Gold is tanking. The 30-year U.S. bond yield is at an all-time low. Stock markets are struggling. The Chinese real estate bubble is beginning to pop, and the Euro is locked in a downward trajectory in recognition of the beginning of a likely recession with a financial crisis thrown in to boot. Will everything change tomorrow or is this an indication that the second economic downturn, as described on this site on Memorial Day, is about to begin? The title of that article (and the link for those that may be interested) is “The Second Recession in the Second Great Depression.”
Unfortunately, the risks indicated back then seem to be even more applicable today. One significant element that has greatly increased its impact on the explosive mix is the European situation, which has gotten so out of hand that there is a new effort here to bail Europe out with U.S. taxpayer dollars. Greece, which is ground zero for the problem, appears headed for an economic collapse which could involve as much as $1.1 trillion in regime and bank debt. The nations of Portugal, Spain, and Ireland also have serious problems and others, including even France, are struggling.
If the situation gets out of hand, it would ripple through the banking system, starting in Europe. The concern, if it reaches that point, is that the overseas banks are nowhere near as healthy as their statements indicate. The regime debt they hold, as well as their real estate portfolios, are carried at par, well above the true values of these toxic assets. Furthermore, the values of their derivative investments are hidden behind a carefully constructed curtain, which makes it impossible to determine the level of risk in that area. And, another great concern is that there is a growing perception that the European Union is incapable of dealing effectively with the situation.
Undoubtedly, if the dominoes begin to fall, they will stretch across the pond, and, here again, the degree of the threat is unknown. While information regarding the net exposure of U.S. banks is generally available, the gross exposure to Europe’s problems has been a carefully guarded secret.
And, as a general rule, it is not a good sign when critical banking information is withheld.
The main focus of the White House and the Democrats has been on the jobs crisis which now seems to be all the more impossible to deal with. And, behind it all lies the specter of a looming presidential election year.
The decisions by the leaders of both parties have rarely been as important as they are today. Moves to cut outlays out of concern for hyper-inflation should be scrapped for now.
The enemy that faces us is deflation and the battle can only be won by a policy of stimulation carried out - not by the Fed - but by the Congress. For those concerned about the national debt, it should never be overlooked that nothing will reduce the deficits faster than income growth resulting from a recovery in the jobs sector.
Our future at this point may depend on members of Congress forgetting that 2012 is an election year and giving the recovery their highest priority.
However, the biggest question might well be: Is that possible?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 192
It so happens that the financial industry, and the markets for derivatives, credit default swaps, etc., are among the most ruthlessly self-regulating of all.
Would it not be enough for the government to just stop interfering with the market's self-regulating mechanisms?
Of course, the government has a legitimate role in prohibiting and punishing fraud; protecting property rights and enforcing the terms of contracts. And if the government would faithfully stick to that, then the market price structure and the profit/loss dynamics, permitted to function freely (and thus properly), perform all the regulation necessary to insure a stable, sustainable economic progress.
These popular claims that the financial industry and associated niche markets are "essentially unregulated" are so far removed from reality, it would be comical if the implications of that kind of political gullibility and ignorance weren't so dire. No wonder we have issues...
If only we should be so fortunate as to see the abolition of the macroeconomic central-planning bureaucracy (called the "Federal Reserve System"), and the substitution of a sound commodity-money standard and a genuine free market in banking and finance in it's place, then we can talk about what have been the effects of "deregulation."
Until that happy day, any such talk is question-begging at best.
The popular claim, in this case, is perfectly valid. Yes, self regulation means that things that are worthless will eventually be found out and dropped like a rock. Unfortunately, that 'dropping it like a rock' means that thousands of individuals lose a chunk of their life savings because they trusted a salesman on a 'sure thing'. The derivatives industry can no longer be accurately called a 'niche'. Hundreds of trillions of dollars isn't a niche, it's the mainstream. Everything else in the world is now the niche. The entire GDP of the globe now amounts to a fraction of the money exchanged on this market.
Your arguments make no sense. It simply isn't ever going to be ok for the value of speculative products to be several times the value of the entire world's output. The fact that the market now sits at that level is indicative of massive speculation on a scale that, when bad things happen, the effects of them are magnified out of proportion to the adjustment that should be necessary.
If the government stuck only to what you want them to do, we'd live in the Gilded Age. Where the vast majority of the population worked tremendous hours just to be in debt to the factory they worked at. Where big business dictated to the government exactly what they wanted because they are the only ones with the placement and access to affect government. Votes are bought. Lives are bought.
Your 'utopia' is the 99%'s hell.
I am a firm proponent of social safety nets, but, like anything else, they must have checks and balances. They must be controlled. Everything to excess is bad for you, even moderation.
That said, in the US today there is both a revenue and an expenditure problem. With over 75% of the budget being spent on 'you can't touch these programs' programs, it's no wonder spending is out of control. It's not because someone in the last four years decided to over spend, it's because the American people have wanted the government to overspend for the last six decades.
It is human to want something for nothing. What government must do is say 'no' in a way that is controlled, responsible, and compassionate. Because, ultimately, social stability stems from the poor accepting the rule of the wealthy. They will not accept that rule without some surety that the wealthy are not taking advantage. That's where the social safety net provides dividends. It undercuts populist movements that would result in revolution (like Marxist, Leninist, or Maoist uprisings).
When society comes under stress (among other causes due to market ups and downs that are natural and have existed since humans have traded with each other), if the poor perceive that there is protection for them within the existing social order, they are more likely to support reform rather than revolution.
All of that said, expenditures must be kept in line with revenues and revenues in line with expenditures.
We have gone from investing in the country to just heaping profits on a small elite class of people who have gone into the deep end with their ideas of how brilliant they are ... for doing nothing productive, and just manipulating the government to set them up as too big too fail.
The main issue is that we have shrunk the country, shrunk the jobs, and get most of everything from outside bought with borrowed cash. We do not have a socialism problem, ie. the poor taking from the rich, and every comment like this always makes it look like that is what is wrong.
The thing we do have is a fascism problem, too much power in an elite that owns and controls too much. The free market cannot operate because everything is virtually a monopoly to serve what is becoming a totalitarian government of the few, for the few and by the few.
Those against "regulation" saw to it that this globalization process was hi-jacked to where the benefits all went to one class of people, the global "carpetbaggers" who reorganized and perfected the corrupt system of capital patronage we have today. A lot of that money came from Europe, looted and laundered into South America and eventually to the US, and our corporations and politicians.
Instead of producing products in a just way, products were made exploiting people, resources the environment, and then when they were brought to the US there was no transparency to the consumer who might have moderated their purchases if they knew what their money was really supporting - and the savings of these products was monopolized to where the whole point of globalization was undermined and perverted into one of enslavement. Now that enslavement has come home to roost. Instead of getting a split of the saving of a shirt made for a dollar in Cambodia, that shirt came here and was marked up to Made In America prices, and the money did not go to the government in taxes, it was built up in the coffers of these virtual Nazis, and turned against us.
Surely, people and organization that have invested so much time and money into taking over the US have planned and are well positioned to counter or ignore anything the American people have to say about this predicament. If anyone thinks this is going to be easy or that in the long term there is a sure outcome you have better think again.
Inflation, we print more money, pay off our debts with this money, which puts all that money in the hands of all the people who do not deserve it, and who will not pay taxes on it or use it to grow the US economy or hire Americans.
I'd rather see deflation because I believe what we need to do is to dump this problem on the people who caused it. Then going forward we make taxes more graduated, we put many more margins at the top brackets, and we bring back a strong - but democratic government by removing private financing of elections.
My one issue with my own plan is that it may leave us weak with regard to being the world's policemen, ie. Iran, China, etc. If something has to get dropped, it will just have to be that, but we must work to pick it back up ASAP, and try to keep the rest of the world from falling to pieces while we regenerate.
At the very least, if you think you can prove that I don't get it, state your case, and then follow up with - I don't get it, but when you start out like you you're pitiful.
So, you are again arguing about what horrible thing is going to happen in the future ... ie. companies will move jobs overseas. Well ... Char ... WHAT IN THE HELL DO YOU THINK THEY HAVE BEEN DOING ALL ALONG? As they have gotten more of their greedy agenda in place, it has only accellerated the process.
When are you going to start to question a few of the things you seem to believe on faith, with no evidence? The markets are in China, China has all our money, all things being the same, they are not going to come back here, there is nothing here but debt.
Now, if we want to force our great country into playing second fiddle to an enormous slave state that our leaders have put us in bondage to, what the hell good is going to come out of that?
OK ... I'll say it since I think I've proved it ... Char, "you just don't get it".
Personally as I posted on another article today, I think we need a "NEW" New Deal based on the rights of Americans to get things back working again.
everyone according to their needs and everyone according to their ability to pay?
I am concerned about our monetary system, but the far greater danger as far as I can tell comes from the coming collapse of our food system. There are amazing tools for growers now that go way beyond organic foods, and production doesn't have to suffer, but the time needed to ramp up these skills is going to be a problem.
One big problem is that big capital seeks to consolidate hierarchically everything it can ultimately buy, disenfranchising people, hollowing out the economy, and entering into relations with societies that have no human rights, dragging us down a road that to the people who profit from this system seems correct to them. In order to make this system seem correct that predisposes the people who run it to hate human beings and think the answer to Earth's problems is war, genocide and pushing people out of society and using all kinds of rationalization about pseudo-science and economics to justify it.
The current threat is deflation. That's even worse than inflation. You see, the nature of our money is that the supply of money is not dependent on the supply of goods and services for sale. Thus, the inflation / deflation threat is always present. Economies that use our form of money are inherently unstable (boom and bust cycles, for example like our current real estate boom and bust) so we are always being threatened by either inflation or deflation. Just now it happens to be deflation. But the only possible fix for deflation (with our current money) is inflation. It's a frying pan or fire choice. Not matter which we do we are in trouble.
Of course, the problems of a nation and its economy are not like the problems of a business or a family. What helps a business or a family will usually make whatever problems the economy is facing even worse. Thus, when unemployment is high and deflation is the threat, the smart thing for a business or family to do is to cut back on consumption and save money. But if every family and business does that, it simply makes the problem for the economy even worse. It's a positive feedback loop that leads to economic collapse. So if our government, in these times of high joblessness and slow business climate, suddenly cuts spending, it simply adds to the problem by putting more jobless on the street and reducing sales by businesses.
In other words, a government is not a business nor a family and should not be run like one.
Peak eveything,...fractional reserve banking,...compound interest,...bla,bla,bla.
Got'cher lifeboats handy? The Titanic is breaking up!
While that makes sense, wouldn't the opposite effect be expected from the trillion dollars of business being invested in our economy. This would even positively spur the wealth effect as more and more people got jobs and a cycle of spending lifted it all, including the real estate. If reducing corporate taxes caused that to happen, that would be good, right?
If business were investing in our economy rather than the big corporations sitting on their money (or buying other businesses) then that would indeed tend to reduce or eliminate the threat of deflation. But again, a deflation threat (reduced consumer spending and uncertainty as to whether government spending will continue) warns business to produce only the minimum and get by with current employees or cut staff.
IF reducing corporate taxes caused more investment by corporations then that would be good. But reducing corporate taxes has nothing to do with it. It has no effect. Neither does increasing corporate taxes. Since taxes apply to profits (assuming you are referring to federal corporate income taxes) the tax rate has nothing to do with the motivation to increase profits. The Corporate Executives gain their bonuses and pay BEFORE TAXES since they are part of overhead. Their pay is a reduction of profits. Their pay and bonuses are based on profits before taxes, not after tax profits. It's the stockholders who pay those taxes, not the folks making the decisions for the corporation.
But the banks aren't loaning and the corporations are sitting on cash so the economy is slow and faltering with lots of foreclosures to come and lots of problems on the way from Europe.
Bruce, I don't feel that I am focusing on deflation. I believe deflation is focusing on us, and I choose not to ignore it. For interest rates to be this low, for gold to be falling, for the core cost-of-living index to be as low as it is - for all of these facts and more to be occurring in the face of such a rapid expansion of the money supply, the appropriate conclusion is that the forces of deflation are not just large, but huge. And they've been building for 25 years. Just check out the long-term government bond yields over that period - a steady decline from double figures to the record lows of today.
Char, I appreciate your comments and, the only thing I can say to you, is that I write what I believe, based on 60 years of closely following economic trends. What I believe today is that the word's industrialized nations had better do what is needed to stimulate a recovery or the gargantuan enemy - deflation - (or you can call it depression) - will crush the global economy, and, as more time slips by, there are fewer and fewer weapons to utilize. I'm not convinced, however, that anything can work at this point, even if some miracle would energize the political process in a positive direction. It may already be too late.
I couldn't agree with you more on free trade, Char. In the final chapter, some years down the road, I can see the possibility of the multi-national corporations following their employees and their customers, relocating to foreign lands, motivated by the added desire to avoid the increasing U.S. tax liabilities. In this fantasy, I see Perth, Australia as the new "global Delaware" for corporations, only they will really be there.
Gerry, you raised an interesting question. When all Bernanke has to do is push a button to start the printing presses, I would say that nothing is backing up our currency. Larry, the previous commenter, has written a very interesting book on the subject of your concern. You might want to check it out.
As far as Newt goes, I'll speculate that he will self destruct. Somehow he's already gotten away with some really stupid stuff (Like child labor doesn't produce adult jobs, Newt...and nice pandering to the pro-Israel lobby by suggestion that you would be willing to fight a ground war in Iran - how about a jobs war, Newt?).
One thing that should end, in my opinion is the liberal use of the words "Marxism" and "communist." Nothing here approaches the definition of either, or even "socialism" for that matter. In case it hasn't been noticed, global communism is dying. Even the Russian communist party represents less than 20% of the public there.
My other comment would address the throwing around of terms. I also think there is way too much of it. I particularly think there are two (2) TWO definitions of fascism, and like the number line, it seems to be located by two schools of thought on diametrically opposed ends. To me, I put it on a control, or freedom line. Fascism is the ultimate loss of freedom. Democracy is the other end. We are in the 75% freedom line as a democratic Republic. I have to say, to me fascism is approached by Progressive policy where Conservative policy is more hands off, or free. To me, liberal is a social policy and conservative can be used for that too, but as a social thought, not the same as governance policy. Why is there so much confusion. Progressives are positive they are right to pit conservative in the same end as fascist. That is a lie, to how I was educated, and it is not just me. It is all who deny Progressive propaganda.
One thing that needs to change -- and it's already too late this time around, but it is necessary to avoid further unnecessary misery and undue hardship in the future -- is that people need to become educated on fundamental economic realities.
Economics is not some arcane, esoteric discipline that is only within the intellectual grasp of a few pointy-headed professors. Anyone with approaching-average intelligence can attain a sound, working understanding of economic science; if they only are willing to put in a little time and effort. Oh yeah -- and also if they have the humility to accept certain truths that may run counter to some ideological tenets they may be psychologically attached to.
For instance, things aren't going to change for the better if the majority of people continue to uncritically accept as valid statements like this: "The enemy that faces us is deflation and the battle can only be won by a policy of stimulation carried out - not by the Fed - but by the Congress."
Deflation is not the "enemy that faces us." A price correction is in order, and it is in order because of the consequences of the real enemy that faces us: manipulation of prices and interest rates through monetary interventionism.
Doesn't it at all occur to you, the absurdity of claiming that while so many are broke, jobless, drowning in debt, with no conceivable hope of ithings improving on the horizon, that the "real enemy that faces us" is the supposed scourge of falling prices? (!)
Here is the truth, whether or not you choose to recognize it, whether or not you choose to educate yourself enough to see it: The fiat money/fractional-reserve system expands the supply of credit beyond the amount of genuine savings available to underwrite the degree of capital investment and consumer lending that will come about in response to the artificially-reduced interest rate. This is the entirely predictable consequence of price-fixing. Political price-fixing cannot produce anything other than chaos and conditions more undesirable than those supposedly remedied through the intervention. Where interest rates and capital are concerned, the problem is worse because it is not limited to one constellation of the economy, but pervades all aspects, most markedly the higher orders of producers' goods (those furthest removed from the finished consumers goods), and the inevitable consequence is systemic malinvestment, and the need for a period of liquidation, contraction, and price correction (which means "deflation" is areas where prices and wages were bid too high; yet it could also mean prices may rise in other areas which were deprived of capital and resources where it would have been more value-productive).
We're already at that stage. But the best course of action is to allow the necessary corrections to occur unobstructed -- the sooner it is allowed to run its course, the sooner the economy can begin to regrow from a firm, sound foundation of economic reality.
The problem is that an inherently unsustainable condition was brought about by the monetary and political interventionism (read: economic sabotage), and the unsoundness of that condition becomes evident through the market price structure, and so prices, wages and interest rates naturally begin to readjust to the actual conditions of real supply and consumer demand.
What you advocate for when you advocate "stimulus," is the attempt to stimulate and sustain an unhealthy and unsustainable condition.
"Do you know the difference between a problem, and a predicament?
A problem has a solution. A predicament has inevitable outcomes that have to be managed.
If you are in a predicament seeking solutions then you are wasting your time, and resources,..." -Chris Martin, The Crash Course
But you failed to describe that such an interventionism is the CONSEQUENCE of the deregulations, of the derivatives, of non issued money (bills) as most exchanges are presently done by private institutions paying with shares, credits and profits on derivatives (altogether the derivatives on the whole industrial world countries already represents 1,000 TRILLIONS of non issued currencies).
This is why you can state "The fiat money/fractional-reserve system expands the supply of credit beyond the amount of genuine savings available to underwrite the degree of capital investment and consumer lending that will come about in response to the artificially-reduced interest rate."
And in America, the FED is far not independent from the private banks.
Monetarism works only and exclusively if banks and financial institutions are strictly regulated. The Tobin tax would then help to this in several ways.
Towards the end of his life, he had apparently recognized the fallacy of that viewpoint, and hinted at finally conceding the soundness of the Austrian theory. It's too bad he died before he could formally do so in writing or public statement.
But you failed to describe that such an interventionism is the CONSEQUENCE of the deregulations...
That's because that description in incorrect. You have it backwards; you're putting the cart before the horse. In fact, if it weren't for the establishment of the institution of fiat money/fractional-reserve central banking, then all the so-called "regulations" that you see as being so beneficial and necessary would have never been considered, as the problems that bring about the perceived need for them would have never come about -- those problems are in fact consequences of the fiat money/fractional-reserve system.
And in America, the FED is far not independent from the private banks.
I've never said otherwise. I've always recognized that the FED is essentially nothing more than a private banking cartel given state-sanctioned monopoly power over the supply of money and credit.
It is a fascist institution, plain and simple.
Monetarism works only and exclusively if banks and financial institutions are strictly regulated..
Monetarist policy actually assumes the pre-existence of a macroeconomic central-planning bureaucracy with monopoly privilege. What it assumes is regimentation, which is a more accurate -- if less flattering -- term for the "strict regulation" you heap so much praise on. Whether you are consciously aware of it or not, what you persistently advocate is regimentation -- i.e., the mechanics of corporate-state fascism.
Pure theory which brings in 2 VERY BIG PROBLEMS beside not fitting with today's reality:
Money wise: Circulating money as defined by this school cannot integrate the personal and industrial credits, transactions based on shares exchanges, the derivatives which increases by some 35 the basic risk.
Corporation wise: Free market (within a perfect environment) should match DEMAND and SUPPLY. However the supply can't take into consideration the obsolescence and the demand can be artificially provoked.
The best way to solve the problem is the government informing the corporations of what will be needed as production depends on medium term budgets. So the government splits the information provided among defense, public projects and siomilar; while leaving to the corporations innovations for the gross public (iPod, iPad, etc.)
In crisis times, it is far easier to provide governmental contracts to those corporations which are supporting the government.
Then why not getting the government sending representatives to be sure that the production responds to the specifications.
Well, it should be even better to have the gov. reps being member of the boards in order to ensure a "fair" share of the profits.
Therefore is, better even to shrink as much as possible the expenditures.
All of this is the consequence of the Austrian School, which has been the basis of the Italian fascism.
If nowadays you still have not understood this, it is just a matter of desparation.
Finally instead of such nonsense, why not stating directly, frankly, that you beliecve that people will be much better off if, in hard times, they could accept to sacrifice themselves in favor of the corporations' owners.
Unless you prefer the Malthusianism.
As far as I am concern, you are a fascist trying to justify your lack of respect towards what you call liberals.
And for it you make a difference between classic liberals and liberals. You have to do so in order to accept your own contradictions.
A rather important one who put the system into force "despite" being of Jewish origin, a guy who has started to disagree and was then "discharged in 1937 Fall but left completely the system about 2 years later.
Truth is that, he thought that the Nazis would apply his economics up to early 1938. Then he entered in resistance without figuring out that his politics had widely contributed to the Nazi politics.
You may feel, because he was against the Jewish laws, that Hjalmar Schacht was a "good guy" however, even against thesse laws since 1934, his application of the Austrian system has has allowed Nazism to succeed.
FASCISM IS AND REMAINS A VERY DANGEREOUS SYSTEM even if you call it corporatism, social capitalism, peronism, franquism, stalinism, communism (as it ends to be the same) or whatsoever!
To call Alan Greenspan either an "actor" or "follower" of the Austrian School of Economics further betrays your lack of understanding on the subject, which you've already amply demonstrated, for sure.
That in itself is okay. But I think that something Murray Rothbard once wrote, in an essay critiquing the so-called "anarcho-socialists," is poignant: “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.â€
Money wise: Circulating money as defined by this school cannot integrate the personal and industrial credits, transactions based on shares exchanges, the derivatives which increases by some 35 the basic risk.
This is pure baseless assertion. Why is it that you believe it necessary for government to establish a macroeconomic central planning monopoly and compel society to accept and use their unbacked paper bank notes in trade, in order for personal and industrial credit to co-exist? What is your reasoning? How can you make sense of that?
