Economics 101

[EdwardBaiamonte]

He doesn't mention it in any of his speeches or papers. .

Would the 100% perfect idiot liberal bet $10,000 on that???

would the liberal like to see another 50,000 links?????????

PDF]
Money and Business Cycles - National Bureau of Economic Research
www.nber.org/chapters/c7496.pdf
‎
Chapter Author: Milton Friedman, Anna J. Schwartz. Chapter URL: ... the business cyclewas a monetary phenomenon, “a dance of the dollar,” as Irving Fisher .


Milton Friedman: "I Think the Austrian Business-Cycle Theory Has ...
economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/.../milton_friedman.html
‎
Jan 20, 2006 ... FRIEDMAN That is a very general statement that has very little content. I think the Austrian business-cycle theory has done the world a great ..

 

[Abishai100]

The Capitalism Expo

I put in $15 in Ford in 2009 when it was valued at $1/share, but then it rose to $15/share in value, and had I put in $1 million, I would have made $14 million in stock market profits, and all of this 'luck' was brought on by a statistical analysis of the looming boom in the auto market.

What American companies compete graphically in the global market, given that consumerism-iconography companies in USA create images of culture exaggeration for 'materialism marketing'?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Capitalism Expo

I put in $15 in Ford in 2009 when it was valued at $1/share, but then it rose to $15/share in value, and had I put in $1 million, I would have made $14 million in stock market profits, and all of this 'luck' was brought on by a statistical analysis of the looming boom in the auto market.

What American companies compete graphically in the global market, given that consumerism-iconography companies in USA create images of culture exaggeration for 'materialism marketing.'



View attachment 87144

do you have any idea what your point is????????

 

[Abishai100]

FALSE-POSITIVE

Sorry, I got carried away...ain't the Romantics dystopian? What are some views (if any) on Scandinavian social structure and economy?


Mandrake the Magician

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

FALSE-POSITIVE

Sorry, I got carried away...ain't the Romantics dystopian? What are some views (if any) on Scandinavian social structure and economy?


Mandrake the Magician


View attachment 87146

they do well in Scandinavia and they do even better when they move to America. Case closed. Sorry.

 

[Rshermr]

FALSE-POSITIVE

Sorry, I got carried away...ain't the Romantics dystopian? What are some views (if any) on Scandinavian social structure and economy?


Mandrake the Magician


View attachment 87146

they do well in Scandinavia and they do even better when they move to America. Case closed. Sorry.

FALSE-POSITIVE

Sorry, I got carried away...ain't the Romantics dystopian? What are some views (if any) on Scandinavian social structure and economy?


Mandrake the Magician


View attachment 87146

they do well in Scandinavia and they do even better when they move to America. Case closed. Sorry.

Poor ed, has ho idea of what happens in Scandinavia. He thinks it is in Minnesota. , but keeps on posting con talking points like a good con. Ignorant and believing what he is told. Because the poor stupid bastard knows only what he is told to believe.Poor dipshit.

 

[CultureCitizen]

He doesn't mention it in any of his speeches or papers. .

Would the 100% perfect idiot liberal bet $10,000 on that???

would the liberal like to see another 50,000 links?????????

PDF]
Money and Business Cycles - National Bureau of Economic Research
www.nber.org/chapters/c7496.pdf
‎
Chapter Author: Milton Friedman, Anna J. Schwartz. Chapter URL: ... the business cyclewas a monetary phenomenon, “a dance of the dollar,” as Irving Fisher .


Milton Friedman: "I Think the Austrian Business-Cycle Theory Has ...
economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/.../milton_friedman.html
‎
Jan 20, 2006 ... FRIEDMAN That is a very general statement that has very little content. I think the Austrian business-cycle theory has done the world a great ..

Ed,
As I previously commented with Toddster, the business cycle is related to the circular flow in economics, but they are not the same. The business cycle is a byproduct of the circular flow:

Business Cycle :
The business cycle is the fluctuation in economic activity that an economy experiences over a period of time.

