17 Feb 2014

Potpourri

Potpourri 97 Comments

==> The widely-read von Pepe sends this interesting David Glasner post about sticky wages. He includes a diagram that shows wages falling some 25% from 1929-1933, and roughly keeping pace with falling prices. My problem is that in my book on the Great Depression, I quote some economists and cite some stats arguing that wages did not fall as much as prices in this period, and that this was the opposite of what had happened in the 1920-21 depression. (I don’t have my own book in front of me to be able to say the exact stats.) Thoughts?

==> If you have kids, you MUST see the LEGO movie–in the theater. Josiah Neeley sent me a review (not by him) calling it the greatest classical liberal movie ever, but I don’t want to spoil it by linking. Seriously, it is awesome, you won’t believe it.

==> Climate scientist Roy Spencer’s take on the “consensus” models.

==> I’m a little late on this, but there were a string of prominent bankers found dead recently (in a short time frame). I don’t have any context though to know how unusual this is (or is not).

==> We’re #46! We’re #46!

97 Responses to “Potpourri”

  1. Major_Freedom says:

    Whistle blowers being Suicided.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      It’s an expected outcome from decades of intellectual sanctioning of holding banks as “sacred” and not allowed to fail. With that kind of protection against market forces, corruption and evil spread like cancer. Explains the government too.

      Thank the Monetarists.

      Thank the Keynesians.

      • TravisV says:

        David Glasner wrote an excellent analysis of the Austrian theory here:

        http://uneasymoney.com/2012/10/03/two-problems-with-austrian-business-cycle-theory

        And Bill Woolsey’s analysis was even better!

        http://uneasymoney.com/2012/10/03/two-problems-with-austrian-business-cycle-theory/#comment-10223

        • Major_Freedom says:

          Re: Glasner…

          1. The unsustainability refers to the real capital structure. Market forces then put counter-pressure on that structure, which we observe as losses, unemployment, and deflation, all of which serve as guides in the correction process. More inflation to reverse these effects cannot solve, and indeed prevent and prolong, the capital structure problems. The reason inflation that temporarily postpones the corrections is unsustainable, is because it requires accelerating inflation to force increasingly distorted capital structure driven output upwards, and to postpone market forces correcting the distortions. Glasner is not quite getting this because he fails to take into account the fact that the capital distortions are increasong., not remaining flat. It is not like certain tax schemes that bring about a one time, permanent, and even change.

          2. On this point Glasner is surprisingly unaware about why prices don’t sufficiently fall…it is because the central bank always reinflates before the fall can go the maximum distance! Glasner is presuming that central banks will just let prices fall to the minimum as compared to what they otherwise would have transpired had the central bank closed its doors and allowed the market to set prices. If prices fall, then profitability is, contrary to Glasner, in fact restored. But it also requires a change in employment and capital reallocation. In other words both prices and real investment have to change…which takes time. Glasner falsely believe a that the existing malinvestments and labor misallocations would suddenly become non malinvestments and non labor misallocations from simple price declines. The problem of the boom is real. Lower prices but the same malinvestment and labor misallocation cannot solve the structural problems.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          Re: Woolsey…

          NGDPLT does not avoid relative price distortions and interest rate distortions.

          Contrary to Woolsey’s claim, NGDP does not “look at the prices of all goods”. It looks only at total spending. It does not prevent relative spending and prices from being affected by NGDPLT. Woolsey falsely believes that the market can efficiently spread the given NGDP across the various stages of production, without access to the necessary regulating and guiding information that only a free market in money can reveal. This is a chimera. The market when left alone can do wonders, but it cannot do what he and you believe it can do with a socialist money system. Money is a tool of economic calculation. Investors require money to be driven purely by market forces, or else relative prices and interest rates cannot serve as a guidw regulatinv investment and labor allocations in a sustainable manner.

          One comment that Woolsey made that is sufficient for rejecting his entire critique, is his claim that a permanent acceleration in the growth of the money supply, which he grants is an inevitable outcome of NGDPLT, is no problem or issue. Yet a permanent acceleration in the rate of growth of the money supply leads invariably to hyperinflation, NGDPLT or not.

          But to really get to where Woolsey goes wrong, in relation to ABCT, is that he believes that interest rates won’t be distorted if the Fed isn’t purposefully targeting them, but rather targets NGDP. I believe he is making this error because he assumes that if the Fed isn’ targeting a particular nominal statistic, that this nominal statistic is ipso facto free market driven. Only a cursory analysis can expose that belief as untenable. It does not follow from the Fed not targeting a particular statistic that this statistic isn’t affected by the Fed. It’s the case with the aggregate money supply, it’s the case with NGDP in a non NGDP targeting world, and it is certainly the case for interest rates. Inflation via the credit markets affects interest rates, period. Woolsey seems to be thinking along the same fallacious line as Sumner. Sumner once said that monetary policy was not loose in terms of the aggregate money supply during the 1920s, on the basis that the Fed wasn’t tracking it at the time. Just consider how absurd that is. He literally claimwd that something does not exist if the Fed doesn’t look at it.

  2. Guillermo Sanchez says:

    Bob, I think that evidence shows that the problem could have been **timing**, look:

    “On the one hand, the price level fell in 1930—not nearly as much as in 1921, only 3 percent—but, nevertheless, it fell. However, at the same time, the average productivity of labor also declined, by about 4 percent, unlike the 1920-21 downturn when it rose. The combination of the productivity and price declines necessitated a compensating decline in money wage rates if a fall in employment was to be avoided. However, money wage rate decreases lagged developments in the price level and productivity sectors, much as in 1920, falling by less than 3 percent. This operated to produce a disequilibrium in the real wage rate of 5 to 6 percent in 1930, depending on which money wage rate and productivity data series are used. (See table 4.) Predictably, unemployment rose from 3.2 to 8.7 percent.

    That wages fell, ultimately, is not to be questioned. The Hoover policies could not be pursued indefinitely. WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT IS THE TIMING OF THE WAGE DECREASES. The issue is whether the Hoover recipe delayed the onset of money wage adjustments sufficiently to exacerbate the disequlibrium and increase the severity of the Great Depression. The evidence is persuasive that this is the case.”

    https://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae1_1_4.pdf

  3. Gamble says:

    Apparently FOX did not understand LEGO. Or maybe FOX would not understand fascism if it were staring them back in the mirror. Well anyways like I said here last Wednesday, go see it for yourself and let me know what you think.

    FOX not laughing,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rprB_VNm3L8

  4. Cosmo Kramer says:

    We are lucky that this cold snap has forced this meaningful discussion on AGW to take place. Chris Hayes of MSNBC ran a 15 minute piece attacking the deniers. I.E. our argument to him was “it is cold therefore there is no AGW”.

    This highlights the hysteria, instead of debunking it. We have seen and continue to see every natural disaster, drought and instance of heat blamed on AGW. It is just nice that the alarmists are getting some of their own medicine. And they silently continue to revise their CO2 climate sensitivity predictions down. I wish I could change my prediction while concurrently proclaiming having been right all along.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      After the wall came down, many communists turned to the next best anti-capitalist ideology: environmentalism.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        And Keynesianism.

    • joe says:

      Meaningful discussion refers to the article hosted by the George C. Marshall Institute? George C. Marshall Institute has received $715,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

      How sensitive is our climate?
      https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

      Climate Myth…Climate sensitivity is low

      Some global warming ‘skeptics’ argue that the Earth’s climate sensitivity is so low that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in a surface temperature change on the order of 1°C or less, and that therefore global warming is nothing to worry about. However, values this low are inconsistent with numerous studies using a wide variety of methods, including (i) paleoclimate data, (ii) recent empirical data, and (iii) generally accepted climate models.

      • Tel says:

        As opposed to all the government tax money that went into ways to prove that more tax is absolutely necessary. No conflict of interest there!

        (iii) generally accepted climate models.

        Personally, I generally accept the model with good predictive capability. Dunno about you.

        https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/100-of-climate-models-overpredicted-temperature-rise/

      • Tel says:

        Another classic Global Warming prediction.

        http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/temperatures-have-warmed-one-fourth-as-fast-as-hansen-predicted-in-1988/

        Remembering that “Scenario C” was the one where we have drastic cuts in CO2 emission (which never happened) and even that one overestimates the actual temperature. Meanwhile CO2 levels keep rising and continue to have unmeasurably small effects.

        • Harold says:

          This is an excellent demonstration of how science works. We would not expect a 1988 prediction to be the definitive estimate in 2014, any more than we expect evolution to be defined only by what Darwin said. The reason the estimates were high is because Hansen over-estimated the climate sensitivity slightly – he used 4.2, whereas today we believe it is closer to 3°C for doubling of CO2. Given the vast amount of data we have since gathered, it is to be expected that his estimate 24 years ago would be refined. The model is actually remarkably good given the data available at the time. It shows that the broad understanding was excellent, just the details needed a bit of refining.
          https://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-basic.htm

          It is all very well to be skeptical, but try to look at the whole picture rather than focusing on details that appear to back your case. If you think Hansens 1988 paper is a good case against AGW you are mistaken.

          • Cosmo Kramer says:

            Another alarmist shoots himself in the foot.

            So we are supposed to overhaul our economy on the newer estimates that “we believe” are correct now?

            4.2 down to 3 is a “slight” overestimation?

            Remind me how big their sensitivity range is, upper to lower, then repeat to me how accurate today’s models are.

            THIS is why we are so dang skeptical. Not because we love the taste of pollution.

            • Harold says:

              So what do you reckon it is? Less than the lowest IPPC estimate? More? On what do you base your estimate? Bob Murphy criticises the policy responses to global warming, which he is qualified to do. I have not said that we should overhaul the economy., but we should base our responses on the best information we have rather than pretending there is no problem. I believe we should make policy on what we believe are the best estimates, what do you think?

              • Cosmo Kramer says:

                “So what do you reckon it is? Less than the lowest IPPC estimate?”

                I reckon so, but I am not married to it.

                ” I believe we should make policy on what we believe are the best estimates, what do you think?”

                The best estimates proclaimed a disastrous global cooling would ensue, and this was mere decades ago. I have a serious problem with that.

                I don’t pretend to know, and far too many scientists cherry pick the data to prove their point. It is not objective. One side screams about the arctic and one side screams about the Antarctic. I have a serious problem with that.

                And even if the IPCC is correct, it may not be wise to do anything about it yet (for the non-AN CAP )

              • Anonymous says:

                You believe it is lower than the best estimate we have. I wonder why that is.
                “The best estimates proclaimed a disastrous global cooling would ensue, and this was mere decades ago.”
                Where do you get your idea from? there was never a consensus of climate scientists that there would be disasterous cooling. I mean the best estimates we have now, not decades ago.

                I am all for debate about how to deal with the problem. Climatologists sometimes stray into policy advice, which they are not really qualified to comment on. When Hansen advocates a particular policy to deal with climate change, I treat his proclamations with suspicion since he is not qualified in that area. What does he know about the benefits of carbon tax over carbon caps?

                Similarly, I expect experts in other fields to acknowledge the conclusions of experts in areas they know little about.

              • Anonymous says:

                hey,where did my comment go? I will type it again. Why would you assume a lower estimat that the best we have avaible?

                “disasterous cooling would ensue”
                I am talking about the best estimates we have today, not some media speculation from decades ago.

                “far too many scientists cherry pick the data to prove their point” Unfortunately this is far more prevalent amonst the skeptiks. the proper sciemntists cant get away with that .

                Climatologists somtimes stray into areas of policy, which is not their area of expertise. When Hansen says carbon caps are better than carbon tax or vice verca, I dont really listen too much. That is not his area of experise. I listen to the economists on these matters. I listen to climatologists in the area of climate. It is foolish to do otherwise.

              • Cosmo Kramer says:

                My gosh! The “consensus” card is played again.

                There is no consensus on an AGW disaster. “Consensus” is a word used to discourage discussions.

                “You believe it is lower than the best estimate we have. I wonder why that is.”

                Because your alarmist BS has proven to be wrong. How’s that for a reason? Your side has zero credibility.

                I’m on the objective side. And even if there were a disaster, I’d still disagree on the way to solve it. It has to be economical.

                ” I mean the best estimates we have now, not decades ago.”

                Again, you prove my point for me. These current estimates will be revised. If they are revised, they are wrong. They have no credibility. Which is why they use a shotgun blast approach to making predictions.

                Just look at Barbara boxer’s attacks on RPM at his latest testimony. Again, that is another reason why we are so dang skeptical.

              • Harold says:

                What consensus “card”? Either there is or there is not. It turns out there is by any normal definition of consensus. A consensus on its own proves nothing, but see if you can find an example where a long-term concerted scientific effort has led the consensus opinion further from the truth, which is what you are claiming. This is an important point. Where the scientific consensus has been proved wrong in the past it is because there was little information or effort put into finding the right answer. In every case, where the scientific community has put considerable effort into finding the answer, we have got closer to the truth. You claim that all this effort has in fact led us further from the truth.

                You claimed that the best estimates predicted cooling. How would you demonstrate that these were the “best” estimates? I would say that if the majority of experts agreed with them they would have been considered the best estimates at the time. This was not the case. Even if it were the case, it would prove nothing since our knowledge has grown since then.

                “If they are revised, they are wrong. They have no credibility.” What nonsense. Things are not 100% perfect or useless. The estimated age of the Earth has been revised over the years, but the early ones predicting much older age than biblical descriptions were still useful, and they were orders of magnitude off. Comte du Buffon calculated it at 75,000 years in 1779. By your reasoning as soon as we obtained evidence that it was older than that we should have said “Look- the estimate has been revised. This age of the Earth estimation has lost all credibility!”

                I do not go to Barbara Boxer for information on climate change. “Again, that is another reason why we are so dang skeptical.” Did Boxer discuss climatology with RPM? No. It was all about responses to it and the impacts of carbon tax. So this is not relevant to the science of the climate. The fact that this makes you skeptical of the science shows that your opinions are based on the wrong things. You don’t like the policy, so you attack the science. RPM doesn’t like the policy, and he attacks the policy.

                ” And even if there were a disaster, I’d still disagree on the way to solve it.” Since I have not said anything about how to solve it I don’t see how you can disagree with me.

              • Cosmo Kramer says:

                “You claimed that the best estimates predicted cooling. How would you demonstrate that these were the “best” estimates? I would say that if the majority of experts agreed with them they would have been considered the best estimates at the time. This was not the case. Even if it were the case, it would prove nothing since our knowledge has grown since then.”

                How many logical fallacies do you want to employ?

                “What consensus “card”? Either there is or there is not. It turns out there is by any normal definition of consensus.”

                There is a “general agreement” that there is AGW. There is NO AGREEMENT on the severity of the impact or on the amount attributable to humans. You use the word “consensus” to discourage debate and to insult anyone who goes against the horde.

                Here is your “consensus”

                http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

                Entirely meaningless.

                “This was not the case. Even if it were the case, it would prove nothing since our knowledge has grown since then.”

                This is my point.

                “What nonsense. Things are not 100% perfect or useless. ”

                WRONG!

                e.g.
                Consensus says that driving at 60 MPH is unsafe.

                after revision

                Consensus says that driving at 75 MPH is unsafe.

                Under the first “best estimates” you would have proposed legislation to deal with this safety hazard, no?

                I say there is no credibility on your side for this reason. The PROPOSED ACTION in response to the best estimates are of huge significance.

                The action taken would be dramatically different if the Earth would warm by 5 C at a doubling of CO2, versus only 1 C. And the revision that you called “slight” was actually a huge percentage change.

                To say that we NOW have to rely on our best estimates is just absurd. Especially when you said, ” We would not expect a 1988 prediction to be the definitive estimate in 2014″

                Again, for the non An-Cap, we need to employ our resources the most efficient way. Is the money spent to mitigate CO2 more effective than investing and providing foreign aid to starving nations, etc???

                Should early humans have refused to burn wood? Did it make economic sense? We must ask these same questions now. And we must also consider if the government is even capable of doing a better job than the free market.

                Koenigsegg is working with Cargine to develop Cam-less engines. This will reduce emissions, fuel consumption, and increase output. This scenario doesn’t exist even as a possibility in the alarmist community. A more prosperous (more free) economy is able to pursue these ventures better.

              • Harold says:

                You ask this: “How many logical fallacies do you want to employ?”
                And then say this: “”What nonsense. Things are not 100% perfect or useless. ”
                WRONG!”

                So you think that if something is not 100% perfect it is useless.

                Take your example :
                “e.g. Consensus says that driving at 60 MPH is unsafe. After revision
                Consensus says that driving at 75 MPH is unsafe. Under the first “best estimates” you would have proposed legislation to deal with this safety hazard, no?”

                If you want to parallel this with climate change, then make some effort. Closer to a real situation would be an estimate of the costs and benefits. Initial estimates suggest that benefits outweigh costs at 65, later estimates suggest 75mph. Your policy says that we must not institute any restrictions because we are not sure if the balance is struck at 65 or 75 – or even if it were 74.999 or 75.0001. Remember, you claim that things are either 100% perfect or useless.

