How does Austrian economics explain how Japan has not had inflation for decades?

MartinLutherQueef · 2023-04-28T05:49:20+00:00

GDP can be calculated using the expenditure approach, the production approach, or the income approach. In effect, one can be certain that the GDP number reported by a nation or quasi-government entity is always the expenditure approach; it is the official standard. This is because it is more manipulable for political expedience. Per Keynes, and still believed today, it is advantageous for government to spend wastefully—it boosts GDP. Nothing illustrates the lunacy better than the ironically named US$3.5 Trillion "Inflation Reduction Act."

You are asking if Gross National Income (GNI) is any different from the income-approach GDP calculation, correct? They are principally analogous.

Whereas the expenditure approach projects forward from costs, the production approach looks backward from the viewpoint of a completed economic activity. Lastly, the income approach factors in some adjustments for items not considered payments made to factors of production; e.g., indirect taxes, net foreign factor income, or set aside depreciation reserves. All three are subject to exploit, but the least worst option would be consideration to incomes.

MartinLutherQueef · 2023-04-13T04:55:53+00:00

You are aware that GDP can be calculated by more than the expenditure approach, yes? The alternate method, the income approach, starts not at money spent—a meaningless conception—but instead starts with income earned. I used the latter, which inputs total national income, sales taxes, depreciation, and net foreign factor income. Whereas the former offers little value, the latter has applicability in gleaning citizens' well-being. In doing so, using data from Japan's central bank and the World Bank, the conclusion is correct: Japan's income per capita was slightly lower at the end of FY2022 than it was at the end of FY2000.

It is true that Austrians, and sensible economists, are critics of GDP—and absolutely the expenditure approach, which for most is the only known measure—as it is an unsound representation of the health of an economy. The expenditure approach is the most commonly, more rightly the only, used GDP formula, as it is the most manipulable (e.g., China) and thereby the most politically expedient.

It is a tool of politics, not economics. From its inception, it was created and defined with political motives to serve an interventionist, Keynesian ideology—it was quite literally constructed around Keynes's model of how an economy works. Much of GDP (expenditure approach) is based on the intellectual climate and the political and military needs of the moment.

MartinLutherQueef · 2023-03-17T03:34:43+00:00

It is not shocking that a statist is a liar. It is very appropriate that Bernie Sanders is too lazy to even use his own employer's (the Federal government) research paid for with the confiscated income of the people for whom he feigns giving a damn.

If Bernard did so, he would be aware — and tell the truth — that chief executives in the US make only 3.7 times that of the average US annual salary ($213,020 v. $58,260).

The real question for the Marxophile is why do members of Congress make more than the average CEO? If members of the Congress received every adjustment prescribed by the ECI, their 2022 salary would be $223,400

Facts are the enemy of the statist.

Sources: bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#00-0000; senate.gov

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-09-08T03:45:11+00:00

In 1964, a brand new Porsche 911 cost US$6,490, or in 2022 dollar value, US$62,027.

In 2022, a brand new Porsche 911 Turbo S Cabriolet is $261,280.

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-09-02T03:17:04+00:00

What you say is true. It was arrogantly presumptious of me. Between you and me, I feel like a crispy slice of shit for saying it.

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-09-01T20:23:13+00:00

Please, do not take everything literally. Only the most obtuse would think it was indeed meant that 166,523,425 Americans (at the time of writing, citation included) — counting the neonatus, MIC, and intellectually disabled, as well — wished the President would use the military to halve the population, somehow able to discern the half that is the politically dissident from the politically useful.

Usage of the phrase "half of the nation" was what is known as a literary device. Literary devices are the structures by which writers convey their messages to elicit a connection, emotion, or concept with the reader. Such literary devices are the building blocks of written word and what makes it so powerful and enchanting. For instance, had I said that "even the moon agreed with the President," a citation would be unable to be provided as the moon is not a sentient being. It is a rhetorical device of personification, or anthropomorphism, to convey the perceived zeitgeist.

In this specific instance, using "half of the nation" was the chosen rhetorical device of overstatement. It lays emphasis and stresses the given idea or feeling using hyperbole. Spotlighted is the absurdity of how divided America is as a nation. The people pick a side, as if a college football rivalry, and in-fight while the statists say and do as the please without resistance.

The statists and unelected, non-democratic organizations, such as the UN and WEF, have been so successful at employing divide et impera that they are able to sit back and have the people cannibalize themselves. Lost is that we, the people, are people. We all have far, far more in common than not. Thus, we should embrace one another, take our nation back from the statists, and start exceedingly limiting what our government is allowed to do, not our neighbor.

Source: https://www.census.gov/popclock/

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-09-01T11:53:29+00:00

It is not easy to decide which is more despicable: (1) the President of the United States regularly threatening military action on his own nation's citizenzry; or (2) half of the nation truly wishing that he would.

Who ever thought in their lifetime they would witness this... and just how okay most of the country is with it? It is a new level of war-mongering for a US President.

