Why would I comment on something I haven't read? For god sake, they believe that economics is untestable. I suppose that is convenient for them since when their theories are proven wrong, they just go "economics is untestable" I can't think of a single Austrian theory that is correct.
No, you believe Paul Krugman when he says Austrians believe economics is untestable - however (and I was guilty of buying into this), one can only analyze data in the context of a theory, just like experimentation is only valid in the context of a hypothesis. Incidentally, when mainstream economics speak of "testing" they usually mean "models" that substitute homogeneous variables for heterogeneous factors.
Quick - define "capital".
Anyway, not sure what evidence you are referring too? Firstly, Hayek would've hurt the recession had he got his way due to their advocacy of not expanding credit and the money supply.
Again, your non-understanding of ABCT leads you to misunderstand both the causes and solutions of the current recession. Credit and money expansion beyond the normal rate of interest leads to the undertaking of projects that are not profitable except in an environment of monetary expansion. Once monetary expansion ceases, the projects are seen to be a waste of money, and are liquidated (and individuals/banks invested in them go insolvent).
In terms of the theory, if people decide to spend less on investment goods, then they are spending on consumption goods instead. Thus, there isn't a rise in unemployment. The Austrian theory can't explain why the rise and fall of investment demand leads to rise and fall in the entire economy.
Because the money tied up in bad investments must be reallocated. Those bad investments in many cases provided jobs and income to people. When the investments get liquidated, the jobs and income go away. Because of lower incomes, consumption decreases as people cut back on spending.
Also, their theory implies consumption would increase during recessions - clearly that has proven true lol. Additionally, how do they explain recessions before the central bank?
stop copypasting krugman
credit expansion occurs via fractional reserve banking, which doesn't NEED a central bank; the central bank just institutionalizes it.
Their theory is incapable. There is a reason no respected living economist is an Austrian, because the Austrian theory is about as valid as astrology.
More like economists are trained at state-funded schools, and Austrianism is a threat to their job security.
As the great Milton Friedman put it: "The Hayek-Mises explanation of the business cycle is contradicted by the evidence. It is, I believe, false
ad authoritam woot
The free market can't fix anything, that's pretty much true. The question is whether you want government to intervene in that market. Not every market requires intervention.
The free market has certainly outperformed every other system to date! Honestly I don't get what you're trying to say.
I doubt an article from the 1960s in on the internet. I read a reprinted version in a library. You can probably google "kenneth arrow health care" and get a summary of it since it was an incredibly influential paper.
Apparently their website lies.
Reagan said he was a libertarian.
Buckley said he was an anarchist.
Roosevelt ran on low taxes and less government spending.
Hoover is seen as a laissez-faire liquidationist.
The moral? People lie about their political positons.
Also, (I assume you meant yearly checkups or something). If I didn't have insurance that covered basic check ups I'd be dead. By the time they found out I had cancer, it would be to the point where it couldn't be reversed. So, for many people, regular check-ups are obligatory.
And yet, millions of people go without checkups and end up just fine. Sorry, anecdotal evidence isn't an argument.
Certain pills are more expensive than others. Certain conditions require that brand-names be used rather than generic, others it doesn't matter.
How is the patient to know which is the best? How does the patient know what type of chemotherapy would be most effective? They don't.
They can ask people...? Unless they're literally dying of cancer that very second, people will want to look to see what treatment we're getting.
So, the pricing mechanism becomes futile because there is no interest in "shopping around". Going to WebMD does not make you a medical doctor.
More like there is no interest in shopping around because "insurance will pay for it" Going to WebMD can certainly let someone know "something's wrong maybe I should go to my doctor"
We have a 30-40% population that is functional illiterate, you think they are going to journals to figure out which treatments are best for them at what prices? Of course not.
If you're going to call people functionally illiterate, please spell correctly :D
Other than that, don't make up stats.
Again, they likely would if they didn't think "Insurance will pay for it". But as usual with statists, they just assume a lot of people are stupid and need to be managed by Benevolent Government.
Knowledge to repair the car and the knowledge your car needs repair are fundamentally different. I may know my cars radiator is broken, but how do I fix it? There are only a few options, really. Whereas with many diseases you have a myriad of options to choose from, and you don't know which one is best for you and, again, diminishes competition.
