On February 28 2012 22:31 frogrubdown wrote: Can we get a banner on the top of this thread forbidding links to the Mises institute? Honestly, if you haven't already fallen for their nonsense the first 100 times it was posted you won't now.
Holding your ears with your hands and pretending the arguments and evidence don't exist doesn't make them any less valid.
On February 28 2012 22:31 frogrubdown wrote: Can we get a banner on the top of this thread forbidding links to the Mises institute? Honestly, if you haven't already fallen for their nonsense the first 100 times it was posted you won't now.
Holding your ears with your hands and pretending the arguments and evidence don't exist doesn't make them any less valid.
"LALALA! I CANT HEAR YOU!" is not an argument.
But whatever... statists gonna state.
Economists from the Austrian school have been shouting "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" in the face of historical and empirical evidence (and of every other economist school) ever since Austrian economics first appeared.
On February 28 2012 22:31 frogrubdown wrote: Can we get a banner on the top of this thread forbidding links to the Mises institute? Honestly, if you haven't already fallen for their nonsense the first 100 times it was posted you won't now.
Holding your ears with your hands and pretending the arguments and evidence don't exist doesn't make them any less valid.
"LALALA! I CANT HEAR YOU!" is not an argument.
But whatever... statists gonna state.
Economists from the Austrian school have been shouting "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" in the face of historical and empirical evidence (and of every other economist school) ever since Austrian economics first appeared.
Actually, quite the opposite. Most schools of economics rely on perfect information, where Austrian economics specifically addresses the real world phenomena of imperfect information.
On February 28 2012 22:31 frogrubdown wrote: Can we get a banner on the top of this thread forbidding links to the Mises institute? Honestly, if you haven't already fallen for their nonsense the first 100 times it was posted you won't now.
Ultimately it's not worth the effort to correct people who are so off base. Winning an argument really doesn't matter. And usually, especially when it comes to Mises and Rothbard supporters, they have little to no real world impact anyways.
On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote: I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ.
I understand quite clearly how taxes, distributive, redistributive, regulatory and constituent policies work, and I also have a very firm handle on international political economies. The low tax business haven you speak of just doesn't exist, and it never has. They want things, and there's far more examples of strategic trade working than both free markets and protectionism. It's a necessary balancing act. The only models for free trade exist within a vacuum. As soon as they hit the international market, you get a prisoner's dilemma.
Strategic trade is good. It's not perfect and like any form of agreement making, it's more art than science. That's your balancing act. It's been in place in the US for half a century now. The problem is that today, for the purpose of rhetoric, it's portrayed as protectionism when in actuality it's the complicated middle ground between free trade and protectionism. The rhetoric works that way because black and white thinking has become such commonplace and is so effective in modern American politics. "You're either with us or against us", and they lie and say there's no room for middle ground.
That's fine that you believe that. However, I don't. Do you believe that your beliefs should be inflicted on me at gunpoint?
Unless you can present a reasonable counter argument for free trade in international trade, which really doesn't exist. It's something that's been studied and researched for two decades now, and no alternative has been presented. The only alternative is a portrayed one used to score political points, but it has no bearing on reality.
This isn't a personal belief system where everyone gets a choice. This is federal trade policy that has been in place for decades, and experts spend their careers studying it and making suggestions on how to implement it better. The system itself (as opposed to a free trade system) is reality, and there's plenty of room for contention on how to best execute it. But not believing in the system is just ignoring a part of reality.
People traded before governments existed. Clearly, free trade is reality too.
You're really talking about bartering in a discussion on trade policy? You've gone millenia before Adam Smith and Ricardo and even mercantilism, into remedial territory. It's really not relevant at all. In fact, free trade theory is predicated upon the existence of governments, so your statement is patently false.
I will ask you again, do you believe in enforcing your beliefs upon me by pointing guns at me?
Yes, in some situations. That's exactly how governments and societies work. If your beliefs are contrary to the law and you decide to break it, you will literally have guns pointed at you. If you keep those beliefs but don't break the law then obviously not, but I see little reason why an uneducated belief should be valued. The group of experts making decisions obviously believe something contrary to you, so in this case your belief is nearly meaningless.
You can choose to believe that 2+2=5 and no one will harm you for it, but no one will value you either.
You can argue that free trade is superior, but what I'm saying is that it does not exist and you cannot cite previous American prosperity as an example of it. It has always fallen somewhere in between free trade and protectionism and at times it's leaned one way or the other. If free trade is represented by 0 on a scale and protectionism is represented by 10, the problem I'm addressing is that politicians knowingly lie when they accuse anything >0 (say, 0.5) of being a form of protectionism. It's a black and white argument for what's really a very complicated issue. In reality, it's probably best to remain somewhere between 3-7. Arguing for 0 and 10 is silly and counter productive.
Free trade is, by definition, not free if governments are involved. How can it be free trade when there's governments pointing guns everywhere?
No, it isn't. You're confusing lay definitions with actual economic concepts. You don't have free trade without governments. Even the most laissez faire system has government involvement because you still trade using a common currency, which is controlled by the government. What you're talking about is pre-civilization bartering systems.
You claim that just because experts say something and they're the law that me disagreeing makes it okay for guns to be pointed at me. I'm sure the experts in Mao's China thought they were doing a fantastic job allocating rice. Too bad for 20 million people who starved. Just because experts and guns are involved does not make anything right or wrong. Our educated elite seem to think that we can borrow and spend our way into prosperity right now, and they're absolutely incorrect. Experts are no longer experts but simply parrots when the government gets involved.
There's open research and competing theories. It is nothing close to a command economy authoritarian state like early Communist China was. Relying on lay people to make important decisions instead of people who have studied the field their entire life is just stupid. It's like discounting the SC2 advice of MVP, because a bronze player thinks he's watched enough SC2 to understand it.
Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that your claim has some legitimacy. Why is free trade bad? Why is arguing for no government involvement counterproductive?
Why is anarchy counterproductive? Because there's no regulation. Because there's violence. Because currency has no value nor liquidity.
And lastly, do you believe that every law is worth obeying? I'm sure you've broken a few thousand laws over the course of your lifetime without even realizing it. It's estimated every person commits 3 felonies a day in the US on average. Obviously, there's something wrong with the law. Law does not equal morality. They are completely separate concepts. When law follows morality, there is justice. When law does not, there is tyrrany.
Morality is completely subjective. This discussion really is quite silly. I think you should read more about economics.
You do not need a common currency controlled by government. Ron Paul wants to legalize competing currencies and repeal legal tender laws. This is a position that is held by virtually every Austrian economist. Currencies should not be monopolized, but left up to the market.
Anarchy is not counterproductive. Government is counterproductive. The market provides far better regulation than a monopoly of government ever can. There is no evidence to support a claim of anarcho-capitalist systems being any more violent than government. Unfortunately, the examples are few and far between, but one I can give is Iceland 900-1200 AD. During this period there were competing systems of law, much like the modern concept of dispute resolution organizations (DROs) in anarcho-capitalist theory. Violent crime rate during a period of "civil war" at the end of this period was still less than violent crime rate in the US today. The system was completely stable until the Church moved in and created a form of monopoly power and taxation, a la government.
And lastly, I find it hilarious that you say I should learn more about economics and make appeals to authority. That does not constitute an argument. I am very learned in economics, and can point you to countless resources to back my claims. Now if you want to learn more about anarcho-capitalist theory and Austrian economics, I strongly suggest www.mises.org (for economics) and www.freedomainradio.com (for philosophy).
The United States had exactly what you describe leading up to 1861, before Abraham Lincoln issued a form of national currency during the Civil War. Multiple currencies floated around multiple wildcat banks. Likewise, the American West was largely unregulated as far as business practices went. No it was not a perfect model of anarcho-capitalism. There will never be a perfect model of anything in the real world. Some state and local controls remained in the Free Banking Era of the United States. But especially in less developed areas, banks were largely able to get by with no government presence. And it's far closer to the economic model you describe than what we have today. This was not a recipe for economic success. The recession of 1836, 1839, and 1857 were deep, dark, and strongly associated with free banking and the failures thereof. The Recession of 1836, for instance, was caused by a run on the banks that plunged the US into a recession deeper than this one.
Consider that in 2009, basically every Austrian economist warned us that inflation was coming, and coming in a big way. They were unequivocal about this; it was not a "in the long run" prediction, but a "this is going to happen in the coming months, possibly the next year at the latest". Meanwhile, inflation is at the lowest rate its been in years. Until that school gets its big claims not-spectacularly-wrong, I'm not sure that using their 'expertise' to justify arguments is a wise decision.
I was pretty surprised that this actually did come from the Santorum campaign. Having the end message say "supported by hardworking Democratic men and women and paid for by Rick Santorum for President" sounds like a ripe attack line on Rick Santorum's presidential aspirations.
On February 27 2012 14:08 Jibba wrote: [quote] I understand quite clearly how taxes, distributive, redistributive, regulatory and constituent policies work, and I also have a very firm handle on international political economies. The low tax business haven you speak of just doesn't exist, and it never has. They want things, and there's far more examples of strategic trade working than both free markets and protectionism. It's a necessary balancing act. The only models for free trade exist within a vacuum. As soon as they hit the international market, you get a prisoner's dilemma.
Strategic trade is good. It's not perfect and like any form of agreement making, it's more art than science. That's your balancing act. It's been in place in the US for half a century now. The problem is that today, for the purpose of rhetoric, it's portrayed as protectionism when in actuality it's the complicated middle ground between free trade and protectionism. The rhetoric works that way because black and white thinking has become such commonplace and is so effective in modern American politics. "You're either with us or against us", and they lie and say there's no room for middle ground.
That's fine that you believe that. However, I don't. Do you believe that your beliefs should be inflicted on me at gunpoint?
Unless you can present a reasonable counter argument for free trade in international trade, which really doesn't exist. It's something that's been studied and researched for two decades now, and no alternative has been presented. The only alternative is a portrayed one used to score political points, but it has no bearing on reality.
This isn't a personal belief system where everyone gets a choice. This is federal trade policy that has been in place for decades, and experts spend their careers studying it and making suggestions on how to implement it better. The system itself (as opposed to a free trade system) is reality, and there's plenty of room for contention on how to best execute it. But not believing in the system is just ignoring a part of reality.
People traded before governments existed. Clearly, free trade is reality too.
You're really talking about bartering in a discussion on trade policy? You've gone millenia before Adam Smith and Ricardo and even mercantilism, into remedial territory. It's really not relevant at all. In fact, free trade theory is predicated upon the existence of governments, so your statement is patently false.
I will ask you again, do you believe in enforcing your beliefs upon me by pointing guns at me?
Yes, in some situations. That's exactly how governments and societies work. If your beliefs are contrary to the law and you decide to break it, you will literally have guns pointed at you. If you keep those beliefs but don't break the law then obviously not, but I see little reason why an uneducated belief should be valued. The group of experts making decisions obviously believe something contrary to you, so in this case your belief is nearly meaningless.
You can choose to believe that 2+2=5 and no one will harm you for it, but no one will value you either.
You can argue that free trade is superior, but what I'm saying is that it does not exist and you cannot cite previous American prosperity as an example of it. It has always fallen somewhere in between free trade and protectionism and at times it's leaned one way or the other. If free trade is represented by 0 on a scale and protectionism is represented by 10, the problem I'm addressing is that politicians knowingly lie when they accuse anything >0 (say, 0.5) of being a form of protectionism. It's a black and white argument for what's really a very complicated issue. In reality, it's probably best to remain somewhere between 3-7. Arguing for 0 and 10 is silly and counter productive.
