Amazing, here I am discussing a topic in which we need to get past looking at individuals as races, gender or sexual orientation and I have just been told since I am white, I therefore have a predisposed agreement with a specific ideology yet I am the collectivist!
Well if you think it is applicable to everyone then you believe it is an egalitarian right.
You have a Y chromosone in every cell of your body. You got your genetic material from your parents, their parents, and their parents, etc. This is biological reality. You are not going to ‘get past’ it short of abolishing reality. I admit I’m painting with a broad brush, but I don’t know any Meso-Americans, for example, who are wringing their hands over not being able to get past the fact that they’re male or female and of ‘brown’ descent. Quite the opposite in fact.
There’s also no small amount of irony in that your goal ultimately is the abolition of human biodiversity.
AC, I’m not interested in this sort of circular debate. Have fun.
Thank you.
Some of the biggest racists are the anti-racists. They have trouble attracting people of colour to what is essentially a racist position. Which is why they are mostly white middle and upper middle class males.
~fin~
Should clarify, I don’t think AC is a racist. But this is where the left-libertarianism fixation with -isms leads. Collectivism.
Well, to be blunt. You do have it backwards. Time preference is related to the period of planning for a given individual. if that individual cannot plan for the future simply due to lack of information we would expect, ceteris paribus, to see an increase in their time preference.
I’ve got a solution to the problem proposed in the OP, go to a gym.
it depends on the persons perception of the future. if he perceives that any planning to alleviate his distress during a forthcoming disaster say, would be futile (or more futile than in other hypotheticals), then ceteris parabis, increase in time preference, as he acknowledges his future disempowerement, he takes advantage of his present empowerment more drastically. conversely if he perceives that a great deal of stress can be alleviated in a future surrounding a forthcoming disaster, i.e. that if he rationed now he would suffer much less in the future as to make it worth while to trade present comfort for future comfort, then time preference is lowered. or have i erred?
Again, you are wrong.
There is a great difference between an uncertain future, and no future. Uncertainty being the key here.
In times of uncertainty, time preferences fall. If they increased, we would have destroyed our species many times over during times of extremis.
When you are a producer and a consumer, you will understand.
OK, you’re wrong. But I’ve not much interest in discussing this. As I said, if an agent can’t plan, they won’t, manifesting itself as an increase in time preference. This can be seen is numerous scenarios such a political instability and financial uncertainty.
For the record just about every economic I can name would agree with me on this one. This means Mises, Hoppe and Rothbard for you.
Appeals to authority are meaningless. Would they all agree that in a famine people would start eating more food, more often? Of course not.
Do I understand you correctly, that you are saying that under duress, people do not conserve, but rather increase their consumption, and when not under duress they conserve and defer consumption?
Think about it.
Where’s the uncertainty there? Keep in mind, I’m using uncertainty in a specific sense, as defined by Knight and elaborated upon by Ludwig von Mises:
In your scenario you’re missing out uncertainty and you’re violating the ceteris paribus assumption. There is no real uncertainy in your famine situation, people know that famines only last so long and this duration can usually be predicted. It’s also known that in order to survive the famine they will have to ration their food.
Giles, you’re still dodging the point that humans are fundamentally cyborgs (aka TOOL USERS). So, unless you want to fork over your pc, car, stereo, condoms, hooch, clothes, batteries, credit card, and etc, then you’re a hypocrite. So, stop whining when folks want to walk again and some robotic limb work may do that for them. K?
So once again you are talking to yourself and thread jacking every discussion in sight? Bravo! I’m going to start referring to you as “The Quibbler”
I’ve not thread jacked at all, you just don’t wish to admit that you’re wrong. Well, you don’t have to, everybody can see it for themself.
you assume a lot about some hypothetical famine just to score points against LS. dont you?
presumably if you didnt make your own broad assumptions and skip over things yourself you wouldnt get to point and wave at LS…
No, I stipulated what would be necessary for LibertyStudent’s position to be correct. Namely, a lack of uncertainty or some violation of the ceteris paribus assumption. Look, if you wish to argue with me about this, go for it. But the thing is, I’m correct and I have just about every important economist who has ever heard of time preference on my side.
But if you’re looking to make a major break through in economics go ahead and argue the point that when it becomes considerably more difficult for individuals to plan over the same time period, if not impossible, they somehow end up planning for longer!
no you said he was wrong.
you didnt say, “careful, you are right under conditions X,Y,Z but would be wrong if A,B,C.”
‘there is no real uncertainty etc.’ ← you assumed it
Yes, I said he was wrong when he stated that uncertainty causes a decrease in time preference. Because that would imply that when individuals find it more difficult or even impossible to plan for a given period of time they consequently plan for longer. Of course, this makes no sense because what actually occurs is that when individuals find it more difficult to provide over a given duration of time they shortern the period of provision.
You know, a nuanced reading might solve these “problems” you’re encountering.
No, he did. In order for his scenario to make sense he either had to violate the assumption that all other things are equal, or admit that there is no uncertainty. Why do you take pleasure in being pedantic and wasting other’s time?