Responding to John Becker
John Becker asked me this question:
Scott,
If the government massively cut spending and the economy boomed, do you think Paul Krugman would wave a white flag? If the Fed announced they were adopting NGDP level targeting and the markets tanked, would you admit defeat or start scrambling for other reasons why markets might react that way? I don’t think either of you would be wrong in either case, I’m just trying to make the point that economics theories are non-falsifiable by external events.
If the Fed announced a 5% NGDPLT and the markets tanked, then yes, I’d admit defeat. I can’t speak for Krugman . . .
In fairness to Krugman, the proposed test of my theory is much more decisive.
If it were a 2% NGDPLT target I’d be much less confident, indeed I think markets might fall.
PS. For some strange reason I like my new Econlog post, blaming Keynes and Hayek for the Great Recession.
Tags:
2. November 2014 at 08:26
This man is a genius. Watch this blog. As to the riddle of why economists don’t raise a white flag, see the quote “for some strange reason” in the Econlog blog link, it’s very simple to an engineer: it’s called companding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companding). Bring up the lows, batten down the highs. Maintain an even keel. Harp about a particular policy, and if somebody adopts that policy, start going the other way, claiming they are not quite implementing it correctly. It works in politics too (Communists complaining the USSR just didn’t get it right).
Companding, used in Auto-Tune to a degree, just makes you sound better, literally and figuratively. You can never be 100% wrong. And for an economist that’s very important. BTW I share the OP’s pessimism: I doubt there’s a simple rule like NGDP targeting that’s a panacea (but it might be worth a try).
2. November 2014 at 09:59
“If the Fed announced a 5% NGDPLT and the markets tanked, then yes, I’d admit defeat.”
Tank when?
Can someone please explain how did MMs (and Keynesians) believe they derived the right to treat other human beings as lab rats for their cockamamie socialist monetary plan backed by gun point?
Who honestly believes that the world seeing someone admit intellectual defeat over some socialist debate will be just payment for all the wreckage, including loss of life derived from counter-factual technologies and production that otherwise would have saved those lives had there been an absence of socialist plans in money?
Becoming a socialist isn’t going to stop socialism.
Who honestly believes “We didn’t know! We tried to help! We just wanted to improve an institution that we refused to believe could be abolished! Things would have been even worse if it weren’t for us!” will right the wrongs?
Here’s a small recommendation: Don’t tread on other people and pretend you’re helping them. Crazy thought, huh! Crazy like wanting people to choose their own employment, their own food, their own medicine, their own housing, their own clothes, their own cars, their own insurance, their own assets. Oh lord what extremist ideology!
People are worse off with your destructive socialist plans…compared to no plan at all. No individual’s plan for everyone else is the proper standard for beings like us who are ends in ourselves. If you and your friends want to print toilet paper and trade it amongst each other according to some agreed upon rule, then by all means, do it, but leave everyone else out of it. They don’t need your “obey my plan or else” “help”.
If you want to help people, then treat them as ends in themselves. Help them become more independent. Help them realize that they deserve property protections in not only everything but money, roads, education, security and protection, but money, roads, education, security and protection as well. Teach them that the best money they can use, is the money they as individuals choose for themselves only, and then fight for their protection to exercise that preference. Fight for their ability to self-determine. You’ll be materially better off. Everyone will in the long run. The leeches will be worse off, in the short run. The victims will be better off in both the short and long run.
Spend your days and weeks and years not telling other people what to do, such as obeying your NGDP socialist plan for money, but asking them what they want for their own persons and property. Don’t ask what people want from others at the point of a gun. Ask them what they want from others that others would voluntarily give back in exchange. Like what you’re doing with the NGDP futures project. Like all of us on this blog do in the division of labor (other than the jobless who swear and spew vitriol).
Do you want to live in a rational, civilized society or not?
Billions of people who were made far worse off are not going to be vindicated by an intellectual being discredited in the eyes of his peers.
2. November 2014 at 10:15
MF,
Word Salad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad
You seriously need psychological help.
2. November 2014 at 10:48
O/T: Maybe there are more opportunities for growth in China than we think. I didn’t realize how much NME status changed trade policy.
2. November 2014 at 10:48
O/T: Maybe there are more opportunities for growth in China than we think. I didn’t realize how much NME status changed trade policy.
2. November 2014 at 10:49
MF,
Imagine if all the years making the same comment over and over again here at Money Illusion you had tried spreading and promoting the ideas of ABCT to a willing audience. Participating in the marketplace of ideas, so to say. Surely you would have had more success than the abject failure you’ve had convincing anyone here?
2. November 2014 at 10:59
Ben,
he’s not even promoting the ABCT. He’s just promoting his own weird political ideology along with his own weird made-up version of austrian “economics” based entirely on circular reasoning.
2. November 2014 at 11:04
Edward:
You seriously need psychological help, because you advocate for initiating violence against innocent people.
Ben J:
Then likely nobody would be doing what I am doing now, since I am the only one doing what I am doing now.
I am not failing, I am succeeding. My measure of success is not finding agreement from those who don’t want agreements but rather obedience to their socialist plan for all. Agreements are impossible with those who reject agreements.
My measure of success is simply and only to expose you and others here to ideas which I don’t expect you to accept, or even understand.
You people on this blog who support the ideology of it, are the abject failures in society. You are proposing and advocating for that which destroys civilized society. Civilized society is private property and free markets. Destruction of civilized society is all variants of socialism, which include NGDPLT.
I don’t expect you to agree. You have to decide that for yourself. My success is for myself, not for you. I am succeeding. I am participating in the marketplace of ideas because, ironically enough, your root ideology of central planning has not yet destroyed it. I go into the sewages, gutters, and garbage cans so that there is an actual marketplace of ideas and not just an echo chamber like you want.
2. November 2014 at 11:06
Philippe:
You have not shown that it is circular reasoning. You just repeating that ad nauseum as if it constitutes an accurate description. I have corrected you so many times on this. You’ll never turn your wrong into a right.
2. November 2014 at 11:15
All you’ve done is go off on your usual demented rants. You don’t even appear to understand my very simple observation.
And p.s: all you’re succeeding in doing here is exposing what a confused, delusional weirdo you are.
2. November 2014 at 11:16
Ray Lopez –
“Harp about a particular policy, and if somebody adopts that policy, start going the other way, claiming they are not quite implementing it correctly.”
Very perceptive comment. It’s why it’s easier to be an intellectual critic than “in the arena”, as Teddy Roosevelt put it.
I think there are two reasons for this. I don’t know if any policy is adopted exactly, so the intellectual usually is correct in saying it isn’t adopted correctly. The second reason is that people (even intellectuals!) are great self-kidders, meaning it’s easier to convince yourself that your ideas were implemented incorrectly than to admit you were wrong.
I think NGDPLT is an exception, because it’s specific enough that we can tell if it’s being implemented correctly. We’d have to decide how to define failure. I’d think it would either be that stabilizing the price of NGDP futures (with 5% growth) fails to stabilize actual NGDP, or that stabilizing actual NGDP leads to declining real GDP – meaning inflation persistently above 5%.
I don’t think either scenario is likely, but that would be the criteria to judge.
2. November 2014 at 11:45
I’m puzzled by Prof. Sumners’ response about admitting defeat, although I have to admit, it’s not inconsistent with other things he has said previously about market reactions, and I also note that he does not give a time frame (ie, whilst the immediate marjet reaction might be negative, he’d maybe give it a few weeks/monthhs/years before declaring defeat). But, just for the sake of argument, let’s suppose the Fed ignored the reaction of the markets and went ahead adopted the an appropriate (5%, whatever) NGDPLT anyway. Are you saying, based on the market reaction, there would be little or no chance that such a move would prove successful in restoring the economy to an optimal growth path, as I believe you have maintained? Is your faith in markets really that strong? (I guess so.) Are financial markets really such an excellent proxy for the health/growth of the economy as a whole? Or, since, I have mistaken your droll (and enjoyable) wit before, were you just kidding? (In which case, I am embarrassed once again.)?
2. November 2014 at 13:26
Scott, only slightly-off topic: Are you surprised at the strong rally in Japan 30-year bonds (yields dropped 8 points to 1.57% and the 10yr JGB yield dropped 1 pt to 0.45% ) coincident with the recent easing?
Liquidity effect, okay, But we are talking about the 30yr here, and also a big curve flatting move, not exactly what you think of when you hear liquidity effect. Is this really the kind of liquidity effect that exists in your mental model? I think the bond markets around the world have been screaming for years that the Bernanke-esque segmented markets type effect is surprisingly more important than we might expect relative to the Fisher effect and Liquidity effect in determining real interest rates. How else does a liquidity effect hop over both a meaningful fisher effect and the entire short to medium curve right into the ultras upon a significant easing?
2. November 2014 at 15:00
Via Natixis’ Patrick Artus:
In reality, central banks control only the prices of the assets they buy directly. When a central bank buys an asset directly (often government bonds), it drives up the price of this asset, the demand for which increases. But the prices of the other asset classes increase only if the economic agents that have sold the first assets to the central bank use the money received to buy these other asset classes. This transmission of increases in asset prices to all asset classes is therefore unstable, since it depends on the behaviour of investors and savers. Since 2012, we have seen that central banks’ purchases first led asset sellers to buy risky assets (equities, corporate bonds), whose prices rose. But in the recent period, the rise in risk aversion has turned them away from risky assets, whose prices have fallen, and they have invested the money received from the central bank in risk-free assets.
There is therefore no stable monetary policy “risk channel”; the only asset prices that are controlled by central banks in the longer run are those of the assets that central banks buy directly. This could in the future push central banks to buy riskier assets if they want to change their prices in a stable manner. Central banks’ asset purchases have a direct impact on the prices of these assets. When a central bank buys financial assets, it increases demand for these assets, which directly drives up their prices. This occurred with purchases of Treasuries and ABS in the United States (Charts 1A and B) and with government bonds in the United Kingdom and Japan (Charts 2A and B), and with the announcement of covered bond purchases in the euro zone (Chart 3). But the impact of the central bank’s asset purchases on other asset classes is uncertain. The central bank buys assets (especially government bonds, Charts 1A, 2A and B above). It pays by creating money (Chart 4). The economic agents that sell assets to the central bank use this money to buy other assets. But they have a free choice: a quantitative easing policy will drive up the prices of the assets that economic agents choose to buy, not the prices of the others. We also saw from 2011-2012 until the spring of 2014.
A tightening of credit spreads (Charts 5A and B, 6A and B); A rise in the stock market (Charts 7A and B, 8A and B). But investors’ risk aversion has risen since the spring of 2014, (Charts 9A and B): they no longer buy risky assets and the prices of these assets have corrected downwards, whereas long-term interest rates on risk-free government bonds have fallen sharply (Chart 3 above, Charts 10A and B). The transmission of the rise in the prices of the assets the central bank buys directly to a rise in the prices of other assets is therefore unstable, since it depends on investors’ attitude and their risk aversion.
2. November 2014 at 15:09
Philippe:
“You don’t even appear to understand my very simple observation.”
You haven’t PROVED your “simple observation”. And you can’t prove it because it’s false.
My arguments are not circular, and that makes you mad, because the ironic thing is that your ideology is circular: People are bad so we need a government made up people are bad so we need a government made up of people.
I have never, not once, claimed that a free market will guarantee or result in any aggregate “good”. Yet in your narrow mind that is the only way you can think of anything, so you falsely attribute it to me as well.
