Praxeology is the deductive study of human action based on the action axiom. The most common use of the term is in connection with the Austrian School of economics. The term was coined by Austrian school economist Ludwig von Mises.
In Röpke's Crisis and Cycles, he Is critical of the boom-bust cycle created by the Federal Reserve .Keep in mind that he wrote this in 1936 this just after the Great Depression (the first one). One would think we could learn from history. Looks like we don't this time. We drove flat-out toward the precipice.
But hey,it's just debt. Let our descendants deal with it. After all, we'll all be dead by then. Not our problem, right? This is not what made America great.
The Mises Institute has gone out of its way to present this lost gem.There is. another danger of which both author and reader must beware: that of viewing the matter in the wrong per- spective; that is to say, attaching too much importance to the events of the moment and consequently failing to see things in their historical perspective. Let us not be too hasty in expressing the opinion that Providence is doing us a special favour by allowing us to witness (or even to be instrumental in introducing) a new epoch of world history, and let us remember that world history is no ephemeral growth. We must have enough historical sense to know that nothing in the world lasts for ever, not even our present social and economic system; but, on the other hand, we must also have enough historical sense to see things in their historical perspective. In a word, let us not be affected by the prevailing nervousness which in certain individuals borders already on hysteria.
Only people devoid of historical sense could so quickly forget that it is a mere matter of fifteen years since the World War brought greater suffering to humanity than the present world crisis has done, and that the alterations in the economic system which then took place (disintegration of world economic relations, national autarky, suspension of the gold standard and all-embracing economic regimentation) have been of far greater import than the changes now being brought about by the pressure of the crisis. At that time, too, there were people who were quick to assume that the war-time economy had come to stay, who talked of the " dethronement " of gold and predicted the end, once and for all, of the competitive economic system, and the definite bankruptcy of Liberalism. And yet, after the war, with almost elemental force, all that was said to be dead— world economy, the gold standard, capitalism and liberalism— came into being again, and swept away the hysteria engendered by the war as if it had been the figment of a dream! It would be well if we at the present time were to keep cool and collected, and to behave in such a way that when in days to come we look back upon the vortex of this crisis we need not blush at the recollection of any hysteria. We may venture, without undue optimism, to predict that those who have not let the outcry of loud-mouthed prophets and reformers turn them from their belief in the lasting validity of the principles which have given the economic and social system of the West all its greatness will be proved right in the end. We must at least reckon with the possibility that after this devastating crisis, as after the war, most of what is to-day being so loudly decried and reviled will come into its own again.
It's hard to say what is the most rare, most hard to find, most buried important book, in the history of the Austrian School. But this splendid and critically important treatise would certainly be among the nominees.
Until this edition, this book has been darn-near impossible to obtain short of stealing from the Library of Congress. As a matter of fact, it has been mysteriously missing off the shelves there for years, so the only copies extant have been photocopies of photocopies 50 times over.
So at last: we can present to you Crises and Cycles by one of the greats.
During the thick of the Great Depression, the same year as John Maynard Keynes came out with his treatise, Wilhelm Röpke made this contribution to macroeconomics: an excellent exposition of the Austrian Cycle theory in the tradition of Mises and Hayek.
He refutes Keynes before Keynes became popular, and also provides an argument against other prevailing theories. Röpke is not perfect: while his analysis is excellent, he recommends a reflation after deflation. Nonetheless, this is an important and much-sought-after treatise by an important member of the Austrian School.
A persistent problem facing our society is the use of illegal drugs, such as heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, and crack. Drug use has several adverse effects. One is that drug dependence can ruin the lives of drug users and their families. Another is that drug addicts often turn to robbery and other violent crimes to obtain the money needed to support their habit. To discourage the use of illegal drugs, the U.S. government devotes billions of dollars each year to reduce the flow of drugs into the country. Let's use the tools of supply and demand to examine this policy of drug interdiction.
