= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
advancedatheist comments on Open thread, Dec. 15 - Dec. 21, 2014 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (309)
To coin a phrase, "What has government done to our money?"
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1TSNP_enUS504US504&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=oil%20price%20collapse
Because this seems to conflict with the "Austrian" doomsaying that the U.S. dollar would "collapse." Now it looks like the U.S. dollar has gone into the opposite of a "collapse" because a dollar can buy a lot more oil today than it could a few months back.
Like chaosmage said, oil is getting cheaper in all currencies (at least the ones not experiencing hyperinflation). Thus it isn't related to the country's economic policy.
Also if you update against "Austrianism" every time the price of oil drops, do you update in it's favor every time it rises?
Saudi Arabia old oil and the US frackers are currently in a price war. Oil is cheaper for every importer, not just for those who happen to use the U.S. dollar as their domestic currency.
Also, both are trying to screw the Russians(who are dependent on oil money).
Austrian economics has consistently made bad predictions. It doesn't give you the right answers for rates, fx, gdp or inflation.
As opposed to what kind of economics? :-/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/is-lmentary/
Yes, Krugman correctly predicted that the post-2008 flood of money will not lead to quick inflation. That's the example that's I've seen literally dozens of times as the "proof" that Krugman is right and everyone else is wrong.
Can I see any other pieces of evidence?
There was that time when he predicted that fiscal tightening in 2013 would be refute his ideological opponents, and then ... totally failed to admit he was wrong when the evidence came out against him.
The effects of fiscal austerity vs deficit spending:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/opinion/krugman-the-stimulus-tragedy.html?_r=0
That's not evidence, that's Krugman patting himself on the back. For evidence I would like to see a testable prediction made before the fact.
In this particular case, Krugman's original position was that the stimulus could be useful but was not sufficient. There is enough wiggle room for two elephants there -- if the stimulus failed, Krugman would have pointed at himself saying it was insufficient and if it obviously worked, he would have pointed at himself saying it would be useful.
In general, I find Krugman to be an interesting example of a very smart guy who either became mindkilled or deliberately decided to do propaganda "for the greater good". His columns are full of classic motivated reasoning.
As to Keynesianism, see this keeping in mind Yvain's recent Beware the Man of One Study.
As a general rule, doomsayers are rather silly. Doom not coming to pass is the expected result, and shouldn't surprise you.
For weak effects your position holds, but for stronger effects you should duly consider anthropic effects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Good to keep in mind, but not applicable here.