setci rakusania su mainstreamovou ekonomiu oznacovany za blaznov

a pritom schiff a spol. boli jediní schopní predpovedat realitnu bublinu

Australskej...?

tiez sa do ekonomiky nevyznam.... ale nazor, ze keby sme sa vratili k zlatemu standardu, tak by sme nemali ziadne recesie/krizy a pod. mi pride ako konspiracna teoria....

neviem si predstavit, ze keby zlaty standard bol akymsi zazranym liekom na nase ekonomicke problemy, tak by vacsina ekonomov tvrdila opak... to mi pride dost uletene...

a nazor, ze by sme sa nemali zadlzovat je sice pekny.... ale bez deficitov by nebolo mozne financovat velke projekty, ktorych ekonomicka navratnost je az v stredne dlhom obdobi - 10-20 alebo aj viac rokov... keby sme mali mat zdy vyrovnany rozpocet, tak by sme asi nemali apollo, vesmirny program by nebol vznikol.... v nemecku by bez deficitov nikdy nepostavili dialnice... vacsina inovativnych spolocnosti ako google/apple atd boli vo svojich zaciatkoch zavisle na dlhu.... vez uverov a pociatocneho sa zadlzenia, aby mohli financovat vyvoj svojich produktov... by to mali velmi tazke...

bez uverov/hypotek by si vacsina ludi nemohla dovolit kupit dom, zalozit rodinu a pod... dlh nemusi byt zly, ked sa tie peniaze minu ucelne, tak je to investicia, ktora sa v buducnosti vrati a splati dlh plus prinesie aj profit...

..ta vacsina ekonomov sa chce niecim zivit. vymenit pravdu za peniaze nieje az taky nezvycajny obchod. samuelson, teda autor vacsiny eko.ucebnic, z ktorych sa dnes uci bol velkym zastancom kolektivizacie a obdivovatelom zssr. prosim ta pozri si jediny dokument o fede z pohladu tej "druhej" strany. pretoze obviously vobec netusis co to je a ako funguje.

zrovna jeden autor na československom misesi začal písať seriál, ktorý sa možno aj hodí k téme o ktorej sa zhodou okolností diskutuje momentálne pri possitive thread stole (left-right mi príde vhodnejší). Som zvedavý čo sa z toho vykluje, niekomu to možno bude stáť za prečítanie, zatial to vyzerá celkom zaujímavo. I keď do určitej miery to možno bude opakovanie už známych argumentov
http://www.mises.cz/clanky/anarchokapit ... -1119.aspx

This means that to strive for a structureless group is as useful, and as deceptive, as to aim at an "objective" news story, "value-free" social science, or a "free" economy. A "laissez faire" group is about as realistic as a "laissez faire" society; the idea becomes a smokescreen for the strong or the lucky to establish unquestioned hegemony over others. This hegemony can be so easily established because the idea of "structurelessness" does not prevent the formation of informal structures, only formal ones. Similarly "laissez faire" philosophy did not prevent the economically powerful from establishing control over wages, prices, and distribution of goods; it only prevented the government from doing so. Thus structurelessness becomes a way of masking power, and within the women's movement is usually most strongly advocated by those who are the most powerful (whether they are conscious of their power or not). As long as the structure of the group is informal, the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules. Those who do not know the rules and are not chosen for initiation must remain in confusion, or suffer from paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware.