No.
The police only show up after the robbery, after the shooting, after the stabbing, ect ect. Also, I could send my kids to a private school where they won’t be brainwashed and dumbed down. Keep 50% of my income > government “services.”
You seen the amount of credit card defaults happening lately?
I read somewhere that with some firms, the numbers are as high as 12% of outstanding accounts. I’m trying to find evidence to corroborate this claim though.
EDIT: Well, 12% may have been a little high, but I found some interesting articles on the phenomenon of credit card default. Yes, I know some of them are pretty old, but this has been going on for a while.
Credit Card Defaults are just Beginning
The Next Meltdown: Credit Card Defaults
Is a Credit Card Default Crisis Looming?
US Credit Card Defaults rise to 20 year high
I’m just trying to say lenders don’t seem to always properly assess the credit risks of their card holders.
This hardly provides a reference to what his assertion was. You took out part of the assertion he made. The way you intentionally edited it makes it look as if the reference you provided is appropriate.
So, with that being said, they probably couldn’t of afforded what they were purchasing it in the first place…I’m confused, I don’t see the point.
The first part defeats the whole purpose of anything that can possible follow, unless he says “I was just kidding about the first part”.
There are better ways to expose the economic fallacies behind government spending without catering to Statist myths.
I’m saying lenders don’t seem to do their “due diligence.”
This is not true in the case of government schools. It would be very easy to exclude people from using government schools for not paying for it. No worries here about a free-rider problem.
How familiar are you with Austrian economics?
It really doesn’t; the first part qualifies the next four minutes. The last four minutes of the video he spends, really, criticizing current government spending and explaining why our current deficit will lead to disaster in the future. What the first minute does is establish between him and the viewer (the majority of which, as you must take into consideration, are not anarchists and probably support government to some arbitrary extent) that he is “moderate”, and it gives him far more credence amongst the general viewer.
For an anarchist who already knows much of what he is saying, it might discredit him, but like I said in the opening post, you have to take into consideration what audience this was meant for.
It depends on who you are approaching. Notice how Ron Paul also takes a more moderate stance when spreading libertarianism; he does so because it earns him more respect amongst his listeners. If you talk to any non-Austrian, the best way to approach them and persuade them is by using such caveats (at least, that’s what I’ve found). By being more radical, it in turn makes them less willing to listen to you.
I am talking about in a free market, not our current market. Creditors are restricted from asking people about certain things in the current situation. Of course there would be creditors that would make bad loans, but I would guess not nearly on the scale we see today.
Even if it is not wasteful, it is immoral.
Okay, but we are talking about government spending in general and tax paying in general. Let’s keep my comment within that context, and not disqualify it based on some specific point.
They know they like those services, they don’t have an alternative from government services. Are you inferring that competition is unnecessary as long as people will pay the price set by the monopoly provider?
I quoted your post, including the quotes you made, in its entirety. I did not “intentionally edit” anything. I can go back and add additional quotes, if you would like.
I’m not sure if you are responding to me, or the other individual who asked for a source on your statement re: Rothbard.
I asked you “whose values?” Answer the question. The government can provide more value according to whom?
Familiar enough to already know what the objections will be to what I’ve said, I’m just saying the ideological answer doesn’t match up with the reality of the situation.
I know AE cannot be wrong because its logic is perfect. Therefore, nothing I can say could possibly controvert anything AE has to say about this. However, from my point of view, as an outside observer, the answer “well, borrowers who spend their money to go on a trip are perfectly safe because the lender must have already deemed them safe” doesn’t really explain what we’re seeing now.
How the hell did the banks manage to screw up their bets on between 6-10 percent of their borrowers? Because they’re not doing their due diligence. Probably because of the Greenspan Put and the FDIC. Or maybe it’s something else, I’m not really sure.
Now this makes more sense to me. Perhaps I made a mistake in not reading that implication in your statement. If so, I apologize.
This is an interesting comment. Have you read Hayek’s Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle (specifically, I believe, the last chapter)?
I’m not saying you are a scoundrel, but when people start making appeals to “reality” I want to roll my eyes back into my head so I can stare at my brain.
It can be wrong. Nothing is perfect. Right now, it is very good. That doesn’t preclude more work being done to challenge or refine it.
That’s lazy.
Because that statement has nothing to do with AE. It is merely a hypothesis.
That sounds reasonable. Moral hazard. The wrong incentives lead to undesirable outcomes.
Is this so you won’t have to look straight ahead at reality? Lol, I’m just kidding ya buddy. It’s a joke.