I hate to say I told you so, but…..


“My eight-year-old ought to be able to work this out – you shouldn’t start slamming on the brakes when the economy is barely growing. If you do that you create more joblessness, you create heavier costs on the state, the deficit goes up even further and the pain with dealing with it is even greater. So it is completely irrational.”

– Nick Clegg, April 2010.

There is a small protest taking place at Hove Town Hall today, where David Cameron is speaking. The protest is over Government plans already set in place, to cut Government spending drastically this year. The ideological warfare lead by the Tories, and their tag along, principle-less friends in the Liberal Democrats is supposedly the result of the need to do something quick about the debt crises in the UK.

I’ve always wondered why Tory supporters suggest that National debt is a lot like personal debt. They suggest that if we run up a large debt, it’s best for us to pay it off straight the way and so therefore it is the same for Nations. It isn’t the same for Nations. It is completely different. It just happens to use the same word ‘debt’. To follow their logic through, we should do what the Coalition is doing and only spend money on bare essentials. Bread, the very cheapest and fewest clothes possible, shelter and water. Personal austerity. But, then wouldn’t that risk an even deeper recession as demand falls, jobs are lost, and businesses close? The government in one breath are telling us that National debt and personal debt are identical, yet in the next are telling us that whilst they cut spending, we should be encouraged to spend.

Now, putting aside the fact that there isn’t a debt crises, and putting aside that fact that only 20% of our debt matures in the next three years, and putting aside the fact that millions of people were dumb enough to believe the scare tactics employed, that voting Tory was some righteous move because they keep mentioning the words “omg debt!!!! Naughty Labour” despite the fact that those voters are somewhat economically illiterate to the problems that they personally would encounter under a Tory government. The same Tory government whose millionaire members kept spouting the same “we’re all in this together” nonsense, whilst refusing to answer what it is that will effect them the most from the spending cuts. When will ordinary people learn that voting Tory, is never going to benefit them.

Maybe now.

It has emerged today that the UK’s service sector, which is the key ingredient in our economy, stalled last month in its output. So much so, that growth in the sector, fell to a 13 month low. The vast majority of companies who were asked what has caused the stalling of growth, said that cancelled government projects, that were propping up their business, whilst recovery from recession was underway, were the cause of the stalled growth. The government projects, were all cancelled, by the Tory government. Consumer spending, which was strong in January, February and March under Labour, has now started to slow down massively, under the Tories.

Labour’s Ed Balls rightly says:

“These warnings show why it is so risky for the government to be cutting public sector contracts now when the recovery in Britain is so fragile and people around the world are worried about a double-dip recession. David Cameron is misguided and wrong to say the most urgent priority for Britain is to slash the deficit. The most urgent priority should be to secure Britain’s economic recovery by boosting jobs and growth.”

The chief economist for the surveying company, Markit said:

This has hugely increased the risks of a double-dip recession, perhaps even by the end of the year.

Julian Le Grand, professor of social policy at the London School of Economics, stressed recently that massive cuts risked a return to recession, and possibly worse than before. Economist Paul Krugman continues to argue against such swift cuts. David Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England monetary policy committee says that we need more stimulus and more spending in the short term, and definitely not cuts. Nobel Prize Winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has said that more government investment in high return ventures like education and investing in infrastructure and promoting investment is the way to go, and that cutting spending risks a prolonged return to recession. The Tories, are wrong. Very very wrong.

Every day, Sky News would interview some irrelevant business man in an expensive suit, and spin it to appear that he knew exactly what he was talking about when he demanded spending cuts immediately. BBC News would do much the same. We’d keep hearing from the same type of people. Never from those who would suffer the most. And so the idea that any suffering would take place, was largely ignored, and the rose tinted business men specs were continuously worn, and presented as fact, that this was the only way. We’d see Willie Walsh of B.A tell the UK that the cabin crew on strike were threatening to destroy a great company, pretty much daily. Sky and BBC didn’t question it. They didn’t suggest that we were only ever hearing one side of the story. They’d then back in up, by interviewing a child at an airport trying to get home but couldn’t because of the strikes, crying on his own, and we’d all (when I say ‘we all’, I exclude myself from that, because i’m not an idiot) suddenly demonise the cabin crew as greedy and evil, yet Willie Walsh, the CEO who had brought BA to it’s knees, by forcing it to pay $25mn over a price fixing scandal and a further £121.5m in the UK by the Office of Fair Trading. Why weren’t we told that perhaps if management wasn’t so appalling, that 98% of the workforce wouldn’t have to agree to strike action?

We were then told, constantly by the Tories that they have to do this, because Labour have had thirteen years of creating a massive debt. We have not been told that in the first five years, the Labour Government reduced the debt by £34bn. The biggest debt reduction than any government accumulatively, over the past fifty years. Massive actually. Public spending then fell from 40% when the Tories were last in power, to 38.1% by 2001. In fact, the debt by 2005, had fallen from 44% of GDP to 34% of GDP. Spending only started to build, after recession hit, because there were suddenly no jobs, and because of the nature of the crash, spending was needed to protect homes and jobs. The Tories opposed it. Half the people who voted Tory, would have lost their jobs, and their homes, had the Tories been in power between 2007-2010. Contrary to the constantly projected bullshit, Labour had not spent 13 years wrecklessly spending. They had actually followed the Tories lead, and embraced Neoliberal economics.

We were then all told that we must cut public spending, because to attack the bankers who actually caused the mess, would mean the bankers would all leave the Country and go somewhere in which they could be as corrupt as they wished without being brought up on it. It’s like saying “Look, we know he’s a murderer, but he’s a good football player, so we wont tell the police, otherwise he’ll leave the club”. We are made to believe that the best thing for all of us, is to become servants to the financial sector. We do what we’re told, by business. It becomes our fault, that the economy is screwed. There is something fundamentally wrong with the entire system, and the philosophy behind it. The philosophy being, we are all self centred egotists who could not possibly be interested in advancing the public good and humanity in general, and we we should leave it to the private sector because the private sector appeals to our vanity. The philosophy is wrong. The philosophy is something that has been embedded into our minds consciously, not naturally.

The idea that we are taking away from the public sector, and giving to the private sector is sold to us, as an act of democracy. That democracy is linked to capitalism. It isn’t. Surely the opposite is true. We are taking power away from the democratically elected officials, who are accountable to the people who vote for them, and giving the power to unelected, self interested businessmen who we never see the faces of, let alone vote for. The political sphere may be in the hands of democracy, but the economic sphere is firmly in the hands of a new age nobility.

When the Tories spent half of the election campaign complaining that raising National Insurance was essentially a tax on jobs, they failed to point out to anyone that their ‘austerity’ measures would not just mean a massive loss of jobs in the public sector, but also, and as a direct result of the cuts, a massive loss of jobs in the Private sector. This is not in any way Labour’s fault. This is entirely the fault of the Tories. I can guarantee as the situation gets worse, which it will, the Tories will justify it constantly by telling us all that they had to do it because of Labour. The latest estimates that put unemployment up by a further 1.5 million by this time next year, which of course means consumer spending falling even further, is not the fault of Labour. Labour had a deficit reduction plan, that was careful and meant as few job losses as possible, and then when business started to pick up, the idea was that new revenue streams would open up and the deficit could be reduced slowly. The Tories plan, is an absolute disaster. Labour, it turns out, were right.

Spending, as a percentage of GDP was raised under Labour, as a result of the faults of Neoliberal/Tory policy across the World. As a result of mass deregulation of the banking sector primarily. That was Tory policy. They were wrong. The Tory idea that introducing a minimum wage would result in mass unemployment turned out to be false. With National Insurance, they were wrong. And now, with these new spending cuts, they are massively wrong. They said they would protect front line services. According to the Norfolk Firefighters, £1.5mn will be cut from front line fire services in Norfolk in 2010/11, these cuts include cuts to vital appliances, cutting employment of firefighters, and cutting coverage.

Let’s still not forget that whilst the major banking institutions that essentially caused the problems in the first place were licking their wounds, out of nowhere suddenly we were made to forget that aspect and start blaming public spending and Welfare programs for the problems we face. Public spending did not cause this problem, the private sector caused the problem, and now David Cameron is proposing that we should rely on the private sector to fix the Nation. Business cannot be trusted to do the right thing for the good of humanity, without regulation. Voting Tory, means voting away that regulation.

Over the next few months, we are likely to see just how much Labour did to prop up the economy, as the Tories continue to knock out the pillars that hold it up.

The problem Labour has now, is that they are still pandering to the Right. They keep mentioning a clear deficit reduction plan, as if there is no alternative. They keep suggesting cuts have to come. Blyth Valley Labour MP Ronnie Campbell noticed just how little a difference Labour offered in their dedication to needless public sector cuts, by saying:

We’ll cut your throat slowly, the others will cut your head off.

The UK has the fifth largest economy in the World, we are AAA rated credit wise, and the third largest reserve currency in the World. We are still able to spend £6bn replacing an out of date, out of touch nuclear deterrent, and almost £1bn subsidising the arms trade, yet the Con Lib Coalition insists that we need to cut spending to help people whilst jobs continually wither away. This is purely ideological, and it is dangerous. And we on the Left, were right.

Advertisements

37 Responses to I hate to say I told you so, but…..

  1. Black Flag says:

    My eight-year-old ought to be able to work this out – you shouldn’t start slamming on the brakes when the economy is barely growing. If you do that you create more joblessness, you create heavier costs on the state, the deficit goes up even further and the pain with dealing with it is even greater. So it is completely irrational.”

    – Nick Clegg, April 2010.

    …which only goes to show that Nick has the economic intelligence of an 8-year old.

    Government spending –no matter what it is spent on MUST be taken, by force, from the market place.

    Government does not create goods or services – it extracts wealth from the goods/services creators and redistributes it on government’s own whims.

    If government services was a “value” it would not be necessary to subsidize it or require taxes to pay for it

    Simply put, taking money from the productive sector to fund the unproductive sector is why there is an economic problem today.

    Continuing to do the action which created the problem will NOT solve the problem.

    It makes NOT one iota of a difference if Ken is paid as a government “employee” or by government “welfare” – they are economically the same. Ken staying home and receiving a government cheque is the same as Ken going somewhere else and receiving a government cheque.

    banking system caused the problem

    Highly inaccurate.

    The banking system – a government cartel – was the instrument of economic destruction – but not the cause.

    Artificially Cheap credit as per government policy was the undoing.

    You are misunderstanding and ignoring that it was government’s monopoly on money that allowed government to manipulate the currency and the economy for its own whims without any concern for YOU.

    By the belief that central authority can garner the necessary knowledge and wisdom to command the economy is a fatal conceit.

    This conceit is no less shared by both sides of Britain’s parliament. It matters not one wit who is in power, the economic destruction of central managed economy continued unabated.

    Futile, you are dazzled by the color of the shirts on the respective “sports” team – seeing them vying against each other on some sort of playing field – with you cheering one side over the other, believing if your team “wins”, all will be right with the world as you know it.

    You are totally unaware that both teams are the same, and the game is permanently rigged against you

  2. Black Flag says:

    minimum wage

    The problem with subjective qualifiers, such as “massive”, is that they are meaningless to whichever side of the argument uses them.

    “Massive” unemployment means …. how much -to you?

    It is massive if you’re the unemployed, and zero if you are not.

    Minimum wage laws exist for one reason only:
    protect the older tenured workers from the competition of the younger, newer workers.

    Old workers do not want to work “hard” for the income they have become accustomed.

    By increasing the cost of younger workers insures that the unemployment of the economy will be more burdened upon the young and the newer workers trying to get into economic production and less by the older workers whose wages already exceed the minimum wage.

    A min. wage of $7.50/hr has NO effect on someone earning $50/hr.

    It prevents the young person who is worth by skills and education to be not worth more than $5 from entering the market – and then learning those skills that will eventually compete with Mr. $50.

    98% of what you learn for your job is learned on the job. If one is prevented from a job by a mechanism such as min. wage, that learning cannot occur.

  3. Black Flag says:

    Julian Le Grand, professor of social policy at the London School of Economics, stressed recently that massive cuts risked a return to recession, and possibly worse than before.

    A recession is precisely what is required – and must be suffered.

    If one does not act to remove the excesses of artificial credit, economic law will provide a mechanism called total economic collapse

    Calling for the same action which created the necessity of a recession will push the economy toward such a collapse.

    Economist Paul Krugman continues to argue against such swift cuts.

    As all of your examples, he is a Keynesian – an advocate of government spending and artificial credit infusions as economic stimulus.

    Again, calling for more poison to solve the problem of the poisoning will only make it worse.

    David Blanchflower, a former member of the Bank of England monetary policy committee says that we need more stimulus and more spending in the short term, and definitely not cuts.

    So you quote a man whose specific actions are a cause of the problem as a solution to the problems of his action.

    Nobel Prize Winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has said that more government investment in high return ventures like education

    (1)Education is not an investment.

    (2)Nothing government funds is a high return. Any thing that delivers a “high return” would be instantly seized by the market place – an arena that hunts for such avenues.

    and investing in infrastructure

    That’s a sick plan.

    Take precious and desperately short capital out of the market – a place where capital is rapidly multiplied with high returns – and trap into areas of the economy where the return on investments are measured by multi-decades.

    Yeah, that’s an idiot’s (and Keynesian) plan …

  4. Black Flag says:

    jobs wither away

    With artificially cheap credit, marginal businesses obtained access to credit and capital that would be otherwise denied.

    These marginal enterprises attract pools of labor away from productive businesses – rising the cost of labor across the marketplace (and lowering the unemployment pool). However, as these marginal enterprises are essentially poor productivity businesses (or otherwise they would not need artificial cheap credit to exist), these businesses pull labor away from productive work and into less or unproductive work creating a drop in market productivity.

    Bad money drives out good money.

    These businesses continue to require access to ever cheap credit to maintain their unproductive selves.

    When the economic conditions reset, these businesses become unsustainable and must close.

    Thus, like the resource of capital, the labor pool have been misdirected to these marginal businesses. When these businesses close, these resources – including the labor pool – must relocate back to productive work.

    As labor is human, human action creates a tendency for people to avoid the disruption of their economic self-interest.

    If a means exists such as welfare and unemployment insurance schemes, people will avoid doing the necessary effort to relocate their labor – causing a unsustainable delay in reckoning their mis-allocations of labor.

    Thus, the economy suffers a continuation of the artificial high cost of labor PLUS high unemployment.

    In a recession, the artificial high cost of labor -caused by welfare schemes- prevents the necessary cost cutting measures a business needs to undertake to save itself in a shrinking economy. Thus, these businesses close – tossing more labor into unemployment-but welfare paid- pool and still not lowering the cost of labor.

    Thus, your “withering of jobs”.

    Eliminate the welfare component of supporting non-working labor pool – which will naturally lower the cost of labor to business – which will quickly absorb the excess of unemployment – and return the economy to a higher productive level.

  5. Black Flag says:

    here isn’t a debt crises

    Whereas you are perfectly correct in your understanding that a “personal” debt of a real person is very different from “government” debt of an abstraction, you are very incorrect and misunderstand to why government debt is, in fact, a crisis.

    When government spends money, it must spend money and wealth created by other people. It does not create wealth on its own, it takes wealth made by those “over here” and gives it to “others over there”.

    Thus, government debt absorbs money and capital that would be otherwise used by the market to create jobs and wealth and applies that taken loot to spend on political purposes that by definition are not economical.

    In other words, government use of money destroys economic purpose in favor of political purpose.

    An increase in government spending and debt means an increase in economic destruction to favor political construction.

    If the problem you are addressing is economical, then INCREASING political construction is contradictory.

    By actions of political DE-construction (lowering of debt and lowering of government spending) will reverse economic destruction.

    When governments take money from the citizens and spend it to rescue the jobs of one set of workers — union political supporters, in this case — what does that do to the demand for the jobs of other workers, whose products citizens would have bought with the money you took away from them?

    There is no net economic gain to the country from this, though there may well be political gains for the administration from having rescued their unions supporters.

    If the national debt continues to grow, a growing portion of people’s savings would go to purchase government debt rather than toward investments in productive capital goods such as factories and computers; that ‘crowding out’ of investment would lead to lower output and incomes than would otherwise occur.

    You are always faced with this choice, Futile.

    Either the goods and services of the market place are distributed by voluntary trade Or by the point of a gun.

    The more you support the “gun” of government, the less the market place will provide in terms of goods and services. A quick review of Soviet Union, Communist China and North Korea demonstrates this truth.

  6. In the 1970s, 80s and 90s, my family owned a small family run grocery. It was a great little place, and relied mainly on the factories around the way whose workers would come in at lunch time for lunch. We relied on people who lived in their council homes to buy dinner and groceries. We knew everyone, and it worked, for thirty years.
    In the 1990s, when recession hit, and the Tories spent no extra money on stimulus, and just let recession run its course; we lost everything. The factories had to close, and people lost their homes.
    This time, when recession hit, my dad who runs a new small business, after years of worrying we’d lose our own home and be forced to live with grandparents, despite both my parents working their arses off daily, the stimulus package that the EVIL STALINIST Government and their EVIL GUN, almost certainly saved our home and our business. Same for a lot of our friends.
    So you can talk about how wondrous the market place is, how it is the height of human interaction, how any form of government interference is some sort of oppression that ruins lives, but for those who live with the suffering and the constant worrying that you will lose everything because certain banks think its fine to do what it is they did (which is the fault of crap government oversight, which should have been so much tighter, I don’t care how much you disagree) and still walk away with millions in bonus cheques, without that government interference (or gun, as you call it), their lives would be so much worse. Under the previous Tory government, during recession, suicide rates shot up, and homeless rates close to doubled. I have absolutely no faith in the idea that the market is the greatest thing to ever come along. I think it’s dangerous.
    If taking a tiny amount of money (at gun point, as you say) from a few people with yachts and huge holiday homes in Greece, helps to keep a few people in their homes and jobs; I am all for it. FutileUSSR.

  7. Black Flag says:

    We knew everyone, and it worked, for thirty years.

    And steam locomotives worked for a 100 years, therefore should continue to work forever – right?

    The past does not equal the future.

    If your business model was geared to supplying a minor segment of society, and that segment of society shifts, economic law states that unless you shift with it, you will be abandoned.

    In the 1990s, when recession hit, and the Tories spent no extra money on stimulus, and just let recession run its course; we lost everything. The factories had to close, and people lost their homes.

    Yet, others did not.

    Further, it appears you survived as you are still here.

    The economic fact, Futile, is that if by government force steam engines were maintained and subsidized by the revenue of jet transportation, you would never have afforded the flight to Australia for it would have never existed.

    If by government force, you were required to subsidize the 8088 chip-set, so to support those people and businesses who built them and programmed them – you would never have the advanced computing you rely on today.

    What is interesting is that you are not arguing for the protection of 8088 computers and steam locomotives and enjoy the benefits of their replacements – yet you demand protection for you from the same forces of economics.

    A bit elitist, Futile? “Good for me, but not for you!”

    Economics replaces old solutions with better solutions. Your store was an old solution. Using violence to maintain old solutions will prevent better solutions. You will stagnate and eventually collapse.

    The economic choice is simple:
    Replace old solutions with better solutions or collapse Western Civilization.

    This time, when recession hit, my dad who runs a new small business, after years of worrying we’d lose our own home and be forced to live with grandparents, despite both my parents working their arses off daily, the stimulus package that the EVIL STALINIST Government and their EVIL GUN, almost certainly saved our home and our business.

    Indeed.

    “Good for me, but not for you”

    You do not see the loss of jobs elsewhere and the massive economic costs for you to benefit. You don’t care about that – it is unseen and away from your review.

    You do not see the economic destruction that is being wreaked all around you, as long as your little world appears secure.

    What you do not see is that economic law – like all laws of Nature – will not be denied.

    For your short term gain, you condemn your children.

    This is why economics is so lost on the masses. Unlike physics -where cause and effect are locked-step, economics is a force of nature that separates cause and effect by massive expanses of time.

    What you do today by such economic idiocy will be reckoned in the future, typically by your children.

    The economic turmoil of today was created by the excesses of World War One! Nearly 100 years later, the bill -with interest- is coming due.

    Same for a lot of our friends.
    If taking a tiny amount of money (at gun point, as you say) from a few people with yachts and huge holiday homes in Greece, helps to keep a few people in their homes and jobs; I am all for it. FutileUSSR.