Free trade is, by definition, not free if governments are involved. How can it be free trade when there's governments pointing guns everywhere?
No, it isn't. You're confusing lay definitions with actual economic concepts. You don't have free trade without governments. Even the most laissez faire system has government involvement because you still trade using a common currency, which is controlled by the government. What you're talking about is pre-civilization bartering systems.
You claim that just because experts say something and they're the law that me disagreeing makes it okay for guns to be pointed at me. I'm sure the experts in Mao's China thought they were doing a fantastic job allocating rice. Too bad for 20 million people who starved. Just because experts and guns are involved does not make anything right or wrong. Our educated elite seem to think that we can borrow and spend our way into prosperity right now, and they're absolutely incorrect. Experts are no longer experts but simply parrots when the government gets involved.
There's open research and competing theories. It is nothing close to a command economy authoritarian state like early Communist China was. Relying on lay people to make important decisions instead of people who have studied the field their entire life is just stupid. It's like discounting the SC2 advice of MVP, because a bronze player thinks he's watched enough SC2 to understand it.
Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that your claim has some legitimacy. Why is free trade bad? Why is arguing for no government involvement counterproductive?
Why is anarchy counterproductive? Because there's no regulation. Because there's violence. Because currency has no value nor liquidity.
And lastly, do you believe that every law is worth obeying? I'm sure you've broken a few thousand laws over the course of your lifetime without even realizing it. It's estimated every person commits 3 felonies a day in the US on average. Obviously, there's something wrong with the law. Law does not equal morality. They are completely separate concepts. When law follows morality, there is justice. When law does not, there is tyrrany.
Morality is completely subjective. This discussion really is quite silly. I think you should read more about economics.
You do not need a common currency controlled by government. Ron Paul wants to legalize competing currencies and repeal legal tender laws. This is a position that is held by virtually every Austrian economist. Currencies should not be monopolized, but left up to the market.
Anarchy is not counterproductive. Government is counterproductive. The market provides far better regulation than a monopoly of government ever can. There is no evidence to support a claim of anarcho-capitalist systems being any more violent than government. Unfortunately, the examples are few and far between, but one I can give is Iceland 900-1200 AD. During this period there were competing systems of law, much like the modern concept of dispute resolution organizations (DROs) in anarcho-capitalist theory. Violent crime rate during a period of "civil war" at the end of this period was still less than violent crime rate in the US today. The system was completely stable until the Church moved in and created a form of monopoly power and taxation, a la government.
And, morality is not subjective, because that is a contradiction. If morality is subjective, then my claim that it is objective is as valid as yours that it is not. Clearly, it can't be objective and not objective at the same time. Morality is the most often misunderstood concept in modern culture (thank you government schools), so I don't blame you for not understanding it. The entire notion of morality is to provide a code of universal rules which we should live by. There are rules that objectively fit that definition. Rape is never good. Murder is never good. The idea behind the libertarian position - the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) - is that the initiation of force is never good. Force should only be used in self defense. This is philosophically defensible, and there's a lot of great philosophy behind it dating back to Kant, and beyond.
And lastly, I find it hilarious that you say I should learn more about economics and make appeals to authority. That does not constitute an argument. I am very learned in economics, and can point you to countless resources to back my claims. Now if you want to learn more about anarcho-capitalist theory and Austrian economics, I strongly suggest www.mises.org (for economics) and www.freedomainradio.com (for philosophy).
This is laughable to say the least. How anyone can ever believe that "government" is counter-productive is beyond me. Iceland, like Europe, was comprised of fiefdoms at the time. That there were many smaller fiefdoms for a period does not mean it was lawless, nor that there were not "competing systems of law" over pretty much all of Europe. I say Europe because I know very little about other parts of the world at this time, but I would imagine it was similar. And let's not ignore that Iceland is quite large and their entire population was estimated at 50 000. Never the less Iceland does give an important lesson here; That someone will come in and consolidate power should they have the ability and motive to do so. This is a major problem for anarcho-capitalism, the biggest one in my eyes. But you keep on dreaming. Fortunately people drenched in such idealistic worldviews are few and far apart, meaning the society I live in can remain free and stable.
But if the Icelandic Free State was so successful, why did it eventually collapse? Clearly, the explanation lies in the growing centralization of wealth and power. As Diamond writes:
"Originally, soon after settlement, Iceland had about 4,500 independent farms, but by the thirteenth century 80 percent of Iceland’s farmland was owned by five families, and all the other formerly independent farmers had become tenants."
These five families also managed to buy up most of the chieftaincies, enabling them to dominate the courts and parliament. The concentration of chieftaincies in fewer hands also meant an end to the existence of competing chieftains within the same territory; Iceland began to be fractured into regions, each operating as a local monopoly or mini-state. During the years 1220-1262, the resulting struggle for hegemony among these mini-states broke out into open conflict, a crisis that was finally resolved only when the Icelanders, exhausted by civil war, invited King Haakon of Norway to govern them, thus bringing the Free State period to a close.
The tithe thus did more than just increase the income of the chieftains; it decoupled that income from accountability. Economic inequalities per se are not a serious threat to liberty so long as they operate in a genuine market context, where the way to gain and maintain wealth is to please one’s customers; before the introduction of the tithe, a chieftain who proved too power-hungry would alienate his customers and so suffer financial discipline. But chieftains who owned churchsteads now had a captive market, and so were freed from all competitive restraints on their accumulation of wealth and power. Through buying off or intimidating less wealthy chieftains, the top families were able to gain control of multiple chieftaincies. This gave them a lock on the parliament, enabling them to pass still further taxes; it also decreased competition among chieftains, allowing them to charge monopoly prices and drive their clients into a serf-like state of debt and dependence.
