Define Business Cycle and explain the Chacteristics of a Business Cycle
Please like our Economy video presentation. This is our assignment for Principle Of Economics (EIB10103) Hope you guys enjoy this video.
Boom and Bust: Who Can Explain the Business Cycle? (Accessible Preview)
Part of the "Economics USA" series. The nation's cycles of economic booms and busts were considered intrinsically capitalistic by Joseph Schumpeter who ...
The Truth About Central Banking and Business Cycles
Just because we've had a system of central banking for 100 years doesn't mean we ought to. In fact, it's starting to look like central banks do more harm than ...
The only thing that confuses me (which hopefully someone can clarify) is
why would someone put money into savings with the idea that someone could
take it and use it for their own investment endeavors? Seems like deception
to me. We put savings into the bank FOR OUR OWN future consumption. What
incentive do savers have to give out their money for other people to simply
take away and use on themselves?
+xodis911 The idea is that the money they receive from you is loaned to other people, but with the certainty that they will receive more money than what they give. Didn't you ever wonder how a bank makes money if you can save money and receive a little extra in a savings account? Interest rates
+Skeptical Chris Are you retarded? Do you even pay attention? Established banks benefit from the false inflationary boom and are forced into the same risk exposure as every other business without central banks propping them up. There's a reason banking is a fucking cartel.
If Bank systems work so much, how come they're unequal between the Investor
and the Consumer? The investor gets plenty fees from Banks i.e. withdraw
and deposits and overcharges. Yet, when an Investor's money is BORROWED
from a Bank to Loan to a Consumer, not charge is applied from borrowing
from people.
+Mc DaviD Young Because it is somewhere in the "cloud." Also you technically do get paid for them using your money. That is where that up to 1% interest on money stored in banks comes from. Sounds like a good deal ehh? ;) For them.
It is however, a government supported monopoly. Further, it has the legal power to act over other banks and directly affect the supply of money. Further, isn't the chair appointed by the President?
+Ayam Sirias It all started with government funding of schools, now they are slowly sliding down the shitter as children are taught that the government is the solution to all of our problems, and that free markets promote "wage slavery" and "exploits workers."
+Ayam Sirias Once I get through the financial topics, I'll circle back around and cover the broader economic topics, but honestly economic stuff isn't hard to find for free because there's no money in it.Very few people will teach others about finance and investments for free because that knowledge is worth money, so why give it away? That's why it's hard to find YouTube videos about these topics that are more than infomercials for a book, or seminar.Here are some videos to get your started:Austrian Economics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLfnpwHu4HwKaynes VS Hayek (Round 1): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-SkKaynes VS Hayek (Round 2): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOcMilton Friedman: Free to Choose (Part 1): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3N2sNnGwa4
+TruthOverEverything +Ayam Sirias That's why all you hear about is "wealth inequality", and not the skyrocketing standard of living.Its like they'd rather live in the dark ages when everyone smelled like pig shit and died in their 30s, because at least it was "fair".
+Turd Flinging MonkeyAlso tons of propaganda against it, propaganda never asking the question as opposed to what or looking at how fucking amazing even THE poorest people's lives are nowadays relative to 99.9999% of humans just a few centuries before them.
+Ayam Sirias Well I'm just one monkey. I can't fight against the entire public education system. I'll be satisfied if I can help MGTOW have financial literacy. Economic literacy is great, but less important for their lives.
They don't understand it, or they fear a meritocracy because they're lazy pieces of shit.
The Business Cycle Theory Explained
Do governments cause business cycles, booms & busts, recession and depressions. Are they are the main reason for the current worldwide financial turmoil.
Actually the government does manipulate those goods via things like
subsidies. They subsidize corn and sugar for example, not 'veggies' and the
government does that because industry lobbies to get the laws so that
regulations benefit a few in business to keep you and anyone else from
create real competition. Yet, it is also true that individuals can
manipulate. In a pure free market, individuals (not the goverment) are free
to 'manipulate' too and that is what actually happens in the past.
Sometimes the manipulation is they have to make it 'illegal' such as
concepts like 'insider trading' but there are many types or flavors of this
sort of thing. So if one demonizes the 'government' and by that lets be
clear we mean federal government as if the state government or local
government is awesome sauce and saintly. Nope, not even. That means if your
anti-government and say your the Governor of Texas, you'd also need to be
against the state government of your own state. But the focus should be on
individuals, especially well placed ones who manipulate, rather than a
'government policy'. Both are something that must be taken into account as
both are the source of bad outcomes (not simply one or the other).
I agree with your logic Abbas. I will simply add that the more people, the workers, have in income the more they have to spend on services and items made so the balance between wages and prices is something both pure market capitalism and a more controlled economy might find common ground for mutual benefit. Perhaps that conversation should be why we don't need a minimum wage, and also how are wages generally set. I know they have multiple agencies that create data and from that data many companies and agencies (at all levels) create their wage indexes. Perhaps a political action group can produce You Tube videos about how wages are set currently and explain how minimum wage plays a role, and since it can take a point of view, if such minimum wages are a bad idea how and why that is the case.
