Typical Ph.D. economics student may be able to tell you lots about Kuhn-Tucker conditions, Hamiltonians, optimal control theory, undetermined coefficients, differential equations, and the like. They may speak fluently the language of mathematics and speak of sophisticated programs in GAUSS, SAS, and STATA. They may look at you with a curious bewilderment, however, upon the mention of Adam Smith. Perhaps you know of him.
In the real world, human action can only manifest itself through material objects; man must utilize the resources that nature gives in order to employ means. If man desires to live, he must obtain food, shelter, and other physical necessities. On the most fundamental level, to exist in this universe, man must occupy space.
In all the commentary on Patrick J. Buchanan's new book (The Death of the West, NY: Thomas Dunne Books, 2002), has anyone discussed his silly economic fallacies and highly interventionist policy agenda? This is the conservative book of the year, the core thesis of which (the West needs higher rates of population increase to keep up with the Third World) impacts very strongly on economic issues.
While many pundits are fond of declaring that capital drives up medical costs, they simply are not being truthful. As one with even a rudimentary understanding of economics knows, capital has the effect of reducing unit costs. It would make no sense to acquire capital, otherwise.
There are some people who think that leaving the setting of many of the terms of California's energy trade to politicians and bureaucrats constitutes a substantially regulated, not a deregulated, energy market. Just because there were some aspects of this trade that were removed from the province of California's government, it does not follow that the market was deregulated--meaning, set free.
According to the popular view, the revival of some important economic indicators has raised the likelihood that the aggressive lowering of interest rates by the Fed will invigorate the economy. The irony is that the very same loose monetary policies that are expected to energize the economy in fact undermine its main source of strength.
In attempting an outlook for the year ahead--and those of the Austrian School firmly believe all such endeavours are an exercise in futility--Sean Corrigan sets out a brief theoretical framework, predicting likely market phenomena and official policy actions, and presenting factors that could derail his predictions.
Even without the war, we are doing everything wrong that the Hoover-Roosevelt-McDonald governments and the Strong-Norman bankers did in the 1930s, after their long decade of easy money and paper prosperity imploded under the weight of too much debt and too great a strain on real capital resources.
Prior to the Keynesian era, recessions were called panics and had durations of about three months. The shortness in duration reflected the lack of interventionism by extra-market authorities. Today, recessions last much longer, as the bad idea that the state should manage the economy has become legitimized.
Is there any merit to the popular definition of recession? Why must it be two quarters of negative growth and not one, or perhaps three? Frank Shostak gives another view and assesses the prospects for recovery.
