IntenseDebate - Predrag Rajsic

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Why the Nostalgia for ... · 0 replies · +2 points

References 4, 6 and 13, listed in the Serbian version of this article: http://katalaksija.com/2014/02/24/ekonomija-titov... are excellent sources of background information (in English) related to the second and third question here. The first question is a matter of applying the standard definition of the growth rate to two observations of the level of a variable at two points in time. If you would like to receive or share any additional information on this, I encourage you to contact me via e-mail. I will try to address your concerns within my time constraints. I would also be happy to receive any thoughts you may have on the issue.

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Why the Nostalgia for ... · 2 replies · +5 points

The article states that the debt in 1980 was about $20 billion and that it was about $20 billion in 1991 (which implies a growth rate of about 0%) and that "[p]revious to that, the International Monetary Fund reduced Yugoslavia’s total debt by $1.8 billion because the country simply did not have the means to repay the interest, let alone the principal." The article also states that the actual total debt of former Yugoslav republics today is about $150 billion and that "compared to a doubling of foreign debt every three or four years before 1980, this represents a dramatic reduction in growth." It also states that "[t]he structure of production in which money for buying raw materials and fuel is borrowed ceases to be viable when the source of credit dries up, and, in the case of Yugoslavia, this happened in the early 1980s. The Yugoslav economy was then left without external “fuel” and, over the next decade, which was marked by postponing the repayment of foreign debts, this became painfully evident."

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Why the Nostalgia for ... · 6 replies · +4 points

The fact that the external debt growth rate dropped sharply immediately after 1980 was stressed more than once in the article. In fact, this was one of the key points.

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Why the Nostalgia for ... · 0 replies · +4 points

Yes, there is: http://katalaksija.com/2014/02/24/ekonomija-titov...

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Why the Nostalgia for ... · 8 replies · +3 points

I am not sure I understand the first question. I presented the data up to the present, but not all data are presented graphically and not for every year. The purpose of that is to highlight important points in the article, while keeping the narrative linear and concise. The purpose of projecting the exponential growth is to compare a counterfactual scenario with the factual.

10 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - What's So Special Abou... · 0 replies · +5 points

Thanks for the kind feedback! Thank you for the encouragement too! I will aim to follow through with this and upgrade it to a journal article. Yes, I see your point with respect to the last paragraph. When I was writing this post, I was actually debating whether or not to use the word foolish. I think I was being more of a journalist than an economist when I decided to use it.

11 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Comparative Advantage ... · 4 replies · +8 points

Dick, your countries are identical in terms of the slopes of their production possibilities frontiers (PPF). This means that they have identical rates of technical substitution along the PPFs, which, in turn, means you picked the only case when comparative advantage, defined in terms of the rate of technical substitution, does not apply. In other words, your countries are identical.

11 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Comparative Advantage ... · 0 replies · +7 points

This theory is as applicable now as it ever was and it will be applicable as long as there are at least two non-identical individuals inhabiting this planet.

11 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Comparative Advantage ... · 0 replies · +4 points

Comparative advantage is my favorite topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otYKcgRML1s
http://predragrajsic.blogspot.ca/2011/02/fundamen...

11 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - A Rejoinder to the Ron... · 0 replies · +2 points

Wenzel misunderstands the concept of natural rights. He writes:

Thus, I must ask, how can there be a "natural" ownership of oneself, when that "ownership" may not exist in the presence of

1. A slave owner

2. A cannibal

3. A murderer

4. A dictator, who throws people in prison

The concept of natural rights is derived from the concept of free will. A slave owner may control the consequences of slave's actions, but it is still the slave who chooses his own actions based on his own evaluation of the consequences of those actions. In that sense, a slave's self-ownership is no different than any other individual's self-ownership.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with Predrag Rajsic

My blogs/sites

People I'm following

Predrag Rajsic