Suppose the government increases the number of federal agents devoted to the war on drugs. What happens in the market for illegal drugs? As is usual, we answer this question in three steps. First, we consider whether the supply or demand curve shifts. Second, we consider the direction of the shift. Third, we see how the shift affects the equilibrium price and quantity.
Although the purpose of drug interdiction is to reduce drug use, its direct impact is on the sellers of drugs rather than the buyers. When the government stops some drugs from entering the country and arrests more smugglers, it raises the cost of selling drugs and, therefore, reduces the quantity of drugs supplied at any given price. The demand for drugs—the amount buyers want at any given price—is not changed. As panel (a) of Figure 9 shows, interdiction shifts the supply curve to the left from S1 to S2 and leaves the demand curve the same. The equilibrium price of drugs rises from P1 to P2, and the equilibrium quantity falls from Q1 to Q2. The fall in the equilibrium quantity shows that drug interdiction does reduce drug use.
But what about the amount of drug-related crime? To answer this question, consider the total amount that drug users pay for the drugs they buy. Because few drug addicts are likely to break their destructive habits in response to a higher price, it is likely that the demand for drugs is inelastic, as it is drawn in the figure.
If demand is inelastic, then an increase in price raises total revenue in the drug market. That is, because drug interdiction raises the price of drugs proportionately more than it reduces drug use, it raises the total amount of money that drug users pay for drugs. Addicts who already had to steal to support their habits would have an even greater need for quick cash. Thus, drug interdiction could increase drug-related crime.
Because of this adverse effect of drug interdiction, some analysts argue for alternative approaches to the drug problem. Rather than trying to reduce the supply of drugs, policymakers might try to reduce the demand by pursuing a policy of drug education. Successful drug education has the effects shown in panel (b) of Figure 9. The demand curve shifts to the left from D1 to D2. As a result, the equilibrium quantity falls from Q1 to Q2, and the equilibrium price falls from P1 to P2. Total revenue, which is price times quantity, also falls. Thus, in contrast to drug interdiction, drug education can reduce both drug use and drug-related crime. Advocates of drug interdiction might argue that the long-run effects of this policy are different from the short-run effects because the elasticity of demand depends on the time horizon. The demand for drugs is probably inelastic over short periods because higher prices do not substantially affect drug use by established addicts. But demand may be more elastic over longer periods because higher prices would discourage experimentation with drugs among the young and, over time, lead to fewer drug addicts. In this case, drug interdiction would increase drug-related crime in the short run while decreasing it in the long run.
Paul Krugman looks at the first-quarter growth results from some developed economies and notes Japan's strong performance due to the post earthquake and tsunami reconstruction. He then compares it to Italy's dismal results due to austerity measures (which, as I've pointed out here, consists almost exclusively of tax increases, not cuts in spending).
Krugman then says that "there seems to be some kind of lesson here about macroeconomics, but I can't quite put my finger on it…" Is he really saying that what Europe needs to grow again is a massive earthquake and tsunami? Or maybe a nuclear accident? After all, Krugman once wrote that Fukushima's "nuclear catastrophe could end up being expansionary" for the economy.
Speaking of economic lessons, has the good professor never heard of "the broken window fallacy"?
Wow, he's really doing a fine job reminding us why American economics in a increasingly/socialist republic, leaning toward toward the dangerous over-interventionist governments that have been historical epic failures is not the direction societies that thrive ever take. Economic theory, market theories; Paul Krugman skipped those classes in his degree studies. Oh, wait, it's an honorary degree?
Economics in the Crisis - Paul Krugman - The New York Times
He's definitely no more than a statist tool, discarding real market principles for moral hazard. These ideas are pretty easy, it just takes looking at it without the window dressing. I would hope that the general population has the same capacity to see our situation for what it is.
There is an article reprinted in Walter Block's The Case for Discrimination (a great book so far) which describes the inefficiencies and rigid nature of public education institutions, one which conforms less to the educational needs of the students in regards to the preferences of the parent. Socialized markets tends to guarantee that some segment of society be dissatisfied, maintaining an imbalance and laying the costs on all taxpayers, even if those taxpaying parents choose private or homeschool options.
