Are you a central planner?
So I see that the usual suspects are accusing me of being a “central planner” because I have the audacity to offer an opinion on whether the Chinese are building too many houses. Of course by that logic anyone who offers an opinion on whether the Chinese (or Americans) are building too many houses is a central planner. And that means that all those who now think the Chinese are building too many houses, or who believed (in 2005) the Americans were building too many houses, are central planners. After all, only the market can know whether too many houses are being built.
In fact, I’m an agnostic on whether too many houses are being built. My previous posts were questioning the logic of those who did claim to know. I’m not sure what school of thought all these omniscient commenters belong to, but they talk a lot about Hayek, Rothbard, and von Mises.
I am currently in Shanghai, a city that seems at first glance to have far too little housing for its 23 million residents, and which is absorbing over 600,000 new migrants every single year. OK all you experts who claim to know exactly how many houses China should build; answer the much simpler question of how many houses the city of Shanghai should be building each year.
There’s also the issue of what type of houses should be built in China. The market is currently trying to build houses for the rich. The government is trying to force builders to produce more houses for the lower classes. I see no reason why the market is wrong, and indeed see lots of reasons why it is correct. If that makes me a central planner, so be it.
BTW, the Chinese economy is not “centrally planned,” at least no more than the US economy is centrally planned. It is a regionally semi-planned economy.
PS. Bonus Jeopardy answer: Scott Sumner and Kobe Bryant.
.
.
Question: Name two unusually tall Americans who were in Jinan, Shandong Province, P.R. of China on August 15, 2012.
Tags:
16. August 2012 at 07:08
I think a sabbatical and a book recounting a year of Scott Sumner in China would make for great reading… maybe “Country Driving: An Economists Chinese Road Trip”. I’d buy it! I’m sure you could even fit some Krugman bashing in there!
16. August 2012 at 07:12
I think the specific criticism is that your opinion was not just some throw-away remark about how a nebulous market full of people might be best allocating resources.
I think the criticism is that what you suggested occur is an actual act of central planning.
Don’t you think so, Prof. Sumner?
16. August 2012 at 07:47
Wow, what was Kobe Bryant doing there? Shouldn’t he be taking his medal straight back to America?
16. August 2012 at 07:55
Sumner writes, “In fact, I’m an agnostic on whether too many houses are being built.”
Yet, you suggest that if Chinese can’t afford housing, the Bank of China should “print money.”
16. August 2012 at 08:12
So I see that the usual suspects are accusing me of being a “central planner” because I have the audacity to offer an opinion on whether the Chinese are building too many houses.
Actually it was your audacity to say that “China” has to print more money to get more poor people into homes, that “China” has to build more houses than has already been built, so that “China” can have room for more home bounded consumer goods that also have to be produced, that they should not produce more exports because the non-China population doesn’t want more wealth, and that those who say the state should get out of the way in deciding what gets built, somehow have to offer you a central plan of their own of what has to be produced.
Who else but a central planner would demand that all his critics offer a central plan of their own?
And that means that all those who now think the Chinese are building too many houses, or who believed (in 2005) the Americans were building too many houses, are central planners.
Is this what this blog has been relegated to? “No, YOU’RE a central planner!”?
Those who say too many houses have been built, are pointing to a consequence of state intervention. They are not offering a central plan of their own. They are saying the state brought about too many houses, and not enough of [whatever the free market process would have resulted in]
That doesn’t make your intellectual opponents central planners! But it still means you’re one.
After all, only the market can know whether too many houses are being built.
That’s right, and the market spoke very loudly in the US. The market showed too many houses were built.
But this doesn’t mean we have to wait for after the fact. If the state actively pursues a pro-housing construction policy, such as artificially low interest rates, favorable to housing tax laws, and so on, then we can make judgments of the form “you know, given that the state is actively pursuing a pro-housing policy, it stands to reason that absence such policy, there would be fewer houses, and more of other things that we currently cannot observe because those resources are going to housing”.
In fact, I’m an agnostic on whether too many houses are being built. My previous posts were questioning the logic of those who did claim to know. I’m not sure what school of thought all these omniscient commenters belong to, but they talk a lot about Hayek, Rothbard, and von Mises.
Hayek favored NGDP.
I am currently in Shanghai, a city that seems at first glance to have far too little housing for its 23 million residents, and which is absorbing over 600,000 new migrants every single year. OK all you experts who claim to know exactly how many houses China should build; answer the much simpler question of how many houses the city of Shanghai should be building each year.
Which experts are you referring to? Those that talk a lot about Hayek, Rothbard and Mises? These experts are not claiming to know how many houses “Shanghai” should be building! They are saying let the market process determine this, because the market process is being severely hampered by the Chinese state.
Would a free market process result in continued housing construction such that 64 million apartments would be unoccupied? The Chinese state is ordering the construction of those houses, so obviously we cannot say that the free market process in China lead to 64 million unoccupied homes.
There’s also the issue of what type of houses should be built in China. The market is currently trying to build houses for the rich. The government is trying to force builders to produce more houses for the lower classes. I see no reason why the market is wrong, and indeed see lots of reasons why it is correct. If that makes me a central planner, so be it.
That’s not what makes you a central planner.
BTW, the Chinese economy is not “centrally planned,” at least no more than the US economy is centrally planned. It is a regionally semi-planned economy.
The regions answer to those at the State Council in Beijing. Almost all Chinese provinces, with the exception of 4 or 5, do not have autonomy.
16. August 2012 at 08:39
OK so the market is trying to build homes for the wealthy…what is stopping it from working? (My guess is land use restrictions is a big part, it is the usual culprit. ) Is there a shortage of Nice homes for the rich in China ?
Is the government trying to build houses for the poor in any way preventing the market from building houses for the rich ? (Are they creating a significant construction resource or labor shortage ? )
Could it be that the market just can’t build enough homes for the rich to keep up with the pace of demand for homes for all ?
Your mechanism is that building new homes for the rich will cause them to vacate old homes leaving them open for the poor. But that would only work if there were enough rich vacating their homes to meet the increased demand of homes for the poor.
The housing needs of the rich and poor are different. Markets can and should respond to the different needs of everyone one, not just a certain class.
16. August 2012 at 09:28
I just wanted to note nothing in my comments was intended to paint Scott Sumner as a central planner (although I do disagree with his point #3 about China becoming much richer in future decades).
BTW, re the low-income housing, ran across a fascinating article the other day that may help explain the issue (sorry could not find link). Allegedly there is “zoning” in urban China that verges on a geographic caste system, with wildly disparate levels of services provided — think of the American insanity whereby you have to move to get your kids in better schools, but taken to even more absurd extremes.
16. August 2012 at 09:47
I don’t get it. I re-read Scott’s last two posts, and it seems pretty obvious that he doesn’t say China should build more housing than it currently is. He is responding to arguments that China is currently overbuilding, and, typically for Scott, defending the EMH. Scott doesn’t know if China is overbuilding or underbuilding, but he’s not going to guess against a market outcome.
1) As far as I can tell, Scott doesn’t say anywhere that he thinks China should be building more housing than it currently is. He does say that people who argue that it should be building LESS don’t have good evidence, and that where the state has its thumb in the market, that some houses are being misallocated.
2) Scott also says that if housing is currently overpriced, then China could benefit from some inflation. Scott’s definitely for central control of the money supply, or at least accepts that control as a given, but if that’s all it takes to be a “central planner,” then everyone but the free banking crowd is inside the tent.
16. August 2012 at 10:38
Scott is correct that China is in many ways more “capitalist” than the US.
In my experience, EVERYTHING in China is for sale. Everyone is selling something – aggressively.
To me it is like the US except there is less government red tape, and the only rule is don’t say anything bad about the mob running the show.
For those that view govt. and the mob as virtually the same thing, you could view China as a place where you pay less in tribute, have more autonomy, but have to kiss a ring.
I would definitely prefer to live in China over Europe.
Finally, what China shows is that if you sprinkle capitalism on ANYTHING, it will get up and walk.
And Capitalism drives Democracy, not the other way around.
16. August 2012 at 10:50
Scott, Are you winning Championships in Shanghai?
I certainly would not want to be married to somebody that can’t win championships. If you’re sacrificing time away from my family and myself for the benefit of winning championships, then winning a championship should happen every single year.
Vanessa Bryant
16. August 2012 at 10:53
Is Scott Sumner a central planner?
The headline “China should build housing for the rich, not the average Chinese person” stinks of central panning. You are advocating top-down economic policy. Not just how many, but what type to build.
“After all, only the market can know whether too many houses are being built.”
A chance at redemption. But then if this is was Dr. Sumner beleives then this has been a silly coverstaion for the last 3 posts.
“OK all you experts who claim to know exactly how many houses China should build; answer the much simpler question of how many houses the city of Shanghai should be building each year.
There’s also the issue of what type of houses should be built in China.”
Oh, fell back into central planning.
16. August 2012 at 11:38
Scott, you are a central planner wannabe because you advocate for monopoly control of money by a central authority and price fixing to suit your goals and force all participants to use your money or face prison. Why not admit it and wear that badge proudly instead of pretending to favor markets and freedom of choice. I bet your greatest ambition is to be appointed to the Fed, isn’t it? Then you can go from central planner wannabe to an official central planner.
16. August 2012 at 11:44
Gee it seems like Scott just can’t toss out a thought experiment without being crucified for some ideological heresy.
Scott you have shown yourself to be of impure in thought. Bad Economist..Bad !
🙂
I think it was George Orwell who drew a distinction between an Authoritarian State and a Totalitarian State.
An Authoritarian State is concerned with controlling people’s actions, they are not too concerned with what folks think.
A Totalitarian State is not only concerned with controlling people’s actions, they also want to control what people think . In a totalitarian state unorthodox thoughts are crime. ThoughtCrime….”Crimethink” in Newspeak.
Scott Sumner …doubleplusgood libertarian crimethinker
16. August 2012 at 12:12
Bill Ellis:
Thought experiment? More like practical experiment.
16. August 2012 at 12:27
“So I see that the usual suspects are accusing me of being a “central planner” because I have the audacity to offer an opinion on whether the Chinese are building too many houses.”
Perhaps not because of your opinion on the Chinese housing situation in your recent blog posts, but I don’t think it’s even controversial to suggest you advocate central planning through your endorsement of a central authority with monopolistic control over money production setting in motion processes to effectuate a desired macroeconomic outcome. I’m not saying that in a accusatory manner, but I fail to see how this is not an endorsement of central planning.
I think others who use your previous posts on Chinese housing as an example to make the central planning claim are nitpicking a bit, with the obvious exception depending on what you meant by this: “Another criticism is that the Chinese can’t afford to live in these places. So print more money.”
16. August 2012 at 15:00
It used to be that being a central planner meant you told the factories what their new production quota was. Now being a central planner means believing that governments should favor growth. Sorry Scott, I know it is hard to change with the times. Future Shock and all that. But that was the world we knew.
16. August 2012 at 15:35
When did they stop teaching Marshall/Friedman price theory at Chicago?
16. August 2012 at 16:19
Major
Off the beaten path I just came across this interesting piece by Rothbard on Keynes. This quote of Rothbard however contradicts something you often claim:
“Of all the Misesians of the early 1930s, the only economist completely uninfected by the Keynesian doctrine and personality was Mises himself. And Mises, in Geneva and then for years in New York without a teaching position, was removed from the influential academic scene. Even though Hayek remained anti-Keynesian, he too was touched by the Keynesian charisma. Despite everything, Hayek was proud to call Keynes a friend and indeed promoted the legend that Keynes, at the end of his life, was about to convert from his own Keynesianism.”
“Hayek’s evidence for Keynes’s alleged last-minute conversion is remarkably slight “” based on two events in the final years of Keynes’s life. First, in June 1944, upon reading The Road to Serfdom, Keynes, now at the pinnacle of his career as a wartime government planner, wrote a note to Hayek, calling it “a great book … morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with virtually the whole of it.” But why should this be interpreted as anything more than a polite note to a casual friend on the occasion of his first popular book?”
“Moreover, Keynes made it clear that, despite his amiable words, he never accepted the essential “slippery slope” thesis of Hayek, namely, that statism and central planning lead straight to totalitarianism. On the contrary, Keynes wrote that “moderate planning will be safe if those carrying it out are rightly oriented in their minds and hearts to the moral issue.” This sentence, of course, rings true, for Keynes always believed that the installation of good men, namely, himself and the technicians and statesmen of his social class, was the only safeguard needed to check the powers of the rulers (Wilson 1982: p. 64ff.)”
“Hayek proffers one other bit of flimsy evidence for Keynes’s alleged recantation, which occurred during his final meeting with Keynes in 1946, the last year of Keynes’s life. Hayek reports,”
“A turn in the conversation made me ask him whether or not he was concerned about what some of his disciples were making of his theories. After a not very complimentary remark about the persons concerned he proceeded to reassure me: those ideas had been badly needed at the time he had launched them. But I need not be alarmed: if they should ever become dangerous I could rely upon him that he would again quickly swing round public opinion “” indicating by a quick movement of his hand how rapidly that would be done. But three months later he was dead. (Hayek 1967b: p. 348)[15]”
“Yet this was hardly a Keynes on the verge of recantation. Rather, this was vintage Keynes, a man who always held his sovereign ego higher than any principles, higher than any mere ideas, a man who relished the power he held. He could and would turn the world, set it right with a snap of his fingers, as he presumed to have done in the past.”
http://mises.org/daily/3845
I have read this passage of Hayek’s before. If this was what you had in mind I’m inclined to believe your buddy Rothbard. It by itself doesn’t sound like any deathbed recantation.
Do you have a different quote in mind when you say Keynes recanted?
If so could you provide a link?
16. August 2012 at 16:42
…Wow.
How does a blog about monetary policy get so many goldbugs in its comment section? 😉
16. August 2012 at 16:49
FSV you don’t know the half of it.
16. August 2012 at 17:39
Mike Sax:
Do you have a different quote in mind when you say Keynes recanted?
If so could you provide a link?
“On Thursday 11 April he had lunch at the Bank after the regular meeting of the court. He sat next to Henry Clay; they discussed the American loan. Keynes said that he relied on Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ to get Britain out of the mess it was in, and went on: ‘I find myself more and more relying for a solution of our problems on the invisible hand which I tried to eject from economic thinking twenty years ago.’ ‘An interesting confession for our arch-planner,’ Henry Clay noted. The now-retired Montagu Norman, the recipient of Clay’s letter, wrote back: ‘About Keynes … I think he relied on intellect, which perhaps means that he ignored the “invisible hand”, and I guess he was led astray by Harry White. But surely it is easy to arrange a loan if you ignore its repayment, and is there any hope of that, unless there is to be such an inflation across the Atlantic as will affect their claims and provide an easy way out?” – (Skidelsky 2000: 470).
16. August 2012 at 17:39
Mike Sax:
FSV you don’t know the half of it.
Something something, exasperation, something something…
16. August 2012 at 17:40
Re Keynes recanting and Hayek.
Despite everything, Hayek was proud to call Keynes a friend
“Despite”? It’s well known that Keynes and Hayek were friends. People who have differing views can’t be friends? That’s a weakness of our time, not theirs.
On Youtube one can see Hayek talking about how Keynes told him that he going to pull the chain on his more irresponsibly extreme followers, but then died shortly thereafter.
That’s a long way from Keynes recanting Keynsianism. But on the other hand, what people call Keynesianism today is a long way from Keynes’ Keynesianism.
For instance, in all his life Keynes never supported deficit spending as counter-cyclical “stimulus” policy — in spite of how everybody has named it after him today — and publicly opposed it on multiple occasions. (He, like others of his time, supported various public works projects, but that is not at all the same thing.)
To quote the Palgrave:
Keynes believed in the “balanced budget multiplier”, not deficit spending.
Whatever one thinks of Keynes, he has suffered mightily from the Law of Diminishing Disciples.
But then so has Hayek.
16. August 2012 at 17:51
In a fragmented somewhat opaque economy like China’s, where banks are a policy instrument of the government not focused on profit motive I thnk it’s fair to question whether market signals work properly in housing, energy, securities, etc.
16. August 2012 at 17:59
On another note…
Did Kocherlakota book a trip to Damascus and get hit by lightning on the way? WSJ:
~~~~
Fed’s Kocherlakota Highlights Jobs-Inflation Conflict
The Federal Reserve may need to be willing to let inflation rise above its 2% target to reduce “quite elevated” levels of unemployment, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis President Narayana Kocherlakota said Wednesday.
In response to an audience question following a speech in Minot, N.D., on central bank structure, the official noted the central bank has mandates both to keep prices contained and to promote job growth, and he noted there could sometimes be tradeoffs when there are large imbalances at play.
“In a context, in a world, where unemployment is as high as it is,” allowing inflation to tip over the current central bank target of 2% “could well be part of an appropriate policy,” Kocherlakota said. The central bank may have to “give a little bit on the inflation front to do better on the employment front,”…
16. August 2012 at 20:23
“Something something, exasperation, something something…”
That’s brilliant. This is exactly how we will all reply to MF’s posts from now on.
16. August 2012 at 20:26
Jim Glass, that’s funny, I distinctly remember reading the anecdote about Keynes coming in to the Oval Office and pulling out a series of charts, advocating deficit spending… Surely Keynesian theory is not so different from “the economics of Keynes” that he wouldn’t agree that deficit spending will have a higher multiplier in a depression – certainly the GT suggests this.
16. August 2012 at 20:27
Wow, that Kocherlakota quote is amazing. It seems that body-snatching works both ways.
16. August 2012 at 20:41
holy shit kochlerakota said that?
thank you jeebus!
16. August 2012 at 21:01
Now I’m a “usual suspect”?! You cut me deep, Scott.
16. August 2012 at 21:21
Jonathan,
‘Sumner writes, “In fact, I’m an agnostic on whether too many houses are being built.”
Yet, you suggest that if Chinese can’t afford housing, the Bank of China should “print money.”‘
You seem to have jumped straight to the nefarious interpretation of that part of the post. If you think any economist doesn’t know something as basic as “printing money doesn’t create real wealth”, let alone a Chicago educated one, you might want to check which planet you’re living on.
The point is that Say’s law should hold. We should always be rich enough to buy the things we produce. If that’s not the case, if there is output being produced going unsold, then there is some friction preventing nominal prices from falling and restoring equilibrium. If that’s the case, money needs to be eased so that nominal income can rise to allow Say’s law to hold again.
17. August 2012 at 02:50
Jim Glass
“Despite”? It’s well known that Keynes and Hayek were friends. People who have differing views can’t be friends? That’s a weakness of our time, not theirs.”
Note that it’s Rothbard who said “despite”
So in his view people with differing views can’t be friends.
That distinguished him from Hayek and Friedman who never claimed that Keynes was terrible on a personal level.
Myabe Rothbard somehow found that “inconsistent”
17. August 2012 at 02:58
I find it amazing that there is a discussion about what keynes may or may not have said. It seems to literally be an argument about who gets to make a fallacious appeal to authority.
The older I get the more I am reminded that: “few people are convinced by evidence”.
17. August 2012 at 02:59
Major I’m really not exasperated. I think you’d like to believe it. But nothing about our back and forth has made me exasperated.
You claim not to want an echo chamber. I’m certainly not here at Money Illusion for that and I certainly don’t get that here.
In fact there may well be more people that agree with you than me here.
when I said a lot of people don’t like you-I said it as it’s true not because I was trying to gratuitiously insult you-it’s becausae of what they call your “bedside manner” as it were.
You however believe you catch more flies with vinegar and that’s your problem.
I think that probably more people find me personally likeable is what I meant when I’ve said things like this. while they may disagree they don’t think I’m a jerk.
Mind you some here dont like me at all based on my views particularly the blog title.
Some people think that two people can be friends whether they agree or not-rothbard however seemed to think not.
Becaue he hated Keynes economics he hated hiim personally and thought Heyek was “conned” in liking him.
I can get along with some Righties like Warstler. However guys like Patrick probably think I’m just a troll becuase he hates my politics
As far as your source in Skidelsky I wonder why you list the year rather than tte title. I never get why people do that. I mean I can still find it but it’s easier to look by title than year published.
17. August 2012 at 03:14
Mike Sax:
Major I’m really not exasperated. I think you’d like to believe it. But nothing about our back and forth has made me exasperated.
I don’t believe you. Why else would you start swearing?
You claim not to want an echo chamber. I’m certainly not here at Money Illusion for that and I certainly don’t get that here.
In fact there may well be more people that agree with you than me here.
Not when it comes to money.
when I said a lot of people don’t like you-I said it as it’s true not because I was trying to gratuitiously insult you-it’s becausae of what they call your “bedside manner” as it were.
You said everyone, not a lot.
You however believe you catch more flies with vinegar and that’s your problem.
It’s not a problem to pour vinegar on those who themselves come to the table with greasy fries. I am extremely cordial to those who are themselves peace advocates. For people like you, you don’t deserve kindness.
I think that probably more people find me personally likeable is what I meant when I’ve said things like this. while they may disagree they don’t think I’m a jerk.
They don’t disagree with you in principle. They disagree with you the way two statists disagree. They want the guns to be pointed at people for X, you want guns to be pointed at people for Y.
Mind you some here dont like me at all based on my views particularly the blog title.
Your words here are consistent with your blog title. I recall people calling you out on your blindness caused by this partisan hackery.
Some people think that two people can be friends whether they agree or not-rothbard however seemed to think not.
Friends don’t advocate for violence against the other.
Becaue he hated Keynes economics he hated hiim personally and thought Heyek was “conned” in liking him.
Hayek was friends with Keynes. They were both social democrats.
I can get along with some Righties like Warstler. However guys like Patrick probably think I’m just a troll becuase he hates my politics
Warstler is OK with statism because he is convinced the world isn’t ready for libertarianism yet. That’s why he’s OK with you.
As far as your source in Skidelsky I wonder why you list the year rather than tte title.
I never get why people do that. I mean I can still find it but it’s easier to look by title than year published.
The standard practise is to cite the author and year within the text of a paper, and then include the full reference in the bibliography at the end of the paper. The work I cited is rather well known, and we’re all able to use google anyway, so I posted just the author and year.
17. August 2012 at 03:22
Saturos:
That’s brilliant. This is exactly how we will all reply to MF’s posts from now on.
Excellent, I love how you just assume to be in control of people here such that you just speak for them without even asking for their permission first.
Robert:
‘Sumner writes, “In fact, I’m an agnostic on whether too many houses are being built.”
Yet, you suggest that if Chinese can’t afford housing, the Bank of China should “print money.”’
You seem to have jumped straight to the nefarious interpretation of that part of the post. If you think any economist doesn’t know something as basic as “printing money doesn’t create real wealth”, let alone a Chicago educated one, you might want to check which planet you’re living on.
If you think the issue is whether or not printing money creates real wealth, then you’re not paying attention. The issue is whether or not the blog owner is actually an agnostic on whether too many houses are being built.
The point is that Say’s law should hold. We should always be rich enough to buy the things we produce. If that’s not the case, if there is output being produced going unsold, then there is some friction preventing nominal prices from falling and restoring equilibrium. If that’s the case, money needs to be eased so that nominal income can rise to allow Say’s law to hold again.
You are ignoring the “price frictions” caused by monetary easing. You are ignoring the unsold surpluses caused by monetary easing.
You’re just taking money printing as a one-sided, positive effect only, costless central planning tool.
17. August 2012 at 04:54
MF,
“If you think the issue is whether or not printing money creates real wealth, then you’re not paying attention.”
That was exactly my point to Jonathan.
“You are ignoring the “price frictions” caused by monetary easing. You are ignoring the unsold surpluses caused by monetary easing.”
What frictions are you thinking of?
17. August 2012 at 05:10
Robert:
That was exactly my point to Jonathan.
I think you misunderstood. Jonathan isn’t making the argument that Sumner is claiming that printing money creates real wealth. There was no reason for you to ask your question in the subjunctive, as if that is what Jonathan is in fact arguing.
What frictions are you thinking of?
Would you be more willing or would you be less willing to lower your asking price, given the fact that a money printer exists and promises to print whatever quantity of money is necessary to raise prices by a particular weighted average percent each month/year?
Would you be more willing or would you be less willing to invest in more long-term investments, given the fact that borrowing costs and weighted average costs of capital have been lowered by said money printer?
17. August 2012 at 06:09
I think the more cogent analysts who believe that housing is overpriced and overbuilt such as Michael Pettis, look at the market distortions in Chinese financial and land use policies. Such as the way local government is financed (through land sales and transaction taxes, rather than property taxes) and the financial repression that limits investment opportunities and steers excess cash, often from SOE’s, into real estate.
You also invoke one the least attractive feature of EMH, the cop out. ‘No one but the market knows, all ail the all knowing market.’ But of course, the market doesn’t function without people participating in it, if everyone defers to the markets judgement there is no market.
A more attractive perspective, to me, is the one discussed here by Rajiv Sethi:
http://rajivsethi.blogspot.com/2012/08/on-prices-narratives-and-market.html
17. August 2012 at 06:24
MF,
Very well. If that’s the case, then I was mistaken.
I’
17. August 2012 at 06:26
Doy. Accidentally hit tab then enter.
I’m not clear on what frictions you’re talking about. You’ve made the claim that long term investment costs have been lowered, how have you justified that?
17. August 2012 at 06:26
OGT:
You also invoke one the least attractive feature of EMH, the cop out. ‘No one but the market knows, all ail the all knowing market.’ But of course, the market doesn’t function without people participating in it, if everyone defers to the markets judgement there is no market.
Thank you for bringing up this reductio about common claims about the market.
However, I do not think the “cop out” is implied in EMH per se. The EMH is really an a priori theory (which I regard as flawed) of how to understand the market process as it relates to information and prices.
17. August 2012 at 06:32
Okay, am I the only one who wants to know how tall Scott is?
17. August 2012 at 06:34
Robert:
I’m not clear on what frictions you’re talking about.
I asked two rhetorical questions that refer to two examples of what I am talking about.
You’ve made the claim that long term investment costs have been lowered, how have you justified that?
I haven’t. You just asked me for what frictions am I talking about, so I said which frictions I am talking about.
Now you’re asking me how I have justified them, as if this was the rule we both agreed to abiding by prior.
Perhaps you can be a little more clear in how far you want to take this. I don’t want to answer your questions thinking that this is all you want to talk about, and then see you respond in a way that suggests I am holding back something, like I am just making unexplained claims on purpose.
Did you answer the two rhetorical questions, specifically the first one, about how willing you are to lower your asking price given that there exists a money printer who makes promises of inflation? Your last response makes it seem like you didn’t even address my answer to your question.
17. August 2012 at 06:39
I don’t think you’re a central planner, merely a supporter of a National Central Bank.
Or, maybe you’re just a cowardly wannabee entrepreneur (house builder), seeing a market niche that you think might be above trend profitable if only you had the courage of your convictions to start building the kinds of houses you think should be built?
And perhaps misguided about the power of such a Bank to avoid negative consequences when huge numbers of free people peacefully choose to make investments that turn out to be bad — losing money, instead of making it.
If (when?) the Fed starts NGDP targeting, there will still come a time in the future when there is a bubble that pops, and many investors will lose. Yet it might well be that such a loss will be “small enough” that rapid reductions of interest, at that time, will be enough to avoid a deep recession.
Similarly, central bank or gold standard, there will be booms and busts. At least with Free Banking and a gold standard, it won’t be gov’t controlling the money so much, therefore there will be less gov’t force. Yet there are likely to be more explicit money contracts, many of which will be violated, and then there will be a call for enforcement.
Gov’t enforcement of contracts is needed for civilization, but it is not peaceful.
17. August 2012 at 06:55
Scott,
Check out the last minute of this interview with John Cochrane. The interviewer asks him about NGDP targeting after Cochrane says that he is in favor of a price-level target. Interestingly, he says that even if the Fed decides to target NGDP, “there’s nothing they could do about it.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/john-cochrane-on-u-s-economic-outlook-fed-policy-3xL0btQgRpKk5zXSfMQOTA.html
17. August 2012 at 08:05
Someone want to explain to me how requiring a gold standard isn’t central planning?
17. August 2012 at 08:45
nubdaug:
Someone want to explain to me how requiring a gold standard isn’t central planning?
Also, someone explain to me why so many monetarists who want the state to continue to impose fiat money, deny they’re central planner wannabes, and then cry foul at gold bugs and accuse them of wanting central planning.
——————
Requiring a gold standard is central planning, but who is calling for a gold standard to be imposed by the state? Almost every “gold bug” I know, including myself, want a free market in money and we just expect that the money of choice will be gold. In this sense, a free market in money production and a gold standard are practically synonymous. I use them interchangeably because of this. But if you ask me point blank what I favor in the legal sense, then I will say I favor every individual to be legally free to use any money he wants, and not be coerced into accepting Wal-Mart notes because Wal-Mart threatens everyone with being thrown into a cage, or death if they resist their violence with defensive violence, if they don’t pay Wal-Mart a fraction of their incomes to Wal-Mart in “equivalent” Wal-Mart notes, thus creating an artificial demand for them.
It’s funny, isn’t it? If Wal-Mart did what the state did, then Wal-Mart would rightly be considered criminals and thugs. But when those in the IRS and the state in general do it, they’re “maintaining law and order.”
One of these days, at some point, the hypocrisy in going to be so blatant, so obvious, that not even statist PhD economists will be able to razzle dazzle the public with ex post rationalizations, thus acquiescing them into a state of apathy and guilt for even questioning their oppression.
17. August 2012 at 08:51
Tom.
Are you sure about that ? ( not trying to be argumentative ) It seems to me that a lot of folks who support Market Monetarism also support “Free Banking” ( I don’t know much about free banking but what I have read seems totally nuts to me. )
I would not be surprised if Scott at least has an open mind about Free banking.
17. August 2012 at 08:54
MF,
I’m not entirely clear on what point you’re trying to make with the question. I would raise my ask price in proportion with how much inflation is expected. I don’t understand what friction you’re presenting. Please be clearer. Maybe just come out and state it clearly.
17. August 2012 at 08:58
I mean…seems like some folks think anything but Anarchy is central planing.
No ideologues on these threads. hahaha.
17. August 2012 at 09:08
Robert:
I would raise my ask price in proportion with how much inflation is expected.
Exactly. Now you know what I mean when I said inflation itself generates price frictions. During periods of time when the given actual monetary conditions would call for a lower price to clear the market, prices don’t fall because the askers expect higher prices no matter what.
See, the reason why I am going down this route is because you just asserted that price frictions justify money printing, and yet you didn’t even stop to consider whether or not that money printing itself generates price frictions. You just set it up so that the market has frictions, and the benevolent money printing central bank can remove them and turn the economy into a Say’s law economy where a given supply finds a clearing demand (which is not even a correct interpretation of Say’s law by the way).
I just want more people like you to do more self-referential analysis of what it is you’re advocating. So often you just present your solutions as costless and never themselves a cause for the very problems you are seeking to solve.
17. August 2012 at 09:12
Bill Ellis:
I mean…seems like some folks think anything but Anarchy is central planing.
You mean some folks are actually applying the definition of central planning to real world events? GET OUT.
Those damn ideologues. They should just obey and accept the definitions of words from the central planners of word definitions. You know, so that they can cease being ideologues…like those who obey a set of ideals they have created for themselves who are definitely not ideologues…because they don’t have any rigid conception of what central planning means such that they insist that some people are using it incorrectly…yeah, those non-ideologues.
Bwahahahaha
17. August 2012 at 09:17
Bill Ellis:
Are you sure about that ? ( not trying to be argumentative ) It seems to me that a lot of folks who support Market Monetarism also support “Free Banking” ( I don’t know much about free banking but what I have read seems totally nuts to me.)
Market monetarism requires a rigid NGDP growth, at the cost of any quantity of money printed that is necessary.
One cannot possibly support market monetarism and free banking at the same time, since free banking doesn’t guarantee a rigid NGDP growth rate. We can only have one or the other (other than the fleeting moments in time when free banking just so happens to generate a rate of NGDP growth that a market monetarist wants to have centrally planned.
17. August 2012 at 09:18
Tom:
I don’t think you’re a central planner, merely a supporter of a National Central Bank.
I don’t think Ted Bundy was a murderer, merely a supporter of ending the lives of people involuntarily.
17. August 2012 at 09:35
‘However guys like Patrick probably think I’m just a troll becuase he hates my politics.’
Your cavalier attitude to facts has more to do with it.
17. August 2012 at 09:50
Patrick you love to grab the low haning fruit becuase your so short. There are no facts that I deny that you’ve beenable to prove.
I give you facts and you run from them. I mentioned that Paul Ryan is wants hard money and you have a hissy fit. Who’s the factually challenged one?
17. August 2012 at 09:51
Scott,
Considering Murphy recently wrote this:
“However, although the precious metals provide an excellent hedge against inflation, they too are subject to price volatility, they don’t generate an income stream, and they are subject to capital gains taxes.”
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/08/life-insurance-the-forgotten-savings-vehicle.html
Yes, he actually said precious metals are an excellent hedge against inflation, to which I responded:
“Why do you claim that they “provide an excellent hedge against inflation”, when the correlation between precious metal prices and inflation is nearly zero? Without even needing to pull up charts, it’s quite obvious the most recent run up in precious metal prices far outstripped that of inflation, especially since the financial crisis during which we sometimes had disinflation. Why not recommend TIPS, since they were designed for exactly this purpose, in addition to actually paying income in real terms?”
He did not address my questions. He has no answers. That statement is just one of many examples of claims that are the equivalent of the claim that the earth is flat.
While the MMT army strikes me as mostly a collection of cultist zombies, there are a handful who will actually have a real evidence-based discussion and grant the possibility in their minds that they are wrong. Tom Hickey represents himself and the ideas well, even though I don’t find the ideas convincing.
I’ve yet to find any Austrians one can have a discussion with, although perhaps I should check out some of the blogs you’ve linked to in prior posts. You’re less cynical than I am.
17. August 2012 at 09:52
The reality is that anyone who donesn’t agree wtih you Patrick you will claim has a “cavalier” attitude to the facts.
That’s cause the facts don’t bear you out. Go watch Fox it will reinforce your illusions.
17. August 2012 at 09:53
“I don’t believe you. Why else would you start swearing?”
Oh please. You’re so worried that I calleed you a little bitch? Sounds like you’re exasperated. You want to believe it cause you can’t stand to know that you don’t worry me. You amuse me.
17. August 2012 at 09:57
“It’s not a problem to pour vinegar on those who themselves come to the table with greasy fries. I am extremely cordial to those who are themselves peace advocates. For people like you, you don’t deserve kindness.”
Yes well like moss of your opinios it’s a minoirty one. Your uncharitableness shows more about you. You claim I’m exasperated but you’re the one who has to be niggly.
anyway, I could care less about your kindness as if I need it. Mind you I tend to doubt your cabalbe of it. You must save it for your offline self. I doubt you can show any examples of that.
17. August 2012 at 10:02
“Your words here are consistent with your blog title. I recall people calling you out on your blindness caused by this partisan hackery”
They didn’t “cal me out” they simply whine because they don’t like it. If I saiad “Demorat hater” most of them would love it.
In any case I have a growing audeince. Who cares about yoru carping?
17. August 2012 at 10:04
“Hayek was friends with Keynes. They were both social democrats.”
My point was that Rothbard found it troubling that Hayek was friends with Keynes. That’s what I said. You chose to quibble in a way that didn’t dey what I said.
Your defition of “social democrat” is a out there if you think Hayek was a social democrat.
17. August 2012 at 10:10
“You said everyone, not a lot.”
You are amazingly literal minded not to say abtuse. If I say “everyone loves choclate cake” does that mean everyone in the world? By your literalmindedness you could never use the word “everyone.”
We’d have to banish the word. We’d right a cockamamie Major Freedom dictionary. Maybe if some of your fellw citizens from your planet come down we’ll work on this project.
When I say “everyone” I mean a “a whole lot of people” or maybe “most people.”
On this planet at least you’re the only one who gets confused here.
Again, don’t worry on my account. You don’t exasparate me, You amuse me.
Now if I exasperate you that’s your problem.
Maybe you should have your brain therapist give you more hug therapy. Better them than me.
17. August 2012 at 10:30
Mike Sax:
“I don’t believe you. Why else would you start swearing?”
Oh please.
You still sound exasperated.
You’re so worried that I calleed you a little bitch?
No, not “worried.” Just saying you sound exasperated by swearing. Why else would you swear on Sumner’s blog? Didn’t Sumner request that people refrain from such behavior?
You sound mad.
“It’s not a problem to pour vinegar on those who themselves come to the table with greasy fries. I am extremely cordial to those who are themselves peace advocates. For people like you, you don’t deserve kindness.”
Yes well like moss of your opinios it’s a minoirty one.
Yeah, better not engage the argument, just hand wave at it.
anyway, I could care less about your kindness as if I need it.
I don’t believe you. If you didn’t care, then you wouldn’t complain about it so much. Because you complain about it so much, it shows that you do want/need kindness.
“Your words here are consistent with your blog title. I recall people calling you out on your blindness caused by this partisan hackery”
They didn’t “cal me out” they simply whine because they don’t like it.
No, they called you out.
In any case I have a growing audeince. Who cares about yoru carping?
You need more spelling errors. Wow. Hey, maybe with more spelling errors, you can attract Jersey Shore fans.
“Hayek was friends with Keynes. They were both social democrats.”
My point was that Rothbard found it troubling that Hayek was friends with Keynes.
No he didn’t. He just said “despite”.
It would be like saying “despite Mike Sax’s continued antagonisms against Major_Freedom, Mike Sax just can’t get enough of him.”
Your defition of “social democrat” is a out there if you think Hayek was a social democrat.
It would help if you actually read Hayek, and not third party yahoos who spin his words for their own agendas.
If you actually read Hayek, you would know that he said the following:
“in an advanced society government ought to use its power of raising funds by taxation to provide a number of services which for various reasons cannot be provided, or cannot be provided adequately, by the market.” – FA Hayek, Law, Legislation, and Liberty, 3, p. 41.
Among these are
“protection against violence, epidemics, or such natural forces as floods and avalanches, but also many of the amenities which make life in modern cities tolerable, most roads .. .the provision of standards of measure, and of many kinds of information ranging from land registers, maps and statistics to the certification of the quality of some goods or services offered in the market.” – ibid, pg 44
Additional government functions are
“the assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone” – ibid, pg 55
“distribute its expenditure over time in such a manner that it will step in when private investment flags” – ibid, pg 59
The government should finance schools and research as well as enforce
“building regulations, pure food laws, the certification of certain professions, the restrictions on the sale of certain dangerous goods (such as arms, explosives, poisons and drugs), as well as some safety and health regulations for the processes of production and the provision of such public institutions as theaters, sports grounds, etc” – ibid, pg 62
And the state should continue to impose “eminent domain” to further the
“public good.” – ibid, pg 62-63
—————–
In his book The Constitution of Liberty, Hayek made many more social democratic advocacies, including compulsory insurance, public subsidized housing, city planning and zoning, and amenities for recreation and amusement.
He also insisted, amazingly, that it doesn’t matter how big government gets:
“It is the character rather than the volume of government activity that is
important.” – pg 222.
—————–
Your ignorance knows no bounds. Truly astounding.
You know, you might want to consider focusing a little more on educating yourself, and a little less worrying about how many visitors to your blog you get. The more educated you become, the more people will visit your blog. If what you post here is any indication of the quality of your blog, then I surmise that your blog attracts mostly ignoramuses and other partisan hacks looking to get their republic hate fix, if only for another moment.
17. August 2012 at 10:34
MF,
There’s some misunderstanding here. You set your price in every period so that your output will sell. Next period you expect demand to be 2% higher because of inflation, so next period you will raise the price 2% to expect that your product will sell without surplus or shortage. In this current period you’re still setting the optimal price for this period. So that “friction” doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
I just want more people like you to do more self-referential analysis of what it is you’re advocating.
Well what I’m advocating is freezing the expected path of nominal spending and never deviating from it. My first preference is Free Banking, but given the reality of a central bank that isn’t going away any time soon, I’d like them to do as little damage as possible and attempt to emulate what would happen under Free Banking.
17. August 2012 at 10:36
Mike Sax:
“You said everyone, not a lot.”
You are amazingly literal minded not to say abtuse.
You have an interesting way of conceding that you were wrong.
If I say “everyone loves choclate cake” does that mean everyone in the world?
Yes. That’s why you shouldn’t say things like that.
By your literalmindedness you could never use the word “everyone.”
Sure we could. Everyone who is awake has thoughts. Everyone over the age of 21 is considered permitted to drink alcohol according to US law. For everyone who visits my house, I prefer to know about it.
There, that wasn’t so hard.
We’d have to banish the word.
Only in your Orwellian worldview would word banning be perceived as necessary.
We’d right a cockamamie Major Freedom dictionary.
Mike sooner or later you’re going to realize what a buffoon you are right now.
Maybe if some of your fellw citizens from your planet come down we’ll work on this project.
Please stop, my feelings are being hurt.
When I say “everyone” I mean a “a whole lot of people” or maybe “most people.”
So you’re upset that I can’t read your mind. You ARE a drama queen princess, aren’t you?
On this planet at least you’re the only one who gets confused here.
There you go again butchering the English language. I am not the only person who can get confused. You are perpetually confused.
Again, don’t worry on my account. You don’t exasparate me, You amuse me.
You sound exasperated. You’re so exasperated your flying off the deep end about the word “everyone”.
Maybe you should have your brain therapist give you more hug therapy. Better them than me.
Yay more internet diagnoses.
You mad.
17. August 2012 at 10:47
Robert:
There’s some misunderstanding here.
Of course there has to be a “misunderstanding.” How else could you begin a rationalization?
You set your price in every period so that your output will sell. Next period you expect demand to be 2% higher because of inflation, so next period you will raise the price 2% to expect that your product will sell without surplus or shortage. In this current period you’re still setting the optimal price for this period. So that “friction” doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
But you’re not setting the optimal price, if you want to sell all your output at a profit. You are setting it a price with expectations that your buyers will eventually pay that price, even if your 2% inflation expectation is off because in reality the central bank is not bringing about 2% more sales for you.
The “friction” is introduced because the central bank promises 2% price inflation, but you are living in a real world where the quantity of money and volume of spending fluctuates.
“I just want more people like you to do more self-referential analysis of what it is you’re advocating.”
Well what I’m advocating is freezing the expected path of nominal spending and never deviating from it.
But that’s not what you said. You said money should be printed if there is unsold surpluses. Now you’re saying money should be printed to target nominal spending, DESPITE there being unsold surpluses.
Maybe you can make up your mind?
Besides, even NGDP targeting would create its own set of price frictions.
My first preference is Free Banking, but given the reality of a central bank that isn’t going away any time soon, I’d like them to do as little damage as possible and attempt to emulate what would happen under Free Banking.
My first preference is no murder, and no rape. But given the reality that murder and rape are not going away any time soon, I’d like to start monopolizing murder and rape, so that I can bring about predetermined rates of murder and rape, say 2% growth rate in the US per year, so as to minimize the damage from murder and rape. I think a 2% growth rate would emulate the real world most accurately, since taking into account population growth, and other control variables, I think 2% is consistent with stable economic growth. I looked back into the historical data, and I found that from 1980 to 2000, a period of fairly high economic growth by most people’s standards, the murder and rape growth rates were roughly 2% per year, so I can say that my theory does have empirical justification.
17. August 2012 at 11:00
MF
There you go again with your crap analogy, comparing NGDPLT to rape. Is there no end to your obtuseness?
17. August 2012 at 11:07
Major_Anarchy,
Something something, exasperation, something something…
17. August 2012 at 11:08
Edward:
There you go again with your crap analogy, comparing NGDPLT to rape. Is there no end to your obtuseness?
There you go again accusing me of comparing NGDPLT to rape, when I did no such thing. What I actually did was use the LOGIC of the justification for NGDPLT in another context, to show the FLAW in such a justification.
Is there no end to your lack of understanding nuance and subtlety? It seems to run deep with you.
I take it by your empty and vacuous response that you don’t find my reasoning for murder and rape justified. Well, why not? What is wrong with it? Forget about monetary policy for a moment. Can you identify where in my reasoning there are errors?
——————-
If you can’t grasp logic, then I’ll make it easier for you:
My first preference is no counterfeiting. But given the reality that counterfeiting is not going away any time soon, I’d like to start monopolizing counterfeiting, so that I can bring about predetermined rates of spending, say 2% growth rate in the US per year, so as to minimize the damage from counterfeiting. I think a 2% growth rate would emulate the real world most accurately, since taking into account population growth, and other control variables, I think 2% is consistent with stable economic growth. I looked back into the historical data, and I found that from 1980 to 2000, a period of fairly high economic growth by most people’s standards, the counterfeiting growth rates were roughly 2% per year, so I can say that my theory does have empirical justification.
Fill in the blank with whatever you want, as long as the action is predicated on initiations of force and coercion, and the logic will be the same. If you don’t think the justification is valid in this form, then you just admitted that Robert’s justification (which is actually Sumner’s, and everyone else who parrots this silly justification) is not valid.
————–
Notice how all you did was hand wave the analogy away, without even attempting to engage it, to show precisely why my reasoning is off?
17. August 2012 at 11:09
Bill Ellis:
Something something, exasperation, something something…
17. August 2012 at 11:09
Mike Sax,
I’d like to think you have better things to do than have a comment fight with this guy. As far as I can tell, he doesn’t really read anything anyone writes and is like talking to a brick wall. He’s a total waste of time and energy.
17. August 2012 at 11:12
Since we are WAAAAY off topic, does anyone brew their own beer ?
I think I want to try and brew my own.
I especially like porters and stouts.
Hahahaha…
17. August 2012 at 11:14
Guys, if you ignore this blind Austrian-type, he might go away. In any case, if you stop reading him, you’ll probably feel better.