However this is only the opinions and theories of one man. But let us dissect this a bit: According to the author the church, religion, was used to grant more power with less accountability to the chieftains of Iceland... Instead of ruling this as an inevitability, as it is, the author seems to go by the assumption that if this church tithe had been stopped everything would have been fine. As if the chieftains, which held more power than the common man (oh shit, fiefdom?), wouldn't have tried expanding their power through other means. It only takes one bad chieftain (different ethics code) with marginally more power than the next and he'll soon be twice as powerful as the other chieftains and so on. Iceland is a good example of what didn't work, and what you're proposing will never work because the world isn't and never will be perfect. This is of course, as I said, ignoring the 50 000 population on the very large island of Iceland, and you know, the 11th to 13th century not being the 21st century.
Theres no better way to prove your silly economic system will work than to show it in action for a short period of time in the year 800. Things are a little more complex these days. The economy doesnt consist of warlords, chieftains, peasent farmers and surfs. You also have to compete/coexist with companies and governments worldwide, instead of the farmers in the next village over. I always get a chuckle out of people that show how a system in an incredibly simplistic world thousands of years ago worked for a brief period of time, and believe because of that, it will work now.
If you think 50 000 people in Iceland 1200 years ago have the solution to fix your economy today, youre out to lunch, and maybe even dinner also.
On February 28 2012 22:31 frogrubdown wrote: Can we get a banner on the top of this thread forbidding links to the Mises institute? Honestly, if you haven't already fallen for their nonsense the first 100 times it was posted you won't now.
Holding your ears with your hands and pretending the arguments and evidence don't exist doesn't make them any less valid.
"LALALA! I CANT HEAR YOU!" is not an argument.
But whatever... statists gonna state.
Economists from the Austrian school have been shouting "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" in the face of historical and empirical evidence (and of every other economist school) ever since Austrian economics first appeared.
no they haven't. You dont know what your talking about.
On February 28 2012 17:58 sc2superfan101 wrote: apparently Santorum and Romney are both leading Obama in the "swing states", with Santorum leading by a wider margin!
In the poll, Obama lags the two leading Republican rivals in the 12 states likely to determine the outcome of a close race in November:
•Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum tops Obama 50%-45% in the swing states. Nationwide, Santorum's lead narrows to 49%-46%.
•Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney edges Obama 48%-46% in the swing states. Nationwide, they are tied at 47% each.
edit: of course i think we should take polls with a grain of salt, but this does seem to fly in the face of the "common knowledge" that 1) Romney has the best chance of beating Obama and 2) that Santorum cannot beat Obama.
Any time you see a poll that's being discussed a lot you should look at other polls. If 5 out of 5 polls agree then its likely there's something going on. RCP aggregates these polls so you can see more clearly.
Notice the outlier. In my own experience, Gallup tends to be a pretty accurate poll except during elections when it seems to favor R candidates. Rasmussen also tends to favor R candidates for some reason or another.
I've heard the way they do polling sometimes (like only doing landline phone surveys) tends to catch more traditional Republicans. I don't have anything to back that up right now, but it would make sense.
On February 28 2012 23:50 SerpentFlame wrote: Consider that in 2009, basically every Austrian economist warned us that inflation was coming, and coming in a big way. They were unequivocal about this; it was not a "in the long run" prediction, but a "this is going to happen in the coming months, possibly the next year at the latest". Meanwhile, inflation is at the lowest rate its been in years. Until that school gets its big claims not-spectacularly-wrong, I'm not sure that using their 'expertise' to justify arguments is a wise decision.
I disagree. It's not the big claims that make schools of thought/economics right or wrong, but rather small claims. Austrian economists don't EVER get the small things right, because they don't care about them. They are a fire-and-brimstone church of economics. Only ever preaching the "end" while offering some general rhetoric about how it can be avoided. They dabble in small discussions only ever to preach the "end" and their big picture on how to stop it.
That being said, I'm personally still a little wary about inflation since so much money was infused. However, that will only play a role if the velocity of money rapidly picks up. If it slowly makes gains, like many economists believe, we might see periods of slightly higher inflation, but the Fed can counteract that with a raising of interest rates.
That would make sense, since it´s common knowledge (even already mentioned in this thread at least once if I remember correctly) that Reps are hard working house owning rich folk who can pick up the phone, and Dems are the homeless hobos waiting for a handout from the government such as food stamps! *duckandcover*
On a more serious note, I cannot fathom how a guy like Santorum can poll so high, even above Romney for Christ´s sake. Yes he´s authentic, but in his case that´s really bad, or at least it should be in the year 2012. It´s one thing if the fringe of the Reps look up to him, but did they really just get those on the phone? Or is it just how they asked the questions that these polls come the way they are?
On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote: I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ.
I understand quite clearly how taxes, distributive, redistributive, regulatory and constituent policies work, and I also have a very firm handle on international political economies. The low tax business haven you speak of just doesn't exist, and it never has. They want things, and there's far more examples of strategic trade working than both free markets and protectionism. It's a necessary balancing act. The only models for free trade exist within a vacuum. As soon as they hit the international market, you get a prisoner's dilemma.
Strategic trade is good. It's not perfect and like any form of agreement making, it's more art than science. That's your balancing act. It's been in place in the US for half a century now. The problem is that today, for the purpose of rhetoric, it's portrayed as protectionism when in actuality it's the complicated middle ground between free trade and protectionism. The rhetoric works that way because black and white thinking has become such commonplace and is so effective in modern American politics. "You're either with us or against us", and they lie and say there's no room for middle ground.
That's fine that you believe that. However, I don't. Do you believe that your beliefs should be inflicted on me at gunpoint?