This has been a very divisive issue of late. Some parents want very much for their children to be fully educated, and they see learning about human sexuality as crucial to the well developed person. Others are equally vociferous—but on the other side. In their view, such matters should be left to the home or to the church, or not be discussed at all.
How can such disputes be resolved? Well, there are two and only two ways to accomplish this; all others are simply combinations and permutations of these polar solutions.
The first method is the use of physical force. The matter is decided by a dictator, or by a democratic election of the entire populace, or by a school board or a mayor or a city council or a parent-teacher association. However it is determined, the decision is enforced upon the losers. Whichever way it goes, we either have sex education in the schools, or we do not. One group, either the opponents or the proponents, must of necessity be dissatisfied.
The other method is called the free-enterprise system. Here, there are no such things as public schools. All are private. Each one determines its own policy on this issue. In some, sex education is totally banned. In others, it forms the central focus of the entire learning experience. In most cases, this subject plays a more intermediate role.
Under such circumstances, everyone can be satisfied. Parents can patronize the schools that most nearly reflect their own views on the matter. Given dozens—if not hundreds—of educational enterprises in each city, there is little doubt that all tastes on the spectrum can be accommodated.
Let us now consider an analogy. Instead of considering the proposition "We ought to have sex education in the schools," let us contemplate "We ought to have pizza in the restaurants."
Were this question solved in the manner presently used for sex education, our system would be very different. Most restaurants would be run by the government. All citizens would be forced to pay for these public restaurants, whether they used them or not. Those who patronized private ones would have to pay twice: once in fees for meals, and then again through taxes. People, moreover, would be assigned to the public restaurant located nearest to them.
As to the pizza question, all public restaurants would either stock this foodstuff, or they would not. There could be no such thing as restaurants specializing in different cuisines, and people sorting themselves out according to their tastes. Thus, either the pizza lovers, or the pizza haters, would be disappointed.
The point is, the market is almost infinitely flexible compared to government. And this holds true even when a free market in education is compared to educational socialism. In addition, the profit-and- loss system of free enterprise tends to weed out those entrepreneurs who cannot satisfy their customers. Let a business firm supplying elementary school services answer the sex educational question in a way at variance with a parent, and that is one customer gone to patronize a competitor. In contrast, the state educational bureaucrats have very little incentive to satisfy the demands of their captive audience; if the parents don't like the policy, it is just too bad for them: they must continue to pay their school taxes in any case.
The proof of this contention is that there simply is no "pizza in restaurants" issue now bedeviling society. The very idea is ludicrous. But the reason we have escaped this particular vexation is that the market functions, in large part, without our appreciation or even knowledge. The best way to answer the challenge of sex education in the schools is to privatize the entire industry, and allow each parent to decide this issue for him- or herself.
There is the objection that schooling is too important to be left to free enterprise, and that the government must therefore take it over.
It is certainly true that education is crucial to living a good life. The ignorant man is only half alive. But food, too, is important. And if we have found a way to feed people—efficiently and affordably—without emulating the Soviet system of collectivized farms, restaurants, grocery stores, and so on, surely we can do so with regard to education as well.
We conclude that the way to address the issue of sex education (as well as other seemingly intractable issues such as school busing, prayer in the schools, and debates over educational philosophy) is to allow the market to function. It is the most productive and moral economic institution known to man; surely it can suffice in this particular case.
Sadly, most proponents of socialized alternatives to free markets tend to disregard the inefficiencies of the state, the gross wasteful spending, political corruption, and above all the conflict with the principle of non-aggression in funding these government endeavors (non-voluntary taxation). With public schools in America being modeled after factories in the industrial revolution, it's no wonder dissension is increasing.
The American Petroleum Institute is the mega lobbying group for the country's oil and natural gas industry, just-released their annual Energy in Charts report.
The group warns of the energy crunch that looms over the country in the next decade — the same ones we have written about recently.
