Now that didn’t make sense did it? Since you like him I could tell you to fuck off. Or, is it just those of us who know he has no chance that should fuck off?
And I’ve added more to this pathetic thread, for example what it takes to win the Presidency, than you have.
You don’t like the facts?
Anyway, I’m not fucking off so you’ll just have to keep reading my posts and whining like a little school girl.
Ha ha…
[/quote]
You too, micky. What do you know? You’ve spewed the same rhetoric for 34 pages and still haven’t said anything of value. We know your opinion and we also know you are clueless about policy, economics, current events, the constitution, etc. Care to change that?
There have been numerous chances for you to really state some original analysis and you haven’t done so–so we must take that to mean you are just here to give Ron your support. Thank you.
[quote]orion wrote:
You are right though, great empires never turned back the clock.
They fell.[/quote]
Were you trying to argue against my point or something?
Often, over the course of history, it was a new tactic or a new technology that conferred an advantage or shifted the balance of power, whether military or economic.
Your disdain for government is confusing your view of economics. You are squeezing economics to fit into your particular ideological box.
[quote]vroom wrote:
When, in the history of the planet, have we turned back the clock and said that a previous point in history was perfect? Oh, yeah, the economic system of yester-century, that was perfect… let’s put that back in place forever.
[/quote]
Vroom, what you seem to not understand is that economics isn’t a “system”. Like the sciences, economics is just a description of natural law. Economic law governs how scarce resources are obtained, used, and valued. There is no system to economics.
Indeed, what you are speaking about is the continuum of man-made regulatory institutions that seeks to control the scarcity of resources. Natural laws cannot change under regulation otherwise they would not be universally true. The continuum goes from absolute free market with no regulation to absolute command economy.
Tell me, how does a system of regulation change my need or want for goods and services? The system we have today in the US tries to affect supply and demand by artificially regulating the amount of money in the system and the cost of borrowing it. Do you understand why this is a bad thing?
If Say’s Law is universally true then it can only lead to inflation. This inflation is unfair to those with last access to money. Imagine trowing a rock into the Pacific ocean. Certainly the oceans are one-and-the-same and connected; however, the ripple effect from this rock in the ocean only goes so far.
This ripple effect is the relative benefit created when newly printed money is thrown into the system. The borrowers benefit first (the splash) and it gradually ripples out into nothing and just drives prices up–so the borrowers who get to use the money first to buy goods and services with prices unaffected benefit the most; and then the newly printed money destroys the buying power of those with last access to it.
It is not a matter of putting a “system” back in place but rather allowing the whole entire system to function on its own, naturally as it would. Yes, it does hurt when investors and entrepreneurs make bad decisions but a naturally functioning economy allows for the most efficient corrections to take place and does not destroy real wealth.
Instead of worrying about the business side of economy we should worry more about the consumer side as all humans are consumers–this is why we want a free market.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Vroom, what you seem to not understand is that economics isn’t a “system”. Like the sciences, economics is just a description of natural law. Economic law governs how scarce resources are obtained, used, and valued. There is no system to economics.
Indeed, what you are speaking about is the continuum of man-made regulatory institutions that seeks to control the scarcity of resources. Natural laws cannot change under regulation otherwise they would not be universally true. The continuum goes from absolute free market with no regulation to absolute command economy.[/quote]
No, not exactly. To create a market, such as the stock market, for example, it takes operating rules. Without such rules the public would not have confidence in the market. It would then operate very inefficiently.
At the same time, let’s not confuse a command economy, with the need for law, rules or regulations concerning some aspects of market operation.
Supply and demand are affected by price. That’s the underlying basis of everything economic. Now, as I’ve argued with Orion, there are two different things to discuss in the issue above.
There is government abuse of the current system and then there is public use of the current system.
This is all nice and flowery, but it ignores the market aspect of labor. Taken alone, it sounds important, but when you consider that the price of labor is driven by the supply and demand of workers, and the value of the work they perform, then it all falls apart.
At times, such as perhaps during an appropriate war, it is important for the government to be able to spend resources and arm itself to ensure it’s ongoing existence. Certainly it could just “appropriate” resources, but our current method is less painful and allows market forces to decide where adaptations will occur.
This is the difference between a command economy and an economic system that allows the government to exert forces. Forces exerted do not specify who will adapt, but allows the market shift to optimize the needs that are being met.
Again, very flowery, but not very meaningful. Both businesses and consumers are adjusting to the price of all goods and services at all times. Consumers are also producers and have the ability to upgrade their “capital” in order to earn more in the labor market.
Anyway, I will agree that there are tons of stupid rules and regulations that should be eliminated, or that tax policies that result in corporate welfare should be eliminated, but one should not at any time confuse those things with a command style economy.
Artificial market forces will raise or lower prices for various goods and services based on government priorities (bad government is a different issue) and then allow the markets to “solve the equation” on their own.
[quote]vroom wrote:
orion wrote:
You are right though, great empires never turned back the clock.
They fell.
Were you trying to argue against my point or something?
Often, over the course of history, it was a new tactic or a new technology that conferred an advantage or shifted the balance of power, whether military or economic.
Your disdain for government is confusing your view of economics. You are squeezing economics to fit into your particular ideological box.[/quote]
The Romans did not fall because of tactics, technology or new powers.
They overregulatd their economy and strangled themselves with a welfare state.
This began to happen when Octavian made the emperor the supreme power and started his attempts of social engineering and then it happened fast.
This is actually very well documented, including the usury laws to prevent interest taking, the constant devaluation of currency, the efforts keep foreign competitors out of the market,…
I do not squeeze anything, that is exactly what happened and today we have the theories to understand what they could not.
[quote]orion wrote:
The Romans did not fall because of tactics, technology or new powers.
They overregulatd their economy and strangled themselves with a welfare state.
This began to happen when Octavian made the emperor the supreme power and started his attempts of social engineering and then it happened fast.
This is actually very well documented, including the usury laws to prevent interest taking, the constant devaluation of currency, the efforts keep foreign competitors out of the market,…
I do not squeeze anything, that is exactly what happened and today we have the theories to understand what they could not.[/quote]
I’m sure you could tell, but I was not focusing on the plight of the Roman Empire.
In any case, strangling oneself with entitlements is a poor policy choice which has little to do with whether or not we need vast changes to the underlying economic system itself.
You know my message by now, that the two issues are related but not one and the same…
Looks as though Lifticus is suddenly mighty defensive over his “mastery of economics” compared to others…
…this from the same guy who only a couple of months ago was telling anyone who would listen about the infallibility of pure communism (and how human nature was irrelevant to the model) and the moral wrong of profits.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote: Ron Paul Places Third in Texas Straw Poll
Hunter got 534 votes. Former Tennessee senator and actor Fred Thompson came in second with 266 votes, and Texas congressman Ron Paul came in third with 217 votes
Excellent news! He is moving on up. That is the way to do it. Keep in mind that the voting was limited to past delegates only and did NOT include the general public.
Very good news, indeed.
And the next debate is coming this Wednesday.
Can’t wait.
I wouldn’t get all that excited about a straw poll. Paul has still never cracked 3% in any legitimate national poll.
[/quote]
Straw polls are far more legitimate than telephone polls ever will be. The people who go there are actually familiar with the platforms of the candidates, and are not simply voting out of name recognition, or on a whim. Ron Paul took 9% in Iowa and now he’s taken 15% in Texas in a poll that wasn’t even open to many of his supporters. Additionally, he has flat out won straw polls in several other states. 3%? Not a chance.
[quote]Jack_Dempsey wrote:
Yes, amazing. Thomas Di-Lie-Renzo and a bunch of other bitter nobodies. Holy shit - Grove City College – don’t they give out a free box of steaks for every semester paid? – Pace University, State University College at Buffalo, and the Mises Institute. Who needs those fucking morons at Harvard and Princeton?
You got me. Where do I sign up??[/quote]
You won’t find them at Harvard and Princeton because Austrian economics resides outside of the academic establishment. The schools you mentioned pretty much embody that establishment. For better or for worse, they are quite hostile to the ideas advocated by Austrians, and vice versa.
Recognizing that state of affairs, in-and-of-itself, does not constitute sufficient “proof” to condemn either school of thought. You still have to justify your beef with Austrian economics.
Lew Rockwell’s site, his contributors, and the ideology they share have all been around for a long time. I have personally been frequenting it since the early 2000’s. The fact that they are now receiving a great deal of attention due to Ron Paul’s campaign does not enable you to shrug them off wholesale, as you would attempt to do.
A year ago, you and others would have ignored an article from Lew’s site. I know this because I was actually posting them back then, before most people had ever heard of Ron Paul. Back then, there wasn’t much interest. Now, you can no longer ignore the site and must confront it.
I link articles because I think they’re highly informative and fantastic to read. Feel free to do the same with any site of your choosing.
The economists of the Mises Institute are considered to be in the top of their field, with respect to their particular school of thought. Obviously, they are not considered to be in the top of the opposing, mainstream school. They are not “third rate” by any means, however. At worst, they are first-rate economists of a third-rate school of economic thought. It is that school which you must repudiate before you can target its individual adherents.
So, let’s go. Try to tell me something that I haven’t heard before. Do you think you can do it?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Because the Ron Paul fanatics refuse to acknowledge anything that claims Ron Paul cannot win.[/quote]
You are the one who is speaking of the future in certain terms (can, cannot), yet we’re supposed to be the fanatics? Bullshit.
Ron Paul can win. There is no physical law which prevents him from doing so. It is only a question of probability. Don’t be an idiot and pretend otherwise.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
And you seem to be clueless about the chances of your hero Ron Paul getting elected to the White House.[/quote]
We want to talk about his campaign, regardless of his “chances”. I told you that before. Did you not understand?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Looks as though Lifticus is suddenly mighty defensive over his “mastery of economics” compared to others…
…this from the same guy who only a couple of months ago was telling anyone who would listen about the infallibility of pure communism (and how human nature was irrelevant to the model) and the moral wrong of profits.
[/quote]
Knowing your penchant for twisting the words of your opponents, he was probably making an academic point in a very different context when he wrote that.
Worst case scenario, he was a communist a few months ago, and now he isn’t. Good for him, eh?
Still not much of a contribution on your part, though.
By the way, as a followup to my response to Jack, here’s an article about “Moronic Intellectuals” by Thomas J. DiLorenzo:
[quote]vroom wrote:
No, not exactly. To create a market, such as the stock market, for example, it takes operating rules. Without such rules the public would not have confidence in the market. It would then operate very inefficiently.
At the same time, let’s not confuse a command economy, with the need for law, rules or regulations concerning some aspects of market operation.
[/quote]
The stock market is a market like every other; it operates because people have use of the services it provides. If it does not operate to its customers liking then it fails. So what?! What does that have to do with how the state attempts to manage the economy? Property law with a well defined rule of law protects people from harm, fraud, and other ne’er-do-wells. What else could possible allow business to operate more efficiently? The government can only protect property rights–it has no business meddling in the economy.
No–not quite that simple. Price is a reflection of many different factors and is also affected by supply and demand it self. Price is simply a measure of perceived value in relative terms.
The price of labor is relative. One cannot say what precicely the cost of labor is because one cannot decide the value outside the market and all its factors. The market sets the price. There is no singular market aspect of labor. What the market pays for those skill is always subject to the infinite influence of supply and demand.
If, for example, I have $25 to either buy shoes or a pair of pants, both of which cost exactly $25 per item, how does anyone but me determine which is more valued than the $25–that is to say which item will I buy? Do you not see? there are both objective (supply) and subjective influences (demand) at work?
What falls apart? Regulation cannot determine demand except to say that it can affect production (supply) which only affects how those needs or wants are met. Every organism is subject to these laws of economics–just as every organism is subject to physical law. Just because we can write laws to make it easier for certain industries to operate does not mean they operate more efficiently. Producers are still subject to the market forces.
How does regulation “make the economy better”? I’ll go as far to say that the economy is just like the weather–neither good nor bad–it just happens to be favorable for certain activities and unfavorable for other activities at any given moment. In either event it is always advisable to carry an umbrella.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Looks as though Lifticus is suddenly mighty defensive over his “mastery of economics” compared to others…
…this from the same guy who only a couple of months ago was telling anyone who would listen about the infallibility of pure communism (and how human nature was irrelevant to the model) and the moral wrong of profits.
Free Ron Paul!
[/quote]
Yes, you’ve said so numerous times before. I was not defending authoritarian government but rather the freedom to self government whether it resided under a communist model or not. We’ve already determined that what I was arguing for was “communalism” not communism–something that I still think is more reflective of the way society should (and does) operate–anyway, it is how I would model my ideal society. I still think sharing (under a completely voluntary enterprise) is the most efficient economic model–I just don’t know how to make it fit with free markets.
I concede all past transgressions–please stop harassing me about it. I’ve grown with new insights in the last “few” months. Let’s just say “Human Action” was key in my understanding.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Again I thank you and the other delusional Paulies for your shear entertainment value.
I’ll be here until the end at which time I will laugh some more…
[/quote]
You are free to think what you will. Why do you misstate the intentions of this thread? We recognize fully the odds–and also realize they are changing for the better. Please, don’t mistake your pejorative statements as analysis. These are your opinions and nothing more.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Knowing your penchant for twisting the words of your opponents, he was probably making an academic point in a very different context when he wrote that.
Worst case scenario, he was a communist a few months ago, and now he isn’t. Good for him, eh?
[/quote]
Wow, you get it.
Never was a communist but certainly am an academic–which do you think embitters more disgust?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The stock market is a market like every other; it operates because people have use of the services it provides. If it does not operate to its customers liking then it fails. So what?! What does that have to do with how the state attempts to manage the economy? Property law with a well defined rule of law protects people from harm, fraud, and other ne’er-do-wells. What else could possible allow business to operate more efficiently? The government can only protect property rights–it has no business meddling in the economy.[/quote]
Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? I am talking about regulations/laws, which you claim are inappropriate, but at the same time you will attempt to somehow regulate behavior to stop theft, fraud and so forth.
These laws represent rules and regulations and certainly require “policing”.
Oh, look, more interference in the affairs of man and economy – since police forces are paid via taxation. You’ll really have to make up your mind.
Anyway, something you fail to consider is that markets can be “created” or “induced” by setting up conditions and rules and allowing people to operate within them. I’m sure they can also set up spontaneously when various conditions are met.
Again, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? Hmm, maybe you are trying to sound knowledgeable while you don’t really know what you are talking about.
Howabout we say there are a myriad of interdependencies that determine supply, demand and price.
Do you have any idea what the hell you are talking about? A mere paragraph earlier you were saying that price is the perceived value at a point in time. Now you even say the market sets the price. What is it? Is the price of labor just another supply and demand situation, a market, or is it not?
Give it up. The market, and hence the price, reflects the aggregate of all these decisions. We don’t all have to wave our hands and call things subjective. You are describing the ultimate in microeconomics when you talk about an individual consumer’s decision making process.
First, you had better define what you are referring to as regulation. For example, if the government subsidizes farming, such that production costs are lowered, then producers will be incented to produce more of it than the market would otherwise dictate. Due to market competition this will result in lowered prices, and hence raised demand.
Alternately, if the government were to provide tax incentives to individuals, such that they could write off mortgage payments against their taxes, then the government would greatly stimulate the demand for homes. Prices would presumably go up as people could afford to pay more. Supply side producers would see more profits and this would result in more resources applied to building homes.
In both of these cases, nobody was regulating the operation of the food or housing markets, but they were still able to affect it by exerting forces changing effective costs for consumers or producers. However, the market, the producers and consumers, are still absolutely free to determine how they will react to the market forces they see around themselves.
Once again, we can argue all day about which government policies are appropriate, but that is not really the issue being discussed.
[quote]
How does regulation “make the economy better”? I’ll go as far to say that the economy is just like the weather–neither good nor bad–it just happens to be favorable for certain activities and unfavorable for other activities at any given moment. In either event it is always advisable to carry an umbrella.[/quote]
Again, you need to define “regulation”. If you mean that the government should never do anything, then I’d wonder why we need a government at all.
Let me go back in time. Canada and the USA were both very new countries. Canada wanted to ensure that it formed a country and that what are now provinces did not simply do so much business in the north-south axis that Canada would never form.
Lo and behold, the government decided a national railway was in order. I’m certainly not opposed to the fact that Canada was formed as a country. I’m not even opposed to the fact that a national railway was used in an attempt to help cement the nation.
Something like the post office is another example. Governments often provide “vital” services to the population that for profit companies cannot. Then, later on, these companies are privatized when there is a (presumably) viable market in these areas.
At other times, such as in defence industries, the government will decide that certain things are in the interest of the country, and it will foster the development of capabilities in those areas.
Again, these are all policies that can be argued, but they are not command economies. They are not even overly regulated economies. The real question here does not seem to be economic systems, but whether or not you feel a government should be involved in policies at all.
The fact that there are groups in the world who want extreme libertarianism or anarchy and that they will argue via economics to support this viewpoint is fine. However, I do think they are confusing some issues, perhaps simply via oversight or confusion, in an attempt to support their ideological viewpoints.
Libertarianism, anarchy, or whatever should be able to stand on it’s own without trying to reinvent economics in order to support an ideology. And, no, personally, I don’t agree with any one pure ideology. None of them to date have ever been perfect.
Knowing your penchant for twisting the words of your opponents, he was probably making an academic point in a very different context when he wrote that. [/quote]
Well, two key points. First, I don’t twist words, but I do usually challenge people to explain what they mean, and if you have ever been entreated to one of Lifticus’ rambling bits of philosophical incoherence, you’d know where I am coming from.
And second, of course Lifticus is is making an academic point - he does nothing else. That is largely the problem.
No, worst case scenario, Lifticus and others like him have an “open mind” that operates like a blank Word document with a lone blinking cursor, just waiting on some noisy demagogue to write freehand across it and it suddenly be “the Truth” to said “open mind”.
Happens so regularly you can set your watch to it.
Not particularly worried if you think so or not.
I have snickered through a DiLorenzo piece before - enough to know that I won’t have my time wasted on him again.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, worst case scenario, Lifticus and others like him have an “open mind” that operates like a blank Word document with a lone blinking cursor, just waiting on some noisy demagogue to write freehand across it and it suddenly be “the Truth” to said “open mind”.
[/quote]
LOL.
Nice way to slam the concept of an “open mind”. Anyhow, your characterization is almost as silly as the situation of having your mind made up no matter what the actual facts are.
