|
Sanya12364 Posts
=( .
In the first read through, I'm already noticing analysis using an incomplete model for competition and capital, a pessimism for social learning of virtues, and a impatient demand for immediate results.
It is correct that consumerism doesn't really work. It doesn't follow that we need the government to correct for the excess of consumerism. Let the people feel its consequences for 20 years and the next generation will discover the virtues of prudence, thrift, and hard work once more. Teaching virtue doesn't happen over night. You could demand government try to teach that virtue, but I doubt it will succeed in teaching virtues that it itself does not possess.
In a few years, Chinese workers will deserve to earn a higher income than their American counterparts. Whether that imbalance will result in American wages dropping to match those in China or in Chinese wages rising above American nominal values, it all won't matter. Inflation and exchange rates will adjust away the differences in purchasing power.
|
It works in small scale, but you're right about it being plagued by corruption. My mom has her masters in psychology, but instead of using that she makes over $300k/yr running her own business. She kept putting back into her own business and growing it up rather than just taking the profits and buying 9 yachts.
|
I'm too lazy to read the whole thread as there are numerous walls of text. In the OP i don't see many solutions given for the supposed problems. In the US we don't even have a pure capitalist free market economy.
|
On January 28 2010 06:48 Boblion wrote:
Btw StorkHwaiting i don't understand how people can disagree with you as you are stating the obvious.
Globalization raping the lower middle class in Western countries is common knowledge but it is funny to see all those guys with an eco degree in the thread raging because you are discussing an Economic issue lol.
Economy is as scientific as Sociology, History or Political science. I mean all those guys with Phd, Nobel prizes etc ... they weren't able to predict the crisis. I don't want to be mean but there many people ( Stiglitz, Greenspan etc ... ) who are way more qualified than anyone in this thread and guess what they were completly wrong.
So my advice for guys like Caller is to get off of their high horse because having an eco degree is like being C on Iccup and thinking that you are the shit whereas you are just a stupid copycat who has learnt a couple of build orders / eco models.
Be humble.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the Austrian School of Economics, which is Economics. The Austrian school is the only scientific Economic School of Thought. This is why, Rothbard called Economics the "dismal science". :p
Go on Youtube and type in: Peter Schiff was Right
Now, you can go to Texas Straight Talk, or Ron Paul Library and check out speeches of Ron Paul from 1997 and 2003 excoriating the coming busts in both .com and housing respectively. Not only that, Lv Mises excoriated the World in 1927 about the coming economic calamity. The Austrians are the only ones who consistently predict every Boom-Bust because we are the only ones to have a theory to explain it. Moreover, we are the only Free-Market school of thought left. Perhaps more people need to go back and read Cantillon, Say, Turgot, Bastiat, Molinari, School of Salamanca, and other liberal Laissez-Faire theorists. Moreover, Jim Rogers and Marc Faber predicted the same mess.
What do all of these people have in common? They are all Austrians.
I liken Monetarists/Keynesians/Neo-Classicists as dabbling in Astrology while us Austrians do the Astronomy work. Of course, looking through the glass of Astrology you wouldn't call it a science, but through the lens of Astronomy, you would.
Come on, Keynes is the fool who said that saving doesn't matter because in the long run we are all dead. He also blamed ups and downs in the market on "animal spirits".
|
On January 29 2010 05:58 Undisputed- wrote:
I'm too lazy to read the whole thread as there are numerous walls of text. In the OP i don't see many solutions given for the supposed problems. In the US we don't even have a pure capitalist free market economy.
In the US we do not have Capitalism.
In the US we have Fascism with a mix of Socialism.
|
Kusimuumi
If any of you is actually interested about the subject, and wishes to devote a few weeks reading and doing the neccessary fact checking, I wholeheartedly suggest you to read "The Web Of Debt" by Ellen Hodginson Brown. (revised and expanded with 2008 update).....
This is important enough to mandate its own thread, but I don't want to be too pushy.
I very much like the civility of your tone, so I apologize in advance if the following comes off too harshly:
Ad hominem attacks are generally a poor way to begin a debate, but in this particular case, I think one bears stating. Ellen Hodgson Brown’s credentials (from her own site) are: using “her research skills developed as an attorney practicing civil litigation”. She does not have a background in Economics. Furthermore, she states that she was “asked to join the legal team of a popular Tijuana healer”. That experience prompted her to trace the “suppression of natural health treatments”. She has written 11 books on alternative medicine.
I think, on the basis of such facts alone, that anything she has to say about US monetary policy can be summarily discounted.
Nevertheless, I read several of the excerpts from her book just to make sure. One particular gem:
Except for coins, all of our money is now created as loans advanced by private banking institutions — including the private Federal Reserve. Banks create the principal but not the interest to service their loans. To find the interest, new loans must continually be taken out, expanding the money supply, inflating prices — and robbing you of the value of your money.
This statement is indicative of the thoughts contained within the rest of the excerpts. If she had any economic background in Monetary Policy, or even Macroeconomics, she would realize how foolish statements like these sound.
Let me pick apart this paragraph for you:
Except for coins, all of our money is now created as loans advanced by private banking institutions –
Money is not created by the Federal Reserve. Money is created by the United States Mint. One of the ways many governments actually service debt is by printing money. (which is the opposite of creating money as a loan...) In fact, many unstable governments (and even some stable ones) have printed too much money too pay for their debts, devaluing there currency entirely. This is known as hyperinflation.
What the Federal Reserve deals in is US debt. The Federal Reserve either buys or sells government bonds (debt) to pursue expansionary or contractionary monetary policy. When the Federal Reserve sells a bond, it is issuing debt. When it buys a bond, it is reducing debt. These vehicles effect the money supply as follows: when the Reserve buys a bond with hard currency, that money is injected into the economy (expansionary). When the Reserve sells a bond for hard currency, money is taken out of the economy (contractionary).
Including the private Federal Reserve
This is an extraordinarily common populist outcry. It is also one of the silliest. I’ll point you to: http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm
The Federal Reserve displays aspects of both a public and private nature. It is public in the sense that it is within the government, and its members are appointed by other branches of the government. I tend to think of it much like the Supreme Court. It is private in the sense that it is not responsible to any branch of the Federal Government.
It should be extremely intuitive to see why this must necessarily be so. If politicians could order the Reserve to pursue the monetary policy they wanted, the result would be disastrous. You needn’t look beyond this forum board to see just how poor most people’s grasp of economic theory is (I don’t intend that to be a personal attack).
Banks create the principal but not the interest to service their loans. To find the interest, new loans must continually be taken out, expanding the money supply, inflating prices —
This part is just silly. Banks create the principal for their loans? Principal is the value of a loan minus the accrued interest (or the original balance of a loan. It doesn’t make any sense to say banks create the principal for their loans. That’s like saying you create the principal for your car loan because you took out a loan for your car.
As for not creating the interest: How would one even do that? What does that even mean? Why would anyone take out a loan if they could “create the principal” and could “create the interest”.
I think this part is a very poor (read unintelligent) take on the service of National Debt. The US issues more debt to finance its current debt (sort of like paying one credit card off with another).
While it is correct to say that if one does this, new loans must continually be taken out, the idea that it is “expanding the money supply, inflating prices” is just plain incorrect. When the Federal Reserve issues debt (Sells bonds), money is TAKEN OUT of circulation. This contracts the money supply (which is the opposite of “expanding the money supply). This raises the value of your currency, deflating prices.
and robbing you of the value of your money.
This is another extremely common populist outcry that is the bane of many an economist’s existence. Inflation does not “rob” people. It is not evil. Unpredictable high levels of inflation may sometimes be problematic, but the inflation rate in the US is very stable.
Your money is indeed worth less every year in the US as a result of inflation. But so is everyone else’s. Periods of unexpectedly high inflation hurt lenders, because it reduces the effective real interest rate (the total amount of debt is lower in real terms). Similarly, such periods help borrowers (like every American family, ever) because now their effective real debt burden is lower. When inflation is unexpectedly low, the reverse is true. To combat this, most loans are indexed to inflation.
One final note: Inflation actually harms the wealthy most of all, because of the poor interaction between US capital gains tax laws with inflation (look at IRS capital gains tax law relating to inflation).
To conclude: Every single paragraph in the excerpts I read is exactly like this. Every sentence is simply not true, or contentious. If you want to choose a book to learn more about Monetary Policy, I would suggest getting an actual textbook. Romer or Mankiw are traditional favorites.
The problem with books like this is that the writers begin writing with an agenda. They start with an idea, and then set out to prove it. This leads to biased, inaccurate writing. What you will find in textbooks is simply an accounting of how economic policy works. Not politics, not an agenda.
If you have any questions about this, I would be happy to answer them.
|
On January 29 2010 06:00 Rothbardian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2010 06:48 Boblion wrote:
Btw StorkHwaiting i don't understand how people can disagree with you as you are stating the obvious.
Globalization raping the lower middle class in Western countries is common knowledge but it is funny to see all those guys with an eco degree in the thread raging because you are discussing an Economic issue lol.
Economy is as scientific as Sociology, History or Political science. I mean all those guys with Phd, Nobel prizes etc ... they weren't able to predict the crisis. I don't want to be mean but there many people ( Stiglitz, Greenspan etc ... ) who are way more qualified than anyone in this thread and guess what they were completly wrong.
So my advice for guys like Caller is to get off of their high horse because having an eco degree is like being C on Iccup and thinking that you are the shit whereas you are just a stupid copycat who has learnt a couple of build orders / eco models.
Be humble.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the Austrian School of Economics, which is Economics. The Austrian school is the only scientific Economic School of Thought. This is why, Rothbard called Economics the "dismal science". :p Go on Youtube and type in: Peter Schiff was Right Now, you can go to Texas Straight Talk, or Ron Paul Library and check out speeches of Ron Paul from 1997 and 2003 excoriating the coming busts in both .com and housing respectively. Not only that, Lv Mises excoriated the World in 1927 about the coming economic calamity. The Austrians are the only ones who consistently predict every Boom-Bust because we are the only ones to have a theory to explain it. Moreover, we are the only Free-Market school of thought left. Perhaps more people need to go back and read Cantillon, Say, Turgot, Bastiat, Molinari, School of Salamanca, and other liberal Laissez-Faire theorists. Moreover, Jim Rogers and Marc Faber predicted the same mess. What do all of these people have in common? They are all Austrians. I liken Monetarists/Keynesians/Neo-Classicists as dabbling in Astrology while us Austrians do the Astronomy work. Of course, looking through the glass of Astrology you wouldn't call it a science, but through the lens of Astronomy, you would. Come on, Keynes is the fool who said that saving doesn't matter because in the long run we are all dead. He also blamed ups and downs in the market on "animal spirits".
Oh so the Austrians have predicted the last crisis ?
I think i have missed something o,o
Eh i guess that if i was talking with a Keynesian or a Monetarist he would tell me the same thing.
As a wise man said "an economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today".
When it comes down to Human Sciences i don't think that we are advanced enough to find the truth ( if a truth exists lol ) and even predictions are often inaccurate or false. I think we will have to stick with
caricatured models for a long long time. It won't prevent smart kids to think they are right though :o
|
On January 29 2010 06:52 ZeroJumps wrote:
Your money is indeed worth less every year in the US as a result of inflation. But so is everyone else’s. Periods of unexpectedly high inflation hurt lenders, because it reduces the effective real interest rate (the total amount of debt is lower in real terms). Similarly, such periods help borrowers (like every American family, ever) because now their effective real debt burden is lower. When inflation is unexpectedly low, the reverse is true. To combat this, most loans are indexed to inflation.
One final note: Inflation actually harms the wealthy most of all, because of the poor interaction between US capital gains tax laws with inflation (look at IRS capital gains tax law relating to inflation).
You'd be better served by just explaining that the burden of inflation hurts rich people more than poor due to the aggregate losses, rather than trying to explain capital gains. -10% of a billion dollars is a lot more than -10% of $100 dollars. Still, by the very nature of being rich, rich people are more buffered to the pains of losing their money than poor people are. Therefore, while inflation hurts rich people more, poor people are much more sensitive to the effects.
The caveat to this effect is the fact that the vast majority of poor people's incomes are spent just trying to pay the costs of life. Whereas, rich people have a great deal of their income that can be constantly invested to grow more money.
Therefore, not only are rich people more insulated against the losses caused by inflation, but they have greater means to counteract and neutralize the effects of inflation. So, really, your answer lacks a ton of nuance. While the populist theories are alarmist and not quite right, they do capture the essence of what actually occurs with inflation. The poor people's money is siphoned off and they have no way to recoup it. The rich people's money is siphoned off as well, but they have far greater options to combat inflation. They can invest. All most poor people can do to combat inflation is take on another job.
Also, you are flat out wrong that every American family ever is a borrower. Credit card debt is a relatively new phenomenon. Before then, the only real borrowing was a house mortgage. And a family that rents would effectively owe nothing. Therefore, it's rather trite to claim that inflation is good because everyone's debt burden would be lowered. And you fail to state that while debt burdens may be lower, the actual cost of living will rise when the price index increases to meet inflation. At the same time, there is absolutely no guarantee that wages will rise with inflation. That is only a hoped for outcome.
|
On January 29 2010 06:52 ZeroJumps wrote:Show nested quote +Kusimuumi
If any of you is actually interested about the subject, and wishes to devote a few weeks reading and doing the neccessary fact checking, I wholeheartedly suggest you to read "The Web Of Debt" by Ellen Hodginson Brown. (revised and expanded with 2008 update).....
