EPTSomalia - Success of Anarchy - Page 30
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
| ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
On July 21 2011 05:35 xarthaz wrote: zocktol, Government burning money would be better for the economy than spending it. Spending it bids resources to unprofitable government dictated ends, burning the taxed money would raise interest rates and stimulate real savings and investment. Burning money is far worse, are you serious? The interest rates would rise because the cash supply is decreasing, not because the real demand for cash is increasing. It would put a large amount of strain on debtors and suppliers that would have sold goods to the government for government projects would not sell anything. If the economy could be fixed by artificially raising interest rates via destroying money all of the world's economic problems would be solved. Your logic has shown time and again to be highly flawed | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
The second part - forgoing sales to government is also excellet for economy as it redistributes into productive ends, what would otherwise have essentially been waste. | ||
|
zocktol
Germany1928 Posts
On July 21 2011 05:35 xarthaz wrote: zocktol, Government burning money would be better for the economy than spending it. Spending it bids resources to unprofitable government dictated ends, burning the taxed money would raise interest rates and stimulate real savings and investment. So money should be used to increase the economy, so that it can increase the economy? Not sure i am getting your logic there T_T | ||
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
| ||
|
enecateReAP
United Kingdom378 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
The very idea that ideas are not "open to refutation" - i.e. that they must be accepted without examination past checking logical soundness - is not intellectual or even scientific and certainly not a way to discover truth. The entire school of praxeology is essentially a construct of Mises. It is an odd form of circular logic, where your ideas are perfect because your logic is perfect, your logic is perfect because your premises are perfect, and your premises are perfect because their logic is perfect. | ||
|
mols0n
Canada388 Posts
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/un-declares-famine-southern-somalia-073135635.html | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 21 2011 05:35 xarthaz wrote: zocktol, Government burning money would be better for the economy than spending it. Spending it bids resources to unprofitable government dictated ends, burning the taxed money would raise interest rates and stimulate real savings and investment. mcc, rothbard is talking about statements that can be demonstrated. In the paradigm of demonstrated utility, government contribution is indeed zero Nope. Still impossible to determine. | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
All experience concerning human action is conditioned by the praxeo- logical categories and becomes possible only through their application. If we had not in our mind the schemes provided by praxeological reasoning, we should never be in a position to discern and to grasp any action. We would perceive motions, but neither buying nor selling, nor prices, wage rates, interest rates, and so on. It is only through the utilization of the praxeological scheme that we become able to have an experience concerning an act of buying and selling, but then independently of the fact of whether or not our senses concomitantly perceive any motions of men and of nonhuman elements of the external world. Unaided by praxeological knowledge we would never learn anything about media of exchange. If we approach coins without such preexisting knowledge, we would see in them only round plates of metal, nothing more. Experience concerning money requires familiarity with the praxeological category medium of exchange. Experience concerning human action differs from that concerning natural phenomena in that it requires and presupposes praxeological knowledge. This is why the methods of the natural sciences are inappropriate for the study of praxeology, economics and history. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 21 2011 06:30 DeepElemBlues wrote: As soon as an Austrian (Schooler, not countryman) starts talking about a priori and irrefutable and praxeology my eyes start to glaze over, because I know it's going to be a jumble of jargon that has been copy-pasted into the poster's mind, that in the end says, "I already figured it out in my head - you're wrong." The very idea that ideas are not "open to refutation" - i.e. that they must be accepted without examination past checking logical soundness - is not intellectual or even scientific and certainly not a way to discover truth. The entire school of praxeology is essentially a construct of Mises. It is an odd form of circular logic, where your ideas are perfect because your logic is perfect, your logic is perfect because your premises are perfect, and your premises are perfect because their logic is perfect. It is not necessarily circular logic, although some adherents might fall into that trap. But it is purely theoretical construct, that has in itself no way to say anything about the world. The problem is that there is basically no way to actually prove that action axiom is a priori synthetic truth. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 21 2011 06:43 xarthaz wrote: No Blue's, the premises are perfect because the concept is necessary for perception of world: All experience concerning human action is conditioned by the praxeo- logical categories and becomes possible only through their application. If we had not in our mind the schemes provided by praxeological reasoning, we should never be in a position to discern and to grasp any action. We would perceive motions, but neither buying nor selling, nor prices, wage rates, interest rates, and so on. It is only through the utilization of the praxeological scheme that we become able to have an experience concerning an act of buying and selling, but then independently of the fact of whether or not our senses concomitantly perceive any motions of men and of nonhuman elements of the external world. Unaided by praxeological knowledge we would never learn anything about media of exchange. If we approach coins without such preexisting knowledge, we would see in them only round plates of metal, nothing more. Experience concerning money requires familiarity with the praxeological category medium of exchange. Experience concerning human action differs from that concerning natural phenomena in that it requires and presupposes praxeological knowledge. This is why the methods of the natural sciences are inappropriate for the study of praxeology, economics and history. Again no it does not require or presupposes any such knowledge. Your say so and Rothbard's incomplete argumentation do not make it so. And human action is natural phenomena. Anyway you continue to basically "copy-paste" misesian/rothbardian walls of text. You might actually start with answering my concern about a priori synthetic truths. Show that axiom of human action actually is one. | ||