Banks facilitate exchanges between owners of personal savings accounts and credit-seeking industry all the time. The Austrian school only points out that when the credit extended to industry exceeds what has actually been made available by means of genuine savings, and this naturally has the effect of pushing interest rates below the equilibrium point of supply and demand, the inevitable result is the phony, unsustainable "boom," in which scarce productive resources are malinvested; production is expanded and prices and wages are raised in areas of the economy beyond the point which is dictated by the real conditions of consumer demand; and this all necessitates a period of correction, including contraction of those ill-affected industries, liquidation of malinvestment, and a re-ordering of the market price structure, and allowing those misallocated resources (capital, equipment and labor) to be released and then re-allocated throughout the economy to sound, sustainable positions where they best satisfy the most urgent wants and needs of the consuming public.
There is nothing unrealistic or impractical about this analysis, and the policy proposals which it naturally informs. What is impractical and unrealistic is to ignore the conclusions of the Austrian school, and falsely believe that we can continue on with the same inherently insolvent system of fractional-reserve fiat money and expect results anything different than what it's given us to date: an ever-worsening cycle of illusory, unsustainable "booms," inevitable busts, and the necessity of a period of correction called "recession."
Corporation wise: Free market (within a perfect environment) should match DEMAND and SUPPLY. However the supply can't take into consideration the obsolescence and the demand can be artificially provoked.
Again: unbacked assertion. For one thing, it doesn't require "a perfect environment" for the market to match supply and demand. That is what the market price system does; the only requirement regarding the "environment" is that the price system not be subject to arbitrary political manipulation. But then, this is just statement of a truism; it's the same as saying "the market only works where the market is permitted to work." Know what I mean?
The best way to solve the problem is the government informing the corporations of what will be needed as production depends on medium term budgets.
Gilbert, you have not demonstrated that there even is a "problem" here to be solved; let alone why entrusting politicians and bureaucrats with the function of dissemination (or potential -- nay, likely -- selective withholding) of proprietary information should be considered a viable "solution" to anything.
In crisis times, it is far easier to provide governmental contracts to those corporations which are supporting the government ... All of this is the consequence of the Austrian School, which has been the basis of the Italian fascism.
Gilbert, please, for God's sakes -- inform yourself about what it is you're speaking about, so you can debate these issues without constantly and continuously basing your argument on absurd non sequiturs and fallacious associations.
You are making a ridiculous assertion here; that totalitarian Italian Fascism was somehow based on a body of economic science which so authoritatively and irrefutably exposes the unworkable folly of totalitarian economic regimes. C'MON, MAN! Please!
Finally instead of such nonsense, why not stating directly, frankly, that you believe that people will be much better off if, in hard times, they could accept to sacrifice themselves in favor of the corporations' owners.
Maybe you could, for once, state directly and frankly, why it is that you cannot bring yourself to think clearly enough to get past such imbecilic fallacy. It's as if you think only in terms of the most naive stereotypes.
To say that someone who favors freedom must necessarily be inclined to have everyone "accept to sacrifice themselves in favor of the corporations' owners," is to display the most juvenile and confused worldview on matters political and economic, not to mention the implied, tacit assumption, which places politicians and bureaucrats on a pedestal, as omniscient and beneficent beings, whereas us ordinary citizens are backward and inherently inclined toward either idleness or self-destruction, and only saved from this fatal tendency by the wonderful hand of the superior political species.
As far as I am concern, you are a fascist trying to justify your lack of respect towards what you call liberals.
And who do I call "liberals," Gilbert? I never use that term, especially to describe "left" statists, without qualifying it; usually by "so-called."
It's so utterly ridiculous and absurd, to refer to someone who advocates adherence to objective rule of law, respect for the intrinsic rights of all individuals, social cooperation based on the principle of rightful liberty and equal justice, as a fascist (!), I'm just at a loss. The sheer ignorance of it is such that it practically defies words. How does one go about defending themselves from an argument that borders on incoherence?
And the true irony, is that as far as I'm concerned, you're just a fascist who has been so confounded by fascist indoctrination, that you can't even distinguish what exactly are the elements that constitute fascism, and are oblivious to the fact that you've been taken in by the propaganda of those who seek to establish and institutionalize those very elements that constitute fascism!
And for it you make a difference between classic liberals and liberals. You have to do so in order to accept your own contradictions.
Yes, I do make that distinction. And if you want a painstakingly clear and logical explanation for exactly why it is that I make that distinction, you will find it here: The New Toryism (Herbert Spencer).
Or rather, you'll find it if your head is not too clouded by statist nonsense to be able absorb clear common sense when it's placed right in front of you...
Sorry, Steve, I just realize that I forgot to mention another highly appreciated disciple of the Austrian School of Economics... Hjalmar Schacht
This is exemplary of your ignorance, Gilbert. You are obviously completely uninformed (or possibly misinformed, or disinformed, who knows?) concerning the Austrian School of Economics.
Just because a guy is known for anti-Marxist credentials, is known to favorably engage in "free market" rhetoric, does not make them an adherent to the Austrian School.
The very fact that both Hjalmar Schacht and Alan Greenspan voluntarily sat at the head of a monopolist central bank, itself speaks to how faithfully they adhered to the teachings of Bohm-Bawerk, Mises or Hayek: and that would be "not at all"!
To my knowledge, there is no evidence to indicate that Hjalmar Schacht even knew who Menger, Bohm-Bawerk or Mises were -- let alone read their works, let alone agreed with their work. And especially, for 100%certain, there is no evidence that either Hjalmar Schacht or Alan Greenspan allowed the work of the Austrian School economists to inform or influence their thinking in regards to policy.
FASCISM IS AND REMAINS A VERY DANGEREOUS SYSTEM even if you call it corporatism, social capitalism, peronism, franquism, stalinism, communism (as it ends to be the same) or whatsoever!
Agreed. And you're correct, they does always end the same -- and the means by which they are brought to that end is arbitrary statism. They all rely on general acceptance of collectivist ideology; whatever particular form the collectivism may be expressed in -- whether welfare statism, warfare statism, nationalist statism, authoritarian police statism; whatever.
And the opposite end of the spectrum, from all collectivist ideologies, is individualism. Individualism is based on the principle that the state must be subject to the rule of law. It is based on the principle that all individuals have intrinsic, inalienable rights to life, liberty and property; and the only legitimate scope of coercive force in society -- and thus the only legitimate scope of government in society -- is defensive. This philosophy is absolutely anathema to all collectivist/statist ideologies and the regimes which those ideologies justify.
The Austrian School of Economics is just a body of scientific knowledge -- it is not ideological, and it is what they called "wertfrei"; roughly meaning objective, or value-free. It doesn't make policy proposals or suggestions; it merely states the scientific facts, it is disinterested, it explains certain phenomena it tells us what will be the inevitable results when certain phenomena are introduced given certain conditions, etc.
What is accurate to say, is that the teachings of the Austrian economists does inform people, and people are not value-free. Therefore, a decent person informed by the Austrian economists teachings is bound to support free market policies, to oppose interventionism (especially where money and banking are concerned) to oppose protectionism, etc., because they understand that these actions carry certain inevitable consequences in the long run and on the whole population (as opposed to some economists who view only the immediate effects on a particular group of people).
At any rate, we can be certain that neither Hjalmar Schacht or Alan Greenspan were influenced by Austrian School economists; lest the implication must be that they are evil people who set out to purposely spread misery and to defraud the public to the benefit of a select, politically-connected few, knowing full well the nature and consequences of what they were doing.
And Steve further says that we should allow the necessary corrections to go unobstructed. Of course, this has been the right wing mantra for some time, and those who adhere to this belief should remember well why they feel this way, so they might be less likely to repeat their errors in judgement in the future, and I say that with all due respect for everyone's right to believe anything they want to. The reality is that the "necessary corrections" are likely to be life changing for a majority of Americans, let alone those of other nationalities. The minority, however - the upper class, for a better designation - will continue to account for a larger and larger share of the wealth and income pies.
And, make no mistake about it - this is exactly what current and past developments are all about.
And I can't end this comment without saying once again - for perhaps the one thousanth time - that the core problem is the nefarious system of money and perks that has infested our government and allowed the plutocrats to take control of our political system - at every level.
> perks that has infested our government and allowed
> the plutocrats to take control of our political system -
> at every level.
I think the core problem has been the core problem of
every economic system ever invented or implemented,
that is ultimately they all lead to concentrations or
wealth, then power, then neglectful or abusive behavior
by those on top.
Yes, our capitalist free enterprise system has channels
for those who create something of value to be rewarded
for their effort, but now one would have to estimate that
the vast majority of money that is not "in play" ie. free
capital is owned and controlled by the financial and
corporate elite and the only real innovation now happening
in the world is happening by contract to these people with
the goal of cementing their position in place and assuming
control of everyone else. In short totalitarianism.
I approach this problem from the root cause, which as
you mention Dave "seems" to be from the corruption
by money of the government, but I think that is a
repetitive problem that always develops because of
the development of a power elite and the inability of
the people to see who they are, what they are doing, and
control them if it is dangerous to the larger body politic.
To that end the power elite has spent 30+ years and
more developing systems of thinking that are all just
slightly off or skewed to their benefit that are capable
of an will switch their tactics of control the minute their
campaign financing system is disrupted or threatened.
So, my question to you Dave, or anyone else, is assuming
that whatever your pet peeve is, the Fed, campaign finance
reform, taxes, the free market, etc IS FIXED TO YOUR
SATISFACTION, do you really have that much trouble
visualizing how the power elite with all their money and
technology will be able to bypass and evade whatever
is tried?
So, we have many different ideas of what the problem
is, and it takes maybe 4 years - a presidential term -
usually more for the people to develop enough of a
concensus to throw the old bums out and put the
new bums in ... so that in anyone's lifetime there
are maybe 20 opportunities for them to have any
input at all into the system, filtered through the
absurdity of our election process. Do you really think
in your wildest dreams that
1. any effective campaign/lobby reform can be thought
of in any reasonable time frame.
2. that any system that comes up for a vote will be
effective and without loopholes and have effective
enforcement?
3. that such a system could be passed into law?
I don't. I think we are doing what is normally done
in a crisis of exclusion, musical chairs, and that is
letting a lot of people just go away and die out - in
effect making the pyramid hierarchy taller and thinner.
In the immortal words of songwriter Leonard Cohen:
Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows ...
Everybody also knows what the right thing to
do is as well, they are just not going to do it until
they know for sure they are not going to get screwed
any more or less than the next guy. People are
afraid, afraid of each other, and worried, and all that
needs to happen to maintain this confusions is to
place disruptive infuences that keep people
that way in the media and on the internet and
program people as they grow up to spout of these
absurd lines that most of them, incuding any
resident sages or know it alls.
Sorry, I really hate to be so long-winded but it is not
often I get to quite Leonard Cohen.
Well, let me respond that I don't fancy myself a "resident sage." Just a guy who felt compelled to learn a little bit more about the way the world works than just those "conventional wisdoms" that appear on the superficial surface. There is a whole universe of understanding out there to be gained; you only have to first recognize that very fact. What a lot of people would have us all believe to be wisdom, is in fact folly when you dig a little deeper. As Henry Hazlitt pointed out: Falling prices cause businesses to deplete their inventories and consumers, believing that better deals are around the corner, to defer their purchases.
For starters, during the artificially-induced "boom" phase of the cycle, some prices are bid up to a level higher than what is dictated by the real condition of consumer demand for those given commodities. It is not unhealthy that some businesses have to drop prices to clear their inventories, and if the new state of market prices shows that they can not profitably restock their inventory, then this only proves that the scarce productive resources that such businesses would require to do so would be more value-productive (from the standpoint of general social welfare) if released to be employed elsewhere in the economy.
Secondly, people cannot completely and indefinitely "defer purchases." People have to consume to live, and in a market society this means people have to purchase goods and services. It is true that many people will defer purchases of certain items until a point when they believe prices have hit bottom; but prices can only fall so far and people will wait only so long -- eventually the marker price structure irons itself out and a condition approaching equilibrium begins anew.
What Dave is basically saying, is that it's good for government to intervene to artificially keep prices from falling, at a time when so many families are struggling just to make ends meet and many more can't even do that, just because he doesn't trust that prices of certain commodities will one day stop falling (and then more than likely go up a bit from there, as typically happens during a recovery). We are supposed to shun sound economic reasoning based on the assumption that it's possible that prices can fall infinitely and people can defer consumption indefinitely.
And Steve further says that we should allow the necessary corrections to go unobstructed. Of course, this has been the right wing mantra for some time
It is not the "right wing mantra." The Republican Party of today, and of practically the entire 20th Century, has been just as much Keynesian-oriented as the Democrats. Sure, Ronald Reagan talked a good "free market" game; but he did absolutely nothing to dismantle the interventionist bureaucracy called the Fed, and government largesse was accelerated under his administration, not curbed. Same is true for Greenspan; for all his laissez faire rhetoric, it's important to remember that he did sit at the head of a socialistic central-planning institution.
Historically speaking, there was a time when the standard government attitude towards cyclical recessions was basically laissez faire. And it was up until that attitude changed, during the administration of Herbert Hoover (and then was thrown into hyperspeed reverse under FDR), that the bust-to-full-recovery phase of the business cycle was on average a period lasting from a few months to a year. Since the age of proactive interventionist government, not only have the recessions become deeper and more frequent, but the road to recovery has been made longer and more painful.
The reality is that the "necessary corrections" are likely to be life changing for a majority of Americans, let alone those of other nationalities. The minority, however - the upper class, for a better designation - will continue to account for a larger and larger share of the wealth and income pies.
That is sheer ignorant assertion, Dave. And I take no pleasure in calling you out on that, believe me.
The plain truth is that it is the measures taken precisely to preclude the necessary corrections, those measures which amount to nothing more than a repudiation of the judgments made by the free market (which are nothing other than an aggregation of the personal value judgments of individuals), which in practice amount to enriching the wealthy few at the top, securing a golden parachute for them and insulating them from the consequences of their own actions and decisions, at the expense and undue hardship of everyone else, mostly the working middle class and poor.
You might question, Dave, why it is that you feel the way you do about these issues.
Have your convictions been critically thought out and put under the light of sound scientific reasoning?
Or are they perhaps the product of uncritically-accepted conclusions which have been prefabricated and doled out to all of us by elite-controlled institutions as if on an opinion-molding assembly line?
You regularly pick out quotes from your economic heroes, but you rarely show any evidence that you understand what it was that those people wanted to motivate in society and the world.
In this specific issue I happen to mostly agree with you, but not for any of the "reasons" you use to justify it. I think BOTH you and Dave are being vague on the subject at hand. I don't blame either of you for being vague, because it would be like me trying to describe what is going on in the Large Hadron Collider searching for the "God" particle. I have a bit of an idea what they are doing, but not enough to explain it, and neither does any one else. I would be vague too. Even if I was a nuclear physcist, why on Earth if I really understood my subject would be on Gather trying to impress people who have no idea what I am talking about.
This is what makes economics NOT a "Have your convictions been critically thought out and put under the light of sound scientific reasoning?" kind of thing, which you just shot at Dave .. what hypocrisy. You are in no way coming off like any type of scientist, every single one of your posts I have read all 100% propaganda, aimed to intimidate and convince. I am not really sure why, but it appears you are shilling for some kind of Libertarian ideal. That you are also dishonest about preferring to hide behind the branding of the "free market". In politics they say patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, and in economics I think it is bowing and hand-waving about the free market.
I think that is why you are so incredibly unsuccessful, except with the people who already use the same terms you do and bandy about the same names.
You do not speak for the free market, and the airs you put on when you pretend to I just find something I cannot resist poking fun at ... too bad you show no evidence of a sense of humor either.
Wrong. I started out as a self-described "progressive." I only gradually (and often grudgingly) was forced to let go of my preconceived notions, one at a time, as I was presented with irrefutable, logic-based proof of their folly.
I can look back now and realize that all those misconceptions were the product of lifelong indoctrination, which teaches us to think with our emotions and not our heads; because a population of independent critical thinkers is anathema to tyrants.
You seem to know just enough to baffle a lot of folks with BS, and keep repeating the same statements, but not enough to feel comfortable and conversant thinking and really dealing with concepts.
Wow. And yet, you consistently refuse to engage me in any meaningful debate on anything specific that I've said. You just dismiss out of hand and resort to your standard tactic of ad hominem attack.
It seems to me that I'm the one here who wants to think and really deal with concepts. You just want to toss insults, as if you could intimidate your way into winning an argument of ideas.
You regularly pick out quotes from your economic heroes, but you rarely show any evidence that you understand what it was that those people wanted to motivate in society and the world.
Then enlighten me, Bruce. You can't prove that I lack understanding of those you call my "economic heroes" by mere assertion.
Why don't you enlighten me as to what it was you think my economic heroes really wanted to motivate in society and the world.
What secret knowledge do you have, that your keen mind was able to pick up but which escapes so many of the rest of us, proving some insidious, hidden motives of the Austrian school economists or the classical liberal philosophers?
This is what makes economics NOT a "Have your convictions been critically thought out and put under the light of sound scientific reasoning?" kind of thing, which you just shot at Dave .. what hypocrisy.
What ignorance! That is exactly the "kind of thing" economics is. Economics is a science, just as inherently valid as any other science. The only difference is that economics is a priori in nature, and it's methodology is verbal (not expressed in the form of equations). But the subject matter of economics absolutely can be reduced to apodictic premises. The praxeological method of the Austrian school begins with the axiom of human action. It uses logical deduction to build outward from there. As long as each link in the chain of deductive reasoning is demonstrably sound, then the entire body of knowledge derived therefrom is just as axiomatic as the original premise.
Maybe if you made some sort of effort to inform yourself about these subjects before presuming to speak so authoritatively and denouncing them, then I wouldn't have to go into these "long-winded posts" to refute the unending train of fallacies that you consistently regurgitate here.
You are in no way coming off like any type of scientist, every single one of your posts I have read all 100% propaganda, aimed to intimidate and convince.
So says Master Bruce. Since what I write doesn't mesh well with your preconceived notions, then it obviously has to be wrong, and therefore all of my defenses of it (no matter how soundly reasoned) just cannot be anything other than "propaganda."
Got it.
I am not really sure why, but it appears you are shilling for some kind of Libertarian ideal.
Well, the fact that you see it that way is probably due to two facts: (1) I am indeed a libertarian; and (2) you are a conceited, pompous ass who dismisses any information contrary to his comfortable pre(mis)conceptions as being necessarily wrong, and anyone who dares express ideas or opinions in that category as being necessarily a "shill."
That you are also dishonest about preferring to hide behind the branding of the "free market". In politics they say patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, and in economics I think it is bowing and hand-waving about the free market.
Ahhh, I see. To you, the entire idea of social cooperation without authoritarian overlords is inherently flawed, ex ante; and thus anyone who even entertains the concept of free markets is necessarily "bowing" and "hand-waving," and also must be a scoundrel.
10-4. Got it.
I think that is why you are so incredibly unsuccessful, except with the people who already use the same terms you do and bandy about the same names.
What the hell would you know about how successful I am? Just because you're unwilling or unable to debate these issues on their merits, doesn't mean that everyone suffers the same intellectual bankruptcy as you.
In full recognition of the fact that I have no reason whatsoever to justify my efforts to you, I will say that I have had more than a handful of people at this very site, in the comment threads of my articles and in my personal gather mailbox, tell me that I've made the subject matter of economics clearer and easier to grasp than they knew possible, and thank me for my time and effort doing so.
But I guess since I'm unable to bust through Bruce K.'s stubborn wall of purposeful ignorance, then I guess I should just pack it in?
I've been too busy to be on Gather previously.
Yes, indeed, Dave what you describe is real and is being attended.
However there are many problems to solve inside and among the most industrial countries and (outside) in their relationships with the emerging countries.
The main problem, IMO, is about "our" relations with the Renmibi: A revaluation of it would imply high losses for China who funded the ME wars adding on top of it slowing down its economic development. Expensive for who helped us since 2002! And quite expensive for us in some specific areas!
I am afraid that economists are trying to figure out a huge devaluation of the Euro and of the Dollar; while, hawks, are suggesting a new ME war ...
About less than 4 weeks ago, some hawks already told Europe that America has enough energy as to replace most of the Iranian oil ...
Partially, next year elections in America AND in Europe are also a problem as the Occupy movement takes place everywhere and will not accept a new war.
The recent elections in Europe, Switzerland included, show a strong return of the left and of any war refusals. To the point that the main owners of our industries are starting to figure out a sound system change. This why fighting corruption is beginning to raise "bells".
On top of it, we are under the threat of Russia, South Africa and ME countries due to the highly over-priced gold (created by the fake market on it). If they pour into the market a bit too much gold, many banks will be in a very tough position and they are aware of it, of course.
For the small history Switzerland will introduce next April a new 18Kt gold alloy which is so hard that only diamonds can scratch it. This alloy will allow jewellery and gold watches to keep their shining properties among others.
If the Chinese do not do this, the rest of the world "should" lock them out ... but the Chinese have also been clever and the west has been either unbelievably stupid or had out leaders brided into buying the rope that we are going to hang ourselves with, just as Mao predicted. Mao who ran his country into the ground and killed millions.
The west has employed Chinese all over the place, given them work and money to invest to become part of the larger world, it is really up to them to get with it. Any hit they would have to take would mostly be on paper anyway, since we would still be exporting to the rest of the world.
1. You should be aware that all our investments in China are our properties up to 50%. This means that China could expropriate all our investments if so wished.
2. You should be aware that China is a huge market despite the fact that the average monthly wage do not exceed 80 dollars. If China has to access democracy, it has as well need to have an increasing GDP which could ensure a market for us.
3. Military speaking, despite manufacturing some spare parts for us, China has the means to reach our own properties outside the country. And on top of it, thanks to the actual help of China, North Korea has not used against us any nuclear weapon.
4. We have, with China, very interesting links which provides many informations to us.
In economy, no action can have an isolated consequence and the feeback, even if Friedman ignored it, is rather important.
And then, the lobbyists would have no occasion to corrupt the political process, because the entire political process would be purely negative, i.e., explicitly defensive of the rights of individuals.
But hey, what do I know? I'm sure we can continue to accept that government is a power unto itself, and expect that such awesome, arbitrary power will ever be able to exist uncorrupted by the worst among us for any significant period of time.
