Ron Paul: Don't cut NPR GTFO of Afghanistan

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:

Actually, it seems to me that Austrian economics does the complete opposite. It is actually quite in tune with human nature in my opinion. It seems to me that the mainstream the problems you described above.[/quote]

  1. Inadequate accommodation for market failures

  2. Inadequate accommodation for monopolistic distortions

  3. Inadequate accommodation for externalities of environmental problems (and catastrophes)

  4. Inadequacy of the gold standard for modern economies

  5. General inadequacies are predicated on failing to see that individuals are not homo economicus but instead members of communities that don’t view every aspect of life as an economic transaction

  6. General inadequacies invite disgruntled people who have to deal with 1-4 to vote in something far worse, thus the ideological extremism of the Austrian dogma actually acts as the handmaiden of socialism

Some things I like about Austrain economics - the cautionary tale of malinvestment is one of its real strengths - but it is a dogmatic ideology that fails to recognize people as anything other than consumption-bots. They aren’t, and when you try and cram a system down their throats that treats them as such, they actualy begin to act outside of the very “rationality” Austrian economics assumes they have. Application of the dogmatic theory explodes the very assumption the models are founded on.[/quote]

  1. False

  2. False

  3. True, to a degree, but still better than the broken window fallacy.

  4. Says you, but then again they might be right why you might be wrong. So far the arguments for said “inadequacy” are laughable.

  5. Flat out wrong, no Austrian claims that.

  6. Somewhere between ad hominem and personal opinion, i.e. irrelevant.

So, so far you did an excellent job at proving that your knowledge of Austrian theories is seriously lacking, but then again who needs readily available knowledge when an opinion would do.

82

Oh and the Austrians do address the short comings of the gold standard but for them the short coming was not that it becomes worthless but rather that government cannot create more of it. However, they don’t see that as a failure but rather as a function of sound money.

83

Oh, and Cloakmanor, look no further than the responses of Orion and Lifticus. As soon as someone raises a criticism of their school of economics, they start throwing a tantrum as if I had just insulted their favorite pop singer.

If Austrian economics is going to get a fair hearing these days, you’ll need to muzzle your anklebiters. Makes you (collectively) look like, well, idiots.

84

I would take a different approach. Instead of an “us” versus “them” mentality, this thread, this forum is best used to stimulate discussion and furthering the knowledge of all people involved. I mean, assuming that one is on this site, it is for the purposes of self betterment to some degree. I would like to see alot of the vitriol disappear for my same aforementioned purpose.

That being said, Thunderbolt, I appreciate that you stated specific issues of contention you have. Like Liftusmaximus, I will bring up some counterpoints, or more so questions.

1)a lack of accommodation for market failures implies that the market is not efficient. Now we could go on and on about efficient market hypothesis, but the way I see it, people are always in a market for goods no matter what…even in the most dire circumstances. Thus, in recessions, your Proctor and Kimberly Clarks fare well. Allowing the market to determine prices at which people will start buying again makes more sense to me than propping up inefficient systems with subsidies and rewarding malinvestment. The too big to fail issue is just as much a government issue as a market issue. So, because of the catastrophe allowing those banks to fail would supposedly cause do we allow them to do the same thing again because of their sheer economic might? I believe for such a statement that more detail is warranted.

  1. Not only insurance, but property rights. So company A owns land which sits on a river, they pollute the river, causing pollution and health issues downstream. The common argument against this is “oh it was their property, so they can do what they want” when they in essence have deterred others right to property “ie their own being”. Property rights also enhance environmental stewardship believe it or not. Think of the tragedy of the commons.

  2. Liftus posed the very same question, as the monopolies which are true problems are given consent by the government. Governmental jurisdiction is the real issue of concern with this problem

  3. The common misconception is that a “gold standard” means bullion is the source of transactional power only. Currency can take many forms based on agreed upon standards between parties. Gold just happened to be convenient. One can issue notes based on a gold reserve, this is how fiat currency can actually be used without absurd consequences, and still allow economic growth. The problems of mercantilism in the middle centuries and gold hoarding are rather nullified.

The question I will pose is this: Are legal tender laws and 100% fiat currency controlled by a central bank somehow better? I believe the erosion of purchasing power parity and inflation over the past century combined with the vast amount of governmental growth would show otherwise.

  1. once again, its how you look at economics… as a method of making and analyzing decisions then yes everything in life is economics, whether it have a monetary value or not.
85

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Oh, and Cloakmanor, look no further than the responses of Orion and Lifticus. As soon as someone raises a criticism of their school of economics, they start throwing a tantrum as if I had just insulted their favorite pop singer.

If Austrian economics is going to get a fair hearing these days, you’ll need to muzzle your anklebiters. Makes you (collectively) look like, well, idiots.
[/quote]

You did not raise any criticism.

You spouted off your preconceived notions, which is totally legit, but has nothing to do with what the Austrian school teaches.

And no, 1/2 of a point out of 6 is not a good performance.

86

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
After thinking about Ron Paul’s candidacy I’ve come to the conclusion that he is the absolute antithesis of a good candidate. Given every important characteristic of a good candidate Paul is in fact the opposite.

From age and vocal tone, to looks and even power base (congressman). He is the antithesis of a good candidate.

There I said it.[/quote]

Maybe the establishment’s idea of what a “good candidate” is is just wrong?[/quote]

You are so focused on being anti “establishment” that you just throw that in when it doesn’t even apply. How does someone get elected? By the people, the people choose. They look at who is up for election and then they make a choice. So in this instance using the word “establishment” is just inappropriate. The people DO NOT want Ron Paul. They wish he would just sit down and shut up. (nodding head) Yeah…they do.
[/quote]

They don’t want Ron Paul and they simultaneously quit going to the election booths. So they may not Ron Paul but they don’t “want” anyone else, either. The numbers don’t lie.[/quote]

Now you’ve just stopped making sense all together. The people who vote are the people who count when it comes to an election. Yes, about half the country votes, but those are some of the same people who have repeatedly said that they don’t want Ron Paul. What did Paul end up with in 08’? Something like 14 pledged delegates, to McCain’s 1,400? And what did those 14 delegates cost him? Something like 28 million bucks? That’s two million per delegate - sheesh. It makes me think that economics might not be his (or your) strong suit.

87

[quote]666Rich wrote:
I would take a different approach. Instead of an “us” versus “them” mentality, this thread, this forum is best used to stimulate discussion and furthering the knowledge of all people involved. I mean, assuming that one is on this site, it is for the purposes of self betterment to some degree. I would like to see alot of the vitriol disappear for my same aforementioned purpose.

That being said, Thunderbolt, I appreciate that you stated specific issues of contention you have. Like Liftusmaximus, I will bring up some counterpoints, or more so questions.

[/quote]

Counterpoints require points, which is something he avoided to provide.

The Austrian school does not preach efficient markets, monopolies are not seen as a problem, and for good reason, unless they are the result of government interventions or, hypothetically, the result of someone sitting on the only supply of a good that can not be substituted.

To claim that Austrian economics does not deal with externalities or catastrophes is valid insofar as it has problems with externalities, but that is more a problem for libertarians and not the economic theory per se which also does not deal with trigonometry, ornithology and ballistics, 4 and 6 were unstubstantiated fluff.

88

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The people who vote are the people who count when it comes to an election. Yes, about half the country votes, but those are some of the same people who have repeatedly said that they don’t want Ron Paul. What did Paul end up with in 08’? Something like 14 pledged delegates, to McCain’s 1,400? And what did those 14 delegates cost him? Something like 28 million bucks? That’s two million per delegate - sheesh. It makes me think that economics might not be his (or your) strong suit.[/quote]

  1. it shows a lack of support in the system when people quit voting. If a majority really does mean something with regard to rule of law then the rule of law doesn’t mean anything when the majority does not even show up to participate in it.

  2. that more people vote for one person over the other (again taking into consideration the lack of people who support the system) does not prove whether it is a good outcome or not.

89

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The people who vote are the people who count when it comes to an election. Yes, about half the country votes, but those are some of the same people who have repeatedly said that they don’t want Ron Paul. What did Paul end up with in 08’? Something like 14 pledged delegates, to McCain’s 1,400? And what did those 14 delegates cost him? Something like 28 million bucks? That’s two million per delegate - sheesh. It makes me think that economics might not be his (or your) strong suit.[/quote]

  1. it shows a lack of support in the system when people quit voting. If a majority really does mean something with regard to rule of law then the rule of law doesn’t mean anything when the majority does not even show up to participate in it.[/quote]

How do you know that? You are making assumptions. Perhaps half the people who stay home are doing so because they think that either candidate would be fine.

It most certainly does. You can only count the people who care to make a choice. Those not offering to make a choice one way or the other realize that one candidate will be elected over the other and that is apparently fine with them.