Why care what someone with discredited vintage early 1930s macro thinking has to say? I don’t even read his posts. He may as well be a Murray Rothbard wax sculpture.
17. August 2012 at 11:16
Mike Sandifier:
I’d like to think you have better things to do than have a comment fight with this guy. As far as I can tell, he doesn’t really read anything anyone writes and is like talking to a brick wall. He’s a total waste of time and energy.
Well then you can’t see very far, because I do read the comments that are sent to me.
It’s funny how between two people who each refuse to budge from their respective positions, you only identify me as the brick wall, when if you thought about it a little more before knee jerking to get your psychological fix, you would have known that you can’t sense a brick wall unless you are pushing against it with equal and opposite force, i.e. you are a brick wall.
What you really mean is that I am not easily convinced by the posters on this blog, and that to you, the only people worth talking to are those whose minds you can change so that they agree with you. In other words, you’re just looking for those to follow you and consider you an intellectual leader. That’s where your energies reside. For those who refuse to be your follower, you will find it a waste to converse with them.
Well, yes, I gladly admit I am a “waste of time” in THAT respect.
17. August 2012 at 11:19
Mike Sandifier:
Guys, if you ignore this blind Austrian-type, he might go away. In any case, if you stop reading him, you’ll probably feel better.
Sounds like how the priests reacted to the scientists during the enlightenment.
Why care what someone with discredited vintage early 1930s macro thinking has to say?
It hasn’t been discredited.
My thinking is newer than your thinking (not that it even matters for matters of truth). Your thinking is vintage 300 AD thinking of Emperor Dioclitean, who also devalued the currency in ancient Rome.
I don’t even read his posts. He may as well be a Murray Rothbard wax sculpture.
I think you do read my posts, or else you would not even have any foundation to make judgments of them. It’s OK to admit it.
17. August 2012 at 11:21
Bill Ellis:
Since we are WAAAAY off topic, does anyone brew their own beer ?
I think I want to try and brew my own.
I especially like porters and stouts.
I used to brew my own beer, but then I became a wine drinker. Now I hardly ever drink beer.
The place I brewed my beer was called Something something, Exasperation Brewing Co.
17. August 2012 at 11:35
On topic,
Are there situations where a free market can not meet demands? ( At least quickly enough to satisfy human needs )
The real estate situation is China is an interesting case. The challenges are huge.
The Chinese say that about half their housing needs to be knocked down, because it going to fall down on its own and/or is unsafe in other ways. All of the housing built during Mao’s time and most of the housing built before 1990 falls into this category.
On top of this there is a storage of housing in many metro areas and ever increasing demand for housing coming from a migration of poor workers from the hinterland to the cities needed to keep up with the growth of Chinese industry . But these poor workers can not afford housing.
All this points to a market that is not functioning. Yet China seems to be as free market as most places.
Maybe the best solution would be to have the Government raise the wages of the Chinese so they could afford housing ? Of course that would make them less competitive internationally. To avoid that the Chinese government could just give poor individuals housing vouchers instead of trying to centrally plan building homes for the poor.
Either way, the government ends up subsiding Chinese industry against its international competitors.
Perhaps the reason the housing market in China is not working is because the wages of the Chinese are not set by the market ?
17. August 2012 at 11:36
I have a 4 gallon still, that if i were to use it illegally (which I certainly do not), puts out a 185-190 proof neutral spirit, that cut with distilled water blows the doors off any premium vodka you can find.
While we’re at it, let me also put a shout out for my newest treasure, a Sous Vide water oven, which literally transforms the toughest cheapest London Broil cut into something only comparable to filet mignon – chicken is profoundly better, pastrami from short ribs, it is a miracle device.
One of the ways I am a central planner, is that IF we’re going to have food stamps, THEN I’d much prefer that we only provide people with food staples, but then give them all the video instruction they need to learn to cook. I’d even buy them pots and pans.
Increasing the quality of ones meals is the best evidence I can put forward that quality of life has very little to do with income disparity in the modern world.
17. August 2012 at 11:36
You can all have equally stimulating and relevant discussions here:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52576.0.html#.UC6ct6kr-3E
Yes, there you can find real people who believe the world is flat and will think you’re an idiot sheep for thinking otherwise. They have their metrics and you have yours. Have fun.
17. August 2012 at 11:37
On top of this there is a storage of housing ….Shortage not storage.
17. August 2012 at 11:42
Bill,
The only argument I know of about the ability to meet “needs” is peak oil.
And for a couple years I was a serious peak oiler – so much so that I supported the Iraq war on those grounds alone.
When you say “needs” I think calories / BTUs, and generally speaking if we run out of oil, then we might watch the market do the very best that can be done, but that still isn’t enough to keep 9B humans alive.
But that’s not a failure of the market, it’s just a failure of physics.
17. August 2012 at 11:51
Mike Sandifer:
You can all have equally stimulating and relevant discussions here
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,52576.0.html#.UC6ct6kr-3E
Yes, there you can find real people who believe the world is flat and will think you’re an idiot sheep for thinking otherwise. They have their metrics and you have yours. Have fun.
Well that explains your fetishism for monetary policy.
Thanks for sharing websites you visit.
17. August 2012 at 11:53
Following Bill Ellis’ lead on waaaaay off topic stuff, check this out:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/134672-harvard-cracks-dna-storage-crams-700-terabytes-of-data-into-a-single-gram
17. August 2012 at 11:54
One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. That’s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs
17. August 2012 at 12:12
I’d like to know if Prof. Sumner is not accepting that printing money is a form of central planning because the new money enters the economy at specific points, determined by the central bank, to the benefit of specific sectors and people.
If all you want is price inflation, you could create it the following way: let the central bank provide accounts for everybody and pay interest with freshly printed money.
Scrap all open market operations, etc.
This is practically non-redistributive, as long as you don’t insist on holding large amounts of physical cash.
I guess you could still create intertemporal allocation problems by wildly fluctuating interest rates, but let’s assume the central bank is following a stable and well defined, i.e. predictable, policy.
If Mr. Sumner would support this way of creating inflation e.g. to stabilize NGDP, I wouldn’t call him a central planner, but if the PBC should print money to specifically prevent real estate prices from collapsing, he’s obviously suggesting central planning.
17. August 2012 at 12:54
Bill Ellis,
What you proper is completely unnecessary. All the government of China has to do to get wages up is to STOP fixing the yuan to the dollar, and let it appreciate. There’s your solution to housing affordability right there
17. August 2012 at 12:56
Propose
17. August 2012 at 13:26
‘Who’s the factually challenged one?’
The guy who recently told us that Glass-Steagall had been ‘gutted’ by Gramm, Leach, Bliley. Even Wikipedia (a pretty low standard) knows that’s not true.
17. August 2012 at 13:43
[…] a famous econ blogger out there, who thinks the authorities need to boost Aggregate Demand, who links to one of my posts criticizing him and opens by saying, “So I see that the usual […]
17. August 2012 at 13:57
Edward:
What you [propose] is completely unnecessary. All the government of China has to do to get wages up is to STOP fixing the yuan to the dollar, and let it appreciate. There’s your solution to housing affordability right there
You dogmatic ideologue. We should work with what the Chinese government is currently doing, not completely overturn monetary policy and letting the Yuan float. That’s utopian. It’s not politically feasible. It’s naive. It’s extremism. Let’s be pragmatic instead. LOL
17. August 2012 at 14:09
“So you’re upset that I can’t read your mind”
Takes no special mind reading just commons sense. ONly you seem to think that “eeryone” is to be taken literally. Again projecting with all the princess talk.
You’re the one trying to “hurt feelings” and what you can’t stand is that it has no effect.
17. August 2012 at 14:12
Patrick I don’t know why you bother as trifling as you are. Why not go watch Hannity. You and him can marvel at how “factually challenged” the rest of the world is.
I don’t know what your muttering about. You want to claim that Glass-Steagall was never gutted? Who told you this Drudge?
17. August 2012 at 14:17
“You sound exasperated. You’re so exasperated your flying off the deep end about the word “everyone”. ”
Major Unfreedom I didn’t fly off the deep end just can’t believe how ignorant you are that you can’t even understand the simplest points.
Now if you want to see “flying off the deep end” check out the time you went off beccause someone used the word “betray.” You thought it’s only used by professors or someting.
Lke I said you want to believe that it exasperates me. Because you get so exasperated.
I don’t really think it matters where you get your diagnoses just do seomting about that chemical inbalance. It is that obvious.
17. August 2012 at 14:19
“Are there situations where a free market can not meet demands? ( At least quickly enough to satisfy human needs )”
Housing is special in that you cannot import more housing to satify a local shortage.
“Maybe the best solution would be to have the Government raise the wages of the Chinese so they could afford housing ?”
Not sure it is that simple…If you raise everyone’s wage, that includes the builders. The cost to build a new house will still be more than the wages of the factory man to buy it. Floating the currency has the same problem.
The problem is that the wages in the city are high, and that is driving the migration from the country to cities. If you rase the wages of urbanites then that compounds the problem.
They could raise the price of rice. That would slow the flow of famers from comming to the city.
They could build new factories where in the places where there is a surplus of labor and adequate housing, so that people don’t need to move to the big cities.
They could futher automate the existing factories so that fewer workers produce the same output.
They could let the price of housing find its natural level. If the cost of living in the city is so high, slower migration to the city.
17. August 2012 at 14:19
“You sound mad.”
Then you’re deaf as well as dumb. Now you do sound mad as in insane. You refuse to get treatment at your own risk
17. August 2012 at 14:21
“I am not the only person who can get confused”
You’re desparate to believe there are others that suffer as you do huh?
17. August 2012 at 14:43
Mike Sax:
“You want to claim that Glass-Steagall was never gutted?”
>> I suppose that depends on your definition of “gutted.” I would certainly argue it wasn’t.
1. We still have the FDIC
2. Bank deposits are still federally insured (and have since increased to $250k)
3. Commercial banks were always able to buy/sell securities (including derivatives); they were only restricted from underwriting or dealing securities
The primary provision that was “gutted” was restricting commercial banks and investment banks from operating under a single holding company.
17. August 2012 at 14:54
Mike T beat me to it. Gramm, Leach, Bliley merely repealed two (of 34 original) provisions of Glass-Steagall (the Banking Reform Act of 1933). Provisions #20 and #32, which were the affiliations provisions.
As Mike says, a holding company can now own both an investment bank and a commercial bank, but must keep their balance sheets separate. Also, one individual can now sit on boards of both an investment house (if there are any left) and a commercial bank at the same time.
Anyone could have checked this by the mere expedient of going to the Senate Banking Committee website for GLB
http://banking.senate.gov/conf/grmleach.htm
and reading. Admittedly, slightly more time consuming than just shooting one’s mouth off.
17. August 2012 at 14:54
Saxy,
5 posts in 12 minutes. Nothing of but insults in any of them.
You are mad.
Now, if you have anything to add to the multitude of topics in this thread, please contribute. Otherwise, please drop it.
17. August 2012 at 15:08
Edward…
“What you propose is completely unnecessary. All the government of China has to do to get wages up is to STOP fixing the yuan to the dollar, and let it appreciate. There’s your solution to housing affordability right there”
I think you are right. Basically. Really.
Hey Scott, Edward solved it for ya.
🙂
17. August 2012 at 15:28
How many of the provision of Glass-Steagall were repealed has nothing to do with if it was “gutted” or not.
A cookie recipe can have many ingredients, if you take out the flour you have ruined it.
I know the bankers have argued that this was not really stopping the banks form doing this… because other sections of the laws gave them ways around it.
But the truth is in practice and enforcement the banks were held to section 20 for the most part.
When the law was changed it was hailed by the Bankers as a VERY significant change that would revolutionize the industry. It was not until after the law was changed that institutions on both sides of the commercial and investment banking divide became increasingly merged or indistinguishable from each other.
If changing the law was no big deal how come bankers are so vehemently opposed to re-enacting it ?
17. August 2012 at 15:29
I really wish there was an edit button.
17. August 2012 at 15:30
test.
17. August 2012 at 15:30
Can’t stop the bolding…sorry.
17. August 2012 at 16:02
“You have an interesting way of conceding that you were wrong.”
You have an interesting way of believing what you want to believe. I guess if I was as crazy as you I’d need such a massive defense mechanism as well.
17. August 2012 at 16:30
I am not sure Grahm-Leach-Bliley’s ammendments to Glass-Steagal did a whole lot that caused the 2008 crisis.
Bear was a pure investment bank
Lehman was a pure investment bank
AIG was niether a investment bank nor a commercial bank
Merrill has a realtively tiny commerical banking opperation
Fran and Fred — not banks, not investment banks.
Wachovia and WAMU were banks with decent trading desks, but I don’t think there underwiting was that large — I could be mistaken there.
It could be argued that the Grahm-Leach allowed TBTF to get to be that way. Possibly, but none of the notable victims were had significant banking and investemnt banking arms.
When it came to the pre-TARP resolution, the fix was to sell the failing investment banks to commercial banks. Bear to JPM, Lehman to Barclays, Merrill to BoA….none of that would hve been possible had Glass-Steagall been in full affect.
With TARP, came Too Big To Fail. Perhaps had Glass-Steagall been in affect these banks would not be TBTF. Cerntainly Citi would not quite the behemoth it became.
Hitorical side note: my Great-Great-Grandfather was technical advisor to the Senate banking committee in the drafting of the Banking acto of 1933. He was also technical advisor on Federal Reserve act.
17. August 2012 at 16:59
Everyone, I see lots of people saying I’m a central planner because I want the Fed to determine the money supply. But I don’t, I want the market to determine the money supply.
Bob Murphy, I guess it was mean calling you one of the “usual suspects” (although I was actually thinking more about certain frequent Austrian commenters.) But think how I feel being called a “central planner.” For a UC grad that’s like being called a child molester. 🙂
Brock, 6’4”. And that’s where the comparisons end. Despite my height I was always the last picked for the basketball team in gym class.
17. August 2012 at 20:03
MF,
“Of course there has to be a “misunderstanding.” How else could you begin a rationalization?”
Wow. No wonder nobody on this blog gives you the time of day.
“But you’re not setting the optimal price, if you want to sell all your output at a profit.”
Of course you are. Why on earth would you be increasing your price now if you expect inflation later. At every point you set your price so that you expect all your product to sell. Later, when you expect the inflation to kick in, you raise the price so that you expect to have no shortages. But if there’s no extra nominal income now, you don’t raise the price. Say I’m expecting roughly 30% cumulative inflation over the next 10 years (2.5%/year). Do I raise prices 30% now because in 10 years incomes will be 30% higher? No. That’s idiotic.
“But that’s not what you said. You said money should be printed if there is unsold surpluses. Now you’re saying money should be printed to target nominal spending, DESPITE there being unsold surpluses.”
One implies the other. By keeping NGDP expectations on target there won’t be a shortage of nominal income in the first place.
“Besides, even NGDP targeting would create its own set of price frictions.”
Oh? Are these going to be as moronic as the last proposed frictions?
“My first preference is no murder, and no rape. But given the reality that murder and rape are not going away any time soon…”
I reject your false analogy. If you wish to take the time to establish a one to one relationship between what you’re trying to compare to establish a justified analogy, go for it. Otherwise, I take that resorting to bullshit analogies means you’re out of real arguments?
17. August 2012 at 20:12
Proposal:
Wherewith it hath been noted that all of Dr. Sumner’s threads do tend to become clogged and obstricated with Inanities, Absurdities, and various kinds of Junk –
Since, the fundamental Purpose of this Blog is to spread the Truth about Market Monetarism, and not thereby to Embarass the Heck out of its proponents by shewing the World what Idiocies do prevail on this Blog –
It is therefore Proposed that all Commentaries which are not only Irrelevant to the Topic of the Thread on which they Appear, but also wedded to the same Benighted topics on which Endless Digital Ink hath been spilt on this Blog without any Due Progress (i.e. You’re a tool of the central planners! Market Monetarism will lead to hyperinflation! The Fed distorts the time-structure of production with its interest-rate manipulation! Romney and the Republicans are heartless Social Darwinists who want to screw the working/middle class and send us back to the Dark Ages) shall be moved to a seperate Thread entitled “General Forum” or alternatively, “Trolling”. This will make the blog habitable for the rest of us who want to raise substantive points with Scott’s posts/ ask Scott how tall he is, etc. And the Balance of the Cosmos will be Restored.
17. August 2012 at 20:41
Robert or MF.
“There’s some misunderstanding here. You set your price in every period so that your output will sell. Next period you expect demand to be 2% higher because of inflation, so next period you will raise the price 2% to expect that your product will sell without surplus or shortage. In this current period you’re still setting the optimal price for this period. So that “friction” doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.”
I’m not sure I follow this argument as it does not resemble how I have ever set prices for things I’ve sold as an entrepreneur. Even in the business I’m in now this does not reflect reality, nor does it for any entrepreneurs I happen to know. My prices were always determined by buyers in the market with me trying to maximize profit with each transaction. I never factored in expected inflation into expected future prices. Price discovery only happened for me at the time of sale.
17. August 2012 at 20:42
Why are posts ending up in bold?
17. August 2012 at 20:47
Why are posts ending up in bold?
It looks like earlier up someone started writing bold for emphasis then didn’t put in a closing tag that worked, and for some reason it is carrying over to later comments.
Will one work now? I dunno.
17. August 2012 at 20:48
Nope.
17. August 2012 at 21:08
So when I accuse Scott of being a central economic planner, it looks like I’m emphasizing it.
On a different note, can any monetarists tell me how they justify inflation considering the Cantillon Effects? Is it the ‘ends justify the means’ philosophy or what? Do you deny these effects? And do monetarists favor allowing people the freedom to choose their currency? If not, why?
17. August 2012 at 21:59
Razer,
“I’m not sure I follow this argument as it does not resemble how I have ever set prices for things I’ve sold as an entrepreneur. Even in the business I’m in now this does not reflect reality, nor does it for any entrepreneurs I happen to know. My prices were always determined by buyers in the market with me trying to maximize profit with each transaction. I never factored in expected inflation into expected future prices. Price discovery only happened for me at the time of sale.”
Exactly. You’re trying to maximise profit at every point in time.
I’m not sure about “price discovery only happened for me at the time of sale”. Perhaps you’re in a business where individual customers can haggle over the price, but that’s not necessarily true for most businesses. I can’t go to a supermarket or movie theatre and try that. I can either accept their ask price or not.
Once again, the word inflation only causes confusion. The point about expected inflation is really about how much more demand you expect in a given period. If you expect demand for your good to be 2% higher next month, then next month you’ll raise your ask price by 2% in order to maximise profit.
17. August 2012 at 22:16
Razer,
“On a different note, can any monetarists tell me how they justify inflation considering the Cantillon Effects? Is it the ‘ends justify the means’ philosophy or what? Do you deny these effects? And do monetarists favor allowing people the freedom to choose their currency? If not, why?”
Obviously this is just my interpretation; I’m sure others might disagree:
Yes, I think there are Cantillon effects. Prices are sticky, but some prices are stickier than others. Following a monetary shock, the flexible prices will change faster than the sticky ones causing relative prices to become distorted.
In an NGDPLT framework, the Fed never surprises us with tighter or looser monetary policy than expected which would cause a price adjustment and distort relative prices. But, it’s possible for there to be shocks to the velocity of money, for whatever reason. These shocks, not caused by the Fed, also result in price distortions in the same way. The flexible prices adjust, the sticky prices don’t, NGDP falls. So under an NGDPLT, the money supply must automatically expand to offset the shock to velocity. This increase in nominal income back to target causes the flexible prices to rise and come back in line with the sticky price. The effect is to preserve relative prices and minimise Cantillon effects.
And yes, I personally favour allowing people to choose their own currency.
17. August 2012 at 23:26
“Sounds like how the priests reacted to the scientists during the enlightenment.”
But it is the Austrians who are the priests. People ignoring the Austrians is like scientists during the enlightenment ignoring the priests.
17. August 2012 at 23:44
“After all, only the market can know whether too many houses are being built.”
Ah yes, the myth of the infallability of the invisible hand.
In real world economies externalities, market power, asymmetric information, and missing markets are the RULE, not the exception. Therefore real world economies only have an INVISIBLE PAW, not an invisible hand. The market mechanism works reasonably well much of the time. If it did not, economic systems beyond simple subsistence could not have developed. But real world markets can also get things badly wrong, and it is perfectly legitimate for people to point out errors that they believe the market is making. And it is perfectly legitimate for policy makers to engage in policies to correct them. That does not mean that the people who point out things that they believe the market is making errors on cannot be wrong in their assessment. And it does not mean that policy makers cannot make mistakes that make things worse. But this blind faith in the infallability of actual real world markets is badly out of touch with reality.
17. August 2012 at 23:46
Question for Scott: http://uneasymoney.com/2012/08/17/is-the-gold-bubble-about-to-burst/
17. August 2012 at 23:49
Why is it eating my comment? Let me try again.
17. August 2012 at 23:50
Arrrgh!
18. August 2012 at 00:04
Full Employment Hawk,
I’m not sure who thinks the market is infallible, it’s just that it’s better at solving the knowledge problem. If not through a system of price signals and voluntary trade, how do you know what the optimum quantity of houses are? How are we supposed to tell if too many or too few houses are built?
18. August 2012 at 00:09
“On a different note, can any monetarists tell me how they justify inflation considering the Cantillon Effects?”
Even if the Cantillion effect is actually a cost, this cost must be weighted against the benefits resulting from the implementation of expansionary monetary policy, that increase inflation, if an economy is depressed. The output and income that are lost when an economy is depressed are not saved up somewhere to be used after the economy has recovered, but, rather, are lost forever and can never be recovered. Avoiding these losses is a tremendous benefit to be weighted against any costs from a Cantillion effect. And then there are the long-run benefits of avoiding the hits to the growth path to potential output resulting from hysterisis.
18. August 2012 at 00:16
Robert,
What do you mean by…”But, it’s possible for there to be shocks to the velocity of money, for whatever reason. These shocks, not caused by the Fed, also result in price distortions in the same way.”
With no increase in money supply, why would velocity of money cause price distortions? And these shocks, all they always exogenous in the monetarists viewpoint?
I’m glad that you favor allowing people to choose their money freely. Do you honestly think people would choose a perpetually debased fiat money if not compelled to by coercion (legal tender laws, etc)? I wonder if Scott favors allowing people to opt out of fiat currencies as well. If he did, it might dispel the economic planner charge he gets labelled with around here.
18. August 2012 at 00:19
“If not through a system of price signals and voluntary trade, how do you know what the optimum quantity of houses are?”
Note my statement that “The market mechanism works reasonably well much of the time.”
My point is that the system of price signale and voluntary trade does not ALWAYS come up with the optimum quantity of houses or anything eles. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate for economists to use their theories to conclude that the market is getting things wrong. The validity of the criticisms depend crucially on the validity of the theories the commnetators are relying on. If their theories are bad, their conclusions will likely be wrong.
18. August 2012 at 00:24
“Prices are sticky, but some prices are stickier than others. Following a monetary shock, the flexible prices will change faster than the sticky ones causing relative prices to become distorted. ”
But, as David Hume explained, because prices are sticky and change sequentially, a change in the money supply will affect output in the short run. This is very important because it implies that if the economy is depressed, increases in the money supply will increase output and will therefore speed the movement of the economy to its long-run equilibrium.
18. August 2012 at 00:32
FEH,
If Cantillon Effects are trivial, don’t you find it very odd that virtually all governments are in debt? If governments and Central Banks weren’t the biggest beneficiaries of Cantillon Effects, do you think they’d be such supporters of fiat currencies? Inflation is simply theft, so how do you justify it all all? And I take it that you do not blame the government and/or Central Bank for causing the depression in the first place, correct? And the inflation solution, despite the objection on moral grounds, how is it not simply blowing up another credit bubble to mask the last one? Keynes agreed it was just a short term fix, but has anyone ever considered that someone’s short term is someone else’s long term? Every Keynesian recovery leaves you deeper and deeper in debt until the currency implodes. Even he grasped that.
18. August 2012 at 00:41
Razer,
“What do you mean by…”But, it’s possible for there to be shocks to the velocity of money, for whatever reason. These shocks, not caused by the Fed, also result in price distortions in the same way.”
With no increase in money supply, why would velocity of money cause price distortions? And these shocks, all they always exogenous in the monetarists viewpoint?”
Start from the equation of exchange. MV = PY. The problem is when PY, NGDP, increases or decreases unexpectedly. That’s when prices have to adjust unexpectedly and we encounter the problem of price stickiness. If M, the supply of money, rises or falls, then PY changes and prices have to adjust; and if V, the demand for money, changes, the price level also has to adjust. For a given money supply, the quantity of money that people decide they wish to hold may change for any number of reasons. The change in demand for money has the same effect on prices as a change in the supply of money.
The demand for money can change exogenously just because consumer preferences for holding money change, but it’s also a function of expected NGDP. If people expect more NGDP growth in the future, they’ll want to hold less money because it’s buying power will deteriorate, and vice versa. So stabilising the path of NGDP can also stabilise that factor in the demand for money.
On the choosing which currency thing, I don’t know. When banknotes are issued privately, they’re not fiat. They’re backed by reserves. Whether we’d choose those reserves to become gold or stay as federal reserve notes, I don’t know.
18. August 2012 at 00:44
Full Employment Hawk,
Sure. But have you heard of any such theory that claims to know a better estimate of the optimum quantity of houses? I don’t think any exists, because such a theory would require intimate knowledge of peoples’ preferences, which to date have only been able to be revealed through the market mechanism.
18. August 2012 at 03:32
trying to get rid of bold.
18. August 2012 at 03:40
“am not sure Grahm-Leach-Bliley’s ammendments to Glass-Steagal did a whole lot that caused the 2008 crisis.”
Doug you are so biased. Notice that I wasn’t talking about what caused the crisis but simply that Glass-Steagall came to an end in the late 90s. The proof is in the pudding. The “Chinese Wall” between investing and deposit banking came to an end. That’s how Citigroup came to be.
Though I believe it did contribute in a big way. I believe it had more to do with it than the conservative idea that it was all Fanie and Freddie Barney Frank and Jimmy Carter-ie, the Demcorats and government.
You claim I’m insulting people. Evidently you don’t read the comments I’m responidng to.
Because all Right wingers are biased and only want to attack liberals.
18. August 2012 at 03:44
“Mike T beat me to it. Gramm, Leach, Bliley merely repealed two (of 34 original) provisions of Glass-Steagall (the Banking Reform Act of 1933). Provisions #20 and #32, which were the affiliations provisions. ”
Patrick you sure do love to quibble. What’s your point that Gramm is innocent like you think George Zimmerman is?
No matter how you want to look at it Glass-Steagall was gutted. True it had already largely been gutted prior to Gramm-Leach.
Still note that it was only then that Citigroup emerged-which was both an investment and deposit bank.
18. August 2012 at 03:47
“they were only restricted from underwriting or dealing securities”
MIke T that’s a pretty big “only”
18. August 2012 at 03:56
“The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999-2001). It repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company. With the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.”
“A year before the law was passed, Citicorp, a commercial bank holding company, merged with the insurance company Travelers Group in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. Because this merger was a violation of the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, the Federal Reserve gave Citigroup a temporary waiver in September 1998.[1] Less than a year later, GLB was passed to legalize these types of mergers on a permanent basis. The law also repealed Glass-Steagall’s conflict of interest prohibitions “against simultaneous service by any officer, director, or employee of a securities firm as an officer, director, or employee of any member bank.”[2]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act
Patrick what exactly in the above do you deny? As your game is to exonerate Gramm?
18. August 2012 at 04:07
Scott there is a sense in that the inmates have taken over the assylum at your blog these days. That’s probably what Sautors is getting at.
18. August 2012 at 04:12
Sautoros
“Romney and the Republicans are heartless Social Darwinists who want to screw the working/middle class and send us back to the Dark Ages”
But wait a minute is that a shot at me? LOL. Well I do agree with that. But be fair. I only say that as we’ve got folks like Warssler who say the opposiet. I’m just responding.
I have no problem with him vooicing his opinion but you can’t set up a double standard.
If you cant insult Romney-even if the insult is true-you can’t insult Obama either.
This is why setting up speech codes is double edged. The truth is that this blog would be a lot less unweildly if we just banned Major Freedom.
I’m not saying we should. I don’t like censorship. Just stating a fact.
18. August 2012 at 04:36
Evan has a bunch of brilliant new posts, starting with this one calling for the abolition of the unemployment rate statistic http://esoltas.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/stop-using-unemployment-rate.html
But if he’s right that unemployment has not recovered at all since the crash, doesn’t this confound Scott’s sticky-wage dependent theory? Response appreciated.
Razer, no it isn’t an accident that all the governments went into debt crisis just when NGDP tanked.
Mike, actually I was thinking of putting him in an Aquarium…http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/world/europe/suspense-ahead-of-verdict-for-jailed-russian-punk-band.html
18. August 2012 at 04:38
According to Evan Soltas’ Twitter, he just got hired by Ezra Klein’s “Wonkbook” at the Washington Post. *totallydeservesit*
18. August 2012 at 04:40
Razer, actually, we advocate raising total spending to its correct level. “Correct” is defined by the market’s expectations, which sets the path of sticky wages and debts.
18. August 2012 at 04:40
Total spending needs to be consistent with this path in order to avoid booms or busts. Inflation is incidental, and not in itself the goal.
18. August 2012 at 04:43
Also, what Robert said.
18. August 2012 at 04:43
So it’ll let me post every sentence except that one. I see…
18. August 2012 at 05:11
bold off?
18. August 2012 at 05:12
bold off?
18. August 2012 at 05:13
for fun say aye
18. August 2012 at 05:14
aye still?
18. August 2012 at 05:14
still?
18. August 2012 at 06:12
18. August 2012 at 06:12
Did that work?
18. August 2012 at 06:12
OK, try this.
18. August 2012 at 06:14
Anyway, useful discussion of housing (land) price movements in various countries here.
18. August 2012 at 06:20
Full Employment Hawk,
I used to believe what you were saying about markets sometimes being obviously wrong and amenable to outside interference in order to fix them until I actually took the time to understand why markets were behaving in a certain way. Every time I actually took the time to understand why something was happening on the market it made sense to me.
18. August 2012 at 06:27
“Inflation is simply theft, so how do you justify it all all?”
I do not accept the proposition that inflation is theft.
Suppose an economy experiences 5% inflation and borrowers and lenders expect the 5% inflation to continue. Therefore the nominal interest rate that they agree to is the one that will give them the real interest rate they require. Then the rate of inflation decreases, either from exogenous developments or as the result of contrationary monetary policy by the central bank. As a result borrowers pay a higher real interest rate than they had made their decision to borrow on and lenders earn a higher real interest rate. If one takes a moralistic view about this it is the REDUCTION IN THE RATE OF INFLATION, and not inflation that is theft. If the rate of inflation had been held constant, there would have been no theft. This is the case even though the expected rate of inflation gives holders of currency a negative rate of return. Since this was expected, holders of money will have reduced their money holdings to the point where the marginal return from the money holdings are equal to the marginal cost in the form of loss of purchasing power from holding the money.
More fundamentally, I reject the proposition that transactors are morally entitled to a stable price level, so that voluntary transactions by fully informed transactors involve theft when the price level changes.
18. August 2012 at 06:34
“Romney and the Republicans are heartless Social Darwinists who want to screw the working/middle class and send us back to the Dark Ages But wait a minute is that a shot at me? LOL.”
This shot could just as well be a shot at me. I fully agree with the above proposition. I am at this site because I agree with most of the market monetarist position on monetary policy. But with people on the right are saying opposite things and so balancing this out is justified.
18. August 2012 at 06:38
“Every time I actually took the time to understand why something was happening on the market it made sense to me.”
That all depends on what the meaning of “it made sense is.” What the market does makes sense in that what it is doing can rationally be explained. But it does not always make sense in the sense that the results are always optimal and cannot be improved on.
18. August 2012 at 07:01
‘Patrick you sure do love to quibble. What’s your point that Gramm is innocent like you think George Zimmerman is?
‘No matter how you want to look at it Glass-Steagall was gutted. True it had already largely been gutted prior to Gramm-Leach.’
Ah, thanks for providing another example (Zimmerman) of your cavalier attitude towards facts. Very considerate of you.
Now about your approach to language and logic; how can something that had ‘largely been gutted prior’ also be ‘gutted’ by something else afterward?
Especially when the ‘guts’ of Glass-Steagall were the creation of the FDIC (Steagall’s handiwork) and the separation of commercial and investment banking by sections 16 and 21 (Carter Glass’s fetish). Those still being law.
As someone else has explained already, none of this had anything to do with mortgage backed securities or real estate lending, anyway. You know, the sine qua non (bad real estate loans) of the banking crisis.
As for Phil Gramm being ‘guilty’, he inserted a provision in GLB that, had it not been passed on by the Fed, might well have stopped the crisis before it got started;
‘Provides for a study of the use of subordinated debt to protect the financial system and deposit funds from “too big to fail” institutions….’
The Fed study of that ‘canary in the coal mine’ was overwhelmingly supportive of the idea, but the ‘too big to fail’ banks lobbied against it (and, pace George Stigler, prevailed).
There appear to be two kinds of people in the world, those who believe in ‘the repeal of Glass-Steagall’, and those who actually know what they are talking about.
The former can’t even use Wikipedia productively;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act
‘The term Glass-Steagall Act, however, is most often used to refer to four provisions of the Banking Act of 1933 that limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms.[2] Starting in the early 1960s federal banking regulators interpreted these provisions to permit commercial banks and especially commercial bank affiliates to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities.[3] By the time the affiliation restrictions in the Glass-Steagall Act were repealed through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 by President Bill Clinton, many commentators argued Glass-Steagall was already “dead.”’
18. August 2012 at 08:25
“Ah, thanks for providing another example (Zimmerman) of your cavalier attitude towards facts. Very considerate of you.”
You love the word “cavalier” Your not saying what I said is untrue just “cavalier”
I guess the Flordia DA also has such a “cavalier” attitude to facts as Zimmerman looks likely to be sent up the river. I remember the “fact” I ignored with Zimmerman was that Trayvorn Martin was “looking about” in a very suspicious way.
That llicensed Zimmeran to shoot him.
If “cavalier” applies to anyone it’s your attitude towards a dead 17 year old kid. but he’s blakc so it will bring down the crime rate. You never showed anything I said about Zimmeran that was eitehr untrue or even “cavalier” to use your favorite word.
“Especially when the ‘guts’ of Glass-Steagall were the creation of the FDIC (Steagall’s handiwork) and the separation of commercial and investment banking by sections 16 and 21 (Carter Glass’s fetish). Those still being law.”
I never said FDIC was ended. There are of course lots of moving parts in Glass-Steagall but a major part was gutted by Gramm-Leach-Riely.
“Now about your approach to language and logic; how can something that had ‘largely been gutted prior’ also be ‘gutted’ by something else afterward?”
What I mean is obviosu to anyone except a quibbler in chief like yourself. Your own quote of WIKI shows my meaning:
“‘The term Glass-Steagall Act, however, is most often used to refer to four provisions of the Banking Act of 1933 that limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms.[2] Starting in the early 1960s federal banking regulators interpreted these provisions to permit commercial banks and especially commercial bank affiliates to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities.[3] By the time the affiliation restrictions in the Glass-Steagall Act were repealed through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 by President Bill Clinton, many commentators argued Glass-Steagall was already “dead.”
That’s what I mean by saying it was already essentially “gutted”
As you seem very hung up on that word much like you are also hung up on “cavalier” say teh proviisions were largely already “dead” or ‘killed”
Ie, they were no longer used much so in some respects Gramm-Riley simply codified teh development.
At the end of all this what material fact have you proven? What did I actually say that wasn’t true? You have show nothing. All we have seen proven ist hat you want to quibble because the facts are against you and Hannity. Don’t be coy either we know that’s where you get most of your facts, certainly how you “know” that Zimmeran was innocent.
18. August 2012 at 08:33
“As someone else has explained already, none of this had anything to do with mortgage backed securities or real estate lending, anyway. You know, the sine qua non (bad real estate loans) of the banking crisis.”
I never said it was necessarily the only cause. It certainly didn’t help.
“There appear to be two kinds of people in the world, those who believe in ‘the repeal of Glass-Steagall’, and those who actually know what they are talking about.”
Nope. There appears to be those who even now want to be apologists for Right wing ideas no mattter how badly they have been discredited by experience.
What you’re doing with Glass-Steagall is trying to argue with the definition. It was the Steagall part that was eroded. Obviosly Glass wasn’t I meant it in the sense that Wiki mentions:
“”‘The term Glass-Steagall Act, however, is most often used to refer to four provisions of the Banking Act of 1933 that limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms.[2] Starting in the early 1960s federal banking regulators interpreted these provisions to permit commercial banks and especially commercial bank affiliates to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities.[3] By the time the affiliation restrictions in the Glass-Steagall Act were repealed through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 by President Bill Clinton, many commentators argued Glass-Steagall was already “dead.”
So it’s clear what I was referring to and any reasonalbe person would understand. You have gone through a lot of huffing and puffing to say the same thing I oringally said.
Good job! If you weren’t stalking me what would you do with yourself Patrick? Probably make death threats to the President
18. August 2012 at 08:38
Major Freedom:
I still marvel at your ability to remain polite. But I probably marvel even more at the continuing spectacle of our opponents resolutely refusing to engage the concepts of economic calculation and/or the non-aggression principle which are at the core of 99.76% of our arguments. They cannot or will not allow those concepts into their minds.
A proper response from them to you would at least resemble something like: “Yes, I am proposing significant violations of the NAP but they are necessary here and here and here for the following reasons…….”
Never happens and never will.
18. August 2012 at 08:39
Is is possible to remove the italics by trying to add them?
18. August 2012 at 08:45
Bob Roddis I marvel at your defintion of polite
18. August 2012 at 08:48
Bob Roddis:
If you colud cite some actual examples of Major unFreedom being polite it might be helpful.
I suspect your claim that he “remains polite” is news to most people here at Money Illusion.
18. August 2012 at 09:40
Robert: “Why on earth would you be increasing your price now if you expect inflation later. At every point you set your price so that you expect all your product to sell.”
Buyers expect it as well as sellers. Demand will be (nominally) higher on the basis of inflation expectations, so higher prices will seem justified. The process will be entirely neutral; it will have no effect on the stickiness of prices. They will simply be sticky at a higher price point, so long as inflation proceeds as expected.
This changes if inflation either exceeds, or fails to meet expectations. If it fails to meet them, price discovery will take longer. Expectations are themselves sticky, and prices will have farther to fall. You might well call this the “friction” of inflation, or rather of declining expectations for it.
If, on the other hand, inflation surprises on the upside, you may force markets to clear more quickly. But there are going to be costs involved in “shocking” the market out of its notions of monetary stability — namely confusion about the future of the currency, and uncertainty about the capital environment. Furthermore you will never accomplish this with rule-based monetary policy like NGDP targeting; the outcome, being explicit, will be expected. The only effective monetary policy is one that consistently inflates more than expected, and this will very quickly yield unintended results.
Scott: what good is a “first glance” of a city of 23 million? China’s size is an obstacle to any discussion. But in any event this is not simply a question of the housing market, but the economic model. If the industrial subsidies through devaluation and financial repression are not sustainable, then neither is China’s massive urbanization, nor the enormous housing supply built to accomodate persistent and high annual growth. The problem with looking at the situation through a monetary lens is that, being neutral to these issues, monetary policy is unlikely to resolve them. In fact by promising nominal growth when a rebalancing would require less, China would flirt with something even worse: a crash….
18. August 2012 at 09:50
“But I probably marvel even more at the continuing spectacle of our opponents resolutely refusing to engage the concepts of economic calculation and/or the non-aggression principle which are at the core of 99.76% of our arguments….They cannot or will not allow those concepts into their minds.”
Major Freedom would be happier posting at another side where the audience thinks those concepts are important. You should not be surprised that people refuse to engage in arguments about issues that they consider a waste of time and energy.
18. August 2012 at 10:51
‘Mad Dog’ Mike Sax writes;
‘Good job! If you weren’t stalking me what would you do with yourself Patrick? Probably make death threats to the President’
Well, it isn’t like there is a shortage of self-unaware personalities to play with on the internet. But, I’m sure there are a few ex-presidents glad that guys like you have an outlet for your emotions.
18. August 2012 at 11:01
Major Freedom recently wrote:
“I just want more people like you to do more self-referential analysis of what it is you’re advocating. So often you just present your solutions as costless and never themselves a cause for the very problems you are seeking to solve.”
That sounds polite to me.
Full Employment Hawk wrote:
“You should not be surprised that people refuse to engage in arguments about issues that they consider a waste of time and energy.”
My point is that you statists refuse to bother even attempting an understanding of even the most basic points of MF’s arguments and/or Austrian/libertarian theory in general. You refuse to engage anything MF says so that you are not in a position to consider his arguments a waste of time and energy. And I’ve been saying that about the statist approach to all things Austrian/libertarian since 1973.
Mike Sax:
I marvel at your spelling of “defintion”.
Finally, I really do not care that the statists refuse to engage our ideas but I do find it fascinating. If our ideas ever seriously catch on with the public, it’s clear that the statists will be completely unable to mount an intelligent response. Indeed, their total reliance upon avoidance, obfuscation, double-talk and just plain ignorance will be further evidence for the public that they don’t know what they are talking about.
18. August 2012 at 11:26
Patrick I’m certainly glad you have an outlet. We see what yoru buddy Zimmerman used for an outlet.
I do like the Mad Dog name though. I may just keep it. Woof! Woof!
18. August 2012 at 11:27
I’m sure Patrick that if you saw me you’d probably take a lunge based on “stand your ground” as I’m of “dubious whiteness”
That in your mind makes me a suspect.
18. August 2012 at 11:32
Bob I marvel at your pettiness. However I see that Right wingers love to go for the low hanging fruit.
“”I just want more people like you to do more self-referential analysis of what it is you’re advocating. So often you just present your solutions as costless and never themselves a cause for the very problems you are seeking to solve.”
That doesn’t sound like politness so much as condescension. He has the answers and we’re in need of his brilliant insights.
If you’ve been doing this since 1973 Bob clearly you’re not very good at it.
18. August 2012 at 11:40
“What you really mean is that I am not easily convinced by the posters on this blog, and that to you, the only people worth talking to are those whose minds you can change so that they agree with you. In other words, you’re just looking for those to follow you and consider you an intellectual leader. That’s where your energies reside. For those who refuse to be your follower, you will find it a waste to converse with them.”
Major Unfreedom
As usual you read too much into things and ignore the most obvious reason. He has no special goal of being “an intellectual leader” he just thinks you’re a boor. Of course, you’re also a “bore.”
Your defense mechanism never ceases to amaze me.
In truth the only person on this blog that cares so much about being sucn an intelletual leader is you.
Yet nobodoy is impressed with your brilliance
18. August 2012 at 11:43
Patrick what is it hat makes you “self aware?” Because you are cool with killing a 17 year old kid becasue he was “looking about?”
18. August 2012 at 11:50
Mike Sax:
MF is saying in a nice way that others are wrong. He has more energy in that regard than I do because you do not seem to understand the basic subject matter of either the Austrian School (economic calculation) or libertarianism (the non-aggression principle) in general.
A proper response to that particular polite criticism would be, for example, to assert that the proposed solutions are indeed costless and/or they are not the cause of the type of price and other distortions to which MF is referring, with concrete examples demonstrating an understanding of the problem of economic calculation.
The failure to directly respond to MF’s points is evidence that you guys do not understand his arguments and really do not care to.
The central concept of the Austrian School is the limited nature of knowledge in humans and in society and how unadulterated prices provide the only source of economic information so that informed economic calculation might occur among strangers and across society.
In February, 2011, the American Economic Review (specifically Kenneth J. Arrow, B. Douglas Bernheim, Martin S. Feldstein, Daniel L. McFadden, James M. Poterba, and Robert M. Solow) named its top 20 articles of the last 100 years. Included therein was:
Hayek, F. A. 1945. “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” American Economic Review, 35(4): 519-30.
http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/aer.101.1.1
The “knowledge problem” is real and it ought to be understood. It is at the core of Austrian School analysis but Keynesian and other inflationist schools recoil from having even a basic familiarity with such a core concept. This is probably because both monetary and “fiscal” “stimulus” are the primary cause of knowledge impairment leading to the boom/bust cycle among other problems. The inflationists are not psychologically prepared to accept the obvious truth that their “solutions” are the primary cause of our economic problems.
MF constantly points out how the various inflationist schemes ignore both the “knowledge problem” and the violation of the non-aggression principle. And, as if to prove him correct, the inflationist schemers then proceed to ignore his critique.
18. August 2012 at 12:07
“This is probably because both monetary and “fiscal” “stimulus” are the primary cause of knowledge impairment leading to the boom/bust cycle among other problems.”
Contrary to what you say, Bob I get that’s what you guys claim. Where’s the proof of it though? Did we not have problems prior to 1913 with the rise of the Fed?
It’s a theory to argue that stimulus is the problem and that if we just left things along it would “cleanse the rot out of the system” but where’s the proof?
You believe delfation is a good ting and that at some point we’ll have a low enough price, a la Ricardo. Where’s the proof?
18. August 2012 at 12:23
Mike Sax:
The way you take our assertions out of context demonstrates you understand nothing about our position. And I’m sure MF has cited chapter and verse about the problems of pre-fed fractional reserve banking.
Just using the term “doing nothing” demonstrates your ignorance. And it seems to me that the 1920 depression demonstrated the efficacy of “doing nothing” so to speak.
18. August 2012 at 12:40
whats with the bold
18. August 2012 at 12:43
” And it seems to me that the 1920 depression demonstrated the efficacy of “doing nothing” so to speak.”