In a free market, individuals can define and seek their own good, constrained to other individuals defining and seeking their own good.
In this context, whatever individuals do, is neither “good” nor “bad” for all of society, as you falsely claim characterizes private property ethics. There is only individuals seeking their own idea of good. One person may totally disagree with another on what is “good” for that person or the other person. There is no need for me to agree with what is good for you, nor is there any need for you to agree with me on what is good for me.
What is good for me, I seek, and what is good for you, you seek. Whatever happens, cannot be labelled as overall good or overall bad, because there is no overall mind.
YOU are so pathetically limited in your mind that you cannot help but believe there must be a centralized mind guiding all of human society. You have no clue, no conception, of dispersed knowledge, nor of division of labor and specialization. You don’t have any idea what it means for there to be as many “goods” as there are individuals who are free from centralizing goons and thugs who you believe are necessary in human life.
Your “simple observation” is nothing but a false assertion, unbacked by any rational argument. It is a mental defect that you suffer from, that constantly misfires and tells you “circle, circle, circle…” You have nothing.
2. November 2014 at 15:13
Philippe:
“Demented rant” is just further proof you’ve lost long ago. All you have are insults. You have insufficient knowledge.
2. November 2014 at 15:19
Nice post.
2. November 2014 at 15:23
This is close what is meant by “monetary inflation reduces interest rates”:
http://i.imgur.com/maqHTRP.jpg
We can’t observe counter-factuals, so the above is only a temporal representation, the relevance of which is subject to uncertainty. But it gives a pretty good visual.
2. November 2014 at 15:42
mf,
blah blah.
I have never, not once, claimed that a free market will guarantee or result in any aggregate “good””
So you don’t claim that economic problems, such as market crashes, depressions, etc, are caused by government/state actions and that in imaginary ancapland there would be no such problems?
Please enlighten us as the precise nature of your batshit crazy belief system.
2. November 2014 at 16:23
Philippe:
“So you don’t claim that economic problems, such as market crashes, depressions, etc, are caused by government/state actions and that in imaginary ancapland there would be no such problems?”
Problems are created by individuals, acting in either a state capacity or a non-state capacity.
In a free market, there will almost certainly be individuals who cause problems. But the key is that whatever problems an individual creates, would not be problems that the individual can wreak from a capacity of a state whereby it is much easier to significantly adversely affect everyone.
An individual incurring the costs of their actions are much more pronounced in a free market.
When it comes to market crashes, depressions, and unemployment, yes, they have been created by states. In a free market, I guarantee NOTHING. Individuals decide for themselves whether they work or remain idle, given the existence of other individual preferences for what work a nd production results in.
In your batshit crazy belief system, you want evil individuals to have the ability to wield the power of a state. Why? Because you need a mommy and daddy figure for all of society. Abusive? Better than having no mommy and daddy. The bullshit “checks and balances” is nothing but collusion between evil people wielding the power of the state. The growth in state evil has been nothing but a coincidence. It has nothing to do with the nature of the state itself. If only we had the right people in charge of security and protection. If only people acted totally contrary to perverse incentives and moral hazard. If only the majority never made mistakes.
My belief system is the only sane on this blog. You’re all insane.
2. November 2014 at 16:30
Prof. Sumner,
There’s a new post at Arnold Kling’s site that you might find very interesting:
Title: “Larry Summers on Upward-Sloping AD”
2. November 2014 at 16:53
“When it comes to market crashes, depressions, and unemployment, yes, they have been created by states. In a free market, I guarantee NOTHING.”
That is not clear.
Are you saying that in your imaginary ancap world, there would be:
1. no financial crises or market crashes.
2. no depressions
3. no recessions
4. no mass bankruptcies
5. no mass unemployment
Or are you saying that these things could all exist in your imaginary ancap world?
2. November 2014 at 18:39
Phillipe asks an excellent question!
What does your belief system tell us about those things MF? Or are you just arguing for it because you know in your heart that it’s true?
2. November 2014 at 22:47
Philippe:
“When it comes to market crashes, depressions, and unemployment, yes, they have been created by states. In a free market, I guarantee NOTHING.”
“That is not clear.”
OK. In a free market I guarantee nada, zilch, zippo.
Clear now?
“Are you saying that in your imaginary ancap world, there would be:”
“1. no financial crises or market crashes.”
“2. no depressions”
“3. no recessions”
“4. no mass bankruptcies”
“5. no mass unemployment”
Where did I say any of this? I said I guarantee nothing. Do you really not know what that means?
“Or are you saying that these things could all exist in your imaginary ancap world?”
Your ideal world is imaginary, if your ideal is anything other than whatever happens is ideal by definition.
I really don’t get your fixation on “imagination.”
Do you not know how to imagine a better world? Do you just sit back and whatever happens, is the best in your view?
To answer your question, again, I guarantee nothing. I cannot predict what other individuals will learn, when they will learn it, nor what they will do with that unpredictable knowledge.
You’re asking me to give you an assurance of what other people who I have never met, will do. That is preposterous. I guarantee nothing. How can you not get this?
2. November 2014 at 22:57
Ben J:
“What does your belief system tell us about those things MF? Or are you just arguing for it because you know in your heart that it’s true?”
I have already answered the question more than once.
My belief system is your belief system in all kinds of things: employment choice, food choice, medicine choice, clothes choice, insurance choice, asset ownership choice, etc, etc, etc.
Yet I bring in money to this, and it’s like I’m recommending mass starvation. Wow you people are brainwashed by the money masters. They have you by the short and curlies. Their fear mongering and lies have done a number on you. Like abused children who don’t know any better.
You guys have in your hearts The People’s Romance.
You “know” in your hearts statism works. Regardless of what happens. We could have genocide, multiple depressions, mass unemployment, police state theft and mayhem, all brought about by states, and yet you still cling to the romance.
2. November 2014 at 23:04
Ben J:
Just FYI, Philippe never answers tough questions. He’s too scared to stake his claim. All he does is (attempt to) berate libertarians. It’s rather funny.
He attacks the libertarian ethic of property rights. Someone who wanders onto someone else’s land who needs resources should not be harassed. Yet when I ask him to explain why he supports local armies threatening invading armies with force, which is the same act of violation of property right, and he doesn’t answer.
Or, someone who puts up a barrier around their food to prevent theft is, according to him, murdering a starving person who is being so repelled by the barrier. Yet when I ask him to explain whether a starving person putting up the barrier are murdering another who can’t get to the food, and he doesn’t answer.
Everything he attacks in libertarianism, he supports in statism. Individuals do X, bad. States do X, good.
2. November 2014 at 23:57
“Our contemporaries are ever a prey to to two conflicting passions: they feel the need for guidance, and they long to stay free. Unable to wipe out these two contradictory instincts, they try to satisfy them both together. Their imagination conceives a government which is unitary, protective, and all-powerful, but elected by the people.”
“Centralization is combined with sovereignty of the people. That gives them a chance to relax. They console themselves for being under schoolmasters by thinking they have chosen them themselves. Each individual lets them put the collar on, for he sees that it is not a person, or a class of persons, but society itself which holds the end of the chain.
“Under this system the citizens quit their state of dependence just long enough to choose their masters and fall back into it.”
– Alexis de Tocqueville
3. November 2014 at 00:05
Great read by Leftist activist Richard Rorty:
http://www.amazon.com/Achieving-Our-Country-Leftist-Twentieth-Century/dp/0674003128
In this book Rorty critiques the left of today (well, around 1999 when the book was published), and encourages the Left to rediscover their older, activist, revolutionary roots to take back America and make it “ours”…instead of…”theirs”?
I don’t get what his beef is, because truth according to Rorty is what most people believe, and if most leftists today believe they’re doing the right thing, then the truth is that leftists today are doing the right thing. A leftist revolution, I guess, will have to wait until the contradicting-Rorty leftists can “get away with it.”
3. November 2014 at 00:13
“Many people, especially the Americans who tend to vote Democrat or Green, are inclined to support economic restrictions such as union privileges, occupational
licensing, the minimum wage, housing-market controls, the postal monopoly, and import restrictions. Yet knowledgeable economists agree that these restrictions are bad for humankind. Perhaps their support arises because TPR requires, as Bukharin and Preobrazhensky put it, that activities be statified. What seems primary is often not how well the program or policy achieves its stated goals of improving education, mobility, opportunity, and so on, but instead the collective endeavor itself.” – Klein (2005)
Enter TheMoneyIllusion.com
3. November 2014 at 00:17
Why do people who claim to be concerned about the poor so often support or go along with policies that are obviously and predictably bad for society, especially for the poor? Why do they support socialist money? The People’s Romance provides an explanation: this policy binds people together, like a bundle of sticks. We all “share” in NGDP. NGDP is the “common” experience. It is the focal point around which we all strive towards sharing.
3. November 2014 at 00:26
“The People’s Romance explains why atrocious policies such as the war on drugs can be enacted and cheered and can persist. Even though Republicans supposedly care about freedom and Democrats supposedly care about “the little guy,” the politicians do nothing to abate the policy. The vast majority of academic Democrats have never lifted a finger against this overt Nazism. As for the general population, although public opinion on the matter has shifted in the libertarian direction, it has favored the policy for generations. Many watch COPS on television to see real-life Gestapo-like bullies bust into private homes and drag off defenseless innocents to be locked in cages like animals.”
“Thomas Szasz (1974, 1992) provides an explanation that makes this despicable undertaking understandable in terms of TPR. The targeting of drugs, drug addicts, and drug pushers is a modern instantiation of the primitive impulse to find a scapegoat against which the power and unity of the group can be organized, exercised, flaunted, and exulted in. Szasz observes that drug-abuse hysteria and the war on drugs “are pretexts for scapegoating deviants and strengthening the State” (1992, 62). “[A]s a propaganda tool, dangerous drugs are therapeutic for the body politic of the nation, welding our heterogeneous society together into one country and one people” (115).”
3. November 2014 at 00:36
“To lay down a ‘social’ purpose, even as a target, is to contradict the principle of liberalism” – James Buchanan
3. November 2014 at 01:45
Off topic: no comment on the recent unwinding of QE? What do you think will happen to the economy? Will there be a slump and therefore a QE4?
3. November 2014 at 02:44
Ah yes, John Becker.
The man who claimed the proper definition of inflation is “growth of the money supply”.
And when it was pointed out that by 2008 the monetary base has stopped growing, he suddenly switched track and claimed the Fed absolutely had to tighten because headline inflation was totally out of control (being 5% at the time).
Why dishonest people deserve honest answers is beyond me.
3. November 2014 at 02:56
That being said, he does raise a valid point. Hipocrisy is hard-wired into humans, so the policies they favour are the policies they would personally benefit from.
So naturally they would obfuscate as much as possible when their theories are falsified.
Coming from an austro-sadist, I find this to be very ironic.
3. November 2014 at 05:33
Is there an iggy button for the comments section? You need one.
3. November 2014 at 05:49
@M.F:
This is a false premise. As long as we have a dominant currency, there’s no such thing as monetary policy that “does nothing.”
We have a dominant currency because whatever the optimum currency area is, tax-collection suggests that its borders should line up with those of the nation-state more often than not.
But now, to mangle Churchill, we’ve already established what kind of money we have, now we’re just haggling over price.
