It doesn’t matter what I think
I have the misfortune to be taking a short vacation at 2:00 today, 15 minutes before the Fed announcement. So I won’t be able to comment, and may not even know what they did for several days. (I don’t have stuff like a smart phone or laptop.)
But it doesn’t really matter what I think, all that matters is whether they move expected 2013 NGDP, and if so by how much. We still don’t have an NGDP futures market—which by itself tells you all you need to know about why policy is so inept. We erect a massive intelligence effort against small problems like terrorism, and spend almost nothing on the sort of intelligence that would prevent an economic catastrophe affecting billions.
As things stand I suppose a weighted average of equity prices and TIPS spreads are our best indicator, with a bit more weight on stocks right now, as the SRAS curve is currently not very steep.
So look at the market response, I have nothing to add. But also recall that markets respond to new information. The market response won’t show the effect of the policy. It will show the effect of the difference between the expected policy and the actual policy. If the announcement doesn’t significantly affect the market it probably means that the announcement was roughly what the market expected. I gather from reading the financial papers that the markets currently expect something new.
PS. I forgot to mention that I did a piece for The Economists’ Voice more than a year ago, which I had completely forgotten about. Just a week ago they suddenly decided to publish it. Here’s an excerpt:
Regardless of structural problems, it makes no sense to argue that the severe drop in nominal spending doesn’t call for monetary stimulus, unless one believes that nominal shocks don’t have real effects. Is that what people now believe? Have the views of Hume, Fisher, Keynes, Hayek, Friedman, Lucas and Woodford all been tossed in the dustbin of history? If so, I can’t imagine why. But that’s the impression one gets from all the recent attempts to claim there is no need for monetary stimulus despite the fact that NGDP recently plunged far below trend.
It was in response to a piece by Edward Leamer.
PPS. Frequent commenter Lorenzo has another excellent post, this time comparing the recent crisis to the Great Depression.
Tags:
1. August 2012 at 10:36
The Fed did nothing, and suggested that they would not do anything different from the last meeting.
market reaction was a gyration in the minutes around the announcment and back to the pre-announcment level.
Everything pretty much as expected.
1. August 2012 at 11:03
Yeah this early piece by CNBC proved to aniticpate it right.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15839285
The Fed was supposed to be “mostly talk and no action” and that’s what you got
1. August 2012 at 11:13
Enjoy your time away and while your at it get a GD smart phone.
1. August 2012 at 11:25
Groundhog day…again.
1. August 2012 at 11:29
The fed should announce they will engage in a bond buying program immediately after Obamacare is rescinded.
1. August 2012 at 12:09
Scott,
For the reasons expounded elsewhere, please start pushing for NGDP indexed notes (“GAINS”). It will help move the ball down the field.
1. August 2012 at 12:18
The Fed cannot move expected NGDP.
You said earlier that the proof of the power of the Fed is the “high inflation” Fed ostensibly generated via devaluation in 1934.
It never happened.
http://tinyurl.com/24skjm6
You cannot even find 1934 on this graph. Inflation barely crossed 5%.
Is FRED a part of a vast MMT conspiracy?
Yes your monetarist model says there SHOULD be inflation, maybe you so much wanted to find it that you thought you did, but no, the effect of Fed’s actions didn’t show in CPI.
1. August 2012 at 12:31
“Bernanke told Congress two weeks ago that the Fed is prepared to take further action if unemployment stays high.”
In observing the actions of Bernanke and the FOMC one has the feeing that one is watching a performance of Hamlet. “To stimulate, or not to stimulate, that is the question.”
But this is actually more like a performance of Waiting for Godot. Bernanke and the FOMC believe that they must not act to give the economy the stimulus it needs because they have to wait for the economy to recover on its own.
1. August 2012 at 12:36
Scott: thanks.
OhMy: Download the data, the inflationary surge in 1934 is quite clear. The annual change in the CPI shifts from -10 in March 1933 to +5.6 in March 1934. Given how far under capacity the US economy was in March 1933, there had to be a pretty impressive surge in NGDP to create that.
1. August 2012 at 12:48
“You said earlier that the proof of the power of the Fed is the “high inflation” Fed ostensibly generated via devaluation in 1934. It never happened.”
The change from massive DEFLATION, which is what was happening when Roosevelt took over to 5% inflation was a major positive shock for the economy. Irving Fisher had argued in favor of Reflation, that is restoring the price level to what it was before the deflation happened, not in favor of creating a high RATE of inflation. And, while what Roosevelt did did not go all the way to achieving reflation, it moved the economy far in that direction. And yes, this change from massive deflation to significant inflation deserves a large part of the credit for the high growth in output until 1937.
1. August 2012 at 12:53
There is no question that Bernanke and the FOMC, in blatently defying its Congressional mandate to achieve maximum employment, are engaging in economic sabotage against Obama and his administration. The only question that can still be credibly debated is whether this is deliberate, or the result of incredible incompetence. For at least some of the Federal Reserve Bank presidents, this is almost surely intentional, and I cannot help suspecting that it is intentional of the part of Republican Bernanke.
1. August 2012 at 13:13
Lorenzo from Oz,
The number +5% is also quite clear: it is not high inflation.
Full Employment Hawk,
The shits from deflation to weak inflation happened before Fed existed, and this is probably what happened here. Same story: 1866, 1874 1878, 1894, 1922. Sumner claimed ample inflation from devaluation. It never came. Deflation ended by itself in previous recessions, exactly the same pattern.
1. August 2012 at 13:18
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2018820168_apuswallstreet.html
‘The market wavered between gains and losses for much of the day, yanked around by technical problems, an ambiguous statement from the Federal Reserve, and mixed reports on U.S. companies that made it difficult to decipher just where the economy is headed.’
I hate it when that happens.
1. August 2012 at 13:19
Actually, OhMy and Full Employment, I don’t think inflation ever got as high as 5% in the thirties. The highest it got was 3.71% in 1934.
OhMy what impact do you think the devaluation had-if any?
1. August 2012 at 13:20
‘There is no question that Bernanke and the FOMC, in blatently defying its Congressional mandate to achieve maximum employment, are engaging in economic sabotage against Obama and his administration.’
Kinda calls into question Obama’s judgment doesn’t it? I mean the vote was 11-1.
1. August 2012 at 13:42
Reappointing Bernanke was Obama’s most serious single mistake and may well be a fatal one. But this conclusion is reached with the benefit of hindsight. Certainly nothing in Bernanke’s research about the Japanese economy gave one any indication that he would refuse to act decisively to restore the economy to full employment. Quite on the contrary. And his actions during the time the financial markets were in danger of a total meltdown, which were bold and decisive, would have caused people to expect him to continue to do so. Even Krugman supported his reappoingment. (I did too, stupid, stupid me.)
And 5 out of the 12 members of the FOMC are largely chosen by bankers. One member of the BOG is a holdover from the Bush administration and one is a Republican that had to be included in the last 2 appointments to get them through Congress. That leaves 4 other Obama appointments who should be supporting him and are missing in action. Probably they feel that dissenting would simply add uncertainty to the markets and achieve nothing positive. But the fallure of Obama to promptly fill the vacancies on the BOG with full employment hawks was perhaps an even bigger blunder than the reappointment of Bernanke. Unfortunately Obama was the victim of very bad economic advice from people in his adminstration who did not appreciate the crucial importance of monetary policy and thought we were in a liquidity trap.
If Obama loses Bernanke and the FOMC are responsible.
1. August 2012 at 13:54
“The shits from deflation to weak inflation happened before Fed existed,”
Taking the U.S. off the gold standard and devaluating the dollar were not done by the Fed. They were done by Roosevelt.
Recessions will eventually end by themselves. The same need not be true for major depressions. The only counterpart to the Great Depression in the 19th Century in the 1870s ended because gold discoveries caused a major increase in the money supply.
1. August 2012 at 13:58
“that made it difficult to decipher just where the economy is headed.”
One thing is becoming clear. Bernanke and the FOMC are no going to provide the economy with any additional economic stimulus until after the election. With fiscal policy (looking at the entire government sector) being highly contractionary, the economy will continue to deteriorate until the election.
1. August 2012 at 14:02
We still don’t have an NGDP futures market””which by itself tells you all you need to know about why policy is so inept.
Now that’s funny.
You just contradicted yourself yet again. First you said that the market is smarter than even the wisest economist, and then you say the market is inept for not creating an NGDP futures market.
I think what’s inept is failing to realize that if the market doesn’t want an NGDP futures market, despite plenty of opportunity to do so, then maybe the problem is the NGDP futures idea itself.
1. August 2012 at 14:04
Full Employment Hawk,
You could be right, but for this election, it is clear that the economy is not the overriding factor to the degree it normally is. If it was, there is no way in hell Obama would have a chance.
The repubs are so extreme they could not field a candidate that could take advantage of a sure win situation.
Romney’s Tax returns are going to dog him. His tax proposals heighten his weak spot. The dems could have beat one of the wing-nut-tea-baggers easier, but for someone like me who wants the race to be about how the elite has the system rigged and inequity of income and opportunity… Romney was the perfect candidate.
I Would love to see him pick Ryan as his number two…It would be a perfect storm.
1. August 2012 at 14:13
hey,
i wrote a post trying to explain the reason for fed policy inaction. Basically, i think the main problem is FOMC’s focus on consensus.
http://southofthe49th.blogspot.ca/2012/08/towards-theory-of-fomc-inaction.html
I think its important to think about how the fed could be restructured to encourage appropriate policy action.
Great blog as always Scott. Has really influenced my thinking the past few years.
1. August 2012 at 14:19
“and may well be”
Notice I said MAY. Under normal circumstances a president going into an election with the economy in a depression with the unemployment rate stuck above 8% would face a total wipe out. The only reason that Obama still has a chance is that the Republican party has shifted so far to the extreme right that it is way out of the moderate mainstream, and that Mitt is a highly vulnerable candidate.
I certainly want Romney to lose. He is a rich elitist who thinks working people and the poor have too much money, and people like him have too little. Therefore I am going all out to support Obama even though he and his adminstration dropped the ball on the economy. For ordinary working people he is a much, much better choice. But the Fed is creating an awful lot of head wind he has to sail against and I cringe every time economic data is released.
On the other hand, if the economy were recovering solidly, the combination of Republican right-wing extremism and Mitt would lead to an electoral disaster for the Republicans. For the Republicans, its saved by the FOMC.
1. August 2012 at 14:21
Romney-Rice 2012
Though Ryan would be just fine too, I suspect if not Ryan Portman for Ohio, which bums me out.
The most exciting thing about November is my and Scott’s bet.
Forcing economists to build the desires of the hegemony A Power into their models is teh awesome.
I shall be a noble loser, if I’m wrong.
But if I win, and I fully expect to, I will be horrific winner – you all won’t be able to stand me. 🙂
1. August 2012 at 14:27
“Notice I said MAY. Under normal circumstances a president going into an election with the economy in a depression with the unemployment rate stuck above 8% would face a total wipe out. The only reason that Obama still has a chance is that the Republican party has shifted so far to the extreme right that it is way out of the moderate mainstream, and that Mitt is a highly vulnerable candidate.”
FUH,
You ought to be able to see the more organic view of this…
There actually comes a time when DC shrinks, when it recedes, and power flows back to states and municipalities.
This sin’t extremism, it is just natural modern network based economy, pushing power to the edges.
If you only see things through the Big Iron / Main Frame view, I get it can feel weird, but it is natural.
—–
That said, smart Republicans have know for a long time that winning by more than 50.1% means you gave up too much, better to barely win, with pissed off groups that lose that KNOW you are going to gut them.
And then GUT THEM.
1. August 2012 at 14:30
Morgan I’ve told you before- Portman. It can’t be Rice-she’s prochoice-how can it be that I know your party better than you?
Ryan is way to polarizing. He has his fans but he’s also got big enemies. Romney is trying to avoid specifics last thing he wants is to be saddled with having to defend the Ryan budget in detail.
If I win-and I fully expect to-I will be a noble winner-dinner is on me.
I’ll be a bad loser though in the event.
1. August 2012 at 14:36
Scott Sumner wrote:
OhMy, The devaluation occurred in April, and the WPI rose over 20% between March 1933 and March 1934. Unemployment was 25%. Explain that
OhMy wrote:
The Fed cannot move expected NGDP. You said earlier that the proof of the power of the Fed is the “high inflation” Fed ostensibly generated via devaluation in 1934. It never happened …
The wholesale price index from 3/30 to 3/34 increased by 22.4% (from 60.2 to 73.7), exactly as Scott said.
Deal with it.
And note well that this was a sudden, stark reversal from a fall of near 10% during the prior 12 months — making a turnaround of 32 percentage points(!) — and a straight fall of 37% during the prior four years.
That was some turnaround! I wonder why it happened just exactly then?
Prof. Sumner’s request that you explain that remains unanswered.
Inflation barely crossed 5%.
As to inflation rising to “only” 5% — actually, 5.6% by the CPI 3/33 to 3/34 — note well that that was from *deflation* of 10% over the prior 12 months, thus an increase in inflation in one year of 15 points!
I wonder why that happened exactly then?
It’s interesting how you dismiss that sudden increase to 5.6% inflation as if it were nothing.
If inflation increased to 5.6% from today to this time next year (more than *triple* the past year’s rate, the highest rate in 20 years) would people dismiss that as nothing?? I think not!
And if inflation increased by 15.6 points in the coming year, would people dismiss that as nothing? Something that “never happened”?
Yes your monetarist model says there SHOULD be inflation
Yup, and there it is.
What kind of model does it take to not be able to see a 15.6 point increase in the rate of inflation in one year?
Is FRED a part of a vast MMT conspiracy?
Apparently not. 🙂
1. August 2012 at 14:43
Errata:
“The wholesale price index from 3/30 to 3/34 increased by 22.4% (from 60.2 to 73.7), exactly as Scott said.”
That is, of course, from 3/33 to 3/34.
1. August 2012 at 15:27
Full:
There has been enough semi-permanent to permanent loss of production capacity due to the duration of the suffocation of demand by the Committee’s policies. It will leave quite a mark on the economy that we will be paying for for a decade or more. It just doesn’t matter for Obama what the FOMC did today because it’s too late. Even if it does do appropriate things for September, the economic front will remain challenging regardless of who wins the election.
Obama dropped the ball on the economy, which is a very big deal considering that is the issue I view to be of top priority, and I don’t have much of a warm fuzzy that he gets what he did wrong. There is plenty of evidence he doesn’t as he thinks raising taxes and massive spending are good ideas with the Fed targeting inflation firmly at 2%. One is counterproductive and the other won’t help under those circumstances.
I consider Romney as a better choice, although not much better because he has dropped little hints that can be construed to mean he understands the problem. I would rather go with a “maybe the problem will get fixed” and have a chance at starting to work through the damage the Fed has caused rather than almost a sure thing that it won’t. Nothing will get better until this awful Fed policy is changed, and dealing out punishments to various groups of people in lieu of that might make some people feel better about the resultant misery, it does noting to put food on my table.
1. August 2012 at 15:50
Jim Glass,
You beat me to it. But allow me to expand on how unique a turn around this was. The year on year change in consumer price inflation has only been exceeded twice in 220 years: 1803 and late 1946 into early 1947. The year on year change in wholesale price inflation was only exceeded in 1922.
Actually I love the example of US in 1933-37 because the recovery was swift (real GDP growth averaged 9.4%) and owes very little to fiscal stimulus (Keynesian economist E. Cary Brown’s estimate was 5%). It’s also been well examined in a number of more recent research papers (e.g. Eichengreen, Romer etc.) and they all conclude the recovery was almost entirely a monetary policy event. I don’t see how anyone can familiarize themselves with that part of American history and remain an adherent of MMT.
1. August 2012 at 15:56
“Romney-Rice 2012”
And, of course, the Republican base will welcome having a pro-choice woman one heartbeat away from the President.
1. August 2012 at 15:59
@Jim Glass – Ehhh.. While the Wholesale Price Index instead of almost exclusively used CPI to judge inflation?
If nothing else it does not have a direct influence on NGDP (as opposed to CPI).
And just curious… have you looked at the 1920-1921 figures? And do those not disturb your peace of mind?
1. August 2012 at 16:00
Oops! s/While/Why/
1. August 2012 at 16:15
“I consider Romney as a better choice”
Morgan has a really good understanding of what will happen to working people and the poor if Romney and the Republicans win. They will be gutted.
This is a class warfare election. The Romney-Ryan economic plan is genuinely Robin Hood in reverse. It is designed to create a major redistribution of income and wealth upward from working people and the poor to the people at the very top. During the last 30 years the moneyed elite has been getting larger and larger shares of the economic pie. But it is not enough for them, they want even a lot more of it and Mitt and the Republicans are planning to give it to them. I intend to do all I can to try to prevent this.
1. August 2012 at 16:51
…recall that markets respond to new information. The market response won’t show the effect of the policy. It will show the effect of the difference between the expected policy and the actual policy. If the announcement doesn’t significantly affect the market it probably means that the announcement was roughly what the market expected.
Cognitive scientists call this “reward prediction error.”
Probabilistic learning happens via reward prediction error.
When something is better than you expected, you get a burst of dopamine, and you remember (and value) the event.
When something is worse than you expected, you get a dopamine dip, and you also remember (and devalue), as I understand it.
When something is as good (or bad) as you expected, no dopamine change, and no further learning.
1. August 2012 at 17:03
“Obama dropped the ball on the economy”
That does not mean that the Republicans would do any better. Quite on the contrary. Mitt’s economic plan is the Bush economic policies on steroids, and we know how well that worked. Even before the bottom fell out of the economy, the wages of working people were stagnating or declining. And, as Scott has pointed out, Bernanke and the Fed made serious mistakes during the Bush adminstration too.
Also one must note that Obama’s ability to improve the economy after the 2010 election was severely limited by Republican obstruction in Congress. The Republicans in Congress have done everything they can to keep the unemployment rate as high as possible. The mistake of appointing Bernanke had been made and it would have been impossible to appoint any full employment hawks to the BOG. So much of the blame for the current shape of the eonomy that does not fall on the Fed falls on the Republicans in Congress.
“as he thinks raising taxes and massive spending are good ideas.”
The Fiscal policy Obama has been pushing for has involved tax CUTS as well as spending increases. The tax cuts he has pushed for far exceed the proposed increase in income taxes on the people at the very top.
If the Fed really had rigidly adhered to and succeeded in achieving a rigid 2% inflation target, the expansionary fiscal policy obviously would not have worked. But the reality is that the Fed has not been following such a firm 2% inflation target and/or not succeded in achieving it. The economy not only has fallen short of this target but has also repeatedly fallen short of what the Fed projected for the economy and based its monetary policies on. Under those conditions a more expansionary fiscal policy would have worked. As long as it would only have brought the economy up to the level the Fed was expecting its monetary policy to acheve on the basis of its forecasts, the Fed would not have offset the effects of such an expansionary policy.
“Bernanke told Congress two weeks ago that the Fed is prepared to take further action if unemployment stays high.”
With the Fed waiting to see if the economy will get better on its own before acting, if more expansionary fiscal policy were in place and stimulating output, bringing about the improvement the Fed is waiting for, the Fed would not be offsetting it. So it would work.
Therefore, on the whole, expansionary fiscal policy would have worked and the Obama administration was right in trying for it. Quite on the contrary one of its mistakes was thatit did too little in pushing for more expansionary fiscal policy.
1. August 2012 at 17:37
Jim Glass,
“The wholesale price index from 3/30 to 3/34 increased by 22.4% (from 60.2 to 73.7), exactly as Scott said.
Deal with it.”
Yeah, but the broad economy apparently didn’t care because CPI was 5%. Deal with it.
Switching to WPI is moving the goalposts as Curious Bystander notes, because the usual measure CPI shows NOTHING: 5% is laughable as “high inflation”. Same 5% as in 1935-1937 when the Fed did nothing.
Plus the same pattern of reversals from deflation to mild inflation was see in 1866, 1874 1878, 1894 before the Fed even existed. Quite turnarounds too! I wonder why they happened exactly when they happened? Deflations apparently simply abruptly end on their own with no central bank around.
Mike Sax,
Despite this “rapid inflation of 1934” being the founding myth of Market Monetarists it appears that the huge devaluation had as much effect as QE, which is next to none.
1. August 2012 at 17:38
FEH,
The Fed would have to EASE under Romney / GOP, because they will GUT public employees, plummeting the GDP and forcing the Fed to print.
Also, the Fed likes them more.
1. August 2012 at 17:54
Jeremy Warner is a Market Monetarist: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100019196/well-only-know-the-economy-is-recovering-when-bond-yields-start-rising-again/
1. August 2012 at 20:09
“Also, the Fed likes them more.”