A lack of knowledge of the exact techniques needed to perform a service does not mean a lack of knowledge of whether the person can perform them at reasonable coat at a reasonable level of efficiency.
Uh, no. They have self-interest, but it functions in that they are not trying to rip the patient off. Business is about the balance of convincing your consumer to buy an unnecessary product. That's what business mostly is. When I go for chemotherapy, the tech doesn't come up to me and say "now for only $25,000 we can upgrade you to get your tonsils out".
uh
you think this DOESNT apply to healthcare?
"Sure, of course you need that premium dental plan instead of the basic plan"
There are no downward price pressures in medicine. Nobody chooses whether to get chemotherapy or that tumor removed - you just do it.
Like I keep saying, and like you refuse to even consider, people can shop around, or at least enough people can shop around to make providers see the value of adjusting prices downward. But I suppose you can sidestep this fact by just spouting "40% of people are too stupid to do this"
I don't know what your comment about the falling dollar has to do with this.
Look up "Cantillon effects". Inflation is essentially a wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to the rich.
30%-40% are functional illiterate. This just in, a lot of people in this country are fucking stupid. They wouldn't even know what a gene is.
stop making up stats.
Oh, and if insurance existed only for major purchases rather than regular check ups (which my family couldn't afford on their own) - I'd be dead.
Sorry, but this doesn't apply to the vast majority of patients, and would apply even less if overall costs were dropped for health delivery.
State mandates don't create monopolies through that method, it doesn't make sense. If a provider doesn't meet the basic state minimums, they wouldn't likely succeed in the free market anyway.
lol "basic".
State mandates are pretty extensive
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/HealthInsuranceMandates2009.pdf
This is not "basic".
Most providers simply cannot cover this.
Uh, Switzerland had a hugely free market system until they realized it didn't work. And free markets can't work in principle because free markets don't appease the poor, and we don't want to let our poor die ....
And since they amended the law, costs have been slowly, but steadily outpacing people's incomes. And this is a MORE free-market system than ours.
If it business doesn't have enough money, it either collapses or it cuts back on services (been to an airport lately?) Of course the same logic applies.
Government programs don't go out of business. Notice the Department of Energy, created to reduce dependence on foreign oil, is still around?
lol, statist. You clearly know nothing about my economic positions, mine just happen to be evidence based rather than ideologically driven.
Yeah, like "40% people are stupid", I need a source for that.
It's also amusing how people who advocate expansion of government are never "ideologically driven"
Maybe you should look at Sweden. They have one of the best health care systems in the entire world and it's almost completely state run. Why? Their taxes cover it. All of the poorly run government health care systems face funding issues, the ones that don't work excellently. Clearly that is unrelated though.
looool
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA555_Sweden_Health_Care.html
"What made Persson unique was not his wait for hip surgery. Despite the government promise that no one should have to wait more than three months for surgery, 60 percent of hip replacement patients waited longer than three months in 2003 "
again, typical statist, "it works, it just needs more money"
btw Persson at the time was the prime minister of Sweden
Maybe you should talk to my family then. I don't know what distorted world you live in where going for routine check-ups, especially to specialists like I have to do, is an easy expense for most people.
Not everyone needs specialists for healthcare.
And of course, I think "catastrophic" would cover "people at risk for cancer"
And in a free market, like I said, costs would go down for everyone -even the poor.
especially since the poor in America are actually middle-class by international standards
This is quite prevalent and not unique to me and I find the failure to recognize that either foolish or you desire for people who grew up in lesser economic situations like me to just die from a disease. By the time you catch it and need "catastrophic care" it's far too late.
sources, sources, sources. How am I to believe this is "quite prevalent"?
Your arguments to this point have been both ignorant and little more than an appeal to emotive "THINK OF THE STARVING POOR", as well as mostly anecdotal. You have consistently failed to source your arguments, which are likely based on ideologically driven snippets of media stories of the "horrible free market health-care system" And your "understanding" of Austrian Economics is well, :/
Free markets are not perfect, but they are better than government management (if 30-40% of people are really stupid, how many of them are managing your oh-so-wonderful government system?), and they are not coercive - even if government subsidies saved your life, does it justify forcible expropriation of the resources of others?
Also, a note on life expectancy - it's only the worst possible measure of a health care system as it is affected by a multitude of variables - pollution, diet, lifestyle, crime, social instability, and the like.