Targeting an exchange rate seems sensible, but history has shown that this regime is often too inflexible. Using a foreign currency as a basis simply shifts monetary policy to another institution that does not have to care about beneficial policy for the at-issue nation; targeting the exchange rate of shiny rocks (that is, a precious metal standard) uploads monetary policy to people who did shiny rocks out of the ground.
Recognizing that money has to be managed in some way, it’s a perfectly fair question to ask how it should be best managed for the common good.
(Is private money an answer? Not really. Money is a good with substantial network effects, since its utility is all in the exchange. That means that with privately-competitive money, individual currencies would win near-monopoly use by groups of some size. In turn, the privately-issued money would be able to extract rent in the form of seigniorage. On the national scale, this is the core behind the “the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency and [mumble] the Fed is bad!”)
3. November 2014 at 06:11
TallDave, America the Bully doesn’t have to follow any international laws or regulations, even regulations we’ve agreed to.
Maynard, No I was serious, and I’d look at the immediate reaction. Market monetarism takes market reactions very seriously.
Note, this assumes we adopt the policy from this position. If we had been experiencing above 5% NGDP growth for a period of time, and suddenly downshifted to 5%, then obviously the market reaction might be negative.
dlr. Yes that surprises me. Not sure why–perhaps the markets don’t find their long term promise credible. Or maybe Japanese rates would be low even if they hit 2% inflation. Again, a NGDP futures market would give us the answer, and we wouldn’t need to speculate. But policymakers and the economics profession don’t want to know the answer. Why not?
Maurizio, The markets don’t seem to expect a slump. (I don’t make forecasts, I just infer market forecasts.)
Maynard, What’s an iggy button?
3. November 2014 at 08:13
Bill Gross: Deflation A Growing Possibility
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/03/us-investment-bonds-gross-idUSKBN0IN1FH20141103
3. November 2014 at 08:30
James Hamilton meets David Hume (but doesn’t recognize him, as his face is obscured by the interest rate?);
http://econbrowser.com/archives/2014/11/evaluation-of-quantitative-easing#comment-185782
‘Perhaps the measures affected the economy through other channels, a theory that one analyst described to me as “immaculate conception.” ‘
Or the QTM?
3. November 2014 at 09:03
Bill Gross continues to believe QE impacts interest rates but not aggregate demand, correct?
“The roughly $7 trillion pumped into the financial system since the financial crisis by the world’s three biggest central banks has succeeded mostly in lifting prices of securities rather than the cost of goods and workers’ wages, he said.
“Prices go up, but not the right prices,” Gross wrote.
………..
“One economy (the financial one) thrives, while the other economy (the real one) withers,” he said.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/03/us-investment-bonds-gross-idUSKBN0IN1FH20141103
3. November 2014 at 09:55
MF,
You’re like an automaton, a Borg, from Star Trek the next generation, only instead of “resistance is futile” and “you will be assimilated” you repeat certain phrases in an unbroken feedback loop like “private property rights” “violence” and the rest of the words and catchphrases from the Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard bibles. (I know you’re an atheist, I’m using the word “bibles” here is metaphor)
“You seriously need psychological help, because you advocate for initiating violence against innocent people.”
This is what I’m talking about. You have a three year old’s view of the world, black and white view, an automaton’s view. It’s so sad.
there are different degrees of initiatory force against innocent people, (much more horrifying than others) just as there are different degrees of defensive and retributive force against the guilty. The world isn’t a perfect black and white place. I can think of two situations off the top of my head (as simplifications- there are others) or examples where I would be justified in initiating force against an innocent person:
1. I’m at a bar, having my drink, I see another man talking with a laughing and tipsy woman, when her back is turned I see the man slip something in her drink. I would be justified in restraining the woman from leaving with him, even if she yells at me, because her consent is impaired and she is intoxicated
2. I’m about to cross the street with a bunch of pedestrians and one of them (physically close, next to me)isn’t paying attention and is in the way of a speeding car. Do I yell at him, warn him and waste time or simply yank him out of the way? (Thus “coercing” him, and perhaps saving his life!!!???)
3. November 2014 at 10:07
(SOME much more horrifying than others) what I meant to say above.
3. November 2014 at 10:33
Edward:
Oh yeah right. “Each individual should be free from coercion and violence” is totally the Borg. Totally like how they force people against their will. In your warped mind, the NAP is the AP.
Look in the mirror. It is your ideology that consists of resistence is futile. You advocate for a monolithic sovialist monetary system backed by state violence, where everyone must pay taxes in dollars, and who must obey the Fed’s policy.
The most hilarious thing about most statists like you, is that in your hubris and foaming at the mouth, in your attacks against non-violence, you falsify your own garbage ideology. “Don’t force me to not initiate force against other people’s persons or property! That infringes upon my selfish solipsistic freedom! I have a right to benefit from violations of property rights. I have the right to be free from the oppressive peaceful cooperation! Oh the horror!”
“”You seriously need psychological help, because you advocate for initiating violence against innocent people.”
“This is what I’m talking about.”
Aww what’s the matter? The truth hurts? Can’t stand it when you’re correctly and accurately labelled as someone who needs psychological help because he supports and wants force to be initiated against innocent people? That your black and white ideology of “obey my ideal state’s laws or else”, your black and white ideology of “I am absolutely against you seceding from my dear leader mommy and daddy government, and I am absolutely for force being used against anyone who dares…resist the state borg”.
Is that what you mean by a non black and white ideology? Is that what you mean by an ideology where resistence is legal and not futile?
Your post is hilarious. Every dumb criticism you made doesn’t apply at all to free markets, and in fact applies with full force to the crap you’re peddling! You’re like in an illogical self-refuting vortext of hypocrisy.
Ah yes, the fake make believe non-black and white world of “degrees of violence against innocent people”. You call that gray? Don’t make me laugh. Being absolutely in favor of SOME personal warped view of just initiations of violence is as black and white a view of the world as any other. You are absolutely dead set against non-initiations of force. You absolutely want initiations of violence. Your sick worldview is black and white alright, you’ve just been brainwashed into believing your preferred violence is voluntary.
Regarding your 1 and 2…if you had bothered to read that which you fall over your face trying to refute, all these trivial and pedantic ideas that for some strange reason are presented as new discoveries nobody has ever thought of before, then you would have known the answers already. For 1, the property owner and their customers contract for what is just behavior and what is unjust behavior in the bar. If the rule is that by entering the bar, you agree to be subject to force should you break the rules such as slipping drugs into other people’s drinks, then it would be justified to stop the would be rapist. If there is no such agreement offered by a bar, then you have the choice not to enter it, or enter it and roll the dice. Either way, there is nothing, I mean nothing, in the free market process that cannot adequately deal with house rules at a bar. I mean come on.
I am not even going to bother reading your 2 because your 1 was so ridiculous.
Is that how statists must think? Play stupid and pretend there is no solution other than state guns for all potential problems? Good thing you’re not in charge of any fortune 500 company. Good lord.
Edward, what is your problem? Your posts are extremely poor and you have a bad attitude problem. Maybe you need to rethink your whole life.
3. November 2014 at 10:40
Edward, mf makes up his own definitions of words and they rarely have anything to do with how those words are commonly defined in the English language.
When he says you advocate ‘initiating violence against innocent people’, what he means is that you are not an ‘anarcho-capitalist’ dipshit. The two are obviously not the same thing, but in Mf’s very strange mind, for some reason, they are.
3. November 2014 at 10:42
“Each individual should be free from coercion and violence”
You’re not opposed to violence or coercion, you pathological liar.
3. November 2014 at 10:45
Patrick, I like James Hamilton, but not that post.
3. November 2014 at 10:45
Majromax:
“Can someone please explain how did MMs (and Keynesians) believe they derived the right to treat other human beings as lab rats for their cockamamie socialist monetary plan backed by gun point?”
“This is a false premise. As long as we have a dominant currency, there’s no such thing as monetary policy that “does nothing.”
That doesn’t adress anything in the point you quoted.
I asked where did you derive the right to treat other human beings as lab rats.
Your false premise is that you are unable to advocate for no lab rats. That central banking is a force of nature, and forces you to choose a lab experiment.
By believing you must choose a lab experiment, all you are really doing is wx post rationalizing your own positive desire to treat other human beings as lab rats.
What, do you think that a communist czar who was brainwashed by Marx into believing communism is an inevitable stage in human history, that that belief entitles him to think that he isn’t someone who positively wants to control people? That he is just playing a mandatory role in the course of human history where if he doesn’t do anything, he’ll still be playing the role of a communist czar?
“We have a dominant currency because whatever the optimum currency area is, tax-collection suggests that its borders should line up with those of the nation-state more often than not.”
You don’t know, ams I don’t know, what any optimal currency area is. Only the process of the market can reveal this. I would have thought that the events in Europe would have proved that no central planner can know an OCA.
“But now, to mangle Churchill, we’ve already established what kind of money we have, now we’re just haggling over price.”
Any non-war idols in that repertriore?
“Targeting an exchange rate seems sensible, but history has shown that this regime is often too inflexible. Using a foreign currency as a basis simply shifts monetary policy to another institution that does not have to care about beneficial policy for the at-issue nation; targeting the exchange rate of shiny rocks (that is, a precious metal standard) uploads monetary policy to people who did shiny rocks out of the ground.
Recognizing that money has to be managed in some way, it’s a perfectly fair question to ask how it should be best managed for the common good.”
Why not managed by the market?
“(Is private money an answer? Not really. Money is a good with substantial network effects, since its utility is all in the exchange. That means that with privately-competitive money, individual currencies would win near-monopoly use by groups of some size. In turn, the privately-issued money would be able to extract rent in the form of seigniorage. On the national scale, this is the core behind the “the US dollar is the world’s reserve currency and [mumble] the Fed is bad!”)”
Not true. First, money is also valuable as a store of value. Second, if one or two currencies “win”, that would not imply a monopoly. Third, even if it did, then…you’ll have your central bank!
Your arguments when used to decide if other products should be state controlled or open to competition, would imply we should have 100% socialism.
3. November 2014 at 10:51
Majromax:
Don’t you find it a little…awkward…to hold your belief that we should have a monopoly in money, because in a free market there would be the undesirable result of monopolies arising?
It’s like “We should have monopolies in money because without them there would undesirably arise monopolies in money in a free market.”
All I ask is for a little self-reflective analysis. Is it really too much to ask? So many people are attacking their own ideology when they attack mine.
3. November 2014 at 11:01
“Edward, mf makes up his own definitions of words and they rarely have anything to do with how those words are commonly defined in the English language.
When he says you advocate ‘initiating violence against innocent people’, what he means is that you are not an ‘anarcho-capitalist’ dipshit. The two are obviously not the same thing, but in Mf’s very strange mind, for some reason, they are.
Phillipe,
Indeed. In addition to his usual borglike posts, theres also an element of the joker (heath ledger) from the dark knight, a desperate need to convince himself “that everyone is just as twisted as him.” For example did you notice how he when I accused him of being black and white, he accuses me of being black and white right back?
MF-
“Edward, what is your problem? Your posts are extremely poor and you have a bad attitude problem. Maybe you need to rethink your whole life.”
THE GALL! (LOL) look in the mirror!
Those two examples I gave were just that-EXAMPLES. But your response was illuminating, #! is the standard PATHETIC an-cap response about the bar owners property rights condoning the possibility of a woman being raped on or off the premises. MF, if you own a candy store, and a five year old child stole some candy, you’d consider a disclaimer on the store warning thieves that they will be shot to be adequate justification for shooting a five year old child in the back.