Morgan. Once again you are right on about this. Simiarly a good case can be made that if McCain were up for reelection the Fed would be following a more expansionary monetary policy.
“The Fed would have to EASE under Romney / GOP, because they will GUT public employees, plummeting the GDP and forcing the Fed to print.”
This is more complex. Romney has, at times,made noises about postponing the spending cuts because large immediate cuts would decrease aggregate demand. If he were to actually do this (doubtful) that is, combine immediate tax cuts with delayed spending cuts, that would be a Keynesian fiscal stimulus and actually increase aggregate demand and reduce unemployment. That is probably on the days he is listening to Mankiw, and not on the days he is listening to the base, which would almost certainly would not allow this and to other economic advisors like Hubbard.
If there is an immediate sharp cut in government spending, the Fed would have to ease, but would they ease enough to offset the resulting contraction in output? The FOMC has shown itself super caustious, being concerned about inflation and the risks of an increase in the Fed’s asset portolio, which, at least in part, seems genuine.
1. August 2012 at 20:09
“Also, the Fed likes them more.”
Morgan. Once again you are right on about this. Simiarly a good case can be made that if McCain were up for reelection the Fed would be following a more expansionary monetary policy.
“The Fed would have to EASE under Romney / GOP, because they will GUT public employees, plummeting the GDP and forcing the Fed to print.”
This is more complex. Romney has, at times,made noises about postponing the spending cuts because large immediate cuts would decrease aggregate demand. If he were to actually do this (doubtful) that is, combine immediate tax cuts with delayed spending cuts, that would be a Keynesian fiscal stimulus and actually increase aggregate demand and reduce unemployment. That is probably on the days he is listening to Mankiw, and not on the days he is listening to the base, which would almost certainly would not allow this and to other economic advisors like Hubbard.
If there is an immediate sharp cut in government spending, the Fed would have to ease, but would they ease enough to offset the resulting contraction in output? The FOMC has shown itself super caustious, being concerned about inflation and the risks of an increase in the Fed’s asset portolio, which, at least in part, seems genuine.
1. August 2012 at 20:22
“that would be a Keynesian fiscal stimulus and actually increase aggregate demand and reduce unemployment”
OOPS again. I left off the crucial qualification. This should read
“that would be a Keynesian fiscal stimulus and IF IT WERE NOT OFFSET BY THE FED WOULD actually increase aggregate demand and reduce unemployment”
1. August 2012 at 21:09
“Same 5% as in 1935-1937”
In an economy where things are constantly changing with repect to levels, changes in the second derivative, that is, changes in the rate of change, are very important. For example real GDP is currently changing upwards. The cause of the dissatisfaction with is performance is that its RATE OF CHANGE (growth in real GDP) is too low and therefore a higher RATE OF CHANGE is desired. When such changes in the rate of change are large they have major impacts on the economy. Therefore a change from -10% to +5% has very different effects on the economy than a sustained +5% change, in which the second derivative is 0%.
“Same 5% as in 1935-1937 when the Fed did nothing”
Once again I need to point out that the United States going off the gold standard and devaluating the dollar was not done by the Fed. It was done by Roosevelt.
Also note that in 1937, when the Fed did do something and raised reserve requirements (while the Roosevelt administration reduced the deficit; and I do not want to get into a debate here about which was the more important) the rate of inflation once again became negative.
“Plus the same pattern of reversals from deflation to mild inflation was see in 1866, 1874 1878, 1894 before the Fed even existed.” Major changes in the money supply took place even before there was a Fed. Where is your proof that these reversals were not caused by changes in the money supply? Friedman and Schwartz in their Monetary History of the United States provide extensive documentation that these changes were the result of changes in the money supply. These findings can be, and have been, challenged, but merely pointing out that the reversals took place does not prove your point. One of them WAS due to major gold discoveries, but I do not remember which one it was. (I think I had the year wrong in a posting above.)
2. August 2012 at 00:40
“Jeremy Warner is a Market Monetarist”
OK, so perhaps he’s not all the way there yet. I left him a comment: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100019196/well-only-know-the-economy-is-recovering-when-bond-yields-start-rising-again/#comment-607279568
2. August 2012 at 00:54
On a related note, has the market already priced in this supposed future glut of oil: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100019176/we-face-a-worldwide-glut-of-oil-with-profound-economic-and-geopolitical-implications-most-of-them-good/ ?
2. August 2012 at 04:05
FEH,
1. you make a straight logic mistake. Govt. spending BUYING MORE GUNS, or offsetting cutting spending outright by CUTTING SPENDING – these are examples of Ronney not having aggregate spending decrease.
HOWEVER, and this a giant big however, gutting public employees ia a TRUE INCREASE IN RGDP – it is REAL GROWTH.
Productivity gains = the only real growth, the only real savings, not nominal, real savings
So, say you put the public sector on a crash diet whrre they are forced to earn ZERO pay increases and deliver 5% productivity gains YOY.
Suddenly you have 22% of the US labor force, indeed more than half of US public spending operating at a 20%+ level of efficiency.
MOREOVER, you have far lower US DEBT because you have deeply reduced your pension commitments to the public sector going forward.
You have also raised the age of retirement. Future Debt level down.
You have also reduced regulatory burdens on SMB owners. The EPA sits by silently and weeps.
We are drilling / fracking / piping with abandon.
—–
You might not like this vision.
But I think you are hard pressed to say this doesn’t have the economy SCREAMING ALONG.
Suddenly Southern Eurostates are being hammered by the ECB, LOOK AT WHAT AMERICA HAS DONE!!!
FEH,
The hard truth is that Scott’s plan ONLY WORKS because when NGDPLT is running at 5%, we’re STILL GOING TO HAVE Unemployment at 7%+ and it is going to be gutting public employee time EVEN IF Obama is President.
I repeat, FULL EMPLOYMENT happens ONLY when the hard cap of NGDPLT has been reached, and suddenly we have “proof” that the problems are structural, and the ONLY way to make room under the HARD CAP, is to push public employees to slaughter.
NGDPLT works because the NGDP Futures market, neuters not just the Fed, it neuters Barney Frank and whoever the next President Obama is.
Get this through your head, the left WILL inevitably come to grops with NGDPLT not working for their interests, not working for one half of their stakeholders (the public employees) and they will attack it with abandon.
2. August 2012 at 04:10
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/01/quotes-of-the-day-1104/
“If we can elect a really conservative House and Senate that will force Romney to go along with our bold conservative agenda,” Shell said. “He’s going to have to really, really go to the right. He’ll be working with guys in the House and Senate. He won’t be able to get away with too many middle of the road policies, especially on things like the deficit.”…
“It’s not going to be a Romney driven presidency,” Norman Orenstein, a researcher at the conservative think tank AEI recently told ABC News. “It’s going to be a Congressional, conservative, Republican driven presidency from Congress.”
2. August 2012 at 05:32
Looks like Caroline Baum at Bloomberg is starting to come around too. She even quotes you;
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-01/how-the-fed-took-the-money-out-of-monetary-policy.html
2. August 2012 at 06:07
Morgan, again, as you choose to ingore it: no way will it be Rice. She’s prochoice.
Also she means Romney would have to defend not just Bain Capital but the Bush Aministration’s foreign policy all over again.
I see her as a total nonstarter. However, by all means, I’d love to be wrong as the Obama team can literally run against Bush again if she’s the pick.
Maybe she’s finally got some progress on finding those WMDs.
It’s Portman. Romney would even prefer Pawlenty as he likes boring, but Pawlenty is so boring that it becomes a liabiility so Romney will settle for second most boring-Portman.
The only possible wild card I can see is possibly Jindal.
2. August 2012 at 06:16
Major:
“We still don’t have an NGDP futures market””which by itself tells you all you need to know about why policy is so inept.”
“Now that’s funny.”
“You just contradicted yourself yet again. First you said that the market is smarter than even the wisest economist, and then you say the market is inept for not creating an NGDP futures market.”
“I think what’s inept is failing to realize that if the market doesn’t want an NGDP futures market, despite plenty of opportunity to do so, then maybe the problem is the NGDP futures idea itself.”
You may be right. However, can not the same thing be said for the fact that the market hasn’t given us banking alternatives to fractional reserve banking?
If there was a true market preference for warehouse banking or 100% reserve banking wouldn’t it have materialzied by now-by the same logic you use about NGDP futures?
We’ve had fractional reserve banking for two centuries. Despite the theoretical criticism of people like Rothbard there is after two hundred years no market for it.
In fact, isn’t the choice to put your money in a fractioanl reserve bank wholly voluntary and noncercive?
FRB developed via teh market not by government fiat.
2. August 2012 at 06:18
Catherine said, “Cognitive scientists call this “reward prediction error.””
Economists call it the efficient-markets hypothesis.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient-market_hypothesis)
2. August 2012 at 06:26
I want to give Evan Soltas a f***ing knighthood. (But I’m not the queen.) http://esoltas.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/the-fed-as-little-orphan-annie.html
2. August 2012 at 06:56
Ryan Avent covers the latest from the Fed: http://twitter.com/ryanavent/status/230728143000973312
2. August 2012 at 07:04
Full Employment Hawk,
Yep, I think let’s start talking about the fourth derivative, maybe this will save Sumner’s claim. Unfortunately it looks like the fourth derivative was also much higher in other years when the Fed did exactly nothing. How about 1915, 1921, 1946? You should also see 1863, 1865 and 1879, absolutely impressive fourth derivative!
2. August 2012 at 08:37
The market doesn’t respond to Fed announcements if they are consistent with a prior policy regime. I think we are in a new policy regime with a 2.5%-3.0% floor on NGDP, and a 2.0%-2.5% ceiling on inflation. Nothing yesterday changes that view.
2. August 2012 at 08:39
I should add that in between 2.5% NGDP and 2.5% inflation, the Fed will “let the economy drift”, i.e., deflect all responsibility for targeting the economy and instead blame Congress, ObamaCare, Wall St, and Europe.
2. August 2012 at 09:04
Mr. Fiscal Stimulus (aka Paul Krugman) is a stunning hypocrite. Raise revenue now!!! Raise revenue now!
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/theses-on-taxes/
“Neither candidate is offering a realistic tax plan, because the fact is that the federal government is going to need more revenue than either is currently proposing. But the two men are not equivalent in their unrealism: Obama is proposing to raise revenue by around $80 billion a year compared with current policy, while Romney is proposing to cut revenue by around $450 billion a year compared with current policy. Obama is inadequate; Romney is intensely, screamingly irresponsible.”
2. August 2012 at 09:19
Yeah Steve. I don’t agree that he’s a total hypocrite but I don’t get why he’s acting like the point of the President’s tax plan is ot raise revenue.
Krugman himself usually says we don’t want to think about deficits now.
2. August 2012 at 11:14
It should be illegal for both Sumner and Krugman to go on vacation at the same time.
2. August 2012 at 12:00
Steve,
It is not hypocritical to be pro more spending and pro raising more revenue.
P.K. has long said if he had his way he would let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone. And he has maintained that tax cuts don’t do much good as a form of stim.
2. August 2012 at 12:17
Too bad Sumner is on vacation…
The Fed stands pat, at least for now – Econbrowser
Jim Hamilton:
“But it is clear that the Fed sees the tools that it actually has available, namely more big purchases of Treasury or mortgage-backed securities, as measures that would have only modest stimulative effects but entail significant other risks.”
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2012/08/the_fed_stands.html
2. August 2012 at 12:19
which links here:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2012/05/should_the_fed_3.html
without making any note that that particular post drew comments in post in protest from Nick Rowe, Bill Woolsey, Andy Harless and Joe Gagnon.
2. August 2012 at 12:20
It also caused Brad DeLong:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/05/a-nice-piece-by-jim-hamilton-on-the-fed-but-with-one-flaw-risk-spread-vs-expected-inflation-effects-of-qe-at-the-zlb-depar.html
2. August 2012 at 12:24
and Scott to respond with a post to which the link I cannot post (for some unknown reason).
James Hamilton recieved so much criticism that he felt it necessary to respond with another post:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2012/05/yes_the_fed_cou.html
in which he backstepped to the following conclusion:
“Notwithstanding, I agree that there is room for the Fed to look for a more expansionary objective.”
So why now does he link to the initial post to justify his current argument without even a mention of all the controversy it drew initially? Does he really expect everybody to have such short memories?
2. August 2012 at 12:59
What we learned today-if we didn’t know it already-is that it’s ok for the Fed to say let’s wait and see but not the ECB.
Because while we have a not fast enough growth story they have a double dip story.
So much for Draghii’s Chuck Norris poise-‘believe me, it will be enough’
2. August 2012 at 13:21
Mike Sax,
So do ya think that the Fed will act when we hit our double dip ?
I guess so , but I also guess that when they do act it will be too little…just enough to put us back on an anemic course.
2. August 2012 at 13:58
Bill Ellis,
Usually Very Serious Krugman advocates larger deficits and points to ISLM and the cheap cost of funding. But here he says “we are going to need more revenue” and cutting revenue “is intensely, screamingly irresponsible.”
But I suppose you could be right, that Krugman doesn’t believe deficits are stimulative, only that tax financed enlargement of the government IS stimulative.
2. August 2012 at 14:22
Mike Sax,
It’s this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/GSPG10YR%3AIND
Not this:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/2-06062012-AP/EN/2-06062012-AP-EN.PDF
That’s making bond purchases necessary.
2. August 2012 at 14:23
Bill, it’s just my opinion, but I don’t think we have a double dip, though Europe worries me.
2. August 2012 at 14:38
“Bill, it’s just my opinion, but I don’t think we have a double dip, though Europe worries me”
IMO we are pretty close to stall speed. so far the asset markets seem to be thinking muted growth, but not a recession just yet.
2. August 2012 at 14:38
“Bill, it’s just my opinion, but I don’t think we have a double dip, though Europe worries me”
IMO we are pretty close to stall speed. so far the asset markets seem to be thinking muted growth, but not a recession just yet.
2. August 2012 at 15:14
Here’s a opposing point of view to that expressed by Jim Hamilton yesterday:
“Some of my colleagues still talk of the possibility of a liquidity trap, in which the central bank supposedly has no power even to cause inflation. Their theory is that interest rates fall so low that when the Fed buys more T-bills, it has no effect on interest rates, and the cash the Fed creates with those T-bill purchases just sits idle in banks.
To which I say, pshaw! If the U.S. were ever to arrive at such a situation, here’s what I’d recommend. First, have the Federal Reserve buy up the entire outstanding debt of the U.S. Treasury, which it can do easily enough by just creating new dollars to pay for the Treasury securities. No need to worry about those burdens on future taxpayers now! Then buy up all the commercial paper anybody cares to issue. Bye-bye credit crunch! In fact, you might as well buy up all the equities on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Fix that nasty trade deficit while we’re at it! Print an arbitrarily large quantity of money with which you’re allowed to buy whatever you like at fixed nominal prices, and the sky’s the limit on what you might set out to do.”
Who said that? Jim Hamilton, in 2008:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/10/deflation_risk.html
2. August 2012 at 15:17
It sounds to me like the aliens snatched his body sometime between 2008 and now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-jzblCbsuA
2. August 2012 at 16:21
Mark Sadowski
No doubt, although in the second quarter we saw Euro GDP get worse. Even Germany now shows signs of contraction
What worries me is that I think this is the only thing that could possibly threaten us with a double dip
2. August 2012 at 17:53
Mike Sax,
The GIIPS, Cyprus, Malta and the Netherlands (well over 40% of eurozone GDP) are already in technical recessions. Note that despite this, the ECB did not lower the repo rate today. They don’t have a dual mandate, just an inflation mandate. The sovereign debt crisis is being treated as a separate issue, and even then, not very effectively.
There’s no doubt that the eurozone crisis is causing financial capital flows out of euros into dollars which is elevating dollar demand and effectively tightening US monetary policy. The same thing happened in 2008, an issue that Lars Christensen wrote about recently:
http://marketmonetarist.com/2012/07/25/between-the-money-supply-and-velocity-the-euro-zone-vs-the-us/
2. August 2012 at 18:15
Thing I like about you Mark is you always have some cool links. TK
2. August 2012 at 19:40
On a related note here’s some interesting news. A commenter on another blog left the following comment after the FOMC meeting yesterday:
“Nice reacceleration in July going by capital flows. Probably means a robust 3rd quarter yry GDP.”
I asked if he was referring to foreign capital inflows and how he knew this and he responded:
“Yes, I am going by US internal flows and I know them week by week. They actually started to improve in June and continued to in July.
Only the FED has my weekly data and sorry, you can’t have it.”
Well, I had the sad duty of explaining to him that this is not good news at all.
To see why it might be good to consider the case of another country experiencing similar inflows: Switzerland. Switzerland has the franc pegged to the euro. The big increase in capital inflows from the eurozone in the past several weeks has forced it to defend its peg by increasing its monetary base:
http://soberlook.com/2012/07/swiss-base-money-spikes-as-snb-defends.html
The inflows will not adversely affect Switzerland because they are responding by increasing money supply in response to the increase in money demand. The US on the other hand is not doing the same.
What’s interesting about this is that this commenter has inside Fed information and is totally misinterpreting it. If you ever thought that the people inside the cathedrals of US finance actually knew what they were doing that ought to cure you of that misconception.
2. August 2012 at 22:52
BREAKING NEWS ALERT: Tyler Cowen advertises Market Monetarism (as “Neo-Monetarism”) on YouTube, in his video for Learn Liberty on Keynesianism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_647R_vUVc
2. August 2012 at 22:57
Right now the video links to the Wikipedia page on Market monetarism. Scott, you need to do a Learn Liberty video on MM that they can replace that link with instead. I’m sure Tyler can arrange it for you. (Or you and some of the others could authorize him to do it for you.)
2. August 2012 at 22:59
Okay, maybe Learn Liberty isn’t interested right now, but if you got in touch with them then they could get back to you when (inevitably) demand for one. I mean Tyler practically came out and said he thought “neo-monetarism” was the correct theory.
2. August 2012 at 23:03
The Antony Davies link kind of undermines Tyler’s argument against fiscal stimulus. Tyler says there’s plenty of evidence to suggest it doesn’t work well. Then the link pops up in the corner, and Davies has a chart showing a negative correlation between government spending and growth. Not budget deficits – just government spending. This is the same guy who did the video on the Fed manipulating interest rates, that I mentioned earlier.
2. August 2012 at 23:04
OK so maybe NK theory doesn’t necessarily require deficits. But the chart still doesn’t prove anything.
3. August 2012 at 05:06
Loosely related – it’s kind of sad that it took us 200 years to figure this out: http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2012/08/wot-about-the-capitalists.html?cid=6a00d83451688169e2017616f46f9d970c#comment-6a00d83451688169e2017616f46f9d970c
3. August 2012 at 06:58
“Happy by the headline establishment survey print of 133,245 which says that the US “added” 163,000 jobs in July from 133,082 last month? Consider this: the number was based on a non seasonally adjusted July number of 132,868. This was a 1.248 million drop from the June print. So how did the smoothing work out to make a real plunge into an “adjusted” rise? Simple: the BLS “added” 377K jobs for seasonal purposes. This was the largest seasonal addition in the past decade for a July NFP print in the past decade, possibly ever, as the first chart below shows. But wait, there’s more: the Birth Death adjustment, which adds to the NSA Print to get to the final number, was +52k. How does this compare to July 2011? It is about 1000% higher: the last B/D adjustment was a tiny +5K! In other words, of the 163,000 jobs “added”, 429,000 was based on purely statistical fudging. Doesn’t matter – the flashing red headline is good enough for the algos.”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/seasonal-and-birth-death-adjustments-add-429000-statistical-jobs
3. August 2012 at 08:05
Zerohedge is so much fun.
Enjoying the Drought = no QE3 for you!
http://blog.yardeni.com/2012/08/qe3-and-drought.html
Just get us to Nov. baby, just get us to Nov.
If people will line up for Chicken sandwiches, they will certainly line up to make Scott dedicate his book to me.
3. August 2012 at 08:39
Reading the tea leaves of anecdotal evidence is one way to try and predict an election.
A much better way is to consult an exhaustive statistical examination of history and poll data by a genuine genius.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
3. August 2012 at 08:54
Yep, No surprise… Unemployment data is notoriously inaccurate when it first comes out because so much of the number is based on incomplete data and “adjustments” (Guesses based on models ).
So what? There is no news in that.
And just as not surprising is that when the numbers are viewed as favorable to the opposition, partisans will attack the numbers based on the inherent inaccurate methodology, and imply that something nefarious is going on.
Truth is no one really knows what the numbers are until they are adjusted later.