Unless you can present a reasonable counter argument for free trade in international trade, which really doesn't exist. It's something that's been studied and researched for two decades now, and no alternative has been presented. The only alternative is a portrayed one used to score political points, but it has no bearing on reality.
This isn't a personal belief system where everyone gets a choice. This is federal trade policy that has been in place for decades, and experts spend their careers studying it and making suggestions on how to implement it better. The system itself (as opposed to a free trade system) is reality, and there's plenty of room for contention on how to best execute it. But not believing in the system is just ignoring a part of reality.
People traded before governments existed. Clearly, free trade is reality too.
You're really talking about bartering in a discussion on trade policy? You've gone millenia before Adam Smith and Ricardo and even mercantilism, into remedial territory. It's really not relevant at all. In fact, free trade theory is predicated upon the existence of governments, so your statement is patently false.
I will ask you again, do you believe in enforcing your beliefs upon me by pointing guns at me?
Yes, in some situations. That's exactly how governments and societies work. If your beliefs are contrary to the law and you decide to break it, you will literally have guns pointed at you. If you keep those beliefs but don't break the law then obviously not, but I see little reason why an uneducated belief should be valued. The group of experts making decisions obviously believe something contrary to you, so in this case your belief is nearly meaningless.
You can choose to believe that 2+2=5 and no one will harm you for it, but no one will value you either.
You can argue that free trade is superior, but what I'm saying is that it does not exist and you cannot cite previous American prosperity as an example of it. It has always fallen somewhere in between free trade and protectionism and at times it's leaned one way or the other. If free trade is represented by 0 on a scale and protectionism is represented by 10, the problem I'm addressing is that politicians knowingly lie when they accuse anything >0 (say, 0.5) of being a form of protectionism. It's a black and white argument for what's really a very complicated issue. In reality, it's probably best to remain somewhere between 3-7. Arguing for 0 and 10 is silly and counter productive.
Free trade is, by definition, not free if governments are involved. How can it be free trade when there's governments pointing guns everywhere?
No, it isn't. You're confusing lay definitions with actual economic concepts. You don't have free trade without governments. Even the most laissez faire system has government involvement because you still trade using a common currency, which is controlled by the government. What you're talking about is pre-civilization bartering systems.
You claim that just because experts say something and they're the law that me disagreeing makes it okay for guns to be pointed at me. I'm sure the experts in Mao's China thought they were doing a fantastic job allocating rice. Too bad for 20 million people who starved. Just because experts and guns are involved does not make anything right or wrong. Our educated elite seem to think that we can borrow and spend our way into prosperity right now, and they're absolutely incorrect. Experts are no longer experts but simply parrots when the government gets involved.
There's open research and competing theories. It is nothing close to a command economy authoritarian state like early Communist China was. Relying on lay people to make important decisions instead of people who have studied the field their entire life is just stupid. It's like discounting the SC2 advice of MVP, because a bronze player thinks he's watched enough SC2 to understand it.
Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that your claim has some legitimacy. Why is free trade bad? Why is arguing for no government involvement counterproductive?
Why is anarchy counterproductive? Because there's no regulation. Because there's violence. Because currency has no value nor liquidity.
And lastly, do you believe that every law is worth obeying? I'm sure you've broken a few thousand laws over the course of your lifetime without even realizing it. It's estimated every person commits 3 felonies a day in the US on average. Obviously, there's something wrong with the law. Law does not equal morality. They are completely separate concepts. When law follows morality, there is justice. When law does not, there is tyrrany.
Morality is completely subjective. This discussion really is quite silly. I think you should read more about economics.
You do not need a common currency controlled by government. Ron Paul wants to legalize competing currencies and repeal legal tender laws. This is a position that is held by virtually every Austrian economist. Currencies should not be monopolized, but left up to the market.
Anarchy is not counterproductive. Government is counterproductive. The market provides far better regulation than a monopoly of government ever can. There is no evidence to support a claim of anarcho-capitalist systems being any more violent than government. Unfortunately, the examples are few and far between, but one I can give is Iceland 900-1200 AD. During this period there were competing systems of law, much like the modern concept of dispute resolution organizations (DROs) in anarcho-capitalist theory. Violent crime rate during a period of "civil war" at the end of this period was still less than violent crime rate in the US today. The system was completely stable until the Church moved in and created a form of monopoly power and taxation, a la government.
And lastly, I find it hilarious that you say I should learn more about economics and make appeals to authority. That does not constitute an argument. I am very learned in economics, and can point you to countless resources to back my claims. Now if you want to learn more about anarcho-capitalist theory and Austrian economics, I strongly suggest www.mises.org (for economics) and www.freedomainradio.com (for philosophy).
The United States had exactly what you describe leading up to 1861, before Abraham Lincoln issued a form of national currency during the Civil War. Multiple currencies floated around multiple wildcat banks. Likewise, the American West was largely unregulated as far as business practices went. No it was not a perfect model of anarcho-capitalism. There will never be a perfect model of anything in the real world. Some state and local controls remained in the Free Banking Era of the United States. But especially in less developed areas, banks were largely able to get by with no government presence. And it's far closer to the economic model you describe than what we have today. This was not a recipe for economic success. The recession of 1836, 1839, and 1857 were deep, dark, and strongly associated with free banking and the failures thereof. The Recession of 1836, for instance, was caused by a run on the banks that plunged the US into a recession deeper than this one.
Consider that in 2009, basically every Austrian economist warned us that inflation was coming, and coming in a big way. They were unequivocal about this; it was not a "in the long run" prediction, but a "this is going to happen in the coming months, possibly the next year at the latest". Meanwhile, inflation is at the lowest rate its been in years. Until that school gets its big claims not-spectacularly-wrong, I'm not sure that using their 'expertise' to justify arguments is a wise decision.