Sure. That's not utopian. It's those stupid libertarians, those are the ones who are "utopian."
A legitimate democratic government should have dominance over any private power. To say otherwise is allowing for some place where a king or tyrant should rule because of economic fortunes, which our sage keeps referring to as the free market.
What we have now is the results of a long, well-planned, broady-based as these things go, reactionary coup of the .05%. .05% is actually very broadly based, and with our media and PR technology it can even appear larger than it really is, and hide its true nature, but in no way it is democratic or legitimate.
In the first place, the US Constitution does not explain a government that is a power unto itself. The Constitution was intended to create a government whose "just powers are derived from the consent of the governed," as explained in the Declaration of Independence.
The only legitimate government is one that derives it's authority from those governed. And people cannot delegate authority to a government if they do not possess that authority themselves.
I have no legitimate authority to tell you what you can or can't say, write, read, eat, smoke, do, etc.; my only domain for applying coercive force upon you is in defense of my own person or property against initiatory force or fraud imposed by you. And thus I cannot rightfully delegate authority to any other person, or group of people, whether calling themselves "government" or anything else, to arbitrarily interfere with your natural rights as an individual -- and neither can anyone else.
We, as individuals, have the right to use coercive force only in defense of persons and property. We also have the right to combine this individual right, to provide for the constant, general defense of persons and property against force or fraud. This is the origin of law, of justice.
To say that government is a power unto itself, is to say that the collective force has been given to us, not to establish and maintain equal justice (the necessary foundation of social tranquility and progress), but rather to destroy justice; not to protect equally the intrinsic rights of all, but to wantonly trample the rights of some at the behest of others.
"A legitimate democratic government should have dominance over any private power."
Of course government should have the capability to dominate any person or group who aggresses against the life, liberty or property of non-aggressors. The defining characteristic of "government" is a monopoly on violence; if an agency does not have the strength to maintain and enforce that condition, then it does not remain "government" for long.
But this is different from what you're saying. What you're saying is that government should be considered as having legitimate arbitrary power over all individuals. You're saying, in effect, that we, as individuals, should be considered as having no rights, but only those privileges which the ruling political class deems suitable for us to have.
You're saying that a condition of equal justice and individual liberty is not in the "best interests of society," that what is in the "best interests of all the people" is to have a class of overlords empowered to impose arbitrary compulsions and restrictions upon us all, presumably because ordinary people cannot be trusted to be free, that left to our own free will and discretion we are doomed to idleness or self-destruction, and that we can only be saved from this fatal tendency by the omniscient, beneficent hand of the superior species, the politician.
"To say otherwise is allowing for some place where a king or tyrant should rule because of economic fortunes, which our sage keeps referring to as the free market."
You just can't even conceive of human society separate from the notion of arbitrary statism, can you?
The whole point of the principle of "rule of law" implied in the concept of limited government, is that no one should have the power of "a king or a tyrant."
The law should protect equally the life, liberty and property of all, and thereby leave no room in society for anyone to violate or exploit anyone else.
The whole problem with the principle of arbitrary statism which you espouse, is that it provides a convenient vehicle for the most unscrupulous among us to subjugate and plunder the rest of us, with practically no personal risk to themselves, under the ostensibly legitimate auspices of the law!
And please; you quite obviously have no inkling what it is that I am referring to when I speak of the free market. You want to just pick and choose whatever undesirable aspects of the world we live in you think you can make stick, and hamhandedly insert them into your vision of what it is you think constitutes "the free market," especially as it applies to what I write on these threads. It's not a legitimate form of argumentation.
Is this supposed to be an argument? You are just complaining about my terminology. I guess that shows you cannot unpack and decode words and sentences unless they are in slogan format that you have heard before and gotten the nod to use. Think for yourself Steve - I said think, not pontificate. You're not the pope.
>> "just powers are derived from the consent of the governed,"
Which is what I said in differnent terms.
If you cannot make an effort past just trying to nail me for not using your words or believing your pretend authority, why waste my time, and your own.
I think is is you that has no inkling of what the free market is that you are referring to. You have lots of canned words from other people, but you are unprepared to express concepts in your own words and think on your feet. I said think, not cut and paste.
You hide behind posts that are incredible long and tiresome to read, because you just do not seem to be willing to actually talk to anyone here as an equal partner in finding solutions. your very sentenses are at odds with each other. "argumentation" ... "argument" ?? you simply must pad every single thing you do. With you argument is a form of hostility, not a method of free inquiry.
Does this ring a bell at all for you?:
> It is important not to confuse opposition
> against the latter kind of planning
> with a dogmatic laissez faire attitude.
> The liberal argument does not advocate
> leaving things just as they are; it
> favours making the best possible use
> of the forces of competition as a means
> of coordinating human efforts. It is
> based on the conviction that, where
> effective competition can be created,
> it is a better way of guiding individual
> efforts than any other. It emphasizes
> that in order to make competition work
> beneficially a carefully thought-out
> legal framework is required, and that
> neither the past nor the existing legal
> rules are free from grave defects.
Understood in its proper context this comment deflates all of your thousands of lines of commentary.
No, I am not. I was responding to the logical implications of what you said; not criticizing how you said it.
There is a very definite chasm between the ideas involved here; my argument here deals with what side of that chasm you are on. I am not nitpicking word selection.
Either a system of laws regards all individuals as equal with intrinsic rights, and holds those entrusted with codifying and enforcing the laws as equals subject to the same standards as everyone else; or else a system of laws regards those in possession of political power (those directing the apparatus of government) as a power unto themselves.
The difference here is not ambiguous. If we uphold the former to be true, then the latter is necessarily out of the question.
If we hold the concepts spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, and codified in the Constitution, to be true, then we cannot accept arbitrary government power as being legitimate. All of the laws must be limited to the sphere of defense of people and property against force or fraud to be consistent with that principle.
If you once concede that the government should be considered as having legitimate authority to impose arbitrary compulsions or restrictions upon the rest of us, then at the same time you repudiate the principle of natural individual rights and equal justice which was the foundation of the US Constitution, and is in fact the foundation of the concept of "rule of law" properly understood.
>> "just powers are derived from the consent of the governed,"
Which is what I said in different terms.
No, it is not. That government should be considered "a power all unto itself" (your words) is not the same thing as a government whose powers are derived only from the consent of the governed; it is the polar opposite. This is not semantical nitpicking. All of this is clearly dictated by plain common sense. It is precisely the idea of government power being limited to "just powers derived from the consent of the governed," which constitutes the conceptual alternative to government as a power unto itself. The two ideas are not only distinct; they are mutually exclusive. They are the very definition of "polar opposites"!
And yet you are arguing that you use the terminology of these two contradictory ideas to mean the same thing. You are either hopelessly confused, or else shamelessly dishonest.
I think is is you that has no inkling of what the free market is that you are referring to.
In that case, I invite you to the "posts" archive of my profile page. I've written several articles on the subject of economics, and I always try to explain things as clearly and thoroughly as I can, and I typically try to anticipate frequently-offered objections and deal with them pre-emptively. Most of the articles there also have dozens (or even hundreds) of comments in the thread below, where I usually have further elaborated on the content of the article and answered questions and objections.
In particular, I would point you to here, here, here, here, or here. (But again, you're welcome to go to my profile page and pick out any of the articles I've written). If you want to criticize the extent of my understanding of economics, then I think those articles would be the best place to do it.
I'd be happy to discuss it further there.
You have lots of canned words from other people, but you are unprepared to express concepts in your own words and think on your feet. I said think, not cut and paste.
Hogwash. Baseless accusation. All of the words I write here or elsewhere are my own unless clearly indicated otherwise. Of course my ideas have been informed by the ideas of countless others before me; but that's the case for practically everyone. I've read more books than I care to recount on the subjects of economics and political philosophy and history over the last 5+ years, and I've come across some passages and some authors who explained concepts in a way that I found very convincing and easy to grasp and express, so I may often tend to borrow certain examples or techniques or even phrases from them, either knowingly or subconsciously. But I certainly do not plagiarize, and I resent the accusation.
You hide behind posts that are incredible long and tiresome to read, because you just do not seem to be willing to actually talk to anyone here as an equal partner in finding solutions
As I've told you before, I make an effort to explain myself clearly and thoroughly, in recognition of the fact that these topics, and especially my position on them, are not conducive to being properly dealt with in soundbite-sized snippets.
You don't have to read my entire post, but the explanations are there for anyone who would like to read them; and also so as to avoid the appearance of appeal to self-authority.
Just because I decline to concede validity to ideas or proposals that I consider ineffective or counterproductive, does not mean that I'm not interested in solutions or not arguing in good faith.
I just happen to see the folly in turning to arbitrary government interventionism as an attempted solution to the problems caused by arbitrary government interventionism. My purpose is to prove that the undesirable conditions we are dealing with are in fact products of arbitrary statism, and that we can only correct the situation by adherence to the rule of law.
"argumentation" ... "argument" ?? you simply must pad every single thing you do.
That's not padding. The two words have different connotations. I apologize if my attempt to be as concise as possible with language offends you, Bruce. I happen to think that ambiguity in terms and concepts contributes a great deal to misunderstandings and especially to the dissemination of fallacy and error. I guess I go out of my way to say precisely what I mean. Please forgive me.
With you argument is a form of hostility, not a method of free inquiry.
Really? Between the two of us, which is it who impugns the motives of the other?
I at least accept your arguments as being in good faith. I don't accuse you of having ulterior motives. I accept that you are genuinely interested in finding solutions to social problems; I just think that you're confused and taken in by sophisms and fallacies.
I take for granted that you are interested in the best interests of everyone, the same as I am. I just contend that while we share the same ends, we disagree on proper means. I contend that the means you advocate are not properly suited to the ends you seek, and in fact are counterproductive.
Does this ring a bell at all for you? ... >> << Understood in its proper context this comment deflates all of your thousands of lines of commentary.
Kind of, yes; it does ring a bell. Seems like it might be Hayek, maybe from "The Road to Serfdom"?
And actually, understood in its proper context, that passage backs up my argument more so than it "deflates" it.
This is not a call for arbitrary government intervention. If this is indeed Hayek, then it is made clear throughout the rest of the book that by "legal framework" he means a definite framework of non-invasive rules that apply equally and evenly throughout society (i.e., non-arbitrary); not that politicians and bureaucrats should be empowered to positively dictate to the economic decisions of businesses and/or consumers. It is not a justification of all arbitrary interventionism that passes as "regulation" today; which is more akin to fascist-state regimentation than it is an objective, non-invasive "legal framework" as advocated by Hayek, Mises, Hazlitt, and other Austrian economists who conceded the legitimacy of *properly understood* government, as differentiated from Rothbard and Hoppe's market anarchism, but even more so as opposed to the Keynesian model of proactive, arbitrary interventionist statism.
Why do you feel you can or should blather on for 8245 characters, 1406 words and 54 sentences - counted by the UNIX wc command?
You are truly unbalanced Steve. You would not benefit even from psychological help until you can see just how absurd the waste of your time and life writing these things is. You lack a sense of balance, and judgement, which means in addititon to your misunderstanding of work you most often quote you are not mentally suited to understand or apply it because you are driven by factors you are so unconscious about.
You take yourself way too seriously for someone who does not really seem to understand themself.
But I will react to on thing. That is - of course you can see motives, I understand them and put them out there the best most simplest way I can, and I use as the proof of my motives the OUTCOME and am willing to use reality to modify the system. Your suggestion is about unconditionally following something you neither cannot or will not explain and that is fixed for all time, an argument from authority, like the Bible or the Constitution, not that either is bad, they are just fixed things. We are not at the end of time, so we have no such absolute knowledge, the only think we can know is whether we are getting the job done or not, and that does not matter to you apparently. I believe you think the system you support has the capacity to punish justly those who are evil. Same in the quote I put up.
>> This is not a call for arbitrary government intervention.
No one said it was. This is filler, a non-sequitur. Virtually everything in Steve's posts and most posts I can recall of yours are filled with one after another or irrelevant unresponsive verbiage that evades the issue. There is nothing but slogans to indicate any familiarity at all with economics, and all twistings of meanings of the original ideas expressed.
I would expect you to rally with this strategy simply because it sounds lie your rhetoric. The fact is that neither of you two evidences understanding of what the people you quote mean when they discuss the free market, further you just ignore or attack uncritically modern thinking, developments or criticisms of your antiquated notions. If you were not so deceitful you would not need to post hundreds of lines leading away from the question. It's why they put a time limit on debates.
3 minutes time to offer a detailed refutation of so much deep-seated nonsense seems like yeoman's work, to me.
it is not debate, it is one or another form of pile on. For example,
>> This is not a call for arbitrary government intervention.
No one said it was. This is filler, a non-sequitur
Then why did you paste that passage, Bruce? Wasn't your purpose for providing it to "deflate" my argument?
Isn't the the basis of our disagreement here, in a nutshell? You believe in the legitimacy of arbitrary government, I believe in properly-understood rule of law; you offer this passage as an apparent refutation of my position, then isn't it sort of implied that the passage should be taken as an argument against my position?
There is nothing but slogans to indicate any familiarity at all with economics, and all twistings of meanings of the original ideas expressed.
One example please? Just one.
The fact is that neither of you two evidences understanding of what the people you quote mean when they discuss the free market
What quoted people are you referring to? My posts are more often than not at least 99% my own words.
Maybe you could provide an example, Bruce. Enlighten us. In what way is my understanding of what is meant by a "free market" different than either what it is you think really constitutes a free market, or different from the understanding of anyone I've ever quoted to state my case.
further you just ignore or attack uncritically modern thinking, developments or criticisms of your antiquated notions.
That's actually pretty funny; that someone who adheres to the ancient barbaric principles of Power by Numbers and Might Makes Right would accuse people who adhere to the ideals of Enlightenment of "uncritically attacking modern thinking."
News flash, Bruce: Libertarianism is the relatively modern, enlightened mode of thinking. Your worldview is just rehashed and regurgitated variations of same antiquated notions that have acted to reverse progress in civilization for all human history: Might Makes Right as a political ideology, the ancient mercantilist fallacies dressed up in new Keynesian terminology as an economic model.
The difference between me and you Bruce, is I actually have the intellectual chops to hold up my end of the debate with logical explanation.
Your tactic is to make assertions and then revert to ad hominem attack when those assertions are methodically disposed of as the intellectual waste matter that they are; as you have no reason-based defense of them.
It did,but no matter what anyone says to you that Libertarian Energizer Bunny routine just keeps on posting the same stuff! If you have any trouble you email your friends to jump in, or your other account, whatever it is.
It really doesn't matter to me what you think or how many hours you want to spend on these posts, but you never get to the meat of the issue. That is how do you propose to make a change within the structure of what we now have? The radical Libertarian agenda just serves to remove the last vestage of democratic input, reasonable regulation to support fair markets, and the social safety net to make people really desperate, so those with wealth and power have no responsiblility to anyone else. Pretty retrograde sounding to me.
1. What parties do you support?
2. What policies do you support?
3. What politicians come closest to your beliefs and are they close enough to actually vote for?
4. If elected what can they do to change things for the better?
5. If your ideas were implemented, how do you evaluate its effectiveness, or is putting a fascist Libertarian agenda in place for the rich to have complete control over the government your end in itself?
6. If things are not better for most people, what would you do besides posting long reasons why you are so correct based on Austrian economists.
6a. By the way, how's that economic super-power Austria doing these days?
Just some of the questions I never hear you address. And don't act like I am attacking you for no reason, we have had long discussions where I've made an effort to communicate with you, but you refuse to come out of your little box and use regular words and regular things that can be measured. Some I see a particularly long condescending bunch of posts under and article I am reading and it just bugs me. I should just ignore you like I do Jerry K.
I say the passage you pasted actually supports my argument. I provided an explanation why. In turn, you (predictably) revert back to sheer ad hominem and reassert your original flawed assertion.
If I do find myself posting the same stuff, it's because you persist in regurgitating fallacies even after I've provided the reasoned refutation of them. You in turn dismiss those refutations out of hand, as if your own mere refusal to deal with them is somehow sufficient to discredit them, and carry on from there.
This is not a debate. This is me trying to debate you with logic and reason, and you responding with naked appeal to self-authority and ad hominem attack.
And I did not, and have not, emailed anyone to jump in on my behalf. I'm perfectly willing and able to dispose of your simplistic nonsense on my own. I don't need the reassurance of anyone here to be secure in my position. That said, I do appreciate it when others acknowledge my effort; but I'm not so insecure or craven as to proactively seek it out.
It really doesn't matter to me what you think or how many hours you want to spend on these posts, but you never get to the meat of the issue.
Yes, I do. That is exactly where I'm at; right at the heart of the issue. You can't get any further into the "meat of the issue" than dealing with the opposing fundamental premises that underlie the principles of collectivism as against individualism, and how those principles affect social cooperation.
The fact that you fail to realize this just speaks to your own lack of insight on these issues. I am not at fault because you are unwilling or unable to think past the superficial surface.
That is how do you propose to make a change within the structure of what we now have?
Yes. Precisely. What has to change is the very philosophy of government, by which it operates and is generally accepted as being legitimate.
We have to recognize that the only just and proper sphere of coercive force is in defense of individual rights; and that any application of the force of government beyond the simple maintenance of equal justice must necessarily turn it into a vehicle of injustice.
We have to learn enough to recognize that the root of so much social ill can be traced back to the consequences of arbitrary statism. That people have had the wool pulled over their eyes for so long is to blame for the fact that the political class has for so long utilized the undesirable consequences of interventionism as a pretense for more interventionism (using the consequences of the substitution of coercive state power for voluntary social power as a justification for further usurpation of social power into state power).
The insanity has to stop somewhere. There is no doubt that people like you are eventually going to come to an epiphany; you are eventually going to learn and come over to my side on these issues. The only question is how bad will be the rude awakening that serves as the catalyst for the epiphany.
The radical Libertarian agenda just serves to remove the last vestage of democratic input, reasonable regulation to support fair markets, and the social safety net to make people really desperate, so those with wealth and power have no responsibility to anyone else. Pretty retrograde sounding to me.
Yeah, nice summary of the naiveté and superficial stereotypes that comprise your worldview.
Maybe it hasn't occurred to you that "democratic input" and "reasonable regulation to support fair markets" are very often used as bumper-sticker slogans to justify the very policies that result in the kind of undesirable conditions that you then turn around and point to as evidence of the need for more political and bureaucratic interventionism under the auspices of "democratic input" and "reasonable regulation to support fair markets."
"Reasonable" and "fair" here are subjective terms; they can be used to rationalize whatever policies the speaker is seeking to impose.
The only government policy that can be said to be objectively "reasonable" and "fair" is simply to protect the person and property of all individuals equally. Anything beyond that is just one group of people imposing their own arbitrary whim and discretion upon others, appealing to "fairness" and "democracy" and "reasonable regulation" as justification for their subjugation and/or plunder.
As to the "social safety net," in the first place, when a person opposes something being done by coercion, it does not then follow that the person objects to that thing being done at all. Just because I object to charity at gunpoint and forced association, does not mean that I am opposed to charity as such or voluntary association.
Secondly, maybe you were unaware that there is an argument to be made that the programs that comprise the so-called "social safety net" have done exponentially more to aggravate poverty and misery (particularly among those groups most considered as being "helped" by them), they have incentivized dependence and an entitlement mentality, in place of the natural incentives toward self-improvement and independence that prevail when social cooperation is based on mutually-voluntary contract and exchange.
What is very "retrograde sounding" to me is to judge the merits of government policy simply by superficially considering the purported aims of the politicians who initiate it, the rhetoric used in support of it, or at best by considering the immediate effects of the policy on the select group of people; instead of critically examining what are the long-term effects of a given policy, on the whole population, irrespective of the bumper-sticker sloganeering used in support of it.
You should take some corporate classes in things like project management, process improvement, various six sigma, from that comment it is really obvious to me you got nothing. Specifically how change is managed and institutionalized. You are not even serious enough to be living in a fantasy world if you fail to get this.
It is like saying, what needs to happen with radical Islam is reformation. Most thinking people already know that or believe it, but the only thing that actually changes people is violence, guns and bombing - and that changes people in unpredictable ways, that is it is as likely to turn them against change or even considering it.
Your faith in "whatever", since you do not get down to brass tack specifics is just plain dangerous. You arguments unconvincing since you cannot reduce them to get democratic buy in, and you "sound" the same as radical Libertarianism.
You're just funny if you think this stuff is going to convince of change anyone.
At least when I criticize you I have a point.
>> maybe you were unaware that there is an argument to be made that the programs that comprise the so-called "social safety net" have done exponentially more to aggravate poverty and misery
LOL, yeah, I am aware of that. You might not be aware that because someone makes an argument does not mean it is valid. There are arguments against environmentalism, against education, against democracy - why we have a republic, for slavery, for smoking, and oddly enough all the ones on the wrong side of history sound suspiciously like you Steve.
You like to call my worldview uninformed and naive, but all you can do is find the closed parody in your repetoire and bale up the straw and toss it my way. We've probably read many of the same books and come across many of the same ideas, the difference is that instead of taking things on faith I took a critical look at all that I read and ruled out things that do not jibe with reality.
Again ... how is the Austrian economic miracle coming along?
Where you found your preconceived nothing that appeal to your for reasons you do not disclose and that you can only argue from some vague philosphical POV, I look at the problems and solutions, filtering them to the best of my ability through the lens of other fields that I am involved in and other points of views.
At the root you are simply a bigot, because you have invested so much in this thing of yours you have painted yourself into a corner unable to change or even put yourself outside of that antiquated corner. The world moves on, the problems are symptoms of parts of the system that we do not understand amplified over time by people's behaviors. A system is something that needs engineering and maintenance, not something you get fixed and whole from some authority - nothing humans have ever done or thought of is good enough for that.
None. I support (or decline to support) individuals, based on the merits of their ideas and whether I consider them trustworthy (or not).