+Dillion McDyver Very well put. I'm a strong advocate of Austrian Economics and pure free market capitalism, and against government regulations, but without government, kids would be forced into the labor market making 3 dollars a day for unregulated labor as we see in China. That is why they are so productive, the cost of labor is low, so the cost of their product is able to become more competitive in that it is also lower. Pricing a product is a function of what it costs to produce that product. I come to struggle finding ideas that benefit a strong private sector and labor market because every idea that benefits the small mom and pop business, ALSO benefits the "greedy 1%". I don't support the minimum wage because cost control only benefits bigger companies that can afford it and the demand for labor subsequently goes down, but no minimum wage can result back in employer manipulation as we have seen in the industrial revolution.
Austrian Economists can't explain the business cycle
Long and short: Monetary policy influences investment decisions by lowering interest rates. Low interest rates increase investment because the marginal cost of ...
I think you'd be surprised to find out that a great deal of investment is
found in private equity leveraged buyouts. Usually this means businesses
that are failing get bought up and wrung out so that the firms still fail,
but someone makes a profit. Investment in this sense actually decreases
capital. The theory for Austrians states that BAD investments are made with
easy money - like buying an overpriced house. When the Fed raises rates
again PE firms go bankrupt and mortgages become to pricey.
There are measures that are used to gauge the risk of products in financial
markets. Lol, do you really believe that Lehman Bro's were just like "OK we
bought all the good stuff, let's buy bad stuff now!" There's a whole
industry built around insuring and hedging downside risk such as CDS's,
CMO's, CDO's, etc., etc. The problem with risk is that "when the market
collapses, correlations typically fall to 0"--which means that even the
prices of non-risky assets can be subject to a fall in price.
"Bubbles only form when investors have a mis-perception of an investment's
value relative to other investments." Precisely, but I think you are
drawing the wrong conclusion from this. Yes, monetary policy doesn't change
the profitability of one investment relative to another(at least not
directly), but what it does do is push yield-hungry investors to
investments of higher risk, which is precisely where investors are likely
to have mis-perceptions of value. So, it does produce bubbles.
It makes them less risk averse because they can't get the same yield in the
same investment class, yet the demands placed upon them by their clients
remains the same. Some people, like pension fund managers, have to make a
particular rate of return every year. If the government comes in and fixes
bond prices so the "risk-free" rate of return is less than their prior
returns, then the only way they can keep up with their mandate is to accept
the same yield at higher risk. ...
Much of the securities use risk measures to determine the relationship
between assets within each tranche of a security. We usually use certain
types of relationships, such as the gaussian copula. However, these metrics
are only as good the underlying data provided to them and the assumptions
which are baked into the analysis. Basically, to assume that "cheap credit"
= "flooded market" = "bubble burst" isn't really demonstrating causation or
even correlation lol
Again, why does monetary policy make investors less risk averse? Why does
it not make them invest in still-otherwise safe investments like blue-chip
bonds when the decrease in marginal cost is the same across every
investment? The only way it can make investors make riskier investments is
if those investments appear to be better relative to others, and we haven't
seen an explanation of how monetary policy causes that.
First off, you mangle ABT right out of the gate. Mises did not say business
cycles are created by "too much investment." He termed it "malinvestment,"
which is different. Malinvestment means that there is a misallocation of
resources between the higher and lower stages of capital goods. In short,
it makes investment in higher order capital goods more attractive than it
would be otherwise.
If you were confused by my post then its likely that you need to read up
more before this conversation ensues lol. I'd suggest reading modern
financial or economic textbooks. Assumptions, incentives, and approaches to
understanding markets are not held static. So it is always good to know
what is happening in the real world at any given time Historical context is
nice, though
i'm really not up on ABC theory. but this is how i see it. before you get
over-investment, you get cheap credit. cheap credit incentivises
lower-quality higher-quantity investments. less "risk-averse" investment...
and thus bubbles bound to burst. when a bubble bursts, the large majority
of capitalists involved, lose their investment (and any potential profits
with it).
You ask why they don't invest in blue chip bonds. Why do you think they
don't? You say the only way it can make investors choose riskier
investments is if it makes them look better... well, that's obvious. One
way you can make riskier investment look better is by making the less risky
investments look worse, which is exactly what lowering interest rates is.
Ah, the joys of linear thinking. Economies are complex systems. Bubbles are
chaotic emergent events. The more raw energy you put into a complex system
the more likely and more dramatic the chaotic events the system spawns. So,
monetary policy may not create specific bubbles, but it will effect their
frequency and severity.
I see you ignored the video and didn't read the description. Bubbles only
form when investors have a mis-perception of an investment's value relative
to other investments. Monetary policy doesn't make individual investments
more valuable relative to other investments, it makes ALL investments more
valuable.
"how do you measure that value?" the marginal cost of borrowing vs.
marginal productivity of capital. These values are absolute and are not
measured relative to other investments. So when the marginal cost of
borrowing is reduced, more borrowing for investment takes place in the
whole economy.