Your non-response to #2 just shows how much of a terrified tantrum throwing toddler you are, and it also shows how being soaked in Rothbardian dogma can turn you into a Rothbard borg or droid. (just like an Randroid)
3. November 2014 at 11:51
The Economist: The link between happiness and income is fraying
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2014/11/money-and-happiness-the-link-between-happiness-and-income-is-fraying
3. November 2014 at 13:34
The proper test for Krugman should specify that the starting position is the the Fed has reduced short term interest rates to zero and appears constrained in the amount of QE it can do.
The proper test for Scott should specify that the Fed did more than just make one little announcement. The announcement would have to be accompanied by a humongous bond buying program and then if markets tanked to buying even more. “Punishment will continue until morale improves.”
3. November 2014 at 13:44
‘Patrick, I like James Hamilton, but not that post.’
Yes, he’s normally a reasonable economist. Not when he’s writing about monetary policy though.
3. November 2014 at 13:44
Michael Darda is smart to include the UK in this analysis:
http://www.aei.org/publication/qe-work-yeah-right-acknowledge
“The US and the UK have dramatically outperformed the EZ over the last four years despite even more contractionary fiscal policy. This can only be explained by differing central bank policies, in our view. In short, what the Market Monetarists call monetary offset has succeeded in propelling NGDP forward at a slow, steady pace (just over 70% of the pre-crisis trend) in both the US and UK despite persistent fiscal headwinds. By contrast, a chronically behind the curve/too tight ECB has led to a NGDP trend in the EZ that is just 45% of its pre-crisis average……”
3. November 2014 at 13:55
@M.F:
3. November 2014 at 13:57
@myself:
Damnit! I do miss a “preview” comment feature, this is the second time in as many comments I’ve managed to mangle the blockquotes.
If it’s not clear from context, “I asked … lab rats” was supposed to be the original quotation, with the blockquote closed after “lab rats”.
3. November 2014 at 13:57
Scott,
re your ‘for some strange reason’ post. Hayek switched to supporting a zero inflation, stable price level ideal in the 70s.
3. November 2014 at 14:59
Philippe,
Which, under some fairly standard assumptions, would be more inflationary than Hayek’s 1930s position of a stable NGDP level.
3. November 2014 at 15:00
In fact, under pretty much any assumptions, and what in any case has been the historical experience in the US.
3. November 2014 at 16:07
yes.
3. November 2014 at 16:20
Another 4.1% rise in the Nikkei 225. The yen is at 113.6.
It would sure be ironic if the BOJ happened to be the central bank that ended up showing the world how to handle monetary policy at low nominal rates.
3. November 2014 at 16:22
I share Tyler Cowan’s perspective in this post (this is from two years so I wonder has Tyler been converted to NGDPLT or not?):
“My worry is that some Market Monetarists speak of ngdp as if it is some block of stuff, handed down from on high… Along these lines, if the growth path of ngdp is not robust enough, the economy cannot do well. I get nervous at how ngdp lumps together real and nominal in one variable, and I get nervous at how the passive voice is applied to ngdp.
My framing is different. My framing is that the private sector can manufacture its own ngdp. It can do so by trade and it can do so by credit and of course velocity is endogenous to the available gains from trade. Most of the major central banks are, today, not obsessed with snuffing out recovery and increases in real output.
To say “ngdp is low,” or “ngdp is on a low growth path,” or “ngdp is below trend,” and so on “” be very careful! Those claims do not necessarily have causal force. Arguably they are simply repeating, in a new and somewhat different language, the point that the private sector has not seen fit to engage in more trade, credit creation, velocity acceleration, and so on. Formally speaking, the claims are not wrong, but I don’t find them useful as an explanation for why economic growth or recovery, at some point in time, is slow. It is one way of repeating or re-expressing the slowness of economic growth, albeit with some transforms applied to the vocabulary of variables.”
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/09/the-private-sector-can-manufacture-its-own-nominal-gdp.html
3. November 2014 at 16:23
(A NGDPLT is the MM preferred way to exit the ZLB of course, but you get the idea) 🙂
3. November 2014 at 16:56
Let’s engage in a little syllogistic reasoning.
Major premise : Dan W is an imbecile
Minor premise : Dan W and Tyler Cowen seem to be in agreement
——————-
Conclusion : Tyler Cowen is an …. ?
3. November 2014 at 18:08
Majromax:
“asked where did you derive the right to treat other human beings as lab rats.”
“My link regarding no such thing as “neutral” monetary policy does address this.”
That does not address your personal ethic for wanting, positively wanting, to treat other humans as lab rats.
Convincing yourself that socialist money is an absolute, unchanging law of nature, and that the ONLY actual, possible choice we have is one central plan amongst all other possible central plans, is nothing, and I mean nothing, but a rationalizing of one’s desire to treat others as lab rats, and hiding that desire behind a fake inevitability justification.
If you can think of not supporting socialist money, if you can think of supporting free market money, regardless of present choices made by other people with guns, which I know you can do, then it is not the case that you have explained your desire for treating others as lab rats by saying “We have central banks”.
“Once we have a monetary economy, by definition there is some sort of monetary policy.”
Well, if by “monetary policy” you mean state monopoly, then that’s not true. If by “monetary policy” you mean there will be individuals who have ideas on money and act on them in a free market, then of course, but it would be equivocating “monetary policy”, because we reserve that term for government interventions, not free market activities. We don’t say “the US’s food policy”, because food isn’t centrally planned like money is. It’s just not true that all money implies state money.
Money arises in a free market. An economy can become “monetary” without any central planner, under which we must “choose” one central plan imposed on everyone over all other central plans imposed on everyone. In a free market, you can choose any money you want, and you can refuse any money you want. And you would have the freedom to hire armed protectors able and willing to use force to protect your choice for yourself.
I am not in any way concerned with any difficulty this might be for people who want to exploit the masses via a state, but who can’t do so easily without issuing their own currency and demanding people who don’t want to contract with them, to pay in that currency no matter what they earn. As if the exploiters own the whole land homesteaded by others! Who the hell are they? They have no right to do what they do. It’s naked violence, nothing more.
“For a national currency, monetary policy affects everyone in the nation. Therefore, it’s ideal that the duly-elected government deliberately manage the monetary policy for the common good.”
We don’t need any “national” fiat currency. A money can be accepted by most or all individuals over a territory the size of the US, without there being any monopoly producer/issuer of that money.
It’s not ideal to have socialist anything, money especially. It’s ideal to have free competition in money, just like we have in most other things (with severe regulatory burdens and threats mind you, thanks to Keynesians and Monetarists who make it easier for states to grow).
“We’re all “lab rats.” We should hope that the practices being used are the best known.”
Ah but that is what distinguishes libertarianism from all other ethics. We can all agree that you and I are lab rats right now. But I don’t agree with you that it is inevitable, that we must choose one lab experiment over another, that if we just do nothing, then that’s also a lab experiment. By pretending we can’t think of any alternative, we become actual supporters of treating people as lab rats.
Do you want to treat others as lab rats? Yes or no? If no, why support central banks? I don’t get why such simple ideas are so difficult to accept.
“Don’t you find it a little…awkward…to hold your belief that we should have a monopoly in money, because in a free market there would be the undesirable result of monopolies arising?”
“Not at all. Money is something of a natural monopoly, because of its network utility. Therefore, people will use the common currency even if it is not a Pareto optimum.”
Those are two different issues. One issue is the form of the argument you’re making. You’re saying monopolies are desirable because…we want to avoid monopolies arising in a free market. That is a contradiction. You either want a monopoly or not.
The other issue is your second point there, that money is a natural monopoly. Money is not a natural monopoly. For one particular commodity to arise as money, say gold, or bitcoins, the fact that there is one physical commodity serving as money does not imply that there is only one legal producer/issuer of said money. I believe you’re mixing up a single product with implying a single legal competition in that product. A single commodity/product does not imply or require a single producer/issuer.
Money is not a monopoly. People and the institutions they control are the monopolies or not. If there is one money, with open competition in said money, with thousands of producers of that same money, then that is not a monopoly at all, but there would still be one money.
Also, voluntarily accepting a particular money would be a Pareto movement. Individuals choosing to accept a money that is offered by another makes no body worse off. Mutual gain through trade. I choose a money freely because I will gain by doing so. I don’t have to “like” the money I am accepting in some nationalistic, patriotic, romantic sense. I can accept it as a means to achieve my own ends.
“With privately-issued money, this is a ripe area for rent-seeking behaviour, where those controlling money use the worth of their network to extract seigniorage.”
It is the exact opposite. With private money, any seigniorage can be responded to with you opting out of accepting that money altogether. That puts a lid on any money provider seeking rent. Where is rent minimized in our society? Where competition is at its maximum. The same would hold true for competitive money.
Central banks on the other hand MAXIMIZE rent seeking and seigniorage. They are the sole issuer. We cannot opt out of the dollar because we have to pay taxes in dollars. The rent seeking is maximized with central banks. Governments who monopolize money and extract rents are not doing so “for the common good.” They’re doing so for themselves and their special interest groups.
You have to stop identifying the common good with the state. There is only individual good. The common good is just another way of saying the good of individuals in the state, and the individuals in the special interest groups. Socialist money is not for everyone’s good, don’t kid yourself. It’s one major reason why bitcoins are becoming more and more utilized. It is because state monopolies are NOT in everyone’s interests.
“On the occasion of natural monopolies such as this one, it is entirely reasonable (and compatible with small-l-libertarianism) to believe that this is an appropriate place for government intervention, such that what monopolistic benefits are inevitable are directed towards the common good.”
So monopolies in money are bad, so….advocate for a monopoly in money?
Are you kidding me? How in the world can the problems of a monopolist in money who seeks maximum rent through seigniorage be solved by…a monopolist in money?
“Why not [money] managed by the market?”
“But just how does “the market” operate a printing press?”
Who says money has to be printed on paper? What moron would accept paper as money in a world where one can accept any store of value one wants? We only accept paper because it is a transferable claim to that which the IRS forces us to pay taxes. If taxes tomorrow dropped to zero across the board, then it wouldn’t be long before people started to clue in to the fact that commodities other than pieces of paper defaced with pictures of tinpot dictator wannabes, can best serve as a store of value and medium of exchange. Paper would likely lose out to commodities with a much higher value per unit volume or weight.
“”Managed by the market” sounds fantastic in the ideal, but the mechanics of issuing a currency are more fraught with reality.”
What is it that you believe is the case about people that somehow prevents them from dealing with physical reality effectively unless some people with badges point guns at innocent people? I really like to know.
And what does it mean to say “fraught with reality” anyway? If you mean all ideas must fit into physical reality if they are to be practised, then that is true for all ideas, not just free market ideas.
“This can be as simple as saying that precious metal bullion is accepted as money, or by using an algorithmically-defined standard such as bitcoin, but these are all very deliberate choices for how money is managed.”
Who says it is accepted? Who would listen to them and why?
And deliberate by whom? No one individual forced everyone to accept bitcoins, and yet they are being accepted by individuals.
What more proof do you need?
Independent central bankers are not forced to accept gold, and yet they all hold gold.
Money arises in a market. Money does not need to be “managed” by any central planning mind. Spontaneous order. Division of labor. Competition. Harmony through economic freedom and competition.
It is not some pie in the sky ideal. It’s recent history. It’s a simple change of ideology to include just one more commodity among tens of thousands of commodities.