This is important enough to mandate its own thread, but I don't want to be too pushy. I very much like the civility of your tone, so I apologize in advance if the following comes off too harshly: Ad hominem attacks are generally a poor way to begin a debate, but in this particular case, I think one bears stating. Ellen Hodgson Brown’s credentials (from her own site) are: using “her research skills developed as an attorney practicing civil litigation”. She does not have a background in Economics. Furthermore, she states that she was “asked to join the legal team of a popular Tijuana healer”. That experience prompted her to trace the “suppression of natural health treatments”. She has written 11 books on alternative medicine. I think, on the basis of such facts alone, that anything she has to say about US monetary policy can be summarily discounted. Nevertheless, I read several of the excerpts from her book just to make sure. One particular gem: Show nested quote +Except for coins, all of our money is now created as loans advanced by private banking institutions — including the private Federal Reserve. Banks create the principal but not the interest to service their loans. To find the interest, new loans must continually be taken out, expanding the money supply, inflating prices — and robbing you of the value of your money. This statement is indicative of the thoughts contained within the rest of the excerpts. If she had any economic background in Monetary Policy, or even Macroeconomics, she would realize how foolish statements like these sound. Let me pick apart this paragraph for you: Show nested quote +Except for coins, all of our money is now created as loans advanced by private banking institutions – Money is not created by the Federal Reserve. Money is created by the United States Mint. One of the ways many governments actually service debt is by printing money. (which is the opposite of creating money as a loan...) In fact, many unstable governments (and even some stable ones) have printed too much money too pay for their debts, devaluing there currency entirely. This is known as hyperinflation. What the Federal Reserve deals in is US debt. The Federal Reserve either buys or sells government bonds (debt) to pursue expansionary or contractionary monetary policy. When the Federal Reserve sells a bond, it is issuing debt. When it buys a bond, it is reducing debt. These vehicles effect the money supply as follows: when the Reserve buys a bond with hard currency, that money is injected into the economy (expansionary). When the Reserve sells a bond for hard currency, money is taken out of the economy (contractionary). This is an extraordinarily common populist outcry. It is also one of the silliest. I’ll point you to: http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htmThe Federal Reserve displays aspects of both a public and private nature. It is public in the sense that it is within the government, and its members are appointed by other branches of the government. I tend to think of it much like the Supreme Court. It is private in the sense that it is not responsible to any branch of the Federal Government. It should be extremely intuitive to see why this must necessarily be so. If politicians could order the Reserve to pursue the monetary policy they wanted, the result would be disastrous. You needn’t look beyond this forum board to see just how poor most people’s grasp of economic theory is (I don’t intend that to be a personal attack). Show nested quote +Banks create the principal but not the interest to service their loans. To find the interest, new loans must continually be taken out, expanding the money supply, inflating prices — This part is just silly. Banks create the principal for their loans? Principal is the value of a loan minus the accrued interest (or the original balance of a loan. It doesn’t make any sense to say banks create the principal for their loans. That’s like saying you create the principal for your car loan because you took out a loan for your car. As for not creating the interest: How would one even do that? What does that even mean? Why would anyone take out a loan if they could “create the principal” and could “create the interest”. I think this part is a very poor (read unintelligent) take on the service of National Debt. The US issues more debt to finance its current debt (sort of like paying one credit card off with another). While it is correct to say that if one does this, new loans must continually be taken out, the idea that it is “expanding the money supply, inflating prices” is just plain incorrect. When the Federal Reserve issues debt (Sells bonds), money is TAKEN OUT of circulation. This contracts the money supply (which is the opposite of “expanding the money supply). This raises the value of your currency, deflating prices. This is another extremely common populist outcry that is the bane of many an economist’s existence. Inflation does not “rob” people. It is not evil. Unpredictable high levels of inflation may sometimes be problematic, but the inflation rate in the US is very stable.
Your money is indeed worth less every year in the US as a result of inflation. But so is everyone else’s. Periods of unexpectedly high inflation hurt lenders, because it reduces the effective real interest rate (the total amount of debt is lower in real terms). Similarly, such periods help borrowers (like every American family, ever) because now their effective real debt burden is lower. When inflation is unexpectedly low, the reverse is true. To combat this, most loans are indexed to inflation.
One final note: Inflation actually harms the wealthy most of all, because of the poor interaction between US capital gains tax laws with inflation (look at IRS capital gains tax law relating to inflation).
To conclude: Every single paragraph in the excerpts I read is exactly like this. Every sentence is simply not true, or contentious. If you want to choose a book to learn more about Monetary Policy, I would suggest getting an actual textbook. Romer or Mankiw are traditional favorites.
The problem with books like this is that the writers begin writing with an agenda. They start with an idea, and then set out to prove it. This leads to biased, inaccurate writing. What you will find in textbooks is simply an accounting of how economic policy works. Not politics, not an agenda.
If you have any questions about this, I would be happy to answer them.
Let me just tackle one quick aspect which is so fallaciously wrong I can't help to wonder what your background in Economics actually is. I would be pleased to be informed what your background is and what School you belong to. Seems to me, you are more than likely a Keynesianism--Neo-Classicist.
The highlighted is what I am responding to.
Let us start with what Inflation actually is.
“Inflation may be defined as any increase in the economy’s supply of money not consisting of an increase in the stock of the money metal.” – What has Government Done to Our Money? p. 43. Murray N. Rothbard
Or, as Mises wrote:
"In theoretical investigation there is only one meaning that can rationally be attached to the expression Inflation: an increase in the quantity of money (in the broader sense of the term, so as to include fiduciary media as well), that is not offset by a corresponding increase in the need for money (again in the broader sense of the term), so that a fall in the objective exchange-value of money must occur. Again, Deflation (or Restriction, or Contraction) signifies: a diminution of the quantity of money (in the broader sense) which is not offset by a corresponding diminution of the demand for money (in the broader sense), so that an increase in the objective exchange-value of money must occur."
Inflation, is inherently a tax, and inherently theft. It is the systematic redistribution of wealth from the middle class and poor to the affluent and politicial connected, more often than not, the latter in the highest of forms. Ask yourself, who obtains the newly pressed (or in today's case, zero added in a bank account) money first? Do you believe that prices are relative as soon as the new money is made? That prices reflect the first issuance of new money?
Let us tackle this in a more broader sense. Say, I am an owner of a private bank that issues its own fiat money. Say, there is 5,000 of my Rothbard Dollars in circulation. Prices are reflective of the general consensus of money supply (As no one can know the exact supply). Now, suddenly I decide that I'm going to double the money supply, and be the first one to obtain this new money. Hot off the press I have 5,000 Rothbard Dollars. The market has not yet felt the presence of this newly made money. So, I go and buy up assets and goods. I have just stolen from the people a huge amount of their purchasing power. Since I was the first one to have these new funds I bought up a majority of the assets, with the prices reflecting 5,000 in circulation. Now, once this money circulates through the Economy at large prices start to reflect the increase. Since the people holding say, 500 Rothbard Dollars now have to pay twice what they used to, I essentially stole from them half of their purchasing power. This made me richer, and the holders of the currency poorer.
Now, this is the same system (It is inherently inflationary, since money is created out of thin air), that is used everywhere in the world. What the Federal Reserve does (And it is indeed Private, since the Board of Governors, and other positions are solely private. The Head is of little consequence. Moreover, the holdings of the Federal Reserve are all private. You cannot buy stock, nor is the stock held by the Government), is essentially the exact same. Every new dollar is a loss of your purchasing power. They are stealing your wealth. Imagine holding 10,000$ now. Wouldn't you feel stolen from if say, GE or General Dynamics received these new funds first because they are connected to both the Welfare and Warfare State which receives this money first? Now, in a year or so, your 10,000$ are now worth half what it used to purchase. Instead of buying a car, now you can buy a TV. Or, instead of buying a fridge's worth of food, you now have half a fridge worth of food. If that is not theft, I don't know what is!
Moreover, the Inflation rate in the US may be stable, but is orderly theft, any better than disorderly theft? I think anyone with half a sense can tell we have annual inflation of over 8%+ a year. You could buy a car in 1970 for a few thousand (and this was a very nice car too). Now, for the same quality of product you pay 400-500% more! You can systematically go through every sector of the Economy and note these same increases. Now, if you take the median income in this country from 1970 to 2009, the increase has not been even close to matching the rate of inflation. We are all becoming much poorer. The politically connected are getting richer.
Your money is indeed worth less every year in the US as a result of inflation. But so is everyone else’s.
The person who receives this new money first, is enriching himself at the expense of everyone else. You are failing to see chains of causation. Quantitative Easing is nothing more than outright theft!
One final note: Inflation actually harms the wealthy most of all, because of the poor interaction between US capital gains tax laws with inflation (look at IRS capital gains tax law relating to inflation).
This is just the most absurd thing I've ever read. Yeah, I guess those people at GE, General Dynamics, Blackwater/XE, Haliburton, etc. are really hurting...Inflation hurts the poor most of all because wages do not raise in conjunction with inflation.
Not only that inflation is indicative of the resulting Boom-Bust that must happen. I have all ready gone over inflation and interest rates in a previous post on an earlier page. You may peruse for my answer here.
So we can see not only is inflation inherent theft by the first obtainers of the new money, it also seals the fate of the Boom-Bust cycle which brings about horrible misallocation of resources which destroys capital (Wealth) and massively reduces standard of living. So you get hit twice. People, do not listen to Keynesians. They still haven't come up with an answer to Stagflation. Why? Stagflation disproves their whole economic theory, yet they still persist!
To conclude: Every single paragraph in the excerpts I read is exactly like this. Every sentence is simply not true, or contentious. If you want to choose a book to learn more about Monetary Policy, I would suggest getting an actual textbook. Romer or Mankiw are traditional favorites.
You would do well to read these just as a scholarly exercise so you may more easily refute their theories and to understand their positions. However, anyone who is really interested in reading about Economics please pick up the works of:
Murray Rothbard
Ludwig von Mises
Carl Menger
Gustave De Molinari
Frederic Bastiat
Jean Anne-Robert Turgot
Jean-Baptiste Say
Henry D. MacLeod
Karl Heinrich Rau
Jerome-Adolphe Blanqui
|
On January 29 2010 06:04 Rothbardian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2010 05:58 Undisputed- wrote:
I'm too lazy to read the whole thread as there are numerous walls of text. In the OP i don't see many solutions given for the supposed problems. In the US we don't even have a pure capitalist free market economy. In the US we do not have Capitalism.In the US we have Fascism with a mix of Socialism.
Yeah I guess it's difficult to classify what we really are its a mix. That's what I mean though we aren't a capitalist country. Where is this outrage coming from, if anything we could use more capitalist principles.
|
On January 29 2010 07:18 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2010 06:00 Rothbardian wrote:On January 28 2010 06:48 Boblion wrote:
Btw StorkHwaiting i don't understand how people can disagree with you as you are stating the obvious.
Globalization raping the lower middle class in Western countries is common knowledge but it is funny to see all those guys with an eco degree in the thread raging because you are discussing an Economic issue lol.
Economy is as scientific as Sociology, History or Political science. I mean all those guys with Phd, Nobel prizes etc ... they weren't able to predict the crisis. I don't want to be mean but there many people ( Stiglitz, Greenspan etc ... ) who are way more qualified than anyone in this thread and guess what they were completly wrong.
So my advice for guys like Caller is to get off of their high horse because having an eco degree is like being C on Iccup and thinking that you are the shit whereas you are just a stupid copycat who has learnt a couple of build orders / eco models.
Be humble.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the Austrian School of Economics, which is Economics. The Austrian school is the only scientific Economic School of Thought. This is why, Rothbard called Economics the "dismal science". :p Go on Youtube and type in: Peter Schiff was Right Now, you can go to Texas Straight Talk, or Ron Paul Library and check out speeches of Ron Paul from 1997 and 2003 excoriating the coming busts in both .com and housing respectively. Not only that, Lv Mises excoriated the World in 1927 about the coming economic calamity. The Austrians are the only ones who consistently predict every Boom-Bust because we are the only ones to have a theory to explain it. Moreover, we are the only Free-Market school of thought left. Perhaps more people need to go back and read Cantillon, Say, Turgot, Bastiat, Molinari, School of Salamanca, and other liberal Laissez-Faire theorists. Moreover, Jim Rogers and Marc Faber predicted the same mess. What do all of these people have in common? They are all Austrians. I liken Monetarists/Keynesians/Neo-Classicists as dabbling in Astrology while us Austrians do the Astronomy work. Of course, looking through the glass of Astrology you wouldn't call it a science, but through the lens of Astronomy, you would. Come on, Keynes is the fool who said that saving doesn't matter because in the long run we are all dead. He also blamed ups and downs in the market on "animal spirits". Oh so the Austrians have predicted the last crisis ? I think i have missed something o,o Eh i guess that if i was talking with a Keynesian or a Monetarist he would tell me the same thing. As a wise man said "an economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today". When it comes down to Human Sciences i don't think that we are advanced enough to find the truth ( if a truth exists lol ) and even predictions are often inaccurate or false. I think we will have to stick with caricatured models for a long long time. It won't prevent smart kids to think they are right though :o
You have never heard of the Austrians, but then in the same breadth say we don't know whats going on and then lump us in the whole of Economic thought, when our theories are the opposite of everyone else? It doesn't add up.
