If the case is that Coke is demanding the maximum shelf space the existing law permits (I'm pretty sure the FTC already said that selling all the space to Coke would violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act), and threatening to withhold its products entirely if the store doesn't sell them that much at the going rate (which is entirely possible), then the stores lose nothing by being able to sell the slotting spaces to more vendors than just Coke and Pepsi. (Of course, that'd be along the standard liberal lines of the big bad companies pushing the little companies around with their huge economic power, which in real life is rarely the real story.) Conceivably, having more competitors for the slots might even drive the "going rate" up, resulting in the grocery stores making more profit.
Add a comment...

Vancouver Blogs

Discussion  - 
 
                                      No Capitulation, No Cure

For most economists and business leaders, the sum of all their fears would be a cataclysmic crash, much like 2008. Yet, it’s this kind of crash, or capitulation, which is what’s needed and ultimately leads to a true recovery. I’ve chosen the picture in this article purposefully, it’s a perfect example of how everyone thinks a crisis doesn’t lead to a recovery. In this analogy we have our answer for why we haven’t seen a true recovery since 2008, because that crash was halted by extraordinary monetary policy by all western governments, united in their resolve to stop the crash. By doing so, they also stopped the cure.

Since then, pundits, economists, and politicians have been filling the media and airwaves with unending messages of how we’re in a recovery. Year after year we’re told this, yet when we look around, we don’t see the signs. Sure, a few bits of good news here and there, but nothing befitting a true recovery. Lowering interest rates to all time lows will surely boost house prices and car sales, but this is not the stuff true recoveries are made of.

Recoveries are true boom times, where all businesses take part, jobs are plentiful and people are happy. You don’t have to continually bash people over the head with news of how great the recovery is when there actually is one, it’s self evident.

The very fact that we need to be constantly told we’re in a recovery is in itself proof we are not. 

With this in mind, let’s turn our attention to oil. The recent crash has been shocking to be sure, but again we’re watching another example of prevention of capitulation play out. This time the culprit is speculators, the first bounce in the price and suddenly everybody is a bull and thinking oil is going back to $100 any day now. So they pile on and keep the price from capitulating, but because the structural issues are not resolved, namely oversupply, the price cannot recover meaningfully.

This is what we have playing out before our eyes currently. So long as oil remains above $40, there will not be a capitulation, or the capitulation will take much, much longer, and therefore we will endure far more damage as a result.

2008 scared the tar out of everyone, and now they’re hell bent on making sure it doesn’t happen again, but this only ensures we will fall that much harder the next time around, as we are acting like spoiled children who won’t take their medicine and be healed. The same goes for the rest of the economy, so many companies are in denial, refusing to admit they need to downsize, instead thinking they can grow their way out of their troubles.

This theory is common among retailers and marketers, who have bought the bill of goods which says if you aren’t adding capacity, you’re going downhill. This belief leads to overexpansion, which in the US, has manifested in a multiple of 3-5X as many stores per human as anywhere else in the world. There will be consequences.

Up until the end of the 19th century, .01% GDP growth per year was the average, and we survived. Then, someone decided we needed to be growing 10% per year, or failing that, at least 5% per year. So, western nations made it their goal to do this, and succeeded for decades, but this kind of growth isn’t sustainable and is in excess of the earning capacity of the population. So, how did we do it? Debt of course.  We borrowed our way to growth the past few decades. This goes for governments too, whose spending is considered part of GDP. This too is unsustainable and will end.

But nobody wants it to end, because at this point, we have too much at stake, even a mere 10% contraction would wipe out trillions of wealth of the world, nevermind a full blown crash and 50% contraction. But, looking at a 100 year chart of GDP says that’s exactly what will happen. Mean reversion is a principle and it cannot be broken forever, it will have its day.  

There was a time when everyone understood that pain leads to gain, but the only place you hear that now is in a gym. We’ve got a disease, and it can’t be cured by ignoring it or covering it up, we have to get it cured. I wish I could say I think that will happen, but looking at our leadership and the general population’s attitude, I don’t. I think the disease is going to either kill us or come darn close, enough to wake us up. I hope for the latter, but either way, this lesson must be learned. 
Lastly, don’t expect oil prices to come back anytime soon. They can’t, because we won’t let them. Until the necessary sacrifices are made, there can be no recovery. 
1
Add a comment...

Ricky Bobby

Discussion  - 
 
If libertarians had taken this path I would have ignored libertarianism all together.  I share this because (taken out of context) this will be used as a weapon against you when citing Rothbard.  So, you should know before hand, be prepared.
 
Ooo... say it ain't so Murray! Say it ain't so!

(Murray Rothbard gives us his program for "rightwing populism" and it makes me sad:)

"Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error."

"Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society."

" So far: every one of these right-wing populist programs is totally consistent with a hard-core libertarian position " [sic]

-- Murrary Rothbard (Rightwing Populism)
(emphasis added)
5 comments on original post
3
1
Mike DiBaggio's profile photoDaniel Hatfield's profile photoDystopianEmpire01's profile photo
5 comments
 
Yep, guilty here of that one on occasion, +Mike DiBaggio​
Add a comment...

Mark Efreet

Discussion  - 
 
 
On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver “der [...]
View original post
7
2
Ed Powell's profile photoInexhaustible Austrian's profile photo
Add a comment...
 
Exchange Rates - Summarised in less than 300 words.
3
Add a comment...
 
 
The instability of the Eurozone bare, as Euro hits 5 year low against USD on Swiss action.
The Euro hit a five year low against the dollar this week. The step taken by Swiss National Bank (SNB) resulting in massive pressure on the Euro is only the tip of the deep faultlines among the Eurozone countries. As the Greek elections loom, there could be...
View original post
1
Add a comment...