Surely if private investors have figured out how to manage a worldwide web, bitcoins, and space travel, then surely a store of value and medium of exchange is relatively easy, no?
3. November 2014 at 18:13
Daniel:
You and syllogistic reasoning are like a pigeon and a game of chess.
Dan W:
Given Daniel’s sorry posting history, and given the assumption he will continue to remain ignorant for the foreseeable future, if you write something that is followed by him spewing insults and having emotional meltdowns, means you’re on the right track. Keep going!
3. November 2014 at 18:33
Philippe:
“Edward, mf makes up his own definitions of words and they rarely have anything to do with how those words are commonly defined in the English language.”
You sound so threatened and scared that you can’t even trust Edward to make up his own mind, lest he use the rational part of his mind that accepts as fully valid the creation and use of definitions that are always clearly defined. You have only just disliked the definitions. You know of the definitions.
Mathematicians formally define their terms. There is no requirement to accept any status quo.
There is nothing wrong with defining terms differently than you. All of my definitions are used by many others, just not the mainstream.
“When he says you advocate ‘initiating violence against innocent people’, what he means is that you are not an ‘anarcho-capitalist’ dipshit. The two are obviously not the same thing, but in Mf’s very strange mind, for some reason, they are.”
Anarcho-capitalist is just the term used to describe the ethic that is non-initiation of force against the individual’s person and property.
You can call it whatever you want. Call it voluntaryism, libertarianism, anarchism, agorism, it doesn’t matter!
What matters are the actions involved. You and Edward advocate for initiations of force against other people’s persons and property. That only by implication defines your ethics as anti-anarcho-capitalist.
You’re just playing semantics, because you can’t debate the substance.
3. November 2014 at 18:51
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_policy
3. November 2014 at 19:01
Edward:
“Indeed. In addition to his usual borglike posts…”
I have already shown that it is precisely your violence advocating ethics that are borg-like. You don’t want to respect other individuals’ property rights. You want them violated by men with badges and guns. Resistence to the state is futile, and immoral in your ethic.
“theres also an element of the joker (heath ledger) from the dark knight, a desperate need to convince himself “that everyone is just as twisted as him.””
But I think you’re more twisted than me, so that is not an accurate “element.”
“For example did you notice how he when I accused him of being black and white, he accuses me of being black and white right back?”
That is because your ethics are in fact black and white. I showed how.
You only called my ethics black and white as a defense mechanism, so that should anyone correctly identify your ethics as black and white, you can then claim “What is this? I know you are but what am I?”
It’s similar to how a gay republican politician will go out of his way accusing others of being gay and judging them, so that a defense is set up whereby if anyone correctly identifies him as being gay, that he’ll say “Me? But I’m the one going around calling others gay! Clearly you’re just playing I know you are but what am I.”
Edward, your ethics are as black and white as black and white can be. You are absolutely, positively, black black black, against anarcho-capitalist ethics. Of pure free market. There is no room for compromise there. And, similarly, you are absolutely, positively, white white white, for anti-anarcho-capitalist, i.e. statist ethics. Of whatever socialist ideal you have in store for me and my family, and our property, at gunpoint from your mommy and daddy government.
You absolutely reject non-aggression.
You absolutely support aggression to your own personal ideal of what is “practical” or “pragmatic”.
Tell me again how your ethics are something other than black and white again?
Hypocrisy: Do you know the meaning of that term?
“Edward, what is your problem? Your posts are extremely poor and you have a bad attitude problem. Maybe you need to rethink your whole life.”
“THE GALL! (LOL) look in the mirror!”
I HAVE!!!!
It’s called self-reflection. It’s called self-reflective analysis. Philosophers call it Rationalism. It is the ground of all our knowledge. It’s what you don’t do. It is why you contradict yourself repeatedly. It is why you accuse me, pejoratively, of the very things you yourself do.
It is because you don’t look in the mirror.
“Those two examples I gave were just that-EXAMPLES.”
They were “examples” dealt with repeatedly in the literature, you’re just too scared to read it.
“But your response was illuminating, #! is the standard PATHETIC an-cap response about the bar owners property rights condoning the possibility of a woman being raped on or off the premises.”
Did you know that when someone consents to sex, it’s not rape? Who would have thought.
“MF, if you own a candy store, and a five year old child stole some candy, you’d consider a disclaimer on the store warning thieves that they will be shot to be adequate justification for shooting a five year old child in the back.”
No, I’m not a member of the government’s SWAT team.
And I am certainly not a member of the state’s army.
Government is good, individual is bad.
“Your non-response to #2 just shows how much of a terrified tantrum throwing toddler you are, and it also shows how being soaked in Rothbardian dogma can turn you into a Rothbard borg or droid. (just like an Randroid)”
I am neither Randian nor Rothbardian.
YOUR terrified, not me. You’re scared of cutting the umbilical cord. You’re scared of your own horrific imagination.
My non-response to your two is because your one has already been answered numerous times. You’re too scared to read the literature. Since you don’t understand that, I’ll sink down to your level and answer that silly one as well:
“I’m about to cross the street with a bunch of pedestrians and one of them (physically close, next to me)isn’t paying attention and is in the way of a speeding car. Do I yell at him, warn him and waste time or simply yank him out of the way? (Thus “coercing” him, and perhaps saving his life!!!???)”
Who owns the street? What are the rules that the owner of the street and the customers of said street agree to?
If the owner of the road and the customers AGREE to the street’s owners or other users to place their hands on other people’s bodies to prevent them from getting hit by moving cars, then that is fully justified according to free market ethics. It’s mutually consensual.
If a street does not have such an agreement, where placing your hands on others will be met with defined responses, then for that road you roll your dice and take your chances. Given that the road owner would likely make more profits if he enforced a rule of “if someone places their hands on you to stop you from getting hit by a car, then we the owners will consider that justified, and if you agree to that as well, then you can use the road”, as compared to no such rule, since if it really does benefit every potential customer, then mutual gains can be made. There might arise a standard across the country and/or world, where most roads have such a rule…because most people consent to being pushed out of the way of moving freakin vehicles
Edward, again, why play stupid? Is that the only way you can justify statism in your mind? What does that tell you about statism where the more you think, the less it is perceived as necessary? Or maybe deep down you know that thinking will lead to anarchy, so you purposely don’t think and pretend that consenting adults cannot possibly agree to some silly rule for pushing people out of the way of moving vehicles?
Who would not consent to that? Maybe those who want to kill themselves, or disturbed people who would scream if touched at all for any reason. Whatever the case is for the individual, has no bearing whatsoever on actual road providers and actual road customers who agree to such a rule.
Again, every problem you think cannot be solved by reason, can in fact be solved by reason. You just have to think. Yes, I know it’s hard, but do try. You’ll be surprised at what even a mentally deranged yahoo can come up with using only basic analytic skills.
3. November 2014 at 19:02
Philippe:
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_policy”
Well I guess there are socialist thugs in all walks of life. Mea culpa.
3. November 2014 at 19:05
*YOU’RE
3. November 2014 at 19:26
Thomas, I don’t think you’d need a big bond buying program.
Philippe, Yes, and he made a mistake in doing so.
Cameron, Good point.
Dan, You said:
“I share Tyler Cowan’s perspective”
There is simply no way that is correct. That would imply you had some sort of dim understanding of the passage of Tyler’s that you provide, but you don’t.
Daniel, Your minor premise and conclusion are both wrong.
3. November 2014 at 20:36
“Anarcho-capitalist is just the term used to describe the ethic that is non-initiation of force against the individual’s person and property”
That’s obviously a lie. ‘Anarcho-capitalism’ is, among other things, a weird and incoherent political ideology which promotes a particular set of beliefs about things such as the nature of property, ownership, justice, etc.
“advocate for initiations of force”
You think it’s ok under certain circumstances to use force against a person’s body, even if they have done nothing to your body beforehand. In fact practically everyone thinks that, including me, apart from certain fundamentalist pacifists who reject such uses of force under all circumstances.
3. November 2014 at 21:26
“Iggy” means ignore, and an iggy button allows users to filter out the comments of specific users, who I shall refrain from naming, who rudely insist on populating your comments section with lengthy posts tooting their crackpot ideas. I don’t come here to read 2,500+ words of sophist bullshit from such individuals, who should start there own blogs instead of free riding on your well-deserved following.
3. November 2014 at 21:38
Philippe:
“”Anarcho-capitalist is just the term used to describe the ethic that is non-initiation of force against the individual’s person and property”
“That’s obviously a lie.”
No, an argument you don’t understand does not become a lie just because it is explained to you correctly. Your mind is just warped and unable to distinguish actions from words and labels.
“‘Anarcho-capitalism’ is, among other things, a weird and incoherent political ideology which promotes a particular set of beliefs about things such as the nature of property, ownership, justice, etc.”
The name doesn’t promote anything. Names are non-acting. It is people who act. When someone has the idea that it is morally wrong to initiate force against another’s person or property, then that person is just thinking of an ethic that can be labelled, not exclusively of course, as anarcho-capitalism.
What you said about what you believe anarcho-capitalism is, does not at all refute what I said prior that you responded to.
Your childish desire to besmirch a mere name in the desperate hopes of avoiding refuting the underlying arguments and logic on the grounds of argument and logic, is just a pathetic age old trick of rhetoric that sophists have been using for millennia.
“advocate for initiations of force”
“You think it’s ok under certain circumstances to use force against a person’s body, even if they have done nothing to your body beforehand.”
Where did I say that? Back up your claims.
“In fact practically everyone thinks that, including me, apart from certain fundamentalist pacifists who reject such uses of force under all circumstances.”
Even you? EVEN YOU? Even you!!!! Even you believe it is justified to initiate force against innocent people!
Oh my God, how did that feel to write? I bet the moment of catharsis was palpable.
Practically everyone accepts my ethics, when it comes to them as “civilians” dealing with other people as “civilians.”
Practically everyone thinks it would be morally wrong for one civilian to threaten another civilian with violence if they otherwise agree to a contract with another consenting adult that consists of payment of dollars under a certain minimum level. But batshit insane freaks like you believe it is morally justified if the thug has a government badge. Then the property rights violation becomes holy, sacred, and part of the “common good.”
Practically everyone thinks it is morally wrong for one civilian to initiate force against another civilian’s person or property, with the exception of crazy fundamentalists like you and radical Islamists, among others. The only difference between you and them is that you seek approval from “society”, i.e. the state, in your thirst for violence, while the radical Islamists seek approval from an invisible man in the sky in their thirst.
You’re insane, and I am sane. Sorry to burst your bubble crazy man.
3. November 2014 at 22:06
maynardGkeynes,
“Iggy” means ignore, and an iggy button allows users to filter out the comments of specific users, who I shall refrain from naming, who rudely insist on populating your comments section with lengthy posts tooting their crackpot ideas. I don’t come here to read 2,500+ words of sophist bullshit from such individuals, who should start there own blogs instead of free riding on your well-deserved following.”
Interestingly, I do come here to read words of those who rudely insist on populating the comments section here with posts tooting their crackpot market monetarist ideas. I come here to read sophist bullshit from such individuals. I come here to read from those who should start their own blogs instead of free riding here.
I believe reading from those who are most hostile to your worldview help keep you honest and sharp.
Although, some prefer the echo chamber. They like reading their own words but from someone else’s PC. Makes them feel…validated. Belonging.
3. November 2014 at 22:15
You’re really very delusional, mf. You’re a sick man, you need help.
