07
Aug
2012
Someone Explain To Me…
…how I am 7 slots behind Scott Sumner in a ranking of Austrian economics blogs? (HT2 some other guy who beat me too.)
…how I am 7 slots behind Scott Sumner in a ranking of Austrian economics blogs? (HT2 some other guy who beat me too.)
Just remember, these things are often temporal and your traffic (and content) cares not about the time.
Just tryin’ to help.
🙂
Not enough (blog) inflation targeting.
Thus speaks number four.
Jonathan, I don’t know why I am telling you this, but when I read your full name, I cannot help but read it as, “Jonathan “motherfuckin'” Catalán”. Sorry, it is a remembering of how people used to phrase my own name back in the day, except you have the “M.F.” in there, so I cannot help but apply it.
I can live with that.
Thus spake Oedipus.
(sigh)
(shaking head)
Just to give a little backstory as to why I was called Joe motherfuckin’ Fetz, it was because that while you’re in the military you’re expected to take orders and shut up. Well, I didn’t. Thus, that moniker. The only people that ever used that term are still my friends today.
When I say that to Jonathan, it is a term of endearment. But, it is also due to that big MF between his first and last name.
😉
The backstory helps.
My first thought was “Josephettes”?
Corporal Oedipus.
I thought I was telling a joke, but I guess I wasn’t, haha.
Thanks a lotJoseph, now I am going to think this every time I see Calalan’s name…
Yup
Jonathan don’t you like to inflate the money supply even if not by means of a central bank? I’ve heard you be sympathetic towards the FRB guys from time to time. Is the SDSU education making you admire the information fed through the intelligentsia?
You caught me red handed. But, it wasn’t SDSU, it was Selgin’s The Theory of Free Banking.
Did you ever read Rothbard’s books, or have you just stuck to the intelligentsia’s favorite economist Hayek? Hayek was excellent, but Rothbard succinctly makes things clear prexeologically? Hayek didn’t even believe in praxeology and here we have Selgin trying to write a book about it. Selgin seems to not even believe it either. Selgin once wrote to me “Now that people know what banks do with their money, Free FRB seems only logical.” Now that people know what banks do with their money….? What an idiot. That’s precisely why more and more people are against the Fed is because they never knew what banks did with their money. When they find out, they realize the soundest form of banking is 100% reserved. Here’s the caveat, Rothbard never said he wanted to mandate 100% reserve banking. He suggested un free banking, FRB would go bust. Selgin never knew this, he loves his overpriced education.
I was a full reservist once.
That’s what Selgin said.
I’ve suggested that FRB notes needed proper warnings of their dangers and differences from warehouse receipts on the face of each note for the protection of naïve payees. I was attacked on the same post on the same day directly by Daniel Kuehn, Gene Callahan and “Lord Keynes” and indirectly by George Selgin (“the extent of stupidity and naivety that the ‘fraudists’ must attribute to the general public ”)because we all know that EVERYONE understands the nature and dangers of fractional reserve notes. It truly made my day.
http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2012/07/bob-roddis-makes-bad-argument.html
I still think that if the notes contained proper warnings on their face, no one would accept them and without the warnings, they might be fraudulent as to a great many naïve payees. But I really don’t know for sure and I really don’t care.
perhaps when a person realizes their education is on the brink of being debunked, warming up to the mechanics of the state and its manipulated expansion of interest retribution becomes commonplace.
That must be it.
I was, too. Then I wasn’t. Then I was again, then I wasn’t. Now I am. It was Hoppe’s paper that steered me back. I know that in that paper he is speaking of FRB as if you are dealing with the titles of a specific piece of gold, but it still stands to reason that there are still more titles to goods being issued than there are actual goods that exist.
Well, Bob, when three people much smarter than you (and me) all make the same point about one of your posts, you might say, “Perhaps I am wrong.” But a essential characteristic of being a blockhead is having no idea who is smarter than you.
“100% reserved”! Oh, Adrian, that is beautiful! Do you also go to physics sites and write things like “Quantum physicism believes that all wave-particles are in duels”?
Who is this arrogant Callahan guy?