2. What policies do you support?
I support equal justice, aka the Rule of Law. In fact, I don't even like to confuse matters with ambiguous language by referring to the arbitrary decrees of politicians and bureaucrats and judges as "law." To me, law is something objective and immutable. No individual has any right to initiate force or fraud against another individual or their property. That is the Law.
Any coercive force imposed beyond that, the simple maintenance of the rights of all individuals to be free from initiatory aggression and fraud, is not genuinely "law," but is in fact contrary to law. It is just thuggery and/or thievery writ large.
Therefore, I support, generally, a policy of repeal and abolition; a policy of dismantling the massive federal Leviathan state, and replacing it with a common-sense government bound by the Constitution.
3. What politicians come closest to your beliefs and are they close enough to actually vote for?
Ron (and to a slightly lesser extent, Rand) Paul, and yes.
4. If elected what can they do to change things for the better?
If Ron Paul were elected president? For starters, he could immediately bring home all the troops from all the bases around the world, instantly saving the taxpayers $ hundreds of billions if not $ trillions, as well beginning the process of repairing America's reputation around the world, as well as strengthening national defense (rightly understood), all in one fell swoop. He could immediately abolish a handful of costly and counterproductive (not to mention unconstitutional) federal bureaucracies, such as HUD, the Dept's of Education and Commerce, the EPA, the TSA, etc., at once freeing Americans from assault on personal liberty as well as freeing up taxpayer dollars to be spent by the people who earn the money, providing the economic growth to absorb the additions to the workforce from disbanding bureaucrats. He could instruct all cabinet-level offices to scrupulously observe the constitutional boundaries of their authority. He would have the famous power of the "bully pulpit," so he would have the means to further elaborate on his positions, to better explain the benefits of Constitutional fidelity and the dangers of overreaching government, to help people understand the process of how the consequences of Big Government interventionism have been co-opted by statists and utilized as supposed justification for further aggrandizement and expansion of government power, and how this constitutes the insane downward spiral toward socialism this country has experienced over the last century.
5. If your ideas were implemented, how do you evaluate its effectiveness, or is putting a fascist Libertarian agenda in place for the rich to have complete control over the government your end in itself?
Okay; in the first place, "fascist Libertarian agenda" makes absolutely no sense. It's an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. The philosophies of fascism and libertarianism cancel each other out. They are part and parcel to the very definition of "polar opposites" as I explained to you above. Fascism is a collectivist, authoritarian ideology. Economically speaking, it is marked by statist regimentation -- very much akin to a lot of what goes by the misnomer of "regulation" in the "soft fascism" of corporate-state America today. The corporate elite favor this situation, because they'd prefer to not have to deal with things like the threat of emerging free enterprise competition, or having to rely on their ability to continually cater to the fickle, ever-changing whims of the consuming public for their profits.
Libertarianism, on the other hand, is an individualist ideology. Libertarianism systematically dismantles the superficial rationale that supports statist/collectivist ideology, such as fascism.
See, most libertarians became libertarians because they became educated enough to see the juvenile, fallacious nature of the worldview paradigm that equates free markets and individual liberty with plutocracy and class-warfare exploitation.
6. If things are not better for most people, what would you do besides posting long reasons why you are so correct based on Austrian economists.
I would investigate. I would seek answers, with an open mind. After all, that's what led to me where I am now; from a starting point where I considered myself a "progressive," and was a victim of many of the same confusions and misconceptions as you.
Anyhow, seeing as how your ideology in favor of arbitrary government interventionism has been in operation, and has indeed been expanded by epic proportions, over the last century now, and we can look around and see where it has gotten us, what do you intend to do about it, besides clamoring for bigger and stronger doses of the very poison that has ailed us, and vociferously attacking those of us recalcitrant enough to suggest maybe we should give liberty and justice a try for a change?
6a. By the way, how's that economic super-power Austria doing these days?
Not so great. But that's to be expected, given that they have followed the rest of Western civilization down the Keynesian rabbit hole for last half-century or more.
"Austrian School of Economics" does not refer to an actual *school* or to the geographic region of Austria, Bruce. It refers to a definite set of ideas, or rather a specific scientific methodology (called praxeology), which happens to have been first elucidated by Austrians Carl Menger, Eugen Bohm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek.
The social or economic state of the country of Austria today has absolutely nothing to do with the body of knowledge referred to as "Austrian economics."
I can't tell if you're being purposely obtuse, or if you have a psychological need to disgree with me that it precludes your ability to think past even the most shallow point of reference.
When I talk about changing the philosophy of government, I am not referring to any point along the superficial "ideological spectrum" which separates the meaningless squabbles between the collectivist "right wing" and the collectivist "left wing."
It is not so apparent to everyone that the entire philosophy of government needs to be changed; and that is precisely because people have had the wool pulled over their eyes for so long and to where most people now think strictly in terms of the supposed "alternatives" of collectivist "conservatism" and collectivist "liberalism." Most people aren't even aware that there is a real alternative, of individualism, because that viewpoint has been so systematically cut out of the debate and disallowed from consideration for so long.
I am saying that our choices cannot continue to be strictly limited between the alternatives of welfare/nanny-statism on the one hand, and warfare/corporate/police-statism on the other. The real alternative of Rule of Law must be open for consideration. We should be permitted the option of ridding ourselves of both "left-wing" and "right-wing" arbitrary statism, at the same time.
That option has not been available for a long time -- at least since Barry Goldwater's candidacy. Until now, that is, that we have the opportunity to voice our desire for a policy of peace, prosperity, and justice through voting for Ron Paul for president.
Your faith in "whatever", since you do not get down to brass tack specifics is just plain dangerous.
Why do you assume that my position is reduced to "faith in 'whatever'"?
I have an understanding of political philosophy and of economics. That precludes the need for any "faith."
In truth, it is you whose position can be boiled down to a dangerous faith. You have an inexplicable faith that we can continue to entrust human beings with awesome, arbitrary power over the lives, freedoms and property of all others in society, and that it could ever result in anything better than what it has given us to date.
That, Bruce, is a dangerous faith.
You arguments unconvincing since you cannot reduce them to get democratic buy in, and you "sound" the same as radical Libertarianism.
You are as presumptuous as you are confused. I easily reduce my arguments to what you call a "democratic buy in."
Every individual desires liberty and justice for themselves. That is the common denominator. The problem is that not everyone is willing to extend to all others the same liberty and justice they would have for themselves. But, for one thing, that is antisocial; and the apparatus of government should always be made to work toward the social benefit, not the antisocial selfish interests of groups. For another thing, it is true that social progress and prosperity is in the best interests of all indivduals, and this is demonstrably true, and thus people can be taught, that it is in the best interests of everyone that government should extend the blessings of liberty and justice to all individuals equally, as opposed to acting as a vehicle for groups to cater to their own selfish interests by subjugating and plundering others.
I recognize that it would be difficult to convince a lot of people who have become so accustomed to having government cater to their own antisocial interests for so long, that it is in their best long-term interests to have a government that acts only as referee, leaving everyone to the free and inoffensive use of their time and faculties, and to bear the full reward as well as the full responsibility for the fruits of their own efforts.
But recent experience has shown that the ideas of liberty are a decidedly easier sell to the young, up and coming generation. Libertarianism has gone viral, so to speak, among the youth.
You might not be aware that because someone makes an argument does not mean it is valid. There are arguments against environmentalism, against education, against democracy - why we have a republic, for slavery, for smoking, and oddly enough all the ones on the wrong side of history sound suspiciously like you Steve.
And your failure to grasp an arguments validity is not proof of a lack thereof, either, Bruce.
You appear to be falling back on the same tired, intellectually bankrupt tactic of accusing opposition to arbitrary coercion however rationalized, as being tantamount to opposition to the genuine issue being co-opted as rationalization.
Because I am against a state monopoly on education, why, then I must just be opposed to the education of children in general, right?
As far as I can tell, you never even attempt to deal with the arguments advanced against state-controlled education, state-administered medicine, etc. etc; you just rely on the bankrupt and disingenuous ad hominem tactic of assuming that people who advance those arguments must necessarily be evil and uncaring villains who would have us all ignorant and starving slaves to big business.
Your whole argument boils down to question-begging, Bruce. The same old proof-by-assumption tactics which so many who share your uncritical statist bent take convenient refuge in.
As to being on the "wrong side of history," the libertarian lineage is traced back directly from the thinkers who composed the Magna Carta, the ideas of the Enlightenment, the ideas embodied in the Declaration of Independence. The most revered founders of the libertarian movement include Lysander Spooner, who is renowned as the most intellectually powerful advocate of abolition in a time before abolition became socially safe and "acceptable"; Frederic Bastiat, who single-handedly did more to free 19th Century Europe from the artifical scarcity imposed by belligerent nationalism and protectionism than probably every other political philosopher and economist of the 1800's combined; Ludwig von Mises, who accurately spelled out where the rhetoric and policies of the German National Socialist government would logically lead (and was forced to flee for his life from his native Austria for his troubles), not to mention his poignant penetration of socialism, being the first to recognize and point out the calculation problem which must necessarily handicap socialist central-planners, and his accurate prediction that the Soviet Union would eventually collapse under the weight of its own folly; and then there's Garret Garrett and his penetrating analysis and accurate predictions of the Hoover/Roosevelt "New Deal" policies and where they would eventually lead; and then there's the fact that the economists of the Austrian School tradition are, to date, the only ones to successfully integrate monetary and business cycle theory consistently into a general body of economic theory, and which is why modern-day Austrian school economists like Peter Schiff and Robert Murphy were accurately predicting the housing bust and the present economic crisis in general -- even in the face of "mainstream" ridicule -- while those "mainstream" economists were still forecasting the economic equivalent of rainbows and lollipops for everyone.
> of both "left-wing" and "right-wing" arbitrary statism,
> at the same time. That option has not been available for
> a long time -- at least since Barry Goldwater's candidacy.
A little about Barry Goldwater:
>> Goldwater's right-wing campaign platform ultimately
>> failed to gain the support of the electorate[3] and he
>> lost the 1964 presidential election to incumbent
>> Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson by one of the largest
>> landslides in history, bringing down many Republican
>> candidates as well.
Americans have had that option many times but it is always
soundly and wisely rejected. Same with Ron "broken clock"
Paul.
Your logic is merely a splinter off the Republican echo
chamber that keeps repeating tax cuts will solve the
problems in the face of the reality that the more tax
cuts we have the greater the deficit the worse the
problem. They hide their true intentions with formulaic
patriotic souding rhetoric about "liberty" too. Whatever
aggravates the divide in wealth in this country is falsely
called liberty while lipstick is heaped upon that pig.
Other similiarities include the attack on democracy
hidden by the avoidance of TR and constant repetitive
attacks on FDR and the New Deal, yet neither Repubicans
or Libertarians have any thing to point to as a record of
success near either - they just rely on endless circuitous
blather.
Instead of taking back government in a democratic way
you want to remove the last vestige of it and damn this
country to totalitarianism. Instead of Jews or some
racial group or outside threat you use government as
universal scapegoat when it is mostly the people with
your viewpoint and the consequences of the "liberty"
it provide to bad actors that have brought about the
present problems.
soundly and wisely rejected. Same with Ron "broken clock"
Paul.
"Many times"? Since the beginning of the 20th Century, and aside from Goldwater and Ron Paul, can you cite for me one example of these alleged "many times" that Americans have had the option of a genuine anti-welfare/warfare establishment candidate on the presidential ballot?
And since, as you point out, Americans have rejected candidates who represent the libertarian philosophy, what does that tell us about how we ended up with the conditions we have now?
Your logic is merely a splinter off the Republican echo chamber that keeps repeating tax cuts will solve the problems in the face of the reality that the more tax cuts we have the greater the deficit the worse the problem.
Your not one for a lot of critical thinking, are you? If you seriously think that my logic can be boiled down to "tax cuts will solve the problems," then either you have serious issues with comprehension deficiency, or you're just so hopelessly stuck in a naive, superficial worldview paradigm that any meaningful discussion with you is impossible.
My thinking has nothing to do with the Republican Party or it's echo chamber. Obviously, you lack the comprehension skills to put this together on your own, so let me connect a few dots for you: - I am a libertarian, my political philosophy is individualist and anti-statist; - of the political figures in the national spotlight right now, this philosophy is most in line with the philosophy of Ron Paul; - Ron Paul, because of his political philosophy, is persistently marginalized, ridiculed, attacked, and smeared by the very Republican echo chamber you mentioned -- and this is when said echo chamber acknowledges him at all, as their obvious strategy for the better part of the campaign season was simply to ignore him no matter what the circumstances; to just pretend and carry on as if he didn't even exist.
In light of these facts, how do you think your assertions regarding my logic and the GOP echo chamber are holding up?
And besides all of that; as far as deficits are concerned, why do you look at only the tax cuts side of the equation, and leave out the spending part?
Obviously tax cuts alone aren't going to have any beneficial results, so long as the government continues it's speedfreak spending habits unabated. Under those circumstances, taxes aren't really cut at all; they are just concealed and shifted. Mostly, they are concealed in the form of the hidden tax called "inflation," and shifted to become the burden of those who can least afford it: the poor and those on fixed incomes.
They hide their true intentions with formulaic patriotic sounding rhetoric about "liberty" too.
So what? Hitler and Stalin and Mao all hid their true intentions with formulaic (I'm assuming this is a word I'm permitted to use, since you used it first...), populist-sounding rhetoric about "workers rights" and "economic justice" and "equality."
Should I then go ahead and assume guilt by association of Obama, or the Democratic Party as a whole, not to mention it's ideological bodyguards in the media and academia, e.g. Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Noam Chomsky, et al?
Whatever aggravates the divide in wealth in this country is falsely called liberty while lipstick is heaped upon that pig.
The disingenuous use of terms in rhetoric and propaganda does not, in any way, invalidate the actual, properly understood ideas from which those terms have been co-opted. PERIOD.
Other similarities include the attack on democracy hidden by the avoidance of TR and constant repetitive attacks on FDR and the New Deal, yet neither Republicans or Libertarians have any thing to point to as a record of success near either - they just rely on endless circuitous blather.
I won't speak for Republicans. I will speak for myself as a libertarian (lowercase "l" -- I am not a member or supporter of any political party, including the Libertarian Party).
I am assuming by "TR" you're referring to Teddy Roosevelt. I don't avoid the topic and I have no reason to; and I certainly don't see where you get the idea that the subject of his ideas and his presidency is avoided by libertarian writers and thinkers. As far as I'm concerned, Teddy Roosevelt stands as a perfect example of collectivist/statist ideology, and the inevitable train of consequences brought on when those ideas are put into practice.
Now, as to FDR and the New Deal -- neither myself nor any serious libertarian writers that I know of "just rely on endless circuitous
blather" in criticizing the fascist New Deal policies and their effects.
If you want serious, detailed scholarly and scientific criticism of FDR and the New Deal from a libertarian viewpoint, I can make a few suggestions to help rid you of your unfortunate misperception (these are all links to free literature you can read online; so you no longer have any excuse for remaining in a state of ignorance):
America's Great Depression (Murray Rothbard)
Regime Uncertainty: Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumed After the War (Robert Higgs) << (Excellent essay; HIGHLY recommended)
As We Go Marching
and The Roosevelt Myth (both by John T. Flynn)
And, to accommodate your loathing of meticulous detail and explanation of reasoning, here's a brief but very concise article by Robert Higgs: How FDR Made the Depression Worse.
Instead of taking back government in a democratic way you want to remove the last vestige of it and damn this country to totalitarianism.
Seriously, Bruce -- Why do you think it is that you just reflexively associate the idea of government limited to maintenance of justice (Rule of Law), with totalitarianism?
Why do you reflexively disassociate the idea of government limited to maintenance of justice from "taking back government in a democratic way"?
Why does it escape your comprehension, Bruce, that totalitarianism necessarily implies institutions of all-powerful, arbitrary statism -- which is exactly what libertarianism seeks to get rid of?
Why can't you seem to grasp the self-evident truth that a fascist, totalitarian government necessarily implies a government which has assumed the kind of authority to impose arbitrary compulsions and restrictions, which is the kind of authority you want to extend to it, to an apparently even greater degree which it already has, which is already proving quite dangerous enough!
Instead of Jews or some racial group or outside threat you use government as universal scapegoat when it is mostly the people with
your viewpoint and the consequences of the "liberty" it provide to bad actors that have brought about the present problems.
That statement neatly sums up the confusion and fallacy which pervades your worldview.
It is a fact that proactive, arbitrary government interventionism carries with it long-term, long-range collateral effects which aren't readily apparent to the superficial observer who looks no deeper than the immediate surface of things; to the person who, as Henry Hazlitt put it, "sees only what hits them directly in the eye."
It is a fact that the boom-bust-recession cycle is a product of institutionalized fractional-reserve banking practices, which is a product of arbitrary government intervention in banking and finance. Government could end the business cycle, simply by abolishing the central bank, repealing legal tender laws, and treating fractional-reserve lending practice as the fraud that it is.
It is a fact that government distorts markets and creates artificial shortages or else leads to the squandering and malinvestment of scarce productive resources, through policies of price-fixing, direct lending and loan guarantees, subsidies and grants of monopoly privilege, and more.
It is a fact that government control of industry or factors of production, and government-created cartelization, suffers from inherent calculation deficiencies, it is deprived of the means of rational resource allocation (from the standpoint of value-productivity in relation to wants and needs of the consuming public).
All of this, and more, is scientifically demonstrable fact. It is not "scapegoating." It has absolutely no correlation with such collectivist ugliness as racism or anti-semitism.
And the people who have brought about the present problems, for one thing, comprise a group which spans decades of political power and the whole length of the superficial "left-right" political spectrum which you apparently confine your worldview to.
For another thing, regardless of whatever the content of the platitudes and bromides composing their political rhetoric, the people who have brought us this mess did so by way of expanding the size, scope and power of government, not by checking and limiting it; by multiplying the arbitrary compulsions and restrictions imposed on individuals and institutions, not by relieving us of them; and by hampering and sabotaging the market economy's ability to properly and smoothly function, not by freeing it.
To the extent that bad actors in the private sector have contributed to the present crisis, this is due to the fact that they have been handed the tools to do so by the political class. Fraud is institutionalized as part of the system; the private sector just works with what the government has established. And if the government declines to prohibit and punish fraudulent activity beyond what they have proactively institutionalized, then it is a deficiency within the political establishment, not some inherently insidious aspect of capitalism per se.
And finally, even in spite of all the anti-market institutions operating throughout society and the world of banking and finance in particular, the self-regulating mechanism of the market still worked; that is, all of those who engaged in unscrupulous activity or who (at best) displayed abysmal judgment and awful entrepreneurial forecasting skill, were rendered insolvent, bankrupt and (ostensibly) forced out of business to clear the way for the more prudent, more scrupulous and better-managed market actors to ascend...
That is, of course, until the federal government stepped in to override the markets' judgment; to rescue it's favored rent-seekers and hangers-on from the natural consequences of their own behavior.
So, here we have the government creating the conditions for these cyclical crises through intervention in banking and money, then we have government stepping in to shift the inevitable consequences of those original interventions away from their politically-connected, privileged elites and onto the general public already suffering the artificially-induced recession -- and for all of this we are to blame people who advocate limited, Constitutional government and adherence to the simple principles of Rule of Law?
Seriously???
Your claim to have read some books does not make those books right or your interpretation of them valid. It's silly for you to to assume authority because you point to a book, and even worse to base insults on that. I don't think there is a post of yours that does not rely almost totally on that "bluff".
There are all kinds of books that attack FDR and the New Deal based on all kinds of reasons. While some of the crticisms maybe be valid in terms of hindsight that is to be expected with anything new at the time. It has in mostly in the last 30 years been corrupted by lack of sincere followthrough by a government of elite special interests to which your philosophy would end up giving the final free reign - mostly because it would kill any chance at democracy.
FDR (& TR) were no communists, or however you put it, statist or collectivists, with some master plan waiting in the wings to ruin capitalism. Far from it, both staunchly supported the free enterprise system. They found what worked when nothing else did and attacked the unfair power of the trusts, a process that has been neutered by those interests as they have concentrated far more wealth and power than the people and most of the rest of the world.
What I like about FDR/TR and see that what works about it is basing policy on human rights. You like base reality on arcane economic rights it seems only you and a select few are brilliant enough to understand. Human rights trumps that, and government is the only way to do that - when it is not corrupt - ie. good government. Good government creates an infrastructure where "free markets" can flourish because left alone the natural tendency in markets is towards monopoly and stagnation - exactly what would happen with this Libertarian bait and switch.
The idea of a Constitution laying out rights has been the most important idea in Western Civilization, even though our American one is the oldest one that now exists.
The difference between you and me is that you, disregard people, and discount government and center reality in some fantasy economic system that you cannot explain simply and that would never be implemented if you could. The reality is that you can write exponentially more and more of this kind of stuff and no one cares because you do not deal with people. I know what you are talking about, and we disagree. You are wrong, but again, there is no to make you see that, so I don't try. I attack your slipshop and underhanded methods or argument.
Since you are so fond of citing books at me so I can improve myself when you are not telling me I am hopelessly ignorant, I in turn would recommend a more human being oriented book called "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman to give you some idea of reality outside the Libertarian distortion field you live inside.
Wow, neat-O! That's almost exactly how I interpret your many spurious, ad hominem-laced comments!
Your claim to have read some books does not make those books right or your interpretation of them valid. It's silly for you to to assume authority because you point to a book, and even worse to base insults on that.
You appear to be accusing me of arguing like this: "You're wrong, I'm right, and I know this because I've read some books."
So which is it, Bruce? Do I argue by appeal to self-authority, or do I err on the side of providing too much detailed reasoning of my position?
You can't have it both ways.
It has in mostly in the last 30 years been corrupted by lack of sincere followthrough by a government of elite special interests to which your philosophy would end up giving the final free reign - mostly because it would kill any chance at democracy.
First off, how so? How would a government limited to maintenance of equal justice "kill any chance at democracy"?
Only if you interpret "democracy" to mean only mass mutual subjugation and plunder, then I guess that statement would be correct.
If you interpret "democracy" to mean only the means in which political representatives are chosen, then your accusation is absolutely baseless.