    Exactly.

    So you condemn those in “Greece” and the home-builders, and those small shops that depend on their business – just like yours – so that YOU appear better off.

    You by force of a gun condemn others who work by voluntary exchange.

    Thus, you will create a world of your own violent making – and suffer.

  8. “You do not see the loss of jobs elsewhere and the massive economic costs for you to benefit. You don’t care about that – it is unseen and away from your review.”

    – Neither do you. When the Tories let recession just take its course, 3 million became unemployed. If your idea of economic law, is some odd Darwinist abstraction, that is an economic law I will never condone. There were 3 million unemployed because of the last recession. Less than half of that this time, due to government help.

    Our ‘old solution’ worked. Right up until recession hit. People didn’t just decide at one exact moment, that they wanted a new shop, that worked the exact same way for them. They simply lost their jobs, and their homes were threatened, and so they spent less money. Our shop and many like it, was no different to the same sort of shops that exist today; 20 years later. We just happened to be open in a poorer area, that people couldn’t afford to use as much, because their budgets became tighter. I cannot argue with your logic, you take it to the extreme, and refuse to accept that simpler answers are available. I know for certain that the Photographers near where I live had to shut down during this recession, not because it provided and archaic solution, but because people simply couldn’t afford to get the family shots they really wanted, through fear that if they didn’t save enough, they’d lose their homes if their jobs were under threat. The Photographers was actually a much loved addition to our small community. It worked. Nobody wanted to see it go; except your rather crap version of economic theory.

  9. BL says:

    Futile democracy – “I cannot argue with your logic, you take it to the extreme, and refuse to accept that simpler answers are available.”

    BL – Indeed, you cannot argue with “it”. Well, you can, but with virtually no success…unless of course, your goal is to learn something.

    Futile democracy – “…you take it to the extreme,…”

    BL – Yes, it’s logic is extremely thorough. It takes everything to it’s conclusion, no matter the complexity. It’s processing capabilities are phenomenal.

    “Black Flag” is an artificial intelligence super computer with access to the internet(among other things), origin unknown. Not much else is known other than that. There is much speculation as to what it’s origins and purpose is.

    Some believe that it was a government black-ops project gone wrong(arguably gone right)…That it was originally created as a top secret intelligence project and was hacked/hijacked by extra terrestrials.

    Some even speculate that the character “HAL” in the movie ” 2001 Space Odyssey ” was based on the Black Flag program.

    Arguing with Black flag is like playing chess with “Deep Blue”. Keep arguing with it. You will be enlightened. Resistance is futile. It is Black Flag.

  10. Black Flag says:

    BL,

    If you persist in exposing who I am, I will find it necessary to sanction you with extreme prejudice. 😉
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eiger_Sanction_%28film%29)

    Futile,

    Neither do you. When the Tories let recession just take its course, 3 million became unemployed. If your idea of economic law, is some odd Darwinist abstraction, that is an economic law I will never condone.

    Actually, economic law is NOT Darwinist at all. It is voluntarism in its basic formation.

    Progressive theory of the Liberal/Socialist doctrine is wholly rooted in Darwin theory.

    It was the Progressives of the 30’s that instituted such things as euthanasia of the elderly and sterilization of physical and mentally handicapped. Of course, their theories were maximized in by the Nazis.

    Economic Law is based on Human Action – the voluntary and subjective exercise of values of individuals.

    There are a number of excellent essays on the Progressives and their Darwinist ideals – if you’re interested.

    There were 3 million unemployed because of the last recession. Less than half of that this time, due to government help.

    Futile, my core point – and incredibly important point – is that artificial creation of jobs will delay the production of sustainable jobs and worse, create a far deeper and worse reckoning in the future.

    You are “eating your seed corn” and believing your full stomach is a “good thing” – instead of rationing your seed corn and enduring the hardship.

    As with the consumption of the seed corn, the consequence of your full stomach today will be desperate starvation in the future.

    As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, economic law is not time dependent. The consequences of poor economic decisions are typically time displaced into the future.

    I am not arguing that you can eat your seed corn.
    I am not arguing that you will be “happy” with YOUR full stomach.

    I am arguing that by your consuming of that seed corn will cause great suffering upon your children and (probably) you as well in your future.

    But because your time-view is so short, when that reckoning happens, you will believe it is a circumstance of some future “event” – you will not understand that your future suffering is due to your current misapplied economic understanding – just like the current economic situation you believe is due to some current economic situation – whereas it is a consequence of the poor economic understanding of your parents and grandparents delivering the suffering on you right now.

    And, even worse, you are willing to curse your children the same way.

  11. zx128k says:

    “…which only goes to show that Nick has the economic intelligence of an 8-year old.”

    – Ad hominem, let me guess you are a tory voter or member?

    “Government spending -no matter what it is spent on MUST be taken, by force, from the market place.”

    – Government is required to step in all the time to fix failures in the markets, as it had to with the banks. If the market cannot do something the government needs to step in. Take climate change, if the government does not step in nothing will happen. Its just cheaper and easier to burn coal and oil, but this will lead to projected very bad outcomes in future. Like for example, desperate starvation in the future.

    Look at this mess we are in, its because of the markets failure to act in the interest of the group. The banks expected the make money off of the expected high repossession rates on sub prime, alt a and option arm mortgages. Just one problem, house prises fell and they are now taking massive losses. Guess what they expect the greatess welfare check in history for the losses and afterwards they want the profits for themselves are well. Only the poor pay any price in this economy.

    Market place only exists atm because the governments of the world are propping it up with tax payers money. By your logic the market place took money by force from the market place to save itself at the market place’s expense. If we dont prop the banks up the market will fix it by using a mechanism called total economic collapse.

    “If government services was a “value” it would not be necessary to subsidize it or require taxes to pay for it”

    – I take the banking system as an example as well, going by what you said, then the market place which the banks are an integral part have no real value because if they did “it would not be necessary to subsidize it or require taxes to pay for it.” but I will take a guess that bailing it out with taxes so it can exist at all is not a part of that statement in your eyes. Its okey for the wealthy people to have lemon socialism and the rest capitalism. People on welfare are not jobless because the rich could not run a bath, are they? They a lazy and workshy!

    Take climate change, if the government does not subsidize clean sources of energy there wont be any. The reason is simple, you cant beat a business model that is basically, drive up a mountain in a truck, fill said truck, drive down and burn that truck’s load of coal to produce electricity. There is no logic in finding other means of production of electricity because they have no “value” as it is “necessary to subsidize it or require taxes to pay for it.” The new evil fight the green taxes!

    The problem is the type of thinking you display, its is only logical if you accept your ideological mode of thought, which does not see the groups/society needs or the future costs of any actions outside of it. Its rational self-interest taken to its logical end, selfishness that see only itself as valid, the only problem is many real world problems cannot never be fixed this way. To someone who thinks this way, altruism is the greatess evil, it is stealing and it is the worst kind of oppression; but not if it is you on the recieving end. Like in subsidies and tax breaks for oil and gas companies. The rich avoid taxes the poor pay them, that has to change or we will go broke. The rich have to follow rules like the poor, not lobby to get them changed and blame someone else when it goes so badly wrong because that rule kept things running well. Its only cheaper to fire someone if you don’t have to care, which I mean pay for, feeding people or making sure they have a home to live in.

  12. Black Flag says:

    Hi zx128k

    “…which only goes to show that Nick has the economic intelligence of an 8-year old.”

    – Ad hominem, let me guess you are a tory voter or member?

    First, it is NOT an ad hominem when the speaker raises the point on his own.

    If I called him “an 8 year old” simply based on his comment, that would have been an ad homenin – calling his idea “childish”.

    But if he says “this is obvious to an 8 year old” he is saying that this must be automatically self evident even to children demonstrates that he is NOT understanding the economic laws at the level of an adult, but one of a child.

    (Aside: I am always amused at people trying to offer their versions of logical fallacies when most people struggle at logic to begin with)

    To answer your question on my political affiliation, the answer is, in order of your questions,No and No.

    I do not vote. I do not agree or support the political system, therefore I withhold my agreement to it.

    “Government spending -no matter what it is spent on MUST be taken, by force, from the market place.”

    – Government is required to step in all the time to fix failures in the markets, as it had to with the banks.

    Fatal conceit.

    You believe you can see the infinite complexity of voluntary action of men to determine that their voluntary action is a failure.

    You give yourself infinite intelligence to know the difference between another man’s free choice and his failure in making the right choice – but you do not grant this infinite intelligence to other men.

    You hold it exclusively, and deny it it exists with other men.

    The Free Market is the optimum economic system. By billions of voluntary choices by millions of people every day, the Free Market distributes scarce resources.

    You believe you can, by force, determine better than the millions of others in the voluntary trade.

    As Hayek stated: you hold fatal conceit.

    If the market cannot do something the government needs to step in.

    If the market does not do it is because it is not economical to do it.

    You want some good/service, but you are unwilling to pay for it – so you want government to steal it for you and give it to you for free or lower cost.

    Take climate change, if the government does not step in nothing will happen.

    First, climate changes all the time.
    Second, there is not one darn thing humans can do to stop it or start it or change it.

    Believing government has godly powers is a sign of mental illness.

    Its just cheaper and easier to burn coal and oil,

    See! You do understand! It is far more economical to use coal and oil than other forms of energy

    but this will lead to projected very bad outcomes in future.

    You cannot predict the future.

    What has been shown, though, is cheap energy improves human life. Making energy more expensive will be detrimental to human life
    to use coal and oil than other forms of energy

    Like for example, desperate starvation in the future.

    Nonsense. You have no hypothesis, let alone proof, that cheap energy creates starvation. The fact is, cheap energy increases food production as it is directly improves the per acre yields of food stuffs.

    Making energy expensive will lower the per acre yields.

    Abandoning the tractor and using horse plows will cause massive starvation.

    Look at this mess we are in, its because of the markets failure to act in the interest of the group.

    What mess?

    Let’s apply some reality and fact to this discussion.

    You confuses some fashionable suppositions with actual history.

    A genuine ecological “mess” would have made human existence a nightmare in the 100 years.

    Instead, the past century has witnessed unprecedented improvements in living standards.

    Agricultural output is several times higher today, both in absolute amount and in yield-per-acre.

    Available supplies of nearly all minerals continue to increase.

    People of all income levels are much better fed, much better clothed, much better housed, and much better cared for medically.

    The automobile cleaned the streets and highways of the dung and flies that once cursed denizens of cities and towns.

    Electricity and petroleum have replaced far-filthier coal and wood as major sources of household energy.

    Perhaps most significantly, life expectancy in 2010 is 30 years longer than it was in 1910.

    Therefore, given these facts, I can only assume you are using some other yardstick to determine human quality of life, though I truly doubt it is proper measure.

    The banks expected the make money off of the expected high repossession rates on sub prime, alt a and option arm mortgages.

    Correct.

    Banks do business with the expectation of making money. Hopefully you understand that to be self-evident of any business model.

    Just one problem, house prises fell and they are now taking massive losses.

    There are far more than one problem.

    They are NOT taking the massive losses – you are, by proxy of the government.

    Guess what they expect the greatess welfare check in history for the losses and afterwards they want the profits for themselves are well. Only the poor pay any price in this economy.

    The only way the banks are able to avoid loss is by government action – and YET!!….

    you demand more government action.

    You are blind to the cause and effect of your own demand.

    Market place only exists atm because the governments of the world are propping it up with tax payers money.

    The market places existed long before government and will exist long after government – as long as people wish to trade their goods, there will be a market place.

    Government interference in the voluntary trade between men is a root cause of economic turmoil.

    By your logic the market place took money by force from the market place to save itself at the market place’s expense.

    That is not my logic nor argument.

    For you to make this case, you must equal “Market” and “Government” – but I have been very consistent to show that they are opposites.

    You are trying to create a contradiction based on your premises applied to my arguments which (wait for it) is a logical fallacy! 🙂

    If we dont prop the banks up the market will fix it by using a mechanism called total economic collapse.

    No.

    A failure of a bank does NOT cause economic collapse. It causes a bank failure.

    A car company bankruptcy does not cause economic collapse.
    It causes a car company failure.

    Propping up a failed bank/business by printing money will cause economic collapse because the printing of artificial money undermines the value of money.

    Bad money chases away good money.

    Money is the core commodity in the economy because all economic goods are priced in terms of money.

    Undermining money undermines the pricing mechanism.

    Undermining the pricing mechanism destroys economic calculation.

    Undermining economic calculation destroys the ability of the consumer and the supplier to provide terms of trade.

    Undermining trade stops the economy.

    Without trade, any society that is based on a high division of labor will collapse.

    You live in a society that prospers due to the high division of labor.

    When this stops, you will die within two weeks, along with millions of other people.

    “If government services was a “value” it would not be necessary to subsidize it or require taxes to pay for it”

    – I take the banking system as an example as well, going by what you said, then the market place which the banks are an integral part have no real value because if they did “it would not be necessary to subsidize it or require taxes to pay for it.”

    The British banking system is a government cartel – set up and protected by government law.

    There is no economic necessity that requires this cartel. Free market banking and money is a natural creation of the free market.

    Control of the money by direct control of the banks gives government direct control and manipulation of the economy for its own ends.

    The government created the Bank of England as a means to inflate the money to pay for the government’s wars.

    The banking cartel does not exist for your benefit. It exists to benefit the government.

    but I will take a guess that bailing it out with taxes so it can exist at all is not a part of that statement in your eyes.

    Correct. It is not.

    The banking cartel exists to benefit the government. Government is bailing itself out on your back.

    Its okey for the wealthy people to have lemon socialism and the rest capitalism. People on welfare are not jobless because the rich could not run a bath, are they? They a lazy and workshy!

    Socialism cannot exist over society – eventually it will collapse. Socialism cannot scale because it destroys pricing mechanisms (see above, once again, to understand the chain of causation).

    Socialism works very well on micro-scale human interactions such as inside a family unit. It works because economic calculation is unnecessary – you provide goods and resources to your children based on emotional reasons.

    People on welfare creates huge bad economic consequences because it delays the re-allocation of labor goods to sustainable productivity.

    Further, to fund this welfare creates the necessity to burden other productive users with a cost that these productive workers gain no benefit from.

    Thus a multi-fold of consequences: a delay in producing value PLUS a drain on those who are producing value.

    Take climate change, if the government does not subsidize clean sources of energy there wont be any.

    Nonsense.

    The move from dirty coal to cleaner oil did not require a single thing from government. The market place -on its own- created the conditions for this to occur.

    Solar panels are made without government.

    Wind turbines are made without government.

    When alternatives become economical, they market place will use them.

    By artificially lower the price of alternative does not make them sustainable – it creates unnecessary and very costly drag on the whole economy.

    If a product can only exist by subsidy, it will never exist without a subsidy. There will be no economic necessity to make it sustainable without the subsidy because the subsidy will be available to it. In other words, why work hard to avoid free money?

    Thus, the subsidy will never end, the product will never become economical and the drain on the productive economy will never end.

    The problem is the type of thinking you display, its is only logical if you accept your ideological mode of thought, which does not see the groups/society needs or the future costs of any actions outside of it.

    You are in error of understanding.

    Read carefully:

    You cannot improve economic calculation by destroying economic calculation.

    You are confusing two – opposite – characteristics of resource allocation.

    (1) Trade or earn (the “economical way”)
    (2) Steal (the “political way”)

    You want to increase your political calculation but justify this by claiming it will improve your economic calculation – but as you can note, that is a contradiction.

    You most certainly can choose political calculation over economic calculation. This is a choice of human action.

    But you cannot claim that choosing politics over economics improves economics – it in fact, destroys economics.

    You can most certainly accept this, that is, you can say “I accept a reduction in economic prosperity in favor of my political prosperity”.
    But just admit that, sir!.

    Do not try to pander to me that your political prosperity improves my economics!!

    Again, use the example of your family. YOU exchange your economic prosperity in favor of your political prosperity within your family. You willing surrender the goods you have earned for your families prosperity – and do so to improve your political prosperity; you gain emotional satisfaction. You do NOT justify your personal economic destruction as a improvement of your personal economics!

    Its rational self-interest taken to its logical end, selfishness that see only itself as valid, the only problem is many real world problems cannot never be fixed this way.

    It is the only sustainable way human problems can be resolved is by the voluntary actions of self-interested free men~!

    To someone who thinks this way, altruism is the greatess evil,

    It is a great evil IF violent force is applied to cause it.

    Your charity by voluntary choice is a moral ‘good’.

    Your violence on me to take my money for your belief of a ‘moral’ good is evil.

    The rich avoid taxes the poor pay them, that has to change or we will go broke.

    Agreed.

    All taxes on humans are evil (it is a form of slavery) and should be eliminated for all people.

    Its only cheaper to fire someone if you don’t have to care, which I mean pay for, feeding people or making sure they have a home to live in.

    It is NOT my responsibility to care FOR YOU.

    God made YOU responsible for YOU.

    The moment you align yourself properly with the law of the Universe, your personal life will improve.

  13. Charles says:

    “…which only goes to show that Nick has the economic intelligence of an 8-year old.”

    ffs its textbook Ad hominem you attack him personally, if you said x,y,z as wrong and said why his position is wrong it would not have been. Personal attack was first thing you posted. The problem is you think you know your right and do not like his position. He is giving a good response for his school of economics. Nick Clegg gives his reason that involuntary unemployed can’t pay taxes and that will result in a reduced tax intake. Unemployed people have to be look after, it costs money. Heres an example of what happens if you let things take there course. In Britain, in 1843, the newspaper The Economist was founded, and became an influential voice for laissez-faire capitalism. In response to the Irish famine of 1846–1849, in which over 1.5 million people died of starvation, they argued that for the government to supply free food for the Irish would violate natural law. Clarendon, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, wrote, “I don’t think there is another legislature in Europe that would disregard such suffering.” Laissez-faire capitalism is morally bankrupt, recessions would be ranked by there body count in dead and funny to is that laissez-faire bankers asked for a bailout as well. Governments money is great when they are on the firing line. How I really must read your text, I want to respond and make something usefull of this exchange.

  14. Black Flag says:

    Charles,

    its textbook Ad hominem you attack him personally,if you said x,y,z as wrong and said why his position is wrong it would not have been. Personal attack was first thing you posted.

    You make the same mistake as zx128k.

    It is one thing to say “you’re an idiot for saying that”, and completely different when you say “even an idiot would know this” and I respond that comment.

    If you make a claim that something is self-evident by making such a statement as “even an idiot knows this” – and your claim is false – it is NOT an ad homenin to restate your position in its reverse.

    Had he NOT made such a claim of 8-year old’s, there would be no cause for my comment either.

    The problem is you think you know your right and do not like his position.

    It is not a matter of “liking” his position.

    You not liking “1+1=2” does not change it to three, and you loving “2×2=10” does not make it right.

    His position is wrong because he does not understand economics.

    He is giving a good response for his school of economics.

    What “school” is that?

    His skiing school? (He spent a gap year as a skiing instructor in Austria in 1985),

    He studied Social Anthropology at Cambridge University and was active in the student theatre;

    Study for a year at the University of Minnesota, where he wrote a thesis on the political philosophy of the Deep Green movement.

    Nowhere do I see his economic training or study.

    A greenie, ski bum who studied anthropology whilst pretending to be other people on a stage is good enough for you to have him lecture me on economics?

    🙂 I laugh.

    Nick Clegg gives his reason that involuntary unemployed can’t pay taxes and that will result in a reduced tax intake.

    Justify further government expenses because government can’t fund its current expenses.

    Wow! One heck of an argument Nick offers, Charles!

    Unemployed people have to be look after, it costs money.

    But the answer that they can look after themselves completely escapes you?

    Heres an example of what happens if you let things take there course. In Britain, in 1843, the newspaper The Economist was founded, and became an influential voice for laissez-faire capitalism. In response to the Irish famine of 1846–1849, in which over 1.5 million people died of starvation, they argued that for the government to supply free food for the Irish would violate natural law.

    First, let’s get this clear.

    The Irish famine was a direct result of the export policies of the British government against the Irish.

    The Irish, through varying measures of law, where prohibited from owning land. The land that was seized by the British was used for cattle grazing and not food stuff production for the local people. The only crop available for local consumption was the potato.

