Petróleo sob pressão após ataque dos EUA ao Irão

[Pantone]

A Escola de Pensamento Austríaca e a sua influência no "Tea Party" - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/magaz ... NKwZw&_r=0

Hayek, Friedman, and the Illusions of Conservative Economics - http://www.newrepublic.com/article/book ... -economics

Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Augusto Pinochet, and Hu Jintao: Authoritarian Liberalism vs. Liberal Authoritarianism - http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2006/11/m ... man_1.html

[Pantone]

Crítica: Resist the Austrian Brain Worm! - http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.jp/2014/ ... -worm.html

Resposta: Noah Smith Boldly Goes Where Thousands of Austrian Critics Have Gone Before - http://mises.ca/posts/blog/noah-smith-b ... ne-before/

Contra-resposta: You may ask yourself - Well, how did I get here? - http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com.es/2 ... vable.html

[Quimporta]

Keynes and Hayek
Prophets for today
The economist, Mar 14th 2014, 16:43 by C.R. | LONDON

ON MARCH 10th 1944, seventy years ago this month, a relatively-obscure Austrian émigré published a book that would become one of the great classics of 20th-century economic literature. The new economic ideas of John Maynard Keynes were much in fashion in that period; this new book judged them rather harshly.

The dissenter from the growing consensus around Keynes was Friedrich von Hayek, an economist from Vienna. The book was the "Road to Serfdom", in which Hayek argued that the extension of central planning is the start of the growth of constraints on individual liberty, which inevitably leads to the emergence of tyrannical regimes, both communist and fascist in nature. It was the culmination of four years' work—and several decades challenging many of Keynes' new economic theories, particularly on what governments should do during depressions.

That has often been portrayed more recently as a battle between two economic titans. Hayek, in the 1970s, came to be seen as opposing everything Keynes and the Keynesian consensus stood for. More recently, many see the change towards more free-market ideas since the 1980s as the victory of Hayek's ideas over Keynes'—a process that has since reversed as a result of the Great Recession. This academic battle of ideas has even made its way into popular media. On Youtube, there is a series of rap parody videos of the academic battle between Keynes and Hayek, available here, here and here.

But Keynes himself in fact did not dislike many of Hayek's ideas in the "Road to Serfdom". On the contrary, he had indirectly helped Hayek to write it. When Hayek and the rest of the London School of Economics moved to Cambridge in 1940 to escape the Blitz in London, Keynes found him rooms at his college, King's, to live and work in, and the two remained in regular contact until Keynes' death in 1946. Ideologically, they also sang from the same hymn sheet: both were liberals with a distaste for authoritarian regimes such as communism and fascism. Keynes agreed with Hayek that fascism was not a healthy reaction against communism, as many contemporaries in Britain thought, but was instead equally dangerous for liberalism.

Keynes rejected the populist interpretation of Hayek's argument—that any increase in state planning is the first step on the way to tyranny—but agreed with the overall view that the bounds of state intervention needed to be clearly defined for liberal democracy to remain safe (and more explicitly than even Hayek himself did in the book). Receiving an early copy of the "Road to Serfdom" from Hayek personally, Keynes wrote back to him, praising the book. But Keynes thought Hayek should have been more explicit in what sort of red lines would be necessary for increased state intervention not to imperil liberty:

"You admit here and there that it is a question of knowing where to draw the line. You agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and that the logical extreme [total lassiez-faire policies] is not possible. But you give us no guidance as to where to draw it...as soon as you admit that the extreme is not possible and that a line has to be drawn, you are, on your own argument, done for, since you are trying to persuade us that as soon as one moves an inch in the planned direction you are necessarily launched on the slippery slope which will lead you in due course over the precipice."

In short, Keynes took the lessons of Hayek's work as a warning that the expansion of state should be limited and politicians need to know when to stop—which he fundamentally agreed with. Although he thought more state control in some areas may be justified, governments always need to demark a line beyond which they do not traverse. That may be a lesson not only relevant for then, but also for our time as well.

[Pantone]

Alguém poderia abordar o que diz esta escola face aos últimos desenvolvimentos económicos?

O que se diz abaixo sobre a inflação e possivelmente válido para as taxas de juro e o preço dos Bonds dos US.

Cranks.
It's also been a bull market for crackpot economists the past few years. Now, so-called Austrian economists did do a good job predicting the housing bubble during the boom, but they could hardly have done a worse job during the bust. They've looked at the Fed's ballooning balance sheet, and screamed that Zimbabwe is coming, Zimbabwe is coming! Well, it hasn't, and it won't. But that hasn't deterred the Austrians: they think the price of gold shows the "true" inflation from the monetary base expanding, so they've been right all along. But what about now? Gold is down 24 percent from a year ago, and 36 percent from its August 2011 highs -- and that despite more "money-printing" by the Fed. Where's the inflation now? (And, sorry Austrians, an increase in the monetary base doesn't count if there's no increase in prices).

in http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... rs/277347/

[Pantone]

E como uma teoria económica se transforma numa espécie de culto por razões políticas...

