if you don’t want to debate that particular point fine, don’t. I posted about it for the same reason anyone posts anything on the internet: curiosity about the response. In this case the response I was hoping for was someone elucidating me on what issue makes interest complicated that I must have missed somewhere, since it doesn’t seem complex to me. But by all means, let’s get flippant when talking about these issues. That will definitely dispel the preconceptions people have about the movement. [*-)]
Well it articulates why capital is productive. Neoclassicals do not really have a good answer on that matter to this day (and the Cambridge capital controversy highlighted this fact), something the classical and Marxians obviously both lacked as well. So it’s thorny in that it is not an easy step to move from time preference to the productivity of capital. The Austrians drew the link.
Start a new thread. You can’t go hijacking existing threads with all your curiosities.
well I clearly can.
did you mean I shouldn’t? because I’ll probably just continue doing whatever I want until someone uses force to stop me. I shouldn’t have to worry about that on a libertarian forum though. [:P]
You could read Yuri Maltsev. Communist Defector turned Free Market economics professor
Frivolous. Go start a new and frivolous thread.
You apparently lack knowledge of the libertarian position regarding rules on private property.
I’ll give you a hint: obey or leave.
thanks for the responses Irenicus and Shawn77.
I suppose it is not immediately apparent that differing time preference is due to the ability of some actors to increase the productive power of said capital. This is complemented by those who are unable or unwilling to utilize all their capital for productive means immediately for various reasons. thus it is only the demand for loans that creates the ability to store wealth over time.
I checked out the link in the original post I was responding to, but the relevant chapters didn’t seem to quibble with the central point and was instead concerned with postulating theories of why this was so.
morty: obviously the owners of the forum can kick me out at any time. but I’m not sure if you’re under the mistaken assumption that all people on private property will obey the rules as a given. it is up to the property owners in what manner to enforce their rules when people break them. this can be a sticky problem as any methods used will likely spark outrage from one party or another. thus other agents the private property owner wishes to trade with have some influence on both the rules the private property owner enforces and the manner in which he enforces them. this is why I feel private property is not as cut and dried as some seem to think it is.
“sounds intestering”
http://mises.org/daily/2096. a great article on TP