Wow, all your credibility went out the window with that one, the “b-b-b-b-b but 1920” argument has been categorically destroyed: http://www.springerlink.com/content/5683j4v650187261/?MUD=MP
18. August 2012 at 13:08
In Daniel Kuehn’s marvelous paper, he thinks he is disproving Austrian School analysis of the 1920 depression. Instead, he unintentionally proves that it was the Fed’s funding of WWI that caused the artificial boom. The first big post-Fed recession was the result of the government’s First World WAR boom followed by the post-war bust. There’s nothing in his article about a “free market” having a “structural” problem causing unemployment. He wrote:
“2. The austerity depression of 1920-21
During World War I federal expenditures ballooned and although the new income tax was able to partially finance the war effort, most of the financing was done through federal borrowing and by the highly accommodating monetary policy of the Federal Reserve. The role of the Federal Reserve at this time was expressed unambiguously by the New York Federal Reserve Bank Governor Benjamin Strong, who told a Congressional committee in 1921 that ‘I feel that I, or the bank at least, was their [the Treasury’s] agent and servant in those matters’ and further added that the wartime inflation caused by the low interest rates maintained by the bank were ‘inevitable, unescapable, and necessary’ for prosecuting the war (Strong, 1930).
However, after the war ended the deficit spending of the Wilson administration and the expansionary policy of the Federal Reserve were sharply curtailed to bring a halt to the inflation. By November 1919 the Wilson administration balanced the federal budget, slashing monthly expenditures by almost 75% in a matter of months.4 The New York Federal Reserve Bank raised the discount rate by 244 basis points over the course of eight months, with other Reserve System banks following suit. Shortly after these austerity measures were taken, the 1920-21 depression was under way. Postwar industrial production in the USA peaked in January 1920 as the economy moved into a major depression, with production levels dropping by 32.5% by March 1921.5 This loss in output is second only to the Great Depression in American economic history (Romer, 1999), although its duration was considerably shorter. Declines in output were matched by precipitous drops in employment and the price level. The proximate cause of the 1920-21 depression was a deliberate fiscal and monetary retrenchment following World War I.”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1591030
Thus, the 1920 depression was CAUSED by the end of the artificial WWI boom. The undeniable fact is that the market still was able to bounce back in short order even with significant necessary voluntary price and wages cuts. The central theme of Kuehn’s paper (set forth in his usual double-talk) is merely that what allegedly happened WAS PERFECTLY IN SYNC WITH KEYNES’S VIEWS. Also, that the events of the Great Depression were different so that 1920 doesn’t actually “prove” anything about the GD. Whatever. Who cares? The market didn’t cause the problem of 1920 and but market fixed it. There is thus no antecedent event that the statists can look to where “the market” caused a depression or that “stimulus” fixed it.
Further, Britain went off the gold standard in WWI. That allows governments to fund slaughterfests without actually having to tax resources from the public in real time as such taxation might arouse the rabble against the slaughterfest. Then it was Churchill’s foolish attempt to reestablish a gold exchange standard at the pre-war par that contributed to the Great Depression along with fractional reserve banking which artificially bid up prices to unsustainable levels.
Finally, the unfounded assertion that the problems of 1920 were caused by “the gold standard” and/or “the free market” and/or laissez faire is academic fraud.
18. August 2012 at 13:20
One of Kuehn’s major themes was that the Austrian writers allegedly failed to give Wilson credit (as opposed to Harding) for the spending cuts which precipitated the bust. The story I always heard was that, lucky for the world, the monstrous Woodrow Wilson had a stroke (known as “the stroke of luck”) and wasn’t around to put a stop to the necessary deep spending cuts which naturally would cause a temporary depression as prices and resources were re-coordinated. Further, since the depression wasn’t caused directly by market malinvestment in capital goods per se, Kuehn suggests that it somehow disproves Austrian theory. Those arguments are so weak to the point of being dishonest.
Kuehn still remains a great source to cite to prove that it wasn’t the market that caused the 1920 depression but it was the market that cured it quickly (but I do not think that was Kuehn’s intent).
18. August 2012 at 14:06
Why is everyone yelling ?
18. August 2012 at 14:24
So many true believers waiting for the world to wake up to the “truth”.
Whole lives spent in passionate faith.
Humans have and endless capacity for confusing Faith, Belief and Knowledge.
18. August 2012 at 14:39
“ And it seems to me that the 1920 depression demonstrated the efficacy of “doing nothing” so to speak.”
Wow, all your credibility went out the window with that one, the “b-b-b-b-b but 1920″³ argument has been categorically destroyed:”
>> Brito,
How does this prove that Roddis’ argument loses credibility?
1. As Bob alludes in his comment, a major part of Kuehn’s claim is that the Austrian argument doesn’t give due credit to Wilson’s role in budget cutting. But where is that even part of the Austrian argument?
2. Kuehn further claims that because rates were not approaching the zero bound, fiscal stimulus was unnecessary. Ok, fine. But how does General Theory Keynes reconcile the continued drastic budget cuts and contractionary monetary policy “during” a deflationary spiral, rising unemployment, and sharp drop in GDP that was nearly as severe as the downturn of the early 30’s? Harding continued cutting federal spending through 1922. And as I believe Meltzer noted, this was the only period where money rates where highest at the trough of the business cycle and lowest at its peak.
3. Even Kuehn is sympathetic to the Austrian perspective in his paper, but in his defense of Keynes, it seems to follow a curious trend among other modern Keynesians of making nonfalsifiable claims when it comes to examining past and current economic periods (eg the Krugman/Romer claims that stimulus under Hoover/FDR (Great Depression) and Obama (Great recession) didn’t work, because it simply wasn’t enough). Likewise with the 1920-21 episode, it’s almost as if Kuehn is suggesting, “well the markets were such a success in clearing that stimulus was unnecessary; thus, this episode doesn’t count as a strike against Keynesian counter-cyclical policy.” And your suggesting this somehow throws Austrian credibility out the window? On what grounds?
18. August 2012 at 14:59
Bob Roddis –
“The proximate cause of the 1920-21 depression was a deliberate fiscal and monetary retrenchment following World War I”
and
“Thus, the 1920 depression was CAUSED by the end of the artificial WWI boom.”
I’ve asked this before, but why isn’t the bust just as “artificial” as the boom? It was caused be “deliberate” actions.
Keep in mind, the gold standard was suspended at this time(restored in 1923). Benjamin Strong reversed course and loosened monetary policy in 1921 and the economy recovered. Bad monetary policy caused the 1920 depression and good monetary policy got us out of it in 1921.
18. August 2012 at 15:05
Mike T I think part of it is that 1920-21 and 1929 aren’t really comparable.
1920-21 was more like the recession of 81-82 in that the recession was deliberatly orchestrated by the Fed in both cases so during the recovery they simply had to take their foot off the break.
18. August 2012 at 15:23
I am TIRED of Keynes.
FACT / RULE: you aren’t allowed to mention Keynes unless you have a provable history or screaming not to grow government during boom times.
Nobody, not DeKrugman, not the Unibomber, NOBODY gets to talk about Keynes theories unless they are ACTIVE anti-government growth advocates whenever the economy is moving at a good clip.
I want 4.5% NGDPLT because I know it guts public employees like fish, and since I want it, I will put up with some printing in certain circumstances.
I am CONSISTENT and moderate.
Most of you are not, and it is despicable.
18. August 2012 at 15:26
Yes, booms can be ended by the government when it stops inflating and/or spending. However, an artificial boom will invariably end on its own at some point in any event due to the pre-existing price dis-coordination. I too have some problems with Hayek over his social democratic views, but on “Meet The Press” in 1975 he said:
“Not in the least, because the dangers of inflation are very different ones. They are exactly the kind of unemployment which is now arising. In the usual discussion, there is quite a wrong emphasis. There are many bad effects of inflation, but the worst is that it draws labor into employments where they can be kept employed only by an accelerating inflation. And the point inevitably arises where inflation cannot be accelerated sufficiently fast to keep them in that inflation [Hayek misspoke here and meant “employment”, not “inflation”]
http://mises.org/daily/3311
http://mises.org/media/2773
18. August 2012 at 15:29
ssumner:
Everyone, I see lots of people saying I’m a central planner because I want the Fed to determine the money supply. But I don’t, I want the market to determine the money supply.
CTRL-F, “money supply”, ENTER
Results: 1
Comment: “Scott also says that if housing is currently overpriced, then China could benefit from some inflation. Scott’s definitely for central control of the money supply, or at least accepts that control as a given, but if that’s all it takes to be a “central planner,” then everyone but the free banking crowd is inside the tent.”
How is that “lots of people”? Oh that’s right, it isn’t. Sumner is just pretending that he is being accused of something, so he has a ready response, which isn’t even correct!
Verdict: Sumner is evading the actual reasons why he is being considered pro central planning. Plus he doesn’t seem to grasp that the market does not determine the money supply in NGDP targeting. The Fed does. The Fed is the entity that creates money. The Fed has to choose to create more money when they observe spending falling. The Fed has to choose to create less money when they observe spending rising.
It is not a valid argument to claim that the market is responsible for the money supply in NGDP targeting on the basis that the if the market spends more the Fed prints less and if the market spends less then the Fed prints more. By that logic, one could argue that the state doesn’t determine how many people get killed by lethal injection, it’s the people who do things the state considers worthy of lethally injecting them who determine it. Or that I am not responsible for how many times you get tarred and feathered, you are responsible for it because you are the one who chooses to do X and I believe X serves as a justification for me to tar and feather you.
It is wrong to claim that those who are forced to use the money the Fed creates, by taxation law, are somehow holding a gun to the heads of those at the Fed board, ordering the Fed to print more. No, the Fed is the entity that decides to control NGDP, the Fed is the entity that decides to print less or more money depending on the Fed’s criteria. The market didn’t choose NGDP targeting, the Fed did. The market isn’t producing the money. The Fed is.
When the Fed targets NGDP, and is in control of the printing press, then the state is in control of the money supply, not the market. If the market were in control of the money supply, then the Fed would not exist, and NGDP would fluctuate.
Moreover, as mentioned, Sumner is evading the actual reasons for why he is being called pro central planning. The comment “If the poor can’t afford housing, then print money”. That’s central planning. There are other comments that have been made that show central planning advocacy, but there is no point in repeating them, as they speak for themselves.
Bob Murphy, I guess it was mean calling you one of the “usual suspects” (although I was actually thinking more about certain frequent Austrian commenters.) But think how I feel being called a “central planner.” For a UC grad that’s like being called a child molester.
Except UC produces central planning graduates, at least when it comes to money. The top graduate of that school, Milton Friedman, designed and advocated for the withholding tax, negative income subsidies, school vouchers (which he later abandoned after Rothbard had a talk with him), etc. It’s a harsh truth that for some reason is being unofficially censored. “Central planners? Us state monopoly in money production advocates? We who champion government ownership of the means of producing money? That’s not central planning! That’s…um…PRAGMATISM!”
————————-
Mike Sax:
“You have an interesting way of conceding that you were wrong.”
You have an interesting way of believing what you want to believe. I guess if I was as crazy as you I’d need such a massive defense mechanism as well.
Another non-argument. I win. You’re haven’t yet been a challenge.
“So you’re upset that I can’t read your mind”
Takes no special mind reading just commons sense.
No, it takes mind reading. Common sense definition of “everyone” means everyone.
“You sound exasperated. You’re so exasperated your flying off the deep end about the word “everyone”. “
Major Unfreedom I didn’t fly off the deep end just can’t believe how ignorant you are that you can’t even understand the simplest points.
I understand the definition of “everyone.”
Now if you want to see “flying off the deep end” check out the time you went off beccause someone used the word “betray.” You thought it’s only used by professors or someting.
No, that was just a correction on how to use the word “betray” properly. And I didn’t say it is only used by professors.
“You sound mad.”
Then you’re deaf as well as dumb. Now you do sound mad as in insane. You refuse to get treatment at your own risk
You need one more exasperated ad hominem. I only count, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5…in just two sentences.
“I am not the only person who can get confused”
You’re desparate to believe there are others that suffer as you do huh?
It’s human nature to occasionally make mistakes, get confused, etc. Humans are fallible. It takes your kind of desperation and exasperation to insist that I am the only one in the world who ever gets confused about something.
“What you really mean is that I am not easily convinced by the posters on this blog, and that to you, the only people worth talking to are those whose minds you can change so that they agree with you. In other words, you’re just looking for those to follow you and consider you an intellectual leader. That’s where your energies reside. For those who refuse to be your follower, you will find it a waste to converse with them.”
As usual you read too much into things and ignore the most obvious reason. He has no special goal of being “an intellectual leader” he just thinks you’re a boor. Of course, you’re also a “bore.”
As usual you’re not reading into anything, you’re ignoring the words between the lines, and you’re just insulting me because you’re mad.
Wow. That’s at least 4 or 5 posts from you to me, and in every single one of them, you’re mad.
—————————–
Robert:
“Of course there has to be a “misunderstanding.” How else could you begin a rationalization?”
Wow. No wonder nobody on this blog gives you the time of day.
Except for you and many others on this blog. Except for all those people, yes, nobody gives me the time of day.
“But you’re not setting the optimal price, if you want to sell all your output at a profit.”
Of course you are.
No, you are not. The context at hand was unsold surpluses. You can’t just evade that and pretend it no longer applies.
Why on earth would you be increasing your price now if you expect inflation later.
To earn profits now.
At every point you set your price so that you expect all your product to sell.
At what point though? The argument I am making is that when there is a central bank promising inflation, then sellers are less willing to lower their prices to the level that would clear the market given that the prevailing quantity of money and spending calls for lower prices, not higher prices.
Later, when you expect the inflation to kick in, you raise the price so that you expect to have no shortages. But if there’s no extra nominal income now, you don’t raise the price.
What about if there is a lower quantity of money and spending, in the presence of you having expectations that prices are going to rise in the near future?
Say I’m expecting roughly 30% cumulative inflation over the next 10 years (2.5%/year). Do I raise prices 30% now because in 10 years incomes will be 30% higher? No. That’s idiotic.
Cool story.
“But that’s not what you said. You said money should be printed if there is unsold surpluses. Now you’re saying money should be printed to target nominal spending, DESPITE there being unsold surpluses.”
One implies the other.
No, it doesn’t. Constant NGDP growth does not mean there will not be unsold surpluses. China has double digit NGDP growth, and yet there are tens of millions of unsold homes. The US now has 4-5% NGDP growth, and still massive unemployment. Your claims are not empirically consistent, nor are they theoretically valid.
By keeping NGDP expectations on target there won’t be a shortage of nominal income in the first place.
It’s not a shortage of nominal income that generates unsold surpluses.
And again, the context is price inflation targeting, not nominal spending targeting.
“Besides, even NGDP targeting would create its own set of price frictions.”
Oh? Are these going to be as moronic as the last proposed frictions?
You haven’t shown how my last two proposed frictions are “moronic”. I argued that a central bank exacerbates price frictions when there arises a difference between monetary expectations and monetary reality, which is very frequent if history is a guide.
“My first preference is no murder, and no rape. But given the reality that murder and rape are not going away any time soon…”
I reject your false analogy.
I reject your false claim that my analogy is false.
Now address why my analogy is false in itself. Tell me what is wrong with my reasoning. Forget about inflation for a moment. Just consider my murder and rape proposal as it stands. You’re obviously just afraid of engaging it because you know that by refuting the logic of that scenario, you’d be undercutting the foundation for why you support central banking and NGDP targeting.
I wasn’t making an analogy to inflation. I was just using your chosen premises for supporting central banking, in another context. I wasn’t trying to argue that inflation is the same thing as murder and rape. Focus on the logic.
If you wish to take the time to establish a one to one relationship between what you’re trying to compare to establish a justified analogy, go for it. Otherwise, I take that resorting to bullshit analogies means you’re out of real arguments?
They’re not bull. It’s your weak and vacuous responses are bull.
18. August 2012 at 15:38
Mike Sax:
“Mike T I think part of it is that 1920-21 and 1929 aren’t really comparable.”
>> I believe the only comparison I made was providing another reference point to the steepness of the ’20 downturn. All economic events are unique.
“1920-21 was more like the recession of 81-82 in that the recession was deliberatly orchestrated by the Fed in both cases so during the recovery they simply had to take their foot off the break.”
>> Fiscal policy was much different. But all recessions were preceded by a highly inflationary period followed by a spike in the Fed’s discount rate. I think Austrians tend to focus not so much on what triggered the downturn, but the expansionary monetary policy that contributed to the artificial rise in prices in the first place and the economic miscalculations that result.
18. August 2012 at 16:00
“However, an artificial boom will invariably end on its own at some point in any event due to the pre-existing price dis-coordination. I too have some problems with Hayek over his social democratic views, but on “Meet The Press” in 1975 he said:
“Not in the least, because the dangers of inflation are very different ones. They are exactly the kind of unemployment which is now arising. In the usual discussion, there is quite a wrong emphasis. There are many bad effects of inflation, but the worst is that it draws labor into employments where they can be kept employed only by an accelerating inflation. And the point inevitably arises where inflation cannot be accelerated sufficiently fast to keep them in that inflation [Hayek misspoke here and meant “employment”, not “inflation”]
”
Gibberish. Utter Gibberish that has been disproven time and time again. These monetary misallocations don’t even EXIST (or if the do, they come from an entirely DIFFERENT source, like fiscal policy, in China) You’re missing the point Bob. Its not that we “statists” (yeah right! >:P) haven’t engaged Austrian concepts. We have engaged Austrian concepts and found them wanting. Or trivial Or both. Or, (in the case of the NAP non aggression principle) found much more important violations to deal with than MONETARY policy of all things. (How about that Russian rock band that was put in jail. Isn’t Putin a fascist thug, everyone?)
MF,
What you [propose] is completely unnecessary. All the government of China has to do to get wages up is to STOP fixing the yuan to the dollar, and let it appreciate. There’s your solution to housing affordability right there
You dogmatic ideologue. We should work with what the Chinese government is currently doing, not completely overturn monetary policy and letting the Yuan float. That’s utopian. It’s not politically feasible. It’s naive. It’s extremism. Let’s be pragmatic instead. LOL
HaHa. If you notice, Bill Ellis later agreed with me. (thanks bill, by the way!) Here’s a hint MF, you might get farther if you start by not assuming that all of us here are evil statist idiots. The packaging is just as important as the message. Wy do you think Rothbard never got anywhere in the mainstream while Milton Friedman did? Its because Milton was soft spoken and gentle, not the intellectual equivalent of a rabies infected monkey throwing its own feces at passerbies. By the way, some “utopian” plans are closer than others. For example, NGDPLT is gaining momentum
(very slowly but its there) but nobody is ready yet to accept legal tender free private money production. Personally I don’t think theres much difference between the two in terms of their effects. PMP production would stabilize NGDP and price levels (not rates) much faster than a central bank, but if you want to measure monetary proposals on a scale of worst to best, while PMPP ranks number 10 NGDPLT ranks 8.5 or 9
FEH
“Suppose an economy experiences 5% inflation and borrowers and lenders expect the 5% inflation to continue. Therefore the nominal interest rate that they agree to is the one that will give them the real interest rate they require. Then the rate of inflation decreases, either from exogenous developments or as the result of contrationary monetary policy by the central bank. As a result borrowers pay a higher real interest rate than they had made their decision to borrow on and lenders earn a higher real interest rate. If one takes a moralistic view about this it is the REDUCTION IN THE RATE OF INFLATION, and not inflation that is theft. If the rate of inflation had been held constant, there would have been no theft. This is the case even though the expected rate of inflation gives holders of currency a negative rate of return. Since this was expected, holders of money will have reduced their money holdings to the point where the marginal return from the money holdings are equal to the marginal cost in the form of loss of purchasing power from holding the money.
More fundamentally, I reject the proposition that transactors are morally entitled to a stable price level, so that voluntary transactions by fully informed transactors involve theft when the price level changes.”
Beautiful. I agree totally but could never find the words. Way to go man. 🙂
The Austrians totally ignore expectations. Its one of the dozens of things wrong with their theory.
18. August 2012 at 16:13
FEH,
Since you do hot hold the act of money debasement immoral, would you also be okay with citizens counterfeiting their own currency and spending it on real goods? If the government does the same thing and it is not immoral, how can it be immoral when others do it? In your mind, when inflation is too low, wouldn’t this be a preferred remedy?
18. August 2012 at 16:25
Expectations? Fiat funny money dilution artificially bids up the prices of goods, services and factors and makes people think that they and everyone else is richer than they really are. This results in people foolishly EXPECTING that the artificially bid-up prices of housing will continue forever. This results in people foolishly EXPECTING that the artificially bid-up price of cars AND auto workers or stocks will continue forever. Austrian theory is all about distorted expectations about future prices and opportunities resulting from diluted funny money. That what economic calculation is all about.
And exactly how do you disprove the statement that workers and investors are drawn into lines of work and investment as the result of prior inflation? Isn’t that the whole point of Keynesian monetary policy in the first place? We agree that the funny money “stimulates” those things, but since they are unsustainable, those investments will eventually collapse. Keynesians and monetarists have a brain freeze at that point.
18. August 2012 at 16:37
Razer
“FEH,
Since you do hot hold the act of money debasement immoral, would you also be okay with citizens counterfeiting their own currency and spending it on real goods? If the government does the same thing and it is not immoral, how can it be immoral when others do it? In your mind, when inflation is too low, wouldn’t this be a preferred remedy?”
I can’t speak for FEH, but yes, I would prefer a free market in money. Everyone would be free to create their own money, but nobody could force it on anybody. I think this would supply the liquidity that people desperately need and don’t need better than the central bank. But since NGDPLT employs a functional market in its workable scheme proposed by Scott. It closely approximates private money production.
Bob,
wow, our brains will freeze? Seriously? Is that the best you can come up with. I thought you were a veteran since 1973. (how’s your proselytization success rate by the way?)
And yes, Austrians do ignore expectations. Austrians assume that market entrepreneurs are so weak minded and idiotic that they will be fooled again and again by the government. Austrians hold the market in contempt. Just like marxists do, but on the opposite end of the spectrum. The market is virtuous , but so frail and weak as to be pathetic, in their view of the world
18. August 2012 at 16:39
Mike T my point is that the 20-21 was Fed induced not real factors
18. August 2012 at 16:48
Major Unfreedom
You;re desprate to believe I’m mad. But you dont make me angry you amuse me.
There is nothing you could ever say that I would take seriously considering the soruce.
I think you;re mad and want to believe I am as well. YOu can’t stand to admit that I don’t take you nearly seriously enough for that.
“It’s human nature to occasionally make mistakes, get confused, etc. Humans are fallible. It takes your kind of desperation and exasperation to insist that I am the only one in the world who ever gets confused about something.”
The kind of mistakes you make are quite unique. You are unable t understand some pretty simple things.
It’s as if we have to do away with the word “everyone” because you don’t like the word. Surely the 6.2 billion people in the world can’t be unanimous in anything so I guess-according to your logic-we can’t ever say “everyone.”
Yet we can and do. How is that? It’s like you suffer from some acute philosophical illusion of ultra nominalism.
I still think the reason you hate democracy so much is that you are not the people’s choice. Probably anywhere you’ve ever gone that’s been true.
But I love your defense mechanism. I’m desparte because of how easily confused you get. My guess is that your whole life is a pique of despration. You need to believe all this claptrap you proclaim.
It’s all just a desparate anxiety formation.
18. August 2012 at 17:00
Really interesting piece from Tim Duy on the supply side effects of monetary policy.
” Once policymakers started to believe (on the basis of an HP filter, of all things) that the economy is operating at potential, rather than well-below potential, then they would start behaving as if the economy was in fact at potential, setting policy and managing the economy along the suboptimal level. This sends signals to economic agents about the expected growth in output (or nominal GDP), who adjust their behavior accordingly. The cyclical declines becomes structural. In other words, a shift in potential GDP becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.”
http://economistsview.typepad.com/timduy/2012/08/self-fulfilling-prophecies.html
18. August 2012 at 17:00
“The market is virtuous, but so frail and weak as to be pathetic, in their view of the world.”
There is no “market” in fact; it is just an expression to refer to real live people exchanging goods and services. The central point of the Austrian School is that people are necessarily ignorant of other peoples’ wants and desires and that this information can only be expressed and obtained through free market prices. Of course, if prices are distorted by Keynesian or monetarist policies, people tend to believe and trust in the phony nominal prices and base their future plans and expectations upon those phony prices.
Your claim and my claim are specific factual statements. Where were the great masses of people who understood that the housing bubble was a bubble in 2005? And who could see that the auto industry was not sustainable as of 2006? Who EXPECTED what happened other than Austrians, with a few exceptions?
Further, to the extent that people actually and finally do catch on to the price distortions caused by funny money, they can abolish the system. Meanwhile, most people are oblivious about distinguishing between nominal and “real” prices which are quite difficult to locate in an inflated economy even by “experts” in any event.
18. August 2012 at 18:08
Scott can I recommend you start closing threads that end up like this? This has become a high farce…
18. August 2012 at 20:30
Ben J,
Scott is on vacation. Why should he concern himself with it ?
18. August 2012 at 20:38
I kinda like how Atrios sprinkles random open threads into his blog…
Like friday cocktail hour…stuff like that.
http://www.eschatonblog.com/
18. August 2012 at 22:54
Edward,
How would you execute your plan of perpetual debasement of the currency if people were free to dump your currency and choose one that didn’t depreciate? When people do decide to ditch the perpetually debased currency, is that when the ‘freedom experiment’ comes to a close and legal tender laws come roaring back so people can be shepherded back into the ‘Monetarist Dollar’ and back on plan?
People will not choose fiat dollars freely. The monetarist scheme would not work, though I’d be happy to see the experiment tried as long as it involved no coercion by central authorities, which would be a first in history.
19. August 2012 at 00:02
“Since you do hot hold the act of money debasement immoral, would you also be okay with citizens counterfeiting their own currency and spending it on real goods? If the government does the same thing and it is not immoral, how can it be immoral when others do it?”
Debasement, schmebasement! If the domestic price level is too low to achieve full employment, or the value of the dollar relative to foreign currencies makes U.S. goods uncompetitive, reducing the value of the dollar is in the public interest. For example, Roosevelt’s taking the dollar off the gold standard and devaluing it in terms of foreign money brought about a rapid growth in the economy and reduction in the unemployment rate for several years following it. The benefit to society from this far exceeded any losses to individuals. Full employment is much more important than a constant price level or a constant value of the dollar relative to foreign currencies. Failure to bring the economy to full employment when monetary policy can do is is what is immoral. The rights of workers to full employment exceeds any rights that wealth holder have. Austrians have a very misguided set of values with respect to this.
When the government prints money the revenue goes to the government and finances beneficial public services to the public, and/or a reduction in other taxes. When individuals do this that does not happen.
19. August 2012 at 00:19
“The central point of the Austrian School is that people are necessarily ignorant of other peoples’ wants and desires and that this information can only be expressed and obtained through free market prices.”
This is, of course, totally inconsistent with the rational expectations approch to expectations formation, which is the dominant dogma in “modern” macroeconomics, according to which all transactors have perfect foresight with respect to the mean and probablity distribution of all prices into the infinite future. On this the Austrian view is much closer to the truth than the rational expectations hypothesis.
“this information can only be expressed and obtained through free market prices”
The problem is that the information can only be expressed and obtained from market prices if transactions only take place and are finalized when markets clear, and this is not what happens a large part of the time in actual markets. Transactions frequently take place and are finalized at prices at which markets do not clear. Such false prices do not correctly reflect people’s wants and desires, so that economies can go into recessions and inflationary booms. Monetary and fiscal policy if used correctly corrects for this type of market failure.
19. August 2012 at 00:34
FEH,
Rosevelt’s gold confiscation scheme did not bring about the end of the depression. It ended after WWI when the government got out of the way and the free markets provided the solution. You know the system that Keynes admired? The Soviet System. He marvelled at what he thought was a much more efficient system, with all those wonderful central planners making plans. Do you also marvel at their efficiency?
And what other forms of violence would you like to plan for the people to serve your plan of ‘full employment?’ How about beatings for those that don’t work hard enough to meet some daily quota? Why not nationalize all industry and make takes 100% and organize society this way according to your plan? Also, what punishment should be meted out to you when the planners decide that your plan isn’t working and need a new one? What punishment do people like me have to look forward to for not wanting to take part in your plans? Death? Torture? Forfeiture of all property?
Lastly, who are these experts that know what output and prices are correct, and who are these selfless angels that will execute the plan without abusing the power which has been taken from the people? I’m guessing you are one them, correct?
19. August 2012 at 00:40
“You refuse to engage anything MF says so that you are not in a position to consider his arguments a waste of time and energy.”
Time is a very scarce resource and therefore it is inefficient to spend a lot of time on the many competing approaches that are fundamentally off base. Those of us who ignore Austrian economics know enough about it to rationally conclude that it is not worth investing more time on.
If Major Freedom wants to engages in issues he considers important but most of the people here do not, he should post on a different site where there are people interested in the issues that concern him.
19. August 2012 at 05:59
Razer –
“How would you execute your plan of perpetual debasement of the currency if people were free to dump your currency and choose one that didn’t depreciate?”
People are free to do that now. You are free to refuse to accept dollars if you choose. You’d have to sell a portion of whatever else you accept for dollars to pay your taxes, probably once a quarter, but that’s a different issue. It’s no more an infringement on your freedom than taxes are in general.
Any system of taxation is a restriction of freedom, whether it’s in gold, dollars or anything else. The claim that paying taxes in units of GDP is “central planning” and paying taxes in units of gold is “freedom” is absurd on its face.
19. August 2012 at 06:34
“The problem is that the information can only be expressed and obtained from market prices if transactions only take place and are finalized when markets clear, and this is not what happens a large part of the time in actual markets. Transactions frequently take place and are finalized at prices at which markets do not clear. Such false prices do not correctly reflect people’s wants and desires, so that economies can go into recessions and inflationary booms. Monetary and fiscal policy if used correctly corrects for this type of market failure.”
The fact that a person cannot sell his service or product at the price that he expected suggests he needs to lower his price. The fact that an entire society suddenly cannot make the sale at the prices that they all expected (housing/cars/autoworkers) is almost always caused by the price distortions of Keynesian and monetarist interference in the pricing process. Keynesian and monetarist interference in the pricing process are always the cause of the problem. It’s preposterous to suggest that they are the cure.
19. August 2012 at 07:27
Of course, only a true central planner could claim that communist China is not centrally planned. Rest assured, we are within 2 to 3 years of China providing yet another glaring real world example of the dismal failure of leftist economics.
The big problem in China is that for all the GDP growth over the past several years, there has been very little value creation. (have you checked out the Shanghai Composite recently?)
The terms of trade advantage resulting from suppressing the value of the currency, which the supply model will tell you can only possibly be of a temporary nature, has proven to be just that.
On top of export growth, which is yesterday’s news, we have absurd levels of investment in infrastructure and real estate, fueled by M2 growth averaging in the high teens over the past decade. Of course, there is nothing “market driven” about this process, as the government owns and controls the banks, and tells them how much to lend and to whom.
The delusional China bulls will look around at the empty buildings, empty highways and empty cities and say “don’t worry, at 10% GDP growth China will grow into all this excess investment over time.”
the obvious problem here is that China can now only maintain high levels of GDP growth by actually increasing its reliance on investment to generate said GDP. Fill today’s empty city by building two more.
The bulls will say that China is somehow deserving of a level of infrastructure equivalent to that of a “rich” nation. Chinese polocymakers seem to believe this.
Yet who is actually creating the wealth to enable China to actually become “rich?”. The “private sector” is currently hitting the currency undervaluation wall after several years of double digit wage gains. The SoE’s, after accounting for the value of hidden sunsidies – suppressed interest rates, monopoly pricing, free reign to degrade the environment – are significant value destroyers.
Has a country ever become rich by simply building apartments and bridges? Does wishing one had a level of economic development sufficient to utilize this investment make it so?
And there’s also the issue of timing. Even if the bulls are right and China will continue to “grow into all this investment,” can it possibly be an efficient use of capital to make investments that are going to sit idle for 10 years? Isn’t an efficient market economy supposed to make some wealth-generating investments of 10 years duration FIRST, and THEN, build the infrastructure necessary to facilitate the next round of development 10 years hence?
The problem with China’s model, of course, is that debt service become impossible. Debt in China is rising at a rapid rate. Banking system assets, inclusive of growing off-balance-sheet activity, are over 300pct of GDP. Government debt, inclusive of ballooning local government debt and Ministry of Railways debt (an obvious white elephant) is at least in the 70s as a percent of GDP, and this is BEFORE China has recognized that ANY of the ’09-’10 stimulus investment (when credit growth exceeded 30pct) is bad.
As contingent liabilities hit, as they inevitably must, Chinese Debt / GDP will blow into the triple digits quite easily. In terms of the debt metrics, it looks a lot like Spain, circa 2009-2010 before banks started acknowledging the housing bust.
Of course, the thing that’ll make China fun to watch in coming years to the fact that the Chinese political system is completely ill equipped to deal with the fallout of a financial bust. A government that doesn’t give it’s citizens the right to decide how many children to have, might be somewhat constrained in its ability to ask for the kind of “sacrifice” in the form of bloodletting levels of taxation that is being required of European citizenry.
Especially in the face of a degree of official corruption that is both endemic and of mind-blowing magnitudes (are you aware that most local officials own in excess of 100 of those middle class,apartments you think the economy will so desperately need)?
Only a true central planner could take one good look at China and not conclude that this is a coming financial disaster of earth-shattering proportions.
19. August 2012 at 07:59
“The fact that a person cannot sell his service or product at the price that he expected suggests he needs to lower his price. The fact that an entire society suddenly cannot make the sale at the prices that they all expected (housing/cars/autoworkers) is almost always caused by the price distortions of Keynesian and monetarist interference in the pricing process.”
This ideological dogma clearly shows why Austrian economics is a system of religious belief, rather than science and therefore does not deserve to be taken seriously. Sticky wages and prices that do not adjust instantenously, but only gradually and sequentially are a standard feature of real world economies because most real world markets are not perfectly competitive, but have a degree of monopoly power. Trading at false prices at which markets do not clear is a fundamental feature of real world markets and not the result of what the government does.
19. August 2012 at 08:00
This comment thread has reminded me of the book “The Lord of the Flies” at times. It has been fascinating in terms of sociology. Hopefully you guys never end up on a small island together.
19. August 2012 at 08:10
“Sticky wages and prices that do not adjust instantenously, but only gradually and sequentially are a standard feature of real world economies because most real world markets are not perfectly competitive, but have a degree of monopoly power. Trading at false prices at which markets do not clear is a fundamental feature of real world markets and not the result of what the government does.”
There it is. The essence of the totalitarian central planning Keynesian/monetarist mind. Average people are too stupid to be able to set their own wages and prices which therefore must be manipulated by benevolent and expert bureaucrats supported by SWAT teams. The essence of “central planning”.
19. August 2012 at 08:20
“Rosevelt’s gold confiscation scheme did not bring about the end of the depression. It ended after WWI”
What an utter piece of nonesense! The Great Depression began in 1929, but did not get really bad until the banking system collapsed in the 1930s.
” You know the system that Keynes admired? The Soviet System.” Typical right wing misinformation. Keynes sought to save the market system by making a limited number of modifications.
“And what other forms of violence would you like to plan for the people to serve your plan of ‘full employment?’…” This is pure sophistry. Economic and financial incentives to encourage people to act in ways that benefit society are in no way similar to resorts to physical violence. And to imply that I would favor the use of physical violence is blatently dishonest.
” Lastly, who are these experts that know what output and prices are correct” and who are the experts that know that output and prices produced by the market left on its own are correct? It is easy to conclude that the output and prices are incorrect when we are in a recession or depression because if they were correct we would not be in the recession or depression and in those cases policymakers can easily detemine that monetary and/or fiscal policy is needed to restore the economy to full employment. I strongly favor monetary policy in general, but when the economy is in a very deep hole, like now, reinforcing expansionary monetary policy with expansionary fiscal policy is optimal.
Austrians have the same unquestioning faith in the infallability of markets that religious fundamentalists have in the literal infallability of the bible and are and should be treated as a religious cult.
19. August 2012 at 08:46
“Austrians have the same unquestioning faith in the infallability of markets that religious fundamentalists have in the literal infallability of the bible and are and should be treated as a religious cult.”
Again, the essence of the totalitarian mind. “The market” consists of people. The government and its SWAT teams consist of people. Having the SWAT team involved is not like invoking the omnicient Oracle at Delphi or the Space God of Planet Zorkon (which is actually how statists think). Economic actors engaged in voluntary exchange simply have better knowledge (and create better information) than the SWAT team. It’s the statist Keynesians and monetarists who have the religious belief that the SWAT team knows best a priori. I thought that I had mentioned “the knowledge problem” above. That all flew right over your head, Full Depression Hawk.
19. August 2012 at 09:08
Do property rights increase freedom? (Japan edition)
By Noah Smith.
Interesting read.
Libertarians never seem to consider that even if the are right, the theirs is the most efficient, bestest, peachy keen way to let a market be a market….Maybe People don’t want to live that way. …Or it is unforgivably immoral to not want to live their way.
http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/do-property-rights-increase-freedom.html
19. August 2012 at 09:37
Bill, I read that silly little piece you linked. The author should hang out at Macarthur park in Los Angeles to feel “free” or whatever he’s trying to feel. Lots of garbage, needles in the water, the smell of urine everywhere, drug dealers, gang bangers, and best of all, it’s a public park, just like he seems to romance on about.
19. August 2012 at 09:49
Full Unemployment Hawk:
This ideological dogma clearly shows why Austrian economics is a system of religious belief, rather than science and therefore does not deserve to be taken seriously. Sticky wages and prices that do not adjust instantenously, but only gradually and sequentially are a standard feature of real world economies because most real world markets are not perfectly competitive, but have a degree of monopoly power. Trading at false prices at which markets do not clear is a fundamental feature of real world markets and not the result of what the government does.
Speaking of ideological dogma, this comment of FUH shows why Keynesian economics is a system of religious belief, rather than science and therefore doesn’t do what it claims it can do.
The absence of instantaneous adjustments of prices of goods and of labor cannot possibly be a valid justification for the state to initiate force against people through coercive monetary and fiscal “management.” For ALL human action takes place over time. Nothing happens “instantaneously”. The mere introduction of such a mystical concept, as a premise for Keynesianism, shows the ideological dogmatic foundation of Keynesianism.
Austrians are the ones who base their economics on real world action. You can’t possibly say the Austrians are the ones being dogmatic ideologues for not using the absence of instantaneousness as a cover for their theory.
You don’t see Austrians saying “The state cannot being about instantaneous adjustments of demands and prices, therefore the state should give up control of aggregate monetary and fiscal “management” to the market process.” Austrians don’t say that because it would tacitly presume that somehow the market can bring about this ideal “instantaneousness” to price and wage adjustments.
All statists like you think alike. You set up a mystical and absurd standard derived from middle age theology, as an “ideal”, and then you claim state violence is justified on the basis that mortal human beings cannot act in the mystical ways you are straw manning free market economists as allegedly claiming the market process can indeed bring about.
It’s no wonder periods of large scale state management after crashes are empirically correlated with stagnating economies. You statists are so blinded by your own mystical worldview that you actually believe that if anyone disagrees with you, that somehow they have to be proposing yet another mystical view. You call your mystical view “scientific” when it completely contradicts the scientific fact of human action, that it is not based on constancy, and all state “stimulus” presumes such constancy.
19. August 2012 at 09:53
Full Unemployment Hawk:
“Austrians have the same unquestioning faith in the infallability of markets that religious fundamentalists have in the literal infallability of the bible and are and should be treated as a religious cult.”
Full Unemployment Hawk has the same unquestioning faith in the infallibility of the state that religious fundamentalists have in the literal infallibility of the bible and are and should be treated as a religious cult.
Anyone can play that ignorant game.
19. August 2012 at 10:04
FEH,
North Korea has full central control with no pesky Austrians blabbing on about freedom and whatnot. How come they are perpetually destitute? I am sure they have 100% employment over there? Why can’t these regimes out produce those market based systems? Keynes thought they would be able to. How come real world central economic planning failures does not deter you? I suppose you figured out where they went wrong and your plan, this time, is the one. And if you can only get monopoly control of all guns and military to enforce your plan, we’ll all be in heaven, right?
19. August 2012 at 10:52
Edward:
However, an artificial boom will invariably end on its own at some point in any event due to the pre-existing price dis-coordination. I too have some problems with Hayek over his social democratic views, but on “Meet The Press” in 1975 he said:
Not in the least, because the dangers of inflation are very different ones. They are exactly the kind of unemployment which is now arising. In the usual discussion, there is quite a wrong emphasis. There are many bad effects of inflation, but the worst is that it draws labor into employments where they can be kept employed only by an accelerating inflation. And the point inevitably arises where inflation cannot be accelerated sufficiently fast to keep them in that inflation [Hayek misspoke here and meant “employment”, not “inflation”]
“Gibberish. Utter Gibberish that has been disproven time and time again. These monetary misallocations don’t even EXIST (or if the do, they come from an entirely DIFFERENT source, like fiscal policy, in China) You’re missing the point Bob. Its not that we “statists” (yeah right! >:P) haven’t engaged Austrian concepts. We have engaged Austrian concepts and found them wanting. Or trivial Or both. Or, (in the case of the NAP non aggression principle) found much more important violations to deal with than MONETARY policy of all things. (How about that Russian rock band that was put in jail. Isn’t Putin a fascist thug, everyone?)”
It has not been “disproven time and time again”. It has been addressed, people have attempted to refute it, but every single attempt has been found contrary to economic principles.
You are not engaging the Austrian concepts. You’re dancing around them. You are speaking of them, but you’re not showing you understand them at all. Your pathetic defense of monetarism, by referring to what you perceive are worse instances of coercion, is the typical response that those who advocate indefensible policies have when they are challenged. A thug who robs somebody can always point to Hitler.
You dogmatic ideologue. We should work with what the Chinese government is currently doing, not completely overturn monetary policy and letting the Yuan float. That’s utopian. It’s not politically feasible. It’s naive. It’s extremism. Let’s be pragmatic instead. LOL
“HaHa. If you notice, Bill Ellis later agreed with me. (thanks bill, by the way!)
Why would you thank Bill for agreeing with you?
“Here’s a hint MF, you might get farther if you start by not assuming that all of us here are evil statist idiots.”
Here’s a better hint, Edward. You might get farther if you start to actually engage the Austrian arguments, instead of evading them and talking smack about who will get farther or not.
“The packaging is just as important as the message. Wy do you think Rothbard never got anywhere in the mainstream while Milton Friedman did? Its because Milton was soft spoken and gentle, not the intellectual equivalent of a rabies infected monkey throwing its own feces at passerbies.”
Rothbard was extremely cordial and quite funny. You have not even read Rothbard so how can you claim to know what kind of a writer and speaker he was?
At any rate, what the heck do you mean Friedman “got somewhere”? Got where? Rothbard almost single handedly reinvigorated the libertarian movement and the Austrian school after decades of Keynesianism, which spawned the feces throwing stepchild Monetarism.
Rothbard was the better economist, who convinced Friedman to change his views. Go figure.
“By the way, some “utopian” plans are closer than others. For example, NGDPLT is gaining momentum
(very slowly but its there) but nobody is ready yet to accept legal tender free private money production.”
False. There are a lot of people ready to accept free market in money. And you’re arguing from ad populum, which is an argumentative fallacy.
FUH: “More fundamentally, I reject the proposition that transactors are morally entitled to a stable price level, so that voluntary transactions by fully informed transactors involve theft when the price level changes.”
“Beautiful. I agree totally but could never find the words. Way to go man. The Austrians totally ignore expectations. Its one of the dozens of things wrong with their theory.”
What hypocrisy. While you’re claiming moral victory for rejecting the proposition that transactors are entitled to a stable price level, you’re both not only not rejecting, but positively advocating, the proposition that transactors are entitled to a stable aggregate spending level.
Are you people really this dogmatic that you can’t even see the contradiction in your worldview?
————————–
Mike Sax:
“You;re desprate to believe I’m mad. But you dont make me angry you amuse me.”
I don’t believe you. People who are amused don’t swear at, or name call at, those who are allegedly amusing them. You’re mad. You’re in denial.
“There is nothing you could ever say that I would take seriously considering the soruce.”
I don’t believe that either. This is just a reaction formation.
“I think you;re mad and want to believe I am as well. YOu can’t stand to admit that I don’t take you nearly seriously enough for that.”
I don’t believe that either. You are the one complaining about how I don’t take you seriously.
“It’s human nature to occasionally make mistakes, get confused, etc. Humans are fallible. It takes your kind of desperation and exasperation to insist that I am the only one in the world who ever gets confused about something.”
“The kind of mistakes you make are quite unique. You are unable t understand some pretty simple things.”
You haven’t shown how I don’t understand simple things. Pointing out that you incorrectly used the word “everyone” is not failing to understand simple things. That’s me not reading your mind, and you getting upset that I can’t read your mind.
“It’s as if we have to do away with the word “everyone” because you don’t like the word.”
What is “it” here? I use the word all the time. So do many others. You’re straw manning me again.
“Surely the 6.2 billion people in the world can’t be unanimous in anything so I guess-according to your logic-we can’t ever say “everyone.””
I am not saying you can’t say “everyone.” I am saying you used it incorrectly.
“Yet we can and do. How is that? It’s like you suffer from some acute philosophical illusion of ultra nominalism.”
How is anything I said “like” such a thing?
There is nothing wrong with using the word “everyone.” There is something wrong with using it incorrectly, like you did.