... ...

“That is my experience with the Austrians: whenever you try to pin them down, they insist that you fail to understand their profound ideas. And they have indeed been predicting runaway inflation for years now; it’s interesting that they can neither explain why they were wrong nor admit that this poses a problem.”

in http://www.salon.com/2013/02/19/how_pau ... economics/

E já agora:

AUSTRIAN NON-ECONOMIC REASONING: ROBERT MURPHY REJECTS P(A|B) = [P(B|A)P(A)]/P(B)]: THURSDAY HOW NOT TO MARK YOUR BELIEFS TO MARKET WEBLOGGING

Non-economic reasoning? Economic non-reasoning? Non-economic non-reasoning. I'm not sure what to call rejecting Bayes's Rule…

Suppose that for some reason--never mind why--you were back in 2009 confident--70% sure--that Bernanke's policies were inappropriate and disastrous, because if they were adopted they were near-certain--90%--to bring 10%/year if not 20%/year inflation soon--by 2012.

Then 2012 rolls around. No inflation. What, then, come 2013 is your subjective probability that Bernanke's policies are inappropriate and disastrous?

Your confidence that Bernanke's policies are inappropriate and disastrous should drop. According to Bayes’s Rule--which is a simple principle designed to guard yourself from being vulnerable to Dutch Book attacks--it should drop from 70% to 19%.

Not, however, if you are Robert Murphy.

Austrian economists, you see, don't need no stinking Bayes's Rule.

To suggest that they ought or might change their minds in response to evidence is, in some bizarre way, to impugn their character:

Robert Murphy:

Rather than have a long series of posts discussing the fallout from my (price) inflation bet with David R. Henderson, I decided to do one comprehensive reply.... [T]hey are publicly impugning my character.... I am being accused of ideological dogmatism.... Simply put, my price inflation wager has nothing to do with Austrian business cycle theory.... Back in late 2008 and early 2009, many analysts--including me--were freaking out about the unprecedented actions that the Fed and other major central banks were taking.... I thought the real economy would be “in the toilet for a decade” and that I expected “20+ percent price inflation.”... What Went Wrong?... Are we stuck in a dollar and Treasury bubble that is taking longer to pop than I thought?… I don’t know, of course, and none of us can....

It’s true, Krugman and DeLong have changed their minds on plenty of issues over the years.... A laugh-out-loud funny article from Krugman.... DeLong explains that he has “gotten significant components of the last four years wrong… federal funds rates at zero I expected, but 30-Year US Treasury bonds at a nominal rate of 2.7% I did not.”... Reading DeLong and Krugman is like watching a ballet, with one dancer named Fiscal and the other Monetary, and at any moment you’re not sure who will be leading the other…. Relevant to my inflation bet, I’ve learned something important: The urgent task isn’t to abolish the Fed, but rather to abolish the IRS….

They get to “change their minds” by tweaking how they want the government to redistribute income and create new money. But when I get something wrong, they want me to drop my drawers, bend over, and ask, “May I have another stimulus, sir?”

Paul Krugman says that this has "the psychology of a cult". Can anybody give me an alternative description? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?

in http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/02/r ... .html#more

[mst-1]

lol o único pais anárquico que conheci foi a Somalia e não foi uma boa experiencial

Isso é simplesmente mentira, como de resto todo o dogma por trás do estado

http://www.peterleeson.com/better_off_stateless.pdf

Indicators of Somali welfare remain low in absolute terms, but compared to their status
under government show a marked advance. Under statelessness life expectancy in Somalia has
grown, access to health facilities has increased, infant mortality has dropped, civil liberties have
expanded, and extreme poverty (less than $1 PPP/day) has plummeted. In many parts of the
country even security has improved. In these areas citizens are safer than they’ve been in three
decades (UNDP 2001). Somalia is far from prosperous, but it has made considerable strides since
its government collapsed 15 years ago.

[atomez]

134, mas muitas perguntas estão orientadas para os us.

Pois é.

Aquela de "devem os USA retirar as bases militares da Europa, Ásia, etc" claro que respondi que não.

Porque se eles retiram a presença militar na Europa, mais tarde ou mais cedo desatamos todos outra vez à porrada uns com os outros...

[migluso]

lol o único pais anárquico que conheci foi a Somalia e não foi uma boa experiencial

Mas há uma clara confusão entre liberalismo e anarco capitalismo. O liberalismo não pressupões a inexistência de regras.

O anarco capitalismo pressupõe a inexistência de Estado, e não a inexistência de leis, regras, contratos, ou de justiça.

De certeza que não é à paulada que os anarco capitalistas defendem que cada um de nós garanta a sua propriedade.

Já agora AM, a minha nota foi 92 (feito muito à pressa). Thanks pelo link...

Um abraço e SL

[Zeb_PT]

Um sistema fechado tende para um estado de entalpia minima, que por sua vez é um estado de entropia máximo que corresponde a um sistema em equilibrio.