Fact of the matter is, it is the establishment and growth of arbitrary statism which has systematically destroyed the system of representative government, because it fosters a social condition where those with the most means available to purchase power and influence end up imposing their own arbitrary whim on the rest of society.
Which gets to my second point: FDR was supported and then influenced by those very "elite special interests" which you (comically) claim have "corrupted" the otherwise sacrosanct "New Deal" policies.
Those New Deal policies were, in large part, lobbied for by the very interests you're insinuating are somehow against them.
Unscrupulous corporate interests typically favor government regimentation of their industries; as it shields them from the threat of existing or potential competition, and it generally guarantees them a certain level of gains and often even socializes losses. (All of these aspects were present in the New Deal regimentation policies).
FDR (& TR) were no communists, or however you put it, statist or collectivists, with some master plan waiting in the wings to ruin capitalism.
You obviously have no idea what constitutes collectivism. Either that, or you are basing your assertions on an extremely naive and deluded take on American History. Or, more likely, it is some combination of both.
They found what worked when nothing else did and attacked the unfair power of the trusts, a process that has been neutered by those interests as they have concentrated far more wealth and power than the people and most of the rest of the world.
FDR "found what worked when nothing else did"? Is that why he presided over the worst decade of economic stagnation and misery in modern history?
And excuse me if I don't agree with referring to government cartelization of major industry, a policy of consistently protecting banks from the consequences of their own policy, and then (illegally) confiscating all the physical gold holdings of American citizens so as to effectively chain us to the corrupt banking system so we'd have no escape from their ability to plunder us at will, as "attacking the unfair power of the trusts."
What I like about FDR/TR and see that what works about it is basing policy on human rights.
Those are not "human rights." It is a statement of collectivist nonsense. The only rights are individual rights; and all rights are necessarily negative in nature.
For instance, you can't say a person has a "right" to a job, because that implies a positive obligation on others to give them a job. It means that you are obligated to give me a job; I am justified in using force against you if you do not comply with this demand. After all, it is my right.
That's the basic fallacy of collectivism, in a nutshell.
You like base reality on arcane economic rights it seems only you and a select few are brilliant enough to understand.
Hogwash. There is nothing "arcane" about it; it is something everyone can easily understand. No one has a right to initiate coercive force or fraud against the person or property of another. And that's it. That's where our rights come from. It's called the self-ownership principle; or the non-aggression axiom. Each individual is the sole, exclusive owner of their person and faculties. All other legitimate rights -- basically reduced to property rights of some form or another -- derive from that basic axiom.
If you want a detailed, reasoned, and irrefutable defense of this principle, the best place to find it is here: The Law (Bastiat).
Good government creates an infrastructure where "free markets" can flourish because left alone the natural tendency in markets is towards monopoly and stagnation - exactly what would happen with this Libertarian bait and switch.
That's false, and is proven so both historically and theoretically. In fact, there is no practically meaningful definition of the term "monopoly" except as a government-granted privilege of exclusive control over production and distribution of a given good or service.
It has only been through government privilege, in some form or another, that all of history's monopolies and cartels have survived at all. When there is free entry into enterprise, profitable industry will always be rife with competition.
If you actually do some honest, independent research, you'll find that history is replete with attempted voluntary cartel arrangements that quickly failed; in railroad industry, in energy, medicine, commercial airlines, shipping. It has always been at around that point that the interests involved approached Congress and asked to have the federal government step in to "regulate" their industry.
If you are too lazy or unwilling to learn to do that research and discover that fact for yourself, then I will go hunting around the web and I'm sure I can put sufficient evidence in front of you to make the case.
More later. Merry Christmas, if I don't make it back before then.
> spurious, ad hominem-laced comments!
"I know you are, but what am I" ... is this your rhetoric breaking down. I'll bet it warms your heart that you are getting through to Jerry though.
> Bruce? Do I argue by appeal to self-authority, or do I err
> on the side of providing too much detailed reasoning of my position?
Both, the detail you provide in such prodigious quantity does not really hang together logically like you claim it does, by your authority of having read it - or you would not need to post so many words to NOT explain it.
You seem to be referring to some free market utopian fantasy world, but you do not have any idea of how to bring that about in the real world (the process), nor any reason for anyone to want to do that (the persuasive ability). ie. what's in it for them that you can truly explain?
> How would a government limited to maintenance of equal justice
> "kill any chance at democracy"?
Because it will fail to regulate markets and lead to monopolies and tyranny. It's pretty simple, and though your deny it until you use up every inch on every message board to say I'm wrong that's exactly what has happened in the US as the rising anti-government streak combines with the concentration of wealth.
The are two ways to solve social problems, genocide or what you want to call collectivism/socialism/any kind of unsavory insult you can muster. As world markets and production become more consolidate and more automated to harp on how great a free market would be becomes increasingly irrelevent to real people. Maybe you do not consider the people displaced and disenfranchised real people or maybe you do not value democracy - that's what it seems like to me.
So ... how about another round, I'll stack my 30 lines against your 300 anytime.
Your inability to follow basic steps of logic is not my fault. But of course, if you could ever so much as point out for me exactly where or how you believe the logic of anything I write here to be flawed, it would go a long way toward enabling me to clarify it for you. But as we both know, that's not your way. You prefer to argue by mere assertion; which is to say, not really produce any argument at all.
You seem to be referring to some free market utopian fantasy world
You seem to be insinuating that the idea of social cooperation without authoritarian overlords is "utopian," and the concept of law as a tool of justice as opposed to a supreme weapon of injustice, subjugation and plunder, is a "fantasy world." You are the poster child for the effectiveness of collectivist indoctrination.
but you do not have any idea of how to bring that about in the real world (the process), nor any reason for anyone to want to do that (the persuasive ability). ie. what's in it for them that you can truly explain?
How to bring it about: demand that government at all levels act only to protect and enforce the rights of all individuals equally, leaving everyone free to pursue their own interests and welfare on their own personal volition and according to their own personal values. Concerning the federal government, this is as simple as demanding that they faithfully adhere to not just the responsibilities, but especially the boundaries, plainly spelled out for it in the Constitution (the 9th and 10th Amendments being highlighted here).
Reasons for everyone to want to do that: Because practically all of the major social ills that we deal with today can ultimately be traced back to some arbitrary government measure or some combination of them.
Because the fact is, it is the ideas of the Enlightenment that created the environment for such monumental, exponential leaps in social progress, general prosperity, and relative political tranquility which the Western World has seen in the last 200 years; and those ideas consist of the intrinsic, inalienable rights of all individuals, and the preservation and enforcement of those rights (justice) being the only legitimate purpose of government. And it has been a direct correlation; the degree to which people have been genuinely free (and thus markets have been free) has been the degree to which people in that society have enjoyed social progress and general prosperity, while the degree to which those ideals have been reversed, and the coercive power of law has been made to reach beyond it's legitimate scope of equal justice, that inevitable undesirable consequences have been wrought.
> "kill any chance at democracy"?
Because it will fail to regulate markets and lead to monopolies and tyranny.
So you think it's not enough that the law should protect all people, their health, and their property from force or fraud; that the government has to itself impose injustice in order to "regulate markets"?
This little statement of yours is perfectly exemplary of one of those "quotes from my economic heroes," Murray Rothbard; you know, the one where he pointed out that “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline; and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.” Your worldview concerning economic subjects seems to be informed only by naive emotionalism and the most superficial stereotypes.
This is historical fact, Bruce: Monopolies and cartels are only sustainable by proactive government intervention. All of the historical monopolies and cartels have been products of government regimentation and control; the polar opposite of "deregulation." This is provable by simple, honest research through any valid scientific, objective source.
The only "regulation" that is necessary for a progressing, prosperous society where everyone has a chance to be as successful as their skill and determination and foresight permits, where income is determined by the value which society places on the contribution to wants-satisfaction that each person brings (as opposed to political favoritism and privilege, or other proximity-to-power considerations), is the protection and enforcement of the equal rights of all individuals, including the enforcement of voluntary contractual obligations.
Law is force, and force can either be positive or negative, never neutral. The force of the law is either aimed at protecting individual rights, or else it must necessarily be aimed at destroying the rights of some individuals. The law can either establish and maintain a condition of justice, or else it must necessarily impose some measure of injustice.
I contend that both the practical experience of history (properly interpreted) as well as political and economic theory (properly understood) combine to demonstrate that the maintenance of equal justice is the best policy to foster general prosperity, social progress and tranquility; and that the introduction of arbitrary government (i.e., institutionalized injustice) fosters the conditions of social upheaval, mass poverty and ignorance; and it is in fact the necessary prerequisite for the elite, artificial aristocracy to become entrenched.
though your deny it until you use up every inch on every message board to say I'm wrong that's exactly what has happened in the US as the rising anti-government streak combines with the concentration of wealth.
First; space in a comment thread under gather.com articles is not a scarce commodity. I can't "use up every inch." I do not take away from anyone else's right or ability to post here.
Second; how it is that you can associate the mind-boggling, exponential growth of the size, scope, and cost of government power in every decade since the end of the 19th Century with "a rising anti-government streak," is beyond me; I can only guess that it involves a great deal of cognitive dissonance and/or willful ignorance.
The ingredients of the concentration of wealth into the hands of an elite plutocracy: the military-industrial complex; the political privilege granted the large corporate interests associated with the MIC, especially concerning cartelization of broadcast media; cartel regimentation of industries e.g. pharmaceuticals, farming, insurance, banking; the Federal Reserve System which is the greatest engine of regressive wealth redistribution ever devised; and mostly, a system of indoctrination through public schooling and media control that convinces people that our social ills stem from too much freedom, that the answer to our problems is to give ever more power (and trust) to the state and it's agents, propaganda which keeps us at each others' throats (Tea Party vs. OWS, etc) instead of focusing on the common enemy of all good people: arbitrary statism.
The are two ways to solve social problems, genocide or what you want to call collectivism/socialism/any kind of unsavory insult you can muster.
A statement right in line with your general Freedom = Slavery routine. Ever chance to notice how collectivist/socialist regimes often end up engaging in genocide? Besides that obvious little flaw in your premise, we can also boil it down to what you are saying is that are only options are between genocide or serfdom.
Let's consider a more clear-thinking way of looking at the problem: There are two basic modes of social cooperation (using the term "cooperation" very loosely): One is peaceful, mutually-voluntary contractual relationships. Non-invasive cooperation in production under the division of labor, voluntary exchange. This is what Herbert Spencer termed the contractual bonds" of society, and what legendary sociologist Franz Oppenheimer termed the "economic means" of sustenance. It is peaceful, productive, fosters social progress and tolerance, and leads to ever-increasing standards of living for all in society.
The second mode is coercive subjugation and plunder. It is what Herbert Spencer termed "hegemonic bonds" of society and what Oppenheimer called "the political means" of sustenance. It involves the assumption that individuals do not have rights of property or self-ownership. It is socially-destructive, leads to mass hardship and poverty.
These are the two basic principles of social relationships. The laws of a society can either foster an environment where the first principle can safely reign, or else it must, by logical necessity, act as a vehicle for the imposition of the latter.
All collectivist/socialist ideologies rest on the latter principle; the principle of hegemony.
Maybe you do not consider the people displaced and disenfranchised real people or maybe you do not value democracy - that's what it seems like to me.
Yes, I do consider those people. It's just that I think with logic, not my emotions; so I understand that those people would be much better off if government would stop sabotaging markets, in the process destroying opportunities and cutting the bottom rungs off the economic ladder. That's all.
> act only to protect and enforce the rights of all individuals
> equally, leaving everyone free to pursue their own interests
> and welfare on their own personal volition and according to
> their own personal values.
Like I just said ...
You do not have any idea of how to bring that about in the real world (the process), nor any reason for anyone to want to do that (the persuasive ability). ie. what's in it for them that you can truly explain?
You criticize my logic but you cannot go from my post to reply and faithfully intrepret my comments, let alone understand or explain all of Western Civilization in a sentence.
You constantly make broad sweeping statements like: "the degree to which people have been genuinely free (and thus markets have been free) has been the degree to which people in that society have enjoyed social progress and general prosperity," .... which may have "some" truth to it but cannot really be proved cause and effect, yet your logic is basically - I recognize that so I must be right about everything else I say - you never really make your case, and if you did, like I said - you have no specific plan about what needs to be done other than "change people's minds" or "demand that government".
But you did manage not to take hundreds of lines to say it so your're moving in the right direction.
Of course you would! As I've pointed out around here many times -- however unfortunately, half-truths and fallacies have the tactical advantage of being much more conducive to soundbite-sized snippets and bumper-sticker sloganeering; whereas the logically-sound refutation of them usually requires a detailed explanation, and typically involves following multiple steps in a chain of reasoning.
It's a lot easier to appeal to pure emotionalism with high-sounding rhetoric, than it is to get people to sit still and follow you through the detailed explanation of why that emotion-laden rhetoric is fallacious.
In that regard, you do, in fact, have the advantage.
Good for you.
I questioned you on your plan and you said:
> How to bring it about: demand that government at all levels
> act only to protect and enforce the rights of all individuals
> equally, leaving everyone free to pursue their own interests
> and welfare on their own personal volition and according to
> their own personal values.
Is that your final answer? Because if it is it is just silly. But good luck demanding the government do anything ... especially without a vibrant democracy and an informed and educated populace.
You also attacked me as being pro - the abuses and problems with our government, which I am not and never said I was. Who is being disingenuous? Who is using bumper-sticker slogans.
You do not have any idea of how to bring that about in the real world (the process), nor any reason for anyone to want to do that (the persuasive ability). ie. what's in it for them that you can truly explain?
Bogus retort. That's exactly what I'm doing right now, Bruce; trying to do what I can to explain to people why continuing to vote for more of the same is only going to give us more of the same results.
Moreover, my "persuasive ability" is mitigated by factors outside of my control; for instance the degree of stubbornness, closed-mindedness, and unwillingness to consider (let alone accept) logically-sound arguments when confronted with them, of other people, such as yourself.
Libertarians who enter the arena of public dialogue are up against a powerful apparatus of propaganda and indoctrination. People who really, truly believe that freedom = slavery are not going to change the way they think about things overnight. It usually takes chipping away at the fallacies and sophistry of collectivism bit by bit, one by one.
It's not a wasted effort though, and my experience here and elsewhere confirms it.
Just because you're too far gone to be reached, doesn't mean everyone else is.
You criticize my logic but you cannot go from my post to reply and faithfully intrepret my comments, let alone understand or explain all of Western Civilization in a sentence.
How did I misinterpret your comments? I can assure you that if I did, it was not for lack of good faith.
Maybe the problem here is that you don't quite grasp what the full, logical implications of your own comments are?
And it's funny, getting criticized about how I can't "understand or explain all of Western Civilization in a sentence," from a person who thinks he can reduce the social ills of modern Western Civilization down to supposed evil of "deregulation"!
You constantly make broad sweeping statements like: "the degree to which people have been genuinely free (and thus markets have been free) has been the degree to which people in that society have enjoyed social progress and general prosperity," .... which may have "some" truth to it but cannot really be proved cause and effect
It does have truth to it, because it is cause and effect, and it most definitely can be proven to be so, by scientific inquiry.
Read Murray Rothbard's Man, Economy & State. Then try to tell me that the correlation between human liberty and economic progress and prosperity is not absolutely, 100% cause and effect.
Of course you won't read it, because you have an aversion to learning anything if it does not confrom with your preconceived statist bent based on emotionalism and stereotype; and if you have half a brain, you run the risk of conversion by the end of the first few chapters, so if you're most comfortable with your persona of stubborn defender of status quo statism, then it's best you remain willfully ignorant of the ideas you want to pass authoritative judgment on.
Oh; but I suppose it's up to you to decide that my posts are "B.S.," or "the hysteria of a closed-minded individual," or that they show"no inkling of what the free market is that you are referring to," or hundreds of other examples I could dig up just from the last two threads we've had exchanges on?
The difference is that I provide an actual argument to make my case, and provide links to works of others who make my case even better, for anyone interested in seeing for themselves.
You, on the other hand, make assertions and leave it at that. You assume that your own say-so is sufficient to settle the matter in your favor.
Is that your final answer? Because if it is it is just silly. But good luck demanding the government do anything ... especially without a vibrant democracy and an informed and educated populace.
Did you really think that my statement was meant to refer to a single person (myself or anyone else for that matter)?
I guess I just took for granted that it was understood that I meant the electorate demand that their representative agents in government act only to protect and enforce the rights of all individuals equally.
You also attacked me as being pro - the abuses and problems with our government, which I am not and never said I was. Who is being disingenuous? Who is using bumper-sticker slogans.
Okay, this is key. This is exactly what I meant when I suggested that you don't quite grasp what the full, logical implications of your own comments are.
The issue revolves around the fact that the abuses and problems with our own government are inseparable corollaries of arbitrary statism in and of itself.
The fact is that human nature is such that whenever you empower one group of people with the authority to impose arbitrary compulsions and restrictions on the rest of society, you are inevitably going to end up with exactly the kinds of abuses and problems that we have now; and that is if you're lucky, because the potential is for much worse, and we may very well have much worse coming down the pike as we speak.
See, you do not have to be consciously, overtly in favor of plutocracy, plundering of the productive classes in favor of the politically-privileged rich, mass ignorance and poverty, and decimation of the moral fabric of society. If you are in favor of arbitrary statism, then you are tacitly, implicitly in favor of all of the above; whether you consciously understand it, recognize it or not.
> problems with our own government are inseparable
> corollaries of arbitrary statism in and of itself.
For you, maybe, that is what I assume you are trying to "convince" people of. You may think I am deficient by whatever measure you want to use, but I think I am way above most people in this country on most dimensions - education, career, travel, reading, exposure to people and ideas, and your only argument against me is to attack me as one kind or another or unreasonable.
I don't think you make that point any better than you made any of your others. Your image on this board and others is of the over-zealot, someone who has discovered something personally fascinating to them and who tries to force it on others.
I am just saying, that as I read your stuff, you are not even close to getting to where you are convincing to me and I am not unsreasonable. I think free markets are important, and the rule of law, etc, those are not your arguments just because you throw them into a 300 line long post.
There are many doors to perception as Huxley said, and you seem to just hang about in one revolving door going round and round. You are totally unwilling to meet people who disagree with your or question your "rhetoric" - you just blame them for not seeing your light ... when you are so fucking good at hiding it.
If your answer again is going to be to go around faster and longer, how long do you intend to waste my time because I guess you do not think yours very valuable at all.
Do you realize that your parts of this exchange have consisted almost entirely of naked assertion and ad hominem attack?
Your argument here has basically devolved now into some bogus, fail attempt at psychoanalysis, presuming to think for others "your image on this board and others," and nanny-nanny-boo-boo " you are not even close to getting to where you are convincing to me."
You are trying to make the case that social cooperation requires authoritarian overlords; that liberty and justice are undesirable conditions (and that is the case you are making -- just because you are not comfortable with having that fact stated in plain language, doesn't make it not so), on the basis of an interpretation of historical facts which concludes that our gravest social ills were and are consequences of not enough arbitrary government power; in other words, the problem has been too much freedom.
I say all of that is bullshit. I say you're confused; your interpretation is based on a naive, economically and philosophically oblivious paradigm, which happens to be exactly the kind of emotionalist thinking which the same elitist plutocracy you claim to revile would be happy for all of us to continue to accept.
I think when you find yourself associating the idea of government as a tool of equal justice with "tyranny," then that ought to be a red flag telling you that something just ain't quite right with your thinking here.
I think that if you can't start coming up with actual logic-based arguments with which to counter mine, instead of assertions, question-begging and name-calling, then you ought to just be honest with me and with yourself (and anyone else whom it may concern) and admit that you oppose individual liberty and equal justice on account of a gut feeling that you are unwilling or unable to logically defend, but you're sure that freedom and justice are bad ideas, "just because."
Tell me what I'm doing and then finish your post with just that. Did you mean for that to be funny?
I thought there might be an intellectual curious mind behind the furious typing but it's just OCD. Have that last important word, it's the least I can offer you in consolation.
Being discussed here is one of today’s most urgent, and depressing, problems, one that adversely affects each of us, our friends, our relatives, and their friends and relatives, all around this world.
Yet far too many are as yet unaware of the depth of the pending predicament (thanks Dorothy for the definitions) …
There are no free lunches other than the one’s someone else pays for, willingly or unwillingly. So far the average person, especially the more ambitious Americans, have been paying for the lunches of everyone. Up until now, the most rich of us, the mentioned 1% or so, have really stuffed themselves, even stockpiled vast lunches, actually, banquets, for future meals … the most impoverished of us have been able to survive on some of the table scraps and the vast, formerly working, and still employed, middle class, has been tightening their belts and experiencing some hunger pangs.
Many here have attempted to lay out the problem and offer solutions, some of them excellent, some not so much. Some are sure they have the best and only solution, others argue otherwise. Some try to help each other see a way to understand and others just criticize and argue differently …everyone here has some good ideas and everyone is rightfully fearful of our future.
I think that we all agree that the rich have gotten richer, now far too rich, at our expense and we really need to do something about it. Everyone here most likely agrees that the idea of corporations being classed as “people” has to change, along with all forms of campaign finance which allows the B$M folks to always have “their way” with us, them winners and us the losers.
Those are all the “easy things” to get our heads around, now I will mention my concept(s) of the seemingly hardest thing(s) to understand … things which once understood, all will agree that they are simple and wonder why they themselves didn’t think of it before.
Most here have read me before and will know where I am headed … yes, you guessed it! We each and all need to fundamentally change our way of thinking and thus our way of acting, a grass roots change is needed. It cannot, because it will not, begin at either the top or the bottom, it must begin in the vast middle. We must begin to think, speak and act with truth! We must also demand truth from all others and not allow them to attempt otherwise.
People have been brainwashed to believe that truth is what authorities say it is, that they have the truth and we should use theirs. Religious and secular authorities have convinced enough of their followers that this and that are the truth … well, truth is relative and personal to each person that seeks it and thus believes it so as long as they think it so … but as everything is change, at one rate or another, both perspectives and truths also change.