“I still think the reason you hate democracy so much is that you are not the people’s choice.”
You think wrong. I am not a mystic like you. I don’t seek for a non-existent being to “choose” me. The concept “the people” doesn’t make choices. Only individuals make choices. You hate individual liberty so much because it makes it clear that the many individuals who are not choosing you, are making value judgments of you. That makes you mad. So you seek to be chosen by “the people” instead, which can only ever be had in your head, and so you BELIEVE that this concept has chosen you and not me. To be “chosen” by “the people” in your mind is to desire mob rule and initiations of force against those in the minority. That’s how you’re “chosen” by the people.
I have said it many times before, but your memory is so terrible that you don’t recall the reason why I am against democracy. I am against democracy because it is based on initiations of force against innocent people who just so happen to be in the minority. When the majority “votes”, they are voting to have an elite group of people use force against others, to take their wealth, to force them to do things they don’t otherwise want to do, and so on. I am against initiations of VIOLENCE. That is the ONLY reason why I am against democracy.
Now, you can continue to make up myths in your head, just like you do with everything else, and you can continue to straw man me, pretend that I am arguing things I am not, but this is just your primitive mind trying desperately to grasp what it is I am saying. You don’t understand what is said, so you have to make up stories of what is said and then address those. What I am saying might as well be written in Chinese and you’ll be as equally ignorant and not knowledgeable enough to understand.
“Probably anywhere you’ve ever gone that’s been true.”
This is a tautology. By definition if I can go somewhere, it exists, and what is known to exist, is a truth.
“But I love your defense mechanism. I’m desparte because of how easily confused you get.”
Yet another projection. You are invoking a defense mechanism of claiming I am confused. I am not confused, you are. That’s why you keep trying to figure out why I am against democracy. It’s why you have to keep guessing, and throwing anything at the wall hoping something will stick. Case in point:
“My guess is that your whole life is a pique of despration. You need to believe all this claptrap you proclaim.”
Your guess. This is all you have. Guesses. You only have guesses because you lack knowledge.
You’re desperate.
——————————
Full Unemployment Hawk:
“”Since you do hot hold the act of money debasement immoral, would you also be okay with citizens counterfeiting their own currency and spending it on real goods? If the government does the same thing and it is not immoral, how can it be immoral when others do it?”
Debasement, schmebasement! If the domestic price level is too low to achieve full employment, or the value of the dollar relative to foreign currencies makes U.S. goods uncompetitive, reducing the value of the dollar is in the public interest.
Both claims are false.
Individuals are not better off when the currency they use is depreciated, thus making their goods temporarily cheaper, and thus making them more attractive to buyers. You are completely ignoring the fact that a depreciated currency makes it harder for those same people whose incomes do not grow immediately to PURCHASE goods. With a lower valued currency, those people can only buy fewer goods for themselves. It is of no benefit to have someone work harder, to produce and sell more goods, but then buy fewer goods, or no more goods, for themselves. People work and produce to eventually consume. You finding a way to get people to work more and produce more, is not you helping people’s consumption utility.
Second, your claim that inflation is justified if “the price level is too low to achieve full employment.” That is also false. It is not true that price inflation is what serves to increase employment. The price level cannot be too low to prevent full employment. If anything, lower price levels is actually related to growing employment, as a given nominal demand for labor at lowering prices can buy up more labor. Lower prices is the CURE for unemployment. In a free market, devoid of inflation, devoid of 99 week paid holidays, devoid of minimum wage laws, devoid of state violence and coercion, widespread unemployment simply cannot persist. Few if any people would choose starvation over a lower wage.
You are imagining a problem that is not inherent in a free market.
“For example, Roosevelt’s taking the dollar off the gold standard and devaluing it in terms of foreign money brought about a rapid growth in the economy and reduction in the unemployment rate for several years following it.”
Why not permanently? Anyone can gain a short boost by reneging on one’s promises to pay. If I owe mortgage debt, and I stop paying the mortgage lender, then I too could experience a “boost” to my standard of living. But it comes at a cost to the lenders.
As a statist, you are of course ignoring the costs associated with coercive confiscations of gold and paper inflation. You are a true believer.
“The benefit to society from this far exceeded any losses to individuals.”
THIS is the core of why you are wrong. You are reifying an abstract concept “society” and treating it as if it were a human. There is no such thing as benefits or costs to “society” APART from benefits and costs to particular individual humans.
“Full employment is much more important than a constant price level or a constant value of the dollar relative to foreign currencies.”
Excellent, false dichotomies to boot. We’re allegedly supposed to choose between either full employment, or constant price levels or constant values of the dollar.
How about full employment and changing prices and changing value of the dollar? Where is that in your narrow minded defense of coercive wealth transfer?
FDR’s policies failed because high unemployment persisted.
“Failure to bring the economy to full employment when monetary policy can do is is what is immoral.”
That isn’t immoral. It is immoral to coerce people. Monetary policy is coercive. It isn’t voluntary.
Your problem is a failure to recognize that prior inflationary monetary policy is what is responsible for the sudden need for employment reallocation (unemployment) later on, that you perceive as a sudden shortage of money.
“The rights of workers to full employment exceeds any rights that wealth holder have.”
What a misguided set of values you have. We’re supposed to believe that harming people is fine, as long as we intend to help workers, even if your “help” is HARMING those same workers, because you’re harming the source of their employment.
“When the government prints money the revenue goes to the government and finances beneficial public services to the public, and/or a reduction in other taxes. When individuals do this that does not happen.”
Yet more totalitarian nonsense. You’re just defining what the government does as beneficial a priori. That they allegedly know a priori what’s good for other people. Don’t let civilian individuals print their own money to fund what they think is good. Let the government individuals do it, and we’ll have utopia.
But the state don’t know what’s good for me or anyone else. They are more ignorant than civilians about the needs and desires of civilians. Yes, I know that hurts for your statist mind to hear, but it’s the truth. The state is not omniscient.
The government is composed of individuals. If individuals doing X doesn’t bring about the intended effects, then it is impossible for the government, composed of individuals, to do X and bring about the intended effects.
“The central point of the Austrian School is that people are necessarily ignorant of other peoples’ wants and desires and that this information can only be expressed and obtained through free market prices.”
This is, of course, totally inconsistent with the rational expectations approch to expectations formation, which is the dominant dogma in “modern” macroeconomics, according to which all transactors have perfect foresight with respect to the mean and probablity distribution of all prices into the infinite future. On this the Austrian view is much closer to the truth than the rational expectations hypothesis.
The same reason Austrians know the rational expectations school has flaws is the same reason they know your arguments have flaws.
19. August 2012 at 12:16
Razer –
“North Korea has full central control with no pesky Austrians blabbing on about freedom and whatnot. How come they are perpetually destitute? ”
And Stalin put the Soviet Union on the gold standard. Who cares? That doesn’t mean everyone who is for the gold standard is an evil communist dictator.
Likewise, just because I don’t worship some shiny yellow metal doesn’t mean I want to live in North Korea. I just want the currency the government uses to be issued in a transparent way, according to fixed rules, based on the entire economy(e.g. GDP), and not used to subsidize any segment of the economy, including the gold industry.
And don’t give me any of this “free market in money” blather. No one is talking about banning trade in gold or Euros or anything else, we are discussing what currency the government will use in conducting its business. That is a decision every government has to make. If you want the government to use gold, fine, make that case. But don’t pretend it’s the “free market”.
19. August 2012 at 12:54
Propagation of Ideology:
“And don’t give me any of this “free market in money” blather. No one is talking about banning trade in gold or Euros or anything else, we are discussing what currency the government will use in conducting its business. That is a decision every government has to make. If you want the government to use gold, fine, make that case. But don’t pretend it’s the “free market”.”
Lots of errors here.
1. Nobody is accusing you of wanting to abolish gold trading. What you are not addressing (for obvious reasons) is that the government’s “business”, contrary to actual market business, is coercive and based on violence. When the government uses force to extract US dollars from the general population, that creates an artificial universal demand for them, and thus “monetizes” those notes into a universal medium of exchange. Even if gold traders don’t otherwise accept US dollars, they still have to pay taxes in “equivalent” US dollars, which means they have to go out and accept them in trade. If the government’s “business” was instead voluntary, and it only accepted US dollars as voluntary revenues, not as coercive taxes, then I and every other free market advocate would have no problems with the state debasing those notes to their heart’s content, and we would have no problems with those calling themselves government conducting their “business” in those notes and not gold.
2. No free market advocate wants to impose gold as money by state decree either. We just want to be able to accept and trade in whatever money we want, and not be coerced into accepting US dollars for taxation or any other purpose. If you want to accept toilet paper in your dealings, then fine, we would have no problems. If you want to sign your life over to the government, then fine, we would have no problems. Where we do have problems is when you presume to believe that what you want for yourself, should be imposed onto everyone else by force. This includes the government forcing people to pay taxes in dollars, even if they would not otherwise accept them in the absence of threats of prison and/or death if people don’t pay them dollars.
19. August 2012 at 12:59
“I don’t believe that either. You are the one complaining about how I don’t take you seriously.”
See you’re so desparate to believe I take you seriously that you make up phony incidents that I complained about whether or not you take me seriously. I don’t care if you do or not.
I don’t take you serously. You’re still crying because I called you a little bitch. Many people are amusted at something and also swear. Big deal. ONly in your world is this someting you can’ ever forget
“I don’t believe you. People who are amused don’t swear at, or name call at, those who are allegedly amusing them. You’re mad. You’re in denial.”
Right. I take you seriously because I don’t. You;ve done it again Unfree.
“I am not saying you can’t say “everyone.” I am saying you used it incorrectly.”
Youve shown nothing of the kind. I notice that you never have any examples to your fallaciouis claims. That’s because you’re deulsional. As your institution to take you out of the closet sometimes.
The only one upset is you. We’ve learned that you get especially upset when people point out that you’re a little bitch.
“You haven’t shown how I don’t understand simple things. Pointing out that you incorrectly used the word “everyone” is not failing to understand simple things. That’s me not reading your mind, and you getting upset that I can’t read your mind.”
I didn’t say anything that require mind reading to anyone but a confused oaf like yourself Unfree.
It’s obvious why you hate democracy I don’t listen to your crazy rationalizations. Although they amuse me.
You’re the desperate one. And I love how you now are now copying me again:
“I don’t believe that either. This is just a reaction formation.”
I’ve pointed out repeatedly that you have a reaction formation against the fact that you’re the village idiot. You come back in classic Major Slavery fashion with:
“I know you are but what am I?”
It’s like you wouldn’t even have words to epeak with if I didn’t use them first.
You are desparate Major Unfreedom. Desparately mad-both angry acn crazy-and desparate to believe that I take you seriously.
That will never happen. However, you’re great when I want to read teh funny papers.
19. August 2012 at 13:19
FEH and Negation,
You have convinced me. Freedom is stupid, and I was stupid to advocate it. I am not on board with central planning. In fact, I have a new plan that I wish to implement.
Let’s put our heads together and figure out how to implement this plan, and what we must do to those that agitate against our perfect plan. Since our plan is perfect, anyone that disagrees is only ruining perfection, and this must not be tolerated. I think acid drops in their eyes and long with beheading for their children will serve as just punishment for violating The Plan, don’t you agree?
Also, since we created this perfect plan and will administer it, do we not deserve some small reward? I mean, our selfless, tireless effort is what will create utopia for all those that get to benefit from our Perfect Plan. Why not give ourselves just a bit of a richly deserved reward, no? I have my eye on a Malibu mansion that was newly liberated from a Capitalist pig and put in the rightful hands of the state. You, and all the good planners, may have some of these creature comforts for yourself. After all, it’s because of us that the people get to enjoy the good life that the Plan affords.
One small note. There’s a rumor that your plan deviated a bit from The Perfect Plan, which means I have no choice but to have you executed for the capital crime of deviation from the Perfect Plan. Your children will be executed too. Sorry, but these are the rules.
Yours in planning,
Razer
19. August 2012 at 13:23
“You haven’t shown how I don’t understand simple things.”
Yes I have. The latest example is that you don’t know what “everyone” means. You take it literally and claim I’ve misused the word. You also don’t know what the word betray means. As it was used in a perfectly reasonable way and you claimed that only college proffessors use the word.
“I don’t believe you. People who are amused don’t swear at, or name call at, those who are allegedly amusing them. You’re mad. You’re in denial.”
Major Unfreedom who cares what you believe? You’ve not shown that your judgment is very good. You didn’t believe that people lost big money in the market trying to short the “treasurty bubble” among other things you claimed not to believe that were nevertheless true.
If you spent less time with your “beliefs” amd more time wit reality maybe they’ll let you out of the closet.
There’s nothing conradictionary in saying that that I find you amusing and also that you’re a little bitch.
In truth you are both comic relief and a little bitch.
19. August 2012 at 13:27
I am not going to spend a lot of time rehashing this. I spent a day going in circles on the thread before this one… But I have never run into a libertarian yet that can get around this truth…
The truth is the elite will always make the government their instrument…They will use the coercive force of government to rig the game in their favor.
That libertarians think that can be stopped is their utopian flaw.
To most …it is obvious that power corrupts, that people are basically greedy and lazy and that we all are compelled to do what is ever in our individual self interests. AND in these respects the elite are not different than the rest of us.
That they think they can limit the power of the elite while granting the elite the liberty that their philosophy requires is not based on history. (Over and over again history shows the opposite to be true.)
Their belief is based on the FAITH that their ideas are powerful enough, and that the common man can be educated enough, to keep the government small enough…so…that the elite can not abuse the coercive force of the government.
Or that the “invisible hand” will force the elite to act in a way so…that the elite can not abuse the coercive force of the government.
libertarians see them selfless has the ultimate realists, yet their BELIFE in the force of their ideas to be able to curtail the humanity of the powerful takes as much FAITH as any true believer… Christian, Muslim or Communist.
19. August 2012 at 13:43
The closer libertarians get to their goals the easier it is for the elite to rule unencumbered.
The libertarians have seen their Ideas become increasingly main stream They have seen our laws come ever closer to their prescriptions. Over the last 40 years we have seen less and less regulation. We have seen taxes go steadily down.
And what did we get for it ? Inequity in income, wealth and justice under the law.
What did we get for it ? A depression.
What did we get for it ? A system where the elite are protected from the economic damages they do…while the common man is punished for the elites mistakes.
Lets give the elite MORE Liberty !
But the problem…according to libertarians is that we have not gone far enough… They sound just like the old line commies.
19. August 2012 at 14:07
Razer –
“Freedom is stupid, and I was stupid to advocate it.”
Who said they’re against freedom? And who said anything about executing anyone? You’re just being silly now.
“I have my eye on a Malibu mansion that was newly liberated from a Capitalist pig and put in the rightful hands of the state.”
So you’re in favor of private property rights, legally protected by the state? So am I. Does that make you and me “central planners”? Any law could be interpreted as “central planning.” The right to free speech? A central plan. Laws against theft of private property? A central plan. Issuing deeds for property? A central plan. Enforcement of private contracts? A central plan. Enforcement and issuance of patents? A central plan. Taxes to finance government? A central plan. Issuing currency to account for taxes? A central plan.
These things aren’t what normal people usually mean when they say central planning doesn’t work. They mean things like price controls, or deciding how much steel to produce. But if you want to call any government action or law “central planning” then the term is so broad as to be rendered meaningless.
19. August 2012 at 14:09
Razor,
Aww…The problem is not with freedom. The problem comes when freedom is expected to ensure itself if we can just get people to be true to it.
People are the enemy of freedom and always will be. The only way to maintain some degree of freedom is to allow all to continually fight for theirs.
When the powerful have as much freedom as the weak, the powerful will extinguish the freedom of the weak.
A free market places NO checks on the ability of the powerful to subjugate the weak.
Only by granting the weak the ability to restrict the power of the elite through the coercive force of government can the weak maintain any freedom.
19. August 2012 at 14:20
Major –
By the way, you can pay your taxes in gold:
http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/american_eagles/index.cfm?Action=american_eagle_gold
So you have your wish. Just refuse to accept anything else for payment, and send these to the government and you’re fine.
19. August 2012 at 14:20
1. There is no “invisible hand” of “the market”. Voluntary exchange produces a quite visible “hand” in the way of prices which indicate the wants and desires of millions of strangers. It is government enforcers who operate blindly. See “The Knowledge Problem” above, which, for reasons unknown, cannot be comprehended by statists. Also, there was the “socialist calculation debate” which the statists always conveniently forget (and which they probably never even heard about and don’t understand anyway).
2. New Leftist Gabriel Kolko wrote “The Triumph of Conservatism” in 1963 and which I have owned since 1973. He makes a convincing case that the progressive era was concocted by big business to monopolize their dominance in the market.
http://tinyurl.com/8dy43ln
Of course, “big government” will be captured by the elite. That’s the reason the initiation of force must be prohibited. It is no argument against banning the initiation of force that elites will capture regimes where the initiation of force is commonplace.
19. August 2012 at 14:20
I love how many libertarians don’t see Monopolies as restricting freedom ‘cuz a person can always choose to exchange with a monopoly or not.
19. August 2012 at 14:26
Libertarians NEVER EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT MONOPOLIES! Right.
“No book details the historical relationship between big business and the Federal government better than this one. Though confined merely to the so-called Progressive Era in American history (1901-1914), Kolko manages to overturn all the misconceptions about the formation of government regulation in America. Instead of accepting the standard view that federal regulation of business was inspired by the Progressive intellectuals and activist political leaders eager to put a check on the rising power of big business, Kolko shows that it was really inspired by the drive of businessman to limit competition and bring “stability” into the market.”
Hello! The entire “progressive” historical narrative was long ago shown to be phony.
19. August 2012 at 14:26
Bob Roddis,
And that does not sound Utopian to you ?
How will you stop it ?
19. August 2012 at 14:39
Re: The initiation of force.
Everyone but criminals understands that the initiation of force is criminal when conducted by civilians. Most of the Detroit suburbs are quite safe. Murder and theft are already prohibited and most people do not engage in them. We already have a longstanding system of English common law of property, contracts and torts which most people understand and follow. It is necessary to explain to people that there should be no exceptions to these normal and commonplace rules for “the state”. That’s always a problem considering the clamoring of cement-head statists for more state power to solve either non-existent problems or problems caused by the statists themselves.
Didn’t I post something yesterday stating that the statists refuse to understand both the NAP and economic calculation?
19. August 2012 at 14:41
“Let’s put our heads together and figure out how to implement this plan, and what we must do to those that agitate against our perfect plan. Since our plan is perfect, anyone that disagrees is only ruining perfection, and this must not be tolerated. I think acid drops in their eyes and long with beheading for their children will serve as just punishment for violating The Plan, don’t you agree?”
Razer, are you feeling all right?
19. August 2012 at 14:42
Bob Roddis,
19. August 2012 at 15:17
Bob Roddis,
It is relatively easy to get the weak to live with in the law…by the threat of punishment from a higher authority…. real or imagined.
In a libertarian system….There is no authority the elite can not buy.
Bob, here is the thing. If you can not stop the elite from making the government their instrument, then it is immoral to ask the common man to not make it his too.
If libertarians are right, and the elite can be kept from making the government their instrument, then why don’t you do it? Us liberals won’t stop you. It is your “conservative” elite worshiping ‘Allies” that will stop you.
Get rid of socialism for the elite. Stop the elite form rigging the game. Do it even though it has never been done. Then get back to us.
Then you would have the high ground with liberals.
We will wait ….forever.
19. August 2012 at 15:41
Mike Sax:
“I don’t believe that either. You are the one complaining about how I don’t take you seriously.”
“See you’re so desparate to believe I take you seriously that you make up phony incidents that I complained about whether or not you take me seriously. I don’t care if you do or not.”
Yes you do, or else you would not have been complaining so much to me and others that I am not treating you seriously. You’re in denial.
I don’t take you serously. You’re still crying because I called you a little bitch.
You’re only imagining me being sad at you calling me names, because you believe that the psychological fix you get in swearing at me, is somehow the same for me too. It isn’t. You’re whining so much you’re even whining that I am not whining.
“Many people are amusted at something and also swear.”
You’re not amused. You’re mad. You’re mad and that’s why you swear.
“Big deal. ONly in your world is this someting you can’ ever forget”
I forget, but then you keep swearing because it’s not having your intended effect. I only brought it up once, then you kept swearing.
“I don’t believe you. People who are amused don’t swear at, or name call at, those who are allegedly amusing them. You’re mad. You’re in denial.”
“Right.”
Glad you agree.
“I am not saying you can’t say “everyone.” I am saying you used it incorrectly.”
Youve shown nothing of the kind.”
Yes, I have.
“I notice that you never have any examples to your fallaciouis claims.”
Your fallacious claims are my examples.
“That’s because you’re deulsional.”
It’s not delusional to correctly point out you made an incorrect claim.
“As your institution to take you out of the closet sometimes.”
That doesn’t even make sense.
“The only one upset is you.”
You’re still in denial. You’ve been having a meltdown these last few days. Your posts are getting more and more desperate, and more and more exasperated.
“We’ve learned that you get especially upset when people point out that you’re a little bitch.”
How can “we” have “learned” something that isn’t true? You’re still deluded. You’re so upset that you have to swear.
“You haven’t shown how I don’t understand simple things. Pointing out that you incorrectly used the word “everyone” is not failing to understand simple things. That’s me not reading your mind, and you getting upset that I can’t read your mind.”
“I didn’t say anything that require mind reading to anyone but a confused oaf like yourself Unfree.”
Yes, you did. You said everyone, when in your warped mind you pictured most people, not everyone. I am not confused. You’re confused. You’re confused about so many things, and the English language is yet another one.
“It’s obvious why you hate democracy I don’t listen to your crazy rationalizations. Although they amuse me.”
Your delusions are not the same thing as what I am actually arguing and thinking. The only “obvious” thing here is your drama queen emotional breakdown, warped delusions, myth creations, and straw man after straw man.
Again, to repeat myself to someone who is cognitively challenged, I don’t like initiations of violence. Since democracy is founded upon the majority initiating violence against the minority, I am against democracy.
“You’re the desperate one. And I love how you now are now copying me again:”
You accuse me of copying you, but that’s all you do. I identify you as desperate, so what is your response? You call me desperate. I identify you as confused, and so your response is to call me confused.
“I don’t believe that either. This is just a reaction formation.”
I am the first one to bring that up. A while ago I said what you’re saying is a reaction formation. So today as expected you said I was. Your memory is so deplorable that you actually believe you were the first one to say this.
“I’ve pointed out repeatedly that you have a reaction formation against the fact that you’re the village idiot.”
No you haven’t. You only said it after I said it. And your last time was actually your first time.
All you have is “I know you are but what am I?”
I make arguments, and you copy me.
“You haven’t shown how I don’t understand simple things.”
“Yes I have.”
No, you haven’t.
“The latest example is that you don’t know what “everyone” means.”
It shows you don’t understand it. The definition of everyone is every person. You then backtracked and said most people, after I corrected you.
“You also don’t know what the word betray means.”
Yes, I do. I showed Edward the correct way to use the term.
“As it was used in a perfectly reasonable way and you claimed that only college proffessors use the word.”
No, it wasn’t used correctly. It was used incorrectly. And for the second time I didn’t say that only professors use the term.
“I don’t believe you. People who are amused don’t swear at, or name call at, those who are allegedly amusing them. You’re mad. You’re in denial.”
“Major Unfreedom who cares what you believe?”
You do. You care so much that you just can’t get enough of me.
“You’ve not shown that your judgment is very good.”
You have not shown how my judgment is “not very good.”
You didn’t believe that people lost big money in the market trying to short the “treasurty bubble” among other things
I didn’t claim I didn’t believe people lost money through investments. I merely asked you to show your evidence that the people you said “lost huge”, did in fact lose huge. This isn’t me denying it occurred, this is me withholding judgment on your claims until I am shown conclusive evidence for those claims.
“you claimed not to believe that were nevertheless true.”
If you spent less time “believing” and more time “finding out facts”, then you would understand why I asked you for evidence, but you balked.
“There’s nothing conradictionary in saying that that I find you amusing and also that you’re a little bitch.”
I was talking about that which you don’t understand, i.e. logic. I was making a judgment that the reason you’re swearing is that you’re mad, exasperated, and desperate.
“In truth you are both comic relief and a little bitch.”
That isn’t the truth, that’s just your exasperation, anger, frustration, and desperation.
19. August 2012 at 16:12
Bill Ellis:
“It is relatively easy to get the weak to live with in the law…by the threat of punishment from a higher authority…. real or imagined.”
“In a libertarian system….There is no authority the elite can not buy.”
“If you can not stop the elite from making the government their instrument, then it is immoral to ask the common man to not make it his too.”
It is immoral to initiate force, period. When the elite use state power, they exploit both the common men and other elite men. When the common men use state power, they exploit both the elite men and other common men. It is not true that when the elite use the state, that only the common men are exploited, nor is it true then when the common men use the state, that only the elite men are exploited. It’s not a rich versus poor “us versus them” scenario. The actual us versus them is those who initiate violence or the threats thereof, and those who are initiated with violence or the threats thereof. This is because violence prevents people from being able to match their preferences with their actions. Force makes them do things that they otherwise would not do because they are necessarily lower valued actions. Violence overturns some people’s value scales and substitutes other people’s value scales in their place.
Both common men and elite men use state power to their advantage. We can stop both the common men and elite men from using state power, by education and the spreading of ideas that reduce/eradicate state power.
“If libertarians are right, and the elite can be kept from making the government their instrument, then why don’t you do it?”
People there are too many people like you who seek to advance state power according to your own wishes, and because enough people are OK with the state monopolizing the money supply, you are able to coattail ride on the back of this coercion, and talk about monetary policy and how fast and how often CRTL-P should be pressed, and whose bank accounts are to be increased in this way, and why other people’s bank accounts are not to be increased.
“Us liberals won’t stop you. It is your “conservative” elite worshiping ‘Allies” that will stop you.”
It’s both.
“Get rid of socialism for the elite. Stop the elite form rigging the game. Do it even though it has never been done. Then get back to us.”
But you’re needed to do it. You and everyone else.
“Then you would have the high ground with liberals.”
You’re pretending that the common man is simply “reacting” to the elite using state power, when in reality, they’re co-existing. Progressives are only phrasing things in this way to justify their own nefarious desires that require state power. Progressives are not the only victims you know.
19. August 2012 at 16:26
Propagation of Ideology:
“By the way, you can pay your taxes in gold”
“So you have your wish. Just refuse to accept anything else for payment, and send these to the government and you’re fine.”
No, the IRS doesn’t accept gold. They only accept US dollars.
And even if the IRS did accept gold coins, they would only accept the gold AT FACE VALUE, not the prevailing exchange price in dollars given the government is inflating the dollar and thus increasing the ratio at which dollars trade against gold. So if you trade in gold, you’re still effectively paying taxes in dollars, not gold.
19. August 2012 at 17:11
Libertarians believe we can stop people… who are inherently lazy and greedy, have never failed to be corrupted by power, and who can be counted on to do what ever is in their own individual self interest… from using the state for their own selfish ends by…..”education and the spreading of ideas that reduce/eradicate state power.”
And they think this is hard nosed realism. And they don’t see how it is utopian.
But they have a deep faith.
19. August 2012 at 17:12
Major Unfreedom
I’d encourage you not to make judgments. This one as many others has missed the mark
“In truth you are both comic relief and a little bitch.”
“That isn’t the truth, that’s just your exasperation, anger, frustration, and desperation.”
Sounds like you can’t handle the truth, Major Slavery. You still need a hug I see.
19. August 2012 at 17:14
Libertarians think people are waaaay better than I do.
It must be nice to have such faith in your fellow man.
19. August 2012 at 17:15
“You’re only imagining me being sad at you calling me names, because you believe that the psychological fix you get in swearing at me, is somehow the same for me too. It isn’t. You’re whining so much you’re even whining that I am not whining.”
You don;t know what whining is either. You are whining. That’s why you keep brining it up.
You are whining so much you’re begining to sound like Mitt Romney. All we need next is for you to start demaning an apology. You keep brining it up. That’s the definition of whining, Unfree.
19. August 2012 at 17:17
“In a libertarian system….There is no authority the elite can not buy.”
>> But in a libertarian system, there is little to no arbitrary authority that the elite “can” buy.
“If you can not stop the elite from making the government their instrument, then it is immoral to ask the common man to not make it his too.”
>> So long as the government retains arbitrary and monopolistic power, the elite will “always” make the government their instrument. The problem is this arbitrary and monopolistic power, not “who” is reaping its benefits.
“Get rid of socialism for the elite. Stop the elite form rigging the game. Do it even though it has never been done. Then get back to u”
>> It has been done. States have nullified or refused to enforce unconstitutional federal laws and individuals have practiced civil disobedience to effectuate change in the past and it can happen again in the future if enough people embrace libertarian ideas.
As imperfect as the document may be, the Constitution laid out a fairly good framework for maximizing this freedom by listing only several expressly delegated powers to the federal government leaving the rest to the people and the states. For those who wish for wealth redistribution programs, socialized medicine, and highly regulated private enterprise, there would be states for that. For those who wish for maximum individual liberty, there are other states. The bigger problem is when power becomes centralized and unlimited leaving no choice for “elites” and the “common man” to fight for the scraps that the federal bureaucratic apparatus makes available.
19. August 2012 at 17:17
“No, it wasn’t used correctly. It was used incorrectly. And for the second time I didn’t say that only professors use the term. ”
Yes you did. And you keep saying it wasn’t without any proof. You don’t back up any of you’re screwball claims.
This is the problem with talking to space aliens like yourself. Maybe in your world betray is only used when students try to impress tehir teachers.
If you sai I used it wrong, prove it. Otherwise you’;re just making your usual unsubastantiated babbling and wild claims.
19. August 2012 at 17:19
“It shows you don’t understand it. The definition of everyone is every person. You then backtracked and said most people, after I corrected you.”
There was no backtrack. You didn’t correct me just again demonstrated your insanity.
19. August 2012 at 17:25
LOL it looks like the fur is still flying, everyone is using their favorite pet names.
Saturos, Major Freedom,
Re: your references to Hegel a couple of months back. I’d forgotten about the notes I took on Hegel two years ago until I found them today. The Mind and the Market (Jerry Z. Muller) has a chapter on Hegel. Unfortunately so much was going on in my life right then, I forgot the better part of a very good book.
19. August 2012 at 17:25
“You do. You care so much that you just can’t get enough of me.”
Oh how you wish that were true. I mean you wish I cared what you think.
You can’t get enough of me which is why you can’t stop writing back to me.
I keep writing back to you as I don’t want to be impolite. And because you’re tremendous comic relief.
We ought to make a new comic book-the “Ongoing Misadventures of Major Unfreedom!”
‘In this episode the Major goes to a black neighborhood to convince them that freedom means returning to the back of the bus and only being allowed to use “negro water fountains!”
‘In the next episode Major Unfreedom explains how only those with lots of proerty are virtuous and that if you’re not you have no rights!’
I can already think of enough episdoes for one full length season
‘And the next week Major Unfreedom cries like a little bitch over the fact that he’s a little bitch!”
19. August 2012 at 17:26
“Libertarians think people are waaaay better than I do.
It must be nice to have such faith in your fellow man.”
No. Government bureaucrats and SWAT teams are people too. I think they are always potentially genocidal. That’s why we are obsessive about private property and the prohibition on the initiation of force.
But in one sense, I do trust average people to solve their own economic problems when they are not afflicted with statist schemes like Keynesianism and monetarism (both put into operation by statist people).
19. August 2012 at 17:27
Mike T.
States Have kept the elite from making the government their instrument ?
You mean States have kept the federal government form making the federal government their instrument ? How ?
State governments themselves are turned into the instruments of the elite. Always have been.
One government winning a turf war over which elites get to exert their will though which government is not the same as getting rid of socialism for the elite and Stopping the elite form rigging the game.
It has never been done.
19. August 2012 at 17:27
Bill Ellis,
What would it take to bring you over to the ‘libertarian’ side of life?
19. August 2012 at 17:28
I meant…You mean States have kept the elite (not the fed gov ) from making the federal government their instrument ? How ?
19. August 2012 at 17:30
I think the nub of the problem with libertarianism is it’s ethical basis is fallacious.
Supposedly a belief in absolute property rights is the truly ethical position-allegedly that means you are opposed to all aggression.
What’s missing from this idea is tha fact that property itself can be obtained by violence.
As far as this talk about “elitims” the fact is that government elites are not the only kinds. There are elites in business as well.
19. August 2012 at 17:33
Becky though you didn’t direct the question to me, I have to say that for me at least, I’d have to see a much more imprressive presentation for libertarianism than I’m seeing around here.
Mostly it amounts to name calling and slurs and the belief that the ethical basis of life is absolute property rights.
This makes no sense to me as property is often obtained in unethical ways and its often used in unethical ways.
19. August 2012 at 17:38
Major Unfreedom makes up another urgban legend:
“Yes you do, or else you would not have been complaining so much to me and others that I am not treating you seriously. You’re in denial”
You supply no proof of this. Again, you are desparate to believe that’s true. Yoo can’t imagine that you are just a goof as far as I’m concerned-and for many others too.
I see that you are exasperated and exasperated that I’m not exasperated. Nex you’ll by crying again because I used a “dirty word”
You have mentioned it already in about half a doezen comment threads. I’m sure you’ve been calle worse assuming you get out at all
19. August 2012 at 17:46
Bill,
Think something along the lines of the free state project in New Hampshire.
19. August 2012 at 17:46
Most average people understand and respect the concept of property. And it’s the only thing that will protect you from the SWAT teams and local criminals.
If Sax wants to attack the concept of property and the non-aggression principle, go for it. Part of my job is just getting statists to state outright their nasty and loony ideas which mostly concern assaults on the lives of average people whom they consider to be inferior.
19. August 2012 at 17:54
Becky Hargrove asks….”What would it take to bring you over to the ‘libertarian’ side of life?”
I would have to believe that powerful people can be prevented from rigging the game… Something that as never happened except in the limited space of chaos during revolution. Once that chaos is over a new elite have always emerged and rigged the game.
I would have to believe to believe that human nature can be fundamentally changed.
I would have to believe that stuff…Just like libertarians do.
I could no more be brought you over to the ‘libertarian’ side of life than I could be be brought over to an organized religion.
But at least religions don’t fool themselves into believing that people can be made to understand their beliefs to the point where evil can be eliminated on this earth…Religions leave that fantasy to the next world.
Maybe libertarians would get further if they promised a reward in the next life for adhering to their orthodoxy too ?
I guess that would make them republicans.
I often thought that the Commies made a big mistake by killing God.
It is not like the Orthodox Church in Russia would have had trouble making a deal with the government… blending communist and Christian doctrine and condemning workers to hell if they stepped out of line and were bad commies.
19. August 2012 at 17:56
Bob it’s a laugh riot to here you talking about loony ideas. I didn’t “attack” property just pointed out that it is not the absoulte basis of ethics.
Not all property was gained ethically or is used ethcally. Much of it is gained or used in aggressive ways. So I see you as the loon in claiming otherwise.
.
19. August 2012 at 17:59
Bill Ellis
“It is not like the Orthodox Church in Russia would have had trouble making a deal with the government… blending communist and Christian doctrine and condemning workers to hell if they stepped out of line and were bad commies.”
Stalin had planned something like this before he died.
In this same vein it’s no surprise to me that Major claims he was once an actual Marxist.
That’s what I would have expected. He’s a fanatic. The Marxists are fanatics and so are the libertarians at least the Rothbardians are
19. August 2012 at 18:00
“Not all property was gained ethically or is used ethcally. Much of it is gained or used in aggressive ways.”
Mike,
The only institutions to do this with impunity are governments.
19. August 2012 at 18:01
Mike Sax:
“I think the nub of the problem with libertarianism is it’s ethical basis is fallacious.”
You haven’t shown how the basis is “fallacious.”
“Supposedly a belief in absolute property rights is the truly ethical position-allegedly that means you are opposed to all aggression.”
“What’s missing from this idea is tha fact that property itself can be obtained by violence.”
Are you for real? Property obtained by violence IS aggression!
That isn’t “missing” from the libertarian ethic. You’re just not understanding the libertarian ethic you are criticizing. What else is new?
If property is obtained by violence, then that is a violation of property rights. You can’t possibly challenge the ethic of property rights by invoking a scenario of violations of property rights, as a criticism of those who hold that violations of property rights is wrong! In fact, you’re seemingly agreeing with them by mentioning property obtained by force as if it were unethical!
Libertarians do not “ignore” property obtained by violence. That’s PRECISELY what they are recognizing as unjust, and arguing against!
Are you this cognitively challenged?
“As far as this talk about “elitims” the fact is that government elites are not the only kinds. There are elites in business as well.”
Yes, Usain Bolt is an elite athlete, who earns more money than me, runs faster than me, and probably dates more women than me.
Mike Sax says this is immoral! He believes Usain Bolt must be harmed, so that inequality can be reduced.
“Becky though you didn’t direct the question to me, I have to say that for me at least, I’d have to see a much more imprressive presentation for libertarianism than I’m seeing around here.”
Congrats on admitting you don’t read ethics either.
“Mostly it amounts to name calling and slurs and the belief that the ethical basis of life is absolute property rights.”
Says the name caller and slur user.
“This makes no sense to me as property is often obtained in unethical ways and its often used in unethical ways.”
That is a violation of absolute property rights. That is what is being argued against. Why can’t you keep up with such a basic aspect of libertarianism?
“Yes you do, or else you would not have been complaining so much to me and others that I am not treating you seriously. You’re in denial”
“You supply no proof of this.”
The proof is the existence of your posts and the contents in them.
You are desparate and in denial.
“Yoo can’t imagine that you are just a goof as far as I’m concerned-and for many others too.”
If I weren’t a “goof” to you, then I would question my convictions a little more. You don’t seem to understand that the more you believe I am wrong, the more right I feel.
You are so exasperated that you can only think to refer to nameless “others” who agree with you, because you know your claims standing on their own, are vacuous and empty.
“You have mentioned it already in about half a doezen comment threads.”
Only because you keep swearing Mr. Exasperation.
19. August 2012 at 18:03
Mike Sax:
“In this same vein it’s no surprise to me that Major claims he was once an actual Marxist.”
“That’s what I would have expected. He’s a fanatic. The Marxists are fanatics and so are the libertarians at least the Rothbardians are”
Except I have a critical basis for my being against initiations of violence. You don’t have a critical basis for your support for democracy, which means by definition you are a fanatic.
19. August 2012 at 18:05
MIke T. that’s not true. You can’t expalin what makes being a property owner virtuous.
Private property requires government anyway. OUtside of it there is neither the infrastructure or the law enforcment to protect private property.
The idea that government is evil and property is somehow virtuous has no basis in the real world.
19. August 2012 at 18:09
Mike Sax:
“You can’t expalin what makes being a property owner virtuous.”
It can be explained, but you have to actually read the explanations, which you haven’t.
You can’t explain what makes violations of property rights virtuous.
“Private property requires government anyway.”
No it doesn’t. Government systematically violates property rights anyway.
“OUtside of it there is neither the infrastructure or the law enforcment to protect private property.”
Yes, there is. There is the voluntary valuation of protection and security, which means it will be economized and offered for sale. The very existence of a semblance of security and protection in a democratic state proves that people value security and protection.
The state is composed of individual humans, not Gods or space aliens.
The idea that government is evil and property is somehow virtuous has no basis in the real world.
19. August 2012 at 18:10
Mike Sax..
“As far as this talk about “elitims” the fact is that government elites are not the only kinds. There are elites in business as well.”
The Elites are “government” weather they are formally called that or not. What we call government should be called capital “G” Government to distinguish.
The elite are government and they always control the Government. They invented organized Government to legitimize their power of government.
It was not until the common man, by threat of force, was able to gain representation in Government that he was able share a small part of the power of government.
19. August 2012 at 18:11
Mike Sax:
“The idea that government is evil and property is somehow virtuous has no basis in the real world.”
The idea that government is good and violations of property is somehow virtuous has no basis in the real world.
19. August 2012 at 18:13
Bill Ellis:
“The elite are government and they always control the Government. They invented organized Government to legitimize their power of government.”
Not enough circular logic and tautologies there.
“It was not until the common man, by threat of force, was able to gain representation in Government that he was able share a small part of the power of government.”
At the cost of who? The common man having “representation” in government doesn’t come at the cost of the elite only. It comes at the cost of the common men themselves.
19. August 2012 at 18:14
Mike Sax,
“You can’t expalin what makes being a property owner virtuous.”
>> That’s true, because I wouldn’t make that argument. Being a property owner does not make one virtuous.
” OUtside of it there is neither the infrastructure or the law enforcment to protect private property.”
>> Private funded security and roads don’t exist?
“The idea that government is evil and property is somehow virtuous has no basis in the real world.”
>> I’m not suggesting property is inherently virtuous. Government, on the other hand, operates through coercion and force against innocent individuals; thus, can be considered an immoral institution.
19. August 2012 at 18:17
Major Unfreedom
“If I weren’t a “goof” to you, then I would question my convictions a little more. You don’t seem to understand that the more you believe I am wrong, the more right I feel.”
that makes sense. So if I believed you were right you’d start to doubt?
“Except I have a critical basis for my being against initiations of violence. You don’t have a critical basis for your support for democracy, which means by definition you are a fanatic.”
Major you have no basis for the claim that a belief in absolute property rights has anything to do with nonaggression.
Are you claiming you’re a pure pacifist? You think you have a basis but it’s a sham.
Then again, I’m not impressed with the claim that absoulte nonaggression even is the goal. There are times when aggression is appropriate. It is part of life like anything else is. Why should it be edited out of existence?
Even the Hippocratic Oath in a way is wrongheaded. I mean it’s good as a regulating principle for the medical profession. But sometimes you have to be willing to do harm to do any good.
The idea that you are innocent just because you haven’t done anything postiively “aggressive” doesn’t make you good.
There are cases when you refuse to act that are actually unethical. Inaction can also be a form of aggression.
the truth is that talk of “nonaggression” or universal peace is just another weapon.
19. August 2012 at 18:18
I respect some one who is a Marxist, a libertarian, a Christian or a Muslim in their hearts.
I fear them… if and when they come to control a government.
They all require purity of thought to make their dreams manifest.
19. August 2012 at 18:20
“Mike Sax says this is immoral! He believes Usain Bolt must be harmed, so that inequality can be reduced.”
No surprise that Major is attacking another straw man. I never claimed that. My point is that their are business elits-Chevron, etc.
I have no problem with someone with natural superior ability. That you think I do Unfree shows that you are just throwing up red herrings and shootimg them down.
19. August 2012 at 18:22
Bill,
I understand what you’re getting at and generally agree; however, the libertarian is unique in this sense that they seek to limit or remove the role of government altogether. It is never a libertarian’s goal to “control a government.”
19. August 2012 at 18:22
“That’s true, because I wouldn’t make that argument. Being a property owner does not make one virtuous.”
Mike T. You may not have said it explicitly but that’s the implication of your position. You favor a society in which property rights are absolute. It stands to reason then that those without property have no rights.
They can just go die in a ditch. If they don’t like it-well, it’s their own fault for not being producitve-right?
19. August 2012 at 18:25
Libertarianism requires Orthodoxy .
19. August 2012 at 18:26
“I have no problem with someone with natural superior ability.”
Ok, but Mike, replace Usain Bolt with a private entrepreneur who has provided a product or service that is overwhelmingly superior to any competitor and rewarded in the marketplace by voluntary individual decisions. At what point, if at all, should the state limit this individual’s ability to serve the public its product or service?
19. August 2012 at 18:29
“It stands to reason then that those without property have no rights.”
>> Individuals own themselves as property, no?
“They can just go die in a ditch. If they don’t like it-well, it’s their own fault for not being producitve-right?”
>> No, because I wouldn’t walk by someone dying in a ditch and would voluntarily do something about it.
19. August 2012 at 18:30
“Ok, but Mike, replace Usain Bolt with a private entrepreneur who has provided a product or service that is overwhelmingly superior to any competitor and rewarded in the marketplace by voluntary individual decisions. At what point, if at all, should the state limit this individual’s ability to serve the public its product or service?”
I never said he should Mike T. However he should pay his taxes. I don’t see that as “violence” as he’s gaining from the postiive externalites of the society he lives in. If he didn’t have the many benefits of infrastructure. law enforcment, etc. his success would not be possible.
So there’s nothing wrong with him paying his taxes. He gains from society as aeveryone else does. Then he gains more as an entrpereneur-as business environment is very important.
19. August 2012 at 18:31
Mike Sax:
“If I weren’t a “goof” to you, then I would question my convictions a little more. You don’t seem to understand that the more you believe I am wrong, the more right I feel.”
that makes sense. So if I believed you were right you’d start to doubt?
Considering your judgments, most definitely. You recoil at logic and evidence that doesn’t fit your dogmatism.
“Except I have a critical basis for my being against initiations of violence. You don’t have a critical basis for your support for democracy, which means by definition you are a fanatic.”
“Major you have no basis for the claim that a belief in absolute property rights has anything to do with nonaggression.”
Yes, I do have a basis. Your lack of knowing such a basis does not mean that such a basis does not exist.
“Are you claiming you’re a pure pacifist?”
No. Are you claiming that taking someone’s property against their will is not aggression? OK, then imagine me having a particle gun that I use to instantly vaporize your food every time you attempt to eat it, thus leading to your death. According to you, because I didn’t punch you, or shoot you, or touch your body, I am somehow not aggressing against your life, because I am only touching physical things outside of you.
“You think you have a basis but it’s a sham.”
You have not shown it to be a “sham”.
“Then again, I’m not impressed with the claim that absoulte nonaggression even is the goal.”
My goal is not to impress someone who neither reads nor even understands what it is he claiming to not be impressed with.