Seriously, I really recommend going to YT and typing in Peter Schiff Was Right. Or going on www.mises.org and perusing Free Market and Journal of Libertarian Studies in the preceeding Boom years. Also go to Texas Straight Talk or Ron Paul Library and read his speeches before the busts. Or follow Jim Rogers or Marc Faber who are Austrians and have predicted the booms-busts. Or check out the history of the School of Thought. It is not widely known in the Orthodoxy, but it was Mises who said in 1927 that he did not want his name associated with Austria's most prestigious bank because of the impeding calamity that was coming. As we all know the Great Depression hit two years later.
As for no truths in Economics, that is false. There are truths. We call this Praxeology or A priorism. Our facts are arrived through logic. It is a truth, that Human's Act, for instance. I think if you are truly interested a reading of Human Action by Ludwig von Mises may be a great tool to help you understand our current world a bit better (And the Science of Economics).
You can read it for free on www.mises.org. Living out our philosophy :p (Anti-IP).
I also am not trying to chide or deride you, merely trying to point you in the right direction. Hopefully this helps and if you have any further inquiries please do ask!
|
On January 29 2010 07:55 Rothbardian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2010 07:18 Boblion wrote:On January 29 2010 06:00 Rothbardian wrote:On January 28 2010 06:48 Boblion wrote:
Btw StorkHwaiting i don't understand how people can disagree with you as you are stating the obvious.
Globalization raping the lower middle class in Western countries is common knowledge but it is funny to see all those guys with an eco degree in the thread raging because you are discussing an Economic issue lol.
Economy is as scientific as Sociology, History or Political science. I mean all those guys with Phd, Nobel prizes etc ... they weren't able to predict the crisis. I don't want to be mean but there many people ( Stiglitz, Greenspan etc ... ) who are way more qualified than anyone in this thread and guess what they were completly wrong.
So my advice for guys like Caller is to get off of their high horse because having an eco degree is like being C on Iccup and thinking that you are the shit whereas you are just a stupid copycat who has learnt a couple of build orders / eco models.
Be humble.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the Austrian School of Economics, which is Economics. The Austrian school is the only scientific Economic School of Thought. This is why, Rothbard called Economics the "dismal science". :p Go on Youtube and type in: Peter Schiff was Right Now, you can go to Texas Straight Talk, or Ron Paul Library and check out speeches of Ron Paul from 1997 and 2003 excoriating the coming busts in both .com and housing respectively. Not only that, Lv Mises excoriated the World in 1927 about the coming economic calamity. The Austrians are the only ones who consistently predict every Boom-Bust because we are the only ones to have a theory to explain it. Moreover, we are the only Free-Market school of thought left. Perhaps more people need to go back and read Cantillon, Say, Turgot, Bastiat, Molinari, School of Salamanca, and other liberal Laissez-Faire theorists. Moreover, Jim Rogers and Marc Faber predicted the same mess. What do all of these people have in common? They are all Austrians. I liken Monetarists/Keynesians/Neo-Classicists as dabbling in Astrology while us Austrians do the Astronomy work. Of course, looking through the glass of Astrology you wouldn't call it a science, but through the lens of Astronomy, you would. Come on, Keynes is the fool who said that saving doesn't matter because in the long run we are all dead. He also blamed ups and downs in the market on "animal spirits". Oh so the Austrians have predicted the last crisis ? I think i have missed something o,o Eh i guess that if i was talking with a Keynesian or a Monetarist he would tell me the same thing. As a wise man said "an economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today". When it comes down to Human Sciences i don't think that we are advanced enough to find the truth ( if a truth exists lol ) and even predictions are often inaccurate or false. I think we will have to stick with caricatured models for a long long time. It won't prevent smart kids to think they are right though :o You have never heard of the Austrians, but then in the same breadth say we don't know whats going on and then lump us in the whole of Economic thought, when our theories are the opposite of everyone else? It doesn't add up.
Well i think it is probably because of the language barrier and different cultures but people don't get it when i'm being ironic ;D
|
On January 29 2010 08:01 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2010 07:55 Rothbardian wrote:On January 29 2010 07:18 Boblion wrote:On January 29 2010 06:00 Rothbardian wrote:On January 28 2010 06:48 Boblion wrote:
Btw StorkHwaiting i don't understand how people can disagree with you as you are stating the obvious.
Globalization raping the lower middle class in Western countries is common knowledge but it is funny to see all those guys with an eco degree in the thread raging because you are discussing an Economic issue lol.
Economy is as scientific as Sociology, History or Political science. I mean all those guys with Phd, Nobel prizes etc ... they weren't able to predict the crisis. I don't want to be mean but there many people ( Stiglitz, Greenspan etc ... ) who are way more qualified than anyone in this thread and guess what they were completly wrong.
So my advice for guys like Caller is to get off of their high horse because having an eco degree is like being C on Iccup and thinking that you are the shit whereas you are just a stupid copycat who has learnt a couple of build orders / eco models.
Be humble.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the Austrian School of Economics, which is Economics. The Austrian school is the only scientific Economic School of Thought. This is why, Rothbard called Economics the "dismal science". :p Go on Youtube and type in: Peter Schiff was Right Now, you can go to Texas Straight Talk, or Ron Paul Library and check out speeches of Ron Paul from 1997 and 2003 excoriating the coming busts in both .com and housing respectively. Not only that, Lv Mises excoriated the World in 1927 about the coming economic calamity. The Austrians are the only ones who consistently predict every Boom-Bust because we are the only ones to have a theory to explain it. Moreover, we are the only Free-Market school of thought left. Perhaps more people need to go back and read Cantillon, Say, Turgot, Bastiat, Molinari, School of Salamanca, and other liberal Laissez-Faire theorists. Moreover, Jim Rogers and Marc Faber predicted the same mess. What do all of these people have in common? They are all Austrians. I liken Monetarists/Keynesians/Neo-Classicists as dabbling in Astrology while us Austrians do the Astronomy work. Of course, looking through the glass of Astrology you wouldn't call it a science, but through the lens of Astronomy, you would. Come on, Keynes is the fool who said that saving doesn't matter because in the long run we are all dead. He also blamed ups and downs in the market on "animal spirits". Oh so the Austrians have predicted the last crisis ? I think i have missed something o,o Eh i guess that if i was talking with a Keynesian or a Monetarist he would tell me the same thing. As a wise man said "an economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn't happen today". When it comes down to Human Sciences i don't think that we are advanced enough to find the truth ( if a truth exists lol ) and even predictions are often inaccurate or false. I think we will have to stick with caricatured models for a long long time. It won't prevent smart kids to think they are right though :o You have never heard of the Austrians, but then in the same breadth say we don't know whats going on and then lump us in the whole of Economic thought, when our theories are the opposite of everyone else? It doesn't add up. Well i think it is probably because of the language barrier and different cultures but people don't get it when i'm being ironic ;D
Oh, ok understood.  I would really like for you to take a look at that Peter Schiff video though. It just goes to show you how wrong the Orthodoxy is.