3. August 2012 at 09:30
Steve said…
“But I suppose you could be right, that Krugman doesn’t believe deficits are stimulative, only that tax financed enlargement of the government IS stimulative.”
Yep, Krugman does not believe that there is anything inherently stimulative about deficits. And he does believe that when their is stubborn inadequate demand that the government should temporarily make up that shortfall. But he also recognizes that our debt problem (mostly driven by health care costs) is not going away and will have to be dealt with.
His stance makes sense if you believe that tax cuts are not as an effective form of stim as government spending, and you are concerned about eventually having to deal with the debt.
Given a choice between two possible fiscal solutions to lack of demand… that will both increase the debt… one should pick the one that is most effective…Right ?
( Personally…I agree with him that tax cuts for the wealthy are not good stim, but I think tax cuts for people who will spend them is good stim. I also would chance running higher deficits than he would like, to temporarily cut taxes for consumers)
Would it surprise you to hear that during normal times Krugman is as big a deficit hawk as they come ? When the GOP was arguing that “deficits don’t matter any more” he was apoplectic over it. He has been consistent about it no matter who was in office.
3. August 2012 at 10:21
Full Employment Hawk
I have been thinking a lot about why the Fed won’t move. Some/You? believe party politics may be the reason…(count Krugman in that camp ). And I agree it probably is a contributing factor, But I have come to believe that is is mainly because the elite are doing fine, and they will not even take small risks to do anything to help the rest of us. Jonathan Chait says it better than I…
Why Washington Accepts Mass Unemployment
By Jonathan Chait….
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08/why-washington-accepts-mass-unemployment.html
What does this view say about what happens regarding the election, Vs the “they are doing it for party politics” view ?
If it is about party politics preventing something we all would like to see otherwise…we could expect Romney win to to result in FED action.
But if it is about the elite being detached, there is no reason to believe the Fed will do any different…Romney certainly won’t make the Fed act.
3. August 2012 at 10:40
Bill, my guess is that today’s better than expected payroll numbers makes QE less rather than more likely. If this proves to be a trend an not an outlier this will give them a reason not to act.
The Fed wants to believe it’s job is over and will only get involved again if they see that there is a real danger of a double dip.
So far we’ve seen slowing growth but even so not as much as expected. For the Fed to act they have to believe there’s going to be another recession if they don’t
So the catch 22 is that those who want more Fed action are on the other side of those who want better numbers, because better numbers make it less likely the Fed will act.
3. August 2012 at 11:09
“when the Fed did exactly nothing.”
I repeat once again: THE FED DID NOT TAKE THE U.S. OFF THE GOLD STANDARD AND DEVALUE THE DOLLAR. THIS WAS DONE BY THE ROOSEVELT ADMINISTRATION.
“Yep, I think let’s start talking about the fourth derivative”
Now you are resorting to sophistry. Since in a dynamic economy, which is what we have, where levels are constantly changing, usually, but not always, growing, constant rates of growth in the price level do not cause changes in the rate at which the relevant macroeconomic variables, such as expected NGDP, are growing. It is CHANGES IN THE RATE OF GROWTH (changes in the second derivative) that cause disturbances in the rates at which the relevant economic variables, like expected NGDP, are growing.
Therefore a change from -10% to +5% is a major economic shock while a nonchange from +5% in the past year to 5% now is not a shock at all.
It takes a very solid set of ideological blinders to ignore the importance in the change in the rate of growth in the price level (about 15 percentage points) resulting from what Roosevelt did.
3. August 2012 at 11:10
Bill Ellis:
Truth is no one really knows what the numbers are until they are adjusted later.
And even then, it won’t matter, because the algos don’t look at post-adjusted data.
3. August 2012 at 11:14
“Mr. Fiscal Stimulus (aka Paul Krugman) is a stunning hypocrite”
Krugman’s position is jobs first, deficit reduction second. Therefore fiscal policy (which he believes to be effective under current economic conditions) calls for policies that INCREASE the deficit in the short run, but once the economy has returned to full employment, deficit reduction is required.
One may disagree with his position, but it is logically consistent and in no way hypocritical.
3. August 2012 at 11:35
Full Unemployment Hawk:
Krugman’s position is jobs first, deficit reduction second. Therefore fiscal policy (which he believes to be effective under current economic conditions) calls for policies that INCREASE the deficit in the short run, but once the economy has returned to full employment, deficit reduction is required.
One may disagree with his position, but it is logically consistent and in no way hypocritical.
Krugman wants a rise in taxes. Raising taxes is not expansionary in terms of fiscal deficits. It is contractionary.
How can you not see this logical inconsistency?
3. August 2012 at 11:42
“But I have come to believe that is is mainly because the elite are doing fine, and they will not even take small risks to do anything to help the rest of us.”
I agree that this is a major factor in explaining the behavior of the FED, and is more important than the political factor (the importance of which I have been repeatedly vacillating about). Bernanke is definitely making monetary policy for the benefit of the moneyed elite. When the financial system was facing the risk of a total collapse, so that the moneyed elite was facing the risk of financial ruin, Bernanke acted boldly, creatively, and decisively. This is what caused many people, including Krugman (and me), to make the mistake of thinking he should be reappointed. But once this risk passed, so that the wealth of the elite was secure, Bernanke became a cautious, timerous conservative central banker whose priority is to play it safe and not do anything that will imperil the wealth of the moneyed elite, rather than comply with the Fed’s congressional mandate to achieve maximum employment. And the same is true to an even greater extent of some of the other members of the FOMC, like Lacker.
The only weapon ordinary working people have to defend themselves against this neglect of their interests is to vote the President who presides over a period of high unemployment out of office. But this time they do not have this option because the alternative to the incumbent president is a priviledged elitist who thinks that working people and the poor have too much money and people like him have too little, so that voting the incumbent president out will make things worse for them, not better.
The failure of the unemployment rate to come down IS Obama’s worst nightmare because it may well cost him the election, an election that he would win by a large margin if the unemployment rate had come down. I hope that if he survives, by the time Bernanke comes up for reappointment Obama has finally figured out that this man is a dangerous enemy of his agenda and sacks him.
3. August 2012 at 11:46
“Krugman wants a rise in taxes. Raising taxes is not expansionary in terms of fiscal deficits. It is contractionary.”
JOBS FIRST, DEFICIT REDUCTION SECOND!
Of course raising taxes is contractionary, just as cutting government spending is. That is why he does not want to raise the taxes until AFTER the economy has recovered.
PROPER TIMING IS EVERYTHING.
3. August 2012 at 11:51
“If this proves to be a trend an not an outlier this will give them a reason not to act.”
The Fed would not act even if the numbers had been worse.
Since the purpose of QE III would be to get better numbers, it does not make sense to want worse numbers to get QE III. With a paralyzed Fed, any improvement the economy can do without another stimulus is good news.
3. August 2012 at 12:01
Mike Sax,
The payroll number matters not one wit. The FOMC is mostly moved by inflation and inflation expectations. Why? because Bernanke is a devote of the cult of Inflation Targeting (IT):
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6380.html
It tells him all he needs to know in one number. If the inflation rate is running low (his judgement call) we aren’t at maximum employment. If it is running high we’re already there.
There’s no need to pay attention to those stupid BLS surveys.
3. August 2012 at 12:03
Now, the reality of course is that this is total BS. But once you understand Bernanke’s religion everything he’s done (including blowing up the economy in 2008) makes much more sense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErFsW4-FDWw
3. August 2012 at 12:21
“Why? because Bernanke is a devote of the cult of Inflation Targeting (IT)”
“The only thing a central bank should do, as a matter of fact the only thing it CAN do is to stabilize the price level.”
This dangerous fallacy was foisted on the economic mainstream by the New Classical Economists, and has done incredible mischief, but in the United States and in the Eurozone. It was derived from New Classical models, which have been totally discredited by the Great Recession and the Little Depression that have followed it.
3. August 2012 at 14:01
The culture seems to be operating with a fundamental misunderstanding of what money is, and therefore do not know how to make it work. Money was developed to make trade easier. Money is supposed to represent the relative value of a specific asset. All trade requires monetization of assets, which is exchanging money for a product. The money is a type of receipt that represents the relative value of an asset. It entitles the bearer to redeem it for the asset, or receive another of same value. Money allows goods to be traded more dynamically, by price, than is possible through barter, which requires a coincidence of wants between traders. Money is able to buy everything because everything has a price.
During the gold standard, gold was monetized. Prior to that, it was traded as a commodity, which had its own intrinsic value, but was also a medium of exchange. When the gold was put in banks, and paper bills were printed to represent the gold in reserve, such that one dollar was equal to 1.60 grams of gold. When the bills were circulated, it was trading ownership of the gold of that dollar amount, for whatever asset. Note that if the paper bills were ever redeemed for the gold at the bank, that paper would have exited circulation, till perhaps more gold was discovered and then it could be circulated to represent the new gold.When prices were set, it was comparing the product to gold of certain quantity. This kept prices within certain limit, everything was priced relative to value of gold, how difficult if was to get gold, how useful gold was to trade for various things..Merchants did not set high prices for goods, because they knew there was no gold in great quantities available in the market to buy thier goods.
The problem was that all transactions had to be made with the limited gold backed money. Various goods of unique intrinsic value, that were even more valuable than gold could not be traded, bought or sold directly. They had to be held, or bartered, till the gold backed money circulated to buy their product, allowing the owner to then buy another asset, essentially at that point trading his product for the other, via the gold. There was effectively inadequate ratio of currency to asset, less money than goods and services to be consumed. That continues to be the cause of the problem today, which is odd, given that government can create money by fiat.
What was happening during the gold standard is that only the gold was monetized, or had money to represent it’s relative value. Other unique assets were not individually monetized, so everything was traded via the limited gold backed money. The market would have been more dynamic, if other assets were monetized. So there were vast supply of labor and raw materials, but the limited money was not enough, or circulated dynamically to allow them to trade.
The problem was solved when money was created by fiat. It allowed government to monetize war resources, and later public works projects. The money spent for labor, ammunition, raw materials and so forth, represented the relative value of those goods. When those soldiers and workers spent thier wages, they were trading their work, or the product of thier work for what they bought. The merchants redeemed that money, when they bought electricity made by dams the public workers built, or paid toll on roads they built, or when they paid taxes, which funded support of soldiers, so they could continue thier fighting.
The economy grows when money is created to produce new assets. The money spent on labor and materials represents the relative value of those things which are converted to finished goods for sale. When the workers who make those goods spend their earnings, they are trading what they produce for what they buy. When the recipients of their money or anyone else buy their products, the money has circulated back to the issuer to be redeemed, at that point it represents nothing and should exit circulation, or be reallocated to produce more goods to trade. The economy is a constant cycle of producers buying one anothers goods. Once assets are financed, trade activity depends on the relative quantity and price of goods, and demand. Various things affect these three factors, such as inflation, inequitable distribution of profits in companies, the need to save money for the future, outsourcing, open trade, immigration, tax, banking, and monetary policy. In sum, certain sum of money is used to produce goods, these are priced higher than cost to produce, workers are paid only a fraction, the business owners who earn vast sums spend only limited amount, many other people do not have jobs to consume.
Quite simply, if each individual had an asset to offer, in equal quantity and or value to all other assets available to consume, and if the assets were in demand, then the money used to produce the assets would continue to circulate indefinitely allowing those things to be traded.
In the real market, not every asset is financed. Prices are extremely disparate, which slows or prevents trade, or causes consumers to rely on borrowing, which can lead to debt that leads to market failure. Money can be created to pay people to provide any valuable service that materials exist to provide. They would then spend that money to buy goods in the market, but the recipients of the money would have to spend it back to continue the cycle of production and consumption.
A simple solution would be to create money that is timed, so that individuals only have up to 3 months to spend it, before it either dissappears, or is retained in a savings account to be accessed when they are a certain age. That money would move more quickly and could be taxed as it is spent, to extract the amount to continue financing the services, since individuals would likely not voluntarily pay to fund research, or environmental clean up etc.
Another solution is to create non profit businesses, so that every inanimate good that is consumed, funds a vital service. Rent, groceries, entertainment and so forth, would go to pay fo rteachers, doctors etc, and so there is c constant cycle of producing and consuming. Otherwise, the Federal Reserve policies will not work, because the market does not have the right dynamics, or mechanisms to allow trade optimally.
Recession and debt are not necessary, if government understood money, and created mechanisms to allow it to work properly to produce trade, such as non profit businesses, or timed viability. The economy is fundamentally about the use of money to trade wealth.There are vast resources to trade, but money is not available to do so, due to mechanisms that limit is buying power, circulation, and productivity, and due to incorrect growth strategy.
I am currently elaborating on this fundamental flaw in the trade system, please visit my paper at economyfixed.webs.com for details, and email me at idaraessang@gmail.com with your criticism. I am certain, monetization is the key to the problem with the economy, essentially creating money to produce assets, then having a mechanism in place to allow the money to be redeemed, to be reallocated, or exit circulation, so that every asset that is valuable can be traded for other assets that exist. Otherwise you will end up with a situation like cutting police, teachers, scientists, yet there are people and materials to allow them to do their work, or you will end up in debt, even though you have soldiers and materials to wage war.
3. August 2012 at 14:11
“Krugman wants a rise in taxes. Raising taxes is not expansionary in terms of fiscal deficits. It is contractionary”
Raising taxes cuts the deficit. If he’s inconsistent then what of those who say that what matters more than anything is deficit reduction now before growth?
They logically should support higher taxes but they don’t. In fact the Paul Ryan budget and Romney’s tax plan increases the deficit.
3. August 2012 at 15:33
Full Unemployment Hawk:
“Krugman wants a rise in taxes. Raising taxes is not expansionary in terms of fiscal deficits. It is contractionary.”
JOBS FIRST, DEFICIT REDUCTION SECOND!
Tax increases is not promoting of job growth. See Romer.
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/Written%20Version%20of%20Effects%20of%20Fiscal%20Policy.pdf
—————
If it’s job growth first, then Krugman cannot advocate for tax increases before deficit reduction. For he would be advocating for deficit reduction before job growth.
That is why he does not want to raise the taxes until AFTER the economy has recovered.
Krugman is calling for increased taxes NOW.
3. August 2012 at 16:46
Mike Sax says..
“In fact the Paul Ryan budget and Romney’s tax plan increases the deficit.”
So true Mike…and they add more debt than Obama’s plan…by trillions.
3. August 2012 at 17:16
Mohamed El-Erian on central bank impotence: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/central-banks-can-t-save-the-world.html
(Not sure if I should post these anymore, Scott is probably bored of them.)
3. August 2012 at 17:54
“Krugman is calling for increased taxes NOW.”
I reread the article. At no point is he calling for increased taxes NOW. He is evaluating two tax plans that would apply over a period. This is not in any way inconsistent with this view that taxes should not be increased until the economy has recovered.
But he did fail to make this clear in this posting. That was a major mistake and one should not be surprised if people that are not familiar with his views would be confused and people who are hostile to him would misinterpret it.
4. August 2012 at 06:02
What recovery? Didn’t Krugman say we’re in a depression?
I don’t see how he can want higher taxes anytime soon.
4. August 2012 at 06:04
And Obama did say:
“I am pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.”
4. August 2012 at 07:29
Major, I’ve never seen you get involved in electoral politics before. Thought you don’t do partisan politics?
The idea that of deficit reduction during a recession is misguided to say the least.
The Obama team did make some overly optmistic predictions in 2009-he’s certainly not the first or only policy maker to do that.
So they thought by now we’d be back to a healthy economy and then they could cut the deficit. I think that if you should be concerned abotu deficits at all-and I’m skeptical-at best you should speak of the “structural deficit”
Again if you can find Krugman or Obama contradicting themsselves so what? They’re not the only ones. Ryan and Romney are even more contadictionary.
They claim they want to balance the budget now and yet also promise huge tax cuts for the rich.
4. August 2012 at 09:02
Major, I’ve never seen you get involved in electoral politics before.
??? You keeping tabs? Creeeeepy.
Thought you don’t do partisan politics?
I don’t. It doesn’t matter who is in office, I was talking about taxes and deficits.
4. August 2012 at 09:07
Partisan politics means to support one party but not another, to judge someone’s arguments based on the letter that appears after their name, and to support bad ideas just because they come from people who have a certain letter after their name. You know, what you do all the time. That I don’t do.
4. August 2012 at 09:33
Major no one is more creepy than you. Your picture is next to the dictionary definition. You are criticizing Obama for being inconsistent and yet you say nothing about the GOP deficit hawks who are totally inconsistent.
But I figured as you consdier democratic elections wrong you didn’t really care what nay of the politicians do.
It just so happens that people with a certain letter after their name support most things I don’t like.
If they had better policies I’d support them. They used to a long time ago have better policies. Of coruse much of that is in the 19th century and not very releveant to today.
4. August 2012 at 09:48
Full Employment Hawk –
“JOBS FIRST, DEFICIT REDUCTION SECOND!
Of course raising taxes is contractionary, just as cutting government spending is.”
I assume you mean raising taxes is contractionary assuming no reaction function of the Fed. Remember the Sumner Critique.
If the Fed does its job correctly, then it offsets any stimulus or contraction from anywhere else. That’s why I’m in favor of the “fiscal cliff”. Target NGDP at the precrisis trend, let the tax cuts and spending sequester come and you’d see a balanced budget and full employment in a couple of years.
Of course, any candidate who campaigned on that platform would probably get trounced in the election.
4. August 2012 at 10:00
That should read “let the tax cuts expire and spending sequester come” of course.
4. August 2012 at 10:01
A tremendous article that explains why MM and Scott’s goals while important, aren’t being given serious consideration:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443687504577563013539649838.html?mod=opinion_newsreel
With Scott I feel like when you speak to someone who is contemplating a run for public office, and you start to explain what it will take to win votes, and they suddenly lose interest.
It is quite a bummer.
Uncle Milty cared enough about the world around him to get down in the mud and fight.
4. August 2012 at 10:07
Major no one is more creepy than you.
What is this? 3rd grade I know you are but what am I?
You’re unoriginal and boring.
4. August 2012 at 10:16
Mike Sax:
You are criticizing Obama for being inconsistent and yet you say nothing about the GOP deficit hawks who are totally inconsistent.
This statement is an excellent example of how partisan minds think of the world. You thought I was criticizing Obama for being inconsistent, when I did no such thing. You only SEE that because your mind is warped into a depraved state of “Protect Democrats, attack GOP”, no matter what is said.
The only reason why I brought up Obama saying he is going to shrink the deficit was to connect it to Krugman’s inconsistency.
You’re such a partisan hack that you see partisan hackery everywhere even where it doesn’t exist.
You need help.
4. August 2012 at 10:25
Well Major “I know you are but what am I?” is your line not mine.
In fact I have often pointed out that you are the master of “I know you are but what am I?”
So by accusing me doing your game you’re actually again saying “I know you are but what am I?”
Now you’re even pretending that I’m the mimick rather than you.
Why don’t you get your own observations and stop copying me and repeating back to me what I already said to you?. You only even know about mimicking because you always do it and I point it out.
Fascinating how you’re not even pretending to make intellectual arguments anymore but are engaging in nothing but a childish and mindless antagonism.
4. August 2012 at 10:26
Well Major “I know you are but what am I?” is your line not mine.
In fact I have often pointed out that you are the master of “I know you are but what am I?”
So by accusing me doing your game you’re actually again saying “I know you are but what am I?”
Now you’re even pretending that I’m the mimick rather than you.
Why don’t you get your own observations and stop copying me and repeating back to me what I already said to you?. You only even know about mimicking because you always do it and I point it out.
Fascinating how you’re not even pretending to make intellectual arguments anymore but are engaging in nothing but a childish and mindless antagonism.
4. August 2012 at 10:39
“You need help.”
Nice projecting, Unfree.
It is you’re dreams of dicatorship that are pathetic and sad.
I don’t agree that there’s any contradiction in raising taxes on the rich anyway. Better than the Romney plan which raises them on 95% of Americans.
4. August 2012 at 10:59
Sax,
One thing is for sure, IF you want to have the kind of government we have, you have to raise taxes on the bottom 95%.
If they are willing to keep voting for those taxes, then you have a truly supportive populace.
But most of them are already on the negative side of the line, for what they have paid in / gotten out.
Cheering for more unearned shit for those on the negative side of column, because of your own personal feelings, is one thing.
Pretending, they “deserve it” or the other guys haven’t paid their “fair share” is simply retarded.
You should be able to say out Saxie, “I’m unusually fraught with emotional need to end what I perceive as the suffering of others, I don’t like digging to deeply into why they might be suffering because of choices they made, and I resent the smug gloating of those who have figured out how to win, so….”
Being honest aids your argument, Saxie, it always aids your argument.