“Where did I say that?”
You say you support the institution of private property. As such you think it is ok under certain circumstances to use force against people’s bodies even if they have done nothing to your body beforehand.
Very simple example: someone is walking somewhere and you start pushing them and threatening them with a gun, saying that bit of land is your private property. If they resist you might kill them.
Practically everyone, apart from some hard-core pacifists, thinks that in certain circumstances it can be justified to use force against people’s bodies even if they have not used force against your body beforehand, such as in the example above. People do however disagree about when it is justified and when it isn’t.
For example you think it is acceptable to use force to enforce rules regarding private property. Almost everyone else thinks it is equally acceptable to use force to enforce rules regarding public property. But you apparently have some sort of problem with that for some reason.
“Practically everyone accepts my ethics”
No, practically no one agrees with your ‘ethics’. No amount of garbage sophistry will change that fact. You lying about it to yourself and to others will not change that fact.
You’re an idiot.
3. November 2014 at 22:50
Philippe:
You’re sick and twisted. You need help. You need a psychological evaluation to explain why you lack compassion. There must have been a time in your past when you were seriously traumatized, and now all you can think of is a necessarily violent world.
It’s a good thing you’re spending a lot of time on this blog, because the more time you’re separated from the public, the better off and safer the innocent among the public will be. Who knows when the ethics you advocate will become a practising what you have been preaching? Who knows when your desire and feeling of entitlement to initiate violence against others, will be actually acted upon, instead of remaining just a though as you spew illogical garbage on this blog all the time like some closeted freakshow?
“Where did I say that?”
“You say you support the institution of private property. As such you think it is ok under certain circumstances to use force against people’s bodies even if they have done nothing to your body beforehand.”
We’ve gone over this a dozen times. Once again, for the thirteenth time, you can harm someone’s person by affecting their material means of life. The human body cannot exist without material means.
By you destroying my property, you are harming my body, because the cause for why my body is harmed, are your actions.
Or did you think that someone continually stealing and destroying your food until you starve to death is not an act of violence because technically they didn’t touch you?
What kind of warped caricature of non-violence is that?
Non-violence is property rights, period. It is not some impossible ethic of no touching of superhuman bodies imagined in some spiritual world where material means of life are not necessary.
“Very simple example: someone is walking somewhere and you start pushing them and threatening them with a gun, saying that bit of land is your private property. If they resist you might kill them.”
Suppose I am starving. Suppose the food they want to steal, will cause my starvation.
You believe it would be justified for me to use force to protect my food and thus kill the wanderer.
Why do you believe your ethics are so different from mine?
“Practically everyone, apart from some hard-core pacifists, thinks that in certain circumstances it can be justified to use force against people’s bodies even if they have not used force against your body beforehand, such as in the example above. People do however disagree about when it is justified and when it isn’t.”
Practically everyone thinks it is immoral to trespass on other civilian’s land without their permission.
“For example you think it is acceptable to use force to enforce rules regarding private property. Almost everyone else thinks it is equally acceptable to use force to enforce rules regarding public property. But you apparently have some sort of problem with that for some reason.”
Practically everyone thinks it is acceptable to use force against a home invader.
But you know what else? Practically everyone’s beliefs DOES NOT CONSTITUTE TRUTH OR QUALITY OF MORALITY.
If practically everyone thinks slavery is justified, then would that mean my ethics which forbids it is somehow wrong?
You’re not making the slightest dent in anything I say by comparing to the consensus. If everyone only accepted the consensus, knowledge accumulation and moral improvements would come to an absolute end.
It is because there are people like me who are willing to go against the consensus, that human life improves.
Why do you blindly follow the consensus? Are you a wannabe Machiavellian or something? Where is your independent thinking? Beaten out of you by abusive guardians and now you’re too afraid to dissent from the commonly accepted?
“Practically everyone accepts my ethics”
“No, practically no one agrees with your ‘ethics’.”
You did not quote me in full. You quoted me out of context. I did not say practically everyone agrees with my ethics. I said
Practically everyone agrees with my ethics, when it comes to them as “civilians” dealing with other people as “civilians.”
You have never disproved this.
“No amount of garbage sophistry will change that fact.”
No amount of your sophistry of quoting me out of context will change the context in which I advanced that argument.
“You lying about it to yourself and to others will not change that fact.”
You are lying to yourself.
“You’re an idiot.”
You’re a moron.
3. November 2014 at 23:01
This man should have been your father Philippe.
4. November 2014 at 00:20
“By you destroying my property, you are harming my body”
Wait, so the anarcho-capitalists redefine the word “body” to mean “human body and also everything that person owns”? And you accuse other people of sophistry?
It’s brilliant in its own way…
4. November 2014 at 00:30
OT: I think Major Freedom is right to say that everyone accepts his own ethics, but they don’t know they do. I suggest to read Michael Huemer’s “the problem of political authority”.
4. November 2014 at 04:24
Ben J:
I am not redefining body to mean person plus material goods. That sentence you quoted does NOT imply such a thing.
Let me say another sentence with identical syntactical structure, to show you:
By you stealing all my food, your actions are causing my body to be damaged by malnutrition.
Ben J, all that sentence you quoted from me just says that my body’s health depends on material wealth.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have people to call sophists. Interestingly, I don’t see you gaffawing at any of my opponents name calling against me. I guess because I have the distinctive opinion here, that I deserve it whereas they do not, right? Nice and all tribally, feels good huh?
—————
Maurizio:
4. November 2014 at 04:25
Thanks for the source.
4. November 2014 at 04:36
What Philipp, Edward and some others here don’t want to deal with, is that how they treat other people, what rights they respect of others, their actions are likely fully consistent with anarcho-capitalist ethics, if they don’t rob or trespass/squat against others.
The disagreement between them and me is that I don’t believe in any contradictory escape hatch for a separate group of people whose actions can contradict anarchic capitalist ethics and yet be considered as morally justified. The debate is not between how we on this blog morally treat each other (although one person here, I think it was Daniel, welcomed for me to be murdered), the debate is whether or not that separate group is acting morally or immorally. They believe morally, I believe immorally.
At least what I practice is what I am preaching.
4. November 2014 at 04:45
The most recent excuse to try and deny this is “But I pay taxes! Surely because I pay taxes I am not acting in accordance with ancapism.”
Well, I pay taxes too, solely to stay out of jail and not because I believe in any sense of duty to the thugs.
Paying taxes cannot reveal one’s ethics, precisely because we are under threats of violence, ultimate death, if we don’t pay them and continue to defend our bodies from all harm, foreign and domestic.
4. November 2014 at 05:28
MF, interesting that your example of justifying “By you destroying my property, you are harming my body”, you went to the extreme example of someone stealing all your food. Let us engage the reason of our readers in the other direction, by considering the logical conclusion of the other extreme.
Say you own land, and you install an amazing machine that defends this land, instantly killing anyone who comes onto it. A tremendous microwave laser defence array, perhaps. This machine is perfectly reasonable in Ancapistan of course – after all, your property is yours and yours alone.
Walking past your land, respecting its boundary (I have immense respect for you as a pillar of the Ancapistan community, of course), I sneeze. As I sneeze, my hand involuntarily shudders, and my pinkie finger drifts across the boundary of the land I’m on, and drifts by a millimetre into yours.
The machine instantly kills me – I have violated your property.
My grieving family protests in various private courts (those that you and my family have agreed to joint hearings in). Their case is that this is an unreasonable response to an accidental – and almost microscopic – transgression. They know I (as a good Ancapistani) would have been more than willing to submit to any payment or work you desire for the inadvertent use of your land.
Your defense is eloquent and impassioned. “My body’s health depends on material wealth” you proclaim to the judge. You propose a hypothetical where for the good judge to consider – one where I stole all your food and you were incapable of finding more. “By [him] stealing all my food, [his] actions [would cause] my body to be damaged by malnutrition,” you declare impassionately.
My question is, how do all the private judges find in this case?
If they throw my family’s case out, are you still claiming that you don’t support initiating violence against others because the millimetre of my pinkie drifting into your property was the real initiation of violence?
If they support my family’s case, what premise of Ancap theory did your defence of property violate?
4. November 2014 at 06:18
After we figure out how Ancapistan would function in practice, I suggest we move on to more practical matters – such as whether two angels can be in the same place at the same time.
4. November 2014 at 06:56
Scott,
You said; ” Not sure why-perhaps the markets don’t find their long term promise credible. Or maybe Japanese rates would be low even if they hit 2% inflation. ”
As you well know easing (i.e. increased asset purchases) has two opposing effects on the bond market. The purchases themselves (higher demand for bonds) tend to push up prices, while expectations of higher NGDP will push up real rates (lower prices). As you say without an NGDP futures market, it is difficult if not impossible to tell the individual impact of either of these effects. However, with a further impending increase in consumption (and income) tax rates next year, it is not all surprising to see rates going down rather than up.
IMHO, the results in the bond market were not surprising at all.
4. November 2014 at 07:06
MF: “I believe reading from those who are most hostile to your worldview help keep you honest and sharp.”
I believe that brevity is the soul of wit, and I wish you did too.
4. November 2014 at 07:11
About NGDP targeting, is there an indication of an antithetical relationship between the central bank eg Fed targeting of NGDP and market participants expectations ? Always the orientation for bank is the anticipation for a higher growth rate and especially with the 2% price level . But, in an accidental shock, if real earnings reduced for markets participants then probably they will spend less which means that NGDP will appreciated to a lower level.
This lower level will direct major decisions for paricipants for investment, spending even if Fed increase excess supply for money to force again NGDP to target? This however will influence real output?
If central bank perceives potential shock as of a nominal dynamic by increasing money supply influences the M1 multiplier and the velocity of money.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MULT
My perception is that if the Fed announced a 5% NGDPLT would make markets to consider or expect a possibly lower level of NGDP in future.
4. November 2014 at 07:30
Thanks Scott. It’s great to see that there’s at least someone out there with a theory that they admit an external event could falsify. I know the same isn’t true for Krugman.
4. November 2014 at 07:35
Ben J and crowd,
I have already covered all this with Matt Brenig, who at this point is turning down $250 to debate me on camera for 90mins.
He refuses to debate bc he knows what I’ll say and in just 1.5hours his career as proggie thinker will be over:
https://medium.com/@morganwarstler/do-progressives-fake-naivete-94eedc4c961d
We LIVE TODAY in a Libertarian Hegemonic state, a version of Ancapistan. The US was born of and is clearly ruled today by Libertarian thinking.
All states are formed by the agreement for the hegemons before the state is formed. NO STATE is born out of one man one vote. ALL states are born with embedded preferences left over from what occurred there before the state was formed.
This isn’t to say the US is the perfect Ancapistan state, indeed most of the conversation that occurs between Libertarians (many of whom id as D and R) is about the the same trade off that was made by founding fathers:
“Hey we’re kinda the main stakeholders in this thing, should we all agree to get together and create some legal paper rights so we can REDUCE our private security costs?”
Yes that’s rights boy and girls, states are born bc hegemons believe they will be reducing their costs. That is the motivating factor. It’s no different than shopping at Amazon, it just used to be far more complicated.
So TODAY, this conversation that we are having, one that STILL cares more about the opinions of tax payers vs non taxpayers, that STILL cares more about property holders than non-property holders, that cares more about COSTS than about normative cultural stuff – let’s legalize drugs and sex workers and gay marriage – it’s not about preferences but about cost of enforcing our preferences.