|
Globalism and Capitalism with no regulations will give you price fixing, sweatshops, child labor, environmental damage (causing cancer on a massive scale (lookup asbestos, or the lawsuit against Exxon Mobil by indigenous people in Ecuador) or coal sludge or nuclear waste), prostitution, human trafficking, dumping, organ trade (lookup organ trade and India), war (the most profitable business known to mankind), terrorism (in response to exploitation), disease (massive amounts of movement of people and food products will always give you more disease) and the rise of robber barons who will siphon money into corporate tax havens like mailboxes in the Caymans or Swiss bank accounts to evade taxes. The only tool the little man has to stop theft on such a large scale is a strong regulatory authority in the form of a government regulatory body that is accountable to it's people. Sadly, corporations the world over have bought large parts of the governments everywhere and we are all screwed.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 29 2010 06:04 Rothbardian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2010 05:58 Undisputed- wrote:
I'm too lazy to read the whole thread as there are numerous walls of text. In the OP i don't see many solutions given for the supposed problems. In the US we don't even have a pure capitalist free market economy. In the US we do not have Capitalism.In the US we have Fascism with a mix of Socialism.
You are wasting your energy, it's not like anyone will take his time to reason over Austrian arguments. The ratio of clueless wannabee experts to people who actually at least try to give some thought to what they say is quite disturbing.
For some reason I had the impression there are more Austrians on TL, which made me pleasantly surprised at the time, but this thread got my feet back on the ground.
This reminds me, what happened to the Freestate project? It started up as an interesting idea but totally lost its momentum. Since it's only for US citizen I never really followed it, but now it seems to be pretty dead. What a shame ^^
|
Let us take this from the Austrian approach, or the only Free-Market School of Economic ... Since Monetary Policy is the bedrock of any Economic Foundation one must first look here.
A few things to start: First, while the Austrian approach has contributed significantly to economic thought, particularly in the first 30 years of the twentieth century, it is no longer viewed by economists as being significant. The major problem with the Austrian approach is its belief that it is a fallacy to apply mathematical models to Economics. They believe economic interactions are too complex to model statistically. As someone who has run a great deal of economic regressions, and used those responses to predict or prove things accurately, I can firmly say such beliefs are downright absurd. Most economists criticize the Austrian approach as relying to heavily on verbal arguments, and failing to recognize its own weak points.
Perhaps one reason you don’t believe you can have a Free-Market system without a “Sound-Commodity” currency is because you are looking at the US. The US doesn’t even make the Heritage Foundations’ top ten list of freest economies. Hong Kong is the freest economy in the world, and does not have such a currency.
For several unanswered criticisms of the Austrian approach, see: Krugman’s “the Hangover Theory” and Friedman’s “Monetary Studies of the National Bureau” and “The Plucking Model of Business Fluctuations Revisted”.
So, with this we come to Central Banking and the Federal Reserve. What is the purpose of the Federal Reserve? ... Obviously when you wake up the next morning you aren't going to feel too well.
US monetary policy today is nothing like the policies of the 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s. Economics is a relatively new field, and has only recently (in the last 20-50 years) really began to make significant progress towards understanding human economic behavior. Also, your history needs a little work. The Great Depression effected the entire world, not just the US. Economists still debate the cause of the Depression. One argument is indeed that it was triggered by poor use of monetary and fiscal policy. But again, such thinking does not reflect modern economic theory. (In fact, and I find this a little humorous, it seems likely that, given how influential the Austrian approach was at the time, that it was the Austrian approach that led to the Depression). Since the Depression, the US has experienced high levels of long-term, steady growth. See: Historical National and per capita GDP.
I'm not sure if you are aware of the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle, but interest rates are used to coordinate resources. Low interest rates are supposed to represent an increased savings freeing up capital to be used in the lower orders of production (Those areas which are far away from the consumer -- Mining, Steel Production, etc.), which are long-term investments. Higher interest rates are supposed to represent less savings and a consumer demand for higher order of production goods (Those which are closest to the consumer -- End products in Wal-Mart, Target, Gamestop, on the Car-lots, etc.) .
Interest rates are used to coordinate resources. But as for your discussion that follows? Low interest rates represent increased borrowing, or investment in physical capital, as the real cost of borrowing money has gone down (a company will build a new plant, because its cheaper, as you later state). I don’t know how this would free up capital though. It will create new physical capital though. It has nothing to do with “how far it is from the consumer”. How do you arrive at that? All business will respond to the lower interest rates, not just mining and steel companies. Wal-Mart will build more stores because interest rates are lower, car lots will buy more cars.
Higher interest rates represent MORE saving, not less. If your bank was offering 10% annual return on your money, would you save more? Of course you would. Similarly, if the interest rate is higher, you are much less likely to borrow money.
The market coordinates this allocation of capital via Interest rates as we have seen. What happens with the Federal Reserve and any Central Bank however, is that they artificially lower or raise interest rates. Justification for these lowering and raising of rates in most cases has to deal with the political ramifications.
The Federal Reserve is independent of politicians. More often than not, politicians are upset at the Federal reserve because it will not pursue the types of policies they want.
There is honestly no central authority capable of knowing the homogenous interest rate of an entire Naton, ... This is the bust that must always come. As you can see, at the very onset we do not have a Free-Market Economy, nor do the Orthodoxy in any single Nation in the world even bring this up.
You write a lot of things here, and draw many conclusions. However, I don’t see a logical foundation or support for any of them. Statements like “can only be achieved by” are not supported in any way. And what scarce resources are you referring to? Money available for loans? I don't mean this as an attack, and I would appreciate it if you would re-write this so I could answer it more easily.
Also, there are many branches of the Federal Reserve, spread out across the country.
Finally, (again I apologize if you see this as a personal attack) you seem to be confused about the nature of a “sound-commodity currency”. I assume you mean a currency that is backed by a commodity, such that the currency has intrinsic value? Gold and silver have often been used as such commodities. However, you say such a currency cannot be inflated “at the politicians whim”. Ignoring my earlier comment about the independence of the Fed, I will instead say: Yes, it can.
When a currency is back by a commodity, the amount of money in circulation is limited by the amount of that commodity in reserve. If the government wants to increase the money supply, they simply store more gold. (its ability to do so will, of course, be limited by gold production) If it wants to contract the money supply, it sells gold. The reason such currencies don’t work is that you are essentially maintaining a fixed exchange rate with every other country that is on that standard. In addition, there simply isn’t enough of any commodity to go around. The total value of all gold EVER mined is close to $4.5 trillion. There is currently about $8.3 trillion in circulation.