4. August 2012 at 11:12
Morgan I got no problem with my argument. Indeed, I still argue we’re winning. You see the latest polls this week? Obama has a 6 point lead in Florida, the same in Ohio, and 11 in Pennyslvania.
Another poll shows a 10 point national lead.
I am loving seeing Romney punked by Reaid. He seems to think he’s running against Reid for Senator he spends so much time arguing with him.
Let’s face it my friend, until the election you have nothing to gloat about. If you’re right then ok. I don’t see it. I see Romney getting bitchslapped every day.
I’ll give you one hint: if he’s fighting with Harry Reid, then it doesn’t matter what he says, he’s losing.
4. August 2012 at 11:16
Morgan:
“IF you want to have the kind of government we have, you have to raise taxes on the bottom 95%.”
If you’re right then you should be supporting Obama-as you don’t want to “have the kind of government we have” but rather seek to mercilessly downsize it.
If you’re right that Obama’s plan to raise taxes on a few millionaries won’t be enough to fund government than he would be your man.
4. August 2012 at 12:32
Scott, the ECB announcement effect was very interesting – completely different market action on thursday an friday.
4. August 2012 at 19:44
Saxie, you don’t look at the right polls…
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Likely voters, 1/3 GOP, 1/3 Dem, 1/3 Indie
Don’t pay attention to much else. I watched Nate Silver poo-poo the Tea Party onslaught in 2010 until his cred required him to flop… Pew is worthless, anything that samples 1 extra Dem is just propaganda.
I don’t expect it will be a squeaker, one side will get a couple points, but I still expect it’s Romney.
I just know know too many folks who tried Obama and have been kicking themselves for almost three years. I don’t know anyone who was against him and now is for him. And my crowd is pretty tech / investor / blue state elite kinda folk.
I’m also still rooting for Rice, Ryan, Rubio but I’m an Ohioan who thinks Ohio is must win, so Portman makes safe sense.
4. August 2012 at 19:46
“If you’re right then you should be supporting Obama”
No, if I’m right, then the Progressive Left is a weak fighter because it can’t ever get funding to actually deliver the stuff they talk about.
It REALLY requires raising middle class taxes to deliver bigger govt.
Note: I want to raise them because I think it will turn voters conservative.
4. August 2012 at 21:41
“The fed should announce they will engage in a bond buying program immediately after Obamacare is rescinded.”
They will. They respond to fiscal cuts by pumping money.
5. August 2012 at 01:57
Rasumussen huh? Just happens to be the most GOP friendly poll. There was that other poll that was not supposedly Dem leaning like Pew that showed Obama with a big lead in the swing states.
The business about voter enthusiasm is overdone. At this point in 2004 the Dems had a 68-51 enthusiasm lead of the GOP.
What the real truth is, I think, is that the party out of power is usually more enthusiastic.
You guys swear 2010 is the new reality every year going forward. I’ve heard that song before. 1994…
I agree that conservative ideology became ascendant in 1980. However, I also think it topped out in 2004. That’s because they got all the low hanging fruit.
After that, Bush got nowhere in 2005 with SS “reform.”
I doubt the Ryan plan ever happends either, but yes, like you say, this election will decide that.
What you really have seen speaking of party rather than ideology-so R-D rather than L-C-is that the parties have had roughly equal power. Have you read Kevin Phillips? He was the Nixon man who wrote “The Emerging Republcian Majority” in 1968.
Before that the Dems had been solidly in power from 1932-68; The GOP had dominated between 1860-1932.
Anyway Phillips was right that the old Dem dominance was over but the GOP never became dominant. Also, incidentally, Phillips basically turned on the Republicans himself by 1980 though he still claims to be a Republican all his wors since could have been written by a liberal.
The Repubs whipped the Dems in 5 of the next 6 elections, but the Dems continued to dominate Congress. Then in 1994 they finally got back into Congress, but the Dems by then had taken back the Presdidency.
So the Rs and Ds have been really going back and forth in the last 20 years both sides desperate for a real advantage.
If the Dems can win-if Obama wins re-election-it would prove that liberals can actually be liberals and win. Ie, this would prove my premise that conservatives hit their nadir in 2004.
It’s more a pendulum swing than you want to believe.
But whatever, we can both talk. This is why I can’t wait for this damn election to happen already, the speculation gets boring.
Portman seems the obvious pick. To me, Rubio sounds good as well, but there are reasons the Romney camp hasn’t seriously considered him.
5. August 2012 at 03:18
Mike Sax,
My only political prediction regarding US presidential politics is that the party that wins in 2012 will lose in 2016, probably in a bloodbath. The winner of 2012 is going to have to make so many unpopular choices and have to explain a weak economy 8 years after the beginning of the Great Recession. Obama is only doing as well as he is while explaining away the current woes of the US because he’s a much stronger candidate than Romney.
5. August 2012 at 07:07
Well Major “I know you are but what am I?” is your line not mine.
Hahahahaha
5. August 2012 at 07:13
Well Major “I know you are but what am I?” is your line not mine.
Haha, that’s funny. I just showed you to be repeating what I say back at me, and your response? You repeat the same thing back at me. Why do you keep copying what I say? Is this the best you got? It’s weak.
“You need help.”
Nice projecting, Unfree.
Hahaha, there it is again. No U.
————-
You want the mob to be dictator over the minority. For those in the minority, there is no difference between a dictatorship and a democracy. They are still aggressed against. They are still coerced.
5. August 2012 at 07:53
Romneybot says more Fed stimulus would not help US economy
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/05/usa-campaign-romney-economy-idUSL2E8J51E020120805
5. August 2012 at 08:26
Mike Sax wouldn’t care if Obama was a pedophile. He’d just argue that Romney was a murderer or something worse. As long as he’s in the right party, it doesn’t matter. Funny thing is that there’s no real difference between the two parties yet guys like Mike can’t see it. They deserve what’s coming to them.
5. August 2012 at 09:11
Razer knows the obvious. Except he forgot to mention: immature, bad speller, and economically illiterate.
5. August 2012 at 09:44
Scott, I really don’t see how you can build a futures market for a non deliverable commodity. And if you could do it, who wants to bet on a statistic that is an estimate by a bunch of Democrats in the bowels of the Commerce Department?
5. August 2012 at 10:58
Doc,
“They will. They respond to fiscal cuts by pumping money.”
It so funny because we all KNOW that.
But somehow Sumner isn’t honest enough to actually ADMIT the easiest way to get the pumping is to make the cuts.
Cthorm gets it, I get it, you get it. Everyone else KNOWS it.
Cut Fiscal = Pump
The deeper question is why Sumner doesn’t get around to the very logical policy recommendation of CUT FISCAL, so the Fed turns on the pump.
Instead Scott WILLFULLY has had discussions of Fiscal OR Monetary, arguing Monetary is better, he even say it neuters Fiscal.
ALL LOGIC then points to the converse, CUT FISCAL get PUMP.
The ECB outright requires it.
And Scott will ignore all of this, and refuse to go where the logic leads.
WHY he doesn’t do this, answers the question why isn’t MM being adopted.
Scott isn’t ready to be Uncle Milty.
5. August 2012 at 12:26
“You want the mob to be dictator over the minority. For those in the minority, there is no difference between a dictatorship and a democracy. They are still aggressed against. They are still coerced.”
That’s not true, that’s why we have civil liberties, eqaulity before the law, etc. In any case even if it were it’d be better than your game-a dictatorhsip of the minority over the majority.
5. August 2012 at 12:31
Razer is that the next slur against Obama-that he’s a pedophile?
There’s plenty of difference between the two parties. The GOP plans to eliminate Medicare-the Ryan plan, and raise everyone’s taxes except the rich.
Romney also promises to abolish Plannted Parenthood-a private organization-and tell’s Hispancis they should self-deport.
If you can’t see the difference I’d say you deserve what’s coming to you though I would suffer under a Romney Presidency as well.
5. August 2012 at 13:19
“My only political prediction regarding US presidential politics is that the party that wins in 2012 will lose in 2016, probably in a bloodbath. The winner of 2012 is going to have to make so many unpopular choices and have to explain a weak economy 8 years after the beginning of the Great Recession. Obama is only doing as well as he is while explaining away the current woes of the US because he’s a much stronger candidate than Romney.”
I’m not enrirely sure what unpopular things you have in mind. I don’t think Obama would do anything like the Ryan plan in his second term-which iw what would really be unpopular.
However, you are right that certainly if the Dems win this time it will be even harder in 2016. This is generally true anyway. Since FDR-after which the GOP pushed through term limits-one party has had the White House as much as 12 straight years only once-Reaga-Bush form 1980 to 1992.
Even without the law, FDR was a fluke. It’s not easy to win more than two terms. So the odds would be against 2016.
I hear people talking about Hillary in 1016… Give ma a breaka I want to tell these people, let’s just worry abotu 2012 for now.
5. August 2012 at 13:31
“You want the mob to be dictator over the minority. For those in the minority, there is no difference between a dictatorship and a democracy. They are still aggressed against. They are still coerced.”
That’s not true, that’s why we have civil liberties, eqaulity before the law, etc.
Civil liberties can be voted away by majority vote in a democracy. What you’re talking about are anti-democratic based principles.
And democratic statism is NOT “equality before the law.” It requires two different sets of laws, one for those who rule, and another for those who are ruled. Taxers and taxpayers. Those who enforce state laws and those who must obey state laws.
In any case even if it were it’d be better than your game
Majority dictatorship is not “better” than no dictatorship.
a dictatorhsip of the minority over the majority.
There is no dictatorship of the minority over the majority in anarchism.
5. August 2012 at 14:33
Mike, keep telling yourself that these cosmetic differences really distinguish the parties. Both parties want big government, both want a Federal Reserve to price fix interest rates, both are for inflation, both support the war machine, the rest are mere cosmetic differences that lemmings like you think really matter. And all you do is make excuses when nothing changes, same as the other side. The economy will be just as rotten over the next four years as it was the last four no matter who sits in the oval office. If it’s your guy, you’ll have an excuse — those darn republicans keep obstructing progress because they’re evil, right? And if it’s the guy you don’t like — it’s all his fault because he’s evil. No way this would have happened with my guy in there! That’s about the gist of it. People like you are hopeless.
5. August 2012 at 14:35
Razer gets it.
5. August 2012 at 14:44
Razer keep telling yourself the problem is “big government” and the federal reserve.
There’s nothing cosmetic about the attacks against a woman’s right to choose or against immigrants the last few years.
Keep telling yourself you have any answers other than sitting by and dreaming of some pure libertarian state that never has existed and never will do.
5. August 2012 at 14:49
“There is no dictatorship of the minority over the majority in anarchism.”
And there’s no crime in Heaven and the moon is made out of chsese and there are flying unicorns. What does that have to do with the real world?
Point me out the successful anarchist states-oh wait there are none.
“Civil liberties can be voted away by majority vote in a democracy. What you’re talking about are anti-democratic based principles.”
Then why are the only states with civil liberties, democracies?
You like anti-democratic principles. That’s not what I’m talkng about.
5. August 2012 at 15:48
Mike, it’s visionaries like you that just a few hundred years ago couldn’t imagine a world without slavery, women having equal rights with men, or divine Kings. You do know that liberty and natural rights are a pretty young idea, don’t you. Please don’t assume that everyone else has the same lack of imagination as you. You are simply committing the fallacy of personal incredulity. The U.S. started off pretty darn close to a Libertarian society. Economic and personal freedom allowed it to get become wealthy, not statism. We’re now bankrupt thanks to statism. But I’m sure you blame the other party for that too, right? If only guys like you had control of the guns to point at other people’s heads, we’d all be living in the land of milk and honey, right?
P.S. At least learn a smidgen of Libertarian ideas. Utopia is the statist goal, not the Libertarian one. Libertarians believe invention to achieve utopia ends in tyranny, you dope. You fail even the basics, bud.
5. August 2012 at 15:53
my bad for the poor grammar and typos.
5. August 2012 at 16:10
Sax,
The problem is PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.
Look dude, IF the govt. runs as efficiently as WalMart or Amazon:
1. It gets to do more than it does now… and whats more… more actual public goods, less actual military excursions.
2. People like Gov2.0 more.
3. The Top Half feels nicer towards the bottom half.
What’s more, IF power devolves to the states:
1. You get more effective / efficient government.
2. You get less fighting over every stupid social issue.
3. Liberals get to try more liberal shit with their tax dollars in blue states.
4. Red poor states have to make real decisions about what kind of “culture” they want to allow to thrive.
—-
That you don’t look at this and think it is PREFERABLE to what is going on now – for your own interests, it boggles the mind.
—-
I’m not even up on my libertarian horse, I’m just looking at it in cold technocratic logic.
When you carve $800B out of what is spent DELIVERING government services (without cutting any social benefits and leave the states to fend / decide for themselves – you move us to the future of progressive thought.
5. August 2012 at 16:33
“it’s visionaries like you that just a few hundred years ago couldn’t imagine a world without slavery, women having equal rights with men, or divine Kings. You do know that liberty and natural rights are a pretty young idea, don’t you”
Razer you’ve really won the arguemnt with your childish inssutls. I see who the dope is.
Visionaries are fine. However, flatearthers like yourself often try to pass themsevles off as visionaries.
I suuport all those things you listed there. Most so-called libertarians don’t.
Take Rand Paul, His idead of liberty is to take us back to the pre Voting Rights Act.
Indeed, notice how at the time of the Act so called libertarians like Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater were saying the freedom that matters is the freedom of businesses to discriminate against black customers and force them to use Negro only bathrooms and water fountains.
5. August 2012 at 16:39
Razer I can see what kind of a visionary you are by your personal insults.
You apologize for typos and bad grammar you ought to apologize for insulting me for no good reeason. I didn’t insult you personally.
You just demonstarte the poverty of your own arguments. I love you chicken hawks. You talk a big game over the Internet.
Why don’t we meet in person and decide who the jerk is
5. August 2012 at 16:50
“as you. You are simply committing the fallacy of personal incredulity. The U.S. started off pretty darn close to a Libertarian society. Economic and personal freedom allowed it to get become wealthy, not statism. We’re now bankrupt thanks to statism. But I’m sure you blame the other party for that too, right? If only guys like you had control of the guns to point at other people’s heads, we’d all be living in the land of milk and honey, right?”
Intersting. As you rightly say we started out much closer to the libertarian society. At that time we had no women’s rights and we had slavery. As we move away from the libertarian society we ended slavery and got women’s suffrage.
We’re not bankrupt that’s just a Right wing urban legend. We have no problem with people snatching up our debt. In truth your ideas are not visionary at all but reactionary, You want to go back to the earlier days of our society when only people of the right race, gender, religion and of course had property holdings had any rights.
You’re not a visionary. You’re a reactionary.
5. August 2012 at 23:47
Scott, you’re going to regret not getting to this title first: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e772edbc-dd7b-11e1-8be2-00144feab49a.html
(FT still pro central banker)
6. August 2012 at 05:59
Morgan, did I not tell you it wouldn’t be Rice? Here is positive confirmation-she’s slated to be a convention speaker so by defnitioin she wont be the Veep
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/rice-haley-huck-mccain-confirmed-as-convention-speakers-131150.html?hp=f3
Again, I hope it is Ryan. I’ve heard a lot about him over the weekend, I’d still be suprised but I can hope
6. August 2012 at 07:05
Mike –
“Intersting. As you rightly say we started out much closer to the libertarian society.”
The problem is that there are so many types of libertarians that it’s hard to evaluate whether we are more or less libertarian. The first libertarian was a communist who opposed private property:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_D%C3%A9jacque
Today most people who call themselves libertarians should probably use the term minarchist. They believe in a very small government that protects against force, fraud and enforces private property and contracts. They assume that will mean more liberty for the people, but that is a possibly unwarranted assumption. People who advocate more state intervention often do so on the grounds that they believe people will be more free under those policies.
I’d argue that there is more liberty now than there was at the founding. There is no slavery or indentured servitude, women have equal rights, minorities (religious and ethnic) have more rights, and the poor are more free. Yes, taxes are higher, but we have a better safety net, and much of the infrastructure the government built makes us more free as well.
6. August 2012 at 07:11
Sax,
do you understand that no has a problem with people snatching up their debt, until they do?
I want to make sure you actually understand this, the WHOLE GAME is “no matter what do not EVER let people have a problem with snatching up your debt.”
Having good credit is NOT a reason to borrow.
The returns HAVE to be assured, not a band-aid to silence the cries of the marginal worker.
This is why my plan on GI, and Scott’s plan on NGDPLT are such good one, it is a compromise between immediate help for those that need it, BUT the moral force to ensure there is no lazy amongst us.
When AID for the lazy (see public employees) increases NGDP, and forces up rates, you will get the same outrage and disgust that my plan controls for.
It really is a big issue for you to wrestle with – there aren’t going to be as many anthropologists, women’s studies, sociologists, in the future.
MORE people are gong to be facing the aggressive demands of markets based – give the consumers what they want – life choices.
If you are ok with this, you are a good progressive, solely concerned with the right problems facing those at the bottom… which INCLUDES single mommies not being single mommies.
But dude, the actual TYPE of society that we are becoming is MORE commerce driven, more trade driven, more meet the market demand driven… and that is going to mean less public employees and less intellectual lefty egghead professors, bureaucrats, and media types.
I am forever trying to get you to thread the needle, KEEP you desire to help the bottom with cash transfers, but steel yourself for a system where everyone has a bossy boss, and everyone feels the pressure to deliver 2-5% productivity gains EVERY YEAR or become personally less valuable to society at large.
6. August 2012 at 08:42
Austerity works!
http://soberlook.com/2012/08/ireland-in-land-of-blind-one-eyed-man.html
6. August 2012 at 09:12
Mike Sax:
“There is no dictatorship of the minority over the majority in anarchism.”
And there’s no crime in Heaven and the moon is made out of chsese and there are flying unicorns. What does that have to do with the real world?
It is a real world refutation of your real world claim that I support real world dictatorship.
Lack of democracy does not imply dictatorship. You continue to fallaciously present a false dichotomy. Your mind is not able, or not willing, to think outside the box.
Point me out the successful anarchist states-oh wait there are none.
This is a non-argument. You might as well ask me to point you to a country without rape or murder after I say I am anti-rape and anti-murder, and then when I cannot point to you a rape or murder free country, you then say that rape and murder are somehow a part of progressing civilizations, of promoting health and prosperity, and should be institutionalized by monopolists, who will be society’s only rapists and murderers (since we so far have not eliminated them completely).
It was no argument against democracy during the 16th century, to say that democracy did not exist anywhere, or that every democratic experiment theretofore attempted has later failed (Athenian democracy).
You cannot argue against any social system on the basis that it does not correctly exist. That is stupid. It presupposes that humans cannot learn or change society for the better.
If you bothered to actually do research, instead of using the same old refuted talking points, then you would have known that after centuries of statism, Somalia improved once the state collapsed. Google “Better off Stateless”.
“Civil liberties can be voted away by majority vote in a democracy. What you’re talking about are anti-democratic based principles.”
Then why are the only states with civil liberties, democracies?
Argument from ignorance with a tacit ex post hoc ergo propter hoc. Kudos.
You cannot argue that it is democracy which caused civil liberties. After all, Hitler’s party was democratically elected, and the result was not civil liberties.
You also cannot appeal to your own ignorance in not knowing the anti-democratic foundation for civil liberties and then rhetorically insinuate that it must have been democracy that did it.
You like anti-democratic principles.
No, I like peace. Democracy is inherently violent, because it allows the majority to coerce the minority. I do not like the violence inherent in democracy. If 51% of the people want to vote on something, then I would fully support it if it didn’t apply to the other 49% against their will. I support consensus, agreement, team work, as long as every individual who is tied up in it, are voluntary participants.
But because democratic statism is based on violence, I am against it.
You on the other hand are in favor of some people INITIATING violence and coercion against others, as long as the aggressors outnumber the victims.
You are not talking about democracy when you defer to individual rights of any sort, for these are rights that are treated as incapable of being voted away.
That’s not what I’m talkng about.
It is what you are talking about, you just don’t know it because you’re ignorant. Civil liberties are anti-democratic principles, for they are presumed to be inviolable and not capable of being voted away by the majority.
6. August 2012 at 11:07
Morgan,
Here’s the latest results from your favorite poll:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/242353-rasmussen-obama-swings-to-national-lead
6. August 2012 at 12:24
Thats the one I watch Mark.
keep your fingers crossed.
Scott and economists everywhere having to factor in what the top 1/3 will ALLOW as policy, will turn the profession on its head!
If I win, how do you think Scott ought to dedicate his book to me?
