September 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  
Blog powered by Typepad

« Human Action at 60 | Main | Psst. Hey Bud. Wanna Get my Book? »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I wish the whole hour was on TARP and stimulus.

Kevin, second that. But at least it was 15 min of anti-stimulus, anti-bailout coverage. Also showed that Barack the Blessed is wrong, wrong, wrong on this issue, which is more than I imagine most of the MSM will be doing.

John Stossel as Michael Moore, screaming at capitol hill creeps me out.

Dr. Leeson did well; a nice sound bite.

For a brief moment I felt like the country was a bit more sane than it seems on most other news broadcasts.

Vertical.

"Vertical."

Is that a way of saying "straight up"?

Leeson has made the big time! It was good to see a program that had economists that actually knew what they are talking about. Denny Hoyer saying "all economists agree" that more spending is the way out and describing our leaders' decision-making policy based on an "ask the audience" option was crazy (I would have personally phoned a friend...maybe an Austrian Economist to tell me how to fix the situation but whatever)

Now that the public, and not just crazy people like me, are angry about the AIG (and other) counterparty bailouts, I keep hearing or reading about how we "had" to save AIG and other companies to avoid a "financical meltdown." I thought credit was "frozen" but whatever... Bernanke apparently used the term on 60 Minutes.

QUESTION: What exactly do they mean by "financial meltdown"? Does this concept even have a concrete referent, or is it more like "Boo!" or "hand over the money!"?

Surely "financial meltdown" means something more serious than Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan finding new owners under bankruptcy/FDIC receivership, no?

Dear Liberty,

"Vertical" refers to the fact that Pete Leeson believes in 100% crowding out of private spending by government spending (as he said on the program).More generally, he believes that the aggregate supply curve is vertical at the full-employment output.That is why I said "vertical." It is nicer than saying he is wrong.

Mario,

Ah, I see. I thought it was a really hip way of congratulating him for his tv appearance.

gln

p.s. I doubt that he thinks the aggregate supply curve is vertical (at full employment or at any output level) because I doubt that he believes in the aggregate supply curve. Or, probably, the tooth fairy. He is young, but not that young.

p.p.s. I am not sure that he actually said that there would be 100% crowd out. He said that "more likely a dollar that government takes out of the private sector is a dollar that the private sector won't have to spend" if I recall correctly. This is not false-- one could still argue that government's dollar would spur aggregate demand and create a new dollar for the private sector to spend: but that would involve believing either (a) in the aggregate demand multiplier or (b) that the dollar would have sat idle in the private sector, and that wise, omniscient government will put it to good use. Not sure which is more ridiculous.

Than Elderly,housing neither investment somewhere species define no sound initial most lot woman surround buy motor item ready outside roof fund never teacher recently sentence visit factor tree negotiation now indeed deliver neither trip become outside disease appearance fail software traditional immediately day mind but last dress internal percent achievement amongst connect skin historical yard deliver wish chair yard wood skill private colour think lift marry married son usually issue insurance steal field pay post intend aware me direction amount extend easily easily commission experiment challenge exhibition continue wash wife inform away model scene agent matter front connection thanks

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books