The video of my talk by that title last week is now available on the Future of Freedom Foundation website or below.
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 |
« Some Research Questions To Think About | Main | Law, Economics, and Superstition Part 1: "Ordeals" »
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
Peter J. Boettke: Living Economics: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow
Christopher Coyne: Doing Bad by Doing Good: Why Humanitarian Action Fails
Paul Heyne, Peter Boettke, David Prychitko: Economic Way of Thinking, The (12th Edition)
Steven Horwitz: Microfoundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective
Boettke & Aligica: Challenging Institutional Analysis and Development: The Bloomington School
Peter T. Leeson: The Invisible Hook: The Hidden Economics of Pirates
Philippe Lacoude and Frederic Sautet (Eds.): Action ou Taxation
Peter Boettke: The Political Economy of Soviet Socialism: the Formative Years, 1918-1928
Peter Boettke: Calculation and Coordination: Essays on Socialism and Transitional Political Economy
Peter Boettke & Peter Leeson (Eds.): The Legacy of Ludwig Von Mises
Peter Boettke: Why Perestroika Failed: The Politics and Economics of Socialist Transformation
Peter Boettke (Ed.): The Elgar Companion to Austrian Economics
Another fine presentation.
Posted by: Dave Prychitko | December 11, 2009 at 09:40 AM
Thanks for posting this. On that same day I was at a talk hosted by the econ department at my school from a guy from the Bank of England.
Which could have been called "Yes, We Really Need a Central Bank!"
Posted by: GilesS | December 11, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Excellent presentation.
My only discrepancy is that although you do not need to appeal to conspiration explanations for the creation of central banks, the incentive system in place plus human nature lead and solidify solutions that promote interventionism and capture.
Posted by: Guillermo Barba | December 11, 2009 at 02:02 PM
Per usual, great speech. I just have a couple of questions:
1) You spend some time talking about how promoting inflation is in the Fed’s best interest; isn’t it also reasonable to say that promoting inflation is in the broader economy’s best interest in terms of easing the adjusting of sticky prices (i.e. wages)?
2) I’m having trouble seeing your connection for the government created cartel in rating agencies leading to poor/inflated ratings; isn’t the issue of over-rated securities much more easily explained by originators paying for ratings on their securities? Taking this a few steps further, so long as the mechanism for payment for ratings services remained the same, wouldn’t competition for bank/originator services led to even greater inflating of securities’ ratings?
Posted by: Jasper Burch | December 14, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Jasper:
1) No. Inflation, understood as an excess supply of money, is always bad. Sticky prices are a good reason to avoid DEflation, but not an argument for INflation. Using inflation to offset sticky wages is thinking too much in aggregates. Inflation will discoordinate all of the individual wages that are needed for labor market coordination in the name of changing some aggregate measure of wages.
2. Before the cartel, the buyers of securities, not the originators, paid for the agencies' services. It was the advent of the various regulations that created the cartel and gave them sole responsibility for rating particular kinds of securities that led them to serve the sellers not the buyers. So it was the cartelization process itself that turned around the relationship.
Posted by: Steve Horwitz | December 15, 2009 at 08:24 AM
Very insightful, thanks!
Posted by: Jasper Burch | December 15, 2009 at 09:46 AM