"We need to change course and acknowledge that the current path of shrinking energy options won't support the energy needs and economic growth required to ensure a better future for all Americans. We must not single out energy sources in order to promote one source of energy over another. We must abandon the energy rhetoric that pits one resource against another. We need all of our resources—oil and natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, biofuels and more."
We've compiled the 28 charts that together paint a pretty complete picture of where things stand now, and where they're likely to stand going forward.
Remember of course that these charts come from a lobbying group with obvious interests.
And I have heard it argued, by the very likes of Ron Paul, that there should be no laws protecting workers from abuses, sexual or otherwise, from employers, as employees are "free to work where ever they wish" and the "marketplace" will regulate behavior. While you're counting all of the people you know that are "free to work where ever they wish," I'll only offer up all of history in refutation of this fallacy.
Funny you should mention that subject area. I recently started reading the Case for Discrimination by Walter Block. He discusses the differences between what discrimination is and the myth of how it adversely affects society. There was a time when being discriminating was a good thing, but those reasons have become convoluted through media and misinformation. Discrimination is simply making a choice of one thing over another. Central planners in the name of resolving the conflict of racism show us the law of unintended consequences in action; racism is not allowed to fade into history, with many proponents continueing to hold on to it as a method of market gain.
I recall a wonderful quote from an interview with Morgan Freeman on racism and black history month; "You're going to relegate my history to a month? I don't want a black history month. Black history is American history." The idea that minority causes are more utilitarian than majority causes is just as baseless as the inverse. Let the market decide and negative discrimination will fade into the background, holding little value or potential. Affirmative action has been proven a failure born from good intentions. In itself, it promots discrimination, for the utility of some underprivileged class, of course, but at the expense of others.
I still find it almost humorous how so many believe that those in the Austrian school promote racism and negative discrimination through free market principles. Anyone who actually takes the time to read any significant works by Mises, Rothbard, Paul, or countless others would come to understand that those misnomers are simply invalid.
I have also tried to read Krugman, but there is more subjective position to the Chicago school, which casts aside many hard economic principles. His work is more fiction than science, which is why his work grossly undersells that of giants in the field like Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, Hoppe, and many others who have since left us to learn from their work. Krugman simply discounts fact for opinion, working toward something quite un-utilitarian. Bastiat warned of allowing the state to hold a monopoly on the use of force through fiat law.
Nationalism is the statist course Moscow followed on their path to inflation, reduced individual rights, and finally economic collapse, though we seem to be following a similar path despite the historical aversion toward anything Red. We have been warned over and over about fiat money, it's corruption, it's lack of market value. No matter how much the Fed prints, more paper can not create growth or social utility, but it has done immense harm through the boom and bust cycle that the money changers promote as being the key to economic success. All of history is indeed offered up to refute the fallacy of interventionism.
A wireless router is just a box with antennas that allows you to surf the Internet on your laptop anywhere within about a 200-foot radius (about two-thirds of a football field). In a populated spot, like an apartment complex, quite a few neighbors fall within that 200 foot range; and if you're like a lot of people, you never bothered to password protect access to your router and the valuable Internet service it broadcasts.
So, what do you get when you mix an unsecured wireless router with a densely populated neighborhood of Internet users--an ample supply of digital "piggybackers" ready to access the Internet through your router free of charge. Is piggybacking theft? Not necessarily. Indeed, some people leave their routers unprotected intentionally--"sticking it to the man" by unleashing free Internet service for the masses. Problems arise, however, when too many neighbors piggyback at once, clogging up bandwidth and reducing your Internet connection speed to a trickle. An article in the New York Times shows that a bit of benign wireless free-loading can quickly turn into a miniature tragedy of the digital commons.
Hardly. While it may be a tragedy (or a benefit if you're the freeloader), in economic terms it is definitely not a public good, or even a common resource. WiFi service does not exist in nature, since it is a technology provided by individuals using private goods (wireless router hardware in conjunction with wired networks).
