SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: frankw1900 who wrote (2255)5/16/2001 9:57:00 AM
From: ahhahaRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 24758
 
Minsky? Are you kidding? That believer in big government, regulation, sock-it-to-em taxation, and debt. He was standard reading during the "Revolution" like Baran and Sweeny. His solution for the '90s would have been, "if the FED was going to create a big pile of money, the government needed to raise taxes in order to prevent a speculative bubble". The guy was supposedly anti-Keynesian but in reality, was even more interventionist. What's humorous is that the guy thought the boom and bust cycle was natural and his conclusion was that government should try to control it. He was just another control freak who was a true believer in the pretense of his own knowledge.

Trying to follow Minsky the author states:

The question then is always what institution does the best job of meeting our needs, which from a classical (Smith, Ricardo, Marx) and moralist perspective amounts to asking how best we can a) provision society and b) share the fruits of society equitably.

That tells you that the author is a standard product of the university socialist machine. The proof in this conclusion:

There certainly is no static equilibrium, as the most simple textbook presentations (and even many of the more sophisticated mathematical models) seem to suggest. If anything, the absence of large scale non-market institutions (big governments, central banks) make crises worse, not better.

Static equilibrium is oxymoron. The absence of large intervention powers in the 19th century meant there were hectic, but shallow short swings. The advent of controlling institutions makes the swings long and deep, and of course, speculative, the very opposite of their intent.



To: frankw1900 who wrote (2255)5/16/2001 10:57:45 AM
From: gpowellRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 24758
 
The combined effect of fiscal and monetary policy was designed to "wring speculative excesses from the stock and real estate markets" (Central Intelligence Agency, 1997). The policies were very successful but only at the cost of the country's overall economic well-being.

The operation was a success, unfortunately the patient died.

The best institutions adapt quickly to these constant changes. And still the transition from one set of institutions to another imparts inherent fragility precisely because the adjustment process ventures into the unknown. The pallet of "uncertain" events grows with the adjustment process. And yet that does not imply hopelessness and defeatism, as many latter day laissez-faire preachers seem to suggest. Rather, it demands a more vigorous and creative attempt to design better economic institutions. This is where economists should direct the brunt of their intellectual energy, as Paul Davidson and a whole tradition of American and Canadian Institutionalists and Keynesians have repeatedly suggested.

F. A. Hayek responds:

To suppose that we, by exercising our reason can eliminate any remaining undesired features of our market system, and by still more intelligent reflection, and still more appropriate design and rational "coordination" of our undertakings create stable predictable growth, is the height of pretense to knowledge. This leads one to be favorably disposed to the central economic planning and control that lie at the heart of socialism. The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism

At the limit of efficiency the "best institution" is the free market.