Because of the Internet we all KNOW personally in our private lives lots more gays, and we who want our taxes lower, KNOW the costs of continuing to enforce some ugly preference will continue to empower the non-Libertarians.
Now we can look at this change in two ways:
Conservatives grew morally.
or
Conservatives grew morally BC their brains were suffering intense cognitive dissonance torn between two wants, and then late at night their brain elves worked it out and required them to not be disgusted (Haidt), in order to get the thing they wanted more LOWER COSTS.
Right now we see Liberals undergoing the same intense cognitive dissonance as data darwinism (uber, Ebay, etc) reduces the need for regulatory protection – we all just rank each other, and the fear of bad ranking pays massive dividends.
This is NOT people “becoming” Libertarian this is people who were making the same mental calculus as before, changing what they think, bc TECHNOLOGY has altered reality.
Technology makes us Libertarian is that it constantly makes THINGS CHEAPER.
Ben, you used an example of a MF’s laser. The COST associated with setting it to kill vs setting it to knock Ben on his ass get factored into the software of when to to actually kill Ben.
That cost is determined not by one man one vote, but by an agreement amongst the property owners (hegemony) about what ought to be acceptable and not.
We see it everywhere. Stand your ground laws? The 2nd Amendment? These are COST based discussions amongst property owners descendant from 250 years of hegemonic Libertarianism.
The hegemony in America views our govt. as a security service, and the discussion starts off with assuming end agency – peeps all have guns.
If you think apps + guns aren’t going to make it CHEAPER to provide lower cost security services, you aren’t looking at it right.
4. November 2014 at 07:43
Eurozone, GROAN!
“Central bankers to challenge Draghi on ECB leadership style”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/04/us-ecb-governors-exclusive-idUSKBN0IO1GY20141104
4. November 2014 at 07:46
Major Freedom,
Have you ever seen David Friedman’s video about the debate you’re having?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuYt6X2g0cY
He points out correctly that the defense of freedom based solely on property rights isn’t ironclad. For instance, it would clearly be a violation of property rights if you built a factory next door to someone and blew all the waste products right onto his land but for the same reason that would be wrong, the property owner could also claim that it was wrong for you to exhale carbon dioxide which might later drift onto his property. A strict notion of property rights is so rigid that you could argue that it is wrong for people to exhale. You need a mix of consequentialism in this philosophy as well.
4. November 2014 at 07:55
Daniel,
You got the wrong guy. I didn’t start commenting on here until mid-2011. Also, the monetary base started growing in 2008 and headline inflation was only around 5% back then.
4. November 2014 at 08:00
Morgan,
Thanks for trying again to take ‘rights’ off the table. I doubt you’ll succeed here, but I appreciate the effort.
We know that powerful people in our society feel very constrained by our politics. And yet we know they exert tremendous influence over the political process that restrains them. How can this be? The beast prefers to be bound. He wants to push those boundaries … safely.
4. November 2014 at 08:07
“James Bullard said in a television interview Tuesday that he is upbeat about the economy and doesn’t think any new central bank stimulus is needed to help keep the U.S. on track for 3% growth.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/11/04/feds-bullard-upbeat-on-economy-sees-no-need-for-new-stimulus
4. November 2014 at 09:48
mf,
“By you destroying my property, you are harming my body”
Let’s say there is a pile of food, and two people: A and B.
1) A eats all the food. As a result, there is no food left for B, and B dies of starvation.
Or,
2) B eats all the food. As a result, there is no food left for A, and A dies of starvation.
The actions are identical in both of these cases.
In neither case does either A or B use force directly against the body of the other person.
However, if ‘eating all the food, such that the other person starves’ constitutes an ‘indirect use of force’ by one person against the other person’s body, then in both cases there is an identical indirect use of force by one person against the other person’s body. (We assume in both cases that neither person wants or agrees to die of starvation).
You believe that such an indirect use of force is justified in certain circumstances, but not in others. For example: you think it is justified for A to indirectly use force against B in this way if we say that A is the ‘owner’ of the pile of food and that B is not the ‘owner’. And you think it is not justified for A to indirectly use force against B in this way if we say that B is the ‘owner’ of the food and that A is not the ‘owner’.
So let’s look at (1) again:
“A eats all the food. As a result, there is no food left for B, and B dies of starvation.”
Is this action by A justified or unjustified? You say it depends on who the ‘owner’ of the food is. If we say that A is the ‘owner’, and B is not the ‘owner’, then you say it is justified. If we say that B is the ‘owner’, and A is not the ‘owner’, then you say it is not justified.
Does your point of view accord with the common ethical view on this subject? No. Most people would say that simply defining A as the ‘owner’ of the food does not in itself justify A’s actions in this case. This is because a property ownership claim is not a moral category which trumps the presumed human right to life.
4. November 2014 at 10:24
Morgan,
“the same trade off that was made by founding fathers”
You should read this text by founding father Benjamin Franklin:
“Queries and Remarks respecting Alterations in the Constitution of Pennsylvania” (1789)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch12s25.html
There was an attempt to alter the Constitution of Pennsylvania to make it into an undemocratic state along the lines that you are talking about. Here’s an extract from Franklin’s response:
“… the accumulation therefore of Property in such a Society, and its Security to Individuals in every Society, must be an Effect of the Protection afforded to it by the joint Strength of the Society, in the Execution of its Laws. Private Property therefore is a Creature of Society, and is subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing; its Contributions therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered as conferring a Benefit on the Publick, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honour and Power, but as the Return of an Obligation previously received, or the Payment of a just Debt. The Combinations of Civil Society are not like those of a Set of Merchants, who club their Property in different Proportions for Building and Freighting a Ship, and may therefore have some Right to vote in the Disposition of the Voyage in a greater or less Degree according to their respective Contributions; but the important ends of Civil Society, and the personal Securities of Life and Liberty, these remain the same in every Member of the society; and the poorest continues to have an equal Claim to them with the most opulent, whatever Difference Time, Chance, or Industry may occasion in their Circumstances. On these Considerations, I am sorry to see the Signs this Paper I have been considering affords, of a Disposition among some of our People to commence an Aristocracy, by giving the Rich a predominancy in Government, a Choice peculiar to themselves in one half the Legislature to be proudly called the UPPER House, and the other Branch, chosen by the Majority of the People, degraded by the Denomination of the LOWER; and giving to this upper House a Permanency of four Years, and but two to the lower. I hope, therefore, that our Representatives in the Convention will not hastily go into these Innovations, but take the Advice of the Prophet, “Stand in the old ways, view the ancient Paths, consider them well, and be not among those that are given to Change.”
4. November 2014 at 16:54
Ben J:
“MF, interesting that your example of justifying “By you destroying my property, you are harming my body”, you went to the extreme example of someone stealing all your food. Let us engage the reason of our readers in the other direction, by considering the logical conclusion of the other extreme.”
OK. But do you now agree, do you see, how you can harm someone by harming their property? And that recognizing this does not obligate us to view material property as a part of our body?
Incidentally, now that we’re on the topic, I think that there is also a good argument to make that material property is in a sense a part of our bodies. Think about it. Artificial hearts, prosthetic limbs, glass eyes…I think there is an argument to make that these examples are “body parts”. It gets even more fuzzy when we consider those prosthetic limbs that are capable of being controlled by the owner’s brain waves.
What is the boundary exactly? I don’t think it is justifiable to hold onto the strict dichotomy that material property and human bodies are completely separate. Some philosophers even regard our tools as extensions of our bodies. For example, instead of using one part of your brain to do arithmetic using your fingers, you use another part of your brain with a pocket calculator to answer the same math problems.
I notice a hostility, like it’s some sort of insult or dehumanization, to not make a strict solid line between person and material property. I believe this hostility derives from Marxism. He used the phrase “commodity fetishism”.
“Say you own land…”
I read your scenario. Quite interesting.
My answer is this: Individual property rights is not something exclusive to land owners. Ancap ethics regards the right of a person’s body to be free from aggression no less than their material property to be free from aggression.
As such, if the land owner uses force against the trespasser, then in order to preserve the principle of nonaggression, we have to critique whether the instant automatic laser zapper killing machine usage is a just use of defensive violence or is in itself an aggression. In order to find this out, I use the “eye for eye” principle. I think any reasonable person would agree with me when I say that murdering someone who breathed unwanted air onto your face is in fact a new initiation of violence. I would say it is a new initiation of violence in response to a previous initiation of violence.
I think the only way anarcho-capitalist ethics can be universalised is if all parties involved are not made victims of aggression, for both new uses and in reactions to previous violence.
It is true that by moving into my territory you have violated my property rights, but setting up a machine that would kill you if you so much as moved your pinky finger into the territory, would be an initition of violence itself.
I think the only proper response to inititations of force that are consistent with and in the spirit of ancap ethics, are uses of force that at most meet the initial force with equal and opposite defensive force.
Suppose someone stole a loaf of bread. We have to consider the harm on the owner. If the harm is the owner’s life itself, then I would say, and I think you would agree, that the thief woild be killing the owner, and hence because the owner’s life is on the line, the owner has the right to use whatever force is necessary to save his own life, including up to killing the thief.
But if you stole my loaf of bread because you’re starving to death, but I won’t die from starvation without it, then here a just response would be whatever stops you that is not more violent than you stealing my bread. Killing you would be an initition of force against you.
Eye for an eye ethic I think is the only principle that can constrain defensive uses of force to remain defensive and not become offensive themselves.
Hope that answers your challenge.
4. November 2014 at 17:08
John Becker:
“He points out correctly that the defense of freedom based solely on property rights isn’t ironclad. For instance, it would clearly be a violation of property rights if you built a factory next door to someone and blew all the waste products right onto his land but for the same reason that would be wrong, the property owner could also claim that it was wrong for you to exhale carbon dioxide which might later drift onto his property. A strict notion of property rights is so rigid that you could argue that it is wrong for people to exhale.”
I disagree. I think ironclad property rights can be made practical if we include the principle of proof of harm.
I will have to prove that you exhaling CO2 into my home’s airspace actually harms my body to some positive degree. If I cannot, then your actions are not aggressive and I have no right to use force against you.
But what if you breathing CO2 was in fact harming my body? Suppose my living space for whatever reason already has a high concentration of CO2, where I am almost suffucating, and then you show up and breathe CO2 into the space which puts the concentration into lethal levels.
Wouldn’t your breathing then not be so innocent?
“You need a mix of consequentialism in this philosophy as well.”
I think consequences can help us yes, in shaping and framing our thinking of ethics. But in terms of how we know what we can and cannot do now in the present, which is what any ethic must tell us, consequentialism fails. It does not tell me what I can and cannot do here and now. It calls upon me to act without any ethical constraints in the present, and then only once the consequences are had and observed will we know after the fact whether what I did in the past was or was not a violation.
Consequentialism is actually an impossible ethic for telling people what they can and cannot do NOW, in the present, which is the only time we ever make choices and act on them.
Consequantialism is an impossible ethic. All ethics must be a priori. They must be derived from something other than future experiences, i.e. consequences. They must be grounded on who we are as actors.
4. November 2014 at 17:10
MaynardGKeynes:
“I believe that brevity is the soul of wit”
I believe that wit has more than a soul.
4. November 2014 at 17:33
Philippe:
“Does your point of view accord with the common ethical view on this subject? No. Most people would say that simply defining A as the ‘owner’ of the food does not in itself justify A’s actions in this case. This is because a property ownership claim is not a moral category which trumps the presumed human right to life.”
