tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6798074091942701235.post4917994192067851203..comments2024-03-27T11:08:31.557-04:00Comments on Can Turtles Fly?: Jim Rogers Interview on CNBC Europe; Plus My Thoughts On CommoditiesSivaram Vhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06361276466660862882noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6798074091942701235.post-79148423767372344672008-10-27T11:42:00.000-04:002008-10-27T11:42:00.000-04:00ContrarianDutch, I share similar concerns. I'm not...ContrarianDutch, <BR/><BR/>I share similar concerns. I'm not too sure of the thinking with the agricultural bet. I think the commodity bet looks risky but commodity shares (businesses) may be ok. Even if the agriculaturl prices don't go anywhere, it's possible for businesses to do well. Recall how the semiconductor industries (say memory or CPUs) have continuously deflated over the last few decades but some businesses have done really well.<BR/><BR/>Although history has not been kind to agricultural commodities, the emergence of countries like China (assuming it doesn't fall apart) is almost unprecedented. Poor people that are becoming wealthier are likely to increase their food quality first.Sivaram Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361276466660862882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6798074091942701235.post-86356393821328178792008-10-25T09:45:00.000-04:002008-10-25T09:45:00.000-04:00What the soft commodity bulls may be overlooking i...What the soft commodity bulls may be overlooking is that the same massive deflationary force that relentlessly pushed down soft commodity prices over the last 200 years (yes, that long!), technological improvement coupled with improved organisation, could very well continue to keep prices down. Over the last 200 years world population more then quintupled and diets got much richer, yet soft commodity prices have only fallen.<BR/><BR/>I see no reason why it would be different this time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6798074091942701235.post-20795483558432436942008-10-24T12:29:00.000-04:002008-10-24T12:29:00.000-04:00Thanks for the suggestions Anonymous. I will admit...Thanks for the suggestions Anonymous. I will admit that I do not claim to know Austrian Economics. But I am not an economist and I don't claim to know (apart from some economics courses or reading on my own) or support everything in alternate types of economics either.<BR/><BR/>I have only read articles and essays on Austrian Economics (no books) and I have essentially dismissed it because it is not science. You can <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_economics" REL="nofollow">read some of the critique of Austrian Economics</A> from Wikipedia. I just cannot come around to following a system that rejects the scientific method.<BR/><BR/>From my limited understanding of Austrian Economics--any economics--just about the only thing that I feel Austrian Economics has any merit is the strong view for the existence of business cycles. Others, such as many Keynesian derivative systems, either assume there is no business cycle or assume that you can eliminate it.<BR/><BR/>Apart from that, I don't think Austrian Economics has much going for it. Part of the problem I feel is that you guys are, sorry to be rude but, 'living in the past'. It seems that every Austrian ends up blaming nearly all the problems of the world (not just today but even 20 years ago) on central banks (and fiat currencies, and so on). Yet, a lot of the current issues are similar to the 1700's and 1800's when we did not have central banks, currencies were backed by gold or silver (for the most part) and government regulations were non-existent for many things in life.<BR/><BR/>If I get a chance to gather my thoughts, I'll try to write up a critique of Austrian Economics. Or at least dismiss some of the explanations that are given.<BR/><BR/>Regardless of what I said above, rest assured that I respect some of the thinking of Austrian Economists. I respect Jim Grant, even if I don't agree with him, and might even buy his forthcoming book :) Like I said, you guys have nailed the business cycle better than most other economic theories that are floating around. However, your downfall is the over-reliance of pinning all the problems on fiat currencies and central banks. I'm not saying that's all there is to Austrian Economics but those are key elements that are hard for me to believe.Sivaram Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06361276466660862882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6798074091942701235.post-52023771241453717872008-10-24T11:25:00.000-04:002008-10-24T11:25:00.000-04:00Sivaram,I like your blog very much and am grateful...Sivaram,<BR/><BR/>I like your blog very much and am grateful to you for giving Austrian School proponents -- Faber, Grant, Rogers, etc. -- a voice.<BR/><BR/>However -- and with all due respect -- i don't think you understand the Austrian interpretation of financial history.<BR/><BR/>For instance, you characterize Herbert Hoover as non-interventionist. From the Austrian point of view, Hoover was the most interventionist President in US history until, of course, FDR.<BR/><BR/>Since you seem to be interested in the Austrian School, if not a believer, I strongly urge you to read a book or two from an Austrian Economist that addresses specific financial events.<BR/><BR/>I have read Murray Rothbard's "A History of Money and Banking in the US." [or something like that]. It spans colonial times through World War II. It is, at times, dry and arcane, but if you can get through it, I think you'll get better understanding of the Austrian school than you do now.<BR/><BR/>Alternatively, you could read "America's Great Depression" [or something like that] -- again from Rothbard. I haven't read it, but I plan to.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that you'll become a convert; but I am saying that based on what I've read from you, you really don't understand where the Austrians are coming from.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>ApplesaucerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com