61–70 of 313 posts
I personally really like The Economist to get a good sense of what's going on globally.
I agree, though readers should be aware of their bias towards free-markets, liberal democracies and globalization.
Yesterday they disavowed economists who are apologists for price-gouging on life-essential goods, such as masks, whose production cannot quickly respond to pricing signals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This crisis was not caused by the Corona virus. It is only the pin that burst a bubble that was already there, and if no virus would have happened, something else would have burst it. Austrians see the depression as a necessary correction, and the bubble as a problem. I actually sat down for a few hours to calculate what would have happened if this pandemic happened in the 50s, and no one could work (especially true…
We are de facto not in a bubble. Market growth over the last decade has been steady and healthy. A long term bull market does not define a bubble.
No, but inverted yield curves do.
Read his insights and watch his interviews. That's a good basic start. Everything more then that: Nobody really knows.
I have read countless of books, but one thing you have to know:
It is a market - period. Something has value just because another person wants to buy it (at a given price). That's basically all there is. If you think that some asset is worth more in 10 years then it is now - buy it.
The "markets" go heavily up and down currently. That's just because different people price in the current health crisis in different ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you should buy umbrellas, and not listen to people saying it'll be sunny forever.
No one sane thinks it will be sunny forever, and there is great economic cost in carrying around a bunch of umbrellas when the sun is shining overhead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We are de facto not in a bubble. Market growth over the last decade has been steady and healthy. A long term bull market does not define a bubble.
> A long term bull market does not define a bubble. No, but inverted yield curves do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you should buy umbrellas, and not listen to people saying it'll be sunny forever.
No one sane thinks it will be sunny forever, and there is great economic cost in carrying around a bunch of umbrellas when the sun is shining overhead.
For me, personally, after trying to make sense for a while using the mainstream narrative, the only thing that worked was Modern Monetary Theory. Their explanation of the banking system is based in how it really works (mainstream textbooks don't), the sectoral balances framework (1) gives you a tool to think in terms of aggregate demand and their theory explain things that mainstream have problems with (like public debt ratios and inflation and interest rates relationships). There is a textbook available(2).
1.- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_balances 2.- http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?page_id=33139
Nassim N. Taleb, author of BlackSwan books. His thinking about risk/probability is timeless. Frequently publishes links to his papers and debunks the BS-peddlers on his twitter: https://twitter.com/nntaleb
The only school that has any explanation for this is the Austrian School of Economics. Their theory of the business cycle is the reason they successfully predict every crisis to the tee (except for timing, no one can do that), while other economists are just blown away in surprise that it even happened. Mises and Hayek wrote big and hard to read books about it, but two that explain this to the layman are "Meltdown" b…
The response of governments around the world doesn’t look like it’s been informed by Austrian economics, and in places which have implemented some kind of policy derived from MMT (esp. Australia) things have been looking pretty good. What would Austrian economic policy have done differently and better?
As you say Modern Monetary Theory models predict Japan and, also, the missing depressions in Australia.