6. August 2012 at 12:25
http://www.nationalmemo.com/karl-rove-obama-poised-for-landside-win/
this is the other one I watch
6. August 2012 at 12:47
“It was no argument against democracy during the 16th century, to say that democracy did not exist anywhere, or that every democratic experiment theretofore attempted has later failed (Athenian democracy).”
Ironnically you’re friend Hermann Hoppe claims democracy is a mistake anyway, that the monarchy system was superior. So whatever your anarcho-capitalist system amounts to it’s closer to monarchy than democracy according to Hoppe’s own words.
“This is a non-argument. You might as well ask me to point you to a country without rape or murder after I say I am anti-rape and anti-murder, and then when I cannot point to you a rape or murder free country, you then say that rape and murder are somehow a part of progressing civilizations, of promoting health and prosperity, and should be institutionalized by monopolists, who will be society’s only rapists and murderers (since we so far have not eliminated them completely).”
It isn’t a non-argument, it does suggest what’s possible and what isn’t.We know that money’s can’t fly. Is saying this a non-arugment or reality? Rape and murder are not part of progress though they are part of any society you can dream up.
We should obviosuly do eveyrthing to fight it but we won’t have 100% success.
But you’re making a false inference using all these loaded terms like “rape” and “murder.”
You are trying to claim that you and Hoppe are the true progressives but in truth there have always been some flat earthers who continue to try to put out their same failed paradigms and claim it’s new.
Esseintally it’s old wine, new bottles.
“Civil liberties are anti-democratic principles, for they are presumed to be inviolable and not capable of being voted away by the majority.”
Nope. It’s you who are ignorant. How is it that civil liberties only occur for the first time in democratic societies?
I notice that lot’s of so-called libertarians think it’s ok to violate people’s civil liberties provided they are non property owners.
In the 60s, it was the libertarians like Ayn Rand and Goldwater who said that it’s ok for private businesses to continue to discriminate against blacks.
This is what I mean by libertarianism being old wine. When a libertarian sees discrimination they see the victim as the business owner doing the discrimination not those who are being denied their civil rights.
You don’t see discirmination as “rape” but someone preveting someone from discriminating.
6. August 2012 at 12:50
“do you understand that no has a problem with people snatching up their debt, until they do?”
Do you understand why some countries have this problem and some don’t? It comes down to who owns its own printing press and who doesn’t.
So the U.S. never has this problem though it’s alwasy predicted. Britain, neither, nor Sweden, nor Japan, nor Israel.
You like bets, I bet you we won’t have any debt problem for the forseeable future.
6. August 2012 at 14:23
“We know that money’s can’t fly”
I mean “we know monkeys can’t fly”
6. August 2012 at 14:24
“We know that money’s can’t fly”
I mean “we know monkeys can’t fly”
6. August 2012 at 14:38
“I bet you we won’t have any debt problem for the forseeable future.”
This isn’t my position.
My position is helping the marginal value workers go back to work to be paid by their employer more than they are worth, is not worth taking on debt or printing money.
The REASON to do think like this is two fold:
1. We can cover their nut with my GI plan and auction them to the people who are covering their nut.
This gets all my advantages I normally mention. Just remember them.
2. Eventually, and we don’t know when it is, we cannot take on more debt.
So, since #2, we ought to first always do #1, and only AFTER we have truly tried to diminish public employees, and done my GI plan, and we STILL have a slow moving economy – then we could look at money printing, and even then. debt should be off table.
You should get the nuance.
6. August 2012 at 18:42
Mike Sax:
“It was no argument against democracy during the 16th century, to say that democracy did not exist anywhere, or that every democratic experiment theretofore attempted has later failed (Athenian democracy).”
Ironnically you’re friend Hermann Hoppe claims democracy is a mistake anyway, that the monarchy system was superior. So whatever your anarcho-capitalist system amounts to it’s closer to monarchy than democracy according to Hoppe’s own words.
That isn’t irony.
“This is a non-argument. You might as well ask me to point you to a country without rape or murder after I say I am anti-rape and anti-murder, and then when I cannot point to you a rape or murder free country, you then say that rape and murder are somehow a part of progressing civilizations, of promoting health and prosperity, and should be institutionalized by monopolists, who will be society’s only rapists and murderers (since we so far have not eliminated them completely).”
It isn’t a non-argument, it does suggest what’s possible and what isn’t.
No, it doesn’t. Social history is unique. The grounding for what is possible and what isn’t possible is not determined by history. If it were, then humans would never have left the caves.
We know that money’s can’t fly. Is saying this a non-arugment or reality? Rape and murder are not part of progress though they are part of any society you can dream up.
States are not a part of any society. They are a product of choice.
We should obviosuly do eveyrthing to fight it but we won’t have 100% success.
Ergo my fight against violence, even state violence.
But you’re making a false inference using all these loaded terms like “rape” and “murder.”
What false inference? Rape and murder are not loaded terms. They are specific terms with specific definitions and specific referents to reality.
You are trying to claim that you and Hoppe are the true progressives but in truth there have always been some flat earthers who continue to try to put out their same failed paradigms and claim it’s new.
Non-argument. That there are flat Earthers has no bearing on the specific arguments at hand. That is independent. Anarchism is not a “failed” paradigm.
Esseintally it’s old wine, new bottles.
You haven’t shown how that is the case.
The shoe is on the other foot. It is precisely democracy that is an old system dressed new. Democracy is just the same old violence against innocent people, this time where the position of violence initiator is open to the public.
“Civil liberties are anti-democratic principles, for they are presumed to be inviolable and not capable of being voted away by the majority.”
Nope.
Yup. Individual rights are precisely what prevents democracy from being manifested in its full, true form. You are ignorant.
How is it that civil liberties only occur for the first time in democratic societies?
This is false. Civil liberties did not arise for the first time in democracies.
I notice that lot’s of so-called libertarians think it’s ok to violate people’s civil liberties provided they are non property owners.
I notice that you don’t understand the non-aggression principle that libertarianism is based on.
In the 60s, it was the libertarians like Ayn Rand and Goldwater who said that it’s ok for private businesses to continue to discriminate against blacks.
This is no more initiating of violence than someone choosing a black wife over a white wife for racial reasons, or not allowing whites or blacks into one’s home for racial reasons.
Civil liberties does not mean that homeowners or business owners are forced at gunpoint to deal with people they don’t otherwise want to deal with. Civil liberties means the freedom of association AND disassociation.
This is what I mean by libertarianism being old wine.
This is why you are ignorant. A homeowner turning people away from their home is not an aggressive action. A business owner turning people away from their business is not an aggressive action.
When a libertarian sees discrimination they see the victim as the business owner doing the discrimination not those who are being denied their civil rights.
You do not have a right to the goods or services of others. It is a privilege to receive goods and services made on the basis of other people’s labor. To claim that you have a right to the goods and services of others, means that you have a right to enslave them.
You don’t see discirmination as “rape” but someone preveting someone from discriminating.
There is nothing wrong with discrimination. Discrimination just means one is discerning differences. Well, if I happen to enjoy, say, asian women, and I do not happen to enjoy white women, then I am not initiating force or harming white women by refusing to date them. That is a choice for ME. MY civil liberties includes the freedom to choose who I become friends with, who I date, who I talk to, and so on. This is what individual freedom looks like. It contains individuals dealing with people and not dealing with people for their own personal reasons that NOBODY has a right to violate to force them to do otherwise.
You don’t understand freedom. You are incredibly ignorant.
6. August 2012 at 18:48
Mike Sax:
I suggest that you watch this video, since you’re clearly not a book-learned person.
6. August 2012 at 19:09
MF and Mike Sax,
the both of you are right and the both of you are wrong.
To Mike:
Although I find it incredibly painful to even attempt to agree with Major on ANYTHING he’s mostly right here. [Cherish the moment Major 🙂 ] Democracy without the rule of law and individual rights is indeed tyrannical. The Bill of Rights is essentially a BAN on what Congress and the executive brach can do against the American people.
HOWEVER, to Major:
When most people speak of democracy today, they mean implicitly LIBERAL democracy where individual rights are respected. Maybe its wrong to make that inherent assumption, but its there. Lets assume for the moment that you get what your wish. An An-Cap utopia with liberal laws. (Liberal in the 18th and 19th century sense of course) Which do you think is the best PROCEDURAL method of getting things done? Do you see corporate cities with mayor/ ceo/ kings ruling because they own all the land? Or do you see citywide shareholders in charge, voting out and voting in new ceos and specific laws as they see fit?
Even if you have an AN-CAP system, you still need procedure and organization, and methods for getting things done. I firmly believe that democracy is the right way to go on this
6. August 2012 at 19:41
This is an interesting article…
“Cliodynamics is viewed with deep scepticism by most academic historians, who tend to see history as a complex stew of chance, individual foibles and one-of-a-kind situations that no broad-brush ‘science of history’ will ever capture. “After a century of grand theory, from Marxism and social Darwinism to structuralism and postmodernism, most historians have abandoned the belief in general laws,” (…)
“But Turchin and his allies contend that the time is ripe to revisit general laws, thanks to tools such as nonlinear mathematics, simulations that can model the interactions of thousands or millions of individuals at once, and informatics technologies for gathering and analysing huge databases of historical information. And for some academics, at least, cliodynamics can’t come a moment too soon. ‘ (…)
“the researchers found that two trends dominate the data on political instability. The first, which they call the secular cycle, extends over two to three centuries. It starts with a relatively egalitarian society, in which supply and demand for labour roughly balance out. In time, the population grows, labour supply outstrips demand, elites form and the living standards of the poorest fall. At a certain point, the society becomes top-heavy with elites, who start fighting for power. Political instability ensues and leads to collapse, and the cycle begins again.”
http://www.nature.com/news/human-cycles-history-as-science-1.11078
6. August 2012 at 22:21
Bill Ellis, that is noise. You are basically noise.
“In time, the population grows, labour supply outstrips demand, elites form and the living standards of the poorest fall.”
If the poorest are fatter than last year, have more channels than last year, have faster internet, HD porn and Olympics, and smart phones that answer any burning question they have…
And next year they will get even more!
EXACTLY HOW have their living standards fallen?
I think what annoys you is some kind of relative living standards, as in – I am poor and eat 5K calories a day because I don’t have one of the really cool jobs where you work 110 hours a week, and spend 7 more at the gym, and get to make decisions that effect everyone else.
Their house (the poor and rich guy) can be about the same size.
Sure, the elite asshole is going to have their kids get better edu, etc. They are going to buy $500 hand made shoes (which last a lifetime) and their wives are going to sweat in Lululemon
But frankly, that’s not exactly a terrible existence for the bottom half.
Do you REALLY wake up every day and think to yourself that the poor are worse off today than they were 20 years ago?
7. August 2012 at 04:56
ssumner:
thats two FOMC members now that are on record supporting nominal income targeting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/business/economy/fed-officials-comments-underscore-a-rising-call-for-action.html?_r=1&ref=business&gwh=15F946210D1FF869DCE427028B6DB65E
ka-ching
7. August 2012 at 06:06
4.5%
SAY IT WITH ME BOYS AND GIRLS!!!!
We’ll be firing public employees in no time!
7. August 2012 at 06:35
Edward, I agree about the need for rule of law. However, there has been no undemocratic country that has had that.
When Major says things like this:
“This is no more initiating of violence than someone choosing a black wife over a white wife for racial reasons, or not allowing whites or blacks into one’s home for racial reasons.”
“You do not have a right to the goods or services of others. It is a privilege to receive goods and services made on the basis of other people’s labor. To claim that you have a right to the goods and services of others, means that you have a right to enslave them.”
This doesn’t sound like someone who has respect for the rule of law.
How am I “enslaved” by not being allowed to discriminate against certain customers because of the colour of their skin?
Major, is a business owner “enslaved” by having to still obey the law on the grounds of his business?
Is it legal for him to commit assulat or murder if withinn his premsies and “slavery” for the law to stop him?
It doesn’t seem that Major has any use for the law. All he has is this claim for “absoulute property rights.”
You being barred from disciminating against blacks is not “slavery.”
If you were forced at gun point to open your restaruant at all that would be involuntary. However, if you choose to open a business you still need to obey the laws of society.
Otherwise you can try to find some spot that is under no national jurisidiction. Yet even there, of course, we now have internatioanl laws.
It’s up to you whether or not to open a business, what to sell, what to charge, where to operate, etc. However, the law prohibits you from cetain kinds of discirmination.
Discrimination that means that some members of society are not able to function is not “good.” It is good that this was ended and Rand Paul notwithstanding, such practice is thankfully over.
Nor am I impressed by your talk of “nonaggression.” There’s more to life than simp;y not doing anything to harm someone. Morally speaking because you don’t physically agreess against someone doesn’t mean your good or even not bad.
Consider stories like where people in a building in NYC or somewhere overhear a woman being raped or murdered-this has happened mutliple times here in NY and other places.
Does the fact that the people who overheard and did nothing make them good or even innocent? I don’t believe so.
“you’re clearly not a book-learned person.”
More childish and baseless insults. I doubt you’ve read anything than a few of the Austrian cultists
7. August 2012 at 06:51
“I think what annoys you is some kind of relative living standards, as in – I am poor and eat 5K calories a day because I don’t have one of the really cool jobs where you work 110 hours a week, and spend 7 more at the gym, and get to make decisions that effect everyone else.”
Morgan, as you keep trying to psychoanalyze liberals, let me psychoanalyze you. Folks like you are totally motivated by resentment.
You see yourself as somehow making this great “sacrifice” because you work hard at your jobs and you on some level “envy” those without jobs, who you falsedly think enjoy “leisure” You think why can’t someone pay moe to sit home? Even though no one gets paid to sit home. If you have been on unemployment-I’m guessing you haven’t though Rush once admitted he was-you don’t get enough on it to prefer it to working anyway.
Id also doesn’t hurt that so many of the poor in ths country are not white-making it even easier to resent them.
You think you’ve sacrificed and these “dirty hippies”-one of your more kinder slurs-don’t want to work
What you simply refuse to admit is that there are people who want to work but can’t find it, or at least not work that pays enough for them to pay their bills.
The idea that there is such a thing as “involuntary uemployment” blows your mind.
Surely, if someone doesn’t work, it’s because he’s lazy and not hardworking and upright like yourself.
The idea that anything that you’ve “sweated by your brow” going to help those “lazy” hippies who are mostly not the right color and maybe not even the right religion-Muslims- drives you crazy
Yeah you love Paul Ryan. You love Republicans who think that people without means to pay for it shouldn’t even be admitted to the emergecny room-let em die if it saves you a couple of dollars on your tax bill.
It’s an neurotic fear of someone somhewre somehow living on your dime. It’s the miser raised to the level of a virtue. The miser’s moraltiy
You have suggested before that I have some deeply idiosyncratic sense of “compassion”much greater than other souls.
Not at all. I don’t think there is anything supermoral about me in being concerned about the poor. I don’t think my moral sense is exceptionally high, though talking to conservativs I’m impressed that their sense is exceptionally low and mean. My concern is largely about economic and social optimiatliy.
Put it this way. Even if I were a billionarie I would be very concerend about the poor-maybe even more so.
Because if millions of people in this country feel like they have no reason to hope eventually they will come after me.
It’s just a matter of time. This is why people like Gates and Buffett are smart. They say we should raise their taxes. They give lots and lots to charity. Gates is alwasy talking abotu the needs of the poor, etc.
7. August 2012 at 07:48
Scott,
Be vewwy vewwy glad you are on vacation. This week, Bernanke wants to know whether – as a nation – we are ‘happy’. Eeeeeyow.
7. August 2012 at 08:36
Morgan,
You need help. I want to help.
Just remember, every idea that does not fit in with how you see the world is not an attack on your ego.
7. August 2012 at 09:28
Mike — There’s a marginal propensity to work, and it is affected by both welfare and taxation at all levels. What I think drives nonleft-liberals crazy is that so few left-liberals seem to understand or acknowledge that
1) we live in a time when the poverty line is roughly equal to median real incomes in the 1950s — as a society we’ve moved up Maslow’s hierarchy and that has incentive effects
2) the poor can face ridiculously high MTRs because of welfare programs, which in some cases can actually result in workers earning less for working more
3) total taxation (state + fed + local) is the highest it has ever been, which means you get to keep less of what you earn
It has never been easier to not work, and it has never been more costly to work.
Today’s economy is partly the logical result of Milton Friedman’s warning that we are becoming a society that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork.
7. August 2012 at 09:49
–How am I “enslaved” by not being allowed to discriminate against certain customers because of the colour of their skin?
Having the government commit violence against you on the basis of how you decide with whom you will engage in voluntary transactions is actually pretty close to slavery, because the transaction is no longer voluntary but mandated by threat of state violence. Generally speaking, slavery is defined as work done under the threat of violence.
It’s an especially nonsensical policy when governmentt discrimination against certain groups is not just allowed but proactively practiced by most governments and quasi-governmental bodies.
Rand Paul got in some hot water for saying so because race is such a sensitive issue, but he was absolutely correct that the Civil Rights Act was not just unconstitutional but morally wrong. In fact, one might go even further and call it counterproductive: if racism is irrational, let it fail in the market, and if it isn’t, let it serve as an incentive. The truncheon is ill-suited for brain surgery.
We may not ever achieve a totally colorblind society, but a colorblind gov’t would be a good start!
7. August 2012 at 10:12
“if racism is irrational, let it fail in the market, and if it isn’t, let it serve as an incentive. The truncheon is ill-suited for brain surgery.”
Notice how you’re leaving it open that maybe racism isn’t irrational. This is exactly why this conept of “slavery” is a dead end.
It’s as if real slavery is ok, the attempt to end it is slavery.
If you can only be happy running a donut shop serving white people don’t open it. It’s not slavery it’s just the law.
I think you have to apply commonsense here. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not say that a business may not refuse service to someone for any reason.
When 7-Eleven’s says “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service” nobody bats an eye. However, “no negros need apply” is totally different.
If you cant see the difference then this is confirmation that there’s someting deeply wront with libertarianism.
7. August 2012 at 10:41
But again, if that is so, then why is it okay for government to racially discriminate? Again, gov’t policy on this is just not logically coherent, as is easily demonstrated.
The government should not be the one to decide to whether racism is rational or not (or whether some kinds of racism are better than others, as is the actual policy). If Carlos Slim wants to buy the Denver Nuggets and only hire Mexican players, he should be free to do so. The market will determine whether this makes sense.
7. August 2012 at 10:48
Edward:
MF and Mike Sax,
the both of you are right and the both of you are wrong.
Edward, a proposition cannot be both right and wrong at the same time. When two people have opposite views, they cannot be both right and wrong either.
You are adding a wrong statement to whatever statements have already been made.
To Mike:
Although I find it incredibly painful to even attempt to agree with Major on ANYTHING he’s mostly right here. [Cherish the moment Major ]
Serious question: Why in the world would I “cherish” the fact that you agree with me? For me, you have shown yourself to be someone whose judgments and arguments are of low value and quality. I have found myself knowing that you are wrong too often for me to say yippee when you agree.
Democracy without the rule of law and individual rights is indeed tyrannical. The Bill of Rights is essentially a BAN on what Congress and the executive brach can do against the American people.
Unfortunately you don’t take further steps beyond this. You don’t question the monopoly of security and protection as being the fundamental cause for how previously established rights can be whittled down and eroded over time, due to the fact that the final judge over the efficacy of security and protection, is the monopolist itself.
It should be so shocking or incredible that when the defendant in a case is also the judge, then the incentive is to rule in favor of itself. Yes, there are “checks and balances”, but they are not able to prevent the state from expanding, as both theory and history have borne out.
HOWEVER, to Major:
When most people speak of democracy today, they mean implicitly LIBERAL democracy where individual rights are respected. Maybe its wrong to make that inherent assumption, but its there. Lets assume for the moment that you get what your wish. An An-Cap utopia with liberal laws. (Liberal in the 18th and 19th century sense of course) Which do you think is the best PROCEDURAL method of getting things done?
Can I ask you a question? How much reading and research have you done in the area of private provision of protection and security? This question you’re asking is not novel. Might a I suggest that you read authors like David Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Robert Murphy, Lysander Spooner, Hans Hoppe, Benjamin Tucker, Linda and Morris Tannehill, etc? Or Google “Private defense and security”.
Do you see corporate cities with mayor/ ceo/ kings ruling because they own all the land?
Isn’t that what we have now with eminent domain, land taxes, and zoning laws?
I am talking about regular “citizens”, i.e. individuals, who own their own land, and economically compete for customers in a division of labor.
Or do you see citywide shareholders in charge, voting out and voting in new ceos and specific laws as they see fit?
