There is no one Taylor Rule, but several, depending on how one interprets the government's measurements of the economy. Taylor's rule also fails to address the fundamental problem of coordinating the actions of many diverse individuals in an economy, so it cannot protect us from malinvestment and bubbles.
Jeff Deist and David Howden discuss the history of banking in America before 1913 and the entanglements of the Federal Reserve.
In recent years, we’ve seen more and more Austrian-tinged economic analysis. There has been tremendous growth in interest in Austrian economics among financial professionals.
It’s difficult to envisage a downward-sloping yield curve in an unhampered market economy since this would imply that investors are assigning a higher risk to short-term maturities than long-term maturities. But in today’s economy, an upward or a downward sloping yield curve reflects the Fed’s interest rate policies.
Some economists of the Austrian School contend that business cycles are created when banks use the proceeds of short–term time deposits to create longer-term loans.
The Fed does not produce work or items of value.
Many still blame “deregulation” for the financial disaster that was caused by an intricate web of federal laws and regulations, writes Dale Steinre
An entire generation of students has been taught to accept efficient market theory (EMT) as gospel. They have learned about investing in securities in an academic environment that rejects fundamental analysis.
The theory of monetary disequilibrium, as espoused by Selgin (1988), White (1989), Horwitz (2000), and others, has been used to justify the issuance of fiduciary media under a system of fractional reserve “free” banking.
Unfortunately, Peter Bossaerts’ text, The Paradox of Asset Pricing, offers no relief from past use of flawed methodologies. Bossaerts is professor of finance and director of the Laboratory