“There are times when aggression is appropriate.”
Not when it is claimed as an ethic. You’re just advocating a “screw you, I want yours” ad hoc aggression based on nothing but your own short term desires. Well, if you want to say that’s your foundation for all your beliefs, then that’s fine, but then you can’t say anyone else is ever wrong for using their own person desires as a basis.
“It is part of life like anything else is. Why should it be edited out of existence?”
It is not a part of “life”. It is a choice some individuals make. Violence is not a part of my life. Did you grow up in an abusive household? That would explain a LOT of your beliefs/
“Even the Hippocratic Oath in a way is wrongheaded. I mean it’s good as a regulating principle for the medical profession. But sometimes you have to be willing to do harm to do any good.
Like when? In what context? Who against who? Against you? Would you be willing to kill someone who did not threaten you or harm you or your property? Let’s expose your actual convictions, so we can stop pretending that you had any intention of a debate or discussion, because at the end of the day you’ll just want to kill people anyway.
“The idea that you are innocent just because you haven’t done anything postiively “aggressive” doesn’t make you good.”
Sure it does. That is how the libertarian defines good actions versus bad actions.
“There are cases when you refuse to act that are actually unethical.”
Like when? Be specific.
“Inaction can also be a form of aggression.”
Like when? Be specific.
“the truth is that talk of “nonaggression” or universal peace is just another weapon.”
A weapon against what? Your “freedom” to benefit at other people’s expense through state violence? Your “freedom” is what is being used a weapon. Not those who advocate for non-aggression.
19. August 2012 at 18:34
Mike Sax:
“Mike Sax says this is immoral! He believes Usain Bolt must be harmed, so that inequality can be reduced.”
“No surprise that Major is attacking another straw man.”
You haven’t shown a first straw man I attacked. How can you say I am attacking “another” one?
“I never claimed that.”
You didn’t have to. It is what is implied in what you are claiming.
My point is that their are business elits-Chevron, etc.
Who do what? How?
“I have no problem with someone with natural superior ability.”
Yes, you do. For why else would you call for more theft against those with naturally superior ability? You’re not calling for progressive taxation because they are bad, you’re calling for more taxation against them because they are good.
19. August 2012 at 18:35
“No, because I wouldn’t walk by someone dying in a ditch and would voluntarily do something about it.”
Maybe you would. But there are people that wouldn’t. Here in NY we’ve had rape-murders go one in aprtment buildings where people could hear and did nothing-and didn’t call the cops either
Private charity is not by itself enough to help those for whatever reason are down on their luck. I think that a decent society has to do smoething about it.
While you say you would volunatrity help if you’re like many libertarians you will fight to the death rather than see your taxes rasied by a couple of dollars even if that would have the same effect has you helping someone in a ditch.
For me libertarians seem almost spiteful. It’s like “I would help but I resent not having the choice not to and so won’t.”
It’s a kind of perversity. “I want the opportunity not to help”
If you look at history however, private charity has never been enough to deal with pverty.
19. August 2012 at 18:39
“Yes, you do. For why else would you call for more theft against those with naturally superior ability? You’re not calling for progressive taxation because they are bad, you’re calling for more taxation against them because they are good”
“You didn’t have to. It is what is implied in what you are claiming.”
Ok, in other words you made it up. Nothing like that was implied. Another straw man.
How do you know that because someone has money they’re “good?”
You’re making a false equaivlaence between natural ability-which despite your crazy claims I have no probelm with-and someone’s leve of wealth.
They aren’t necessarily good. But it’s not punishment. It’s simply for them to pay their fair share as they enjoy society’s externalities as much if not more than anyone.
19. August 2012 at 18:40
Mike Sax:
I never said he should Mike T. However he should pay his taxes. I don’t see that as “violence” as he’s gaining from the postiive externalites of the society he lives in. If he didn’t have the many benefits of infrastructure. law enforcment, etc. his success would not be possible.”
Mike, as with most statists, conflates the state with society. If a person somehow, somewhere, can be shown to have benefited by the actions of others that isn’t directly paid for, such as utility gained by glancing pretty women who walk by, or having one’s home value increased by the actions of neighbors on their own property, and so on, then according to Sax, that person owes money to a particular group of elite people who are not even responsible for such pretty women or the upkeep of lawns, namely, the state.
You claim that a person owes taxes because of law enforcement. but law enforcement STARTS with taxes. What is the initial justification for taking someone’s money, PRIOR to them ever consenting to such “services”? What you’re describing is nothing but textbook protection rackets.
19. August 2012 at 18:41
“My goal is not to impress someone who neither reads nor even understands what it is he claiming to not be impressed with.”
I read it and understood it. That’s why I’m not impressed. Again with your defense mechanisms. YOu need to believe that if only someone read your neurotic rambllings they’d be impressed. Well I’ve been in the mood for some comic relief. It’s been a lot of laughs-impressed? Not so much.
19. August 2012 at 18:45
Mike Sax:
“Yes, you do. For why else would you call for more theft against those with naturally superior ability? You’re not calling for progressive taxation because they are bad, you’re calling for more taxation against them because they are good”
“You didn’t have to. It is what is implied in what you are claiming.”
“Ok, in other words you made it up.”
No, I said it is implied. I am not making it up.
“Nothing like that was implied.”
Oh yes there is. Advocating for progressive taxation implies it. Complaining about wealth inequality implies it. Claiming that democratic statism is needed or else the poor will be exploited implies it.
“Another straw man.”
You keep using that word “another.” I do not think you know what you think it means.
“How do you know that because someone has money they’re “good?””
I never claimed that people are good because they merely have money. People are good according to their actions. If someone EARNS their money, then they are good. If someone steals people’s money, like what you are advocating, then they’re bad.
“You’re making a false equaivlaence between natural ability-which despite your crazy claims I have no probelm with-and someone’s leve of wealth.”
No, I never made an equivalence between those two. You’re just making that up. I fully recognize that wealth can be stolen. I fully recognize that even though those in the state collect and spend $3-5 trillion a year, it doesn’t mean they’re good.
“They aren’t necessarily good. But it’s not punishment. It’s simply for them to pay their fair share as they enjoy society’s externalities as much if not more than anyone.”
You are continuing to conflate the state with society. A person who benefits from others does not imply that they owe money to those in the state specifically. There is no connection. Protection rackets don’t count. Violence backed roads, schools, drones that kill innocent families, and SWAT teams that put innocent people in jail don’t count.
19. August 2012 at 18:48
“It is not a part of “life”. It is a choice some individuals make. Violence is not a part of my life. Did you grow up in an abusive household? That would explain a LOT of your beliefs/”
Major it’s you who desire to protect abusive parents. You say the police should not “kidnap” a child from their abusive partents.
I’m not at all sure you don’t engage in aggression. Certainly I’ve never seen someone so capable of verbal aggression with a keyboard.
I don’t agree, I think aggression is part of life. For everyone. we can sublimate and tame these urges. But the claim of “nonaggression” is just a slogan for knocking people in the head with as you do all day.
I have no interest in killing anyone. It’s you who claim that progressive taxation is the same thing as out and out murder.
I’ve given examples of how incation is aggression. I mentioned how people have seen or heard someone being abused, raped, or kille and went to sleep.
Other people like you don’t care that there are pople suffering in poverty or in chronic employment and underemployment. You just mock them and say they should have beein virtuous and productive like you are.
You just blame the victim. For me, the idea that you wil lfight any attempt to help them is a farily visious form of aggression.
19. August 2012 at 18:51
Mike Sax:
“My goal is not to impress someone who neither reads nor even understands what it is he claiming to not be impressed with.”
“I read it and understood it.”
Your fallacious claims that don’t even get the theory right, and your way of thinking about it, betrays your claim that you have read it and understand it. You don’t understand it. Why else would you have taken a dump on the theory and claim that libertarian property ethics ignores unjust property acquisitions? That claim alone is proof you have never read any of it.
“That’s why I’m not impressed.”
No, you’re not impressed because it feels wrong to you.
“Again with your defense mechanisms.”
You used the word “again”, but that would imply that you somehow showed how I was using one before. But you haven’t, so this “again” is unwarranted.
“YOu need to believe that if only someone read your neurotic rambllings they’d be impressed.”
I already said I write mostly to benefit myself, and those others who are interested. I could not care less if you’re not impressed. Like I said before, if you were impressed, I’d doubt my convictions more.
“Well I’ve been in the mood for some comic relief. It’s been a lot of laughs-impressed? Not so much.”
Yes, people who are mad tend to want comic relief. It helps alleviate the pain that accompanies the anger and exasperation you have.
19. August 2012 at 18:51
“I never claimed that people are good because they merely have money. People are good according to their actions. If someone EARNS their money, then they are good. If someone steals people’s money, like what you are advocating, then they’re bad.”
Yet another straw man. I never advocated “stealing.” I don’t think taxes are theft.
If you don’t want to pay taxes then don’t utlilzie the benefits of society-the roads, the infrastructure, etc.
If you do then it’s ‘not theft.
19. August 2012 at 18:52
“So there’s nothing wrong with him paying his taxes. He gains from society as aeveryone else does. Then he gains more as an entrpereneur-as business environment is very important.”
>> No, society gains from the entrepreneur, not the other way around. Without wealth creation and capital accumulation, there is nothing to tax.
“It’s a kind of perversity. “I want the opportunity not to help”
>> Well, in some sense, yes. I don’t want my income confiscated to pay for “helping” via corporate subsidies, fighting endless wars overseas, funding corrupt dictators and oppressive regimes, subsidizing others’ retirement income, financing bloated pensions, subsidizing wealthy individuals’ flood insurance, etc.
“If you look at history however, private charity has never been enough to deal with pverty.”
>> This is false. Government has nothing absent what it takes from the private individuals. The ability to care for those less fortunate is more a function of the overall wealth and prosperity of society, not the overall benevolence of government.
19. August 2012 at 18:53
Benefit #381 of NGDPLT: Matt Yglesias will finally accept the broken windows fallacy (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/08/18/why_i_don_t_love_frederic_bastiat.html). Also note how he completely misses the point of the Candlemakers’ Petition. And he seems to be willfully ignorant of the role of Bastiat in teaching basic economics to non-policy wonks (or to most policy wonks as well, for that matter.) Then again, if it weren’t for us MMers, Yglesias would probably believe along with his colleagues in Keynesianism – which people do precisely as they don’t see that the BWF still holds under it (in different ways).
19. August 2012 at 18:53
“Yes, people who are mad tend to want comic relief. It helps alleviate the pain that accompanies the anger and exasperation you have.”
I’m not mad. You are. However, you are comic relief. You said before it’s a chore to talk to me. Ie, it’s hard for you. It’s not hard for me. It’s a laugh.
19. August 2012 at 18:54
“You used the word “again”, but that would imply that you somehow showed how I was using one before. But you haven’t, so this “again” is unwarranted.”
Scroll up and read your posts.
19. August 2012 at 18:58
“No, society gains from the entrepreneur, not the other way around. Without wealth creation and capital accumulation, there is nothing to tax. ”
Nope. Without the infratstructure of society there’d be no way for him to be an entrepreneur. Locale matters. There are places in the world that no businesses can get started at-which proves entrepreneurs aren’t like Apollo’s head simply giving birth to themselves.
19. August 2012 at 19:00
Mike T
19. August 2012 at 19:02
“Sure it does. That is how the libertarian defines good actions versus bad actions.”
Right which shows that the libertarian defintion of “good” is wrongheaded.
If you see someone dying in a ditch you don’t want to help them you want to deliver a sermon
‘you should have been productive like me! It’s your own choices that got you there’ as if you know what got him there. Maybe it was nothing to do with any choices of his.
Yet your fallacious libertarian ethics require you to presume just that
19. August 2012 at 19:05
“You used the word “again”, but that would imply that you somehow showed how I was using one before. But you haven’t, so this “again” is unwarranted.”
Again, read your own body of work. One example among many is when you tried to convince yourself that I’m mad because your’e mad.
And when you tried to convicne yourself that I take you seriously or value your opinion. That was a hoot!
19. August 2012 at 19:09
“You are continuing to conflate the state with society. A person who benefits from others does not imply that they owe money to those in the state specifically. There is no connection. Protection rackets don’t count. Violence backed roads, schools, drones that kill innocent families, and SWAT teams that put innocent people in jail don’t count.”
Unfreedom. Not suprisingly you’re quite wrong. Businessmen benefit from all those things actually. They need schools to have educated people to work for them. They need roads for trasnport, for business, etc.
Indeed, some of these more nefarious things like drones are also things that much of coproprate America supports and benefits from.
19. August 2012 at 19:10
Mike Sax…
“”No, society gains from the entrepreneur, not the other way around. Without wealth creation and capital accumulation, there is nothing to tax. “
Nope. Without the infratstructure of society there’d be no way for him to be an entrepreneur. Locale matters. There are places in the world that no businesses can get started at-which proves entrepreneurs aren’t like Apollo’s head simply giving birth to themselves.”
Yep…love the Apollo’s head line.
19. August 2012 at 19:12
Mike Sax:
“It is not a part of “life”. It is a choice some individuals make. Violence is not a part of my life. Did you grow up in an abusive household? That would explain a LOT of your beliefs/”
“Major it’s you who desire to protect abusive parents.”
No, I don’t want to protect abusive parents. Not wanting the state to do X, does not mean I am against everyone doing X.
“You say the police should not “kidnap” a child from their abusive partents.”
You put “kidnap” in quotes like it’s not actually kidnapping. That’s typical of totalitarian minds like the one you have.
I say the state police should not exist.
“I’m not at all sure you don’t engage in aggression.”
I said initiations of aggression, not aggression. If someone tries to start a fight with me, then I’ll defend myself aggressively.
“Certainly I’ve never seen someone so capable of verbal aggression with a keyboard.”
I am only verbally abusive to those who verbally advocate for physical aggression, like you. If you tried to put into practise against me what you cowardly try to thump your chest here on this blog, then you won’t find me to only be talking to you.
“I don’t agree, I think aggression is part of life. For everyone.”
I disagree. Aggression is a choice. It is not like hearts beating or lungs breathing.
“we can sublimate and tame these urges. But the claim of “nonaggression” is just a slogan for knocking people in the head with as you do all day.”
As opposed to you calling for actual knocking of heads? That’s rich.
“I have no interest in killing anyone.”
Sure you do. Suppose I stopped paying taxes. Suppose that I declared that I will peacefully resist those who claim to act in the name of the state. Suppose I declared that I will not become aggressive, unless others become aggressive towards me. Suppose the state first sends me threatening letters in the mail. Suppose I do not obey. Suppose that the state sends more threatening letters. Suppose I still do not obey. Suppose that the state then sends armed goons to my door, who threaten me with being thrown into a cage if I do not obey. Suppose I still do not obey. Suppose they threaten to draw their weapons if I don’t obey. Suppose I still do not obey, and in response, I draw my weapon as a defense. Suppose they threaten to shoot me if I don’t put my weapon down. Suppose I threaten to shoot them if they don’t put their weapons down. Suppose they start shooting at me. Suppose I shoot back. Suppose I am shot. Suppose the police are shot. Suppose I survive, suppose they do not.
Suppose the state sends more police to my door, and suppose that I declare that I will shoot at any armed thug who shoots at me first.
Will you advocate that those in the state stand down, or would you advocate for the state to continue to threaten me with escalating violence until I am dead? Suppose I offer “My freedom or else”. Will you advocate that I be free from this violence? Or would you consider me to justifiably be killed…for not paying the state the money they claim I owe them, and defending myself from every aggression that they initiate against me?
If you’re not in favor of the police killing me, then congrats, you’re an anarchist. If you’re not an anarchist, then either you’re in favor of the state killing me, or you don’t understand the world you’re living in. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say the latter, but your worldview DOES call for me to be killed.
“It’s you who claim that progressive taxation is the same thing as out and out murder.”
I have never claimed they’re the same. I said they’re both based on initiations of force.
“I’ve given examples of how incation is aggression.”
You have not given any examples that SHOW inaction is aggression.
“I mentioned how people have seen or heard someone being abused, raped, or kille and went to sleep.”
It’s interesting how you are completely ignoring the actual aggressors in such scenarios, and you’re trying to blame others who happen to be in the area. Why is the actual aggressor not being held responsible for his own actions in your worldview? Why are the neighbors being blamed and not the aggressor themselves?
Your examples are absurd.
“Other people like you don’t care that there are pople suffering in poverty or in chronic employment and underemployment.”
I do care. I just don’t pretend to care like you do, and call for guns to be pointed at innocent people in order to help those in need.
If you actually cared about poverty and unemployment, then you’d be out there actually helping those people using your own body and energy and time, rather than hiding behind the government’s skirt, and claiming to be all high and mighty by advocating that OTHERS help those people.
YOU don’t give a flying rat’s ass about those in poverty or those unemployed. You only care about the APPEARANCE of you wanting to help those people. ANYONE can sit on their fat asses and demand that the state point its guns at people and then help those in need. That isn’t being moral. That isn’t being virtuous. That’s being a smarmy coward who is too chicken scared and pathetic to help people himself.
“You just mock them and say they should have beein virtuous and productive like you are.”
No, I mock lazy violence advocates who claim to be entitled to the help of others, like you. I don’t mock the poor. I was poor myself.
You just blame the victim. For me, the idea that you wil lfight any attempt to help them is a farily visious form of aggression.
19. August 2012 at 19:16
“Without the infratstructure of society there’d be no way for him to be an entrepreneur.”
Mike,
What are you referring to when you say “infrastructure of society?”
19. August 2012 at 19:17
Major Unfreedom
“Like when? In what context? Who against who? Against you? Would you be willing to kill someone who did not threaten you or harm you or your property? Let’s expose your actual convictions, so we can stop pretending that you had any intention of a debate or discussion, because at the end of the day you’ll just want to kill people anyway.”
So Major let me ask you this. How do you feel about what we did to the Indians-knocking them off they’re land, making war with them. Killing millions of them. Is that theft?
19. August 2012 at 19:19
while the abofe was addressed to Unfree, I’d like to here any libertarian answer that qauestion. Do they approaev of what the U.S. did to the Indians in violently removing tehm from their land?
19. August 2012 at 19:21
“What are you referring to when you say “infrastructure of society?”
Mike T, I would think it’s obvious. But fine I’ll list some examples-the school system so that there are educated and qulaifed workers.
The roads, bridges, technology, The rule of law, etc. What makes this country different than a poverty strickent village in Africa that no business would ever start in.
19. August 2012 at 19:24
“No, I don’t want to protect abusive parents. Not wanting the state to do X, does not mean I am against everyone doing X.”
Whether you want to do it or not that’s the effect of your actions. For an abused child it really doesn’t matter to him why Major Unfreedom doesnt want the state to rescue him from his violent parents.
His suffering isn’t somehow mitigated by whatever your motivations in not wanting the state to step in.
19. August 2012 at 19:26
“I do care. I just don’t pretend to care like you do, and call for guns to be pointed at innocent people in order to help those in need”
You care bgy demanding that nothing be done to help them. That’s always your way of “helping” I noitce. It’s the same way of “helping” abused children.
YOu don’t like the “high and mighty” who say call the police adn put at stop to it. Instead you call it “kidnapping”
19. August 2012 at 19:32
“YOU don’t give a flying rat’s ass about those in poverty or those unemployed. You only care about the APPEARANCE of you wanting to help those people. ANYONE can sit on their fat asses and demand that the state point its guns at people and then help those in need. That isn’t being moral. That isn’t being virtuous. That’s being a smarmy coward who is too chicken scared and pathetic to help people himself.”
Major, I see you’re exaspeated again. You’re also doing the patented Major “I know you are but what am I!”
Because I pointed out that you don’t care about the poor and the umemployed you come back with I don’t care about them.
You don’t have an original thought in that crazy head of yours.
If you hate the appearance of looking like you want to help them don’t woryy. You neither do anything to help them nor look like you do.
“If you actually cared about poverty and unemployment, then you’d be out there actually helping those people using your own body and energy and time, rather than hiding behind the government’s skirt, and claiming to be all high and mighty by advocating that OTHERS help those people.”
Yeah like you’re out there right? trying to convince everyone to do nothing but watch and sermonize about aesop fables of thrift and hard work? You sit back and tut tut
“I am productive so I have and you don’t. tough luck”
You do nothing but put forward the appearance of being a sanctimuous twit. Of course in your case it’s not just appearance. In your case Unfree, appearance and reality are one.
19. August 2012 at 19:34
Mike, Bill, and other statists,
Can you please tell us when you would find it acceptable to INITIATE force/violence against other human beings? This is the basis of the Libertarian philosophy, so please explain why you find initiating violence against innocent people acceptable.
19. August 2012 at 19:35
“I would think it’s obvious. But fine I’ll list some examples-the school system so that there are educated and qulaifed workers.
The roads, bridges, technology, The rule of law, etc. What makes this country different than a poverty strickent village in Africa that no business would ever start in.”
Mike,
Do you realize how silly all this is? How are any of these things funded?
19. August 2012 at 19:35
“I am only verbally abusive to those who verbally advocate for physical aggression, like you. If you tried to put into practise against me what you cowardly try to thump your chest here on this blog, then you won’t find me to only be talking to you.”
Look that can be arranged just say the word
19. August 2012 at 19:36
“Do you realize how silly all this is? How are any of these things funded?”
By taxes of course. not just of the “job creators” either.
And they could never start a business without those things in place. I notice you just ignore that
19. August 2012 at 19:36
My apologies to John Lennon…and everyone else.
Imagine there’s limited government
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace
You, you may say
I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And individuals will live as freemen.
Imagine keeping all possessions
I wonder if you can
Greed and hunger creating
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing none of the world
You, you may say
I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And individuals will live as freemen.
19. August 2012 at 19:37
Mike Sax:
“I never claimed that people are good because they merely have money. People are good according to their actions. If someone EARNS their money, then they are good. If someone steals people’s money, like what you are advocating, then they’re bad.”
“Yet another straw man.”
You have not shown a first straw man. How can you use the word “again” like you have?
I never advocated “stealing.” I don’t think taxes are theft.”
I don’t care what you believe taxes are or are not. I know what they are and what they are not. You advocate for stealing. I don’t care if a murderer denies he is murdering people, or if a rapist denies he is raping people, or if a fraudster is denying he is defrauding people.
If you don’t want to pay taxes then don’t utlilzie the benefits of society-the roads, the infrastructure, etc.
Not possible. Even if a person did not attempt to use any government “services”, they’d still have to pay taxes. Taxes are PRIMARY to government services. You have the order wrong. Services are not provided first, and then taxes are collected later. Taxes are collected first, then those taxes go to financing murder and mayhem, and a portion goes to roads and plumbing (which of course those not in the state are too stupid to build themselves).
“If you do then it’s ‘not theft.”
Yes, it is. It is based on violence. If I stole your money, but then offered you a choice of getting something back in the form of a computer or food, and you picked one but not the other, then I could not claim that my theft was justified. The original appropriation was not justified.
You haven’t read the literature. Your claims have been refuted countless times and yet you’re presenting them as if they’re new and haven’t been made before.
“Yes, people who are mad tend to want comic relief. It helps alleviate the pain that accompanies the anger and exasperation you have.”
“I’m not mad.”
You’re raging mad.
“However, you are comic relief.”
Relief from what? Your exasperation. Your desperation.
“You said before it’s a chore to talk to me. Ie, it’s hard for you. It’s not hard for me. It’s a laugh.”
You’re not laughing. You’re mad.
“You used the word “again”, but that would imply that you somehow showed how I was using one before. But you haven’t, so this “again” is unwarranted.”
“Scroll up and read your posts.”
OK, now what? It’s still not there.
“Without the infratstructure of society there’d be no way for him to be an entrepreneur.”
Nope. Without taxation, there can be no infrastructure. Infrastructure is not costless. The state doesn’t produce wealth. The state depends on those who make up society in the division of labor.
“Locale matters. There are places in the world that no businesses can get started at-which proves entrepreneurs aren’t like Apollo’s head simply giving birth to themselves.”
There are places in the world that has no taxation, because there is nobody to tax.
“Sure it does. That is how the libertarian defines good actions versus bad actions.”
Right which shows that the libertarian defintion of “good” is wrongheaded.
No, that shows it is right headed.
“If you see someone dying in a ditch you don’t want to help them you want to deliver a sermon”
No, that’s you. You don’t want to help those dying in a ditch. You want those in the state to help them.
“‘you should have been productive like me! It’s your own choices that got you there’ as if you know what got him there. Maybe it was nothing to do with any choices of his.”
That is nothing but a caricature of what I actually think, because you don’t understand what libertarianism actually entails.
Just because we don’t want you to point your gun at others to help people in a ditch, it doesn’t mean we don’t want to help people in a ditch.
You are like a neocon who claims that those who want to bring the troops home, are “isolationists”, as if the only way Americans can interact with the world, is through weapons and occupying armies.
“Yet your fallacious libertarian ethics require you to presume just that”
No, it doesn’t. Libertarianism is prohibition on the initiation of force. It is not prohibition against helping people who want help.
You don’t understand libertarianism. Big surprise. You don’t understand anything outside your narrow dogmatic worldview.
“”You used the word “again”, but that would imply that you somehow showed how I was using one before. But you haven’t, so this “again” is unwarranted.”
Again, read your own body of work.
Haha, you’re so exasperated that you’re responding to the same comments more than once in separate posts. What you quoted me saying, you already responded to above.
You still haven’t shown it.
“One example among many is when you tried to convince yourself that I’m mad because your’e mad.”
I never tried to convince myself that you’re mad because I’m mad, because that would imply I am actually mad, when you are actually mad, not me.
“And when you tried to convicne yourself that I take you seriously or value your opinion. That was a hoot!”
I didn’t try to convince myself of that either. I became convinced of it because of what you are saying.
“You are continuing to conflate the state with society. A person who benefits from others does not imply that they owe money to those in the state specifically. There is no connection. Protection rackets don’t count. Violence backed roads, schools, drones that kill innocent families, and SWAT teams that put innocent people in jail don’t count.”
“Unfreedom. Not suprisingly you’re quite wrong.”
You haven’t shown how I am wrong before, so how is my not being wrong now another wrong to be not surprised about?
“Businessmen benefit from all those things actually.”
You can’t know that unless you observe them acting without coercion against them, which does not exist, so your knowledge is yet another one of your superstitious, mystical beliefs.
They need schools to have educated people to work for them.
We can have private schools.
They need roads for trasnport, for business, etc.
We can have private roads.
If I initiated force to monopolize almost all roads and schools, then I could not claim that I am benefiting those who I stole money from who then use them. Only if I asked them first, and found out that they wanted to voluntarily trade or enter into a voluntary arrangement, can I say that my actions benefited them.
By your logic, Kim Il Sung can claim to be benefiting everyone in North Korea because everyone is using state “services”.
Indeed, some of these more nefarious things like drones are also things that much of coproprate America supports and benefits from.”
Democrats in the Senate and in the White House support them.
19. August 2012 at 19:39
Major Unfreedom
“It’s interesting how you are completely ignoring the actual aggressors in such scenarios, and you’re trying to blame others who happen to be in the area. Why is the actual aggressor not being held responsible for his own actions in your worldview? Why are the neighbors being blamed and not the aggressor themselves?”
Of course the perpetrator is to blame first and foremost. But they could have done nothing and chose not to. They enabled it to happen.
Morally they’re pretty shoddy people to allow a rape-murder to take place because they said “not my problem.”
19. August 2012 at 19:39
“By taxes of course.”
The response I expected. Now, what is being taxed? I hope you can see where this is leading.
19. August 2012 at 19:42
“I don’t care what you believe taxes are or are not. I know what they are and what they are not. You advocate for stealing. I don’t care if a murderer denies he is murdering people, or if a rapist denies he is raping people, or if a fraudster is denying he is defrauding people. ”
Well I don’t care if you draw crazy false analogies between taxes and “rapes and murders, and fraudsters”
There is no comparison. while universallyl no one claims that rape, murder, or “fraudstering” is acceptable many agree taht the state has the right to tax. Which it does.
You may not agree, But I guess I don’t care about your view any more than you care about mine. Oh well.
I wonder if this means you are a routine tax cheat?
19. August 2012 at 19:44
“The response I expected. Now, what is being taxed? I hope you can see where this is leading.”
If you had read beyond that word you would have read this
“By taxes of course. not just of the “job creators” either.”
“And they could never start a business without those things in place. I notice you just ignore that”
You ignored it again. Try responding to my whole answer.
19. August 2012 at 19:46
“”By taxes of course. not just of the “job creators” either.”
“And they could never start a business without those things in place. I notice you just ignore that”
You ignored it again. Try responding to my whole answer.”
>> Mike,
You never answered it. What exactly is being taxed?
19. August 2012 at 19:48
“There are places in the world that has no taxation, because there is nobody to tax.”
Are there businesses there? Name me these places you have in mind
19. August 2012 at 19:49
“You’re not laughing. You’re mad.”
Nope. Just becaue you’re mad you assume I am. I’m laughing. Laughing at you Unfreedom.
19. August 2012 at 19:50
“Can you please tell us when you would find it acceptable to INITIATE force/violence against other human beings? This is the basis of the Libertarian philosophy, so please explain why you find initiating violence against innocent people acceptable”
I said nothing about force, just that rich people need to pay their taxes.
19. August 2012 at 19:51
Razor…asks..
“Can you please tell us when you would find it acceptable to INITIATE force/violence against other human beings? ”
If they looked at me funny.
Just kidding.
When?
When you can stop the war of “INITIATED force” that has been our condition for ever, then I will ask the weak to lay down their arms.
We can’t hope stop humans from literally slaughtering each other, continually on a grand scale, and rationalizing it to the point of celebration and glorification…
Yet Libertarians think that people can be sensitized to condemn “INITIATED force” that asks a wealthy man to pay a higher rate of taxes than a poor man.
Libertarians just don’t see how sweet they really are.
19. August 2012 at 19:51
Mike T. I did. You just don’t liek the answer. If there’s no infracstructure how does a business get started? You can’t asnwer so you keep trying to kick it back to me
19. August 2012 at 19:53
Bill Ellis:
“Yet Libertarians think that people can be sensitized to condemn “INITIATED force” that asks a wealthy man to pay a higher rate of taxes than a poor man.”
Thats it in a nutshell. They don’t care about real violence. Or at least Major Unfreedom doesn’t-he sees abusive parents as victims of the state.
Howeer raising some fat cats taxes is worse than geneocide for them.
19. August 2012 at 19:55
Mike Sax,
No, you said that the entrepreneur first needs infrastructure to operate. I asked how this infrastructure was funded. You said by taxes. I asked you what was being taxed. You can’t answer that. And if you did, you’d realize how your claim is absurd.
19. August 2012 at 19:56
“We can have private roads.”
Real progress that is Major Freedom(is Slavery)
ONly those who eitehr own the roads or who are friends of the owner can drive it. I love this world of yours where those without money are SOL
19. August 2012 at 19:59
“No, you said that the entrepreneur first needs infrastructure to operate. I asked how this infrastructure was funded. You said by taxes. I asked you what was being taxed. You can’t answer that. And if you did, you’d realize how your claim is absurd.”
What’s abusrd is your claim that entrepreeurs can do business withotu infrastrcture. You think you have osme trump card. You dont Obviously people pay taxes but it’s not just the fat cat “job creators” we all pay taxes.
That’s the tradeoff-you pay taxes and you have the kind of infrastructure that gives you some opportunities. That wouldn’t be there otherwise
19. August 2012 at 19:59
Bill, you can’t answer a simple question, can you? That’s because it is ALWAYS immoral to initiate force against human beings and should be the starting framework for human interaction between humans. Why can’t you admit that the initiation of force/violence against human beings is wrong, period? Then start from there. If it’s not wrong, why is it okay? When is it morally acceptable to initiate violence against your fellow peaceful human being? Who gets to be the one to rightfully initiate this violence?
Libertarians have thought about these questions and have decided that it simply is not moral to initiate force against human beings. Please tell us why this is wrong. Try not to evade the answer, please.
19. August 2012 at 20:00
“If they looked at me funny.”
Good one Bill
19. August 2012 at 20:01
Mike Sax:
“Like when? In what context? Who against who? Against you? Would you be willing to kill someone who did not threaten you or harm you or your property? Let’s expose your actual convictions, so we can stop pretending that you had any intention of a debate or discussion, because at the end of the day you’ll just want to kill people anyway.”
So Major let me ask you this. How do you feel about what we did to the Indians-knocking them off they’re land, making war with them. Killing millions of them. Is that theft?”
You answer my questions first, then I will be more than happy to give you my opinion on killing Indians.
“while the abofe was addressed to Unfree, I’d like to here any libertarian answer that qauestion. Do they approaev of what the U.S. did to the Indians in violently removing tehm from their land?”
Let’s hope others can read the language you are using. That’s the worse example of grammar and spelling yet.
“No, I don’t want to protect abusive parents. Not wanting the state to do X, does not mean I am against everyone doing X.”
Whether you want to do it or not that’s the effect of your actions.
But you weren’t talking about the effects of my actions. You were accusing me point blank of not wanting to protect children from abusive parents.
“For an abused child it really doesn’t matter to him why Major Unfreedom doesnt want the state to rescue him from his violent parents.”
And that exactly explains your entire worldview.
“His suffering isn’t somehow mitigated by whatever your motivations in not wanting the state to step in.”
What about a child who is abused by the state, and the state rules in favor of the state? Then what? For an abused child, it really doesn’t matter that Mike No Sax wants to perpetuate the state and thus the child’s abuse.
“I do care. I just don’t pretend to care like you do, and call for guns to be pointed at innocent people in order to help those in need”
“You care bgy demanding that nothing be done to help them.”
Now you’re conflating the state with everything that can ever be “done”. Your ignorance knows no bounds. Now you’re saying that if someone wants to stop initiations of violence, they are somehow against anyone doing anything about anything.
Advocating that the state do nothing, is not advocating for doing nothing, because there are others besides those in the state.
“That’s always your way of “helping” I noitce.”
You’re only “noticing” more of your myths that you have set up for yourself, because you lack knowledge.
It’s the same way of “helping” abused children.”
Except you’re not understanding what it is you’re critiquing. Aagain.
“YOu don’t like the “high and mighty” who say call the police adn put at stop to it. Instead you call it “kidnapping””
You don’t like the high and mighty who want to stop initiations of violence and put a stop to child abuse at the hands of the state.
“YOU don’t give a flying rat’s ass about those in poverty or those unemployed. You only care about the APPEARANCE of you wanting to help those people. ANYONE can sit on their fat asses and demand that the state point its guns at people and then help those in need. That isn’t being moral. That isn’t being virtuous. That’s being a smarmy coward who is too chicken scared and pathetic to help people himself.”
Major, I see you’re exaspeated again.
Mike, you’re exasperated so much that you didn’t even want to respond to my arguments.
“Because I pointed out that you don’t care about the poor and the umemployed you come back with I don’t care about them.”
No, I pointed out that you don’t care about the poor, because you actually don’t care about the poor enough to personally help them. You want the state to help them. You want others to help them. You’re not responding to this because you know it’s true, and you’re only response is to say what I am saying to you, which is that you are exasperated.
Your only response is to play this silly game of “I know you are but what am I”.
You’re mad. You’re so mad that you are willing to point guns at innocent people. It takes a special kind of anger to want that.
You keep copying what I am saying. You’re so unoriginal.
“If you hate the appearance of looking like you want to help them don’t woryy. You neither do anything to help them nor look like you do.”
I do help them. I already told you that I give money to children in need, through a charity.
You hate the appearance of NOT wanting to help those in need, which is why you sit on your ass and demand that others help them.
“If you actually cared about poverty and unemployment, then you’d be out there actually helping those people using your own body and energy and time, rather than hiding behind the government’s skirt, and claiming to be all high and mighty by advocating that OTHERS help those people.”
“Yeah like you’re out there right?”
See? I was right about you. You don’t help anyone. You just sit on your ass demanding that others help.
To answer your question, YES I do actually help, which is why I am especially sensitive to smarmy, lazy people like you who pontificate on the alleged immorality of “doing nothing”, and yet you are your own caricature. You say it’s immoral to not help people, and yet you don’t actually go out and help people. You are the epitome of hypocrisy.
“trying to convince everyone to do nothing but watch and sermonize about aesop fables of thrift and hard work? You sit back and tut tut”
Yet another projection.
“I am productive so I have and you don’t. tough luck”
It’s not always luck! See? You claim that it’s luck again, but it’s not necessarily luck.
Your worldview is “screw you, I want yours”
“You do nothing but put forward the appearance of being a sanctimuous twit.”
You must be really mad. Now you’re going from b^&tch, to “twit”.
“Of course in your case it’s not just appearance. In your case Unfree, appearance and reality are one.”
Yes, my appearance as pro-peace, is in line with my convictions. Your mind is all messed up and contrary to your actions.
“I am only verbally abusive to those who verbally advocate for physical aggression, like you. If you tried to put into practise against me what you cowardly try to thump your chest here on this blog, then you won’t find me to only be talking to you.”
Look that can be arranged just say the word
I am talking about you putting into practise what you are saying here. If YOU want to put into practise what you are saying here, then you’ll find that I won’t merely be talking. I don’t want to fight a coward anyway. But if you want to fight, even if I do not, which is you putting into action your words on this blog, then I can easily defend myself against a weak minded thug like you.
19. August 2012 at 20:02
Razer there’s nothing violent about paying your taxes. You guys are so over the top it’s surreal. Just pay your taxes and stop crying about it.
To listen to you you’d never get that there’s any real suffering in the world. The only violence that concerns you is the “violence” of some rich man havening to pay his taxes.
19. August 2012 at 20:05
“Yes, my appearance as pro-peace, is in line with my convictions. Your mind is all messed up and contrary to your actions.”
If that’s the appearance you have in mind you’re faling. You’re the least peacful person on the Internet.
“I am talking about you putting into practise what you are saying here. If YOU want to put into practise what you are saying here, then you’ll find that I won’t merely be talking. I don’t want to fight a coward anyway. But if you want to fight, even if I do not, which is you putting into action your words on this blog, then I can easily defend myself against a weak minded thug like you.”
I am putting it into practice-you should pay your taxes. I wonder if you regularly evade them.
So I’m putting it into pracitce. Where do you want to meet up and “defend yourself against theft?”
19. August 2012 at 20:07
Mike Sax,
“They don’t care about real violence. Or at least Major Unfreedom doesn’t-he sees abusive parents as victims of the state.
Howeer raising some fat cats taxes is worse than geneocide for them.”
I don’t think that is fair to say about these folks…even Major_Anarchy.
I mean come on.. If they were given the choice, stop a genocide or end progressive taxation they would all choose to stop the killing.
But I do think they are just as unrealistic as someone who believes the world can be taught to be peaceful…and on the spectrum of violence to get passionate about eliminating… their priorities are skewed.
19. August 2012 at 20:07
“But you weren’t talking about the effects of my actions. You were accusing me point blank of not wanting to protect children from abusive parents.”
Yes I was. That’s my whole point about simply not taking action can be aggressive. Maybe you claim that you don’t not want to protect them but your actiosn are what matters. If you have your way they will continue to be abused.
My point is your motives don’t matter.
19. August 2012 at 20:09
Mike Sax,
Your argument taken to its logical conclusion suggests that infrastructure is available before the private entrepreneur engages in commerce, but the infrastructure doesn’t exist without funding via taxation from the entrepreneur by your own admission. Are you getting it yet?
19. August 2012 at 20:09
Bill Ellis
“I mean come on.. If they were given the choice, stop a genocide or end progressive taxation they would all choose to stop the killing.”
I’m really not so sure. I mean you can just hear the veins bulging on Major Unfreedom’s neck when he talks about taxes and “initiating force”
19. August 2012 at 20:11
“I am talking about you putting into practise what you are saying here. If YOU want to put into practise what you are saying here, then you’ll find that I won’t merely be talking. I don’t want to fight a coward anyway. But if you want to fight, even if I do not, which is you putting into action your words on this blog, then I can easily defend myself against a weak minded thug like you.”
Clearly I’m not the coward as I’ve never shown the slightest fear of you. And we can certainly arrange anything you want.
I say you should pay your taxes. In your mind no dobut that’s “aggression”
There you are
19. August 2012 at 20:13
“You hate the appearance of NOT wanting to help those in need, which is why you sit on your ass and demand that others help them.”
I could care less about appearnces. Charity alone is not enough to solve the problem. It’s a good thing and I do it too when I can. But that’s not going to elminate poverty or put a dent in the umeployment rate
19. August 2012 at 20:15
“To answer your question, YES I do actually help, which is why I am especially sensitive to smarmy, lazy people like you who pontificate on the alleged immorality of “doing nothing”, and yet you are your own caricature. You say it’s immoral to not help people, and yet you don’t actually go out and help people. You are the epitome of hypocrisy.”
Major as usual you’re talking out the wrong end. You have no idea what I do or don’t do.
The main thing you do is try to convince people to let people remain unemployed and in poverty.
19. August 2012 at 20:15
Mike Sax:
“It’s interesting how you are completely ignoring the actual aggressors in such scenarios, and you’re trying to blame others who happen to be in the area. Why is the actual aggressor not being held responsible for his own actions in your worldview? Why are the neighbors being blamed and not the aggressor themselves?”
Of course the perpetrator is to blame first and foremost.
Notice how you said “the perpetrator”, not “the perpetrators”.
“But they could have done nothing and chose not to. They enabled it to happen.”
No, the perpetrator enabled it to happen.
“Morally they’re pretty shoddy people to allow a rape-murder to take place because they said “not my problem.””
Then you;re a pretty shoddy person.
“I don’t care what you believe taxes are or are not. I know what they are and what they are not. You advocate for stealing. I don’t care if a murderer denies he is murdering people, or if a rapist denies he is raping people, or if a fraudster is denying he is defrauding people.”
“Well I don’t care if you draw crazy false analogies between taxes and “rapes and murders, and fraudsters”
They’re not false analogies. They’re all based on initiations of force.
Just because the aggressors are wearing badges, doesn’t mean it’s peaceful.
“There is no comparison.”
Of course there is. You just deny it because you are confused into believing that when civilians do X, it’s wrong, but when the state does X, it’s not wrong.
“while universallyl no one claims that rape, murder, or “fraudstering” is acceptable many agree taht the state has the right to tax.”
Fallacy ad populum.
“Which it does.”
No, it does not.
“You may not agree, But I guess I don’t care about your view any more than you care about mine. Oh well.”
Except your disagreement is manifested in initiating aggression against those you disagree with. My disagreement with you does not manifest itself in anyone initiating aggression against you.
You can’t claim that you are here only disagreeing. You are here looking for others to obey you. Probably because you’re so mad and hate liberty so much.
“I wonder if this means you are a routine tax cheat?”
I can’t “cheat” anyone out of what does not belong to them.
“The response I expected. Now, what is being taxed? I hope you can see where this is leading.”
Private property that does not belong to those in the state. That is what is being taxed.
“There are places in the world that has no taxation, because there is nobody to tax.”
Are there businesses there? Name me these places you have in mind
If there were businesses there, then there would be people to tax, and hence a state is possible.
Obviously if I say there are places in the world that has no taxation because there is nobody there to tax, you can’t possibly ask me if there are any businesses there.
“”You’re not laughing. You’re mad.”
“Just becaue you’re mad you assume I am. I’m laughing. Laughing at you Unfreedom.”
Nope. You’re mad. You’re so mad you even want to fight me. You said I have to just say the word, and you’re willing. For me, it takes more than words to start fighting.
“Can you please tell us when you would find it acceptable to INITIATE force/violence against other human beings? This is the basis of the Libertarian philosophy, so please explain why you find initiating violence against innocent people acceptable”
I said nothing about force, just that rich people need to pay their taxes.”
That is force.
“We can have private roads.”
Real progress that is Major Freedom(is Slavery)
Glad you agree.
“ONly those who eitehr own the roads or who are friends of the owner can drive it.”
Yeah, like only those who own malls or are personal friends of mall owners, can walk in malls.
You’re so wrong it hurts.
And even if only those who paid can use them, how is that any different from the state taxing people to finance the construction of roads? Is that not people PAYING for the roads?
“I love this world of yours where those without money are SOL”
I love it how in your world those WITH money are SOL.
“No, you said that the entrepreneur first needs infrastructure to operate. I asked how this infrastructure was funded. You said by taxes. I asked you what was being taxed. You can’t answer that. And if you did, you’d realize how your claim is absurd.”
What’s abusrd is your claim that entrepreeurs can do business withotu infrastrcture.
What is absurd is your evasion of the argument presented to you. What is absurd is your ignorance that “infrastructure” can be, and has been, private.
“That’s the tradeoff-you pay taxes and you have the kind of infrastructure that gives you some opportunities. That wouldn’t be there otherwise”
You mean no more drones and no more SWAT teams? We’d have private roads and schools? Oh the horror! More peace is horrific!
19. August 2012 at 20:17
“It’s not always luck! See? You claim that it’s luck again, but it’s not necessarily luck.”
Nowhere did I say it was only luck. I mean that’s what you say to those hard on their luck.
You basically say “tough toenails I’m productive and you’re not”
19. August 2012 at 20:19
“Then you;re a pretty shoddy person”
Nice non sequitor. I never did anything like that. You avoid the fact that it is shoddy by claiming I myself went to sleep listening to someone being rape-murdered.
You are mad-both angry and Major Unfreedom insane.
19. August 2012 at 20:21
“I love it how in your world those WITH money are SOL.”
In my world they’d hardly be SOL-they’d still be very rich while paying just a little more in taxes.
And to think you try to call other people a drama queen. What can be more dramatic than the big deal you make over people paying their taxes?