The Austrian Economists got the results right, but their reasoning was completely wrong. This matters quite a bit, and for some reason it's forgotten. If you have the right answer but the wrong reason, you basically just got lucky.
On February 28 2012 22:31 frogrubdown wrote: Can we get a banner on the top of this thread forbidding links to the Mises institute? Honestly, if you haven't already fallen for their nonsense the first 100 times it was posted you won't now.
Holding your ears with your hands and pretending the arguments and evidence don't exist doesn't make them any less valid.
"LALALA! I CANT HEAR YOU!" is not an argument.
But whatever... statists gonna state.
Economists from the Austrian school have been shouting "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" in the face of historical and empirical evidence (and of every other economist school) ever since Austrian economics first appeared.
Freedom of thought means that if someone wants to pretend that they live in Narnia, they have the right to do so. What you do on your part is to just politely ignore or send them away like you would with Jehova's Witnesses.
On February 27 2012 13:26 BlackJack wrote: Finally something I agree with Santorum on. You don't apologize to irrational people just so they will calm down. You tell them to behave like adults. Caving in to a child throwing a tantrum only tells them that throwing a tantrum will get them what they want.
True, but there's also something to be said for being the bigger party, especially when you have overwhelming power. Truth be told, the little guys and the big guys never play by the same rules. Especially when in this case, you've knowingly done something disrespectful that caused the tantrum, and I don't believe in this case it's particularly irrational. God knows what would happen if mass bible burning took place in the US, and the amount of shit it'd stir up from people like Santorum.
You can argue that it's just a book without any external significance but what you're really making is an anti-religion argument, which is just a fruitless, impertinent ideal and has no context or pull in real life situations, even if it's logically correct. If you're sticking with the tantrum argument, I think the better comparison is between an older and younger sibling. For the older sibling, proving yourself right feels good emotionally, but it doesn't help you accomplish your goals.
The goal should be to get them to stop going nuts every time they get offended, not to beg for forgiveness so we can have a little peace until the next guy draws a cartoon of Muhammad. Apologizing treats the symptoms instead of the disease. It just dignifies their actions with a response.
Since when is an apology the same as begging for forgiveness? They can take it or leave it, but we (including Santorum) admitted a mistake, so you own it by apologizing for it and trying to correct it in the future. If they don't accept that response, then it's on them.
If you do something wrong and someone overreacts in response, you apologize for the wrong you've done. In some cases, you also condemn their overreaction. To be honest, I don't see the distinction between admitting a mistake you've made and apologizing.
In this instance you're right because the Quran burning was carried out by the military so it reflects on our government. However Obama has also gone out of his way to condemn a Quran burning by a private citizen, which is not admitting a mistake but simply an attempt to appease protesters
Or maybe he's simply trying to protect the safety of Americans in Afghanistan without escalating the situation. Sending more troops and ramping up security is expensive and puts people's lives at risk. Apologizing is free.
It's laughable how easily some politicians can be blinded by their own pride. Being humble isn't a weakness. It can actually be used strategically to great effect.
For example, the Cuban Missile Crisis was averted not by American pride, but by intelligent politicians realizing it's much smarter to feign humility than start World War 3 for no good reason.
Fuck that, I don't want my Prime Minister to bow to a Saudi King!
President Santorum: "American's should defend our God-given right to be able to burn as many Korans that they want by accident and for no actual reason! I don't care how many of our troops die defending that right!"
It's like a guy complaining how he shouldn't have to apologize for burning down that school because he's the tallest and tall people should do whatever they want anyways. Sheer American stupidity.
On February 27 2012 13:52 xavra41 wrote: I know Reagan didn't keep his word, and I don't support him either. But he did run on free markets and he was widely popular nonetheless. Government can't just "bolster" and industry. It can give other peoples' money away in a very inefficient and corrupt manner, but as I said before liberals don't understand that you have to take money away before you can give it to something. Rather than a giant sum of money passing through the leaky bucket it would be more efficient to simple lower taxes (and spending) if you wanted to create a haven for big business.
We have a serious problem when the majority of people in this country think that the government can fix all their problems. Probably most dangerous from young people as they are not used to politicians lying to them. I don't believe free markets are unstable and that's where we differ.
I understand quite clearly how taxes, distributive, redistributive, regulatory and constituent policies work, and I also have a very firm handle on international political economies. The low tax business haven you speak of just doesn't exist, and it never has. They want things, and there's far more examples of strategic trade working than both free markets and protectionism. It's a necessary balancing act. The only models for free trade exist within a vacuum. As soon as they hit the international market, you get a prisoner's dilemma.
Strategic trade is good. It's not perfect and like any form of agreement making, it's more art than science. That's your balancing act. It's been in place in the US for half a century now. The problem is that today, for the purpose of rhetoric, it's portrayed as protectionism when in actuality it's the complicated middle ground between free trade and protectionism. The rhetoric works that way because black and white thinking has become such commonplace and is so effective in modern American politics. "You're either with us or against us", and they lie and say there's no room for middle ground.
That's fine that you believe that. However, I don't. Do you believe that your beliefs should be inflicted on me at gunpoint?
Unless you can present a reasonable counter argument for free trade in international trade, which really doesn't exist. It's something that's been studied and researched for two decades now, and no alternative has been presented. The only alternative is a portrayed one used to score political points, but it has no bearing on reality.
This isn't a personal belief system where everyone gets a choice. This is federal trade policy that has been in place for decades, and experts spend their careers studying it and making suggestions on how to implement it better. The system itself (as opposed to a free trade system) is reality, and there's plenty of room for contention on how to best execute it. But not believing in the system is just ignoring a part of reality.
People traded before governments existed. Clearly, free trade is reality too.