Jonathan, how do I RSS your blog? I see Twitter but not RSS.
I guess that’s another thing I have to fix! Thanks for pointing it out.
It never ends. Like buying an old house 😉
If not for you, I would have probably never found this link with so many great resources. Thank you good sir.
“Austrianomics,” which they ranked second “most active,” seems to have a new post about once a week, and they don’t seem to ever have comments on any of them.
Well, if it is any consolation to you, I’ve never heard of it or most of those listed. However, you do make a good point. I don’t see ANY comments.
Posting frequency is one thing, but to be top-rated and not have a single comment seems a bit strange. However, what is even stranger is that Austrianomics.com only has posts dating back to June 1, 2012.
Makes me wonder what the criteria was… Maybe a little ‘ball-washing’ will get me up to numero uno! After all, I’ve got almost no comments on my blog, it is poorly maintained, and I post only a few times a week. Blogosphere glory, here I come!!!
I should add the caveat that I post stuff that nobody cares about, but I don’t give a shit.
Blogosphere glory, here I come!!!
You just earned yourself a spot in my bookmarks.
Still better than Krugman’s.
Crikey, Bob, you scored #2 in the individual section. Only Woods beat you and you beat Schiff. Who has like 3.6 million Google hits. Which is more than Lord Keynes hisself.
The only way to surpass Scott would be to lobby for reclassification as either an “institution” or as a “most active.” Surely Scott knows who to pay off, since he’s not really an institution. I mean in the literal sense.
Is paying for ratings legit amongst Austrian Economists?
I mean if it wasn’t legit, then we would need the government regulators to sort that out.
What happens in heterodox economics stays in heterodox economics.
Innovative entrepreneurs, ahem, can make it clear ratings lists are subjective.
You know that list is a crock, because when counting down the top 40 from 1 to 40, they put institutions ahead of individuals. I mean really.
Institutions are composed of individuals.
Putting more than one individual ahead of single individuals isn’t a slap on the face of methodological individualism.
Cooperation among individuals can create gains and make websites bigger and more influential.
This is obviously a thoughtful and scientifically based list. Ranked above Bob Murphy and Tom Woods on the list is a site entitled “Recovering Austrians” which has a page dedicated to the well known problem that “Austrian Economics still is ‘Jewish’ Economics”.
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/austrian-economics-still-is-jewish-economics/
Another of their thoughtful entries is entitled “The Satanic Core of Libertarianism”.
I guess they’ve already convinced me and I’m dedicating my life to being the new Gene Callahan.
These guys make Gene Callahan look like a serious thinker.
What a funny thing: I believe that, for instance, Bob Murphy, David Gordon, Roderick Long, and others I disagree with are certainly “serious thinkers.” It is why I spend time addressing them. And I bet if you asked any of these widely published authors if I am a “serious thinker,” they would say, “Sure — he’s wrong, but he’s worth addressing.” (Bob might comment on this point.)
Meanwhile, people who have never published crap in their entire life feel they are in a position to dismiss me as some sort of joke, and my multitude of published books and articles as a comedy routine. Well, I think that says a lot more about them than it does about me.
Gene Callahan: A legend in his own mind.
You are a joke, unread books and unread articles notwithstanding.
Oh boy. Strap in, here we go.
Everyone, stop picking on Callahan. Only he is allowed to pick on others. He was trained at the Johnny Carson school for cads.
Unless and until you publish [stuff–RPM] like he does, you’re in no position to judge his work.
Are you going to edit out Callahan’s use of that same word here:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/08/someone-explain-to-me.html#comment-42744
???
Actually, no, Anonymous, because it’s being used differently. It’s one thing to say “Gene publishes crap” versus Gene saying “my critics haven’t published crap.”
I never expected to be a referee regarding Internet insults, but the future is radically uncertain.
Ha! I’m surprised that they didn’t bring up the fact that Peter Schiff is related to the turn of the last century banker Jacob Schiff, without ever considering that there may actually exist more than one Jacob Schiff in history.
At least you ranked higher than Paul Krugman. You did ranker higher than Paul Krugman, didn’t you?
What a joke of a list.
These blogs aren’t even in Austrian!