Circular Flow:
The circular flow of income is a neoclassical economic model depicting how money flows through the economy.
In the most simple version, the economy is modeled as consisting only of households and firms.

Again, other than a few references to consumers, there is close to zero evidence that Friedman framed his analysis in the circular flow. He also failed to see that income difference follow an exponential difference and not a gausian distribution which normally occurs in nature.
On the other hand he was as afraid of big corporations as of big government and considred inequallity could be fought with a negative income tax ( which I am not sure would have worked, but hey , at least he was willing to address the problem). Finally Friedman developed the income withholding tax, something he regreted later.

Business Cycle Definition | Investopedia
Circular Flow Of Income Definition | Investopedia

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ed,
As I previously commented with Toddster, the business cycle is related to the circular flow in economics,

lying scummy liberal said Friedman did not consider "cyclical" nature of economy. Now that he has been proven wrong he pretends he said circular, not cyclical nature of economy. I'm embarrassed for the liberal.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Again, other than a few references to consumers, there is close to zero evidence that Friedman framed his analysis in the circular flow.

This is so totally 100% stupid as to be perfectly 100% liberal. I saw him just before he died. He was asked what he wanted to be know for. He said his research on the consumption function about which he wrote a book called the Consumption Function!!!
Thanking you for showing us the IQ of liberalism!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

FALSE-POSITIVE

Sorry, I got carried away...ain't the Romantics dystopian? What are some views (if any) on Scandinavian social structure and economy?


Mandrake the Magician


View attachment 87146

they do well in Scandinavia and they do even better when they move to America. Case closed. Sorry.

FALSE-POSITIVE

Sorry, I got carried away...ain't the Romantics dystopian? What are some views (if any) on Scandinavian social structure and economy?


Mandrake the Magician


View attachment 87146

they do well in Scandinavia and they do even better when they move to America. Case closed. Sorry.

Poor ed, has ho idea of what happens in Scandinavia. He thinks it is in Minnesota. , but keeps on posting con talking points like a good con. Ignorant and believing what he is told. Because the poor stupid bastard knows only what he is told to believe.Poor dipshit.

vicious violent liberal who would not tell his mother what he is like.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Again, other than a few references to consumers, there is close to zero evidence that Friedman framed his analysis in the circular flow.

This is so totally 100% stupid as to be perfectly 100% liberal. I saw him just before he died. He was asked what he wanted to be know for. He said his research on the consumption function about which he wrote a book called the Consumption Function!!!
Thanking you for showing us the IQ of liberalism!!!

He just seems to have forgotten to integrate the level of household debt and interest rates in his formula.

 

[P@triot]

Poor ed, has ho idea of what happens in Scandinavia. He thinks it is in Minnesota. , but keeps on posting con talking points like a good con. Ignorant and believing what he is told. Because the poor stupid bastard knows only what he is told to believe.Poor dipshit.

Instead of using all of your time in a pitiful attempt to convince people of why you deserve to mooch off of society - why don't you take some classes on the English language? You continue to struggle.

Let's see - you used the word "poor" three times (can you say "over use"?). You failed to capitalize "Ed" (a proper name), put a period after "Minnesota" but then followed that up with a space, a comma, and then another space, and finished by failing to put a space after the period before your final two word "sentence".

Your grammar is almost as atrocious as your knowledge of economics. Why do you refuse to tell us what country you are from? It would at least excuse - in part anyway - your incoherent posts, "me boy".

 

[P@triot]

He just seems to have forgotten to integrate the level of household debt and interest rates in his formula.

There is no "formula" here, simpleton. This is not chemistry. It's very simple. So simple, that only a liberal could struggle to understand it.

When government devastes a business with taxes, costly regulations, and labor laws - all of which sends money to the government - the business has less money in their account. That prevents them from hiring people. Or purchasing more equipment. Or expanding their operations. If the government has their money, they simply cannot do these things. Surely even you can't comprehend that.