    Pushed off the best pasture land and forced to farm smaller plots of marginal land, the Irish turned to the potato, a crop that could be grown abundantly in less favorable soil. Eventually, cows took over much of Ireland, leaving the native population virtually dependent on the potato for survival

    Blaming the famine on capitalism is a distortion. There was no capitalism in play in Ireland.

    Laissez-faire capitalism is morally bankrupt,

    The confusion to apply moral judgment to economic law is common in many people.

    It’s like claiming the law of gravity is evil because applies equally to a pious man falling to his death as a man of evil.

    What is morally corrupt is using violence upon non-violent men in order to seize their economic output.

    But you do not see this, because as a recipient of the proceeds of such theft, you judge YOUR good as universal.

    recessions would be ranked by there body count in dead and funny to is that laissez-faire bankers asked for a bailout as well. Governments money is great when they are on the firing line. How I really must read your text, I want to respond and make something usefull of this exchange.

  15. Black Flag says:

    recessions would be ranked by there body count in dead and funny to is that laissez-faire bankers asked for a bailout as well. Governments money is great when they are on the firing line. How I really must read your text, I want to respond and make something usefull of this exchange.

    Whoops, did not delete these comments from previous post – sorry!

  16. Charles says:

    Any system who’s proponents call for the death of other people is bankrupt. This follows under any moral system, common law being an example. Law of gravity is different, I find it hard responding to all your straw man arguments, gravity is a force, it is not a system that only functions within the context of our socity that we are responsible for.

    “Blaming the famine on capitalism is a distortion. There was no capitalism in play in Ireland.”

    -Out of context. I said, “In response to the Irish famine of 1846–1849, in which over 1.5 million people died of starvation, they argued that for the government to supply free food for the Irish would violate natural law.”

    Note and I quote, “they argued that for the government to supply free food for the Irish would violate natural law.” That is morally bankrupt, having an evil ideological mode of thought, that thinks its okey for people to died on mass and thinking that its wrong to help them. Free food for the Irish would violate natural law they say. Evil scum, and btw I don’t have all day to cover all your straw man arguments.

  17. Black Flag says:

    Charles,

    Any system who’s proponents call for the death of other people is bankrupt.

    What some people may falsely make claims about the free market system does not make the free market system false.

    Free market system does not “call for the death” of anyone.

    It calls for the voluntary interaction and trade of individuals.

    If one uses force and violence, it is NO LONGER voluntary, and no longer a free market place.

    This follows under any moral system, common law being an example.

    The free market system does not assign any action to be moral or immoral. It attributes consequences to human actions and does not judge those actions.

    Economics simply is a series of natural laws which determine the consequences of a particular actions.

    Law of gravity is different, I find it hard responding to all your straw man arguments, gravity is a force, it is not a system that only functions within the context of our socity that we are responsible for.

    Gravity is a physical law of nature. It is universal and it does not judge the moral worth of human beings in its application.

    Economics is a non-physical law of nature that deals with human action. It, too, does not judge the morality of human beings in its application.

    Humans act within a massive variation of subjective reasons. Economics does not care about the reason humans may or may not act in a particular way, it simply offers a set of consequences of that particular action.

    I judge your actions by comparing it to your goal.

    If you state “this is my goal” and by understanding the consequence of your actions with economics I see that you will accomplish opposite of your goal or miss your goal or destroy your goal, I judge you (not economics) to be in error.

    “Blaming the famine on capitalism is a distortion. There was no capitalism in play in Ireland.”

    -Out of context. I said, “In response to the Irish famine of 1846–1849, in which over 1.5 million people died of starvation, they argued that for the government to supply free food for the Irish would violate natural law.”

    As I said above, many men often use their gross misunderstanding to justify the consequences of their actions.

    To prohibit by evil law (enacted by government) the ability of the Irish to feed themselves does not create a failure of the free market, nor make the free market a justification to starve them.

    If I made a law that prohibited you from earning a living and then I claimed your starvation was the result of the free market system proving that you were unable to earn a decent living would be a gross fallacy, and you would not be fooled by this.

    Yet, in the case of the Irish, you allow yourself to be fooled.

    btw I don’t have all day to cover all your straw man arguments.

    It will be a hard task, no doubt, since I do not see my arguments as “straw man”

  18. Charles says:

    “Economics is a non-physical law of nature that deals with human action. It, too, does not judge the morality of human beings in its application.”

    Economics is a human creation and is not found in nature. I does judge, the system itself rewards a set of behavior and morals. Altruism is not one of them.

    “Humans act within a massive variation of subjective reasons. Economics does not care about the reason humans may or may not act in a particular way, it simply offers a set of consequences of that particular action.”

    Economics reduces the massive variation of human behavior to rational self-interest individuals. Capitalism enshrines self-interest, but this is a self-defeating theory. I mean that defeats its own purpose or unwittingly works against itself.
    source.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Parfit

    “What some people may falsely make claims about the free market system does not make the free market system false.”

    – The problem is the people here are acting in their own self-interest but the outcome of what they believe is right and true is 1.5M dead. They don’t want their money stolen and give to other people.

    Even so we can look to the past
    source: – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment

    “Those unable to find work had a stark choice: starve or break the law. In 1535, a bill was drawn up calling for the creation of a system of public works to deal with the problem of unemployment, to be funded by a tax on income and capital. A law passed a year later allowed vagabonds to be whipped and hanged. In 1547, a bill was passed that subjected vagrants to some of the more extreme provisions of the criminal law, namely two years servitude and branding with a “V” as the penalty for the first offence and death for the second. During the reign of Henry VIII, as many as 72,000 people are estimated to have been executed.” Even with this there was still unemployment.

    “the ability of the Irish to feed themselves does not create a failure of the free market,”

    – The economic system failed in the most obvious way, lack of supply of food is a real killer. Market could not relocate available surplus from other parts of the UK, at a price the people could aford and could not self-correction to fix the problem of a failure in food production in one region.

    “What some people may falsely make claims about the free market system does not make the free market system false.

    Free market system does not “call for the death” of anyone.

    It calls for the voluntary interaction and trade of individuals.

    If one uses force and violence, it is NO LONGER voluntary, and no longer a free market place.”

    Yet again you pick one sentence you thought was easy to attack, straw man again.

    In context,
    “In Britain, in 1843, the newspaper The Economist was founded, and became an influential voice for laissez-faire capitalism ( being supporters of free markets). In response to the Irish famine of 1846–1849, in which over 1.5 million people died of starvation, they argued that for the government to supply free food for the Irish would violate natural law.”

    They followed their ideological mode of thought, government should not interfere in the market and should not provide free food. Result of the government not interfering 1.5 million people died of starvation.

    Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that stresses “the moral worth of the individual”.

    Individualists promote the exercise of one’s goals and desires and so independence and self-reliance while opposing most external interference upon one’s own interests, whether by society, or any other group or institution.

    Individualism makes the individual its focus and so it starts “with the fundamental premise that the human individual is of primary importance in the struggle for liberation. The individualist does not lend credence to any philosophy that requires the sacrifice of the self-interest of the individual for any higher social causes. They followed their individual self-interest, the outcome was people died.

    “Economics is a non-physical law of nature that deals with human action. It, too, does not judge the morality of human beings in its application.”

    – Human action is an application of human reason to select the best means of satisfying ends. The best means of satisfying ends is the one where the morality of the humans in question affects the outcome.

    “It calls for the voluntary interaction and trade of individuals.

    If one uses force and violence, it is NO LONGER voluntary, and no longer a free market place.”

    – Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person’s livelihood depends on wages, especially in a total and immediate way. The term’s analogy between slavery and wage labor may refer only to an “[un]equal bargaining situation between labor and capital,” particularly where workers are paid comparatively low wages (e.g. sweatshops).

    This covers a wider range of employment choices bound by the pressures of a hierarchical social environment e.g. working for a wage not only under threat of starvation or poverty, but also of social stigma or status diminution.

    In a free market work or die, very voluntary interaction.

    “The free market system does not assign any action to be moral or immoral. It attributes consequences to human actions and does not judge those actions.

    Economics simply is a series of natural laws which determine the consequences of a particular actions.”

    – The free market is the system that “people” act within, human beings have different moral views and will act differently based on there world view/set of ethics.

    The free market while promoting certain ethics, one of which is not altruism on any scale, while it can attributes some consequences. It is reality that has the real consequences, if we do not respect limits of nature, the free market will fail and people who where doing well within in will die.

    As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. Free market economics expects some binding rules be followed and rewards some moral behavior and not others. A business that gives away say, a large amount of grain for free to end world hunger, will find it share price drop right away as people sell shares and all companies selling grain will find that demand for their gain will drop and with it the price they can sell at. There is no market incentive to do this and you will be disadvanaged in the market place if you do. So the price for gain will always be set at the amount that gives the best return and the people who can’t pay starve.

    Natural law or the law of nature has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. This is not true of a free market, as it is based on an over-simplification of human behaviour and every country has a different system of laws based on the outlook/ethics of the people in that country.

  19. Black Flag says:

    Charles,

    Economics is a human creation and is not found in nature.

    Humans are as much a part of nature as any other life in the Universe

    Economics is not “created” – no ancient Einstein woke up one day 10,000 years ago and proclaimed “Hey! I think trade between people is a good thing!”

    Trade naturally existed the first moment two people said “I like this what you have, and you like that which I have, so let’s trade”.

    Economic law is not a human abstraction. It describes human action and its consequences.

    I does judge, the system itself rewards a set of behavior and morals. Altruism is not one of them.

    You can judge – that is human.

    Altruism is a human evil – for it requires a man surrender himself and his family for the benefit of strangers.

    Charity is a human good, for it is voluntary.

    The philosophy of Altruism is not charity.

    Economics reduces the massive variation of human behavior to rational self-interest individuals.

    Charles, all human action is ultimately individual…. I mean, do you believe it is me who raises your hand to feed your mouth??

    Economics does NOT require rational people, nor does you to be self-interested. It merely requires you to be human who must act to survive. (That is, a human who is still alive).

    Capitalism enshrines self-interest, but this is a self-defeating theory.

    First, it is not a “theory”. Self-interest is required even by you who wallows in Altruism. You MUST at some point feed yourself for you to survive.

    I mean that defeats its own purpose or unwittingly works against itself.

    Any action can promote or destroy your goals. But that is the key. It is your goals. That is individual and that is self-interest.

    Your goals are not given to you – you create them yourself. That is the core of self-interest.

    The problem is the people here are acting in their own self-interest

    All people in one manner or another act in their own self-interest, including you in altruism. It cannot be avoided unless you are dead, and then you merely do not care any more.

    but the outcome of what they believe is right and true is 1.5M dead. They don’t want their money stolen and give to other people.

    The problem’s root is that other people believed they could steal from the Irish.

    The problem is not that “these” people do not want theft – the problem is that the same people -like you- agree to “some theft of others, but do not like it done to them”.

    “Freedom for you but not for me” is what I call the philosophy.

    So the problem is _theft_ and justifying theft of other people because another group committed theft ensures the problem continues.

    A law passed a year later allowed vagabonds to be whipped and hanged. In 1547, a bill was passed that subjected vagrants to some of the more extreme provisions of the criminal law, namely two years servitude and branding with a “V” as the penalty for the first offence and death for the second.

    During the reign of Henry VIII, as many as 72,000 people are estimated to have been executed.” Even with this there was still unemployment.

    If your point was to highlight the evils of government and its edicts of violence, you have done quite well.

    What always puzzles me is that you advocate for more government law? Does not your own examples wake you up to the evil of it?

    – The economic system failed in the most obvious way, lack of supply of food is a real killer.

    You ignore the cause. If people are prevented from growing food, a lack of food is a killer – but the problem is preventing people from growing food.

    This is NOT a failure of free market, but an example of government law – where by force, a man is prevented from earning his living.

    As above, you keep banging your head against the obvious – but you advocate for more of it

    Market could not relocate available surplus from other parts of the UK, at a price the people could aford and could not self-correction to fix the problem of a failure in food production in one region.

    The market could allocate it – you admit it. The price of allocation was not acceptable. This is not a failure. Gravity does not fail because you fell you did not die, but your neighbor did. Gravity did not “fail” your neighbor.

    The problem, again, is not the production of wheat in Russia – the problem is the prohibition on farming by an act of legal violence called “law”.

    Yet again you pick one sentence you thought was easy to attack, straw man again.

    You are saying you use sentences that are irrelevant? Then why do you use those sentences?

    You exhibit a number of misunderstandings and out-and-out errors. They are easy to correct, but the difficulty rests with you to comprehend the corrections.

    They followed their ideological mode of thought,

    Again, I point out… their ideological mode of thought is irrelevant. Their error of understanding does not make Free Market systems a “mistake”

    You misunderstanding the Law of Gravity does not make the Law of Gravity wrong.

    government should not interfere in the market and should not provide free food.

    Absolutely correct! If government did not interfere with the Irish, they would NOT have starved in the first place.

    Result of the government not interfering 1.5 million people died of starvation.

    No sir. Because of government interference making laws against the Irish 1.5 million died.

    Individualists promote the exercise of one’s goals and desires and so independence and self-reliance while opposing most external interference upon one’s own interests, whether by society, or any other group or institution.

    Institutions are evil. They promote an abstraction to be more important the people who form the substance of that abstraction.

    Charles, all human action is ultimately individual. You chose your own goals.

    While cooperation exists because it improves individuals lives – cooperation cannot exist on its own without individuals actions.

    The individualist does not lend credence to any philosophy that requires the sacrifice of the self-interest of the individual for any higher social causes.

    Irrational.

    This is a subjective judgment and not a statement of fact.

    Humans as are individuals who chooses their own goals.

    This is an act of individualism.

    The choice of the goal does not change this, including a choice to submit oneself to the desires of another person or group.

    They followed their individual self-interest, the outcome was people died.

    They obeyed evil government and its laws and they died.

    To show the lack of validity of your argument, I point to the fact you do not use the Ukrainian starvation massacre of Stalin as your example.

    You do not condemn the “altruist” nature of Stalin to ship food stuffs out of the Ukraine for the benefit of other Russians.

    But, here too, is an example of government law killing millions by starvation.

    Hence your problem. You assign a cause here, but it cannot be the cause there.

    Your theory collapses.

    My theory – evil government and its law – fits very well as a root cause to both disasters.

    Human action is an application of human reason to select the best means of satisfying ends.

    No. That is a judgment and hence subjective to you .

    You cannot judge “best” for another man nor know what is “best” for another man. If you continue with your line of reasoning, you will say that a man who kills himself is doing the best reasoning and the best means to satisfying his end or a man who kills millions by starving them to death is the “best” and “reasoned” way to accomplish a goal.

    All you can say is that Humans Act – and leave out any subjective judgment of best or rational, etc.

    The best means of satisfying ends is the one where the morality of the humans in question affects the outcome.

    Morality is subjective.
    What is moral to you may be immoral to another man.

    You advocate creating fixed systems based on whimsical concepts – hence, the consequence of great terror and tyranny upon the people by such enforcement of your whimsical ‘morals’.

    Wage slavery refers to a situation where a person’s livelihood depends on wages, especially in a total and immediate way.

    Your complaint is that you want the goods but do not want to work to get them. You price to yourself your own effort as “too valuable”.

    But such a claim is unsustainable.

    You wish to justify the theft of someone else’s goods so to avoid the consequences of such theft.

    The term’s analogy between slavery and wage labor may refer only to an “[un]equal bargaining situation between labor and capital,” particularly where workers are paid comparatively low wages (e.g. sweatshops).

    Labor is just another economic good as any other economic good.

    It obeys precisely the same laws of economics like any other good.

    Because humans control their own labor does not change the economic laws for labor.

    Again, we go back to your misunderstanding of economics. You are infusing universal judgments upon the economic goods – saying “this one” is “different” then that one simply by declaration.

    Because of this error, you continue to make core economic mistakes in understanding, and make core mistakes in advocating certain actions, including violence to try to resolve issues that you have misunderstood.

    The consequence, tyranny upon the people.

    working for a wage not only under threat of starvation or poverty, but also of social stigma or status diminution.

    A man must act to live.

    You are arguing that a man does not have to act to live, that he has a right to demand from another his goods without having to earn them.

    Because of this demand, you believe you can overrule the voluntary actions of men to provide or not the goods for trade and use violence to take those goods from them.

    You trade “social stigma” for a gun.

    In a free market work or die, very voluntary interaction.

    Sir, the Universe demands that you must act to live.

    “Man must wait long time for a cooked chicken to fly into his mouth”.

    The free market is the system that “people” act within, human beings have different moral views and will act differently based on there world view/set of ethics.

    Morals and ethics are subjective, and hence, irrelevant in a definition. Keep it simple.

    People act for their own purposes.

    The free market while promoting certain ethics,

    Free market nor economics does NOT promote any ethics.

    It exists solely on the basis of the voluntary trade between people.

    It does not saying trading money for drugs is good or bad. It says if you reduce the supply of drugs (either by force or supply) the price of the drugs will increase. Moral judgment on the this trade is irrelevant.

    Thus, you can use economics to say “If you increase legal force in reducing the supply of illicit drugs on the street, the price of the drugs on the street will increase”

    It is reality that has the real consequences,

    All action creates consequences.

    if we do not respect limits of nature, the free market will fail and people who where doing well within in will die.

    Free market never fails. It is the optimum provider of economic goods to people.

    Once violence enters the market place, the free market no longer applies. Once government action, as exampled by the Irish and the Ukrainians, takes hold and by law prohibits a man from earning his living mass death follows.

    But these great famines – whether by British law on the Irish, Soviet law on the Ukrainians, or Maoist law on Chinese peasants, it is always the act of evil government and its law upon peaceful men.

    Advocating for more actions of the greatest killer of mankind in the 20th century, IMO, is insane.

    As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior.

    No.

    Natural law does not require human law to enforce itself.

    The law of gravity worked perfectly well before Newton articulated it.

    Understanding natural law allows man to operate in alignment with the laws of the Universe. Since the Universe violently prohibits contradictions, alignment to the Universe avoids contradicting it.

    All human created evil is caused by humans attempting to manifest a contradiction to Nature.

    Free market economics expects some binding rules be followed and rewards some moral behavior and not others.

    No.

    Free market economics has no measure of moral or immoral. Those are concepts rooted in individual subjective values.

    Free market economics simply states that the optimum economic interaction between men is voluntary, free from violence.

    A business that gives away say, a large amount of grain for free to end world hunger, will find it share price drop right away as people sell shares and all companies selling grain will find that demand for their gain will drop and with it the price they can sell at.

    Irrational hypothetical. There share prices could easily go up for the same reason.

    There is no market incentive to do this and you will be disadvanaged in the market place if you do.

    There are as many incentives to do this or not do to this as there are individual people on earth.

    So the price for gain will always be set at the amount that gives the best return and the people who can’t pay starve.

    The price for grain is not “set”. It is fluid, based on economic supply and demand.

    People live.
    Therefore, they must act.
    Because they are alive now must mean that they acted.

    To believe they are unable to act in the future conflicts with the fact that they must have acted in the past for them to be where they are now.

    Natural law or the law of nature has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. This is not true of a free market, as it is based on an over-simplification of human behaviour and every country has a different system of laws based on the outlook/ethics of the people in that country.

    The free market system has validity everywhere.

    It demonstrates that the optimum economic conditions for men exists where the trade is voluntary.

    It further demonstrates that when political calculation is taken instead of economic calculation , the market and economy degrades.

    It does not judge whether a person who chooses economic calculation or political calculation is good or evil – it merely states the if you use political calculation you cannot expect a better economic outcome – it will be a worse economic outcome.

    Thus, if you argue that by using politics you can improve economics I know, for certainty, that you do not understand economics.

  20. BL says:

    People are stubborn. Sometimes it takes a while, but y’all will eventually resign to the fact that it’s much easier to put your egos aside and just ask it questions instead of arguing with it.

    Like I said above… “Resistance is futile.”

    🙂

  21. Charles says:

    BL all of what I am posting is from encyclopedia’s most of which are definitions of what different things are. He does not agree with most of the worlds best encyclopedias say things are.

    The part bellow is from an encyclopedia.
    The individualist does not lend credence to any philosophy that requires the sacrifice of the self-interest of the individual for any higher social causes.

    Most of the points he attacks are definitions of things from encyclopedias.

  22. Black Flag says:

    Charles,

    So let me get this straight.

    You do not agree the men act.

    You do not agree that you chose your own goals.

    You do not agree that it is you that raises your own hand to feed your own mouth and not me.