Property rights are not established by mere decree by some random person. Property rights come into fruition by practical interaction with the world. It is when the subject interacts with the object will property come into existence.
Property rights and human right to life are not mutually exclusive, they are not antagonistic with each other. Human right to life IS property rights, and property rights IS human right to life.
When you are talking about human right to life, you are talking property rights whether you realize it or not.
In your example of A eating all the food or B eating all the food, then you have set up an example where one person dies of starvation. Since no matter what A or B does in your example, either A or B will die, it follows that either A or B will according to you be a murderer whose act to exclusively possess and consume the food is the cause for why the other died.
It is not because A or B are ‘owner’ that the other dies and that shows us “property trumping human life” in your example. Your example is one where property or no property, someone will die due to the other “exclusively”, “monopolistically”, “withholding”, “possessing”, the food.
So the real question in your scenario is not that we should think property trumps human life, but rather this: “IF one or the other is going to die from starvation no matter what, then WHO should live?”
I think that the person who should live is the person who first acquired the food. The person who either traded for it, or produced it. That person should be the one who lives. This person is just given the LABEL “owner” by ancaps. The “owner” is just a term we use to refer to the person who performed a specific category of action to acquire the food.
What if A produced the food, and intended to eat it, but B who is starving came along and ate the food, which was then followed by the death of A?
Would that be more or less just than A the producer of the food eating the food, which is followed by B’s death?
4. November 2014 at 17:39
Philippe:
Ask yourself this:
Given that there is only food for one person, and given either A or B will die from starvation, then what should be the principle or set of principles that guides us to deciding the most just outcome?
Would might makes right be the most ethical? Suppose A is a weakling and B is a big strong person. In a fist fight, B will beat A in a fight to the death. Should B be the one to eat the food because his might is greatest?
Or would property rights be the most ethical? Suppose A the weakling produced that food. Should A be the one to eat the food because he produced it?
So if you had to choose between might makes right, and homesteading/trade, if those were the choices then which would you choose as most just, as most moral?
4. November 2014 at 18:07
Daniel:
“After we figure out how Ancapistan would function in practice, I suggest we move on to more practical matters – such as whether two angels can be in the same place at the same time.”
Most of your functioning in society is anarchistic.
4. November 2014 at 18:18
Major Freedom,
You’ve just conceded, based on your “eye for an eye” principle that there is a an oasis of sanity in your usual sea of nonsense. Bravo!
4. November 2014 at 18:21
“Island” rather than oasis
4. November 2014 at 18:24
mf,
“Property rights are not established by mere decree by some random person. Property rights come into fruition by practical interaction with the world. It is when the subject interacts with the object will property come into existence.”
So says random person, aka ‘major_freedom’…!
Let’s play that again:
“Property rights are not established by mere decree by some random person…”
[What follows is a ‘decree’ by some random person about how and when property rights are established]:
“…Property rights come into fruition by practical interaction with the world. It is when the subject interacts with the object will property come into existence.”
So very funny. Your cluelessness is literally unbounded.
4. November 2014 at 19:17
“Human right to life IS property rights, and property rights IS human right to life.”
ok, so let’s look at my example again:
“(1) A eats all the food. As a result, there is no food left for B, and B dies of starvation.”
We presume that both A and B have a right to life.
Both A and B require food in order to live.
So, if ‘the human right to life’ is a ‘property right’, then both A and B have an equal property right in the food, in this case.
So if A eats all the food, and as a result B dies of starvation, then A is ‘violating B’s property right’.
This is the case even if we say that A is the ‘owner’ of the food.
Yes?
4. November 2014 at 19:38
This is very funny;
“So the real question in your scenario is not that we should think property trumps human life, but rather this: “IF one or the other is going to die from starvation no matter what, then WHO should live?”
You then proceed to tell us that the one who deserves to live is the one who has the superior ‘property claim’, and the one who deserves to die is the one who has the inferior ‘property claim’.
So you start by telling us that property doesn’t ‘trump human life’, and then you proceed to explain precisely why how and why you think property claims ‘trump human life’.
Your self delusion and utter intellectual confusion is really quite mind-boggling.
4. November 2014 at 20:49
Nick,
“Thanks for trying again to take ‘rights’ off the table. I doubt you’ll succeed here, but I appreciate the effort.
We know that powerful people in our society feel very constrained by our politics. And yet we know they exert tremendous influence over the political process that restrains them. How can this be? The beast prefers to be bound. He wants to push those boundaries … safely.”
Here’s your mistake the top 40%+ are the hegemony.
It’s not “the powerful”
If it helps think about it like all A/B students in US High Schools.
They run the show. They decide what our “rights” are.
4. November 2014 at 21:17
Morgan started by talking about the top 30%. Eventually he moved on to talking about the top 40%. Sooner or later it will be the top 47%. And then whatever % he feels justifies his particular rant on any given day.
5. November 2014 at 01:20
John Becker,
So I’ve got the wrong guy because you said exactly the things I remember you saying ?
Alright then.
5. November 2014 at 01:27
Major_Moron
Most of your functioning in society is anarchistic.
There’s also a lot of communism in people’s private lives.
5. November 2014 at 03:25
Daniel:
Sharing and joint ownership isn’t communism. Sharing and joint ownership is also anarchism.
The only people who act communist are those who use threats of force to confiscate other people’s means of production for the purposes of “collectivization”, and to jail or kill dissidents who refuse to obey. People like Kim Jong Un and his cronies act communist.
If you tried to act communist in your private life, you’d be committing a crime and if discovered you’d be arrested.
What you believe is acting communist in your private life is actually acting anarchistically, because you are talking about individuals voluntarily sharing their own wealth and voluntarily pooling their wealth in joint ownership structures, all of which includes only those individuals who do consent to it with each other, and whose agreements are not then forced at gunpoint on other individuals who do not want to share or pool their wealth with those people.
Daniel, you’re so clueless you don’t even know what communism is.
5. November 2014 at 03:29
Edward:
“You’ve just conceded, based on your “eye for an eye” principle that there is a an oasis of sanity in your usual sea of nonsense. Bravo!”
Conceded. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Conceding means to admit that one has been defeated in some debate. Me telling you the principle I think is consistent with individual property rights, is not “conceding” a debate or argument.
5. November 2014 at 03:44
Philippe:
“Property rights are not established by mere decree by some random person. Property rights come into fruition by practical interaction with the world. It is when the subject interacts with the object will property come into existence.”
“So says random person, aka ‘major_freedom’…!”
No, they don’t come into fruition by MY say so. They don’t come into fruition by anyone’s mere say so. They come into fruition by the individual’s actions. Yes, I am saying that is so, but it is not because of the say so, that it is so.
If you cannot help but believe that the only choice is one’s say so, then you are destroying the ground for your own knowledge, and thus cutting the ground from under your own claim that it must only be one’s say so.
“Property rights are not established by mere decree by some random person…”
[What follows is a ‘decree’ by some random person about how and when property rights are established]:
“…Property rights come into fruition by practical interaction with the world. It is when the subject interacts with the object will property come into existence.”
So very funny. Your cluelessness is literally unbounded.”
Communicating what grounds a right is not only a decree.
What you are doing is pretending you have discovered a fatal flaw when in reality you are just abstracting talk from its praxeological roots and then claiming all talk is floating air abstractions within which every talk is as equally valid as every other talk. You are engaging in a rhetorical trick that hermeneutics use to manipulate others into trusting their method of mere abstracted talk as if it were objective.
OK, then I will just claim that your talk that my argument is just mere talk, is itself mere talk about property that is not in any way more objectively valid than my talk.
So nothing you said refutes me.
Is that the road you want to go down?
“Human right to life IS property rights, and property rights IS human right to life.”
“Ok, so let’s look at my example again:”
“(1) A eats all the food. As a result, there is no food left for B, and B dies of starvation.”
“We presume that both A and B have a right to life.”
“Both A and B require food in order to live.”
“So, if ‘the human right to life’ is a ‘property right’, then both A and B have an equal property right in the food, in this case.”
No they don’t. That is not how property arises. It is not mere say of human right to life that establishes property rights. You are just decreeing that and pretending it is more objectively valid than everyone else’s argument which must also be mere decree.
Property arises through practical activity of a particular sort. Whoever produced that food, or traded for the food, is the owner.
If A produced it, A is owner. If B did, then B is owner.
“So if A eats all the food, and as a result B dies of starvation, then A is ‘violating B’s property right’.”
Only if B produced or traded for it.
“This is the case even if we say that A is the ‘owner’ of the food.
“Yes?”
No.
“This is very funny;”
“So the real question in your scenario is not that we should think property trumps human life, but rather this: “IF one or the other is going to die from starvation no matter what, then WHO should live?”
“You then proceed to tell us that the one who deserves to live is the one who has the superior ‘property claim’, and the one who deserves to die is the one who has the inferior ‘property claim’.”
Someone MUST die in your example! Don’t you see that? You set it up so that either A or B will die, and then you berate me for making a necessary choice?
What kind of sophistry is that?
“So you start by telling us that property doesn’t ‘trump human life’, and then you proceed to explain precisely why how and why you think property claims ‘trump human life’.”
Again, it wasn’t property that is the cause of a death taking place. It is your example where there is only enough food for one person to live.
“Your self delusion and utter intellectual confusion is really quite mind-boggling”
Bwahahahahahahaha
5. November 2014 at 03:48
Philippe:
Do you know what is funny? This is funny:
Philippe: here is an example where at least one person will die because there is insufficient food.
MF: OK, well given only one can live, I say it should be the person who produced it.
Philippe: Aha! Property trumps human right to life in your ethics!
——-
Philippe, you’re certifiable.
And you did not answer ANY of my questions. You did not answer who you think should live and who should die in your own example.
You don’t answer questions because you’re chickenshit!
5. November 2014 at 04:08
Major_Moron is on a roll today.
You go gurl
5. November 2014 at 14:45
Daniel,
At least MF will engage with your questions instead of just slinging mud. You are probably the least civilized commenter on the site and never offer anything other than ad hominem attacks. You should stop playing the role of keyboard coward unless you actually want to talk about economics.
6. November 2014 at 00:00
John Becker
I just love it how experts in dishonesty (such as yourself) are so thin-skinned.
One does not play chess with pigeons.
Similarly, one does not play nice with people like you (and Major_Moron, and Dan W, and Mike Sax).
6. November 2014 at 04:58
Daniel, your last comment confirms Becker’s thesis.
Even when you write to other posters here, to those you would not call pigeons, and consider yourself playing chess, your posts are as poorly thought out and devoid of any economics sophisitication.
My guess for why you spend so much time insulting people is to cover up for the fact that you are lacking something. You can’t engage those who are “on your side” with any subtlety or creativity. That’s OK, you can continue to call people names, because it only makes you a worse person and shows how low you would like to be in the intellectual hierarchy.
6. November 2014 at 05:04
Becker:
I’ve “saved” quite a number of statist-sadist internet trolls. The behavior of Daniel and Philippe and Edward are just how they are self-“cleansed”. They need me to play the role of evil bad guy, because they perceive a reduction in violence as cold hearted and evil due to the effect it has on their material well being. The angrier the troll gets, the more likely they are more dependent on mommy and daddy government, welfare, etc.
My guess is that Daniel and Philippe are living off the taxpayer.