The same goes with consumers. If the government has all of my money, I can't take vacations. Send my children to college. Purchase automobiles. Etc. What part of that can't you grasp? You and I both know that you realize people and businesses can't spend money that they don't have. Yet that undeniable realization is in direct conflict with your precious little liberal ideology. It's time to embrace reality my friend.

 

[CultureCitizen]

He just seems to have forgotten to integrate the level of household debt and interest rates in his formula.

There is no "formula" here, simpleton. This is not chemistry. It's very simple. So simple, that only a liberal could struggle to understand it.

When government devastes a business with taxes, costly regulations, and labor laws - all of which sends money to the government - the business has less money in their account. That prevents them from hiring people. Or purchasing more equipment. Or expanding their operations. If the government has their money, they simply cannot do these things. Surely even you can't comprehend that.

The same goes with consumers. If the government has all of my money, I can't take vacations. Send my children to college. Purchase automobiles. Etc. What part of that can't you grasp? You and I both know that you realize people and businesses can't spend money that they don't have. Yet that undeniable realization is in direct conflict with your precious little liberal ideology. It's time to embrace reality my friend.

No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases. Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?
And it is not as if the current effective tax rate is at an all time high. Here we go again:

It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis. Indeed he simply disregarded the level of private debt as a very important factor .

 

[regent]

He just seems to have forgotten to integrate the level of household debt and interest rates in his formula.

There is no "formula" here, simpleton. This is not chemistry. It's very simple. So simple, that only a liberal could struggle to understand it.

When government devastes a business with taxes, costly regulations, and labor laws - all of which sends money to the government - the business has less money in their account. That prevents them from hiring people. Or purchasing more equipment. Or expanding their operations. If the government has their money, they simply cannot do these things. Surely even you can't comprehend that.

The same goes with consumers. If the government has all of my money, I can't take vacations. Send my children to college. Purchase automobiles. Etc. What part of that can't you grasp? You and I both know that you realize people and businesses can't spend money that they don't have. Yet that undeniable realization is in direct conflict with your precious little liberal ideology. It's time to embrace reality my friend.

Sounds like an endorsement of Keynes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He just seems to have forgotten to integrate the level of household debt and interest rates in his formula.

There is no "formula" here, simpleton. This is not chemistry. It's very simple. So simple, that only a liberal could struggle to understand it.

When government devastes a business with taxes, costly regulations, and labor laws - all of which sends money to the government - the business has less money in their account. That prevents them from hiring people. Or purchasing more equipment. Or expanding their operations. If the government has their money, they simply cannot do these things. Surely even you can't comprehend that.

The same goes with consumers. If the government has all of my money, I can't take vacations. Send my children to college. Purchase automobiles. Etc. What part of that can't you grasp? You and I both know that you realize people and businesses can't spend money that they don't have. Yet that undeniable realization is in direct conflict with your precious little liberal ideology. It's time to embrace reality my friend.

No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases. Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?
And it is not as if the current effective tax rate is at an all time high. Here we go again:

It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis. Indeed he simply disregarded the level of private debt as a very important factor .

No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases.

I think it's humorous that you believe Friedman didn't understand the basics of economics.

Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?

Obama adding additional regulatory road blocks to business formation and expansion.
Obama adding additional taxes. Excessive regulatory and capital restrictions on banks.

It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis.

When the monetary authorities fucked up so royally, the monetary approach is important.

 

[CultureCitizen]

He just seems to have forgotten to integrate the level of household debt and interest rates in his formula.

There is no "formula" here, simpleton. This is not chemistry. It's very simple. So simple, that only a liberal could struggle to understand it.

When government devastes a business with taxes, costly regulations, and labor laws - all of which sends money to the government - the business has less money in their account. That prevents them from hiring people. Or purchasing more equipment. Or expanding their operations. If the government has their money, they simply cannot do these things. Surely even you can't comprehend that.