|
Harrow
United States245 Posts
On July 21 2011 06:43 xarthaz wrote: No Blue's, the premises are perfect because the concept is necessary for perception of world: All experience concerning human action is conditioned by the praxeo- logical categories and becomes possible only through their application. If we had not in our mind the schemes provided by praxeological reasoning, we should never be in a position to discern and to grasp any action. We would perceive motions, but neither buying nor selling, nor prices, wage rates, interest rates, and so on. It is only through the utilization of the praxeological scheme that we become able to have an experience concerning an act of buying and selling, but then independently of the fact of whether or not our senses concomitantly perceive any motions of men and of nonhuman elements of the external world. Unaided by praxeological knowledge we would never learn anything about media of exchange. If we approach coins without such preexisting knowledge, we would see in them only round plates of metal, nothing more. Experience concerning money requires familiarity with the praxeological category medium of exchange. Experience concerning human action differs from that concerning natural phenomena in that it requires and presupposes praxeological knowledge. This is why the methods of the natural sciences are inappropriate for the study of praxeology, economics and history. Heh, googling for passages from this not only brings up the actual Mises book you copy-pasted from, but posts by you in other topics on TL as well as posts by you on other gaming forums. Have you tried reading some contrary opinions? Even most ardent anarcho-capitalists I've read/talked to don't point to Somalia as a success story. A better argument is that it's not a good example of the FAILURE of anarchy, since it hasn't developed as an alternative to an existing stable state. Instead it has risen from the ashes of other terrible, corrupt, chaotic states. I still think it serves as an example of some of the problems with anarchy, and I think there are reasons that democratic states have grown as the most stable and produced the best standards of living. | ||
|
nemo14
United States425 Posts
On July 21 2011 05:46 BestZergOnEast wrote: What's so bad about deflation? Purchasing power goes up. There's an incentive to save (which, despite the mantra of the media that consumption and consumer spending is the key to prosperity, is a much better measure of economic health). Indeed, a healthy sound monetary system would have gentle deflation (combined with wages that increased!). But the government shouldn't burn or print money. There is no need to adjust the money supply. Any amount of money supply is adequate for any economy. The key isn't to raise interest rates or lower them - it's to allow consumers to set interest rates by the % of their income that they save. Let the market decide. Deflation is bad because everyone can make money without doing anything. Nobody has any incentive to spend or invest, bringing the economy to a screeching halt. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
Anarchy design a society without chief... In my opinion Somalia is the opposite of Anarchy : power without order, while anarchy is order without power. | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
mcc, The meaning of observable behavior of humans comes from attaching the definition of human action to it. You say it doesnt presuppose action axiom. If that is the case, then it is not perceived in a manner that does suppose action axiom. Yet that is incorrect, as human behavior gets its meaning from being interpreted as being action Read the middle part of the Mises quote carefully - thats where the meat is. Now, it is quite an abstract concept so it requires quite a bit of concentration to grasp it, and reading it over and over again. I have seen this often in forums. I present the irrefutable evidence of the validity of action axiom, yet it is ignored. Sure, the readers think they answer it. But their reading is shallow, they move over the abstract meaty part of what Mises is trying to say, so they end up ignoring the belly of the argument. It is the kind of thing. | ||
|
Letitz
France80 Posts
But if everyone was left to their own devices, acting solely in order to satisfy their urges, I doubt the world would be a better, more productive place. This has been demonstrated time and time again with the free market economy: Adam Smith's invisible hand - which was to push markets in a direction profitable for the entire society through the collective research of personal advancement, the same idea that Rothbard develops here with "productivity" - is a myth. Firstly, the free market is in no way self-regulating: confer the numerous bubble bursts and krachs which were all foreseen but ignored until the last moment. Secondly, even in periods of economic growth, speculation has had nefarious consequences for society: speculation over rice and wheat has made prices soar, therefore effectively starving entire populations around the world. Evidence therefore suggests that a mass of individuals seeking to satisfy their personal desires does not lead to general advancement but simply to the richest getting richer (with a sufficient amount of money, you can effectively trump the market and win in any case) and the poorest getting poorer, which I personally find an extremely indesirable result, but that Rothbard seems to consider "productive". In short, I disagree. | ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On July 21 2011 07:19 xarthaz wrote: Wrong. Bringing the consumer economy largely to a halt as more consumption is forgone is possible. However the higher orders of production boom - as investment increases due to increased savings. That is how economic growth happens! mcc, The meaning of observable behavior of humans comes from attaching the definition of human action to it. You say it doesnt presuppose action axiom. If that is the case, then it is not perceived in a manner that does suppose action axiom. Yet that is incorrect, as human behavior gets its meaning from being interpreted as being action No. Last sentence does not necessarily follow. But that is irrelevant, you still did not provide any argument why action axiom is an a priori truth. EDIT: Ah, you edited.Anyway your quote does not show anything about validity of action axiom. It pertains only to our disagreement about whether praxeology and action axiom are required for experience of human action phenomena. | ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
| ||
| ||