I don’t “see” anything in this respect. It would be like asking the inventor of the internal combustion engine what the world would look like if the engine were to become privately produced in the market. I am not a central planner. I am not a soothsayer. I am not Nostradamus. I am not an astrologer. What the world would look like in anarchy is exactly a product of human action based on knowledge and choice. What will occur content-wise is something no mortal man can uncover.
Even if you have an AN-CAP system, you still need procedure and organization, and methods for getting things done.
Getting what done? Why can’t individuals do what they want done, without any central consciousness ruling over everything? There doesn’t have to be a central command post. That isn’t what anarchy is about.
I firmly believe that democracy is the right way to go on this
I don’t care for your beliefs. If I did, I’d go to church.
——————-
Mike Sax:
Edward, I agree about the need for rule of law. However, there has been no undemocratic country that has had that.
False. Every statist society enforces state laws. That’s what a statist society looks like. No statist society has equality under the law. Every statist society has one set of laws for those in the state (the legal authority to tax, to regulate, to enforce laws, to seize property, etc), and another set of laws for those not in the state (the legal obligation to pay taxes, to obey regulations, to obey laws, to obey property seizure, etc).
There is no equality under the law in statism, even democracy. Democracy is just a monarchy with majority elections. The elected leaders still do what monarchs do.
When Major says things like this:
“This is no more initiating of violence than someone choosing a black wife over a white wife for racial reasons, or not allowing whites or blacks into one’s home for racial reasons.”
“You do not have a right to the goods or services of others. It is a privilege to receive goods and services made on the basis of other people’s labor. To claim that you have a right to the goods and services of others, means that you have a right to enslave them.”
This doesn’t sound like someone who has respect for the rule of law.
I respect laws, just not the state’s laws. There is a difference. I do not respect the state’s laws because they are not based on individual liberty. State laws are based on initiations of force, not protections against initiations of force.
Do you respect the law that says you have to pay taxes which go to financing the drug war, or to murdering innocent families by drone strikes? Do you just obey the law because the law is always just? See, I can’t think like you because I question authority. You don’t. If the authority has majority support, that is sufficient to you. I do not hold that the majority has any right to initiate force against the minority. This doesn’t mean the only other alternative is dictatorship; that’s a false dichotomy. The fact that you can’t think of an alternative, doesn’t mean no alternative exists.
How am I “enslaved” by not being allowed to discriminate against certain customers because of the colour of their skin?
But you yourself support racial discrimination when it comes to whether or not state force is justified. If a person is racist in choosing a spouse, then you believe no state coercion or violence is justified against this person. If a homeowner is racist in choosing houseguests, then you believe no state coercion or violence is justified against this person. But for some reason, should a homeowner bake and sell cookies for money, thus making their house a place of commerce, a means of production, then you hold that should the homeowner/business owner be racist in choosing buyers, then you believe state coercion or violence is justified against this person.
Your worldview is therefore completely arbitrary, based on nothing but a bias and prejudice against private owners of the means of production. Where it derives is anyone’s guess, but my guess is that you have been culturally indoctrinated to believe that people who produce and sell goods, their behavior must be controlled by others (the state) by force. If these others (the state) believe that the homeowner/businessowner is exercising his freedom to associate and not associate himself with others, in ways not accepted by the state, then the state has the justification to point their guns at the home owner/business owner, to force them to accept people onto their land, who they otherwise do not want to accept.
For a man of principle, it is no different to point a gun at a home owner for refusing to accept certain people into their homes on the basis of race, gender, religion, lifestyle, or any other criteria, than it is to point a gun at a business owner for refusing to accept certain people into their place of business on the basis of race, gender, religion, lifestyle, or any other criteria.
Seriously, why is it OK to refuse to accept people onto one’s home, according to whatever criteria one wants to use, but it’s not OK to refuse to accept people onto one’s property when the only difference is that the property owner is producing goods and receiving money for them? Why did the property owner’s freedom suddenly disappear for sending flour and eggs in one direction, and cotton and linen (cash) in another direction? What is it about the physical things that exchanged hands, that makes the INDIVIDUAL’S rights different? What is the connection? Why I am a free to choose if I own a building and live in it, but I am not free to choose if I own a building and produce in it? It makes no sense. It is completely arbitrary. ANY reason you give that attempts to reconcile this discrepancy will necessarily be ad hoc, groundless, and emotion based.
Major, is a business owner “enslaved” by having to still obey the law on the grounds of his business?
The state’s laws are enslaving. I am not against laws per se. I am against laws based on initiations of force. Any law that threatens anyone with violence, for engaging in non-violent behavior (homeowners refusing to accept certain visitors and accepting other visitors, and business owners for refusing to accept certain visitors and accepting other visitors), is an unjust law.
I am not encouraging racism or sexism or any other ism for defending racist and sexist business owners for choosing to associate or disassociate with others based on race and gender, no more than I am encouraging racism or sexism or any other ism for defending racist and sexist home owners for choosing to associate or disassociate with others based on race and gender.
This is almost certainly above your head and you can’t get it because you let your emotions get the better of you, but the reason why I don’t call for guns to be pointed at racist and sexist business owners is the same exact reason why you don’t call for guns to be pointed at racist and sexist home owners.
I see no justification for why guns are justified against the property owner who sells goods, but not against the property owner who happens to live there. Someone who owns their land should be able to accept or refuse whomever they want, buy and sell from whomever they want, and deal or not deal with whomever they want. That’s what having individual freedom is about. To have final authority over one’s own body and property. It is not a violation of non-owner’s freedom to refuse them entry.
I am not violating the freedom of KKK members for refusing to allow them into my home.
I am not violating the freedom of Black Panther members for refusing to allow them into my place of business.
Is it legal for him to commit assulat or murder if withinn his premsies and “slavery” for the law to stop him?
Assault and murder are initiations of violence, hence it is not legal in a private property society.
It doesn’t seem that Major has any use for the law. All he has is this claim for “absoulute property rights.”
That is a law, numbnuts. Civil rights cannot exist without property rights. Freedom of the press requires private property of the means of production in the media. If the state owned all means of production in the media, there would be no freedom of the press. The same thing applies to all other civil freedoms.
You being barred from disciminating against blacks is not “slavery.”
It is if you are forced by violence into selling goods and services to those you don’t otherwise want to sell to. That is slavery by definition. The slave law is “If you sell, then you MUST sell to who WE say you can sell to.”
If you were forced at gun point to open your restaruant at all that would be involuntary.
If you are forced at gun point to sell to people you don’t otherwise want to sell to, that is involuntary too.
However, if you choose to open a business you still need to obey the laws of society.
The laws of society you’re referring to are based on initiations of force. It is a non-argument to defend such laws on the sole basis of merely identifying that they are the laws.
How is playing show and tell for law X a justification for law X? If all you have is that the state has the authority to use force for disobeying it, then all you’re suggesting is might makes right. The slaves must obey the masters. There is nothing more to it.
Otherwise you can try to find some spot that is under no national jurisidiction. Yet even there, of course, we now have internatioanl laws.
Only to the extent that the states willingly obey them, under threat of the world’s more powerful states. So it’s one unjustified agency using force unjustifiably in geographical territories that are also based on might makes right.
It’s up to you whether or not to open a business, what to sell, what to charge, where to operate, etc. However, the law prohibits you from cetain kinds of discirmination.
The state laws are unjust.
Discrimination that means that some members of society are not able to function is not “good.”
Non-owners of property have no right to decide what’s good for owners of property when the owner’s behavior is not aggressive. And who the hell are you or the mob to decide how property owners are to facilitate a person’s “function in society”?
It is good that this was ended and Rand Paul notwithstanding, such practice is thankfully over.
It is not good. It is bad. It is a bad thing for the state to use force to decide who people can and cannot do business with. It is a good thing if individuals decide for themselves who they want to do business with and who they don’t want to do business with.
Nor am I impressed by your talk of “nonaggression.” There’s more to life than simp;y not doing anything to harm someone.
You can’t achieve those things UNLESS you were not aggressed against. How can you achieve what you want in life when you’re being physically threatened and coerced?
Non-aggression is the minimum of what is needed in order for individuals to pursue their dreams and goals. I am not impressed at all with your silly talk of “higher”, more “noble” ends that are above individually decided ends. I am not impressed at your fake awareness, fake understanding, and fake knowledge of what millions of other individuals not you want in their own lives. I am humble enough to know that I don’t know what individuals want, so I can only tell violence advocating thugs like you to back off, and let individuals achieve their own goals.
Your fundamental problem is that you don’t know what you are. You don’t know the constraints of your knowledge and learning. You don’t know yourself because you’re too busy trying to find yourself in others who are not you, so you fallaciously believe that you know what everyone else wants.
Morally speaking because you don’t physically agreess against someone doesn’t mean your good or even not bad.
Morally speaking, if you call for initiations of violence against others, you’re not good. If you hide behind the state’s skirt and call for the state to rob from Peter to pay for Paul’s education, then you are not acting morally. You’re acting cowardly. You are not acting compassionately when you call for the state to point its guns at non-aggressive people, to force them to do what they otherwise would not have done because their values are not the same as your values. You are acting non-compassionately.
Consider stories like where people in a building in NYC or somewhere overhear a woman being raped or murdered-this has happened mutliple times here in NY and other places.
That is a failure of the state to protect her. The state is the institution responsible for security and protection.
Does the fact that the people who overheard and did nothing make them good or even innocent? I don’t believe so.
Good, so you believe the state is bad for tying up scarce resources and man power in throwing non-violent pot smokers in prison, than preventing rape. The statesmen know that they are devoting resources and man power to the drug war, because they themselves sell drugs and make money off it. They’d rather make money than stop rape. And why not? It’s not like the rape victims can stop paying taxes and choose a superior security and protection provider. No, they have to continue paying the state state that is failing to protect them!
“you’re clearly not a book-learned person.”
More childish and baseless insults. I doubt you’ve read anything than a few of the Austrian cultists
It’s not childish to tell you what I think of your level of knowledge, especially since you’re such a zealot and ideologue.
I have read far more than Austrian cultists. I’ve read literature from neoconservative cults, progressive cults, communist cults, fascist cults, religious cults, democratic cults, liberal cults, republican cults, racist cults, healthcare cults, financial cults, economic cults, philosophic cults, and many other cults. It’s a major reason why I am so much more wiser and worldly than you. You’re shallow minded. Every claim you make to me just convinces me more and more that you are shallow.
7. August 2012 at 11:41
“The government should not be the one to decide to whether racism is rational or not (or whether some kinds of racism are better than others, as is the actual policy). If Carlos Slim wants to buy the Denver Nuggets and only hire Mexican players, he should be free to do so. The market will determine whether this makes sense”
TallDave that’s probably as good as anything I’ve seen in underscoring why the market can’t be trusted as the sole arbiter of everything in society.
Clearly it’s only due to “goverment violence” that disncrimination has ended now. By your premise the market was working fine in 1964. If blacks couldn’t find anywhere decent to eat in the South well that was there problem, a trivial one next to the divine right of a business owner to be able to withold service form them if he for whatever reason wants to.
What government discrimination do you have in mind? Usually the only discrimination that bother libertarians is when the government tries to practice anti discrimination polcies. Dsicrimination itself they think is keen.
7. August 2012 at 11:41
“The government should not be the one to decide to whether racism is rational or not (or whether some kinds of racism are better than others, as is the actual policy). If Carlos Slim wants to buy the Denver Nuggets and only hire Mexican players, he should be free to do so. The market will determine whether this makes sense”
TallDave that’s probably as good as anything I’ve seen in underscoring why the market can’t be trusted as the sole arbiter of everything in society.
Clearly it’s only due to “goverment violence” that disncrimination has ended now. By your premise the market was working fine in 1964. If blacks couldn’t find anywhere decent to eat in the South well that was there problem, a trivial one next to the divine right of a business owner to be able to withold service form them if he for whatever reason wants to.
What government discrimination do you have in mind? Usually the only discrimination that bother libertarians is when the government tries to practice anti discrimination polcies. Dsicrimination itself they think is keen.
7. August 2012 at 11:47
“MF and Mike Sax,
the both of you are right and the both of you are wrong.
Edward, a proposition cannot be both right and wrong at the same time. When two people have opposite views, they cannot be both right and wrong either.
You are adding a wrong statement to whatever statements have already been made.
”
An argument that has multiple propositions on the yea or nay side can have its defenders right about some propositions and its objectors right about others. That was what I meant, I’m sorry that basic common sense escapes you Major.
“To Mike:
Although I find it incredibly painful to even attempt to agree with Major on ANYTHING he’s mostly right here. [Cherish the moment Major ]
Serious question: Why in the world would I “cherish” the fact that you agree with me? For me, you have shown yourself to be someone whose judgments and arguments are of low value and quality. I have found myself knowing that you are wrong too often for me to say yippee when you agree.
Apparently you do not understand the concept of “humor” We can add it to a long list of your many flaws. And your arguments are low in quality and value. They betray a snobbish, pretentious arrogance that is fanatically certain that it is right, not just about major issues, but about minor ones as well.
“Unfortunately you don’t take further steps beyond this. You don’t question the monopoly of security and protection as being the fundamental cause for how previously established rights can be whittled down and eroded over time, due to the fact that the final judge over the efficacy of security and protection, is the monopolist itself.
It should be so shocking or incredible that when the defendant in a case is also the judge, then the incentive is to rule in favor of itself. Yes, there are “checks and balances”, but they are not able to prevent the state from expanding, as both theory and history have borne out.”
We need more constitutional protections against expansions of the states power. I’ll give you that. I’m glad you mentioned checks and balances, because you don’t seem to grasp that the government is composed of many individuals, and is not one organic entity. The courts DO on occasion rule against the executive and legislative branches on behalf of the individual.
So the “monopolist” in your example is not really a monopolist at all.
“HOWEVER, to Major:
When most people speak of democracy today, they mean implicitly LIBERAL democracy where individual rights are respected. Maybe its wrong to make that inherent assumption, but its there. Lets assume for the moment that you get what your wish. An An-Cap utopia with liberal laws. (Liberal in the 18th and 19th century sense of course) Which do you think is the best PROCEDURAL method of getting things done?
Can I ask you a question? How much reading and research have you done in the area of private provision of protection and security? This question you’re asking is not novel. Might a I suggest that you read authors like David Friedman, Murray Rothbard, Robert Murphy, Lysander Spooner, Hans Hoppe, Benjamin Tucker, Linda and Morris Tannehill, etc? Or Google “Private defense and security”.
Do you see corporate cities with mayor/ ceo/ kings ruling because they own all the land?
“Isn’t that what we have now with eminent domain, land taxes, and zoning laws?”
Agreed on the last point. I don’t support real estate taxes. I have read some or most of those authors. Some are good, (david Friedman) some are not. (Murray Rothbard) What I find most in common is their devotion to generalities and lack of commitment to details and possible objections. Its all well and good to point out the flaws we have in todays system, any libertarian worth his salt can do that. Its another to flesh out in DETAIL positive proposals.
“Isn’t that what we have now with eminent domain, land taxes, and zoning laws?
I am talking about regular “citizens”, i.e. individuals, who own their own land, and economically compete for customers in a division of labor.
Or do you see citywide shareholders in charge, voting out and voting in new ceos and specific laws as they see fit?
I don’t “see” anything in this respect. It would be like asking the inventor of the internal combustion engine what the world would look like if the engine were to become privately produced in the market. I am not a central planner. I am not a soothsayer. I am not Nostradamus. I am not an astrologer. What the world would look like in anarchy is exactly a product of human action based on knowledge and choice. What will occur content-wise is something no mortal man can uncover.
Are you for real? You can make educated guesses, can’t you? To use your example, the inventor of the ICE can guess that other businesses can compete to recreate it after he sells it first and brings it to market.
“Even if you have an AN-CAP system, you still need procedure and organization, and methods for getting things done.
Getting what done? Why can’t individuals do what they want done, without any central consciousness ruling over everything? There doesn’t have to be a central command post. That isn’t what anarchy is about.
Getting anything done, genius! You have heard of something called the division of labor, haven’t you? You support the existence of corporations, Don’t you? You do realize of course, that any group of human beings that starts to expand well beyond a small number of people tends to have hierarchies, and people who are in charge. Steve Jobs was CEO of Apple until his death. DI that make him a dictator or some evil collectivist central planner. Of course not.
“I firmly believe that democracy is the right way to go on this
I don’t care for your beliefs. If I did, I’d go to church.”
I don’t care that you don’t care for my beliefs. That last part was not aimed at you. It was aimed at anyone else who is interested in anarcho-capitalism. Because, A.C. has two tendencies. The first being that the most successful businesspeople will tend to eventually accumulate the most political and military power in an anarcho-capitalist society, transforming them into oligarchs or dictators. the second tendency is for peaceful corporate city states that would be governed by their shareholders, who are in this case the workers. In the second case, there are only marginal differences between anarcho-capitalism and minarchist liberal democracy
7. August 2012 at 11:58
TallDave, just based on where you’ve taken us, clearly the market cannot be the sole arbitor of what’s “rational.”
In addition to this, there is not just the rational but also the moral to take into account. Even if it was “rational” to discirminate would that make it right?
There’s a sense in that being overly rational in itself can be irrational. You have to take ethical implications into account as well, as important as rationality is.
Because following you, we’re back in 1964, reopening questions that have been taken for granted for almost 50 years. Maybe it’s rational to believe blacks are inferior.
In light of this, how can anyone claim to me that libertarianism is about progress?
Unless libertariaism doesn’ have to get stuck in such reductio absurdem arguments I’m not buying.
7. August 2012 at 12:41
Edward:
Apparently you do not understand the concept of “humor” We can add it to a long list of your many flaws.
LOL, don’t you think you are obligated to actually show this alleged “long list” of my “many flaws” first, before you can consider my not laughing at your non-funny joke as a “flaw” that is to be “added”? If your previous posts to me are any indication, then I have not seen this from you, which can only mean you intend to antagonize more than argue about the topics at hand.
And your arguments are low in quality and value.
So I guess you have the same “talent” as Sax. Just repeat the same thing back.
They betray a snobbish, pretentious arrogance that is fanatically certain that it is right, not just about major issues, but about minor ones as well.
If you want to sound all snobbish and arrogant, then at least learn the meanings of the words before you use them. The word “betray” is typically used by first year philosophy grad students with a chip on their shoulder and believe that by emulating the manner of speech of the authors they’re tasked to read, then they can score points with their instructors.
I highly suggest you look up the word “betray” and learn the meaning of it in the way you wanted to use it, because you’re not using the word properly. If my arguments are indeed low quality and low value, then they cannot possibly betray yet more pejorative adjectives that describe my demeanor, such as snobbishness and pretentiousness. They would in fact be quite consistent with those adjectives.
If you want to use the word “betray” properly, then it should be used in between two opposites, or two extremes of some sort. For example “His pleasant demeanor betrays a hidden insidious agenda”, or something like that. When you say something like “His cavalier and aloof attitude betrays a lazy and apathetic attitude”, then it just sounds, um, not intelligent. Just some helpful advice for you. I am not someone who is impressed by empty verbiage used by clearly ignorant interlocutors.
And if you want to talk about snobbishness, I am not so snobbish as to believe that my ideas and convictions are so right and so great that they should be backed by initiations of violence and threats of violence and coercion. I think it takes a special kind of snob to believe that his initiations of violence can be used for “good.”
I think your standoffish and holier than thou attitude to me betrays a feeling of low self-esteem and self-doubt. <- BTW, that's how you use "betray" properly in the course of argumentation.
An argument that has multiple propositions on the yea or nay side can have its defenders right about some propositions and its objectors right about others.
I made one overall argument. You even addressed that one argument and only that one argument. What multiple propositions are you referring to?
That was what I meant, I’m sorry that basic common sense escapes you Major.
Common sense doesn’t escape me. Bad grammar and bad arguments escape me.
And I am the snobbish one? You’re Mr. Patronizing Hypocrite. Just look at how you write. You may believe you’re only equalizing things, but you still had to choose to write like that, so maybe you are used to being the snobbish one?
We need more constitutional protections against expansions of the states power. I’ll give you that. I’m glad you mentioned checks and balances, because you don’t seem to grasp that the government is composed of many individuals, and is not one organic entity. The courts DO on occasion rule against the executive and legislative branches on behalf of the individual.
Haha, you’re telling an individualist anarchist that I don’t grasp that the state is composed of individuals. That would have been funny if it weren’t so uninformed.
You say the courts do “on accasion” rule against the executive. Well, the fact that you said “on occasion”, rather than “typically”, or “all the time”, or “for the majority of cases”, I know that you know that the tendency is towards expansions of the state when the state writes the laws, enforces the laws, and judges the efficacy of the enforcement of the laws.