Every coin has two opposing faces (not to mention the vast middle that separates those faces (sides). Two people facing each other might well see a different side or face of a coin placed in-between them. Each would claim their differences as their truth and be truthful and correct in doing so.
Now a short lesson on psychology/philosophy … we have been told that (+=+) and (-=-) and like the East and the West, they can never meet. Not true … everything different meets in our own minds, we are each the “bridge” between differences, it is how we think about differences that help dictate how we react to them moment to moment.
Our ego self tends to think of itself as a separate being isolated from other ego selves, we tend to see a “gap” or “void” between ourselves and others, between us and all things. That gap-void can be seen as the symbol (/) in dualism (+/-) where we consider ourselves the one sign and the other the other sign, often the good ones and the “winners,” the (+) and true to most dualists, the bad and losers are the (-), considered expendable, and sometimes best “destroyed” … especially when competition becomes a matter of life and death.
You have all heard it before from me, but the real world and our entire universe, is not really dualistic. It sure appears that way from the ego perspective, but as in a coin, it has an oft neglected “middle” or central balance point, a “bridge” that connects the differences. That “bridge” is the Spirit of the Whole, the (=) symbol in a Trinity of (+=-) … an apparent paradox, something egos will not readily accept and why they seek wrongly to pick out the polar extremes of dualisms to judge things by, those being most evident objectively and the invisible Spirit (=) is too subjective to readily envision.
If and when, humanity learns this, that there is no real actual separation between anything in the Spiritual sense, that everything is relative and truly connected together, then they might become more willing to give the benefit of the doubt, to work with their apparent “opposites” for common cause and resolve problems that might result from fear of other and the seeking to take advantage of other in order to benefit the self at the expense of the other.
This, our UNIverse, as the (+=-) Trinity, is actually the Trinitary nature of GOD … we are each and all a part of GOD and the Spirit of GOD thus connects us with each other and seeks to help us for common cause.
When we learn this, we come to know ourselves as eternal beings with relationships to each and all, we will then experience the Love of the Spirit and accept the relative truths of everything and everyone, we will then lose our fears and willingly cooperate with one-another resulting in a creative increase through synergy replacing the present destructiveness associated with fear via dualistic conflicts seeking winners over losers which in the final analysis even the winner will end up alone and thus a loser due to the lack of natural diversity which would otherwise insure longevity and a win/win in the end.
It has to begin somewhere … each of us should begin by honoring the relative truths of those seeking to express them, to try to understand their truths even though different than yours and work with them for common cause never being afraid of being wrong as long as you are honestly attempting to do the right thing for the good of the whole … when we each thus do that for each other we all win and the existing problems will go away naturally … GOD helps those who help themselves.
With this realization, even if another never learns it, at least we will do better with the peace of mind that it insures us with … we are each self responsible and we get what we deserve, to each their own then and doing the “right thing” has it’s own rewards.
For those who read through all of this, just place it in the back of your mind, it cannot but help you in the long run. Peace, Love and Truth … they are all the same thing when experienced.
IMnsHO
One needs to be quite aware of the "value" (in regard of himself) of any item: buying it is a political act and responds to a mix of usage value and exchange value.
Your words seem to reflect the need to understand the inherent fallacy of being backed into the usual corners of "Marxist Communist-Dictatorship" vs. "Capitalist Corporate-Protectionism."
The problem with both is the concentration of economic power into the hands of some group not intrinsically invested in the labor necessary to produce something of value, in this case either a government or a bank (as a collection of investors). History shows the one leading ultimately to various forms of dysfunctional states resulting in dictatorship or fascism, and the other to economic disparity resulting in revolt and a mercenary police-state. The way I see it, remove both forms of non-intrinsic management, and the problem solves itself.
This idea isn't a new one. Libertarian Socialists from Peter Kropotkin to Noam Chomsky have tried to rationally examine the inevitable failures of both forms of concentrated economic power. Unfortunately, most people seem to associate the concept of libertarian governance with corporatism, or the concept of socialism with big-government. However, if you remove the centralized economic power from both arguments, you end up with something of inherent economic value to the individual, without the baggage of institutionalized redistribution of wealth based simply on who can best benefit the institutions themselves.
So, in that vein, what is the alternative, or is there one?
Ruta, I have been a fan of Chomsky for many years having been introduced to him on FSTV, where he has often appeared on Democracy Now hosted by Amy Goodman.
Kropotkin I was not aware of, thanks for the links. From his link:
In the animal world we have seen that the vast majority of species live in societies, and that they find in association the best arms for the struggle for life: understood, of course, in its wide Darwinian sense – not as a struggle for the sheer means of existence, but as a struggle against all natural conditions unfavourable to the species. The animal species, in which individual struggle has been reduced to its narrowest limits, and the practice of mutual aid has attained the greatest development, are invariably the most numerous, the most prosperous, and the most open to further progress. The mutual protection which is obtained in this case, the possibility of attaining old age and of accumulating experience, the higher intellectual development, and the further growth of sociable habits, secure the maintenance of the species, its extension, and its further progressive evolution. The unsociable species, on the contrary, are doomed to decay.
— Peter Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902), Conclusion.
Char, in my view, the "alternatives" are first and foremost to keep an open mind (open to your own INtuition) and do not unthinkingly follow any one particular ideology, thus be true to yourSelf ... we have all been brainwashed by "Leaders" with power and authority who want to feather their own nests making "we the people" far far down on any list, we are expected to survive on the "trickle downs" ... to often "Their" greed is seen as the norm and that too often "emulated" right down the line.
IMnsHO
Any system which is not including the individual reality (and choice) is simply Utopist.
Any Utopist system is based on "self behavior" when facing some problem.
Any Utopist system projects our own own beliefs on everyone else.
However any Utopist system can be distorted by our own subjectivity.
I mean that, when acting as observers, if we can't define our position ... still, the object remains distorted as if we were expecting a "miracle (?)" for correcting our own behavior towards the observed object.
In resume, when I believe in an Utopia, I can't deal with reality and keep denying it.
It is far easier, however, to deal with reality understanding our own basic needs and being aware that when we talk about cooperation (love your neighbor) is always a way to try to invest ourselves of some power expecting some acknowledgement of our own qualities and power.
When feeling ourselves unable to achieve this "directly", when frustrated by ourselves, usually we revert to some "image" asking it to achieve for us what we can't do ourselves.
This is why dictatorships are so easy to set up: "if many think alike this should be for real" and this acts as self-hypnothis discharging our own feelings of guiltiness for being unable to solve a matter.
What my former comments tried to underline is that a system based on Utopia drives to anything provided the need of ourselves to be "in agreement with the power", to be a "follower of the system" in order not to feel ourselves responsible.
So when you try to "corner" us into a duality, you are already discarding our own ability to chose anything else. Relativity has then been wiped out and the individuality as well.
You may consider us within such a duality but then you lost your own ability to be objective.
Economy works alike any other science and when a "system" has already been experienced failing, repeating the experience will not change the reality of the failure.
As far as economics is concerned the speeding communications have created the derivatives and the attached fake money due to deregulations. Such fake money set up the financial power distorting the basic computations.
This why I introduced in my already published chapters the notion of the timing and knowledge as, IMO, only the knowledge can allow us to "preview" a NEAR future rendering ourselves responsible for it.
But such a "knowledge" remains an impediment for those who would like to be power invested.
Or, if you prefer, power doesn't like the mass, nor the "common" individual, to be really aware of its goals. Obvious.I hope having been clear enough. Please don't hesitate reverting if there is any problem.
My idea of a Utopia is one where everyone is happy because everyone is honest and cooperative for greater cause of the whole ... and that also allows individualism and free choice ... because they know the Truth of the UNIverse and would not even want to go against it.
The opposite, what we have now, is a Dystopia ... IMnsHO
One can see several pictures of the reality, picked up at different times and still, unaware of the distortions, believe in an image of a distorted reality unable to figure our where the reality is being distorted.
So, when a system is used and while being described, it allows the outsider to show where the distortions are taking place.
One may refuse the conclusions for being used to the system-tool, but this will not change reality.
Utopia works alike: if I decide in front that the choice is done without any external support, I will never be able to figure out the importance of such a support and will believe that the choice is made on my own. If I am aware of it, I will be able to figure out the relativity between my needs and my wishes.
As far as your definition of Utopia is concerned, we differ seriously. As far as I am concerned it is: "Utopia is one where everyone is happy because everyone is honest and cooperative according to my own and personal views and behavior for greater cause of the whole ... and that also allows individualism and free choice"
Which will become love one-another and tell the truth ... I am doing my best on both accounts now, the truth telling is easy, but loving some people is very difficult. :-) (when we get close to Utopia it will all come natural).
IMnsHO
I sincerely apologize for the lack of clarity in my comment (and it was unclear). My comment wasn't directed at either of you -- actually I meant that I thought that both of you were illustrating how others' arguments appeared to so often rely on backing into one corner or another when the two of you were indicating another direction altogether.
It seems that most people in political discussion push themselves into one camp or the other -- government organized socialism, or laissez faire capitalism -- when making their augments, because they have relied simply upon pointing out that the opposite form doesn't work. The truth is in fact that neither form offers a long term solution to the kinds of problems we face today. (And I think you would both agree on that.)
Indeed, I benefit directly from the kind of high-speed communication Gilbert references. It allows for a libertarian approach to the operation of the business in which I participate, complete ownership and control of my own work, and strict management of external capital investments.
In the US, my (and my work-group's) biggest problems are from anonymous corporate concerns that seek to lock-up intellectual progress through litigation, the direct result of American laissez faire corporatism. And look where this has brought us: continuous economically-motivated warfare, a government that hides its unwillingness to do anything for the general populace behind meaningless distractions, and an ever-widening gap of individual opportunity as the profits of our labor are plundered by a mercenary government.
But Americans can also see that authoritarian socialization also doesn't lead to a solution. I know of no government-run institutions that operate efficiently, from the military or the postal service, right on down to large school districts (and I've got a good one with a local district).
So I actually strongly agree with you. I feel that the ideal society is one in which information flows rapidly, freely, and without constraint. I think individuals should be allowed a full range of choices, including how they elect to govern themselves and how their government spends their resources. And wealth (and its accumulated power) should not be concentrated in the hands of large, anonymous organizations that simply profit from the labor of others.
Rapid exchange of information, knowledge, and wisdom allows for this, and such a society could be facilitated through current technologies. It is only institutionalized forms of authority that benefit from it not happening.
"Utopia is one where everyone is happy because everyone is honest and cooperative according to (his or her) own and personal views and behaviors for greater cause of the whole ... and that also allows individualism and free choice." Exactly!
Now I know why I don't like those darned touch screens -- I can't stand rutabagas! I'm keeping my old Blackberry until it's collectable...
How come? Because we dislike some opinions and because truth is relative. In both ways we do like people agreeing with us and talking the very same language than us. Otherwise we enter into a paranoiac state.
And as far as truth is concerned, what is truth for one may quite well - and often it is - not the truth for anyone else ... at least for some period of time.
The Einstein restrict theory has been denied since 1895 to 1925 and Michelson tried to show through many, many experiences in many different places that such a theory was wrong.
And relativity is still not accepted by many.
The actual climate change is another example and I can find you many similar examples where reality is being denied because of the measurement standard or the applied system-tool.
"It seems that most people in political discussion push themselves into one camp or the other -- government organized socialism, or laissez faire capitalism -- when making their augments, because they have relied simply upon pointing out that the opposite form doesn't work."
I don't think that's really the case. From where I stand, I see mostly people pushing themselves (and others) into one of two camps -- welfare/nanny statism on the one hand, and corporate/warfare/authoritarian statism on the other. And then there's the so-called "moderate" middle, the so-called "independents," who embrace some aspects of both but also reject some aspects of both. (My favorite definition of "bipartisan" is "When the stupid party joins with the evil party to do something both evil and stupid.")
But in reality -- where it really matters -- these are just two variations of the same thing. They are not "polar opposites" on some imagined "political spectrum," as says the modern "conventional wisdom." They are just different branches of the same collectivist tree. All forms of collectivism agree where it really matters; that the state is all-powerful, that individual rights are subservient to the whim and discretion of "the majority" (as expressed, of course, by the actions of the democratic state). Both "left" and "right" wing collectivists agree that the government should dictate economic fortunes and interfere with the personal decision-making process of the individual; the only disagreements are over who should be favored in the wealth-redistribution programs (corporations, military contractors, small businesses, or "the poor," bureaucratic administrators, and unions?), and what behaviors the government should interfere with (our personal and sex lives, our right of privacy and due process and generally to not be treated as a suspected terrorist without probably cause for suspicion; or our right to earn a living however we please, to spend our money how we please, to use our own discretion in giving to charities, etc.?).
What is at the opposite end of this reality-based philosophical spectrum, is individualism. Individualists oppose all forms of collectivism; be it welfare/nanny statism, warfare/authoritarian statism, corporate statism, or whatever.
It is individualist philosophy which upholds the ideal of genuine laissez faire capitalism --but this philosophy is still rare, especially around here (although the ranks of the libertarian remnant are growing exponentially these days; thanks, I believe, to the presidential candidacy of Ron Paul).
But the majority is still represented by the many variations of collectivist ideology. We're still outnumbered by people like Gilbert up there; the guy who asserts that the only political ideas consistent with what he calls "reality" are ones that dismiss the principle of individual liberty out of hand.
Your comment is very perceptive. My "corners" argument really only addresses the loudest voices, those screaming, "Half empty!" or, "Half full!" from the pulpits. Unfortunately, these are also the voices that set up the framework for any subsequent debate.
The consequence is that the vast majority of "rationalists," "moderates," "confused" (not meant derogatorily), and just plain "pissed" find themselves having to take up electoral stations on a purely two-dimensional spectrum that offers an infinite variety -- of two takes on the same theme. Regardless of the position, one's vote is always limited to some variation of collective tyranny over individual freedom ("Evil," vs. "Stupid?"). I think it's a vague realization of this that drives movements like the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, but to little benefit since they can't align themselves to anything outside of that which causes the problem. "It is as though in the middle of a chess tournament one competitor should suddenly begin screaming that the other is guilty of arson or bigamy. The point that is really at issue remains untouched." -George Orwell
Indeed, I think Ron Paul is commonly depicted as a "nut" simply because he has dared to venture outside of this straight-line of political thought and criticize the real problem. Historically, this labeling has been the fate of non-mainstream thinkers who have found themselves typecast as "radicals," "communists," "anarchists," or "crazy." But I would also argue that Paul hasn't ventured too far, or indeed far enough from that line. He is still in many ways too confined by either his own thinking, or by the expression necessary to keep any kind of support in main-stream politics. And while this statement goes beyond the scope of this post, I would argue that America was designed to operate in this way from the very start.
The idea of "paradigm shifts" as a necessity for great advances in science seems to apply in national politics as well. The American system will probably need to completely collapse before any kind of really meaningful change can happen, which may not be that far off. As long as resources have been available, either internally or externally, the American system of wealth redistribution has been able to plug its holes with new wealth plundered from growth. American-style capitalism was probably granted a last reprieve during the Great Depression when the rest of the world spontaneously self-destructed into WWII, but that's not an option anymore. Economists such as Nouriel Roubini have conveyed that such growth is no longer possible in our present world situation, and that the current circumstance of Western Nations may be institutionally irreparable.
The nationalist bent may manage to distract everyone for awhile by further inspiring war on "blasphemous" nations (or individuals) that dare to disagree with our version of "democracy," but even that can't go on for much longer before the US plunges into a Soviet-style bankruptcy. Unfortunately, I fear that most Americans will be too distracted by either high-powered propaganda or wishful-thinking to respond to a collapse rationally, and we will end up with another version of authoritarian government, perhaps along the lines of Orwell's, Homage to Catalonia (quoted earlier). It may not be possible for America to move into a new phase in a way that preserves libertarian values, since we have been stuck with only with the narrowest of interpretations regarding their value.
Where I do agree with Gilbert is in that communication can be a powerful influence for freedom. True libertarianism is contingent upon an educated and informed populace. The American Revolution was fomented with cheap print, the Internet of the eighteenth century. And, for better or for worse, the revolutions that have swept the Middle East are likewise the direct result of people's abilities to more efficiently communicate. This hasn't been lost on power-centers, from early American plantation owners who forbade teaching slaves to read, to modern governments which seek to monitor or to limit communication or that treat the revelation of embarrassing secrets as "terrorism." As Orwell also said, "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
It seems to me, that the basic developments of HB (Human Being) has been "forgotten" for political reasons.
First of all, HB has to fulfill the basic needs:
1. Food, drink, sleep, protection of himself, being subject of love
2. Then he needs a home (improved protection), ability to receive and give back love, education adapted to the envirinment, ability to SHARE within a small unit several tasks as hunting, croping, sewing. As Margareth Meade show these units can reach up to 297 (if my memory is right) people. However, within these units, HB remains mainly an individual member of a group (males or females) and educated as so.
3. Being the basic needs 1 and 2 completely fulfilled, HB can devote some time for BETTER education, BETTER understanding of the consequences of his own acts, to a BETTER understanding of the "immediate environment" becoming the "shaman" of the group. A guy into who all confidence is vested and who knows how to help people for having been educated so. Usually this is being transferred from father to son for obvious reasons. But we are still, in some way, on an individualistic based society.
4. With communication improving the education and knowledge is spread off and therefore we face the new need which is COOPERATION at a larger scale.
This is NOT wiping out the basic needs but it is consequence of improved (faster) communications and (wider) knowledge.
The nowadays problem is that COOPERATION is still misunderstood and often goes just one way instead of being reciprocal. This is due that, to be reciprocal, it implies accepting the "other" knowledge and experience.
I am under the feeling that the actual fight among conservatives and progressists is due to a misconception of "cooperation": this is why some people want to restrict education, want to enhance individualism being scared by cooperation as it implies that MAYBE some other individual could be in a position to force them to depend on the group.
However, the reality is that we all depend on the group.
Steve, as you mentioned me, you support the Austrian School of Economics which beléieves that a free market can exist nowadays, that corporation profits "profit" to the whole people, which want to ignore that each individual needs a minimum of energies in order to work for the corporation, that if an individual is unable to be recovered (health or anything else) he remains useless to the society as you conceive it, etc.
Where I agree with Ron Paul is that wars are far more expensive than always expected. However Obama also agrees on this point.
Where I disagree with Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, the Rands, Schacht, Greenspan, etc. is that the never think in the feedback on timing.
The school you support, because of its Utopia (no way to get a free market when communication are fast and when some institutions are selling unexisting goods) has created the WORSE, I insist the WORSE society since the INQUISITION.
If corporations are the main engine of our societies, they have to be ensured of being able to work and for it they need to communicate with the power.
To be sure the power is being satisfied, it is far better to have it "cooperating" with the corporation decision makers.
For ensuring such "cooperation" the power is to define how much "cash" they need to receive from the corporation.
Of course, this "cash" can be improved with lower salaries. However such "low wages politics" may become harmful to the production.
So the solution is: a group of selected individuals receiving decent wages (based on their education, religion, hair color, blue eyes, ability to procreate, etc); while the others who can't integrate the social services and/or the army, could be provided with the "basic" needs up to when their energies will be exhausted as it happened in concenrtration camps.
Because of Utopia, facism and nazism took place. I will always be the standard bearer for those who prefer reality, who prefer REAL cooperation to enslaved employees.
Talk about a perceptive comment! That was great. I couldn't agree more, on practically every point.
Regardless of the position, one's vote is always limited to some variation of collective tyranny over individual freedom ("Evil," vs. "Stupid?"). I think it's a vague realization of this that drives movements like the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, but to little benefit since they can't align themselves to anything outside of that which causes the problem.
Exactly. And I believe that this condition has been purposely and carefully fabricated, over a long period of time now. It's a brilliant sort combination of several proven tactics, all rolled into one -- Divide and Conquer; Controlled Opposition; Heads I Win, Tails You Lose.
The Tea Party and OWS movements, as they stand now, pose absolutely no threat to the Establishment or the status quo. And the truth of the matter is, both groups share the same common enemy; but this fact has been effectively obscured by propaganda which has each group viewing the other as the source of the problem.
The idea of "paradigm shifts" as a necessity for great advances in science seems to apply in national politics as well. The American system will probably need to completely collapse before any kind of really meaningful change can happen, which may not be that far off.
I agree on all counts. I've been saying pretty much the same thing around here lately, too -- there will be a paradigm shift in this country; people like Bruce K. up there and Gilbert S. will be brought around to seeing things from the same perspective as I. The bad news is though, that the epiphany will come preceded by a cataclysmic rude awakening. The only question is when; and, unfortunately, I think that the answer is probably "sooner than you think."
I do not deny what I did, seeing and fighting.
Forget about "Gilbert S. will be brought around to seeing things from the same perspective as I." a sentence of yours just to justify your pride and own ignorance about the matter.
You consistently prove that you are practically oblivious concerning what it is that defines and constitutes a "free market" society, and especially concerning the Austrian School of Economics.
Your comments constitute such a web of fallacy that it's hard to know where to begin trying to untangle it. It practically prohibits even trying to discuss it these issues with you.
It's sort of like trying to discuss physics with someone who keeps insisting that Einstein claimed that all matter consists of Silly Putty, or something. It's hard to even know where to begin, you know?
you support the Austrian School of Economics which beléieves that a free market can exist nowadays, that corporation profits "profit" to the whole people, which want to ignore that each individual needs a minimum of energies in order to work for the corporation, that if an individual is unable to be recovered (health or anything else) he remains useless to the society as you conceive it, etc.
This is just another example of the usual cluster of non sequiturs and misconceptions that you so often contribute to these threads.
The Austrian school pointed out the simple fact, that in the conditions of a free market (absent coercive intervention), then the only way a business gains profits is by utilizing scarce productive in the most value-productive way from the standpoint of the consuming public. Thus we may say that under the conditions of economic freedom, then the more profitably businesses will be those who provide the greatest social benefit. It's just a truism; it's not some revelation, and neither is it a subjective value judgment.