They don’t even bother to link to the Circle Bastiat.
To be fair, Circle Bastiat has been way under its potential since it was founded. But, I mean, better than “Recovering Austrians” certainly.
I just read one of the papers cited by the Circle Bastiat:
http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae15_2_5.pdf
“It is interesting, is it not, that neoclassical economics which claims to be an empirical science in which theory is used to generate hypotheses, that are then tested against the data, usually using very sophisticated econometric techniques, does not test one of the fundamental assumptions used to develop its theory; to wit: the stability of individuals’ preferences and its offspring, transitivity of preferences?”
Cool story?
Ya bro.
Yes they do. The way they set up the list is confusing, but as best as I can tell, Circle Bastiat is ranked highest in its category (“Institutions”).
Adrian claims to quote me thus: ““Now that people know what banks do with their money, Free FRB seems only logical.”
That is not a sentence I would ever write, for a million reasons (for starters I’m on record claiming that most people who dealt with banks then already knew what banks were up to in in 1650!), and it certainly isn’t one I ever wrote to him in private correspondence.
So to his “idiot” allow me to reply: “Liar.”
As for the rest of his comment, I have saved the whole thing so I can refer to it as an exhibit whenever anyone questions me for calling the anti-fractional-reserve cult “moronic.”
Both the pro-fractional reserve cult and the anti-fractional reserve cult are making errors.
The pro-FRB cult makes the error of conflating what is in principle possible, with what actually takes place in the real world. Time and time again I see the pro-FRB cult defending FRB on the basis that if everyone knows about it, then it can’t be fraud. Well, what of the real world? In the real world, there are people who don’t know about it and would not be OK with it if they knew.
The anti-FRB cult makes the error of conflating what is taking place in the world, with what is in principle possible. Time and time again I see the anti-FRB cult defending 100% reserve on the basis that it FRB is impossible to practise. Well, what of the real world? In the real world, there are people who do know about it and are OK with it.
As far as I can tell, the pro/con-FRB thing is awfully reminiscent of the abortion thing.
The pro-choicers (or anti-lifers, pick your moniker) aren’t pro-abortion. They don’t run around demanding that pregnant women abort. They don’t demand a particular choice, just that she be free to make one.
The FRBers (or anti-sound-money-ers, pick your moniker) aren’t pro-FRB. They don’t demand that banks hold less than 100% reserves on deposit accounts. They don’t demand banks make a particular choice about what they’ll offer, just that a bank be free to make one.
Don’t see what the fuss is about and am a little bemused it’s even a question for your run-of-the-mill libertarian.
Of course as soon as you have even one single IOU note for any reason anywhere, you no longer have 100% reserve, because the person holding the IOU note is trusting someone else to return real goods at a future date. People understand that much, they know that a paper note is a promise for future goods.
I think the real problem with FRB is that people have been convinced that with government regulation and a reserve bank, then it can’t fail so it must be OK. They know about what goes on, but they figure someone important is out there looking after things so there’s no need to worry.
That’s basically why the system needs to eventually fall over, because when it comes down to it there really is no lender of last resort, and there never has been. That’s the key bit that people don’t understand. No one on Earth can guarantee an endless stream of real goods.
Of course as soon as you have even one single IOU note for any reason anywhere, you no longer have 100% reserve, because the person holding the IOU note is trusting someone else to return real goods at a future date.
So if I hold your car in my garage, and give you a note that says “I promise to make available your car any time you want it”, then it is an IOU backed by less than 100% reserve? I don’t think so.
Not all IOUs are less than 100% reserve.
——————–
I think the real problem with FRB is that people have been convinced that with government regulation and a reserve bank, then it can’t fail so it must be OK. They know about what goes on, but they figure someone important is out there looking after things so there’s no need to worry.
Agreed.
That’s basically why the system needs to eventually fall over, because when it comes down to it there really is no lender of last resort, and there never has been. That’s the key bit that people don’t understand. No one on Earth can guarantee an endless stream of real goods.
Tell that to the money printing fetishists.
One is a pretty small sample size.
I was referring to this comment: http://www.freebanking.org/2012/07/12/reply-to-salerno/#comment-1829
It sure seems to me that’s what you say in the third sentence there. Oh wait, you stated it semantically different. It seems to me Mr Selgin that since you get caught up teaching this stuff at your university, your beloved quantity theory of money is making you think it’s sufficient to understand and predict business cycles. Certainly anyone that reads Rothbard’s book The Mystery of Banking would see that FRB banks can create money out of thin air, but the Fed has simply monopolized this swindling tool. Perhaps Mr Murphy can clear this process up for you:
http://mises.org/daily/4499/
I cleared up some of the qualms you had with Rothbard’s insistence that FRB is fraud here: http://www.freebanking.org/2012/07/12/reply-to-salerno/#comment-1806
Where you decided to point out you wrote a book on praxeology, one of which you seem to not properly expound in your life. It’s ok, I blame your adherence to your statist mechanics. And your thorough adherence is that you are getting paid to teach this stuff, thus your life depends on it. Imagine if you decided to actually think outside the statist box, then perhaps you’d see where Rothbard was getting at in MES in demonstrating that with subjective value scales, people would weed out banks quickly when the money they claim is not in the vaults. Not only that, but banks would make other banks bust because they would demand their money right away, again money they are expecting to receive to fulfill the assets column of their balance sheet.
Here are two investors Mr Selgin, one is Robert Wenzel, a Rothbardian hard money investor. He adheres to calculating the market in a way that adheres to Rothbard’s explanation of Austrian Money supply. He evidently sees that the rush to bonds over equities is due to the Fed’s manipulation, including its recent operation twist. This other FRB man feels the central bank is bad, but is missing the reason that P/E ratios are not near average is due to manipulation of inflation rate targeting (and in this case we can suggest it be a low inflation like you and White desire). These effects of money-supply inflation create a distortion in economic calculation for not just entrepreneurs but investors alike. Imagine if everybody advocated your FRB methods, we’d still be having booms and busts. Not only that, we’d have more than under 100% reserve banking with state power ratcheting upward toward the heavens. Perhaps it would be nice you thought outside the box and not just feel Hayek was the only Austrian out there. Remember, Mises had high regards for Rothbard, and Rothbard was his most loyal student. Hayek didn’t even adhere to praxeology.
“Remember, Mises had high regards for Rothbard, and Rothbard was his most loyal student. Hayek didn’t even adhere to praxeology.”
What did Mises say on his deathbed again?
George, I do believe you are undefeated when it comes to brawls with kids in the comments of blogs. That’s an impressive record.
Kids?! Bob, this is a mouth-breathing moron!
You keeping using that word ‘this’. I do not think it means what you think it means.
+1
“This” is the singular proximal demonstrative in English. It refers to something being “demonstratively” pointed out by the speaker. It always must be understood in context. It would be very, very rare for it to be used reflexively.
How’s that, Ken?
Wait, George, you’re on record claiming that normal people actually know that banks don’t physically possess their money?
Do you have a source for that belief of yours or does it just feel true?
Normal people learn this in high school don’t they? I’m serious. Who doesn’t learn at some point about runs on the bank in a history course or civics? Much less movies and novles. I learnt it when I watched Mary Poppins as a kid.
I was never taught about it in high school. None in my direct family knew about it until after I told them. Only a rare few among my colleagues and friends knew about it.
74% of Brits believe they’re the legal owner of the money they deposit into demand deposit accounts.
That alone destroys any notion of “normal people know how FRB works”.
“74% of Brits believe they’re the legal owner of the money they deposit into demand deposit accounts.”
Duh! Well, they ARE the legal owner of that money. WTF does that have to do with FRB?
M_F: I respectfully direct your attention to two words, normal and people.
I don’t follow. Is 74% of the British population not normal and not human?
What is normal to you anyway? Those who agree with you? Laugh.
As for your 74%, if you steal my bicycle am I wrong to believe I am the legal owner of the bicycle? I guess that means I don’t understand how property works.
Right. As Ken points out, even Hollywood movie makers know how FRB works. And, as George as noted, bank runs can only occur amongst a population that understands quite well how FRB works.