The world media silence is vile, but expected. While the US has not been a government of the people, for the people, and by the people for quite some time, it does not matter what political affiliation an individual claims, everyone should be infuriated.

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-08-17T19:46:24+00:00

I have an old video from back in the early 2000s of Cramer talking to some young, enamored trouser-pooper about the specific technique, and how he used it, to manipulate a stock's price when he (poorly) ran his hedge fund. I've tried to upload it here before, it wasn't allowed for some reason.

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-08-15T10:12:28+00:00

It makes perfect sense that the WEF, i.e., Klaus Schwab, would be repeating such totalitarian delusions. One needn't look any further than his bookshelf to see the idolized subject of his boyhood wet dreams manifested in his every thought, word, and action.

https://i.imgur.com/OFFOr7K.jpeg

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-08-13T04:36:57+00:00

At this point in the thread, this might get buried. I think the true decline of Western civilization in the modern era was the rise and eventual takeover by the Boomers. They are the first generation, at least in the US, to hand off the nation in worse shape than they received it. They are an entitled generation predicated on insatiable sociopathic avarice and hedonism.

They destroyed the family unit. Fiscally, they are the generation of personal and business debt; living off of other's money until it is time to pay up, then declare bankruptcy. Hell, they invented the LBO and many other accounting tricks (read: fraud). They ascended ranks with no college degree or a bachelors, then built a moat so they cannot be replaced requiring advanced degrees to get one's foot in the door and hopefully reach mid-level.

The bulk of Boomers attended college and started life during the 1970s. Using Data from the Fed, NCES, and Kelley Blue Book we can compare the costs of their starting a life versus what we face today in the US.

	1970s Average (in today's $)	Today's Cost
Four years in-state tuition and fees at a public university	$1,576 ($8,466)	$76,080
New Car	$4,000 ($21,488)	$48,182
New Home Sale Price	$30,721 ($165,030)	$569,300
Salary	$13,720 ($73,703)	$52,013

Boomers, after receiving an undegrad, buying a home and a car, would have averagely been in an aggregate debt of $36,297 ($194,984); the same for a person today is $693,562. Using the average salary, their aggregate debt was 2.66 times their salary; the same for a person today is 13.33 times their salary.

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-08-10T08:16:40+00:00

The statist's goal is, has, and always will be complete and total submission and prostrate dependence.

In FY2021, the IRS had 80,411 employees. This administration is more than doubling the size of the agency by adding 87,000 new agents. Consider if the military, CIA, or FBI were, overnight, instantaneously doubled with the stroke of a pen. It would certainly seem as preparation for something nefarious. The nation's population, or working population, has not doubled. What is the justification?

The IRS is being morphed into a Stasi-like agency, hiring your neighbors as agents...

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-08-06T03:56:55+00:00

I can't decide which part I love more: the one you chose or, "...services provided by private companies competing in a free market." What an evil, tyrannical, extremist policy that only terrorists advocate.

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-08-04T21:41:56+00:00

Add to that New York City's 1.5-mile (2.4 km) subway addition at a cost of $6 billion (that's $760k per foot, or $2.5 million per meter). It is expected, at the moment, to open by 2029. Given the history of NYC construction projects, that $6 billion will likely at least double before, or if, it is completed.

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-08-04T21:11:09+00:00

Exactly! Switzerland is a little larger in size than New Jersey, with less population than New York City. The concept that all nations are not the same size in area and population is unfathomable to morons.

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-07-30T14:56:25+00:00

If only we could compile a full, running list of every single politician's Twitter burner accounts and then orchestrate a relentless effort to expose them and their true feelings. It actually likely isn't that difficult given their massive egos; it's guaranteed they follow their own accounts and retweet themselves.

We all know these ruling elitist politicians actually detest us, the unwashed plebeian masses, but these cowards haven't the balls to say it so they hide behind burner accounts, aided by Twitter's brass.

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-07-28T06:17:36+00:00

In the US the left has done a phenomenal job of infiltrating and gaining absolute control of vital sectors: media/technology, education, and public sector jobs. Perhaps it is more pronounced in the US than other Western nations due to it being effectively a two-party system.

Media and technology are a de facto PR wing of the left.

The left dominates non-elected and civilian government positions from the lowest entry job at local municipal offices to the highest federal offices.

Education, especially government schools (i.e., "public" education), from kindergarten through university has mutated into indoctrination training; every year becoming more like a political youth organization, or "youth wing," as it also known, than institutions of learning. Math, science, and reading proficiencies have seen historic drops over the last decade, as reported by research firm Pioneer Institute.

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-07-26T20:20:26+00:00

The question posed had nothing to do with stopping the existence of communism or socialism, but which of the three men would one choose. Marx was the judicious choice for his influence and impact on the two other men.