And of course people need "a minimum of energies" to be able to labor for a corporation. But the Austrian economists did not assume that everyone would (or should) labor for a corporation.
It's an indisputable truism that people need to consume to live, and that the production of consumption goods requires expenditure of time, labor, produced capital and natural resources by people.
And it's also just a truism that a person who has reached a point where they do not posses a "minimum of energies" where they can contribute energy (either physical or mental) to productive processes, is in fact "useless to society."
But again, this is not some revelation attributable to the Austrian School of Economics. And that the Austrian economists would undoubtedly recognize that truism should not be construed as a subjective, personal value judgment. It is not to say that such people would not still have considerable value to friends and family. It's not to be construed as issuing a subjective judgment of value on that person's life.
The school you support, because of its Utopia (no way to get a free market when communication are fast and when some institutions are selling unexisting goods) has created the WORSE, I insist the WORSE society since the INQUISITION
This is a perfect example of what I mean by a tangled web of fallacies. The above paragraph consists entirely of non sequiturs; it's a fallacious conclusion derived entirely from false premises.
It's hard to even know where to begin...
First -- The fact of our advanced technology in information sharing and communication does not in any way adversely affect the inherent desirability or practicality of a free market economy properly defined. The only necessary assumption which a true free market economy is contingent upon is that the coercive power of the state acts only to protect property rights and enforce the terms of all inherently just and mutually-voluntary contracts, as opposed to acting as a vehicle for the invasion of property rights and for arbitrarily interfering with and dictating to the otherwise free and contractual exchange relationships of individuals and institutions, such as is prevalent now.
Next -- the Austrian School of Economics has nothing to do with any "utopia." As I've tried to explain to you several times already, the Austrian School of Economics is a body of objective, scientific knowledge. It is not a prescription for policy proposals. It is, as Mises called it, "wertfrei," it does not consist of any personal, subjective value judgments.
As with any body of scientific knowledge, it can inform value judgments. But since it is a body of knowledge derived entirely from a priori facets of human nature, and deductive logic working outward from there, then we can say that any policy proposals made in good faith and informed by the Austrian School of Economics would be entirely consistent with human nature; i.e., not utopian.
I do not disagree that the conditions we see today are the worst since the Inquisition or maybe the Dark Ages.
But to attribute todays conditions to the Austrian School of Economics is just absurd. It betrays a complete ignorance of the subject matter, or else intellectual dishonesty.
If the people who devised public policy had been informed by the Austrian School of Economics, and were acting in good faith, then we would not have a central banking cartel with monopoly privilege acting as a macroeconomic central planning agency. We would not have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which (combined with the central bank) created the conditions which brought about the present crisis. We would not have the giant, meddlesome federal Leviathan state and all it's economic sabotage.
We would have a sound money policy and a free market in banking, which means we would not have to suffer the perpetual cycle of boom-bust-recession and all it's unnecessary suffering and hardships.
The fact of the matter is, we have the conditions we have today, precisely because the people who formulate public policy have ignored the teachings of the Austrian School economists. To say that the Austrians are somehow to blame for our present conditions is patently absurd, and that's the nicest thing I could say about it.
Because of Utopia, facism and nazism took place. I will always be the standard bearer for those who prefer reality, who prefer REAL cooperation to enslaved employees.
For one thing, that Utopia consists in the belief that we can empower human beings with authority to impose arbitrary compulsions and restrictions upon society and that this could somehow solve social ills instead of multiplying them.
You, Gilbert, are a proponent of exactly that kind of Utopianism.
You are the standard bearer for those who prefer emotionalism to clear, critical thinking. You are the standard bearer for those who would continue the insane downward spiral away from the ideals of the Enlightenment, on the basis of the idea that human liberty is either untrustworthy or at best impractical.
Your worldview rests on a foundation of misconceptions and fallacies. The remedy is exposure to clear logic. But alas, you are also the standard bearer for those who dismiss out of hand and attempt to discredit and smear the very thinkers who so forcefully enunciated the clear logic which is so desperately needed now, instead of making any honest attempt to gain an understanding of those whom you pass judgment on from a position of willful ignorance.
" ... in the conditions of a free market (absent coercive intervention), then the only way a business gains profits ..."
Ok this is already UTOPIA and drives to any kind of Utopian conclusions. Derivatives are already based on such a "free market" and sells non-existing goods.
"Thus we may say that under the conditions of economic freedom, then the more profitably businesses will be those who provide the greatest social benefit."
This is nothing else than a syllogism ... mainly as you "forgot"(?) to state that this was the greatest social benefit for a restricted number of people. (LOL)
So now you have to "properly define" free market? Try to define it properly taking into account the flowing time as what was "true" yesterday may not be so tomorrow.
I just know exchange value or usage value. Wertfrei means free of value and if something is free of any value, as it cannot be the production itself then it is the work for producing it. This how come you are in Utopia.
"...it can inform value judgments ..." then it is obviously time related and deals exclusively with exchange value which, by definition, is not “free of value”.
My qualification is not ONLY related to the A.S.E. but to economies based on free-markets which are an Utopia as they don't take into account relative timing.
We far not have the same definition of Utopia. As far as I am concerned, Utopia is based on something which cannot be realized but remains a tale, a myth, applied to an expected to be reality. My car runs at 150 miles/hour. Expecting to be running at such a speed in town is Utopia. Or if you prefer Utopia wipes out any relation to time and environment.
Your "clear logics" states that the sum of the values of the angles of a triangle is 180 d. but this is for real ONLY on a small flat surface. We are just not considering things on the very same scale.
You, Steve Bachman, can't try, neither figure out the many feedback your own "economics knowledge" brings in.
Many people are like you and believe that what "may have been about to be sensible" yesterday will still be so tomorrow. I could only state here that you have, as well, a "willful ignorance" of the many feedbacks which are, indeed, complex enough.
The sole small problem is that, by ignoring them, the MANY feedbacks, you open the door to dark and sad times.
You are assuming that the idea of law as a means of establishing justice is "UTOPIA." And then I guess it follows that since the notion of a government to establish and maintain justice is "UTOPIA," then the only "realistic" ideal is that we accept and even accomodate institutionalized injustice. We should just scrap the idea of Rule of Law altogether?
Secondly: If derivatives are a "non-existent good," then I wonder why there is any demand for them? How is it that anyone is able to receive a price in payment for them?
"Thus we may say that under the conditions of economic freedom, then the more profitably businesses will be those who provide the greatest social benefit."
This is nothing else than a syllogism ... mainly as you "forgot"(?) to state that this was the greatest social benefit for a restricted number of people. (LOL)
I didn't "forget" to say any such nonsense, Gilbert. I would've had no reason add such a bogus qualification in the first place.
The statement, as I wrote it, is a syllogism only insofar as it is a truism.
In a free market environment, businesses only profit when they work to satisfy the most urgent demands of the consumers in the most cost-effective way -- another way of saying this would be to say that profits are a sign that the business is putting scarce productive factors to their most value-productive ends from the standpoint of society.
This is not a benefit "for a restricted number of people." It is socially beneficial in the strictest sense of the term.
Think of it this way: Human wants and needs are practically infinite (once one is satisfied, there is another only incrementally less urgent to take it's place), whereas all factors of production to bring about consumers' goods to satisfy wants and needs are all scarce (or else they are super-abundant, like air, and bring a price of zero on the market).
The "economic question" is this: How best to allocate the scarce factors of production so as to satisfy an infinite array of human wants and needs?
The solution to this problem is the social function of the market price structure combined with the profit/loss dynamic.
The market price structure is what serves as the guidepost, if you will, for entrepreneurs and investors, to bring their decisions into agreement with the most urgent wants and needs of the greatest number of people. It is what makes sure that scarce resources of time, labor, capital and equipment are not devoted to the production items A,B,or C, when item D is more urgently demanded by more people. And then the same for items A or B when C is still more urgently demanded, etc.
The profit/loss dynamic is what keeps the entrepreneurs and investors in line, so to speak. The consumers are the captain of the economic ship; the "captains of industry" and the "capitalists" take their orders from the consumers. It is true that they are not compelled to obey, as by force. But if they are stubborn and do not obey the whims of the consumers, then they suffer losses, and eventually are driven out of business, and the factors of production they employed are freed up to be directed by others who are more responsive and better able to provide for the needs of the public, most efficiently and effectively.
This analysis is just plain, indisputable explanation of how a market economy functions. There is nothing "Utopian" about it.
What is Utopian, is to think that one small group of human beings can be blessed with the knowledge and impeccable foresight to centrally plan the allocation of all the various factors of production, in one of a practically infinite array of possible combinations, in such a way as to provide for the ever-changing most urgent not-yet-satisfied wants and needs of hundreds of millions of unique individuals, any better or more efficiently than the market is able to perform this function, when it is permitted to function freely and unhampered by arbitrary interference.
So now you have to "properly define" free market? Try to define it properly taking into account the flowing time as what was "true" yesterday may not be so tomorrow.
What does flowing time have to do with the price of eggs in China?
A free market does take into account the passage of time -- that is exactly how things like interest and futures markets and professional speculators came into being.
The fact that conditions change on a daily, and even hourly, or by the minute basis, has no bearing at all on what is the proper definition of a "free market."
It is defined as much as by what it lacks, as what it contains. A "free market" is just the naturally-occurring networks of interpersonal exchange and free contract and production under the social division of labor. This naturally comes about where ever members of human society are secure in their rights of person and property.
The market ceases to be free whenever initiatory force or fraud is imposed upon the otherwise mutually-voluntary economic relationships within society; which, in our day and age, is almost exclusively the domain of states, since states exercise an effective monopoly on coercive force in society (or else they do not remain a state for very long).
Do you have any problem with this definition?
I just know exchange value or usage value. Wertfrei means free of value and if something is free of any value, as it cannot be the production itself then it is the work for producing it. This how come you are in Utopia.
You misunderstand, Gilbert. BADLY. "Wertfrei" refers to the science itself. I tried explaining this to you, but it seems like you failed to understand in a monumental way.
All it is saying is that the science of economics, as conceived by the Austrian School method of praxeology, does not engage in any subjective value-judgments.
It does not say "A is good" or "X is bad." It does not say "the government should do Y" or "should not do Z."
It simply states facts. It just says "when the government does A, the result must be X."
It is up to the individual considering these conclusions whether a given policy or result is good or bad.
Economic science informs value judgments; it does not engage in them.
Understand?
And it also seems like you are misinterpreting the use of the term "value" here. It is used here in the sense of moral or ethical values; not in the sense of economic exchange value.
In that case, the Austrian School's teachings on the source of value was revolutionary at it's time, but has since become the standard basis of all modern "mainstream" schools of economic thought. At first, Menger and Bohm-Bawerk's "subjective theory of value" competed mostly with the Marxist "labor theory of value" and the classical "cost-of-production" theory; each of which has been thoroughly exploded and now the Austrian theory has been taken for granted.
My qualification is not ONLY related to the A.S.E. but to economies based on free-markets which are an Utopia as they don't take into account relative timing.
I would like to know who granted you this "qualification," because I am but a self-taught layman, and I can't even make enough sense out of most of the things you say to have any sort of productive conversation on the subject with you.
Please explain to me, if you can, exactly why it is that you believe that economies must be centrallymanaged by bureaucrats and politicians, just because of "relative timing." Could you do that for me?
We far not have the same definition of Utopia. As far as I am concerned, Utopia is based on something which cannot be realized but remains a tale, a myth, applied to an expected to be reality.
No, we have the same definition of Utopia. The problem here, is that you have a tangled web of fallacies regarding economic theory which causes you to view the concept of voluntary social cooperation without dictating totalitarian overlords as "Utopian," but then the idea of a group of humans being authorized to impose arbitrary compulsions and restrictions upon the whole of society, and expecting this to solve social problems instead of multiplying them (which is all such an arrangement has ever accomplished to date), of being somehow more realistic.
I think you've got it exactly backwards, my friend.
Your "clear logics" states that the sum of the values of the angles of a triangle is 180 d. but this is for real ONLY on a small flat surface. We are just not considering things on the very same scale.
Huh? But what you are claiming assumes that two bricks of slightly different mass and weight dropped from the same altitude at different times of day will only kill the same species of salamander if the pH level of milk changes with the same increment as the temperature in Honolulu.
See what I mean? How does one argue with that?
Far too many words for me to answer each point: they are obviously written to have the few reading people be confused if not to express your own confusion.
I will just underline "Please explain to me, if you can, exactly why it is that you believe that economies must be centrallymanaged by bureaucrats and politicians, just because of "relative timing." Could you do that for me?"
This is pure and perfect way to avoid the real problem as I NEVER, ABSOLUTELY NEVER, STATED IN A WAY OR ANOTHER ANY KIND OF CENTRALLY MANAGED ECONOMICS BY ANY KIND OF BUREAUCRATS OR POLITICIANS.
But, the same way, I refuse plutocracy, corporatism or utopism.
What you do, in order to appear being aware and right, is simply distorting and stating things your opponents never said and never intended to say.
It cannot be anything else as, and this last comment confirms it, you are simply disconnected with reality.
Practically each sentence on this last comment confirms it.
I did my best to try to show - not to you but to the few readers - what was wrong with your suggestions, what could be dangerous, what went on when such thoughts were applied. If they are in need of any detail, any further explanation, if they have any question, I promise to answer as sincerely and objectively as possible.
You assert that the idea of a free market is -- and I quote -- "a UTOPIA."
Do you deny this?
Each time I state that allowing markets to function freely and properly requires that the coercive power of the state be limited to protection of people and property rights from initiatory force or fraud, which necessarily precludes arbitrary intervention under the auspices of "regulation," you retort that this is "Utopian."
Are you now denying this?
So, let's do some simple deductive logic. Here we have a basic case where we can draw easy inferences -- if A, then B; or, if not A, then necessarily B.
Basic deductive logic dictates that if you hold the concept of a free market society to be "Utopian," then you must necessarily hold the concept of the alternative, that being an economic structure subject to the command and control of central economic planners, to some degree or another, to be the more realistic and practical.
If you deny this, then you are simply denying the irrefutable laws of logic. In which case, I would say, the fact speaks for itself; I need say no more.
But, the same way, I refuse plutocracy, corporatism or utopism.
Right. So you say. But, at the same time, you argue in favor of exactly the kind of bureaucratic regime which is essential to the nature of plutocracy, corporatism, fascism.
That is where you fall victim to precisely the Utopian thinking that you like to accuse others of -- you think that we can have a political structure where human beings are empowered to impose arbitrary compulsions and restrictions on the rest of society, and that this kind of power can be trusted to not become the tool of exactly the plutocrats and corporatists, who have the means at their disposal to purchase power and influence over the political establishment which wields it.
Only one word I can think of to describe that kind of dangerously naive thinking: UTOPIAN.
What you do, in order to appear being aware and right, is simply distorting and stating things your opponents never said and never intended to say.
I do no such thing. The problem here is that you lack the understanding to realize exactly what it is that is implied by what you are saying!
I recognize full well that you never *intended* to say that you favor corporate-state regimentation. But the problem is that is the only logical inference to be drawn from the statements which you have made.
I say again: If you declare the principle of a free market economy to be "Utopian," then the only logical inference to be drawn is that you favor a centrally-managed economic system, in some form or another.
You do not have to overtly state it. It is tacitly implied in what you've already stated.
It cannot be anything else as, and this last comment confirms it, you are simply disconnected with reality ... Practically each sentence on this last comment confirms it.
So is this what we've come to? You think you can settle the matter in your favor by blithely asserting that my last comment "confirms" that I'm "simply disconnected with reality"?
See, how it usually works, when two people desire to have an honest debate, in good faith, then they cannot just pass such a judgment of profound implications as you just did, without offering even one single reasoned explanation, by way of example and brief analysis for instance, and then shut down debate as if that mere assertion should be considered the winning blow on the power of it's own self-evidence.
But then, that is assuming that each party to the debate is indeed arguing in good faith...
I did my best to try to show - not to you but to the few readers - what was wrong with your suggestions, what could be dangerous, what went on when such thoughts were applied.
Really? You could have fooled me! Seems to me all you've done is make blanket assertions. Assertion is not argument, Gilbert. An educated man such as yourself ought to know that.
It is one of the better threads, Lisa - thanks to comments like Jerry's.
But, Jerry, I must respond with the opinion that if "truth" is the answer, then we are totally and irreversibly screwed.
I was thinking about "truth" the other day as Corzine was being questioned by a Congressional committee on live TV. When they asked him if he had ordered his underlings to illegally take MFGlobal's client funds, he answered: "I never intended that the funds should be taken blah blah blah." After the next question, there it was again in his answer - the word "intend." In the few minutes I watched, it became obvious that his attorney had told him that he could avoid prosecution for lying under oath if he just kept using the word "intend'" and he did. I didn't hear one yes or no solid answer.
The sad part was, the committee didn't either. They knew it but they didn't call him on it. I realized that it wasn't really a Congressional investigation. It was just a show.
Congress has long suffered with a poor reputation. From my past life at a Boston company featuring officers who were descendents of our forefathers I came to know that many early fortunes were made illegally by legislators investing in sure-fire deals on the basis of inside info. In the case of one well-known family, the original legislator invested in cheap desert land where he knew the trans-continental rail line was going and then he resold the land to the rail company at a huge profit.
Mark Twain once said: "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."
Today, the art of political corruption has been refined so that it entails no threat of prosecution, so long as it is carried out in accordance with the legislation that the recipients of the moneys and favors have designed.
"Truth," where have you hidden? - politics? - business? - religion? - the media?
Jerry, I've looked everywhere and I don't believe it can be found...
I don't want to belabor the point, but ideally, when we know GOD as (+=-) instead of the common God of (+/-) ... we can be freely honest, even if we want to do "bad" things and lie even ... of course I can't even imagine anyone wanting to do that when they know the truth of the matter ... that truth being that Karmic accounting is kept by GOD (whatever that (GOD) amounts to) so that what goes around comes around, as you sow so shall you reap, thus when everyone knows that truth they will generally abide by the Golden Rule because they will be assured of the eventual "payback" forthcoming.
In this view, we are eternal beings and the Karma may not show here in this life, but it will eventually, and as a key part of that, there are no accidents nor victimization's, only those who have Karmic "negative balances outstanding" will experience what many now call tragedies (serious "accidents" or crimes against them)(many such things, if not most, are due to "past life" infractions) ... everything else seen as "bad" will be just a part of the "schooling here" for our Soul's long term benefit on into eternity.
I apologize for the "preaching" here on your fine thread ... but it really is critically important that this world consider sooner, rather than later, the truth of the truth ... :-)
Karma is "absolute" Justice ... there is no escaping it ... and none need fear it except those who abuse truth ... IMnsHO
Char, if you find another credit agency, could you post it?
Mare~
Guess it was a little bit more than 2weeks ago... But I knew I saw something. BTE, Was mid Nov.
According to some economic forecasts, the real problems will start in 2012.
Global Research, whose predictions for 2011 were deemed to be 82% on the money, has laid out the most negative outlook I've seen so far. In its Global Europe Anticipation Bulletin (GEAB) no. 60 , dated December 17, 2011, it flatly predicts "an insolvent and ungovernable United States for the 2012-2016 period."
Reading the details of that report made me feel like I've been a flaming optimist.
That's not to say that Global Research's prediction is necessarily correct. However, I can tell you that the megacrisis drumroll is definitely getting louder...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GLO20111217&articleId=28253
Regarding the discussion we had in this thread about inflation and deflation, etc. -- I found an essay that I think if you read, you'll find it plenty interesting and hopefully enlightening.
If I can't bring you around to my side on this very important issue, then hopefully I can point you to the words of someone else (much more educated and a better writer than I) that can help to at least make you a bit more sympathetic to my case.
I do hope you decide to give it a look -- and especially, it is sections III through VII that I would highlight for you -- and let me know what you think... Deflation and Liberty (Jorg Guido Hulsmann)
For example, he wrote: "profit does not depend on the level of money prices at which we sell, but on the difference between the prices at which we sell and the prices at which we buy. In a deflation, both sets of prices drop, and as a consequence for-profit production can go on."
This is the naive conclusion of someone who appears to be an egghead philosopher who seems to dismiss the facts of production and marketing, and who cares little for the welfare of the public at large. For example, he totally overlooks the element of time in the production process, time during which the value of the products being produced are declining. Further, he fails to consider that - just as people are motivated to "buy now" in an inflationary environment - consumers defer discretionary purchases during periods of deflation, involving products like homes, vehicles, electronics, vacations, etc.
He further fails to note that the deflationary cycle - falling sales, layoffs, falling prices, further drop in sales, more layoffs, etc., etc. - has been a particularly difficult cycle to break. Nor does he acknowledge that in the case of our last period of deflation - the Great Depression - it took the immense expansion of the money supply going into World War II to end the economic decline. Of course, such an admission would kick the supports out from under his basic philosophy. Despite this in-your-face evidence of the impact of an expansion in the money supply, he glibly concludes: "there is no economic rationale for monetary policy to take up an ardent fight against deflation rather than letting deflation run its course."
Further, his disregard for public welfare is evident in his statement that deflation "would not be a mortal threat to the lives and the welfare of the general population"...and "that bankruptcies—irrespective of how many individuals are involved—do not affect the real wealth of the nation, and in particular that they do not prevent the successful continuation of production. The point is that other people will run the firms and own the houses."
Well, I say, tell that to the tens of millions who have already lost their homes and/or jobs - and we're not even experiencing a deflation yet. Hulsmann seems to believe that as many benefit from a depression as are devastated by it. This is a "let-them-eat-cake" type of illusion that undermines his whole premise.
Basically, inflation benefits the debtors - the government and those in the middle class whose debts represent a significant portion of their financial statements. Deflation, then, obviously benefits the money lenders - the upper class, the wealthy, and oh lets just call them the plutocrats.
It's not difficult to see who Hulsmann is pandering to.
I would say, Steve, that Hulsmann is to economic theory pretty much what Hitler was to politics. There seems to be a striking moral equivalent here.