19. August 2012 at 20:24
“You can’t claim that you are here only disagreeing. You are here looking for others to obey you. Probably because you’re so mad and hate liberty so much.”
Sure I can claim that as it’s the truth. I’m not looking for anyone to “obey” me-you’re projecting.
I see you can’t explain what happened to the Indians. YOu are scared to death of answering that question.
19. August 2012 at 20:25
Mike, it’s okay to take someone’s property as long as it is labelled a tax? If a thief robs you and says it’s a tax, this is morally acceptable? I appreciate you admitting that you feel violence/coercion against peaceful humans is morally just. We simply don’t agree nor does your reasoning convince me. Do humans have rights in your view at all, or do they simply have government granted privileges that can be revoked at any time? Your worldview is quite interesting. What are your starting principles?
Bill, do you share Mike’s belief that coercion against peaceful humans is moral as long as it is labeled a tax? I’m sure Mike has a whole litany of other violent acts against peaceful humans he finds reasonable too. Hopefully he’ll list them. I know you don’t believe in property rights very strongly. Do you think individuals own themselves or does the state own them as well?
19. August 2012 at 20:25
“If there were businesses there, then there would be people to tax, and hence a state is possible.”
That’s my point Major Not So Genius
The tradeoff in paying taxes is worth it for businesses
19. August 2012 at 20:28
Mike Sax:
“Yes, my appearance as pro-peace, is in line with my convictions. Your mind is all messed up and contrary to your actions.”
“If that’s the appearance you have in mind you’re faling.”
Failing to you is evidence I am succeeding. Haven’t you learned this yet?
“You’re the least peacful person on the Internet.”
Your definition of peace is physically violent.
“I am talking about you putting into practise what you are saying here. If YOU want to put into practise what you are saying here, then you’ll find that I won’t merely be talking. I don’t want to fight a coward anyway. But if you want to fight, even if I do not, which is you putting into action your words on this blog, then I can easily defend myself against a weak minded thug like you.”
I am putting it into practice-you should pay your taxes.
You are not putting that into practise. The state is. You are not taking my money. The state is.
“I wonder if you regularly evade them.”
I wonder if you would rat on people if you lived in a police state.
“So I’m putting it into pracitce. Where do you want to meet up and “defend yourself against theft?”
You’re not putting taxation into practise by telling me you support it.
“But you weren’t talking about the effects of my actions. You were accusing me point blank of not wanting to protect children from abusive parents.”
“Yes I was.”
No, you weren’t. You said I am against helping abused children.
That’s my whole point about simply not taking action can be aggressive.
I don’t want inaction. I want no more statist action.
Maybe you claim that you don’t not want to protect them but your actiosn are what matters.
Look in the mirror. You’re not helping children. You are not acting.
“If you have your way they will continue to be abused.”
Because you have your way, children are killed by the thousands.
“My point is your motives don’t matter.”
My point is that your motives don’t matter.
“I am talking about you putting into practise what you are saying here. If YOU want to put into practise what you are saying here, then you’ll find that I won’t merely be talking. I don’t want to fight a coward anyway. But if you want to fight, even if I do not, which is you putting into action your words on this blog, then I can easily defend myself against a weak minded thug like you.”
Clearly I’m not the coward as I’ve never shown the slightest fear of you. And we can certainly arrange anything you want.
Haha, you continue to be so exasperated that you are responding to the same comments more than once.
“I say you should pay your taxes. In your mind no dobut that’s “aggression”
It’s reality. I do not consent to paying them.
“You hate the appearance of NOT wanting to help those in need, which is why you sit on your ass and demand that others help them.”
“I could care less about appearnces.”
I don’t believe you. If you didn’t care, you wouldn’t be so hypocritical.
“Charity alone is not enough to solve the problem.”
Violence can’t solve the problem.
“It’s a good thing and I do it too when I can.”
Which is zero.
“But that’s not going to elminate poverty or put a dent in the umeployment rate”
Not with the state.
“To answer your question, YES I do actually help, which is why I am especially sensitive to smarmy, lazy people like you who pontificate on the alleged immorality of “doing nothing”, and yet you are your own caricature. You say it’s immoral to not help people, and yet you don’t actually go out and help people. You are the epitome of hypocrisy.”
Major as usual you’re talking out the wrong end. You have no idea what I do or don’t do.
You haven’t shown how I talk out the wrong end the first time, how can you say “as usual” like I do?
I do have an idea what you do and don’t do. You gave it away.
“The main thing you do is try to convince people to let people remain unemployed and in poverty.”
No, I try to convince people that violence cannot solve the problem, and only exacerbates it.
19. August 2012 at 20:31
Razer it’s ok to tax. Not to label something else that is not a tax and declare that a tax. So no someone may not mug you on the street.
“Do humans have rights in your view at all, or do they simply have government granted privileges that can be revoked at any time?”
As far as I can tell you libertarians don’t believe humans have any rights. You bleieve in one “right” the right of the rich not to pay taxes.
There’s nothing else, “no there, there.”
Libertarians to this day think that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 took away rights rather than recognized the rights of formely discriminated against African Americans.
Razer I believe in human rihgts. but my view and yours are clearly very different.
To me when black people are discriminated against that’s not human rights. Yet libertarians think that’s “liberty”
We see some libertarians like Major Unfreedom who claim that for the state to prevent child abuse is “kidnapping”
So I beleive in human rights but not what libertarians see as human rihgts.
19. August 2012 at 20:33
In a socialist system, guys like Mike rise high and fast because they have no moral qualms about torturing and murdering any who oppose the Almighty Plan. He will do quite well in this country if it swings more totalitarian in the future. FEH seems to have the stomach for it as well.
19. August 2012 at 20:33
Razor…
“That’s because it is ALWAYS immoral to initiate force against human beings and should be the starting framework for human interaction between humans. Why can’t you admit that the initiation of force/violence against human beings is wrong, period? ”
Don’t confuse me with Mike. I don’t dispute that any initiated force against human beings is immoral. I do dispute is that all immorality is equally bad or even significant.
My point is that you can’t stop humans from initiating force against other humans. That is a dream…a utopian dream.
The powerful can not be stopped from initiating force. They will crush the weak.
I keep calling you guys Utopian. I would not be calling you that if I thought you immoral. I think that your orthodoxy will necessarily unleash the immorality of the powerful,… but you true believers have ridiculously high moral standards.
All Utopian systems would be better than what we have now…If people were moral enough to make them work.
Communism may not be your morality, but it is moral.
Christianity may not be your morality, but it is moral. They both require people to be more moral than possible to work.
People are weak in different ways. We are all immoral in different ways.
The world IS immoral…and it can not be taught or reasoned away.
19. August 2012 at 20:34
“I don’t believe you. If you didn’t care, you wouldn’t be so hypocritical.”
You haven;t shown me being hypocritical. YOu imaigne lots of things.
Again, can you explain to me whether the violent removal of the indians was ok in your book?
19. August 2012 at 20:36
“In a socialist system, guys like Mike rise high and fast because they have no moral qualms about torturing and murdering any who oppose the Almighty Plan. He will do quite well in this country if it swings more totalitarian in the future. FEH seems to have the stomach for it as well.”
Ah, so that’s all you have huh? Basless Red baiitng?
I have no interest in a socialist system. Just a capitalist system where rich guys stop wiining and just pay their taxes.
19. August 2012 at 20:38
Mike Sax:
“It’s not always luck! See? You claim that it’s luck again, but it’s not necessarily luck.”
Nowhere did I say it was only luck. I mean that’s what you say to those hard on their luck.
But I don’t say that. You’re again straw manning me.
You said that it is luck when someone isn’t doing well.
“You basically say “tough toenails I’m productive and you’re not”
No, I say I will help you if I can, as long as people like Sax don’t steal my money for war, making it impossible for me to help people using that money.
“Then you;re a pretty shoddy person”
“Nice non sequitor. I never did anything like that.”
Yes, you did.
“You avoid the fact that it is shoddy by claiming I myself went to sleep listening to someone being rape-murdered.”
Inaction doesn’t just imply sleep. It also implies typing bad comments on blogs.
You’re mad.
“I love it how in your world those WITH money are SOL.”
In my world they’d hardly be SOL-they’d still be very rich while paying just a little more in taxes.
They are SOL. They have to pay, or else.
“And to think you try to call other people a drama queen.”
No, I just call you a drama queen, because you are a drama queen.
“What can be more dramatic than the big deal you make over people paying their taxes?”
The bigger deal you make in people not paying them. So big that you’re OK with killing tax evaders who defend themselves.
“You can’t claim that you are here only disagreeing. You are here looking for others to obey you. Probably because you’re so mad and hate liberty so much.”
“Sure I can claim that as it’s the truth.”
And we’re done. You’re not looking to teach, learn, debate, discuss, or anything civil. You just admitted you want obedience.
“I see you can’t explain what happened to the Indians.”
I said I’ll answer your question after you answer mine.
To answer your question, the Indians were both robbed from, and they robbed non-Indians. To the extent that robbery took place, the legitimate owners are the victims of such aggression.
“If there were businesses there, then there would be people to tax, and hence a state is possible.”
That’s my point Major Not So Genius
You missed my point. The state depends on those who are taxed, not the other way around. People can produce and have produced without a state, but the state cannot exist without producers to tax.
“The tradeoff in paying taxes is worth it for businesses”
You can’t know that unless taxes become voluntary. Then we’ll see just how much people value what taxes pay for.
19. August 2012 at 20:39
The latest David Glasner post should interest people here: http://uneasymoney.com/2012/08/19/where-does-money-come-from/
Also, just to wade in here, I think taxation is theft (though that’s just a word, and can be used however people want to/need to). But I also think it’s absolutely inevitable one way or another. I.e. in order to have a “regime of peace” under which people can actually sit tight in their homes and throw moral disapprobation at each other over the World Wide Web for perceived theft, there has to be coercion underlying the non-coercion, or it just won’t work (but please, feel free to prove me wrong, so long as everyone remains free to opt in or out of your personal utopian scheme). And that coercer-in-chief may as well have a monopoly on the issuance of money – especially if it can eventually be constrained and reduced to something as mechanical as NGDP futures targeting.
19. August 2012 at 20:41
Mike Sax:
“I don’t believe you. If you didn’t care, you wouldn’t be so hypocritical.”
“You haven;t shown me being hypocritical.”
Nope. I have shown you to be a hypocrite MANY times.
“YOu imaigne lots of things.”
I don’t imagine your hypocrisy.
“Again, can you explain to me whether the violent removal of the indians was ok in your book?”
Answered above.
“In a socialist system, guys like Mike rise high and fast because they have no moral qualms about torturing and murdering any who oppose the Almighty Plan. He will do quite well in this country if it swings more totalitarian in the future. FEH seems to have the stomach for it as well.”
Ah, so that’s all you have huh? Basless Red baiitng?
It’s called red herring. And he’s correct.
“I have no interest in a socialist system. Just a capitalist system where rich guys stop wiining and just pay their taxes.”
Only because the taxes are worth more in capitalism.
19. August 2012 at 20:42
Razor….
“Libertarians have thought about these questions and have decided that it simply is not moral to initiate force against human beings. ”
That is great. Very sweet.
That you believe that you can stop it from happening… That is sweet too….But delusional.
… And that is the basis of Libertarianism.
19. August 2012 at 20:42
“I do have an idea what you do and don’t do. You gave it away.”
“The main thing you do is try to convince people to let people remain unemployed and in poverty.”
“No, I try to convince people that violence cannot solve the problem, and only exacerbates it.”
That hardly “gave it away”
I pointed out that you do nothing and are actively trying to make sure no one does anything. No one is talking about violence. YOu call “violence” doing something about the problme.
Yeah we’ll all be better to be llike Unfree who just watches people suffer and then mocks them as not as productive as he is.
The main thing you do is try to go back to treatment by leeches.
19. August 2012 at 20:45
“To answer your question, the Indians were both robbed from, and they robbed non-Indians. To the extent that robbery took place, the legitimate owners are the victims of such aggression.”
what non Indians did they rob?
If the legitimate owners are the citims of “such” aggression then by defintiion none of us have any right to any of our civilizaiton.
We really should give it back to the Indians-by your logic
So as our entire system is based in theft, no one can really argue from a moral position of “this is mine you have no right ot it”
19. August 2012 at 20:46
Bill, to call Libertarians utopian tells me you don’t even know the basics of the philosophy. The people who always say, “there ought to be a law” are always statists. They always see a problem and think there should be a law to fix it. Libertarians know this is the well intentioned path to tyranny. We DO NOT believe in utopia, statists do.
If you reason that people are immoral, why would you support the state? Governments are made up of these same immoral people right? So why would you want the monopoly of guns/force in the hands of an immoral entity? That is stupid?
Also, your rationale against Libertarianism makes no sense. You oppose it because you can’t be shown a perfect libertarian society? Okay, but you can look around and see the failures of the state all around you and throughout all of history (responsible for more deaths than wars), yet you’re still a statist? Hmm. 150 years ago would you have supported slavery? My Libertarian argument would have been the same — it’s immoral and a violation of a person’s property rights. Would you have said, “Well, it’s always been around, so to think otherwise is just utopian thinking?”
19. August 2012 at 20:49
Unfreedom
“They are SOL. They have to pay, or else.”
So they are just as SOL whether they pay 4% more in taxes or are the victims of real rape and murder?
How you really believe it is all morally equivalent is what makes you’re whole theory so absurd.
19. August 2012 at 20:50
Major_ Anarchy ,
A hypothetical…Given the choice…
You can end the genocide in Africa that is killing millions. (You don’t get to quibble with if this is happening or not. That it is it is part of the hypothetical )
Or have Libertarians control congress and the White House.
19. August 2012 at 20:53
“Only because the taxes are worth more in capitalism.”
Whatever, you’re still admitting I’m not a socialist
19. August 2012 at 20:53
Razer,
How do libertarians stop the powerful from crushing the weak ?
19. August 2012 at 20:55
“I don’t imagine your hypocrisy.”
Unfreedom yes you have as youve provided no examples. I love how desparate you are to believe I’m angry-to the contrary I have had some great laughs tonight.
I even owe you a debt of gratitude for your unconscous irony and your tremendous comic relief.
Thank you Unfreedom!
19. August 2012 at 20:59
“You missed my point. The state depends on those who are taxed, not the other way around. People can produce and have produced without a state, but the state cannot exist without producers to tax.”
There is zero proof of this claim. You are asserting it, thats all.
19. August 2012 at 20:59
What I have learned today…
libertarians believe that the only reason the elite have the system rigged is because the common man tries to rig the system.
They believe that people can be convinced not to try and rig the system.
19. August 2012 at 21:03
Mike, if it’s not okay for an individual to take your money away by force, even if he gives it to a good cause (that’s what you would consider a tax, right?), then how is it okay for the government to do it? Government gets its authority from the people, correct? So if individuals cannot legally take money by force from other individuals, how can they delegate this right to government?
Or do you believe that government gets its authority from God or whomever and citizens have no rights but mere privileges granted by the state? That’s the only explanation I can think of to explain what you write on here. The Divine Right State, eh?
19. August 2012 at 21:10
“Mike, if it’s not okay for an individual to take your money away by force, even if he gives it to a good cause (that’s what you would consider a tax, right?), then how is it okay for the government to do it? Government gets its authority from the people, correct? So if individuals cannot legally take money by force from other individuals, how can they delegate this right to government? ”
Razer no appeal to the divine is necessary. The state has the legal capacity to tax. The state monopolized force in society.
There is a legimtacy in the law. That’s the difference. Why do people obey the law? You could say that the government has the people’c consesnt.
Soetimes governments lose consent. We just saw this in the Arab Spring for instance.
IN the 60s there was some danger of that here. However, the government was able to respond to the demands of American citizens.
There are different ways you can coneptualzie it. One way if Hobbes social contract. Another is Rousseau’s General Will.
But the main point is legitimacy. As long as the American people believe the U.S. government is legitimate it will be.
19. August 2012 at 21:23
Bill, do you object to someone like Steve Jobs making a fortune because people love the i-phone? As long as coercion is not used, someone can make as much money as they want. When the rich want to abuse the weak, they always run to government for special privileges (favors, regulations, tarrifs, etc.) Actually, all groups are guilty of this, which is why the government cannot play favorites among any groups and only business should be to protect rights. Remove the possibility of gaining influence and the rich get rich by pleasing the masses.
From your comments I can tell you can only think in top down central planning ‘systems.’ Can you show me an example of your statist system where the rich haven’t manipulated it? If not, why advocate for yet another version of one? That’s like advocating yet another paper fiat currency even though each one throughout history has failed miserably. Hope springs eternal, I guess. Ironically, Libertarians care more about morality (statists have to coercian as a facet of the state), yet our ‘system’ brings about what you say you care about better than your system ever could, and it does it in a moral way. There’s no reason for a moral. reasoned person to be a statist. An uncivilized, small-minded corrupt thug, well…
19. August 2012 at 21:26
forgive my typos and poor grammar. I have no good excuse for such sloppiness.
19. August 2012 at 21:39
“Remove the possibility of gaining influence and the rich get rich by pleasing the masses.”
You really are incredibly naiive. I assume that you have never heard of monopolies and oligopolies. Apparently you are unaware that asymmetric information can be misused to bilk consumers.
Apparently you cannot comprehend that many people get rich as a matter of luck by being born into wealth and that such people have an unfair advantage over other people not born into such circumstances.
“There’s no reason for a moral. reasoned person to be a statist. An uncivilized, small-minded corrupt thug, well…”
One of the most annoying things about laissez-faire ideologues is their sense of self-rightenousness. As a moral reasoned person who favors the use of government to create a juster, more equal society I bitterly resent this.
19. August 2012 at 21:44
Mike, funny how you can’t answer a simple question. Statists are always uncomfortable with those type of questions. Apparently the State gets its right via its monopoly on force. And if the state exists, then this is proof that its citizens consent to it. Oh, brother. I bet those lucky bastards in North Korea are giving their consent every day, huh? If there is consent, why does the state have to coerce people with taxes?
The Social Contract is an absurd myth. A person is not born into a contract with the state, a contract that the state breaks at every turn. I thought you were against child abuse? But your for children being beholden enforced into contracts? Hmm, pretty unethical if you ask me.
I think it safe to assume that you have zero ethical qualms about any type of violence initiated against people as long as it is state sanctioned (Stalin must be one of your idols, no?). I bet you would gladly support a ruthless dictator as long as he was on your side politically. I think you will do just fine as head of Pograms and Executions in the next totalitarian regime. Those jobs need men of your moral fiber. I’ll stick to advocating liberty and a ruler-less society based on voluntarism.
19. August 2012 at 21:51
FEH, yes, you are immoral. You want to initiate violence against people to suit your superior plan, right? You want equal outcomes and punish people who you feel don’t deserve it. You should be given the guns to enforce your violence, right? It’s not wrong if you steal and coerce for the right reasons, is it? I’m not so naive to see through another violence-loving thug pretending pretending to be otherwise. God forbid those that do not agree with your central plan when you get in power. The pograms will be working double time.
19. August 2012 at 21:54
When Scott is away, the Austrians will play.
This gives those of us who are not Austrian ideologues an opportunity to see how totally out of touch Austrian economics is with reality. It is essentially a model of cloud-cuckoo-land. Real world economies left to their own devices simply do not produce the ideal results that this cult imagines and judicious use of government policies are needed to reduce the imperfections that real world economic systems have.
19. August 2012 at 21:56
Razer try as you might to wilddly exaggrerate all I sais is the govenment has the right to tax. I’ve called for no violence. I don’t agree that a tax is violence. You don’t care about real violence just a fat cat having to pay his taxes. The Social Contract obviously isn’t literally true it’s an analogy.
It’s a way to conceptualzie it nothing more. Ther are other ways.
You’re belief in a wholly self sufficent free market that hatched from an egg is certainly absurd and a myth.
You seem to think that before even God created His World there was already Private Property.
I don’t see that you haev any more fiber. You just want to justify plutocrcy with pretty words. YOu didn’t answer have any answer to my point that libertarians consider child abusers and racists the victims. That oonsequence of your ridiculous theories doesn’t give you pause.
While I don’t like North Korea it will ultimately be they who have to throw it off. Nobdoy but the Korean people will be able to throw it off
And they did choose it once-in teh Korean War.
Just as we Americans chose our system of government at the Continental Congress and Revolutionary War.
19. August 2012 at 21:58
Razer it’s you who are immoral as you champion discrimination and allow child abuse.
19. August 2012 at 22:03
“I’ll stick to advocating liberty and a ruler-less society based on voluntarism.”
“I’ll stick to advocating liberty and a ruler-less society based on voluntarism.”
So you are an anarchist?
Enforcing property rights involves state coercion just as surely as the government collecting taxes to provide for universal education does. And it involves a lot more coercion than using expansionary monetary policy to achieve full employment does. If a reduction in the interest rate causes me to make a purchase I would not otherwise make, there is very minimal coercien, if any, involved. But if I try to move into soneone elses house, he will call the police to remove me by force.
19. August 2012 at 22:08
I love shit like this!
This is Larry Summers THINKING he is making an argument to conservatives about inevitable size of govt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lawrence-summers-the-reality-of-trying-to-shrink-government/2012/08/19/0e786b40-ea00-11e1-a80b-9f898562d010_story.html
It is REALLY an argument to public employees about why they are about to get meat grindered.
The HEGEMONY is the immovable object… govt. is but an unstoppable force.
The only voters we have to serve all the elderly… no one likes public employees.
After we slightly rase retirement age, we’ll lose 50% of the teachers, all of the public employee pensions, and the US postal service before we raise taxes on the top 1/3.
19. August 2012 at 22:20
“You want to initiate violence against people to suit your superior plan, right?”
WRONG! The use of economic incentives to incentivise people to act in ways that promote the common good is not violence.
“You want equal outcomes and punish people who you feel don’t deserve it.”
WRONG! I want equality of opportunity. But when such equality does not exist, I do favor goverment policies to offset the results of inequality of opportunity. This is done with taxes and/or subsidies. No one is being punished when provious and existing injustices are corrected.
“You should be given the guns to enforce your violence, right?”
WRONG! I favor strict gun control.
It’s not wrong if you steal and coerce for the right reasons, is it?
WRONG! The government engaging in policies requiring the rich to give back to the society that made it possible for them to get rich is not stealing. No one got rich by himself. He used resources provided by society to achieve this and society has a perfect right to expect people to give back to it for using those resources.
I’m not so naive to see through another violence-loving thug pretending pretending to be otherwise.
NOW THAT IS NAME CALLING AND NOT REASONED ANALYSIS.
“God forbid those that do not agree with your central plan when you get in power. The pograms will be working double time.”
WRONG: Central planning is the use ofdetailed government direction of all prices and production quotas. I do not favor this. The use of monetary and tax incentives to achieve desired results is very different from this and is not central planning.
19. August 2012 at 22:25
“The only voters we have to serve all the elderly…After we slightly rase retirement age,”
Morgan, don’t you see that you are contradicting yourself here? I would love to have the Republicans propose raising the age for getting into medicare to 67 before this election.
19. August 2012 at 22:34
“Razer it’s you who are immoral”
Cult members see all people who do not subscribe to the cult’s dogma as immoral. If there was any doubt that Austrian economics has deteriorated into a cult of true believers, the messages posted here should make this clear.
Austrian economics started out as a very respectable branch of economics, with people like Boehm-Bahwerk, Menger, etc. It was largely the influence of Hayek and Von Mieses with their invalid business cycle theories and paranoid fear that the slightest departure from pure laissez fair put us on the road to serfdom that put it on the track to the blind alley of cultism.
Hayek at Chicago was on the Committee for Social Thought instead of in the Department of Economics because his right-wing extremism was too much for even the Chicago economists to swallow.
19. August 2012 at 22:44
“After we slightly rase retirement age, we’ll lose 50% of the teachers, all of the public employee pensions, and the US postal service before we raise taxes on the top 1/3.”
Unlike the Austrians, who are living in their imaginary make-belive world, you have a clear understanding of what the issues are really about. This election is a class war election which deals with the distribution of wealth between the haves and have mores, and the commoners. But no one is trying raise taxes on the bottom 90% or so. The Hegemony involves only the top 10% at most. Before I retired I was part of the top 1/3 but in no way was part of the Hegemony.
19. August 2012 at 23:02
I nominate FEH as head of torture and executions in the new gulag system. Anyone not following, condemning, or critical of the Central Plan will be sent his way to be purged. After all, it is immoral to question such a perfect plan and by killing those that do, everybody benefits. FEH, you will enjoy your new job. You are so well suited for it.
20. August 2012 at 05:23
Razer I nominate you king of all baseless ad hominem attacks. You don’t engage in anything any one has said you just acuse them of crazy scenes from your own imagination
20. August 2012 at 05:59
Saturos,
What would we have if not for personal utopian schemes to opt in and out of. A million of them, please!
Inclusive libertarianism: ease of economic access, ease of knowledge use and skills use for all.
20. August 2012 at 06:39
Razer:
I nominate FEH as head of torture and executions in the new gulag system. Anyone not following, condemning, or critical of the Central Plan will be sent his way to be purged.
Yes, printing money is the exact same as mass executions.
This is a sign that you should seek professional help.
20. August 2012 at 06:40
Er… the first part of that is a quote, but the formatting didn’t come through correctly.
20. August 2012 at 07:24
Becky, yes, let a thousand utopias bloom. (That’s my favorite part of Nozick.)
20. August 2012 at 07:24
Razer,
I ask…”How do libertarians stop the powerful from crushing the weak ?”
And you answer…”Remove the possibility of gaining influence and the rich get rich by pleasing the masses.”
I feel like you have not really tried to understand my objections. I have tried to understand your position.
I hoped by now you would understand that saying that you will keep the government from being the elite’s instrument by ensuring that it be kept too small for them to make it their instrument is what I contend is impossible.
It is like you are saying you will do it by doing it.
So I ask again, “How do libertarians stop the powerful from crushing the weak ?”
How do they stop the elite from making the government as big as they need to rig the game ?
Make a law? Force them to accept your view of the Constitution ? Keep them from electing friendly congressmen ?
Who can stop them ? Who ever has ? How will giving the elite MORE liberty make it more likely that they will not do what they always have done
It is a simple question.
20. August 2012 at 07:40
MIKE SAX:
“I do have an idea what you do and don’t do. You gave it away.”
“The main thing you do is try to convince people to let people remain unemployed and in poverty.”
“No, I try to convince people that violence cannot solve the problem, and only exacerbates it.”
“That hardly “gave it away””
I wasn’t referring to those particular statements.
“I pointed out that you do nothing and are actively trying to make sure no one does anything.”
You can’t point out what isn’t true. First, as mentioned, I am not doing nothing. Second, I am not actively trying to prevent you from doing “something”. You are conflating aggression and doing something. No aggression does not mean doing nothing. There are a myriad of things you can do that do not result in hurting others who did not hurt you.
“No one is talking about violence.”
You are. You are talking about violence. You are calling for some people to do things that concern other people’s persons and property, and if they encounter resistance, then you say they have the moral right to initiate force to get what they want.
“YOu call “violence” doing something about the problme.”
No, I call violence initiating involuntary force against another individual’s person or property, without their consent. What you call “doing something about the problem” is naked violence against innocent people. Steal from Peter to pay Paul. Initiate force against Peter in order to stop Paul from being initiated with force. And so on.
There are two ways you can act. You can act either peacefully with others, or aggressively against them. When you want to help others from being aggressed against, say children from their parents, you believe that abusing others is justified in order to help them. I do not consider that justified. If you want to help Paul, I say you can help Paul, as long as you don’t harm Peter. Except you do want to harm Peter, even if he did nothing wrong.
“Yeah we’ll all be better to be llike Unfree who just watches people suffer and then mocks them as not as productive as he is.”
That’s exactly what you are doing. You are not helping people that you could potentially help. There are children starving to death right now as you type your garbage on the internet. If you spared but a small amount of your time and the price of a cup of coffee, you could save the lives of those children. But you choose not to, even though you could have. Thus, according to your own sick and twisted worldview, you are guilty of an offense that calls for violence to be used against you. Therefore, you should have no problems with me coming over and stealing your things. If you resist, then your worldview calls for me to throw you into a cage. And for what? For going about your life without actively hurting people, but committing the unforgivable “sin” of not acting to help others, for not sacrificing yourself for others.
Your morality is altruism. That’s why you are calling for violence against those who dare make their own choices that help themselves and help those they value instead, rather than strangers they never met, but are somehow chained to them as if they are their brother’s keeper.
“The main thing you do is try to go back to treatment by leeches.”
Straw man.
“To answer your question, the Indians were both robbed from, and they robbed non-Indians. To the extent that robbery took place, the legitimate owners are the victims of such aggression.”
“what non Indians did they rob?”
First, I consider legitimately acquired land property to be land that has been homesteaded and/or traded for voluntarily. I do not consider your claim to own the moon to be justified, merely because you made the statement. You’d have to homestead the moon for your claim to be legitimate, or buy it from those who did.
Given this context, Indians and Whites act individually. Individual Indians stole from and murdered individual non-Indians and individual non-Indians stole from and murdered individual Indians.
If you want an example of an individual Indian aggressing against an individual White, then you can easily research this yourself. One example is a Dutch wheelwright named Claes Swits, who was murdered by a Weckquaesgeek Indian. This incident, along with a few others, sparked an unjustified genocidal response called the Pavonia massacre.
I view human behavior from an individual action perspective, not from an “us versus them” team perspective, where bias is led to believe that only settlers ever aggressed against innocent indians, and never vice versa.
“If the legitimate owners are the citims of “such” aggression then by defintiion none of us have any right to any of our civilizaiton.”
If the original rightful owners are dead, then the rightful owner becomes the last individual to have voluntarily traded for the land. It is not justice to initiate aggression against a family today, to steal their home, because of an act of theft or a battle that occurred hundreds of years ago on that same latitude and longitude.
“We really should give it back to the Indians-by your logic”
But those Indians are dead. We can’t give it back to people who died 400 years ago.
“So as our entire system is based in theft, no one can really argue from a moral position of “this is mine you have no right ot it””
Sure we can. It is moral to defend one’s traded for or homesteaded land. The Indians did not homestead the entire US. There are still to this day thousands of square miles of non-homesteaded land that nobody has ever homesteaded.
“They are SOL. They have to pay, or else.”
“So they are just as SOL whether they pay 4% more in taxes or are the victims of real rape and murder?”
I am saying they are SOL. If someone earns more money because they are more productive, they are SOL into paying more money by force.
Thugs like you typically defend your thuggery by pointing to worse crimes. Well, by your logic, virtually every aggression is justified, because heck, how many times do aggressive individuals do what Stalin or Mao or Hitler did? By your logic, someone could steal from you, murder you and your entire family, and then defend his actions by saying “You think this is bad? Look at what Hitler did! I am not guilty of any offense.”
“How you really believe it is all morally equivalent is what makes you’re whole theory so absurd.”
I really believe initiations of violence are unjustified. It doesn’t matter if it’s a single murder or genocide. It’s all unjustified.
How about you wait until I answer your question, THEN you can respond to my actual response, not the made up straw man response you have attributed to me? Are you so afraid and is your morality that depraved?
————————–
BILL ELLIS:
“A hypothetical…Given the choice…”
“You can end the genocide in Africa that is killing millions. (You don’t get to quibble with if this is happening or not. That it is it is part of the hypothetical )”
“Or have Libertarians control congress and the White House.”
Well, I don’t want anyone controlling Congress or the White House, even libertarians. Nobody can control Congress and White House and not initiate force. If I picked that, I would choose advocating for violence. So I will choose ending the violence and genocide in Africa.
————————
MIKE SAX:
“Only because the taxes are worth more in capitalism.”
“Whatever, you’re still admitting I’m not a socialist”
But you are socialist, to the degree that you want the state to use force to control means of production (money, education, healthcare, etc, etc)
“I don’t imagine your hypocrisy.”
“Unfreedom yes you have as youve provided no examples.”
I have provided many examples of your hypocrisy. You’re desperate.
“I even owe you a debt of gratitude for your unconscous irony and your tremendous comic relief.”
Because laughter helps with your anger and exasperation. That is why you desire a “relief”.
“You missed my point. The state depends on those who are taxed, not the other way around. People can produce and have produced without a state, but the state cannot exist without producers to tax.”
“There is zero proof of this claim. You are asserting it, thats all.”
There is proof of this claim. You are merely denying it, that’s all.
————————-
BILL ELLIS:
“What I have learned today…”
“libertarians believe that the only reason the elite have the system rigged is because the common man tries to rig the system.”
Which libertarians believe that? I never said this, so you’re not talking about me. I view humans as individuals. Some individuals attempt to use state power as a reaction due to others doing so. Other individuals attempt to use state power but not as a reaction. Other individuals attempt to use state power because they have given up hope that people will change. Other individuals attempts to use state power because they don’t care about hurting innocent people, as long as they benefit, that’s sufficient.
You are not correctly understanding the libertarian position because you are not thinking like a libertarian, which is to say you’re not viewing other people as individuals as ends in themselves, but rather you are viewing others as members of two monolithic groups, “rich and poor”, “elite and common man”.
Tell me, exactly how does a person go from being poor to rich, and common man to elite, and vice versa? It’s easy to rail against universal concepts like rich and poor, elite and common man, but it’s another thing to actually bring those concepts down into an Earthly reality where there are individuals who act.
You have to stop viewing people as rich and poor, elite and common man, yes and no, left and right, you go here and you go there, team blue and team red, you here believe state should do X against you there, and you there believe the state should do X against you here, and so on.
You’re splitting humans up into two groups, when there are 300 million different “groups” in the US, namely groups of one.
Libertarians believe that individuals use the state, not only rich people and not only poor people, and not rich people who exploit the poor or poor people who exploit the rich.
“They believe that people can be convinced not to try and rig the system.”
People can be convinced to overturn monarchy in favor of democracy, and people can be convinced to overturn democracy in favor of a private law society.
If people cannot be convinced not to rig the system, then why laws at all? You’re undercutting your own worldview by denying man his reason.
Nobody is saying corruption and rigging can be eliminated entirely.
20. August 2012 at 07:51
“People can be convinced to overturn monarchy in favor of democracy, and people can be convinced to overturn democracy in favor of a private law society.”
What we have now is no different than a Constitutional Monarchy. We just don’t call our elite royalty.
20. August 2012 at 08:04
“There are two ways you can act. You can act either peacefully with others, or aggressively against them. When you want to help others from being aggressed against, say children from their parents, you believe that abusing others is justified in order to help them. I do not consider that justified. If you want to help Paul, I say you can help Paul, as long as you don’t harm Peter. Except you do want to harm Peter, even if he did nothing wrong.”
A child abuser did nothing wrong?
20. August 2012 at 08:06
BILL ELLIS:
“What we have now is no different than a Constitutional Monarchy. We just don’t call our elite royalty.”
Constitutional? That’s pre-9/11 myth spreading. Those in the state are not obeying the constitution. Unconstitutional laws have been passed and are being enforced.
20. August 2012 at 08:07
“I have provided many examples of your hypocrisy. You’re desperate.”
Major Unfreedom you’re so desparate that you keep on picking up words form me and then usuing them repeatedly. Because I pointed out that your’e desparate to believe I take you seriously you now keep saying “I know you are but what am I”, claiming I’m desparate.
Meanwhile youire so desparate that you again provided no examples. If you wont give any it proves you have none.
20. August 2012 at 08:07
MIKE SAX:
“A child abuser did nothing wrong?”
Those you are calling for being abused, in order to stop the child abuse, did something wrong?
20. August 2012 at 08:14
MIKE SAX:
“I have provided many examples of your hypocrisy. You’re desperate.”
“Major Unfreedom you’re so desparate that you keep on picking up words form me and then usuing them repeatedly.”
No, I used those terms first. Then you copied me.
“Because I pointed out that your’e desparate to believe I take you seriously you now keep saying “I know you are but what am I”, claiming I’m desparate.”
I pointed out you were desperate, before you copied me.
I first said you were desperate at the comment 19. August 2012 at 10:52
Then you copied me and said
“You’re the desperate one.” at the comment 19. August 2012 at 12:59
Try again copycat.
“Meanwhile youire so desparate that you again provided no examples.”
You are so desperate that you are denying the existence of those examples.
“If you wont give any it proves you have none.”
I have already given examples. CTRL-F “hypocri”, and see for yourself. I first showed you were a hypocrite here: 19. August 2012 at 20:01
20. August 2012 at 08:16
“Those you are calling for being abused, in order to stop the child abuse, did something wrong?”
Who in this case am I calling for being “abused?”
I’m simply saying that the state should step in. If your concern is that the absuers are abused by being driven to prison you’ve again displayed the perversity of libertarianism.
20. August 2012 at 08:21
“I have already given examples. CTRL-F “hypocri”, and see for yourself. I first showed you were a hypocrite here: 19. August 2012 at 20:01”
As your making the phony claims provide the quots or it’s obbvious you’re making it up.
You’re now even copying me pointing out your copying me. everything you say was said by me first. Provide quotes if you claim otherwise
20. August 2012 at 08:23
Major Unfreedom
I’m again laughing my you know what off. You are great comic relief. Don’t ever change. However, I don’t take you seriously.
And of course you’re desperate to believe otherwise
20. August 2012 at 08:24
MIKE SAX:
“Those you are calling for being abused, in order to stop the child abuse, did something wrong?”
“Who in this case am I calling for being “abused?””
Those ABUSED who are forced to pay and obey those you want to help the abused because you believe only the state can ever stop abuse.
“I’m simply saying that the state should step in.”
Step in using what means? Acquired how? Through which channels?
“If your concern is that the absuers are abused by being driven to prison you’ve again displayed the perversity of libertarianism.”
You haven’t shown how I displayed any “perversity” of libertarianism a first time, how can you say “again” like you have?
If your concern is that you don’t care if people are abused in order to bring about help to a particular person you value, then you have again displayed the perversity of statism.
20. August 2012 at 08:29
“Because laughter helps with your anger and exasperation. That is why you desire a “relief”.
Nope. Everyone needs a good laugh once in awhile. For those who do I greatly reccomend reading you.
I guess I’ve thrown you into another tizzy because I sued the word “everyone.”
And I agree almost everyone likes to laugh. You strike me as teh exception of the rule-it’s hard to imagine you lightening up and actually laughing rather than being a compulsively overly serious robot.
Again, maybe on your planet you’re personality seems like mirth
20. August 2012 at 08:30
MIKE SAX:
“”I have already given examples. CTRL-F “hypocri”, and see for yourself. I first showed you were a hypocrite here: 19. August 2012 at 20:01″³
“As your making the phony claims provide the quots or it’s obbvious you’re making it up.”
You’re now even copying me pointing out your copying me. everything you say was said by me first. Provide quotes if you claim otherwise
I first called you desperate at comment 19. August 2012 at 10:52, then you called me desperate thereafter.
I first called you exasperated at comment 16. August 2012 at 17:39, then called me exasperated thereafter.
“I’m again laughing my you know what off. You are great comic relief.”
I don’t believe you. You are very, very mad. You are desperate and exasperated too.
“Don’t ever change. However, I don’t take you seriously.”
See? You want me to take you seriously. There is no other reason for you to tell me you don’t take me seriously, if it wasn’t already in your mind that you’re not being taken seriously. It’s another reaction formation.
“And of course you’re desperate to believe otherwise.”
You’re so desperate you’re denying you’re even copying me.
20. August 2012 at 08:32
“Those ABUSED who are forced to pay and obey those you want to help the abused because you believe only the state can ever stop abuse.”
They’re “forced to obey?”
An absurd characterization. I’m sure they’d rather continue to be abused by their parents rather than being “forced to obey”
“Step in using what means? Acquired how? Through which channels”
You don’t understand normal police procedure? They go to to the house and apprehend the abuser and take him to jail. This is why I say you have no common sense.
20. August 2012 at 08:34
MIKE SAX:
“Because laughter helps with your anger and exasperation. That is why you desire a “relief”.”
“Nope.”
Yup.
“Everyone needs a good laugh once in awhile.”
In your case, it’s quite often, considering how mad and exasperated you are.
“I guess I’ve thrown you into another tizzy because I sued the word “everyone.””
No, I just casually corrected you on the correct use of the term, and then you flew off the deep end because I couldn’t read your mind in your princess drama queen world.
“And I agree almost everyone likes to laugh.”
People who are mad and exasperated like to find comic reliefs.
“You strike me as teh exception of the rule-it’s hard to imagine you lightening up and actually laughing rather than being a compulsively overly serious robot.”
I don’t have your talent of laughing at people getting abused.
20. August 2012 at 08:35
“I don’t believe you. You are very, very mad. You are desperate and exasperated too.”
See how desparate you are to believe that. You want to bleieve it. Alas, it’s not the case.
Why do you need to believe it so badly?
In truth you’re very very mad. You are expasparted to the 10th power. You told me you find tlaking to me a chore. Ie, you’re exapserated.
I like talking to you. You keep me laughing. Major Laughing boy.
It’s like in Good Fellas, “What am I a clown just here to amuse you?”
The answer is yes you are Major Unfreedom.
20. August 2012 at 08:36
“No, I just casually corrected you on the correct use of the term, and then you flew off the deep end because I couldn’t read your mind in your princess drama queen world.”
Oooooh! Major needs a hug.
20. August 2012 at 08:38
MIKE SAX:
“”Those ABUSED who are forced to pay and obey those you want to help the abused because you believe only the state can ever stop abuse.”
They’re “forced to obey?”
Yes. They are physically forced to obey. The threats are real, they’re not fairy tale.
“An absurd characterization.”
No, it’s accurate. If you don’t obey the state, you will be thrown into a cage, and/or killed if you resist their aggressive force with defensive force.
“I’m sure they’d rather continue to be abused by their parents rather than being “forced to obey””
I am talking about others who are abused, those you want abused so that your preferred people are protected.
“Step in using what means? Acquired how? Through which channels?”
“You don’t understand normal police procedure?”
And you’re evading the question, as is typical. I understand normal politics, I want you to accurately describe it, to show me that you know exactly what is going on.
“They go to to the house and apprehend the abuser and take him to jail.”
Using what means? Acquired how? Through what channels?
“This is why I say you have no common sense.”
The reason you say I have no common sense is the fact that you don’t answer simple questions because you’re afraid of what the answers will be?
20. August 2012 at 08:41
“No, I just casually corrected you on the correct use of the term, and then you flew off the deep end because I couldn’t read your mind in your princess drama queen world.”
Mo Major, “the deep end” is where you live. I just marveled at how insipid you are in not understanding what words like “eveyrone” and “betray” mean.
You think it’s seomthing about college professors.
In another pique of Major Unfreedom ignorance you don’t understand how basic police proceduer works.
“I don’t have your talent of laughing at people getting abused.”
I don’t laugh at them being abused. I say just put a stop to it rather than like you just sitting back and observing it while going on with your day
I do laugh at you. You lack the talent to laugh at all.
20. August 2012 at 08:42
MIKE SAX:
“I don’t believe you. You are very, very mad. You are desperate and exasperated too.”
See how desparate you are to believe that. You want to bleieve it. Alas, it’s not the case.
You’re so desperate you are ignoring my proof that you’re copying me.
“Why do you need to believe it so badly?”
Projection.
You’re very mad. You’re very exasperated.
“I like talking to you. You keep me laughing. Major Laughing boy.”
I don’t believe you. You’re not laughing. You’re only saying you’re laughing because it’s yet another one of your reactions formations. You say the exact opposite of what you’re feeling, hoping that by doing so, you’ll eventually convince yourself.
Nobody who is amused swears the way you swear. You’re mad.
“No, I just casually corrected you on the correct use of the term, and then you flew off the deep end because I couldn’t read your mind in your princess drama queen world.”
“Oooooh! Major needs a hug.”
See? You need me to take you seriously. You’re saying I need a hug when that is just you communicating your need for a hug.
20. August 2012 at 08:48
MIKE SAX:
“No, I just casually corrected you on the correct use of the term, and then you flew off the deep end because I couldn’t read your mind in your princess drama queen world.”
Mo Major
Yes Mike.
You think it’s seomthing about college professors.
Straw man.
“In another pique of Major Unfreedom ignorance you don’t understand how basic police proceduer works.”
I do know how it works. I don’t think you know how it works. That’s why you won’t answer a simple question about how it works. You just accuse me of not knowing just because I asked you. I am asking you because I want to see if you know, not because I don’t know.
So tell me and show me that you know. So tell me, how do the police “step in” exactly? What means do they use? Where did they get those means? How were those means acquired? Are they charity givers? Are they running a business for voluntary customers? These are simple questions that escape your primitive mind.
“I don’t have your talent of laughing at people getting abused.”
“I don’t laugh at them being abused.”
Yes, you do. That is why you are laughing.
“I say just put a stop to it rather than like you just sitting back and observing it while going on with your day”
But you are just sitting back and not putting a stop to it. Merely communicating that you support the state, is not the same thing as putting a stop to abuse, for not only does the state abuse adults who are innocent and did not commit those abusive crimes, but the state abuses children themselves. How can you possibly expect me to want to stop child abuse by going to a child abuser?
“I do laugh at you. You lack the talent to laugh at all.”
I laugh, on many occasions. Not at you because I find you so pathetic.
20. August 2012 at 08:48
“Nobody who is amused swears the way you swear. You’re mad.”
As you have no experience with amusement how woould you know? Still crying over swearing I see.
You really, really need a hug.
“I don’t believe you. You’re not laughing. You’re only saying you’re laughing because it’s yet another one of your reactions formations. You say the exact opposite of what you’re feeling, hoping that by doing so, you’ll eventually convince yourself.”
See how deep your desparation goes? And I see you are stil using my phrase-“reaction formation”
NOw you’re using it on me. Major strikes again
‘I know you are but what am I’
Why does it bother you so much to know that I don’t take you seriously?