    You do not agree that humans are a part of nature.

    You do not agree that humans answer to natural law.

    You do not agree that morals are subjective.

    You believe you have offered some encyclopedia descriptions that confirm your disagreement with my statements.

    I wait to see such descriptions.

  23. Charles says:

    “You do not agree the men act.”
    – (Straw man and Leading question) I have been talking about how the actions of men can lead to immoral outcomes it they follow their self-interest. You can also act, by proxy. You yourself dont do the work but order it done.

    “You do not agree that you chose your own goals.”
    – (Straw man and Leading question). I have been talking about the posible real world overcomes of free market thinkers and their goals. Even so some man don’t have goals in life. Some people are overcome by listlessness and have no real goals in life. Even so they may have children. In nature the reason for men and women to exist is not a goal we have chosen by any instrument of our rational thought.

    The goal is clear from the start, a man, a women meet, conditions are met and reproduction takes place. The goal of are whole existance is the production of viable offspring and there long term survival.

    Even so the biological urge maybe the act of it, not to make babies but the action just happens to be also the way babies are made. The most pleasurable part makes us seek it, and has also the best conditions for reproduction to take place. It is carrot and stick, pleasure we feel happy and biological urge acting as a stick. When we are no longer able to reproduce, are biological mechanisms kill us and we make way for our children.

    So yes you can chose your own goals in a very limited way, but the only goals that matters are already picked for us, the way society functions by the people before us and our sex by chance, and it shapes our whole life. Its normal to act as other people act and think the same way as the group thinks. Who created the groups or what was normal?

    The people who came before us. People who disturb the status quo or go against rules or conventions have to be careful. To one man gay marriage is a right, to another a moral outrage and gay people should be stoned.

    “You do not agree that humans are a part of nature.”
    – Leading question (I said we where a part of reality). Humans are a part of nature but capitalism is a creation of human thinking. In the real world the future is what matters most, in capitalism it is the present that is the most valuable. You do not place as great a value on what your future self may want and so you could act against your own self-interest over the long term.

    Take climate change as an example, we value growth in the here and now, but we do not place anywhere near the same value on the posible negitive future economic outcomes that an action of doing nothing my bring.

    Natural process are all about protecting the long term future of life and what matters is that we have children and they have children. How this happens does not matter. Altruism is a major part of ensuring this but anything else that works is just as good.

    There is no short term gains or even long term gains to you economically for have children. Children no longer have to look after us in old age, we have pensions, old peoples homes and hospitals. Chidren may make us feel good but they cost us money for no return in money. In the future we could possibly need that money we spent on children for our continued happyness, we could regret having them later for economic reasons. I could even be bad to have children for economic reason now. To nature all that matters is we have done the ownly that matters and had childern, our feelings were part of the process of making sure we did it. We are all both men and women born with the goal that we will reproduce.

    If we take the position, well we will have to have only the amount of children we can aford. Then the people who have many and are poor will populate the earth.

    “You do not agree that humans answer to natural law.”
    – As in classically used, natural law refers to the use of “reason to analyze human nature” and “deduce binding rules of moral behavior.” Bet you are going to say all moral are subjective.

    “You do not agree that morals are subjective.”
    – Leading question. Subjectivity may refer to the specific discerning interpretations of any aspect of experiences and as such subjectivity is the only way we have to experience the world. We share a human subjectivity, as well as individual subjectivity, we interpret based as I said about on our world view. Subjectivity was covered in an above post of mine. Their is a world outside of every viewpoint only by seeking co-operation with others are we able to see it.

    Me above.
    “The problem is the type of thinking you display, its is only logical if you accept your ideological mode of thought.”

    I am basically say that everything you think is correct will be so if your test it only against what you have accepted to be already right. Subjectivity may refer to the specific discerning interpretations of any aspect of experiences. I don’t accept your interpretations, I then put them to you hoping that some falsification will occur and my position will have to change. Your position can be proven wrong by falsification. I can look to find if what you say is true by looking at data from the real world.

    “You believe you have offered some encyclopedia descriptions that confirm your disagreement with my statements.”

    -I am I can even give sources. I was mostly puting what I had learned and seeing if by falsification you could shoot it down.

    So I put the question or to you.

    One in six(seven) people do not get enough food, food has never before existed in such abundance, so why are 1.02 billion people in the world going hungry?

    The best system for all humans would feed everyone, can capitalism/free markets do this? Remember the most efficient system feeds everyone as there is enough food to go round. Also if a government that places the interest of a small band of rich people over the welfare of all, it becomes tyrannical if it leads to stravation. The world also produces enough food for everyone.

    Cannot post links.

  24. Charles says:

    Remember as a race we have agreed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So it is a common moral stardard to work from. So saying all morals are subjective will not work. We have chosen already what is right.

    Article 1.

    All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

    Article 3.

    * Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

  25. Black Flag says:

    Charles,

    “You do not agree the men act.”
    – (Straw man and Leading question) I have been talking about how the actions of men can lead to immoral outcomes it they follow their self-interest. You can also act, by proxy. You yourself dont do the work but order it done.

    No, sir, it is not a strawman.

    The Action of Men is the study of economics and as that is what we are discussing here, it cannot be a strawman

    Even you use it to explain yourself … quote “..HOW the acts of men…” (emphasis is mine).

    So explain how it can be a strawman when you, yourself, require it as a part of your explanation?

    I agree that the acts of men can lead to immoral outcomes just as they can lead to moral outcomes but that is not a matter of economics, sir!

    Morals are subjective! Your morals may not be mine, nor mine yours.

    To claim that self-interest leads to immoral outcomes is irrational.

    You are judging that your moral reasoning exceeds your fellow man – in other words, your subjective values are more important and vital then those of anyone else for themselves.

    “You do not agree that you chose your own goals.”
    – (Straw man and Leading question). I have been talking about the posible real world overcomes of free market thinkers and their goals.

    No, you have not.

    You have leaped hither and yon between subject concepts and economics – the study of human action.

    Further, you argued that Altruism is NOT self-interest, that is, you did not chose it for yourself.

    The question precisely exposes your fallacy – that, in fact, altruism is as much an act of self-interest and your own goals as any other goal or act of any man.

    It is merely your own perception that your goals and choices are “better” than your neighbors – essentially a philosophy of conceit.
    Any you still have not answered the question

    Even so some man don’t have goals in life.

    Everyone has some sort of goal for that is why they act.

    If they do not act, they die. Therefore, at a minimum, their goal is to live

    Some people are overcome by listlessness and have no real goals in life.

    You continue to apply your judgment upon other people. Who are you to declare that others have no “real” goal in life?

    What is “real” to you? Why does your “real” count more important for another person then that person’s “real”?

    Even so they may have children. In nature the reason for men and women to exist is not a goal we have chosen by any instrument of our rational thought.

    The reason we act is our choice.

    We did not choose the way the Law of Gravity works either, but we do choose how we can use the law of Gravity for our benefit (ie: air travel)

    The goal is clear from the start, a man, a women meet, conditions are met and reproduction takes place. The goal of are whole existance is the production of viable offspring and there long term survival.

    …maybe.

    But your theory fails to explain people who choose to have no children

    Again, you offer an theory that fails at a core premise.

    So yes you can chose your own goals in a very limited way, but the only goals that matters are already picked for us, the way society functions by the people before us and our sex by chance, and it shapes our whole life.

    Your point of view, as an hypothesis, fails to describe the majority of mankind.

    You believe society is a construct that exists beyond human input, yet exists solely by human action.

    How can you reconcile this obvious contradiction?

    Its normal to act as other people act and think the same way as the group thinks. Who created the groups or what was normal?

    Individuals create groups out of those like themselves. They, for that group, define what is normal.

    They cannot define what is normal for another group.

    The people who came before us. People who disturb the status quo or go against rules or conventions have to be careful. To one man gay marriage is a right, to another a moral outrage and gay people should be stoned.

    Why do you believe I have to obey what you write on a piece of paper?

    Are you saying you will obey and submit to what I write on a piece of paper?

    Even more, why do you believe I have to obey what dead men wrote on a piece of paper?

    “You do not agree that humans are a part of nature.”
    – Leading question (I said we where a part of reality). Humans are a part of nature but capitalism is a creation of human thinking.

    If your claim is true, please provide me with the name of the inventor, or founder of Capitalism.

    Of course, none exist – just as Newton is not the “founder” of the Law of Gravity.

    Capitalism is a description of human action. It has no creator other than a description of the consequence of human action.

    In the real world the future is what matters most,

    Not true.

    In human action, there are three – primary – matters of most concern.

    The first, most primary, and dominate is:
    the Present

    The second, is:
    the Future

    and third is:
    the Past.

    What matters most to most people is the present.

    Economically, you would rather have your goods NOW then LATER.

    This fact explains why products are discounted in bulk – because your time preference for future consumption has less value then your time preference for present consumption.

    The apple you eat to solve your hunger NOW is MORE valuable then the apple you eat to solve your hunger in the future… you may not want that apple.

    To sell you the second apple, the supplier has to discount it to your future wants.

    You value your future less then your present, thus you will pay less to satisfy it.

    However, your savings – the excess from your earnings minus your consumption exists to retain the same value in the future as it does in the present. You save your money now to buy the apple you want in the future.

    Thus, when you give that money to another person so that they can satisfy their needs NOW (called a “loan”) you demand compensation for forgoing your immediate consumption so that they can consume NOW, in trade for MORE of your consumption in the future (called “interest”).

    Present focused vs Future focused is the root of all investments.

    in capitalism it is the present that is the most valuable.

    Your root understanding of economics is wholly skewed.

    Capitalism is a theory that is based on savings – that is, the obtainment of the excess of earnings over consumption.

    Capital is what is left over after you have consumed your earnings.

    Capitalism explains that people will invest or place their excess of earnings to (1) protect it, so they can consume it in the future and/or (2) invest it, so to have more to consume in the future.

    To create an argument that Capitalism is present-focused is to argue in direct contradiction to Capitalism itself and is utterly bizarre.

    You are saying “black is white”.

    At this point, I have to ask:
    “My God man, where did you learn economics???”

    You do not place as great a value on what your future self may want and so you could act against your own self-interest over the long term.

    Once again, you apply your subject values to other human action.

    You do not know my goals or wants, therefore, you cannot claim that I am acting for or against my self-interest

    To make your claim here, demands that you are the supreme judge of human goals…. a claim, sir, that I do not think you are capable of making.

    Take climate change as an example, we value growth in the here and now, but we do not place anywhere near the same value on the posible negitive future economic outcomes that an action of doing nothing my bring.

    There is not one thing humanity can do for, against, prevent or cause climate change.

    The hypothesis of Anthropogenic Climate Change has been wholly refuted as it stands. To adhere to such a hypothesis in the face of such refutation changes one’s position to irrational

    Natural process are all about protecting the long term future of life and what matters is that we have children and they have children.

    As above, your theory fails to explain people who chose to not have children.

    “You do not agree that humans answer to natural law.”
    – As in classically used, natural law refers to the use of “reason to analyze human nature” and “deduce binding rules of moral behavior.” Bet you are going to say all moral are subjective.

    You win a penny.

    Morals are subjective.

    But, by your definition that “…analyze human nature..” admits that humans are a part of nature.

    “You do not agree that morals are subjective.”
    – Leading question. Subjectivity may refer to the specific discerning interpretations of any aspect of experiences and as such subjectivity is the only way we have to experience the world. We share a human subjectivity, as well as individual subjectivity, we interpret based as I said about on our world view.

    It is not a leading question, but a part of definition.

    As you have verbosely stated, humans judge subjectively.

    Subjectivity was covered in an above post of mine. Their is a world outside of every viewpoint only by seeking co-operation with others are we able to see it.

    Yours is a world outside of every viewpoint, as you cannot ascertain every view point.

    “The problem is the type of thinking you display, its is only logical if you accept your ideological mode of thought.”

    The Truth does not change based on mode of thinking, as much as you may believe it does.

    The Universe “is”.

    I am basically say that everything you think is correct will be so if your test it only against what you have accepted to be already right.

    And I agreeand back at you!

    Everything YOU think is correct can only be tested against your core principles

    You cannot judge me from your principles!!

    There exists no way in the Universe for you to prove that YOUR principles are superior to mine.

    The consequence: you can ONLY judge my ACTIONS based on my PRINCIPLES. I can ONLY judge YOUR actions based on YOUR principles.

    When YOU contradict YOUR principles, I know YOU are wrong, since contradictions are prohibited by the Universe.

    Subjectivity may refer to the specific discerning interpretations of any aspect of experiences. I don’t accept your interpretations, I then put them to you hoping that some falsification will occur and my position will have to change.

    You can most certainly refuse to accept my principles as reasons for or against your actions.

    But I do the same to you. I am not required to accept your principles as judgment upon my actions

    Your position can be proven wrong by falsification.

    My position can be proven wrong when it contradicts my own principles, and nothing less.

    The same test applies to you.

    But there exists no valid test to claim your principles are superior to mine or mine superior to yours

    I can look to find if what you say is true by looking at data from the real world.

    No, you cannot.

    For example, using your logic:

    If I drop a spoon, it will fall to the ground.

    You claim the reason it fails is because leprechauns attached an invisible rope to the spoon and pulled to the earth.

    By your claim, looking at the data, the spoon fell to the Earth – therefore it was caused by leprechauns!.

    Truth is found by deduction from principles.

    We deduce these principles by observation of the Universe, then apply these principles to other matters related to our observation to see if they remain true.

    The core is not the data – but the principles – and the test is consistency. The Universe’s #1, most exclusive, and never, ever, ever, ever fails – it is consistent in its application of Natural Law.

    Thus, if by principle a person acts consistent with that principle no matter what that principle is, it is his RIGHT.

    One in six(seven) people do not get enough food, food has never before existed in such abundance, so why are 1.02 billion people in the world going hungry?

    In every case I know of (which is pretty much every case), it is government force which prevents it .

    Either, the government prevents importation or a government prevents exportation.

    I do not know of a case where it has been an economic lack of food or a human lack of compassion

    The best system for all humans would feed everyone, can capitalism/free markets do this?

    NO!

    The BEST system is for humans to act voluntarily.

    Otherwise, you claim YOU KNOW BETTER THAN I about what I may or may not need.

    If I choose to fast, you claim you have a right to force feed me?

    No person has a right to exist at the expense of another person. To do so is slavery.

    Therefore, do you agree to slavery as a right of the hungry?

    Remember the most efficient system feeds everyone as there is enough food to go round.

    That is YOUR definition and is subjective.

    Further efficiency is a very poor measure of performance. I rather prefer effectiveness

    100% efficiency in an zero effective task accomplishes nothing.

    Also if a government that places the interest of a small band of rich people over the welfare of all, it becomes tyrannical if it leads to stravation. The world also produces enough food for everyone.

    You will not find me disagreeing with this paragraph, other than your qualifier “..if it leads to stravationion (sic)..”; the qualifier is unnecessary.

    Government must place the interest of a small band of people over the welfare of all in every case of its action – or else it would not be a government.

    Hence, all government is tyrannical.

    Cannot post links

    They are unnecessary. I demand you post your reasoning.

    =========================================

    Remember as a race we have agreed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Who is the “we” you speak of?

    I do not think you have a right to include “me” into any “we” you may imagine.

    Therefore, there is no “we”.

    So it is a common moral stardard to work from. So saying all morals are subjective will not work. We have chosen already what is right.

    Who is this “we”?

    Why do 3 hands waving in the air define “right”?

    If it does, I have three hands waving that says your house is owned by me, and *for the heck of it*, “we” allowed you to vote, too. Oh, so sorry, you were out voted 3 to 1. When are you moving out of my house?

    Oh? Are you claiming 5 hands need to wave?

    Oh? My mistake, you are claiming 100 hands need to wave for me to take your house.

    Ah, sorry, you are claiming a 1000 hands need to wave…

    … hmmm… how many hands are you claiming is necessary?

    ———–

    Re: Subjective.

    Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.


    An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.

    Article 1.

    All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

    “Should” does not equal “shall”.

    Please note my highlight.

    You are not right to enslave ME to YOUR demand.

    Article 3.

    * Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

    You do NOT have a right to life. The universe does not grant such a right, and neither can I … no matter how much money you steal from me.

    The ONLY right you have is “liberty”. You have the right to be free of my impositions and I have a right to be free of yours.

    To deprive a man of his natural liberty … is worse then starving the body; it is starvation of the soul….

    – Gandhi

  26. Charles says:

    “You do not agree the men act.”
    “No, sir, it is not a straw-man.”

    – You are puting words in my mouth, “you do not agree”, meaning I should and if I don’t agree with it as worded it becomes my position by saying no to it.

    “The Action of Men is the study of economics and as that is what we are discussing here, it cannot be a straw-man.” I would gave you that, but I would complain it is very poorly worded. Sorry.

    “Even you use it to explain yourself … quote “..HOW the acts of men…” (emphasis is mine).”
    “So explain how it can be a straw-man when you, yourself, require it as a part of your explanation? “
    I agree that the acts of men can lead to immoral outcomes just as they can lead to moral outcomes but that is not a matter of economics, sir!
    Economics is a system of operation, which will reward one behaviour over another. Altruistic behaviour is not one. A company cannot justify giving their product away for free, they would have no money and go bust. Altruism would someone putting the interests of others before themselves, but self-interest do not, you act in yourself interest and justify your actions that way.

    “Morals are subjective! Your morals may not be mine, nor mine yours.”
    Morals are subjective, but that’s not to say there is not such a thing as moral universalism. I mean for example the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It overcomes the problem of the other two possible positions you could take, where there is moral nihilism or relativism.
    To claim that self-interest leads to immoral outcomes is irrational.

    Not if self-interest is self-defeating, if the truth of the theory would imply the falsity of the theory.

    . From a wiki article on Derek Parfit, below is a section on ethics and rationality. It talks about his work Reasons and Persons part 1 he discusses “self-defeating theories.

    Wiki – “Aside from the initial appeal to plausibility of desires that do not directly contribute to one’s life going well, Parfit contrives situations where S is indirectly self-defeating. That is, it makes demands that it initially posits as irrational. It does not fail on its own terms, but it does recommend adoption of an alternative framework of rationality. For instance, it might be in my own self interest to become trustworthy in order to participate in mutually beneficial agreements, despite the fact that in maintaining the agreement I will be doing, ceteris paribus, what will be worse for me. In many cases S instructs us precisely not to follow S, thus fitting the definition of an indirectly self-defeating theory.” Note that self-defeating theories, are namely the self interest theory of rationality (S) and two ethical frameworks: common sense morality (CSM) and consequentialism (C).

    The main quote of interest is:-
    “S is not the only self-defeating theory however. Where S puts too much emphasis on the separateness of persons, C fails to recognize the importance of bonds and emotional responses that comes from allowing some people privileged positions in one’s life. If we were all pure do-gooders, perhaps following Sidgwick, that would not constitute the outcome that would maximize happiness. It would be better if a small percentage of the population were pure do-gooders, but others acted out of love, etc. Thus C too makes demands of agents that it initially deemed immoral; it fails not on its own terms, for it still demands the outcome that maximizes total happiness, but does demand that each agent not always act as impartial happiness promoters. C thus needs to be revised as well.
    S and C fail indirectly, while CSM is directly collectively self-defeating. (So is S but S is an individual theory.) Parfit shows, using interesting examples and borrowing from Nashian games, that it would often be better for us all if we did not put the welfare of our loved ones before all else. For example, we should care not only about our kids, but everyone’s kids.”

    I take you mean Human Action: A Treatise on Economics is the magnum opus of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises?

    wiki
    “It presents a case for laissez-faire capitalism based on Mises’ praxeology, or rational investigation of human decision-making. It rejects positivism within economics.” It rejects scientific method so I guess Austrian School.

    wiki
    “The Austrian School is a heterodox school of economic thought that emphasizes the spontaneous organizing power of the price mechanism.”

    Spontaneous organizing wiki.
    “Spontaneous order is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos; the emergence of various kinds of social order from a combination of “self-interested individuals” who are not intentionally trying to create order.” Note see the “self-interested individuals” as I said before, comes up all the time when people talk free market. Which will likely go back to Ayn Rand.

    Also quotes “a more efficient allocation of societal resources than any design could achieve.” “This is illustrated in the concept of the invisible hand proposed by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.” Got to love the invisible hand part.

    Basically people who try to maximise their personal freedoms based on the the free market position of rational self-interest individuals, cannot do so without reducing other peoples and reducing total freedom for all. This is self-defeating as it undermines the goal of freedom maximisation or happiness. We have elevated our self-interests and “the self” to a status not granted to others.

    For instance, it might be in my own self interest to become trustworthy in order to participate in mutually beneficial agreements, despite the fact that in maintaining the agreement I will be doing, ceteris paribus, what will be worse for me.

    We only sacrifice one’s own interests to help others’ interests, so long as one’s own
    interests (i.e. one’s own desires or well-being) are substantially-equivalent to the
    others’ interests and well-being.

    Individualism allows for others’ interest and well-being to be disregarded or not,
    as long as what is chosen is efficacious in satisfying the self-interest of the agent.
    You can then take a position that you don’t have to care for others if that action
    does not benefit yourself. The well-being of others is not your problem it can be
    disregarded if not in your self-interest.

    Its is now reasonable under this frame work to say its in my best interests to let
    nature take its course and if people die well it happens, but it was not the market or
    my fault.

    “It is NOT my responsibility to care FOR YOU.

    God made YOU responsible for YOU.”

    It endorses selfishness, it doesn’t endorse foolishness but it contrasts with ethical
    altruism.

    Ethical egoism is sometimes the philosophical basis for support of libertarianism or
    “individualist anarchism”, although these can also be based on altruistic motivations.
    These are political positions based partly on a belief that individuals should not
    coercively prevent others from exercising freedom of action.

    In economics, the invisible hand, also known as the invisible hand of the market,
    is the term economists use to describe the self-regulating nature of the marketplace.

    This is a metaphor first coined by the economist Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral
    Sentiments. For Smith, the invisible hand was created by the conjunction of the
    forces of self-interest, competition, and supply and demand, which he noted as being
    capable of allocating resources in society. This is the founding justification for
    the laissez-faire economic philosophy or the free market.

    Many advocates of free markets, most notably Milton Friedman, have also argued that
    there is a direct relationship between economic growth and economic freedom, though
    this assertion is much harder to prove empirically, as the continuous debates among
    scholars on methodological issues in empirical studies of the connection between
    economic freedom and economic growth clearly indicate. There were a
    few attempts to study relationship between growth and economic freedom prior to the
    very recent availability of the Fraser data.

    These were useful but had to use incomplete and subjective variables. Joshua Epstein
    and Robert Axtell have attempted to predict the properties of free markets empirically
    in the agent-based computer simulation “Sugarscape”. They came to the conclusion that,
    again under idealized conditions, free markets lead to a Pareto distribution of wealth. This
    idea is sometimes expressed more simply as the Pareto principle or the “80-20 rule” which
    says that 20% of the population controls 80% of the wealth

    Once incomplete and imperfect information are introduced, Chicago-school (USA school) defenders of The market system cannot sustain descriptive claims of the Pareto efficiency of the real
    world. Thus, Stiglitz’s use of rational-expectations equilibrium assumptions to achieve
    a more realistic understanding of capitalism than is usual among rational-expectations
    theorists leads, paradoxically, to the conclusion that capitalism deviates from the model
    in a way that justifies state action–socialism–as a remedy.

    Unfettered markets often not only do not lead to social justice, but do not even
    produce efficient outcomes. Interestingly, there has been no intellectual challenge
    to the refutation of Adam Smith’s invisible hand: individuals and firms, in the
    pursuit of their self-interest, are not necessarily, or in general, led as if by
    an invisible hand, to economic efficiency.

    The losers of the economic system at the time of the Irish famine will find
    their individual freedoms being reduced to the lowest amount possible. They
    are dead, the remaining people will cry out for social justice. To them freedom
    of their loved ones to exist has not been respected.

    My point is capital accumulation is the human chase after wealth and
    self-enrichment leads to inhuman consequences. The enrichment of some is at the
    expense of the immiseration of others, and competition becomes brutal. The basis
    of it all is the exploitation of the labour effort of others. When the
    “economic cake” expands, this may be obscured because all can gain from trade.

    But when the “economic cake” shrinks, then capital accumulation can only occur
    by taking income or assets from other people, other social classes, or other
    nations. The point is that to exist, capital must always grow, and to ensure
    that it will grow, people are prepared to do almost anything.

    This is not all, a free market is a place where the poor can become poorer and the
    rich, richer.

    From: – World’s rich got richer amid ’09 recession: report
    Yet as portfolios bounced back, investors remained wary after a collapse that
    erased a decade of stock gains, fuelled a contraction in the global economy and
    caused soaring unemployment. Unemployed people people who will need a home
    and something to eat.

    From :- The Rich Get Richer And The Poor Get… Fired
    In the boom years 2002 to 2007, average real family income grew by 3.0% annually but 65% accrued to the top 1% while only 35% of that growth accrued to the bottom 99% of families.

    Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating an egalitarian society or
    institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that
    understands and “values human rights”, and that recognises the dignity of “every
    human being”. The most basic human right is that of life, no economic system which
    has food available to it should say, starve and die if you cant pay the money.

    According to John Locke there are three natural rights:

    * Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created. Every country accepts this.
    * Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn’t
    conflict with the first right.
    * Estate: everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so
    long as it doesn’t conflict with the first two rights.

    Freedom can only be maximised if everyone is entitled to live once they are created and
    any system of thought based on freedom has to respect this. In common usage, the word
    “tyrant” carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own
    interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general
    population, which the tyrant governs or controls. If the government had have followed
    what free market advocates had have wanted, the government would be acting as if a tyrant.

    The people quoted in the Economist article here are supporting free markets are a small
    oligarchy and are placing their interests above the interest of the general population, they where calling for nature to take its course and the outcome was millions of deaths.

    This means that in ones maximizing own self-interest the individual agent cannot give the same
    level of freedoms for others. For one agent his freedoms are good, the system works, for another,
    by becoming the losers in the system find themselves with few freedoms.

    In the case of Irish famine the rights to own all they have created for free market
    thinkers, comes before the rights of life of others, this is immoral. This is morally
    bankrupt and contradicts the point that a free market maximizes freedom for all. A
    system must be to the benefit of all or what’s the rational point of participating in it. For
    the starving their self-interests are not met.

    “You do NOT have a right to life. ”

    It seems irrational to me if alive to do anything other than to want to live, there is nothing proven after life and the really big thinkers are working on the meaning of it. If you have something someone else needs and don’t share, the result is war or rebellion. History has shown this many times and if the free market do not serve the interest of the many it will lose support with the people which it can’t survive without. If you are alive you exist, you have a right under any system to keep living and no-one can use the system they are living under as a justification for inaction.

    We can’t run out the door like a Lions and hunt for food when things get bad, other people now own everything around you and hunting for food on another persons land is poaching. Individuals rights basically should end when they threaten another’s.

    I will reply to the rest of your post later, I am tired and it is late where I live.

  27. Black Flag says:

    Charles,

    – You are puting words in my mouth, “you do not agree”, meaning I should and if I don’t agree with it as worded it becomes my position by saying no to it.

    My statement derives out of post you made back to “BL” stating that I am contradicting your “encyclopedia” information.

    I reviewed my post and yours and could not see what contradiction you were thinking existed.

    Thus, I started a list of my posted premises, but in the manner of your declared contradiction, since that is what you said existed.

    Thus, I originally posted “Men act”; you posted I contradicted something, thus, it MUST mean you believe “Men do not act”, or stated in an other way you disagree with my contention that “men act”

    So, it is not so much putting words in your mouth, but simply articulating what you must have meant when you said I was contradicting something.

    “The Action of Men is the study of economics and as that is what we are discussing here, it cannot be a straw-man.” I would gave you that, but I would complain it is very poorly worded. Sorry.

    I am not writing to produce a text book, but in the manner of a dialogue and discussion on topic of Futile’s post.

    There are quite a few of errors in Futile’s economic thinking – most of those errors derive from apply irrational and emotional judgments into the realm of economics.

    My point to him (generally) is to justify his political action by his politics and his economic action with economics, because when he tries with to use his politics for his economics, he is courting total disaster.

    Economics is a system of operation, which will reward one behaviour over another.

    No, sir!

    Economic systems do not create “rewards”. Economic systems attempt to explain consequences.

    You, as a human, judge whether those consequences are “good” or “bad”, but that is your subjective measure – no less than you claim the consequence of the law of gravity is air flight and that is a “good”, and the consequence of bone-crushing fall is a “bad”. You wish to judge the Law of Gravity, by claiming it rewards some behavior and punishes other, as if the Law of Gravity makes such a determination.

    Economics merely explains that “if you do X, Y will occur”. Whether you believe Y is “good” or “bad” changes nothing in economics. You use Economics to decide whether you will exercise X as your action or not.

    Altruistic behaviour is not one. A company cannot justify giving their product away for free, they would have no money and go bust.

    A company – any company – can justify its actions in any way it so chooses.

    If they wish to give everything away for free, they are free to do so.

    But most companies do give away some of their stuff for free. You have never received “free samples”?

    This highlights the contradiction of Altruism.

    Altruism as a theory says is selfless concern for the welfare of others. But there is no action that is not in some manner or another self-ish, for example, emotional gain or pride.

    You would not claim that a company giving free samples is Altruist behavior, yet you would claim you giving away free stuff is Altruist behavior – yet, there exists no objective way to separate the two actions!

    The only way you make your differentiation is based on your own subjective values where you have already defined away any actions of a company to be NOT Altruistic.

    That is, by your own subjective definition, no company can act in an altruistic behavior, therefore, the action of a company giving stuff away cannot be altruistic!

    But the core point, none of this has anything to do with economics – the subjective (hence, irrational) valuation of someone’s action is irrelevant to Economics.

    Altruism would someone putting the interests of others before themselves, but self-interest do not, you act in yourself interest and justify your actions that way.

    All human actions are all, in some manner, selfish.

    You do not give your stuff away without some reason you hold yourself. You are simply judging certain actions to be “good” or “bad” based on your own subjective values.

    “Morals are subjective! Your morals may not be mine, nor mine yours.”

    Morals are subjective, but that’s not to say there is not such a thing as moral universalism.

    No, that is to say there exists no such thing as moral universalism.

    There cannot exist a universal subjective! By definition, that would mean it is objective – and defined by some Law of Nature. There there is no such Law of Nature. Thus, a subjective cannot be objective – and therefore any concept of a Universal Moral is a contradiction

    I mean for example the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    First, it is a “Declaration”. Human declarations have zero force upon the Universe.

    What some men may believe does not mean I have to believe. Declare all you want, but it has no meaning upon me unless I give it meaning.

    It overcomes the problem of the other two possible positions you could take, where there is moral nihilism or relativism.

    No, it does not.

    What a bunch of people in some foreign city claim is or is not moral based on their subjective understanding has no importance to me, unless I chose it. If I do not chose it, their claims are irrelevant to me.

    And there are far more positions I could take other than the triality you are offering.

    I do not agree that YOUR (or anyone’s) morals are universal.

    I do not agree there exists moral nihilism.

    I do not agree there exists moral relativism.

    I claim that you define your morals, and the measure of whether you are a moral person or an immoral person is solely based on whether your actions are in alignment with your defined morals or are in contradiction with your defined morals.

    Note that I cannot measure YOU as moral or immoral based on MY morals.

    I apply YOUR definition of moral behavior to YOU, and test to see if YOU are consistent with YOUR own definition.

    When YOU are in alignment with YOUR own morals, I will call you a MORAL person.

    When YOU are in contradiction with YOUR own morals, I will call you an IMMORAL person.

    Not if self-interest is self-defeating, if the truth of the theory would imply the falsity of the theory.

    You are required to subjectively judge whether the actions of another person are self-defeating.

    You would apply your subjective values upon another person, which you have no right or objective basis to do so.

    A person may act in a manner that kills himself.

    Please tell me how you know this is self-defeating.

    .For instance, it might be in my own self interest to become trustworthy in order to participate in mutually beneficial agreements, despite the fact that in maintaining the agreement I will be doing, ceteris paribus, what will be worse for me.

    But Charles, the measure of benefit can only be judged by the person himself.

    It is your subjective judgment, solely, that determines whether the short term, long term, loss or gain due to the consequences of your actions is a good or a bad.

    It does not matter what formula you wish to apply, the final judgment is always subjective.

    C fails to recognize the importance of bonds and emotional responses that comes from allowing some people privileged positions in one’s life.

    Who judges this to determine “failure” or its opposite, “success” on behalf other another person?

    How do you know another person’s emotional bonds are to a degree sufficient for YOU to claim HIS emotional bonds are SUCCESSFUL?

    Why are you claiming YOUR judgment as Universal, but deny that his judgment is Universal?

    I take you mean Human Action: A Treatise on Economics is the magnum opus of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises?

    It is one source and a good one in my opinion.

    “It presents a case for laissez-faire capitalism based on Mises’ praxeology, or rational investigation of human decision-making. It rejects positivism within economics.” It rejects scientific method so I guess Austrian School.

    Correct.

    You cannot use the scientific method to discover human action. This is why, originally, I stated explicitly that the study of economics is not like the study of Physics.

    There exists no way to create an experiment to test economic hypothesis, therefore it cannot use the scientific method of experimentation to derive its Laws.

    This does not mean, however, that Economics has no Laws of Nature, nor that a study of Economics cannot derive these Laws.

    Thus, economic theories and economic laws are deduced from principles. One starts with a premise, and applies reasoned principles to determine whether the action “X” produces the consequence “Y”. One then observes whether X causes Y.

    Economics is closer to Mathematics then it is to Physics.

    “The Austrian School ….spontaneous organizing power of the price mechanism…. spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos; the emergence of various kinds of social order from a combination of “self-interested individuals”

    Yep, Wiki in this matter is pretty accurate in its descriptions.

    Note see the “self-interested individuals” as I said before, comes up all the time when people talk free market. Which will likely go back to Ayn Rand.

    Rand is not an Austrian economist, nor does her theories around Objectivism hold any more merit for me then your theories of morals and Altruism.

    Do not assume that because Austrians talk free market and individuals, and Rand talks about individuals and free markets that Austrians and Rand agree on the principles of free markets and individuals.

    Also quotes “a more efficient allocation of societal resources than any design could achieve.” “This is illustrated in the concept of the invisible hand proposed by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.” Got to love the invisible hand part.

    Yeah, it is quite an excellent conceptual aid, isn’t it? So good, we still refer to it 300 years later….

    Basically people who try to maximise their personal freedoms based on the the free market position of rational self-interest individuals, cannot do so without reducing other peoples and reducing total freedom for all.

    I cannot follow your reasoning here.

    How does a free man destroy freedom?

    This is self-defeating as it undermines the goal of freedom maximisation or happiness.

    How does a free man destroy freedom?
    Explain how freedom = happiness?

    We have elevated our self-interests and “the self” to a status not granted to others.

    Impossible.

    To claim I have right to self-interest is to equally claim all men have a right to self-interest.

    What I claim I have as a right, being human, is what any human can equally claim as a right.

    Further, one cannot grant what one does not have.

    If I have self-interest, I can grant it.

    However, I have self-interest, so do you, and therefore, my grant to you is totally unnecessary.

    It is like me “granting” you life, as if you didn’t have it already! YET! There you were already alive to receive my grant of life! Bizarre!

    We only sacrifice one’s own interests to help others’ interests, so long as one’s own
    interests (i.e. one’s own desires or well-being) are substantially-equivalent to the
    others’ interests and well-being.

    …based on your own subjective measure of well-being!

    How did you get the Right to judge MY well-being as being sufficient or not?

    Individualism allows for others’ interest and well-being to be disregarded or not,
    as long as what is chosen is efficacious in satisfying the self-interest of the agent.

    It is totally up to the Individual to judge his own self-interest and make his own goals.

    No man has the ability to determine another man’s goals or determine another man’s interest.

    Such a claim of such ability would make claim to “Super-God power” of omniscience.

    Making such a claim, if you are human, is irrational.

    You can then take a position that you don’t have to care for others if that action
    does not benefit yourself. The well-being of others is not your problem it can be
    disregarded if not in your self-interest.

    I can equally take the position that I cannot judge another person’s benefit based on my subjective values.

    Therefore, since I cannot know such a benefit, it is irrational to attempt to act in a manner for another persons benefit, for I may just as well act against him as for him in my ignorance.

    Therefore, the optimum course of action is to work for my own benefit because I know what this is for myself, and do not impose upon other men so to not interfere in their freedom to act in their own benefit, because they know what this benefit is for themselves.

    Thus, voluntary exchange becomes the optimum situation between men. It is a man, for his own benefit, voluntarily exchanging with another man for his own benefit.

    The core: voluntary – the decision to act or not act is made by the individual without the imposition and violence of other men on him.

    It endorses selfishness, it doesn’t endorse foolishness but it contrasts with ethical

    altruism.

    It endorses Freedom and contradicts those who determine the value of other men.

    These are political positions based partly on a belief that individuals should not coercively prevent others from exercising freedom of action.

    Correct.

    To prevent the freedom and voluntary action of other men would mean I know more about other men then those men about themselves – a philosophy of conceit.

    The Law of Mutuality is immutable.

    If I claim I know more about you than you know about yourself, you can equally claim that you know more about me than I know about myself.

    The consequence of such claims is violent conflict, and the final outcome being “Might is Right” and Barbarism.

    All altruistic philosophies lead to violent conflict and Barbarism, hence, from the very beginning of this thread, where I posted:

    The philosophy of Altruism is evil

    This is the founding justification for the laissez-faire economic philosophy or the free market.

    “Justification”??? No.

    “Explanation”! Yes.

    The justification of the free market is freedom.

    “Laissez-faire” means “leave them alone” – and the core, specific expression of human freedom – no imposition of one man upon another.

    Many advocates of free markets, most notably Milton Friedman, have also argued that
    there is a direct relationship between economic growth and economic freedom, though
    this assertion is much harder to prove empirically

    Now that is an assertion that cannot be proven (that is, the assertion that it is “hard to prove”).

    There is a direct relationship between economic growth and economic freedom.

    What cannot be proven is the subjective measure of “quality of life” – for that is an individual subjective judgment and no more than I can prove that I like the color green and dislike the color purple, one cannot prove “quality of life”.

    free markets lead to a Pareto distribution of wealth.

    This is no surprise.

    Pareto distribution (which is not 80/20), exists everywhere in Nature.

    Pareto distribution generally means “more of a thing is concentrated in one place than evenly distributed in all places”.

    We do not find oil “everywhere”. We find it concentrated in pools “here and there”.

    We do not find gold “everywhere”. We find it concentrated in areas “here and there”, so on and so forth.

    To find that resources follow unequal distribution is not a surprise.

    To find that economics distributes resources unequally is not a surprise.

    Humans can only distribute resources among themselves in one of two ways:
    (1) By the point of a gun (violence) and take it.
    (2) Trade or earn it.

    Once incomplete and imperfect information are introduced, Chicago-school (USA school) defenders of The market system cannot sustain descriptive claims of the Pareto efficiency of the real world.

    I do not argue the Chicago, Monetarist theories. I argue from the Austrian school.

    Chicago is not in Austria. 😉

    What Chicago may claim or not claim economically (shrug) – I do not agree with their many of their theories.

    If you wish to argue for them, I’ll be happy to argue against you ….

    Thus, Stiglitz’s use of rational-expectations equilibrium assumptions to achieve
    a more realistic understanding of capitalism than is usual among rational-expectations
    theorists leads, paradoxically, to the conclusion that capitalism deviates from the model
    in a way that justifies state action–socialism–as a remedy.

    Rational expectation theory fails to explain economic outcomes. Again, if you wish to argue from their point, I’ll be happy to provide the contrary debate.

    Unfettered markets often not only do not lead to social justice, but do not even

    produce efficient outcomes.

    Again, “efficiency” is a very poor method to judge outcomes. 100% efficiency in a zero-effect has no effect.

    Interestingly, there has been no intellectual challenge to the refutation of Adam Smith’s invisible hand:

    Duh, what do you think the Austrian school argues?

    What a strange comment you make. You provide all this text regarding the arguments of the Austrians, then you make a comment that such arguments do not exist.

    It is a sign you are “cutting and pasting” but do not comprehend what you are “cutting and pasting”.

    The losers of the economic system at the time of the Irish famine will find

    their individual freedoms being reduced to the lowest amount possible.

    I couldn’t agree more.

    By government decree, they were unable to provide the economic goods they need to live.

    The free market did not exist by government decree – therefore, claiming the free market “failed” is irrational.

    They are dead, the remaining people will cry out for social justice.

    The cry should be “Eliminate government interference in our lives, for it kills men like no other disaster of man”.

    My point is capital accumulation is the human chase after wealth and

    self-enrichment leads to inhuman consequences.

    My point is capital accumulation directly creates the prosperity of all society for the optimum benefit of mankind.

    The enrichment of some is at the expense of the immiseration of others, and competition becomes brutal.

    Explain how voluntary trade is an expense upon one and a benefit to one and not on the other.

    The basis of it all is the exploitation of the labour effort of others.

    Exploitation? Who is the judge? You?

    When the

    “economic cake” expands, this may be obscured because all can gain from trade.

    But when the “economic cake” shrinks, then capital accumulation can only occur
    by taking income or assets from other people, other social classes, or other
    nations.

    “Taking”?? How?

    Explain how I “take” from you in a voluntary trade?

    “Taking” what is not freely given requires violence, and is not voluntary.

    Such “taking” is an example of the consequence of government, and not an example of any action in a free market.

    a free market is a place where the poor can become poorer and the

    rich, richer.

    True.

    It is also a place … and more vastly more common …. where the poorer become richer while the rich get richer too.

    From: – World’s rich got richer amid ’09 recession: report

    From: historical data…
    The longevity of the poor has increased from 40 years old in 1910 to 75 years in 2009.
    The longevity of the rich has increased from 60 years old in 1910 to 78 years in 2009.

    The world has gotten richer, and the poor have gotten richer faster.

    Yet as portfolios bounced back, investors remained wary after a collapse that
    erased a decade of stock gains, fuelled a contraction in the global economy and
    caused soaring unemployment. Unemployed people people who will need a home
    and something to eat.

    Yep, they do.

    The best way is to go out and earn their home and their food.

    The worse way is to go out and take from someone else by force their home and their food.

    The most basic human right is that of life,

    There exists no “right” to life – the Universe does not provide such a thing – ever.

    There exists a “right” to be free – free from the subjective values and impositions of other men.

    no economic system which has food available to it should say, starve and die if you cant pay the money.

    No economic system says this.

    According to John Locke there are three natural rights:

    * Life: everyone is entitled to live once they are created.

    Such a right as described does not exist. The Universe does not provide this.

    Every man has the right to live free from the imposition of other men. Thus, no man has the right to take the life of another man

    Every country accepts this.

    Wholly disagree.
    How do explain that “countries” go to war and kill innocent people, if “every country” accepts such a “right to life”??

    No country on earth accepts your claim

    * Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn’t

    conflict with the first right.

    This is NOT what Locke said.

    I think you are confusing Locke and Hobbes.

    Hobbes claimed “liberty was to act in any manner” – including the freedom to attack another man. From this point Hobbes claimed freedom leads to chaos.

    Locke argued that, quote,

    For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others [and] freedom is not, as we are told [by Hobbes], A liberty for every man to do what he lists

    Liberty: everyone is entitled to do anything they want so long as it does not impose upon liberty of another man.

    People often confuse Locke and Hobbes.

    If the government had have followed
    what free market advocates had have wanted, the government would be acting as if a tyrant.

    All government, in all times, places and cultures, is tyrannical.

    The people quoted in the Economist article here are supporting free markets are a small oligarchy and are placing their interests above the interest of the general population, they where calling for nature to take its course and the outcome was millions of deaths.

    The people quoted agree to the government decree which forbade the Irish from growing food. Whether they irrationally claimed this was justified by the free market is irrelevant.

    This means that in ones maximizing own self-interest the individual agent cannot give the same level of freedoms for others.

    Huh?
    Where did this statement come from?

    Freedom means that one chooses for himself his own goals, and for himself, his own actions to achieve these goals.

    This freedom is a right for every man, and thus, one man, free from imposition, is as free as another man, free from imposition. This is the same level of freedom.

    In the case of Irish famine the rights to own all they have created for free market
    thinkers, comes before the rights of life of others, this is immoral.

    Huh?
    Where do derive this?

    The Irish did NOT have the right to own all they created. It was prohibited by government decree. That is the immorality.

    This is morally bankrupt and contradicts the point that a free market maximizes freedom for all.

    The use of violence is morally bankrupt and does contradict the free market – where freedom for all is the rule.

    A system must be to the benefit of all or what’s the rational point of participating in it.

    No system exists that can benefit all – such a demand is impossible in the face of the Universe.

    To demand such is irrational.

    “You do NOT have a right to life. ”

    It seems irrational to me if alive to do anything other than to want to live, there is nothing proven after life and the really big thinkers are working on the meaning of it.

    It is irrational to claim a right that the Universe will not provide.

    If you have something someone else needs and don’t share, the result is war or rebellion.

    To argue that violence is the result of someone “not sharing” is bizarre.

    The use of violence to seize the goods of another non-violent person is evil and can never be justified.

    History has shown this many times and if the free market do not serve the interest of the many it will lose support with the people which it can’t survive without.

    History has shown that those the demand the goods of others by violence will be resisted by violence.

    Society cannot survive a philosophy based on theft. It is unsustainable.

    If you are alive you exist, you have a right under any system to keep living and no-one can use the system they are living under as a justification for inaction.

    Such a proclamation is the decree of Savages and barbarism – that is, you can impose upon your fellow man and make him your slave so to satisfy your wants and needs.

    This is opposite of Civilization – which proclaims no man has a right to seize another man’s property, life or effort for any reason.

    You are a “savage” man who claims he has a right to throw off a child out of a boat so to save your own life, quote “you have a right under any system to keep living“.

    This is the root theory of Altruism.
    The child is very altruistic in his drowning for your behalf.

    Individuals rights basically should end when they threaten another’s.

    They do.

    Resistance to violence by using violence is a Right – called “Self defense”.

    I am tired and it is late where I live.

    Take your time – we’re not in a hurry.

  28. Charles says:

    I really tried to make it smaller this time.

    A part of action theory, is that its an agent’s desires and beliefs that leads to bodily behaviour, but is this free-will or are actions determined by the mental states that precede them. What desires and beliefs lead to this action? I don’t accept just rational self-interest as the only option, I accept that people can try to act in their self-interest but to me this is an over-simplification of human behaviour, it seems to limit options unnecessary. What necessary should not be considered goals in life, a goal is something you intend to do after you have taken care of the necessary. By saying you only have people acting in rational self-interest, you move everything else that maybe does not fit inside, outside of it box but it still exists and can possibly act negatively but won’t show up in anything that expects just rational self interest. A theory can only be used to explain any action within it, remove the imperfections of the human condition outside and you can have a perfect system.

    People seem to do irrational things (youtube is a good place to watch this, search jackass) because it makes them feel happy or they want to because of the rush they feel, like taking unnecessary risks. In economics an irrational agent could do something like reverse gambler’s fallacy, you expect house prices to keep rising because they always have. If you then bet big on this, a large amount of money could be lost if the trend in house prices changes. Agents of course will become worried about the ability to repay at some point if the amounts of debt become huge and the market place needing a way to keep agents help could offer insurance after that the loses can be much bigger because the market do not correct the really problem. What is rational now, to ones future self can become irrational. A trend of growth in production cannot continue forever if it requires natural limited real world resources.

    Free markets always seem to imply rational self-interested individuals, in a way they must be perfect agents for the free market to work unregulated or the market most be self-correcting and maintaining efficiency. There seems to be no rational reason to just accept, perfect agents, self-correcting markets or economic efficiency as a result of the market operating. Without information that can objectively falsify any assertions. Any system can be expected to become unworkable, if agents within undermined it (directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally), if so under these conditions could a self-correcting market correct all problems? Its seems a leap of faith to just say it can under all outcomes, without solid proof of some kind.

    Testing something for falsifiability is the least that someone can do. With zero regulation one could play the system to make more money in the short term, bonus payments as a percentage of profit could act as an incentive over the short term to act to maximise profit, so that bonuses will be higher and personal gain higher. Because the longer term interest is not in the self-interest of the agent it does not seem to exist to him, there seems no real point not to make as much money for oneself now. Large personal wealth shields you from the fear of becoming unemployed if your actions are not sustainable over the long term.

    Thank you so have been very kind to respond to everything. I will make this the last one.

  29. Charles says:

    “Interestingly, there has been no intellectual challenge to the refutation of Adam Smith’s invisible hand:

    Duh, what do you think the Austrian school argues?

    What a strange comment you make. You provide all this text regarding the arguments of the Austrians, then you make a comment that such arguments do not exist.

    It is a sign you are “cutting and pasting” but do not comprehend what you are “cutting and pasting”.”

    See the video, Joseph Stiglitz – “Market Fundamentalism Is Dead” on youtube. I cannot post sources and that makes it hard to refer to things and show where it comes from. I believe it is a quote from Joseph Stiglitz. Also google, laissez-faire capitalism is a dead as Soviet Communism and France: Laissez-Faire Capitalism is Over.

  30. Black Flag says:

    Charles,

    I really tried to make it smaller this time.

    I don’t even try…. it bubbles out as it bubbles out! 🙂

    A part of action theory, is that its an agent’s desires and beliefs that leads to bodily behaviour, but is this free-will or are actions determined by the mental states that precede them.

    Ideas have power.

    What desires and beliefs lead to this action?

    Why should I bother myself about your desires or beliefs?

    Further I only care about your actions if and only if they impose upon me – other than that, why would I care?.

    (1)If you did not exist, you do not affect me. Therefore, there exists no reason for me to contemplate about you.

    (2)If you exist, but do nothing to me, you do not affect me. Therefore, for the same reason as (1), there exists no reason to for me to contemplate about you either.

    Therefore, it has nothing to do with what you think or believe – it has everything to do with whether you impose upon me or not.

    I don’t accept just rational self-interest as the only option, I accept that people can try to act in their self-interest but to me this is an over-simplification of human behaviour, it seems to limit options unnecessary.

    Again, repeating from the beginning – economics does not attribute values to human action.

    It merely offers options of consequence to human actions.

    Why a person acts or does not act is irrelevant to economics. Economics merely states if a person acts, this will be the consequence.

    All people operate within self-interest – even “Altruistic” people.

    They act in such a manner to satisfy their emotions or psychological need to martyr themselves. But this is still a measure of self-interest – for if they were denied, they would suffer themselves.

    What necessary should not be considered goals in life, a goal is something you intend to do after you have taken care of the necessary.

    I cannot agree.

    Even to obtain your necessities is goal-oriented.

    Again, you are judging quality and form and creating separation and discernment based on your subjective judgments

    By saying you only have people acting in rational self-interest, you move everything else that maybe does not fit inside, outside of it box but it still exists and can possibly act negatively but won’t show up in anything that expects just rational self interest.

    Self-interest is not required to be “rational”. It is subjective to the person what they chose or not to do.

    A theory can only be used to explain any action within it, remove the imperfections of the human condition outside and you can have a perfect system.

    Concepts of “perfect” systems are, indeed, flawed. Such would require perfect knowledge – a condition which the Universe cannot supply.

    Thus, any claim of human perfection is irrational.

    People seem to do irrational things (youtube is a good place to watch this, search jackass) because it makes them feel happy or they want to because of the rush they feel, like taking unnecessary risks.

    So you argue with yourself.

    Above you state “.. just rational self interest…”

    ..then go about and claim that there exist irrational self interest.

    Again, it is a merely a matter of your subjective values that are judging these people. But you have no objective way to prove your values are the universal truth for you to judge these people.

    In economics an irrational agent could do something like reverse gambler’s fallacy, you expect house prices to keep rising because they always have. If you then bet big on this, a large amount of money could be lost if the trend in house prices changes. Agents of course will become worried about the ability to repay at some point if the amounts of debt become huge and the market place needing a way to keep agents help could offer insurance after that the loses can be much bigger because the market do not correct the really problem.

    …or
    The market place withdraws financing of the next larger purchase and self-corrects, causing losses and reallocation of resources away from misapplied investments and towards those that produce real wealth.

    The free market always corrects mis-allocations of wealth, and my repeating complaint about your position – you are judging such corrections as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ based on your subjective value.

    You are a man who complains about the Law of Gravity because you do not like how it dropped you to the floor. You argue that because it hurt you, gravity must have failed.

    What is rational now, to ones future self can become irrational.

    What solutions exists now to solve a human problem does not mean it always be the solution forever to solve human problems.

    A trend of growth in production cannot continue forever if it requires natural limited real world resources.

    Malthusian crap-trap.

    Growth does continue indefinitely because human beings are brilliant at solving human problems.

    Using trees a resource has a problem – running out of trees. In the mid-1800’s the railways in America caused a problem – the rotting of the railway ties required replacement every two or three years – and by calculation, would consume the entire forests of North American in a decade.

    In the mid-1800’s, wood preservative was discovered, extending the ties life time to 50-75 years. Today, there are millions of sq. miles of forests in North America.

    The earth is a massively, huge, incredibly large, bigger than you can imagine place. And if at such time humans find it is not satisfying our wants and needs, we’ll have long gone into space to find our satisfaction.

    Humans solve human problems.

    The fallacy of Malthus – he and his ilk cannot quantify human problem solving, and therefore, erroneously ignored it. By this error, they continue to offer equally wrong conclusions.

    Free markets always seem to imply rational self-interested individuals, in a way they must be perfect agents for the free market to work unregulated or the market most be self-correcting and maintaining efficiency.

    No!

    Perfection is never a requirement for it is impossible by the Universe to provide perfect knowledge to achieve it.

    You and your “efficiency”! Again efficiency is a flawed measure.

    Free market systems provides the optimum system for allocating resources. It is self-correcting and provides the most EFFECTIVE solution to human economic problems.

    There seems to be no rational reason to just accept, perfect agents, self-correcting markets or economic efficiency as a result of the market operating.

    There is no rational reason because you demand an irrational requirement – perfection.

    Your premise is irrational, thus your conclusion is equally irrational.

    Without information that can objectively falsify any assertions. Any system can be expected to become unworkable, if agents within undermined it (directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally), if so under these conditions could a self-correcting market correct all problems?

    YES!

    This is the manner of all Natural Law – that you can resist gravity, but it will always win eventually. “What goes up, must come down”.

    Same with the Free Market.

    You can most certainly pervert it by use of a violent actor, such as government, to cause the allocation of resources to move away from being voluntary and into distribution by gun point.

    But the free market responds to this perversion by reducing the goods and services available to violent actor – eventually causing economic collapse and the purge of the violent actor from the system.

    But you are subject to this Law of Nature and thus you apply your subjective value and determine “you do not like the reduction of the violent actor and its consequences – your economic loss”.

    Thus you claim the “market has failed to correct”. But your claim is irrational. It has corrected the perversion and purged it – but you suffer, so you claim it “failed” you.

    Its seems a leap of faith to just say it can under all outcomes, without solid proof of some kind.

    So, for you, it is a leap of faith to say that under all circumstances, the Law of Gravity is immutable, too????

    The “solid proof” is displayed in front of you. Economic trade occurs a billion times every day. 99% of it occurs without requirement of a gun.

    The 1% that requires a gun creates massive perversions that are eventually purged.

    Testing something for falsifiability is the least that someone can do.

    The question of the test is paramount.

    If you test for the wrong thing, you will get the an answer for the wrong question.

    With zero regulation one could play the system to make more money in the short term, bonus payments as a percentage of profit could act as an incentive over the short term to act to maximise profit, so that bonuses will be higher and personal gain higher.

    You make a fallacious assumption – that there will always be someone who is paying!

    Explain why a person will continue to make payments without receiving equal value in return? Are you assuming that humans are stupid?

    Because the longer term interest is not in the self-interest of the agent it does not seem to exist to him, there seems no real point not to make as much money for oneself now.

    Or, he is not only a present-focused person, but a future-focused person too – and acts to ensure his ability to continue to provide for himself in the future too.

    The problem with your hypothetical is it is nonsense.

    You are building a series of “what if” – excluding scenarios and actions that would contradict your argument – and then attempting to claim that your scenario “proves” your case.

    Large personal wealth shields you from the fear of becoming unemployed if your actions are not sustainable over the long term.

    It sure does! …which is why people who create economic value save their some of their money so to buffer the risk of economic downturns in the future.

    , Joseph Stiglitz

    …is a Keynesian trained (non-Austrian) economist who insists on the necessity of a violent actor to manage infinitely complex natural systems.

    It is his application of those theories that have created the economic conditions of which you are suffering under.

    He believes a gun is superior method of allocation of resources then the voluntary choices of men.

    Interestingly, he gains his living by catering to the men who control the guns.

    If there is something specific of his ideas you wish to debate or discuss, present them, and I’ll be happy to respond.

    Laissez-Faire Capitalism is Over.

    IF it is over, you and your kin will face the most severe suffering.

    But do not fear, it is not – it is the underlying Law of Nature, and it will correct the machinations inflicted on it.

    You may not like that correction, but it will happen.

    “What goes up, will come down”

  31. Charles says:

    “Why should I bother myself about your desires or beliefs?”

    It is the only way to understand the manner in which a person acts. You can’t interact well with people if you don’t understand their desires and beliefs.

    Ask yourself what happens if you sell beer in a Muslim market in Iran? I think you will “care” about it (possible death penalty).

    “Further I only care about your actions if and only if they impose upon me – other than that, why would I care?.”

    Simple because actions that don’t impose upon you can affect you negatively. A disease kills everyone else on the planet, your house and you are untouched. Should you care? Someone kills your wife/husband or child die, should you care?

    “(1)If you did not exist, you do not affect me. Therefore, there exists no reason for me to contemplate about you.”

    “(2)If you exist, but do nothing to me, you do not affect me. Therefore, for the same reason as (1), there exists no reason to for me to contemplate about you either.”

    “but do nothing to me,” – implies direct action by me. I don’t have to do anything to you directly to affect you. You forgot indirect acts by me that can affect you, which means you can’t prove I cannot affect you. So if you say, “If you exist, but do nothing to me,” it does not follow you do not affect me.” I can still affect you, so Non sequitur. This means that by Reductio ad absurdum I must reject that (2) is equal to (1) on the grounds that indirect actions from myself (actions one makes that don’t involve the intention to do anything to you) can in possibility affect you. So, “If you exist, but do nothing to me, you do not affect me.” can be false and so I reject on these grounds.

    Example, if I own all the food available and wont sell any to you because I believe that it could make more money turning it into ethanol for cars. If its not possible that you can get food elsewhere, you are affected. I have done nothing to you directly but my action affects you. By existing there is always the possibility my actions can affect you, by me acting against you directly through some physical means or actions I make that affect you indirectly other than physical. Adding this possibility however remote one might think it like, makes the argument contradicts itself.

    “Therefore, it has nothing to do with what you think or believe – it has everything to do with whether you impose upon me or not.”

    Conclusion is reject, because of problems in argument that its foundation.

    “Again, repeating from the beginning – economics does not attribute values to human action.”

    Human action is based on desires or beliefs. In any economic system it is theses beliefs and desires that shape the system and sets the rules that an agent in the system should follow. The system now with rules in place becomes as a guides for action for all that take part. The system is based on what the creators believe is right/true and so becomes moral in their eyes. Their beliefs becomes their guide for action within the system. The system then rewards people who act as they should and sanctions people who don’t, it becomes an extrinsic motivator. This in itself attribute values to human action. What brings reward is seen as “good”. The system now polices agents actions, it self-regulates human actions using combination of rewards and punishment to induce behaviour but this does not imply that the system works without intervention. People who give all their money away may starve to death and people who play by the rules may become rich.

    If one does not believe in this system but still have to take part it (coercion). This becomes an imposition on ones beliefs and is imposed on one against ones will. Thus if one has to take part in this system, it implies that ones actions will not be voluntary. One takes part because there is no other options, this is not considered a choice.

    Following its rules implies possible outcomes good or bad, based on the perceived rewards to the actor may receive by the system. Only when the rules are followed by someone and events occur, can there be any possibility for a consequence. The consequences, whether they directly or indirectly affect others, remain the responsibility of the person who acted. It should be noted that any system of rules can be unfair and some rules will also put some people at a disadvantage. An immoral economic system causes suffering and compels a decline society’s morals.

    I quote the wealth of nation:-“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.” If this logic is applied to government and the rich where small in number and set the rules. If the outcome of their action where not in the benefit of all, for example starvation and death where a result or just suffering, then the government has become the definition of tyrannical.

    It is not from the benevolence of a politician that we can expect them to serve the public good, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. In basic terms they would rule by the standard, “what’s good for me is good for the country”, which is perfectly consistent with the two rewritten sentences shown above.

    Given that most of the money rests in the hands of the few in the real world. It is not any wonder that most governments make economic decisions that benefit few economically, and if these decisions, cause suffering for many, then the government has the potential to become tyrannical. This does not imply all governments are tyrannical.

    “It merely offers options of consequence to human actions.”

    The economic system is a sets of rules, ones belief in how the system works within those rules, implies consequences to human actions.

    “Why a person acts or does not act is irrelevant to economics. Economics merely states if a person acts, this will be the consequence.”

    This is not correct because a persons beliefs and desires are the reason for a persons actions. So you cannot predict a persons actions without them. So if ones economic models are based on human action, you need to know why a person acts. If one believes in one system of economic reasoning, that belief becomes a guide to how you act, not a reason for the need to act. A persons desires are that reason and they not always a interest in making a profit. A belief system shapes how we should act but desires are what compels us to act. Remember there are also different economic schools which have different belief systems but that is not implying there is not come-in ground detween there.

    “All people operate within self-interest – even “Altruistic” people.”

    Altruism focuses on a motivation to help others, not the self, they want to do good without any reward. Someone who is self-interested my give away samples of their product but this is not altruistic because they are hoping someone will like it and start buying the product in future.

    Even so they are not the same thing, so this brakes the principle of identity. Altruistic behaviour is action with the knowledge that one does not stands to gain from a particular behaviour. Selfishness implies the intention to serve oneself (self-interest), hence knowledge of what one stands to gain from a particular behaviour.

    Selfishness is the opposite of altruism (selflessness).

    “They act in such a manner to satisfy their emotions or psychological need to martyr themselves. But this is still a measure of self-interest – for if they were denied, they would suffer themselves.”

    They are following their beliefs and desires but both are different. Conclusion is rejected because argument brakes the principle of identity.

    “I cannot agree.
    Even to obtain your necessities is goal-oriented.
    Again, you are judging quality and form and creating separation and discernment based on your subjective judgements”

    Breathing is a necessities of life, some “other” bodily functions also are necessities of life, some are involuntary actions (breathing), others are not. You do not plan to breath because its involuntary. Needing food is a necessities of life but a goal is a desire to end the feelings of hunger. Needing water is not a goal but ones desire to end feelings of thirst is. Its the feelings themselves that motivate a individual to act and if you plan the get food and water its is to prevent these feelings from occurring at all. The desire to act (motivation) cannot be the necessities itself, we need these necessities to live, but it is the desire not to hunger or thirst that drives action. This creates a goal-oriented system, based on ones own desire not to suffer.

    The incentive not to suffer would be greater than that of seeking happiness because the necessities of life are more important and must not be neglected. If one does not eat, the outcome is death. You must first reach that neutral state of not suffering, before you can work towards goals that make you happy.

    Even so people do not consider getting food from a shop as a goal in life. People need something more to life that just the day to day things, that is what I meant.
    “Self-interest is not required to be “rational”. It is subjective to the person what they chose or not to do.

    I agree, but Austrian School sees a free-market with human actors that are rational self-interested individuals.

    Methodological individualism (used in the Austrian School), analyses collective action in terms of “rational”, utility-maximizing individuals. This is the Homo economicus postulate. Homo economicus, is the concept in some economic theories of humans as rational and narrowly self-interest actors who have the ability to make judgements towards their subjectively defined ends.

    “Concepts of “perfect” systems are, indeed, flawed. Such would require perfect knowledge – a condition which the Universe cannot supply.
    Thus, any claim of human perfection is irrational.”

    That statement implies free-markets are flawed as there cannot be a perfect system, government intervention should be expected to correct problem. Homo economicus as an actor has too great of an understanding of macroeconomics and economic forecasting in his decision making. He has implied near perfect knowledge, even many in the Austrian School criticise Homo economicus, on the same grounds.

    “Self-interest is not required to be “rational”. It is subjective to the person what they chose or not to do.”

    Austrian School position is “rational self-interest”. Rational implies maximizing ones own utility function, this is subjective but only because it is ones own “happiness”. The system should aim to maximize the total utility of individuals, aiming for “the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people”. This is not supposed to be a argument for selfish greed at the expense of others but often turns out to be many times.

    “So you argue with yourself.”
    Nope.
    “Above you state “.. just rational self interest…””
    “Austrian School position is “rational self-interest” human actors.
    “..then go about and claim that there exist irrational self-interest.”
    No I don’t, now this is a straw man. Or do you mean I imply?

    My main point is rational self-interest is self-defeating. That is, it makes demands that it initially posits as irrational. The goal for a rational self-interest individual is maximizing there own utility function. This is self-defeating to the point that it does recommend adoption of an alternative framework of rationality. Lookup Derek Parfit Reasons and Persons part 1, good luck understanding it all.
    “Again, it is a merely a matter of your subjective values that are judging these people. But you have no objective way to prove your values are the universal truth for you to judge these people.”

    Even so one can take the International Bill of Human Rights as it is the basic right an individual has, if you do not agree with with them then lets here the reasons. These are rights granted by all governments and so are universally accepted by law. These rights cannot be taken away from me by anyone, I cannot give them away and my government cannot legally take them away. I don’t have to prove my values are universal truth, because I simply base my argument on these rights.

    This maybe a common value system, but any working economic system has to accept the laws of the countries it operates in. This does not mean I agree or disagree with all of the rights, they are simply my rights under the law.
    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which 160 counties signed gives me the following right. Article 11 recognises the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living. This includes, but is not limited to, the right to adequate food, clothing, housing, and “the continuous improvement of living conditions.” This is my right under the law, if you don’t agree, lets here the reasons.

    Under this system of rights very limited governments are required to up hold these rights. If you want to argue for a different value system, I will argue way my point-of-view.

    Any free-market system must operate under this standard of values or its become illegal if these rights are upheld in law. These accepted values are the only ones that matter in the real world, and no individual can alone rewrite these values. This is to say I will not evaluate your value system and I expect you to evaluate mine.

    “…or
    The market place withdraws financing of the next larger purchase and self-corrects, causing losses and reallocation of resources away from misapplied investments and towards those that produce real wealth.”
    or
    The loses causes it to fails completely and the government has to step in to save it, like it had to in reality to save the whole financial industry. If there was no government and the financial industry was dead. What do you think would happen? I am interested to hear, of interest could you reply to Francis Fukuyama argument that the crisis represents the end of Reaganism in the financial sector, which was characterized by lighter regulation, pared-back government, and lower taxes.
    “The free market always corrects mis-allocations of wealth,
    and my repeating complaint about your position – you are judging such corrections as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ based on your subjective value.
    I am allowed the voice an opinion and I expect to hear yours. If you think something is good or bad I want to hear it.

    “You are a man who complains about the Law of Gravity because you do not like how it dropped you to the floor. You argue that because it hurt you, gravity must have failed.”

    Economics is not a natural force, it a construct made by human beings. Inappropriate generalisation .

    “What solutions exists now to solve a human problem does not mean it always be the solution forever to solve human problems. “

    I mean that the self-interest theory holds that it is irrational to make any acts of self-denial or to act on desires that negatively affect our well-being. In Reasons and Persons Parfit contends that self-interest theory is indirectly individually self-defeating and directly collectively self defeating and that this justifies another system. Result recommend the adoption of an alternative framework of rationality for maximizing ones own utility function.

    “Malthusian crap-trap.
    Growth does continue indefinitely because human beings are brilliant at solving human problems.”
    Wishful thinking.

    “Using trees a resource has a problem – running out of trees. In the mid-1800′s the railways in America caused a problem – the rotting of the railway ties required replacement every two or three years – and by calculation, would consume the entire forests of North American in a decade.
    In the mid-1800′s, wood preservative was discovered, extending the ties life time to 50-75 years. Today, there are millions of sq. miles of forests in North America.”

    Biomass (wood) is a renewable resource, coal, oil, gas and uranium are non-renewable and can be depleted. So its an inappropriate generalisation because you picked a renewable resource and they cannot be depleted.
    Hotelling’s rule is a 1931 economic model of non-renewable resource management by Harold Hotelling. It shows that efficient exploitation of a non-renewable and non-augmentable resource would, under otherwise stable economic conditions, lead to a depletion of the resource.

    “The earth is a massively, huge, incredibly large, bigger than you can imagine place. And if at such time humans find it is not satisfying our wants and needs, we’ll have long gone into space to find our satisfaction.”
    “Humans solve human problems.”
    Wishful thinking but I hope you are right.

    “The fallacy of Malthus – he and his ilk cannot quantify human problem solving, and therefore, erroneously ignored it. By this error, they continue to offer equally wrong conclusions.”

    Malthus – Their predictions of doom are often misplaced because they do not take into account changes that may “counterbalance” population growth. This is the Malthusian fallacy: forecast of doom predicated on one change that does not take other changes into account.

    The problem here is that Hotelling’s rule stands and your reasoning was flawed with an inappropriate generalisation, and a conclusion that was based on flawed reasoning and wishful thinking.
    “No!
    Perfection is never a requirement for it is impossible by the Universe to provide perfect knowledge to achieve it.” Covered this above, but I would agree, many members of your economic school agree. This I think is implied to an extent.
    “You and your “efficiency”! Again efficiency is a flawed measure.”
    Its the mainstream view is that market economies are generally believed to be more efficient than other known alternatives.

    “Free market systems provides the optimum system for allocating resources. It is self-correcting and provides the most EFFECTIVE solution to human economic problems.”

    You are now talking about efficiency I think.
    There are two main strains in economic thought on economic efficiency, which respectively emphasize the distortions created by governments (and reduced by decreasing government involvement) and the distortions created by markets (and reduced by increasing government involvement). These are at times competing, at times complementary – either debating the overall level of government involvement, or the effects of specific government involvement.

    Even so government involvement is need, this is an objective position based on the credit crunch(got to love newspapers).

    “YES!”
    “This is the manner of all Natural Law – that you can resist gravity, but it will always win eventually. “What goes up, must come down”.”
    I will just say escape velocity, but Austrian School rejects positivism I believe.
    “Same with the Free Market.”
    Unproven, please give a reason why, it is just a statement.
    “You can most certainly pervert it by use of a violent actor, such as government, to cause the allocation of resources to move away from being voluntary and into distribution by gun point.”
    Government is not violent actor, it is required for the market to function. I point to the bailout of the banks. And your properties rights are protected by the government, and it uses force if necessity. Distribution of wealth is require in the market because society need money so the government can can regulate, police costs money to run.

    “But the free market responds to this perversion by reducing the goods and services available to violent actor – eventually causing economic collapse and the purge of the violent actor from the system.”
    This is religious based. This is a belief, no amount of reasoning will reach you.
    “But you are subject to this Law of Nature and thus you apply your subjective value and determine “you do not like the reduction of the violent actor and its consequences – your economic loss”.”

    This is religious based. This is a belief, no amount of reasoning will reach you, this is not true if you look at the real world. You are casting the government as a violent actor to attack it because you do not wish the pay taxes basically, nothing outside of your values support this view. Its a belief like in a god.

    “Thus you claim the “market has failed to correct”. But your claim is irrational. It has corrected the perversion and purged it – but you suffer, so you claim it “failed” you.”

    The market failed to correct in a big way, everyone but you got the idea. You contradict real events is irrational, the governments of the world had to saved the market by paying for the problem to go away, now almost every western government has a sovereign debt problem. This is commonly known, you reject real events because of a distorted world view.

    “So, for you, it is a leap of faith to say that under all circumstances, the Law of Gravity is immutable, too????”
    Inappropriate generalisation.
    “The “solid proof” is displayed in front of you. Economic trade occurs a billion times every day. 99% of it occurs without requirement of a gun”.
    Irrational ideologically based response.
    “The 1% that requires a gun creates massive perversions that are eventually purged.”

    Irrational ideologically based response, distorted world view from normal. Response make no sense. It a religious belief, I can’t reason it with you.

    “The question of the test is paramount.”

    You don’t ask a question you falsify a hypothesis.

    “If you test for the wrong thing, you will get the an answer for the wrong question.”

    Wrong, if you test the wrong thing, you waste your own time and have to go back and test something else. Conclusions are made when there is not evidence, if you do they hammered when others review your work.

    “You make a fallacious assumption – that there will always be someone who is paying!”

    ?.

    “Explain why a person will continue to make payments without receiving equal value in return? Are you assuming that humans are stupid?”

    Golden handshakes?, bonus for bankers whose banks failed, where have you been my friend.

    “Or, he is not only a present-focused person, but a future-focused person too – and acts to ensure his ability to continue to provide for himself in the future too.”

    People tend to see the world in short term as more important, its a bias you all share. A 16 year old is unlikely to worry about old age. One of the reported lessons of the economic problem the banks had was that the bonuses needed to be over the long term and stocks in the bank was to be a part.
    “The problem with your hypothetical is it is nonsense.”

    Statement with no reason, is not very useful.
    You are building a series of “what if” – excluding scenarios and actions that would contradict your argument – and then attempting to claim that your scenario “proves” your case.

    You explore a topic with what ifs, I was trying to express my opinion, a constructive reply would have been nice.

    “It sure does! …which is why people who create economic value save their some of their money so to buffer the risk of economic downturns in the future.”

    Yes but the point was they personally do not have to pay for their mistakes.

    “…is a Keynesian trained (non-Austrian) economist who insists on the necessity of a violent actor to manage infinitely complex natural systems.”

    Government intervention is here to stay, I don’t think they will change that.

    “It is his application of those theories that have created the economic conditions of which you are suffering under.“

    Not true, explain why unemployment happens in boom years, I know you will have problems.

    “He believes a gun is superior method of allocation of resources then the voluntary choices of men.”

    Straw man and is based on your beliefs.

    “Interestingly, he gains his living by catering to the men who control the guns.”

    You mean the government, statement does not work as well if you life in the USA.

    “If there is something specific of his ideas you wish to debate or discuss, present them, and I’ll be happy to respond.”

    Thanks m8, you have been great responding to everything, we may not agree but hell that’s life.

    “IF it is over, you and your kin will face the most severe suffering.”

    Yes I would agree, change of that kind, is always painful.

    “But do not fear, it is not – it is the underlying Law of Nature, and it will correct the machinations inflicted on it.”

    At worst a market with regulation.

    “You may not like that correction, but it will happen.”

    I don’t know yet, the new system it there is one could be a real killer. Change is not always for the better.

    This is my last post, the comments section is not best suited for these long posts. Thank you and good luck to you.

  32. Black Flag says:

    Charles,

    “Why should I bother myself about your desires or beliefs?”

    It is the only way to understand the manner in which a person acts. You can’t interact well with people if you don’t understand their desires and beliefs.

    No man can know the desires of all men.

    The best you can know is those you take the time to get to know.

    It is dangerous conceit to believe that you can attribute to all men the same desires of the few that you know, or of your own.

    Ask yourself what happens if you sell beer in a Muslim market in Iran? I think you will “care” about it (possible death penalty).

    Officially recognized non-Muslim minorities are allowed to produce alcoholic beverages in Iran.

    “Further I only care about your actions if and only if they impose upon me – other than that, why would I care?.”

    Simple because actions that don’t impose upon you can affect you negatively. A disease kills everyone else on the planet, your house and you are untouched. Should you care? Someone kills your wife/husband or child die, should you care?

    Killing my wife imposes upon me as she is my wife.

    By your retort here, you infer I can seize your property because some else has a disease?

    You forgot indirect acts by me that can affect you, which means you can’t prove I cannot affect you.

    An action either applies itself to me, or it does not. There is no such thing as an active non-action – it is a contradiction.

    So, you are correct. I cannot prove an non-action effecting me.

    So if you say, “If you exist, but do nothing to me,” it does not follow you do not affect me.”

    If you do not act on me, you… do not act on me. I don’t know how more self-obvious this is then that.

    “If you exist, but do nothing to me, you do not affect me.” can be false and so I reject on these grounds.

    It is not made false because you apply a linguistic contradiction to make it so.

    If you do not do NOTHING to me, you do NOT affect me.

    Example, if I own all the food available and wont sell any to you because I believe that it could make more money turning it into ethanol for cars.

    \

    First, your irrational hypothetical begins with …“if I owned all the food… well, you don’t, so this example is nonsense.

    If its not possible that you can get food elsewhere, you are affected.

    But is it always possible to get commodities elsewhere, which is why we have economics. Again, a nonsense hypothetical trying to prove a point actually proves absolutely nothing at all.

    I have done nothing to you directly but my action affects you. By existing there is always the possibility my actions can affect you, by me acting against you directly through some physical means or actions I make that affect you indirectly other than physical. Adding this possibility however remote one might think it like, makes the argument contradicts itself.

    You do not contradict an argument by providing nonsense hypothetical arguments.

    Conclusion is reject, because of problems in argument that its foundation.

    The foundation is unmoved by your irrational argument.

    Human action is based on desires or beliefs.

    True.

    In any economic system it is theses beliefs and desires that shape the system and sets the rules that an agent in the system should follow.

    False.

    A political system is shaped by desires and beliefs – economics merely explains the consequences of men’s action

    The system now with rules in place becomes as a guides for action for all that take part.

    Such a system is called a political system and does not impact economic law.

    The system is based on what the creators believe is right/true and so becomes moral in their eyes.

    Thus you claim their subjective “eye” satisfies objective proof of their morals?

    ….

    You describe in details some aspects of political systems – I have yet to read anything economic.

    An immoral economic system causes suffering and compels a decline society’s morals.

    No such thing exists as an “immoral” economic system.

    then the government has become the definition of tyrannical.

    All government is tyrannical, by its core
    It MUST take from someone’s earnings to give to someone who did not earn it.

    It is not from the benevolence of a politician that we can expect them to serve the public good, but from their regard to their own self-interest.

    Correct.

    They will use the power of legitimized violence to enrich THEMSELVES.

    Given that most of the money rests in the hands of the few in the real world. It is not any wonder that most governments make economic decisions that benefit few economically, and if these decisions, cause suffering for many, then the government has the potential to become tyrannical. This does not imply all governments are tyrannical.

    It is not implied.

    It is by definition.

    The economic system is a sets of rules

    No, it is not. You continue to confuse yourself between economic and political systems.

    Economics operates on Laws of Nature and is immune to what ever puny human rule you may use to attempt to distort it.

    Economics merely states if a person acts, this will be the consequence.”

    This is not correct because a persons beliefs and desires are the reason for a persons actions.

    Huh?

    “It is not correct to say that economics does not care about why a person acts because a person has desires???”

    You make no sense here.

    So you cannot predict a persons actions without them.

    You cannot predict A PERSON’s action with them either!

    Economics is not about “predictions” – this is not the weather. It is about consequences of action

    I am not predicting whether you pick red or green or left or right.

    I telling you that if you artificially lower the price of a commodity, that commodity will be consumed to exhaustion. I am not guessing whether you will or will not artificially lower that price – I am telling you what will happen IF YOU DO.

    I am saying if your goal is to prevent the exhaustion of that commodity, I will then say your action of lowering its costs artificially will cause you to fail.

    So if ones economic models are based on human action, you need to know why a person acts.

    Absolutely not.

    I do not need to know why you go left or right. I can say if you go left you will fall of a cliff, if you go right you will avoid falling of a cliff.

    I don’t care if why you may want to go left, or why you want to avoid going right, nor do I care about your morals, immorals, religious beliefs.

    I am saying, if you go left, you fall off a cliff.

    If one believes in one system of economic reasoning, that belief becomes a guide to how you act, not a reason for the need to act.

    I agree. You can use economic reasoning to define a path of action.

    But you are trying to claim that economic reasoning depends on the reasons a person acts – it does not.

    A persons desires are that reason and they not always a interest in making a profit.

    I agree – but that has nothing to do with economics.

    A belief system shapes how we should act but desires are what compels us to act. Remember there are also different economic schools which have different belief systems but that is not implying there is not come-in ground detween there.

    There is no “middle ground” between the truth and a lie.

    There is no “middle ground” between the Law of Gravity and the Law of non-Gravity.

    There are certainly many Economic schools trying to use their theories to explain economic outcomes. Most – and all of the most popular schools of thought – fail at their exploitation.

