Myth 5: Economists, using charts or high-speed computer models, can accurately forecast the future.
The problem of forecasting interest rates illustrates the pitfalls of forecasting in general. People are contrary cusses whose behavior, thank goodness, cannot be forecast precisely in advance. Their values, ideas, expectations, and knowledge change all the time, and change in an unpredictable manner. What economist, for example, could have forecast (or did forecast) the Cabbage Patch Kid craze of the Christmas season of 1983? Every economic quantity, every price, purchase, or income figure is the embodiment of thousands, even millions, of unpredictable choices by individuals.
Many studies, formal and informal, have been made of the record of forecasting by economists, and it has been consistently abysmal. Forecasters often complain that they can do well enough as long as current trends continue; what they have difficulty in doing is catching changes in trend. But of course there is no trick in extrapolating current trends into the near future. You don't need sophisticated computer models for that; you can do it better and far more cheaply by using a ruler. The real trick is precisely to forecast when and how trends will change, and forecasters have been notoriously bad at that. No economist forecast the depth of the 1981–82 depression, and none predicted the strength of the 1983 boom.
The next time you are swayed by the jargon or seeming expertise of the economic forecaster, ask yourself this question: If he can really predict the future so well, why is he wasting his time putting out newsletters or doing consulting when he himself could be making trillions of dollars in the stock and commodity markets?
Read the full article at mises.org.
Read the news over at RonPaul.com, which Ron Paul tried to steal using the UN.
I've found a website that answers all your questions about libertarianism: libertariananswers.com
Guest post by Anthony Coralluzzo
When I was about 11 or 12 years old I started playing representative basketball here in Melbourne. I was an excellent player. I trained as hard as was humanly possible, several hours a day, year after year. I was disciplined. I never missed training. I carried out the coach's instructions to the letter.
I even played against players who eventually went on to play in the NBA and other professional leagues, like Andrew Bogut.
I wanted to go that far too ... but there was a problem.
I was short for this game. Very short.
Only 5 foot 7 inches, in fact.
Although I played at a high level, I could never quite get to the very top grades. The 1st grade coaches wouldn't pick me. The players they did pick had similar levels of ability in things like ball handling, shooting percentages, speed, determination etc etc ... but they had one thing I didn't have ..... height.
In basketball ... all other things equal ... height counts for something.
When you get up to the highest levels, the acquired, practiced abilities tend to even out. As a coach, you can't afford to be giving up even the tiniest advantage to your opponent. It doesn't matter if that advantage is the unearned result of genetic factors that were endowed at a player's conception, as height is.
The average height of a professional basketball player is about 6 foot 6 inches. The average height of a point guard (the position I played) is 6 foot 2 inches. Only a handful of players my height or below, have ever played professional basketball. Hundreds of thousands have tried, as hard as anyone, but failed. The tiny handful that succeed usually have some freakishly rare ability, like a world record vertical leap, that compensates for the height issue and helps them stand out.
My acquired skills were as good as the other point guards, but my height meant I faded into the background. The 1st grade coaches didn't pick me. Indeed, I was DISCRIMINATED against, because of my height.
And you know what?
That was, absolutely, the RIGHT THING FOR THE COACHES TO DO.
To help with sponsorship, it looks good to have lots of facebook followers.
Lawrence White is one of the leading monetary economists in the world, having made notable contributions to the theory and practice of free banking, central bank policy and economic history. In an article written a few years ago, White complains about the United States Federal Reserve System, arguing that the Fed is violating the law and exceeding its statutory authority under the Federal Reserve Act. "Central bankers today are discretionary rulers over the economy’s monetary and financial institutions", writes White. "Defenders of the rule of law, who in general decry the arbitrary rule of men, should specifically decry the rule of central bankers".
For White, the American central bank’s unprecedented bailouts during the Global Financial Crisis should elicit outrage from across the political spectrum. The Fed has more than doubled its balance sheet, invested in assets that could expose taxpayers to large losses and has precipitated a significant increase in the monetary base that may lead to troublesome inflation.
This video has really inspired me to get back into playing b-ball as I used to when "younger".
Sweeet, this is what we get for being America's ally (I highly doubt the US would come to our aid btw).
In response to the censorship of the organizational committee of the Mises Seminar, I've started a new facebook group called "The Real Australian Mises Group". This group won't censor any posts except those that are illegal or prohibited by Facebook's policies, so feel free to post whatever you like.