Major Laughing Boy.
Thanks for the laughs.
20. August 2012 at 08:53
“Yes, you do. That is why you are laughing.”
You’re completely irrational Note taht you’re contradciting here what you said here:
“I don’t believe you. You’re not laughing. You’re only saying you’re laughing because it’s yet another one of your reactions formations. You say the exact opposite of what you’re feeling, hoping that by doing so, you’ll eventually convince yourself.”
First you absurdly claim I’m mad-when you’re the one steaming. Now you admit I am laughing but in your patented vile fashion you claim I laugh at abused childern when I want to do someting about it-arretst the abuser. You want to do nothing-protect the abuser.
I don’t believe you’ver ever laughed a day in your life. However, I have no doubt that you have inspired much laughter.
That’s why me pointing out that you make me laugh so hard has put you on tilt. You will do anything to hide that relaity from yourself
Why does it matter to you so much? Why do you need to believe I’m mad like you are so much?
Why do you assume because I make you mad that you inspire the same in me?
Why Major Laughing Boy?
20. August 2012 at 08:56
MIKE SAX:
“Nobody who is amused swears the way you swear. You’re mad.”
“As you have no experience with amusement how woould you know?”
It’s interesting how you degress in forming these conceptions in your mind. First you imagine a possibility, then you ask, then you go on as if it’s been established by facts and evidence. You’re in your own desperate world.
“Still crying over swearing I see.”
No, it’s just a premise for why I don’t believe your claim that you are laughing.
“You really, really need a hug.”
I get lots of hugs, thanks. I don’t need a hug from you, even though it’s clear you want one.
“I don’t believe you. You’re not laughing. You’re only saying you’re laughing because it’s yet another one of your reactions formations. You say the exact opposite of what you’re feeling, hoping that by doing so, you’ll eventually convince yourself.”
See how deep your desparation goes?
No, please tell me how your copying me and saying I’m desperate, after I called you desperate, shows I am desperate.
“And I see you are stil using my phrase-“reaction formation””
That’s because you keep doing it.
“NOw you’re using it on me. Major strikes again”
Actually, it’s just an identification. It’s not a magic spell.
“‘I know you are but what am I'”
That’s precisely what you have been doing. It’s why you keep saying it. By saying it, you hope to immunize yourself from being accused of saying it.
You really have no idea what is happening to you right now, and that amuses me.
“Why does it bother you so much to know that I don’t take you seriously?”
Do you still beat your wife?
Why does it bother you that I don’t take you seriously?
“Major Laughing Boy.”
I thought you said I don’t laugh. Now you’re using the word laughing to describe me.
“Thanks for the laughs.”
You need laughs because you’re mad and in need of relief.
20. August 2012 at 08:58
“But you are just sitting back and not putting a stop to it. Merely communicating that you support the state, is not the same thing as putting a stop to abuse, for not only does the state abuse adults who are innocent and did not commit those abusive crimes, but the state abuses children themselves. How can you possibly expect me to want to stop child abuse by going to a child abuser?”
That’s the only way to stop it-having the abuser locked up and the child protected from the abuser. Not protected by your perverse beliefs about “property rights.”
And how do you know I’m “just sitting back not putting a stop to it”?
No doubt as that’s what youre doing.
My point is that you oppose putting a stop to it by saying that putting a stop to it is “kidnapping.”
At present I don’t know any child being abused personally.If I did I would do what I could. I have in the past none of cases and I did do someting. You though are opposed to that. You say the kid shold just be abused until maybe they can escape when they’re 18 or 21.
20. August 2012 at 09:00
“I thought you said I don’t laugh. Now you’re using the word laughing to describe me.”
You don’t laugh. Your my laughing boy. You’re a source of laughs for me. You are too dense to realize what a laugh and a half you are
20. August 2012 at 09:02
“That’s precisely what you have been doing. It’s why you keep saying it. By saying it, you hope to immunize yourself from being accused of saying it. ”
Nope. It’s what I long ago pointed out that you do. And lately you’ve been trying to use it yourself. You wouldn’t even know about the phrase had I not used it on you first.
That phrase hadn’t been used on your home planet of Ork just yet.
20. August 2012 at 09:03
“That’s because you keep doing it.”
No. After I pointed out that’s what you’re doing you said “I now you are but what am I?”
20. August 2012 at 09:05
“No, it’s just a premise for why I don’t believe your claim that you are laughing”
Your premise is flawed as usual. Anyway you had said above that I was laughing. So you’re contradicting yourself. You really don’t know yourself what you’re on about you’re just a compulsive who can’t stop quibbling over ntohing.
20. August 2012 at 09:07
So, in a sentence of no more than 20 words, can either of you explain your original point of disagreement?
20. August 2012 at 09:07
“You think it’s seomthing about college professors.”
“Straw man”
Yes you did attack a straw man when you said betray is a favorite word for college professors.
20. August 2012 at 09:10
MIKE SAX:
“Yes, you do. That is why you are laughing.”
“You’re completely irrational”
If I was completely irrational then you couldn’t even be able to say I am wrong.
“Note taht you’re contradciting here what you said here:”
“I don’t believe you. You’re not laughing. You’re only saying you’re laughing because it’s yet another one of your reactions formations. You say the exact opposite of what you’re feeling, hoping that by doing so, you’ll eventually convince yourself.”
I didn’t believe you were laughing then. Time can pass. You are not either condemned to laugh or not laugh forever.
“First you absurdly claim I’m mad-when you’re the one steaming.”
But you are mad. You’re raging, hysterically mad. So mad that you are trying desperately to convince me and yourself that you are laughing.
“Now you admit I am laughing but in your patented vile fashion you claim I laugh at abused childern when I want to do someting about it-arretst the abuser.”
At the cost of abusing children.
“You want to do nothing-protect the abuser.”
I already showed that to be a straw man. Not wanting the state to do X does not mean that I am against everyone doing X.
“I don’t believe you’ver ever laughed a day in your life.”
Your beliefs are as irrelevant as your depraved violence advocating worldview.
“However, I have no doubt that you have inspired much laughter.”
You need to laugh to kill the pain.
“That’s why me pointing out that you make me laugh so hard has put you on tilt.”
No, you are only imagining it does and you’re trying desperately to convince me of it, so that you have someone to tell you that your feelings are valid. You need me to tell you what you are trying to convince yourself is true, which is why you are continually engaging in drama queen tactics.
“You will do anything to hide that relaity from yourself”
You’re so angered and exasperated that you will say anything to convince yourself and me otherwise. I am going by your actions as they relate to your words. Not just your words.
“Why does it matter to you so much? Why do you need to believe I’m mad like you are so much?”
That’s what I have been saying to you, and it’s yet another one of your copycat games.
“Why do you assume because I make you mad that you inspire the same in me?”
Why do you want to convince me that I am as mad as you? Why do you want to put all your anger and hate towards innocent people, who are mere fodder for your desires, and put that on me like I am supposed to be angry at them too? You hate anyone who earns money but refuses to pay tribute to those who have no right to take it. You hate them so much that you are willing to have them killed if they resist.
It takes a special angry person like you to want that.
You are now experiencing what I have seen those I have successfully converted experienced. You are having an intellectual and emotional breakdown. That is why you are posting with uncharacteristic rapid frequency these past few days. I’ve seen it happen before in other discussions.
Once you settle down, once you adapt to the knowledge that your worldview is based on initiating violence, then you will probably either become a cynic, who questions truth itself and denies truth is knowable, or you will become a libertarian.
I have seen the type of behavior you are displaying here, on other blogs over the years. I have a perfect conversion rate. Just so you know.
20. August 2012 at 09:19
“It takes a special angry person like you to want that.”
Major Unfreedom I have nothing but mirth in my heart. I find even your attempts to claim that I’m angry at you as you are at me mirthful.
I think I get why you need me to take you seriously now. You are tyring to convert me. You’re sort of like a Austrain Jehovah’s Witness.
“At the cost of abusing children.”
Ok. Arresting the abuser abuses children. Perversity your name is Major UnFreedom
20. August 2012 at 09:20
I can believe though Major that you have many conversations like this.
That provide lots of comic relief
20. August 2012 at 09:21
“If I was completely irrational then you couldn’t even be able to say I am wrong.”
Aha! You see how desparate to be right? You’d rather be irrational than wrong even!
20. August 2012 at 09:23
MIKE SAX:
“But you are just sitting back and not putting a stop to it. Merely communicating that you support the state, is not the same thing as putting a stop to abuse, for not only does the state abuse adults who are innocent and did not commit those abusive crimes, but the state abuses children themselves. How can you possibly expect me to want to stop child abuse by going to a child abuser?”
“That’s the only way to stop it-having the abuser locked up and the child protected from the abuser.”
You’re not stopping it. You are just sitting back and letting it happen. That’s what you refuse to accept, because you know it will blow up your entire worldview.
“Not protected by your perverse beliefs about “property rights.””
It is a violation of the child’s rights to abuse them. My philosophy is against child abuse.
Again, you keep conflating the state not doing X, with the claim that nobody should do X. That’s wrong.
“And how do you know I’m “just sitting back not putting a stop to it”?”
The fact that you are sitting on your ass, right here, on this blog, rather than going out and stopping abuse that is happening right now.
“No doubt as that’s what youre doing.”
I am not a hypocrite like you.
“My point is that you oppose putting a stop to it by saying that putting a stop to it is “kidnapping.””
No, I don’t oppose stopping it. I oppose abusing people in order to stop it.
“At present I don’t know any child being abused personally.”
That’s because you’re too lazy to check. You’re too cowardly to do what you claim should be done.
“If I did I would do what I could.”
But you’re not doing what you could, which is finding out who is abused and stopping it, so no, you’re not doing what you could. You’re making selfish choices that benefit your own hypocritical self.
“I have in the past none of cases and I did do someting.”
I have in the past done unverifiable and unprovable things too.
“You though are opposed to that.”
No, I am not opposed to that. I am opposed to initiations of force. I am opposed to you helping others using means that HARM people.
“You say the kid shold just be abused until maybe they can escape when they’re 18 or 21.”
Straw man. I never said that.
“I thought you said I don’t laugh. Now you’re using the word laughing to describe me.”
“You don’t laugh.”
Yes, I do laugh. Just not at you.
“Your my laughing boy.”
I am not your anything except your tutor.
“You’re a source of laughs for me.”
I don’t believe you.
“You are too dense to realize what a laugh and a half you are”
You’re trying to convince me so desperately that I make you laugh because you are so mad and in need of laughter.
“That’s precisely what you have been doing. It’s why you keep saying it. By saying it, you hope to immunize yourself from being accused of saying it. “
“Nope.”
Yup.
“It’s what I long ago pointed out that you do.”
Only after I pointed out that it is what you do. You are not only copying me in what I am saying, you’re also copying me pointing out that you’re copying me.
“And lately you’ve been trying to use it yourself.”
I used is first.
“You wouldn’t even know about the phrase had I not used it on you first.”
You only used it because I told you that you are copying me.
“That’s because you keep doing it.”
“No.”
Yes.
“After I pointed out that’s what you’re doing you said “I now you are but what am I?””
No, you said it after I did.
“No, it’s just a premise for why I don’t believe your claim that you are laughing”
“Your premise is flawed as usual.”
You haven’t shown how they re flawed a first time, so how can this premise be flawed “as usual”? You haven’t even shown how this premise is flawed.
“Anyway you had said above that I was laughing.”
I said you were not laughing too. Time changes.
“So you’re contradicting yourself.”
Nope. Only if humans are capable of either laughter or not laughter, all the time, would it be a contradiction.
“You really don’t know yourself what you’re on about you’re just a compulsive who can’t stop quibbling over ntohing.”
I don’t quibble over nothing. I am correcting your errors.
————————–
W. PEDEN:
“So, in a sentence of no more than 20 words, can either of you explain your original point of disagreement?”
Mike believes initiations of force are justified if the people are wearing state badges. I hold an absolute prohibition on force.
That’s it in a nutshell.
“You think it’s seomthing about college professors.”
“Straw man”
“Yes you did attack a straw man when you said betray is a favorite word for college professors.”
I see you also don’t know what a straw man is either.
It is not an attack on a straw man to say that betray is a popular word used by philosophy professors, and to also point out that someone used the word incorrectly.
20. August 2012 at 09:24
Mike,
You have stated that you do think the state’s initiation of force against peaceful citizens is immoral. You do not believe individuals have property rights. And you have publicly declared hatred for millions of your fellow countrymen for the simple crime of having a different political party affiliation from you.
Would you say you represent the standard statist (statist is one who supports the legitimacy of the state) viewpoint on this forum? I think you share most of the mindset as others. I’m wondering if you think you are typical in that regard? If not, how are you different from the other statists, in your opinion?
20. August 2012 at 09:29
Major Freedom,
“Mike believes initiations of force are justified if the people are wearing state badges. I hold an absolute prohibition on force.”
Do you think that that is precisely what he believes?
20. August 2012 at 09:30
MIKE SAX:
“It takes a special angry person like you to want that.”
Major Unfreedom I have nothing but mirth in my heart.”
If that were true, you wouldn’t be such a drama queen princess who swears and uses words like perversity to describe what it is he is addressing.
“I find even your attempts to claim that I’m angry at you as you are at me mirthful.”
I don’t claim any such equivalence.
“I think I get why you need me to take you seriously now. You are tyring to convert me. You’re sort of like a Austrain Jehovah’s Witness.”
You are trying to convert me, or else you would not be desperately trying to convince me I am wrong.
“At the cost of abusing children.”
“Ok. Arresting the abuser abuses children. Perversity your name is Major UnFreedom”
Straw man once again. I didn’t say arresting abusers is child abuse. I said the cost of the STATE stopping child abuse is child abuse. Not in the cases of child abuse you’re referring to, it’s the cases you’re not referring to.
As typical, you are ignoring the child abuse and only focusing on the immediate moment and circumstance.
“I can believe though Major that you have many conversations like this.”
I am not asking you to believe anything.
“That provide lots of comic relief”
You are trying to find laughter in everything because you’re so mad an exasperated.
“If I was completely irrational then you couldn’t even be able to say I am wrong.”
“Aha! You see how desparate to be right?”
AHA! No.
“You’d rather be irrational than wrong even!”
Straw man once again.
I said your claim that I am completely irrational cannot be right, because if I were completely irrational, then you could not even understand me to be saying anything meaningful such that you label those statements as wrong rather than right. By saying I am wrong, that immediately presupposes that I am not completely irrational. To be wrong means to have made a meaningful, not completely irrational statement.
20. August 2012 at 09:34
W PEDEN:
“Mike believes initiations of force are justified if the people are wearing state badges. I hold an absolute prohibition on force.”
Do you think that that is precisely what he believes?
Certainly. He’s made that absolutely clear. It doesn’t matter if he denies that it is force he is advocating. Statism could not possibly take place if its supporters truly believed that the state is initiating force against innocent people. Statism can only spread if people are convinced it is good, and moral, and peace promoting, and so on.
But when someone advocates for X, and X is inherently violent, then it is not wrong to say that this person believes that violence is justified as long as the aggressors are wearing badges. It is what they actually believe. They don’t use the word “violence” to describe it, but it is violent.
It would be like saying that even though a person truly believes there is a vengeful invisible man in the sky who can only be satiated by Earthly sacrifices of virgins, that those who are sacrificing virgins are supporting of murder.
20. August 2012 at 09:35
Sax, MF,
Would you be just a little bit lonely if you did not have each other? (It’s okay)
20. August 2012 at 09:37
BECKY:
Sax, MF,
Would you be just a little bit lonely if you did not have each other? (It’s okay)
Not at all. I would just be debating someone else. Sax is a relatively recent intellectual opponent who is sending a lot of posts to me.
20. August 2012 at 10:08
Since Mike is so desperate and exasperated and wants to turn this blog into his own daily affirmation of justifying his hate and negativity, I thought I’d share some economics jokes…
——————–
Three macroeconomists went hunting and came across a deer. The first shot but missed by a yard left. The second shot and missed by a yard right. The third threw down his rifle and yelled, “We got him.”
——————–
A priest, a psychologist and an economist go golfing. They end up behind a very slow foursome, that despite their caddies’ assistance, is taking an enormous amount of time. They fume and curse until one of their own caddies explains that everyone in the lead group is blind.
The mortified priest then says, “Here I am a man of the cloth and I have been swearing at the slow play of these unfortunate souls.” The psychologist chimes in: “I am ashamed of myself; trained to help others and here I have been selfishly critical of these unfortunate men.”
The economist ponders the situation and suggests: “Blind golfers should play at night.”
——————–
How can you tell macroeconomists have a sense of humor?
They use decimal points.
20. August 2012 at 10:09
These jokes are from the NYT.
20. August 2012 at 10:36
Major Freedom,
To clarify: do you think that the “wearing state badges” line is accurate or unnecessary hyperbole? Maybe he has said so (I can’t claim to have read much of the “debate”) but most statists justify the state’s power to coerce in terms of democracy or Hobbesian grounds or whatever.
Apart from those few words, you seem to have got to the heart of the debate: you believe in the non-aggression principle, Mike Sax doesn’t. Everything else is just rhetorical flourishes and teasing.
It’s pretty clear how the debate should proceed then: you present arguments for the non-aggression principle, Mike Sax presents counter-arguments, and you try to refute each other’s arguments. That is all.
20. August 2012 at 10:58
Nothing but the hunger in their bellies and their love for their families forced workers to build the rail roads, go down into the coal mines, work in sweatshops or slaughter houses.
Do libertarians believe that those working conditions were moral because the workers agreed to them in order to be employed ?
Do they have faith that the market would have forced the owners to offer better conditions ?
20. August 2012 at 11:07
Bill Ellis,
“Do libertarians believe that those working conditions were moral because the workers agreed to them in order to be employed ?”
I think the first issue you’re going to come up against there is the question as to whether morality is a matter of (a) states of affairs or (b) human actions.
Also, whether it is the function of the law to enforce our various moral opinions.
20. August 2012 at 11:17
OK. One thing, I would like you libertarians to acknowledge that you all don’t agree on what a libertarians is.
So when I say something Like… ” libertarians don’t have a problem with Monopolies” don’t act like I am ignorant if you KNOW that some libertarians don’t have a problem with Monopolies.
I hate to have to resort to rhetorical wishy washyness , alway saying “SOME libertarians, but not all, maybe most…blah blah blah..
OK ?
Sooooo…. I know libertarians don’t have a problem with Monopolies cuz they believe truly free markets make them impossible…
But how do they feel about cartels ?
They must want to out law free men banding together to agree to sell their property at agreed upon prices of their choice… Right ?
20. August 2012 at 12:00
Bill Ellis,
“But how do they feel about cartels ?
They must want to out law free men banding together to agree to sell their property at agreed upon prices of their choice… Right ?”
How do you feel about unions?
How is a union different from a cartel?
Libertarians do not claim that monopolies are an impossibility in a laisses-faire economy. They argue that monopolies are not problematic. If monopolies are not a problem, then colusion and price fixing are not problems either.
So, when I say not a problem. A monopolist could raise prices and cut back production if he thought that that would increase his proffitability. And, that may lead to a non-optimal level of output. And, that may be a small problem for the libertarian, but only a very small problem.
However, the libertarian will never argue that high prices are exploitive. No one is obligated to pay the high price that the monopolist is charging. Looking at an extreme case — the aftermath of hurricane Katrina — the libertarian would say that the convience shop owner selling batteries for $10 dollars was doing the right thing. Price gouging actually works to prevent hoarding, and leads to the maximally efficent allocation of resources in that circumstance.
20. August 2012 at 12:24
W PEDEN:
“To clarify: do you think that the “wearing state badges” line is accurate or unnecessary hyperbole?”
I would argue accurate and necessary non-hyperbole.
“but most statists justify the state’s power to coerce in terms of democracy or Hobbesian grounds or whatever.”
It’s still badge wearing based. Agent X can aggress against Mr. Smith because the majority support the agent, or the agent believes he is fulfilling some sort of social contract designed by the agent’s employer which Mr. Smith never consented to.
“Apart from those few words, you seem to have got to the heart of the debate: you believe in the non-aggression principle, Mike Sax doesn’t. Everything else is just rhetorical flourishes and teasing.”
Pretty much.
“It’s pretty clear how the debate should proceed then: you present arguments for the non-aggression principle, Mike Sax presents counter-arguments, and you try to refute each other’s arguments. That is all.”
Except I would then instantly win, and he wouldn’t learn. For argumentation and settling disputes via reason and logic in debates presupposes non-violence and respect for property rights. People cannot even have an argument unless they are presupposing specific property rights that are recognized and respected by both parties. I don’t think Mike shooting at me or sending his goons to my door would constitute a debate of ideas, and yet that is what he threatening me with if I don’t obey his rules, even if those rules concern my own person and material means of life. Mike isn’t looking to debate ideas and settle disagreements using reason and logic. He is looking for obedience to naked violence, period. If anyone peacefully resists, he will call for violence against them, and so far he is denying it is violence. Why? Because the initiators are wearing badges.
In other words, Mike is contradicting his own worldview by engaging with me in debate in the first place. He can only find out why he is wrong. Mike cannot possibly propose arguments for aggression, without presupposing non-aggression in the very act of making that argument.
———————
I reject the very popular view that an ought cannot be derived from an is. I reject it because if oughts are even argued, those arguments take place in a universe that is an is. A universe that is, contains beings that think of oughts. Why wouldn’t there be a formal connection between prescriptive and descriptive propositions?
I don’t think an ought can derive from an infinite series of prior oughts. Even if someone attempted to base an ought on prior ought premises, they can’t do so forever, and at some point, the oughts must end. That ending is, of course, objective reality itself. What is objective? The individuals having those thoughts. The series of oughts must start and ends with the individuals. I see no reason to deny that prescriptive propositions can be grounded on descriptive premises. Hume’s law isn’t really a law so much as an open invitation. I mean, don’t we all derive oughts from is’s? I hear somebody say one should not murder. If I ask them why not, then is there anything they can say other than what is, to justify their ought? Who has ever justified their oughts by tacitly grounding them on anything other than what is?
If someone says “You ought to help people in need.” I ask why. They invariably give me an is.
If everyone who speaks of oughts, ultimately gives their reasons which must be categorized as is’s, then doesn’t it stand to reason that maybe the gap isn’t a gap at all, but just isn’t being explained properly?
My solution is at this point partial, and starts with the recognition that all of my moral rules are my property creations. I own the thought “People ought not murder”. Others can own their thought “People ought not murder”. But my thought is my thought. My thoughts are my property. From there, I am still debating whether I am the answer, or whether the answer is outside of me. I don’t think the answer is outside of me, because if it were, I could never BE moral. I could only ever try to be a moral person in the future, without ever being a moral person in the present. How can my thought of what I and others ought to do in the future, be reconciled with the reality of who I and others are in the present? The answer must already be in me, or it is outside of me. If it outside of me, then isn’t it descriptive? If it is in me, could I think that whatever I personally choose to do, I just so happen to be of such a nature that it matches what I think I and others ought to do?
What if the answer requires me to be the only knower? What if there are 300 million different answers in the US, that cannot be reconciled except through “anything goes”, and all morality can only be an evolution from religious rules?
I think the problem of the gap arises when oughts are treated as owners of individuals, rather than being owned by individuals. By treating oughts as owners rather than owned, they remain outside me. By taking ownership of oughts, I make oughts descriptive, as my property. But then, taking ownership of them implies that I can destroy them at will. Oughts are mortal. I am still figuring this out…
20. August 2012 at 12:36
BILL ELLIS:
“Nothing but the hunger in their bellies and their love for their families forced workers to build the rail roads, go down into the coal mines, work in sweatshops or slaughter houses.”
“Do libertarians believe that those working conditions were moral because the workers agreed to them in order to be employed?”
Why not? 300 years from now, it is possible that most people will think YOUR working conditions are as horrible as you think the coal miner’s working conditions were.
The limitation is CAPITAL. Is it “immoral” that the Earth did not naturally provide humans with material wealth like air conditioning, indoor plumbing, and assembly line mass production?
With more capital, working conditions can improve. We think working conditions 200 years ago was brutal because there was a lack of capital that has been accumulated since then, which has since made it economically viable to have air conditioning, and other wealth that improves working conditions. Yet liberals and progressives to a large degree believe in the myth that the reason working conditions 200 years ago were so harsh is because the capitalists were hoarding all the air conditioners. Many also believe in the myth that without the state forcefully redistributing wealth, that capitalists would have hoarded everything save that which keeps the wage earners barely alive.
“Do they have faith that the market would have forced the owners to offer better conditions ?”
It’s not about faith, it’s about economic principles. The pursuit of profit in free market capitalism, contrary to the myths, actually leads to capital accumulation and rising productivity of labor, which makes it economically viable to raise working conditions.
Remember, during the early years of the industrial revolution, workers voluntarily left their self-sufficient farms where working conditions were absolutely horrendous, to go work in the factories where working conditions were somewhat less, but still from our perspective, absolutely horrendous. They would not have left their farms if they didn’t think the factories represented a better opportunity. You can’t blame the capitalists for starting with so little capital that raising worker conditions too fast too soon, would have made the capitalist incur losses, because the costs of raising the conditions exceeded the additional revenues that consumers were willing to pay. (Note to monetarists: This problem cannot be alleviated by printing money, because that will raise the costs as well as the revenues, so it can’t be used to raise worker conditions).
20. August 2012 at 12:47
Doug M… sorta answers my question…with a question…
My question….”But how do they (libertarians ) feel about cartels ?
They must want to out law free men banding together to agree to sell their property at agreed upon prices of their choice… Right ?”
Doug’s answer….
“How do you feel about unions?
How is a union different from a cartel?”
Yeah Doug, I don’t see unions as any different than a cartel.
That is what I was getting at.
How do you stop cartels with out employing the “initiation of force” ? How does a libertarian justify forcing property owners to not reach beneficial agreements with other property owners ?
Are you a libertarian ? Can you answer my question directly ?
20. August 2012 at 12:53
Viable ? What compels it ?
How is it viable to voluntarily raise the cost of your production over a competitors ?
20. August 2012 at 12:54
Major Freedom,
I think you’re stretching the meaning of the term “badge” there, though I don’t disagree with the substance of what you’re saying.
As for the “is-ought” debate, note that people who argue that it is not possible to derive an is from an ought (including David Hume) often point to the fact that we do so and then (through a derivation that is just as invisible!) say that we cannot do so. The other tactic is to assert (not argue) that standard moral arguments are elliptical. Perhaps they are working under the assumption that moral arguments have to be deductively valid, but inductive arguments are not deductively valid and if we ditch them then we lose any real basis for believing in progress in scientific knowledge.
Your musings are interesting: the connection between property and moral beliefs is interesting; I’m surprised I’ve never considered it before, since two of my main interests are the philosophy of economics and metaethics. I do take issue, on Hayekian grounds, with the idea that our individual moral rules can be our property CREATIONS. Maybe in some cases, for some people, but for the most part everyone acquires moral rules and habits that are based on thousands of years of social evolution in the spontaneous order. Some of our morality comes from instinct; some from reason; but most comes from tradition, as Hayek worked out brilliantly in his later years-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYCD7_OG2fU
I don’t think Hayek’s work on the topic of the development of moral traditions is quite conclusive (like Buchanan, I’m not keen on the criterion of progress and the means of selection being increase in population) but I know of no-one who has influenced me more on the topic.
As for the very good question of whether oughts are owned by individuals or individuals owned by oughts: I’d say its a mix of both and more besides. In particular, the fact that we both commit to some principle like the Golden Rule or the non-aggression principle gives us grounds to judge the conduct of each other. More controversially, the fact that I commit to the non-aggression principle gives me grounds to criticise your conduct even if you don’t share it.
I think that oughts are so powerful because, contrary to what a lot of philosophers have claimed, we don’t get to pick and choose them, as is made more clear in religious conceptions of this point like the Mosaic Covenant or karma. Yet, as rational beings, we have the power to trade them off, apply them systematically and even critique them. The fact that we can critique them suggests that they are answerable to something even more fundamental; a kind of sense of right and wrong by which we know that the Golden Rule is plausible and the (made up this second) Silver Rule that you should always punish the vulnerable is patently awful.
Anyway, I fully recommend that Hayek lecture as a further stimulus on this topic. He could have lived 1,000 years and still be contributing new ideas by the end: as he said, he was a “muddle head” who could come up with new ideas because he was often unfamiliar with the “proper” answers.
20. August 2012 at 12:54
BILL ELLIS:
“OK. One thing, I would like you libertarians to acknowledge that you all don’t agree on what a libertarians is.”
Libertarianism is the broad ethic that seeks to maximize individual freedom. How that freedom is to be achieved is fairly diverse, but almost all libertarians agree that the NAP is a requirement.
“So when I say something Like… “ libertarians don’t have a problem with Monopolies” don’t act like I am ignorant if you KNOW that some libertarians don’t have a problem with Monopolies.”
We have to be especially careful on the issue of monopoly, because when the word “monopoly” is used, libertarians think of two versions, coercive and voluntary, bad and good, when opponents of libertarianism lump all monopolies up into “bad”, and make it seem like libertarians support coercive monopolies.
“I hate to have to resort to rhetorical wishy washyness , alway saying “SOME libertarians, but not all, maybe most…blah blah blah..”
I think in terms of individuals. It helps me avoid having to resort to wishy washy rhetoric to make a point.
“Sooooo…. I know libertarians don’t have a problem with Monopolies cuz they believe truly free markets make them impossible…”
Actually no. They believe coercive monopolies are impossible. Voluntary monopolies however are sometimes viewed as not capable of lasting in a free market, while others say they can possibly last, if the owner continually produces so well and so often relative to his peers that consumers voluntarily buy from him and only him all the time. The point is that whatever does happen in this respect, the fact that individual property rights are respected, and consumers can choose to buy or not buy, then the existence of monopolies is not an evil.
“But how do they feel about cartels ?”
I don’t care one iota if a seller colludes to raise prices with his competitors. As long as the price they offer is a price I am willing to pay, then everyone benefits. It is not my business that someone COULD have offered a lower price, but didn’t because he wanted more money. If unions collude to raise wage rates, PEACEFULLY, say by striking (but not physically preventing scabs from replacing them, through state power), or by threatening peaceful boycotts, then I say all the power to them. Let them get as much money as they can in this way. What I don’t support is when unions seek state power to point guns at employers and other potential workers that prevents them from trading their property and labor.
“They must want to out law free men banding together to agree to sell their property at agreed upon prices of their choice… Right ?”
Wrong. As long as sellers and workers collude peacefully, and as long as they don’t bring about coercive threats to other sellers or workers, at the individual level, then I say let the colluding be maximized! The more voluntary cooperation, and the less involuntary cooperation, the better.
20. August 2012 at 13:01
Doug M,
I think that Israel Kirzner’s work decisively shows that monopolies are only a bad thing if they are a product of barriers to entry, because there can be competition (in the sense of the term that matters) even in a market with one seller since other entrants restrict the range of action of that seller.
Major Freedom, characteristically, manages to clearly express the orthodox libertarian view on working conditions. Once one considers the variety of standards of living across periods of time, it becomes clear that we can only judge working conditions in terms of the human actions which create them; otherwise we are led to the absurdity that we are more “moral” than people in the 19th century because of air conditioning and central heating. If working conditions are chosen voluntarily by workers because they are the best option available short of coercing someone else, then (ceteris paribus) what can be immoral about them?
20. August 2012 at 13:05
libertarians like to argue that Slavery would have been made obsolete by the market… because the cotton gin was less expensive to operate than keeping slaves.
But why do they assume that the save owners would be so dim as to not figure out other ways to employ their slaves ?
Slave would have made great factory workers… Great fruit pickers, coal miners and Burger King employees.
The possible ways to profitably employ salves are endless.
20. August 2012 at 13:06
BILL ELLIS:
“Viable ? What compels it ?”
Competition among employers for workers, given the marginal utility of the SCARCE means that consumers value according to their relative purchasing patterns, which is to say given the quantity of capital that exists in the allocation made profitable by relative consumer preferences.
“How is it viable to voluntarily raise the cost of your production over a competitors ?”
Working conditions can improve as production expands, because the very material means that improve working conditions come into being. The more production there is, the lower the COSTS of production relative to labor becomes, and employers can offer better working conditions and earn higher profits because they attract more workers.
It is to an employer’s interests to attract more productive workers, who will choose employers based on working conditions and/or take home pay.
No state can legislate more capital into being.
20. August 2012 at 13:14
BILL ELLIS:
“libertarians like to argue that Slavery would have been made obsolete by the market… because the cotton gin was less expensive to operate than keeping slaves.”
Which libertarians?
“But why do they assume that the save owners would be so dim as to not figure out other ways to employ their slaves ?”
Libertarians don’t argue that the capitalist pursuit of profit is sufficient for abolishing slavery. It requires actual libertarian philosophy of individual liberty to do it.
“Slave would have made great factory workers… Great fruit pickers, coal miners and Burger King employees.”
If slavery was only gainful to the slave owners, slave owners would never sell slaves, and the world’s population would be living under feudalism. Since you believe the elite capitalists always control the state, you must believe legal abolitions of slavery was pro-capitalist.
“The possible ways to profitably employ salves are endless.”
Actually it’s finite. The possible ways to increase profit by voluntary labor is far more numerous. It’s why more REAL profits are made in the US, than in North Korea.
20. August 2012 at 13:14
Mf…
That is consistent. Is this outlook the common one among Libertarians?
Many I have talked to are vehemently anti union in any form.
But, you would be just as OK with an owner firing a guy for just saying the word “Union”…right ?
20. August 2012 at 13:30
BILL ELLIS:
“If unions collude to raise wage rates, PEACEFULLY, say by striking (but not physically preventing scabs from replacing them, through state power), or by threatening peaceful boycotts, then I say all the power to them.”
That is consistent. Is this outlook the common one among Libertarians?
Many I have talked to are vehemently anti union in any form.
Are you sure you’re talking to libertarians, rather than conservatives who are just calling themselves libertarians because it is the new “in” thing after the mainstream collapse of neoconservatism?
Any person who argues against unions of any form, even voluntary unions, is not making a libertarian argument. Libertarians are not against voluntary, peaceful unions. The problem is that there are so few of these types of unions, due to pro-union legislation, that the more dimwitted people have come to believe that coercive unions are the only kind of unions that can ever exist, so they make sweeping pronouncements that all unions are evil.
“But, you would be just as OK with an owner firing a guy for just saying the word “Union”…right ?”
As long as the agreement doesn’t preclude the employer from doing so, of course, just like I would be OK with an employee firing a boss for just saying the word “downsizing”, as long as the agreement doesn’t preclude a worker from quitting for such a reason, and just like I would be OK with a buyer ending his relationship with a seller if the seller mentions the word “fair trade” or “sweatshop”, as long as the agreement doesn’t preclude the buyer from ending the relationship for those reasons.
If individuals cannot trade according to the agreements he sets with others, then that means the state must point guns at individuals and force them to trade in ways satisfactorly according to the state. But then that is an initiation of force.
20. August 2012 at 16:28
“As long as the agreement doesn’t preclude the employer from doing so, of course, just like I would be OK with an employee firing a boss for just saying the word “downsizing”, as long as the agreement doesn’t preclude a worker from quitting for such a reason, and just like I would be OK with a buyer ending his relationship with a seller if the seller mentions the word “fair trade” or “sweatshop”, as long as the agreement doesn’t preclude the buyer from ending the relationship for those reasons.”
But in reality there will not be unionization in such a scenario. What employer is going to say “ok I’ll let you have a union?”
It’s a matter of bargaining power. If any employer can just say “if you join a union your fired” how can any union be effective?
It also ignores that the employer ane employeee don’t hafev equal bargaining power. A worker can’t really “fire” ane employer in the same way-he needs a job.
The employer likely can do without a single employee.
W. Peden
“Apart from those few words, you seem to have got to the heart of the debate: you believe in the non-aggression principle, Mike Sax doesn’t. Everything else is just rhetorical flourishes and teasing.”
I don’t think that’s realy what it comes down to. My point is that a pure principle of non-aggression is not realistic. I don’t think that an absoulute belief in property rights achieves that either.
But utopian fantasies hold no interest for me. I’m more interested in real life.
20. August 2012 at 16:39
Major UnFreedom
“I said your claim that I am completely irrational cannot be right, because if I were completely irrational, then you could not even understand me to be saying anything meaningful such that you label those statements as wrong rather than right. By saying I am wrong, that immediately presupposes that I am not completely irrational. To be wrong means to have made a meaningful, not completely irrational statement.”
So now there’s a new word you want to quibble over. First you didnt understand what betrays means-I see your latest “definition” betrays-see how to use it?-that you still lack understanding. There’s no basis for thining that philosphy profressors are partiucarly interested in the word betrays. Maybe at that cracker jack college you claim to have an economics degree from.
Then it was “everyone”
Now it’s irrational. If you want irrational listen to yourself sometime.
I wasn’;t saying I would hug you-but taht you clearly need one as much as you while and fulminate.
You claim to get many-maybe it’s from your home planet of Orc.
“I don’t believe you.”
There’s all kinds of things you “don’t believe” which are nevertheless quite true. How about the time you “didnt’ believe” Jim Rogers lost money betting on a fictional “Treasury Bubble”
Yeah Major UnFreedom that was a hoot.
Or the time you “believed” that Australian NGDP had been at 25% and 22% the last two years.
So you’re beliefs have very little credicility.
“You are trying to convert me, or else you would not be desperately trying to convince me I am wrong.”
Nope. I really don’t care what you believe. I’m not trying to convert you to anything. That’s another important difference between you and me.
You want to convert me. I don’t care about “converting” you.
That’s why you protest so much when I point out that
A). You’re tremendous comic relief for me
B). Because I don’t take you seriously.
It’ll be interesting to see how you copy me or say “I know you are but what am I” this time
20. August 2012 at 16:48
“I am talking about others who are abused, those you want abused so that your preferred people are protected”
Yeah it’s so wrong for me to “prefer” abused children to your preference for their abusive parents.
What it amounts to is that you want to protect abusers. You say you don’t. But I’m judging you not by you saying “I don’t want to protect absuers” to what you do
The consequences of your actions are what I look at-in fact these children will continue to be abused as you don;t want to violate their paretns property rights.
I know Rothbard didn’t care about consequences. But that’s how I judge someone not by some metaphysical absolute moral principles like Rothbard and other fanatics do.
20. August 2012 at 16:52
Some words from the great libertarian Herman Hoppe
ANDREW: What are some other ways that you think this would be a good system?
CNC: Well, every property … can be shaped and transformed by its owner so as to increase its safety and reduce the likelihood of aggression. I may acquire a gun or safe-deposit box, for instance, or I may be able to shoot down an attacking plane from my backyard or own a laser gun that can kill an aggressor thousands of miles away. [256] In a free society, security GLOs would encourage the ownership of weapons among their insured by means of selective price cuts [264] because the better the private protection of their clients, the lower the insurer’s protection and indemnification costs will be [285].
ANDREW: Let’s see if I understand. In poor neighborhoods, most people will not be insured, and it will be legal to kill them. The people that are insured will be encouraged by the security GLO to carry weapons that are as technologically advanced as possible. It sounds to me like this would be bad for the poor neighborhoods.
CNC: On the contrary – in “bad” neighborhoods the interests of the insurer and insured would coincide. Insurers would not want to suppress the expulsionist inclinations among the insured toward known criminals. They would rationalize such tendencies by offering selective price cuts (contingent on specific clean-up operations). [262]
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/journey-into-a-libertarian-future-part-i-%E2%80%93the-vision.html#XQjQ0LmQsfvyEamH.99
It seems to agree with my gloss on libertarianism Major.
Note that poor neighborhoods have no security forces.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/journey-into-a-libertarian-future-part-i-%E2%80%93the-vision.html
20. August 2012 at 16:53
Hey Mike,
“But utopian fantasies hold no interest for me. I’m more interested in real life.”
Libertarian zealots do get boring don’t they ?
Ever notice how their arguments often rest on counterfactual histories ?
Like…”The Free market would have taken care of that social problem and done it better…If only the progressives had not done it first ! ”
Or made up histories ?
Like… “The Market ended slavery around the world because it was ‘gainful’ for the slaves ?”
20. August 2012 at 17:52
Bill Ellis
“Like… “The Market ended slavery around the world because it was ‘gainful’ for the slaves ?”
Yes. I think it’s some license to say that the market fixes all problems. There is a political realm as well. Not everything is a pure market phennomenon
20. August 2012 at 19:31
More great sayings of Herman Hoppe
ANDREW: It sounds like you and Dr. Hoppe and Murray Rothbard are strongly critical of those other libertarians. But when I looked through the Cato web site, I found that while they sometimes express disagreements, they are surprisingly respectful of Rothbard and Hoppe. Why do you think this is?
CNC: Three reasons. First, pro-government libertarians have probably realized how difficult it is to refute Rothbard and Hoppe, and so prefer instead to learn from their ideas. Second, many agree with Tibor Machan, who says that libertarians should not let their small differences over this issue “distrac[t] from the far more significant task of making the case for libertarianism in the face of innumerable bona fide statist challenges.” But third, you have to reckon with the Human Shield Effect.
ANDREW: The what?
CNC: Libertarian Bryan Caplan says that “hard-core libertarians’ comparative advantage is to play watchdog for moderate libertarians – and make them seem reasonable by comparison.” You see, on many areas other libertarians secretly agree with us, but they are afraid to acknowledge it openly. Instead, they prefer to let us take the heat for our principled positions, and to wait for us to turn previously “radical” ideas into common sense.
ANDREW: So you can count on at least some support from other libertarians. But in order to make your revolution happen, you will have to convince other people as well. Are you going to try to get a majority of U.S. voters to support the future libertarian society?
CNC: It won’t work – persuade a majority of the public to vote for the abolition of democracy and an end to all taxes and legislation? […] is this not sheer fantasy, given that the masses are always dull and indolent, and even more so given that democracy… promotes moral and intellectual degeneration? How in the world can anyone expect that a majority of an increasingly degenerate people accustomed to the “right” to vote should ever voluntarily renounce [it]? [288].
ANDREW: If it’s not a good idea to try to persuade a majority of Americans to surrender the right to vote, what is the right approach?
CNC: It has to start with a small elite. As Étienne La Boétie said, these are “the men who, possessed of clear minds and farsighted spirit, are not satisfied, like the brutish mass, to see only what is at their feet, but rather look about them….” These people will start to secede from the United States.
Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11#bqPUkvMSSg6GSCwl.99
20. August 2012 at 22:33
Oh central planning? I see central planning everywhere. Most frequently in the form of roads and sidewalks, which are not always exactly where I want them. Who took my tax dollars and put down sidewalks where I disagree with the positioning? Tyranny!
And I suppose everyone who voted for the city council are each guilty of this violence.
And to top it off, then they hire cops who won’t let me freely drive on these sidewalks for fear of penalty or arrest.
21. August 2012 at 06:09
“libertarians like to argue that Slavery would have been made obsolete by the market… because the cotton gin was less expensive to operate than keeping slaves.”
Once again ideology trumphs history. It is the cotton gin that made slave plantations thrive and expand. Since the gin made it a lot less costly to remove the seeds, cotton became a lot cheaper, increasing the demand for cotton. But the gin did not grow and harvest the cotton. More slaves and larger slave plantations were needed to produce the additional cotton that was now demanded.
21. August 2012 at 06:13
While I respect the views of moderate libetarians like Scott, even though I disagree with them, the postings here have made it clear that the lunatic wing of the libetarians are true, unqualified lunatics whose ideological blinders put them totally out of touch with reality.
21. August 2012 at 06:16
When an economy is in a depression, we need expansionary monetary policy to restore the economy to full employment. If this view causes libetarians to consider me a central planner, so be it.
21. August 2012 at 06:22
“But utopian fantasies hold no interest for me. I’m more interested in real life.”
RIGHT ON!
I am interested in issues like why Bernanke and the FOMC have blatently refused to abide with the Fed’s congressional mandate to achieve maximum employment and whether, when the economy is depressed and the Fed refuses to act, expansionary fiscal policy would help restore the econoomy to full employment or not. (I think it would.)
The issues that hard line libetarians concern themselves with are about as relevant as medieval philosophers arguing about how many angels could sit on the head of a pin.
21. August 2012 at 08:05
“libertarians like to argue that Slavery would have been made obsolete by the market… because the cotton gin was less expensive to operate than keeping slaves”
First, the cotton gin brought plantation agriculture (and slavery) to parts of the deep south where there were relatively few slaves before they started farming cotton.
However, history asside, slavery is repugnant. Savery — forced labor, violence, coersion — extreme autortiarianism on a local scale. Evil, Evil Evil!
The question shouldn’t be what does the libertarian think about slavery. The real question is, does the libertarian have the spine to stand up against what he knows is evil. And there, I think, probably not.
But then, I don’t know if the progressives are any better. The progressives talk a good game, but their action is often weak. The neocons are overboard in the oposite direction.
Am I a libertarian? Weakly… I like underlying morality of the libertarian philosophy. The “what is the role of government” question is hugely important and the established parties ignore it. I firmly beleive that not every problem requires a government solution. However, some problems do. Government is necessary. I would really like to see a lot of the fuctions currently performed by the Federal government to be pushed down to the state and local level.
21. August 2012 at 09:23
[…] he linked to Matthew Yglesias in an approving manner. And this was after he had already approvingly linked to Scott Sumner, which was the sniping that started it all. One moron crank, that’s a mistake and everyone […]
21. August 2012 at 12:02
“But then, I don’t know if the progressives are any better”
The abolitionists were the progressives of that time.
21. August 2012 at 16:36
Major_Freedom,
Curiosity question again. What about vaccines? I’ve always thought that mandatory vaccination is actually an excellent form of government intervention. But of course, as anything from a government, it has to be implemented with implicit violence.