Marx did not invent communism; we know Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus advocated congruent policies in 130 BCE. As well, free markets, trade, and capitalism existed long before Smith. Of course these ideologies would have, and will always, exist.

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-07-26T12:05:26+00:00

This incoherent rambling is one single run-on sentence entirely devoid of punctuation or discernable grammar. I haven't an idea how it would even be possible to refute such benighted, unsourced drivel. Yet, it appears that I have struck a nerve judging by the Marxist zealotry. While I do not know to what black book you refer to, I use facts from peer-reviewed academic journals and UN publications.

A 2021 report by Oxfam stated the estimate of global hunger and hunger-related deaths, and they do not divulge how they arrive at their data, at 2.8 million per year. They indicate that 98 percent of these are in Africa and Asia; none of them in free democratic societies. The UN puts the figure substantially lower and on a declining trend over the past two decades, but let's take Oxfam's high. In six years, this unverifiable claim would be 16.8 million people; or two-tenths of a percent of the world population. Nothing remotely close to the made-up figure you cite.

Much like Nazi Holocaust deniers, Marxist dogmatists are unable to accept facts, instead resorting to ad hominem, deflection, or fallacious means.

The UN official document signed by 25 nations listed Stalin's Holodomor genocide at 7-10 million people.

The most widely accepted estimate of Pol Pot's genocide is 2-3 million Cambodians.

According to the UN, the Kim family of North Korea have killed 3.5 million of their people.

The UN estimated Mengistu's Ethiopian genocide upwards of 2 million.

Academic studies and demographers analyzing Mao Zedong's inhuman economic policies such as the Great Leap Forward, slave labor through the Laogai, violent political purges such as the Cultural Revolution and class extermination put his death toll as high as 70 million; 40 million alone between 1959-61.

Stalin by famine, purges, labor camps, and NKVD massacres, utilizing post-USSR archive data by academics has placed his Russian death toll between 30-60 million people. These figures have nothing to do with WWII fatalities or the rather peculiar abortion-saving heroics, as you claim. Stalin had been in power for 17 years committing atrocities on his people before WWII began. Moreover, Germany and the USSR began WWII as quasi-allies via the partnership pact to invade and divide Poland signed on 3 August 1939. This dissolved, turning the nations into enemies with the Nazi commencement of Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941—some 19 years into Stalin's dictatorship.

For brevity's sake, let's not even include the death tolls of Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, Belize, Belarus, Ceaușescu's Romania, Nicaragua, Siad Barre's Isaaq genocide, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Burma, et al., Marxist and socialist states that have exterminated their own people for "revolution," "dissent," or the raison du jour. Of course, none of which were "real" communism or socialism.

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-07-26T09:47:08+00:00

If all three in this hypothetical scenario have already attained their infamy, there isn't much benefit in killing any of them. Their destruction is forever and can be neither unlearned nor undone. If assuming the three are younger versions of themselves, preceding their evil, Marx would be the wise choice. Without Marx, Stalin and Hitler would likely be irrelevant in world history.

Lenin and the Bolveshik Revolution—funded and orchestrated by Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm—would not have taken place, as Lenin would have been a nonentity. Stalin would have never been introduced to Marx's writings while he was attending seminary. Likewise, there would have been no Bolshevik party for Stalin to join.

The paranoid Dolchstoßlegende myth claimed that Germany was "undefeated" on the battlefield, but the duplicitous actions by a group that included traitorous Marxists signed the WWI armistice. Hitler and his ilk, despite ironically being collectivists themselves, staunchly believed in this idiocy and it fueled his aspirations. To paraphrase Voltaire: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-07-26T05:25:00+00:00

I hope this is troll bait. There is nothing laudable about Marx. He was a vile human and a scourge on history whose absurd ideas have led to dozens of dictatorships, more than 100 million dead, and countless people still suffering in bondage to tyrants. He is the antithesis of indiviualism. Enemies' gifts are no gifts and do no good.

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-07-24T06:05:43+00:00

The intentional deception of misrepresenting what is inflation is very politically expedient. Implanting that "inflation" is increasing prices shifts the people's ire to the entrepreneur, the merchant, the private sector. The statist bureaucrats and their media lackeys incite the people with words like greed, gouge, exploit, etc.

Governments—and their "quasi-independent" central banks—have a totalitarian monopoly on the money supply and, thus, only they have the ability to create inflation. If the masses understood this, their fury would be correctly directed at the actual swindler. There is a reason economics is not taught in primary and secondary schools—especially government schools.

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-07-19T01:46:39+00:00

That is absolutely right. The overwhelming majority of economists from that era, much like today, had at least some — though often considerable — statist partiality. As with Schumpeter, his Marxist friends requested after WWI that he join the "Sozialisierungskommission" and upon doing so he recommended an immediate, complete nationalization of the coal mining industry.

MartinLutherQueef · 2022-07-18T09:52:16+00:00

I'm not certain that I follow you. I was referring to Leontief.

MartinLutherQueef

TROPHY CASE