The same goes with consumers. If the government has all of my money, I can't take vacations. Send my children to college. Purchase automobiles. Etc. What part of that can't you grasp? You and I both know that you realize people and businesses can't spend money that they don't have. Yet that undeniable realization is in direct conflict with your precious little liberal ideology. It's time to embrace reality my friend.

No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases. Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?
And it is not as if the current effective tax rate is at an all time high. Here we go again:

It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis. Indeed he simply disregarded the level of private debt as a very important factor .

No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases.

I think it's humorous that you believe Friedman didn't understand the basics of economics.

Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?

Obama adding additional regulatory road blocks to business formation and expansion.
Obama adding additional taxes. Excessive regulatory and capital restrictions on banks.

It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis.

When the monetary authorities fucked up so royally, the monetary approach is important.

As I said before , Friedman liked to make simplifications to make models. So his models have to be taken with caution: they work only under certain asumptions. In any case, in the paper you linked there is no warning about household debt levels. And as pointed by the charts, the actual taxes in the US were a lot higher during the 60's and 70's.

"Truly important and significant hypotheses will be found to have "assumptions" that are wildly inaccurate descriptive representations of reality, and, in general, the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions (in this sense)
Milton Friedman"
Essays in Positive Economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He just seems to have forgotten to integrate the level of household debt and interest rates in his formula.

There is no "formula" here, simpleton. This is not chemistry. It's very simple. So simple, that only a liberal could struggle to understand it.

When government devastes a business with taxes, costly regulations, and labor laws - all of which sends money to the government - the business has less money in their account. That prevents them from hiring people. Or purchasing more equipment. Or expanding their operations. If the government has their money, they simply cannot do these things. Surely even you can't comprehend that.

The same goes with consumers. If the government has all of my money, I can't take vacations. Send my children to college. Purchase automobiles. Etc. What part of that can't you grasp? You and I both know that you realize people and businesses can't spend money that they don't have. Yet that undeniable realization is in direct conflict with your precious little liberal ideology. It's time to embrace reality my friend.

No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases. Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?
And it is not as if the current effective tax rate is at an all time high. Here we go again:

It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis. Indeed he simply disregarded the level of private debt as a very important factor .

No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases.

I think it's humorous that you believe Friedman didn't understand the basics of economics.

Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?

Obama adding additional regulatory road blocks to business formation and expansion.
Obama adding additional taxes. Excessive regulatory and capital restrictions on banks.

It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis.

When the monetary authorities fucked up so royally, the monetary approach is important.

As I said before , Friedman liked to make simplifications to make models. So his models have to be taken with caution: they work only under certain asumptions. In any case, in the paper you linked there is no warning about household debt levels. And as pointed by the charts, the actual taxes in the US were a lot higher during the 60's and 70's.

"Truly important and significant hypotheses will be found to have "assumptions" that are wildly inaccurate descriptive representations of reality, and, in general, the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions (in this sense)
Milton Friedman"
Essays in Positive Economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Friedman liked to make simplifications to make models.

All models involve simplifications. So what?

In any case, in the paper you linked there is no warning about household debt levels.

If you say so. So what?

And as pointed by the charts, the actual taxes in the US were a lot higher during the 60's and 70's.

Actual taxes on what were a lot higher?

 

[P@triot]

Sounds like an endorsement of Keynes.

Sure...if Keynes meant the exact opposite of what it actually does.

 

[P@triot]

No, I think YOU ( as Friedman) are completely unable to understand what happens when households get too much debt : households start to deleverage and consumption decreases. Why else do you think recovery has been so slow?
And it is not as if the current effective tax rate is at an all time high.

It is not surprise that Friedman took a pure monetary approach to the '29 crisis. Indeed he simply disregarded the level of private debt as a very important factor .

First of all - like all ideologues you fail to examine why. Why is there so much debt? Because the government steals 55% - 60% of what a person earns.

Second - is there a point to you suddenly turning your focus on debt after all of your other nonsense was disproven? People have debt. You can never account for who will have it or how much they will have at any given time. So you want what? The government to control people's finances as well?