É pena que nós não sejamos partículas, átomos ou moléculas sem vontade própria... Ou será que somos?

[atomez]

Bem mas na essência final do anarco cappitalismo podemos atingir o chamado "caos organizado".

Ou "anarquia científica"

[bogos]

Bem mas na essência final do anarco cappitalismo podemos atingir o chamado "caos organizado".

Cumps

Sim, se acreditarmos que o mercado se auto-regula.

Duro, mas preferível à regulação imposta por meia-dúzia. É que naquele caos organizado os "anarcos", acabam por mandar mais que muitos.

Cumprimentos

[Elias]

Bem mas na essência final do anarco cappitalismo podemos atingir o chamado "caos organizado".

Cumps

Sim, se acreditarmos que o mercado se auto-regula.

[bogos]

lol o único pais anárquico que conheci foi a Somalia e não foi uma boa experiencial

Mas há uma clara confusão entre liberalismo e anarco capitalismo. O liberalismo não pressupões a inexistência de regras.

[b]

Bem mas na essência final do anarco cappitalismo podemos atingir o chamado "caos organizado".

Cumps

[Automech]

lol o único pais anárquico que conheci foi a Somalia e não foi uma boa experiencial

Mas há uma clara confusão entre liberalismo e anarco capitalismo. O liberalismo não pressupões a inexistência de regras.

[richardj]

lol o único pais anárquico que conheci foi a Somalia e não foi uma boa experiencial

[nfmarque]

134, mas muitas perguntas estão orientadas para os us.

[Elias]

76

[KAM]

26 pontos...

[Zeb_PT]

85

[atomez]

60

[Automech]

Embora seja orientado para o EUA, aqui fica um teste para medir o grau de libertário dentro de cada um.
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

O meu deu 93.

[Elias]

Obrigado AutoMech.

[Automech]

Não sei se este link já tinha sido referido no tópico
Dez lições de economia austríaca para iniciantes

[Pantone]

The Road to Serfdom: Good Hayek or Bad Hayek?

A new book by Angus Burgin about the role of F. A. Hayek and Milton Friedman and the Mont Pelerin Society (an organization of free-market economists plus some scholars in other disciplines founded by Hayek and later headed by Friedman) in resuscitating free-market capitalism as a political ideal after its nineteenth-century version had been discredited by the twin catastrophes of the Great War and the Great Depression was the subject of an interesting and in many ways insightful review by Robert Solow in the latest New Republic. Despite some unfortunate memory lapses and apologetics concerning his own errors and those of his good friend and colleague Paul Samuelson in their assessments of the of efficiency of central planning, thereby minimizing the analytical contributions of Hayek and Friedman, Solow does a good job of highlighting the complexity and nuances of Hayek’s thought — a complexity often ignored not only by Hayek’s critics but by many of his most vocal admirers — and of contrasting Hayek’s complexity and nuance with Friedman’s rhetorically and strategically compelling, but intellectually dubious, penchant for simplification.

... ...

in http://uneasymoney.com/2012/11/28/the-r ... bad-hayek/

[MAV8]

O que nunca vi foi economistas da escola austríaca a comentar economias de outros países, que também têm banco central, mas mesmo assim continuam a crescer sem bolhas financeiras. Esta escola apresenta muitos conceitos intuitivos que me parecem ser verdadeiros, como dizerem que uma economia cresce a longo prazo pelo lado da oferta, mas grande parte parecem ser apenas ideologias sem suporte na realidade. Muitos países têm governos bastante interventivos e continuam a crescer (países nórdicos principalmente, China, entre outros) e a intervenção do governo foi útil em muitos casos no passado.

Alguém conhece um bom livro para um leigo em economia sobre a escola de pensamento austríaca?

Exatamente, muitos crescem com forte intervenção do estado (Governos), daí as bolhas que são criadas, assim que acaba o investimento público por falta de financiamento esterno as bolhas rebentam...

...Aliás o que se passa por cá é isso mesmo, os governos andaram a sustentar o crescimento através de investimento público não necessário, as empresas cresceram nesse ambiente de crescimento artificial quando a realidade chegou eram grandes demais para o mercado!!!! - resultou no desemprego que se vê. O mesmo mas em grande escala está a acontecer na China, até Mega Cidades fantasmas constroem para crecer economicamente!!!

A escola austriaca procura um crescimento baseado na procura real, o crescimento tem como fonte de financiamento a propria poupança e não o crédito, este facto leva-os a crescer a um ritmo mais lento mas sustentado, o lucro a curto prazo é substituido enquanto objetivo por crescimento e lucro de longo prazo, criando cadeias de valor em que a mesma empresa participa nas várias fases do processo, a titulo de exemplo, "extração, produção, distribuição", pelo contrario o que assistimos por cá foi o inverso, procurando o lucro facil deixamos a produção e concentramo-nos na distribuição e retalho, assim que o consumo diminuiu e deixamos de vender é que nos apercebemos que deixamos de ter trabalho.