In essence you vote by not voting.

90

[quote]ZEB wrote:
In essence you vote by not voting.[/quote]

Yep, but I am not participating in the system.

91

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
In essence you vote by not voting.[/quote]

Yep, but I am not participating in the system.[/quote]

And that is your right. And by doing that you are in essence saying that whomever is elected is fine by you.

Whether you love or hate both candidates and decide not to vote the end result is the same.

92

True - the complaint is that the Austrian school’s “remedy” for market failures is inadequate given market participant’s threshold for non-intervention.

True, barriers to entry cause market distortions and whither away competititon - Austrian school focuses on the only meaningful barrier to entry as “impossible to compete”, but in reality, other barriers making entry “difficult” is the the realistic aspect that market participants want in the rules of the market. Actual market participants (as opposed to armchair philosophers opining from their mom’s basement) do not want the impossiblly high standard of “it’s only a barrier to entry if it’s impossible!”, and it’s a waste of otherwise productive resources, thus the Austrian’s ideological purity falls short of providing an adequate remedy to monopolistic practices.

No one raised the “broken window fallacy”, sober up. Pure market solutions cannot adequately deal with major environmental and chemical catastrophes. Lawsuits and insurance are “after the fact” remedies to try and make victims whole, but people don’t want that - they want rules of the game to help prevent such accidents from happening in the first place. Moreover, due to the complexity of environmental problems (i.e., poisons can spread from origin sources and lay dormant, thus creating a near impossibility to establish actor liability), a regulatory regime is required outside of property rights enforcement.

Let’s unpack this - so, I might be right…or I might be wrong? Genius.

I didn’t say Austrians claimed, I said they think it. Look no further than your fellow Austrians insisting that all human activity can be reduced to economics. Austrian economists worship at the altar if Economism with blind faith. Ordinary humans do not behave in accordance with Austrian ideology.

Well, it definitionally is not an ad hominem, but color me unsurprised that you have no idea what you are talking about on that count. More to it, it is a political observation as t o where Austrian dogma leads. People don’t see the world as Austrian economists want them to, so when this “program” (not unlike Scientology) gets crammed down their throats, they begin looking for alternatives, and the results aren’t usually very good.

I’ve said it before - nothing makes Social Democracy more appealing to US citizens than to have Ron Paul speaking at a podium extolling the virtues of Austrian economics.

Nope, and I even noted an aspect that I really like about Austrian economics (theories on malinvestment).

I realize it breaks your heart that someone might not believe your precious dogma can make the world anew in utopian terms, but that’s too bad. Austrian economists are barely different than Marxists (certainly not in their most basic assumptions), which is why the world (thankfully) passes them by on the path to governing real human affairs.

93

A dialogue between a doctor and an Austrian economist regarding surgery to remove a patient’s appendix:

Doc: “This patient requires an emergency appendectomy. Nurse, we need anesthesisa.”

Austrian: “Hold on. Like all human actions, this is governed by economics. And as such, let’s consider what would be most efficient.”

Doc: “We’re kinda running out of time.”

Austrian: “Well, but wait, abstractions are important. I don’t think the anasthesia is an efficient use of resources.”

Doc: “Oh, no?”

Austrian: “No. Look at how expensive it is, and look at its benefit. It doesn’t really do anything. Leather straps are cheaper, and work just as well to hold the patient still.”

Doc: “But he wants anasthesia, so he doesn’t feel the surgery.”

Austrian: “Yes, but he is an idiot. One of them people that just doesn’t ‘get’ economics. He may want anasthesia, but it’d be less efficient use of resources. Screw what he wants, the only economically justifiable solution is the leather straps.”

Doc: “But, he doesn’t want to go through the entire procedure without anasthesia.”

Austrian: "Yes, well, that may be so, but if he experiences the pain outright, that will be a market incentive to have fewer surgeries in addition to being more efficient in this particular surgery. Think of the money that will save him down the road.

Doc: “But he doesn’t care about market efficiency right now. He wants to get fixed.”

Austrian: “He’ll be ok, and though he may want anasthesia now, that’s not a good enough reason to give it to him. Giving it to him violates the commandment of economic efficiency, and that’s actionable, right?”

Doc: “Have you ever conducted a surgery?”

Austrian: “Uh, no. I don’t have time. I am mastering the intricacies of economic efficiency in my mom’s basement.”