I sometimes marvel at the intellectual hang ups coming from the majority of intellectuals, especially professional economists, as they wax emotively on the danger and destructiveness of commercial monopolies such as computer software and banking, but for some reason they do not address or take seriously the monopoly that is the state. Actually, it’s not so much marvelling as it is exasperating, since I know that the majority of economists are on the state payroll, and human incentives being what they are, the chances of someone biting the hand that feeds them is small. This is another, perhaps the top three, reasons why I am an anarchist. Intellectuals are society’s guideposts. When the state infiltrates education, it has devastating consequences that go over the heads of so many who are trained to obey and trust state sanctioned professors. Don’t question these intellectuals, lest you become a dogmatic anti-scientific hater of knowledge. And that is exactly the evolutionary function of state intellectuals. To act in the same fashion as the King’s flag and cross bearing priests on the battle field. To get to the King, one has to go through the priests, and questioning the priests is heresy. Thus, to be anti-monarchical, is to be anti-God.
The same thing is the case with state intellectuals. To be anti-state, is to be anti-intellectual. This is why in a statist society where most intellectuals are on the state payroll, the true intellectual, one who questions the fundamentals of the fundamentals, is one who is an anti-anti-intellectual.
Agreed on the last point. I don’t support real estate taxes. I have read some or most of those authors. Some are good, (david Friedman) some are not. (Murray Rothbard)
What is not good about Rothbard? The guy almost single-handedly restored anarchism and libertarianism to the mainstream after decades of obscurity.
What I find most in common is their devotion to generalities and lack of commitment to details and possible objections.
Devotion to detail in the realm of the social sciences is the hallmark of a central planner wannabe. To me, there is a strange aura of craziness of those who describe their ideal society in so much detail. One who understands human life should be one who works with a relatively few basic principles, and let individuals work out the details of their own lives and interactions.
And lack of commitment to possible objections? That is quite honestly absurd. If you had actually bothered to read these authors, you would see a cornucopia of arguments and explanations that address typical objections made.
Its all well and good to point out the flaws we have in todays system, any libertarian worth his salt can do that. Its another to flesh out in DETAIL positive proposals.
It is stupid to flesh out the details of other people’s lives. Seriously, besides advocating for your and everyone else’s personal liberty, so that my health and prosperity is maximized by way of exchange, what else can I possibly describe in detail as to how such a society is to look like? I am not God. Even if I tried I could not gather all the information that exists in the minds of everyone. I could not become an expert in everything. Detail? Let individuals learn the details, and as for me, I will work on the details of general principles for social interaction.
Are you for real? You can make educated guesses, can’t you? To use your example, the inventor of the ICE can guess that other businesses can compete to recreate it after he sells it first and brings it to market.
I did not mention these things because they’re not details. They’re basic principles. You asked about details. To me details would be who produces what, where, in what quantity, for what costs, using what technology, and what materials, using which labor, and so on. What you said are not details.
Getting anything done, genius!
LIKE WHAT, SPORT?
If you mean “anything”, then no central planner is needed for that, since individuals will get things done without being told to get things done! Humans act. Action is purposeful behavior. Individuals without my permission and without my direction can “get things done”! I don’t need to plan their actions!
You have heard of something called the division of labor, haven’t you? You support the existence of corporations, Don’t you? You do realize of course, that any group of human beings that starts to expand well beyond a small number of people tends to have hierarchies, and people who are in charge. Steve Jobs was CEO of Apple until his death. DI that make him a dictator or some evil collectivist central planner. Of course not.
What is the point of all this? I am the one telling you that individuals with liberty can plan their own actions, and then you asked me with exasperation about how anything will get done, as if I and other individuals need overlords to order us around before we will do anything.
I don’t care that you don’t care for my beliefs.
I don’t care that you don’t care that I don’t care for your beliefs.
That last part was not aimed at you. It was aimed at anyone else who is interested in anarcho-capitalism.
Was that before or after I said I don’t care for your beliefs? I ask this because everything you said prior was directed at me. You did not preface that last sentence with anything that would suggest you’re talking to others besides me.
Because, A.C. has two tendencies.
Oh here we go.
The first being that the most successful businesspeople will tend to eventually accumulate the most political and military power in an anarcho-capitalist society, transforming them into oligarchs or dictators.
False. In anarcho-capitalism, those who are the most successful will tend to be those who are the best at providing security and protection. They cannot spontaneously turn into dictators when their whole support rests on voluntary payments. If they TRY to turn dictatorial, then who would willingly do business with their clients? The dictator wannabe’s clients have an incentive to ensure that their protector is fair and honest, so that they can maximize their profits buying and selling with others who have different protectors. It’s exactly the same reason why in today’s world, those who leave their home countries, tend not to immigrate into Afghanistan or Burma, but they line up to those countries with relatively more fair and honest states (as fair and honest as unfair and lying states go).
the second tendency is for peaceful corporate city states that would be governed by their shareholders, who are in this case the workers. In the second case, there are only marginal differences between anarcho-capitalism and minarchist liberal democracy
I disagree. There is a rather large difference between voluntary payments to a protector, and mandatory payments to a coercive monopolist gang. It’s literally the difference between war and peace, theft and trade, extortion and mutual benefit.
7. August 2012 at 13:22
“So I guess you have the same “talent” as Sax. Just repeat the same thing back.”
Unfreedom, don’t be modest-it doesn’t suit you. “I know you are but what am I” is your speciality.
And certainly you’re never guility of “to antagonize more than argue about the topics at hand.”
Just like you think you have no flaws.
7. August 2012 at 13:24
“It’s exactly the same reason why in today’s world, those who leave their home countries, tend not to immigrate into Afghanistan or Burma, but they line up to those countries with relatively more fair and honest states (as fair and honest as unfair and lying states go).”
Note that these “fair and honest states”-your own words are all democracies.
7. August 2012 at 13:25
“If you want to sound all snobbish and arrogant,”
Unfree, you’re certainly the expert on sounding “all snobbish and arrogant.”
If there’s a market for that you certainly would be the price setter.
7. August 2012 at 13:30
“If you want to sound all snobbish and arrogant, then at least learn the meanings of the words before you use them. The word “betray” is typically used by first year philosophy grad students with a chip on their shoulder and believe that by emulating the manner of speech of the authors they’re tasked to read, then they can score points with their instructors. ”
Apparnetly you don’t get out much. There’s nothing wrong with the word betray. This must have been the case at that cracker jack university you calim to have an economics degree from.
What you say may have been true there-maybe at Major Unfreedom Community College people use the word “betray” to impress college teachers. In the real world people use it when it’s appropriate.
Edward does have you pegged here-you have to quibble over the smallest,trivial, and most meanigless points.
7. August 2012 at 13:32
“Common sense doesn’t escape me”
Along with your lack of sense of humor and common sense, you lack self-knowlege. Maybe that’s why you call yourself Major Freedom when in truth you’re all about Unfreedom and taking away people’s liberty.
7. August 2012 at 13:35
“Don’t question these intellectuals, lest you become a dogmatic anti-scientific hater of knowledge. And that is exactly the evolutionary function of state intellectuals. To act in the same fashion as the King’s flag and cross bearing priests on the battle field. To get to the King, one has to go through the priests, and questioning the priests is heresy. Thus, to be anti-monarchical, is to be anti-God.”
Except you and Herman Hoppe think democracy was as step down from monacrcy
7. August 2012 at 14:00
Our total tax as a % of is about 25%
Israel…37%
Sweden…48%
Switzerland…30%
Finland…44%
Canada…33%
Denmark…50%
Ireland 30%
Higher taxes does not necessarily mean you get less VALUE for what you earn.
7. August 2012 at 15:28
oops …As a % of GDP…
7. August 2012 at 15:43
Mike Sax, you are the man.
You’re right of course. Major doesn’t understand anything about being tolerant, having a discussion, Being open to others viewpoints and being able to admit when you are wrong. . . The list goes on. He actually thinks Murray Rothbard was a great guy. Just to get a mental mindset of the guy, This is a man (Rothbard) who called Milton Friedman a statist. In a review of the Godfather, he PRAISED the mafiosi as representing the best of “lockean principles.” Rothbard was anti-free market money, anti fractional reserve banking, in general, a giant colossal hypocrite.Talk about looney tunes. This is the man Major Tyranny likes.
Oh, and the Major doesn’t even understand the concept of “leadership,” and thinks being and individualist is being an atomist, unconnected, isolated, cut off.
I’m a consequentialist libertarian an altogether different breed than the Major. I believe in small government and maximal free enterprise, because I think it produces the best results for everyone. I don’t think progressives are evil, I just don’t agree with some of their policy proposals. You and I may disagree sometimes, but that does’t mean your a bad person
7. August 2012 at 17:41
Thanks for all the comments and links. One quick comment–most economic historians seem to prefer the WPI, as the interwar CPI was not very reliable.
7. August 2012 at 17:56
Yeah Edward, Major’s all sound and fury signifying nothing.
He thinks that it’s somehow dishonest to be concise and civil in his discourse. Like the ruder you are the more right you are and since he’s ruder than anyone else hwere by a factor of 120, ergo he must be right.
In truth even if he knew as much as he thinks he does about monetary matters, his attitude is counterproductive.
Certainly there’s nothing worse than teachers with an atitude like his-insulting people as stupid and immoral.
He’s just a bore-and a boor.
Putting him aside, while I’m probably a little more liberal than the median reader here, most of the people I must say are smart and most are decent people. I learn a lot.
I will try not to judge libertarianism too much by it’s lesser work.
7. August 2012 at 18:14
Mike Sax:
“So I guess you have the same “talent” as Sax. Just repeat the same thing back.”
Unfreedom, don’t be modest-it doesn’t suit you. “I know you are but what am I” is your speciality.
Again with this I know you are but what am I. Is this all you have?
And certainly you’re never guility of “to antagonize more than argue about the topics at hand.”
I’ve yet to see you admit that you do this.
Just like you think you have no flaws.
You refuse to admit when you’re wrong after I correct you, because you’re afraid of the perceived implications.
“It’s exactly the same reason why in today’s world, those who leave their home countries, tend not to immigrate into Afghanistan or Burma, but they line up to those countries with relatively more fair and honest states (as fair and honest as unfair and lying states go).”
Note that these “fair and honest states”-your own words are all democracies.
No they’re not. Monaco, Liechtenstein, Andorra, these countries I would consider more fair and honest than the democracies in Italy and Greece.
“If you want to sound all snobbish and arrogant,”
Unfree, you’re certainly the expert on sounding “all snobbish and arrogant.”
See above re: I know you are but what am I…
If there’s a market for that you certainly would be the price setter.
???
“If you want to sound all snobbish and arrogant, then at least learn the meanings of the words before you use them. The word “betray” is typically used by first year philosophy grad students with a chip on their shoulder and believe that by emulating the manner of speech of the authors they’re tasked to read, then they can score points with their instructors. “
Apparnetly you don’t get out much. There’s nothing wrong with the word betray. This must have been the case at that cracker jack university you calim to have an economics degree from.
I didn’t say there is something wrong with the word betray. I said there is something wrong with the way Edward used it. You are the last person in the world to be lecturing anyone on grammar or spelling. Your grammar and spelling are horrendous.
What you say may have been true there-maybe at Major Unfreedom Community College people use the word “betray” to impress college teachers. In the real world people use it when it’s appropriate.
Apparently not.
Edward does have you pegged here-you have to quibble over the smallest,trivial, and most meanigless points.
I don’t have to. Notice how I made arguments of substance and grammar. But I suppose that since you’re so sensitive about grammatical corrections, it’s the only thing that registers in your mind.
“Common sense doesn’t escape me”
Along with your lack of sense of humor and common sense, you lack self-knowlege.
You haven’t established any lack of sense of humor, nor common sense, nor self-knowledge.
Maybe that’s why you call yourself Major Freedom when in truth you’re all about Unfreedom and taking away people’s liberty.
I call myself Major Freedom because I am in favor of protecting people’s liberty from you violence advocating, liberty destroying statists.
“Don’t question these intellectuals, lest you become a dogmatic anti-scientific hater of knowledge. And that is exactly the evolutionary function of state intellectuals. To act in the same fashion as the King’s flag and cross bearing priests on the battle field. To get to the King, one has to go through the priests, and questioning the priests is heresy. Thus, to be anti-monarchical, is to be anti-God.”
Except you and Herman Hoppe think democracy was as step down from monacrcy
How is that an “except”? I am against both monarchy and democracy. The flag and cross bearing priests in monarchy during the dark ages perform the same social evolution function as state financed intellectuals today.
——————
Edward:
You’re right of course. Major doesn’t understand anything about being tolerant, having a discussion, Being open to others viewpoints and being able to admit when you are wrong.
I am not tolerant of violence advocates. I am open to discussion, which presupposes private property rights and peaceful interaction. I am not open to other people’s viewpoints when I know they’re wrong. I admit when I am wrong, it just happens so rarely on this blog.
The list goes on.
So does the lack of substantiating your accusations.
He actually thinks Murray Rothbard was a great guy.
You actually think Murray Rothbard is not a great guy!
Just to get a mental mindset of the guy, This is a man (Rothbard) who called Milton Friedman a statist.
Milton Friedman was a statist. That’s one of the main reasons why he was welcome in the King’s court, whereas anti-statists were not.
In a review of the Godfather, he PRAISED the mafiosi as representing the best of “lockean principles.”
He chastised the mafiosos in Goodfellas as “repellent and loathesome.” Rothbard isn’t “pro-mafia”. He is pro private security and protection.
I don’t understand your hangup. You PRAISE mafia monopolies called states. What did the Corleones do that states don’t do, such that you chastise the Corleones but not states?
Rothbard was anti-free market money, anti fractional reserve banking, in general, a giant colossal hypocrite.
Rothbard was pro free market money. He was anti-fractional reserve banking. I don’t understand you statists. You advocate for violence backed state laws in the form of central banking, and yet you cry foul when free market economists are anti-FRB? Goodness. Talk about hypocrisy.
Talk about looney tunes. This is the man Major Tyranny likes.
How do I advocate for tyranny? You and Sax are hypocrites. You chastise me for allegedly advocating violence, and yet I have exposed both of you as advocates of violence.
Are you calling me Major Unfreedom and Major Tyranny because you know deep down YOU advocate for unfreedom and tyranny, and so you call me it solely to anticipate yet another correct accusation against you?
Talk about epic psychological projections.
Oh, and the Major doesn’t even understand the concept of “leadership,” and thinks being and individualist is being an atomist, unconnected, isolated, cut off.
False. Voluntary leadership is something I support. Violence backed leadership is something I am against.
You don’t understand that leadership does not require violence, nor do you understand that methodological individualism does not presuppose atomism or isolation. Get educated already.
I’m a consequentialist libertarian an altogether different breed than the Major.
Why am I not surprised that you adhere to an ethic that is impossible to practise. Consequentialism is praxeologically absurd. One cannot know what one ought to do here and now, which is what an ethic is supposed to answer, on the basis of future outcomes of one’s actions. The assignment of rights of exclusive control (i.e. ethics) cannot be dependent on outcomes. One could never act and propose anything unless private property rights existed prior to a later outcome. Any ethic must instead be in the here and now in order to make it possible that one can act here and now and propose this or that rather than having to suspend acting until later.
I believe in small government and maximal free enterprise, because I think it produces the best results for everyone.
No, you don’t. You can’t say you advocate for maximal free enterprise, because maximal free enterprise would mean the abolition of the state, and central banking.
I don’t think progressives are evil, I just don’t agree with some of their policy proposals.
I think progressives who advocate for violence cannot just be disagreed with. They must be physically stopped from hurting people.
You and I may disagree sometimes, but that does’t mean your a bad person
What makes a bad person? Clearly we’re operating under different definitions.
7. August 2012 at 18:19
Mike Sax:
Yeah Edward, Major’s all sound and fury signifying nothing.
That’s the exact opposite of what I am about.
He thinks that it’s somehow dishonest to be concise and civil in his discourse.
Straw man. I never claimed that.
Like the ruder you are the more right you are and since he’s ruder than anyone else hwere by a factor of 120, ergo he must be right.
I am rude to those who are themselves rude.
In truth even if he knew as much as he thinks he does about monetary matters, his attitude is counterproductive.
It is actually highly productive.
Certainly there’s nothing worse than teachers with an atitude like his-insulting people as stupid and immoral.
When did I say you’re stupid?
I certainly think you’re immoral, but then again, you have constantly insinuated I am immoral, so yeah for hypocrisy.
He’s just a bore-and a boor.
Haha, I told you that. Still playing your game I see.
Putting him aside, while I’m probably a little more liberal than the median reader here, most of the people I must say are smart and most are decent people. I learn a lot.
I learn a lot too. I learn how philosophical collectivists and statists “think”.
I will try not to judge libertarianism too much by it’s lesser work.
You’re not exactly a credible judge of the quality of such work. You have to have actually read books cover to cover, and not the wikipedia summaries. I can tell by your comments that you don’t read that which you criticize.
7. August 2012 at 18:24
“I can tell by your comments that you don’t read that which you criticize.”
You can’t tell anything, you’re just blowing smoke out your you know what. You alwasy try to tell me what I do as if you have a clue or are any kind of judge.
7. August 2012 at 18:28
“When did I say you’re stupid?”
Major you have plenty of times tried to claim that either I or any number of other people here are stupid and immoral.
Even now you’re trying to insult me by lcaiming that I don’t read books cover to cover.
Do I have to get all the quotes like I did of you claiming that I said success is 100% luck? It gets boring having to again and again show you contradicting yourself.
The irony is that you alwasy try to claim that those who disagree with you are just being emotional. Yet you constantly engage in petty and childish insults that are just the devices of emotional arguments.
7. August 2012 at 18:40
“”I can tell by your comments that you don’t read that which you criticize.”
But even if Mike didn’t know that which he criticizes, I do. I’ve read what I’ve criticized. My whole point about leadership, and isolation was to make the argument that even in anarchical societies a leader emerges. Based on this, how do we elect a leader? By voluntary consent. then you’re a liberal democrat. By inherited property and title, then you’re a monarchist. Anarchism will always devolve into one or the other because human beings always have some measure of power over one another. The best way to ensure peace and prosperity is to restrict it. Realistically This is accomplished through liberal democracy. (Of the minarchist kind) I certainly don’t believe that individualism implies atomism and individual isolation. I was trying to point out to YOU that they don’t, trying to remind you of that fact.
But you’ve misunderstood as usual of course. “You don’t understand that leadership does not require violence, nor do you understand that methodological individualism does not presuppose atomism or isolation.” Gimme a break.
p.S. Oh and by the way, consequentialism is not impossible to practice, Nor is it absurd. Ever heard of rule consequentialism? EXPECTED outcomes? I include life and liberty as well as utility and happiness, so there
7. August 2012 at 18:47
“See above re: I know you are but what am I…”
That’s you, In fact Edward called you that and then you truned it around and called him the same.
So you play that game. The difference is you really are snobbish and arrogant whereas you just mimic everyone like a child
7. August 2012 at 19:03
I forgot to add something: BECAUSE Anarcho-Capitalism is unstable, and will devolve into two possible outcomes, oligarchy/monarchy/dictatorship OR liberal democracy, and BECAUSE freedom is too precious to leave to chance THEREFORE people who advocate for liberal democracy are in point of fact more pro-liberty than anarcho-capitalists, because they believe in preserving liberty in the real world. (how’s that for irony, Mike?)
7. August 2012 at 19:33
Mike Sax:
“I can tell by your comments that you don’t read that which you criticize.”
You can’t tell anything, you’re just blowing smoke out your you know what. You alwasy try to tell me what I do as if you have a clue or are any kind of judge.
That must be a sore spot for you. You do know that the only way to rectify that problem is to read, don’t you?
“When did I say you’re stupid?”
Major you have plenty of times tried to claim that either I or any number of other people here are stupid and immoral.
Gotcha. Never.
Even now you’re trying to insult me by lcaiming that I don’t read books cover to cover.
It’s based on your written statements. I am not just making it up.
Either than or your retention is as bad as your spelling and grammar.
Do I have to get all the quotes like I did of you claiming that I said success is 100% luck?
Except I didn’t say you did say that. As I said already. As I said already, I was specifically referring to two statements that you made where you implied that wealth was all luck. It was those instances where I said no, it’s not all luck.
Remember, unlike you I refer to arguments that you actually make. You keep imagining non-existing arguments for some reason.
It gets boring having to again and again show you contradicting yourself.
I’m still waiting for you to show me the first time I allegedly contradicted myself. I have done it in the past, but I don’t recall ever contradicting myself to you. I have just been exposing your contradictions over and over again. I don’t get tired from doing that.
The irony is that you alwasy try to claim that those who disagree with you are just being emotional.
What else is there if you’re not logical?