As you read the article, think about how you would classify Internet service through a wireless router. Is the service a private good, a natural monopoly, a public good, or a common resource? What's the difference between a password-protected router and an unsecured one?
An open wireless network, either intentional or unintentional, is a security risk first and foremost, but needs to be understood as a private good being used by a small portion of the contiguous public. Those outside of it's range are not able to use the service, so it's not entirely public.
Source: The New York Times, March 05, 2006
In 1994, seafood may have peaked. According to an analysis of 64 large marine ecosystems, which provide 83 percent of the world's seafood catch, global fishing yields have declined by 10.6 million metric tons since that year. And if that trend is not reversed, total collapse of all world fisheries should hit around 2048. "Unless we fundamentally change the way we manage all the oceans species together, as working ecosystems, then this century is the last century of wild seafood," notes marine biologist Stephen Palumbi of Stanford University.
Marine biologist Boris Worm of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, gathered a team of 14 ecologists and economists, including Palumbi, to analyze global trends in fisheries. In addition to data from the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization stretching back to 1950, the researchers examined 32 controlled experiments in various marine ecosystems, observations from 48 marine protected areas, and historical data on 12 coastal fisheries for the last 1,000 years. The latter study shows that among commercially important species alone, 91 percent have seen their abundance halved, 38 percent have nearly disappeared and 7 percent have gone extinct with most of this reduction happening since 1800. "We see an accelerating decline in coastal species over the last 1,000 years, resulting in the loss of biological filter capacity, nursery habitats and healthy fisheries," notes team member Heike Latze, also of Dalhousie.
And across all scales, from very small controlled studies of marine plots to those of entire ocean basins, maintaining biodiversity--the number of extant species across all forms of marine life--appeared key to preserving fisheries, water filtering and other so-called ecosystem services, though the correlation is not entirely clear. "Species are important not only for providing direct benefits in terms of fisheries but also providing natural infrastructure that supports fisheries," explains team member Emmett Duffy of the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences. "Even the bugs and weeds make clear, measurable contributions to productive ecosystems."
Although the trend is grim, the study of protected areas offers some hope that marine ecosystems can rebound, according to the paper presenting the analysis in the November 3 issue of Science. The 48 studied showed an overall increase of 23 percent in species diversity and a fourfold increase in available catch. "It's not a miracle. It's something that is do-able, it's just something that requires a big chunk of political will to do it," Worm observes. "We have a 1,000-, probably 10,000-year habit of taking the oceans for granted and moving from one species to the next, or replacing it with a technological fix like aquaculture. To me, the major roadblock is we have to change our perception of what the ocean is." Should we fail, we may lose the ocean's bounty entirely.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=overfishing-could-take-se
I see this overfishing as a perfect example of the Tragedy of the Commons; the shared resources of the fish in the sea, and the lack of ownership, fail to promote sustainable fishing practices, as those fish resources are a common good, which are rivalrous and non-excludable.
By privatizing the oceans (not socializing through the state), fishing markets would have motivation to maintain individual fishing grounds or regions, as overfishing would give advantage to those who build sustainable areas which provide continued supply of fish over the long term. Those grounds which reduce supplies would see income decline, while those with higher levels of fish supply would see income maintained, and their fishing rights to those areas become prime property, which could also trade on a market just as housing does.
Property that is owned in common tends to get overused. Environmental resources that are owned in common tend to get spoiled. For most of human history, we did not know how to avoid this problem. We degraded the environment and drove many species of game and fish into extinction.
Imagine a world where someone owned the ocean and charged fishermen for the right to take squid. The fishermen demand squid on behalf of those who want to eat it. If the price that fishermen must pay is very high, they will have to charge restaurants a higher price for the squid to break even. Restaurants will in turn have to charge a higher price, so fewer diners will buy squid. If fishermen have to pay a higher price for squid they take from the ocean, they will take only as many as they will be able to profitably resell.
Reprinted from The Economist; Virtue rewarded, Thursday, January 17, 2002
I see that as a obvious easy choice to sustain the fish supply through the application of free market principles like property rights (specifically privatization). Maintaining the oceans as a common good have only encouraged the usage of those resources to be depleted at ever-increasing rates as time goes on, as the only market encouragement fishermen have is to harvest more than their competition to stay competitive, which is not sustainable when the resource is finite.
Some regions require fishing to keep population levels down, such as some bass in lakes and rivers, but most ocean populations require self-control, or market economics, to help regulate the industry.
Earlier this month I wrote about our upcoming 7th grade curriculum choices. In the comments, April asked how we use the free, online math program found at Khan Academy in our homeschool.
First, I set my daughter up as a user. Since she didn't have an email account at the time, and I was having problems getting her one, I set up a "dummy" Facebook account for her. (She doesn't use this for anything except logging on to Khan Academy.)
Then, I set up my account so I can act as her "coach". With this enabled, I can login and see how long she does math, problems she gets correct or wrong, general progress, etc. It was pretty easy to set up.
Once both accounts are linked, your student is able to begin.
The main menu is the celestial "knowledge map" where you can pick and choose what you would like to practice. I don't have Morgan click on that, at all.
To the left of the knowledge map is a "suggested exercises" menu. This is where I have Morgan get her problems. I have her start at the top of the menu. Whatever is at the top, is the next suggestion thing she should be working on. This is because after you achieve "Mastery" in a topic, the program will automatically generate practice problems every so often. If the practice problems are answered correctly, it goes away and "Mastery" level is maintained. If the problem is answered wrong, new problems will be generated in that topic to refresh and regain mastery.
Since Khan Academy is completely self-paced I have Morgan just work through the menu as it is suggested. She knows she is to watch every video as it is offered. She also knows that she is to work problems for a minimum of 20 minutes.
When we started using Khan Academy, we began at "Addition 1". That is basic one digit addition. Obviously, she raced through that. Once she was proficient, it gave her a different topic. That is how we move through the program. If she gets it, we move forward. If she doesn't we work through it a little longer, but she still eventually gets it.
This has been one of the best moves that we have made this past year. In fact, on her standardized test results, we saw her math scores jump significantly.
MEPs agree on price caps, operator freedom.
Among the new regulations is a maximum limit of 70 cent per MB of data used while roaming within the EU, far below what some carriers are currently charging. Calls will also be capped at a maximum of 29c per minute (excluding VAT).
Additionally, customers can also choose a different operator abroad if they choose to do so. "In a borderless Europe, there is no place for charges that diverge so much at home and abroad," said MEP Ivo Belet.
The European Parliament is introducing these new regulations, amongst others, to prevent occurrences of bill shock within the European market. The new rules will result in significant savings costs for business travellers in the EU, and it also encourages carriers to compete, according to the EU.
The new regulations will come into effect in the European market in 2014.
Original Page: http://feeds.afterdawn.com/~r/afterdawn/~3/cxUjlLiY810/european_parliament_targets_mobile_bill_shock
A commenter responding to an earlier post pointed to survey data on homeschooling at the National Center for Educational Statistics site. Table 2 summarizes data on who homeschools.
One interesting thing is how widespread homeschooling is. Classified by household income, the percentage of children home schooled is essentially constant for the first three categories (under $25,000, $25,000-$50,000, $50,000-$75,000), a bit lower for the top ($75,000+) category--presumably because higher income parents have easier access to the private school alternative. By race, the rate is higher for non-hispanic whites than for blacks, but only by about a factor of two; interestingly, hispanics have about half the rate of blacks.
By parental education, home schooling percentages increase with increasing education through a bachelor's degree but are slightly lower for families where the highest parental education is a graduate degree than for those where it is a bachelor's--again, the differences are not enormous.
The one big effect is that families with two parents only one of whom work are much more likely to home school than other families--5.6% of their children are home schooled, compared to an overall average of 2.2%. And families with three or more children are somewhat more likely to home school than smaller families. Neither is surprising.
[...]