Come on, Dave. These issues can certainly be discussed without resorting to impugning the motives or the compassion of the people involved, ex ante. I will take for granted that you are arguing in good faith; that you truly do desire only what is best for everyone. I hope you'll extend me the same courtesy. And being a fan Prof. Hulsmann, I am sure that he does indeed care great deal about the welfare of the public at large, and I can say for absolute certain that he is well aware of the facts of production and marketing, and that to accuse an Austrian School Economist of not sufficiently accounting for the element of time in relation to the structure of production, is sort of akin to accusing a Baptist preacher of not sufficiently accounting for the New Testament in relation to the Bible or something. It's just... absurd; for want of a kinder word.
time during which the value of the products being produced are declining
Hulsmann doesn't overlook that element. I think you may be overlooking the fact that he just takes it granted, and also takes for granted that entrepreneurs take that element into consideration, just as they do all elements associated with costs of production and expected revenue, when making their calculations and judgments.
You have to consider that most of the analysis is assuming a condition where a gold coin standard and a free market in banking are already established. In this case, the degree of price decreases over periods of time would be gradual and relatively predictable. This phenomenon is only rendered unpredictable and sporadic in our present conditions because of the pre-existing inflationary policies. If our frame of analytical reference is a society absent those chaotic circumstances, then the trend of decreasing prices over periods of time would not be problematic whatsoever -- and there is certainly no reason to assume that could be considered any more problematic than the trends of perpetually increasing prices that we deal with now, especially considering the facts that (a) it is part and parcel to the same phenomena that bring us the boom/bust cycle; and (b) that it constitutes an engine of regressive wealth redistribution, whereas purchasing power is siphoned away from the ordinary wage-earners, money-savers and insurance policy-holders, and up to the privileged class of politically-connected bankers, speculators and corporate exec's.
But, back to the point, in the case of a commodity-money standard and 100% reserve banking, then businesses would fully account for expected price decreases in their carrying on of everyday business, which means wage rates, rents to capital owners, and interest rate payments would all be negotiated with those long-view expectations already in mind.
It's true that it would probably become the norm for people to have to accept cuts in wages and salaries over periods of probably a decade or so, so as to account for the fact that a given nominal wage rate would represent a much higher standard of living in a given year than it did 10 years prior. But again, I don't see any reason why this should be considered any less desirable than a condition where we have to constantly be renegotiating wage rates upwards every few years in a (usually futile) attempt to keep up with a constantly increasing cost of living.
Further, he fails to consider that - just as people are motivated to "buy now" in an inflationary environment - consumers defer discretionary purchases during periods of deflation, involving products like homes, vehicles, electronics, vacations, etc.
Again, this is indeed the condition associated with a post-inflationary environment. But this is not the case if we remove the assumption of perpetual inflation in a central-banking/fiat-money dominated world.
I think I've already covered enough of why gradually diminishing prices would be a social benefit in a post-fiat money world. But even now, the fact that consumers defer purchases in a period of recession is actually a good thing; it helps speed up the price structure readjustment process.
Keep in mind: people must consume to live, and in a society based on social cooperation under the division of labor, this means people must purchase goods and services. What happens during the inflationary period is that the price structure -- the relative exchange values of goods and services as against other goods and services -- is thrown out of whack. Why recessions happen is because it is the market attempting to readjust the price structure to the actual, real conditions of supply and demand. Some prices need to drop, as well as some wages, and some rents. When consumers defer purchases, they are effectively speculating. But they do not defer them forever; prices can only drop so far, and people who demand a given product will eventually purchase it, once they are convinced that prices have hit rock bottom, and perhaps (likely) are going to begin rising again.
He further fails to note that the deflationary cycle - falling sales, layoffs, falling prices, further drop in sales, more layoffs, etc., etc. - has been a particularly difficult cycle to break
I don't think that's so much his failure, as it is your misperception. In actuality, the deflationary cycle has run it's course and paved the way for sound, sustainable growth to re-emerge rather quickly and relatively painlessly (I stress "relatively," as in comparison with post-Hoover/FDR recession policy), in those times when it was permitted to do so unhampered by political meddling and central bank "stimulus" (each of which seek only to prop up what has already proven to be an unhealthy, unsustainable condition).
But what's more important, is that Hulsmann's essay proves the point that if we were to finally rid ourselves of the macroeconomic central-planning bureaucracy, it's fiat money and it's inherently-insolvent fractional-reserve practices, then we would not have to worry about the sort of phenomena associated with deflationary pressures of a recession, because those are brought about only because of the consequences of the preceding ininflation.
Nor does he acknowledge that in the case of our last period of deflation - the Great Depression - it took the immense expansion of the money supply going into World War II to end the economic decline.
That's because he's educated enough to see that story for the fallacy-laden mythology that it is.
There are several good books and essays that provide an economically-sound analysis of the Great Depression, what caused it, and what ended it.
Here's a great ebook you should check out if you have the time: America's Great Depression (Murray Rothbard).
And regarding how the Great Depression ended, here's a really good essay: Regime Uncertainy: Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumed after the War (Robert Higgs)
Despite this in-your-face evidence of the impact of an expansion in the money supply, he glibly concludes: "there is no economic rationale for monetary policy to take up an ardent fight against deflation rather than letting deflation run its course."
But it's not "in-your-face evidence," Dave. It's a fallacious conclusion drawn from a superficial observation.
And yes, it is true, that pumping inflationary money into the economy can appear to stave off or even cure the symptoms of a recession.
But the fact of the matter is that is the economic equivalent of a doctor claiming he has "healed" a heroin addict because he has given him a fix of his dope. Sure, the symptoms of opiate withdrawal have subsided. But all the doctor has done is postpone the inevitable day of reckoning, and likely made the horror of that day worse when it eventually does arrive.
In our case, the withdrawal symptoms are what we know of as "recession," and it would be a false conclusion of the superficial observer to believe that the cause of the recession was the deflation, and not the prior injections of inflationary money and credit, and the illusory "boom" that it created -- but this is tantamount to an uninformed, superficial observer concluding that the "cause" of the junkie's sickness was the abstinence from opiates, while disregarding altogether the prior daily injections of heroin which necessitated the withdrawal sickness.
Further, his disregard for public welfare is evident in his statement that deflation "would not be a mortal threat to the lives and the welfare of the general population"
That is not disregard, Dave. It may more accurately be viewed as common cause with the public welfare.
In an absence of monetary manipulation, then the average working family would enjoy the benefits of economic growth which is covertly siphoned away from us by the insidious process of inflation.
When our wages and savings would continually be able to purchase more and more for us as time passed, that means our standard of living would be increasing. And that's exactly how it should be. We are supposed to enjoy a higher standard of living when productivity is increased, scarcity is alleviated, and the economic pie grows. In the absence of inflationary policy, this increased standard of living would be manifest in the form of higher purchasing power of our wages and savings, represented by falling money prices of goods and services.
Well, I say, tell that to the tens of millions who have already lost their homes and/or jobs - and we're not even experiencing a deflation yet.
Those tens of millions have the institution of fractional-reserve central banking to thank for that, for that is the engine of the process which begins with illusory, inflationary "booms," not underwritten by any real accumulation of genuine capital or increased real wealth, which throws the economy into disequilibrium, results in untold malinvestment and squandering of scarce productive resources, and necessitates a period of liquidation and price structure correction which we know of as the recession.
It is not "deflation" which is at blame here; it is the foolish inflationary policy which precedes it which sets in motion all the forces which result in pain and hardship for millions of people who don't have the means to weather the storm such as do the Wall St. and corporate elites for whom the system was designed explicitly to benefit.
Basically, inflation benefits the debtors - the government and those in the middle class whose debts represent a significant portion of their financial statements. Deflation, then, obviously benefits the money lenders - the upper class, the wealthy, and oh lets just call them the plutocrats.
I know you're capable of thinking more clearly than this, Dave.
During periods of inflation, when the purchasing power of the wages and savings of middle-class and poor Americans disappears, where do you think it goes? do you think it just evaporates?
No; it is surreptitiously redistributed to the first people to receive and spend the inflationary money and credit: the privileged financial elites and politically-connected corporations.
And really, Dave ; if inflationary policy was really such a big boon to the poor and middle class, and deflation a boon to the plutocrats, then don't you think that the inflationary institutions of fractional-reserve central banking and fiat money would have been scuttled a long time ago?
Come on, man. Think about it.
It's not difficult to see who Hulsmann is pandering to ... I would say, Steve, that Hulsmann is to economic theory pretty much what Hitler was to politics. There seems to be a striking moral equivalent here.
I can't believe that you could actually entertain these kinds of thoughts for more than a few seconds without recognizing the inherent absurdity. There is some serious cognitive dissonance involved here; has to be.
Again: if sound money and free market banking (which Hulsmann advocates) were such a dream of the elite plutocrats, then don't you think that we'd already have sound money and free market banking?
Are you aware of the meeting on Jekyll Island that took place in 1910, during which the Federal Reserve System was conceived? Do you know who attended that meeting? (for the record: this is all just common knowledge now; part of the easily-verifiable public record -- before any ad hominem charges of "conspiracy theorist" get tossed about).
Long story short: It was the Rockefeller's and Morgan's and Rothschild's who were behind the creation of the FED, just as elite banking interests have been behind the creation of every central bank monopoly since the 18th Century.
The FED system is their tool; it is their ultimate weapon. It is the source of their wealth, power and control. The people who want to abolish the institutions of central banking and fiat money are not the friends of such plutocrats; they are sworn arch-enemies!
I think some reconsideration of conclusions is in order here, Dave. In a bad way.
Deflation is due to stock accumulation which means that tangible assets are frozen.
and, when stating, about the Fed:
"The crisis did not hit us despite the presence of our monetary and financial authorities. It hit us because of them."
He wants to ignore that the FED is made of the private bankers who are therefore in the uncomfortable position to be simultaneously object and subject of their own positions and decisions.
On top of it "printed" bills are not any more the main vector of tangible assets.
IMO, reading History, I feel that there was a confusion and a wrong conception of real estate value between Schacht and the sub-primes.
Schacht based the assets of Germany, in order to stop Weimar inflation, in 1923 by introducing the Rentenmark based on the value of the mortgages.
The sub-prime crisis has been initiated by the banking system which created derivatives based on deregulated loan mortgages.
The difference between both is that, in 1923, the mortgage system was far not deregulated but short of "credible tangible assets"; while, in 2005-6, the lack of "tangible assets" was replaced by some type of "credit assets" based on a bubbling market.
Nowadays few changes took place: we are still gambling on derivatives as losses will be funded by taxpayer while profits will be partially devoted to repay the TARPs received at a much lower interest rate than the one practiced on the market.
The problem, IMO, with "libertarians" is the comfrontation of the individual freedom projected on the people dependency; the opposition of individual freedom and dependencies of the masses.
In some ways, the Austrian School of Economics is to the rightists what the anarchism was to the leftists.
No, it is not. Deflation is due to the structural distortions and falsified market signals that are products of the preceding inflation.
Deflation is technically defined as a decrease in the supply of money and/or credit. The effects which this has on prices or stocks (or anything else it may effect) are just that; effects. People have nowadays taken up the habit of confounding the cause and the effects. Hence we have people like Dave who refer to the phenomenon of decreasing prices as such as "deflation" (or rising prices as such as "inflation").
He wants to ignore that the FED is made of the private bankers who are therefore in the uncomfortable position to be simultaneously object and subject of their own positions and decisions.
How do you figure? What path of reasoning did you take to arrive at this conclusion?
I don't understand how you link anything you just said to the statement you are (apparently) responding to; let alone anything Hulsmann wrote in the entire article.
And in any case, it is disingenuous to refer to the Federal Reserve System as "private bankers." It is a government-created and -sustained cartel, with privileged monopoly control over the nation's supply of money and credit. If you can't make a conceptual distinction between that, and market-based private enterprise, then it's no wonder your thinking is so vulnerable to so many confusions and fallacies.
On top of it "printed" bills are not any more the main vector of tangible assets.
So what? who said they were? The Fed has monopoly control over "checkbook" deposit accounts, too. All money and credit in the U.S. is ultimately subject to the control of the Fed.
The sub-prime crisis has been initiated by the banking system which created derivatives based on deregulated loan mortgages.
"Deregulated" mortgage loans? Seriously? Ever heard of something called Fannie Mae?
You're correct that the crisis was initiated by the banking system. But why would you just point the blame at alleged "deregulation" in mortgage lending, and ignore the root of the evil which is the fractional-reserve banking system?
Fact is, as long as we have institutionalized fractional-reserve banking, we are going to have boom-bust-recession cycles. Period. The only way we can have the former and not the latter, is if the market is eliminated entirely, all economic activity is centrally-planned, and our society is reduced to a soviet-style serfdom.
If we want to get rid of business cycles, but retain our freedom, then our only option is to demand sound money and free market banking.
The problem, IMO, with "libertarians" is the comfrontation of the individual freedom projected on the people dependency; the opposition of individual freedom and dependencies of the masses.
I don't understand what you're getting at here. What gives you the impression that libertarians are opposed to "individual freedom and dependencies of the masses"?
You just make these assertions that are so far off-base its absurd; and you do so blithely and matter-of-factly, as if we're just supposed to accept it as self-evident.
Have you ever read anything on the subjects of libertarian philosophy or the Austrian School of Economics which was not written by a rabid collectivist?
In some ways, the Austrian School of Economics is to the rightists what the anarchism was to the leftists.
Well, except for little differences, like the fact that Kropotkin and Bakunin based much of their thinking on long-exploded Marxist fallacies like the Labor theory of Value, whereas Menger and Bohm-Bawerk were the fathers of the Marginal Utility economics which has since been universally-accepted among all serious schools of economic thought, and is today taken for granted; and whereas Mises and Hayek were the fathers of Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which was the first time a theory of business cycles was successfully consistently integrated within a framework of general economic theory, and today stands as the only thoroughly sound, irrefutable explanation of all phases and aspects of the boom-bust-recession cycle.
But aside from that; yeah, okay. Whatever you say.
How come each of you, students, don't ride a Rolls Royce?
and a future politician responded:
"Because Rolls Royce is not manufacturing enough cars!"
Later on he did not yet understand reality and was still feeling that the "other" was responsible for his deceptions.
The Marginal Utility defines that the very last item out of the production chain fixes the cost of each produced items. True if a production line is concerned.... and if the last manufactured item keeps on or improve the expected quality, while being still demanded.
False in some other examples, the last manufactured item often sees a drop in quality due to lowered inspections (the car industry reminds us of it often; computer industry as well, electronic as well) and even human beings, as the last offspring may cost much more than the first one.
Your statement is simple theoretical but doesn't fit with specific reality.
Individualism is a way to point out on failures stating they are due to external responsibilities.
BTW, Marginal Utility has already be mentioned with the theory of industrialization (Jean-Baptiste SAY, Adam Smith, Ricardo) late 1700 about 150 years before Mises and Hayek.
And, when faced with my revelations of his omissions you say He takes those for granted.
Really...I'm going to have to remember that cop-out if and when I'm ever boxed into a corner.
"Hey, I didn't omit or overlook that....I TOOK IT FOR GRANTED."
See, I'm practicing it already. I think I've got it down pat.
Thanks...
Hardly, you've still to learn how to take 200 lines to say it.
The problem is that you did not give any "revelations." The fact that the money prices of goods decline over time (not the "value" of goods, as you put it) in the absence of money supply expansion is not a "revelation." Furthermore, it is not something which is problematic.
To accuse Hulsmann of "overlooking" something assumes that there is something relevant to be overlooked. In this case, there is not.
I've backed up my point of view with facts while you and your prof. spout philosophical theory.
Nonsense. Hulsmann's essay and my comments here on the subject are based on economic theory; not philosophical theory. Yes, Hulsmann talks about why sound money and free market banking are the most consistent with the philosophical ideas of liberty and justice; but his discussion of money and banking is in fact based on economic theory.
And your attempt to discredit my side by claiming it is your facts vs. my theory is intellectually dishonest.
There are often any number of alternative ways of explaining a given set of facts. Theory is a way of interpreting and explaining the facts of reality; there are sound theories and there are unsound theories.
What you have backed up your point of view with is not "facts," but a certain interpretation of given facts. In other words: a theory.
Your theory here is that deflation is a social evil while inflation is a social benefit. You have backed this up with certain assertions; which themselves are based on a certain theoretical interpretation of the facts.
I have tried to refute those theoretical interpretations with the logic of what I hold to be the sound theoretical interpretation. You have not answered those refutations. You've decided to take the route of being smarmy and dishonest.
If you feel like you have nothing to learn about this subject, that you have all the knowledge you need to know you're right, or that it is not important enough to warrant your time to debate it, then fine. We'll leave it at that.
But just know that what our debate has thus far consisted of is your theoretical interpretations vs. my theoretical interpretation; not "facts vs. theory."
> consisted of is your theoretical interpretations vs.
> my theoretical interpretation; not "facts vs. theory."
This claim of equality follows the claim of superiority,
but you are just as disingenuous with this claim as
you were with the other.
Dave is very clear about where he is coming from, as
in discussing the growing income gap and purchase
of government power as the problem. It's not really
even on your road map.
You on the other hand like to hem and haw about
what your ultimate aim is, in other words you are
really hiding your agenda behind flowery talk.
Dave claimed you are either a willing or unwitting
shill for the plutocrats, from what I've read that seems
likely.
You camoflage it with talk about the free market as if
that is going to help bring about more justice - and
any claim that this is so would hardly be theoretical
interpretation - it's more pure propaganda, and
distraction to prevent the important end goals having
to do with the focus on real economic justice for citizens.
I'm not a fan of philosophical, theoretical BS in which the writer lays out his conclusions as being true just because he says they are. And, actually, they're not even conclusions because the word "conclusion" suggests that there is a rational path leading to it.
Simply put, the school-of-thought you proselytize is, to me, the Mount Everest of arrogant pomposity.
And, of course, the opposite is true during a deflation - the plutocrat's wet dream - as promoted by such mouthpieces as Hulsmann...
Theoretically because it "should" be (as per the theory of equilibrium) that the "demand" from corporations for jobs is based on the following equation:
The demand "N" being equal to the "Gross Wage" (W) divided by a price index (P).
The reasoning here is to implement a comprehensive plan similar to the individual profit maximization. Steve believes that companies hire workers to the point where there is inequality between the marginal product value of work and its marginal cost.
In other words, the worker is being compared with the machine-tool: cost of each piece when considering the cost (all things considered) of the equivalent tool, its maintenance, its ability to produce.
The obvious problem is that, neither you, neither I, ever saw such machine-tool spending any money in the grocery market!
The Austrian School aim is to reach an equilibrium. Of course, it disregards the fact that "equilibrium" is a static system which is as theoretical than "dead".
Economy is made of homeostasy, a constant movement that can never be "frozen". May I point out that any movement implies some timing?
There is often a huge confusion among 3 wordings: marginalism, neo-classic analysis and liberalism.
Marginalism is not a theory or any doctrine: it is the acceptance to use, as a medium of reasoning, only classical calculus. However classical calculus is a tool and cannot take into consideration any positive or negative metaphysical (?) value. Some problems can obviously find a solution in differential calculus. Other problems cannot be solved this way. The usage of "marginalism" as a theory is a dispute of interest-free school. Economists are nowadays far from such "marginalism" as a theory which cannot take into consideration timing and evolution.
The neo-classical analysis refers to a set of theories that share a consistency. We use very different mathematical tools, among which is marginalism.
In contrast, liberalism has a curious mix of acts of faith in the merits of freedom in itself and in the virtues of market mechanisms and individual initiative. A kind of mixture between individual freedom and the virtues of technical analysis.
Whichever is the tool, it cannot be anything else than a tool. And a tool responds to the diver as the driver wants: if the driver is stupid, the toll will respond stupidely, despite all and every electronic enhancements!
Maybe in English another word exists covering such more or less long lasting needs.
I still don't know how to compute the sum of these so much variable needs. Not even Gerard Debreu succeeded to be "realistic". But he opened a track which is still remaining unsolved.
The problem they cavalierly overlook, however, is that the folks along Main Street are currently in that toilet...
However, after analyzing his many bunch of words, I came to the conclusion that he was trying to drive us to a so-called improve economy disregarding economy as welfare for all: it is paradoxical to apply marginal computations just on goods and not on wages and therefore on joblessness.
In some comments I believe he's trying to disregard the value of human work while applying marginalism.
The problem is rather complex and for the time being it doesn't seem that we can reach a fully suitable solution. However, we are working on this and have already found a partial solution. Not perfect at all. But ...
In other words, as the present problem is showing, only those able to invest capital assets are increasing their own welfare and the gap keeps enlarging.
What I intended to point out, Dave, is:
1. Marginalism is a type of calculus, a formulae, which some people apply on economy as the price is demand divided by supply.
2. The tool is NOT responding within some specific situations because it IGNORES human choice, human needs and their consequences or feedback which are initiated and dependent from environment and organizational changes.
3. As such computation is nothing else than a tool is cannot be considered as a theory as a theory should be able to take into consideration each and every change of its components, I mean of what makes and constitute each component.
By "making" a component I imply, all of the elements which constitute a component as, per example, money is made of:
Printed bills, bank deposits, credits and the exchange velocity (velocity is already difficult to define accurately)
but, as well, nowadays, by
share exchanges, commercial contracts among them profits or losses on derivatives.
Deflation is a decrease of general prices usually coupled with an increase of food and energy prices.
An automated chain replaces many employees, should create a drop in pricing, implies huge changes in education and technology but implies, as well, huge investments.
Investments, to be competitive, have to remain so for some period of time and such period cannot be introduced into the marginalism.
If one applies marginalism on manufacturing cost, he/she will, as well, apply such calculus to the labor. This is FINANCE and not economy, but it is real.
However the labor makes the demand of its own production on an ECONOMIC point of view. And this is real, as well.
The question is how to compute the "interface" between finance and economy.
In 1929 the world was lacking of circulating money. OK.
Are we, nowadays, lacking of circulating money?
Some industries are in fact lacking of circulating money; while others have been using it for their own and personal profit.
Per example: manufactures need money the banks have been provided with, but use it for their own profit.