Yet you constantly engage in petty and childish insults that are just the devices of emotional arguments.
Yeah more hypocrisy. Mike, in case you forgot, which is almost certainly the case, you started being a drama queen when debating me. Sometime in between the very start and now, you went from being a confused and muddled thinker, to a he said she said drama queen with an attitude.
Edward:
“I can tell by your comments that you don’t read that which you criticize.”
But even if Mike didn’t know that which he criticizes, I do.
Yeah I doubt that Edward. You kind of mischaracterized Rothbard as anti-free market in money, and pro mafia.
I’ve read what I’ve criticized.
If you did read what you criticize, then maybe it is a memory issue?
My whole point about leadership, and isolation was to make the argument that even in anarchical societies a leader emerges.
That isn’t what you said. You said I don’t understand leadership, as if being against violence somehow makes me incapable of understanding role models, private property owners who can contingently set the terms of their own trades, and cultural leaders who are respected and admired.
Based on this, how do we elect a leader? By voluntary consent.
And what of the minority WHO DON’T WANT A LEADER? Why do we have to have elections the results of which are to be imposed by force on everyone? Are you really so shallow that you can only see a ruler over everyone democratically, or a ruler over everyone dictatorially?
I don’t want a leader based on force.
then you’re a liberal democrat.
To me you’d be a statist. Use state force against those who would otherwise peacefully dissent and opt out. Leech and plunder for the good of humanity.
By inherited property and title, then you’re a monarchist. Anarchism will always devolve into one or the other because human beings always have some measure of power over one another.
False. States are not inevitable. States are a product of choice. You are mistaking moral and intellectual capitulation for mystical insight into the inner workings of the cosmos.
The best way to ensure peace and prosperity is to restrict it.
Up is down. Freedom is slavery.
Realistically This is accomplished through liberal democracy. (Of the minarchist kind)
Realistically that’s wrong.
I certainly don’t believe that individualism implies atomism and individual isolation. I was trying to point out to YOU that they don’t, trying to remind you of that fact.
What the heck? You’re telling an individualist anarchist that individualism is not atomism?
But you’ve misunderstood as usual of course.
Where did I give even the slightest hint that I think individualism is atomism or isolation? You’re not making any sense.
“You don’t understand that leadership does not require violence, nor do you understand that methodological individualism does not presuppose atomism or isolation.” Gimme a break.
p.S. Oh and by the way, consequentialism is not impossible to practice, Nor is it absurd. Ever heard of rule consequentialism? EXPECTED outcomes? I include life and liberty as well as utility and happiness, so there
It is impossible to practise, because consequentilism is not based on current expectations. It is based on FUTURE OUTCOMES themselves. Rule consequentialism cannot overcome the deficiency of an utter lack of ethical rules to follow NOW, BEFORE the outcomes transpire. Ethics MUST be an a priori field of inquiry, in order for humans to know what they ought and ought not do NOW, when they act.
So….there?
Mike Sax:
“See above re: I know you are but what am I…”
That’s you
Again, see above re: I know you are but what am I
So you play that game. The difference is you really are snobbish and arrogant whereas you just mimic everyone like a child
See above re: I know you are but what am I.
Edward:
I forgot to add something: BECAUSE Anarcho-Capitalism is unstable, and will devolve into two possible outcomes, oligarchy/monarchy/dictatorship OR liberal democracy
You actually already mentioned that, and it was false the first time you mentioned it.
and BECAUSE freedom is too precious to leave to chance THEREFORE people who advocate for liberal democracy are in point of fact more pro-liberty than anarcho-capitalists, because they believe in preserving liberty in the real world. (how’s that for irony, Mike?)
The only irony is that what you are advocating is not freedom.
What you are advocating for is freedom for some people (majority, and those in the state), and not freedom for other people (minority, and those not in the state.
You are totally wrong to claim that oligarchies are inevitable. (Liberal democracies are oligarchies, by the way).
You have not even attempted to show how anarchism inevitably devolves into oligarchy. Why? Because it’s just your thought that has no counter-part in reality. You’re just presenting a false choice so as to dress democracy in a fake veil of legitimacy and optimality.
All philosophical con men do this. They advocate for an unjust set of actions from overlords, then pretend that all other alternatives are more unjust.
Your view of mankind is, I am not sorry to say, utterly depraved and twisted.
7. August 2012 at 19:41
Is the US a liberal democracy?
Even if the state passes a law for itself that grants itself the authority to kill Americans extra-judicially?
Or are we supposed to pretend that everything that occurs in democracy is optimal, moral, realistic, etc?
7. August 2012 at 20:29
“And what of the minority WHO DON’T WANT A LEADER?”
They can SECEDE! That option should be a right written into the Constitution.
“I can tell by your comments that you don’t read that which you criticize.”
But even if Mike didn’t know that which he criticizes, I do.
Yeah I doubt that Edward. You kind of mischaracterized Rothbard as anti-free market in money, and pro mafia.
He is anti-free market in money. He wrote constantly about gold, as if gold were the only metal (not even silver ) that could ever emerge on the free market. (The Case for the 100 percent Gold Dollar?) He is pro mafia as the mafia is depicted in the godfather. And read that cultural piece again carefully He wasn’t so disgusted as to the actions of the mafiosi in Goodfellas, as he was repulsed by the way Martin Scorcese portrayed. them. (An honest realistic portrayal by the way.)
“My whole point about leadership, and isolation was to make the argument that even in anarchical societies a leader emerges.
That isn’t what you said.
But thats what I implied, maybe I do need to write more clearly, or maybe you’re just slow. I also said:
“You have heard of something called the division of labor, haven’t you? You support the existence of corporations, Don’t you? You do realize of course, that any group of human beings that starts to expand well beyond a small number of people tends to have hierarchies, and people who are in charge. Steve Jobs was CEO of Apple until his death. Does that make him a dictator or some evil collectivist central planner. Of course not.”
You said in response:
“What is the point of all this? I am the one telling you that individuals with liberty can plan their own actions, and then you asked me with exasperation about how anything will get done, as if I and other individuals need overlords to order us around before we will do anything.”
If you read what I said, I never meant to say people need “overlords” to get things done! I said people need voluntary leaders (like Jobs, who was voluntary was he not) to organize economic projects and endeavors that require large numbers of people to produce.
By inherited property and title, then you’re a monarchist. Anarchism will always devolve into one or the other because human beings always have some measure of power over one another.
“The best way to ensure peace and prosperity is to restrict it.
Up is down. Freedom is slavery.
POWER you fool. The best way to ensure peace and prosperity is to restrict (absolute) POWER!
Are you really this dense?
“I certainly don’t believe that individualism implies atomism and individual isolation. I was trying to point out to YOU that they don’t, trying to remind you of that fact.
What the heck? You’re telling an individualist anarchist that individualism is not atomism?
But you’ve misunderstood as usual of course.
Where did I give even the slightest hint that I think individualism is atomism or isolation? You’re not making any sense.
“Getting what done? Why can’t individuals do what they want done, without any central consciousness (voluntary leader) ruling (carrying out the plans of his or her constituents) over everything? There doesn’t have to be a central command post. That isn’t what anarchy is about.”
“It is impossible to practise, because consequentilism is not based on current expectations. It is based on FUTURE OUTCOMES themselves. Rule consequentialism cannot overcome the deficiency of an utter lack of ethical rules to follow NOW, BEFORE the outcomes transpire. Ethics MUST be an a priori field of inquiry, in order for humans to know what they ought and ought not do NOW, when they act.”
Consequentialism has many varieties, Some based on future outcomes, some on subjective EXPECTED future results in the present time, some based on rules that maximize certain outcomes, based on previous knowledge or previous experience, and so on . Read before you attack like a mindless automaton.
“I forgot to add something: BECAUSE Anarcho-Capitalism is unstable, and will devolve into two possible outcomes, oligarchy/monarchy/dictatorship OR liberal democracy
You actually already mentioned that, and it was false the first time you mentioned it.”
I’m trying to restate my arguments into a syllogism. And it isn’t false.
“The only irony is that what you are advocating is not freedom.
What you are advocating for is freedom for some people (majority, and those in the state), and not freedom for other people (minority, and those not in the state.”
I believe in the right for the minority to secede, genius.
You are totally wrong to claim that oligarchies are inevitable. (Liberal democracies are oligarchies, by the way).
I never said oligarchies are inevitable I said the tendency is most likely to run to two outcomes. liberal democracy or dictatorship. And no, minarchist liberal democracies are not oligarchies. Not even social democratic countries are oligarchies.
“You have not even attempted to show how anarchism inevitably devolves into oligarchy. Why? Because it’s just your thought that has no counter-part in reality. You’re just presenting a false choice so as to dress democracy in a fake veil of legitimacy and optimality.
The best analogy, though an extremely imperfect one, when I think of anarchism is the international arena of states. One tendency throughout history which I don’t endorse!) has been for hegemons and empires to dominate. One hegemonic corporation would tend to dominate, provide the law and order in an An-cap society, And establish itself as a de facto if not de jure state. The corporation would cease being voluntary, and obtain its revenue through coercion and terror. Nice huh? (Thats sarcasm by the way) On the other hand we have hegemons like the U.S. which are although EXTREMELY imperfect, are pretty decent as empires have historically gone. But we shouldn’t have to rely on American superpowerdom as a benevolent sort of dictatorship to spread liberal values. Id be just as happy if the people were convinced of them (classical liberalism) one by one
All philosophical con men do this. They advocate for an unjust set of actions from overlords, then pretend that all other alternatives are more unjust.
Your view of mankind is, I am not sorry to say, utterly depraved and twisted.
You’re the one who speaks of the “rabble” all the time. You have a disgusting contempt for people less fortunate than yourself.
7. August 2012 at 22:07
Edward:
“And what of the minority WHO DON’T WANT A LEADER?”
They can SECEDE! That option should be a right written into the Constitution.
Individual secession is against the law. Try again.
“Yeah I doubt that Edward. You kind of mischaracterized Rothbard as anti-free market in money, and pro mafia.”
He is anti-free market in money.
No, he is not anti-free market in money. Rothbard is pro-free market in money.
“Given this dismal monetary and banking situation, given a 39:1 pyramiding of checkable deposits and currency on top of gold, given a Fed unchecked and out of control, given a world of fiat moneys, how can we possibly return to a sound noninflationary market money? The objectives, after the discussion in this work, should be clear: (a) to return to a gold standard, a commodity standard unhampered by government intervention; (b) to abolish the Federal Reserve System and return to a system of free and competitive banking; (c) to separate the government from money; and (d) either to enforce 100 percent reserve banking on the commercial banks, or at least to arrive at a system where any bank, at the slightest hint of nonpayment of its demand liabilities, is forced quickly into bankruptcy and liquidation. While the outlawing of fractional reserve as fraud would be preferable if it could be enforced, the problems of enforcement, especially where banks can continually innovate in forms of credit, make free banking an attractive alternative.” – The Mystery of Banking.
He wrote constantly about gold, as if gold were the only metal (not even silver ) that could ever emerge on the free market.
He also wrote about other commodities becoming the money of choice in various cultures. Again, you’re not reading that which you choose to criticize.
(The Case for the 100 percent Gold Dollar?)
It is not anti-free market to advocate that people on their own volition choose gold as money. Rothbard was against the state enforcing gold as money.
If Bill Gates advocated for windows, would that be anti-free market of him? No.
He is pro mafia as the mafia is depicted in the godfather.
He is anti mafia as the mafia is depicted in Goodfellas.
And read that cultural piece again carefully He wasn’t so disgusted as to the actions of the mafiosi in Goodfellas, as he was repulsed by the way Martin Scorcese portrayed. them. (An honest realistic portrayal by the way.)
No, YOU need to read it carefully. Rothbard was disgusted by the actions of the mafia in Goodfellas:
“Instead of good versus bad entrepreneurs, all working and planning coherently and on a grand scale, GoodFellas is peopled exclusively by psychotic punks, scarcely different from ordinary, unorganized street criminals. The violence is random, gratuitous, pointless, and psychotic; everyone, from the protagonist Henry Hill (Ray Liota) on down is a boring creep; there is no one in this horde of “wiseguys” or “goodfellas” that any member of the viewing audience can identify with. The critics all refer to the psycho gang member Tommy (Joe Pesci), but what they don’t point out is that everyone else in the gang, including the leader Jimmy Conway (Robert DeNiro) is almost as fully deranged.”
“When Tommy kills friends or colleagues pointlessly, Jimmy and the others are delighted and are happy to cover up for him. All of these goons are ultra-high-time preference lowlifes: their range of the future approximates ten minutes, in contrast to the carefully planned empire-building of The Godfather. Conway, after pulling off a multi-million dollar heist at Kennedy Airport, shoots all of his colleagues to grab all the money. This sort of behavior, as well as the random violence of Tommy, would put these guys out of business within weeks in any real Mafia organization worth its salt. Street punk short-term greed and whim-worship would get you killed in short order.”
That is Rothbard being repulsed by the actions of the characters in Goodfellas.
“My whole point about leadership, and isolation was to make the argument that even in anarchical societies a leader emerges.
That isn’t what you said.
But thats what I implied, maybe I do need to write more clearly, or maybe you’re just slow.
Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong. Hey cool, I can say things without really saying anything too.
“What is the point of all this? I am the one telling you that individuals with liberty can plan their own actions, and then you asked me with exasperation about how anything will get done, as if I and other individuals need overlords to order us around before we will do anything.”
If you read what I said, I never meant to say people need “overlords” to get things done! I said people need voluntary leaders (like Jobs, who was voluntary was he not) to organize economic projects and endeavors that require large numbers of people to produce.
You said:
“Even if you have an AN-CAP system, you still need procedure and organization, and methods for getting things done. I firmly believe that democracy is the right way to go on this”
Democracy is a political system. How else was I supposed to take “getting things done” if not politically?
Democracy is exactly what limits innovation and entrepreneurship. Innovators are by nature those who forecast and plan better than the relatively duller masses of people. Democracy would kill innovation. Innovators are by nature those who shake things up and do things that most people would not support, until they do.
If you read what I said, then you would see that there is nothing that would even hint at there being an absence of leaders in anarchism. Leaders can be, and are, voluntarily followed. Leadership does not imply statism.
By inherited property and title, then you’re a monarchist.
No, a monarchist has the further requirement of a territorial, coercive monopoly of security and protection, of non-owners of a given property over the owners of said property. The King, who neither homesteaded the land nor traded for it, is ruler.
In anarchism, privately owned land can be sold and transferred to children voluntarily, exactly like what takes place today, only without state taxes.
POWER you fool. The best way to ensure peace and prosperity is to restrict (absolute) POWER! Are you really this dense?
Coming from you, it sounded like you said the best way to ensure peace and prosperity is to restrict “it”, meaning peace and prosperity.
What the heck? You’re telling an individualist anarchist that individualism is not atomism?
But you’ve misunderstood as usual of course.
So just to be clear, you’re telling an individualist anarchist that individualism is not atomism? If so, then you are totally misunderstanding me.
Consequentialism has many varieties, Some based on future outcomes, some on subjective EXPECTED future results in the present time, some based on rules that maximize certain outcomes, based on previous knowledge or previous experience, and so on . Read before you attack like a mindless automaton.
I already know those versions of consequentialism. You’re just listing a whole bunch hoping that I won’t be able to settle on the one that you’re talking about, and thus hoping that your silly impossible to practise ethic can be immunized. ALL forms of consequentialist ethics are impossible to practise NOW. This is the point that you refuse to accept.
Mindless automaton? You wish.
As a consequentialist ethicist, I ask you: Right here and right now, what ought I do and what I ought not do?
BTW, all varieties of consequentialism cannot answer this. It’s a trick question.
I’m trying to restate my arguments into a syllogism. And it isn’t false.
Restatements are not additions of what you forgot to mention.
And it is false. The error is your ad hoc claim that anarchism leads to statism.
What you are advocating for is freedom for some people (majority, and those in the state), and not freedom for other people (minority, and those not in the state.”
I believe in the right for the minority to secede, genius.
Then you’re an anarchist, sport, just like me. You’re not pro-democracy, and you’re not pro-state.
You and Mike Sax found yourselves teaming up against me because you thought you had a common enemy in me. Now that you revealed that you’re an anarchist, how will that square with Mike’s rabid pro-democratic bent?
I love shaking up previously taken for granted convictions.
I never said oligarchies are inevitable I said the tendency is most likely to run to two outcomes.
Now you’re just lying or you’re not serious at all in what you’re saying. You said:
“My whole point about leadership, and isolation was to make the argument that even in anarchical societies a leader emerges. Based on this, how do we elect a leader? By voluntary consent. then you’re a liberal democrat. By inherited property and title, then you’re a monarchist. Anarchism will always devolve into one or the other because human beings always have some measure of power over one another.”
Having fun yet? Try to spin your way out of than one.
liberal democracy or dictatorship. And no, minarchist liberal democracies are not oligarchies. Not even social democratic countries are oligarchies.
Yes, they are oligarchies. An oligarchy is where power effectively rests with a small number of people. The last time I checked, the state is composed of a number of people that is vastly dwarfed by the general population.
“You have not even attempted to show how anarchism inevitably devolves into oligarchy. Why? Because it’s just your thought that has no counter-part in reality. You’re just presenting a false choice so as to dress democracy in a fake veil of legitimacy and optimality.”
The best analogy, though an extremely imperfect one, when I think of anarchism is the international arena of states.
That’s funny, since I consider the lack of a world state to be consistent with MY theory of political economy. Not justification or evidence of my theory mind you, but historical illustration and interpretation. If decentralized power structures ALWAYS results in a single state (your own words), then why the lack of a world state for all of human history?
One tendency throughout history which I don’t endorse!) has been for hegemons and empires to dominate.
Slavery (forced labor) dominated human history for many years, until it didn’t.
History isn’t proof of what will happen in the future when it comes to social science. As with most people who don’t understand the foundation of economics, you too conflate theory and history as is the case in physics and chemistry. You don’t grasp the fact that theory and history are not overlapping in the social sciences. Humans learn and act purposefully. Even if there is a trillion years of slavery throughout history, it wouldn’t be one iota of justification for making claims about a trillion years into the future.
One hegemonic corporation would tend to dominate, provide the law and order in an An-cap society, And establish itself as a de facto if not de jure state.
Rothbard already demolished that Nozickean theory.
The corporation would cease being voluntary, and obtain its revenue through coercion and terror. Nice huh? (Thats sarcasm by the way)
I see subtlety has been thrown out the window.
There is no inevitability that the corporation would cease being voluntary. (Note: corporations are state creations. They would cease to exist as we know them in anarchy).
On the other hand we have hegemons like the U.S. which are although EXTREMELY imperfect, are pretty decent as empires have historically gone.
Talk about cognitive dissonance.
But we shouldn’t have to rely on American superpowerdom as a benevolent sort of dictatorship to spread liberal values. Id be just as happy if the people were convinced of them (classical liberalism) one by one
Just as happy? Not happier?
You’re the one who speaks of the “rabble” all the time. You have a disgusting contempt for people less fortunate than yourself.
Oh please. I say the word “rabble” because that is what I am convinced is the way political strategists, including those who engage in Orwellian doublespeak, view other individuals. It is not because I personally think it.
I don’t have any contempt for those less fortunate. I have a strong desire to want to protect them from statist ideologues and other violence advocating sociopaths.
Not wanting guns to be pointed at innocent people is not the same thing as having contempt for the poor. That is just a stupid straw man designed specifically to smear the libertarian so that the RABBLE don’t support it and thus risk the ideologues’ “Screw you, I want yours if I mess up” mommy and daddy state dependency.
7. August 2012 at 22:20
Hey Sumner, did you know that you’ve been voted #27 in the top 40…wait for it….Austrian blogs?
http://commodityhq.com/2012/top-40-austrian-economics-blogs/
Maybe it’s the ultimate irony: Whereas you no longer touch my comments with a ten foot pole, it seems other bloggers are only reading my comments on your blog, and inferring it’s Austrian.
Now that’s funny.
8. August 2012 at 06:05
@Bill Ellis
I just feel like I should react to your post about the taxes in Canada. You are right that we have a overall tax rate around 33 % and it does not necessarily mean we live worse than in US.
But there is a big problem in what services you get for your taxes. It is the same analogy like with condo – you pay more to get your gym and swimming pool inside of your building for free. But the problem is you can choose which type of advantages you want to have inside.
In real life, you start in some condo without previous decision. Back from the analogy, I think Canadians are suffering from really stupid taxes, like Ontario and Toronto Land Taxes. There should be more flexibility and less direct taxes than we have right now. Or at least allow taxpayers to choose where they want their money to go. Not everyone needs more highways when our university students have to take a debt to be able to study.