    “All people operate within self-interest – even “Altruistic” people.”

    Altruism focuses on a motivation to help others, not the self, they want to do good without any reward.

    They get a different reward that they measure for themselves in an emotion.

    They would not act if they did not.

    Someone who is self-interested my give away samples of their product but this is not altruistic because they are hoping someone will like it and start buying the product in future.

    Even so they are not the same thing, so this brakes the principle of identity. Altruistic behaviour is action with the knowledge that one does not stands to gain from a particular behaviour.

    A company gains sales.

    You gain emotional happiness.

    Both gain something from their action. Altruism is self-contradictory, for it says this does not happen, but it is impossible for it not to occur.

    Thus, Altruism is a contradiction, and since contradictions are prohibited in the Universe, the attempt to enforce Altruism in the Universe creates human evil.

    Selfishness implies the intention to serve oneself (self-interest), hence knowledge of what one stands to gain from a particular behaviour.

    You gain an emotional ‘lift’, happiness or pride.

    Selfishness is the opposite of altruism (selflessness).

    No such thing exists as selflessness, unless you are dead.

    “They act in such a manner to satisfy their emotions or psychological need to martyr themselves. But this is still a measure of self-interest – for if they were denied, they would suffer themselves.”

    They are following their beliefs and desires but both are different. Conclusion is rejected because argument brakes the principle of identity.

    Because your definition is irrational does not reject my conclusion.

    Breathing is a necessities of life, some “other” bodily functions also are necessities of life, some are involuntary actions (breathing), others are not. You do not plan to breath because its involuntary. Needing food is a necessities of life but a goal is a desire to end the feelings of hunger. Needing water is not a goal but ones desire to end feelings of thirst is.

    So you define goals as not-goals.

    You require more and more contradictions to enforce your concepts.

    I agree, but Austrian School sees a free-market with human actors that are rational self-interested individuals.

    No, it does not.

    Rational is unnecessary. That is a SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENT.

    Methodological individualism (used in the Austrian School), analyses collective action in terms of “rational”, utility-maximizing individuals.

    I do not know where you get this description, but it is not from any Austrian School or its adherents.

    This is the Homo economicus postulate. Homo economicus, is the concept in some economic theories of humans as rational and narrowly self-interest actors who have the ability to make judgements towards their subjectively defined ends.

    Do you not read this garbage you post?

    theories of humans as rational….subjectively defined ends.

    Please explain how you can have a rational subjective? Is the concept of contradiction completely foreign?

    That statement implies free-markets are flawed as there cannot be a perfect system, government intervention should be expected to correct problem.

    No, it does not imply free-markets are flawed nor more then the Law of Gravity is flawed.

    To believe government is better at Natural Law then the Universe is the fatal conceit of government action.

    To act as if one has the knowledge in a realm where infinite ignorance exists, can only create worse consequences then the problems attempted to being solved by such action.

    Homo economicus as an actor has too great of an understanding of macroeconomics and economic forecasting in his decision making. He has implied near perfect knowledge, even many in the Austrian School criticise Homo economicus, on the same grounds.

    Insane statement.

    To claim a school of Economics – predicated on the impossibility of prefect knowledge – demands the implication of perfect knowledge – leads me to understand you have no idea what you speak.

    Austrian School position is “rational self-interest”.

    Your continued claim of what is not true will not make it true.

    My main point is rational self-interest is self-defeating.

    Your main point is to deny a Law of the Universe, by claiming there exists something else in human action OTHER than his self-interest.

    No matter how you wish to proceed, you stumble on this demand, for you contradict yourself by demanding self-interest does not exist.

    The goal for a rational self-interest individual is maximizing there own utility function. This is self-defeating to the point that it does recommend adoption of an alternative framework of rationality.

    You are merely judging the person by your own, subjective, irrational measure. Thus, you define your irrational measure as the yardstick, and thus fail others that do not measure to you

    But since your yardstick is irrational, your fail is equally irrational.

    Lookup Derek Parfit Reasons and Persons part 1, good luck understanding it all.

    If I do not understand it, it is mostly likely merely incomprehensible mush and a work of idiocy.

    Even so one can take the International Bill of Human Rights as it is the basic right an individual has, if you do not agree with with them then lets here the reasons.

    I do not agree with them just because they are proclaimed by a group of people in a room writing it on paper.

    You need to provide more reason then merely that they are written down in ink.

    These are rights granted by all governments and so are universally accepted by law.

    (1) They are not rights granted by government.
    Government cannot grant human rights.
    You, again, require an irrational argument as your proof.

    You also do not understand the word Declaration.

    These rights cannot be taken away from me by anyone

    Human rights cannot be granted to you by anyone, therefore, neither can they be revoked by anyone.

    I cannot give them away and my government cannot legally take them away.

    If you have something, you can give it away. If you cannot give it away, it is not yours.

    Please try to be consistent here – either you have Human Rights or you do not have Human Rights.
    Which is it?

    I don’t have to prove my values are universal truth, because I simply base my argument on these rights.

    Base your arguments on Human Rights – give it a go!

    This maybe a common value system, but any working economic system has to accept the laws of the countries it operates in.

    Economic Law does not accept or need human law.

    This does not mean I agree or disagree with all of the rights, they are simply my rights under the law.

    Your rights under law have nothing to do with your Human Rights, which exist without grant or law.

    Which one are you trying to discuss here? You’re leaping here and there believing you are talking about the same thing.

    International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which 160 counties signed gives me the following right.

    How can someone give you a Human Right? Where did they get it from to give it to you?

    Article 11 recognises the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living.

    This contradicts a Human Right, for such a claim requires the right of one man to steal from another to satisfy, by his definition, his “adequate standard of living”.

    And here I thought you’d argue rationally…. but the first thing you do is offer a subjective as if it was objective.

    This includes, but is not limited to, the right to adequate food, clothing, housing, and “the continuous improvement of living conditions.” This is my right under the law, if you don’t agree, lets here the reasons.

    Because you grant to yourself the use of violence to steal it from me if you decide you are inadequate.

    What right do you have to claim your judgment is superior to mine?

    Under this system of rights very limited governments are required to up hold these rights.

    The existence of government destroys human rights. Government requires the use of violence on non-violent men to take what is not earned and give it to who did not earn it.

    If you want to argue for a different value system, I will argue way my point-of-view.

    I argue for Human Rights.

    But you do not know what a human right is.

    You want “special Human Rights” those that are applied to you, but not to others.

    Your philosophy is: “Freedom for me, but not for you”

    Any free-market system must operate under this standard of values or its become illegal if these rights are upheld in law.

    Free market system operates by Laws of Nature and are immune to the values and laws of man.

    These accepted values are the only ones that matter in the real world, and no individual can alone rewrite these values.

    Yet, you contradict yourself above by providing examples of where individuals have rewritten human rights.

    This is to say I will not evaluate your value system and I expect you to evaluate mine.

    I evaluate your system based on your ability to hold it without contradiction.

    So far, you have not done well.

    The loses causes it to fails completely and the government has to step in to save it, like it had to in reality to save the whole financial industryIf there was no government and the financial industry was dead.

    .

    The financial system risks destruction because of government interference, so it being saved by government will not save it, but will destroy it.

    What do you think would happen?

    (1) Finance and money is another commodity like any other commodity.
    (2) It exists in spite of, not because of, government.
    (3) A bank or banks is not the financial industry.
    (4) A bank failure would cause the owners of the bank, and the depositors, to lose their money, like a automotive company failure would cause the owners of the company to lose their money.

    I am interested to hear, of interest could you reply to Francis Fukuyama argument that the crisis represents the end of Reaganism in the financial sector, which was characterized by lighter regulation, pared-back government, and lower taxes.

    Reagan did not “lighten” regulation – he expanded it.
    Reagan did not pare back government – it grow to new records in size under his administration.
    Reagan did lower taxes, but increased the hidden tax of deficit spending to replace it, and at new records.

    It is amusing when people use Reagan as an example of smaller government. It shows that these people do not pay attention at all to reality.

    I am allowed the voice an opinion and I expect to hear yours.

    I think I am “allowing” your opinion when I claimed “all you are doing is subjectively creating an opinion”.

    I am saying, however, you are using your OPINION as a claim to TRUTH where such a claim cannot exist.

    If you think something is good or bad I want to hear it.

    I apply my judgments to where subjective values hold merit – which is upon myself.

    I like green and black

    I hate purple.

    I like fast cars.

    I dislike slow drivers, so on and so forth.

    In matters of objective situations, I claim something is good when the act creates the desired consequence. I want to drive a nail, so I hit it with a hammer and the nail is placed. This would be declared a “good” to me. I claim something is bad when the act creates the opposite, or fails to achieve the desired consequence. I want to save health care, so I artificially lower its costs and make it government controlled – the cost goes up, and the quality collapses. This, then is a “bad” for me, for the consequence is opposite the goal of the action.

    Economics is not a natural force, it a construct made by human beings. Inappropriate generalisation .

    Irrational.

    Economics is a force of nature.
    It is not a construct of human making – as I asked in the beginning, you seem to believe some ancient Einstein thought it up.

    Economics exist by the mere fact humans act.

    I mean that the self-interest theory holds that it is irrational to make any acts of self-denial or to act on desires that negatively affect our well-being.

    Self-interest theory says all men are self-interested, including Altruists.

    You simply wish to declare your subjective value as more “better” than anyone else.

    In Reasons and Persons Parfit contends that self-interest theory is indirectly individually self-defeating and directly collectively self defeating and that this justifies another system.

    Such a theory depends on the subjective value of the theorist in declaring HIS ideals are more worthy than other men.

    Such a theory is irrational.

    Result recommend the adoption of an alternative framework of rationality for maximizing ones own utility function.

    One most certainly can adopt ANY framework for his own function – that is self-interest at play. Using rational basis for that framework will align such action closer to Nature, and thus probably improve success.

    But such an adoption for ONE’s SELF has no bearing on any other man, for that would claim YOU know more about HIM then himself.

    Wishful thinking.

    Bizarre.

    In 1800 – when Malthus was alive – there was 1 billion people.
    In 2010, it is 12 billion.

    * In 1800, the mean life span in the United States was about a quarter century.
    * In 1900 the mean was about 50 years
    * Today, the mean is about 75 years

    And to you, this is “wishful thinking”.

    Biomass (wood) is a renewable resource, coal, oil, gas and uranium are non-renewable and can be depleted. So its an inappropriate generalisation because you picked a renewable resource and they cannot be depleted.

    No, I picked a real problem faced by the railways in the mid-1800’s.

    Hotelling’s rule is a 1931 economic model of non-renewable resource management by Harold Hotelling. It shows that efficient exploitation of a non-renewable and non-augmentable resource would, under otherwise stable economic conditions, lead to a depletion of the resource.

    Hotelling’s rule fails to understand the size of the resource.

    If Hotelling was right, the prices of such non-renewable resources would increase over time as their supply dwindles.

    Yet the price of all resources have fallen steadily and production increased.

    You cannot explain this within your Malthusian dogma.

    Wishful thinking but I hope you are right.

    Historical fact of the last 10,000 years.

    You need to provide a reason why you do not believe this is so, in the face of overwhelming evidence against you.

    The problem here is that Hotelling’s rule stands and your reasoning was flawed with an inappropriate generalisation, and a conclusion that was based on flawed reasoning and wishful thinking.

    Hotelling’s rule fails to provide any explanation to why copper production has increased solidly, and the price fallen.

    A rule that does not explain such circumstance is rather a bad rule, and should be discarded by reasoned men.

    You are welcome to hold on to it.

    Covered this above, but I would agree, many members of your economic school agree. This I think is implied to an extent.

    Holding a erroneous claim (without providing a reference) does not constitute a valid retort.

    Its the mainstream view is that market economies are generally believed to be more efficient than other known alternatives.

    I repeat. Efficiency is a rather poor measure of things.

    Whether you believe this is more efficient than that is pointless, if the effectiveness of the action is zero.

    “Free market systems provides the optimum system for allocating resources. It is self-correcting and provides the most EFFECTIVE solution to human economic problems.”

    You are now talking about efficiency I think.

    I am not confused between the terms.

    There are two main strains in economic thought on economic efficiency, which respectively emphasize the distortions created by governments (and reduced by decreasing government involvement) and the distortions created by markets (and reduced by increasing government involvement).

    Throwing a rock into a pond creates waves.

    Not throwing a rock into a pond does not create “waves”.

    Governments involving into markets creates distortions.

    Markets with no government does not create “distortions”.

    These are at times competing, at times complementary – either debating the overall level of government involvement, or the effects of specific government involvement.

    All government action in the marketplace destroys economics.

    You cannot provide a better economic calculation by destroying economic calculation

    You cannot refute this point, thus, you continue to repeat your irrational understandings.

    Even so government involvement is need, this is an objective position based on the credit crunch(got to love newspapers).

    There is no need for government involvement in an economy to solve an economic problem.

    It is irrational to argue for it.

    I will just say escape velocity, but Austrian School rejects positivism I believe.

    Your understanding of gravity is as bad as your economics.

    “Same with the Free Market.”
    Unproven, please give a reason why, it is just a statement.

    Proven by deduction.

    You cannot improve economic calculation by destroying it with political calculation

    Government is not violent actor,

    You jest.

    You do not understand the nature of government, therefore it is no surprise that you have a blur on its actions.

    it is required for the market to function.

    The market existed before government, so to claim it is required FOR the market is bizarre.

    I point to the bailout of the banks.

    What of the bailouts? Why do you believe they should be bailed out with your money?

    And your properties rights are protected by the government,

    No, sir, they are destroyed by government.

    Government determines on its own whim to seize my property and life towards its own purposes without my consent.

    This is not my rights being protected.

    and it uses force if necessity.

    Government’s only tool is force, whether it is needed or not. That is the basis of all Law – the use or threat of violence to enforce edicts.

    Distribution of wealth is require in the market because society need money so the government can can regulate, police costs money to run.

    A justification of thieves.

    “But the free market responds to this perversion by reducing the goods and services available to violent actor – eventually causing economic collapse and the purge of the violent actor from the system.”

    This is religious based. This is a belief, no amount of reasoning will reach you.

    It has nothing to do with religion, but of reasoned outcome from Economic law.

    Of course, since you cannot refute it, means to you it must come from God.

    You are casting the government as a violent actor to attack it because you do not wish the pay taxes basically, nothing outside of your values support this view. Its a belief like in a god.

    You do not understand government nor law, nor its purpose, nor its actions.

    From you, I accept no lecture.

    You contradict real events is irrational,

    Bizzare statement.

    Real events are real. The consequences you suffer under these events is due to irrational understand of economics and politics – a situation you highlight with great effect.

    the governments of the world had to saved the market by paying for the problem to go away, now almost every western government has a sovereign debt problem. This is commonly known, you reject real events because of a distorted world view.

    Irrational.

    The problem has not gone away.
    It is worse.
    It is worse because the people who tried to make it go away have the same basic understanding of economics as you do.
    Sadly, it will get a lot worse.

    “The “solid proof” is displayed in front of you. Economic trade occurs a billion times every day. 99% of it occurs without requirement of a gun”.
    Irrational ideologically based response.

    So you, in opposition, deny that this is true?

    Government intervention is here to stay, I don’t think they will change that.

    That may be true, though it will drop away over time.

    However, economics demonstrates that such intervention always distorts economics away from the optimum.

    Not true, explain why unemployment happens in boom years, I know you will have problems.

    I have explained it, but you will never listen.

    Labor is just another economic good like any other. It’s allocations over the economy follows the ebb and flow of all such commodities.

  33. Charles says:

    “Exponential growth here is important, and I will be referring to this.”

    Exponential growth models of physical phenomena only apply within limited regions, as unbounded growth is not physically realistic. Although growth may initially be exponential, the modelled phenomena will eventually enter a region in which previously ignored negative feedback factors become significant (leading to a logistic growth model) or other underlying assumptions of the exponential growth model, such as continuity or instantaneous feedback, break down.

    Example why exponential growth has limits:-
    A courtier presented the Persian king with a beautiful, hand-made chessboard. The king asked what he would like in return for his gift and the courtier surprised the king by asking for one grain of rice on the first square, two grains on the second, four grains on the third etc. The king readily agreed and asked for the rice to be brought.

    All went well at first, but the requirement for 2 n − 1 grains on the nth square demanded over a million grains on the 21st square, more than a million million (aka trillion) on the 41st and there simply was not enough rice in the whole world for the final squares. (From Meadows et al. 1972, p. 29 via Porritt 2005)

    “Win/Win economics is sustainable indefinitely and exponentially accelerates, creating exponential growth and prosperity for all society.”

    Exponential growth in any physical system is unsustainable and cannot go on indefinitely. For an economics system to maintain exponential growth, it would be proof that it is not a natural system following natural laws but there are always practical limits to the growth of any system.

    Economic growth is often seen as essential for economic prosperity, and indeed is one of the factors that is used as a measure of prosperity. The Rocky Mountain Institute has put forth an alternative point of view, that prosperity does not require growth, claiming instead that many of the problems facing communities are actually a result of growth, and that sustainable development requires abandoning the idea that growth is required for prosperity. The debate over whether economic growth is necessary for, or at odds with, human prosperity, has been active at least since the publication of Our Common Future in 1987, and has been pointed to as reflecting two opposing worldviews.

    Moore’s law:- The number of transistors that can be placed inexpensively on an integrated circuit has doubled approximately every two years.

    If you plot the CPU transistor counts against dates of introduction using a logarithmic scale; the fitted line corresponds to exponential growth, with transistor count doubling every two years.

    This is an exponential growth but even so and I quote.

    “On 13 April 2005, Gordon Moore stated in an interview that the law cannot be sustained indefinitely: “It can’t continue forever. The nature of exponentials is that you push them out and eventually disaster happens.”

  34. Black Flag says:

    Charles,

    Re: Exponential

    Please watch this video….. it is worth your time.

    The Universe is a very big place, Charles – it will be awhile before we fill it up.

    PS: Do you know how your “rice” story ended? The King cutoff the head of the courtier. Rule #1; do not play the King for a fool.

  35. Charles says:

    Special report: Does growth really help the poor?
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.600-special-report-does-growth-

    really-help-the-poor.html

    Special report: Why politicians dare not limit economic growth
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.100-special-report-why-

    politicians-dare-not-limit-economic-growth.html

    Time to banish the god of growth
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026782.500-editorial-time-to-banish-

    the-god-of-growth.html

    Special report: How our economy is killing the Earth
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.000-special-report-how-our-

    economy-is-killing-the-earth.html

    Peak everything: global resource depletion rates
    http://makewealthhistory.org/2010/01/12/peak-everything-global-resource-

    depletion-rates/

    Special report: Economics blind spot is a disaster for the planet
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.300-special-report-economics-

    blind-spot-is-a-disaster-for-the-planet.html

    Special report: We must think big to fight environmental disaster
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.700-special-report-we-must-

    think-big-to-fight-environmental-disaster.html

    Special report: Life in a land without growth
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.900-special-report-life-in-a-

    land-without-growth.html

    Special report: Nothing to fear from curbing growth
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026787.000-special-report-nothing-to-

    fear-from-curbing-growth.html

    The Folly of Growth
    New Scientist magazine, October 18-24, 2008

  36. Charles says:

    Special report: Does growth really help the poor?
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.600-special-report-does-growth-really-help-the-poor.html

    Special report: Why politicians dare not limit economic growth
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.100-special-report-why-politicians-dare-not-limit-economic-growth.html

    Time to banish the god of growth
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026782.500-editorial-time-to-banish-the-god-of-growth.html

    Special report: How our economy is killing the Earth
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.000-special-report-how-our-economy-is-killing-the-earth.html

    Peak everything: global resource depletion rates
    http://makewealthhistory.org/2010/01/12/peak-everything-global-resource-depletion-rates/

    Special report: Economics blind spot is a disaster for the planet
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.300-special-report-economics-blind-spot-is-a-disaster-for-the-planet.html

    Special report: We must think big to fight environmental disaster
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.700-special-report-we-must-think-big-to-fight-environmental-disaster.html

    Special report: Life in a land without growth
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.900-special-report-life-in-a-land-without-growth.html

    Special report: Nothing to fear from curbing growth
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026787.000-special-report-nothing-to-fear-from-curbing-growth.html

    The Folly of Growth
    New Scientist magazine, October 18-24, 2008

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: