Potpourri
==> The alert von Pepe sends me this Peter Boettke post relaying Samuelson, who claimed that Mises would’ve won a Nobel had it been offered early enough. Very interesting.
==> Now that Trump is doing genuinely alarming things, I will be able to join in the opposition on some of his policies. But I have to tell you, it’s hard to get calibrated, because so much of the hysteria leading up till now was wildly exaggerated. For example, look at this headline, compared to the actual position Pence articulates in the article.
==> I had to look this up for an essay I was writing. It’s hilarious. Check out this 2012 CNN story about Secretary of State Clinton criticizing the Russian elections. This is the kind of thing that RT did to the US a few years later, which was evidence in the recent intel report of how Putin was interfering with our elections.
I don’t think this has anything to do with Trump, I randomly clicked on another article at the same site:
http://alternativemediasyndicate.com/2016/06/12/texas-court-acquits-man-who-shot-woman-dead/
The heading is completely different to the first few paragraphs of the article. This site is just plain dishonest… about everything. So, no point even considering their opinion on Trump.
‘But I have to tell you, it’s hard to get calibrated, because so much of the hysteria leading up till now was wildly exaggerated. ‘
Don’t we have to wait a bit longer to see how wildly exaggerated it was ? It starting to look pretty ugly to me.
Transformer no, people weren’t saying, “Uh oh, I have a bad feeling about this…” They were saying that the things actually done thus far were Hitler Time. That’s what I’m talking about.
For me at least things like the Carrier saga while perhaps not “genuinely alarming” (to use your phrase) were nevertheless warning signs of what may have been ahead, and which look like they are starting to really happen now.
It is hard to know what is real. The press reports are so skewed. With the recent immigration thing; Trump restricted travel from certain countries. This is not unusual. For a long time you could not travel to or from Cuba or USSR. It was not a ban on faith but country of origin. Protesters had no influence over the district judge’s ruling. His ruling concerned those already here and that due process was required. This resulted from two Iraqis who were detained in NY after Trump signed the order limiting travel. The feds were trying to send them straight back. The judge said once they are here,sending them straight back was an undue hardship and that they were entitled to due process. The ban was NOT lifted as many papers reported.
My point is not to argue the order being correct and proper but to demonstrate how inaccurate the reporting is. According to the press, Trump outlawed Islam, protesters squawked, judge listened, ban lifted. Not even close to what happened.
JimS right now CNBC has two headlines referring to Trump’s “immigration ban.” So now it’s not just Muslims, it’s apparently a ban on all immigration.
“Now that Trump is doing genuinely alarming things, I will be able to join in the opposition on some of his policies”
Because you didn’t know what his policies were before?
Mark Thomson wrote: “Because you didn’t know what his policies were before?”
I’m contrasting it with the period in which Trump was NOT doing genuinely alarming things, and people were flipping out. E.g. “it’s the end of the rule of law because of tax breaks for Carrier.”
All during the campaign, I repeatedly said I didn’t think he would have good policies as president. In that comment you quoted, I’m contrasting it with the last month or two.
Thanks for responding. On Carrier I think we disagree, but in any case I look forward to seeing your commentary. I think there’s plenty to talk about.
It is very nice to see that despite Mises humiliating those involved in the Mont Pelerin Society meeting organized by Hayek, that a Keynesian such as Samuelson would list those radical Austrians–and certainly much more unique of an economic thinker than Samuelson–on a list intended to represent assumed scholarly personages.
I know you have iterated this in a prior blog post, but I believe it is worth mentioning that the Nobel Prize in Economics to any Austrian Economist may represent a devolution of our school of thought. Certainly the theories within the Austrian school remain prominent today, and it would be of the greatest benefit to society if more people decided to infuse themselves with the information delineated by Austrian scholars, yet if the Swedish central bank were to finally decide to honor the work of an Austrian, it would be as a silly pretext to also honor a socialist or communist as was the case when Hayek received his Nobel Prize.
Samuelson was also quite illogical in his refining of the OLG model, as the model itself only served as another platform by which government officials could try to bamboozle the populace with false predictions on how the debt could possibly be paid down. It sure may be useful for private enterprises or individual household to manage their expenses in the approach you took in the past, but like many models, it is only an abstract means to assume future improbabilities.
In regards to the OLG model, this could be said: credit expansion leads to inflation, and therefore government debt represents the profuse amount of money in the system. Due to the inflationary effects of mounting debts the monetary unit is debased and therefore standards of living for future generations fall. Until deflation sets in, or more importantly, until the debt is paid off or repudiated, then future generations will suffer gravely with reference to purchasing power.