Let's now look at the ramifications for the busts. The longer the booms last, the larger the misallocation of scarce resources. (...) The entreprenuer will not always be right, however, these hiccups will be local and fleeting at the worse .
There are too many problems with this analysis to list them all. A few: You don’t have to print money to keep interest rates at 1%. Look at Japan. You don’t offer any evidence as to how sound-currency would prevent a boom-bust cycle. (The Austrian school has particular problems explaining the business cycle, read the articles I listed). Bubbles don’t arise from being “forced to speculate to recoup your loss of purchasing power”. That doesn’t make any sense at all. Bubbles occur because people historically invest at the wrong time. People see a commodity or stock rising, and invest in it, causing it to rise further than growth which caused the original rise to occur. This further growth and investment cycle continues ad nauseam until investors begin to get worried. When investors get worried, they pull their money. This is the point where the bubble breaks, as people try and retrieve their money as quickly as possible before their investment loses its value. If everyone had kept their money in, however, the bubble would not have broken. There is absolutely nothing about purchasing power, allocation of scarce resources, or any of your other statements involved in the process of bubbles.
Not only that, the most insidioux tax is the Inflation Tax. Since prices do not immediately respond to the first infusion of new money, those at the very forefront of receiving this newly printed (or in today's case, newly added zero on a computer), have increased purchasing power without producing one single good or service. It is fraud. It is debasement. It is theft. You become poorer. When that money finally trickles down to you, prices of goods and services will have exploded. Your purchasing power will have been eroded. This is the silent transfer of wealth from the middle class, poor, and upper class to the affluent and to those who have political connections. This is why those who call for inflationary policies are themselves demanding to be robbed!
See my earlier post. This is an extraordinarily common populist complaint, and has no merit what-so-ever. As noted earlier, inflation harms the wealthy more than other groups because of the interaction between inflation and capital gains taxes. There is no one “at the very forefront” of receiving this new money.
I read your last post before posting this, this is a response to what you wrote in that:
First, the annual inflation rate in the US has averaged about 3%.
Second, newly printed money and money put into the system from buying bonds is not localized. The person who sells the bond is receiving the money. Newly printed money is distributed to pay for any of the millions of things the government spends money on. Furthermore, inflation is not a “Oh no, they just doubled the money supply today” thing in the US. An annual rate of three percent is about a quarter of one percent per month.
The situations you describe where people are actually hurt by inflation are those of hyperinflation, where inflation can reach 300 or 3,000,000 percent per year.
Finally, you are forgetting that inflation, in the US, is not unexpected. People have already discounted the $10,000 by the expected inflation rate in your example.
. Taxation --
All taxation is inherently and necessarily theft. It is the violent appropriation of income from one individual to another at the expense of the first individual. From a wholly moral position, we must be against theft -- taxation. Taxation in every case is a distorting factor in the market.
I agree. But taxation is the only method of funding the government sufficiently. And, because people will free-load as often as they can, a funded government is necessary for the creation of public goods such as roads and parks.
"There has been a great deal of controversy among economists on how to approach the analysis of taxation. Old-fashioned Marshallians insist on the “partial equilibrium” approach of looking only at a particular type of tax, in isolation, and then analyzing its effects; Walrasians, more fashionable today (and exemplified by the late Italian public finance expert, Antonio De Viti De Marco), insist that taxes cannot be considered at all in isolation, that they may be analyzed only in conjunction with what the government does with the proceeds. In all this, what would be the “Austrian” approach, had it been developed, is being neglected. This holds that both procedures are legitimate and necessary to analyze the taxing process fully. In short: the level of taxes-and-expenditures may be analyzed and its inevitable redistributive and distortive effects discussed; and, within this aggregate of taxes, individual types of taxes may then be analyzed in isolation. Neither the partial nor the general approaches should be overlooked."
Economists do this. Austrian economists do not. Why? Because economists use mathematical modeling techniques known as multi-variable regressions. Austrian economists eschew mathematical approaches.
Now, with that said, not only do we have to look at Taxation as the actually specific tax on an individual, or business, but in the aggregate terms, we must also have to look at Government Spending. (...) it bears the immediate brunt of payment. However, even without yet considering the “partial equilibrium” problem of how or whether such taxes
are “shifted” by the betel-nut industry onto other shoulders, we should also note that it is not the only one to pay; the consumers of paper certainly pay by finding paper prices raised to them."
This is mostly true. I will only note that calculating who bears any particular tax burden is quite difficult, as every person and every industry has every incentive to push the tax burden onto other people.
Now, let's answer your question about taxing capital. I have found the only people who advocate a tax on capital are the people who do not understand what capital is, and what is accomplishes.
So, so true.
Capital is savings. Not only do you advocate a tax on the very first turn (Actually receiving your wages), now you also want to tax savings (investment) with those all ready taxed wages.
Eventually, this freed up time, allows for them to produce nets for everyone, which increases everyones productivity, and ad infinitum)! Capital accruement and investment is the sole reason for our increases in standard of living. To want to tax that, is ludicrous!
Again, this is mostly true. Most international economists are against the direct taxation of capital. Income tax is, as you say, an indirect tax on capital formation. But it is also necessary if you want to have a funded government.
. As you can see the Orthodoxy in America and indeed the world, is not one of Free-Markets, but one of Centrally-Planned Socialist/Fascist Economies. Our world today is not a failure of Free-Markets, but of a failure of Statism. Not only that, regulation has increased tri-fold in the last 10 years. Look at the IRS, EPA, FDA, State regulatory agencies, SEC (Yes, they had more regulations in 2004 than they had in 1992 for example), FDIC, etc.
I’m all for less regulation. But making the claim that America is a centrally planned economy? That’s plain silly.
3. Again I refer to #2. Rhetoric means nothing. Action, consequences, policies, etc. mean everything. We do not have a Free-Market Economy, not even close!!! Globalization is also a part of the Centrally-Planned Economy. Look at NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, WTO, etc. This is not Free-Trade. This is Neo-Mercantilism regulated, managed, etc. trade. Free-Trade requires a one page agreement between Nation-States, not 2,000+ pages of regulations. Moreover, if we have been pushing for more Globalization how come the US still has an inordinate amount of embargoes, sanctions, and other hostile trade policies to many many countries?
If you examine international trade theorists (which I forgot you mostly did in the next paragraph), you would see that many economists are frustrated with the lack of progress towards free trade that is being made. There are two camps: One argues that these incremental steps are helpful, and will eventually result in true freedom of trade. The second argues such steps are detrimental, as true free-trade will be replaced entirely with these kinds of agreements (NAFTA).
I'm sorry I am out of time for right now. I will continue on the rest of your points when I get a chance.
In short, I agree with the idea of trying to move towards a free market economy, and I agree that it doesn’t seem like there is much progress. However, I think your belief that this results from our currency system is entirely wrong.
Thanks for reading! If you have any rebuttals or questions I would be happy to read and answer them!
|
A few quotes that I find highly relevant and quite obviously agree with:
"Laissez faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationshps. By the nature of its basic principles and interests, it is the only system fundamentally opposed to war." - Ayn Rand
"As every individual, therefore, endeavors as much he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it."
Adam Smith
Long live Capitalism
|
On January 29 2010 08:17 bUbUsHeD wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 29 2010 06:04 Rothbardian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2010 05:58 Undisputed- wrote:
I'm too lazy to read the whole thread as there are numerous walls of text. In the OP i don't see many solutions given for the supposed problems. In the US we don't even have a pure capitalist free market economy. In the US we do not have Capitalism.In the US we have Fascism with a mix of Socialism. You are wasting your energy, it's not like anyone will take his time to reason over Austrian arguments. The ratio of clueless wannabee experts to people who actually at least try to give some thought to what they say is quite disturbing. For some reason I had the impression there are more Austrians on TL, which made me pleasantly surprised at the time, but this thread got my feet back on the ground. This reminds me, what happened to the Freestate project? It started up as an interesting idea but totally lost its momentum. Since it's only for US citizen I never really followed it, but now it seems to be pretty dead. What a shame ^^
Hello bUbUshed (lol),
The Free State Project is still going strong. We are up to 10,000 that have signed on, and reports estimate anywhere from 800 to 1300+ early movers. They have all ready made a lot of strides, and the Keeniacs are doing what they do best! www.freekeene.com
NH now has about 70 to 80 libertarian Republicans in their legislature, and are poised to re-take the legislature back this election cycle. Forsythe is working hard, as are many on the ground. NH also has the most liberty media anywhere in the world, and has the most liberty activists anywhere in the world. It is indeed a slow process though, but the task of moving is daunting. I suspect when the Economy gets a lot worse (and it will, and it will be a currency crisis coming), that more people will move because they really don't have much to lose, but a lot to gain.
I'm also glad I'm not alone here. Even though everyone may not read my thesis' hopefully a few will and a few will do more independant research on their own.
We (Market-Anarchists and Minarchist Misesians) are very much into Civil Disobedience, so come on over to NH anyways! The State has no right to tell what someone can or cannot do on their own private property. Immigration law dictated by the State is inherently unjust and immoral, so we have no problem doing a little CD and Agorism. :p
|
You'd be better served by just explaining that the burden of inflation hurts rich people more than poor due to the aggregate losses, rather than trying to explain capital gains. -10% of a billion dollars is a lot more than -10% of $100 dollars. (...) Whereas, rich people have a great deal of their income that can be constantly invested to grow more money
This is correct. Any tax is going to “hurt” the poor more than the rich because the poor have less money. All I am saying here is that capital gains taxes fall disproportionately on the wealthy, because they represent the majority of investors.
Therefore, not only are rich people more insulated against the losses caused by inflation, but they have greater means to counteract and neutralize the effects of inflation. So, really, your answer lacks a ton of nuance. While the populist theories are alarmist and not quite right, they do capture the essence of what actually occurs with inflation. The poor people's money is siphoned off and they have no way to recoup it. The rich people's money is siphoned off as well, but they have far greater options to combat inflation. They can invest. All most poor people can do to combat inflation is take on another job.
You say “therefore” but are switching the topic from capital gains to inflation. I see why you have done so, but inflation and capital gains taxes are two separate beasts. Investing does not counteract the effects of inflation, as it reduces the real rate of return. I think your best line of attack might be to argue that the wages paid by jobs of the poor are less likely to keep pace with inflation than wages paid by the jobs of the rich.
Also, you are flat out wrong that every American family ever is a borrower. Credit card debt is a relatively new phenomenon. At the same time, there is absolutely no guarantee that wages will rise with inflation. That is only a hoped for outcome.
“Every” is, of course, an exaggeration. But I would venture to say that, since the 20th century, nearly every single American family has, at some time, borrowed money for a car, a house, or school loans. I was not referring to credit card debt (Aside: 22% interest on my credit card! Why??). I wasn’t claiming that everyone’s debt burden would be lowered, as (I thought I stated this) many loans are indexed to inflation. I was pointing out the winners and losers from un-indexed loans when unexpected changes in inflation occur.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 29 2010 08:25 Rothbardian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2010 08:17 bUbUsHeD wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 29 2010 06:04 Rothbardian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2010 05:58 Undisputed- wrote:
I'm too lazy to read the whole thread as there are numerous walls of text. In the OP i don't see many solutions given for the supposed problems. In the US we don't even have a pure capitalist free market economy. In the US we do not have Capitalism.In the US we have Fascism with a mix of Socialism. You are wasting your energy, it's not like anyone will take his time to reason over Austrian arguments. The ratio of clueless wannabee experts to people who actually at least try to give some thought to what they say is quite disturbing. For some reason I had the impression there are more Austrians on TL, which made me pleasantly surprised at the time, but this thread got my feet back on the ground. This reminds me, what happened to the Freestate project? It started up as an interesting idea but totally lost its momentum. Since it's only for US citizen I never really followed it, but now it seems to be pretty dead. What a shame ^^ Hello bUbUshed (lol), The Free State Project is still going strong. We are up to 10,000 that have signed on, and reports estimate anywhere from 800 to 1300+ early movers. They have all ready made a lot of strides, and the Keeniacs are doing what they do best! www.freekeene.comNH now has about 70 to 80 libertarian Republicans in their legislature, and are poised to re-take the legislature back this election cycle. Forsythe is working hard, as are many on the ground. NH also has the most liberty media anywhere in the world, and has the most liberty activists anywhere in the world. It is indeed a slow process though, but the task of moving is daunting. I suspect when the Economy gets a lot worse (and it will, and it will be a currency crisis coming), that more people will move because they really don't have much to lose, but a lot to gain. I'm also glad I'm not alone here. Even though everyone may not read my thesis' hopefully a few will and a few will do more independant research on their own. We (Market-Anarchists and Minarchist Misesians) are very much into Civil Disobedience, so come on over to NH anyways! The State has no right to tell what someone can or cannot do on their own private property. Immigration law dictated by the State is inherently unjust and immoral, so we have no problem doing a little CD and Agorism. :p
That sounds like you are already in NH, pretty cool . It's really great to hear that FSP is still alive. I already moved from Europe to China and it's not like I'd ever go back, but NH would be a nice backup plan for the next crisis (if going to Bali for a long vacation fails :p)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