Doc: “Ever run a hospital or a clinic?”

Austrian: “You mean, like, work in business? Who has time? I am busy learning and extolling how businesses need to behave and what economic ‘laws’ they must abide by without any experience at all, all outside of any real insight into actual human nature. Pretty great, eh?”

[patient, upon hearing the conversation, converts to socialism after the succesful surgery]

94

Wrong. If the patient were a true Austrian Scholar he would know his choice would be made by his scale of values which is the only way humans can judge something to be “economical” or not.

It has nothing to do with price or efficiency but rather the human actors subjective scale of values.

You keep proving your ignorance with every post you make. Keep it up.

95

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Wrong. If the patient were a true Austrian Scholar he would know his choice would be made by his scale of values which is the only way humans can judge something to be “economical” or not.

It has nothing to do with price or efficiency but rather the human actors subjective scale of values.

You keep proving your ignorance with every post you make. Keep it up.[/quote]

Well, not quite - on pretty much every person’s “scale of values” is the existence of some level of government policy to help ameliorate “pain” when the economy performs poorly (the metaphorical “anasthesia”, you see), but Austrian bozos - like you - constantly argue that no such “anasthesia” is needed or helpful, despite the fact that the “patient” - ordinary humans - liek a little bit of it during something painful, even if it isn’t the cheapest or most efficient way to profits.

And, when someone raises this point, you do not suddenly respect the ordinary person’s “scale of values” that includes government help - that is, of course, the one thing that isn’t allowable, no matter how high they rank it on their “scale” - which is why we hear the usual therapeutic idiocy from you and others that people who think this way are unenlightened as to the Truth of Economics (praise be unto Rothbard).

Try again, clown. And, do you at least have a view from your mom’s basement? I would hope that some sunlight is on your “scale of values”.

96

You’re collectivizing human beings into your own scale of values.

Doesn’t work that way.

97

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

You’re collectivizing human beings into your own scale of values.

Doesn’t work that way.[/quote]

Nope, I’m not. Humans “collectivize”, as in, they think “collectively” on many issues, and always have. Thanks for playing, though. It’s always a treat to see just how little and thinly you’ve read, and otherwise interacted with other human beings, though. Seriously, get a job and move out.

98

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

You’re collectivizing human beings into your own scale of values.

Doesn’t work that way.[/quote]

Nope, I’m not. Humans “collectivize”, as in, they think “collectively” on many issues, and always have. Thanks for playing, though. It’s always a treat to see just how little and thinly you’ve read, and otherwise interacted with other human beings, though. Seriously, get a job and move out.
[/quote]

Yes, humans do collectivize and as a result their judgment, as your is, is impaired.

Just because humans can do something does not make it logically correct.

99

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Yes, humans do collectivize and as a result their judgment, as your is, is impaired.

Just because humans can do something does not make it logically correct.[/quote]

And I rest my case. You looooooooove “subjective values” right up until the time when a person, as part of their “subjective values”, decides that some version of “collectivization” is a good idea for them - then, on cue, their “subjective valuation” is “impaired”.

Well, genius, if it is inherently “subjective”, their judgment isn’t “impaired”.

What a clown. Your whole theory is cut to ribbons by one, simple, unassailable event - people exercise this magical “subjective valuation” to reject the very principle you say is gospel.

I said earlier that the great flaw of Austrian economics is that it refuses to see Man as he really is, instead of what he wants Him to be - and you’ve proven it in one post.

100

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Yes, humans do collectivize and as a result their judgment, as your is, is impaired.

Just because humans can do something does not make it logically correct.[/quote]

And I rest my case. You looooooooove “subjective values” right up until the time when a person, as part of their “subjective values”, decides that some version of “collectivization” is a good idea for them - then, on cue, their “subjective valuation” is “impaired”.

Well, genius, if it is inherently “subjective”, their judgment isn’t “impaired”.

What a clown. Your whole theory is cut to ribbons by one, simple, unassailable event - people exercise this magical “subjective valuation” to reject the very principle you say is gospel.

I said earlier that the great flaw of Austrian economics is that it refuses to see Man as he really is, instead of what he wants Him to be - and you’ve proven it in one post.[/quote]

My mistake I was referring to judgment of logic.

Judgment of values is always subjective.

Judgment of logic – which is what I was referring to about your post – has to rest on objective knowledge. True or false?

Your judgment of logic is flawed if you put the valuation of the collective (which doesn’t even make sense) over the individual.