If my memory serves me correctly, I believe I saw a study showing the exact opposite in the comments section of EPJ recently. I’ll see if I can find it.
Yeah, Peter, I was taught this in a high school class.
… and we all learned there are 50 states and 9 justices in high school. And check out the survey responses on things like that.
Intuitively I feel that people don’t realize their money isn’t there. As in, if you went to the bank and they said “come back tomorrow, we don’t have the money today” you’d be shocked. Otherwise why bank runs; why shouldn’t it be like going to Home Depot for a drill, they’re sold out so you come back tomorrow? A minor inconvenience, not a panicked withdrawal of all the points on your Home Depot card.
But that’s intuitively; I’d love to see data, some kind of survey question.
Here’s the links: Bob Wenzel: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/08/stocks-and-bonds.html
Statist man of Selgin and Sumner ilk: http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-bondequity-disconnect.html
Thanks for the further exhibits of moronic cultism, Adrian. Just keep ’em coming!
Mr Selgin, I’m not sure if you realize how moronic some of the things you say are because in all reality they teach FRB methods and the quantity theory of money at universities all across the globe. It’s the stuff that the state wants naive college kids who think they will become good investors to learn so they can keep swindling the rest of society and to keep the state apparatus in tact. Do you even believe in Mises’ regression theorem, because if you did, you would certainly hold back on fighting to agree with a history that thinks FRB came before the state. Furthermore, if you actually read Robert Murphy’s book How Privatized Banking Really Works, you’d realize that the financial mechanisms and institutions are not only strongly influenced by the state and its intelligentsia like you, but also that they are practically the strong right arm of the state. Private banks were well described not just by Rothbard, but also by Murphy. I suggest you stop thinking all those models and equations you and Larry White write to each other in love letters, which are mere copies of the love letters Krugman and Mankiw write to each other, and start sticking to Austrian theory.
There is a reason why real Austrians are against the state, FRB is its method by which to ratchet state power. It gives the illusion to the people that they will build a return on their deposits, while making the ramifications of pyramided reserves become illucid. The capital structure is distorted, but people keep thinking that earning a return is free market oriented. It is indeed, but pick up Rothbard’s book some time. The return of interest is only free market oriented when the interest rate becomes the price spreads between the various stages of the production process. Something MIses showed in the ERE. If you keep thinking the interest rate is the marginal efficiency of capital, you’re going to keep preaching the dogma you and all those other statists keep preaching at all the universities everywhere. If you don’t like the model of the ERE, then you are not Austrian or even a Misesian. You are a statist. I hope you enjoy your paycheck rendered from statist ballyhoo.
Uh, Adrian, you are kind of sounding angry about now…
Yeah, Mr Selgin, I agree with Adrian because in all reality FRB methods teach the globe the stuff that the state wants naive college investors who will become good kids to learn so they can keep swindling the rest of society and to keep the state apparatus in fact in tact in fact and do you even believe in regressing to Mises because if you did have such theorems you would certainly swindle back on fighting to regress with a history that thinks Robert Murphy’s book How Privatized Banking Really Works came before the state and you’d realize that the financial mechanisms and institutions are not only strongly swindled by the state and its intelligentsia like you but also that they are practically stronger than the left arm of the state and private banks were well unclothed not just by Rothbard but also stripped bare by Murphy when I was a flower of the mountain and I put a rose in my hair and I suggest you stop thinking all those models are so hot and equate what you and Larry Write wrote to each other when I was a girl in Gibraltar in your oh so fractional love letters which are mere copies of the love lovely letters of yes I said yes I said yes letters Krugman and Mankiw write to each other and start sucking up to Austrian theory and then he asks me with his eyes and I will say yes oh Leopold oh yes and put my arms around him and draw him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume and his price spreads between the various stages of the production process and his marginal efficiency of capital was thrusting against my pelvic bone and his heart of capital was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes.
So there, George, try to answer that, will you?
Gene you’re pathetic buddy. You are quite the pedantic statist for returning fire in such an elementary way. I always read your futile challenges to Murphy and think that you should get yourself a girlfriend man. Are you still seeking asylum in Brooklyn or have you finally returned to Britain? Thanks for the response, let me file it under who gives a fornication.