You're really talking about bartering in a discussion on trade policy? You've gone millenia before Adam Smith and Ricardo and even mercantilism, into remedial territory. It's really not relevant at all. In fact, free trade theory is predicated upon the existence of governments, so your statement is patently false.
I will ask you again, do you believe in enforcing your beliefs upon me by pointing guns at me?
Yes, in some situations. That's exactly how governments and societies work. If your beliefs are contrary to the law and you decide to break it, you will literally have guns pointed at you. If you keep those beliefs but don't break the law then obviously not, but I see little reason why an uneducated belief should be valued. The group of experts making decisions obviously believe something contrary to you, so in this case your belief is nearly meaningless.
You can choose to believe that 2+2=5 and no one will harm you for it, but no one will value you either.
You can argue that free trade is superior, but what I'm saying is that it does not exist and you cannot cite previous American prosperity as an example of it. It has always fallen somewhere in between free trade and protectionism and at times it's leaned one way or the other. If free trade is represented by 0 on a scale and protectionism is represented by 10, the problem I'm addressing is that politicians knowingly lie when they accuse anything >0 (say, 0.5) of being a form of protectionism. It's a black and white argument for what's really a very complicated issue. In reality, it's probably best to remain somewhere between 3-7. Arguing for 0 and 10 is silly and counter productive.
Free trade is, by definition, not free if governments are involved. How can it be free trade when there's governments pointing guns everywhere?
No, it isn't. You're confusing lay definitions with actual economic concepts. You don't have free trade without governments. Even the most laissez faire system has government involvement because you still trade using a common currency, which is controlled by the government. What you're talking about is pre-civilization bartering systems.
You claim that just because experts say something and they're the law that me disagreeing makes it okay for guns to be pointed at me. I'm sure the experts in Mao's China thought they were doing a fantastic job allocating rice. Too bad for 20 million people who starved. Just because experts and guns are involved does not make anything right or wrong. Our educated elite seem to think that we can borrow and spend our way into prosperity right now, and they're absolutely incorrect. Experts are no longer experts but simply parrots when the government gets involved.
There's open research and competing theories. It is nothing close to a command economy authoritarian state like early Communist China was. Relying on lay people to make important decisions instead of people who have studied the field their entire life is just stupid. It's like discounting the SC2 advice of MVP, because a bronze player thinks he's watched enough SC2 to understand it.
Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that your claim has some legitimacy. Why is free trade bad? Why is arguing for no government involvement counterproductive?
Why is anarchy counterproductive? Because there's no regulation. Because there's violence. Because currency has no value nor liquidity.
And lastly, do you believe that every law is worth obeying? I'm sure you've broken a few thousand laws over the course of your lifetime without even realizing it. It's estimated every person commits 3 felonies a day in the US on average. Obviously, there's something wrong with the law. Law does not equal morality. They are completely separate concepts. When law follows morality, there is justice. When law does not, there is tyrrany.
Morality is completely subjective. This discussion really is quite silly. I think you should read more about economics.
You do not need a common currency controlled by government. Ron Paul wants to legalize competing currencies and repeal legal tender laws. This is a position that is held by virtually every Austrian economist. Currencies should not be monopolized, but left up to the market.
Anarchy is not counterproductive. Government is counterproductive. The market provides far better regulation than a monopoly of government ever can. There is no evidence to support a claim of anarcho-capitalist systems being any more violent than government. Unfortunately, the examples are few and far between, but one I can give is Iceland 900-1200 AD. During this period there were competing systems of law, much like the modern concept of dispute resolution organizations (DROs) in anarcho-capitalist theory. Violent crime rate during a period of "civil war" at the end of this period was still less than violent crime rate in the US today. The system was completely stable until the Church moved in and created a form of monopoly power and taxation, a la government.
And lastly, I find it hilarious that you say I should learn more about economics and make appeals to authority. That does not constitute an argument. I am very learned in economics, and can point you to countless resources to back my claims. Now if you want to learn more about anarcho-capitalist theory and Austrian economics, I strongly suggest www.mises.org (for economics) and www.freedomainradio.com (for philosophy).
The United States had exactly what you describe leading up to 1861, before Abraham Lincoln issued a form of national currency during the Civil War. Multiple currencies floated around multiple wildcat banks. Likewise, the American West was largely unregulated as far as business practices went. No it was not a perfect model of anarcho-capitalism. There will never be a perfect model of anything in the real world. Some state and local controls remained in the Free Banking Era of the United States. But especially in less developed areas, banks were largely able to get by with no government presence. And it's far closer to the economic model you describe than what we have today. This was not a recipe for economic success. The recession of 1836, 1839, and 1857 were deep, dark, and strongly associated with free banking and the failures thereof. The Recession of 1836, for instance, was caused by a run on the banks that plunged the US into a recession deeper than this one.
Consider that in 2009, basically every Austrian economist warned us that inflation was coming, and coming in a big way. They were unequivocal about this; it was not a "in the long run" prediction, but a "this is going to happen in the coming months, possibly the next year at the latest". Meanwhile, inflation is at the lowest rate its been in years. Until that school gets its big claims not-spectacularly-wrong, I'm not sure that using their 'expertise' to justify arguments is a wise decision.
If free banks can create money as well, this creates malinvestments as well, exactly like ABCT predicts. However they will most likely inflate less than in the system we currently have today, hence leading to fewer malinvestments. Most austrians however define fractional reserve banking as fraud.
Btw I think you (unfortunately) equalize Ron Paul/ Peter Schiff with all austrian economists. Its not really a nessarcary impliciation of the ABCT that hyper inflation will happen over time. It could however. And you should probably read some articles by Robert Murphy analysing the exit strategies of the FED
On February 27 2012 13:26 BlackJack wrote: Finally something I agree with Santorum on. You don't apologize to irrational people just so they will calm down. You tell them to behave like adults. Caving in to a child throwing a tantrum only tells them that throwing a tantrum will get them what they want.