21. August 2012 at 18:06
Jason,
Can’t speak for MF, but I know of no Libertarian that supports compulsory vaccines mandated by government. Private schools may mandate them as rules for enrollment, which I’m okay with and don’t see how Libertarians would object, but government compulsion, no.
21. August 2012 at 18:49
Jason –
“But of course, as anything from a government, it has to be implemented with implicit violence.”
I question the assumption that anything the government does has to be implemented through violence – or a least the initiation of violence. Governments provide benefits that can be withheld – legal registration of property, enforcement of contracts, the use of government owned infrastructure, etc.
It’s theoretically possible to have a completely voluntary government. If these radical libertarians and anarchists don’t want to pay taxes or be vaccinated against communicable diseases, that’s fine. Then they won’t have any government recognized private property rights, or standing to sue for breach of contract, protection from violent attack, or the right to travel on public roads, etc.
In practice, only a handful of vagrants living in the woods would take that deal.
21. August 2012 at 19:32
Negation still thinks ‘rights’ are privileges granted by a benevolent government. He can’t imagine free people because his mind can’t comprehend world without the state. In truth, a free society would be the most productive and wealthy society and short order and states like the ones full of people like negation would have to build walls to keep the productive citizens from leaving their state to live in a free society. It would drain the statist swamps around it, actually. A better question is to ask statists why they are so against voluntary cooperation? It’s quite funny hearing them explain why coercion is necessary against peaceful people.
21. August 2012 at 20:19
Razer, it seems you mistake what Negation was implying. He didn’t imply at all that rights are privileges granted by governments. He was just implying that those who don’t participate in the government, do not get the benefit of the government protecting one’s rights. Example: if I don’t pay taxes, should police officers be required to enforce my property rights by seeking out those who committed theft against me? Negation suggests no.
But back to vaccinations, the issue I have is that unless you near 100% application, vaccinations are not terribly effective. Vaccinations don’t always work when applied, so they only become truly effective when there is a “herd” of vaccinated individuals, making it more difficult for a virus so spread among those who are vulnerable. Infected people simply end up not having a high likelihood of encountering other vulnerable individuals.
PS – I think the reason why statists are so against free societies are they see law enforcement as being a requirements, which ends up being provided by a government. Without the threat of force (garnishing of wages or property to make good on agreements), contracts and agreements don’t end up meeting the definitions. That’s my thought. And there’s the issue of violence – don’t police end up necessary to help reduce violence?
22. August 2012 at 08:01
“But of course, as anything from a government, it has to be implemented with implicit violence.”
The enforcement of property rights by govenments not only involves implicit violence, but sometimes involves explicit violence, as when squatters are forcibly removed from private property by the police.
Anybody opposed to such implicit violence must be an anarchist.
22. August 2012 at 08:11
The confusions we are dealing with in this thread is due to the acceptance of the defining of any departure whatsoever from pure laissez faire as central planning. This definition must be rejected as misleading to the point of being highly counterproductive. Central planning involves the kind of thing that was done in the Soviet Union under Stalin and in China under Mao, where the government sets all prices and regulates what is to be produced, by whom, and how.
The use of moderate departures from pure laissez-faire, such as monetary and fiscal policy and regulations to prevent the exploitation of monopoly power and asymmetric information to exploit consumers and workers is fundamentally different from this and is not usefully defined as central planning.
22. August 2012 at 08:18
“In truth, a free society would be the most productive and wealthy society and short order”
That is a statement of blind faith devoid of any empirical support. It closely resembles the religious faith of religious fundamentalists, such as that the world was created in 7 days
Austrian economics and the libetarianism based on it is a religious cult and should be treated as such by people whose feet are solidly grounded in reality.
22. August 2012 at 10:00
Jason Odegaard:
“Curiosity question again. What about vaccines? I’ve always thought that mandatory vaccination is actually an excellent form of government intervention. But of course, as anything from a government, it has to be implemented with implicit violence.”
OK, then you should be OK with Wal-Mart pointing a gun at you to compel you to take the subway instead of your car, because the risk of you killing somebody would be reduced.
You should be OK with Apple pointing a gun at you to compel you to wear an airtight body suit when you get a cold, because by not wearing it, you are increasing the risk that someone with a weaker immune system will die.
You should be OK with Toyota pointing a gun at you to compel you to stay overnight at work overnight if you work late, because it will decrease the risk of you hitting a child who crosses the road at night.
Are these not excellent forms of initiating violence against you? What constitutes excellent forms of initiations violence anyway?
And since when did the good idea of getting a vaccination imply that the government should do it, and since when did it imply that the vaccination they do administer will not be harmful? Since when did the morons in the state become omniscient? Inquiring minds would like to know.
22. August 2012 at 10:06
Full Unemployment Hawk:
“In truth, a free society would be the most productive and wealthy society and short order”
“That is a statement of blind faith devoid of any empirical support.”
It doesn’t have to have empirical support. I don’t need to observe a world without slavery, to know that ending slavery will result in more production, even if I were living in a world of slavery.
Some propositions are not empirical. I don’t need to observe every plane triangle to know that the inner angle of any triangle is neither greater than nor less than 180 degrees.
“It closely resembles the religious faith of religious fundamentalists, such as that the world was created in 7 days”
Because mathematicians are religious fundamentalists, right?
“Austrian economics and the libetarianism based on it is a religious cult and should be treated as such by people whose feet are solidly grounded in reality.”
Keynesianism, monetarism and the statism they are based on is a religious cult and should be treated as such by people whose feet are solidly grounded in reality.
Austrian economics is based on the REALITY of human action. Keynesianism and monetarism are based on the religious myth that those in the state know more than the millions of other individuals who make up society, and have a moral right to initiate threats of violence against everyone to compel them to obey, “for their own good.”
YOU are the religious fundamentalist. You are not advancing science. You are not advancing logic or evidence. You’re advancing a religious cult myth that violates what has been proven about the reality of human action.
23. August 2012 at 00:17
“OK, then you should be OK with Wal-Mart pointing a gun at you to compel you to take the subway instead of your car, because the risk of you killing somebody would be reduced.”
This is rediculous. The management of Wal-Mart has not been elected by majority vote of the people.
“And since when did the good idea of getting a vaccination imply that the government should do it,”
Because there are beneficial externalities resulting from having everyone vaccinated. And having a non-elected entity require that people get vaccinated is undemocratic.
23. August 2012 at 00:24
“Because mathematicians are religious fundamentalists, right?”
Austrian economics is not based on mathematices.
“that violates what has been proven about the reality of human action”
Austrian economics has proven nothing about the reality of human action. Science is based on empirical testing.
“that those in the state know more than the millions of other individuals who make up society”
The idea that individuals acting in their own best interests neccessarily always leads to society acting in everyone else’s best interests is a classical example of the fallacy of composition.
23. August 2012 at 00:26
I need to fine tune the last statement, which should read:
“The idea that individuals acting in their own best interests neccessarily always leads to society acting in everyone’s best interests is a classical example of the fallacy of composition.
23. August 2012 at 04:08
Major_Freedom,
Your arguments are straw mans. The way you abhor violence (which is anything taken against one’s committed agreement) suggests to me it’s much like God admonishing sin. It doesn’t matter if it is stealing a pencil, or killing 100 people – they are sins equally in the eyes of God.
Note to Mike Sax: I’m NOT implying that MF is playing God. It just seems his black-and-white view can be compared, as a metaphor, to the idea of religious right & wrong. But don’t read too much into the comparison.
To compare mandatory vaccinations to retailers holding a gun to my head to enforce behavior seems extreme. Why did you stop there? You could have said Wal-Mart will also kill every friend and family member I have, as Wal-Mart may reasonably assume that people I associate with might also choose cars over subways. It would help uphold a policy. If people do not want Wal-Mart to kill them, they can simply avoid people who drive cars.
Now, I’m just stretching the imagination. But from what you write, I don’t see how you could find a world with freedom without it being a world inhabited by only a single human being. As soon as another human being would to be introduced in the world, they will inadvertently commit “violence” against each other. Maybe that other human will breath the air I wanted to breath. They might stand where I want to stand. What if they drink from a pond that I found first – how should I reseolve their violence against my property?
When you use extreme examples I have a hard time seeing really where you stand.
For instance, what about police officers, and armies? Do you think those should cease to exist? If humans commit violence against each other without the state present, is that somehow better? How should humans prevent violence of other humans? No all people are strong, not all people are quick with a knife, not all people are a good shot.
And to advocate the existence of a state, as I do, does not imply omniscience. That is laughable. Use a better argument. States are acting based on evidence for safety and efficacy of vaccines. Will any vaccine be 100% safe? Of course not (no action is perfect) but the broader benefits have created such a beneficial world that I find it hard to believe people would want to go back to a world of greater childhood death and disease. But even today we see gullible people believing that vaccines are a conspiracy, or at the very least, unsafe and to be avoided. If enough people, perhaps 20%, avoid vaccines, the vaccination program overall looses effectiveness. That’s where the benefit of that state in terms of requiring vaccinations. And I can’t remember exactly, but from what I recall the vaccines were required to participate in certain activities, such as primary public schooling or universities. Or maybe the doctors held shotguns to my parent’s head and forced the vaccines on penalty of their death. I was young at the time, and may have forgot a few details 😉
23. August 2012 at 09:51
Full Unemployment Hawk:
“OK, then you should be OK with Wal-Mart pointing a gun at you to compel you to take the subway instead of your car, because the risk of you killing somebody would be reduced.”
“This is rediculous.”
I know. It was SUPPOSED to be ridiculous to show you the ridiculousness of your post.
“The management of Wal-Mart has not been elected by majority vote of the people.”
Oh you want to go that route? Mob rule? Really? So Wal-Mart’s actions towards YOU, have nothing to do with your actions or Wal-Mart’s actions, but the mere OPINION of a mob of people who happen to live in a geographical territory of land that Wal-Mart declares itself monopoly over final jurisdiction?
The idea that Wal-Mart’s pointing of their guns at you, and compelling you to take the subway instead of a car, to reduce the risk of vehicular accidents that can kill others, is totally valid and justified if 50% plus 1 people have “voted” yay to it, is the most ridiculous, anti-liberty nonsense that has no business in a discussion of individual rights. If 50% plus 1 of Americans voted in favor of enslaving or killing the remaining 50% minus 1, then your silly logic would have it that it is justified.
“And since when did the good idea of getting a vaccination imply that the government should do it,”
“Because there are beneficial externalities resulting from having everyone vaccinated.”
Since when did the positive externalities imply that the government should force it.
“And having a non-elected entity require that people get vaccinated is undemocratic.”
You don’t say! Having an elected entity not supported by the minority that people get X is anti-libertarian. What’s your point? There is nothing special about democracy. Having a non-elected entity require that that people refrain from murdering and raping each other, despite the majority voting in favor of rape and murder, is also anti-democratic, but it would be something I would support. The majority is not always right. In fact, if we go by history, the majority is RARELY if ever right. Think about the majority opinions concerning economics or biology in the 17th century. Think about the majority opinions concerning medicine or ethics in the 18th century. Why in the world would you oppress individuals with the majority’s opinion, when the majority has empirically shown itself to be in no position whatsoever to have its opinions universalized?
“”Because mathematicians are religious fundamentalists, right?”
“Austrian economics is not based on mathematices.”
Austrian economics is based on the same logic behind mathematics. Praxeology is to human action as geometry is to space.
You don’t have the foggiest clue on the foundations of Austrian economics. It presupposes no deity, it presupposes no supernatural phenomena, it presupposes no nameless outer dimension that Keynesians and Monetarists presuppose in their belief that elite technocrats have access to knowledge that is superior to the dispersed knowledge throughout society.
“that violates what has been proven about the reality of human action”
“Austrian economics has proven nothing about the reality of human action.”
False. Praxeology has proven the laws of human action, such as the law of marginal utility, the quantity theory of money, and shows why economics is even a science at all.
“Science is based on empirical testing.”
No, that is positivism, not science per se. Empirical testing is for historical data, and the study of historical data can only elucidate theories if the assumption is made that there a regularity to the concatenation of observable events. In other words, the assumption of positivism is that the truths of things don’t change over the course of time. What praxeology has shown is that this hidden constancy assumption, which by the way is taken for granted by almost every superficial dogmatic anti-rationalist such as yourself, cannot apply to knowledge itself and the actions influenced by knowledge.
Positivism contradicts its own presumptions when applied to the very subject doing the empirical testing. For in order for the subject to even claim to be able to, or have in the past, learned anything at all through positivism, it is logically required that the subject themselves have changed, and are NOT constant as positivism presupposes.
Saying this is another way, when one studies nature through the positivist method, they are presupposing that they themselves are learning over time in a priori unpredictable ways. No scientist dares propose that they can predict what they will learn before they learn it. Any scientist who claims to be able to do that, would be claiming that humans can achieve omniscience in the present, as all we need to do is find out what the formulas and equations predict regarding future paths of knowledge changes, and such knowledge would itself enable the subject to know their own future selves.
Therefore, there is phenomena in nature that CANNOT be logically categorized as operating according to constant causal factors. This phenomena is human knowledge acquisition and the actions which are influenced by such knowledge acquisitions. This realm of phenomena is called teleology. It must be understood as goal oriented, not as past causally determined like atoms and molecules. Note that this doesn’t result from merely our inability to know everything there is to know about the human brain that is preventing the method of the natural sciences to work as well in social sciences as it can in the laboratory. It is not an issue of degree. It is an issue of kind. It is how our minds of necessity MUST work that splits our understanding of the world into two spheres, that of causal phenomena outside the subject and within the subject, and that of teleological phenomena which applies to the very act of learning causal relations in nature and acting purposefully using, and through, this learning.
Your problem is that you label that which you don’t understand, that which does not mimic the physicists and engineers, as “religion”, when praxeology is based on the same understanding as mathematics. Now, you can repeat as nauseum that “Austrian economics is not mathematics” and then leave it at that, and pretend to have refuted the rationalist foundation of it, but all you would be doing is purposefully making yourself ignorant because you are scared that Austrian economics is like the priest that molested you who are secretly plotting to slip religion in through the back door of rational inquiry into the nature of things, and are just using fancy sounding words that cover their actual motivation of dogmatism and pure subjectivism. Yet all you would be doing is displaying a complete lack of comprehension concerning the very thing you are criticizing.
“that those in the state know more than the millions of other individuals who make up society”
“The idea that individuals acting in their own best interests neccessarily always leads to society acting in everyone else’s best interests is a classical example of the fallacy of composition.”
Austrian economics is not based on that idea, nor does it imply that idea. Praxeology doesn’t tell us what we ought to do. It only tells us the logical constraints of what we could do.
The idea that Austrian economics argues in favor of individuals committing genocide if it suits their desires, is to totally misunderstand Austrian economics. If Austrian economics is to be applied to an individual committing genocide, then all it can explain is interestingly how you logically understand it, namely, that the person had an intention of a goal (killing lots of people), that the person incurred definite delimited costs in the process of achieving that goal (using weapons, machines, food, time, etc), that the outcome either satisfies the person (profit) or dissatisfies the person (loss). There are other constraints of course but these will suffice for illustration.
What you are doing when you say Austrian economics argues for anything goes, what you are really doing is exposing your own mindset of using economics as a cover for your own political agendas. That you only advocate for the state to do X, not because of value free economics, but rather because you are so ignorant and thus afraid of other people that you can’t imagine a stateless society. That’s all you’re doing. You are merely attacking Austrian economics on the basis of a profound and deep ignorance of not only Austrian economics, but human life itself. I hope you one day actually READ that which you choose to criticize, because as of now, your claims are vacuous, emotion-based yammering that belongs on the schoolyard, not an academic debate.
23. August 2012 at 10:33
Jason Odegaard:
“Your arguments are straw mans.”
Actually they logically follow from what you are arguing.
“The way you abhor violence (which is anything taken against one’s committed agreement) suggests to me it’s much like God admonishing sin.”
Why does it suggest that? How does wanting to reduce/eliminate initiations of violence, and wanting others to cease advocating for initiations of violence, require a deity?
“It doesn’t matter if it is stealing a pencil, or killing 100 people – they are sins equally in the eyes of God.”
One cannot justify theft of a pencil by pointing to worse crimes. That’s an argumentative fallacy.
“Note to Mike Sax: I’m NOT implying that MF is playing God. It just seems his black-and-white view can be compared, as a metaphor, to the idea of religious right & wrong. But don’t read too much into the comparison.”
If you say I am wrong, then you are presupposing a black and white world. Those who complain about others using “black and white” thinking, are those who want a way to introduce black (or white) but don’t want to be identified as black and white thinkers themselves because they have been told it’s wrong, and they believed it.
“To compare mandatory vaccinations to retailers holding a gun to my head to enforce behavior seems extreme. Why did you stop there?”
I only have a finite amount of time.
If it seems extreme to you, then you know how I consider your VERY extreme of state forced medications! 1984 was a novel, not a manual.
“You could have said Wal-Mart will also kill every friend and family member I have, as Wal-Mart may reasonably assume that people I associate with might also choose cars over subways.”
Sure, I could have said that. But this would only be your logic again, not mine. Why did YOU stop at state forced vaccinations, but not state forced control over everyone’s food diets, transportation means, literature, friends, colleagues, etc? If it is justified that I as in control of the state can point a gun at you forcing you to take in a liquid through your veins, then why can’t I force you to eat better, or drive less, or do something else that will reduce the risk you represent to other people’s lives?
Life contains risk. You can’t eliminate it. If you want to reduce it, then why reduce it to X%, but not (X – 0.01)%? Who are you to decide such a thing for millions of other people?
“It would help uphold a policy. If people do not want Wal-Mart to kill them, they can simply avoid people who drive cars.”
Or, you know, Wal-Mart can be forced back not to kill people.
“Now, I’m just stretching the imagination. But from what you write, I don’t see how you could find a world with freedom without it being a world inhabited by only a single human being.”
There is a HUGE difference between trying to reduce violence but accepting that some violence is inevitable, and outright advocating for violence. To know that violence cannot be completely eliminated, does not in any way mean that one has to capitulate and advocate for violence. I mean really, would you say that because I cannot eliminate rape or murder, that I should monopolize rape and murder, and then rape and murder according to a rule of 0.01% increases per year? Or a constant 1 rape and a murder per 100,000 people, per month? Why do I have to advocate for statism simply because I cannot completely eliminate violence?
“As soon as another human being would to be introduced in the world, they will inadvertently commit “violence” against each other.”
I am actually not surprised that you hold this view. Many statists believe the same thing. I just got through explaining to another statist that their worldview contains the conviction that humans use force against each other merely by virtue of existing. I eat and I live here, and that limits your spirit’s desire for absolute freedom, to transcend all limitations, even other objects and things.
This worldview of yours is rooted in the neoPlatonist Plotinus, a mystic who essentially believed (using more contemporary terminology) that the true human calling is to abolish the difference between the subject and object. For when a consciousness perceives something else, it knows that the object is not itself, and as such, represents a limitation, and thus infringement upon absolute freedom.
This is why you don’t care so much about the state. For to you, human life is inherently violent, so there is no point to abolishing the state.
“Maybe that other human will breath the air I wanted to breath. They might stand where I want to stand. What if they drink from a pond that I found first – how should I reseolve their violence against my property?”
How should you resolve an ethical violation? You have a RIGHT to use force, but that doesn’t mean you MUST use force. You can choose to allow him to drink, or you can exercise your right to the pond and say please stop, and if he doesn’t, you will use force against him.
Only if you believe that you own the Earth, can the mere existence of other individuals be considered property violations.
“When you use extreme examples I have a hard time seeing really where you stand.”
Keep going with the logic, and then go further, and further, and don’t stop until you find the errors in your premises. That’s how you can find where you stand, and where I stand.
“For instance, what about police officers, and armies? Do you think those should cease to exist?”
Not at all. They should just cease being financed at the point of a gun, involuntarily. If you want to finance an army with your friends, then go right ahead. This is not a violation of my person or property.
“If humans commit violence against each other without the state present, is that somehow better?”
Of course not. But I will say that at least the protections against this violence, and the enforcement of prohibitions on such violence, will not have the negative externalities that state protections have. When the state protects Peter from theft, it robs from Paul in order to finance that protection. The state is the ultimate negative externality creating social institution.
“How should humans prevent violence of other humans? No all people are strong, not all people are quick with a knife, not all people are a good shot.”
There is only one way. Ideas and philosophy. Education. Improving the quality of people’s minds. Our minds are our main tool. We can be strong and tall and whatnot, but without a good mind, we’re destructive and useless.
“And to advocate the existence of a state, as I do, does not imply omniscience. That is laughable. Use a better argument. States are acting based on evidence for safety and efficacy of vaccines.”
What evidence? Has a vaccine been tested on me? How do you know I won’t react negatively to it? How do you know I am not allergic to it? How do you know that I don’t have far more important things to do than go to a clinic at the point of a gun?
You are presuming omniscience in the state, because you’re not talking about evidence of ME. You’re only talking about a few people in some trials somewhere. Good for them. If they want to take the vaccine, by all means.
There is also the question that you’re not asking, which is your omniscient assumption that there can never be any evil masterminds who take advantage of such power to inoculate entire populations at will, for their own nefarious purposes. Humans are not angels. With tremendous power, it is more likely that evil people will be attracted to such power, and try to use it FOR THEIR OWN benefit, and not for the benefit of “the children.”
Ever hear the old expression from Lord Acton, “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”? I would have to believe that you are omniscient to know that such state forced vaccinations can only have positive effects, and that no evil people can ever take control of such power for reasons other than what you think they’re trying to do.
“Will any vaccine be 100% safe? Of course not (no action is perfect) but the broader benefits have created such a beneficial world that I find it hard to believe people would want to go back to a world of greater childhood death and disease.”
The essence of a totalitarian mind right there. You actually believe that the only reason there was greater disease and childhood death in the past, was because the state wasn’t forcefully vaccinating people. You’re not educated enough to know that diseases are minimizing not because of state power, but because of technological advancement, and most especially, food manufacturing, preparation, and packaging, as well as indoor plumbing. These things do not require a state. They are advancements made in the market for the purposes of making more profits.
I find it incredible that you actually believe that without a mommy and daddy state, we’d all “go back” to disease and early death.
Plus, I find it highly offensive for you to put “broader benefits” over individual benefits, as if there exists a reified society concept that gains and loses apart from individual gains and losses. Would you kill a million babies if it means the entire world’s population would have a 10% less risk of contracting botulism? What you’re asking me to do is SACRIFICE the individual “for the greater good.” That is EXACTLY the seed of totalitarianism. It was not supposed to belong in the US, but unfortunately Euro-centric socialism has corrupted this country, and all the work of those brave people who sought to escape such oppression, is being completely overturned by morons who are afraid of their own shadow because the state isn’t there to tell them that it’s them.
“But even today we see gullible people believing that vaccines are a conspiracy, or at the very least, unsafe and to be avoided.”
Gullible? It’s gullible to believe that state is so all knowing that vaccines are only safe, and that if the state decides its worth killing a few individual outliers, then it’s justified. THAT is gullible.
The only reason you’re calling those AGAINST state forced vaccinations, is because YOU are gullible in believing the state way is the right way. So you can only understand those who are questioning it, as gullible themselves. You demonize those who don’t buy into your religion.
“If enough people, perhaps 20%, avoid vaccines, the vaccination program overall looses effectiveness.”
Loses.
Effectiveness for who? What about the individual who ends up being killed or harmed? Will you be the one to visit their family and tell them that you supported something you knew was going to kill or harm at least some innocent people?
“That’s where the benefit of that state in terms of requiring vaccinations.”
What benefit? You haven’t identified any other than what benefits the state!
“And I can’t remember exactly, but from what I recall the vaccines were required to participate in certain activities, such as primary public schooling or universities. Or maybe the doctors held shotguns to my parent’s head and forced the vaccines on penalty of their death. I was young at the time, and may have forgot a few details”
There is nothing wrong with private property owners demanding that anyone who steps foot on their lands, have to get a particular vaccination. The reason this is not wrong is because the property owners are only setting rules for their own property, not other people’s property.
Imagine if Wal-Mart started to forcefully inject everyone with an experimental vaccine for the treatment of a disease that as of yet has no known cure, or imagine them to be forcing everyone to take a vaccine that has been shown to result in one death per 25 million, for a disease that has a known cure. Imagine the outcry from folks like yourself. “Oh no!”, you’d say, “Wal-Mart is acting criminally because they aren’t wearing government badges!”
23. August 2012 at 22:28
“Austrian economics is based on the same logic behind mathematics. Praxeology is to human action as geometry is to space.”
That is the fundamental error of Austrian economics and why anyone serious about economics should dismiss it out of hand.
Economics is an empirical science, like, for example, chemistry, not a system of deduction, like mathematics. Yes, economics as currently practiced, falls far short of chemistry and other hard sciences, but that is a shortcoming of the people practicing it, who too often let their ideological biases get in the way of scientific objectivity. That does not change the fact that economics is an empirical science and that economic theories need to be tested against empirical evidence. And those theories inconsistent with the evidence must be discarded.
23. August 2012 at 22:30
And this is why Austrian Economics is to Scientific Economics as astrology is to astronomy.
23. August 2012 at 23:02
“And this is why Austrian Economics is to Scientific Economics as astrology is to astronomy.”
Which raises the question of why we are wasting our time arguing with the Ausrians instead of ignoring them and dismissing them as crackpots, the way evolutionary biologists do with advocates of creation science.
24. August 2012 at 05:16
FEH talks of science and empiricism, yet the economics theory he spouts were thoroughly refuted back in the 19th Century, namely that lack of demand is the cause of slumps and that the cure for unemployment is increasing demand for consumer goods. Empirically his pet theory has failed (stagflation of the 70s), yet evidence does not sway him in the least — how wonderfully scientific. He is a faith based man.
When gold was finally de-linked from gold for good in the early 70’s, we had another chance to compare Austrian, Keynesian, and Monetarists theories. The Keynesians and Monetarists believed that the dollar was holding up the value of gold, not the other way around. The Austrians knew better. We got the answer almost immediately, didn’t we? Yet more empirical proof of the Austrian’s superiority.
When FEH can show me the equations that map human action, maybe I’ll believe. So far his Keynesian idols can’t even figure out when we’re in a giant bubble (his scientific pals at the Fed sure missed the housing bubble, didn’t they?). They can’t even recognize that they are the cause of bubbles. FEH has gotten being wrong down to a science, of that I can agree. His knowledge of economics is purely faith-based.
24. August 2012 at 07:56
Full Unemployment Hawk:
“Austrian economics is based on the same logic behind mathematics. Praxeology is to human action as geometry is to space.”
That is the fundamental error of Austrian economics and why anyone serious about economics should dismiss it out of hand.
You have not shown how it is a “fundamental error.”
“Economics is an empirical science, like, for example, chemistry, not a system of deduction, like mathematics.”
This is the fundamental error of positivism. Economics is not an empirical science like, for example chemistry. It is a praxeological science. This has been shown, and I touched on that explanation above, which of course you did not bother responding to.
The reason why economics is not an empirical science like chemistry, is because contrary to the tacit assumption of constancy in relations through time, human knowledge and action on the other hand are not constant. Humans learn. Atoms do not. That is why positivism cannot work with human action.
You are doing gobbledygook when you write down an equation of specific set of independent variables with constants for coefficients as chemists and physicists do. Humans are not robots or automatons. That is your fundamental error. The method you are using presupposes humans are automatons who act according to constant causal operative factors.
“Yes, economics as currently practiced, falls far short of chemistry and other hard sciences, but that is a shortcoming of the people practicing it, who too often let their ideological biases get in the way of scientific objectivity.”
Yes, you are very much ideologically biased, but that has nothing to do with why economics “falls far short” of chemistry. The actual reason economics “falls far short” is because the positivist method has not allowed any economist to discover a single economic law, the way chemists have discovered natural laws. Bias creeps in precisely because people like you have denied the logical foundation of economics and you have made yourselves helpless in establishing a solid ground for the claims you make.
You are falsely under the impression that economic principles like the law of marginal utility and the quantity theory of money are well established empirical laws, when they are actually logically necessary propositions.
“That does not change the fact that economics is an empirical science and that economic theories need to be tested against empirical evidence.”
Who cares that your incorrect reason for why economics “falls far short” of chemistry means or doesn’t mean something else, like the false assertion that economics is an empirical science?
Economic theories do not need to be tested against history, and cannot be tested against history. They are not empirical propositions. You’re not talking about economic theories when you claim economic theories need to be tested against historical data. You’re talking about claims about economic history, not economic theory.
You’re not an economist. You’re not doing economics. You’re a bookkeeping historian who is looking up historical events and making the false claim that they are expounding economic laws.
If I make a claim about how many tons of steel was produced last year, then this is not an economics theory. It is a historical claim. I cannot deduce how many tons of steel was produced. I’d actually have to make empirical observations. But the law of marginal utility, that is, the law that all else equal, people derive a lower utility from an additional unit of a homogeneous good as compared to the previous unit, is not a law that can even be thought of as being falsified by experience, let alone the opposite actually observed.
Since you don’t bother to read Austrian theory, which I suspect is the case because there is a complete absence of any documentary interpretation from Austrian texts or papers, I’ll give you an example that even a child can understand. But my guess is that this also will go over your head:
Economic history is unique, would you agree? There is only one set of data and no other. In this sphere, people’s arguments about history can be corrected and refuted. You either are correct about when Germany invaded Poland, or you’re not. Agreed?
OK, now suppose that I mention this historical fact: The 20th century was characterized by both a growth in state intervention and regulations in the market economy worldwide as compared to the 19th century, and it was also characterized by a growth of living standards worldwide as compared to the 19th century. Agreed?
Now suppose two economists advanced the following theories as to why this occurred:
A. Growth in living standards occurred BECAUSE of the growth of state intervention and regulations; and
B. Growth in living standards occurred DESPITE the growth of state intervention and regulations.
There is a problem. Both economists are advancing theories that are not falsified by the data. Both are advancing theories that are consistent with the historical data. Yet we have two mutually exclusive, incompatible theories. How can this be resolved? Obviously they can’t refer to “data”, because we just found out that the data is consistent with both theories.
So what do we do? This is where economic science comes in. Before this step, which is where you ALWAYS are, there was no way to resolve the problem. Hence people like you introduce your BIAS into your interpretation of history, and you casually just refuse to accept all competing theories the implications of which are against your ideological bias.
So you just pretend that your particular theory, that has been ideologically derived, is correct and empirically confirmed.
What economists on the other hand do is they engage in logical analysis, such as self-referential reasoning, and deducing backwards to find out which premises the other economist is utilizing, and they can resolve their theories and show which if any are wrong and which are right.
So economists will consider the two theories and ground them in praxeological reasoning, which positivists and economic historians like yourself never do and are left scratching their heads at the prior step of not knowing what else to do with mutually incompatible theories except introduce your ideology, then not even analyze that ideology itself, and then pretend that your theory is consistent with the data, and everyone else are biased ideologues.
That’s how people like you operate. That’s how you think. That’s how you go about things.
“And those theories inconsistent with the evidence must be discarded.”
Praxeologically grounded propositions cannot be thought of as being inconsistent with any empirical data, since they are how we understand any data at all.
The quantity theory of money, which states “If there is an increase in the quantity of money, then provided the demand for money is unchanged, then the purchasing power of money will decrease”, is a theory that cannot ever be falsified by experience. It is of course in part derived by experience, namely, the concept of money is empirical, the concept of purchasing power is empirical, yet this law is not hypothetical. Once established, it is how we will understand all future events that concern money and trade.
“And this is why Austrian Economics is to Scientific Economics as astrology is to astronomy.”
What is why? You haven’t shown any why!
“Which raises the question of why we are wasting our time arguing with the Ausrians instead of ignoring them and dismissing them as crackpots, the way evolutionary biologists do with advocates of creation science.”
You haven’t shown how Austrian economics is “crackpot”. You’re preaching a false dogma that was refuted decades ago.
24. August 2012 at 08:02
I echo Razer’s request.
Full Unemployment Hawk, if you can show me a single empirical equation that actually maps the course of human action, I’ll convert to your faith-based dogma.
24. August 2012 at 08:04
Surely after 80 years of positivist infiltration of economics, you can show just ONE example?
24. August 2012 at 08:08
“Empirically his pet theory has failed (stagflation of the 70s),”
Macroeconomics is about aggregate supply and aggregate demand. The fact that adverse supply shocks, when they actually happen, as was the case in the 1970s, will cause stagflation is perfectly consistent with the fact that the great majority to times, when there are no such supply shocks, recessions are caused by lack of demand. What happened in the 1970s is in no way a refutation that lack of demand is what is keeping the economy in a depression at the present time.
24. August 2012 at 08:15
“Praxeologically grounded propositions cannot be thought of as being inconsistent with any empirical data”
That gets at the very gist of why Austrian economics is not scientific, but rather a system of faith. Propositions that cannot be refuted by evidence are dogma and not science.
This proposition, by itself, is all one needs to know about Austrian economics to reject it out of hand and not worth serious consideration.
Austrian economics started out as a very respectable approach to economics under people like Boehm-Bahwerk. But primarily due the influence of Hayek and Von Mieses has become a cult of true believers and deserves to be treated as such.
24. August 2012 at 08:33
“If there is an increase in the quantity of money, then provided the demand for money is unchanged, then the purchasing power of money will decrease”, is a theory that cannot ever be falsified by experience.”
It can certainly be tested against the evidence. If the purchasing power of money does not decrease, the theory is false. Obviously if a theory is correct it will not, in fact, be falsified by the evidence. But the point is that the theory is capable of being tested and can be falsified if it turns out to be inconsistent with the evidence.
Actually the way you have stated the theory, without any quantification BY HOW MUCH the purchasing power of money will decrease, so that even if the decrease is miniscule the theory is not refuted, makes it a very weak theory that is of very little use. Actually the quantity theory states that “If there is an increase in the quantity of money, then provided the demand for money is unchanged and potential output is unchanged, the purchasing power of money will decrease proportionately, so that, for example a doubling of the money will double prices. This proposition is easily refuted by the empirical evidence in many situations. For example, if the economy is in a depression, a doubling of the money supply will mostly increase output and have a much less than proportional effect on the price level.
But why am I wasting my time arguing with creation scientists and astrologers?
24. August 2012 at 09:05
That’s rich. A guy who blames ‘animal spirits’ as a cause for recessions and thinks when a bureaucrat spends money it magically has a multiplier effect but not when the owner of that money spends it. Scientific indeed. Inflationists – getting it wrong for 100+ years but undeterred. Zimbabwe, the Keynesian model of excellence.
24. August 2012 at 09:18
Hayek’s A Tiger by The Tail absolutely demolishes Keyne’s hackneyed theory as others like Hazlitt did before. Funny how the Austrians don’t get demolished by Keynesians in theory or by the empirical standards (the ABCT holds up) the Keynesians say is relevant. By empirical standards, Keynesianism is abysmal failure just as he is on paper. Is Zimbabwe printing enough money, FEH? Do they have full employment? Is there pump primed? Ha ha. I wonder what there multiplier is.
I’d love to see FEH refute Austrian theory. I’ve yet to see an inflationist even understand it, so that would be a good first step. So far it’s clear to me he has no clue, which is typical.
24. August 2012 at 09:38
Full Unemployment Hawk:
“Empirically his pet theory has failed (stagflation of the 70s),”
“Macroeconomics is about aggregate supply and aggregate demand. The fact that adverse supply shocks, when they actually happen, as was the case in the 1970s, will cause stagflation is perfectly consistent with the fact that the great majority to times, when there are no such supply shocks, recessions are caused by lack of demand.”
Notice how falsification doesn’t occur in positivism in Full Unemployment Hawk land. And with good reason. It was not designed to. As many rationalist authors have shown, positivism leads invariably to skepticism, as there can always be an excuse given for why the theorized event did not take place. Perhaps someone used a 3 variable lag garch instead of a non-heteroskedastic vector auto regression model. Perhaps someone committed the omitted variable bias. Perhaps we didn’t observe the data long enough.
Stagflation of the 1970s empirically falsified the Keynesian “unemployment equilibrium” theory that held price inflation and employment are positively correlated, but as expected, positivists with a bias in favor of state control of money printing responded by blaming oil. If the oil crisis never occurred, then, allegedly, we would not have seen a period of growing price inflation and decreasing employment.
This is creationism par excellence folks. Ignore empirical falsification of theories and advance one’s beliefs even if they contradict reality.
“What happened in the 1970s is in no way a refutation that lack of demand is what is keeping the economy in a depression at the present time.”
What is happening today in no way confirms the theory that the economy is in recession because of lack of aggregate demand.
“Praxeologically grounded propositions cannot be thought of as being inconsistent with any empirical data”
That gets at the very gist of why Austrian economics is not scientific, but rather a system of faith. Propositions that cannot be refuted by evidence are dogma and not science.
What about that proposition you made just there? That “propositions that cannot be refuted by evidence are dogma and not science”?
Clearly the way you are advancing that claim is as a proposition that is itself not subject to refutation. Well, according to your “logic”, you are advancing dogma not science. For you are presenting a proposition that cannot be refuted by evidence.
You are contradicting yourself. You are advancing a worldview that requires faith, not reason, to accept.
Let us however set your contradiction aside for a moment, and take what you said at face value. Well, according to your faith based assertions, mathematical propositions, because they are not subject to empirical falsification, must ALSO be “dogma and not science.” Logical propositions as well, because they too are not subject to empirical refutation, logical propositions must also be “dogma and not science.”
Responding with “Austrian economics is not mathematics” is not a valid rejoinder to the explanation of the implications of what you believe. YOU said all propositions that cannot be refuted are dogma and not science. Well, not only must that statement itself be dogma and not science, which means you would have to reject your own stupid belief system, but you are also saying that mathematics and logic, are also dogma and not science. Yet the last time I checked, the discipline of mathematics is located in the science departments of virtually every university in the world.
Can you explain that? If mathematics is not a falsifiable discipline, why do you accept the validity of mathematical proofs as rational and not religious, and why do people far more intelligent than you put mathematics in science departments at educational facilities?
“This proposition, by itself, is all one needs to know about Austrian economics to reject it out of hand and not worth serious consideration.”
No, it only shows your complete ignorance of understanding what it is you are addressing.
“Austrian economics started out as a very respectable approach to economics under people like Boehm-Bahwerk.”
Oh please. Bohm-Bawerk also rejected positivism in economics. He also held economics to be a praxeological, not empirical, discipline.
I have noticed around the blogosphere a growing trend among statists who are for some reason seeking to replace Misesianism with Mengerism and Bohm-Bawerkianism, as if Mises didn’t make explicit what Menger and Bohm-Bawerk were doing, as if Mises represents a divergence from “true” subjectivist Austrianism.
I think I know why. It is because Hayek and Mises were small government types, and Menger and Bohm-Bawerk were not. So statist ideologues like yourself are trying to cover your ideology behind seeming value free and “scientific” claims of “Bohm-Bawerk was more reasonable”. You are only trying to spread that belief because the Austrians of the 19th and early 20th centuries were not anarchists.
“But primarily due the influence of Hayek and Von Mieses has become a cult of true believers and deserves to be treated as such.”
What you mean by “cult of true believers” is translated into “those who reject the cult of statism and the faith based notion that a small group of people know what’s best for everyone else.”
“If there is an increase in the quantity of money, then provided the demand for money is unchanged, then the purchasing power of money will decrease”, is a theory that cannot ever be falsified by experience.”
“It can certainly be tested against the evidence.”
This comment only shows your inability to grasp the foundation of the theory.
The Pythagorean theorem can also be “tested against the evidence”, but that is not what makes the theorem valid. We don’t understand that “c^2 = a^2 + b^2” because people have gone out and measured many examples of plane right triangles empirically. It is instead deduced from axioms. The same thing is the case for the quantity theory of money.
“If the purchasing power of money does not decrease, the theory is false.”
IT CANNOT POSSIBLY DECREASE. It is impossible for you and I to receive more money, and provided we have the same demand for money as before, that we can somehow observe the purchasing power of money to NOT decrease. Such a world is impossible. It is a logical necessity that the purchasing power of money falls. That is does fall is already implied in the very nature of money, trade, and demand for money, similar to how the Pythagorean theorem is already implied in the very nature of plane right triangles.
“Obviously if a theory is correct it will not, in fact, be falsified by the evidence.”
Obviously not all propositions that say something real about the world, are falsifiable. You yourself are advancing these types of propositions, but you don’t even know it.
“But the point is that the theory is capable of being tested and can be falsified if it turns out to be inconsistent with the evidence.”
The Pythagorean theorem is not treated as hypothetical, nor subject to possible future falsification. It is apodictic. If there is a plane right triangle, the theorem applies and we know it applies before we even measure a new right plane triangle that has never before been observed.
“Actually the way you have stated the theory, without any quantification BY HOW MUCH the purchasing power of money will decrease, so that even if the decrease is miniscule the theory is not refuted, makes it a very weak theory that is of very little use.”
That’s because I didn’t intend to show by just how much purchasing power will fall. You can’t tell me the theory is weak on the basis that it doesn’t say what I never intended it to say. By that “logic”, I can call all of your theories weak because they don’t explain something else they don’t intend to say.
You say “even if the decrease is miniscule.” This is your mind being stimulated into accepting that I’m right. You want to minimize it by thinking of “miniscule” examples of increases in the quantity of money, but my argument above did not intend to show just how much purchasing power does fall. Only that it does. If you agree that provided demand for money holding is constant, that the purchasing power of money is lower, then we’re done. You admitted the validity of non-hypothetical economic propositions that are not derived from observation.
“Actually the quantity theory states that “If there is an increase in the quantity of money, then provided the demand for money is unchanged and potential output is unchanged, the purchasing power of money will decrease proportionately, so that, for example a doubling of the money will double prices.”
That is not the proposition I stated above. You can’t argue against me by insisting that I adopt a different definition for the quantity theory of money than the one I espoused above. That is arguing over semantics, not theory. If you don’t want to define the proposition I made as the quantity theory of money, then fine, call it the schquantity theory of money. Now address THAT proposition I made.
Your definition for the quantity theory of money, that includes the statement “a doubling of the quantity theory of money will double prices” is not what I said, so you’re not addressing what I said.
“This proposition is easily refuted by the empirical evidence in many situations. For example, if the economy is in a depression, a doubling of the money supply will mostly increase output and have a much less than proportional effect on the price level.”
This doesn’t refute what I said. You are saying that the purchasing power of money will fall. How is saying the purchasing power of money will fall contradict my statement above? Oh that’s right, it doesn’t. You’re arguing against a straw man because you can’t refute what I am saying.
“But why am I wasting my time arguing with creation scientists and astrologers?”
Do you still beat your wife?
24. August 2012 at 10:26
Economics is not chemisty. It is imossible to run controlled experiments. Nor is it math, there is no set of axioms that are not clearly false.
This hasn’t prevented many in the profession to elevate it to a more scientific plane than the rest of the social sciences. However, this is clearly bullshit.
However, since economics is a soft science, it makes it a lot more fun to debate than Chemistry.
Major, despite its postition as “Queen of the Sciences”, I have a BA in math and not a BS — Math is philosophy. (Should philosophy be a BS degree?)
24. August 2012 at 14:18
Doug M,
There is plenty of BS in philosophy, so why not?
24. August 2012 at 14:23
Doug M:
Economics is not chemisty. It is imossible to run controlled experiments.
Good so far…
Nor is it math, there is no set of axioms that are not clearly false.
Humans don’t act is a clearly false proposition, because the very espousing of it would invariably be an action itself. It cannot be argued without contradiction that humans do not act.
This hasn’t prevented many in the profession to elevate it to a more scientific plane than the rest of the social sciences. However, this is clearly bullshit.
I wouldn’t use the word “elevate” to describe economics being infiltrated by positivism. I would use the word “demoted” or “tarnished” or “reduced”.
However, since economics is a soft science, it makes it a lot more fun to debate than Chemistry.
That’s because the very subject matter of economics, namely us human actors, are the very “atoms and molecules” being studied.
Major, despite its postition as “Queen of the Sciences”, I have a BA in math and not a BS “” Math is philosophy.
Interesting.
(Should philosophy be a BS degree?)
Absolutely. Without philosophy there can be no philosophy of science. Without philosophy of science there can be no science.
24. August 2012 at 14:28
W. Peden:
“There is plenty of BS in philosophy, so why not?”
There has also been plenty of BS in physics too. Remember the luminiferous aether?
24. August 2012 at 15:07
There has also been plenty of BS in physics too.
And string theory!
24. August 2012 at 15:48
Major Freedom,
“There has also been plenty of BS in physics too. Remember the luminiferous aether?”
Yep: error is found across all fields of human life. It’s just that, as a philosophy student, I’m most familiar with the BS in my particular field.
25. August 2012 at 13:45
500 comments ! Is this a record ?
So this is still going …If Scott does not want to police his blog…I think sprinkling “open threads” into the mix would be a good Idea. Commenters who want to could congregate on the open threads with out mucking up the the themes of the other threads for others.
Would it work ?
MIke Sax and MF ….could you resist highjacking other threads if there were open threads to take your debates to ? Or would that take the fun out of it ?
Would you respect it when other commenters said …”Hey take it to an open thread.” ?
25. August 2012 at 20:52
Bill Ellis:
Would you respect it when other commenters said …”Hey take it to an open thread.” ?
No. I would only respect it if Sumner requested it.
9. September 2012 at 07:58
Major_Freedom,
Herd immunity? That’s a benefit from vaccine mandates.
Also,
“‘If enough people, perhaps 20%, avoid vaccines, the vaccination program overall looses effectiveness.’
Loses.”
//That was my most embarrassing part!