                Harold: “This was not the case. Even if it were the case, it would prove nothing”
                CK: “This is my point.”
                So you make a false claim, which even if it were true would be meaningless, and that is your point?

                “We need to employ our resources the most efficient way.” Your version of the most efficient way is to ignore the information we have because it is less than 100% certain. No speed limits, because we are not sure whether the best one would be 74 or 76mph.

            • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

              Well hey, this is basically the same crowd that wants a “modest” increase in the minimum wage from $7.50 to $15.00

            • Harold says:

              What has the minimum wage got to do with it?

          • Tel says:

            Always the old favourite failed predictions:

            According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

            “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.

            That white stuff that’s been falling over the UK for the past few years… better ask those children if they know what it is.

            • Harold says:

              None this winter yet. Do you consider this one off media claim to be the best representation of climate science on which it stands or falls? Or would you say that perhaps this was a bit exaggerated, but actually says nothing about the status of climate research? I have not seen any policy discussions suggesting the UK gets rid of its snow-ploughs based on this claim because it obviously is not a conclusion of climate science.

              • Tel says:

                It’s a lot more than a one off media claim, and you now it. I’ve linked below to a whole list.

                I have not seen any policy discussions suggesting the UK gets rid of its snow-ploughs based on this claim because it obviously is not a conclusion of climate science.

                The UK had a nation-wide salt shortage in 2010, thanks to the Met Office and their wildly wrong predictions.

                http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/213570/New-salt-crisis-as-snow-hits-UK

              • Tel says:

                http://www.stroudnewsandjournal.co.uk/news/4841724.National_salt_shortage__Gloucestershire___s_response/

                Should councils have kept more salt in stock?

                Councils learned the lessons from the bad weather last February and started planning as far back as the summer to ensure they had sufficient supplies of salt in stock. In making these decisions about how much to stockpile, councils have to take into account the cost of the grit itself, and also the storage costs, maintaining the warehouses and security. The Met Office originally predicted that there was only a one in seven chance of a cold winter in 2009/10.

                Last month, the government recommended that councils should have enough salt to last six days of cold weather. It is clear, now that the cold snap is into its third week and no councils have yet run out of salt, that this requirement was met by local authorities.

            • Tel says:

              And after the fact, how Global Warming somehow caused the snow that their models predicted wasn’t really there.

          • Harold says:

            The first 32 are in German, but lets have a look at these “humiliating” errors.
            Number 32. Predicts “Large areas are from 2050 twice as often under water as it is today” Not yet shown to be wrong. They also point out that some areas will profit with increased agricultrural production. So nothing at all to indicate hysteria, exaggeration or indeed error.

            Number 2 “To this end, the projections for the time horizons 2025, 2055 and 2085 were compared…” Not yet at 2025 – won’t be for 11 years. No error yet.
            Number 3. “In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.” Difficult to know exactly as this is translation, but we are not at 2021 yet, and a long way from 2050. No errors so far.
            Number 4. The only prediction I could see that was dated was “average temperature will rise by 0.6 degrees by 2100” Not disproved at all.

            Skip a few-number 20 “By 2085 large areas of the Alps and Central German Maountains will be almost free of snow”. Not there yet. Fed up with German ones, lets move onto the English language ones to see if they fare any better.

            Number 37 “the number of people living in countries with water stress would increase by 53 million by 2025…”. Not yet at 2025.

            Number 39. the abstract does not mention any specific predictions, so cannot be wrong. Likewise 41. Number 433 appears to be talking about up to 2100. 45 makes no specific prediction and is more about studying current weather patterns.

            I could go on, but there does not seem to be much point. Someone comes up with a list they claim demonstrates “climate science humiliated” Yet on closer examination there do nopt appear to be many, if any, specifica predictions that have been shown to be wrong.

            I am curious why you find this convincing. It is like disclaiming gravity because the thing I dropped has not yet hit the ground. Look! Failed prediction!

            Did you actually look at this before you posted?

            • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

              If you drop something from a 100 foot height and say, “This will hit the ground in 10 seconds” and five seconds have passed and it has only fallen 5 feet, then yeah, that’s a pretty awful prediction.

              I’ll give the alarmists a little credit. They’ve gotten a little smarter since the 80s, and have figured out that they need to stop making short-term predictions, and set the goalposts out far enough that they can either claim “Well I haven’t been proven wrong YET” or hope that it’s so far in the future that by the time they actually ARE proven wrong, everyone will have forgotten about it.

              • Harold says:

                So far the predictions are on target. 2013 was the fourth warmest year since records began according to the NOAA. That was without an El Nino, which pushes up global temperatures. Nine out of the ten warmest have been in this century. That is consistent with prediction of a warming world. You presume that the predictions will be proved wrong but fail to cite any evidence.

                Your contradictory fog prediction also turns out to be no such thing. “He considers the possible effects of global warming along the Pacific coast to be the “million-dollar question,” but wouldn’t be surprised if foggier summers are in the offing. To make it clear, it is not yet possible to predict, but it may result in more fog, but it is far from certain.

              • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

                “To make it clear, it is not yet possible to predict, but it may result in more fog, but it is far from certain.”

                And that’s exactly how I feel about human CO2 emissions resulting in global disaster. It is not yet possible to predict, but it may result in bad things, but it is far from certain.

              • Harold says:

                You are comparing the effect on a small area with global effects. The scientist says I know the overall effect but I cannot predict exactly how this will play out in small area. You say I don’t believe that you know the overall effect. Or do you accept the climatology aspects i.e. the global warming, but do not agree with the predicted effects?

              • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

                I honestly don’t know. Here’s what I believe:

                Most of the so-called “solutions” for global warming are the types of economic policies that socialists have been agitating for since the 18th century. I find it to be a remarkable coincidence that they’ve suddenly discovered a problem that will supposedly result in the extinction of all life on Earth if we don’t implement said policies.

                In order to accept the “consensus” view, we have to accept ALL of the three following propositions:

                1. The Earth is significantly warming in a way that greatly exceeds “natural” cycles

                2. This warming is due primarily to human-caused carbon dioxide emissions

                3. This warming will result in great catastrophe and the lowering of quality of life for most people, if left unchecked

                Personally, I think there is far too much doubt in all three of those area for me to accept all three as established fact, and to go on to institute draconian anti-growth economic policies in anticipation of all of them being true.

              • Harold says:

                Please check that this is the consensus view, and not a parody of it. I think 1 and 2 are reasonably accurate, but 3 a bit less so. I am not sure you will find catastrophe predicted in the latest IPCC report, but I suppose it depends what you mean by catastrophe. Certainly not the end of all life on Earth, although I presume that was not meant seriously. For example, I often see people say that climate alarmists predict an increase in hurricanes and cyclones, yet the report actually says “Average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase, although increases may not occur in
                all ocean basins. It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain
                essentially unchanged.”

                The predictions are relatively modest. There are some individuals outside the consensus that predict catastrophe, and the these I would say the same as to those that deny any consequences. We must go with the best evidence we have.

                If there are any solutions other than “the types of economic policies that socialists have been agitating for since the 18th century” then these should be discussed. But lets not just pretend there is no problem.

      • andrew' says:

        Something less than $50k per year in today’s dollars. You are funny.

      • Cosmo Kramer says:

        So if a mouth piece receives funding, then it is bad data? So how about the billions that go to and from so called green corporations to scream about AGW. Hypocritical at all joe? Have you questioned the profit motive of green corporations?

  5. Lord Keynes says:

    “My problem is that in my book on the Great Depression, I quote some economists and cite some stats arguing that wages did not fall as much as prices in this period, and that this was the opposite of what had happened in the 1920-21 depression”

    Even in the 1920-1921 recession, manufacturing real wages did not fall, but actually rose, according to Cole and Ohanian using data from the National Industrial Conference Board (1928) and Beney (1936)*:

    http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2014/02/us-wages-in-19201921.html

    So something is wrong even with the Austrian narrative on 1920-1921.

    *Beney, A. 1936. Wages, Hours, and Employment in the United States 1914-36. National Industrial Conference Board, New York.

    • Bob Roddis says:

      Apparently a majority of people simply cannot or will not wrap their minds around the concepts of prices undistorted by interventions and prices distorted by interventions and/or the impact of distorted prices upon a society that is clueless concerning the causes of their predicament.

      • Gamble says:

        A bunch of dogs chasing their tails. Must be dizzy by now, hopefully they all puke soon and come to their senses.

        If I were President, I would ship a quarter ounce of magic mushrooms to 7B people. Sometimes it takes a little nature to achieve a more accurate level of awareness…

    • Major_Freedom says:

      Manufacturing real wages are not nominal wage rates across the board.

    • Bob Roddis says:

      In a world of false and distorted prices and wages how can anyone predict with any degree of certainty what those prices and wages would be without the distortions caused by prior violent interventions?

  6. skylien says:

    “If you have kids, you MUST see the LEGO movie–in the theater. Josiah Neeley sent me a review (not by him) calling it the greatest classical liberal movie ever…”

    That it is interesting, because the mainstream media in my country told me that the Lego movie was actually great too, but not because it was the greatest classical liberal movie ever but because it is very critical of capitalism (Of course all movies critical of capitalism must be good, this tradition started already with Metropolis.) Though I guess since most people don’t use the word capitalism actually as a description of a definitive and distinctive form of social organization, but rather as a synonym for everything that is bad in the world maybe both views can be reconciled.

    • Gamble says:

      Apparently LEGO movie makers are genius because they created a film that is everything to everyone. Mass marketing at its best.

      I think those of us that are objective, can analyze the movie for what it really is and use this to learn more about other people. For example, why do people in your country think the movie is anti-capitalism?

      Obviously President business is a combination of government and corporation and he has the police in his hip pocket. Where I come from this is NOT capitalism. However it is what “capitalism” has become. Lew Rockwell correctly labels it fascism.

      I think this films reactions will teach libertarians where and how their free market messaging is failing…

      • skylien says:

        “Apparently LEGO movie makers are genius because they created a film that is everything to everyone. Mass marketing at its best.”

        Haven’t seen it yet, but it is quite likely that this is exactly how it really is.

  7. andrew' says:

    Lego movie is near perfect.

    There will be a point you get worried that it jumps the shark…then it gets even better.

  8. John Becker says:

    As I said in a previous post, Dallas Buyer’s Club is a much better libertarian movie than the LEGO movie. It’s the struggle of voluntary exchange against the evil government bureaucrats at the FDA.

  9. Dan (DD5) says:

    The Villain is President Business in the Lego Movie. President Business!

    I don’t know what more the writers and producers of the film could have done to make it explicitly clear that this not a pro-capitalism message. I don’t think there has ever been such an explicit anti-capitalist message delivered to you in such a bold and explicit manner as was done here by naming the bad guy President Business.

    The Lego world looks as it does run by President Business because that’s your unfettered capitalism out or control producing a capitalist pig who is running everything.

    Quite remarkable that somebody can get out of that film and think the opposite.

    • Gamble says:

      Spoiler alert:

      No, President business was intrinsically linked to police, government, society. So much more than a business leader, besides, they are now called, CFO, COO and CEO, President and VP are relegated to government.

      I do have to mention, at the end of the story, president business turned out to be a real life father, the boys dad. Dad was also a business man.

      I saw this movie last Wednesday and posted here that the plot was not all that deep or well crafted however the movie had some interesting subject matter. This movie was created by Hollywood liberals making a movie that shows they are glimpsing at freedom yet not fully comprehending. I simply do not think it is wise to put to much into its interpretation. The film was somewhat schizoid, much like Glen Beck, Rachel Maddow and all the others desperately trying to reclaim freedom.

      Food for thought, if the movie is anti-business then you must realize it was completely anti-vertical hierarchy, therefore completely anti-government…

      • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

        Disclaimer: I haven’t seen the movie.

        I think the problem here may be that for those of us who spend a lot of our lives thinking about these subjects in depth, this movie may appear to be a libertarian message of how government and big business work together to corrupt things and enslave us all, and that’s fascism, and anarchy is the solution, etc.

        But the average layperson doesn’t know these topics in depth, and could easily look at this and say “President Business, yep, this is what would happen if those crazy free-market guys like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz had their way. I better keep voting for Obama. He wants to protect me from evil businesspeople like that!”

      • Dan (DD5) says:

        “Food for thought, if the movie is anti-business then you must realize it was completely anti-vertical hierarchy, therefore completely anti-government…”

        Yes, a type of Syndicalism or stateless socialist utopia maybe if you insist on going the anti-statist route with this movie.

        • Dan (DD5) says:

          What you don’t get is that the evils depicted in this film that you attribute to the State (rightfully so) are attributed to Big Business. You can rant all you want about how this actually depicts corporatism or fascism or corny capitalism or whatever , but the fact is that the writers are not that sophisticated and are complete ignorant of.. well, just about everything. So, they attribute these things to capitalism, unfettered free markets, etc….

          The fact remains, business is the heart of market transactions, and big business is an inherent [good] part of capitalism, but this film targets business by creating a caricature of the typical capitalist/big business owner. who is inherently exploitative and manipulative.. It just doesn’t get more Marxist than this.

          • Bob Murphy says:

            Dan wrote:

            What you don’t get is that the evils depicted in this film that you attribute to the State (rightfully so) are attributed to Big Business. You can rant all you want about how this actually depicts corporatism or fascism or corny capitalism or whatever , but the fact is that the writers are not that sophisticated

            Dan, let me take your approach to us on this: They named him “PRESIDENT Business.” Not CEO Business, not Venture Capitalist Business, but PRESIDENT Business. What more could they do to show they are talking about Big Business/Gov’t combinations?

            • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

              Bob,

              I don’t think the layperson makes that distinction. I think the average Joe upon hearing “President Business” thinks “See, in the dystopian future, businesses run the government. We were right about Citizens United all along!”

              People are inherently disposed to like the term President. The President is always the good guy. He stands for Democracy and the American Way. Unless evil capitalists rig things and make an evil businessman President, then all is lost.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                People are inherently disposed to like the term President.

                Right. So what more could the LEGO people possibly do to disabuse them of this blind trust, than to make the President the bad guy in the movie, who hands out free stuff to keep the masses fat and happy while he gets ready to drop the hammer on them?

                With his surveillance cameras and legions of police?

                You really think this is an anti-McDonalds movie, and not a critique of current US government? I think you guys hate the movie industry so much you don’t realize when they make a good one.

              • Dan (DD5) says:

                “I don’t think the layperson makes that distinction”

                Exactly! I should have stressed that point more. It’s about the distinction that people will make, and not about what some of us here can make. The point is that, most likely, the creators of this film also cannot make that distinction and so they created what they did.

              • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

                But the President being the bad guy isn’t an inherent characteristic of the Presidency (like libertarians believe), but rather, he’s only bad BECAUSE he’s a businessman.

                Presumably a President Socialism wouldn’t do all the evil things that President Business did.

                I think you vastly underestimate the number of people out there who agree that the government/business combo is evil, but who believe the solution is to use the government to squash all business, not the other way around. These people will absolutely see this as a critique of business, not of government.

              • Tel says:

                Presumably a President Socialism wouldn’t do all the evil things that President Business did.

                No, he would do a different bunch of evil things, which might require a different movie. You can fairly easily check the amount of Socialism being depicted from how much the leaders are using envy and identity politics to control the masses.

                (I haven’t seen the movie either BTW)

            • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

              Also, it’s a kids movie. President Business is a concept kids can understand. Presenting a world governed entirely by corporations where everything is controlled by “CEO business” is probably too complicated for them.

            • Dan (DD5) says:

              Bob, private firms and corporations have presidents.

              I didn’t see a single reference to Gov’t or politics in that movie (other than that lego land place “with no gov’t” brief remark). I waited for it and it never came. Did I miss it? There was only President Business and all the people working for him. It’s quite a stretch to call it Business/Gov’t combo.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                !!! It’s obvious he’s the President of their country, give me a break Dan.

                So I guess you think normal people don’t know that the police work for the government?

              • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

                “So I guess you think normal people don’t know that the police work for the government?”

                Except, once again, the average person won’t see this and think “Gee, the police are corrupt, I guess it’s bad for government to have so much power.”

                But rather, “Look what happens when an evil greedy businessman runs the government. He makes the police do all sorts of bad things. If only we could stop the businessman from getting so much power, the police would continue to be heroic and virtuous like they are today.”

              • Gamble says:

                Dan(DD5) wrote:I didn’t see a single reference to Gov’t or politics in that movie”

                You must have missed the corrupt police officer theme through out the entire movie from beginning to end. Remember, Police Captains parents were from an earlier generation and reasonable people in a light blue uniform rather than modern sinister black uniforms. His parents were the first people he was instructed to assault with paralyzing statist bureaucratic glue…

                Next time, purchase your tickets, go potty, get popcorn, get soda, get milk-duds and find your seat prior to the movie starting.

              • Dan (DD5) says:

                Bob, I don’t get it. Then why is it a business man and not a politician running it all? And Do you expect kids (and their “smart” parents) to infer from all of this that the movie is really in the end against the government. And “business” is just a metaphor for politics? because maybe we don’t want to offend the politicians or something? I don’t get it.

              • Dan says:

                “Bob, I don’t get it. Then why is it a business man and not a politician running it all?”

                Since when is the President not a politician? I mean, are you claiming that Mitt Romney isn’t a politician because he was also a businessman?

                “And Do you expect kids (and their “smart” parents) to infer from all of this that the movie is really in the end against the government. And “business” is just a metaphor for politics? because maybe we don’t want to offend the politicians or something? I don’t get it.”

                No, the movie is targeting Fascism, a police state, and a surveillance state. If you’re attacking fascism it makes perfect sense to associate politics and business being in bed with a guy like President Business. It also celebrates individualism. The movie never says if we just get rid of businesses we will all be better for it, or that we just need better government. It says that if you just allow individuals the freedom to create whatever they can dream up we can build amazing things.

          • Gamble says:

            All I know for sure is what my 8.5 year old boy said upon existing the theater. ” President business is the government”

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Dan (DD5) did you actually watch the movie?

      • Dan (DD5) says:

        Yes, I watched it yesterday with my 6 year old son. I had no idea of the plot of anything about this film. So I was shocked by the villain. Yes, I realized President Business was running things like a State but it was clear that this is anti-business not anti-state. it was a giant corporation, not a state. There was no reference to any political structure. It was “all business”. I believe this movie draws on the statist’s fears that let the market alone and this is what you get: President Business running everything. If the film is promoting a message of liberty, then its liberty from corporate tyranny of something like that. Otherwise you have to claim the filmmakers are making a rather extraordinary ironic statement here by naming their villain President Business. (Why not President Politics for example? Big business is an easy target. Everybody is anti-big business. Parents approve.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Yes Dan DD5 it was an anti-fascist movie, not an ode to Murray Rothbard. Right now we are falling more and more under fascism. This movie is exactly what Americans need to see.

          • Keshav Srinivasan says:

            Bob, the thing is, most people, especially liberals, believe that fascism and crony capitalism will arise if we have too little regulation of the private sector. They think it’s the natural consequence of unfettered capitalism that corporations will ultimately control the government. They think that regulation is the way to keep corporations in check. Now I’m aware that you believe the exact opposite, but I hope you at least understand their point of view.

          • Dan (DD5) says:

            Except that in fascism, it’s still government running and enforcing things and not just big business. This is like making a movie about Italian Fascism or German Nazism and not making a single reference to Gov’t.

            The police working for president Business – I feel like that is the statist fear that in the end, the corrupt police just works for Big business and not for “the people”.

            • Dan says:

              “This is like making a movie about Italian Fascism or German Nazism and not making a single reference to Gov’t.”

              What? Nobody is watching that movie and not thinking of President Business as running the government.

          • Dan says:

            That was my take on the movie as well. Plus when you add in the individualism and Hayekian points it really made this a great movie.

            President = bad guy
            Cops = corrupt and tools of politicians
            Surveillance state = used to subjugate the people
            Propaganda = used to lull the people into a false sense of security
            Individualism = celebrated

            Seems pretty dope to me. And if people only come away thinking this would only happen if a businessman is President, then that’s fine with me. I agree a businessman as President would be a terrible thing. I would just want to also convince them that any other type of President would be terrible. But I’m not hating on any movie that shows a corrupt, fascist state that is trying to destroy freedom and control everyone.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          There was no reference to any political structure. It was “all business”.

          Except the legions of police carrying out the president’s bidding. Who was the chief enforcer? It wasn’t Bad White Collar VP of Marketing.

          • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

            And how exactly does this disprove anything that is said by the legions of leftist who claim that the ONLY problem with government is that it takes its marching orders from Monsanto and Goldman Sachs, and that if only we could destroy those entities, everything would be perfect?

            Suggesting that business owners secretly run everything, including the police, is not that new or uncommon. The only difference is that in LegoLand, it’s openly acknowledged…

            • Dan says:

              Matt, you should probably see the movie before forming your opinion of it.

              “Suggesting that business owners secretly run everything, including the police, is not that new or uncommon.”

              The movie doesn’t even remotely suggest that. It suggests the President runs everything, including the police, and is secretly using propaganda to lull the people into a false sense of security so he can fully implement his totalitarian police state before anyone knows what happened. The majority of the movie is spent on demonizing the President, police, and surveillance state, and celebrating the individualism.

              • Dan (DD5) says:

                “It suggests the President runs everything, including the police, and is secretly using propaganda to lull the people into a false sense of security so he can fully implement his totalitarian police state before anyone knows what happened. ”

                That’s all right except the “president” is not the head of state but head of a corporation and his name is Business. That’s just a minor little problem for your argument. Really, I don’t know what more they could have done to deliver the anti-capitalist message. Obviously, they are showing a distorted version of business and capitalism, which you attribute to the State. But since when do people attribute those bad things to the State? Unless they mean: The State just didn’t do enough.

              • Dan says:

                “That’s all right except the “president” is not the head of state but head of a corporation and his name is Business. ”

                Besides Fox News and you, I haven’t heard anyone, or seen any reviews, where people don’t associate President Business as the leader of their government. Nobody is watching this thinking, “See, look what happens when you have no government. A private business takes over everything, and uses private police to build an anarchist, totalitarian, surveillance society.”

                Besides, the heroes don’t want to create a government to solve the problems or replace the President with someone “better”. They want individuals to be free to build whatever their imaginations can come up with. I’m not sure how any libertarian could get upset about the demands of the heroes in this movie.

                They also don’t show all business as being evil. They don’t allude to the needs for regulations or any other government control. They simply show a big business/big government fascist state that mirrors ours in many ways. If this was about the need for socialism, then they clearly messed up by making the main theme for the heroes be about individualism.

        • Gamble says:

          What about the police officer and entire police force?

          There were many references to government however you missed them all because none of them portrayed government though your paradigm, your rose colored glasses.

          • Dan (DD5) says:

            President Business owns the Police as he owns everything. Why can’t the police be private? This could be a movie about ancap going bad.

            • Bob Murphy says:

              Dan wrote:

              President Business owns the Police as he owns everything. Why can’t the police be private?

              Dan, now you’re the one ignoring what the movie is blasting at you and reading between the lines. What more could they do to show Americans what our society is RIGHT NOW than what they’ve done? And yet you think it’s not actually meant as a critique of the NSA, militarized police, etc., but instead is a warning about privatized police forces?

              • Dan (DD5) says:

                I’m not saying this movie is pro-state. I’m just saying it’s also anti-business and so there is nothing to celebrate here. If you insist that this is an attack on government, then you must at least concede that the film makes no distinction between private business and government business. If it’s against government, it’s also against business and capitalism. It looks more like a socialist libertarian message, something that someone like Noam Chomskey could come up with.
                I’m sorry, but I guess the fact that the villain’s name is Business (and that he really is the head of a corporation, as oppose to just by chance having parents with a sense of humor) is to me more of a significant little detail.

              • Gamble says:

                I asked the Lego Movie directors what they thought of the reaction on Fox Business to their film. Phil Lord got back to me via Twitter:

                art deserves many interpretations, even wrong ones

                http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2014/02/lego-movie-political-corporate-satire

              • Gamble says:

                I knew DanDD5 was going to go here, before he knew he was going to go here,lol.

                Check Mate,

                “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato” (everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state). ~Mussolini

                “President Business owns the Police as he owns everything.”~ Dan ( DD5)

                If PB owns everything, then there is no private property nor ownership, just force.

  10. William Anderson says:

    If U.S. press freedom had fallen under the Bush years as it has fallen under Obama, we would be hearing a lot about it in the media and on college campuses. I share office space with the Obama-loving political science department, and they seem to be fine with suppression of the press, as long as it works in Obama’s favor.

    But, then, I doubt that the Left ever was principled in the first place.

  11. andrew' says:

    Guys, its a satire. Think team america for the other 99.9% of the population.

    • andrew' says:

      “President Business” is an oxymoron. At first it bumps you but then it becomes obvious it is satirical. It is a joke. It is synonymous with “president anal (retentive)”

  12. Bob Roddis says:

    Speaking of the insurmountable and utterly inexplicable problem of “sticky prices”, I just bought the 8 VHS cassette “Beatles Anthology” (suggested retail price of $159.98) for a grand total of $4.97 plus $3.99 shipping. The big box was sitting in the snow on my porch this morning.

    http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/anthvid.htm

  13. skylien says:

    Guys, I haven’t seen the Lego movie yet, but from the comments and movie descriptions I read I guess Gamble is largely right.

    It can be everything for everyone because: When I think back of how I thought about the world before I got into economics I just pure and simple thought that centralization, too much power in too few hands, is the most evil thing, no matter if it is vested in the state or private business, or both together! I didn’t understand the dynamics between them or what power really means and I knew that there were some things I clearly didn’t understand (like how can state and business oppose each other and work together at the same time…).

    But the movie at that point in time would just be both to me. It would be anti-state as far as I understood all powerful state. It would be anti-capitalism/anti-business as far as it meant “all powerful” business in my mind. I thought state and business usually oppose each other and check each other in matter of power, which I thought was good, because either left to its own devices would be horrible. Neither of them can be allowed to be too powerful. And any collusion between them needs to be avoided at any cost even if I had no idea how to do that.

    So if at all then this movie is neutral on the debate about government vs business. It is just anti-power it is anti-“dictatorship”. No matter where it ultimately comes from.

    And if the producers of that movie, which I guess is true for most people, happen to know as much as I did back then about economics, power etc, then I think this is a reasonable interpretation in my mind.

    • Gamble says:

      Kind of reminds me of Ron Paul campaign. The wackados I met, boy oh boy. They were like “Ron is gonna do this, do that, fix this fix that.”

      I was like, no he is not, the free market will and if the free does not, then it was never a problem in the first place…

      With al that being said, I do think the LEGO movie does represent the current reality. Art reflects life. Business, government and law enforcement are dangerously chummy.

    • Matt M (Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

      Right. I haven’t seen it either, but this is sort of the point I was trying to make (and also made earlier about the Kronies video).

      Highlighting the evils of government/business collaboration doesn’t do much in terms of message, because everyone is already against that. Libertarians will see the message as “See, this is proof that we need to get government out of the market and let things run themselves” and socialists will see the message as, “See, this is what happens when government doesn’t do enough to regulate corporations and keep them in check.”

      Unless the movie goes into specifics about why it’s the government part, and NOT the business part, of the government/business collaboration that’s the problem, then it can’t really be said to be delivering a libertarian/anarchist message. Even a message of “People are happiest when left alone” doesn’t quite get there, because the socialists have long complained that you can’t “really” be free if you’re poor or if you work in a menial job, etc.

      Given that leftists far outnumber libertarians in modern society, any movie with a message of “bad things happen when big business colludes the government” will likely do more to advance the anti-business agenda than the anti-government agenda.

      • Gamble says:

        Matt you should watch the movie because you are sharp and could help bring to the surface where the movie succeeds and where the movie fails. There is a lot of information in that movie, more than described in this thread, a lot of side stories, under currents, etc. but I did not have pen and paper nor a pause button. I was with wife and child trying to enjoy a children’s show.

        I wish I could send you the seven bucks and 2 hours required. Sneak in your own candy and water as I always do.

        I do agree, simply shouting about an obvious problem is no solution at all. The nuts and bolts, roots and causes, must be articulated, in the lowest common denominator, to the masses.

Leave a Reply to Bob Roddis

Cancel Reply