True, but there's also something to be said for being the bigger party, especially when you have overwhelming power. Truth be told, the little guys and the big guys never play by the same rules. Especially when in this case, you've knowingly done something disrespectful that caused the tantrum, and I don't believe in this case it's particularly irrational. God knows what would happen if mass bible burning took place in the US, and the amount of shit it'd stir up from people like Santorum.
You can argue that it's just a book without any external significance but what you're really making is an anti-religion argument, which is just a fruitless, impertinent ideal and has no context or pull in real life situations, even if it's logically correct. If you're sticking with the tantrum argument, I think the better comparison is between an older and younger sibling. For the older sibling, proving yourself right feels good emotionally, but it doesn't help you accomplish your goals.
The goal should be to get them to stop going nuts every time they get offended, not to beg for forgiveness so we can have a little peace until the next guy draws a cartoon of Muhammad. Apologizing treats the symptoms instead of the disease. It just dignifies their actions with a response.
Since when is an apology the same as begging for forgiveness? They can take it or leave it, but we (including Santorum) admitted a mistake, so you own it by apologizing for it and trying to correct it in the future. If they don't accept that response, then it's on them.
If you do something wrong and someone overreacts in response, you apologize for the wrong you've done. In some cases, you also condemn their overreaction. To be honest, I don't see the distinction between admitting a mistake you've made and apologizing.
In this instance you're right because the Quran burning was carried out by the military so it reflects on our government. However Obama has also gone out of his way to condemn a Quran burning by a private citizen, which is not admitting a mistake but simply an attempt to appease protesters
Or maybe he's simply trying to protect the safety of Americans in Afghanistan without escalating the situation. Sending more troops and ramping up security is expensive and puts people's lives at risk. Apologizing is free.
It's laughable how easily some politicians can be blinded by their own pride. Being humble isn't a weakness. It can actually be used strategically to great effect.
For example, the Cuban Missile Crisis was averted not by American pride, but by intelligent politicians realizing it's much smarter to feign humility than start World War 3 for no good reason.
Fuck that, I don't want my Prime Minister to bow to a Saudi King!
President Santorum: "American's should defend our God-given right to be able to burn as many Korans that they want by accident and for no actual reason! I don't care how many of our troops die defending that right!"
It's like a guy complaining how he shouldn't have to apologize for burning down that school because he's the tallest and tall people should do whatever they want anyways. Sheer American stupidity.
I wonder if I have some kind of nothing-given right to destroy Bibles... Can't say I haven't defiled a few =/
I found that site recently and did some hypothetical betting, I won all predictions related except Colorado and would be up 10k if I actually had real money (currently making $$$ off the rise of the Israel bombing stock rise).
Then again I'm up 27k on two 100k portfolios on top10traders, looks like I'll get to enjoy a life of hypothetical riches my entire life since I don't really care about money and blow it all anyway.
On February 27 2012 13:26 BlackJack wrote: Finally something I agree with Santorum on. You don't apologize to irrational people just so they will calm down. You tell them to behave like adults. Caving in to a child throwing a tantrum only tells them that throwing a tantrum will get them what they want.
True, but there's also something to be said for being the bigger party, especially when you have overwhelming power. Truth be told, the little guys and the big guys never play by the same rules. Especially when in this case, you've knowingly done something disrespectful that caused the tantrum, and I don't believe in this case it's particularly irrational. God knows what would happen if mass bible burning took place in the US, and the amount of shit it'd stir up from people like Santorum.
You can argue that it's just a book without any external significance but what you're really making is an anti-religion argument, which is just a fruitless, impertinent ideal and has no context or pull in real life situations, even if it's logically correct. If you're sticking with the tantrum argument, I think the better comparison is between an older and younger sibling. For the older sibling, proving yourself right feels good emotionally, but it doesn't help you accomplish your goals.
The goal should be to get them to stop going nuts every time they get offended, not to beg for forgiveness so we can have a little peace until the next guy draws a cartoon of Muhammad. Apologizing treats the symptoms instead of the disease. It just dignifies their actions with a response.
Since when is an apology the same as begging for forgiveness? They can take it or leave it, but we (including Santorum) admitted a mistake, so you own it by apologizing for it and trying to correct it in the future. If they don't accept that response, then it's on them.
If you do something wrong and someone overreacts in response, you apologize for the wrong you've done. In some cases, you also condemn their overreaction. To be honest, I don't see the distinction between admitting a mistake you've made and apologizing.
In this instance you're right because the Quran burning was carried out by the military so it reflects on our government. However Obama has also gone out of his way to condemn a Quran burning by a private citizen, which is not admitting a mistake but simply an attempt to appease protesters
Or maybe he's simply trying to protect the safety of Americans in Afghanistan without escalating the situation. Sending more troops and ramping up security is expensive and puts people's lives at risk. Apologizing is free.
It's laughable how easily some politicians can be blinded by their own pride. Being humble isn't a weakness. It can actually be used strategically to great effect.
For example, the Cuban Missile Crisis was averted not by American pride, but by intelligent politicians realizing it's much smarter to feign humility than start World War 3 for no good reason.
Fuck that, I don't want my Prime Minister to bow to a Saudi King!
President Santorum: "American's should defend our God-given right to be able to burn as many Korans that they want by accident and for no actual reason! I don't care how many of our troops die defending that right!"
It's like a guy complaining how he shouldn't have to apologize for burning down that school because he's the tallest and tall people should do whatever they want anyways. Sheer American stupidity.
I wonder if I have some kind of nothing-given right to destroy Bibles... Can't say I haven't defiled a few =/
Well considering what Thomas Jefferson did to his bible...
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/692/rcp.png)