Gene thanks for your elementary response. Are you still seeking asylum in Brooklyn or have your returned to Britain? Either way I hope your pedantic approach gets some recognition. Evidently your book was a regurgitation of Mises and Rothbard and now you feel promoting FRB is somehow a good thing for society. But then I realize you support monopolized law and defense. Indeed you and Selgin miss Rothbard’s arguments against 100% reserve banking. You guys see the state as necessary. Your arguments against socialism have just gone to the dumps. I hope you see why….
” Indeed you and Selgin miss Rothbard’s arguments against 100% reserve banking.”
So, Adrian, you feel Rothbard was against 100% reserve banking?
I have just gone to take a dump.
Gene,
Can I at least view your posts as comedy?
Yes, that post was comic.
Well, there’s always this solution.
“…on August 14, 1321 the regulations [in Catalonia] pertaining to bank failures were modified. It was established that those bankers who did not immediately fulfill their commitments [i.e. return of deposits on demand] would be declared bankrupt, and if they did not pay their debts within one year, they would fall into public disgrace, which would be proclaimed throughout Catalonia by a town crier. Immediately afterward, the banker would be beheaded directly in front of his counter [place where he did business]…”
_Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles_, p76
Jesus Huerta de Soto
George, don’t you realize that precisely people why more are against the Fed is because they never knew what statist man of your ilk had degrees which conform to statist mechanics of which you seem to not properly expound in your life?
Jesus, George, how could you be so not prexeological?
Haha! I caught that, too.
The marginal efficiency of capital is the interest rate. Sorry, Selgin and the other intelligentsia believe that the interest rate derives from the bond market. That’s why they think FRB is ok, because they have no idea how a free market interest rate would arise. Thanks Professor Murphy
Here’s a thought: How about everybody chills out? So Adrian, sorry, I think you are hurting the anti-FRB cause. You are being way too hostile, in my opinion. I’m not your dad, I can’t tell you what to do, but I think you aren’t scoring the Rothbardians points in the big game because you keep committing personal fouls.
Gene, you can’t call people a “mouth-breathing moron” and then act shocked, shocked when other people say you are nasty on the Internet. You can do one or the other; again, far be it from me to tell people how to behave. I’m just saying it makes no sense to do both at the same time.
Everybody calling Gene an idiot: No he’s not. If you want to call him a traitor, that is mean and petty, but at least it makes sense. But by no means is Gene an idiot.
Maybe you guys could find something related to FRB to agree on.
How about the righteousness of Francesch Castello’s loss of his head?
“… at least one banker, a certain Francesch Castello, was beheaded directly in front of his counter [place where he did business] in 1360, in strict accordance with the law.”
_Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles_, p76
Jesus Huerta de Soto
Previously, same book, same page:
“”…on August 14, 1321 the regulations pertaining to bank failures were modified. It was established that those bankers who did not immediately fulfill their commitments [cough up warehoused money deposits on demand] would be declared bankrupt, and if they did not pay their debts within one year, they would fall into public disgrace, which would be proclaimed throughout Catalonia by a town crier. Immediately afterward, the banker would be beheaded directly in front of his counter…”
Or call people mentally retarded, and then expect everyone to believe he’s a serious thinker.
“Gene, you can’t call people a “mouth-breathing moron” and then act shocked, shocked when other people say you are nasty on the Internet.”
Bob, he had just called George a moron. And I’m not in the least surprised if someone says “Gene, sometimes you are too nasty on the Internet.” That is no doubt true: I can lose myself in the heat of battle. But what Woods said was that I am nothing BUT nasty, and you yourself know that is false.
Bob, just to clarify: I am a fallen sinner.
I shouldn’t have made that remark about “mouth breathing moron.” But I saw this clown (that remark is simply accurate, I think) who can’t even write two coherent sentences in a row calling George a moron. Well, I lost my cool. That was wrong.
But the fact that I *sometimes* am prone to this sin is quite a different thing from saying that *all* I do is commit this sin.
I thought it was funny even though we both know that I am somewhat sympathetic to his position on FRB.